Improving the game suggestions

[Philip]

1 hour ago, Frobby said:

I strongly disagree.   For one thing, I have to get up early in the morning, and the difference between a game that ends at 10 pm and one that ends at 10:45 is very material to me.    For another, I’ve been watching baseball for 55+ years and the game was better when they played the game more quickly.    I’m not the kind of guy who believes everything was better in the old days, but the quicker pace of play in the past was one element that was much better.    

I understand your point, but the things that have been suggested will make the game worse without appreciably shortening it, and the solution is to make it more interesting. If it is more interesting people will watch and not care so much about the length of time, and if the game goes past your bedtime, well believe me, it frequently goes past my bedtime as well.

My suggestions will increase interest, Manfred’s suggestions are just stupid and they won’t shorten the game.

[DrungoHazewood]

17 hours ago, Philip said:

I actually agree with you, I don’t have a problem with a long game, I think the people who do, don’t really understand what baseball is about in the first place. All the silly little changes they are making in a useless effort to speed the game up are actually making things worse, so if you have to streamline the game, the suggestions I made would help. However, I am quite content leaving the game as it is, although I do not want the National League to have the DH. I like the different character of the two leagues.

From the dawn of time until about WWII the average game took two hours or so.  Today it's over three and increasing all the time. 

What is baseball all about in the first place?

[DrungoHazewood]

11 hours ago, Philip said:

I understand your point, but the things that have been suggested will make the game worse without appreciably shortening it, and the solution is to make it more interesting. If it is more interesting people will watch and not care so much about the length of time, and if the game goes past your bedtime, well believe me, it frequently goes past my bedtime as well.

My suggestions will increase interest, Manfred’s suggestions are just stupid and they won’t shorten the game.

it's a problem if even many of the most die-hard fans won't stay up to the end of a game.  Advertisers are eventually going to stop paying money for commercials in the 2nd half of the game. I would bet that one of the reasons attendance is down across baseball is that people don't want to be out until midnight on a weeknight, and even if you're 30 or 45 minutes from the park there's a good chance that's when you'll get home.  For me, two hours from OPACY, I just don't go to weeknight games unless it's Hangout night in the first pennant race in 15 years.

And my kids, 14 and 12, have never seen the end of a Sunday-Thursday Orioles game.

[Dipper9]

1 hour ago, DrungoHazewood said:

it's a problem if even many of the most die-hard fans won't stay up to the end of a game.  Advertisers are eventually going to stop paying money for commercials in the 2nd half of the game. I would bet that one of the reasons attendance is down across baseball is that people don't want to be out until midnight on a weeknight, and even if you're 30 or 45 minutes from the park there's a good chance that's when you'll get home.  For me, two hours from OPACY, I just don't go to weeknight games unless it's Hangout night in the first pennant race in 15 years.

And my kids, 14 and 12, have never seen the end of a Sunday-Thursday Orioles game.

I don't necessarily disagree, but growing up in the 70's and early 80's many weeknight games started at 730 I believe.  Only a few games were televised each week, so I mostly listened on the radio, but even the televised ones I was listening to the end of the game in bed, and I still grew up as a die hard fan.

The difference is I like the sport of baseball, and the Orioles were always good back then.  The games ending late has always been an issue, that is not new, and actually MLB has done a better job in recent years changing to earlier start times on weekdays and having way more day games.  

[DrungoHazewood]

1 hour ago, Dipper9 said:

I don't necessarily disagree, but growing up in the 70's and early 80's many weeknight games started at 730 I believe.  Only a few games were televised each week, so I mostly listened on the radio, but even the televised ones I was listening to the end of the game in bed, and I still grew up as a die hard fan.

The difference is I like the sport of baseball, and the Orioles were always good back then.  The games ending late has always been an issue, that is not new, and actually MLB has done a better job in recent years changing to earlier start times on weekdays and having way more day games.  

My kids are just not as much into baseball as I was at their age.  I don't know if anyone really is.  I'm sure some but in, say, June 1980 the Orioles competition was Happy Days and WKRP reruns.  And the Radio Shack Pong console.  Now it's an almost endless variety of channels, streaming services, video games, social media connections to friends, other sports.  Dad or Grandpa's sport that's on for four hours every night is just one of a million things to do, and not nearly the most exciting or engaging.

Baseball may never get these kids as die hard fans, but it's not helping to turn the game into a strikeout/home run derby that lasts until 11:00 every night.  I've been a fan for over 40 years, but the game will probably never again be a thing I spend 20+ hours a week watching.

[Philip]

3 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

From the dawn of time until about WWII the average game took two hours or so.  Today it's over three and increasing all the time. 

What is baseball all about in the first place?

What baseball is about is rhetorical. What it is about, is what it is. I think I would enjoy and understand a game from 1955 as much as I watched and enjoyed a game in 1975, and the problems that exist now will not be solved at all by any of those ridiculous suggestions that are being made today. The changes that are being suggestion will Accomplish nothing. The limits on how many batters a pitcher can face, banning the shift, pitch clocks and so on. They are artificial. And they won’t appreciably shorten the game. We need to incentivize contact. We need to make it more important to throw the ball in the strike zone, and to swing at the ball in the strike zone.

The detail stuff is useless and worse than useless, if you want a faster game, you don’t accomplish that by for instance shaving two innings off the end of the game, that benefits the owners, it benefits the players, but it penalizes the fans. Juicing the ball is stupid because think of the three boring outcomes: strike out, a walk or a home run. Those are all boring. We want to minimize all three.

I don’t know how to get a SHORTER game, but for a BETTER game,  you increase base runners, , minimize foul balls, minimize strikeouts. You do that by shrinking the strike zone, possibly lowering the mound back to the original height, and turning the foul ball into a benefit for the hitter.

but silly BS like banning the shift is ridiculous.

[eddie83]

2 hours ago, Dipper9 said:

I don't necessarily disagree, but growing up in the 70's and early 80's many weeknight games started at 730 I believe.  Only a few games were televised each week, so I mostly listened on the radio, but even the televised ones I was listening to the end of the game in bed, and I still grew up as a die hard fan.

The difference is I like the sport of baseball, and the Orioles were always good back then.  The games ending late has always been an issue, that is not new, and actually MLB has done a better job in recent years changing to earlier start times on weekdays and having way more day games.  

https://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/BAL/BAL197005050.shtml
 

Random game from 1970. 8pm start. 

Games do not end later than they did years ago. I agree with you on this.  

[eddie83]

3 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

it's a problem if even many of the most die-hard fans won't stay up to the end of a game.  Advertisers are eventually going to stop paying money for commercials in the 2nd half of the game. I would bet that one of the reasons attendance is down across baseball is that people don't want to be out until midnight on a weeknight, and even if you're 30 or 45 minutes from the park there's a good chance that's when you'll get home.  For me, two hours from OPACY, I just don't go to weeknight games unless it's Hangout night in the first pennant race in 15 years.

And my kids, 14 and 12, have never seen the end of a Sunday-Thursday Orioles game.

I don’t think TV has any issues later on in games. I do think attendance is a different subject. 
 

In general baseball attendance has always lagged during the week. It takes special circumstances to have attendance during the week. Brand new stadium, perennial winner, big marker club, etc. I doubt Yankee Stadium attendance during the week is fueled by suburban fans. 
 

These big market clubs have much more corporate money being spent and more people who live and work in the city. Baseball basically plays 81 games and roughly 50% are on Fri-Sun. If the sport only played on weekends average attendance would soar. Mon-Thur games are more of a TV property. 

[DrungoHazewood]

1 hour ago, Philip said:

What baseball is about is rhetorical. What it is about, is what it is. I think I would enjoy and understand a game from 1955 as much as I watched and enjoyed a game in 1975, and the problems that exist now will not be solved at all by any of those ridiculous suggestions that are being made today. The changes that are being suggestion will Accomplish nothing. The limits on how many batters a pitcher can face, banning the shift, pitch clocks and so on. They are artificial. And they won’t appreciably shorten the game. We need to incentivize contact. We need to make it more important to throw the ball in the strike zone, and to swing at the ball in the strike zone.

The detail stuff is useless and worse than useless, if you want a faster game, you don’t accomplish that by for instance shaving two innings off the end of the game, that benefits the owners, it benefits the players, but it penalizes the fans. Juicing the ball is stupid because think of the three boring outcomes: strike out, a walk or a home run. Those are all boring. We want to minimize all three.

I don’t know how to get a SHORTER game, but for a BETTER game,  you increase base runners, , minimize foul balls, minimize strikeouts. You do that by shrinking the strike zone, possibly lowering the mound back to the original height, and turning the foul ball into a benefit for the hitter.

but silly BS like banning the shift is ridiculous.

I'm all good with increasing action.  But what I want is more like the game of a century ago: two hours and packed with action on the field.

The seven inning thing is only for doubleheaders.  With many games stretching to 3:30, even 4:00 what fan is going to want to go to a doubleheader?  Even with just a half hour between games that's about eight hours at the ballpark.  At least in cricket they break for tea, and you might spend eight hours at the football stadium but half that is getting drunk in the parking lot.

I just keep going back to 100 years ago when they played a 26-inning game in about the time it takes to play a Red Sox nine-inning game today.  Faster games have to be part of the solution, it can't just be more action.

I was born in 1971.  That year the Orioles played multiple doubleheaders with a total game time under 4:30.  Last August the Rays and Sox played a nine-inning game that lasted 4:24.  That's not how baseball was meant to be played.

[Philip]

57 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I'm all good with increasing action.  But what I want is more like the game of a century ago: two hours and packed with action on the field.

The seven inning thing is only for doubleheaders.  With many games stretching to 3:30, even 4:00 what fan is going to want to go to a doubleheader?  Even with just a half hour between games that's about eight hours at the ballpark.  At least in cricket they break for tea, and you might spend eight hours at the football stadium but half that is getting drunk in the parking lot.

I just keep going back to 100 years ago when they played a 26-inning game in about the time it takes to play a Red Sox nine-inning game today.  Faster games have to be part of the solution, it can't just be more action.

I was born in 1971.  That year the Orioles played multiple doubleheaders with a total game time under 4:30.  Last August the Rays and Sox played a nine-inning game that lasted 4:24.  That's not how baseball was meant to be played.

I don’t disagree with any of that. When I was in Boy Scouts, the scout meeting started at 7:30 and ended about 9:30, and the baseball game was finishing up or over by the time I got home at about 9:45.

the problem is that the pitchers have improved more than the hitters, and we have either home runs or strikeouts..I do t know how to actually shorten the game, but we can certainly make it more interesting by increasing base activity and minimizing Ks. that’s why I made my suggestions. What IS being proposed is prima facia stupid and unproductive, in either shortening the game or making it more interesting. It’s just another layer of BS.

[Frobby]

1 hour ago, eddie83 said:

https://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/BAL/BAL197005050.shtml
 

Random game from 1970. 8pm start. 

Games do not end later than they did years ago. I agree with you on this.  

I started going to games a lot in 1974, the first full year I had my driver’s license.    Median length of an O’s game that year was 2:27.    Weeknight games started at 7:34.  So, 10:01 pm was an average time to get out.   

In 2019, median length of a game was 3:03 and start time 7:07.   So, 10:10 was average time to get out.   

I have to admit that is not hugely different.    I do prefer a game played in 2:27 to one played in 3:03.  

 

[DrungoHazewood]

1 hour ago, Philip said:

I don’t disagree with any of that. When I was in Boy Scouts, the scout meeting started at 7:30 and ended about 9:30, and the baseball game was finishing up or over by the time I got home at about 9:45.

the problem is that the pitchers have improved more than the hitters, and we have either home runs or strikeouts..I do t know how to actually shorten the game, but we can certainly make it more interesting by increasing base activity and minimizing Ks. that’s why I made my suggestions. What IS being proposed is prima facia stupid and unproductive, in either shortening the game or making it more interesting. It’s just another layer of BS.

MLB nibbles around the edges because they fear any large change with immediate impact will be seen as treason by their fanbase that thinks everything was perfect when they were 12 in 1952.

[Hallas]

2 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I'm all good with increasing action.  But what I want is more like the game of a century ago: two hours and packed with action on the field.

The seven inning thing is only for doubleheaders.  With many games stretching to 3:30, even 4:00 what fan is going to want to go to a doubleheader?  Even with just a half hour between games that's about eight hours at the ballpark.  At least in cricket they break for tea, and you might spend eight hours at the football stadium but half that is getting drunk in the parking lot.

I just keep going back to 100 years ago when they played a 26-inning game in about the time it takes to play a Red Sox nine-inning game today.  Faster games have to be part of the solution, it can't just be more action.

I was born in 1971.  That year the Orioles played multiple doubleheaders with a total game time under 4:30.  Last August the Rays and Sox played a nine-inning game that lasted 4:24.  That's not how baseball was meant to be played.

I don't know how you tackle the game time issue at this point.   Expand the strike zone?  But hitters are already faring poorly vs pitchers.  Reduce the mound height?  Increase distance from mound to plate?  The goal has to be to make it easier for batters to make contact, while simultaneously making it harder for batters to take pitches, but these goals are really difficult to achieve at the same time.  Maybe increasing mound distance to 61 or 62 feet, and expanding the zone?

[Philip]

11 minutes ago, Hallas said:

I don't know how you tackle the game time issue at this point.   Expand the strike zone?  But hitters are already faring poorly vs pitchers.  Reduce the mound height?  Increase distance from mound to plate?  The goal has to be to make it easier for batters to make contact, while simultaneously making it harder for batters to take pitches, but these goals are really difficult to achieve at the same time.  Maybe increasing mound distance to 61 or 62 feet, and expanding the zone?

Expanding the zone will lead to more strikeouts, instead you want to shrink the zone. That will lead to more walks and a walk is not inherently interesting, but at least it would lead to more bass runners which leads to interesting things. Also, because of the strike zone is shrinking, the guy on the mound will have to throw in the zone more which leads to more contact. That would lead to more base runners as well.

The first thing they should do to address that is to lower the mound to what it was I think until 1969?

The second thing they should do-or maybe the first- is fire the idiot who has come up with all these blithering suggestions.

[Can_of_corn]

4 minutes ago, Philip said:

Expanding the zone will lead to more strikeouts, instead you want to shrink the zone. That will lead to more walks and a walk is not inherently interesting, but at least it would lead to more bass runners which leads to interesting things. Also, because of the strike zone is shrinking, the guy on the mound will have to throw in the zone more which leads to more contact. That would lead to more base runners as well.

The first thing they should do to address that is to lower the mound to what it was I think until 1969?

The second thing they should do-or maybe the first- is fire the idiot who has come up with all these blithering suggestions.

Yea, they will be on the bases for all of 22.02 seconds.