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

[DrungoHazewood]

4 minutes ago, Frobby said:

2:05 regular season game, 2:25 national TV game, 2:55 playoff game.   

So we really could only cut 20-25 minutes off a game by getting rid of commercial time.  I guess the pre-1960 games that were often 1:45 really were all about pace of play.

[UpstateNYfan]

I'm not sure one way or the other. I don't think it improves the game, but I am not fond of pitchers (or players) that are too specialized. I believe the robotic strike zone would speed up the game. Extra Innings (regular season) , play a 10th. After the tenth start a runner on 2nd base (runner on 2nd would be the last out of previous inning.

[MurphDogg]

25 minutes ago, UpstateNYfan said:

Extra Innings (regular season) , play a 10th. After the tenth start a runner on 2nd base (runner on 2nd would be the last out of previous inning.

Yeah, I don't hate that rule as much as I expected to having seen it in the minors. It definitely favors the home team more than typical extra inning rules, but I am fine with that. If teams are that worried about it, try to win in the first 10 innings. These guys are professionals, 18 inning games are a drag on them and messes up bullpens for several days down the road. Obviously it doesn't do anything for pace of play and only drops the average game time by a handful of seconds (since there are so few 12+ inning games to begin with), but I still think it is a positive rule change.

[PeteCanes]

dude comes in and walks 2 guys on 8 pitches and you can't take him out? Dumb.

[Satyr3206]

4 hours ago, weams said:

There are no commercial breaks. None.  This is NOT NFL.  They have commercials when the players are "warming up" getting into position.

It wasn't a serious comment. At least wasn't intended to be. The simple fact is Baseball isn't a game you can shorten easily in any meaningful way. It is what it is. 9 innings. Maybe extra innings. You enjoy the pace of the game or you don't. I just disagree with the people that are trying to turn it into something it isn't.

[Satyr3206]

2 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

All T-ball games: 1. Whack the tee with the bat three times.  2. On 4th attempt ball dribbles out by the mound.  3. Entire defensive team collapses on ball.  4. After several minutes of a rugby scrum someone comes out of the pile with the ball.  5. That person throws the ball down the RF line, several minutes after the batter had already been standing on first, even though he started out running towards third.

Repeat like 27 times, then get a juice box.

Still better than six mid-inning pitching changes.

Then I guess my thought about Pitchers actually staying in games and pitching complete games isn't so far fetched.

[DrungoHazewood]

7 minutes ago, Satyr3206 said:

It wasn't a serious comment. At least wasn't intended to be. The simple fact is Baseball isn't a game you can shorten easily in any meaningful way. It is what it is. 9 innings. Maybe extra innings. You enjoy the pace of the game or you don't. I just disagree with the people that are trying to turn it into something it isn't.

In 1920 an average game was about two hours.  It wasn't uncommon to see a game played in 1:30.  Today the Red Sox play games that average 3:25!  Within the lifetime of my still-living grandfather there were doubleheaders played in about the same time it now takes to play nine innings.

If it used to happen regularly, it can happen again.  I used to play six-inning softball games in under an hour; I once played in a game after work that I left and then made it to kickoff of a DC United match at 7:30 and I live an hour and a half from DC.  We're not inventing faster-than-light travel, we're trying to get baseball teams to play ball instead of messing around so much.

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, DrungoHazewood said:

In 1920 an average game was about two hours.  It wasn't uncommon to see a game played in 1:30.  Today the Red Sox play games that average 3:25!  Within the lifetime of my still-living grandfather there were doubleheaders played in about the same time it now takes to play nine innings.

If it used to happen regularly, it can happen again.  I used to play six-inning softball games in under an hour; I once played in a game after work that I left and then made it to kickoff of a DC United match at 7:30 and I live an hour and a half from DC.  We're not inventing faster-than-light travel, we're trying to get baseball teams to play ball instead of messing around so much.

Sure, once they take the games off television, and maybe radio.

[Satyr3206]

3 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

In 1920 an average game was about two hours.  It wasn't uncommon to see a game played in 1:30.  Today the Red Sox play games that average 3:25!  Within the lifetime of my still-living grandfather there were doubleheaders played in about the same time it now takes to play nine innings.

If it used to happen regularly, it can happen again.  I used to play six-inning softball games in under an hour; I once played in a game after work that I left and then made it to kickoff of a DC United match at 7:30 and I live an hour and a half from DC.  We're not inventing faster-than-light travel, we're trying to get baseball teams to play ball instead of messing around so much.

I guess the players back then were in better shape. They obviously ran to their positions faster.

[DrungoHazewood]

1 hour ago, PeteCanes said:

dude comes in and walks 2 guys on 8 pitches and you can't take him out? Dumb.

How often does that happen?  Once every two years?  Three years?

Actually... it's 74 times across MLB since 2015.  Or about once every two years for an average team.

[DrungoHazewood]

6 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Sure, once they take the games off television, and maybe radio.

Frobby already said that an average regular season commercial break is about two minutes.  Cutting that in half is probably all you're going to be able to do, and that shaves off all of a half hour or so. 

That doesn't explain very much of the difference between the two hour game of a century ago and the Red Sox' version of a cricket 5-day test match.

[Satyr3206]

1 minute ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Frobby already said that an average regular season commercial break is about two minutes.  Cutting that in half is probably all you're going to be able to do, and that shaves off all of a half hour or so. 

That doesn't explain very much of the difference between the two hour game of a century ago and the Red Sox' version of a cricket 5-day test match.

The Umps are part of the problem. Stop giving time outs to everyone. Make them stay in the box and get the pitcher throwing. But since the Umps can't do simple things like call the rule book strike zone I doubt this would work.

[Moose Milligan]

3 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Frobby already said that an average regular season commercial break is about two minutes.  Cutting that in half is probably all you're going to be able to do, and that shaves off all of a half hour or so. 

That doesn't explain very much of the difference between the two hour game of a century ago and the Red Sox' version of a cricket 5-day test match.

Less strikeouts, not as many deeper counts. I'm willing to bet there's a correlation between that sweet 1920 game time and the number of first pitch outs.  The average strikeout rate between 1920 and 1929 per season was 2.81.  

MLB is pretty funny, they want to increase scoring, more homers...but shorten the time it takes to play a game.  We celebrate guys who are patient at the plate and see a lot of pitches and place an emphasis on walks, yet can't fathom how a game can take over 3 hours.  Seems to be quite a conundrum.  

[DrungoHazewood]

6 minutes ago, Satyr3206 said:

I guess the players back then were in better shape. They obviously ran to their positions faster.

The sun went down and the game was over, so the umps proactively told them to move it along.  Also, trains didn't wait on baseball teams so those Sunday afternoon get-away games didn't linger on.

On the last day of the 1919 season the Giants and Phillies played the first game of a doubleheader in 0:51.

[Satyr3206]

Just now, Moose Milligan said:

Less strikeouts, not as many deeper counts. I'm willing to bet there's a correlation between that sweet 1920 game time and the number of first pitch outs.  The average strikeout rate between 1920 and 1929 per season was 2.81.  

MLB is pretty funny, they want to increase scoring, more homers...but shorten the time it takes to play a game.  We celebrate guys who are patient at the plate and see a lot of pitches and place an emphasis on walks, yet can't fathom how a game can take over 3 hours.  Seems to be quite a conundrum.  

Exactly. The game will probably swing back that way, I have no idea when or how.