Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Wednesday, March 14, 2018

Minor League Pace-Of-Play Changes in 2018

EXTRA INNINGS

At all levels of Minor League Baseball, extra innings will begin with a runner on second base. The runner at second base will be the player in the batting order position previous to the leadoff batter of the inning (or a substitute for that player). By way of example, if the number five hitter in the batting order is due to lead off the 10th inning, the number four player in the batting order (or a pinch-runner for such player) shall begin the inning on second base. Any runner or batter removed from the game for a substitute shall be ineligible to return to the game, as is the case in all circumstances under the Official Baseball Rules.

The lead-in for the above mentions that this particular rule is more about player safety - specifically the impact of extra-inning games on pitchers. But there are other rule changes on mound visits, pitch clocks, etc., in the article.

villageidiom Posted: March 14, 2018 at 04:56 PM | 273 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: extra innings, minor leagues, minors, pace of play

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.

Page 2 of 3 pages  < 1 2 3 > 
   101. BDC Posted: March 15, 2018 at 11:16 PM (#5638810)
We need to call the runner who opens the tenth on second base “ghost runner” so the idea gets embarrassed and never makes it to the majors.
   102. SoSH U at work Posted: March 15, 2018 at 11:30 PM (#5638812)
We need to call the runner who opens the tenth on second base “ghost runner” so the idea gets embarrassed and never makes it to the majors.


I fully support any embarrassment campaign. But this situation is really the opposite of a ghost runner. This was more a ghost double.
   103. Baldrick Posted: March 16, 2018 at 01:32 AM (#5638833)
As a tip to the humor-impaired, when somebody says something, then repeats the last word with multiple exclamation points, they are at least half-kidding.*** Much like when they refer to one arbitrary alternative as "god-given" and the other as an "abomination."

What is the 'joke' here?
   104. -- Posted: March 16, 2018 at 06:08 AM (#5638843)
Instead of saying, "The game was perfect in 1988. Let's get it back to that," you're essentially saying, "The game was perfect in 1988. Let's make it completely different than that."


Not "The game was perfect in 1988," but instead, "The pace of the game in 1988 was good enough for MLB to have kept getting my money." I'm not a huge fan of TTO/anonymous middle reliever baseball, but I could certainly live with it if a game got done in the time in which it got done in 1988.
   105. PreservedFish Posted: March 16, 2018 at 07:11 AM (#5638845)
We need to call the runner who opens the tenth on second base “ghost runner” so the idea gets embarrassed and never makes it to the majors.



I fully support any embarrassment campaign. But this situation is really the opposite of a ghost runner.


Gimmick runner.
   106. Lassus Posted: March 16, 2018 at 07:19 AM (#5638848)
Fake runner.
   107. dejarouehg Posted: March 16, 2018 at 08:14 AM (#5638858)
Shark jumper
   108. PreservedFish Posted: March 16, 2018 at 08:20 AM (#5638860)
Poochie.
   109. Astroenteritis Posted: March 16, 2018 at 08:43 AM (#5638869)
I wouldn't use college football as an example of how to break ties, because their way is absolutely horrible. Play 60 minutes and then have a glorified scrimmage to decide the winner. No thanks. Ties in minor league baseball games would be perfectly fine.
   110. winnipegwhip Posted: March 16, 2018 at 09:57 AM (#5638897)
#107 wins
   111. Fernigal McGunnigle Posted: March 16, 2018 at 10:01 AM (#5638900)
#107 wins
Agreed. The shark jumper should be forced to wear a Fonzie-style leather jacket while running the bases.
   112. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: March 16, 2018 at 10:07 AM (#5638904)
The shark jumper should be forced to wear a Fonzie-style leather jacket while running the bases.
And, of course, to jump over actual sharks. But I assume that was implicit.
   113. Rusty Priske Posted: March 16, 2018 at 10:30 AM (#5638922)
A pitch clock is a BAD idea.

The ghost runner nonsense is an over-the-top insanely bad idea.

Stop ####### up baseball!

THE GAME IS NOT TOO LONG
   114. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: March 16, 2018 at 11:16 AM (#5638967)
A pitch clock is a BAD idea.

The ghost runner nonsense is an over-the-top insanely bad idea.

Stop ####### up baseball!

THE GAME IS NOT TOO LONG

OK. Why? Why do you think a pitch clock is a BAD idea? Do you actually enjoy the dawdling between pitches? Do wish there were more of it?
   115. PreservedFish Posted: March 16, 2018 at 11:50 AM (#5639005)
I kind of hate the pitch clock, aesthetically, but I think it's necessary. If the clock were invisible to the viewer, though, it would be a wonderful thing.
   116. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: March 16, 2018 at 12:07 PM (#5639020)
I kind of hate the pitch clock, aesthetically, but I think it's necessary. If the clock were invisible to the viewer, though, it would be a wonderful thing.
I mean, I get why you wouldn't want it occupying half of the CF scoreboard, but who cares if it's visible but inconspicuous. Anyone who doesn't want to look at it wouldn't have to. Seems like it just comes down to the "There's no clock in baseball!!" shibboleth, which of course only means that the end of play doesn't occur at a predetermined time, not that players should have endless amounts of dicking around time.
   117. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 16, 2018 at 12:14 PM (#5639027)
OK. Why? Why do you think a pitch clock is a BAD idea? Do you actually enjoy the dawdling between pitches? Do wish there were more of it?

Of course there already is a 12 second "pitch clock" which no ump has ever enforced. This shows that unless you've got a clock that everyone can see, and the opponent can refer to, umps won't enforce the rule.

THE GAME IS NOT TOO LONG

The game is clearly too long. We now get the same amount of entertainment in 3:10 that we used to get in 2:30. That's worse.

More importantly, the pace is maddening.
   118. PreservedFish Posted: March 16, 2018 at 12:59 PM (#5639060)
Of course there already is a 12 second "pitch clock" which no ump has ever enforced. This shows that unless you've got a clock that everyone can see, and the opponent can refer to, umps won't enforce the rule.

Yeah, probably.
   119. Der-K: at 10% emotional investment Posted: March 16, 2018 at 01:48 PM (#5639085)
In Durham, it's easy to see the pitch clock in center. Also easy to ignore it.
   120. Rusty Priske Posted: March 16, 2018 at 02:36 PM (#5639103)
The game is clearly too long. We now get the same amount of entertainment in 3:10 that we used to get in 2:30. That's worse.


No, it isn't worse.

There ARE pace issues and it is good that they are dealing with things like mound visits, that kill the momentum of the game dead.

A pitcher staring down the batter is never that.

It isn't the LENGTH of the game, it is the pacing. (IMO, the biggest problem with game pace is the number of pitching changes. I don't have an answer for that, however.)


As to why a pitch clock is worse - you are asking elite athletes - people who have risen to the top of their profession - to perform at the best of their ability. Now you are saying "and hurry up".

I would WAY rather see someone playing the best they can period, than someone who is doing the best they can, while being rushed.

Baseball, at its best, is a slow game, punctuated by frenetic action.

If you want something breakneck paced, go watch hockey.
   121. Pat Rapper's Delight (as quoted on MLB Network) Posted: March 16, 2018 at 02:43 PM (#5639107)
As to why a pitch clock is worse - you are asking elite athletes - people who have risen to the top of their profession - to perform at the best of their ability. Now you are saying "and hurry up".

I would WAY rather see someone playing the best they can period, than someone who is doing the best they can, while being rushed.


When I watch games from the 70's and 80's on YouTube... games being played by elite athletes who had risen to the top of their profession performing to the best of their ability, I don't get the sense that anyone is being rushed through plate appearances, but I am astounded by how much quicker each pitch follows the previous one... especially with the bases empty. It's like we got used to having 30 seconds between each pitch as being normal, so when you're taken back to a time that it wasn't normal it makes quite an impression.
   122. Rusty Priske Posted: March 16, 2018 at 02:52 PM (#5639114)
But they weren't being FORCED to do it. That makes a HUGE difference.

I actually quite appreciate a pitcher that moves the game along, but there is a big difference between doing it because that works for you, and doing it because you are worried some clock is going to give you a penalty of some sort.
   123. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: March 16, 2018 at 02:57 PM (#5639118)
I would WAY rather see someone playing the best they can period, than someone who is doing the best they can, while being rushed.
OK, so 20 years from now when the game has "evolved" to the point where batters and pitchers think they need 90 seconds to adequately prepare themselves for the next pitch, you'll prefer that to any limit as well? Just as long as they think they're as ready as they possibly can be?
   124. BDC Posted: March 16, 2018 at 05:43 PM (#5639182)
But they weren't being FORCED to do it

Though as to that, do you dislike the play clock in football, or the shot clock in basketball? (You might well dislike them, and fair enough.)

It seems to me that most fans of those sports internalize those sub-clocks unconsciously, and just enjoy the pace and rhythms of those games. The issue of an overall governing clock vs. the open nature of baseball is somewhat different, in my opinion (though again yours may differ, and you may just not ever want to be aware of a clock when you're at a baseball game).
   125. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: March 16, 2018 at 06:37 PM (#5639206)

As to why a pitch clock is worse - you are asking elite athletes - people who have risen to the top of their profession - to perform at the best of their ability. Now you are saying "and hurry up".

I would WAY rather see someone playing the best they can period, than someone who is doing the best they can, while being rushed.
That's a fallacious way of looking at it. In sports, there's no platonic "ability"; what one is trying to accomplish is defined by the rules. If the rules say that pitches have to be thrown in 15 seconds, then throwing a good pitch within 15 seconds is precisely what they're trying to do best period. Just as the best quarterback is the one who can hit receivers the most accurately when under pressure, rather than the one who could be most accurate if given unlimited time.
   126. PASTE, Now with Extra Pitch and Extra Stamina Posted: March 16, 2018 at 08:12 PM (#5639223)
Just going to re-post this Bill James quote that perfectly describes why baseball players used to play briskly and then, gradually from the advent of night baseball right through the present, got to playing more and more slowly:

Baseball's poetic and lyrical celebrants are fond of pointing out that baseball is the only major team sport without a clock. What these people don't understand is that, until about 1945, baseball did have a clock. It was called the sun. Baseball games, until the advent of night ball, had to be crisply played because they often didn't start until late afternoon, and they had to be finished by sundown, and sundown then was an hour sooner than it is now. Umpires, until World War II, were very much in the habit of enforcing a certain degree of attention to time. Umpires who failed to do this effectively were subject to criticism from the press, and were sometimes fined by the league, simply for failing to "move the games along." Even after the coming of night baseball, the habit of moving the games along was well established in the population of baseball umpires--in the umpires who pre-dated Night Baseball, many of whom lasted into the 1960s. Their influence, somewhat attenuated, affected the generation of umpires they trained.

Generations of umpires have come and gone since then, and that idea--that the umpire could or should keep the game moving--has largely been lost. Baseball games in the late 1990s consist of an inordinate amount of just messing around.


It was a problem in 1999, players just messing around instead of playing baseball, and it's grown much, much worse over the last 20 years.
   127. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: March 16, 2018 at 08:32 PM (#5639228)
I still remember reading that James essay and going "Yeah...yeah!...Hell yeah!"
   128. PASTE, Now with Extra Pitch and Extra Stamina Posted: March 16, 2018 at 10:02 PM (#5639239)
The solution to the pace-of-play problem is very, very clear. By all means use a pitch clock, but also the batters have to be told that once the at-bat begins, you are to stay in the box and be ready for the next pitch. If either foot is outside the box when the ball leaves the pitcher's hand, it's an automatic strike.

The batters are just as culpable as the pitchers for wasting time. If the umpires strictly enforce both the pitch clock and the batter's responsibility to stay in the box, after one season, both rules will be all but invisible, because players will quickly adjust to them and they won't have to be called for violating them more than a couple times a year leaguewide.

It's not going to happen, though--at least not until the sport enters a genuine financial crisis--because both the players and the umpires are unionized and will vigorously resist (indeed, have vigorously resisted) it. The players don't want to speed up, and the umpires don't want to go through the headache of forcing them to.
   129. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 16, 2018 at 10:29 PM (#5639251)
As to why a pitch clock is worse - you are asking elite athletes - people who have risen to the top of their profession - to perform at the best of their ability. Now you are saying "and hurry up".

I would WAY rather see someone playing the best they can period, than someone who is doing the best they can, while being rushed.


As David pointed out, this is a silly argument. It's zero sum. If the pitcher is getting better by waiting, the batter is getting worse, and vice versa.

Damn right I'm saying hurry up. Just like everyone in every profession has a time limit on their performance.

There ARE pace issues and it is good that they are dealing with things like mound visits, that kill the momentum of the game dead.

A pitcher staring down the batter is never that.


A pitcher staring down the batter is always that. Just like a pitcher messing with the rosin bad is that. Or pacing around the mound talking to himself. Or a hitter redoing his batting gloves or scratching his balls.

It's all tedious nonsense. I want to see baseball played. I don't give two shits about the players needing to ready himself.

If you can't deliver an effective pitch in 15 seconds, or hit MLB pitching without constantly leaving the box, you don't belong in the game. The sooner you are washed out the better.

If I knew for certain that enforcing the pace rules would make Mike Trout and Clayton Kershaw replacement level scrubs, I'd be just as in favor of it. What's being played now barely resembles baseball.

I'd rather see AAA talent playing a crisp game that what passes for major league baseball today. It's virtually unwatchable.
   130. Howie Menckel Posted: March 17, 2018 at 01:20 AM (#5639320)
one of the PGA Tour golf pacing problems is that until fairly recently, any time a golfer hit a putt to within inside of 3 feet of the hole, they would walk up, pause briefly, and then tap it in.

now, even 18 to 24 inch putts get "marked." so after another player has holed out, the player puts his ball back down, examines it endlessly, and finally makes the same putt that their forefathers didn't miss either.*

* - of course there are exceptions for high winds, a severe break, etc. but pushing back on that is just a dodge to the real issue.

The Americans are by far the most annoying at this - especially the young Americans. It is almost identical to the tic that leads their fellow MLB players to appear unable to focus for more than a few seconds at a time in the batter's box. some may draw sociological conclusions. the lack of consideration for the value of time of the audience that pays their salary is what I find most interesting.

most sports labored for decades to appeal to the public - and when they did, they were rewarded financially. possibly so much so that a new gen stopped caring about that group.

I have made my peace with it. I basically don't attend live sporting events anymore for this reason, but I will watch them on DVR. several NCAA games today had exciting finishes based on my time - the coaches and TV kept calling timeouts, but by being 10+ minutes behind, I was able to eliminate them.
   131. Rusty Priske Posted: March 17, 2018 at 11:58 AM (#5639364)
What's being played now barely resembles baseball.


And this is where we fundamentally differ.

As far as I am concerned the new rules (including that extra inning rule and the pitch clock) are making game that barely resembles baseball.

I don't give two shits about the players needing to ready himself.


And I (honestly... I am not trying to be insulting, despite the provocation... and I know you aren't alone in this), don't understand how you can say this and claim to be a fan of baseball. The pauses between the plays are part of the game. Saying that a pitcher or took 2 seconds too long in preparing to do something that could completely change the face of the game (and his career) if he misses is just petty.

Baseball is not a hurry up game. Watch hockey.
   132. PreservedFish Posted: March 17, 2018 at 12:10 PM (#5639367)
And I (honestly... I am not trying to be insulting, despite the provocation... and I know you aren't alone in this), don't understand how you can say this and claim to be a fan of baseball. The pauses between the plays are part of the game. Saying that a pitcher or took 2 seconds too long in preparing to do something that could completely change the face of the game (and his career) if he misses is just petty.


I also like a tense staredown and to be honest the sluggish pace doesn't bother me as much in the playoffs, where every pitch does seem really important. But regular season ballgames are kind of a slog at this point - 2 seconds of nothing on every pitch adds up to 10 minutes of gratuitous nothing in a game, and in comparison to the game of the 50s you're talking about more like 8-10 seconds of extra nothing on every single pitch. It's just too much, and it's getting dramatically worse, and something needs to be done.

I recommend reading the quote in #126 again, sir.
   133. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: March 17, 2018 at 03:01 PM (#5639406)
As far as I am concerned the new rules (including that extra inning rule and the pitch clock) are making game that barely resembles baseball.
The pitch clock, of course, is not a new rule; it has been on the books for -- well, I don't know how long actually, but it wasn't new in the 1960s when Charlie Finley put a clock on the scoreboard. And as we've discussed many times here, pitchers used to pitch must faster. It's today's game that has changed, and enforcement of the pitch clock is to bring it back.

The pauses are not part of the game. They're not part of the rules, they're not part of the historical game, and they aren't the game at all.

Saying that a pitcher or took 2 seconds too long in preparing to do
Yes, penalizing a pitcher for taking two extra seconds would be petty. But it isn't pitchers taking 2 seconds too long on occasion. It's pitchers taking 10 or 20 seconds too long, constantly.
   134. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 17, 2018 at 03:29 PM (#5639414)
The pauses are not part of the game. They're not part of the rules, they're not part of the historical game, and they aren't the game at all.

Exactly.

Yes, penalizing a pitcher for taking two extra seconds would be petty. But it isn't pitchers taking 2 seconds too long on occasion. It's pitchers taking 10 or 20 seconds too long, constantly.

Right. Pitchers are taking 30 seconds when the used to take 10-15. There's no need for it, and it makes the game tedious.

   135. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 17, 2018 at 03:32 PM (#5639415)
And I (honestly... I am not trying to be insulting, despite the provocation... and I know you aren't alone in this), don't understand how you can say this and claim to be a fan of baseball. The pauses between the plays are part of the game. Saying that a pitcher or took 2 seconds too long in preparing to do something that could completely change the face of the game (and his career) if he misses is just petty.

No one pitch changes a guy's career; that's crazy hyperbole.

The pauses used to be 10-15 seconds and pitchers did just fine. Now they're 30 seconds, and that's just too long.

I'll say again, any pitcher that need 30 seconds between pitches doesn't belong in MLB. They should be washed out.

It's entertainment, and a zero sum game. Having every player at optimum readiness for every pitch is completely irrelevant to anything the sport is trying to achieve.
   136. dejarouehg Posted: March 17, 2018 at 03:56 PM (#5639420)
No one pitch changes a guy's career; that's crazy hyperbole.


Donnie Moore and Mitch Williams were seriously affected by that one pitch, but your overall point is correct.

Watching David Price take 27 seconds to deliver a pitch has a Guantanamo feel to it. It's Steve Trachsel/Josh Beckett all over again and there's just no excuse for it.
   137. PASTE, Now with Extra Pitch and Extra Stamina Posted: March 17, 2018 at 07:36 PM (#5639450)
Baseball is not a hurry up game. Watch hockey.


I do. It's great. I highly recommend it. Right now I'm watching a hockey game and simulating baseball in OOTP and it's great fun.

I also cancelled my MLB.tv subscription after five years. It's not a case of "That's IT, I'm DONE!" over any specific rule change or lack thereof, and just... well, let me just admit it bluntly, I really don't like watching baseball that much anymore, the way the game is played now. I still obsess over my imaginary OOTP baseball universe and still keep track (mostly via reading BTF every day) of what's going on in the real world, but my interest in watching baseball on TV is gone at this point.

I might be alone. But I doubt it.
   138. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 17, 2018 at 07:58 PM (#5639456)
I might be alone. But I doubt it.

I watch very little live baseball anymore. Even with my Yankees in the playoffs, I found it very hard to watch.

I used to watch 100+ games a year. Now it's less than 10.
   139. Jay Z Posted: March 17, 2018 at 10:17 PM (#5639480)
I DVR Brewers games, but my use of skip ahead and fast forward gets more liberal every year. I have kids, I have a limited day.

As has been pointed out, despite no formal rule, for 100+ years the game was never played at this sloth like place. Does this eventually end with all good pitchers being taken out of the game because a batter simply refuses to enter the batter's box? After all, it's being argued that any limit whatsoever might taint the sanctity of each pitch. So someone's not ready forever, they're not ready. To the cheers of many, as some would have it here.
   140. Sunday silence Posted: March 18, 2018 at 03:46 AM (#5639508)
but hey to throw the ultimate pitch, it might take forever.
   141. -- Posted: March 18, 2018 at 07:23 AM (#5639510)
I might be alone. But I doubt it.


You're not. I still have MLB.tv and I usually go to sleep with a game on the radio, but it's essentially background noise at this point.
   142. Panik on the streets of London (Trout! Trout!) Posted: March 18, 2018 at 09:02 AM (#5639517)
Larvell inadvertently brings up an interesting point for me; pace of play is less of a problem when I'm listening on the radio. Perhaps it's because baseball on the radio is a passive exercise that allows you to do other things simultaneously, where if I watch a game on TV I am acutely aware that it is taking a long time. Ultimately, the game has changed pace-wise over the last 25 years, but perhaps more importantly so have we as people.
   143. Jay Z Posted: March 18, 2018 at 12:46 PM (#5639537)
Larvell inadvertently brings up an interesting point for me; pace of play is less of a problem when I'm listening on the radio. Perhaps it's because baseball on the radio is a passive exercise that allows you to do other things simultaneously, where if I watch a game on TV I am acutely aware that it is taking a long time. Ultimately, the game has changed pace-wise over the last 25 years, but perhaps more importantly so have we as people.


But at some point it's your bedtime or you're done with your car ride. You may not care whether it's the bottom of the fourth or the bottom of the ninth, but the advertisers do. The more time filled up with empty content, the less time for ads.

Maybe that's the way we should go. More than 30 seconds between pitches, automatic media time out. Give them 30 more, they must need it. Befitting the nature of the game, such media time outs are infinite. Anything to move forward on this issue.
   144. AuntBea calls himself Sky Panther Posted: March 18, 2018 at 01:06 PM (#5639542)
I watch very little live baseball anymore. Even with my Yankees in the playoffs, I found it very hard to watch.


I tend not to comment on these threads, because at this point I probably wouldn't watch baseball even if was speeded up significantly (so I'm not sure if my opinion should hold much weight). However, I used to watch a ton of baseball, and now watch none. Baseball lost me as a fan because of how slow it has gotten and how poor the tv broadcasts are, with the mostly worthless comments of announcers and especially the endless close-ups of players. It's still interesting to follow what's going on in mlb generally, and I've actually been to 3 or 4 games, but I haven't sat down and watched more than 15 minutes on tv even once in the past 5-10 years.
   145. dejarouehg Posted: March 18, 2018 at 03:13 PM (#5639558)
As much as I hate the pace of play, I still love the game. I watch it like I used to watch golf when I was a kid, though golf was more background noise.......I work and look up when there is action. During the season, there's always a game on or MLB Network is on. Still one of the joys in life.

During the 91-93 seasons, my interest fell off dramatically. I think it has something to do with Rotisserie baseball, which I haven't engaged in since.
   146. nick swisher hygiene Posted: March 18, 2018 at 05:18 PM (#5639577)
I'm with all the guys who have basically stopped watching live on TV. Though I wonder: baseball is the perfect sport for paying very little attention to while "multitasking," so you'd think millennials would give a ####. But the numbers say they don't, right? They like games like hockey and football, games that at least try to create that increasingly rare sense of absorption in the viewer. I'm with the damn millennials.....
   147. GGC Posted: March 18, 2018 at 05:23 PM (#5639579)
And yeah, ties are fine in the minors. We already have ties in Spring Training, no one cares who wins, I doubt the players even care much. All anyone cares about in the minors is "get to the majors" if you're a player, or "send us talent" if you're the MLB team.


There's something wrong about that. Unfortunately, it's been wrong like that way before I was born and I just turned 50.
   148. BDC Posted: March 18, 2018 at 05:58 PM (#5639589)
I go to games as much as I ever did, about 20 a year. I don't listen to baseball on the radio anymore, unless I'm on a road trip (when it might be the Royals or Reds or anybody hearable on a given stretch of highway). I don't watch TV except for the World Series.

Announcing is a factor, as several people have mentioned. There's such a barrage of information that it overwhelms the play-by-play. I can turn the sound off on the World Series and just watch, but radio baseball has changed, too. I think it's directly related to the pace of play. When there were only a few seconds between pitches, radio announcers were less afraid of silence. You could even search for a game on the radio dial by listening for that peculiar silence: the crowd microphone, the organ, the baseball-field sounds. Nowadays, with up to 30 seconds between pitches, the silence has been replaced by yammering, and the play-by-play is a much smaller percentage of the broadcasts (approaching zero sometimes on TV, of course).

This is partly me yelling at a cloud, of course, but it is a marked difference in the experience. The ballpark is still fun, though, except when things slow to an absolute crawl.
   149. Rennie's Tenet Posted: March 18, 2018 at 06:26 PM (#5639594)
With the Hall of Fame counting period and then the free agent signings extended this winter, I uncharacteristically listened to a good bit of MLB Radio in the car this winter. I couldn't attach names to them now, but it seemed several players either said or were quoted that they (I think pitchers and hitters both) need more time now because (1) there's more at stake nowadays; and, (2) they have much more information to process on each pitch. With respect to the latter, I'd prefer that the game give an advantage to players who can adapt tactics on the fly, and present something of a minefield for those who are less alert. I'm not sure what the first reason means, whether there's just more money involved, or more attention, but either way I'd sort of prefer that the game push the players to focus on the game in front or them, instead of on their careers or the athlete's role in modern society or something.
   150. dejarouehg Posted: March 18, 2018 at 07:23 PM (#5639605)
With the Hall of Fame counting period and then the free agent signings extended this winter, I uncharacteristically listened to a good bit of MLB Radio in the car this winter. I couldn't attach names to them now, but it seemed several players either said or were quoted that they (I think pitchers and hitters both) need more time now because (1) there's more at stake nowadays; and, (2) they have much more information to process on each pitch. With respect to the latter, I'd prefer that the game give an advantage to players who can adapt tactics on the fly, and present something of a minefield for those who are less alert. I'm not sure what the first reason means, whether there's just more money involved, or more attention, but either way I'd sort of prefer that the game push the players to focus on the game in front or them, instead of on their careers or the athlete's role in modern society or something.


I listen to a lot of MLB radio. Have to say I'm very disappointed that so many of the hosts who are ex-players and the players that are interviewed are so opposed to implementing any kind of expediting procedures. I think they're incredibly myopic on the issue. Let's face it, unless it impacts the players in the wallet, they have no incentive to change their behavior. With all the regional TV contracts in place and the revenues flowing from them, outside of advertisers applying pressure - or Manfred using his unilateral powers - it doesn't seem like the players will cooperate, even if there were no ill-will between players and owners.
   151. Jay Z Posted: March 18, 2018 at 07:46 PM (#5639607)
With the Hall of Fame counting period and then the free agent signings extended this winter, I uncharacteristically listened to a good bit of MLB Radio in the car this winter. I couldn't attach names to them now, but it seemed several players either said or were quoted that they (I think pitchers and hitters both) need more time now because (1) there's more at stake nowadays; and, (2) they have much more information to process on each pitch. With respect to the latter, I'd prefer that the game give an advantage to players who can adapt tactics on the fly, and present something of a minefield for those who are less alert. I'm not sure what the first reason means, whether there's just more money involved, or more attention, but either way I'd sort of prefer that the game push the players to focus on the game in front or them, instead of on their careers or the athlete's role in modern society or something.


Then wire the players.

If that is the issue, football is a billion times more complex than baseball, and they manage to get the plays off on schedule.

I don't consider ciphering type signals, manager or pitching coach mound visits, catcher mound visits, endless backing off or stepping out to be baseball. Do your prep work on your own time. Don't care what that is, but don't let it leak into the game.
   152. -- Posted: March 18, 2018 at 07:51 PM (#5639608)
(2) they have much more information to process on each pitch.


Bullshit. Teams sac bunt, steal, and hit and run far less than they used to. Get your ass in the box and hit.
   153. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: March 18, 2018 at 08:19 PM (#5639614)

but it seemed several players either said or were quoted that they (I think pitchers and hitters both) need more time now because (1) there's more at stake nowadays; and, (2) they have much more information to process on each pitch.
As Snapper and I have noted many times now, it's zero sum. Also, I don't even understand what "more at stake" means.
   154. BDC Posted: March 18, 2018 at 08:40 PM (#5639617)
I don't even understand what "more at stake" means

My guess would be that for anonymous relievers, there could be the perception that there's more at stake on a given pitch than there used to be. The difference might be between an NRI for next year and major-league minimum at best, versus one of those luscious $14M/2yr contracts they're handing out nowadays. And they have relatively little opportunity to prove themselves in games, just an inning at a time.

I am not saying this is rational (as everyone notes, they're giving the batter just as much time to prepare to hit them as they get to pitch, and how much information is needed to throw a fastball at the catcher's glove?) But it could be an irrational factor.
   155. Buck Coats Posted: March 18, 2018 at 08:43 PM (#5639619)
Presumably "more at stake" means more money. Luckily if this offseason trend continues, it seems like the owners may have found a way to solve that little problem, so game times might speed up again!
   156. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 18, 2018 at 08:49 PM (#5639621)
or Manfred using his unilateral powers

Manfred should unilaterally announce that for every 9 inning game that ends in under 2:45 the four umpires each get $5000 from one of his slush funds. For each game under 2:30, they get $10,000. They have the tools already with the 12 second rule, and the fact that the hitter isn't allowed to leave the box without time being called. They umps just lack the will. The prospect of making and extra $1M a year should give them the will.

Let the players experience the current rules called to the letter for a month, and then they'll be ready to negotiate.
   157. Rusty Priske Posted: March 18, 2018 at 11:29 PM (#5639644)
Ultimately, the game has changed pace-wise over the last 25 years, but perhaps more importantly so have we as people.


This is an excellent observation.

I have been feeling old lately (I turn 50 this week), because of conversations like this... along with people complaining that the Marvel netflix series 'have too many episodes', Blade Runner is 'too slow', certain people saying that movies 'shouldn't be more than two hours'. I heard someone say "if a book doesn't grab his attention in the first three pages" he stops reading it.

Basically it seems that our collective attention span has gotten microscopic. It seems that people want instant gratification at all times.

Personally, I love the slow pace of baseball, books that have some real heft (and often you don't even know what they are ABOUT until a third of the way through...), shows and movies that unwind in ways that give you time to think and analyze.

Slow down and think, don't just react.
   158. Jay Z Posted: March 19, 2018 at 12:56 AM (#5639652)
This is an excellent observation.

I have been feeling old lately (I turn 50 this week), because of conversations like this... along with people complaining that the Marvel netflix series 'have too many episodes', Blade Runner is 'too slow', certain people saying that movies 'shouldn't be more than two hours'. I heard someone say "if a book doesn't grab his attention in the first three pages" he stops reading it.

Basically it seems that our collective attention span has gotten microscopic. It seems that people want instant gratification at all times.

Personally, I love the slow pace of baseball, books that have some real heft (and often you don't even know what they are ABOUT until a third of the way through...), shows and movies that unwind in ways that give you time to think and analyze.

Slow down and think, don't just react


Dunno. I've felt for a long time that if I feel entertainment is too long, it's an automatic thumbs down. Don't bore me.

Movies, like baseball games, have no set lengths. But there are some movies that are simply too long. Take too long to make their point, run the ending scenes past the point of interest. Time does matter.
   159. -- Posted: March 19, 2018 at 07:02 AM (#5639658)
I am not saying this is rational (as everyone notes, they're giving the batter just as much time to prepare to hit them as they get to pitch, and how much information is needed to throw a fastball at the catcher's glove?) But it could be an irrational factor.


There's been "a lot at stake" for decades. That's not the reason. It's post hoc rationalization.

Not that any of that matters in the least to consumers.

   160. TomH Posted: March 19, 2018 at 07:38 AM (#5639663)
agree with 142 and 157.

Look at entertainment in general, now vs two generations ago. Try to watch the original Ocean's 11 with the Rat Pack and compare it to the modern one. Compare the TV dramas of the 1970s with the pace of The Wsst Wing, for example. My parents can't watch modern shows, they move too fast. If MLB wants viewers in 2030 when Mike Trout is looking to set career records, they need to understand this. It doesn't matter much of you are I individually believe it's too slow. The demographic believes it is too slow = boring because of the WASTE of time and LACK of ball-in-play action. Lower the mound three inches, move the batter's box back an inch or two, deaden the ball a bit or enforce bat handle thickness, call a ball or strike if the hitter or pitcher isn't ready, and get the relief pitcher in from the pen faster. Less dead time, fewer KOs and HRs, more singles, more speed, more baserunning, more decisions, more defense.

My kids never picked up baseball. I can't blame them.
   161. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: March 19, 2018 at 08:41 AM (#5639668)

My kids never picked up baseball. I can't blame them.
Nah. I blame you.
   162. Panik on the streets of London (Trout! Trout!) Posted: March 19, 2018 at 08:53 AM (#5639669)
Dunno. I've felt for a long time that if I feel entertainment is too long, it's an automatic thumbs down. Don't bore me.

Movies, like baseball games, have no set lengths. But there are some movies that are simply too long. Take too long to make their point, run the ending scenes past the point of interest. Time does matter.


Oh I agree with you. I hate gratuitously long movies. I don't mind a long baseball game if the pace is good. What I don't like is the standing around. My point isn't to say that pace of play isn't a problem, it's just that one of the main reasons WHY it's a problem is that people in general don't have patience. It's not a good thing or a bad thing; it's a true thing.
   163. Panik on the streets of London (Trout! Trout!) Posted: March 19, 2018 at 08:58 AM (#5639670)
Basically it seems that our collective attention span has gotten microscopic. It seems that people want instant gratification at all times


This is true, but I can't say that I blame anyone for that mindset. There is so much entertainment in the world to choose from at any given moment that it's kind of difficult to nurture something that doesn't grab you immediately. As a person who is terrible at making choices and who is easily overwhelmed by the surplus of entertainment, I sometimes long for a simpler time (i'm only 38); but I definitely understand and see the allure of being able to get whatever you want immediately on TV or whatever.
   164. PASTE, Now with Extra Pitch and Extra Stamina Posted: March 19, 2018 at 09:14 AM (#5639671)
On the other hand, Gettysburg was until recently the longest movie ever released to theaters, and there are only maybe two scenes in the whole movie I might have cut (but also a couple others they did cut that I wouldn't have).

It's not the length, it's whether or not it's compelling from start to finish. Don't waste my time, but if you hold my attention you can hold it as long as you want. Similarly, the length of baseball games isn't why I've stopped watching them. It's the pace.
   165. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 19, 2018 at 09:25 AM (#5639672)
On the other hand, Gettysburg was until recently the longest movie ever released to theaters, and there are only maybe two scenes in the whole movie I might have cut (but also a couple others they did cut that I wouldn't have).

It's not the length, it's whether or not it's compelling from start to finish. Don't waste my time, but if you hold my attention you can hold it as long as you want. Similarly, the length of baseball games isn't why I've stopped watching them. It's the pace.


It's both; pace and length. I'll watch a 3+ hour movie if it's really, really good, but the bar is much, much higher than for a 1:30 movie.

If the investment is twice as big, I need more return. Likewise, a 3:30 long fast paced baseball game would be fine once in a while, but I can't allocate over 3 hours to basbeball every night.

2 hours is about the right length for entertainment to be watched in one sitting. Baseball games that started at 8 and were over by 10:30 (like they were in NY in the 1970s) would be perfect.
   166. PreservedFish Posted: March 19, 2018 at 09:47 AM (#5639676)
I have been feeling old lately (I turn 50 this week), because of conversations like this... along with people complaining that the Marvel netflix series 'have too many episodes', Blade Runner is 'too slow', certain people saying that movies 'shouldn't be more than two hours'. I heard someone say "if a book doesn't grab his attention in the first three pages" he stops reading it.

Basically it seems that our collective attention span has gotten microscopic. It seems that people want instant gratification at all times.

Personally, I love the slow pace of baseball, books that have some real heft (and often you don't even know what they are ABOUT until a third of the way through...), shows and movies that unwind in ways that give you time to think and analyze.

Slow down and think, don't just react.


Sorry, these analogies fail. We're complaining about wasted, irrelevant time. Nothing occurs during these new extra pauses. The pauses add nothing of value and they're not intrinsic to the game. Baseball was already great before these pauses started getting stretch out gratuitously.

The proper comparison is not to Lawrence of Arabia or War and Peace or The Wire. It's more like someone took The Adventures of Tom Sawyer and then added one boring superfluous sentence to every single paragraph.
   167. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: March 19, 2018 at 10:22 AM (#5639688)
It's more like someone took The Adventures of Tom Sawyer and then added one boring superfluous sentence to every single paragraph.
Or a movie in which the actors just stand there for 20 seconds between every line of dialogue or action.
   168. Panik on the streets of London (Trout! Trout!) Posted: March 19, 2018 at 10:26 AM (#5639691)
Or a movie in which the actors just stand there for 20 seconds between every line of dialogue or action.


Don't mind Marlon Brando over there, he's just gearing up for his next max effort line.
   169. PreservedFish Posted: March 19, 2018 at 10:35 AM (#5639699)
Or a movie in which the actors just stand there for 20 seconds between every line of dialogue or action.

I was thinking about this and the example of The Graduate popped into my head, where the ending is a long actionless pause that is pregnant with meaning and open to all sorts of interpretations. That's kind of like a pause near the end of a tight game, where you mind is racing considering what the pitcher might throw, what the runners might do, what could happen, etc. Those pauses are rare but exciting. But if The Graduate had 30 or 50 such pauses, the last pause would lose its power entirely. It would be like, "oh, just another one of those dumb useless pauses, what an appropriate way to end a stupid boring movie."
   170. PreservedFish Posted: March 19, 2018 at 10:42 AM (#5639700)
If you could edit a baseball game for maximum viewing pleasure, how long would the pauses be? How long would the game last?
   171. Panik on the streets of London (Trout! Trout!) Posted: March 19, 2018 at 10:48 AM (#5639702)
If you could edit a baseball game for maximum viewing pleasure, how long would the pauses be? How long would the game last?


Without regard to reality, it would be 5-8 seconds between pitches and maybe 15 seconds between hitters. Game over in like 2 hours.
   172. Zonk is a Doorknob Whisperer Posted: March 19, 2018 at 10:56 AM (#5639706)
Without regard to reality, it would be 5-8 seconds between pitches and maybe 15 seconds between hitters. Game over in like 2 hours.


If we're tossing out reality - and obviously, one could never make a rule for it - I'd be fine with this except for drama-filled moments. Yeah, endless pitching changes suck - but a top shelf pitcher against a top shelf hitter late in a close game with runners on?

I don't mind that milking so much... it's more the pauses earlier in non-close games. Obviously, a drama exemption is not feasible.
   173. PreservedFish Posted: March 19, 2018 at 11:03 AM (#5639710)
I might want 10 seconds. I don't want it to zoom by too quick. And I also want to extend the drama moments. Plenty of replays then.

Someone should watch the tense scenes in, like, Major League, and count how many seconds there are between pitches. Honestly curious about that.
   174. Panik on the streets of London (Trout! Trout!) Posted: March 19, 2018 at 11:03 AM (#5639711)
If it was 15 seconds between pitches and games were over in 2:45, I wouldn't ever complain. But agree with Zonk and PF that in tense situations you don't notice it as much.
   175. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: March 19, 2018 at 11:08 AM (#5639714)
If we're tossing out reality - and obviously, one could never make a rule for it - I'd be fine with this except for drama-filled moments. Yeah, endless pitching changes suck - but a top shelf pitcher against a top shelf hitter late in a close game with runners on?

I don't mind that milking so much... it's more the pauses earlier in non-close games. Obviously, a drama exemption is not feasible.
In a movie, where the slowdown at the end is specifically designed to build drama, I would agree. In real life, though, most of the time it's just stalling, not milking drama. Which means that you're slowing down the game right at the part where it should be most exciting.

But, yeah, perhaps I'd feel different if the rest of the game had moved quickly.
   176. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: March 19, 2018 at 11:09 AM (#5639716)
But agree with Zonk and PF that in tense situations you don't notice it as much.
Really? I find it even more irritating in tense situations when, instead of a release, we get the manager trudging out to make a pitching change, or a step-off --> step out --> catcher mound visit. Seems like that happens more often than not these days.

EDIT: Coke to DN.
   177. Ben Broussard Ramjet Posted: March 19, 2018 at 11:11 AM (#5639718)
If we're tossing out reality - and obviously, one could never make a rule for it - I'd be fine with this except for drama-filled moments. Yeah, endless pitching changes suck - but a top shelf pitcher against a top shelf hitter late in a close game with runners on?

I don't mind that milking so much... it's more the pauses earlier in non-close games. Obviously, a drama exemption is not feasible.


Yeah, this is my feeling as well. When the game gets close to the end, either the result is in significant doubt - in which case, you want to take the time to savor things, and you don't mind a few extra seconds while a reliever prepares to throw 100mph and the crowd noise builds - or it isn't, in which case, if you're at the ballpark, you're either kicking back or packing up to leave. Or, if you're watching at home, you're probably mentally disengaging somewhat already.

If you can get through innings 1-7 at 15-20 minutes each, I can live with innings 8 and 9 being 25-30 minutes each.
   178. PreservedFish Posted: March 19, 2018 at 11:12 AM (#5639719)
Really? I find it even more irritating in tense situations when, instead of a release, we get the manager trudging out to make a pitching change, or a step-off --> step out --> catcher mound visit. Seems like that happens more often than not these days.


A step off or mound visit is never not annoying, and yes, they happen way too much nowadays. But I don't mind if the pace otherwise slows down at those times ... if the hitter takes longer to settle in, the pitcher stares a bit longer.

Let me put it this way. A foul ball is not annoying. A foul ball just ratchets up the tension. Longer pauses can ratchet up the tension ... to a point. But when they go beyond that point, it starts to deflate the tension. There's a limit to how long you can stay jittery and excited about a single pitch. For a BIG pitch, I think 10 seconds is too little. 40 seconds is obviously too much. Not sure where the sweet spot is.
   179. GGC Posted: March 19, 2018 at 11:14 AM (#5639720)
Look at entertainment in general, now vs two generations ago. Try to watch the original Ocean's 11 with the Rat Pack and compare it to the modern one. Compare the TV dramas of the 1970s with the pace of The Wsst Wing, for example. My parents can't watch modern shows, they move too fast.


Network police procedurals are the worst; especially when they copsplain everything AND try to add in witty banter. It's TV, not radio,
   180. Panik on the streets of London (Trout! Trout!) Posted: March 19, 2018 at 11:28 AM (#5639725)
A step off or mound visit is never not annoying, and yes, they happen way too much nowadays. But I don't mind if the pace otherwise slows down at those times ... if the hitter takes longer to settle in, the pitcher stares a bit longer.


This is more what I was talking about. Mound visits definitely need to be done away with but if the pitcher takes a little longer in a big spot I'm not complaining.
   181. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: March 19, 2018 at 11:29 AM (#5639726)

Look at entertainment in general, now vs two generations ago. Try to watch the original Ocean's 11 with the Rat Pack and compare it to the modern one. Compare the TV dramas of the 1970s with the pace of The Wsst Wing, for example. My parents can't watch modern shows, they move too fast.
Well, I can't watch the TV dramas of the 1970s; they move too slowly. (More precisely, a lot less is happening. You have a simple linear A plot and a rudimentary comedic B plot.)
   182. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: March 19, 2018 at 11:35 AM (#5639731)
This is more what I was talking about. Mound visits definitely need to be done away with but if the pitcher takes a little longer in a big spot I'm not complaining.
OK, but realistically, how often does that not lead to a step off - step out - mound visit sequence these days, especially in the postseason?
   183. Panik on the streets of London (Trout! Trout!) Posted: March 19, 2018 at 11:43 AM (#5639737)
OK, but realistically, how often does that not lead to a step off - step out - mound visit sequence these days, especially in the postseason?


You're right! Which is why mound visits should be stopped. I believe that you had suggested the threat of wolverines on another thread, which is a penalty I support vigorously!
   184. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: March 19, 2018 at 11:44 AM (#5639738)
Not the threat of wolverines. The certain use of wolverines. It has to be mandatory, because if you give the umps any discretion, they'll just never actually release the wolverines.
   185. PreservedFish Posted: March 19, 2018 at 11:50 AM (#5639742)
Can you continue pitching after the wolverine is released? Or is it a dead ball situation?
   186. Panik on the streets of London (Trout! Trout!) Posted: March 19, 2018 at 11:55 AM (#5639747)
Can you continue pitching after the wolverine is released? Or is it a dead ball situation?


You MUST continue pitching otherwise it will impact pace of play :)
   187. Panik on the streets of London (Trout! Trout!) Posted: March 19, 2018 at 11:57 AM (#5639748)
Not the threat of wolverines. The certain use of wolverines. It has to be mandatory, because if you give the umps any discretion, they'll just never actually release the wolverines.


That is scary accurate. One of the ancillary benefits here is that good nicknames would again be bestowed upon players. "Here comes Willson 'Wolverine Killer' Contreras..."
   188. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: March 19, 2018 at 12:14 PM (#5639759)
Well, if some of the players are able to overpower the wolverines, we're going to have to (a) step up the PED testing, and (b) bring in some larger animals. Underfed cheetahs, perhaps.
   189. PreservedFish Posted: March 19, 2018 at 12:21 PM (#5639762)
How do we know the wolverine will attack the right player? Do the pitchers need to wear a certain perfume or something? Play with warm, bloody steaks in their back pockets? Or is anyone fair game, on either team?
   190. Panik on the streets of London (Trout! Trout!) Posted: March 19, 2018 at 12:32 PM (#5639768)
Well, if some of the players are able to overpower the wolverines, we're going to have to (a) step up the PED testing, and (b) bring in some larger animals. Underfed cheetahs, perhaps.


Well, it'll probably just be Contreras. He said that he would do whatever it takes to continue his social calls on the mound. I can only assume that killing a wolverine would be in his range.

How do we know the wolverine will attack the right player? Do the pitchers need to wear a certain perfume or something? Play with warm, bloody steaks in their back pockets? Or is anyone fair game, on either team?


This is a valid question. Let's let Manfred decide.
   191. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: March 19, 2018 at 12:57 PM (#5639784)
How do we know the wolverine will attack the right player? Do the pitchers need to wear a certain perfume or something? Play with warm, bloody steaks in their back pockets? Or is anyone fair game, on either team?
Actually, maybe we should reimagine this - probably the most efficient way would be to train the wolverines to attack the umps, right? Just train them to look for the black uniforms. (Although can wolverines see color?) Have an MLB rep at the ballpark who is in charge of releasing the wolverines if the umps don't move the game along well enough. That solves the incentive problem. Also, the umps aren't in as good a shape as the players, for the most part.
   192. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: March 19, 2018 at 01:01 PM (#5639787)
Hm. Apparently wolverines are nocturnal, so we're going to have to think of something else for day games.
   193. PreservedFish Posted: March 19, 2018 at 01:27 PM (#5639815)
Honey badger
   194. -- Posted: March 19, 2018 at 01:59 PM (#5639837)
If you could edit a baseball game for maximum viewing pleasure, how long would the pauses be? How long would the game last?


I went to two Tigers games in 1981; one the night of my last school final exam, the other just a plain vanilla August Friday night.

Here's the first one:

Boxscore

Tommy John was a pretty fast worker even for his era and obviously pitched very well. No walks, 1 strikeout (!!), one run. Tiger pitching walked three, struck out 4, gave up four earned runs. Game time 2:11.(*)

Here's the August game:

https://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/DET/DET198108140.shtml


Yankees pitching struck out 0 (!!), walked one; Tigers pitching struck out four, walked two. Final 1-0 Tigers. Game time: 2:07.

The teams put the ball in play, didn't flail like oafs, and the games clearly moved at a crisp pace. That's what I want. It doesn't have to be *exactly* that, but it has to be much closer to that than today's TTO flail-like-oafs snorefests.
   195. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 19, 2018 at 02:04 PM (#5639842)
Hm. Apparently wolverines are nocturnal, so we're going to have to think of something else for day games.

Ligers.

Cross between a lion and a tiger. Can grow to be 10 ft. long and 1000 lbs.
   196. -- Posted: March 19, 2018 at 02:15 PM (#5639851)
1981 World Series times (nothing at stake!! Games on network television with significantly higher ratings than today):

Game 1: 8 runs, 10 strikeouts, 10 walks -- 2:32
Game 2: 3 runs, 9 strikeouts, 7 walks -- 2:29
Game 3: 9, 11, 11 -- 3:04
Game 4: 15, 8, 9 -- 3:32
Game 5: 3, 9, 6 -- 2:19
Game 6: 11, 13, 11 -- 3:09

That's the pace I want. If I know my outer bound is somewhere around 3:30 and then only if the game is massively high-scoring and rare, I'm good. It's not just the average time that's too long now, but the outer bound is way too high. If there's a decent chance I'm going to have to invest 3:30 to 4:30, I'm not going to bother starting in the first place. (Because I don't want to invest 2 hours and then not see the end.) And there's a decent chance of that with every game in 2018.
   197. Rusty Priske Posted: March 19, 2018 at 02:36 PM (#5639857)
I'll make one last comment and then I'll stop... promise.

Those games mentioned in #194 - if I went to a game and it only lasted about two hours, I would be disappointed, unless it was a very exciting game to make up for it. Those two don't sound like that.
   198. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 19, 2018 at 02:39 PM (#5639860)
Those games mentioned in #194 - if I went to a game and it only lasted about two hours, I would be disappointed, unless it was a very exciting game to make up for it.

Why? I'd be thrilled to get home by 10 PM.
   199. -- Posted: March 19, 2018 at 02:40 PM (#5639861)
Those games mentioned in #194 - if I went to a game and it only lasted about two hours, I would be disappointed,


I doubt that, unless you're somehow saying you never went to any games in the 80s. (*)

Nor is it believable that you would have been "disappointed" in, say, Game 5 of the 1981 World Series. If you would be, you're the one that really isn't a baseball fan.

(And, yeah, a 1-0 shutout over the best team in the AL was exciting.)

(*) Of course the games I mentioned weren't remotely "disappointing." Hall of Famers and Hall of Very Goods galore. Whitaker, Trammell, John, Parrish, Winfield, Nettles, Randolph, Jackson (who got booed vociferously every time he came up), Reuschel, etc. Could have seen Gibson and Morris. Not remotely disappointing.
   200. Rennie's Tenet Posted: March 19, 2018 at 03:04 PM (#5639872)
I'd be excited by a 2 hour game, just to see if they could finish in two hours.

Double headers I remember: 1975, SF at Pittsburgh, 2:17 and 2:18; 1974, Padres at Pittsburgh, 1:38 and 2:43 (15 runs); 1969, Mets at Pittsburgh, 2:19 and 2:02.
Page 2 of 3 pages  < 1 2 3 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Shooty would run in but these bone spurs hurt!
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogIs Red Sox' slump temporary, or did they come back to earth?
(14 - 2:21am, Sep 21)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

Sox TherapyIT’S OVER
(2 - 2:15am, Sep 21)
Last: the Hugh Jorgan returns

NewsblogOTP 2018 September 17: How Brett Kavanaugh explains his baseball ticket debt
(1564 - 1:49am, Sep 21)
Last: OCF

NewsblogOT - Catch-All Pop Culture Extravaganza (September 2018)
(372 - 1:18am, Sep 21)
Last: Gonfalon Bubble

NewsblogWho needs Justice when you have OMNICHATTER! for Sept. 20, 2018
(159 - 1:01am, Sep 21)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogOT - 2018 NBA Thread (Pre-Season Edition)
(445 - 11:49pm, Sep 20)
Last: tshipman

NewsblogWillians Astudillo Should Be Your New Favorite Player
(19 - 11:41pm, Sep 20)
Last: QLE

NewsblogDodgers bash their way to MLB history with record-tying seven 20-homer hitters
(26 - 11:20pm, Sep 20)
Last: Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant

NewsblogSnell wins 20th, ties Rays record in 4-0 victory over Texas
(45 - 11:10pm, Sep 20)
Last: Buck Coats

NewsblogIt's not a tantrum, it's a cry for OMNICHATTER! for Sept. 19, 2018
(91 - 10:35pm, Sep 20)
Last: ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick

NewsblogThe Orioles became the first professional sports team to wear Braille jerseys
(52 - 9:50pm, Sep 20)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

NewsblogOT: Soccer Thread (2018-19 season begins!)
(817 - 9:32pm, Sep 20)
Last: Richard

NewsblogOrioles match club record with 107th loss, 5-0 to Blue Jays before tiny home crowd
(59 - 5:50pm, Sep 20)
Last: escabeche

Sox Therapy11 Days Later
(76 - 5:15pm, Sep 20)
Last: Jose is an Absurd Force of Nature

Sox Therapy6,036 Days
(15 - 2:49pm, Sep 20)
Last: Nasty Nate

Page rendered in 0.7227 seconds
48 querie(s) executed