What do the players have to complain about?

[Sports Guy]

Btw, why isn’t this thread titled “what do the owners have to complain about”?

I always find it amusing when these lockouts happen and the vitriol is almost always directed at the players.

The owners are wiping their asses with the salaries most of these players make.

[Sports Guy]

59 minutes ago, Philip said:

Me too, but that is an unfair and inaccurate way to describe my argument. 
It should be obvious that 1) nothing that has been suggested will meaningfully shorten the game 2) Increasing action on the field is the best way to maintain interest in the game, And none of the suggestions that have been made so far have  done that.

Additionally, I have shown through my own suggestions that I’m not a hidebound traditionalist, I’m perfectly willing to try new things, but the things I’m complaining about are legitimate and the failure of the suggestions that have been made so far is self evident. So you buddy

Except these things do change the pace of play.  Just because you don’t think so, really doesn’t mean anything.  

[HowAboutThat]

50 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

Sorry bro, when you get on your rants sometimes it's "I, I, I, I, I"...Like Frobby said, you don't mind a 3.5 hour game, you don't feel that it needs to be fixed...yet, lots of others do.  It prohibits a lot of other people from being able to watch a whole game.

Thinking things don't need to be addressed because you don't mind them, again, like Frobby said:  Just because those things don’t bother you doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be addressed to increase/maintain the fan base.

Pace of play...is an issue.  You don't seem to think it's not because you're not bothered by it.  That would appear to be a narcissistic viewpoint.  I don't think I'm out of bounds in classifying it as such.

You’re still wrong. I’ve explained myself multiple times, and I apologize I can’t find words with fewer syllables, but let me try one more time.

there's is a difference between “pace of play” and “length of game,” by the way. We have always had guys who practically took a cigarette break before every pitch and it never bothered anyone, and watching Mike Hargrove go through his routine never bothered me a bit.

the problem is that the game is BORING. NOT long. That is prima facie obvious. It’s so boring that the TV announcers conduct interviews over game play because, hey it’s boring so why not?

Im not married to long games. As I said in my previous comment, when I was my Boy Scout years, a game was ~3 hours. I’m happy to have shorter games. (Certainly eliminating “crew chief review” or challenges completely would save more time than anything else. )Timing commercials better so on field dead time, such as the reliever coming in from the pen and throwing his warm up pitches, can be off screen. Saving time currently wasted on stupid stuff is of course a good idea and I’ve never said otherwise. But bullshit suggestions like 3 batter minimum, no pitches for a walk and so on, haven’t accomplished anything. They have neither shortened the game nor improved it. Or, with 7-inning games, they insulted it.

I have no problem with shorter games and never inferred otherwise except for the Fergie reference, which was obviously hyperbole( No one is throwing 95-minute games anymore.)
But it is ridiculous to suggest that a boring game is any less boring if it’s 20-30 minutes shorter.

Make it more interesting should be the primary goal. A dumb short game is still dumb, and a good long game is still good, and I’ll let you choose which you prefer.

[HowAboutThat]

10 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Except these things do change the pace of play.  Just because you don’t think so, really doesn’t mean anything.  

Except they don’t in a meaningful way. If we assume that a shorter game means a better game, which I don’t think it’s at all true, then we would have to shorten the game by a significant amount. Because that is a false flag, I doubt anybody can agree on how much trimming is best. 30 minutes? OK, let’s say 30 minutes. Which of the suggestions that we have already enacted have significantly shortened the game?

 

[Frobby]

Sorry Philip, you’re just wrong in thinking that pace of play and length of games aren’t problems.   There’s a large segment of the potential fan base that think they are, and that’s enough.  And I’m not disagreeing that lack of action during play is also a problem.   We could argue over which is the biggest problem, but they’re all big enough where efforts should be made to solve them.  

By the way, when there’s one Mike Hargrove, it’s not a problem.  When every hitter acts that way, yes it is a big problem. 
 

[Moose Milligan]

Yeah, Phil, I agree with Frobby.  He's summed it up perfectly.

[Frobby]

PS read this good article, full of FACTS about time of games and pace of play.  
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bleedcubbieblue.com/platform/amp/2021/4/5/22367871/mlb-pace-of-play-problem-getting-worse

[owknows]

3 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

Yeah, Phil, I agree with Frobby.  He's summed it up perfectly.

I agree. The question to you and Frobby is, is a real time pitch clock the only possible answer?

Or could it be something more subtle, but with the same potential outcome?

 

[Sports Guy]

24 minutes ago, Philip said:

Except they don’t in a meaningful way. If we assume that a shorter game means a better game, which I don’t think it’s at all true, then we would have to shorten the game by a significant amount. Because that is a false flag, I doubt anybody can agree on how much trimming is best. 30 minutes? OK, let’s say 30 minutes. Which of the suggestions that we have already enacted have significantly shortened the game?

 

I don’t know if you are being on purposely dense or you just don’t understand the difference between length of game and pace of play…but pace of play is the concern we are discussing.

And yes, a pitch clock and enforcing the rules of keeping the batter in the batters box will undoubtedly help pace of play.  

[Moose Milligan]

3 minutes ago, owknows said:

I agree. The question to you and Frobby is, is a real time pitch clock the only possible answer?

Or could it be something more subtle, but with the same potential outcome?

 

I dunno if it's the only possible answer...but you've gotta make the solution something that's reoccurring throughout the game. 

IMO, limiting mound visits, pitching changes...that might help, but since those things are sporadic, it's hard for them to have any real impact.  

[survivedc]

This may be mentioned in the article but as of 2017 the avg time between pitches was 23+ seconds, at around 290 pitches per game that’s about 112 minutes of time between pitches. If they actively enforced a 20sec pitch clock and that became the average they would save 15 minutes per game. That’s a pretty big difference if you ask me.

[connja]

13 hours ago, UMDTerrapins said:

 My assumption is that the owners aren't going to go for a payroll floor, and that the players aren't going to fight to the death for it.

The owners are the ones who originally proposed it this summer.

[Can_of_corn]

6 minutes ago, survivedc said:

This may be mentioned in the article but as of 2017 the avg time between pitches was 23+ seconds, at around 290 pitches per game that’s about 112 minutes of time between pitches. If they actively enforced a 20sec pitch clock and that became the average they would save 15 minutes per game. That’s a pretty big difference if you ask me.

And if they stop letting the hitters call time between every at bat?

[owknows]

Just now, Moose Milligan said:

I dunno if it's the only possible answer...but you've gotta make the solution something that's reoccurring throughout the game. 

IMO, limiting mound visits, pitching changes...that might help, but since those things are sporadic, it's hard for them to have any real impact.  

I was thinking something like...

Require a batter who enters the batters box, to remain in the batters box.

Require a pitcher to maintain an average delivery time per pitch of <10 seconds (ball in hand to ball in catcher's mitt)... scored by batter, or by inning... but by an official scorer off line.

Failure to maintain pace results in a relief pitcher being imposed.

Multiple pace failures in a game results in 5 day disqualification for all pitchers cited.

[Moose Milligan]

7 minutes ago, owknows said:

I was thinking something like...

Require a batter who enters the batters box, to remain in the batters box.

Require a pitcher to maintain an average delivery time per pitch of <10 seconds (ball in hand to ball in catcher's mitt)... scored by batter, or by inning... but by an official scorer off line.

Failure to maintain pace results in a relief pitcher being imposed.

Multiple pace failures in a game results in 5 day disqualification for all pitchers cited.

IIRC, didn't they make the batter in the batters box a thing a few years ago?  But it's not enforced.  

Thats a big part of this, IMO.  I like your suggestions but the umpires need to be vigilant in enforcing them.