User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Buy MLB playoff tickets, plus 2011 World Series, 2011 ALCS tickets and NLCS game tickets. We also have Texas Rangers playoff schedule, tickets to Red Sox games and Yankees game tickets. Plus, buy Phillies baseball tickets, Tigers playoff tickets and the biggies like ALDS baseball tickets and 2011 NLDS tickets. |
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
Page rendered in 2.4108 seconds
40 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Is ZE technology the same as PitchFx?
They mentioned two things: Papalbon's extra throws in the bullpen after being called in, and the constant meetings at the mound between pitchers and catchers. I wouldn't limit pickoff throws but would certainly limit the mound meetings.
Damn Pirates and Reds...
It shouldn't be up to the teams. If the Red Sox and Yankees think they don't have to comply with directives, the umpires should force them to. If Papelbon wants to throw more pitches than the rules allow, eject his ass. Enforce the rules on the books, and throw in an extra one to limit Posada and company's mound visits.
Any such rule has the strong potential to make things worse. If the runner teases out those 3 throws, then he can take a monstrous lead from then on. This would give a good baserunner a nearly 100% chance of stealing second - so baiting the pitcher into making the third pickoff throw would inspire a frequent and very tiring game of cat and mouse.
Any idea that involves a play clock is so aesthetically abhorrent that the idea can be dismissed out of hand.
For some reason this topic always inspires Primates to come up with ugly or thoughtless or contrived answers. There are already appropriate rules in place. You just need the umps to enforce them. They don't need stopwatches, and they don't need to overhaul the pace of the game with strictly applied changes. They just need to gently remind dallying players that they can be penalized. If the Commisioner's office publicizes this new effort to enforce these rules, and a few early egregious violations are punished, everything will fall neatly into place, and the pace of games will pick up naturally and happily.
Those effing pirates and royals are acting up again....f*ck them, NY and Boston need to put them in their rightful place!
SociallyUn is right, the umps just need to enforce the rules. Once one "star" gets ejected for piffaffing around, it'll set a good precedent
Just cut the number of innings to 8 per game. In addition to speeding up the games, this would also very likely induce managers to keep one more position player instead of yet another middle relief pitcher.
But no one's serious enough to consider that yet. - Brock Hanke
Same with mound visits. Feel free to visit the mound all you want. But by the time Posada gets back in his crouch and Girardi takes a seat, it might be a 3-0 count.
All kidding aside, I am sure part of the problem is caused by the things mentioned above, mound visits, batters stepping out of the box, pick off throws (which I am against putting a cap on), etc. But also some of it has to do with the way the game is played now. I would like to see some numbers of the average pitches thrown per plate appearance now, and what it was like in 2000, 1990, 1980, 1970, etc. Before, walks were seen as a bad thing, now they are seen as a good thing. So I think more players are willing to take walks, and try to work the count to get one. Aren't the Yanks and Red Sox usually at the top of the list for P/PA per batter? If the difference between now, and say 1960 is even 0.1, over the course of 75-80 plate appearances per game, that works out to 7+ pitches per game. That in itself lengthens a game a few minutes.
No. For the reasons PreservedFish explains. And because it will just lead to pitchers stepping off more, and throwing over less, which will be even more boring because there is nil chance of an error. You might as well install a play-clock on the pitcher. And if you install a play-clock, there will be lots of residual effects. Like records will be broken. And the o/u line will move to 19. And the players will strike and demand better life∁insurance.
Just cut the number of innings to 8 per game.
Why not seven?
Why not five?
Why not three?
Why not three, and then increase the number of games to 280, and play lots of split double-headers, forcing the stadium to empty and re-enter, think of the revenue!
Papelbon is also one of the worst violators of the 12-second "rule." I clocked him last year -- he threw eight straight fastballs, and yet he needed 20 seconds to ready himself each time.
He's setting records with his arbitration salary. May as well make him work to keep it.
Plus allow the defensive team to execute an intentional walk with one signal/one pitch.
Not huge changes to the game, but maybe enough to lower the avg gametime to 2:48?
I would like to restrict the mound visits by catcher, but it's really hard to put into print without taking up a full page of explanations. Limit the catcher visits to one per pitcher per inning, unless the manager is present...or something, gotta think it through.
I know IBBs are sometimes used to help a reliever warm up, but that can stil be done by throwing very high balls or something without formally calling for an IBB - the point of this solution is to avoid having to wait out 4 (or 3 or 2) intentionally thrown balls to get to the next batter.
And you know they're not going to limit commercial time. That would affect revenue and it's not going to happen.
All you really need are two things: A 15 or 20 second time limit between pitches,** and a rule that batters can't leave the box between pitches. You'd have a visible public clock on the scoreboard, controlled either by the home plate umpire or by someone in the booth, that counts down the time beginning from the time the pitcher gets the ball back from the catcher. It would be similar to the NFL's play clock, only much shorter in duration.
Establish those two rules, and enforce them, and you're going to see a fairly dramatic effect. The stallers will whine, but they'll adjust their rhythms.
**You'd also need a minimum time that's set long enough to enable a batter to check for signs while still in the box.
I would think that the increase in strikeouts (and the loss of the stigma of high K totals by batters) has also increased P/PA.
Maybe it's just me only watching MLB properly for like 4 years but unless the game is a complete blowout, most commentary teams tend to stay on the game.
Simply the existing rules need to be enforced, i don't know why they aren't at the moment for certain, but my best guess is no umpire wants the shitstorm that would occur if you called Papelbon on the time limit in a close game against the Yankees.
This. And I say this as a fan of the Red Sox, who have some of the worst offenders.
I vaguely remember playing baseball at some point, maybe Little League?, and if I stepped out I kept at least one foot in the box. And I feel like I wouldn't have done that unless told I wasn't supposed to entirely leave it.
Both of these rules already exist. Unless someone is on base, pitchers have to pitch within 12 seconds. Unless they swing at a pitch, batters are not allowed to step out before the next pitch. As noted, neither of these rules is enforced. And they won't be enforced this year either, because the time to put the players on notice is now -- during spring training -- and it ain't happening.
That said, I'm all for speeding up the games. Here's what I suggest.
1. Time shall not be granted to any player once the batter has stepped into the box and the pitcher has stepped onto the rubber.
2. (Penalty for pitcher not adhering to 1.) If the pitcher steps off the rubber, except when throwing to a base, a ball shall be called.
3. (Penalty for batter not adhering to 1.) Once a batter has entered the box, if he steps out of the box, except when avoiding an errant pitch, he shall not be allowed to return until after a pitch has been delivered. If the pitcher has not yet thrown, he shall get a free pitch. If the batter returns to the box and his bat makes contact with the free pitch, the ball is dead, the batter shall be called out for interference, and runners shall not advance.
4. Time limits for delivering a pitch to the plate shall be enforced.
The first game of the 2010 season is Yankees at Red Sox. Despite my being a Red Sox fan, and having tickets to that game, there is no better way to enforce the rules for the season than to do it in that game.
Whenever MLB talks about improving the game experience they always talk about food and crap for kids to do. How about something that enhances the fans experience to watch the game? Heck kids might watch the game if they could see the replay of what happened.
They talk about how fans will react to close calls, which is a crack up when you consider that the NFL and college football show replays all the time with larger and more intoxicated crowds. Just put in a rule that if a manager pops out of the dugout to complain about what the replay shows he is ejected immediately.
Your new rules recognize the problems, as I see them. It's not the blocks of continuous downtime that are the problem, so 30 more or fewer seconds between innings is not a big deal. You can kill those blocks of time. It's the slivers of wasted seconds between pitches that are the killers. You can't do anything with those mini time slices but suffer through them, and maybe yell at your TV for the batter to stay in the God Damned batter's box.
And all of that, unlike pickoff throws, is dead ball time. You don't even have the possibility of a pickoff or error or anything actually happening. But what's worse is <u>when</u> it happens: in key game situations. You don't (normally - there are some managers who are exceptions) see it when it's a 6-1 game in the eighth inning and the light-hitting shortstop is up; you see it in a 3-2 game with the heart of the lineup up. Right when the game should be most exciting, the flow of the game starts getting more and more interrupted. The first time it happens, especially if the closer is coming in, it might build drama; the third time a middle reliever is brought into the same inning, you just want then to get on with it already.
I'd go farther. Why not FOUR batters, or TWO baserunners, whichever comes first? I hate relief specialization. A pitcher should be expected to pitch at least an inning.
Both of these rules already exist. Unless someone is on base, pitchers have to pitch within 12 seconds. Unless they swing at a pitch, batters are not allowed to step out before the next pitch. As noted, neither of these rules is enforced. And they won't be enforced this year either, because the time to put the players on notice is now -- during spring training -- and it ain't happening.
Then you've got your answer right there. The truth is that baseball doesn't really give a damn about speeding up games, because if it did, it could easily do so.
Nor does the league. The fact that Papelbon is the worst offender makes it very problematic. Can you imagine: he does it, gets penalized, said penalty costs Boston the game, and then they finish one behind the Yankees.
Yeah, Papelbon would be run out of Boston on a rail. He'd be the new Merkle, except that unlike Merkle, he would have no excuse.
Disagree. Dead time between pitches is much worse. It cuts the flow.
It's hard to notice the difference between 2:30 and 3 minutes in between innings (especially since you can flip channels, go to the bathroom, or kitchen, etc.), but you really notice 30 seconds between pitches.
I don't understand how it would "mess" with the game at all to enforce 10 seconds between pitches, and no stepping out w/o a swing?
If you watch any old games on MLB or ESPN Classic, that's how the game was played through the 70's. The pitcher and catcher were basically playing catch and throw with few interuptions.
This will not speed up games. Stepping off is an integral part of controlling the running game. Removing this tool from the defense's arsenal would have the same effect as limiting pick-off throws. Stolen bases will increase dramatically (although many of them will not be at all exciting). Thus, offense will increase, and therefore games will be longer, not shorter.
The same is true of almost all the changes that get suggested here whenever this comes up. If you really want a rule change that will lead to faster games, try making bat handles a little fatter.
Disagree. Dead time between pitches is much worse. It cuts the flow.
It's hard to notice the difference between 2:30 and 3 minutes in between innings (especially since you can flip channels, go to the bathroom, or kitchen, etc.), but you really notice 30 seconds between pitches.
I don't understand how it would "mess" with the game at all to enforce 10 seconds between pitches, and no stepping out w/o a swing?
If you watch any old games on MLB or ESPN Classic, that's how the game was played through the 70's. The pitcher and catcher were basically playing catch and throw with few interuptions.
snapper's absolutely correct. It's interesting to note that the AL game with the greatest number of total runs (36) was played in a year (1950) when offense peaked, and yet the playing time was all of 2 hours and 50 minutes. It's all the BS preening and showboating between pitches that's the cause of the problem.
I thought it was just 2:30 now. If it is 3, cut it by a minute.
And there aren't 30 seconds between pitches. That's an extrapolation of your mind.
And there aren't 30 seconds between pitches. That's an extrapolation of your mind.
On average, you're correct, but since the formal limit between pitches is 12 seconds, then that still leaves plenty of room for the 13 to 29 second violations. And there are plenty of cases where the time stretches well beyond 30 seconds. Try watching a tight game between the Yanks and the Red Sox and start counting yourself. I've done it many times, and the enforcement is simply nonexistent.
At the extreme there are. When a pitcher shakes off the catcher three times, the hitter steps outs, does his choreographed batting glove dance, and then we rinse and repeat, followed by a mound visit.
Seriously, take a minute out from between innings now, and you go from 2:52 to 2:36. Who's complaining about 2:36?
But that costs revenue.
If there are 300 pitches in a game, and you can shave 4 seconds between pitches, you save the same 15 minutes, and don't lose any revenue.
And of course the playoff games feature more of all kinds of time-wasting, both TV-induced and player-induced, which is good for games that start in the middle of the night. I remember watching that Red Sox-Indians ALCS a couple years ago. Two halves of my brain arguing..."But it's so tense and exciting!" "But it's so slow and boring!" "But it's so tense and exciting!" "But it's so slow and boring!" Combine this with the TV channels' near-maniacal insistence on showing giant closeups of people's immobile faces whenever the ball isn't in play. If I had no rooting interest it would have been impossible to stay awake.
Chuck also makes this interesting point: You can't do anything with those mini time slices but suffer through them, and maybe yell at your TV. I think the current style of TV broadcast has made the dead time seem worse, even if it's only subjective. When I'm at the park, a game can surely get tedious, and I wouldn't mind some Kaat-style pitching now and then. But baseball should have some leisure to it, some time to enjoy your surroundings and drink beer and chat. The problem with watching it at home is the constant mind-numbing TV direction (pitcher closeup, batter closeup, fan closeup, manager closeup, fan closeup, pitcher closeup, my god would somebody throw the ball) and the inane announcing which is following everything but the game itself. Every second of that air time is like a little grinding instrument shaving off your brain cells.
There's no time limit with runners on. In most Yankee/Red Sox games, there are an awful lot of baserunners.
No rooting interest in the game, or no rooting interest in the argument inside your brain?
I apologize for basing my argument factually against your anecdotes, but I disagree with your opinion there is some tremendous slowdown between pitches. Unless you can do more than claim it, I'm going to believe that the contracted time between innings is more manageable.
Fewer pitchers, fewer pitching changes.
Good point. I guess the boredom issue is unresolvable.
For pick-offs, just make it cost a ball for every pick off attempt past the 3rd. Runners never get complete impunity that way (though I don't think pick-offs are that big a problem, save for a few particularly bad pitchers).
The most important thing is to keep the damn manager off the field, the catcher behind the plate, the batter in the box and the pitcher on the mound. The stalling makes the late innings unbearable to watch, especially when you're rooting for a bad team.
I apologize for basing my argument factually against your anecdotes, but I disagree with your opinion there is some tremendous slowdown between pitches. Unless you can do more than claim it, I'm going to believe that the contracted time between innings is more manageable.
Obviously I don't have the time or the resources to undertake such a study, but since it's even more obvious that baseball isn't going to reduce the commercial time between innings, the relative time saving between pitches and between innings is a moot point. And you don't need to make a study to simply witness the many times that a pitcher goes well over the 12 second limit with nobody on base.
The more important point that you and WTH raise is the lack of a time limit between pitches with runners on base. I see no reason for not requiring such a time limit (even if you raise it from 12 to 15 or 20 seconds), with the proviso that a throw to a base counts as a pitch when it comes to stopping the clock. The pitcher doesn't really need to stroll around the mound rubbing up the ball for half a minute or more just because there are men on base. All that is is a BS psychological move, and there's no real reason to permit it.
I agree with the others that the time between pitches is much more agonizing than commercial breaks, at least while watching at home. And cutting 15 minutes of ad time per game doesn't seem manageable from a financial standpoint.
The more important point that you and WTH raise is the lack of a time limit between pitches with runners on base. I see no reason for not requiring such a time limit (even if you raise it from 12 to 15 or 20 seconds), with the proviso that a throw to a base counts as a pitch when it comes to stopping the clock. The pitcher doesn't really need to stroll around the mound rubbing up the ball for half a minute or more just because there are men on base. All that is is a BS psychological move, and there's no real reason to permit it.
Concur with Andy's response.
Chris, why not limit time between pitches with men on base? Why do they need all this time between pitches?
Don't you think it's pretty obvious that it will be much easier to take steps that don't cost the league money?
If he cost the team a game by not being able to pitch in a set amount of time they'd turn on him in a minute. He's not a lovable guy, and it's a completely avoidable issue.
The pitcher doesn't really need to stroll around the mound rubbing up the ball for half a minute or more just because there are men on base. All that is is a BS psychological move, and there's no real reason to permit it.
I think I agree with this, but honestly as far as pitchers working slowly when men are on base, is it to affect the runners or is it trepidation? Is there some baseball reason that I'm unaware of for wasting time, or are the guys who slow down with runners on either scared or have trouble pitching from the stretch? I don't see how working slowly makes things harder for the batter or runner. Or is a lot of this slowness due to guys that can't read signs from third and keep stepping out to see if there's a play on?
In general I think there's a lot of opportunity to move things along by speeding the ABs. Not calling time whenever it's requested would go a long way in this direction. It would basically amount to the umpire signaling "pitch now" after any break in play and then throwing up a ball or strike call if either party isn't ready to go within a second or two. Anyone who complains about safety can either not look away from the mound until time is granted or just bail out completely if they can't see. I'd warn teams now, route a DVD to the teams and umpires ASAP that showed what was going to change, then start calling things differently right after that. You'd only need it in place for a week or so before the season to clarify how it was going to play out, and then stay on it through April.
To control the running game. I mean, seriously, didn't any of you guys pitch even in Babe Ruth League? You throw over; you step off; you hold the ball; and you mix it up. Otherwise they run wild on you. There's no way that any of the restrictions on what a pitcher can do with runners on base that are being proposed here will ever be implemented, because they a) will tilt the game in favor of the offense, and b) will not shorten games anyway. Even a rule that says pitchers have 12 seconds to either pitch, throw over, or step off would be taking away one of a pitcher's main weapons in disrupting a baserunner's timing (holding the ball). And that kind of rule wouldn't save any time anyway.
Now you could have a rule that limited the time allowed before the pitcher has to step onto the rubber to take his sign. That would stop the posturing and preening that seems to annoy people so much. But I doubt it would shave much time off the average game.
These rule changes are equivalent (IMO for the morons) to the rules in the NFL to save the QB. You tip the balance of "fairness". Changing rules is something that should never be taken as lightly as these attitudes are putting forth. There are always unintended consequences.
Revenue losses can be offset in other ways.
Crispix (et al): OMG the pitcher is taking 17 seconds between pitches! AUGH the boredom!
(limit of 12 sec enforced)
Crispix (et al): Ah, that five seconds of interminableness is gone. I love this game!
Well, a throw over would restart the clock. And, as for holding the ball, if the limit with men on base is 20 seconds, somethime you throw after 7 seconds, and sometimes you wait 19. I don't see why that is any less effective in upsetting the runner's timing than varying between 15 and 30.
For instance, say you enforce that limit. Now the pitcher isn't going to like it. So now the times he threw at 8 seconds, well, he'll make sure he's at 12 all the time, and your savings goes out the window.
I doubt that. After an initial breaking in period, they'd adjust to a faster pace.
Except that it is a safety issue. Hitters can only maintain the focus necessary to pick up a major league pitch for so long. And when there are runners on an pitchers start holding the ball to mess with those runners, there are going to be cases where the time they take exceeds the batters' ability to maintain that focus. Not granting time in those situations would put batters at risk of injury, and also give pitchers a huge advantage that they would quickly learn how to exploit.
But I get annoyed at that not because it delays games but because it's not within the spirit of the rules.
But if the pitcher keeps screwing around then it's a ball and he can relax. This has to be enforced both ways to be effective and fair.
You throw over; you step off; you hold the ball; and you mix it up.
Mixing it up is one thing, but three replaced baseballs, two mound visits by the catcher and twelve shakeoffs while awaiting the waved hat from the bullpen are not making it harder on the runner. It's a stall, and it's done to reduce the number of false warm-ups for relievers. If you don't have to start warming a guy up as far in advance, you are more accurate in getting guys going and end up sitting them back down less often. It's an advantage that comes at the expense of the fans, not the other team.
To control the running game. I mean, seriously, didn't any of you guys pitch even in Babe Ruth League?
I pitched in the DC Little League, AKA the Walter Johnson League, and those suckers never even reached base. They had to wear two batting helmets to overcome da fear.(smile)
You throw over; you step off; you hold the ball; and you mix it up. Otherwise they run wild on you. There's no way that any of the restrictions on what a pitcher can do with runners on base that are being proposed here will ever be implemented, because they a) will tilt the game in favor of the offense, and b) will not shorten games anyway
That's a serious point, but there have been plenty of periods in the past when base stealing was far more of a weapon than it is today, and yet game times were considerably shorter, even accounting for the extra minute between innings.
Here's an "anecdote" that I'm sure will be dismissed, but IMO it's a perfect illustration of the way the stalling culture has stretched games to a ridiculous limit:
Game 7, 1972 World Series
Only a 3-2 game, but there were plenty of baserunners (16 LOB) and a total of 24 walks and strikeouts, which makes for a lot of pitches. And while there was only one stolen base, the Reds were threatening to steal every time they reached base. At one point in the bottom of the 4th, Blue Moon Odom threw over to first eight times, trying to pick off Joe Morgan, who was eventually thrown out stealing after his rhythm had been severely disrupted.
That sort of thing went on all day, not surprisingly for a close and deciding game of the World Series. From the first pitch to the last, it was as tense a game as I've ever watched. Certainly no one was consciously rushing himself.
And yet the time of game was 2:50. Add 17 minutes of commercials and it's still (in Michael Kay's memorable word) a "manageable" 3:07. There's more to these marathon games than just fear of base stealing and supersized commercial breaks.
---------------------------------
And you don't need to make a study to simply witness the many times that a pitcher goes well over the 12 second limit with nobody on base.
Actually, to claim that it is a problem, you do.
Well, if that's your condition, then that ends the discussion, at least until I can get a MacArthur grant for me and fourteen of my unemployed friends.
For instance, say you enforce that limit. Now the pitcher isn't going to like it. So now the times he threw at 8 seconds, well, he'll make sure he's at 12 all the time, and your savings goes out the window.
It's just as easy to say that this is conjecture on your part. I seriously doubt if there's going to be much of a spite factor at play here. What's going to be critical is setting a strict time limit and enforcing it. After a short period of whining, both the pitchers and batters will adjust to the new enforced rhythms, and after a month or two, they'll wonder what all the fuss had been about.
(limit of 12 sec enforced)
Crispix (et al): Ah, that five seconds of interminableness is gone. I love this game!
Why does this sound implausible to you?
All of baseball history prior to the 1980's demonstrates it pretty clearly.
I've read that baseball in the 1920s was about 2 hours. If we add commerical time to that how long would it be (I really don't know) - another 15mins? 30mins?
So do I. I'd go one mid-inning change every 2, maybe even 3, innings (with some kind of run limit built in; you can't expect a guy to get shelled and have to throw 100 pitches). The game was never intended to be played this way and for practically all of baseball history wasn't played this way, so no real "tradition" is lost -- 12 and 13 man pitching staffs would have been unthinkable even 20 years ago and themselves harm the game -- and the game would be much better.
The same is true of almost all the changes that get suggested here whenever this comes up. If you really want a rule change that will lead to faster games, try making bat handles a little fatter.
This presumes that it's ok to have the running game "controlled" by boring non-plays. At best, this is an unproven premise; in my opinion, unleashing the running game and ridding the game of boring non-plays are a pair of positives -- two for the price of one.
Hard to say. IIRC the current time between innings is 2 min 5 seconds for normal games, 2 min 25 sec for nationally televised, more for post-season.
Now the real question is, how long was the innings break in the 1920's? There's always some time to get off/on the field, and the 8 warm-up pitches. Was that 1 min? 1:30?
If commercials add 1 minute per switchover (high I think) that's 16 minutes on a full 9 inning game.
Pitchers are already required to stay in to pitch to one batter.
Yes, I know, but you and others have suggested increasing that to prevent LOOGY's basically. I was just pointing out that it likely won't work.
That is my back of envelope thinking as well. So to normalize the games we went from about 2:16 per game (commercial adjusted) to about 2:50 in actual game-time increasing. About 30 extra minutes of down-time.
One of your objections is that mandated pitches will force pitchers to pitch through injury; my point is that the rules already provide for mandated pitches. I just think there should be more.
There are ways to deter fake injuries and exceptions to allow pitchers with real ones to be taken out. My plan would allow injured pitchers to be taken out, obviously. I doubt there would be very many instances where a guy is healthy enough to pitch to one batter, but not 3 or 4. There would be some.
You're missing the point. You seem to want to force pitchers to throw to more than one batter to minimize the number of pitching changes. There is no gain to be had by bringing in a pitcher and not having him face at least 1 batter. There is, or at least managers think there is, value to having a pitcher come in to face a single batter. Managers(hello TLR) will find any way possible to game the system to maintain their ability to have a reliever face only 1 batter.
I like this.
Especially since some pitcher/catcher combos would quickly work out pitchout/catcher pickoff plays that might result in something happening.
It's not the throws over that bug me, it's that they're almost never really trying to get an out. I'm an A's fan, and every time an opposing pitcher throws to first with Jack ####### Cust there, I die a little (more).
There is an interminable time between pitches right now. It is awful. I don't give a damn about ads between innings it's the ####### dead time in the middle of the inning. It's like watching a microwave heat up a chimichanga. Hurry the #### up.
Yes, there is, obviously ... the manager could bring in a new pitcher to face the opposite-side pinch hitter the rules now make the existing pitcher face. I bring in my LOOGY, you bring in a RH pinch hitter, my LOOGY has to face him under existing rules. If it weren't for the one-hitter rule, I could bring in an RHP.
That's why the rule is there in the first place. The proposals to extend the one mandated hitter rule to mandate more hitters simply extends this principle.
Year SB/G SB%
2009 1.22 72.4
1999 1.41 69.2
1989 1.47 68.4
1979 1.42 65.1
1969 0.95 62.3
1959 0.68 62.8
1949 0.58 70.9
A .2 difference means an extra stolen base per team every 10 games, or about 16 SB over a full season. And the difference is probably more than made up for by the increase in SB%. To conclude that there was a time when "base stealing was far more of a weapon than it is today" is simply lunacy.
If they are unemployed, what do they need a grant for? They are just doing nothing anyway.
No one claimed there isn't "more" to it. What was the time between innings in that game?
Isn't it a large part of the beauty of baseball that the game takes the time it takes?
So we shave 15 minutes off the game's elapsed time, so what?
Do we store those 15 minutes for later use; do we waste that time with silly tweets to our loved ones?
Everybody's in a hurry to get where ever it is they need to get to quicker,
Makes no sense to me.
All I'm going to do is wish the intervening 21+ hours until the next game starts would go by even more quickly.
So we shave 15 minutes off the game's elapsed time, so what?
That extra 15 minutes might be the difference of me being able to just watch a game mid-week or me being able to watch a game mid-week and get laid.
Isn't it a large part of the beauty of baseball that the game takes the time it takes?
So we shave 15 minutes off the game's elapsed time, so what?
Do we store those 15 minutes for later use; do we waste that time with silly tweets to our loved ones?
Everybody's in a hurry to get where ever it is they need to get to quicker,
Makes no sense to me.
All I'm going to do is wish the intervening 21+ hours until the next game starts would go by even more quickly.
Well, in the 1970's Yankee games started at 8 PM and were done by 10:30 (now they start at 7 and are often still going at 10:30).
If that were true again, I could actually finish dinner in time to watch the start of games, and still get to bed at a reasonable time. It would also make it much easier to attend games in person; no need to leave work early, etc.
Those would be good things.
I don't know about your house, but in mine, 15 minutes is enough time for washing dishes, cleaning the litter box and a shower (and recycling which is not part of the foreplay but is still important). It's business time. It's bus-i-ness time!
If something is happening, I agree. But if nothing is happening, I think the agitation some of us feel suggests that the difference is in fact noticable (if not quantifiable), particularly when it is repeated, pitch after pitch.
I think we are programmed to expect a rhythm with things (no doubt due to our heartbeat), and when the anticipation of that rhythm is messed with, we feel agitated. I'm sure we've all seen games where that rhythm exists and we feel comfortable watching, and I'm sure we all have too much experience (thus this thread) watching games where that rhythm is continually broken. And maybe the shift from 12 seconds to 17 seconds is enough to break that rhythm.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main