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

Monday, January 22, 2018

Rosenthal roundtable: Five MLB players weigh in on the pace-of-play rules and the need for change – The Athletic

Enforce the 12 second rule. I want the game done in 2.5 hours.

Scherzer: When you get down to the root of it, the clock MLB is proposing with ball-strike penalties, it’s very regimented. There is no leeway within any situations. Say there is a quick game going on. Everyone is doing their job and working at a quick pace. Then something happens and someone takes a little extra time. And we’re going to penalize somebody. That’s what leads to a lot of people being frustrated by having a regimented clock.

We hear MLB. We want the game underneath three hours. The umpires can kind of tell when the game is moving slow and when the game is moving fast. After three innings, if it’s taken two hours, we know we’re behind with the clock, the umpires would have some type of leeway to help pick up the pace of play instead of having consequences attached to it. That’s when players would be more receptive to different enforcements.

The players right now when we hear clock, when we hear balls and strikes, we just want to take our heads and beat them against the wall. It doesn’t make sense because there are too many variables in there. But if there is a conversation about situations when the game is running slow and what we should do, you’re going to have a lot of ideas from different players. There should be some middle ground here.

Jim Furtado Posted: January 22, 2018 at 08:32 AM | 146 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: pay site, rules

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 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 
   1. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 22, 2018 at 09:03 AM (#5610771)
Enforce the 12 second rule. I want the game done in 2.5 hours.

Amen.
   2. Lassus Posted: January 22, 2018 at 09:24 AM (#5610782)
Here's what I want to know: There are ALWAYS interviews with players who'd LOOOOOOVE the game sped up. I want to hear more from the players who can't stand any of the efforts and refuse to care about the game being over 4 hours. Where are THOSE guys, because it would have to be a massive majority of the players at this point, wouldn't it?
   3. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 22, 2018 at 09:27 AM (#5610783)
What the players have to understand is that it's not about them. I'm certainly not on the "screw the players because fytw" side of any debate - but at the end of the day, games are played for fans (i.e. customers) not players. It doesn't matter whether players like the rule, if it makes games better for fans.
   4. Rusty Priske Posted: January 22, 2018 at 09:34 AM (#5610786)
Sigh.

Games are not too long.

There ARE pacing issues at times, but overall, nope.
   5. BDC Posted: January 22, 2018 at 09:35 AM (#5610788)
Say there is a quick game going on. Everyone is doing their job and working at a quick pace. Then something happens and someone takes a little extra time. And we’re going to penalize somebody. That’s what leads to a lot of people being frustrated by having a regimented clock

Fair enough in golf, let's say somebody hits a drive over the trees and it maims a spectator and they have to get extracted by helicopter or God knows what.

What would "something happens" amount to in baseball? A pitching change? But that's off the clock. Replay challenge? That's off the clock. Rules debate among managers and umpires? Ditto. Rain delay?

If "something happens" means "somebody gets on base," that's exactly when we want play to continue, instead of watching the pitcher go through The Sorrows of Young Werther on the mound.
   6. Jose is an Absurd Doubles Machine Posted: January 22, 2018 at 09:37 AM (#5610789)
Here's what I want to know: There are ALWAYS interviews with players who'd LOOOOOOVE the game sped up. I want to hear more from the players who can't stand any of the efforts and refuse to care about the game being over 4 hours. Where are THOSE guys, because it would have to be a massive majority of the players at this point, wouldn't it?


It's like taxes. Every poll in history says teachers should get paid more and schools should be funded better but anytime someone suggests a tax increase it gets voted down. Hell this weekend David Ortiz talked about the need for the game to speed up and I'm sure he feels that way but I'm equally sure that Papi would've murdered someone if an umpire told him to hurry it the #### up. Basically the players want everyone ELSE to hurry up with no change to their own routine.
   7. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 22, 2018 at 09:39 AM (#5610790)
but at the end of the day, games are played for fans (i.e. customers) not players. It doesn't matter whether players like the rule, if it makes games better for fans.

100%

Games are not too long.

Yes, they are.

When I was a kid the Yankees came on at 8PM and were still done early enough that a 5 y.o. was allowed to watch until the end.

I don't have 3.5 hours to dedicate to a game on a nightly basis. But make it 2:15 to 2:30, I'd watch a lot more games. That's pretty much the natural interval for entertainment. You notice that most all movies, plays, musicals, operas, etc. conform to that time window.
   8. Jose is an Absurd Doubles Machine Posted: January 22, 2018 at 09:39 AM (#5610791)
And I've said this before but what I'd love more than a clock is a system like soccer with a yellow card/red card.* If a player is dilly-dallying the ump has some discretion but if he gets fed up out comes the yellow card. If it happens again, red card and he's ejected. The nice thing about this is it puts the onus on the player. Fair or not you and everyone in the ballpark know you are on your last warning so get your #### together.

* - and so cfb doesn't lose his mind it doesn't have to be yellow/red. Make it 3 strikes or whatever. But some kind of public mechanism that tells everyone to move it the #### along.
   9. Crispix Attacksel Rios Posted: January 22, 2018 at 09:41 AM (#5610794)
Here's what I want to know: There are ALWAYS interviews with players who'd LOOOOOOVE the game sped up. I want to hear more from the players who can't stand any of the efforts and refuse to care about the game being over 4 hours. Where are THOSE guys, because it would have to be a massive majority of the players at this point, wouldn't it?


I doubt that. Established players in a sport rarely want to change much because they have got to where they are today under the current rules, and they are worried that different rules would make them less valuable. You'd have to ask the hypothetical players who will be able to adapt quickly to staying in the box instead of wandering around fixing their gloves before every pitch, but nobody is sure which players those are.
   10. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 22, 2018 at 09:48 AM (#5610796)
#4 seems like pedantry of the sort I'm usually accused of. Pace of play and game length are not independent, but instead are closely related. Reduce the former and ceteris paribus you reduce the latter. Yes, there are a few times when the distinction matters, such as horrific proposals to put fake runners on base for extra inning games. But in general, the two can be used as proxies for each other.
   11. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 22, 2018 at 09:48 AM (#5610797)
I doubt that. Established players in a sport rarely want to change much because they have got to where they are today under the current rules, and they are worried that different rules would make them less valuable. You'd have to ask the hypothetical players who will be able to adapt quickly to staying in the box instead of wandering around fixing their gloves before every pitch, but nobody is sure which players those are.

Agreed.

But, neither the league nor the fans should care about this one bit. Some players will benefit, some will suffer, but it's zero sum. It can't hurt players in aggregate.
   12. SoSH U at work Posted: January 22, 2018 at 09:52 AM (#5610798)
It can't hurt players in aggregate.


In aggregate, it helps the players. Same money, shorter workday. More time to chase tail.

That's how Manfred should be selling it.
   13. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: January 22, 2018 at 09:58 AM (#5610799)
If an entire generation of white Southerners could get used to the idea of blacks sitting down next to them in restaurants, 750 baseball players can adjust to rules that speed up the game.
   14. Lassus Posted: January 22, 2018 at 10:05 AM (#5610803)
While I wouldn't use that analogy, I do agree that these people are goddamned adults and should be able to adjust, FFS.
   15. Zonk, Bearer of Responsibility Posted: January 22, 2018 at 10:13 AM (#5610807)
I don't feel nearly as strong about pace of play problems as most - and most of my complaints would be far more titled towards postseason relieverama and the hideous implementation of replay - but just don't #### things up.

I don't support a pitch clock, but don't oppose it enough to care.... well, check that - I don't like the idea of clocks period. I suppose leaving it to the on-field umps to enforce such stuff hasn't worked, so maybe a clock is temporarily the way to go. I would hope - after a couple of seasons, players get used to it, umps get used to calling it, etc - we could take the training wheels off.

Having a clock tick down seconds in the stadium just seems so anathema.... but if the league (umps and players) can be 'trained' with one ticking down, I just hope in a few years we can get rid of it and let an ump keep a stopwatch or something.
   16. Dr. Vaux Posted: January 22, 2018 at 10:39 AM (#5610818)
The practical problem here is that many of the changes proposed, like limiting mound visits and reducing pitcher warmup time, will result in more plate appearances that don't end in outs, which will slow down the game, not speed it up. One presumes, at least, that making life harder for pitchers will make it harder for them to get batters out--probably in the form of more walks,* so there will be more of baseball's least exciting play. The pace will be worse even if the existing dead time is reduced, that reduction will be filled back in, and the length of games will at best stay the same. More likely, games will get longer.

* Even if it's more bad pitches leading to more hits, that will still mean more baseunners and longer games, although perhaps if there's more of everyone running around, instead of standing around, the pace will seem better and that will satisfy people (though I personally won't be happy).

   17. TDF didn't lie, he just didn't remember Posted: January 22, 2018 at 10:39 AM (#5610819)
If an entire generation of white Southerners could get used to the idea of blacks sitting down next to them in restaurants
Assumption without evidence?
   18. -- Posted: January 22, 2018 at 10:41 AM (#5610821)
Wherein Andy yet again can't bear to keep OTP and other threads separate -- as literally every other participant on the boards can do without an iota of problem or internal tumult.

On the merits, yes, the game remains far too plodding and even 2:55 or thereabouts is too long for the average game to last. Only football games last that long, and those are once per week spectacles. Basketball and hockey are the relevant comps here (and to some degree, yes, movies and operas), and those run about 2:20 to 2:30. Soccer, two hours. I don't give a #### about a hitter's or pitcher's "routine," any more than I would a free throw shooter or tennis server who took a minute to take action. If you need that long to get ready for action, find another line of work.
   19. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: January 22, 2018 at 10:46 AM (#5610823)
If an entire generation of white Southerners could get used to the idea of blacks sitting down next to them in restaurants

Assumption without evidence?


They got used to it in the sense that 99% of them gave up the fight once the law was passed and the Supreme Court upheld it. I didn't mean that they liked it, any more than some of the players might like being told to speed things up. But if the rule changes are strictly enforced, the players will eventually make the mental adjustment to the point where it won't even be an internal issue.
   20. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: January 22, 2018 at 10:49 AM (#5610824)
Yeah, sorry, Max, we're WAY beyond the point of "We don't need any consequences, we'll play faster on our own, we promise, for realsies this time!"
   21. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 22, 2018 at 10:49 AM (#5610826)

TDF's reply in 17 may have been more properly addressed to Dr. Vaux's 16. I see no reason to think those things will hurt pitchers. So many successful pitching coaches have preached "work fast" as a mantra for pitching excellence.
   22. Russ Posted: January 22, 2018 at 10:51 AM (#5610827)
I hate the idea of clocks in the game. What I think would speed the game up is that when relievers are brought into the middle of an inning, they should not be allowed any warm-up pitches. Go to the mound and just throw. Pinch hitters don't get extra time to screw around in the batter's box when they go up there cold from the bench. Allow warm-up pitches still between innings (because commercials), but the warm-ups within an inning are just brutal.

This would accomplish two things:

(1) It would erase 8 warm-up pitches and tedious conversation between the reliever and the catcher, PER RELIEVER which would mean a lot in games, especially in the NL.

(2) It would potentially reduce the number of relievers used, particularly if managers believe that the quality of the reliever would be reduced from not having the ability to warm-up on the mound beforehand. Not to mention that managers would need to better predict when relievers would be used.

I think this would have a much more dramatic effect on the length of games than anything related to a game clock.
   23. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: January 22, 2018 at 10:56 AM (#5610832)
What I think would speed the game up is that when relievers are brought into the middle of an inning, they should not be allowed any warm-up pitches. Go to the mound and just throw.

Yep, let's do that too.
   24. TDF didn't lie, he just didn't remember Posted: January 22, 2018 at 10:57 AM (#5610833)
The practical problem here is that many of the changes proposed, like limiting mound visits and reducing pitcher warmup time, will result in more plate appearances that don't end in outs, which will slow down the game, not speed it up. One presumes, at least, that making life harder for pitchers will make it harder for them to get batters out--probably in the form of more walks,* so there will be more of baseball's least exciting play. The pace will be worse even if the existing dead time is reduced, that reduction will be filled back in, and the length of games will at best stay the same. More likely, games will get longer.
And yet, in 1968 ("The year of the pitcher") games were 30 minutes shorter than today. The '78 Phillies were able to win 90 games with an average game time of 2:21.
   25. Dr. Vaux Posted: January 22, 2018 at 10:58 AM (#5610834)
Certainly we have to wait and see how it plays out. It might not increase offense. But a lot of pitchers seem somewhat high-maintenance mentally, and there's a big difference between working quickly by choice and doing it because of an external force. Coaches have also always counseled against letting the game speed up, as they put it.

And yet, in 1968 ("The year of the pitcher") games were 30 minutes shorter than today. The '78 Phillies were able to win 90 games with an average game time of 2:21.


That's because hitters swung at everything and didn't have any power. There's no way to replicate those conditions today.
   26. dlf Posted: January 22, 2018 at 11:01 AM (#5610835)
Over the weekend I was trying to find a passage from one of Ron Luciano's books where he talks about the 12 second rule. Apparently one year there was a move in Spring Training to enforce it and all the umps were given stop watches. Luciano wrote that they "accidentally" broke - wondering just how much of an accident it is when all 350# of Ken Kaiser jumps up and down on it - and instead the umps would glance at gum wrappers, the foil from which made it look like they were paying attention to timing the game. But basically, the only time the umps really pushed was late in blow-outs when they had a flight or dinner reservations.
   27. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 22, 2018 at 11:03 AM (#5610837)
But a lot of pitchers seem somewhat high-maintenance mentally, and there's a big difference between working quickly by choice and doing it because of an external force. Coaches have also always counseled against letting the game speed up, as they put it.

Well, then we'll wash out the guys who can't hack it, and replace them with new pitchers. The hitters seem to love their pre-pitch routines just as much.

That's because hitters swung at everything and didn't have any power. There's no way to replicate those conditions today.

There are. You could deaden the ball significantly, and go back to the kneww to shoulders strikezone. Then hitters would swing.
   28. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: January 22, 2018 at 11:05 AM (#5610839)
Certainly we have to wait and see how it plays out. It might not increase offense. But a lot of pitchers seem somewhat high-maintenance mentally, and there's a big difference between working quickly by choice and doing it because of an external force.

Any negative impact on pitchers will be offset by hitters having to bravely remain at the plate with insufficiently tight batting gloves.

Seriously, though, to the extent that it weeds out any fragile snowflakes (pitchers or hitters) who can't be effective without going through time-wasting rituals, so much the better.

EDIT: Snapper, what sort of beverage can I buy you?
   29. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: January 22, 2018 at 11:08 AM (#5610842)
I want to hear more from the players who can't stand any of the efforts and refuse to care about the game being over 4 hours. Where are THOSE guys


I'm guessing they don't talk any faster than they play. Who wants to spend four hours interviewing Steve Trachsel?
   30. The Good Face Posted: January 22, 2018 at 11:10 AM (#5610844)
The practical problem here is that many of the changes proposed, like limiting mound visits and reducing pitcher warmup time, will result in more plate appearances that don't end in outs, which will slow down the game, not speed it up. One presumes, at least, that making life harder for pitchers will make it harder for them to get batters out--probably in the form of more walks,* so there will be more of baseball's least exciting play. The pace will be worse even if the existing dead time is reduced, that reduction will be filled back in, and the length of games will at best stay the same. More likely, games will get longer.


I'm not necessarily as concerned with the length of the games so much as the pace of play. Batters working the count or fouling off pitches, pitchers checking runners or nibbling around the strike zone, all of those things can extend the length of the game, but those things are the result of players playing baseball. My (and I suspect many other posters') issues revolve around things that extend the game that are NOT players playing baseball. Batters calling time between each pitch, spending 15 seconds adjusting their gloves. Pitchers stomping around behind the mound muttering to themselves or scratching their junk for 45 seconds between pitches. Stuff like that. Do away with that nonsense and then we can address longer games if they're still an issue.
   31. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 22, 2018 at 11:11 AM (#5610845)
EDIT: Snapper, what sort of beverage can I buy you?

I don't know. It's too early for Bourbon, and any more coffee, I'll be bouncing off the walls :-)
   32. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 22, 2018 at 11:13 AM (#5610847)
https://www.sbnation.com/a/mlb-2017-season-preview/game-length

Just wanted to remind everyone of this excellent article.

25 minutes has been added to the game since the 1980s due to time wasting between pitches. There's zero reason not to take that all back.
   33. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: January 22, 2018 at 11:14 AM (#5610848)
I want to hear more from the players who can't stand any of the efforts and refuse to care about the game being over 4 hours. Where are THOSE guys

There was an interview on MLB network in the last couple of years with several players who basically took that position - pace of play and game times are fine, we don't want any changes, etc. I think that's probably the vast majority of players' actual view. We've seen time and time again that they will give lip service to acknowledging that others are concerned about the pace of play, but they rail against any changes that would have an actual effect.
   34. Jose is an Absurd Doubles Machine Posted: January 22, 2018 at 11:21 AM (#5610851)
It's too early for Bourbon


This is nonsense.
   35. TDF didn't lie, he just didn't remember Posted: January 22, 2018 at 11:23 AM (#5610852)
That's because hitters swung at everything and didn't have any power.
1998 - the year of the HR chase. More r/g and pa/g than 2017. Games were 16 minutes shorter on average, despite there being 25 more extra inning games; 9 inning games were 18 minutes shorter.

Games are 15 minutes longer than even 10 years ago.
   36. Zonk, Bearer of Responsibility Posted: January 22, 2018 at 11:31 AM (#5610856)
Seems to me like all roads actually lead through bullpen usage more than anything else. It's the average number of relievers per game that has really spiked in the last 10-15 years.

I haven't been a big fan of ideas to limit roster composition or allowances for pitching changes, but it sure seems to me like that might the best way to lop significant time off.
   37. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 22, 2018 at 11:35 AM (#5610861)
Seems to me like all roads actually lead through bullpen usage more than anything else.

That's not what the analysis I linked in [32] shows.
   38. The Good Face Posted: January 22, 2018 at 11:47 AM (#5610870)
Seems to me like all roads actually lead through bullpen usage more than anything else.

That's not what the analysis I linked in [32] shows.


Right, pick the low hanging fruit first, which in this case is the time spent dicking around between pitches.
   39. BDC Posted: January 22, 2018 at 11:51 AM (#5610876)
What kind of operas do y'all go to that run 2 hours and 15 minutes? :)

Which leads to a dynamic that I now bring up in every such thread. The baseball game that runs 3:15/3:30 has become something that fans come to late and leave early, and that folks at home catch a few innings of between doing other things. It is not a start-to-finish event like a movie.

And BITD operas weren't, either. You came and went and timed your appearance for the big aria or when the person you were trying to make an impression on was in their box. Staying for the entire opera was for rubes and music bores and people with nothing better to do. Hence the concept of the private box, so that audience members could come and go continually without climbing over entire rows of people.

Customs have changed, and one now expects to sit through three hours of La Bohème, a hour of which is devoted to set changes (during which you can drink in the lobby). But of course nobody goes to the opera every night, as a certain class once might have when it was the center of the social world. Nobody goes to the ballgame every night anymore (who has the time?) but fewer and fewer people expect to sit through an entire ballgame, either.

Of course with the opera you are told an exact running time, so you can steel yourself. At a baseball game you may be pleasantly surprised as the first six innings whiz by, and then the seventh inning takes half an hour to play as everyone goes into existential inertia.
   40. Zonk, Bearer of Responsibility Posted: January 22, 2018 at 11:54 AM (#5610877)
That's not what the analysis I linked in [32] shows.


This analysis would show otherwise though.

Relief innings have stayed relatively static or at least, increased a far slower pace -- but relivers per game have absolutely spiked. This was from 2014 -- I'd be interested to see these numbers updated to include 2015, 2016, and 2017.

EDIT: FWIW - the link above actually isn't even about pace of play, but the dominance of relievers... still - I find the chart about 1/3 of the way down to be rather stark.
   41. Hysterical & Useless Posted: January 22, 2018 at 11:55 AM (#5610878)
watching the pitcher go through The Sorrows of Young Werther on the mound.


When it's Yankees-Red Sox it's more like A la Recherche du Temps Perdu.
   42. Man o' Schwar Posted: January 22, 2018 at 11:56 AM (#5610879)
What would "something happens" amount to in baseball? A pitching change? But that's off the clock. Replay challenge? That's off the clock. Rules debate among managers and umpires? Ditto. Rain delay?

If "something happens" means "somebody gets on base," that's exactly when we want play to continue, instead of watching the pitcher go through The Sorrows of Young Werther on the mound.


My guess is that's exactly what he means. The pitcher finds himself in a two on, none out situation with the middle of the order coming up. It's a close game, and this could be the difference between winning and losing. So he takes a little more time. The batter takes a little more time. The catcher comes to the mound to discuss the next pitch. The pitching coach comes out. We get a pitch, and the batter steps out. The catcher goes back to the mound. And on and on.

No one would complain if games went long because they had to tend to an injured spectator behind the dugout. It's the 5+ minute plate appearances. I don't remember which game in the NLCS, but IIRC there was a video going around showing a Cub pitcher taking 5 minutes to deliver 6 pitches to one batter, who ended up hitting a HR anyway. (Might have been Lackey.)
   43. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 22, 2018 at 12:01 PM (#5610881)

This analysis would show otherwise though.

Relief innings have stayed relatively static or at least, increased a far slower pace -- but relivers per game have absolutely spiked. This was from 2014 -- I'd be interested to see these numbers updated to include 2015, 2016, and 2017.


But most relievers nowadays are brought in to start innings. That doesn't add any time to the game. Only an increase in mid-inning changes would increase game length.
   44. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: January 22, 2018 at 12:01 PM (#5610882)
No one would complain if games went long because they had to tend to an injured spectator behind the dugout.

Yeah, I think even I would probably be OK with this, as long as the catcher didn't come over to the EMTs every 30 seconds to discuss the treatment.
   45. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 22, 2018 at 12:04 PM (#5610883)
My guess is that's exactly what he means. The pitcher finds himself in a two on, none out situation with the middle of the order coming up. It's a close game, and this could be the difference between winning and losing. So he takes a little more time. The batter takes a little more time. The catcher comes to the mound to discuss the next pitch. The pitching coach comes out. We get a pitch, and the batter steps out. The catcher goes back to the mound. And on and on.


That's exactly what we want to eliminate.
   46. Scott Ross Posted: January 22, 2018 at 12:04 PM (#5610884)
I'm equally sure that Papi would've murdered someone if an umpire told him to hurry it the #### up


Bingo!

"It seems like every rule goes in the pitcher's favor. After a pitch, you got to stay in the box? One foot? I call that bulls---... When you come out of the box, they don't understand you're thinking about what the [pitcher] is trying to do. This is not like, you go to the plate with an empty mind. No, no, no. When you see a guy, after a pitch, coming out of the box, he's not just doing it. Our minds are speeding up... When you force a hitter to do that, 70 percent you're out, because you don't have time to think. And the only time you have to think about things is that time. So, I don't know how this baseball game is going to end up.'' - David Ortiz responding to change-of-pace rules in 2015

http://www.espn.com/boston/mlb/story/_/id/12381319/david-ortiz-boston-red-sox-calls-bs-mlb-pace-rules
   47. Zonk, Bearer of Responsibility Posted: January 22, 2018 at 12:06 PM (#5610886)
But most relievers nowadays are brought in to start innings. That doesn't add any time to the game. Only an increase in mid-inning changes would increase game length.


Are they?

Not finding anything via a quick google...
   48. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 22, 2018 at 12:11 PM (#5610890)
Are they?

From what I recall, no. Changes within innings are still rare. Less than one per game.
   49. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: January 22, 2018 at 12:28 PM (#5610901)
When you force a hitter to do that, 70 percent you're out, because you don't have time to think.

So stay in the damn box and you hit .300? Seems like most guys should take that deal.
   50. Joe Bivens Recognizes the Kenyan Precedent Posted: January 22, 2018 at 12:32 PM (#5610908)
Lots of valid points here, but none touch on what I believe to be the reason for long games: Owners like them that way. They sell more concessions and TV sells more commercial time. Until fans revolt by stop going to games and/or watching them on TV games will never be shortened to times last regularly seen in the 70's.
   51. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 22, 2018 at 12:37 PM (#5610911)
Lots of valid points here, but none touch on what I believe to be the reason for long games: Owners like them that way. They sell more concessions and TV sells more commercial time.

Cutting time between pitches doesn't impact commercials at all. The concessions impact has to be minor, especially since so many people leave early.
   52. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: January 22, 2018 at 12:38 PM (#5610914)
Cutting time between pitches doesn't impact commercials at all.

It does now that the players are dicking around enough that they've started running between-pitch ads.
   53. Joe Bivens Recognizes the Kenyan Precedent Posted: January 22, 2018 at 12:46 PM (#5610922)
The concessions impact has to be minor, especially since so many people leave early.


Ugh, not gonna split hairs about the meaning of "so many". Have fun.
   54. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: January 22, 2018 at 01:02 PM (#5610944)
Games are 15 minutes longer than even 10 years ago.

For those who didn't open that link that TDF provided in #35 above, that's a terrific resource. It lists the average game times for each year going all the way back to 1910. I'm sure BB-Reference has had this page for quite some time, but like a lot of their other obscure pages, it's not specifically labeled in their index, you can't search for it by topic, and if you didn't stumble across it by accident, as I just did thanks to TDF, you'd never even know it exists.

P.S. That same page also lists attendance and attendance per game by year going back to 1891. For a baseball historian, this is the equivalent of a gold mine.
   55. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: January 22, 2018 at 01:31 PM (#5611008)
From that same above link:

1910 - Game times averaged 1:57

1930 - All-time post-1900 Runs Per Game - average game time 1:59

1934 - First year that game times went over 2:00

1954 - First year that game times went to 2:30

1977 - First year that game times went back over 2:30 for good

1986 - First year that game times went over 2:45

2000 - First year that game times went over 3:00

2012 - First year that game times went over 3:00 for good

2017 - Average game time 3:08, an all-time high
   56. -- Posted: January 22, 2018 at 02:57 PM (#5611095)
Both the NHL and NBA owners have consciously shortened games in the last 15 years -- the NHL most notably after the 2002 Winter Olympics -- so the argument that MLB owners don't want to doesn't hold a lot of water. NBA and NHL fans buy beer, too.
   57. Man o' Schwar Posted: January 22, 2018 at 03:20 PM (#5611133)
My guess is that's exactly what he means. The pitcher finds himself in a two on, none out situation with the middle of the order coming up. It's a close game, and this could be the difference between winning and losing. So he takes a little more time. The batter takes a little more time. The catcher comes to the mound to discuss the next pitch. The pitching coach comes out. We get a pitch, and the batter steps out. The catcher goes back to the mound. And on and on.


That's exactly what we want to eliminate.


I'm a pace of play proponent, but when I think about other jobs I don't have so much of a problem with this. Imagine if you were a surgeon, and you were breezing through an operation when suddenly there was a complication - would you want the hospital telling you to pick up the pace because they needed the OR in an hour? Or would it make sense that you might have to slow down, assess the situation, and take your time until the complication had passed?

If you were a air traffic controller and thick fog rolled in on top of a storm at night, should you be expected to keep shooting planes through the airspace at the same pace that you can do so on a sunny cloudless afternoon? I think everyone who has a job recognizes that there will be times when you have to slow down and pay a bit more attention to what you're doing, and professional ballplayers would be no different during the 1 or 2 times per game that were really likely to determine things.

It's not the slowdowns during the key moments of the game that are as bothersome to me. It's the multiple trips to the mound in the top of the 3rd inning of a 0-0 game. It's batters stepping in and out, adjusting their gloves, twitching, scratching, digging in the dirt in the 8th inning of a 10-1 game. If it goes pitch, mound visit by the catcher, shake-off, shake-off, mound visit, pitch, batter steps out, infielder mound visit, batter asks for time, throw to first, throw to first, throw to first, pitching coach visit, shake-off, pitch, batter steps out, mound visit, etc... that's where we have a problem.

I'm willing to make some allowance that there are PAs in the game that require more concentration and thought from both batter and pitcher than others, and I would not want to remove the strategy from the game in favor of rushing everyone to the end. But in most games that kind of situation won't arise more than 2-3 times, and we could easily cut enough time out of the more mundane innings to cut a little slack to the pitcher/hitter facing a bases loaded, 2 out situation in a 1-1 tie.

(Though I guess the counter argument is that no batter is going to consider a plate appearance "unimportant", so they'll want to treat every one as critical. And if the batter gets as much time as he wants, then how do you not give the pitcher as much time as he wants?)
   58. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 22, 2018 at 03:24 PM (#5611143)
Imagine if you were a surgeon,

If you were a air traffic controller

Those are really bad analogies. In those situations, peoples' lives are at stake.

This is just baseball. Entertainment only.
   59. jmurph Posted: January 22, 2018 at 03:26 PM (#5611145)
It's the multiple trips to the mound in the top of the 3rd inning of a 0-0 game.

Is there a reason why even a single catcher mound visit should be allowed? I mean literally ever?
   60. DJS, the Digital Dandy Posted: January 22, 2018 at 03:28 PM (#5611151)
Of course with the opera you are told an exact running time, so you can steel yourself.

"Sorry, I'm going to be late coming home. I'm at Les Troyens, but it's the bottom of the 5th Act and the Carthaginians are tied with Aeneas."
   61. weiss-man Posted: January 22, 2018 at 04:15 PM (#5611210)
Yankees - Red Sox is more like the entire Ring Cycle.
   62. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 22, 2018 at 04:16 PM (#5611212)

Is there a reason why even a single catcher mound visit should be allowed? I mean literally ever?
To discuss the catcher's throwing lane.
   63. -- Posted: January 22, 2018 at 04:17 PM (#5611214)
Is there a reason why even a single catcher mound visit should be allowed? I mean literally ever?


Nope. Prepare during preparation time, play during game time. If you haven't prepared well enough, tough ####. There's also the dugout to confer.
   64. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 22, 2018 at 04:21 PM (#5611220)
Nope. Prepare during preparation time, play during game time. If you haven't prepared well enough, tough ####. There's also the dugout to confer.

100% agree.
   65. Blastin Posted: January 22, 2018 at 04:29 PM (#5611229)
I agree too. Just throw the ball.

And if you can only throw it where you want after pondering it for a year, then maybe you're not that good at it.
   66. TDF didn't lie, he just didn't remember Posted: January 22, 2018 at 04:35 PM (#5611240)
Is there a reason why even a single catcher mound visit should be allowed? I mean literally ever?
I could see the C and P not be on the same page with the signs. But that's 1 visit.

And if you're going to ban those, you have to ban the batter from talking to the 3B coach, too (though I realize that doesn't happen nearly as often).
   67. Man o' Schwar Posted: January 22, 2018 at 04:36 PM (#5611243)
Those are really bad analogies. In those situations, peoples' lives are at stake.

This is just baseball. Entertainment only.


Entertainment only for us, but not really for them. This is their livelihood, upon which hinges millions of dollars in potential income and eternal fame.

I don't know what your job is, but whatever it is I'm sure you've got things that are easier and harder, and I'm sure that you take more or less time to do them as appropriate. Would you feel like people paying to watch you do it should dictate how quickly you work?
   68. Man o' Schwar Posted: January 22, 2018 at 04:39 PM (#5611246)
I could see the C and P not be on the same page with the signs. But that's 1 visit.

And if you're going to ban those, you have to ban the batter from talking to the 3B coach, too (though I realize that doesn't happen nearly as often).


They do it in football - you get X timeouts per game, and after that, no more.

A team gets 5 mound visits per 9 inning game, be they by players, managers, coaches, etc., and that's it. Use them wisely. If you want to pull a pitcher in the 8th inning and bring in someone new but you're out of visits, signal from the dugout and the guy can come running in to an empty mound. And I hope he knows what's going on, because no one can come talk to him.
   69. SoSH U at work Posted: January 22, 2018 at 04:43 PM (#5611248)
I don't know what your job is, but whatever it is I'm sure you've got things that are easier and harder, and I'm sure that you take more or less time to do them as appropriate. Would you feel like people paying to watch you do it should dictate how quickly you work?


I think any job that's entire existence hinges on entertaining other people should generally be responsive to the wishes of the people they're entertaining, yes. They're ability to make millions of dollars is entirely dependent on our continued support.
   70. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: January 22, 2018 at 04:52 PM (#5611256)
Entertainment only for us, but not really for them. This is their livelihood, upon which hinges millions of dollars in potential income and eternal fame.


Movies are entertainment for us, but it is a livilihood for those who make it. Millions of dollars in potential income and eternal fame for the director rests on how well his movie does, but that doesn't mean he gets to shoot every scene 99 times to try to get it absolutely perfect.
   71. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: January 22, 2018 at 04:56 PM (#5611258)
that doesn't mean he gets to shoot every scene 99 times to try to get it absolutely perfect.

I think the better analogy would be if he kept interrupting the actual movie footage with shots of him talking to the cinematographer about setting up the next shot, or if the actors kept breaking character in midscene (of the actual released film) to adjust their costumes. Now that's compelling entertainment.

(But it would still be better than The Revenant).
   72. Perry Posted: January 22, 2018 at 04:59 PM (#5611261)
Where are THOSE guys, because it would have to be a massive majority of the players at this point, wouldn't it?


From a story in the Denver Post a couple of days ago, Nolan Arenado:

“I’m not too fond of trying to make too many changes in the game,” all-star third baseman Nolan Arenado said Saturday. “Baseball is a slower game, it’s a slower-paced game, that’s just what it is. I think when you try to make too many changes, I think it can cause problems and people get out of their routines.”

And Charlie Blackmon:

“You are asking guys who have been playing the game at a high level their whole lives, to do something completely different,” he said. “So I’m going to be resistant to change right out of the gate, no matter what it is.”

“What it’s really going to do is take the veteran leadership of your infielders and throw it out the window,” Blackmon said. “I mean, how many times have you seen Nolan go out to the mound? Maybe there is a rookie out there on the mound, and Nolan settles him down a little bit. Well, Nolan (couldn’t) do that anymore.”
   73. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: January 22, 2018 at 05:13 PM (#5611273)
“You are asking guys who have been playing the game at a high level their whole lives, to do something completely different,” he said. “So I’m going to be resistant to change right out of the gate, no matter what it is.”

“What it’s really going to do is take the veteran leadership of your infielders and throw it out the window,” Blackmon said. “I mean, how many times have you seen Nolan go out to the mound? Maybe there is a rookie out there on the mound, and Nolan settles him down a little bit. Well, Nolan (couldn’t) do that anymore.”

Oh, FFS. The players are absolutely clueless on this stuff. They don't seem to grok that the issue is not that people somehow don't realize that the players (and managers) think they have valid reasons for all the delaying. The issue is that people believe that those "reasons," such as they are, do not justify the amount of delay that's going on.

I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm sure there are people who look forward to one day telling their grandkids about the time when they saw Nolan Arenado go to the mound to talk to a rookie pitcher, or the vivid memory they have of Charlie Blackmon fastening his batting gloves with such strength and grace.
   74. Stevey Posted: January 22, 2018 at 05:13 PM (#5611274)
I want to hear more from the players who can't stand any of the efforts and refuse to care about the game being over 4 hours. Where are THOSE guys, because it would have to be a massive majority of the players at this point, wouldn't it?


There was a sitdown before the last WBC with one of the players from like six or eight of the teams, and they got asked about game lengths, and to a man, they all said they preferred to be able to take their time. These guys like this, a lot. Considering that the MLBPA is getting riled up over FA bids this offseason, this is just more kindling for the fire. Does the league really want shorter games that badly? Or is this kind of like steroids, where they only want to tell fans they are trying so hard to fix the game, but it's all on those awful players?



When I was a kid the Yankees came on at 8PM and were still done early enough that a 5 y.o. was allowed to watch until the end.


A 7:05 start averages ending at 10:13. For a game to start at eight and be done before 10:13 when you were five would require you to have been born in 1942.
   75. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: January 22, 2018 at 05:16 PM (#5611275)
Baseball is the slowest and simplest game, yet people are literally comparing it to surgery.

Play the ####### game. Basketball players somehow survive with a shot clock, football has a play clock, yet baseball players need an infinite amount of time to adjust their batting gloves and cup. C'mon.
   76. Stevey Posted: January 22, 2018 at 05:17 PM (#5611276)
Oh, FFS. The players are absolutely clueless on this stuff.


But there's no chance the fans are absolutely clueless on what makes a higher level of game.
   77. Stevey Posted: January 22, 2018 at 05:19 PM (#5611278)
Play the ####### game. Basketball players somehow survive with a shot clock, football has a play clock


I know this isn't said in any sort of serious manner, but a beloved point of the game of baseball is that there's no room to go hide with the ball and run the game out. There's no workaround or avoiding having to do your job.
   78. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: January 22, 2018 at 05:23 PM (#5611279)
what makes a higher level of game.

A higher level of game is one that doesn't last 3.5 hours for half of that time worth of actual baseball.
   79. The Good Face Posted: January 22, 2018 at 05:25 PM (#5611280)
There was a sitdown before the last WBC with one of the players from like six or eight of the teams, and they got asked about game lengths, and to a man, they all said they preferred to be able to take their time. These guys like this, a lot.


No shit. Would you like more time or less time to do your job? Would you prefer to perform as quickly or slowly as you feel comfortable, or would you rather be on a stopwatch? But as others have said, baseball is entertainment and there are very few people who find glove adjustments, groin scratching, spitting, and calling time-out to be particularly entertaining.

Play the game.
   80. Stevey Posted: January 22, 2018 at 05:35 PM (#5611286)
A higher level of game is one that doesn't last 3.5 hours for half of that time worth of actual baseball.


Says the guy who puts in zero work towards making that game better.

But as others have said, baseball is entertainment and there are very few people who find glove adjustments, groin scratching, spitting, and calling time-out to be particularly entertaining


People say this, then hand over more money to MLB than the previous era, which handed over more money to MLB than the previous era with its shorter games as well. It has been proven over and over again that what people say they want and what they actually do are not necessarily the same.
   81. Nasty Nate Posted: January 22, 2018 at 05:40 PM (#5611292)
People say this, then hand over more money to MLB than the previous era, which handed over more money to MLB than the previous era with its shorter games as well. It has been proven over and over again that what people say they want and what they actually do are not necessarily the same.
I think you're misreading the evidence. Consumers aren't choosing the slow-paced MLB over a faster-paced MLB. We don't get to choose.
   82. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: January 22, 2018 at 05:41 PM (#5611294)
People say this, then hand over more money to MLB than the previous era, which handed over more money to MLB than the previous era with it's shorter games as well. It has been proven over and over again that what people say they want and what they actually do are not necessarily the same.

This is a false dichotomy, though. Fans can be displeased with the length/pace of games, but not to the point where they start staying away in substantial numbers. Doesn't mean they don't really want improvements. That's exactly the point - an issue like this shouldn't have to reach the level where it starts hurting revenue in order to be fixed. If it does get that far, that's a major fail for all involved.
   83. -- Posted: January 22, 2018 at 05:44 PM (#5611297)
The mallparks cover up the problem. No way people would be sitting through 3 hours and 10 minutes of this #### if they actually had to stay in their seats, or had as their only alternative shitty food options they had to go into the bowels of the stadium to get.

Which of course is precisely why in Oakland and Tampa Bay, people don't go and sit through 3 hours and 10 minutes of this ####.
   84. BDC Posted: January 22, 2018 at 05:44 PM (#5611298)
But there's no chance the fans are absolutely clueless on what makes a higher level of game

Although, 150+ years ago, cricket was almost as big a deal in the US as baseball. High-level cricket takes forever to play, which endeared it to gentlemen with a lot of time on their hands, but American fans came to strongly prefer baseball, which was over in a couple of hours or less. "High-level" baseball got defined as a sport with a relatively fast pace – the pace of anything being relative. High-level cricket is getting redefined in a faster direction recently too, five-day Test matches that end in draws being consummate displays of how to waste time, but not that thrilling for the audience anymore. It is a fallen world :)



   85. Stevey Posted: January 22, 2018 at 05:45 PM (#5611299)
I think you're misreading the evidence. Consumers aren't choosing the slow-paced MLB over a faster-paced MLB. We don't get to choose.


Sure, they don't get to choose between slow and fast, but when the choice was between slow and nothing or fast and nothing, more people are choosing slow, and spending more per person, than when it was fast. If there are actually very few people who find all the stuff in today's game entertaining, it would be the reverse. The reality is that people like to have something to complain about, but prefer today's game to previous generations, and part of what makes today's game better is the sheer amount of work required to put into getting the next guy out, or driving in that runner from second.
   86. the Hugh Jorgan returns Posted: January 22, 2018 at 05:48 PM (#5611300)
Would you feel like people paying to watch you do it should dictate how quickly you work?


If my job was to entertain these people and their wages were paying me millions of dollars then yes they should have some say in how I approach my work.

Every sport has it's shortcomings that turn people off.

Baseball-pace of play/too long
Gridirion-12 minutes of action surrounded by 4 hours of nothing happening
Tennis-too much grunting and screeching on every point
football/soccer-too much diving(or what they try to call simulation for political correctness sake)
basketball-boring until the last 2 minutes, then the last 2 minutes takes like an hour if it's close with all the time outs and fouls.
Horse racing-inherently corrupt as it only survives because people can gamble on it.
Rugby-too much kicking/needs more running rugby

As mentioned in previous posts. Baseball just needs to eliminate the pifaffing around between pitches. Maybe have the batter stay in the box until there are 2 strikes, make the pitcher throw within whatever the time rule says now. Baseball is a great game with the contest between batsman and pitcher as it's focal point. You want to retain the uniqueness of that battle without it becoming a simulation of the 100 years war.
   87. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: January 22, 2018 at 05:48 PM (#5611301)
The reality is that people like to have something to complain about, but prefer today's game to previous generations, and part of what makes today's game better is the sheer amount of work required to put into getting the next guy out, or driving in that runner from second.

There are a lot of leaps of assumption in this sentence.
   88. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: January 22, 2018 at 05:49 PM (#5611304)
A 7:05 start averages ending at 10:13. For a game to start at eight and be done before 10:13 when you were five would require you to have been born in 1942.

I went to my first game in 1952. It began at 8:30** and ended at 10:23. The average game that year would've ended at 10:55. We went by bus and trolley and it took less than half an hour each way to get there and back. But then in 1952 getting to the park and getting home for most people took a lot less time than it does today. Public transportation was more comprehensive, traffic was much less dense, and most people lived a lot closer to the ballparks. The last time I went to a Nats game last Summer, it was well over an hour to get to my seat and nearly an hour getting home once I got to my car. When it comes to the live crowd, that's a factor you can't ignore.

** Starting times were pushed back from 8:30 to 8:00 a few years after that, then went to 7:30 in the late 60's or early 70's depending on the park, and IIRC 7:05 didn't really become universal until about 20 years ago.
   89. Stevey Posted: January 22, 2018 at 05:49 PM (#5611305)
Although, 150+ years ago, cricket was almost as big a deal in the US as baseball. High-level cricket takes forever to play, which endeared it to gentlemen with a lot of time on their hands, but American fans came to strongly prefer baseball, which was over in a couple of hours or less. "High-level" baseball got defined as a sport with a relatively fast pace – the pace of anything being relative. High-level cricket is getting redefined in a faster direction recently too, five-day Test matches that end in draws being consummate displays of how to waste time, but not that thrilling for the audience anymore. It is a fallen world :)


Absolutely agree with all of this. Five-day Test matches are losing popularity compared to shorter games. On the other hand, in baseball, longer games today are more popular than shorter games from previous days.
   90. -- Posted: January 22, 2018 at 05:50 PM (#5611307)
The reality is that people like to have something to complain about, but prefer today's game to previous generations, and part of what makes today's game better is the sheer amount of work required to put into getting the next guy out, or driving in that runner from second.


Pure fanboy drivel. It takes no more "work" for a major league hitter to drive in a runner from second base than it did in 1972. And literally no one consciously cares about that purported difference.

You know what actually does take a lot of work? Throwing the shot put at elite levels. Shot putters are subject to a one-minute time limit.
   91. Stevey Posted: January 22, 2018 at 05:52 PM (#5611308)

There are a lot of leaps of assumption in this sentence.


No fewer than the leaps in assumption that a faster game would be better and more popular.
   92. Nasty Nate Posted: January 22, 2018 at 05:53 PM (#5611310)
The reality is that people like to have something to complain about, but prefer today's game to previous generations
C'mon, preferring today's game doesn't mean people prefer every single aspect of today's game.
   93. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: January 22, 2018 at 05:54 PM (#5611311)
I went to my first game in 1952. It began at 8:30** and ended at 10:23. The average game that year would've ended at 10:55. We went by bus and trolley and it took less than half an hour each way to get there and back. But then in 1952 getting to the park and getting home for most people took a lot less time than it does today. Public transportation was more comprehensive, traffic was much less dense, and most people lived a lot closer to the ballparks.

How long did it take to tie the onion to your belt? ;)
   94. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: January 22, 2018 at 05:59 PM (#5611318)
The reality is that people like to have something to complain about, but prefer today's game to previous generations, and part of what makes today's game better is the sheer amount of work required to put into getting the next guy out, or driving in that runner from second.

Very little of that work takes place in between pitches. The expansion of the talent pool, advances in conditioning, better scouting, and more reliance on factual analysis rather than hunches are far better reasons for why today's game on the field is better than it's ever been.
   95. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: January 22, 2018 at 06:00 PM (#5611319)
How long did it take to tie the onion to your belt? ;)

Hard to say. It kept getting stuck in the terlet.
   96. Stevey Posted: January 22, 2018 at 06:01 PM (#5611320)
Pure fanboy drivel. It takes no more "work" for a major league hitter to drive in a runner from second base than it did it 1972. And literally no one consciously cares about that purported difference.

You know what actually does take a lot of work? Throwing the shot put at elite levels. Shot putters are subject to a one-minute time limit.



The amount of work put into gameday preparation with the widespread jump in technology and analytics is exponentially higher than 1972.
Coaches get 80 page packets before a series. Batteries have to take extra steps to protect their signs. There are heaps and heaps of more information that are taken into account than previous generations, and no player gets a pass in the offseason from his GM if he says "yeah, my numbers are worse, but that's because I decided to stop caring and get the game over with sometimes"
   97. Stevey Posted: January 22, 2018 at 06:04 PM (#5611321)
Very little of that work takes place in between pitches.


Much of that work does take place before the game, but plenty still occurs between pitches. McCullers says that they have to frequently change their signs, the pitcher and catcher have to make sure they are on the same page regarding that highly detailed scouting report. Defensive alignments are becoming more and more important. All of this stuff happens smack dab in the middle of the game. It's no longer good enough to just rear back and throw.
   98. BDC Posted: January 22, 2018 at 06:06 PM (#5611322)
Five-day Test matches are losing popularity compared to shorter games. On the other hand, in baseball, longer games today are more popular than shorter games from previous days

OK. But as Nasty Nate pointed out, cricket fans have been given an alternative. Baseball fans haven't.

Greater popularity stems from all kinds of factors (if indeed the game is more popular: total attendance has in fact been declining in recent years). People might like the comfortable stadiums (especially all those air-conditioned domes!) or the craft beer or the T-Shirt catapults or whatever. TV money might be up because advertisers have to spend on something and sports seems a good bet, and Internet money might be up because people are checking their fantasy stats, who knows.

What we don't know is whether the 2-Hour League would outdraw the 3-Going-on-4-Hour League.
   99. the Hugh Jorgan returns Posted: January 22, 2018 at 06:07 PM (#5611323)
Public transportation was more comprehensive, traffic was much less dense, and most people lived a lot closer to the ballparks.


Are you suggesting that "things were better back in my day?"

I must have misread your post because I didn't see the "get off my lawn" anywhere in there....

Look we'd all like a quicker game and it's not like it's not possible. Heck Buehrle could give you one of those 2:15 games anytime he took the mound...and that is with his own teammates mucking around in the box and the other team's pitcher screwing around.
   100. SoSH U at work Posted: January 22, 2018 at 06:08 PM (#5611324)
No fewer than the leaps in assumption that a faster game would be better and more popular.


Do you ever hear anyone saying they only wished the game took longer?

You've got two camps, and one of them seems to be just you and a few people trying to do a Harvey impression. But the vast majority of people on this site, a site devoted to very devoted baseball fans, believe the game as played is too slow paced.

But tell me, what do you prefer. Would you prefer less time between pitches, one with even more time to savor the delicate dance between a pitcher not pitching and a batter not batting or is the current pace just right?
Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 

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
Jim Wisinski
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT - Catch-All Pop Culture Extravaganza (April - June 2018)
(2103 - 6:38pm, May 21)
Last: PreservedFish

NewsblogOTP 2018 May 21: President takes British royalty to a baseball game, May 15, 1991
(170 - 6:36pm, May 21)
Last: Lassus

NewsblogVHS via Leitch: Phillie broadcast commenting on impending rain delay
(10 - 6:35pm, May 21)
Last: Leroy Kincaid

NewsblogWhitey Herzog Offered Hernandez to the Mets in 1980, 2+ Years Before Trade
(17 - 6:35pm, May 21)
Last: The Duke

NewsblogOT - 2017-18 NBA thread (All-Star Weekend to End of Time edition)
(4611 - 6:32pm, May 21)
Last: JC in DC

NewsblogDan Duquette, Orioles Understand Trading Manny Machado Seems Inevitable
(65 - 6:31pm, May 21)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogPosnanski: Modern Romonce
(70 - 6:29pm, May 21)
Last: SoSH U at work

Gonfalon CubsPadding
(11 - 5:58pm, May 21)
Last: Moses Taylor, aka Hambone Fakenameington

NewsblogCardinals' Jordan Hicks throws MLB's fastest pitch of the year, clocking 105 mph twice
(10 - 5:02pm, May 21)
Last: OCF

NewsblogOT: Winter Soccer Thread
(2016 - 4:58pm, May 21)
Last: SPICEY WITH A SIDE OF BEER ON A BABYYYYYYY

NewsblogHader's feats generating All-Star, Cy Young buzz
(2 - 4:51pm, May 21)
Last: Tom Nawrocki

NewsblogOf all the chats in all the world, you walked into OMNICHATTER! for May 21, 2018
(2 - 4:40pm, May 21)
Last: ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick

NewsblogJordan Hicks, Vladimir Guerrero Jr. among the MLB's youth surge
(25 - 4:39pm, May 21)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogOT: Wrestling Thread November 2014
(2234 - 1:44pm, May 21)
Last: aberg

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 5-21-2018
(4 - 12:08pm, May 21)
Last: Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant

Page rendered in 0.5961 seconds
47 querie(s) executed