My memory is hazy, but was it ever closely examined that the main culprit of increased average game times was batters stepping out of the box? At a glance, it FEELS like it's added to game times, though more pitching changes probably end up tacking on a sizeable amount of time, too.

Regardless, I'm surprised to see so many people irritated with the clock implementation. I get that it clashes with the "pure" aesthetics of the sport, but I thought it was agreed upon that batters constantly stepping out of the game had helped contribute to the unappealing vibe of the game in modern times. It's weird seeing people complain about how baseball isn't meant to be rushed when I haven't talked to anyone ever who thinks batters not staying in the batter's box actually adds intrigue or suspense to the game.

I think it's at least partly a matter of perception - no, we don't want players fiddling around doing nothing, but we also don't want to feel like the game is being decided by something other than the players playing. I know, intellectually, these are the rules and the penalties for breaking them, but it feels like the umpires are taking the game out of the players' hands as I'm watching it. It's weird and wrong to see an effect without a cause.

Eventually, we'll either get used to it like the no-pitch IBB or the players will acclimate to the point where we don't see automatic strikes and balls called at all. In the meantime, though, it will (and should) rub people the wrong way even if we want the end result it leads to.

Eventually, we'll either get used to it like the no-pitch IBB or the players will acclimate to the point where we don't see automatic strikes and balls called at all. In the meantime, though, it will (and should) rub people the wrong way even if we want the end result it leads to.

I don't think anything that occurs in exhibition games should rub people the wrong way. The Braves and Red Sox had already agreed not to play extra innings, even with the Manfred Man to expedite things.

There are two possible outcomes here: Players will adjust and it will result in a much more watchable game. Or umpires will back off on enforcing the changes and the game will continue on its current desultory path.

I regularly go to Columbus Clippers games and have been to a few Akron RubberDucks games as well and have yet to see a pitch-clock violation. The players will adjust and the ones who've come up through the minors are already used to it. This is exactly the time when this kind of stuff should be happening. I have no idea what the hand-wringing in #2 is supposed to be about--of course there's going to be an adjustment period. There always is. I suspect that in two months that adjustment period will be complete, and the game will be better for it.

I don't think anything that occurs in exhibition games should rub people the wrong way.

Nah, it should. Just, like, at an appropriately small magnitude.

I don’t really see the need for requiring the batter to be “alert to the pitcher” at the 8-second mark. If the hitter isn’t alert, isn’t that better for the pitcher, who just has to begin his delivery within the allotted 15 or 20 seconds. Seems like a needless requirement, perhaps imposed just so pitchers weren’t the only players affected by the rule change.

I don’t really see the need for requiring the batter to be “alert to the pitcher” at the 8-second mark.

I think the rule is that the batter has to be in the box and alert to the pitcher at the 8-second mark. Imagine if the batter is in the box, but facing backwards or something. In that instance the pitcher is not going to be comfortable throwing the ball over the plate with full effect, because he/she naturally would take the safety of the batter into account. He cannot throw a tight inside fastball to the batter if the batter isn't looking, for example. It's unfair to the pitcher, in other words. At least that's how I see it. A pitcher is not comfortable throwing to the plate if the batter is in the box but not looking.

Whoa, why not at least make the pitcher throw a strike? 8 seconds and you can pitch. Nothing would be lost time-wise, and the pitcher at least would have earned the K. I can't see safety of the batter being a problem, it's his job to not be "facing backwards".

But safety is a problem. We know pitchers don't have perfect aim. At least when the batter is facing them, i.e. "alert," there's an expectation that they can attempt to avoid a pitch that gets away. If they're not alert, they can't.

I also think putting this in the umpire's hands helps to avoid any dumb unwritten rules violations. Many pitchers often wait until the batter is ready out of courtesy, rather than quick-pitching them and incurring the wrath of the other team. It's assumed that their hitters will get the same treatment. Now it's not in the pitchers hands. He doesn't have to quick-pitch to get a strike called.

Whoa, why not at least make the pitcher throw a strike?

There's already long been a rule on the books that if the umpire directs the batter to step into the plate and he doesn't do it, and the umpire calls for the pitcher to pitch, then it's an automatic strike as long as the pitcher does so.

There are two possible outcomes here: Players will adjust and it will result in a much more watchable game. Or umpires will back off on enforcing the changes and the game will continue on its current desultory path.

Your optimism is commendable but reality suggests the on-field presence of timers will prevent umpires from having any discretion.

I think the rule is that the batter has to be in the box and alert to the pitcher at the 8-second mark. Imagine if the batter is in the box, but facing backwards or something. In that instance the pitcher is not going to be comfortable throwing the ball over the plate with full effect, because he/she naturally would take the safety of the batter into account. He cannot throw a tight inside fastball to the batter if the batter isn't looking, for example. It's unfair to the pitcher, in other words. At least that's how I see it. A pitcher is not comfortable throwing to the plate if the batter is in the box but not looking.

Where is the evidence that big-league pitchers won't go into their windups just because batters in the box aren't looking in the direction of the mound?

I can't believe this game ended in such an unnatural way--in a tie by mutual consent.

it feels like the umpires are taking the game out of the players' hands as I'm watching it

As JE notes, the clock is taking the game out of the players' hands, and it needed to be done.

Of all the myriad penalties that can be assessed in football, delay of game is the least controversial, because the clock is not subjective, and they do or don't get the play off. It's too bad, perhaps, that it has to be that way in baseball too; but players have shown that otherwise, they just won't get on with the game.

I'm talking out of both sides of my mouth here but delay of game is definitely controversial and subjective the way it's enforced (or not enforced). But no one is against the rule, at least.

The shot clock is probably a better example, since the ball's either out of your hand or it isn't. And it was an addition to the rules decades after its inception that probably saved the game.

I loved it - games went fast yesterday. Maybe they can bring extra innings back now.

The biggest effect will be on the announcers who now don't have to drone on between pitches. Color guys are going to have a lot less to do

delay of game is definitely controversial and subjective the way it's enforced

That's interesting – I am open to learning more about the controversies. I guess I am thinking relative to other penalties: holding or pass interference etc., where every call in a close game touches off a scandal …

1) I can't believe anybody would be upset about how "unnatural" ending a game this way is...when it was determined beforehand that the game would have no extra innings. It's a friggin' exhibition game - this is exactly the time for umpires to brand these new rules into the brains of players and managers. I'll bet that all of the players present for that ending yesterday will be much more aware of their timing going forward. Loved it.

2) As said in #15, I was thinking about the impact these new rules will have on other elements associated with the game. For example, the quality of play-by-play announcers will matter more...and color commentators will matter less. Also, I wonder what impact this will have on how fans in attendance time visiting the concession stands or the restroom. If you don't time in right, you could definitely miss more of the game now. I was at the Syracuse-Duke men's college basketball game last weekend, where there were 31,000 people in attendance. My wife, who likes basketball but has been to many fewer games than me, noted that many fewer people got up during that game than when we go to a baseball game. If you're sitting in the aisle seats of a baseball game, it feels like you're getting up and sitting back down more than at a Catholic mass. Also, halftime was a complete madhouse of people trying to get another beer.

Baseball obviously doesn't have a halftime, and if you wait for the 7th inning stretch or something, it's sort of late for getting another beer. And when nature calls, the timing is what it is, right? So I wonder if teams might see an increase in the percentage of their sales coming from vendors, rather than from the concession stands. Or if there might even be a decrease in concession sales overall. Or, if baseball eventually creates some sort of extra three minutes after the 3rd and 6th innings for people to time their bathroom and concession visits. If MLB finds that these changes are increasing the quality of the TV product, but hurting the revenue from those attending the games, then they'll try to find a way to tweak it.

Overall, though, I am thrilled to see these rules enforced. I love baseball, and the pace and length of the games has become a legitimate impediment to me watching as many games over the past decade. It has also contributed to making it tougher to "sell" the game to my wife and kids compared to basketball, and even football. My wife used to like baseball, and didn't care for football at all. Now, she loves football, really likes basketball, and thinks baseball is incredibly boring.

delay of game is definitely controversial and subjective the way it's enforced

That's interesting – I am open to learning more about the controversies. I guess I am thinking relative to other penalties: holding or pass interference etc., where every call in a close game touches off a scandal …

It has to do with the mechanics of the officials. The back judge looks at the play clock, then when it reaches 0 he looks at the center. If the ball's still on the ground, it's a penalty. That means there's a lag time between the clock hitting 0 and the center having a chance to make the snap. Sometimes a full second. Sometimes, as benefited the Ravens a play or two before Justin Tucker's historic 66-yard walkoff FG, more than that.

Cheers, Pete, that's useful to know. I think your analogy of the shot clock is very good.

I think the pitch clock is a good idea but maybe not as a maximum. Make it more like a minimum like you have to wait at least 20 seconds before you can throw a pitch.

He cannot throw a tight inside fastball to the batter if the batter isn't looking, for example.

The pitcher doesn't have to hit any specific location if the batter isn't looking.

Make it more like a minimum like you have to wait at least 20 seconds before you can throw a pitch.

Please no. The game is awful, and the reason is that batters futz around too much in between pitches. Stay in the box and be ready.

I'm not interested in the cat-and-mouse that would ensue if pitchers started throwing get-me-over strikes to batters who didn't seem to be paying attention, only to have the batter turn and crush a meatball over the heart of the plate because he was feigning not paying attention . . . no.

It's ridiculous is that we have to enforce "get in the box and face the pitcher", but we do, and it is being done. IMO this is the change that baseball has been needing, more than any other.

I'd like someone to ask Conley what he was doing there that took eight seconds.

If he was just mentally psyching himself up or pointlessly adjusting his batting gloves, I have no sympathy. He should come to the plate prepared.

It took so long for a pitch clock to be introduced that a lot of players think of time wasting nervous ticks as part of their process.

The pitcher doesn't have to hit any specific location if the batter isn't looking.

But the batter may turn around, and may be planning on it. The pitcher has to attempt a quality pitch. This is different than if the batter isn't in the box, where the pitcher CAN attempt a quality pitch without fear of hitting a batter who isn't looking. If the batter decides to step into the box at the last minute, well they would have to be paying attention then.

I'm not interested in the cat-and-mouse that would ensue if pitchers started throwing get-me-over strikes to batters who didn't seem to be paying attention, only to have the batter turn and crush a meatball over the heart of the plate because he was feigning not paying attention . . . no.

Yes.

One unintended ? Consequence of the pitch clock is that there isn’t enough time for fielders to execute volleyball-like manipulations to get around the new shift rules. The SS doesn’t really have time to setup to sprint across the bag and get into prime shift position with only a few seconds between pitches. (He could do it once, but probably can’t get back and get set up to do it again for the next pitch.) I though the anti-shift rule would have minimal impact, but with the pitch clock I’m reassessing that.

But the batter may turn around, and may be planning on it. The pitcher has to attempt a quality pitch. This is different than if the batter isn't in the box, where the pitcher CAN attempt a quality pitch without fear of hitting a batter who isn't looking. If the batter decides to step into the box at the last minute, well they would have to be paying attention then.

So, you're saying that a batter can have his back to the pitcher, and be able to turn and hit a meatball, and that's something that will happen with this new rule? How much baseball have you played?

Even the worst ML pitcher can throw the ball over the plate when the batter is not dug in and ready to hit.

I've played enough baseball to know that the difference between my talent and that of an actual major leaguer is on par with the difference between my cooking skills and an iron chef. I'm not one to underestimate the talent of top-level athletes. I've trained at Crossfit gyms with people who go to the Games and the things they are capable of are literally inhuman to me.

Regardless, I don't think the pitcher should have to decide if he's going to play hurry-up and throw a quick get-me-over fastball in order to "beat the hitter". That is a dumb and pointless exercise in game theory that would take the sport in the exact opposite direction of what I want - I want to see a game played out on the merits of the players, relatively swiftly.

If the hitter isn't ready, automatic strike. Don't make the pitcher do anything if the hitter can't be bothered to be ready. After all, if the pitcher isn't ready, all the hitter has to do is stand there.

Regardless, I don't think the pitcher should have to decide if he's going to play hurry-up and throw a quick get-me-over fastball in order to "beat the hitter". That is a dumb and pointless exercise in game theory that would take the sport in the exact opposite direction of what I want - I want to see a game played out on the merits of the players, relatively swiftly.

If the hitter isn't ready, automatic strike. Don't make the pitcher do anything if the hitter can't be bothered to be ready. After all, if the pitcher isn't ready, all the hitter has to do is stand there.

I have no problem with this.

edit...but in yesterday's Red Sox/Braves game, the clock ran out, the pitcher threw the ball on a 3-2 pitch, the batter assumed it was a ball, and started for first, and then the umpire called him out (not on strikes). I guess the umps have to be quicker to make the call.

@enosarris
When they were first implementing the play clock in the minor leagues, there were nearly two infractions a game in the first two weeks. By week six, it was one infraction every two games. It'll just take a little time. I enjoy the pace of pitch clock games, and my boys did too.

Also:

@Travis_Sawchik
·
Time of games today:

NYY-PHI 2h34m
PHI-DET 2h15m
BOS-ATL 2h39m
TB-MIN 2h31m
BAL-MIN 2h54m
TOP-PIT 2h47m
WSH-STL 2h26m
NYM-HOU 2h33m

I watched the Royals/Rangers Saturday. The pace was great, the pitch clock didn't seem obtrusive. I think players are kinda rushing a bit too, they'll adjust and take up the whole time eventually, it probably won't be quite this fast-paced in the regular season.

Consequence of the pitch clock is that there isn’t enough time for fielders to execute volleyball-like manipulations to get around the new shift rules. The SS doesn’t really have time to setup to sprint across the bag and get into prime shift position with only a few seconds between pitches. (He could do it once, but probably can’t get back and get set up to do it again for the next pitch.) I though the anti-shift rule would have minimal impact, but with the pitch clock I’m reassessing that.

FWIW, that "sprinting" is explicitly outlawed in the rules anyway.

It has to do with the mechanics of the officials. The back judge looks at the play clock, then when it reaches 0 he looks at the center. If the ball's still on the ground, it's a penalty. That means there's a lag time between the clock hitting 0 and the center having a chance to make the snap. Sometimes a full second. Sometimes, as benefited the Ravens a play or two before Justin Tucker's historic 66-yard walkoff FG, more than that.

When I officiated HS football, the BJ had a timer on his belt that he would activate on a signal from the Referee, and it would vibrate when time expired. No need to take your eye off the ball. I'd be shocked if the pros didn't utilized this.

- Alonso, after catching a toss to first base for the third out yesterday, sprinted into the dugout because he was leading off. apparently a way to buy a little more time. he homered and went 3 for 3, so I guess he'll be fine.

- Scherzer, after batter Chavis called his lone permitted timeout of an at-bat, made Chavis wait 14 seconds before throwing his next pitch. I wonder if that will become an issue - or if batters just try to avoid the timeout entirely.

I watched the Royals/Rangers Saturday. The pace was great, the pitch clock didn't seem obtrusive. I think players are kinda rushing a bit too, they'll adjust and take up the whole time eventually, it probably won't be quite this fast-paced in the regular season.

Just how it was way back when the shot clock was introduced. Teams were initially chucking the ball up as soon as they could, before they figured out how 24 seconds allowed you to still pass the ball around and look for the right shot without just going into 4-corners stall mode.

In the exhibition game telecasts I’ve sampled, the pitch clock wasn’t visible in the standard behind-the-mound camera angle, and it hasn’t been added to the on-screen bug that displays the score, count, and pitch count. Maybe it will be different at the Major League parks? Might not be critical, but we should be able to check the umpire’s work, and who wants to miss the countdown to a game-ending pitch clock violation?

When I officiated HS football, the BJ had a timer on his belt that he would activate on a signal from the Referee, and it would vibrate when time expired. No need to take your eye off the ball. I'd be shocked if the pros didn't utilized this.

No, he's right. That's exactly how they do it. FWIW, it seems to be applied rather consistently. I never see a flag when the play clock hits precisely zero.

When I officiated HS football, the BJ had a timer on his belt that he would activate on a signal from the Referee, and it would vibrate when time expired. No need to take your eye off the ball. I'd be shocked if the pros didn't utilized this.

Be shocked then, because the explanation upthread is correct.

The way the NFL officiates delay-of-game is somewhat controversial because it seems kind of subjective and ridiculous, but IIRC the NFL does it this way precisely because they want a slight lag as a "grace period" to cut down on delay-of-game penalties. In other words, calling "delay-of-game" is itself a delay of game, so they want the flag to be thrown only in egregious cases instead of having to worry about getting it right down to the split-second.

ETA: Half a coke to SoSH

No, he's right. That's exactly how they do it. FWIW, it seems to be applied rather consistently. I never see a flag when the play clock hits precisely zero.

Even if it seems to be applied consistently, the worry is when it isn't applied "on time". It becomes arbitrary, like holding calls. There's holding on most plays, but we notice when they call it in crucial situations. It cheapens the games. Rules are rules, and they don't say that refs have the leeway to not call "delay of game" for a few seconds after the time clock runs expires. Allowing that discretion lends to accusations of bias.

I don't watch football anymore, largely because of all the questionable calls/non-calls. That, and all the concussions.

Even if it seems to be applied consistently, the worry is when it isn't applied "on time".

If it's applied consistently, I don't particularly care. It seems to me everyone gets around 40.5 seconds. So we have fewer delay of game calls than if it was automatically flagged at zero. It's hard to see how fewer delays from delays of game penalties make the game worse.

There are so many issues with NFL officiating that are actually problematic that the slighter long 40 seconds before the delay of game penalty is called shouldn't be on anyone's list of gripes. Then again, the neighborhood play should have never been on anyone's ##### list, and we know how that worked.

I mean I don't care what the NFL does, the NFL is irrelevant to me. On principle, if they're setting a time limit and using a clock to enforce the limit, then it should not be used arbitrarily. Time is finite. The umps have to call it as close to when time expires as humanly possible. No leeway. Otherwise, it lends itself to accusations of selective enforcement and bias.

I only saw a sampling of pitches on Saturday on TV (mainly from one game, but some highlights on Twitter, as well), and I found that the pitchers generally started their windup with at least eight seconds left on the clock. For those saying that the game felt a little rushed, I think what will happen is that pitchers will quickly adjust and use more of their 15 seconds.

though more pitching changes probably end up tacking on a sizeable amount of time, too.

Not really. I don't think I've seen an update on this since the 3-batter rule was introduced but even before that, the change had been from about 1 mid-inning pitching change per game to 2. Folks forget that the reason firemen were called firemen was because they came in to put out a fire the SP had started. In Gossage's amazing season, I think he entered the game with men on-base in all but two of his appearances and one of those came after a HR. Pitching changes between innings theoretically add no time at all although I supspect they add a few seconds.

Like I said, I haven't seen anything looking to see if it got any better after the 3-man rule. You'd think it could only make things better but it seems to me I've seen a lot of "first guy didn't do so well, I'll bring in the new guy, I'll let the new guy pitch to the first 1 or 2 of the next inning to get the platoon advantage then I'll replace him." Also, I suspect the super-short starts these days may have made the situation worse -- i.e. a lot of mid-5th and mid-6th inning changes these days.

While there have obviously been extreme cases like Nomar and Hargrove, I was never under the impression that batters stepping out was that big of a deal, it was more pitchers resting up to throw it 99. That is, even if the batter was ready early, I don't know that made any real difference to the time the pitcher took. Again, plenty of extreme examples where things got out of hand -- pitcher doesn't really start prepping until batter is in the box, batter is tired of waiting and calls time, repeat. But I could well be wrong. The key thing is to cut down on time between pitches.

Without any evidence, the announcers at the Aussie Open this year were speculating the serve clock has actually slowed things down as everybody now uses up almost the whole clock and the umpire usually lets small violations go (esp if it's Djocovic :-). I'll be surprised if we don't see pitchers using up nearly every second they can on nearly every pitch.

EDIT: Obviously the 3-man rule did get rid of the most aggravating "bring in the lefty for one batter" 3 pitchers in one inning thing. What I'm saying is that I'm not sure we've cut down on the 3 relievers for 2 innings, somtimes with 2 mid-inning changes.

Be shocked then, because the explanation upthread is correct.

The way the NFL officiates delay-of-game is somewhat controversial because it seems kind of subjective and ridiculous, but IIRC the NFL does it this way precisely because they want a slight lag as a "grace period" to cut down on delay-of-game penalties. In other words, calling "delay-of-game" is itself a delay of game, so they want the flag to be thrown only in egregious cases instead of having to worry about getting it right down to the split-second.

Well then, I sit corrected. Well, I wasn't exactly wrong, but still.

Without any evidence, the announcers at the Aussie Open this year were speculating the serve clock has actually slowed things down as everybody now uses up almost the whole clock and the umpire usually lets small violations go (esp if it's Djocovic :-). I'll be surprised if we don't see pitchers using up nearly every second they can on nearly every pitch.

My understanding (based on this article) is that the big issue with the serve clock is that the chair umpire often doesn't start it until the crowd quiets down, when they should be starting it as soon as the previous point ends and then pausing it if the crowd is being persistently noisy. Since baseball doesn't require silence from the crowd at any point, I wouldn't anticipate an analogous issue showing up with the pitch clock.

I've already seen comments of people saying the game is going too fast now. The speed up is great for in-stadium fans (although as pointed out above, timing your run to concession stands / lavatory is now pretty hard

But for tv fans, you can no longer passively watch - it requires paying attention now.

The speed up is great for in-stadium fans (although as pointed out above, timing your run to concession stands / lavatory is now pretty hard

If you were trying to go between pitches, instead of between innings, you were doing it wrong.

If you were trying to go between pitches, instead of between innings, you were doing it wrong.

Yep, nowhere near enough time to drop a nachos-inspired dookie between pitches.

If you were trying to go between pitches, instead of between innings, you were doing it wrong.

Well...

But for tv fans, you can no longer passively watch - it requires paying attention now.

as I have noted before, I (and many others) have been controlling the pace of MLB games for many years.
it almost always has been because of the weird, unnecessary mid-AB pauses by pitchers and hitters.

now, if by some miracle I ever find a game to be "too fast," then I'll control that pace as well.

on my TV (and many others), the players proceed as the pace that we choose. and the commercial breaks are as short or as long as we like.

it's a great time to be alive....

as I have noted before, I (and many others) have been controlling the pace of MLB games for many years.
it almost always has been because of the weird, unnecessary mid-AB pauses by pitchers and hitters.

now, if by some miracle I ever find a game to be "too fast," then I'll control that pace as well.

on my TV (and many others), the players proceed as the pace that we choose. and the commercial breaks are as short or as long as we like.

I know it works for you, but you can't possibly be surprised by the idea that playing Frank Chirkinian for 2 1/2 hours has no appeal to many of us.

I enjoyed the pace of the Angel game I watched today. It didn't feel rushed to me at all. My only annoyance, and it's very slight, is that there is no longer enough time to show a replay between pitches. Anthony Rendon hit a homerun and we didn't get to see a replay until a couple batters later because it was harder to get it queued up and played. Broadcasts are going to have to get creative in how they show replays.

One unintended ? Consequence of the pitch clock is that there isn’t enough time for fielders to execute volleyball-like manipulations to get around the new shift rules. The SS doesn’t really have time to setup to sprint across the bag and get into prime shift position with only a few seconds between pitches. (He could do it once, but probably can’t get back and get set up to do it again for the next pitch.) I though the anti-shift rule would have minimal impact, but with the pitch clock I’m reassessing that.

They specifically mentioned in the Angel game that this is now illegal. I wasn't aware of this, but apparently if you go out to shortstop to start the inning, you have to remain at the shortstop position (i.e. between the third baseman and the second base bag) for the rest of the inning. You can't even switch positions with the second baseman if a tough lefty comes up. So no more long movements between batters. I really like this, actually.

I'm one of the few who thinks the pace is a bit too fast, but I suspect it's just something I'll adjust to over time. I don't miss the replays because I've got a phone and I can always hit up whatever highlight I want, but having in-game highlights and breakdowns of big moments IS something that makes games more interesting on television. I suspect the producers and video guys will be making adjustments for that, as will everyone else.

It's still February. I'm not sussed by anything yet.

A million zillion times better in every dimension.

I've already seen comments of people saying the game is going too fast now.

It feels a bit quick but I think I'll adapt fairly easily and so will players. It's already so shocking to realize how much hitters were stepping out and dicking around before. You get to the batter's box, be ready to hit son.

Getting back to the "clock off" on Saturday it is not clear to me why the hitter has to be ready. Just make the rule that the pitcher can go after 8 seconds and it's on the hitter to be ready or the pitcher is going to throw.

#26 (and others):
The average MLB batter can run out a triple in 15 seconds, so defense repositioning shouldn't be an issue, except maybe for a dead pull only LH batter for which the manager wants the CF in short RF between the 2B and 1B men. (If that would ever happen)

Getting back to the "clock off" on Saturday it is not clear to me why the hitter has to be ready. Just make the rule that the pitcher can go after 8 seconds and it's on the hitter to be ready or the pitcher is going to throw.

The pitcher is going to wait until they get the sign from the catcher. The catcher is going to wait, even when doing the whole keypad electronic signal thing, until the batter is facing the pitcher. Forcing the batter to have his attention toward the pitcher gives the battery a realistic chance of communicating before they run out of time on the pitch clock, and keeps it from becoming a signaling gamesmanship event rather than a plate appearance.

My only annoyance, and it's very slight, is that there is no longer enough time to show a replay between pitches. Anthony Rendon hit a homerun and we didn't get to see a replay until a couple batters later because it was harder to get it queued up and played. Broadcasts are going to have to get creative in how they show replays.

I'm guessing they go to more split screens. Not sure how the announcers will handle it, though.

I gotta say, I'm more excited about this season than I have been in years. I'm very impressed with the early results of the clocks. Now if the restrictions on shifts and the larger bases lead to higher batting averages and more stolen bases, I'll be a kid in a candy store!

I suspect the enthusiasm for the shift ban may ebb somewhat the first time a left-handed pull hitter gets a game-winning hit in an important against one’s favorite team when it would have been an easy out if the fielders had been allowed to play in locations that gave them the best chance of getting an out. A run of such outcomes might really test the resolve of some proponents. Could be interesting.

42. Walt Davis Posted: February 26, 2023 at 04:49 PM (#6118753)
though more pitching changes probably end up tacking on a sizeable amount of time, too.

...I'll be surprised if we don't see pitchers using up nearly every second they can on nearly every pitch.

- several times last year i watched a 9 inning ML game from first pitch to last pitch. the amount of time the batters took on adjusting gloves, cups, cap, whatevs was a minimum of 6 seconds per pitch. with the pitchers, maybe every 70 pitches took less than 20 seconds/pitch including all the rubbng the ball, walking around the *(^&*%^#@! mound, etc. games went over 3 freaking hours.

i saw 1 college game. not as much time between innings because no tv, but the same freaking time delay on mound, in the box and it took a lot of strength to not scream - THROW THE *%&$^#@! BALL with every single pitch. i miss roy oswalt/mark buehrle

- i saw some video last year of a joey votto AB and he didn't step out once of 5 or 6 pitches. it was awesome

I suspect the enthusiasm for the shift ban may ebb somewhat the first time a left-handed pull hitter gets a game-winning hit in an important against one’s favorite team when it would have been an easy out if the fielders had been allowed to play in locations that gave them the best chance of getting an out. A run of such outcomes might really test the resolve of some proponents.

This should be exactly counterbalanced by the fans of the team whose left-handed pull hitter wins them the game. Team results are inherently zero-sum with regard to rule changes.

- i saw some video last year of a joey votto AB and he didn't step out once of 5 or 6 pitches. it was awesome

Against Derek Lowe, who was known for working quickly. So Votto countered by never moving.

...as I have noted before, I (and many others) have been controlling the pace of MLB games for many years.

where can I get these superpowers that you and others have?

where can I get these superpowers that you and others have?

all it takes is a willingness to disengage from "real time" for portions of the game, and a little finger/remote coordination.

meaning, you can't have 3-4 other screens up with pals commenting on the game in real time (occasionally I can hear sounds that I got multiple texts at once on my iPhone, so I know something significant is pending. but I don't know if it's good or bad, so it doesn't ruin the suspense).

I say "portions" because it's not difficult to get well behind a live game and then catch up again within minutes. at that point, you can engage live with those you know for as long as you want. this will be more likely with these new baseball rules, actually, at least for some stretches.

Sunday's PGA golf featured a warning to the final twosome near the end - when no one else had a chance to win the event - for slow play. only dumb luck that I was live to hear that note at the moment before pausing for a few minutes so that I could use my superpowers there as well.

it's the same concept as the new rules, basically - you don't get "less baseball" or "less golf" etc.
you get the same baseball etc but you see every pitch without (previously) dozens of minutes of useless nonsense and posturing.

you can do a 3-hour NFL game in 90 minutes this way, but it's likely there will be some crazy play or two where you actually want to hear the announcers bloviate/explain what happened. but under 2 hours, for sure - unless perhaps one is in need of info in commercials on various medical products for old people and such.
if it's a big game, might even be worth catching up just past the 2 1/2-hour mark in real time if you want to commiserate about the game as it happens. but that's what "controlling the pace" means - more than one way to manage it.

(I should add that I will press my Luddite credentials against most here - I have very little tech savvy whatsoever. but no special expertise required. toughest is playoff OT hockey, because if you try to catch up too aggressively, you may "spoiler alert" yourself with the goal. so better to limit the FF to small doses, like an obvious faceoff or natural breaks.)

This should be exactly counterbalanced by the fans of the team whose left-handed pull hitter wins them the game. Team results are inherently zero-sum with regard to rule changes.

The way these things generally play out is that people have an enormous status quo bias, so bad results that feel 'strange' make them very unhappy, but bad results that seem 'normal' are shrugged off. I expect that the shift still feels weird and a shift ban will feel more like getting back to normal. But maybe it's been prominent long enough that attitudes have flipped?

all it takes is a willingness to disengage from "real time" for portions of the game, and a little finger/remote coordination

Here's where seeing nearly all my baseball in the ballpark is a drawback. I keep wanting to hit fast-forward, but nothing doing …

Here is a splitscreen video of an entire half inning from this year taking the same time as one pitch to be thrown by Pedro Baez. (a minute and 51 seconds)

https://twitter.com/PitchingNinja/status/1630329080477253632

The pitch clock is AWESOME. Best rule change since the DH.

The pitch clock is AWESOME. Best rule change since the DH.


100%. The left side is baseball, the right side is stupidity. Why did this take so long? The "pitch clock" was already in the rule book.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again...

Get in the damn box.
Throw the damn ball.

If the game times can be brought back to 2½ hours, that'd be equal to the average game time in 1978.

I may just start watching MLB again.

If the game times can be brought back to 2½ hours, that'd be equal to the average game time in 1978

And you'd only have to be in your 50s to remember it. So on the one hand, good job catering to your base, MLB! On the other hand, your base hates it, MLB!

And you'd only have to be in your 50s to remember it. So on the one hand, good job catering to your base, MLB! On the other hand, your base hates it, MLB!

You really think young viewers want to spend 3:30 watching a game?

I don't. I didn't watch a single regular season game last year.

I guess I'm far less worried than some others about the pitch clock penalties affecting outcomes of games. I'm with the folks who think players will adjust fairly quickly and by the second half of this season, it will be as rare as a balk call. And I think I'll feel about the same about it as a balk.

If the game times can be brought back to 2½ hours, that'd be equal to the average game time in 1978


And you'd only have to be in your 50s to remember it. So on the one hand, good job catering to your base, MLB! On the other hand, your base hates it, MLB!

I think you're looking at this the wrong way. I believe that people who remember 1978 baseball will really like getting back to 2.5 hour games. I also think young people will really like having more action and a faster pace. I see it as a win-win.

#76 - Yep, I agree. I've always seen improving the speed and pace of play as a win/win with considerable upside and no real downside.

Fans basically seem to fall into 2 camps: (1) "The game is too slow and I'd enjoy it more if they sped up the pace and cut down on dead time!" or (2) "The game is fine the way it is. But of course, it was fine when it was faster too. IOW, pace of play doesn't affect my enjoyment either way." Since there seems to be very few (if any) in camp #3 ("I actually PREFER really long, slow games with very little action and I'd be LESS of a fan if they got rid of a half hour of d!cking around between pitches!"), adding the clocks looks like it should appease camp #1 without alienating camp #2. So yeah...win/win.

It may be just a coincidence – the pitch clock was being phased into pro ball for years already – but it is interesting that it reaches the majors just as the RSNs collapse.

When you ask "Who on earth wants a four-hour baseball game?" one possible answer is "cable companies who need to fill time, preferably with a live event." They don't care if individuals watch the whole thing; they just want each segment of the show to get a relatively decent audience compared to anything else that's on the fixed schedule.

The model may have to shift from attracting "Ah, I'll watch an inning or two because I've got cable anyway" to attracting "Hey, I might actually want to subscribe to baseball streaming because baseball is fun."

This is a teeny tiny sample size, but this afternoon I tunes into the Mets-Astros game briefly. I switched on just in time to see an Astro player single with 2 outs. It took 10 minutes to record the third out with no runs scoring. 8 pitch walk including a pickoff throw, 8 pitch walk, manager visit, 3 or 4 pitch groundout. The Mets pitcher took the maximum allowed time between pitches. He would be set, ready to throw at around 10 seconds, and then just stare at the batter for 9.5 of those.

Better than him taking 30 seconds, with the batter calling time and him stepping off once or twice, but still, 10 minutes, one ball in play.

The pace of play was better, but still far from optimum.

My feeling is that owners liked 4 hour games because they sold more concessions.

Along with the vendors.

Sportsbooks also preferred the old way, because it was better for increasing the volume of "in-game betting."

I guess I'm far less worried than some others about the pitch clock penalties affecting outcomes of games. I'm with the folks who think players will adjust fairly quickly and by the second half of this season, it will be as rare as a balk call. And I think I'll feel about the same about it as a balk.

Just for fun: walkoff balks. (To be clear, I am not bothered by either this or the prospect of a walkoff clock violation.)

he Mets pitcher took the maximum allowed time between pitches. He would be set, ready to throw at around 10 seconds, and then just stare at the batter for 9.5 of those

IIRC, the "old rule" was actually 12 seconds, it just was never enforced. If you watch videos of games from the 1970's, pitchers were often taking only 6 seconds between pitches, every once in a while stepping off the rubber to walk around, rub the rosin bag, and presumably pull themselves together/think. Of course, they were trained differently, probably on fields without any lights where you had to get the game in before sundown.

15/20 seconds is still way too long. It's a start though. Hopefully they can tighten it a bit as time goes on.

People keep complaining about concessions, which I don't understand. In all the stadiums I've been to, there's a line at concessions, at least in the early innings. If you need to go get a hot dog, you are going to miss at least a half-inning. Maybe this will help the vendors who walk around. It's always fun to get a hot dog or some peanuts or a soda from the vendor who walks around, anyhow.

People keep complaining about concessions, which I don't understand. In all the stadiums I've been to, there's a line at concessions, at least in the early innings.

ah, memories of my first and only visit to Dodger Stadium.
mid-1980s, pitching duel between star hurlers Orel Hershiser vs Joaquin Andujar.

end of third inning, I'm very hungry and want a couple of Dodger Dogs plus a beer.
7 or 8 people in front of me in the concessions line, not bad.
that said, had been out there a few days and had previously noticed how staggeringly slow the pace of customer service was back then compared to New Yawk.

pace of play? only part of the reason that I missed the 4th inning. and the 5th. and the 6th, before I finally got back to my seat with my food and beverage.

have been to LA many times since, and the difference in pace of life doesn't seem as stark (for better or for worse. as slow as the service was, at least people were friendly).

Let's speed up the game even more by getting rid of replay. Or at least enforce the time limit that managers have to appeal and limit the time umpires spend reviewing.

I think the concessions thing is overstated. Most of it stops currently after 2.5 hours anyway. Maybe now they will stay open until the end of the game. Also, I suspect people will be more willing to enter the park early and start spending if they know the game is unlikely to be a slog. I certainly try to time my entrance to be just before first pitch or even a little after because I don't want to be in the park for 4 hours.

My feeling is that owners liked 4 hour games because they sold more concessions.

Hard to sell concessions to empty seats.

@73, 76 I guess my sarcasm didn't translate. I'm happy to have a quicker game, and I'm sure most people 40 and under will be too. But they are not the fan base that supports baseball.