The extra inning runner on 2B rule

[makoman]

4 minutes ago, Hallas said:

I never really understood why football is allowed to change their rules as often as we change underwear, often resulting in major meta-shifts in the game (e.g. pass interference, illegal contact facilitating huge passing numbers compared to football before the turn of the century) yet every time baseball tries something comparatively small (such as wanting to get extra innings games done faster) it's met with huge backlash from people that want to appeal to the purity of baseball. 

There are plenty of people that claim football has been ruined and today’s players are a bunch of pansies because you can’t hit anymore and players generally don’t get a concussion per game like the Real Men of old. 

[Can_of_corn]

9 minutes ago, Philip said:

I think your comment was intended to be sarcastic, but I actually agree with it. What is more interesting? Watching a bunch of people stand around while the ball flies 400 feet? Or watching the intricate never seen before never see again choreography of an attempted double play?
Homeruns are boring if you see seven or eight of them every game? And as I say constantly, highlights of homeruns are the most boring highlights in all of professional sports.

What I love are weak ground outs to second and the infield fly rule being invoked.  Much more exciting than a homerun or strikeout.

 

Man I love me some infield fly rule.  Anything to inject the umps into the game is fine by me. 

[makoman]

2 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

What I love are weak ground outs to second and the infield fly rule being invoked.  Much more exciting than a homerun or strikeout.

 

Man I love me some infield fly rule.  Anything to inject the umps into the game is fine by me. 

The balk, man. That’s some excitement right there, and a good example of umpire discretion. Can’t deceive those runners. 

[Hallas]

9 minutes ago, makoman said:

There are plenty of people that claim football has been ruined and today’s players are a bunch of pansies because you can’t hit anymore and players generally don’t get a concussion per game like the Real Men of old. 

I get the sense that it affects baseball much more than football.  Baseball had to run 2 different rulesets between half its teams for almost 50 years, because purists insisted that watching a .400 OPS hitter pretend to hit was good for the game, and doing a double-switch was the pinnacle of baseball strategery.

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, makoman said:

The balk, man. That’s some excitement right there, and a good example of umpire discretion. Can’t deceive those runners. 

It is kinda sweet how some left handers can have a balk as their signature pickoff move and yet it never gets called. 

[OFFNY]

8 minutes ago, makoman said:

 

The balk, man. That’s some excitement right there, and a good example of umpire discretion. Can’t deceive those runners. 

 

o

 

I remember when 1988 became "The Year of the Balk" when they decided to reinterpret the rule.

They rescinded the rule change/reinterpretation after one season.

 

 

Balks: The Story of the 1988 Major League Baseball Season

(Recondite Baseball)

http://reconditebaseball.blogspot.com/2008/08/balks-story-of-1988-major-league.html

 

o

[DrungoHazewood]

4 hours ago, Philip said:

I think your comment was intended to be sarcastic, but I actually agree with it. What is more interesting? Watching a bunch of people stand around while the ball flies 400 feet? Or watching the intricate never seen before never see again choreography of an attempted double play?
Homeruns are boring if you see seven or eight of them every game? And as I say constantly, highlights of homeruns are the most boring highlights in all of professional sports.

I watched Quick Pitch one morning in the last week or so and literally 60 or 70% of the "highlights" were a ball bouncing around the empty stands 440 feet from the plate.  And another 10-20% was the last out of the game.  Once every few games they'd show something that wasn't a homer or the last out.

[DrungoHazewood]

4 hours ago, Hallas said:

I never really understood why football is allowed to change their rules as often as we change underwear, often resulting in major meta-shifts in the game (e.g. pass interference, illegal contact facilitating huge passing numbers compared to football before the turn of the century) yet every time baseball tries something comparatively small (such as wanting to get extra innings games done faster) it's met with huge backlash from people that want to appeal to the purity of baseball. 

That's the narrative baseball pushes.  It's exactly the same as a hundred years ago when your great grandpa played the game.  Well, okay, the rules are exactly the same but almost everything about the actual sport is completely different.

[Moose Milligan]

11 hours ago, Philip said:

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.

There's a lot of contradictory sentiments and thoughts in here.

First of all, it's not change for the sake of change.  It's change because they had to cram 60 games into 66 days.  And a limited player pool.  They can't afford to have games go 13+ innings from a sheer manpower perspective.  Since it's a wacky season to begin with, it makes sense to try something out of the box to see how it works.  I don't think this has anything to do with owners and what they can and can't afford.  Late inning baseball past the 12th and 13th innings is rare enough to begin with, it doesn't have a huge impact on the owner's wallets.

It doesn't eliminate drama.  If you watched last nights game, you saw drama.  I'm not sure how you could have seen anything different.  So you admit that there's drama, it's just "artificially" made and therefore it's not...pure, or something.

[Hallas]

11 hours ago, Philip said:

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.

I don't think it's just the owners that feel that way.  Do you really think pitchers like having to throw 2 full games worth of innings in a single night, and then have to play again the next day?  Not only does it increase their injury risk, it puts the playing team at a disadvantage for the next game unless they're fortunate enough to have a day off.

And going back to @DrungoHazewood's comment about lighting, if we're being nitpicky games from 90+ years ago had a hard stop at around 7-8pm depending on what time of year it was, and game start times were around 3pm, so not only were the games faster due to less dawdling, but there was a hard stop of around 4 hours before the game would have to be called and recorded as a draw.  On 5/1/1920, this occurred when a 26 inning game was called after 3:50 (imagine playing 26 innings in 3:50, by the way) and a draw awarded to both teams, the Boston Braves and the Brooklyn Robins. (who the heck are the Brooklyn Robins, anyway...) So now you are letting games go on indefinitely because you can light the stadium as long as the power plant is running, AND you're adding about an hour of fluff in every game because, well, reasons.  Yet no one wants to allow draws, despite the fact that they were more common back in the day because of a lack of lighting and a hard stop on playing time due to the sun setting.  So we're left with "artificial" drama by putting a runner on 2nd to start the inning to get teams to score.  Maybe there's a better solution, but given all the other issues causing game times to increase, and an overall mandate to try and shorten games as much as possible, I'm not really sure what that better solution is at the moment.

And lets not forget that these rules don't exist in the playoffs.  So you can have your 18 inning games in the playoffs, and since it's the playoffs, I'm sure fans won't stop watching.

[Philip]

33 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

There's a lot of contradictory sentiments and thoughts in here.

First of all, it's not change for the sake of change.  It's change because they had to cram 60 games into 66 days.  And a limited player pool.  They can't afford to have games go 13+ innings from a sheer manpower perspective.  Since it's a wacky season to begin with, it makes sense to try something out of the box to see how it works.  I don't think this has anything to do with owners and what they can and can't afford.  Late inning baseball past the 12th and 13th innings is rare enough to begin with, it doesn't have a huge impact on the owner's wallets.

It doesn't eliminate drama.  If you watched last nights game, you saw drama.  I'm not sure how you could have seen anything different.  So you admit that there's drama, it's just "artificially" made and therefore it's not...pure, or something.

No there aren’t.
I didn’t suggest that these moves and this one in particular were “change for the sake of change.“ I said that change for the sake of change usually serves no purpose but isn’t necessarily a bad thing. 
I should have been clear. Usually a traditionalist opposes any change at all, and I’m not doing that. I oppose the rule for specific reasons.

its a stupid rule and so are 7-inning doubleheaders, pitch clocks, and 3-batter minimums. 

I appreciate the fact that this is an odd season that calls for odd compromises, but it remains a stupid rule and the idea of keeping it permanently is ridiculous.

[Tony-OH]

I wanted to give myself some time before answering this poll but I have to say, as much as I didn't like it in the minors, I have become a fan of it at the major league level because it adds immediately excitement to the inning and we have not seen those ridiculous 14 inning or more games that destroy bullpens. 

I was against it at first, but call me a fan. I hope it stays.

[Moose Milligan]

7 hours ago, Philip said:

No there aren’t.
I didn’t suggest that these moves and this one in particular were “change for the sake of change.“ I said that change for the sake of change usually serves no purpose but isn’t necessarily a bad thing. 
I should have been clear. Usually a traditionalist opposes any change at all, and I’m not doing that. I oppose the rule for specific reasons.

its a stupid rule and so are 7-inning doubleheaders, pitch clocks, and 3-batter minimums. 

I appreciate the fact that this is an odd season that calls for odd compromises, but it remains a stupid rule and the idea of keeping it permanently is ridiculous.

Well just because you called it stupid doesn't make it so.  There's still drama in extra innings, you just don't like how it got there.

[DrungoHazewood]

8 hours ago, Hallas said:

I don't think it's just the owners that feel that way.  Do you really think pitchers like having to throw 2 full games worth of innings in a single night, and then have to play again the next day?  Not only does it increase their injury risk, it puts the playing team at a disadvantage for the next game unless they're fortunate enough to have a day off.

And going back to @DrungoHazewood's comment about lighting, if we're being nitpicky games from 90+ years ago had a hard stop at around 7-8pm depending on what time of year it was, and game start times were around 3pm, so not only were the games faster due to less dawdling, but there was a hard stop of around 4 hours before the game would have to be called and recorded as a draw.  On 5/1/1920, this occurred when a 26 inning game was called after 3:50 (imagine playing 26 innings in 3:50, by the way) and a draw awarded to both teams, the Boston Braves and the Brooklyn Robins. (who the heck are the Brooklyn Robins, anyway...) So now you are letting games go on indefinitely because you can light the stadium as long as the power plant is running, AND you're adding about an hour of fluff in every game because, well, reasons.  Yet no one wants to allow draws, despite the fact that they were more common back in the day because of a lack of lighting and a hard stop on playing time due to the sun setting.  So we're left with "artificial" drama by putting a runner on 2nd to start the inning to get teams to score.  Maybe there's a better solution, but given all the other issues causing game times to increase, and an overall mandate to try and shorten games as much as possible, I'm not really sure what that better solution is at the moment.

And lets not forget that these rules don't exist in the playoffs.  So you can have your 18 inning games in the playoffs, and since it's the playoffs, I'm sure fans won't stop watching.

People love to say that baseball is the one game (or at least the one popular game in North America) that doesn't have a clock.  Well, from the dawn of time until the 1930s and 40s it did. Because they tried to start as late as possible so people could get off work to go, but as Hallas said the sun goes down.  So teams had to pick up the pace, and the umps constantly reminded them if they didn't.  Every 4-5pm start had the potential to call the game because of darkness.

Even if you watch games from the 1960s or 70s it's noticeably quicker than today.  Pitchers got the ball, got a quick sign, and were throwing the next pitch.  Jim Kaat (IIRC) was the pitcher who would say he pitched as fast as possible because his arm turned into a pumpkin at two hours, and he pitched 180 compete games.  Ray Miller's Oriole staffs had a motto "work fast, throw strikes, change speeds."  The first one was work fast!

So I'd love for there to be a way to bring back that crisp, quick play.  Then the runner-on-second rule wouldn't be necessary, you could play 14 innings in three hours.  But until they figure out that puzzle, we're stuck with nine-inning games that sometimes approach four.  It's kind of in jest, but I've sometimes suggested that there be a rule that the lights just go off at two and half or three hours, and the umpire would have a free hand to eject anyone who's dawdling, and they would strictly enforce the existing but exceptionally rarely enforced 20 second pitch rule..

[DrungoHazewood]

8 hours ago, Philip said:

No there aren’t.
I didn’t suggest that these moves and this one in particular were “change for the sake of change.“ I said that change for the sake of change usually serves no purpose but isn’t necessarily a bad thing. 
I should have been clear. Usually a traditionalist opposes any change at all, and I’m not doing that. I oppose the rule for specific reasons.

its a stupid rule and so are 7-inning doubleheaders, pitch clocks, and 3-batter minimums. 

I appreciate the fact that this is an odd season that calls for odd compromises, but it remains a stupid rule and the idea of keeping it permanently is ridiculous.

Can you point to a rules change that you would be in favor of?

The pitch clock is just helping to enforce a rule that has been on the books for a very long time but is almost never enforced.  Bad things happen when the de facto rules are different from the rule book.  For example, when you let the umps invent their own strike zone.  Today we're allowing them to just ignore a rule they don't like, or find it inconvenient to enforce.