Photo

End this runner on 2nd s*** right now


  • Please log in to reply
62 replies to this topic

#21 ivanbalt

ivanbalt

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,532 posts

Posted 08 April 2021 - 10:56 AM

I'm afraid we're all just too appreciative of the game of baseball. They're trying to appeal to very casual fans, or young people who could develop into future paying fans. For one thing, I think baseball has stayed too "old school" in how their business model has responded to technological  developments. Perhaps most importantly, they know the changes that need to be made. But those would interfere with the sales of commercial time. Taking a 5 minute timeout for each 1/2 inning just kills the momentum of the game. Sure the digital condiment race and trivia questions are fun to watch, if I'm sitting in the stands. But at home it's 2-3 PNC commercials an inning. That's why people have lost interest. So they try to compensate by hurrying the actual game. Thus, doing nothing to appeal to a new generation, or the short attention span folks. Instead, they're alienating the ever dwindling fans that have stayed in touch with the sport. But, they want to believe what they want to believe. Triple the commercials, and limit each inning to 4 minutes of play. That will draw in the crowds.       


I'm so sick of the "appealing to younger fans" crap.  It's baseball, not basketball or hockey.  Do kids these days play a different form of baseball in little league or pick up games?  This mindset has neutered defense in the NFL, so let's apply to baseball next.



#22 ivanbalt

ivanbalt

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,532 posts

Posted 08 April 2021 - 10:57 AM

Spot on....make a soccer fan out of you yet....lol


Took me a while to get used to 0-0 draws.



#23 jamesdean

jamesdean

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,219 posts

Posted 08 April 2021 - 11:40 AM

I was watching a game on Youtube from 1969 the other day.  It was the Orioles hosting the Red Sox and what was almost shocking to me is how fast the pitchers worked and how the hitters got right back into the box for the next pitch.  Everything about the game moved quicker, every hitter was off and running on contact instead of admiring every ball hit in the air in anticipation of yet another homerun. Granted, commercial time was shorter too but the actual game itself was just lightning fast.  Hard to believe that they used to start games at 8:00 at Memorial Stadium and it would still be over around 10:00.  And if you were a starting pitcher, your objective was to go 9 innings, not 5 or 6.  That in itself cut down on game duration.  If Manfred is really intent on keeping games from going over 3 hours, maybe he should study the model from the 60's. 


  • Mike B and Mike in STL like this

#24 Mike B

Mike B

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 37,631 posts
  • LocationTowson Md.

Posted 08 April 2021 - 12:06 PM

I was watching a game on Youtube from 1969 the other day.  It was the Orioles hosting the Red Sox and what was almost shocking to me is how fast the pitchers worked and how the hitters got right back into the box for the next pitch.  Everything about the game moved quicker, every hitter was off and running on contact instead of admiring every ball hit in the air in anticipation of yet another homerun. Granted, commercial time was shorter too but the actual game itself was just lightning fast.  Hard to believe that they used to start games at 8:00 at Memorial Stadium and it would still be over around 10:00.  And if you were a starting pitcher, your objective was to go 9 innings, not 5 or 6.  That in itself cut down on game duration.  If Manfred is really intent on keeping games from going over 3 hours, maybe he should study the model from the 60's. 

I am sure they look back at those years and laugh.  Everything has changed, which is to be expected, butit it does not mean it has changed for the better.

The 1970 Orioles used 12 pitchers all year, and the 71 team used 13.  Now, the 26 man roster carries 14 pitchers and we will probably use over 30 for the year.


@mikeghg

#25 JeremyStrain

JeremyStrain

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 13,378 posts
  • LocationFormerly known as allstar1579

Posted 08 April 2021 - 12:12 PM

Spot on....make a soccer fan out of you yet....lol


You can definitely see the influence from watching more of it this year can't you?


  • BSLSteveBirrer likes this
@JeremyMStrain

#26 BSLSteveBirrer

BSLSteveBirrer

    Soccer Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,257 posts
  • LocationMS and ID

Posted 08 April 2021 - 12:14 PM


Took me a while to get used to 0-0 draws.

Really regular season baseball is perfect for a point system. Over a 162 games there is plenty of separation. No reason to have to go to extra innings to define a winner.

 

Certainly its a mental adjustment for fans but as pointed out already, fans aren't watching what is a really long game in the first place let alone one that goes to extra innings.


  • ivanbalt and CantonJester like this

#27 JeremyStrain

JeremyStrain

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 13,378 posts
  • LocationFormerly known as allstar1579

Posted 08 April 2021 - 12:47 PM

A lot of the answer here is that MLB is ever trying to capture more of the "casual" fan market. They know they don't have to cater to the hardcore fans that support them, cause they are borderline addicts, and are coming back no matter how many times they threaten they aren't. (Yep, I'm sure a few people here can raise their hands there)

 

It's the fans that AREN'T watching that they want to get to watch, and to reach them, they have to do things different, because there is some current reason why they aren't going now. The most common answer there is the length of games...so that one gets talked about pretty much every year.

 

I was trying to find the data on how many actual innings were played in 2019 vs how many should be played if there were no extra innings, but didn't have much luck. That would at least lend some data to the arguments about the extra wear and tear on players and the messed up roster rules.

 

I dunno, 162 games is a little insane to me, especially since they are double the next closest sports basically. I don't have a problem capping them at 9 if you're going to play that many.


@JeremyMStrain

#28 PrimeTime

PrimeTime

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,709 posts
  • LocationHampstead, MD

Posted 08 April 2021 - 12:54 PM

I was watching a game on Youtube from 1969 the other day. It was the Orioles hosting the Red Sox and what was almost shocking to me is how fast the pitchers worked and how the hitters got right back into the box for the next pitch. Everything about the game moved quicker, every hitter was off and running on contact instead of admiring every ball hit in the air in anticipation of yet another homerun. Granted, commercial time was shorter too but the actual game itself was just lightning fast. Hard to believe that they used to start games at 8:00 at Memorial Stadium and it would still be over around 10:00. And if you were a starting pitcher, your objective was to go 9 innings, not 5 or 6. That in itself cut down on game duration. If Manfred is really intent on keeping games from going over 3 hours, maybe he should study the model from the 60's.


It's interesting you say this because I experience a similar thing with bowling. (Indulge me for a moment)

I've been a duckpin bowler my whole life. Our league play consists of 3 games per night, once a week. 20 years ago, with 5 person teams, we could finish in 3-3 1/2 hours. Nowadays, it takes 3 hours to complete 3 games with only 3 person teams. People wait way too long for other bowlers around them to finish their frame before they go and the pace has just ground to a halt.
@primetime667083

"Just remember, whether you think you can, or you think you can't, you're right." -Stewie Griffin

#29 jamesdean

jamesdean

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,219 posts

Posted 08 April 2021 - 01:07 PM

It's interesting you say this because I experience a similar thing with bowling. (Indulge me for a moment)

I've been a duckpin bowler my whole life. Our league play consists of 3 games per night, once a week. 20 years ago, with 5 person teams, we could finish in 3-3 1/2 hours. Nowadays, it takes 3 hours to complete 3 games with only 3 person teams. People wait way too long for other bowlers around them to finish their frame before they go and the pace has just ground to a halt.

I guess the sense of urgency has left modern day humans. 



#30 jamesdean

jamesdean

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,219 posts

Posted 08 April 2021 - 01:12 PM

I am sure they look back at those years and laugh.  Everything has changed, which is to be expected, but a lot of it does not mean it has changed for the better.

The 1970 Orioles used 12 pitchers all year, and the 71 team used 13.  Now, the 26 man roster carries 14 pitchers and we will probably use over 30 for the year.

At the rate things are going, it will probably be common place for teams to use a different pitcher for each inning, 1-9.  



#31 Don Quixote

Don Quixote

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,055 posts

Posted 08 April 2021 - 01:13 PM

I guess the sense of urgency has left modern day humans. 

 

Except for the quickness with which they want to be gratified.



#32 Mike B

Mike B

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 37,631 posts
  • LocationTowson Md.

Posted 08 April 2021 - 01:15 PM

It's interesting you say this because I experience a similar thing with bowling. (Indulge me for a moment)

I've been a duckpin bowler my whole life. Our league play consists of 3 games per night, once a week. 20 years ago, with 5 person teams, we could finish in 3-3 1/2 hours. Nowadays, it takes 3 hours to complete 3 games with only 3 person teams. People wait way too long for other bowlers around them to finish their frame before they go and the pace has just ground to a halt.

Everything takes longer today.  I believe people over think things.  

As for the bowling reference, when I was in college, I managed a Fair Lanes Bowling center.  We ran 2 shifts a night at 6:30 and 9:15.  We would generally walk out the door before 1 every night.  People just take longer for everything so I guess it is natural for baseball to do the same.


@mikeghg

#33 Mike B

Mike B

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 37,631 posts
  • LocationTowson Md.

Posted 08 April 2021 - 01:15 PM

I guess the sense of urgency has left modern day humans. 

Or they just do not give a damn.


@mikeghg

#34 Mike in STL

Mike in STL

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,346 posts

Posted 08 April 2021 - 02:46 PM

I was watching a game on Youtube from 1969 the other day. It was the Orioles hosting the Red Sox and what was almost shocking to me is how fast the pitchers worked and how the hitters got right back into the box for the next pitch. Everything about the game moved quicker, every hitter was off and running on contact instead of admiring every ball hit in the air in anticipation of yet another homerun. Granted, commercial time was shorter too but the actual game itself was just lightning fast. Hard to believe that they used to start games at 8:00 at Memorial Stadium and it would still be over around 10:00. And if you were a starting pitcher, your objective was to go 9 innings, not 5 or 6. That in itself cut down on game duration. If Manfred is really intent on keeping games from going over 3 hours, maybe he should study the model from the 60's.


There is another YouTube video out there I saw sometime ago that highlighted Mark Buerhle and how fast he worked. There was a game not too long ago (2014? 2015?) where Buerhle faced Chris Sale. Both notorious fast workers, both had a complete game I think. Wasn’t like the other team didn’t hit. It was a 3-2, 4-3 final. But game was wrapped up in something like 1 hour 56 minutes.

That’s everything going right. I don’t like having a clock in baseball. But since they do, think you could just make the pitch clock 15 seconds instead of 20. If there are 300 pitches in a game, that 5 seconds each equals shaving 20 minutes off the time. That takes the unbearable 3:20 game down to 3:00, which is okay. It also takes the 2:50 game down to a tidy 2:30.

Or they could just make everyone pitch like Buerhle by making the pitch clock 8 seconds.
@BSLMikeRandall

#35 BobPhelan

BobPhelan

    OTV

  • Moderators
  • 14,583 posts
  • LocationBel Air, MD

Posted 08 April 2021 - 04:03 PM

I might be the only person that kind of likes it 🤷🏼‍♂️

Doesn’t bother me at least. Agree with Antoine, the 7 inning double headers can go.
  • BSLChrisStoner and SBTarheel like this

#36 BSLSteveBirrer

BSLSteveBirrer

    Soccer Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,257 posts
  • LocationMS and ID

Posted 08 April 2021 - 05:33 PM

Found this article. For the 10 year period ending with the 2017 season (and they included the first couple of weeks of the 2018 season) there were a total 2,137 extra inning games. Or about 210/year. So splitting it across 30 teams (and 2 teams have to be in each game) that means each team plays about 14 extra inning games a year. Less than 10% of the schedule.

 

It would be interesting to look at a system that gave 3 points for a W and 1 for a tie and compare the standings in 2019 between how they actually ended up and what it would have looked like with this system in place. Maybe if I get a wild hair tomorrow I will take a look at the AL East and see if I can figure out how they would have shaken out.



#37 BSLSteveBirrer

BSLSteveBirrer

    Soccer Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,257 posts
  • LocationMS and ID

Posted 08 April 2021 - 05:52 PM

Well it turns out this would be actually pretty easy to do. Baseball-Reference has a teams record already tabulated by 9 inning games, shortened games, and extra inning games.

 

So I did a quick look at 2019 for the ALE

 

Final Standings:

Yankees

Rays

Red Sox

Blue Jays

Orioles

 

Now using a 3 points for a W and 1 point for a tie here are those standings (note that I included shortened games in with 9 inning games).

Yankees 299

Rays 274

Red Sox 242

Blue Jays 195

Orioles 166

 

No surprise there. As expected the standings came out the same. I suspect you would have to look very hard to find a season where the order actually changed using this compared to the current approach. It really boils down to can fans stand to watch a game actually end in a tie? 

 

And yes I know there have been seasons where teams have been extra good or bad in extra innings. But since they are fewer than 10% of the games played a team would have to play in a lot of extra inning games AND have a markedly better or worse W/L ratio compared to how they do in 9 inning games to make a difference in the standings.



#38 SBTarheel

SBTarheel

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,851 posts
  • LocationEldersburg, Md

Posted 08 April 2021 - 06:57 PM

I might be the only person that kind of likes it ‍♂

Doesn’t bother me at least. Agree with Antoine, the 7 inning double headers can go.

I don't "kind of like it", I absolutely love it. 

 

Indifferent on the Doubleheaders, doesn't bother me, but if they went back to 9 innings, that's fine too. 


  • BobPhelan likes this
@beginthebegin71

#39 BSLRoseKatz

BSLRoseKatz

    BSL Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,893 posts
  • LocationColumbia, MD

Posted 08 April 2021 - 08:48 PM

I think the rule is definitely interesting for a random game I have no stake in, like a Pirates-Brewers game I see is going to extras I'll decide to watch just because I know I'll get to see high leverage at-bats with a good chance of a run but it feels cheap when there's any emotional investment 


she/her


#40 Grindelwald

Grindelwald
  • Members
  • 95 posts

Posted 08 April 2021 - 08:52 PM

The 7 inning DHs do not induce the blood-boiling ire that the runner on 2nd rule does for me, but I still would prefer that it didn’t exist either.

Bottom line is Manfred hates baseball and is slowly killing it.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


Our Sponsors


 width=