Pitch Clock Now in Effect

[justD]

Apparently in Triple-A the pitch clock rule has not been enforced up until now.  Tonight, one hitter has already been charged with a strikeout-by-pitch-clock. 

The rule is that the hitter has to be in the box ready to go or gets charged a strike, and the pitcher has to offer a pitch or be given a ball. 

There have been two calls in the Tides game so far, one of which gave the hitter an 0-1 count before the first pitch to him was thrown.

I’m wondering, and am making assumptions now, about pitching stats.  For the sake of discussion, if a pitcher faced and sent down 3 hitters in an inning, going to a full count on each, no foul balls, BUT one of the strikes was a time infraction on the batter, does his pitch stat end up as 17 pitches, 8 for strikes, even tho the scorecard will chart 9 strikes?

I may not be asking this well, and it may be nothing.  Maybe I’ll just wait to see how it unfolds.  But it does have me wondering.  

[Filmstudy]

The pitch clock was called 6(!) times in the Norfolk game last night resulting in either a ball or strike without a pitch.  The players aren't ready for it, and at one point both the pitcher and hitter turned to see if they had been called for the pitch clock violation.

In terms of watching MiLB, it has a strange negative impact...while the time between pitches has decreased, the 15-second auto advance I depend on to watch games quickly, is now too slow to catch each pitch for some pitchers.  Ironically, baseball has become more unwatchable by speeding up time between pitches!

That can be fixed with a 13-second advance, of course.

Edited April 16, 2022 by Filmstudy

[Can_of_corn]

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/33767554/pitch-clock-shaving-20-minutes-minor-league-games-scoring-nearly-same

Twenty minutes a game.

Quote

Over the first 132 minor league games that included a 14-second clock with the bases empty, 18-second clock with runners on and penalties for pitchers and hitters that run afoul of it, the average game time was 2 hours, 39 minutes. In a control set of 335 games run without the clock to begin the season, games lasted an average of 2 hours, 59 minutes -- around the same 3-hour, 3-minute average in 5,000-plus non-clock games during the 2021 season.

Anyone have a problem with this?

[ChosenOne21]

17 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/33767554/pitch-clock-shaving-20-minutes-minor-league-games-scoring-nearly-same

Twenty minutes a game.

Anyone have a problem with this?

Not really, although I've never understood the obsession with shortening baseball games. NFL games routinely go longer than three hours and no one cares

[Can_of_corn]

7 minutes ago, ChosenOne21 said:

Not really, although I've never understood the obsession with shortening baseball games. NFL games routinely go longer than three hours and no one cares

The length is one of the reasons I stopped watching them.

That isn't saying that if they were suddenly two hours I'd start back up.

Watching pitchers walk around the mound and hitters adjust their gloves after every pitch is something I can do with less of.

[SteveA]

5 minutes ago, ChosenOne21 said:

Not really, although I've never understood the obsession with shortening baseball games. NFL games routinely go longer than three hours and no one cares

A few points:

   1) NFL:  "No one cares" -- not true.   The NFL has made changes to keep games at least close to the 3 hour window, including various rules that keep the clock running between plays more often.   NFL is a bad example because they have worked very hard to keep games in the 3 hour window.   The NFL will have maybe 8 to 10 games in the 1PM window on a Sunday and most will be done by 4:15, maybe ONE will wind up overlapping the 2nd window for national TV games which starts at 4:25.   College football, on the other hand, often pushes 3:30 or longer and 4 is not unusual.   No NFL non-overtime game ever goes 4+ hours [excluding bizarre situations like lightning delays, etc].

   2) MLB games are often a lot longer than just 3 hours.   There are many 9 inning games that last over 3:30 and approach 4.   It is true that part of this is due to more commercials than in the "good old days" but that is not all of it.

   3) Another problem with the NFL comparison is that, frankly, there is a lot more action in football.   Yes, I realize that there are gaps between each play where nothing is going on and the sum total of the moments of action in football don't add up to that much.   But 3-true-outcomes baseball has even less excitement.   That's just indisputable.  Fewer exciting defensive plays, fewer attempts to score or take the extra base against a throw from an outfielder, fewer doubles, fewer triples.   Those plays are among the most exciting things that can happen in a game and they happen much less often now than they did 40 years ago.  As much as I love baseball, the game is more boring than it used to be.   We all understand the reasons for this, and you can't put the genie back in the bottle, but many of the most exciting plays in baseball (plays at the plate, great defensive plays, etc) happen less than they used to in a game that lasts much longer than it used to.

[Can_of_corn]

5 minutes ago, SteveA said:

A few points:

   1) NFL:  "No one cares" -- not true.   The NFL has made changes to keep games at least close to the 3 hour window, including various rules that keep the clock running between plays more often.   NFL is a bad example because they have worked very hard to keep games in the 3 hour window.   The NFL will have maybe 8 to 10 games in the 1PM window on a Sunday and most will be done by 4:15, maybe ONE will wind up overlapping the 2nd window for national TV games which starts at 4:25.   College football, on the other hand, often pushes 3:30 or longer and 4 is not unusual.   No NFL non-overtime game ever goes 4+ hours [excluding bizarre situations like lightning delays, etc].

   2) MLB games are often a lot longer than just 3 hours.   There are many 9 inning games that last over 3:30 and approach 4.   It is true that part of this is due to more commercials than in the "good old days" but that is not all of it.

   3) Another problem with the NFL comparison is that, frankly, there is a lot more action in football.   Yes, I realize that there are gaps between each play where nothing is going on and the sum total of the moments of action in football don't add up to that much.   But 3-true-outcomes baseball has even less excitement.   That's just indisputable.  Fewer exciting defensive plays, fewer attempts to score or take the extra base against a throw from an outfielder, fewer doubles, fewer triples.   Those plays are among the most exciting things that can happen in a game and they happen much less often now than they did 40 years ago.  As much as I love baseball, the game is more boring than it used to be.   We all understand the reasons for this, and you can't put the genie back in the bottle, but many of the most exciting plays in baseball (plays at the plate, great defensive plays, etc) happen less than they used to in a game that lasts much longer than it used to.

I'm confused by these statements.

You state that you know exactly how little goes on in an NFL game and yet you say that it has more action.

The average game has 11 minutes of action, an MLB game averages 18 minutes, despite the game taking 14 minutes less.

[jabba72]

im in favor of this move. Too much time given between pitches in mlb.

[SteveA]

6 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I'm confused by these statements.

You state that you know exactly how little goes on in an NFL game and yet you say that it has more action.

The average game has 11 minutes of action, an MLB game averages 18 minutes, despite the game taking 14 minutes less.

The amount of true action in baseball has been in constant decline, while game time has been rising, for several decades now.   In a game which some already consider "boring".   Maybe we'll never get those people to be fans like we are anyway, but I still think this does not bode well for the future of the game and I applaud legitimate attempts to address it.

[Can_of_corn]

11 minutes ago, SteveA said:

The amount of true action in baseball has been in constant decline, while game time has been rising, for several decades now.   In a game which some already consider "boring".   Maybe we'll never get those people to be fans like we are anyway, but I still think this does not bode well for the future of the game and I applaud legitimate attempts to address it.

I'm in favor of this change.

I just think that the data shows that MLB games have more action than NFL games.  Unless you count guys walking up the line of scrimmage action.

[Ripken]

I don't care about the duration of a game per se, but I surely care about the pace of play and some of these games are really dragging.  I like the idea of a clock keeping things moving.

[Frobby]

4 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

I'm in favor of this change.

I just think that the data shows that MLB games have more action than NFL games.  Unless you count guys walking up the line of scrimmage action.

Do you consider pitches that aren’t swung at action?

I’m totally in favor of the pitch clock.  It’s not just about length of game, it’s about keeping things lively.  Watching pitchers stroll around the mound and batters wandering out of the batters box is boring.