How do you like the new “three batter” rule?

[Frobby]

29 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I'd be upset that the Orioles are using pitchers with no concept of the strike zone in the late innings of a close game.  Not at the rules.

I did notice that several of the short appearances by Orioles relievers last year that this rule would have affected were ineffective.   Paul Fry faced only one batter nine times, and in four of those he failed to record an out. Only one was a walk, though.  
 

Shawn Armstrong did have an appearance where he walked two batters to lead off an inning and was yanked.   Bleier came in and got out of it, and the O’s hung on to win 2-1.    That’s a game that might have turned out differently if this rule had been in effect.   

[Camden_yardbird]

Done to "speed up the game" only here is the problem. 

1)  the number one reason the game slows down is offense. You can clearly delineate the time of a game into 54 intervals.  The time it takes to complete one of those intervals is increased predominately by not getting to the next interval due to hits and walks (not getting an out).  Pitchers who clearly dont have it are going to be left in and increase offense which will slow down the game.  The time it takes to replace a pitcher is less than the time of two ABs.

2) You clearly cant leave a pitcher in who is injured.  So all we are going to see is more "injury checks" (I am guessing about 10 per team per year) as the reliever shakes out their arm and the training personnel come onto the field.  More time.

I dont like it.

[Sessh]

49 minutes ago, Camden_yardbird said:

Done to "speed up the game" only here is the problem. 

1)  the number one reason the game slows down is offense. You can clearly delineate the time of a game into 54 intervals.  The time it takes to complete one of those intervals is increased predominately by not getting to the next interval due to hits and walks (not getting an out).  Pitchers who clearly dont have it are going to be left in and increase offense which will slow down the game.  The time it takes to replace a pitcher is less than the time of two ABs.

2) You clearly cant leave a pitcher in who is injured.  So all we are going to see is more "injury checks" (I am guessing about 10 per team per year) as the reliever shakes out their arm and the training personnel come onto the field.  More time.

I dont like it.

Exactly my thoughts. I wouldn't be surprised if this rule actually increased the length of games due to more offense as well as a few more injuries and no doubt teams trying to get around the rule faking injuries or removing pitchers based on suspicion of injury. This will not speed up the game at all IMO. Just grasping for straws with this change.

I don't think you can "force" games to be shorter in these kinds of ways without doing more damage to the game than the thing you're trying to fix. I personally don't care about game time much, but it wouldn't hurt if the games were more exciting. No one was complaining about game length when there was more going on than the three true outcomes most of the time.

[PeteCanes]

On 11/20/2019 at 7:51 AM, DrungoHazewood said:

I'd be upset that the Orioles are using pitchers with no concept of the strike zone in the late innings of a close game.  Not at the rules.

Lol.  Touche.  And they will! 

[GuidoSarducci]

On 11/15/2019 at 1:56 PM, DrungoHazewood said:

Every Giants' batter got a hit in route to a 6-1 win.

Both pitchers pitched a complete game.  

The Phillies didn't even pull their pitcher after he had given up 4 runs in 3 innings.

Three strikesouts and three walks for both teams, combined in the entire game.   Some games now exceed those numbers in a single inning.

[GuidoSarducci]

On 11/20/2019 at 7:10 AM, Camden_yardbird said:

Done to "speed up the game" only here is the problem. 

1)  the number one reason the game slows down is offense. You can clearly delineate the time of a game into 54 intervals.  The time it takes to complete one of those intervals is increased predominately by not getting to the next interval due to hits and walks (not getting an out).  Pitchers who clearly dont have it are going to be left in and increase offense which will slow down the game.  The time it takes to replace a pitcher is less than the time of two ABs.

2) You clearly cant leave a pitcher in who is injured.  So all we are going to see is more "injury checks" (I am guessing about 10 per team per year) as the reliever shakes out their arm and the training personnel come onto the field.  More time.

I dont like it.

https://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/PHI/PHI191909242.shtml

Brooklyn Robins 14

Philadelphia Phillies 7

Game Duration: 1:30

Robins pitcher pitched a complete game despite giving up 7 runs. 

The Phillies used two pitchers.  From what I can tell it looks like the Phillies starter finished the 5th inning, so no mid-inning change.

[DrungoHazewood]

12 hours ago, GuidoSarducci said:

https://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/PHI/PHI191909242.shtml

Brooklyn Robins 14

Philadelphia Phillies 7

Game Duration: 1:30

Robins pitcher pitched a complete game despite giving up 7 runs. 

The Phillies used two pitchers.  From what I can tell it looks like the Phillies starter finished the 5th inning, so no mid-inning change.

It's all about pacing and limiting the time of interruptions.  The 1954 Orioles played 24 games in under 2:00, and only had three nine-inning games all year that lasted as long as an average 2019 Red Sox game.  They played a night game on July 28th in 1:42, so if it was a 7:00 start it wasn't even fully dark yet at last pitch.

The year I was born, 1971, the Orioles still played more sub-2:00 games than nine-inning games of three hours or more.  One example, on July 6th they played a normal 6-2 game against the Senators. Dave McNally struck out five and allowed two homers in a complete game, and wrapped everything up in 1:48.

A lot of it has to do with the pitcher.  Look at the '79 Orioles schedule and sort by time.  Mike Flanagan's starts are all over the shortest games list. McGregor, too. He had a 6-1 complete game against Dave Steib and the Jays that finished in under 2:00.  But by then, by the time I was a fan, games were already starting to stretch out, with a couple games that year that lasted over 3:30 (i.e. "a normal '19 Red Sox game") in nine innings.  And whatta you know... the longest nine-inning game of the year, against the Brewers on August 7th, featured eight pitchers and four mid-inning pitching changes (actually sort-of five because it looks like Mike Caldwell was removed during warmups before the bottom of the 1st).

[DrungoHazewood]

Here's a game that many of us watched but none of us realized the significance of: Blue Jays at Orioles, September 15, 2010.  That was the last time, and only time from 2006-present, that they played a nine-inning game in less than two hours.  It might be the last time.

[Camden_yardbird]

On 11/21/2019 at 6:46 PM, GuidoSarducci said:

https://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/PHI/PHI191909242.shtml

Brooklyn Robins 14

Philadelphia Phillies 7

Game Duration: 1:30

Robins pitcher pitched a complete game despite giving up 7 runs. 

The Phillies used two pitchers.  From what I can tell it looks like the Phillies starter finished the 5th inning, so no mid-inning change.

When?  In what era?  When there were no stadium theatrics, tv adds, video reviews...

A lot of baseball has been played over the last 140 years.  The fact that you found one anecdote from a non-modern era proves really nothing.

[Frobby]

Here’s a take from Ben Clemens of Fangraphs.    https://blogs.fangraphs.com/the-three-batter-minimum-barely-matters/

“So in the end, is it worth it? Honestly, I can see arguments from both sides. It’s a tiny change that won’t affect competitive balance but will save a few minutes every couple games. You’ll definitely notice it the first time it happens, but it might fade into the background after that, because teams let pitchers face bad platoon matchups all the time; this simply tilts things a little more in the batting team’s favor.

“But from a theoretical standpoint, I dislike how inelegant the rule is. For a narrow benefit (30 seconds and some tiny sliver of runs per game), the league is junking up the rulebook. And not with something like a slide rule, where you’re not allowed to headhunt, either — with an arbitrary constraint on a central rule of baseball — whoever you want to pitch can pitch as long as they haven’t already appeared in the game.

“So next year, the first time you see a big spot where a specialist reliever doesn’t come in, by all means marvel at it. But by June, you will have forgotten, and baseball will roll on just like it always has, only with a new flourish in the rules where none previously existed.”

[esmd]

I'm not so sure I agree with his take.  Wait until the pennant race, or even more so, the postseason where a reliever is struggling in a tight spot after the first or second batter he faces, the manager can't pull him and is forced to let him face a third batter, and the third batter gets a game altering hit or BB.  I think it has the potential to loom very large.

[bird watcher]

15 minutes ago, esmd said:

I'm not so sure I agree with his take.  Wait until the pennant race, or even more so, the postseason where a reliever is struggling in a tight spot after the first or second batter he faces, the manager can't pull him and is forced to let him face a third batter, and the third batter gets a game altering hit or BB.  I think it has the potential to loom very large.

This is true and might be another reason to do it from baseball’s perspective.  Baseball gets boring without runs. Pitching duels appeal to the hardcore but nothing gets fans screaming like a line drive double.  By making the pitcher stay in the game you’ve increased the chance of a run scoring play in your scenario. This is good for baseball.  

[MurphDogg]

33 minutes ago, esmd said:

I'm not so sure I agree with his take.  Wait until the pennant race, or even more so, the postseason where a reliever is struggling in a tight spot after the first or second batter he faces, the manager can't pull him and is forced to let him face a third batter, and the third batter gets a game altering hit or BB.  I think it has the potential to loom very large.

I like the rule, but I would have no problem in not having it in the postseason for this reason.

I am curious to know what the impact the minor league pitch clock has had on pitchers once they come to the Majors. Do pitchers in the minors actually work faster, and if so do they work faster once they reach the Majors because that is their routine?

 

[Frobby]

1 minute ago, MurphDogg said:

I like the rule, but I would have no problem in not having it in the postseason for this reason.

I’d argue that the postseason is when you need this rule the most.    The games are much longer and there are many more pitching changes.    

[MurphDogg]

7 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I’d argue that the postseason is when you need this rule the most.    The games are much longer and there are many more pitching changes.    

Postseason baseball is just a different animal. Pitchers take more time between pitches, more pitches are being thrown at max effort. I don't think that game length for postseason game is a big issue because of the drama involved. I think it is an issue that postseason games start after 8:00 and thus run til or past midnight, but the issue with postseason games going too late isn't the same issue as regular season games going on long. 

The extended commercial breaks in the postseason have a much larger impact than teams changing pitchers who have thrown to less than three batters.