The extra inning runner on 2B rule

[DrungoHazewood]

13 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Except they have added two new varieties of Cricket in the recent past so make sure you tune into the right one.

I don't think you saw this back in 1870.

Hands over ears, shout lalalalalalalalalalala, turn your TV to the Sky channel that only shows five-day test matches, and throw away your remote. 

And I exaggerated a bit.  In the 1870s cricket saw many of the same changes with regards to pitchers/bowlers throwing overhand that baseball did.

[Bill Swaggerty]

19 hours ago, spiritof66 said:

Last night, the first three runners placed on second were retired (tag out at third, tag out at home , and doubled up at second. That has to be a record,  for now.

Those are exciting baseball plays. I'm not ready to totally embrace the free runner rule yet. But those two innings were infinitely more fun to watch than 12 straight hitters trying to hit the ball out of the park. 

[Philip]

3 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

 

If you guys want a sport that looks largely like it did in 1870 there's always cricket.

Actually, we want a sport that looks like baseball.

[DrungoHazewood]

14 minutes ago, Philip said:

Actually, we want a sport that looks like baseball.

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.

[Philip]

26 minutes ago, 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.

As you wish…

[spiritof66]

5 hours ago, Bill Swaggerty said:

Those are exciting baseball plays. I'm not ready to totally embrace the free runner rule yet. But those two innings were infinitely more fun to watch than 12 straight hitters trying to hit the ball out of the park. 

I agree with that completely. I don't like having that guy on second, but it does tend to emphasize baserunning, defensive decision-making, offensive strategy issues (especially in the top of the inning), moving runners -- all things that I find more interesting than the home runs, fly balls, foul balls and strikeouts that have dominated the game in recent years.

There are lots of ways to change the game in that direction: deaden (or de-liven) the ball, require thicker bats, move the pitching rubber back (or even just require that pitchers stand on or behind it, not in front of it), etc. In some ballparks you can move the fences or home plate back. MLB knows all this; dissatisfaction with the current game has been expressed for years, and these and many other proposals have been expressed often.

The owners and their lackeys at MLB must (a) believe that the HR/K game is just fine, or (b) agree there's a problem but don't care, or (c) would like to change the game but don't know where or how to do that. I don't think they need the union's consent to make these changes, but if I'm wrong that could be another possible explanation.

[Beef Supreme]

I think the opposite of "like" is "dislike," not "hate." 

But it looks like it would bring back bunting. Much to the dismay of many here...

[Beef Supreme]

Funny thing is that people compare this concept to a shootout in hockey. But I was watching hockey on Saturday night and guess what -- they went to "extra innings." Or "overtime." They didn't just change everything immediately; they played a little bit more with the same rules. 

Maybe if you want to add some contrived resolution, the teams should play a full three extra innings first.

[Beef Supreme]

On 8/2/2020 at 9:17 AM, VaBird1 said:

I like it for this year.  If it is being considered long term I would like it to happen in the 12th, I think.

Per my previous post, I would go with the 13th inning, after three extra innings. I prefer the symmetry of nine more outs. 

[Moshagge3]

Like many of Manfred's innovations, it's having a pretty negligible effect and is a distraction from more pressing structural issues. Plus it's eliminating the possibility of cool memories like the Chris Davis game, the Stevie Wilkerson game, etc.

 

[Yardball85]

22 hours ago, Chavez Ravine said:

I don’t like it, but I like 16 inning games, which is perhaps not normal. I like marathon games in any sport. I think the Caps-Islanders Easter Epic left a scar on my psyche.

If your goal Is just to get the game over with, there are a lot more fun and interesting ways to do it. NashLumber can provide consulting. 

I'm with you on that.  I can understand a manager not liking it, but I like those games for the uniqueness of them and the strategical decisions that go into them.  Orioles at Mariners from 2012 comes to mind anecdotally for me. (Teagarden winner?  Not sure if memory serves me right)

[Beef Supreme]

3 hours ago, 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.

If I went to the bathroom, the first thing I would ask when I got back was, "how did that guy get on second base?" Unless somebody answered, "It's magic!" I would know the rule had been changed.

[SteveA]

What I don't understand is why, when the visiting team doesn't score, they don't always walk the first home batter in the bottom of the extra inning to set up the DP.

The Rays didn't do it in the 10th, 11th, or 12th vs the Orioles.

I thought it would be nearly automatic.   I saw a game last week where the opponent pitched to Altuve leading off with the man on 2nd, but then they intentionally walked Bregman.    So managers aren't doing it automatically every time.

So I went and checked, there have been 12 times this year that the home team has batted in an extra inning after the road team didn't score in the top of the inning -- and it appears there have been NO intentional walks.   Two guys did walk,  one on a 3-0 pitch and one on a 3-2 pitch according to bbref.   So unless bbref has old software and records an intentional walk as 4 straight balls even though it's done now without throwing a pitch, in which case there could be ONE intentional walk in such situations.   So there have either been 0/12 or 1/12 intentional walks in that situation so far.

At any rate, am I so wrong to think you always walk the leadoff guy in that situation?   I mean unless he's a horribly weak batter?   What am I missing here?

 

[DrungoHazewood]

2 minutes ago, Beef Supreme said:

If I went to the bathroom, the first thing I would ask when I got back was, "how did that guy get on second base?" Unless somebody answered, "It's magic!" I would know the rule had been changed.

You need to watch more games with my family.  They're either in their rooms or not really paying attention, so we'd need to rewind to figure out how the guy got there.

[DrungoHazewood]

12 minutes ago, SteveA said:

What I don't understand is why, when the visiting team doesn't score, the home team doesn't always walk the first batter in the bottom of the extra inning to set up the DP.

The Rays didn't do it in the 10th, 11th, or 12th vs the Orioles.

I thought it would be nearly automatic.   I saw a game last week where the opponent pitched to Altuve leading off with the man on 2nd, but then they intentionally walked Bregman.    So managers aren't doing it automatically every time.

So I went and checked, there have been 12 times this year that the home team has batted in an extra inning after the road team didn't score in the top of the inning -- and it appears there have been NO intentional walks.   Two guys did walk,  one on a 3-0 pitch and one on a 3-2 pitch according to bbref.   So unless bbref has old software and records an intentional walk as 4 straight balls even though it's done now without throwing a pitch, in which case there could be ONE intentional walk in such situations.   So there have either been 0/12 or 1/12 intentional walks in that situation so far.

At any rate, am I so wrong to think you always walk the leadoff guy in that situation?   I mean unless he's a horribly weak batter?   What am I missing here?

 

I went to this win expectancy calculator, and plugged in the applicable situations.  It says that with a runner on 2nd and nobody out in the bottom of the 10th of a tie game the home team wins 84% of the time.  With runners on first and second and nobody out the home team wins 86% of the time.  So that tells me that there is a disadvantage to walking the first batter.

But... those odds are based on 1957-2019 MLB data, which means the runner got to second by being the leadoff batter and doubling (or somehow getting to first and stealing second, or a few other odd cases).  Which skews the data a little, you know the pitcher on the mound just gave up something placing a runner on 2nd.  But in 2020 you might have a really great reliever on the mound throwing bullets, and the runner is on second by rule.  So the odds might be a bit different.