The extra inning runner on 2B rule

[Bahama O's Fan]

I like it. I wanted to see it played out, and it needs to stay

[VaBird1]

8 hours ago, Frobby said:

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

I like this rule.  I would like to see the DH rolled back though.  I’d rather go with an 8 man lineup.

[OFFNY]

1 hour 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.

 

 

 

44 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

 

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.

 

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 ???

 

o

 

The big, rainbow-colored basketball.

 

 

 

o oooolllooooo    ooooollloo 

 

o

[Frobby]

A few early stats on this experiment.   So far this year, 12% of games have gone to extra innings.    70% of those have ended in the 10th inning, 19% in the 11th inning, 6% in the 12th and 4% in the 13th.     None after that.   The average number of extra innings is 1.45.

Last year 20% of games went to extra innings.   Of those, 43% ended after 10,  24% after 11, 12% after 12, 8% after 13 and 12% in the 14th - 19th innings.   The average number of extra innings was 2.34.

Give me the new rule all day every day.

Still a small sample size, but I wonder if there’s any organic reason why only 12% of games have gone into extra innings compared to 20% last year.   The rule change doesn’t affect that stat.  

[Morgan423]

1 hour ago, Frobby said:

A few early stats on this experiment.   So far this year, 12% of games have gone to extra innings.    70% of those have ended in the 10th inning, 19% in the 11th inning, 6% in the 12th and 4% in the 13th.     None after that.   The average number of extra innings is 1.45.

Last year 20% of games went to extra innings.   Of those, 43% ended after 10,  24% after 11, 12% after 12, 8% after 13 and 12% in the 14th - 19th innings.   The average number of extra innings was 2.34.

Give me the new rule all day every day.

Still a small sample size, but I wonder if there’s any organic reason why only 12% of games have gone into extra innings compared to 20% last year.   The rule change doesn’t affect that stat.  

I'm sorry, I still would have rather implemented tie games after the 11th to achieve the same effect.   

Something still feels wrong about this.  Probably the fact that historically, in extra inning games where the visiting team failed the score in their half of tenth, and the home team ended up with a guy on second with no one out, the home team has won a hair over 80% of the time.  This rule feels very skewed toward one team over the other.

[sevastras]

I’m a purist, it is a dumb rule and they should just play out the game. Isn’t the bottom half of the inning already sudden death?  One pitch and it could be over. Nothing like a nice intense 19 inning game where they bring in Chris Davis to earn his keep pitching. 
My wife is a Giants fan and she wants Manfred back with the DH change, 3 batter rule and all the other dumb crap to speed up the game. She also says if you don’t like baseball then you are just too dumb to understand it 

[Philip]

2 hours ago, OFFNY said:

 

 

o

 

The big, rainbow-colored basketball.

 

 

 

o oooolllooooo    ooooollloo 

 

o

You left out the Dallas Chaparrals(what a great name!)

[Philip]

I’m also a purist. Being a “purist” is not necessarily a good thing, and although change merely for the sake of change serves no purpose, it’s not necessarily a bad thing. The reason I hate the rule is because it eliminates drama. It is specifically designed to eliminate the stress of extra innings, and that drama and stress are why we watch in the first place. Also, the owners only care about the financial aspect, because extra inning ad revenue is less.
Yes, pop ups are boring, foul balls are boring, but those two things are part and parcel of the game, whether it is extra innings or not.

baseball, unlike basketball, is a game of three seconds of extreme excitement surrounded by 45 seconds of sitting in your seat and looking at the sky. We watch the game because of those three seconds. We don’t know when they’re going to come, we only know that they will come(That is why there is nothing more boring than the highlight of a home run.)When every pitch offers that potential three seconds, we pay attention to every one.

This silly rule changes that. Instead of allowing the urgency to build from bases-empty, it artificially shortens the drama, because the owners don’t want to spend money. They’ve given their nine innings, now they want to send us home and cash the checks.

14-inning games can be boring, but only after the fact. I was at the extra-inning game between Texas and B-More and loved every minute. 

Bad rule. But every rule Manfred has introduced is a bad rule, so I’m not surprised.

[Oriole1940]

This new rule smacks of similar rules that elementary school children come up with when they play ball on the schoolyard.  That very rule and others like it we used to come up with.  What a way to cheapen baseball.    I know, some believe if you have not changed anything in a long while, there MUST be something that needs changing.  Maybe so, but not this childish rule.  

 

[Can_of_corn]

Does anyone enjoy watching a 17+ inning game?  I don't.  I go to bed.  They tend to disrupt the pitching staffs of both team.  I'd rather they not happen and if a runner on second stops it from happening so be it.

[Frobby]

31 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Does anyone enjoy watching a 17+ inning game?  I don't.  I go to bed.  They tend to disrupt the pitching staffs of both team.  I'd rather they not happen and if a runner on second stops it from happening so be it.

That’s how I feel.   Yes it’s fun if you’re actually awake when a 17-inning game ends in your favor, but it takes an excruciatingly long time to get there.    Games already take too long just to get through 9 innings these days, and I have a job and not an infinite amount of time to watch sports.    Plus I do enjoy the emphasis the new rule places on the fundamentals of moving runners along.  

And by the way, it sucks when you stick with a long extra inning marathon and your team loses in the end.   That’s like “what the hell did I just do?”
 

[DrungoHazewood]

4 hours ago, Moose Milligan said:

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.

 

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?

Yes, that one!!

[DrungoHazewood]

16 minutes ago, Frobby said:

That’s how I feel.   Yes it’s fun if you’re actually awake when a 17-inning game ends in your favor, but it takes an excruciatingly long time to get there.    Games already take too long just to get through 9 innings these days, and I have a job and not an infinite amount of time to watch sports.    Plus I do enjoy the emphasis the new rule places on the fundamentals of moving runners along.  

And by the way, it sucks when you stick with a long extra inning marathon and your team loses in the end.   That’s like “what the hell did I just do?”
 

Lenn Sakata and Chris Davis had their moments of glory in extra innings, that I will remember forever.  I have essentially zero recollection of the other 184 12+ inning games the Orioles have played in my lifetime*. 

In all extra inning games in my lifetime they're 369-303-1, which is pretty astounding.  Especially since they're only been sporadically good since I was 14.

* Ok, so I do have a vivid recollection of the one extra-inning tie they've played in my lifetime, since I was there.  Supposed to be Cal's last game, 9/11 happened, was at old Yankee Stadium, rained pretty much the whole game, Cal went 0-for-7, Jeter went 0-for-5 (yeah!), and we had a five-plus hour drive home in the dark and the wet after they just decided 15 innings was enough.

[survivedc]

4 hours ago, Moose Milligan said:

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.

 

This is exactly what I thought yesterday, good chance to come back still. 
 

I wouldn’t mind in the least if they keep it next year, whether in the 11th or the 10th. It’s a fun rule.

[MurphDogg]

2 hours ago, Morgan423 said:

Probably the fact that historically, in extra inning games where the visiting team failed the score in their half of tenth, and the home team ended up with a guy on second with no one out, the home team has won a hair over 80% of the time.  This rule feels very skewed toward one team over the other.

And yet when the visiting team scores in extra innings and the home team fails to score, the visiting team wins over 99 percent of the time.

Unfair!