Improving the game suggestions

[Hallas]

1 hour 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.

I think that the goals are to disincentivize taking pitches while making it easier to make contact as a batter.  I think that expanding the zone makes it harder to take pitches, but the other two suggestions (lower mound height, increase distance to plate) make it easier to make contact.  But these are probably viewed as radical changes and I'm not sure if they won't have side effects.

[eddie83]

4 hours ago, Frobby said:

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.  

 

I agree with this. It’s about pace of play for me. I would rather watch a 2:23 movie that’s entertaining than a 1:25 that stinks.  

[eddie83]

It’s not complicated. Watch any old game and the pitchers got the ball and threw it. The batters stayed in the box. That is the biggest issue with time. Obviously more pitching changes adds up as well. 

[linedrive]

I proposed these changes in the extra innings thread and thought I'd post it here too. 

1: Expand rosters to 26 or 28.

2: For extra innings, play a normal 10th inning. But beginning in the 11th inning, start with a man on second and allow teams to use pinch hitters and pinch runners without having to remove fielders from the lineup.

3: Also beginning in the 11th inning, any player that was removed from the game during the previous nine innings is reinstated. So a player who was removed for a defensive replacement in the 8th or 9th inning could pinch hit for that same replacement player beginning in the 11th inning without the defensive player being removed from the game.

4: I'd keep the rule requiring pitchers to face a minimum of three batters. I think this would favor having players on the expanded roster be plus hitters, fast runners or stellar defensive players. 

5: If we want shorter 9-inning games, then incentivize complete games and stretching starters in this way- if a starter gets to the 8th inning, then a batter will strike out after the 7th foul ball. If a starter makes it to the 9th inning or later, then the batter strikes out after the 5th foul ball. Then perhaps Grayson Rodriguez will throw more complete games than Jim Palmer did, lol.

[OsFanSinceThe80s]

1 hour ago, eddie83 said:

It’s not complicated. Watch any old game and the pitchers got the ball and threw it. The batters stayed in the box. That is the biggest issue with time. Obviously more pitching changes adds up as well. 

Mike Hargrove was called the human rain delay in his day because he was always fidgety or stepping out of the box when he batted. Now it's like a majority of the players behaving this way and slowing down the time in between pitches. 

[Hallas]

3 hours ago, eddie83 said:

It’s not complicated. Watch any old game and the pitchers got the ball and threw it. The batters stayed in the box. That is the biggest issue with time. Obviously more pitching changes adds up as well. 

I guess.  If you reduce the pitch clock from 20 to 15 seconds then you might get about 15-25 minutes saved.  But the number of pitches is also an issue.  Games have 50-70 more pitches thrown than before.  That adds up in a hurry.

[DrungoHazewood]

14 hours 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?

It's not easy, and I think there has to be a concerted effort across a number of stakeholders to do it.  And there's no guarantee of success.  Several factors from a century ago:

1) All day games, with a clock.  The clock was called the sun.  Sun goes down and the game ends.

2) Train schedules.  Teams took regularly scheduled trains instead of chartered flights.  There are many instances of teams announcing before a, say, 2:30pm get-away game that they had be gone by 5pm.

3) Rain usually meant the game was cancelled.  Teams didn't have tarps until I don't know when, drainage was comparable to your local little league park. 

All this meant one of the ump's primary jobs was to move along the game.  If people dawdled, if anyone pulled a Hargrove, the ump would not-so-politely tell them to get their butt back in the box, or throw the (@*% pitch.

Also, of course, no commercials and few pitching changes.  I think pitchers, knowing that they were trying for a complete game every start, also believed that the longer the game went the less they had in their arms so they worked fast.  Jim Kaat, still active when I was a kid, used to say his arm turned into a pumpkin after a couple hours.  Ray Miller... one of his laws of Oriole pitching was "Work fast".  That was the first one!  Change speeds and throw strikes came after work fast.

There are some obvious ways to bring all of that back... but I'm not sure anyone has the stomach for any of them.  The first would be to declare that games last 2:30, and if anyone Hargroves it or is trying to stall because they're ahead by a run 2:20 in they're ejected without warning and miss the next game or their next start.

A less invasive method could be to incentivize the umps to move things along.  The top 10 umpiring crews in shortest games get $200k bonuses per person. Then everyone calls out sick for every Yanks/Sox game.

[DrungoHazewood]

7 hours ago, Hallas said:

I guess.  If you reduce the pitch clock from 20 to 15 seconds then you might get about 15-25 minutes saved.  But the number of pitches is also an issue.  Games have 50-70 more pitches thrown than before.  That adds up in a hurry.

Do they really have more pitches than before?  Or that many more?  I'd like to see a reference for that. 

[DrungoHazewood]

14 hours ago, Philip said:

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

This is the reason nothing meaningful has changed in a century.  The powers-that-be are terrified of alienating their hidebound fanbase, whose only requirement is that they return the game to exactly how it was when they were in elementary school by not doing anything at all, ever.

[Can_of_corn]

6 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

This is the reason nothing meaningful has changed in a century.  The powers-that-be are terrified of alienating their hidebound fanbase, whose only requirement is that they return the game to exactly how it was when they were in elementary school by not doing anything at all, ever.

I totally agree that desegregating the game wasn't a meaningful change.

[Jagwar]

Every time someone commits an error, they have to play the next batter without pants

[DrungoHazewood]

39 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I totally agree that desegregating the game wasn't a meaningful change.

Sorry, I sometimes forget that the internet is full of absolute literalists.  The game has changed very little with regards to rules concerning how the game is played on the field in a century.  The timeline is something like 1903, foul strikes are a thing in both leagues.  1920 spitballs banned.  1973 DH.  2020 relievers have to face three batters.  Everything else has been nibbling around the margins, clarifying or choosing to enforce things, moving the strike zone or the height of the mound a bit.

[Can_of_corn]

4 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Sorry, I sometimes forget that the internet is full of absolute literalists.  The game has changed very little with regards to rules concerning how the game is played on the field in a century.  The timeline is something like 1903, foul strikes are a thing in both leagues.  1920 spitballs banned.  1973 DH.  2020 relievers have to face three batters.  Everything else has been nibbling around the margins, clarifying or choosing to enforce things, moving the strike zone or the height of the mound a bit.

Is there any compelling evidence that further changes would improve the product in a meaningful way? 

I don't watch the NFL anymore since the myriad of changes they have made in the last few decades have caused the game to be less appealing to me.

Not everyone is obsessed with how the game was played in 1890 or even 1980.

Does Soccer make fundamental rule changes?

Do they do it in Tennis?  Golf?

[DrungoHazewood]

37 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Is there any compelling evidence that further changes would improve the product in a meaningful way? 

I don't watch the NFL anymore since the myriad of changes they have made in the last few decades have caused the game to be less appealing to me.

Not everyone is obsessed with how the game was played in 1890 or even 1980.

Does Soccer make fundamental rule changes?

Do they do it in Tennis?  Golf?

Do football/tennis/golf/soccer have issues with the median fan being 60 years old, attendance falling, and games taking 30-50% longer than they did in 1980 despite considerably less action?

Soccer has a simpler rulebook than baseball, but they do occasionally change things.  Handling passes back to the keeper were outlawed in 1992.  The card system wasn't instituted until the 1970.  1990 was when they made denial of an obvious goal-scoring opportunity (via a foul) a red card.  The offside rules were changed in '25 and '90. Substitutions(!) weren't allowed until 1958.

[Can_of_corn]

4 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Do football/tennis/golf/soccer have issues with the median fan being 60 years old, attendance falling, and games taking 30-50% longer than they did in 1980 despite considerably less action?

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-sports-with-the-oldest-and-youngest-tv-audiences-2017-06-30

2016 numbers

PGA- 64

LPGA- 63

ATP Tennis- 61

MLB- 57

NFL- 50

 

Do the PGA and ATP have an "issue" with their over 60 fanbase?  I don't know if they do but they are older than MLB fans.  (Yes I know I'm citing "average", still looks like a solid source).

 

How's MLB's profitability look?  That's always the bottom line right?  Older fans are generally more able to spend money and are a growing demographic.  I'm not at all sure that trying to chase the young fan is worth alienating the older fan.  Sports are a hard sell for Zoomers and Millennials.