Jump to content

The extra inning runner on 2B rule


Frobby

Do you like the extra inning runner on 2B rule?  

115 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you like the extra inning runner on 2B rule?



Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, Hallas said:

what, you're saying they didn't have multicolored compression shirts in 1870????

Tangent... sometime in the 1880s the NL tried a scheme where players at different positions wore different brightly colored/striped/etc uniforms.  It didn't last long before they realized that the guy standing near second base was probably the second baseman no matter what shirt he was wearing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Chavez Ravine said:

Another approach that I would prefer would be to declare a tie after (insert inning you feel appropriate) and have a points system for the pennant. That keeps all the data collection more consistent. A 13th inning in 1986 was played under the same rules (If not the same pharmacology) as a 13th inning in 2026. I think it is also more honest. We just don’t want the game to go on any longer, and we are fed up watching the dudes in this current game: tie!!

I don't mind that at all.  But we have had a nice conversation about the new strategies that have/will arise from this new situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I don't mind that at all.  But we have had a nice conversation about the new strategies that have/will arise from this new situation.

The more I think about it, maybe putting a guy on second is the best all around solution? Seems like there are three potential goals: 1) get the game to end soon; 2) increase the excitement level of extra innings; 3) force some new approaches or strategies in extra innings.

A tie obviously  sits in one corner of that space. A guy on second helps things to come to a conclusion and it adds some immediate pressure to each inning, although the strategy shifts seem marginal at the moment. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/3/2020 at 11:09 AM, DrungoHazewood said:

This looks exactly like baseball. If you went to the bathroom at the start of the 10th inning you wouldn't even know the rule changed.

How'd the runner get on second? What did he do to get on base? Why is he out there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LocoChris said:

How'd the runner get on second? What did he do to get on base? Why is he out there?

If I was watching the game with a staunch traditionalist I'd just tell them that he lined the ball off the top of the CF wall, he fell down rounding first, the CFer dropped it, then threw it to the wrong guy, there was a three minute rundown he escaped from... man, you picked a wrong moment to go to the head.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DrungoHazewood said:

If I was watching the game with a staunch traditionalist I'd just tell them that he lined the ball off the top of the CF wall, he fell down rounding first, the CFer dropped it, then threw it to the wrong guy, there was a three minute rundown he escaped from... man, you picked a wrong moment to go to the head.

Another to keep on your pocket could be:
All of the infielders were on on side of the field and he hit a dribbler just over the base into the outfield.  By the time the fielders got to the ball he just squeaked in to second by running hard out of the box.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
3 minutes ago, Oriole1940 said:

If people have to change the rules to enjoy something that for hundreds of years has been more than enough for generations of people worldwide, then I suggest to those people to get a more exciting sport to follow.  

 

You’re right, god forbid that a sport change a single rule in 150 years!  Shall we roll back the DH?

  • Upvote 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Oriole1940 said:

If people have to change the rules to enjoy something that for hundreds of years has been more than enough for generations of people worldwide, then I suggest to those people to get a more exciting sport to follow.  

 

Isn't that exactly the problem?  When baseball had essentially no competition it was the most popular team sport.  As football, basketball, hockey, soccer have gotten more exposure and have become legitimate alternatives more and more people choose the sports where the game is either over in two hours, is full of more action or they only play once a week. Baseball attendance has been in decline for a decade, and ratings have always been very localized.  Nobody in Atlanta watches a Mariners-Twins game, not like Falcons fans would watch a Seahawks-Vikings game.

So many, many people have taken your advice and moved on to something else that doesn't take four hours, with 90 minutes of pitching changes and figuring out the signs and adjusting your batting glove.  And there's always the possibility the game will go 14 innings and last six and half hours. 

You might be happy with that, but owners and players who want expanded revenues and fans who'd like a nice 2-hour baseball game probably aren't.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still like it, too.  It makes teams play small-ball.  And if you're the home team and the visiting team scores in the top half, you still feel like you've got a shot, even if you have the bottom third of the lineup coming up.

 

18 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

When basketball added the shot clock the first thing I thought of was how it was now the same as bouncing balls on a parachute in 3rd grade P.E.

The big rainbow colored parachute?!!?!??!?!?!? And then after you'd bounce the balls on it, you'd all stand around in a circle and throw it up really high and then run under it and set on the edge so it'd be a big bubble that'd slowly deflate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Posts

    • From here https://www.mlb.com/orioles/stats/ops/regular-season
    • Where are you getting your stats from that's not correct looking at OPS.
    • On the O's this year, Martinez would have been: 5th in OPS 5th in AVG 6th in HRs in 120 games
    • I think PFF is grading Roquan badly because the safeties behind him are playing like ass and it's making him look bad.  If teams are going to attack him over the middle on crossing routes with WRs (like KC did with Rice) he doesn't really stand much of a chance if the safeties behind him don't throw him a bone.  He's still a huge help in the run game.   In general I think PFF assigns a little too much blame to linebackers on passes over the middle, so unless you're an elite coverage guy at LB it's really hard to grade well.  The flip side to this is that teams probably need to adjust their coverage areas to account for the fact that LBs aren't going to be able to hold down WRs for long.  
    • Thanks. This tells me what my eyes have seen with Roquan. He's been a liability in coverage and the fact that Simpson is ahead of him is not good for our defensive leader. Do you have the PFF grades for offense too?
    • What you want is perfectly reasonable.  But you seem entirely to focused on money.  The team needs to work to improve.  I don't care what it costs, you shouldn't either.  They are going to spend money and payroll will be higher next year and the year after that.  We need them to make improvements and some of that is rightfully going to come from within and not cost much. The improvements that are needed are going to cost too, I'm not saying they wont.  But ownership and the GM should simply work in tandem to make sure the team has what it needs.  I am not really concerned about how much that costs because it should be able to be done without jumping this particular team into say top ten in payroll.
    • This is the right approach. the orioles should be spending more money and I believe they will, but I expect it to be measured with less risk (ie we won’t be handing out a Hader type deal or a  long term contract to Santander IMO) improving on some of the obvious weaknesses certainly makes sense.    1x SP: Burnes, Fried, Buehler 1x RH OF/DH: Martinez, O’Neill, Profar 1x 1B: (wishlist) Alonso, Walker
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...