The extra inning runner on 2B rule

[Runs2the1Show]

1 hour ago, Philip said:

So? Each paying customer went to that game expecting nine innings and the fact that they weren’t completed was a matter of circumstance and not design.

Deliberately shortening a nine inning game to seven is stupid. Again, the examples you stated were exceptions rather than the rule. You are suggesting that making it the rule is acceptable and I strenuously disagree.

I still don't understand what you are arguing. You are paying for 1 game and getting two. In terms of innings, you are getting at least 14. Still more bang for your buck either way.

I personally love both rules. Is it a bummer that I am less likely to see Chris Davis retire the side in the 17th inning for the win? Sure. But it helps prevent injury and I personally care more about seeing the best product on the field at all times. If it helps with pace of play and attracts more fans to watch / go to the ballpark, even better.

The only argument "against" is being a baseball purist, which I get. But for the longevity of the game, I hope at least the runner on 2nd rule remains.

[osfan83]

They should play the bottom of the 9th even when the home team is winning so I don't get cheated out of my full 9!

[Morgan423]

I didn't like this rule when it started, and it hasn't grown on me yet.  For me there was always more of a feeling of teams on the short end having something random happen where they didn't deserve to lose, rather than a feeling that winning teams did something noteworthy to win.  Also, it bugged me as heavily opposed to tradition... more whiffle ball than baseball.  Glad to see the commish and league are thinking of scrapping it.

If shortened extra inning games becomes a sticking point for the players union on the next CBA, hopefully we can do something different, like ties after the 11th or 12th. 

[Philip]

41 minutes ago, Runs2the1Show said:

I still don't understand what you are arguing. You are paying for 1 game and getting two. In terms of innings, you are getting at least 14. Still more bang for your buck either way.

I personally love both rules. Is it a bummer that I am less likely to see Chris Davis retire the side in the 17th inning for the win? Sure. But it helps prevent injury and I personally care more about seeing the best product on the field at all times. If it helps with pace of play and attracts more fans to watch / go to the ballpark, even better.

The only argument "against" is being a baseball purist, which I get. But for the longevity of the game, I hope at least the runner on 2nd rule remains.

You’re not paying for one game and getting two. You’re paying for 18 innings and getting 14. If you think that seven innings is a “complete game,” then you don’t see anything valid in my argument. But even baseball the organization doesn’t see seven innings as a “complete game” 

They see it as a “completed game” but that’s a difference.
If you see no difference between a seven-inning game and a nine-inning game, when even MLB admits there is, then further discussion is unproductive.

[osfan83]

1 minute ago, Morgan423 said:

I didn't like this rule when it started, and it hasn't grown on me yet.  For me there was always more of a feeling of teams on the short end having something random happen where they didn't deserve to lose, rather than a feeling that winning teams did something noteworthy to win.  Also, it bugged me as heavily opposed to tradition... more whiffle ball than baseball.  Glad to see the commish and league are thinking of scrapping it.

If shortened extra inning games becomes a sticking point for the players union on the next CBA, hopefully we can do something different, like ties after the 11th or 12th. 

Speaking as a long time Hockey fan....ties are the worst. You just don't feel right after watching a long game with no resolution. 

[Runs2the1Show]

1 hour ago, Philip said:

You’re not paying for one game and getting two. You’re paying for 18 innings and getting 14. If you think that seven innings is a “complete game,” then you don’t see anything valid in my argument. But even baseball the organization doesn’t see seven innings as a “complete game” 

They see it as a “completed game” but that’s a difference.
If you see no difference between a seven-inning game and a nine-inning game, when even MLB admits there is, then further discussion is unproductive.

I never said I don't see a difference between the two - the difference is two innings per game. That is a fact.

You're saying people are paying for 18 innings, which they fundamentally aren't. They are paying for 14. If, under the old rules a team were to decide to offer 2 games for the price of one, then yes, they would be paying for 18 innings. When I went to a Rockies double header in May and paid for one ticket, it was very clear that I was getting 14 innings of baseball. I can assure you not a single person there thought they were paying for 18 innings.

Your argument is one of semantics. My argument is related to the actual product / impact on the game.

[Runs2the1Show]

1 hour ago, Morgan423 said:

I didn't like this rule when it started, and it hasn't grown on me yet.  For me there was always more of a feeling of teams on the short end having something random happen where they didn't deserve to lose, rather than a feeling that winning teams did something noteworthy to win.  Also, it bugged me as heavily opposed to tradition... more whiffle ball than baseball.  Glad to see the commish and league are thinking of scrapping it.

If shortened extra inning games becomes a sticking point for the players union on the next CBA, hopefully we can do something different, like ties after the 11th or 12th. 

I do wonder how much of this is a negotiating tactic. If it's something that the players want, I could see Manfred and co giving on this pretty easily in exchange for something else.

[Morgan423]

1 hour ago, osfan83 said:

Speaking as a long time Hockey fan....ties are the worst. You just don't feel right after watching a long game with no resolution. 

It is a resolution, for both teams, and both teams get something out of the deal, so really, fans shouldn't (IMO) see it that way. 

For a long time in the NHL, both teams would earn a point when they tied.  Not as ideal as a win, but it beat getting nothing for a loss. 

Same thing would likely apply to baseball...  losing percentage would become the primary tie breaker at the end of the year, so if two teams in a division finished with the same number of wins, the first tie breaker becomes the team with the lowest losing percentage (ie, who earned the most ties).    

[jamalshw]

8 minutes ago, Morgan423 said:

It is a resolution, for both teams, and both teams get something out of the deal, so really, fans shouldn't (IMO) see it that way. 

For a long time in the NHL, both teams would earn a point when they tied.  Not as ideal as a win, but it beat getting nothing for a loss. 

Same thing would likely apply to baseball...  losing percentage would become the primary tie breaker at the end of the year, so if two teams in a division finished with the same number of wins, the first tie breaker becomes the team with the lowest losing percentage (ie, who earned the most ties).    

I hate the runner at second to start the inning, but would MUCH prefer that to ending in ties. Of course, I'd prefer to just play until it ends whether that's 9 innings, 12 innings of 20 innings. 

Besides, remember the uproar about the All-Star game ending in a tie back in the day? And that was just an exhibition. 

[BRobinsonfan]

23 hours ago, Frobby said:

He has bigger things to worry about.  

I almost always agree with you, but in this case, I'm quite sure when God whispered the rules of baseball in Abner Doubleday's ear all those years ago there was nothing about 7 inning double headers and runners starting on 2nd.  (He probably did say something like "yeah, you can designate somebody else hit for the pitcher if you want."). 

[Frobby]

By the way, the more I think about it, the reason MLB is going back to 9 innings in each game of a doubleheader is so they can resume the practice of making each game separate admission and increasing the gate receipts.   

[rm5678]

1 hour ago, Frobby said:

By the way, the more I think about it, the reason MLB is going back to 9 innings in each game of a doubleheader is so they can resume the practice of making each game separate admission and increasing the gate receipts.   

Some teams (i.e. the Nationals and the Yankees) have been doing split day/night doubleheaders this year, which means fans are paying for 9 innings but only getting to see 7. In a case of a split DH, each game needs to be 9 innings since fans are just paying for that 1 game. In some cases this year, fans had already purchased their ticket for a game and then it was switched to 7 innings after the fact. Very unfair since the teams are not refunding any portion of the original ticket price or discounting any of the tickets even with the shorter game.

Edited July 14, 2021 by rm5678

[Frobby]

20 minutes ago, rm5678 said:

Some teams (i.e. the Nationals and the Yankees) have been doing split day/night doubleheaders this year, which means fans are paying for 9 innings but only getting to see 7. In a case of a split DH, each game needs to be 9 innings since fans are just paying for that 1 game. In some cases this year, fans had already purchased their ticket for a game and then it was switched to 7 innings after the fact. Very unfair since the teams are not refunding any portion of the original ticket price or discounting any of the tickets even with the shorter game.

Wow.  I had read earlier in the thread that the Mets had tried to institute separate admission 7 inning doubleheaders and got dissuaded by fan reaction.   But I guess Nats and Yankee fans are sheep.   

Philip - whatever else I think about 7-inning doubleheader games, I certainly don’t think it’s OK to make them separate admission at full price.  
 

[webbrick2010]

So one of the things I don't like about the runner on second rule is that the runner is the next batter up.

So if it is a 40 SB guy that's great, but if it's your MVP 50 HR guy who is a slow runner, you might actually prefer that he gets to bat. 

In general I don't like either rule... the problem is that the pace of play is too slow. Games in the 70's typically ran 2 hours with 9 innings 

Too many walks too many pitching changes, too much time between 1/2 innings. It should be possible to shorten games without changing the number of innings

[Frobby]

1 minute ago, webbrick2010 said:

So one of the things I don't like about the runner on second rule is that the runner is the next batter up.

So if it is a 40 SB guy that's great, but if it's your MVP 50 HR guy who is a slow runner, you might actually prefer that he gets to bat. 

 

You’ve got this wrong.  The runner is whoever made the last out in the previous inning.