MILB announces new rule changes. Including runner placement in extras

Infield Infidel

teaching korea american
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
11,463
Meeting Place, Canada
But only 7% of games go into extra innings. If they do something like have this starting in the 12th inning, that number goes down even more. OTOH, every game has the DH come to bat at least three times, usually more.

The best analogy to me is college football OT, where the teams both start with an artificially enhanced chance to score. In fact, college football is even more radical -- isn't the chance of scoring on 1st and 10 from the 25 greater than 2nd base and no outs?
The difference is college football didn't have any overtime previously, and you can't ask guys to bash their heads together forever. Baseball already has an overtime, and they aren't bashing their heads.

If the point is to get it over more quickly, just have ties after a set number of innings, 9, 10, 12, whatever.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,102
If the point is to get it over more quickly, just have ties after a set number of innings, 9, 10, 12, whatever.
The point is definitely to get it over more quickly. I would prefer this rule (implemented maybe in the 11th or 12 inning so there is at least one "clean" inning in extras) over a tie, but YMMV on that.
 

Captaincoop

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
13,487
Santa Monica, CA
When I go to a baseball game, I am rooting for (in order):

1. Red Sox win/Yankees loss (if applicable)
2. No-hitter
3. Tons of extra innings

The three times a year that a team plays a long extra innings game and wins or loses in the 17th...that's the problem with baseball in 2018? But meanwhile we're fine spending 5 minutes of game time every night reviewing whether a shortstop had the ball in his hand and his foot on the bag for a fraction of a second in the third inning while turning a double play that would have been given to him automatically for the previous hundred years?

OK.
 

Margo McCready

New Member
Dec 23, 2008
158
The DH was certainly a fundamental change in terms of "who plays" but this rule seems to be anathema to everything about baseball, a sport where all action unfolds on-field and as a result of player actions. Placing a runner is like a deus ex machina kind of situation where an invisible actor, rather than a series of player-created events, dictates the course of the game. It's really artificial...
This is precisely why the precedent of the automatic intentional walk was so ominous. I think it's part of what kept baseball special compared to the other major sports, every outcome of the game has been dictated by the players on the field. No penalties, nothing granted. It's unfortunate that Manfred & Co. are incrementally taking that away.
 

dynomite

Member
SoSH Member
The point is definitely to get it over more quickly. I would prefer this rule (implemented maybe in the 11th or 12 inning so there is at least one "clean" inning in extras) over a tie, but YMMV on that.
I don’t really care one way or the other — I’d prefer ties than fundamentally altering the sport with this silly rule — but I watch maybe 1 MiLB game a year.

My concern is that, to the point above, this is just not what’s wrong with pace of play.

This wonderful breakdown of two almost identical 11-2 games from the 1984 and 2014 was pretty compelling and simple in its conclusion: it’s not commercials or innings or baserunning. “Time between pitches is the primary villain.”

https://www.google.com/amp/www.sbnation.com/a/mlb-2017-season-preview/game-length/amp
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
Extra inning games suck. (There, I said it.) A nine-inning game has a beautiful, symmetrical arc; an extra-inning game is exciting for an inning or two and then quickly becomes tedious.

Ties would be fine with me. If MLB isn't prepared to go for 9-inning ties, then play three extra innings and call it a tie after the 12th. I don't love the runners-on-base thing, but it could be kind of fun if it escalates: to start the 10th inning, put a man on first. If it's still tied after 10, a man on second. After 11, a man on third. If it's still tied after that, call it a tie.
 

grimshaw

Member
SoSH Member
May 16, 2007
4,220
Portland
If they honestly think this is one of the things that will help save baseball, then I'll go along with it but I think there are better ways to shorten the game.

The pitch clock seems so clear cut to me.

As a slightly less radical idea, II would think about having a line that runners can toe a few feet off the base so there is still a fighting chance at a steal with no pick off attempts allowed. The player can't move towards the next base until the pitcher throws the ball. Nobody wants to watch them, and the crowd literally boos to express how much they don't like watching them either.
 
Last edited:

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
64,046
When I go to a baseball game, I am rooting for (in order):

1. Red Sox win/Yankees loss (if applicable)
2. No-hitter
3. Tons of extra innings

The three times a year that a team plays a long extra innings game and wins or loses in the 17th...that's the problem with baseball in 2018? But meanwhile we're fine spending 5 minutes of game time every night reviewing whether a shortstop had the ball in his hand and his foot on the bag for a fraction of a second in the third inning while turning a double play that would have been given to him automatically for the previous hundred years?

OK.
It creeps me out when we agree so strongly. :)

I mean, why is there all this pretending that we don't know where the most time is wasted in games?
 

charlieoscar

Member
Sep 28, 2014
1,339
During the Sox broadcast on Sunday, the announcer (Twins?) in the booth with Remy claimed that the average time between pitches has increased from 20 to 23 seconds in the past ten years. There was no source given but I do know that with PITCHf/x data one could get the time of each pitch to the nearest second. That data was available to anyone so it could be calculated for the years that system was used. I'm assuming the new system has something similar.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,069
Hingham, MA
During the Sox broadcast on Sunday, the announcer (Twins?) in the booth with Remy claimed that the average time between pitches has increased from 20 to 23 seconds in the past ten years. There was no source given but I do know that with PITCHf/x data one could get the time of each pitch to the nearest second. That data was available to anyone so it could be calculated for the years that system was used. I'm assuming the new system has something similar.
If true, that comes to roughly 15 extra minutes per game
 

charlieoscar

Member
Sep 28, 2014
1,339
Speaking beyond just 15 and 16 inning games, this article says:
From 2010 through 2015 there were 1521 extra-inning games during regular-season play out of 17006 total games. of those, 674 were 10 inning and 384 were 11 inning, with 20 innings being the most. That work out to 1521/17006 = 8.94% of the games being extra-innings and of the extra inning games, (674+384)/1521 = 69.56% were 10 or 11 innings. Retrosheet Game Logs

Note: when dealing with game times, it doesn't take into account games the home team wins without batting in the bottom half of the last inning or ones in which they do bat but have a quick walk-off. While the time is finite, it may be a little misleading.
 

charlieoscar

Member
Sep 28, 2014
1,339
If true, that comes to roughly 15 extra minutes per game
Yes, as I've said before, cutting five seconds off per pitch would cut game times by about 25 minutes and they can do a lot of this cutting by ensuring that the batter is in the box (and stays in the box) ready to hit and that the pitcher must throw the pitch within a certain amount of time. They don't need these silly things like waving the batter to first for an intentional walk (of which there were less than one thousand last season, about 75% of which were 4-pitch variety) and having a runner start on second base to open an extra inning.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,069
Hingham, MA
Totally agree. I've been banging the "pace of play and not length of game is the major issue" drum for a while now
 

grimshaw

Member
SoSH Member
May 16, 2007
4,220
Portland
I don't know why it can't be enforced that if batters leave the box during an at bat it is an automatic strike. They tried enforcing it for like a month with no real penalties and then slowly abandoned it.

I get that there would be major push back because batters like to have time to think about how they are being worked, but it is such an obvious way to at least give the appearance of the game progressing naturally.

Umpires can still grant time at their discretion as long as it isn't abused by the hitter.
 

timlinin8th

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 6, 2009
1,521
I don't know why it can't be enforced that if batters leave the box during an at bat it is an automatic strike. They tried enforcing it for like a month with no real penalties and then slowly abandoned it.

I get that there would be major push back because batters like to have time to think about how they are being worked, but it is such an obvious way to at least give the appearance of the game progressing naturally.

Umpires can still grant time at their discretion as long as it isn't abused by the hitter.
Tell the batters to think about their approach on their own time. Get the f#@k in the box!!!

... men’s league players yell that at each other all the time. Not sure why they can’t get that done in the pros. I also think the pitcher should have to stay on the mound during an atbat, no long walks around the mound on the grass having a conversation with themselves like some guys do.