They could just insist that any extra inning games use the Mets and Padres bullpens after the 11th inning.

Starting in the 11th inning of a tie game—as decreed last month by baseball’s international governing body—each half-inning will begin with runners on first and second base, and the manager of the batting team can start the 11th at any point in his lineup.

Jee. Zus. Fuh. King. Christ.

I'm speechless.

Why not just end the game with a skills competition like they do in soccer tourneys?

This would never have happened if Billy Beane hadn't written Mao's Little Red Book.

In other news, the Marathon will now begin at the 26-mile point, and will simply be a sprint to the finish. Who wants to see all that boring running through the streets for two hours?

Why not just end the game with a skills competition like they do in soccer tourneys?

Seriously, why not just go to a HR derby or something to decide the winner?

That's really stupid.

Seriously, why not just go to a HR derby or something to decide the winner?

Well, because that wouldn't be legitimate baseball, of course.

Starting in the 11th inning of a tie game—as decreed last month by baseball’s international governing body—each half-inning will begin with runners on first and second base, and the manager of the batting team can start the 11th at any point in his lineup.

That'll separate the Gossages from the K-Rods.

Starting in the 11th inning of a tie game—as decreed last month by baseball’s international governing body—each half-inning will begin with runners on first and second base, and the manager of the batting team can start the 11th at any point in his lineup.

As long as we don't have to change the save rule, anything else is fair game. Starting with runners on is dumb enough, but to start wherever you want in the lineup, gack!

Over-under on games that reach this frightening point in the olympics this year? I'll take the under, based on nothing but intuition, but it would be even funnier if it was about 13 games or so.

That's really stupid.

Why?

Let me note one thing first: this part of the rule -

the manager of the batting team can start the 11th at any point in his lineup.

applies only to the 11th; from then on the lineup cycles as it normally does.

To me, this is a sensible compromise to address the concerns raised by the IOC (which I think are legitimate concerns, in their context; they need to be able to hold to a schedule, especially since Beijing apparently has just the one baseball facility). You're not taking the game significantly out of the normal flow - you still have to face a pitcher with a full defense behind him, you still have to advance runners and hold the other team down, and so forth. Furthermore, it does add an element of strategy, as Davey Johnson notes in the article: where do you start in the order, do you play just to get the lead or try to get a big inning, etc. I much prefer this to a home run derby or some other tricked-up way to bring the game to a conclusion more quickly - it doesn't lose much of the essence of the game.

-- MWE

Each team will be awarded a point for every runner that gets to third. Points can be exchanged for valuable prizes, but they have no effect on the number of runs the team is credited with. Runs can, however, be exchanged for points, provided that the infield-fly rule is not in effect.

That booming you hear in the East is the sound of Bob Costas's head exploding upon reading this new rule.

Aren't there like eight different channels NBC is putting the Olympics on? Why is time such an issue? Just put it on Bravo or Telemundo, and I'll watch it in its entirety so you can put rhythmic gymnastics on the peacock network.

Sounds like fun. Why the overreaction? A skills competition would be terrible because then you're rewarding the team that happens to have the skill needed. Like Mike said, this, at least, is baseball with real baseball rules.

Its fun as a footnote in baseball history.

Starting in the 11th inning of a tie game—as decreed last month by baseball’s international governing body—each half-inning will begin with runners on first and second base

It would be more fun if they started with invisible runners on first and second.

How do they pick the runners? The guys who bat in front of the guy who leads off?

I hate how they did this. At the very least, they could have moved it back, or gone by the Japanese rules where there is a tie after so many innings (except for in semifinals and finals, of course). Something tells me this will be a one-time thing though, I know that Japan has already protested formally and the other countries haven't protested only because, well, they have better things to do, like keep from choking on the Beijing air. I think Davey Johnson said it best when he said this rule is only good if they let Baseball stay in the olympics.

It would be more fun if they started with invisible runners on first and second.

and then gave points for productive outs


Runs can, however, be exchanged for points, provided that the infield-fly rule is not in effect.

are manufactured runs worth more?

Sounds like fun. Why the overreaction?

Well, I was joking! I'm hoping the WBC replaces the Olympics anyway. The IOC can do whatever the hell it wants as they'll get no bribes from me no matter what they do.

From the article,

In fact, when the IBAF announced the rule change, Team USA barely raised a peep in protest, and of the eight countries whose teams qualified for the Olympics, only one -- Japan -- went to the trouble of filing an official letter of protest.

"I don't understand why the IBAF decided it without consulting anybody," Japanese Manager Senichi Hoshino told the Nikkan Sports tabloid in Japan at the time.

I'd actually not mind at all if they handled group play like soccer and awarded points on a 3-1-0 system. (Meaning, no extra innings at all, a tie after 9 is a tie). Then you just have the terrible specter of extra innings in the medal round. But, as Mike says, this is better than a HR derby (or bunt into the bucket, which I also enjoyed).

How do they pick the runners? The guys who bat in front of the guy who leads off?

Yep. If the #3 hitter leads off, the #2 hitter is on first and the #1 hitter is on second.

-- MWE

That's really stupid.

Why?

...

it doesn't lose much of the essence of the game.

It's a bad solution because it interferes with the purity of the game AND it provides no guarantee that the game will end quickly.

I understand that some compromise needs to be made, but I'd much prefer to either call it a tie (I'm assuming this is a round-robin sort of tournament, so ties are feasible if they are awarded fewer points than a win), or go to a skills game that's guaranteed to make it end quickly.

The nice thing about penalty kicks/shots is that it basically says "great match, let's call it a draw, and play a different game to quickly settle this."

This rule says "good game so far, let's change the rules and then keep playing until somebody wins."

I really don't like it.

The organizations may not have raised a peep, but I know several managers and players have said (although quietly, since any challenge to authority could lead to them getting beaten up in China).

Yep. If the #3 hitter leads off, the #2 hitter is on first and the #1 hitter is on second.

Isn't that what you'd do every time then? If you've constructed your lineup as it typically is, I can't imagine any other better option.

I suppose bat your leadoff hitter with 8 and 9 on base? But 1 and 2 typically aren't your best hitters and your a double play away from not having your 3 bat.

Hmm.

Yep. If the #3 hitter leads off, the #2 hitter is on first and the #1 hitter is on second.

So it'll be more like golf sudden death where they play the same hole over and over.

Something tells me this will be a one-time thing though

Yep, there won't be any baseball in the next Olympics...

This is for every IABF tournament, not just the Olympics.

I understand that some compromise needs to be made, but I'd much prefer to either call it a tie (I'm assuming this is a round-robin sort of tournament, so ties are feasible if they are awarded fewer points than a win), or go to a skills game that's guaranteed to make it end quickly.

It is a round-robin tournament.

Calling games ties works in the preliminary rounds (and as noted in #19, they could have done that, which I'd also have been OK with), but doesn't address the problem in the semi-finals and finals, where you need to have winners and losers (and in which the teams are likely to be more closely matched).

The problem with going to a skills game is the one to which #16 alludes - how do you decide WHICH skills to pick to give both teams a reasonable chance to win? What do you do when a team without a lot of power hitters stacks up against Team USA, and the rules call for a home-run derby to decide the winner?

I believe this change came about largely because China has just one adequate baseball venue. And frankly, any change to normal baseball rules was going to create issues for someone. This particular change, I think, balances everyone's interests about as fairly as was possible.

-- MWE

This looks like a good opportunity for some sabermetricians to display the optimal strategies for these situations. It would be particularly critical for the visitors to decide the best way to play it.

But really, they should just keep playing until they run out of pitchers, then call it a tie.

This is for every IABF tournament, not just the Olympics.

Even dumber. Why is time such a concern for non-televised tourneys?

There is 0 way this is going to happen during the WBC though, only IBAF run tournaments.

Don't they start women's softball games with a runner at second at some point? I seem to remember the U.S. team losing a game with the automatic runner scoring.

I have less problem with this then with the DH.

Out of curiosity, in these sorts of games do you have the same ridiculous amount of stalling and batting glove adjusting that you do in Major League games? Is every goddam pitch a drama into itself? Just asking.

Because if you got rid of that crap with pitch clocks and "stay in the batters box" rules, you might not have to worry so much about running short of time.

Calling games ties works in the preliminary rounds (and as noted in #19, they could have done that, which I'd also have been OK with), but doesn't address the problem in the semi-finals and finals, where you need to have winners and losers (and in which the teams are likely to be more closely matched).

By the time you get to the semi-finals there are only 4 games left, so being forced to use a single baseball stadium shouldn't be a concern at that point.

Just allow ample time between games, and let them play a normal baseball game.

Even dumber. Why is time such a concern for non-televised tourneys?

Because you need to get the current two teams off the pitch, before you can start the next game...

I say this in every thread concerning time, but they could just call the rule-book strike zone and solve a lot of the problem.

I have less problem with this then with the DH.

At least the DH has to actually, you know, get a hit to reach base.

Don't they start women's softball games with a runner at second at some point? I seem to remember the U.S. team losing a game with the automatic runner scoring.

We do this in our coed league in some cases. I don't recall if it's for any extra inning game or what.

Don't they start women's softball games with a runner at second at some point? I seem to remember the U.S. team losing a game with the automatic runner scoring.

In play with international rules, yes. Same with international baseball. This tie breaker has been around a long time. Now they have tweaked it.

I just don't get why this is supposed to speed things up. Sure, it makes it more likely the team will score but it makes it more likely for both teams. Letting the teams start their lineups where they want probably makes it less likely the game will end -- i.e. one team would have had the advantage that their good hitters were coming up while the other teams crap hitter were.

Doing this in softball I understand because any scoring in top-level softball is pretty rare. Obviously you increase both teams chances of scoring in that scenario as well but the chances that both teams score that runner from second are pretty slim. Heck, the chances that one team scores that runner aren't that high near as I can tell.

The only part I do like is that it's first and second. If it was just second, every team would play to score that one guy. First and second does force you to choose an option. Although if the visiting team doesn't score, the home team will play small ball.

I'll agree that a skills competition is a silly idea. I'm not even sure it would save time.

After 1 inning:

The chance that you will end up tied if both teams started with no runners on: 53%

The chance that you will end up tied if both teams started with runners on 1b, 2b: 23%

After 2 innings: 28%, 5%, respectively.

The change in play (more or less small-ball, etc), will tweak these numbers a bit.

Useful chart

Let's say that you put your #1 and #2 on base, then bat your #3 in the 11th. #3 strikes out, #4 hits a single scoring #1, #5 walks, #6 hits into a double play to end the inning. The home team also scores one run. How is the 12th started?

A) #7 on 2nd, #8 on 1st, #9 at the plate
B) #5 on 2nd, #6 on 1st, #7 at the plate
C) something else

Strategy would be huge if it's A since you effectively skip two batters.

How is the 12th started?

B) #5 on 2nd, #6 on 1st, #7 at the plate

-- MWE

It would be (a) better (compromise) to start with a runner just at first base. This way, the game is just about guaranteed to end by the 13th inning, which is too bad, because marathon games are one of the greatest aspects of baseball.

After the Olympic bureaucrats have gotten through with trying to fucck up baseball, I respectfully suggest that they make soccer more fan-friendly by allowing soccer players to use their hands. Seems only fair.

After that they can cut to the chase and substitute swimsuit competitions for those dumbassed "figure skating" events, or whatever they call them. I mean, we all know what true talent there is all about....

After that they can cut to the chase and substitute swimsuit competitions for those dumbassed "figure skating" events, or whatever they call them. I mean, we all know what true talent there is all about....

People might watch figure skating for the pretty girls, doesn't mean that those pretty girls aren't great athletes. Many of those pretty girls can snatch and clean and jerk heavier weights than many "normal" guys.

Optimal strategy?

Put your leadoff and #2 guys on base and let 3-4-5 bat in the 11th (assuming normal qualities for these hitters -- speed at leadoff, etc.) or do you arrange in the 10th to have some speed in the 9 hole so you can put 9 and 1 on base for 2-3-4?

Or am I overlooking all sorts of subtleties?

Because you need to get the current two teams off the pitch, before you can start the next game...

Does the field turn into a pumpkin at midnight? I still don't get this. Should MLB institute this for the first games of doubleheaders?

After that they can cut to the chase and substitute swimsuit competitions for those dumbassed "figure skating" events, or whatever they call them. I mean, we all know what true talent there is all about....

People might watch figure skating for the pretty girls, doesn't mean that those pretty girls aren't great athletes. Many of those pretty girls can snatch and clean and jerk heavier weights than many "normal" guys.

I think I knew that, but the point is that if we're going to trash the traditions of sport in order to please the Olympic bureaucrats, why single out baseball? Why not let soccer players use their hands? Why not reduce figure skating to a Miss America competition?

And while you (and soccer fans) have the standing to counter such reducto ad absurdum suggestions, the Olympics committee has none, since they've already announced by this moronic baseball "idea" that the only thing that matters to them is the whim of the schedule maker. On what grounds would they object to hands-on soccer, or judging figure skaters on their physical attractiveness? That we can't mess with the rules of a sport just to bring it the "casual fan", or to accommodate the TV networks? But they've already said, "we're perfectly willing to do this."

Just one more reason why MLB should stay a million metaphorical miles away from the Olympics. Because this is exactly what the Olympics committee mindset is all about: Dumbasssed overcommercialized spectacle.

After the Olympic bureaucrats have gotten through with trying to fucck up baseball, I respectfully suggest that they make soccer more fan-friendly by allowing soccer players to use their hands. Seems only fair.

Three words: Naked. Beach. Volleyball.

Honestly, I don't know why they even bother wearing those skimpy outfits. Lose 'em. Paint the athlete's name and nation's colours on their backsides (that's where everyone will be looking, anyway.) And if you get sand in an inconvienient place, hey, it's Olympics. Toughen up.

I think I knew that, but the point is that if we're going to trash the traditions of sport in order to please the Olympic bureaucrats, why single out baseball? Why not let soccer players use their hands? Why not reduce figure skating to a Miss America competition?

And while you (and soccer fans) have the standing to counter such reducto ad absurdum suggestions, the Olympics committee has none, since they've already announced by this moronic baseball "idea" that the only thing that matters to them is the whim of the schedule maker. On what grounds would they object to hands-on soccer, or judging figure skaters on their physical attractiveness? That we can't mess with the rules of a sport just to bring it the "casual fan", or to accommodate the TV networks? But they've already said, "we're perfectly willing to do this."

The problem is that the buggers already do this, to a certain extent. Notice how male gymnasts can come out unshaven, with bad haircuts, looking like they just got out of bed.

Whereas female gymnasts are required to be prettied up: makeup, nice hairdo, gorgeous costume.

Also, soccer, is constantly trying to accommodate the TV networks. The "casual" fan. To use one example, when scoring goes down, FIFA gets concerned and tries to dream up various esoteric ways to get scoring up again.

To use another example, beginning the 90s, FIFA started cracking down on time wasting / stalling by players.

How does switching to using hands accommodate fans? People don't watch soccer because they want to watch the players use their hands. If that is what they wanted, they could just watch handball or basketball.

How does switching to using hands accommodate fans? People don't watch soccer because they want to watch the players use their hands. If that is what they wanted, they could just watch handball or basketball.

And if they want to watch baseball for dummies, they'll watch the Olympics.

Figure skating is an impressive physical act, and also fun to watch. It's more of an art than a sport, though, because the criteria for judgement are supposedly primarily aesthetic rather than physical impressiveness. On the other hand, if that's the case, the actual judging is completely corrupt and warped--which it is. Therefore, it's neither a sport nor a fair competition of any kind, but I will occasionally watch it anyway.

Casual fan is a euphemisim for "idiot with no attention span."

Many of those pretty girls can snatch and clean and jerk heavier weights than many "normal" guys.

Can you say that in a family forum?