Hmmmm, according to their chart, Reggie's 3-homer game never happened. Game 6 of 1977 is listed as "No Game."

Stupid West Coast bias!

The Yankees' three trips to the World Series this decade (18 games; 2000, '01 and '03) have averaged 14.5 million households and 21.2 million viewers, topping the average for non-Yankee World Series by 17% and 18%, respectively (30 games; 12.4 million HHs, 18.0 million viewers).

The three Yankees WS were in series with 7, 6, and 5 games. The non-Yankees WS were in series with 7, 5*, 5, 4, 4, and 4 games. There's a huge difference in average rating & average viewership for a WS based simply on how many games it goes.

Here's my average rating prediction for this year, based on my proprietary "system":

4 games: 9.3
5 games: 10.0
6 games: 10.8
7 games: 11.6

So, yes, ratings will be up, if only because the presence of a NY team instead of TB will more than offset the general decline in ratings since (at least) divisional play.

FWIW, the effects I have in this are:

-> FOX: -2.8 relative to NBC or CBS, -0.6 relative to ABC

-> +0.8 for each additional game

-> PHI: -1.9 rel to NYY/NYM/STL, -2.1 rel to CHW, -2.5 rel to BOS, -0.8 rel to SFG/OAK, -0.3 rel to ATL, +1.9 rel to DET, same as LAA/LAD, ?? rel to CHC, +0.5 rel to any other team.

-> -0.5 per year otherwise

From that you can gather {NY instead of TB} is +2.4**, the year effect is -0.5, and everything else is about the same as last year.

* Last year there were 6 distinct telecasts, but only 5 games. I assume that's how they got to 30 games instead of 29.

** I had TB lumped in with "any other team". The 2008 WS outperformed my projection by a little (8.4 actual vs. 8.2 projected).

The national baseball TV audience has been shrinking for around 20 years. There is no one single explanation* for that. But it has happened over a period in which live gates at MLB stadiums have gone up considerably, most years, over that period.

It seems pretty reasonable to conclude that major league baseball has become a better, more attractive sport live (due to the better, more attractive ball parks) and at the same time a worse TV sport. (Football is just the opposite, unless perhaps you are at one of the shiny new stadiums, none of which I've ever been to. The Black Hole really sucks.)

One of the big factors I believe which incrementally has hurt baseball as a TV game is the gradually increased time in between pitches. This did not start recently. However, over time, batters have taken more and more time to step into the batter's box; and they almost always step out for an equally long duration in between pitches. There seem to be more pitchers today who take a lot longer to decide what pitch it is they want to throw. And if a pitcher takes too long, the batter will often ask for and receive time-out, to get ready to hit all over again.

For a TV viewer, these delays, played out dozens of times an inning, 9 innings a game, kill the product. I never mind throws over to the base to hold the runner closer. That's at least movement, action. But watching Nomar disrobe, rerobe, adjust, and readjust for 45 seconds every pitch can be deadly. I can flip the channel over to Project Runway and see some gay dude debating hemlines for 45 seconds in between pitches and never miss anything from the baseball game. That's really no way to hold an audience's attention.

My belief is that there are a few easy things MLB needs to do to get the games back to about 2.5 hours per, which is roughly where they were when baseball was at its zenith as a TV game:

1. Put a time clock on the pitcher, starting from the second he gets the ball back from his catcher, umpire or other fielder. If he doesn't pitch or throw to a base in 12-15 seconds, it's the same as a balk;

2. Limit each team to say 3 time-outs a game. (Umpires can call time-out in cases where hotdog rappers or beach balls are on the field.) If a batter is not ready when the pitcher decides to pitch, too damn bad; and

3. Don't allow any player, manager or coach to ever argue with an umpire over any calls. If they do, it should be an automatic ejection, and an automatic suspension if they don't immediately leave the ballpark. Instead, replace arguing with a replay system like they use in the NFL or in tennis. The manager should have a limited number of times, say 2, where he can challenge any call but balls and strikes. If the challenger is right, then the ruling is overturned and he keeps his challenge. If the challenger is wrong, the ruling stands and he only has 1 more challenge in the game. (This is a total aside, but it seems to me having umpires calling balls and strikes no longer makes sense. The technology is there in every park to let a three-dimensional camera system decide objectively if the ball crossed over the plate at the right height.)

-------------

*Some other factors: 1) so many more damn sports on TV, now; 2) so many other non-sporting channels on TV; 3) dad no longer has a monopoly on what his family watches; 4) maybe baseball is just not violent enough; 5) more cultural diversity in the U.S., trending away from baseball (I don't know about that one); and 6) and I think the national audience for baseball has been hurt by the massive increase in the number of local TV games. A fan of the Mariners gets, for example, 162 Seattle games on his TV. That's the only baseball he really wants to see. The M's after a long season have satiated his baseball TV appetite. So when the M's are not in the game, the nationally televised playoff or WS game, he does not care to watch.

FWIW, while the World Series audience has shrunk, the Super Bowl audience has grown.

Year World Series -- Super Bowl -- SB/WS
1991 35,680,000 -- 79,510,000 -- 2.23
1992 30,010,000 -- 79,590,000 -- 2.65
1993 24,700,000 -- 90,990,000 -- 3.68
1994 ------- n/a -- 90,000,000 --
1995 28,970,000 -- 83,420,000 -- 2.88
1996 25,220,000 -- 94,080,000 -- 3.73
1997 24,790,000 -- 87,870,000 -- 3.54
1998 20,340,000 -- 90,000,000 -- 4.42
1999 23,731,000 -- 83,720,000 -- 3.53
2000 18,081,000 -- 88,465,000 -- 4.89
2001 24,528,000 -- 84,335,000 -- 3.44
2002 19,261,000 -- 86,801,000 -- 4.51
2003 20,142,000 -- 88,637,000 -- 4.40
2004 25,390,000 -- 89,795,000 -- 3.54
2005 17,162,000 -- 86,072,000 -- 5.02
2006 15,812,000 -- 90,745,000 -- 5.74
2007 17,123,000 -- 93,184,000 -- 5.44
2008 13,635,000 -- 97,448,000 -- 7.15

But watching Nomar disrobe, rerobe, adjust, and readjust for 45 seconds every pitch can be deadly.

Fortunately, Nomar has never played in the World Series. But your point still stands.

Football is better suited for that, IMO. There's plenty of time between plays, but there's so much the viewer didn't see on each play that the network can fill the empty time with replays. Baseball doesn't lend itself to that; what we learn from watching a replay on each pitch - with the replay at roughly the same camera angle as live - is nothing. Minimizing that amount of time is a good thing.

Doesn't help that the on-air talent encourages flight.

FWIW, while the World Series audience has shrunk, the Super Bowl audience has grown.

When you control for network and the market size of the teams involved, the Super Bowl audience has been flat at best. That's still better than the World Series.

It's also worth pointing out that the number of viewers for the Super Bowl has been higher than the average number of viewers for the World Series every year since around 1974. The issue isn't that the Super Bowl outdraws the World Series, because that's been true since Super Bowls were counted in single digits (Arabic or Roman). The issue is that the World Series viewership has been declining steadily.

Based on the model I described above, there are a few elements that will increase viewers:

(1) Get the games off FOX. They kill ratings. It's even true for the Super Bowl (once you control for market).

(2) Uh... Contraction? Does having more teams increase the likelihood that two cities that won't draw will face each other? Does having more rounds of playoffs increase the likelihood of a WS mismatch, resulting in a shorter series? Beats me, but there hasn't been a Game 6 in the last 5 years (nor in 8 of the last 11 years). The last time there had been as many as 4 consecutive years without a Game 6 was 1913-16. Never mind that they've lacked Game 7...

One of the big factors I believe which incrementally has hurt baseball as a TV game is the gradually increased time in between pitches.

Recognizing that there are other factors besides time between pitches which have added to the length of games, consider these World Series games played since 1969:

All WS games which finished 2-1:
1969-1972 (4 games): average time of game = 2 hours 22 minutes 15 seconds
1973-1985 (4 games): average time of game = 2 hours 28 minutes 30 seconds
1988-2007 (5 games): average time of game = 3 hours 07 minutes 00 seconds

All* WS games which finished 1-0, 2-0 or 3-0:
1969-1985 (4 games): average time of game = 2 hours 27 minutes 45 seconds
1986-1996 (4 games): average time of game = 2 hours 56 minutes 45 seconds
1997-2007 (4 games): average time of game = 3 hours 08 minutes 30 seconds

*I took out Game 7 of the 1991 World Series, because it went extra innings.

FWIW, I realize this table doesn't prove much. There are big problems with sample size and obviously my delineations are arbitrary and inconsistant. But hey, I'm trying to make a debating point, here!

I agree completely with Rich Rifkin here.

Today I was thinking about asking people to go to a bar and watch the World Series game, rather than just watch it at someone's house (kind of a stressful time of year, and a weeknight). That's what we do for basketball and hockey and soccer games. But somehow this didn't seem right. Baseball is in the category, along with football, where the games are too long to make it feasible to go to a bar for the purpose of watching it.

So in your first table the average time of game has increased 39 minutes from 1973-85 to 1988-2007. If you figure 17 half-inning commercial breaks, plus:

1973-1985: 4 mid-inning pitching changes in the sample games (1 per game)
1988-2007: 14 mid-inning pitching changes in the sample games (2.8 per game)

That's roughly 21 commercial breaks for 1973-85 and 31 in 1988-2007. The 39 minute difference includes about 9-10 minutes of pitching change inaction plus an extra 9-10 minutes of commercial time in between innings. That leaves another 20 minutes or so of posturing, adjusting, coaches' visits, catcher visits, etc. Solving that only gets them halfway.

Baseball is in the category, along with football, where the games are too long to make it feasible to go to a bar for the purpose of watching it.

Huh? That is news to the thousands of sports bars across the country.


I don't think it is length of pitches at all.

I think baseball due to its nature misses out on the big event factor. NFL playoffs are a big event. They are something that can be planned on a week or more ahead of time and looked forward too. Baseball is a series with the future somewhat unknown and perhaps bleak. For instance you could say on Monday that Game 4 is at my house this Sunday and it turns out your team is down 3 games by that point. Or it could simply be 2-1. Unless it is game 7 and on the weekend it is awfully hard to get really worked up about the world series to the point that people do about NFL playoff games.

I also think that because for the most part baseball is a regional sport there isn't a lot of people watching the world series as there could be. For instance a Pittsburgh-Minnesota series would be a disaster because for the most part people in LA-NY-CHI wouldn't give a damn about either of those teams. But a Vikings-Steelers Super Bowl would do alright because a) it is the big event and b) the NFL has done a good enough job marketing the teams and players at a national level that people will have something interesting to watch.

Football is just as long and drawn out and fill it with dead air as baseball is. The length of the games isn't the issue.

Lots of good points here.


Add to the list the way the game is covered on television now: endless close ups. Cameras now follow the ball no matter what: tonight's around the horn double play started with a single shot of Arod fielding the grounder, following the ball to Cano at second, and then following the ball to Texeira at first.....no runners, no umpires, nothing else. It doesn't look like any action at all. Just three static shots. The "best seat in the house" is no longer in front of the television, because the game has disappeared. How many closeups of the pitcher do we need? Why the headshot of the runner leading off a base? Where the hell is the base anyway? What exactly am I supposed to see during the game when I get a headshot of the manager in the dugout? Or the pitching coach? Is this a baseball game or a lesson in Stoicism?

The pictures are all wrong.

I enjoy playoff baseball but I don't watch regular season games. The games could go a bit faster. The other thing I hate, and I don't think I'm a prude or anything (who does), but it's all the spitting. It's not appealing. The dugout floor must just be freakin' slime.

Add to the list the way the game is covered on television now: endless close ups. Cameras now follow the ball no matter what: tonight's around the horn double play started with a single shot of Arod fielding the grounder, following the ball to Cano at second, and then following the ball to Texeira at first.....no runners, no umpires, nothing else. It doesn't look like any action at all. Just three static shots. The "best seat in the house" is no longer in front of the television, because the game has disappeared. How many closeups of the pitcher do we need? Why the headshot of the runner leading off a base? Where the hell is the base anyway? What exactly am I supposed to see during the game when I get a headshot of the manager in the dugout? Or the pitching coach? Is this a baseball game or a lesson in Stoicism?

Between innings tonight I went over to the MLB channel, where they were showing the complete Game 1 of the 1968 World Series, the game where Gibson struck out 17 Tigers. They were using a camera that was just above field level and aimed at the pitcher from behind the batter's box, with just enough elevation that the catcher and the umpire didn't block the view.

I've seen this camera angle used going all the way back to the 50's, when it was one of the standard shots at Comiskey Park, and I could never understand why they've pretty much stopped using it. In terms of gauging the pitch as seen from the batter's perspective, there's no angle like it. Some of Gibson's curve balls broke so far and so quickly, you could scarcely imagine even a Ty Cobb in his prime being able to put good wood on the ball. The only advantage I can see to the CF camera is that it positions the strike zone better, but this behind the plate / just over field level angle gives you a much better sense of what it's like on the field, and especially you get an idea of the almost superhuman reflexes that you need to be able to hit a Major League pitch.

I can hear Chick Hearn now...."the mustard is off the hotdog rapper"......

I realize this is probably a typo for "hotdog wrappers",

Yeesh, my bad.

That leaves another 20 minutes or so of posturing, adjusting, coaches' visits, catcher visits, etc. Solving that only gets them halfway.

That sounds like a fair estimate. But somehow, to me, that's a very painful 20 extra minutes. It may just be me is subjective.

It's not, to me, the absolute time for the games. I like the occasional 15 run game, as long as it moves at a pace (like I remember, perhaps wrongly, games did when I was shorter than Freddy Patek).

When I'm watching on TV at home, I don't generally mind the extra time for commercials or pitching changes. I can use the can or grab some food or choke the chicken. It's just I want the pace of the game, when it's going, to pick up. When I'm at the ballpark, I'm always there with friends and the visuals in the park are stimulating to the point where it does not matter most of the time that the pace is slow.

As to football, I'm not a huge NFL fan. I think it grinds to a halt way too often*. More often than baseball does. While you're at an NFL game, the commercial interruptions are noticeable and one of the many lousy parts of the experience.

The NFL, for the TV viewer, does a good job, though, filling the void with excellent replays. I think one of the things the newer stadiums have done is make going to them more like watching the game on TV, because the NFL realized that is what fans like: seeing replays and so on. While a game is going on, from most seats in most stadiums, you really cannot appreciate the plays as well.

I think societally a number of factors have helped football keep or grow its TV audience (while most TV shows have lost audience to growing competition from multiple channels): 1) It's violent. People love violence; 2) Gambling. Even if it's small stakes gambling or fantasy football gambling, it's always a good game to bet on; and 3) so few games (aka, it's an "event"). There are probably other reasons, but those are the three which come to mind.

*I hate in the NFL when they are doing a coach's challenge and the TV network does not go to commercial. And then after 3 minutes, they get back to the game. But then a minute later, the regular commercial break comes, and they go to break for another 3 minutes. I don't see why they do it that way. Also, while I like the coach's challenge, I think there should never be any other official reviews outside of the coach's challenge. Yet, I think they have those, too, where the refs check the video on their own initiative. (I could have this wrong -- proving my lack of NFL fidelity.) It's nice to get calls right. But there is a greater cost in killing the game's momentum every 5 minutes.

While I am fixing sports, let me talk about the one game which almost never grinds to a halt: soccer. (The exception is when those Euro-f*gs fake injuries and get hauled off on stretchers.)

Soccer should be a much better game. I think with the exception of a handful of the best North American athletes in our sports, soccer has almost all of the world's best athletes. The great men of soccer are basically average-sized guys, who have ungodly physical skills and speed and honed talent. Yet despite that, and despite the fact that the game does not stop, it is really not a good TV game to me. It's not about it not stopping. It's about it not starting. In the 90-minutes of a game, it feels like about 80 are spent very far from the goals. And of the 10 minutes near the net, maybe 1 or 2 minutes include very good chances at goals. (The exception to this is in blow-outs, where one team is in the other team's goal area for 5-6 minutes in a game.)

To me, a game with so few scoring chances and so much conservative strategy is a waste of all that brilliant athletic talent. (I grant that foreigners who grew up watching soccer can appreciate the athleticism of the players at the midfield much better than I can, an ugly American who walks into the Louvre wiping the crumbs from my KFC chicken off of my Freedom Fries! t-shirt.)

So here's how I fix soccer in 3 easy steps:

First, make the goals bigger. I think the standard is something like 8 feet high and 24 feet wide. (Do they used meters?) I would make the goals 2 feet higher and 4 feet wider.

Second, allow off-sides. If offensive players could hang out down near the opposing goal, cherrypicking, it would spread out the field of play and I think allow for a more offensive game.

Third, get rid of the yellow card. If someone intentionally tries to hurt another player -- he makes a non-soccer play, so to speak -- boot him. Otherwise you Euro-f*gs, toughen up.

One more solution: fixing the WNBA.

EIGHT FOOT BASKETS! The WNBA has a smaller basketball to accommodate women's smaller hands. So why not have a lower basket to accommodate women's shorter legs and lack of ability to leap?

That's not an original idea from me. I think Bill Simmons has called for much the same change. But I think it's a good one. (For all I know, Simmons wants soccer fixed, too.)

A few years ago I said that time of WS games have increased about 50% per "event". I defined an "event" as (plate appearances + pitching changes + side changes). If I wasn't so lazy I'd find the post.

Anyway, my point wasn't just that there were more commecials and more pitching changes (and thus more commercials) these days, but that the events themselves had elongated, from roughly a minute to 90 seconds. The plate appearances themselves are longer, the pitching changes take longer, the half-innings take longer. And that's how you get four hour games.

The only advantage I can see to the CF camera is that it positions the strike zone better,


I agree with this. I love that angle. No one goes to a game and demands a seat off-center in the outfield.


And the CF camera only appears to give an idea of the strike zone. The camera is usually so far offline as to be useless in that regard. I'd far rather a camera as you described and, in the spirit of Rich's comments, use replay to show other angles and even a whole-field angle. If you're going to have so much down time between pitches, figure out how to use that other than by plugging the network's shows and examining the spittle and nose picking of the bench players.

We might need a restraining order to keep Rich away from soccer. I haven't been a fan of the sport that long, but I can already appreciate the skill in the midfield. I'm still sorting out the various tactics and such, though. I think it's a great tv sport. I've had a lot of fun watching the morning game on Fox while having my coffee on the weekends. Watching Torres impose his will on Man U last weekend was great entertainment.

Although I'd agree with everybody's point that generally the problem isn't the length of the game, it's the pace of play, I am worried about the added commercials and whatnot stretching things out to the point where it affects the game. Case in point ... imagine last night's game if the Yankee's top of the 8th was really the top of the 7th, maybe with a few hypothetical changes for argument's sake. So Cliff Lee is completely locked in, working on a gem. At the end of the 6th he sits down in the dugout on a 50 degree night. He sits through:

- 4 minute commercial break between innings.
- Hughes working slowly during an 8 pitch walk to Rollins.
- Hughes throwing over to first four times, with some stepoffs mixed in.
- Eventually, a stolen base and Hughes working slowly during a 7 pitch walk to Victorino.
- Pitching change, 4 minute commercial break.
- Marte working slowly (after all, Jetes wants him to "mix it up" to keep Rollins on second), eventually getting Utley and Howard.
- Pitching change, 4 minute commercial break.
- Robertson working slowly (after all, Jetes wants him to "mix it up" to keep Rollins on second), eventually walking Werth around a pickoff attempt.
- Now, let's depart from reality and assume Girardi has Coke up for Ibanez. 4 minute commercial break.
- Let's say Coke eventually gets Ibanez.
- 2-3 minute break for God Bless America.
- Lee finally gets back out to throw six soft toss pitches during a 4 minute commercial break.

Lee goes, what?, 40-45 minutes between meaningful pitches on a 50 degree night in a championship series, and he doesn't even get to offset that by having a bigger lead. The length of half innings is starting to become a factor in game strategy -- see Burnett in ALCS Game 5, but also Hamels in NLCS Game 1. It might just be coincidental that those guys started to get hit after really long half innings, but it's gotta give you pause.

One more solution: fixing the WNBA.

EIGHT FOOT BASKETS! The WNBA has a smaller basketball to accommodate women's smaller hands. So why not have a lower basket to accommodate women's shorter legs and lack of ability to leap?

I might lower them to nine feet or so, as females are, on average, roughly half a foot shorter than males and don't jump quite as high. (Centers on WNBA rosters and top college teams such as Maryland or Tennessee are usually in the 6-4 to 6-6 range.) Anything lower than nine feet, and the game would be distorted into a dunkfest, even for women who aren't giants.

I think the changes proposed by Rich for soccer would make for a game more like basketball. Basketball is obviously quite popular in Europe, so this might work, who knows? I'm actually kind of curious if any of the popular sportswriting in Europe of South America has EVER written about changing the game. I'm not sure Americans would take such suggestions from around the world with baseball or football that well, but I'm willing to give it more of a listen if some of the originator countries are also saying these things.

Rich, your usage of "eurofag" (why are you bothering with the asterisk?) as an insult is annoying and simpleminded.

First, make the goals bigger. I think the standard is something like 8 feet high and 24 feet wide. (Do they used meters?) I would make the goals 2 feet higher and 4 feet wider.

Second, allow off-sides. If offensive players could hang out down near the opposing goal, cherrypicking, it would spread out the field of play and I think allow for a more offensive game.

These changes would turn soccer into a completely different sport. If this is what you want to see, Gaelic football or Australian rules are where you should be looking. They have these features already, more or less.

Your automatic sending off for any foul is impossible to enforce given the referee would have to make so many subjective decisions, and would wreck most games.

Soccer is not perfect, by any means, but there can be as much excitement in a low scoring game. things have been done to make it less defensive - changing the offside rule, more points for a win in league games, eliminating the backpass - and these are changes for the better.

One major advantage soccer has over the major US sports is they aren't cutting away to commercial every 2 minutes. The last 5 minutes of your average NBA game are unwatchable to a soccer fan. Plus you have a decent idea of when it will finish.

Plus you have a decent idea of when it will finish.

Oh jesus, yes.

Soccer is not perfect, by any means, but there can be as much excitement in a low scoring game. things have been done to make it less defensive - changing the offside rule, more points for a win in league games, eliminating the backpass - and these are changes for the better.

People always complain about the scoring (lack of) in soccer but, you know, you're allowed to like more than one kind of sport. I like basketball and soccer. They're just different flavors.

Rich's rule changes (1) and (2) would not merely change soccer, they'd ruin it. Getting rid of off-sides would lead to players clustering near the goal, lots of long balls and much less skill play. Increasing the size of the goals would encourage more speculative chips and again, less skill play.

On "f*gs" we should remember that Rich just thinks slurs are hilarious. It's part of the package.

Close games are more exciting than blowouts (for the most part), and by definition a low-scoring game is always close (high-scoring games can stay close throughout, but that's less common).

Well jeez, everybody knows that, I'm not trying to teach y'all to suck eggs. All I'm saying is that soccer, because it almost always has the potential for a crucial moment every time the teams approach the goal, is an edge-of-your-seat experience more than most sports are. Everything gets magnified, just as a baseball game that stays in the 1-2 run range throughout offers great tension; any batter can make a huge difference.

High scoring in baseball in the past 15 years may be yet another (small) factor in the lack of TV interest. Much as chicks dig the long ball, nobody keeps watching an 11-2 game for very long.

We might need a restraining order to keep Rich away from soccer. I haven't been a fan of the sport that long, but I can already appreciate the skill in the midfield. I'm still sorting out the various tactics and such, though. I think it's a great tv sport. I've had a lot of fun watching the morning game on Fox while having my coffee on the weekends. Watching Torres impose his will on Man U last weekend was great entertainment.

Two hours and you know it's over. It really is nice to know when you turn on the TV that you'll be able to see the end without a 4-5 hour investment.

ESPN and even Fox have started showing Champ League, EPL, and SPL games in high def which is huge. The widescreen aspect ratio, at least in some stadiums like the Nou Camp, lets you see practically every player on the field and how well the teams are keeping their shape. Tremendous.

All I'm saying is that soccer, because it almost always has the potential for a crucial moment every time the teams approach the goal, is an edge-of-your-seat experience more than most sports are.

Not really. To me, it's not the lack of scoring that makes soccer boring - it's the lack of scoring opportunities. Hockey is an exciting game, even though it's low-scoring, because there are dozens of shots on goal. Most of the action takes place around the net.

Watching soccer players tear up the middle of the field is the opposite of exciting, at least for me. YMMV, as always.

I think if the US, somehow, were able to implement Rich's changes we'd be looking at taking on the entire world in WWIII. They'd probably manage to gear up and build respectable militaries they'd be so enraged.

Not to mention you'd have lots of us here at home fighting an underground movement.


You simply need to pick the pace of the baseball game up. I don't have a perfect solution but it seems to me the first thing you need is an acknowledgement from MLB that it is a problem. No such acknowledgement seems to be forthcoming.


I like the 9 foot rim idea in WNBA.

A few years ago I said that time of WS games have increased about 50% per "event". I defined an "event" as (plate appearances + pitching changes + side changes). If I wasn't so lazy I'd find the post.

Anyway, my point wasn't just that there were more commecials and more pitching changes (and thus more commercials) these days, but that the events themselves had elongated, from roughly a minute to 90 seconds. The plate appearances themselves are longer, the pitching changes take longer, the half-innings take longer. And that's how you get four hour games.

Plate appearances, sure, because of all the fartsing around.

But the other two things you mention shouldn't really be taking any longer than they did Back In The Day. Players still hustle off the field between innings as fast as they ever did, and pitchers still get but eight warmup pitches.

And from having watched tons of Yankee games from the days of Ryne Duren, I can safely say that old Ryno's imperious hop over the low gate, and his majestic stroll from the bullpen, with the ballboy ready to fold up his warmup jacket like a flag at a military funeral, took quite a bit longer than Mariano's businesslike trot to the mound. The difference likely lies in pitchers being told to pace their warmups in order to accommodate the longer commercial breaks.

I think societally a number of factors have helped football keep or grow its TV audience (while most TV shows have lost audience to growing competition from multiple channels): 1) It's violent. People love violence; 2) Gambling. Even if it's small stakes gambling or fantasy football gambling, it's always a good game to bet on; and 3) so few games (aka, it's an "event").

The most interesting thing in your table from post 4 was that Super Bowl viewership was stagnant from 1993 to 2006. In an environment of declining TV audiences, being stagnant is of course a pretty good thing. I think the main reason is the increased marketing of the Super Bowl ads, which leads to many more women watching the game. The whole phenomenon of the Super Bowl commercial has been a brilliant marketing ploy, on several levels.

I have no explanation why the numbers would have upticked in 2007, though. In 2008, the 18-0 Patriots against a team from the nation's biggest market - yes, that one should have been huge. But Colts-Bears? Maybe the Bears are a bigger draw than I thought.

But Colts-Bears? Maybe the Bears are a bigger draw than I thought.

The Bears are HUGE in Chicago. I could be wrong but I wouldn't be surprised if they're top 3 in terms of popularity in the NFL.

I'd imagine that any Super Bowl with any among the Steelers, Giants, Bears or Cowboys would have a built in fan base that would goose the ratings a lot. And maybe the Redskins if they could kill their owner and get back on their feet.

But the Giants and Steelers and Cowboys had all been in the SB during the years when the numbers were flat. It took the Bears to push them above the 90 million level.

Not that I'm complaining. I love the Bears.

I don't think the view that close games makes everything more exciting, especially for soccer, holds water. Probably something like 95% of the time you pretty much know nothing is going to happen unless some extreme unexpected fluke of something happens. It is like, hey cool they are putting pressure on, oh, there is the clear out, okay they are back, ugh, there is the clear out, okay now they are at the other side, great, corner kick, oh there is the clear out. It is usually some unexpected zinger or breakaway that scores the goal and either case it is over in seconds. At least for me and at the elite level. I have no idea what happens in some Mexican league 4 levels down which I imagine is a lot more sloppier and less precise.

I present one of my favorite houseplants, because of the way it feigns injury, the European fig.

M*TT C. of PC World: "On 'f*gs' we should remember that Rich just thinks slurs are hilarious."

It's a shame we all can't be so perfect like M*tt thinks of himself. But I won't bother to get into a political correctness debate with you, M*tt.

Getting rid of off-sides would lead to players clustering near the goal, lots of long balls and much less skill play.

It might. If it did that, the rule change could revert back to the current rule. Seems like it's worth a try. Or maybe there is some inbetween. When I watch soccer and there is a steal or a turnover at midfield and a player on the team which just took the ball anticipates that and streaks down the field to get a pass from his recovering teammate, beating the defense back and having a great chance to take a good shot on goal, but the play is nullified when the streaking (yet clothed) player is called for offsides, it makes me think the offsides rule just ruined what would have been a very exciting play.

Increasing the size of the goals would encourage more speculative chips and again, less skill play.

It seems to me that the most skilled athletes in the world are being stifled by that tiny goal. I'm not looking for 9-8 games. In fact, I'm perfectly happy with a 1-0 game (just as I am in baseball). But in a 1-0 soccer game, I'd like to see 20-25 shots on goal, as you see in ice hockey. (See #32 by Dewey. I think he has it exactly right.)

Two hours and you know it's over. It really is nice to know when you turn on the TV that you'll be able to see the end without a 4-5 hour investment.

I agree that this is a great thing about soccer. Also, the fact that play goes continually, barring injury, for 45 minutes. (The fact that the refs secretly keep the injury time outs bothers me. Seems to me the stadium clock should just stop, so it's not a freaking mystery when the game is supposed to end. But as far as length of contest, soccer has this perfect IMO).

Regarding the 8' or 9' rims: Maybe 9' is a better idea. I think these ideas could be tested out in exhibition games over a period of time and see what actually works. (By the way, another change someone, maybe Bill Simmons, suggested to increase its appeal to more fans: sexier uniforms. I don't know if this would work. I'm not sure I'm for it. But the point was that, for female sports to attract the mostly male general sports audience, sex sells. It seems to have helped this game, but I don't know if this game, despite its unis, is very popular on TV.)

One thing I appreciate about the NFL (more than most sports) is their willingness to adjust rules just about every year to correct flaws (as they see them). If the new rule doesn't work, the NFL will revert back. I still am not a big fan of the NFL's product. But I think their willingness to adjust is a good thing.

I notice in soccer fans -- as is their right -- a conservatism which resists the idea that there is something wrong with the sport. I'm pleasantly surprised that this site of serious baseball fans generally seems to agree that the time between pitches is too long, though I doubt there is a majority which really agrees with my solution, a time clock.

I notice in soccer fans -- as is their right -- a conservatism which resists the idea that there is something wrong with the sport. I'm pleasantly surprised that this site of serious baseball fans generally seems to agree that the time between pitches is too long, though I doubt there is a majority which really agrees with my solution, a time clock.

OTOH if baseball did impose---and enforce---a strict time clock for pitchers and hitters both (batters can adjust their gloves, but pitchers can pitch while they're doing so), within a matter of weeks players would adjust, and by the end of the first year everyone would be saying "why didn't they do this earlier?" and "I was in favor of it all along." That latter especially is almost a virtual guarantee.

I thought there already was a time limit between pitches, just nobody enforced it.

But the point was that, for female sports to attract the mostly male general sports audience, sex sells.

Maybe, but if female professional sports are ever going to be successful, it's likely to come from developing female fans rather than diverting male fans from other pursuits. Compared to when I was a kid, MLB, the NFL, NBA & NHL all have many more teams, longer (increasingly overlapping) seasons and more viewing options. I don't think I'm adding the WNBA to my options, although if I had daughters rather than sons, I'd probably make a temporary exception if they were interested.

#44 -- You are correct:

8.04 When the bases are unoccupied, the pitcher shall deliver the ball to the batter within 12 seconds after he receives the ball. Each time the pitcher delays the game by violating this rule, the umpire shall call “Ball.”

The 12-second timing starts when the pitcher is in possession of the ball and the batter is in the box, alert to the pitcher. The timing stops when the pitcher releases the ball.

The intent of this rule is to avoid unnecessary delays. The umpire shall insist that the catcher return the ball promptly to the pitcher, and that the pitcher take his position on the rubber.

In my newspaper op/ed, I suggested a time clock to enforce this rule. What I envision is pretty much like a play-clock in football, which the QB can easily see to know when the ball has to be snapped. In MLB, a 12-second clock should be on the wall behind home plate (where it used to say, "No Pepper") and visible to the pitcher and the infield umpires. If it expires before a pitch is delivered, one of the infield umps should be required to call a balk.

The fact that this rule is not enforced is obvious. I've noticed that there generally is about 25-30 seconds taken from the time a pitcher gets the ball back from his catcher (or from the ump) and the time he delivers the pitch. Very fast-working pitchers take 15-20 seconds. Part of the problem for pitchers is that the custom is to wait for the batter to get ready before the pitcher looks to see what pitch his catcher is signaling. The unwritten rule seems to be: "You're a dick if you quick-pitch me."

The umpires are in kind of a no-win situation if they suddenly tried to enforce it and players really didn't expect it. I think the highly visible time-clock (which ought to begin being used in ST games) would relieve the umpires, so the players who get called for time wouldn't think they were being picked on. Without a clock, the call would feel more subjective.

But the point was that, for female sports to attract the mostly male general sports audience, sex sells.

Maybe, but if female professional sports are ever going to be successful, it's likely to come from developing female fans rather than diverting male fans from other pursuits.

For the WNBA, "sex sells" and "developing female fans" aren't mutually exclusive.

In my newspaper op/ed, I suggest a time clock to enforce this rule.

I remember reading that Bill Veeck installed a clock to enforce this rule at Old Comiskey Park, on the center field scoreboard (the "Pitch-o-Meter"). The umpires wouldn't let him use it, though.

Here's my average rating prediction for this year, based on my proprietary "system":

4 games: 9.3
5 games: 10.0
6 games: 10.8
7 games: 11.6

So, yes, ratings will be up, if only because the presence of a NY team instead of TB will more than offset the general decline in ratings since (at least) divisional play.

By the way, at the risk of bringing this thread back on-topic, ESPN reports that "fast national" ratings for Game 1 were 11.9 (19 share), up 29% over last year and the 2nd-highest Game 1 of the decade (behind 2004).

But the point was that, for female sports to attract the mostly male general sports audience, sex sells.

Both the lower baskets and sexy uniforms ideas were tried...once.

Regarding beach volleyball: all players should be nude. (Yes, men, too.) Simply body-paint the players numbers and national flags on their backsides. Indeed, this would be a return to ancient tradition for the Olympics.

I don't know if enforcing Rule 8.04 would increase or decrease scoring. (My guess is after pitchers and hitters got used to it, it would slightly depress offense.) But assume that it was offense-neutral for argument's sake. And take a somewhat typical* 3-hour long, 9-run game from the 2009 season -- the average NL game had 8.92 runs. And then presume that the time between pitches was 25 seconds. And see how much time is saved by reducing that to 11 seconds per pitch.

The game in question featured 77 plate appearances and 293 pitches. At 14 seconds a pitch, you save 1 hour 8 minutes 22 seconds. That game goes from 3:04 to 1:56. Maybe that 14-second estimate is too high. If it saves 10-seconds a pitch, you save 48 minutes 50 seconds. In other words, this 3 hour 4 minute game is played in 2 hours 15 minutes. There was a time when most games lasted right about that long.

*I looked over a sampling of 9-run NL games. There were a few LaRussa jobs which lasted closer to 3.5 hours, with endless pitching changes. And there were many which lasted closer to 2:40 minutes. But somewhere in the 2:50 to 3:00 range seemed to be the mean for a game with 9 runs. (This 5-3 LaRussa job, Game 1 in the playoffs against the Dodgers, lasted just under 4 hours, largely because 12 pitchers were used. A time clock won't solve the LaRussa problem.)

(The fact that the refs secretly keep the injury time outs bothers me. Seems to me the stadium clock should just stop, so it's not a freaking mystery when the game is supposed to end. But as far as length of contest, soccer has this perfect IMO)

The system works better the way it is than you would propose because not all injuries and delays should add to the injury time, and probably NOT making that judgment at that time is better. The refs actually use a level of subjective judgment here, and they couldn't if they were constantly trying to get someone to stop and start the clock. During and after the play they can decide and tally which injuries are validly worth extra time and which were just for pointlessly whining about falling down on their own, or the PC police, or whatever.


Also, as far as baseball, please be aware that the added commercial time length is solely a financial thing. More time, more ads. It will not be changed, ever. But the time per pitch definitely needs to be shortened, damn.

The 12-second timing starts when the pitcher is in possession of the ball and the batter is in the box, alert to the pitcher.

Just enforcing the rule won't bring the time down to 12 seconds/pitch. The umps have to stop letting the batters screw around between every pitch (stop granting time, basically, except for actual necessity).

Close games are more exciting than blowouts (for the most part), and by definition a low-scoring game is always close (high-scoring games can stay close throughout, but that's less common).

Didn't know we were talking about American football. This is quite specifically why college football holds zero interest anymore. When I was a kid a really good football team scored 20 points and a really good basketball team 100. Now its 50-50.

soccer and the WNBA? I had to skip to the end and quit reading. this is america, right?

#52 -- I've noticed one change in recent years with soccer. Before the added time begins, the announcers now say "there will be 4 minutes of injury time." Formerly, it was a total mystery to anyone watching at home, and I think to anyone but the refs. So it doesn't feel so startling or surprising when the game ends. The refs normally seem to stop the game after the 4 minutes is up and no one is on a breakaway about to score. So that's good enough.

However, I still don't get what you are saying. If the clock were stopped only when the ref thought it needed to be stopped, everyone would just see that on the scoreboard. Refs would ultimately have to be reasonable (or consistant based on rules) as to when they stopped the clock.

No matter, this is the least bothersome thing about soccer.

However, I still don't get what you are saying. If the clock were stopped only when the ref thought it needed to be stopped, everyone would just see that on the scoreboard. Refs would ultimately have to be reasonable (or consistant based on rules) as to when they stopped the clock.

All I mean is that I think it actually takes time as the injury or non-injury rolls on to see if it's worthy of the added time. That is decided better at the end of the incident rather than at the start, which is when you need to stop the clock if you're stopping it.

It is undeniable that the time between pitches is the single greatest problem baseball faces. Stop ####### around and play the ####### game.

I only watch baseball on PVR and there is still an unbelievable amount of deadtime.

It is undeniable that the time between pitches is the single greatest problem baseball faces. Stop ####### around and play the ####### game.

Has anyone actually done a study showing exactly where the additional time is? It certainly comes from a number of factors, but I'd like to see numbers about exactly how much each factor contributes.

Time is subjective. Listening on the radio, as I usually do, I don't notice the dead time between the pitches that much, especially if the announcer is coherent and thoughtful. I do notice that every break in play between innings or pitchers seems to lead to a vast expanse of annoying commercials.

Listening on the radio, as I usually do, I don't notice the dead time between the pitches that much, especially if the announcer is coherent and thoughtful.

This. There's no such thing as "dead time" when the announcer is Scully or Harwell.

The 12-second timing starts when the pitcher is in possession of the ball and the batter is in the box, alert to the pitcher.



Just enforcing the rule won't bring the time down to 12 seconds/pitch. The umps have to stop letting the batters screw around between every pitch (stop granting time, basically, except for actual necessity).


You'd need to just have a set time and then stick with it. I'd propose 20 seconds from when the pitcher gets the ball back. He has to deliver it within that time. If he doesn't, it's a ball. If he does, and the batter isn't in the box, it's a strike. If he does and the batter is in the box but not ready, call it based on the rule book strike zone.*


* Calling this would actually speed things along as well.

I'd propose 20 seconds from when the pitcher gets the ball back.

I prefer to stick with the rule on the books -- 12 seconds. But I would get rid of the "and the batter is in the box, alert to the pitcher" clause. If batters knew that pitchers were going to pitch whether they were ready or not, batters would not step out of the box between pitches and readjust their anatomy, their wardrobe and their set of armor. They would simply stay ready the whole time.

On a pitch where the batter leave the batter's box for just cause -- say a foul ball down the line or a pass ball or a wild pitch -- it's a bit of a different story. For those, I would make sure umpires just hold the ball a bit longer to give the batter time to get his bat and step into the box. Then the ump should toss the ball back to the pitcher and the clock would start. The idea is not to speed up the pitchers so much that batters have no chance.