The power to alter the rules to accelerate the pace of action -- or to forcibly negotiate the alterations it wants -- is contained within Article XVIII of the collective bargaining agreement, page 77.

[Tx Oriole]

6 hours ago, Satyr3206 said:

Baseball, like many sports, gets played at certain pace. Get used to it or find another sport.

I agree. It's the best sport in the world. I wish folks would stop monkeying with. For those that think it's too long then find something else to watch. Stop trying to change baseball. 

[DrungoHazewood]

1 minute ago, Tx Oriole said:

I agree. It's the best sport in the world. I wish folks would stop monkeying with. For those that think it's too long then find something else to watch. Stop trying to change baseball. 

In other words, "I don't care if the average age of a baseball fan is 57 and it'll be the 6th-most popular sport among Americans in 20 years."

Baseball has long had the attitude that it was nearly perfect and didn't need monkeying with.  That's what they said in 1915 when there was a homer every three games, a game took 2:00, and there were two strikeouts a game.  They kept almost all the rules the same for the past century trying to cast in stone what they thought was great, and now EVERYTHING is different.

[Tony-OH]

My Rules for making the games shorter:

1. Five foul balls and batter is out - If you can't put pitches into play after five fouls you deserve to be out. 12-pitch at bats with the batter constantly fouling off pitches until he gets a pitch he likes is not good for the game. Foul outs count as strikeouts.

2. Five 60-second mound visits (Time outs) per game - This doesn't include pitcher changes. During pitcher changes the manager must indicate he's bringing a pitcher in before he reaches the mound or is charged a mound visit. If anyone besides the pitcher comes to the mound it counts as a mound visit.

3. When no runners are on base, pitchers have a 20 second pitch clock from the time they get the ball back from the catcher. Pitch clock starts with new batter when batter has both feet in box. No pitch clock with runners on base.

4. Batters have 30-seconds to get into the box after the end of the play before. That's plenty of time to walk to box, get signs, and prepare.

5. Take away one 20-second commercial (will save about five and half minutes per game) and make a two minute clock between innings. For the first 20-seconds of the next inning, an advertisement will be allowed in some manner that doesn't take away from the action to make up for the lost commercial. Perhaps a shrunken down game action that allows for a "picture frame" advertisement around the game or a "This inning is brought to you by statement at the bottom."

6. Except on certain days like Memorial Day or the 4th of July, no 7th inning songs that require players to stop warming up. I'm as Patriotic as the next guy, but we've already sang the National Anthem, let's get to the game.

7. Relief pitchers have 2:30 seconds to deliver a pitch from the time the manager summons him whether that be as the manager is walking out or once he gets to the mound.

Other than the foul balls thing, this doesn't change the game much and honestly, the foul ball thing just runs up pitch counts and is not fun to watch. I believe these things will shave at least ten minutes off of a game if not more.

[Can_of_corn]

You wouldn't force the batter to stay in the box between pitches?

That is the first change I would make.

[Frobby]

1 hour ago, OrioleLochRaven said:

I haven't seen this mentioned...why don't they edit the televised product instead of messing with the live product?

You never see someone at a game with a cold beer in their hand complaining about the length of time they have to be there enjoying a live game.

Why don't they start the televised game 20 minutes later and edit mound visits and game interruptions down so there is more continuous action. The only possible drawback is social media spoiling game/play outcomes, which may be a big drawback for some.

No need to do this.   Anyone with a DVR can do this themselves if they wish.   I do it pretty often.    Watched the AFC Championship Game in a little more than 2 hours. In baseball, you can even fast forward between pitches if you really want to condense the game.  

[Tony-OH]

18 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

You wouldn't force the batter to stay in the box between pitches?

That is the first change I would make.

They installed that rule a few years ago I believe. They just need to enforce the rule. Besides injury, there is no reason to leave the batters box and can keep one foot in while getting signs.

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, Tony-OH said:

They installed that rule a few years ago I believe. They just need to enforce the rule. Besides injury, there is no reason to leave the batters box and can keep one foot in while getting signs.

If they don't enforce it it doesn't exist.

Speaking of enforcement:

 

[Moose Milligan]

 

31 minutes ago, Tony-OH said:

My Rules for making the games shorter:

Other than the foul balls thing, this doesn't change the game much and honestly, the foul ball thing just runs up pitch counts and is not fun to watch. I believe these things will shave at least ten minutes off of a game if not more.

I have to disagree.  I love a good long at bat where a batter is hanging tough and making a pitcher work.  Granted, I wouldn't want EVERY at bat to be that way but it's great to see a pitcher have to work a little extra (unless it's YOUR pitcher) to try and close out an at bat.  

But ultimately though, what's 10 minutes when a game is 3+ hours?  Say it's 3 hours and 5 minutes, then you get it knocked down to 2 hours and 55 minutes.  Big deal, right?

A pro football game lasts the same amount of time, I don't see anyone clamoring for a faster pace of play in the NFL.  

They can shave a few minutes here, a few minutes there but as long as there's TV involved it doesn't really matter what they do. I think the game will continue to hover around the 3 hour mark.  

The game is also hard enough to officiate, are umpires really going to enforce these rules once they realize how much more stuff they have to stay on top of?  I'm not sure.

[Tony-OH]

13 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

 

I have to disagree.  I love a good long at bat where a batter is hanging tough and making a pitcher work.  Granted, I wouldn't want EVERY at bat to be that way but it's great to see a pitcher have to work a little extra (unless it's YOUR pitcher) to try and close out an at bat.  

But ultimately though, what's 10 minutes when a game is 3+ hours?  Say it's 3 hours and 5 minutes, then you get it knocked down to 2 hours and 55 minutes.  Big deal, right?

A pro football game lasts the same amount of time, I don't see anyone clamoring for a faster pace of play in the NFL.  

They can shave a few minutes here, a few minutes there but as long as there's TV involved it doesn't really matter what they do. I think the game will continue to hover around the 3 hour mark.  

The game is also hard enough to officiate, are umpires really going to enforce these rules once they realize how much more stuff they have to stay on top of?  I'm not sure.

Sure they will. It's their job and if baseball holds umpires responsible for upholding the rules than they will.

Well ten minutes plus 162 games means you get 27 hours of your life back. Over ten years of watching baseball you'd get over 11 days back of your life. 

To each is own on the foul ball thing. I'd rather see starters be able to go longer into games and encourage contact to keep the action moving. I honestly think the things I mentioned could shave as much as a half hour off a game if baseball adjusts and gets back to contact instead of everyone trying to strike everyone out and every batter trying to hit everything 500 feet. Plus it would add some excitement to that 8th pitch. Batters are either striking out, walking or making contact.

[Moose Milligan]

1 minute ago, Tony-OH said:

Sure they will. It's their job and if baseball holds umpires responsible for upholding the rules than they will.

Well ten minutes plus 162 games means you get 27 hours of your life back. Over ten years of watching baseball you'd get over 11 days back of your life. 

To each is own on the foul ball thing. I'd rather see starters be able to go longer into games and encourage contact to keep the action moving. I honestly think the things I mentioned could shave as much as a half hour off a game if baseball adjusts and gets back to contact instead of everyone trying to strike everyone out and every batter trying to hit everything 500 feet. Plus it would add some excitement to that 8th pitch. Batters are either striking out, walking or making contact.

I don't think I'm gonna be watching all 162 games this season  Just a hunch.  But it's a good point.  On a similar yet unrelated note, I hate playing Call of Duty and looking at that screen where they tell me how much time I've spent playing that game, it's embarrassing.

In regards to the foul ball thing, why punish the batter though?  You could easily say that if he fouls off another pitch he can take 1st base since the pitcher wasn't able to put him away.  That certainly wouldn't go towards shortening the game if that's the ultimate goal here.  But it's offense that appeals to the common fan, big homers and lots of runs.  If the pitcher essentially wins after 8 pitches you'd be cutting down on offense in order to prop up a shorter game.  I'm not sure addition by subtraction would win many people over.

The other thing about this that makes me curious is....on average in one game, how many at bats last 8+ pitches? 

 

[Tony-OH]

1 hour ago, Moose Milligan said:

I don't think I'm gonna be watching all 162 games this season  Just a hunch.  But it's a good point.  On a similar yet unrelated note, I hate playing Call of Duty and looking at that screen where they tell me how much time I've spent playing that game, it's embarrassing.

In regards to the foul ball thing, why punish the batter though?  You could easily say that if he fouls off another pitch he can take 1st base since the pitcher wasn't able to put him away.  That certainly wouldn't go towards shortening the game if that's the ultimate goal here.  But it's offense that appeals to the common fan, big homers and lots of runs.  If the pitcher essentially wins after 8 pitches you'd be cutting down on offense in order to prop up a shorter game.  I'm not sure addition by subtraction would win many people over.

The other thing about this that makes me curious is....on average in one game, how many at bats last 8+ pitches? 

 

Haha on the CoD thing. I've been there in the past. Really don't play a ton of XBOX anymore but maybe that's because most of the games are online related and I like by myself or co-op offline story games.

Back to baseball. My thought is if the pitches were balls and he was swinging at them then he should have walked. If they were strikes he should have put them in play. Not only does helping out he pitcher a little bit keep things moving, but perhaps it will enable starters to go longer and there will be less pitching changes?

[MDtransplant757]

Manfred needs to stop this. Literally the only good change so far is instant replay, even if it takes longer than a lord of the rings movie to get solved

[Moose Milligan]

5 hours ago, Tony-OH said:

Haha on the CoD thing. I've been there in the past. Really don't play a ton of XBOX anymore but maybe that's because most of the games are online related and I like by myself or co-op offline story games.

Back to baseball. My thought is if the pitches were balls and he was swinging at them then he should have walked. If they were strikes he should have put them in play. Not only does helping out he pitcher a little bit keep things moving, but perhaps it will enable starters to go longer and there will be less pitching changes?

I can get behind pitchers working deeper into games.

[mdbdotcom]

I like all these changes.

Those who complain that they are "changing the game" and "risking ruining it" must not remember the days when the average game was less than 3 hours and actually had a rhythm to it. As late as the '80s, Scott McGregor was occasionally throwing a complete game in less than two hours (and less than 100 pitches).

What's changed?

• Batter's wearing all sorts of pads that cause the game to be stopped every time someone reaches base so the batboy can retrieve the pads
• Walkup music that players wait for before they make their way to the plate
• Mound conferences with infielders (these never used to happen)
• Catchers that feel the need to visit the pitcher's mound incessantly (Jorge Posada once made 8 trips to the mound in one inning of a World Series game)
• Players from opposing teams fraternizing with each other on the field during games (this may not slow down the game, but it's a huge change - players used to be fined for chatting with each other on the field)

The new pace of play rules don't change baseball nearly as much as the items I've listed. Baseball changes all the time. Some people swore that the game would be ruined when the two-visit rule was introduced. It wasn't. I'm hoping that putting a tighter limit on time between innings and limiting mound visits will result in the average game taking less time and being more engaging. Perhaps even restoring a bit of rhythm to the game.

[Satyr3206]

15 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Before lights baseball was played at a much quicker pace.

Luckily for baseball's sake they've found a revenue model that doesn't depend on the fans actually paying attention to most of the game. 

What is your point? Baseball played day or night is about the same. Fans paying attention is neither here or there..