Alternate Headline: MLB & Players Conspire To Give Fans Less Baseball For Same Money

For the regular season I am A-OK with it. The season is getting less meaningful each year as more wild cards are added so why have 18 inning games? The ghost runner saves the pitching staff big time as games end far faster and adds an element of 'oh crap' to each inning. Took some getting used to but I'm OK with it.

I think they should start each extra inning with the bases loaded and one out

As long as Strat-O-Matic and Diamond Mind include a Use Idiotic Ghost Runner BS in Extra Innings toggle, Rob Manfred can continue killing the game however he likes. This fetish for having 7 or 8 relievers tanned, rested, load managed, and ready for every single game is ridiculous.

For the regular season I am A-OK with it. The season is getting less meaningful each year as more wild cards are added so why have 18 inning games? The ghost runner saves the pitching staff big time as games end far faster and adds an element of 'oh crap' to each inning. Took some getting used to but I'm OK with it.

There are very few 18-inning games. The ones that do exist are memorable for life. Why would you want to sacrifice that for something that saves almost nothing?

I agree David. For those who dislike extraordinarily long games I did not know there existed a requirement one had to stay until the conclusion.

I don't call it a ghost runner. A ghost runner is something from playground ball where you don't have enough people; it's an imaginary runner who isn't physically there. This is the opposite, he's very much there. I call it a zombie runner, a dead man walking (or running), since he made the last out of the previous inning.

I call it a zombie runner, a dead man walking (or running), since he made the last out of the previous inning.

It's either the zombie runner or the Manfred Man.

It's either the zombie runner or the Manfred Man.

As long as we've entered The Curmudgeon Zone, I don't like either of those options for the same reason - they are both being clever with something that does not deserve it. The article points out that if the placed runner scores it is an unearned run, and that is because the runner is an unearned runner, and that is what I call it. The Unearned Runner. Boring, just like Rob Manfred's attempts to "improve" the game.

By the way, does anyone know if any further studies have been done to see just how much time the Unearned Runner nonsense saves compared to extra inning games played by the proper rules? I know there was one early on which suggested that the time saving was minimal. Time savings, of course, being one of the primary reasons given for this atrocity when it was foisted upon the world.

Boo!

For the regular season I am A-OK with it. The season is getting less meaningful each year as more wild cards are added so why have 18 inning games? The ghost runner saves the pitching staff big time as games end far faster and adds an element of 'oh crap' to each inning.

Because 18 inning games are awesome, and there's only one or two per team per season. Once a game starts stretching past midnight, things get weird, folks are out of position, somebody has an amazing (or horrific) line for the day, the next day's starter starts to warm up, there's a 14th inning stretch, what audience is left becomes a big factor as the rest of the city gets quiet, you start laughing maniacally at improbable things... I mean, why give that up?

There aren't very many extra inning games. There are drastically fewer that go longer than 11. You're trading the occasional inconvenient game that sticks in someone's memory for a little more efficiency and predictability, and who wants their sports and entertainment to be efficient and predictable?

#10: From the excerpt: Approximately 10 percent of regular season games go to extra innings, historically. Last year 223 of 2,430 regular season games went to extra innings, or 9.2 percent. With the extra-innings tiebreaker rule, only seven games have gone as long as 13 innings the last three seasons. There were 37 13-inning games in 2019 alone, the last year with “normal” extra-inning rules.

That's not a study but a reduction from 37 in one season (even if it's typical) to 7 across 2.4 seasons is a huge effect. But sure, the reduction is, almost by definition, trivial. Whatever proportion of games used to end in 10 innnings can't be reduced. We see hear that only about 2.5 games per team season went past 12. So some 11s became 10s and some 12s became 10-11s. Each team is playing an average of 16 a year. So across the whole thing, you'd probably be lucky to reduce it by as much as 8 innings total.

As noted, all of this is really about pitcher usage. About 40 batters a game, with most SPs now limited to about 22 batters, you're going through 6 of (at best) 9 "available" pitchers in a lot of normal 9-inning games. So sure, it's true that neither teams, players or braodcasters want some schlub (or the SP for day after tomorrow) out there for 6 extra innings all so 500 fans can stick around until 2 in the morning once a year (maybe only to see the game suspended). All of this more impossible with a fully balanced schedule. East Coast people apparently can't stay awake after 10:30 pm as it is (to hear folks around here tell it) so broadcasters don't want it either. And please, Fox wants this ####### playoff game over thank you very much.

Sure, it's not real baseball and I hate it. But to be fair, for the late 2010s, the extra inning games I saw tended to be really boring with K after K after K and I'd never have been awake for Rick Camp's HR anyway even 30 years ago, I wouldn't stand a chance now.

What I dislike about it is that it has made the extras a mockery of baseball. In 2022 594 RA (208 ER) in 528 extra IP. Baseball is not a game in which you're supposed to score a run per inning.

In answer to the earlier question -- 891 extra IP in 2019 so a savings over 350 IP, 2022 v 2019. Both 2018 and 2019 were high (relative to 2018 and 2017 at least) so somewhere around 800 might have been more typical. In practical terms, it's taken a game that used to last a bit more than 11 innings and turnned it into one that lasts a little more than 10.

EDIT: The high scoring suggests either start the MM in the 11th or at least put him on first in the 10th. Of course that might lead to an explosion of sac bunts and nobody wants that either.

I'm sure THIS dumb gadget will be the one that turns around attendance and TV ratings.

One of them eventually has to, no?

I love long games. Leave extra innings games alone and compensate teams for 12+ inning events by adding a pitcher spot to the roster for the day after. Either that or start every extra with two runs in, two guys on third and no outs, since offense is so awesome.

MLB’s greatest con was convincing fans that their time was so valuable they should be happy getting less baseball for the same price.

EDIT: The high scoring suggests either start the MM in the 11th or at least put him on first in the 10th. Of course that might lead to an explosion of sac bunts and nobody wants that either.

Not necessarily. The only thing that matters* is what method ends game the quickest. Putting a man on first might actually lead to longer games.

*Please don't interpret this as an endorsement of the abomination that is the Zombie Runner, just an observation of how well it's achieving its aims.

#17: Agreed, their goal is to shorten the game and the MM works. It's the "abomination unto the Lord" aspect I was addressing there.

I know intentionally walks are almost always bad, but with this rule, as the visiting team shouldn't you almost always just walk the lead off batter if the game is still tied in the bottom of the 10th and beyond? Unless you are walking Neifi Perez to get to Barry Bonds, I would think you have to gain some leverage with a potential double play or at least a force at third. Most singles (and obviously any other safe hit) wins the game regardless of man on second or first and second, so you might as well take the shot no? Home team can bunt the runners over, but again you take the out there, and have the option of walking the next guy too.

If this rule actually seemed to add any strategy to the late game, I might come around on it...but from the handful of games I remember, it seems almost like the visiting team takes their shot in the top of the 10th and if they don't score there, just cross their fingers that whoever's on the mound can get 3 outs before someone gets a base hit.

I’d prefer MLB solve this non-problem either by changing extra innings back to how they were until a couple of years ago or not changing anything through 9 or 12 innings and then calling it a tie. If they insist on using a gimmick, I’d like to see every plate appearance start with a full count, so every pitch other than foul ended the PA. Innings would be short enough that commercial breaks would be a problem, but apparently nobody is watching after 9 anyway.

The next best gimmick would be soccer penalty kicks.

In the past several years, I haven't really followed baseball as closely as I used to, so I guess my question is: WTF?

The only thing that matters* is what method ends game the quickest.

If that’s the case, why not start the 10th inning by seeing which team can survive the Shooty Challenge without flinching? Admittedly, MLB might have to offer some concessions to get the players union on board.

The next best gimmick would be soccer penalty kicks.

Thats HR derby in MLB, presumably pitched by your own team's pitching coach or hitting coach since you're trying to hit one. I would be impressed as #### to see penalty kicks as the next guy by MLBers. It might even get Franmil Reyes back in the game as a goalie since he's huge. But, I mean, you know Trout is going to slip trying to kick one and miss 105 games or something tearing his hamstring so its a bad idea.

I'm with #2, it grew on me really quickly for regular season games. I enjoy flipping on a game I'm not necessarily interested in because I know there is about to be a result.

I don't call it a ghost runner. A ghost runner is something from playground ball where you don't have enough people; it's an imaginary runner who isn't physically there. This is the opposite, he's very much there. I call it a zombie runner, a dead man walking (or running), since he made the last out of the previous inning.

You are correct. However, I will choose to be wrong and still disagree. "Ghost runner" evokes childishness (in a bad way); it evokes Mickey Mouse bullshit; it evokes playing on a diamond that is 65 degrees at home plate instead of 90. Manfred and this rule don't deserve accuracy or a cool name on this one. They deserve a stupid and amateurish moniker.

You are correct. However, I will choose to be wrong and still disagree. "Ghost runner" evokes childishness (in a bad way); it evokes Mickey Mouse bullshit; it evokes playing on a diamond that is 65 degrees at home plate instead of 90. Manfred and this rule don't deserve accuracy or a cool name on this one. They deserve a stupid and amateurish moniker.

You have never been more incorrect. Ghost runners are glorious creations, done by young boys and girls so intent on playing the game they devise brilliant rules out of necessity.

This is, in every way, the opposite of that. These do not deserve the exalted title of ghost runner.

It's either the zombie runner or the Manfred Man.

Is he revved up like a douche right before he comes in the game?

so intent on playing the game they devise brilliant rules out of necessity.

This is, in every way, the opposite of that.

OK, this is a good point.

Is he revved up like a douche right before he comes in the game?

He'll consider it.

Jumping queues and making haste just ain't my cup of meat...

The Ghost Runner is ####### awesome. Best thing Manfred has ever done.

BLB, that bar is so low it might as well be an underground pipe.

I tend to leave a game after nine innings even if it's tied, anymore.

What am I saying, I tend to leave games after four innings, it's my bedtime :-D

I wouldn't hate it so much if it's implementation was decided on by the home team at the beginning of each extra inning. At least it gives some strategy and home field advantage to it.

I've opposed the idea of the ghost runner originally, came to like it in practice, but I still would prefer that they wait until the 12th inning or so to use it.

What I dislike about it is that it has made the extras a mockery of baseball. In 2022 594 RA (208 ER) in 528 extra IP. Baseball is not a game in which you're supposed to score a run per inning.

Walt, you're touching on the thing I wonder about: the games are being played in fewer innings, but are they actually taking less time? I saw a study which was done after the 2020 season which was inconclusive, and now I've found this from Jay Jaffe at FanGraphs:

And here’s the kicker: as for the actual time saved, it doesn’t amount to much. The average extra-innings game in 2018 clocked in at 239.7 minutes (four hours, basically) and fell to 229.3 minutes in ’19. With the runner on second rule in place, that shrank all the way to 224.5 minutes last year, a drop of just under five minutes. This year? They’re back up to 226.3 minutes. In other words, we’re talking about a savings of somewhere between five and 10 minutes for a slice of games that’s in the ballpark of 10%, all in exchange for a major disruption of baseball’s rules and accounting that produces far more bunts and intentional walks.

This article is from May 2021, so there is another season and a half of data to help solve the case. So, I used Stathead to check the numbers for the 2021 and 2022 seasons. There were 216 extra-inning games in each season (unless I screwed something up that I can't find). In 2021 those games averaged 229.5 minutes, and in 2022 the average time was 218.4 minutes.

However, it's also important to consider that the average game length for all games was 191 minutes in 2021, and dropped to 185 minutes in 2022. Which suggests to me that while extra-inning games are shorter, it's still a modest decrease. For me, it's not worth it, because the artifice of the Unearned Runner is annoying and because the chance of something crazy like an extra-long game is dramatically undercut.

MLB’s greatest con was convincing fans that their time was so valuable they should be happy getting less baseball for the same price.

It's not just that; it's that it's doing so by sacrificing the most exciting games. Finding a way to shorten 10-2 blowouts so that you don't have to watch players going through the motions might make some sense (not that I'm endorsing it). But why would one want to cut short a tense 2-2 game?


EDIT: ) mean why — as a fan — would one want to do that? I understand the incentives that other stakeholders have.

Totally agree with #26, except we called it "invisible runner" back in the '50s.

There's also the possibility, if very remote, of a starter losing a "perfect" game without putting on a single baserunner - ghostie takes 3rd on a grounder to 2B and scores on a sac fly. Yuck!

Walt makes a number of good points in #13. I don't need long extra inning games, especially what they'd become by the late 2010s. Lots of Ks, and let's face it, teams are going to be more and more likely to punt and throw a position player out there in the 13th or 14th.

And there are so few that even if I loved them, I wouldn't miss them. So if you want to find a way to shorten the game, fine. Call it a tie after 11 or 12 innings. Ties are fine.

Call it a tie after 11 or 12 innings. Ties are fine.

Fully agreed. There's even an extra benefit to ties now that the league has disposed of the end-of-season single-game playoff as a tiebreaker; having ties included in team results make it inherently less likely that you'll have to use a statistical tiebreaker at the end of the year.