The extra inning runner on 2B rule

[DrungoHazewood]

13 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 was being sarcastic, but it's true that the early players and executives imagined baseball as a game between fielders and batters.  Pitchers were very limited in their deliveries, underhanded like cricket of the day, stiff wrist/no snap, again like cricket.  Batters could call for a high or low pitch.  It didn't occur to them until 20 or more years in that the pitcher would intentionally not throw the ball where the batter could hit it, so they needed to invent balls and strikes.  Of course from very early on their were pitchers who skirted the rules (notably Jim Creighton) and got extra speed and break on the ball.

It's true that nobody from the early days would have imagined a game of mostly strikeouts, walks, and homers.  "Scientific baseball" was a thing prior to Ruth, with the refined and intelligent ballplayer excelling in strategy and fielding and bunting and hitting-and-running.  Lots of players, fans, and writers hated the changes of the 1920s, saying that any old brute could hit a ball 400', it took brains to win the deadball game.  Those people clearly lost the argument.

[Chavez Ravine]

I think this perhaps fits in this thread.  Is anyone here playing Blaseball?

https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/story/2020-08-24/blaseball-online-browser-game-dungeons-dragons#null

Quote

With no advertising and no real graphics to speak of, the free, Web-browser-based “Blaseball” has become so popular that its creators, L.A.-based game studio the Game Band, had to hit the pause button and figure out a way to regroup (just under 1,500 donors support the game on crowd-funding site Patreon). It also gives those who aren’t playing a chance to partake in “Blaseball’s” fourth season, which began today. Each season lasts only a week and builds upon the rule changes of the previous one, meaning the underlying narrative of the “Blaseball” of today looks very different than the “Blaseball” of July, when it began.

Quote

While this work clearly comes from pandemic-challenged imaginations, its idea was seeded in a prior baseball season during a playoff game at Dodger Stadium, when two anchors of the Game Band asked themselves what would happen if baseball could break free from its “chains of tradition and history.”

Quote

But we sat there the whole time and riffed on the rules of baseball, and how it could be different. It’s a game that’s been set in its current set of rules — and its unwritten rules — and has so much difficulty changing. It’s natural to think about how it could work differently or people could affect it. We were throwing out weird rules. ‘What if players had buckets of water on their head?’ They can dive for a ball, but then water splashes out and breaks the game.”

 

[interloper]

I vote like it, but in reality I'm just kind of ambivalent about it. It's a curiosity. 

[Frobby]

A season later:  I love this rule.   Every half inning there’s a real possibility of something happening.   The odds of a run scoring from 2B with nobody out is almost exactly 50%.   Execute or die!    

Is it a little artificial?   Yes.   But it’s exciting and it rewards teams for executing/defending small ball.   And the games actually end within a reasonable time.   

I’ve also noticed that almost every player, manager and GM I’ve seen asked, has said they like the rule.   

 

[Can_of_corn]

I'd still rather they wait until the 11th to implement it.

[Oriole1940]

It cheapens the game so much, the runner on second and the 7 inning games rather than 9 innings.  As if there was something more important to do beyond  enjoying a long afternoon at the old ball park, drinking beer and relaxing with family and friends.  The game could be ruined even quicker if the bases were loaded and no one out, rather than putting only 1 runner on base. I mean where does it end,  the   tampering with the rules of the sport that were good for generations of people,  but now they must be changed.  I say the people who advocate that,  are not baseball fans of the sport as much as they want people to believe, or they would not be unhappy if a game lasted longer  than they, in their infinite wisdom  think it should have.  Why do not they get up, leave, and let the rest of us enjoy one of the very last islands of peace and relaxation from this insane society,  which only gets worse every day that dawns?    

[Philip]

Still stupid, But not the most stupid, which is the seven-inning doubleheader. Stupid.

[spiritof66]

1 hour ago, Frobby said:

A season later:  I love this rule.   Every half inning there’s a real possibility of something happening.   The odds of a run scoring from 2B with nobody out is almost exactly 50%.   Execute or die!    

Is it a little artificial?   Yes.   But it’s exciting and it rewards teams for executing/defending small ball.   And the games actually end within a reasonable time.   

I’ve also noticed that almost every player, manager and GM I’ve seen asked, has said they like the rule.   

 

No surprise. Extra-inning games disrupt players' lives (keeping them from getting home or to their hotels or to the next city later), screw up managers' plans for using their pitchers), and can create roster management headaches for GMs. 

I would dislike the rule a lot less if it kicked in starting with the 11th or 12th inning, or if the runner were put on first base.

[GuidoSarducci]

On 8/23/2020 at 5:25 PM, 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.

It sounds like you would enjoy Test Cricket.

[LocoChris]

7 hours ago, spiritof66 said:

No surprise. Extra-inning games disrupt players' lives (keeping them from getting home or to their hotels or to the next city later), screw up managers' plans for using their pitchers), and can create roster management headaches for GMs. 

I would dislike the rule a lot less if it kicked in starting with the 11th or 12th inning, or if the runner were put on first base.

Pretty sure there’s an undisclosed fine or something imposed by the commissioner’s office if you publicly criticize the new rules. 

[scOtt]

10 hours ago, Frobby said:

A season later:  I love this rule.   Every half inning there’s a real possibility of something happening.   The odds of a run scoring from 2B with nobody out is almost exactly 50%.   Execute or die!    

Is it a little artificial?   Yes.   But it’s exciting and it rewards teams for executing/defending small ball.   And the games actually end within a reasonable time.   

I’ve also noticed that almost every player, manager and GM I’ve seen asked, has said they like the rule.   

 

My traditional side RAILS AGAINST it. But it is very exciting. I think it shifts the home team extras advantage a good bit. Kinda like the start of a game, first team to score has an advantage.

 

10 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

I'd still rather they wait until the 11th to implement it.

That's a very good idea too.

[Frobby]

3 minutes ago, scOtt said:

My traditional side RAILS AGAINST it. But it is very exciting. I think it shifts the home team extras advantage a good bit. Kinda like the start of a game, first team to score has an advantage.

I’ve actually been meaning to look into the question of whether this rule has skewed things towards the home team.   

BB-ref play by play summaries show the probability of the home team winning at the end of each play in the game.   Per the summary of yesterday’s game, the O’s chances of winning were exactly 50% at the end of the 9th inning.   So, no advantage for the home team.   But as soon as Scott struck out the leadoff batter with the runner on 2B, the odds shot all the way to 61%.   After the Yankees failed to score, the odds of the O’s winning were 82%.    The Valaika bunt only increased those odd to 83%, but Mullins cashed it in. 
 

[glenn__davis]

I like it.  It puts pressure on the visiting team to make sure they get that run in.  Adds in extra excitement/urgency when they don't.  I don't want to see it in the postseason, but for the regular season I'm not opposed.

The 7-inning double headers, though, are an abomination.

[TommyPickles]

Are they using this rule in the postseason?

I'm not a big fan of it. I agree with @Can_of_corn that it should kick in for the 11th inning, not the 10th.

[Frobby]

From BB-ref play-by-play info, under current rules if the visiting team scores one run in the top half of the inning, their odds of winning only increase to 54%.    But if they fail to score, their odds decrease to 18%.

In an old style extra inning game, if the visiting team scored one run in the top half, it’s chance of winning would be 79%, but if they failed to score, the chance of winning would be 36%.   

Those odds are a bit misleading, since it’s easier to score with a runner on 2B and nobody out (61% chance) than with nobody on base and nobody out (27%).*

* Using 2010-15 data: http://www.tangotiger.net/re24.html