Mound Visits - Pitch Clock

[Redskins Rick]

2 hours ago, weams said:

I think my only reason for defending the two minutes was the implication that Baseball, like Football, had engineered TV timeouts. And that commercials slowed the game down. I see that as fallacy. 

 

But, its apparent if you attend a football, that TV does engineer timeouts. They all stand around until the TV Ref on the sidelines signals that they are back live, and then they huddle up and the play clock starts.

[weams]

59 minutes ago, Redskins Rick said:

But, its apparent if you attend a football, that TV does engineer timeouts. They all stand around until the TV Ref on the sidelines signals that they are back live, and then they huddle up and the play clock starts.

Football slows down for TV. Baseball does not. 

[Frobby]

O’Day is not a fan of the pitch clock.    Not surprising, because he’s one of the slowest-paced pitchers in MLB.   http://www.masnsports.com/school-of-roch/2018/01/oday-with-differing-opinions-on-netting-and-pitch-clock.html

[Number5]

5 hours ago, weams said:

Football slows down for TV. Baseball does not. 

For the record, I don't mind the two minutes.  I'm fine with baseball's pace.  Baseball isn't meant to have a timer.  Having said that, it doesn't take two minutes to switch sides.  It just plain doesn't.  As I mentioned, the high school rule is one minute, and it normally takes less.  MLB used to have less commercials.  Game times in the 1960's and 70's were shorter, often inside an hour and a half.  The two minutes is for commercials.  It just plain is.  Now, will it ever change?  No.  Does it bother me?  No. 

[Frobby]

4 minutes ago, Number5 said:

Game times in the 1960's and 70's were shorter, often inside an hour and a half.  

“Often?”   I don’t remember ever seeing one.    I do recall the days when you might see a half-dozen games per team per year that were under two hours.   

Just to pick a not-so-random year and team from that era, the 1966 Orioles played four games under two hours, the shortest of which was 1:51.   

[weams]

8 minutes ago, Number5 said:

For the record, I don't mind the two minutes.  I'm fine with baseball's pace.  Baseball isn't meant to have a timer.  Having said that, it doesn't take two minutes to switch sides.  It just plain doesn't.  As I mentioned, the high school rule is one minute, and it normally takes less.  MLB used to have less commercials.  Game times in the 1960's and 70's were shorter, often inside an hour and a half.  The two minutes is for commercials.  It just plain is.  Now, will it ever change?  No.  Does it bother me?  No. 

We disagree. I believe commercials have nothing to do with it. 

[weams]

Just now, Frobby said:

“Often?”   I don’t remember ever seeing one.    I do recall the days when you might see a half-dozen games per team per year that were under two hours.   

Just to pick a not-so-random year and team from that era, the 1966 Orioles played four games under two hours, the shortest of which was 1:51.   

They were never one and a half. And those games had two or three pitchers in them. Total. 

[Can_of_corn]

3 minutes ago, weams said:

We disagree. I believe commercials have nothing to do with it. 

Is it 2:05 in Spring Training? 

[Number5]

3 minutes ago, Frobby said:

“Often?”   I don’t remember ever seeing one.    I do recall the days when you might see a half-dozen games per team per year that were under two hours.   

Just to pick a not-so-random year and team from that era, the 1966 Orioles played four games under two hours, the shortest of which was 1:51.   

I stand corrected.  I could have sworn that there were plenty games inside of an hour an a half.  Sorry about that.  Old age, I guess. 

I feel certain that games were, on average, much faster than they are today.  On the order of an hour faster per game.  I don't know how to check that, so I could be wrong, but that would surprise me. 

[weams]

1 minute ago, Number5 said:

I stand corrected.  I could have sworn that there were plenty games inside of an hour an a half.  Sorry about that.  Old age, I guess. 

I feel certain that games were, on average, much faster than they are today.  On the order of an hour faster per game.  I don't know how to check that, so I could be wrong, but that would surprise me. 

I think they were easily 40 minutes faster. Easily. 

[weams]

5 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Is it 2:05 in Spring Training? 

I believe so. Why?

[weams]

These are modern era records.

Shortest Game Nine Innings At Night	AL	Chicago 1 vs. Washington 0	1h 29m	05-21-1943
	NL	Boston 2 at Cincinnati 0	1h 15m	08-10-1944

 

So five is kinda right. They have done it. 

[Can_of_corn]

4 minutes ago, weams said:

I believe so. Why?

Some games are not televised.

 

[weams]

3 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Some games are not televised.

 

Oh. Yeah.  I'll let you know. I do think they do the pitch clocks in the minors and AFL though. 

[Frobby]

6 minutes ago, Number5 said:

I stand corrected.  I could have sworn that there were plenty games inside of an hour an a half.  Sorry about that.  Old age, I guess. 

I feel certain that games were, on average, much faster than they are today.  On the order of an hour faster per game.  I don't know how to check that, so I could be wrong, but that would surprise me. 

There are various articles that discuss this.   The average length of a game was about 2:30 in the 60’s.

Without trying to be scientific, I took a look at the 1968 Cardinals, who had the lowest team ERA in the most pitcher-dominant year in my lifetime.  They played 15 games under 2 hours, including one that was only 1:35.   Their median length of game was 2:21.   That’s probably about as short as the average length of game could have been for any team in the last 60 years or more.