Why Baseball Games Are So Damned Long

charlieoscar

Member
Sep 28, 2014
1,339
which is the title of an interesting article by Grant Brisbee on SBNation. He took two games from different periods that had very similar stats and was able to look at video replay of both.

Apr 13, 1984, Mets--2 at Cubs--11, 270 pitches, 27 baserunners, 74 plate appearances, 1 mid-inning pitching change
Apr 17, 2014, Brewers--2, Pirates--11, 268 pitches, 27 baserunners, 75 plate appearances, 1 mid-inning pitching change

The 1984 game lasted 2 hours 31 minutes
The 2014 game lasted 3 hours six minutes

Brisbee did an inning-by-inning breakdown of stats and included comments by announcers and commercials and then discussed what he saw as differences contributing to the 35 minutes of extra time.

http://www.sbnation.com/a/mlb-2017-season-preview/game-length
 

steveluck7

Member
SoSH Member
May 10, 2007
3,994
Burrillville, RI
Felger and Mazz dedicated their entire show yesterday to baseball and what is "wrong" with it and how it might improve.
One shocking stat they read. Last year, 31% of all plate appearances ended without a ball in play (walk, strikeout, HBP)

Doesn't necessarily get to the game length issue but it certainly addresses the issue of in game flow, which i think is hand-in-hand with overall length.

A few thoughts I've had.
Eliminate the ball going around the horn after every out, especially after a strikeout
Reduce the number of warm-ups before every inning (2-3 max)
Eliminate the catcher throw down to 2nd (and then the ball going around the horn) at the start of every inning
Reduce the number of warm-ups a reliever gets when entering a game (2-3) Just take more time to warm up in the bullpen
 

Saints Rest

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Interesting article.

tl/dr for those who don't click thru:
The game takes longer because there is more time taken on what he describes as "inaction" pitches, i.e. your basic, pitch that the catcher catches and throws back to the pitcher during the same AB.
Basically, baseball has turned into "Seinfeld" -- it is a game where a lot of nothing happens to the tune of about 3 minutes per inning.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
Felger and Mazz dedicated their entire show yesterday to baseball and what is "wrong" with it and how it might improve.
One shocking stat they read. Last year, 31% of all plate appearances ended without a ball in play (walk, strikeout, HBP)

Doesn't necessarily get to the game length issue but it certainly addresses the issue of in game flow, which i think is hand-in-hand with overall length.

A few thoughts I've had.
Eliminate the ball going around the horn after every out, especially after a strikeout
Reduce the number of warm-ups before every inning (2-3 max)
Eliminate the catcher throw down to 2nd (and then the ball going around the horn) at the start of every inning
Reduce the number of warm-ups a reliever gets when entering a game (2-3) Just take more time to warm up in the bullpen
I don't think any of those things are contributors to games taking longer, if only because they've been taking place forever in baseball, and thus I don't think they'd necessarily make a significant difference in shortening the time of games now.

The ball going around the horn after an out (with no runners on) takes place while the batter/runner is exiting the field and the next batter is coming to the plate. In other words, it's dead time that will still exist even if the activity is eliminated.

Warm-up throws and the catcher throwing down to second between innings occurs during the time the game is in a TV timeout anyway. That period has lengthened over the years not because the warmups take longer but because TV wants more time for advertisers. Basically, again it is dead time that would probably still exist if the activity was shortened/eliminated.

Reducing the warm-up tosses by a reliever entering the game makes some sense since the pitcher was ostensibly just throwing in the pen. However, part of the reason for the warm-ups is to acclimate to the mound (not all mounds are alike). Maybe three throws is enough to do that, maybe not.

As the article points out, the biggest bulk of extra time that games seem to take nowadays is the periods of total inactivity. Pitchers taking longer between pitches and batters stepping out and taking extra time between pitches. I liked the author's term...lollygagging. Players these days lollygag a lot more than their predecessors. Fix that and both the pacing and overall length of games will improve immensely.
 

steveluck7

Member
SoSH Member
May 10, 2007
3,994
Burrillville, RI
I certainly recognize that some of the things i mentioned happen concurrently to other stuff and or when the broadcast is in a commercial.
Felger and Mazz kept citing Rob Manfred (not sure if it was TV interview or something in print) and one thing he did mention was time between innings and their (MLB) thought that reducing the time wouldn't necessarily affect revenue as they would be able to charge a higher ad rate since more people would be dedicated viewers. I get the logic but i'm not sure if that's necessarily how it would play out.

I think it'll be a bunch of little changes that make up the difference rather than one or two radical changes (like going to a 3 ball, 2 strike model)
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
I still think the one move that would speed up baseball the most without really changing the product is computerized strike zones. It just seems like the flow would improve when you eliminate the human element.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,069
Hingham, MA
Interesting article.

tl/dr for those who don't click thru:
The game takes longer because there is more time taken on what he describes as "inaction" pitches, i.e. your basic, pitch that the catcher catches and throws back to the pitcher during the same AB.
Basically, baseball has turned into "Seinfeld" -- it is a game where a lot of nothing happens to the tune of about 3 minutes per inning.
I have to quote / bump this because if you read the article, 25 minutes out of the 35 minute gap is due to this phenomenon. And it is SUCH a freaking easy fix. Here is the meat from the article

Edit: and I have been harping on this for years, it isn't the 3 minute commercial breaks that make baseball boring, it is the pace of play

Time between pitches is the primary villain. I tallied up all the pitches in both games that we’ll call inaction pitches — pitches that resulted in a ball, called strike, or swinging strike, but didn’t result in the end of an at-bat or the advancement of a runner. These are the pitches where the catcher caught the ball and threw it back to the pitcher, whose next step was to throw it back to the catcher. Foul balls didn’t count. The fourth ball of a plate appearance didn’t count. Stolen bases didn’t count. Wild pitches didn’t count. Just the pitches where contact wasn’t made, and the pitcher received a return throw from the catcher.

There were 146 inaction pitches in the 1984 game.

There were 144 of these pitches in the 2014 game.

The total time for the inaction pitches in 1984 — the elapsed time between a pitcher releasing one pitch and his release of the next pitch — was 32 minutes and 47 seconds.

The total time for inaction pitches in 2014 was 57 minutes and 41 seconds.

This is how a game can have an almost identical number of pitches thrown, batters faced, baserunners, hits, walks, strikeouts, and runs scored compared to another game, yet take more than a half-hour longer. This, plus the modest difference in commercial breaks, explains nearly everything. It took nine seconds longer for a pitcher to get rid of the ball in 2014.

In the 1984 game, there were 70 inaction pitches that were returned to the pitcher and thrown back to the plate within 15 seconds.

In the 2014 game, there were 10.

In the 1984 game, there were 32 balls, called strikes, or swinging strikes that took 20 seconds or more between pitches

In 2014, there were 87 balls, called strikes, or swinging strikes that took 20 seconds or more between pitches.

That’s it. That’s the secret. It isn’t just the commercials. It isn’t just the left-handed pitchers coming in to face one batter, even though that absolutely makes a huge difference in the games when that does happen.
 

DeadlySplitter

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 20, 2015
33,260
are "inaction" pitches really that bad? nowadays there's advanced scouting and plans on how to attack hitters with intricate pitch sequences. of course pitches like that are going to take longer now.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,069
Hingham, MA
are "inaction" pitches really that bad? nowadays there's advanced scouting and plans on how to attack hitters with intricate pitch sequences. of course pitches like that are going to take longer now.
Shouldn't they know this going in anyway? Like if you call a first pitch fastball to get to 0-1, don't you know what you are calling on the next pitch? It shouldn't take 20+ seconds.
 

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
21,770
Pittsburgh, PA
are "inaction" pitches really that bad? nowadays there's advanced scouting and plans on how to attack hitters with intricate pitch sequences. of course pitches like that are going to take longer now.
why does that require standing around for 9 seconds longer in between pitches? yeah, you've got a more nuanced plan of attack now-a-days, but standing there thinking about it, or watching the batter step in and out like some demented dance, adds absolutely nothing to the battle of wits and preparation.
 

swiftaw

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2009
3,434
In Cricket, there is no time limit, however, there is a requirement that the fielding team has to bowl at a particular rate of balls/hr or they get fined. Perhaps we need this in baseball, the fielding team has to maintain a certain pitch rate.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
are "inaction" pitches really that bad? nowadays there's advanced scouting and plans on how to attack hitters with intricate pitch sequences. of course pitches like that are going to take longer now.
It's not the pitches themselves, it's the lead up to them. Inaction pitches existed 50 years ago the same as they do today. It's just that 50 years ago, the pitcher got the ball back, got the sign, and threw again. Now, the pitcher gets the ball back, he takes a stroll to the back of the mound, he adjusts his cap/jersey/glove/necklace/belt/shoelaces, kicks an invisible pebble, peaks into the crowd for his wife/girlfriend/potential date for after the game, then gets settled back on the rubber to get the sign, which he shakes off twice before accepting the same sign he got the first time.

Meanwhile, the batter has stepped out of the batter's box, taken his helmet off to fluff his hair, put it back on, unstrapped and restrapped his batting gloves, drawn a pretty picture in the dirt, dug a hole with his back foot in the exact same spot he dug it 15 seconds earlier before the previous pitch, gets into the box, waggles his bat, taps his front foot, and settles into his stance. But god forbid a gnat lands on the center field fence in his line of sight, otherwise he'll call for time and re-do the whole routine.

It's a whole lot of nothing that has nothing to do with strategy, scouting, or game planning.
 

brs3

sings praises of pinstripes
SoSH Member
May 20, 2008
5,200
Jackson Heights, NYC
I'm not a football fan, but I'm impressed with the camera angles and coverage they provide in such great detail. I think it's the Museum of the Moving Image that has an exhibit that shows how baseball has roughly 8 cameras, or maybe even more, focusing on different angles of the field, and how routinely every action is choreographed. There's no spontaneity. However, in football, and please correct me if I'm wrong, they have cameras that follow the game from above the field, and somehow manage to not obstruct the game at all. Why can't baseball try that?

I'm thinking of a birds eye camera with great zoom above the pitcher, that can track the ball from hand to bat to wall. Right now we see a camera manually track a white dot flying into the stands. Someone more sophisticated than me can figure out the logistics, but if football can figure it out, surely baseball can too. Football i'm sure is easier because the field dimensions are standard, but it shouldn't mean we should be restricted to the same old options.

I think that's why the game seems 'boring'. There's no camera angle that appropriately shows how a knuckler knuckles or curve ball curves. Sure, they slow it down and you can see the movement, but with technology there's no reason we shouldn't be able to see split second spin going into the strike zone. Maybe ESPN or Fox does it on national games, but it should be something I can watch on a Sox/Royals Wednesday night game on NESN.

I find NASCAR 'boring', but I also don't listen to the pit crew, which apparently turns the experience into something else entirely. I think baseball needs to look at other aspects of the game being ignored. Recap a stolen base by split screening the signs to the runner a half inning after it happens so signs are not used by the other team. Maybe that's boring, too?

Why not show pitch movement of the bullpen guys warming up? Smaller area of coverage, there's no real reason they couldn't install awesome technology to show a mean cutting fastball or slider.

Less focus on changing the actual game, more focus on what's being totally missed that could contribute to understanding it better.
 

charlieoscar

Member
Sep 28, 2014
1,339
I only looked at nine-inning games from 2015 and 2016 in which one or both teams batted in the ninth. This means that there would be 16 or 17 commercial breaks between half-innings. The games broke down this way:

<9 inn ---- 11 games
8.5 inn - 2200 games
9 inn --- 2249 games
>9 inn --- 397 games
--------------------
All ----- 4857 games

So, approximately 95.5% of all games during those years went nine innings and of those games there was an almost even split between games won without the home team batting in the bottom of the ninth and games which were won or lost with the home team batting in the bottom of the ninth. So, for a rough approximation, one could say that there are 16.5 commercial breaks in a game: reducing the length of a break by one minute would reduce game time by 16-and-a-half-minutes.

I have my doubts that MLB could get such attractive television contracts if they did trim that much commercial time, which leaves something that I would hate to see...namely, scrolling commercials. Of course, they could start selling ads on players uniforms and on the fences like you see in minor league parks.

Brisbee's article described the problem as lollygagging, which is something I've been saying for some time but I never thought to use such a wonderfully fitting word. It needs to be adopted by the fans, who can yell out at games, "Stop the lollygagging," or texting/tweeting to announcers/players about the ridiculous lollygagging they are seeing. It needs to be adopted by the media so they begin including it in their work. Eventually, MLB might catch on.
 

Marbleheader

Moderator
Moderator
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2004
11,726
I just picked a random half inning from Game 6 of the 1975 World Series and compared it to a random half inning in Game 6 of the 2016 World Series.

Tiant's time between pitches (in seconds):

Geronimo batting
(Called strike)
14 (Called Strike)
17 (Ball)
12 (Foul, new ball, Geronimo steps out of box)
22 (Swinging Strike)

Crowley Batting (PH)
(F9)

Rose batting
(Ball)
16 (Single)

Griffey batting
(4-3)

Three balls in play, 4 batters.

Now a random sampling of the 2016 world series, Game 6.


Napoli batting
(Ball)
16 (Foul)
26 (Foul)
23 (Ball)
21 (Swinging Strike)


Ramirez batting
(Ball)
14 (Ball)
18 (Strike looking)
17 (Foul)
25 (Ball)
29 (Foul)
27 (F9)

Chisenhall batting
(Ball)
12 (Foul)
21 (Ball)
20 (Foul)
24 (Ball)
28 (Foul)
22 (Ball)


Pitching change

Guyer batting
(6-4)

I watched several innings of both games. Both 10 innings. 2016 was a full hour longer.

A 20 second pitch clock will help, but it's not the biggest problem.

One of the biggest differences in watching was at bats like Chisenhall's. God is that awful to watch, especially compared to the 1975 game. It just felt like the approach was not to put the ball in play, but just fouling off pitches hoping for a walk and to build the pitch count. That's a problem. Tiant was pitching until he started getting hit hard, Arrietta was pitching until he got to 100 pitches. It changes everything. Rose, Perez, Griffey, Foster...1-9 they're all trying to get hits. It wasn't just the pace, it was knowing it likely wasn't going to be a 7-8 pitch at bat, that the pitcher vs. batter matchup would be decided quickly rather than over the course of 3-4 minutes. I miss that.

Maybe we need pitch counts for hitters.
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
34,402
Maybe MLB needs to enforce the rules against pitchers applying substances to the ball. The very high spin rates achieved on pitches observed in recent seasons are likely leading to more K's, and probably more foul balls too.

Implementing the "Varitek" rule to essentially ban pitcher-catcher-infielder conferences on the mound would help speed games up. Such visits would still be legal, but would count as official visits just as for managers and pitching coaches.
 

keninten

New Member
Nov 24, 2005
588
Tennessee
One more small difference that has changed since maybe the 70`s. Changing the ball. It seems pitchers ask for a different ball and any nick on the ball requires a new ball. I remember in the 60`s getting a foul ball and it was odd shaped and had a broken seam. They just kept playing with the ball unless it left the field. I`ve always wondered if some pitchers like the ball deformed because it would have a weird movement. I do think it`s good that they keep the balls uniform now.
 

Warning Track Speed

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
1,547
astride the divide
Yeah I remember reading a book "by" Ron Luciano in the early 1980s and he talked about the umpires having to prepare, I dunno, five dozen balls for a game? They must blow through way more than that now, with every scuff and ding leading to a new ball.

I believe the time between pitches and all the helmet and glove and crotch adjusting to be the biggest culprit in lengthening the games, but I hadn't before this thread considered the strategy of fouling off pitches and driving up pitch counts. That does take forever, doesn't it.

Also, can't believe nobody has hit this meatball served up earlier in the thread:

 

brs3

sings praises of pinstripes
SoSH Member
May 20, 2008
5,200
Jackson Heights, NYC
I just picked a random half inning from Game 6 of the 1975 World Series and compared it to a random half inning in Game 6 of the 2016 World Series.

Tiant's time between pitches (in seconds):

Geronimo batting
(Called strike)
14 (Called Strike)
17 (Ball)
12 (Foul, new ball, Geronimo steps out of box)
22 (Swinging Strike)

Crowley Batting (PH)
(F9)

Rose batting
(Ball)
16 (Single)

Griffey batting
(4-3)

Three balls in play, 4 batters.

Now a random sampling of the 2016 world series, Game 6.


Napoli batting
(Ball)
16 (Foul)
26 (Foul)
23 (Ball)
21 (Swinging Strike)


Ramirez batting
(Ball)
14 (Ball)
18 (Strike looking)
17 (Foul)
25 (Ball)
29 (Foul)
27 (F9)

Chisenhall batting
(Ball)
12 (Foul)
21 (Ball)
20 (Foul)
24 (Ball)
28 (Foul)
22 (Ball)


Pitching change

Guyer batting
(6-4)

I watched several innings of both games. Both 10 innings. 2016 was a full hour longer.

A 20 second pitch clock will help, but it's not the biggest problem.

One of the biggest differences in watching was at bats like Chisenhall's. God is that awful to watch, especially compared to the 1975 game. It just felt like the approach was not to put the ball in play, but just fouling off pitches hoping for a walk and to build the pitch count. That's a problem. Tiant was pitching until he started getting hit hard, Arrietta was pitching until he got to 100 pitches. It changes everything. Rose, Perez, Griffey, Foster...1-9 they're all trying to get hits. It wasn't just the pace, it was knowing it likely wasn't going to be a 7-8 pitch at bat, that the pitcher vs. batter matchup would be decided quickly rather than over the course of 3-4 minutes. I miss that.

Maybe we need pitch counts for hitters.
I always thought that good hitters fouled off pitches until they either got the one they wanted or failed in that. I don't think fouling off pitches is simply to drive up the pitch count. A lead off hitter might foul off pitches to give the bench a chance to see what the pitcher is throwing that day. Then again, I might be regurgitating something Remy might have said during long at bats.
 

The Gray Eagle

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2001
16,725
Lots of foul balls in an at-bat is not a new thing, that's been going on forever.

If the umps enforce the rules already on the books, then the pace of the game would increase a lot. Start enforcing the rules about the pitcher having to make the next pitch within 12 seconds, and start enforcing the rule about hitters not stepping out. Start with a few warnings, then if that doesn't work, start dishing out automatic balls and strikes. That will get the attention of the players and get them to pick up the pace.

The umpires have the power to improve the pace of the game, and they need to do it.
No new rules are needed.
 

The Napkin

wise ass al kaprielian
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2002
28,535
right here
which is the title of an interesting article by Grant Brisbee on SBNation. He took two games from different periods that had very similar stats and was able to look at video replay of both.

Apr 13, 1984, Mets--2 at Cubs--11, 270 pitches, 27 baserunners, 74 plate appearances, 1 mid-inning pitching change
Apr 17, 2014, Brewers--2, Pirates--11, 268 pitches, 27 baserunners, 75 plate appearances, 1 mid-inning pitching change

The 1984 game lasted 2 hours 31 minutes
The 2014 game lasted 3 hours six minutes

Brisbee did an inning-by-inning breakdown of stats and included comments by announcers and commercials and then discussed what he saw as differences contributing to the 35 minutes of extra time.

http://www.sbnation.com/a/mlb-2017-season-preview/game-length
Chisenhall batting
(Ball)
12 (Foul)
21 (Ball)
20 (Foul)
24 (Ball)
28 (Foul)
22 (Ball)

One of the biggest differences in watching was at bats like Chisenhall's. God is that awful to watch, especially compared to the 1975 game. It just felt like the approach was not to put the ball in play, but just fouling off pitches hoping for a walk and to build the pitch count. That's a problem. Tiant was pitching until he started getting hit hard, Arrietta was pitching until he got to 100 pitches. It changes everything. Rose, Perez, Griffey, Foster...1-9 they're all trying to get hits. It wasn't just the pace, it was knowing it likely wasn't going to be a 7-8 pitch at bat, that the pitcher vs. batter matchup would be decided quickly rather than over the course of 3-4 minutes. I miss that.

Maybe we need pitch counts for hitters.
I get what you're saying but how does that fit with the OP where the actual pitch number and plate appearances (and therefore pitch/at-bat) is bascially identical and yet one game was over half an hour longer?
 

BigJimEd

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
4,432
Lots of foul balls in an at-bat is not a new thing, that's been going on forever.

If the umps enforce the rules already on the books, then the pace of the game would increase a lot. Start enforcing the rules about the pitcher having to make the next pitch within 12 seconds, and start enforcing the rule about hitters not stepping out. Start with a few warnings, then if that doesn't work, start dishing out automatic balls and strikes. That will get the attention of the players and get them to pick up the pace.

The umpires have the power to improve the pace of the game, and they need to do it.
No new rules are needed.
Exactly. The rules are in place. These new rule changes are just window dressing.


I'm not sure where to find pitches per game or pitchers per at bat. I did see one study from 2010 that stated pitches per game were up 11 pitches since 1988. So a few minutes more per game but not a major factor. Don't think they would want to mess with that anyway.
 

Saints Rest

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
I get what you're saying but how does that fit with the OP where the actual pitch number and plate appearances (and therefore pitch/at-bat) is bascially identical and yet one game was over half an hour longer?
This is the real salient point of this article. By finding two games with so many exact (or close to exact) matches, he was able to eliminate a LOT of variables that people often point to when discussing the length of games.

It's not about pitching changes or commercials; it's about pace of play during the fundamental spaces inherent in the game. Basically, its as though he has said that books have more pages, not because of more words, or larger fonts, or more pictures, but because there is more space between the words.

What would be really telling is if someone with access to lots of data -- someone like baseball-reference or maybe even our guys -- could find additional pairings of games that have similar exact matches of stats to see if the time differential holds up.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,069
Hingham, MA
This is the real salient point of this article. By finding two games with so many exact (or close to exact) matches, he was able to eliminate a LOT of variables that people often point to when discussing the length of games.

It's not about pitching changes or commercials; it's about pace of play during the fundamental spaces inherent in the game. Basically, its as though he has said that books have more pages, not because of more words, or larger fonts, or more pictures, but because there is more space between the words.

What would be really telling is if someone with access to lots of data -- someone like baseball-reference or maybe even our guys -- could find additional pairings of games that have similar exact matches of stats to see if the time differential holds up.
You wouldn't even need this. You could just calculate the time per inaction pitch from a given set of years (and the average number of inaction pitches per game). Bet that in itself would tell you a ton.
 

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
21,770
Pittsburgh, PA
What would be really telling is if someone with access to lots of data -- someone like baseball-reference or maybe even our guys -- could find additional pairings of games that have similar exact matches of stats to see if the time differential holds up.
I have a feeling he chose the given games used here by computing some sort of game-similarity score among a set of games from the last 5 years vs some previous period, and picking the top pairing.

He just happened to choose a 1984 game where a lot of funny (or awkward) things happened, so it made an entertaining read.
 

SirPsychoSquints

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
5,013
Pittsburgh, PA
I have a feeling he chose the given games used here by computing some sort of game-similarity score among a set of games from the last 5 years vs some previous period, and picking the top pairing.

He just happened to choose a 1984 game where a lot of funny (or awkward) things happened, so it made an entertaining read.
It seems more that it is a struggle to find any full games from that far back (so he can watch it and time each pitch). He found one, and then found a recent match.
 

charlieoscar

Member
Sep 28, 2014
1,339
Below are the codes used in the Pitch Sequence filed in Retrosheet Game Logs. I can parse these to count the various categories by season and I can consolidate the them to just count balls anad strikes or simply number of pitches. However, one very big problem is that the farther back you go in time, the less apt you are to find the full spectrum listed below and the less apt you are to even find any pitch sequence. For example, from 1950 through 1959, there are no pick-off throws listed and basically you are just going to get B,F,C,S,X. In neither case do you learn about pitcher that go to the backstop when there is no runner advance.

When dealing with these game logs in a database and SQL and a period [.] appears in a pitch sequence (such as BB.), the record is stopped and whatever event to which the period refers is listed and the Batter Event Flag="F". When the Plate Appearance resumes (Batter Event Flag="T", the Pitch Sequence is listed in full (BB.CX). So, to completely examine Pitch Sequences that contain periods, you need to go back and examine the partile sequences that explain the periods. I do not know how to do this using SQL and given the sheer volume of data it is rather a lot to do by hand. So, soomeone would need to really learn the structure of the files and write a program to handle it.

BTW, only 12.257% of the plate appearances for 1950-59 in Retrosheet Game Logs have Pitch Sequence data.

+ following pickoff throw by the catcher [a number will indicate to which base]
* indicates the following pitch was blocked by the catcher
. marker for play not involving the batter [stolen bases, pitching changes, pinch hitters, PB, WP, etc.]
1 pickoff throw to first
2 pickoff throw to second
3 pickoff throw to third
> Indicates a runner going on the pitch

B ball
C called strike
F foul
H hit batter
I intentional ball
K strike (unknown type)
L foul bunt
M missed bunt attempt
N no pitch (on balks and interference calls)
O foul tip on bunt
P pitchout
Q swinging on pitchout
R foul ball on pitchout
S swinging strike
T foul tip
U unknown or missed pitch
V called ball because pitcher went to his mouth
X ball put into play by batter
Y ball put into play on pitchout
 

Jim Ed Rice in HOF

Red-headed Skrub child
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
8,260
Seacoast NH
Exactly. The rules are in place. These new rule changes are just window dressing.

I'm not sure where to find pitches per game or pitchers per at bat. I did see one study from 2010 that stated pitches per game were up 11 pitches since 1988. So a few minutes more per game but not a major factor. Don't think they would want to mess with that anyway.
This link goes to the total MLB pitching data and goes back to 1988. Using that information pitches per plate appearance have gone from 3.58 in 1988 to 3.87 in 2016. Surprisingly (to me at least) is that PA per game is only up 1 roughly per game from 74.9 to 76.2.

Pitches per game in 2016 averaged 295. Using 1988's pitches/PA would yield a game with 273 pitches. So pitches per game are up by 20 and even assuming a generous 30 second interval on those incremental pitches you're only talking 10 minutes.
 

charlieoscar

Member
Sep 28, 2014
1,339
For the 1950 season Retrosheet Game Logs have 11075 plate appearances with pitch sequences. The total length of the Pitch Sequences is 40176, which works out to 3.628 "pitches"/PA but 2341 of those "pitches" are periods, so subtracting those from the total number of pitches lowers the pitches/PA to 3.416.

There are 141 games with Pitch Sequences for the 1950 season, which averages out to 78.546 PA per game (for those games). Runs per game in 1950 was 4.85 while it was slightly lower (4.48) in 2016, which could explain why there is a higher number of PA per game back then. Of course, one would also need to look at the number of shortened games as well as extra-inning games and also the ratio of 8.5 to 9-inning games in.
 

charlieoscar

Member
Sep 28, 2014
1,339
I might add that the runs per game in those games of the 1950 season for which pitch sequences are available is slightly below the runs scored per game for all games in that season: 4.74 vs. 4.85. One assumption could be that there were an even higher number of PA per game overall.
 

Hagios

New Member
Dec 15, 2007
672
Joe Sheehan argues in Fangraphs that games have been getting longer because the hitters have been getting bigger and stronger:
Baseball in 1976 was a bunch of guys throwing 86 and dialing it up to 91 now and again, pitching to a league where half the hitters couldn’t reach the warning track with two helpings at breakfast and an aluminum bat. Baseball in 2016 is beasts averaging 93 and then leaving after a couple of hours so beasts throwing 97 can go to work, taking on a league where everyone can turn around a fastball. Why, I mean, in the world, would we expect these two things to take anywhere close to the same amount of time? They are barely, just barely, the same sport. If you want baseball players in 2016 to play 2:30 games, then stop after seven innings.

You’ve probably seen the Grant Brisbee bit about why games are so long. He concludes, “Time between pitches is the primary villain.” He’s right, but it’s not because of sloth; it’s because baseball is a lot harder now. Baseball is harder now because the batters are bigger and stronger and the pitchers throw a lot harder, and they have things like cut fastballs. No one in that 1984 game had ever seen a 94-mph cut fastball. The presence of Dwight Gooden notwithstanding, no one had seen a 93-mph slider or a 90-mph changeup, praise Thor.
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-pace-of-play-problem-began-in-1884/

What interests me is why the equilibrium might have changed. Obviously there have been big improves in nutrition and weight training and *cough*peds*cough*. But I suspect that there has been a decrease in the importance of defense. Yes, defense is still important, but the variance of outcomes of a ground ball with a given exit speed is lower now that we have perfectly manicured infields. This means that you can choose the athletic 6'1" 210 pound shortstop instead of the handsy 5'8" 165 pound shortstop.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,069
Hingham, MA
Yeah, he yadda-yadda-yadda'd right past the key part.
NFL defenders are bigger, faster, and stronger than they were 30 years ago, and defensive schemes are more complex. The NFL should probably increase the play clock to allow QBs more time at the line to decipher what is going on.

JFC, it is called a fucking gameplan for a reason. Both the pitcher and the batter should be prepared for what is coming next.

Edit: because I love any reason to watch this

 

geoduck no quahog

not particularly consistent
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 8, 2002
13,024
Seattle, WA
SB Nation has another article stating that pitch clocks will be coming next year.

The presumed penalty is a ball?

Not to re-hash everything everyone's said, but as far as I'm concerned, pitchers who take nice walks around the mound between every pitch, or perform meditation before every wind up...drive me nuts (and I'm a lifelong traditionalist). There are literally some pitchers that I won't watch in real time and I thank the baseball gods for the DVR which, at minimum, allows me to fast forward between their every pitch...or watch a complete half-inning in double time...and I hate that I do that.

Combine the clock with some other reasonable rules and I think baseball can cure most of the pace of play angst. Nothing new here (except perhaps my suggestion for throw overs):
  • Obviously, treat visits to the mound like time-outs. Only so many per (inning? game? - I prefer per 9 inning game). Applicable to Gary Sanchez as well as coaches/managers.

  • If a pitcher throws to a base...and the base runner is on (touching) that base when the pitch is thrown - automatic ball. This can be strategic. Managers who are obviously stalling to allow completion of warm-ups in the pen could be defeated by the opposition just planting the base runner (no lead). That's a gamble by the offense, but also a punishment for the defense not getting guys up soon enough. Offense would take control of that situation.
I also think catchers and pitchers should have a click track or something for pitch calling. No more sign stealing or going through sequences with a men on base. Why? It's not fair to the pitcher if he only has x-seconds to the windup but has to go through 6 seconds of sign sequencing - so I worry that the new clock will somehow not be applicable with men on base. Don't ask me how the catcher would activate the sounds for different pitches (number of clicks) and location (type of click - if that's even necessary). I'm not that clever.

...and, of course, something about replays. They're a good thing but there's no excuse for them taking so long. In a perfect world - the umpires would have enough integrity to call for replays themselves - based on their own uncertainty. I wonder if sometime in the future there won't be devices integrated into a base to assist the umpire. Something visual or audible so they could concentrate on the ball/glove but not, at the same time, the foot/base.
 

Hank Scorpio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 1, 2013
6,923
Salem, NH
Personally, I find it infuriating when a pitcher starts their delivery, the batter steps out and/or calls time, and the umpire grants it. That practice should really stop, although I can't say for sure how prominent it is. Still, it's a waste of time, puts unnecessary risk/strain on the pitcher, and gives the batter an unfair advantage.
 

MakeMineMoxie

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
722
The floor of Punter's Pub
I only see games on TV so I'm not sure if this is an issue but it appears that batters take their own sweet time getting into the box, waiting until their stupid walk-up music finishes. Is this a thing? If so, get rid of the dammed music.

The traditionalist in me hates the idea of a pitch clock & limiting catcher mound visits but they are being abused & need to be stopped.

And another thing before you get off my lawn, why do we have challenges on bang-bang plays, especially at 1st base? These balance out over the course of a season so leave them alone & get on with the game.

I'd like to see manager challenges gone completely. Add a 5th ump to each crew to watch plays on a monitor & if it looks like a questionable call, buzz the crew chief to hold up while the 5th ump looks it over. Replay should be used for those calls that are just really obvious like Game 6 2004 ALCS, Jeffery Effin' Maeier, Knoblauch's phantom tag, etc.

Hank, I'm with you because that's a good way for a pitcher to get hurt. Didn't Pedro used to drill batters who did that to him?
 

charlieoscar

Member
Sep 28, 2014
1,339
Looking at the pitch sequences for Red Sox home games in 2016 from Retrosheet Game Logs, I found about 30% of of the things recorded were other than balls, strikes, or balls put into play. I've included a table below with a breakdown of the pitches and non-pitches. I did include balls in the dirt among things that added some time (albeit not much) to the game. One thing in passing is that Retrosheet counts BB and IBB separately.

Plays not invovling data includes pinch hitters and pitching changes as well as stolen bases and similar things.
B492BB
C278Called 3rd strike
H67HBP
I26IBB
M1Missed bunt attempt
S853Swinging 3rd strike
T64Foul tip on 3rd strike
X4494Ball put in play
________6275Sub-total
+130Throws to 1B by catcher
+24Throws to 2B by catcher
+35Throws to 3B by catcher
1469Pickoff throw to 1B
214Pickoff throw to 2B
30Pickoff throw to 3B
.1014Plays not involving batter
*576Pitch blocked by catcher
>259Runner going on pitch
________2731Sub-total
 

Rice4HOF

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 21, 2002
1,887
Calgary, Canada
SB Nation has another article stating that pitch clocks will be coming next year.

The presumed penalty is a ball?
.
.
.
.
.
I also think catchers and pitchers should have a click track or something for pitch calling. No more sign stealing or going through sequences with a men on base. Why? It's not fair to the pitcher if he only has x-seconds to the windup but has to go through 6 seconds of sign sequencing - so I worry that the new clock will somehow not be applicable with men on base.
I know there's been a lot of talk about this "new" rule since prior to last season. But as far as I know, this has always been a (unenforced) rule. This is taken from a 1981 rulebook:
And, yes, it does not apply when there are runners on base.
 

charlieoscar

Member
Sep 28, 2014
1,339
Official Baseball Rules
Completely Revised 1950

Rule 8.04 -- If, with the bases unoccupied, the pitcher delays the game by failing to deliver the ball to the batter within 20 seconds after assuming pitching position, the umpire shall call "ball."

Rule 8.05 -- If there is a runner, or runners, it is a balk when--
(m) The pitcher unnecessarily delays the game.
[There is no further explanation of this particular sub-section-co]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Official Baseball Rules
Revised for 1949

Rule 30 -- Delaying the Game.
Section 2 -- The umpire shall call a ball on the pitcher each time he delays the game by failing to deliver the ball to the batsman for a longer period than 20 seconds, excepting that at the commencement of each inning, or when a pitcher relieves another, the pitcher may occupy one minute in delivering not to exceed five balls to the catcher or an infielder, during which time play shall be suspended.
[The batter is not allowed to be in the box during this period--co]

Rule 31 -- Balks.
No balk can be committed with all bases empty.
Section 6 --- Holding of the ball by the pitcher so long as, in the opinion of the umpire, to delay the game unnecessarily.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Official National League and American Association Rules [The new American League rules are essentially the same--co]
1901
Rule 32 -- Delaying the Game.
Section 2 -- The Umpire shall call a ball on the Pitcher each time he delays the game by failing to deliver the ball to the Batsman for a period of longer than 20 seconds.
[This apparently was the first year for the 20-second rule--co]
 
Last edited:

Gubanich Plague

New Member
Jul 14, 2005
63
I may be mistaken, but it appears the existing (unenforced) rule starts the 20 seconds when the pitcher assumes the ready position, and the new rule starts the 20 seconds from the previous pitch.
 

geoduck no quahog

not particularly consistent
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 8, 2002
13,024
Seattle, WA
Personally, I find it infuriating when a pitcher starts their delivery, the batter steps out and/or calls time, and the umpire grants it. That practice should really stop, although I can't say for sure how prominent it is. Still, it's a waste of time, puts unnecessary risk/strain on the pitcher, and gives the batter an unfair advantage.
Thing is, the batter is always in a potentially dangerous position. I understand granting time in almost all cases because some of them could involve temporary "blindness" (dust in the eye, insects, contact lens...). You kind of have to give the batter the benefit of the doubt since there may be something flying within inches of his head at 90 mph.
 

charlieoscar

Member
Sep 28, 2014
1,339
I may be mistaken, but it appears the existing (unenforced) rule starts the 20 seconds when the pitcher assumes the ready position, and the new rule starts the 20 seconds from the previous pitch.
I believe you are correct but for past seasons...

There were 185,660 plate appearances in the majors during the 2017 regular season. That included 970 intentional walks, which did not require a pitch. That leaves 184,690 first pitches in 2,430 games, or 76.004 per game. Rounding that off to 76 means that if every first pitch is one second late about 1.27 minutes is added to each each game. If every first pitch takes 25 seconds then about 6.33 minutes is added. This should apply to the first batter of a game because once the umpire calls, "Play Ball," the first pitch should be delivered within 20 seconds. Also, there is a specified time between innings so it should apply to the first batter of each half inning.
 

charlieoscar

Member
Sep 28, 2014
1,339
Thing is, the batter is always in a potentially dangerous position. I understand granting time in almost all cases...
I agree that there are cases when time must be granted to the batter but I think you know as well as the rest of us that there are many times when the batter simply decides to get out. I've been watching baseball for more than 60 years and I'll guarantee you that you didn't see batters leaving the box like they do today.

The Red Sox had two players this season who did not wear batting gloves.
 

BostonWolverine

New Member
Dec 6, 2017
109
Ann Arbor, MI
It's probably because of millennials...but I jest

But as many above have already said the majority of time would be cut by simply enforcing the already existing pace of play rules.
 

Sampo Gida

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 7, 2010
5,044
Well, total number of pitches and time between pitches is certainly a factor but really it comes down to these 4 things.

1. Commercials between innings. Time between innings much longer. In many markets not every game was even televised 40 years ago. Now everygame is and the breaks are longer

2. Pitching changes between innings and their commercial breaks. Many more changes and takes way to long for when the call to the pen is made and first pitch. Pitchers should be ready to go. Warmups are done in bullpen. Have them sprint in and pitch immediately.

3. Video reviews and time taken for manager to contemplate a review. Give manager 10 seconds no more. Video review 2 minutes no exceptions.

4. Endless catcher-coach-pitcher conferences. End the nonsense. Let them communicate with signs or headphones or not at all. 1 catcher -pitcher conference per inning or maybe 2- 3 timeouts a game for manager/coach. End coaching staff visits to mound except for pitching changes. Imagine Belichick stopping a game to vist Brady in the huddle. Beyond dumb