22 replies to this topic

[Oriole85]

ESPN: Exec: 'Games should be 7 innings' (Insider)

 

The executive went for his punchline, a thought so far outside the box that it either represents the absurd, or the future.

"I think they ought to change the games to seven innings," he said.

Seven innings? You mean, in each game? Seven innings instead of nine?

I'll pass on this one.

 

Fewer innings would mean that teams would require less pitching.

 

Fewer pitchers to throw fewer innings would mean fewer injuries, he said.

It would also completely change the strategy. A four-man rotation would see very possible especially if the horses who can go 7-8 inning, only have to go 6. Buster does point out that managers could start playing the matchups earlier though, which would apply to teams with weaker rotations.

[BobPhelan]

Little league MLB is an awful idea.

[Chris B]

The players association says no.

[Oriole85]

This to me is one of those many suggestions to people who don't like a sport and won't likely like a sport with the time of game going down. I don't think too many people who can't stand to watch 3 hours of baseball will suddenly be watching 2:30-2:45 games.

[Pedro Cerrano]

7 innings?  Gross!

[You Play to Win the Game]

Alright, you can't conjure up the attention required to watch a 9-inning baseball game? Fine, go watch another effing sport. That's absurd.

[BSLChrisStoner]

If they were going to do something radical... I think I like the benefits of going to 7 innings better than reducing the season back to 154 games.

That said, no... I don't want to see the game changed from 9 to 7 innings.

The Executive is right though, that would drastically change the sport.

[Oriole85]

If they were going to do something radical... I think I like the benefits of going to 7 innings better than reducing the season back to 154 games.

That said, no... I don't want to see the game changed from 9 to 7 innings.

The Executive is right though, that would drastically change the sport.

I'd rather go to 154. I think cutting down ~1/5 of the game is worse than subtracting a week.

[BSLChrisStoner]

I'd rather go to 154. I think cutting down ~1/5 of the game is worse than subtracting a week.

 

Ohh, I'd rather go to 154 as well... but if you were going to make a radical change, there would be more benefits to baseball by reducing the game to 7 innings vs. just shaving off 8 games.

[Matt_P]

What if they went to seven innings and four outs per inning?

 

The average reliever would probably still be able to go a whole inning because he doesn't need to stay warm while his team was batting. Would you need to have starters?

 

It would be interesting to see what it does to scoring. On the one hand, men on base would be more likely to score. On the other hand, fresher pitching would mean that fewer men would reach.

 

It's interesting to think about. I wouldn't recommend it but it's interesting.

[Russ]

I'm more concerned about the underlying assumption that something is drastically wrong with baseball. Attendance is up, local tv ratings are up, let's change it?

[Oriole85]

I'm more concerned about the underlying assumption that something is drastically wrong with baseball. Attendance is up, local tv ratings are up, let's change it?

But national ratings are down and apparently many young people don't like baseball enough. That said, I wouldn't drastically change the game. I think people who already don't like baseball, aren't going to like it with a week fewer of games or two less innings.

[Russ]

I'm more concerned about the underlying assumption that something is drastically wrong with baseball. Attendance is up, local tv ratings are up, let's change it?

But national ratings are down and apparently many young people don't like baseball enough. That said, I wouldn't drastically change the game. I think people who already don't like baseball, aren't going to like it with a week fewer of games or two less innings.

That's my point. I don't think national ratings are indicative of the popularity of the sport. So the average Orioles fan doesn't want to watch a Yanks-RS matchup or a Boston-STL World Series. It's a different animal than the NFL.

[Oriole85]

That's my point. I don't think national ratings are indicative of the popularity of the sport. So the average Orioles fan doesn't want to watch a Yanks-RS matchup or a Boston-STL World Series. It's a different animal than the NFL.

Ok but if the national ratings were stronger, they'd be played up. Instead they are being sugarcoated. You don't want a sport where you only care if your team is in it.

 

And you're right about it being a different animal than the NFL, the local ratings are much stronger as well. A preseason Ravens game kills a relevant O's game in August.

[Russ]

Just because it's not beating the NFL, doesn't mean something is wrong with it.

[Oriole85]

Just because it's not beating the NFL, doesn't mean something is wrong with it.

No one is beating the NFL, I don't think that's a fair barometer. I do think less youth participation/interest as well as declining national ratings is relevant however. You can look at both the positives and negatives.

[mweb08]

This is the type of thing where if baseball always was 7 innings, people would say how dumb it is to suggest 9 innings. So this isn't about 7 vs 9 innings, it's about tradition, which is especially important in baseball.<br />

[Mike in STL]

Someone mentioned 154 games. I think the season needs to be shortend by two weeks. Start a week later in April and finish a week earlier in the October postseason. However, for continuity, keep it at 162 games. Just schedule double headers like they used to. If you shorten the season by 14 days, thats about 12 games that would need to be fit in the schedule elsewhere. 12 Sunday double headers per team means they could have one every other week. Since Monday is an off day for most, mandate a day off after a double header for rest.

[Oriole85]

Someone mentioned 154 games. I think the season needs to be shortend by two weeks. Start a week later in April and finish a week earlier in the October postseason. However, for continuity, keep it at 162 games. Just schedule double headers like they used to. If you shorten the season by 14 days, thats about 12 games that would need to be fit in the schedule elsewhere. 12 Sunday double headers per team means they could have one every other week. Since Monday is an off day for most, mandate a day off after a double header for rest.

Well we've had this kind of conversation before on here. I can't see the MLBPA playing regular doubleheaders, atleast that frequently. And from an owners POV, assuming they're straight doubleheaders, that's less business.

[Mike in STL]

Well we've had this kind of conversation before on here. I can't see the MLBPA playing regular doubleheaders, atleast that frequently. And from an owners POV, assuming they're straight doubleheaders, that's less business.

I cant see it either. But it would be fun. Owners could charge for both games at their discretion. I think having more games on a Sunday would boost advertising/TV dollars. Sundays were made for relaxing and watching sports.