I just don’t know why they start the new rule in the 10th inning. Seems like 12rh inning would be more appropriate plus allowing each team to add 1/2 pitchers to its next nights roster from the taxi squad.

I agree that 12th is a better idea than 10th. I like a pretend runner in the 12th more than I like ties appearing in the standings for the first time in a hundred+ years.

The problem that I have with this type of article (or part of an article) is that I'm not sure if the writer actually espouses the solution he's writing about or whether the writer has been asked to be controversial and get clicks (but doesn't really believe in the idea, or doesn't believe the idea has a chance of being approved).

Please no ties, please no invisible runners. Since everyone is using the extra roster spot on a relief pitcher, why can't they just play it out?

I'd be fine with ties, especially if they're bundled with other game-time reducing rules. There's no reason not to allow them in a 162 game season.

the old MLB tradition was to replay tie games in their entirety.

that's why a player might be listed for 156 games played in a 154-game season, for example. it wasn't just pennant-deciding playoffs that could get a player there.

I'd even be willing to settle for the dopey runner in the 11th. but not the 10th.

Ties are more controversial than pretend runners? Only in America.

I would prefer ties 1000x over pretend runners. I would even be fine with ties after 9 innings (baseball season is long enough as it is, does it really matter if not every game ends in a win?) though maybe after 12 is a little better. I'm also not opposed with them playing it out, but I think I would prefer ties after 10-12 innings.

I usually stay out of these conversations, because I haven't watched baseball in years, and don't plan to anymore either. So it's not really my place to advocate for rules for a sport I have no intention of watching. That said, I do watch other sports, and have no problem with ties. I wish they still had ties in college football.

There's no reason not to allow them in a 162 game season.

Other than that they're the antithesis of competition. Ties are fine in Little League where we need to be conscious of kids' arms and bedtimes. There is no reason to have ties in a professional sporting event. The point of sports is for one team to win.

Oh, and no zombie runners, either. I would begrudgingly accept zombie runners after the 12th inning.

the old MLB tradition was to replay tie games in their entirety.

that's why a player might be listed for 156 games played in a 154-game season, for example. it wasn't just pennant-deciding playoffs that could get a player there.

When Roger Maris hit #59 but failed to hit #60 in his 154th game in 1961, it was actually the Yankees' 155th game, a makeup of an July rainout in Baltimore that had wiped out home runs by both Maris and Mantle. So the rain tooketh away and then the rain gaveth it back. And that rained out game in July was in turn the makeup of a tie game in April, where Maris went hitless.

Other than that they're the antithesis of competition. Ties are fine in Little League where we need to be conscious of kids' arms and bedtimes. There is no reason to have ties in a professional sporting event. The point of sports is for one team to win.

That's silly. The NFL and NHL had ties for decades; competition was just fine. The regular season is a long affair; we'll still figure out team quality perfectly well with a handful of ties among 162 games.

A tie is just another competitive outcome. A win says you were better than the other team that day, a loss that you were worse, and a tie that you were equal. That's an equally valid result; no team gained an advantage in the regulation period of play.

I have no issue whatsoever with the ghost runner and never did. The games are already far, far too long. When you get to the point where Jacob deGrom is getting pulled after 77 pitches, it might even be time to start talking about reducing games to 7 innings. Watching games routinely decided by the 11th and 12th men on pitching staffs is getting to be too much -- that was never the intention of the sport's creators.

I don’t like ties, but would prefer the few ties remaining after 12 innings to the larger number of extra-inning games spoiled by ghost runners in the 10th.

Other than that they're the antithesis of competition.

Have you ever heard of "football?" It has lots of ties and is somehow the most popular sport in the world.

And like most of us, I'd FAR prefer a crisper, more sped up game to ties or wild card baserunners, but I could accept an occasional tie after 12 frames. The baserunner idea is dumber than Spiderman printed on the bags.

Have you ever heard of "football?" It has lots of ties and is somehow the most popular sport in the world.


Duh, how did I forget! :-)

Have you ever heard of "football?" It has lots of ties and is somehow the most popular sport in the world.

indeed. hell, in NFL and NCAA combined in 2017-2020, there were a total of FOUR of them!

I'm not that opposed to ties, but the NHL could go too far BITD

1969-70 Flyers - 17-35-24
1954-55 Maple Leafs - 24-24-22
1974-75 Islanders - 33-25-22

in 2014, the MLS soccer team Chicago Fire had 6 wins, 10 losses, and 18 ties.

it's one thing if there is an occasional tie.

but when it's almost or even more likely than a result - that's not good

I don't like ties and would consider them my least preferred option. Having said that while I'm not a huge fan of the runner starting at second base I've enjoyed it a lot more than I expected. Over the course of 162 games I'm fine with it. It may be manufactured drama but it's drama nonetheless.

It's like the shootout in the NHL. I don't love it and if that's the price of not having ties I'll take it.

Ties after twelve innings would be rare, but if pitchers were forced to throw the damn ball, and batters forced to stay in the damn box, games would progress faster and those rare 12+ inning games wouldn't feel like a drag and wouldn't need ties (or zombie runners).

Take the discretion out of it. Batter steps out of the box, automatic strike. Pitcher doesn't put the ball in the air twelve seconds after it hits his glove, automatic ball. Put a video/game clock umpire in the press box, with radio connection to the home plate umpire, to handle clock management and replays.

Extra inning games aren't common anyway. Extremely long extra inning games are even more uncommon. You'll get the occasional 12+ inning game, but if the game progresses at a decent pace, it won't be enough of a problem to bring back ties or resort to necromantical gimmicks on the bases.

Have you ever heard of "football?" It has lots of ties and is somehow the most popular sport in the world.

indeed. hell, in NFL

Uh, the NFL is a different kind of football than the one referred to in [13]. The key phrase here was 'most popular in the word.'

Ties after twelve innings would be rare, but if pitchers were forced to throw the damn ball, and batters forced to stay in the damn box, games would progress faster and those rare 12+ inning games wouldn't feel like a drag and wouldn't need ties (or zombie runners).

Take the discretion out of it. Batter steps out of the box, automatic strike. Pitcher doesn't put the ball in the air twelve seconds after it hits his glove, automatic ball. Put a video/game clock umpire in the press box, with radio connection to the home plate umpire, to handle clock management and replays.


caspian88 for Commissioner!

Have you ever heard of "football?" It has lots of ties and is somehow the most popular sport in the world.

Uh, the NFL is a different kind of football than the one referred to in [13]. The key phrase here was 'most popular in the word.'

I thought the key was that "football" was in scare quotes, which is where it belongs when you're talking about soccer. (/ducks)

I thought the key was that this is an US-focused website.

Hitters having to stay in the box (except for something in their eye) is a no brainer. I'd be happy with a pitch-clock, but prefer an at-bat count. A pitcher has x amount of time to get a hitter out, and if he doesn't, it's a walk. Foul balls after 2 strikes could add y to that time limit, where y is slightly less than the average time it takes per pitch (I see 12 seconds up thread, I presume that's a number that people agree with as a reasonable amount of time to pitch).

A per-pitch clock might lead to injuries, and fake throws to first.

Have you ever heard of "football?" It has lots of ties and is somehow the most popular sport in the world.

It shouldn't have ties. College football got rid of them many years ago. Pro football has kept them because they're very rare and because they'd rather not do the gimmick thing that college football does or extend an already violent dangerous game any further. I'd prefer they figure out a competitive way to break them, but I get it.

If you're referring to soccer, ties are one of the reasons why I'm not a huge fan. It's a game, a competition - there should be a winner and a loser in each one. That's the point of the whole thing.

While a per-pitch clock could lead to injuries, anything pitching-related will lead to injuries anyway. Pitchers will need to adjust to working faster, and some of them are going to get hurt or fail to make the transition, and that's fine in my book.

I'm happy to limit throws to first too, in order to make the stolen base more valuable. Perhaps half of plate appearances don't have runners on base anyway, though, so it's not as big of a deal.

I don't see the value in an at-bat clock, to be honest - I suppose it makes the catcher return the ball to the pitcher as quickly as possible, but I think we can wait to see how much of an impact that is having with a hard pitch clock.

Gads, how many games go past 12 innings in a season for this to be something people act like it's something for which there should be a solution?

It's okay to have a couple games where things get weird and managers have to do something really unconventional or desperate after midnight. The folks who stay up will have seen something memorable, as opposed to have just gotten their entertainment over with.

Gads, how many games go past 12 innings in a season for this to be something people act like it's something for which there should be a solution?

Identifying the wrong problem seems to be the major issue for basically all the recent rules changes.

If you're referring to soccer, ties are one of the reasons why I'm not a huge fan. It's a game, a competition - there should be a winner and a loser in each one. That's the point of the whole thing.

I don't know that this would apply well to baseball, but the existence of a third possibility in results [ties] are one of the things that make soccer a compelling sport to me. If Team A is monumentally superior to Team B, there are strategies Team B can employ to attempt to grind to a draw rather than attempting to win and (more than likely) getting throttled. Team A might be superior, but the fact that lesser teams can grind, strategize, and out-tactic a superior team are a large part of what makes sport (in general, not soccer) worth watching.

As far as 'there should be a winner and loser in each one' goes - while you're opinion is your own and not wrong - I fundamentally disagree. Each game is part of a larger whole; the season itself. There should be a winner and many losers come the end of a season, but for one individual component of the season? Who cares. You can compare a sporting season to a novel** and consider each individual game as a chapter in that novel. We expect there to be a resolution at the end of chapter 162, but if a random game in August ends without being resolved? That's just one part of a larger story.

If Team A is monumentally superior to Team B, there are strategies Team B can employ to attempt to grind to a draw rather than attempting to win and (more than likely) getting throttled. Team A might be superior, but the fact that lesser teams can grind, strategize, and out-tactic a superior team are a large part of what makes sport (in general, not soccer) worth watching.

I'm not sure whether I agree or disagree with your viewpoint, overall. But I think you are neglecting the possibility (or the value) of a Team B grinding, strategizing, and using better tactics to get an underdog victory, rather than just a tie.

There should be a winner and many losers come the end of a season, but for one individual component of the season? Who cares.

Lots of people care. You get to have both short-term resolutions and season-long ones! It also adds enjoyment following teams that have little to no hope for any good season-long outcomes.

They lie about it, but the extra inning stuff doesn't have anything to do with pace/time of game. They're trying to end the practice where an occasional 14-inning game leads to two relievers being demoted and two fresh arms hurried in for the next game.

Who cares. You can compare a sporting season to a novel** and consider each individual game as a chapter in that novel. We expect there to be a resolution at the end of chapter 162, but if a random game in August ends without being resolved? That's just one part of a larger story.

Or, even better, you could not do that and instead treat every game as something that the people in the stands paid money to see and might be the only time they get to see their favorite team all year, and which should ideally be compelling and exciting enough that newcomers come to like baseball, even if one of the teams is just not very good and to the point where the one-year scale is a bummer.

That doesn't necessarily argue against ties - a hard-fought tie can be a good story! - but some of my fondest baseball memories come from the kind of insanely long games that players and those with deadlines don't want to happen very often. With 162 games a year, where strategy has standardized enough for them to run together even more, the possibility of a little more randomness is a good thing.

When I was 11 the Red Sox played the Mariners the week before school. I had tickets to the next night's game so like any enterprising 11 year old I made a scorebook out of some notebook paper and kept score.

And kept score.

And kept score.

21 innings later at 1AM the game was called for the American League curfew (yes, my parents let me stay up). The next night my father and I got to Fenway and I pulled out my sheet of paper. Well lemme tell ya', the old people (who were probably in their 30s and 40s) around me were fascinated. I hadn't missed an at bat over 6 hours of baseball. They played the 22nd inning, Joe Simpson tripled to the bullpen wall in right center to drive in the winning run for the Mariners. #### Joe Simpson.

and because they'd rather not do the gimmick thing that college football does or extend an already violent dangerous game any further.

Its a dumb argument because football just voted to add a 17th game to the already "violent dangerous" 16 game schedule. So no.

Watching games routinely decided by the 11th and 12th men on pitching staffs is getting to be too much -- that was never the intention of the sport's creators.

Theres lots of things in baseball never intended by its creators. Like a world Series for instance. Or guys hitting 40 HRs in a year. Or rosters more than 12 guys. Or pitching from 60' 6" or using gloves....

So another dumb argument.

Rennie is dead on in [29]. It's all about managers and relievers being butthurt at having to use someone outside of their tightly-guarded 5th/6th/7th/8th/9th inning roles and -- even in an era of 14-man pitching staffs -- the role of "long relief" has disappeared because he might have to do something other than throw 20 pitches as hard as he can.

Its a dumb argument because football just voted to add a 17th game to the already "violent dangerous" 16 game schedule. So no.

That's just for the money. They're not earning any significant extra money from having a game go longer.

I love long extra inning games. The pace of play is an issue whether it's the first or the fourteenth inning, but long extra inning games are epic and memorable, just like multiple overtime games in basketball.

I don't like the idea of allowing ties because it may lead to changes in how the game is played in the later innings. My understanding is that the NHL had a problem where teams became very conservative once a game went into OT, because they'd rather play for the point in the standings that came with a tie than risk a loss and get no points. That's why they started awarding a point for an OT loss. (If this history is off, someone who actually follows the NHL please correct me.)

This article suggests that teams are playing for overtime in non-conference hockey games. Completely rational and expected, but also pretty lousy for the fan. It's not a good solution to the problem of playing conservatively, because it just moves the problem around, and lowers the stakes in overtime, where they should be highest. To a lesser extent NHL teams are probably doing it in conference games as well, selectively depending on the opponent's record and time left in the season. The "solution" just provides even more incentive for teams to cooperate on a conservative outcome.

A much better solution is to just give each team a point for a draw and 3 for a win. That should (and usually does, in soccer) reduce conservative play late in tied games.

I’ll tell you what, the Sox-Rays game went 12 innings tonight and it was a thriller.

I don't like the idea of allowing ties because it may lead to changes in how the game is played in the later innings. My understanding is that the NHL had a problem where teams became very conservative once a game went into OT, because they'd rather play for the point in the standings that came with a tie than risk a loss and get no points. That's why they started awarding a point for an OT loss. (If this history is off, someone who actually follows the NHL please correct me.)

Yes, this is true. This coincided with the rise in popularity of the neutral zone trap, which, combined with lax standards on obstruction-type penalties (hooking, holding, interference) made it possible to turn any hockey game into a defensive snoozefest. A tie game in the last five minutes and overtime would be mind-numbing. In 99-00, they added a point for an overtime loss, which made the last five minutes of regulation slightly more boring, but opened up overtime a little bit. Getting rid of ties a few seasons later helped a little bit, but mostly it was going to 3-on-3.

What they should do is change to a 3-2-1-0 system where there is additional incentive to win in regulation, but you still get a winner and loser in OT. Either that or get rid of the point for OT losses altogether and go to a 2- 0 system. There is the potential for bad teams to go into a shell to try to push it to a shootout, but that's nearly impossible now with 3-on-3 overtime. Either way, anything is better than going back to ties.

Preference 1: No change. Play the game until there is a winner with the same rules all the way through.

2: Tie after 12

3: Tie after 11

4. Tie after 10

5. Tie after 9

---

all other options are terrible and their possibility makes me distinctly less interested in innings 1-9. I feel the same way about shootouts in soccer and hockey. I invest 90 minutes watching a great soccer game and then they make a farce of it.

May as well just use total bases or strike percentage or errors committed as a tie breaker. You'd get your winner and, thus (apparently), competition.

The frustration I have with soccer using penalties is that they do it in the most important games. I don't mind a bit of gimmickry over 162 baseball games or 82 hockey games. Fine, a bit of insta drama for the conclusion but the post-season should be played straight up. In soccer it's the reverse, the gimmicks only come into play in the most important of games.

JAHV is 100% right about the 3-2-1-0 system that the NHL should use. That would be far superior. There should be three points available in each game, a regulation win is 3-0, an OT or shootout win is 2-1.

I’ll tell you what, the Sox-Rays game went 12 innings tonight and it was a thriller.

That's for damn sure. I happily concede that it is "manufactured" drama and I originally didn't like the idea of it.

None of that matters, that was some heart-pounding baseball.

What if you changed how many outs in the extra innings?

1-10 3 outs
11 4 outs
12 5 outs
After 12 tie

More likely to score and might be interesting although there might be crazy long rallies with 5 outs in an inning. Extra bonus could have possibility of a quadruple play!

What if you changed how many outs in the extra innings?

1-10 3 outs
11 4 outs
12 5 outs
After 12 tie

More likely to score and might be interesting although there might be crazy long rallies with 5 outs in an inning. Extra bonus could have possibility of a quadruple play!

or a quintuple play! oh, wait, not that.

The extra-inning runner is an affront against all that is holy.

But ties are worse.

That is all.

What if you changed how many outs in the extra innings?

I don't see how that would help. Alex Cora was taking questions after the Sox' Tuesday night game and basically said that the runner on second didn't matter, in terms of shortening the game; you'll just see teams trading 1's where they used to trade 0's in extras. He suggested starting with runners on first and second, and I get the rationale - the innings will be quicker (hypothetically, one pitch long) and the range of possible outcomes wider, so any one inning is more likely to be decisive.

Of course, it also deforms the game into something ridiculous, which may or may not have been the point he was making. I'm kind of curious if anyone figured out how long games were likely to go if tied after nine last year, compared to others.