http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/12351883/major-league-baseball-announce-pace-play-rules
If done correctly, #2 is the most influential, IMO.
If done correctly, #2 is the most influential, IMO.
MLB to announce pace of play rules for 2015
- Thread starter tims4wins
- Start date
If umpires are going to make batters stay in the box and game time doesn't go down, then it's almost certainly due to dithering pitchers. I think a pitch clock is inarguable then.
Are they going to prevent the first left-handed and first right-handed batters from obliterating the rear line in the batter's boxes?
If they're only fining people up to $500 I question if habits will change. They fined Papelbon a few times for taking too long to pitch (for significantly more money) and he basically shrugged it off because he wanted the extra time to focus on getting the batters out.
Yeah, if it affects your ability to pitch, you're better off paying fines than taking a paycut after your performance suffers.
Really, the whole effort is pointless because people who think baseball is too slow object to the whole sport in general, not just the pacing.
Really, the whole effort is pointless because people who think baseball is too slow object to the whole sport in general, not just the pacing.
M
MentalDisabldLst
Guest
santadevil said:
I think you misunderstand. How could an umpire issue a warning (or more) to a batter for not being in the batter's box, when there's no indicator of where the batter's box stops?
RingoOSU said:
I hate this so, so much. Seriously. This isn't a competition over whose love of baseball is the purest. If you honestly think that it's impossible to love baseball but think that the game has gotten overly slow over the last decade or two, you're just totally wrong. I love watching people play baseball. I do not love to watch batters strolling around the plate and pitchers waiting 30 seconds to step on the rubber. How can you honestly claim to enjoy constant downtime where literally nothing is occurring? I'm not talking about tense moments late in the game - of course it may slow down then, and that's fine because of the inherent drama. I'm talking about top of the first, nobody out, pitcher shakes a few times, batter steps out. Does his little routine all over again, steps back in, shake, shake, pitcher steps off. Batter steps out. Pitcher steps back on, batter notices after a few seconds and begins his getting in the box routine again. Captivating!
MentalDisabldLst said:
Sounds like it would be at the umpire's discretion. If Player X wants to be a dick and stand with his foot right around where the back line was and take practice swings and adjust his gloves and rub dirt on the bat handle for 45 seconds and think he's pulled one over on the ump he's wrong. He's going to get fined, or get a strike called against him. And if he complains about it he's going to get run. And good - screw him for being a prima donna. Save the OCD for locking your front door 11 times or whatever.
Ah, yes, starting a a time clock waiting for minor rules violations resulting in fines is exactly how I like to spend a warm summer afternoon.
RingoOSU said:
I love baseball. The pace has become too slow. I will absolutely watch more if the pace quickens.
I applaud MLB for trying to make some changes, even if they are relatively minor.
I retract my statement, I didn't mean to imply there was such things of better fans of baseball than others. I was just assuming when MLB does things like this it's for mass appeal, which I'm skeptical will make much of a difference.8slim said:
Good on you for not letting that turn into a mess. Anyway, I think there's a degree of truth to what you're saying, but I can also sympathize with those who are defensive about whether supporting rule changes in any way calls into question their love of the game. (I also have anecdotally heard a lot of longtime fans griping about this, which is interesting)RingoOSU said:
Either way, the key to me is that 3+ hour games were NEVER part of MLB history. In 1950 average games were 2:23, in 1984 they were 2:40, but last year they were 3:09. Yes, baseball is timed by its own pace, but this is a step beyond that.
I think MLB had to do something. These are relatively minor changes, all in all. Let's see whether they have an effect.
I saw my first baseball game in 1950 and since then I have seen games in many states at many levels. As I have gotten older I have found stadium seating less and less comfortable and with the length of game times getting longer and longer, I have gotten less thrill from going to the park. Even when I'm watching games on television at home, the 3+ hour games annoy me more and more. And I'm now even seeing Double-A games stretching out over 3 hours ("We're practicing to be major-league players!").
Why MLB didn't have its umpires enforce rules already in the book is beyond my comprehension. And one thing they haven't addressed in their efforts to speed up the game is body armor. A player has to step out of the box and adjust his batting glove strap eight between each pitch; some have to exchange their batting gloves for sliding gloves when they get on base or take off their arm and leg protectors. Keeping one foot in the batter's box during an at bat is not going to have any effect on batting glove fidgeting.
2:15 - 2:30 is a good length for a game. Start calling strikes on batters who aren't ready when they should be. If they argue that, call another. If the pitcher delays, call a ball. And if they are going to have pitch clocks, use them to time the batter on home runs. You have x seconds to run after the home run signal is given by the umpire. When x seconds is up, you return to the last base you touched.
Why MLB didn't have its umpires enforce rules already in the book is beyond my comprehension. And one thing they haven't addressed in their efforts to speed up the game is body armor. A player has to step out of the box and adjust his batting glove strap eight between each pitch; some have to exchange their batting gloves for sliding gloves when they get on base or take off their arm and leg protectors. Keeping one foot in the batter's box during an at bat is not going to have any effect on batting glove fidgeting.
2:15 - 2:30 is a good length for a game. Start calling strikes on batters who aren't ready when they should be. If they argue that, call another. If the pitcher delays, call a ball. And if they are going to have pitch clocks, use them to time the batter on home runs. You have x seconds to run after the home run signal is given by the umpire. When x seconds is up, you return to the last base you touched.
"It’s important to note that violations won’t result in extra balls or strikes, but warnings and fines." --John Tomase, WEEI blog
"Players who violate the rules will receive a warning, with 'flagrant violators' subject to a series of fines up to $500." --Buster Olney, ESPN
To that I point out, a $500 fine to someone like David Ortiz ($16M contract for 2015) is like a $1.56 fine to someone making $50K.
Once again, MLB goes through the motions but will accomplish nothing.
"Players who violate the rules will receive a warning, with 'flagrant violators' subject to a series of fines up to $500." --Buster Olney, ESPN
To that I point out, a $500 fine to someone like David Ortiz ($16M contract for 2015) is like a $1.56 fine to someone making $50K.
Once again, MLB goes through the motions but will accomplish nothing.
Rudy Pemberton said:
It's weird -- I would have thought that this was the case as well, but according to Baseball Prospectus it's actually the opposite.
So now there's a "slow batting fee" system...charlieoscar said:
"Hey blue, do you want that check now, or do you just send me a bill at the end of the month?"
charlieoscar said:
I think to get back to 2:15-2:30 games, you'd need to get rid of relief pitching as we know it. It's a 3 hour game. Sometimes a pitching duel makes it a 2:30 game, but that's a rarity. We will never see 2:30 with regularity ever again. Adding stuff like calling balls when a hitter takes too long and timing home run trots is messing with the actual game played. "Sorry, you home run trot took 32 seconds, not 30. go back to third."? That is a crappy solution.
I was reading an article about whether fouling off pitches is a skill and it raised an interesting question for me. How much time is added to a game when a player continuously fouls off pitches? Usually you see a hitter or two get into a battle with pitchers every game. Then add in the question of whether a successful team is seeing more pitches. The basic idea of working a count and running up the pitch count can be added here.
I won't pretend to be able to articulate the science of the pace of baseball, but I think there are a ton of reasons the game is longer, and it's not going to change any time soon. It's become specialized, for better or worse.
It seems as if some people are still getting caught in the trap that length of game matters, as opposed to pace of play. I have no problem
with 3 hour games, I have a problem with games that move at a snail's pace. I love when Mark Buerhle pitches, I hated when Dice K pitched. If pitchers work quickly, and batters comply, it is just a far more enjoyable product IMO. I understand and appreciate all of the cat and mouse that makes baseball great, but guys not stepping out of the box does nothing to impact that, I think.
with 3 hour games, I have a problem with games that move at a snail's pace. I love when Mark Buerhle pitches, I hated when Dice K pitched. If pitchers work quickly, and batters comply, it is just a far more enjoyable product IMO. I understand and appreciate all of the cat and mouse that makes baseball great, but guys not stepping out of the box does nothing to impact that, I think.
I'm actually doing some work on breaking down pitch sequences into their component parts, i.e., fouls, bunts, et al. There once were some batters, Luke Appling comes to mind, who were very good at fouling off pitches but pitch sequences are only available for a few years so we can't do a complete study on that area.
charlieoscar said:
It says right in the new rules posted above that the umpire can call an automatic strike if a batter doesn't get in the box. Where is Tomase getting the information that it isn't the case?
The thing that always gets overlooked when comparing game lengths from the 1940s and 50s to modern games is the influence of television. They have to have added a good minute per half inning break to the length of games just due to creating more time for ads. That's 18-20 minutes right there taking the averages from 2:20-2:30 to 2:40-2:50.
Toss in the increased use of relievers and that's the bulk of the difference without bringing in the OCD dalliances of pitchers and hitters.
All that to say I doubt any significant change occurs as a result of the new rules.
Toss in the increased use of relievers and that's the bulk of the difference without bringing in the OCD dalliances of pitchers and hitters.
All that to say I doubt any significant change occurs as a result of the new rules.
tims4wins said:
I agree that the most annoying part of watching a game revolves around the pitcher revolving around the mound for 18 minutes before he decides to plant a foot on the rubber, at which point the hitter needs to step out of the box because his hamstrings have cramped.
Dice-K was the most annoying. On the Sox I recall Badenhop hopping all over the place, Buchholz taking forever and others. We're not talking about shaking pitches off, but an increasingly annoying habit of going through a particular routine that requires 40 seconds between a foul ball and preparing to throw.
I'm all-in for the pitch clock even though I make fun of people who criticize game length, because I think some of these pitchers have bastardized the sport with their selfish approach - and it's these guys (not the hitters) who can make a beautiful sport excruciating. Again, recall the games when Dice-K pitched. They were almost un-watchable.
On the other hand - I don't get the batter's box thing at all. It's a stupid rule to begin with, and enforcing that rule is going to be impossible - perhaps even dangerous. I understand the Nomar act (which he could still do by keeping 1 foot in the box and requesting time) annoyed some. Still, it's the hitter who has a 90 mph pea being thrown at him - and it's imperative that he feel comfortable in the box. A piece of dust, a gnat...any distraction - can put him in harm's way. As long as he's in the box and if the Umpire refuses a request for time, he's vulnerable. The only option is to step out and avoid getting hurt.
It's also the only way to avoid a quick-pitch, which some pitchers could use to great advantage.
Put the pitchers on an invisible clock (in the 3rd base umpire's pocket, or even his head) and call the obvious pace delays (no countdown visible to fans). That's enough for me.
We underestimate how long games used to take, too. Yeah, in the 1930s games came in under 2:00. But average game length by 1960 was already 2:38. And it was 2:45 in 2003, so the pace (excluding commercial breaks) was probably actually faster, or at least not significantly slower, than in 1960. We're in the slow part of a cyclical curve (in 2000 games were a lot slower than in 2004, 2:57 on average), along with a slight increase over time. It's worth trying things to counteract both of those forces. But getting to 2:30 or less seems pretty impractical without fundamental changes in on-field play; 2:45 seems like a reasonable target.Red(s)HawksFan said:
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/columnist/bodley/2004-02-26-bodley_x.htm
SumnerH said:
I agree with this. Note, though, that compared to 2014's average length this would still shave 24 minutes off the average game, I believe.
Yeah the point of my 2004 numbers was to illustrate that it's possible to have a much faster game than currently within essentially the modern game--draconian changes on the use of relief pitchers and the like shouldn't be required to get back to that kind of average length.dynomite said:
Of which 18-20 minutes are related to longer commercials? Seems like commercials are really the culprit and that pace of game may not have actually changed all that much in the last 50 years or so.dynomite said:
Are these numbers accurate or am I missing (or misrepresenting) something?
The difference in commercial length between 2003--when games were 2:45ish on average--and now is negligible, I'd have to imagine, but games are 18 minutes longer.Boggs26 said:
geoduck no quahog said:
Quick [return] pitches have been illegal, i.e., ones that attempt to catch the batter off-balance.
I assume you're right about the commercial time not being hugely different, but are there any numbers actually out there? All I can find is a WSJ article saying 40 minutes in 2013 and 6 minutes in 1957. I'd love to see what if any change has happened more recently but my Googlefu was weakSumnerH said:
Not necessarily.... part of the recent longer game trend is more strikeouts thrown by pitchers, which means overall more pitches thrown. This leads to longer games, and reduced offense, not more.Rudy Pemberton said:
Beat me to it, but yup.
Strikeouts have gone way up since 2003.
http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2014/4/16/5613676/MLB-strikeouts-velocity-felix-fernandez-nationals-strasburg
"Eighteen teams struck out at least 1,200 times in 2013, when the average was 1,224. Through 2005, the maximum number of teams with that many strikeouts in any given season had been two"
Strikeouts are minimum 3 pitch ABs, most times, more. Strikeouts are way up. This slows the game down. It's only going to get slower if offense doesn't make a comeback
http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/7533
Strikeouts have gone way up since 2003.
http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2014/4/16/5613676/MLB-strikeouts-velocity-felix-fernandez-nationals-strasburg
"Eighteen teams struck out at least 1,200 times in 2013, when the average was 1,224. Through 2005, the maximum number of teams with that many strikeouts in any given season had been two"
Strikeouts are minimum 3 pitch ABs, most times, more. Strikeouts are way up. This slows the game down. It's only going to get slower if offense doesn't make a comeback
http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/7533
Official Rules 1951
Rule 6.06: A BATTER IS OUT FOR ILLEGAL ACTION WHEN--
(a) He fails to take his position in the batter's box promptly. If, after enteriong the batter's box, a batter persists in unwarranted delay in taking his proper position, the umpire shall direct the pitcher to deliver the ball to the bat and every such pitch shall be called "strike" by the umpire.
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: WHEN THERE US A RUNNER, OR RUNNERS, IT IS A BALK WHEN--
(h) The pitcher unnecessarily delays the game;
(n) The pitcher makes a quick return pitch;
PENALTY
The ball is dead, and each runner advances one base without liability to be put out.
Somehow, these rules were almost never enforced.
Rule 6.06: A BATTER IS OUT FOR ILLEGAL ACTION WHEN--
(a) He fails to take his position in the batter's box promptly. If, after enteriong the batter's box, a batter persists in unwarranted delay in taking his proper position, the umpire shall direct the pitcher to deliver the ball to the bat and every such pitch shall be called "strike" by the umpire.
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: WHEN THERE US A RUNNER, OR RUNNERS, IT IS A BALK WHEN--
(h) The pitcher unnecessarily delays the game;
(n) The pitcher makes a quick return pitch;
PENALTY
The ball is dead, and each runner advances one base without liability to be put out.
Somehow, these rules were almost never enforced.
R2 between number of pitches/game and game time over the past 20 years is about 0.09. Number of pitches per game is basically flat since 2000 (~294). That is up from the average in 1988, when pitches per game was about 274. Average pace between pitches is about 20 seconds. The difference in game time due to pitches/game alone over the past two decades is probably about 6.5 minutes. In 2010, the fastest working pitcher was Buehrle at 16.4 between pitches, slowest Daisuke at 25.9. Converting the average pitcher into Mark Buehrle would save about 20 minutes per game.
Useless as far as overall trends or averages go, but I just happened to stumble across this box score from 1876 while researching something else. Not every game was played at a brisk, sub-2:45 pace even then:
The rule posted at the bottom is rule 6.02 (d) from the Minor Leagues last year. The wording in the release states that the new Major League rules will mirror the Minor League rules, but explicit states that this is how the rule was written last year. I assume there will be some changes before the official release this year.Max Power said:
SumnerH said:
I think you'll find that post-season games started getting longer, too, before it spilled over into regular season games.
Postseason games have longer commercial breaks between innings; regular season games they're 2:05 (2:25 for nationally televised games). Postseason it's 2:55; that's going to add 15 minutes over a non-national game right there. Postseason games are about 20-25 minutes longer than regular season games, but that actually appears to be shrinking a little over at least the last 7 years: http://espn.go.com/mlb/playoffs/2013/story/_/id/9872152/long-postseason-games-way-life-baseballcharlieoscar said:
Also I'd guess that better teams play longer games to some extent; I know that Red Sox/Yankees games are legitimately much slower than average (it doesn't just feel like it). http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/i-dont-care-if-i-ever-get-back-and-i-might-not/
Average time of World Series games in minutes from 1903 through 2014 (from Retrosheet Game Logs)
https://www.dropbox.com/s/r7iy9jc3q0ag126/world_series_times.jpg?dl=0
edit: don't know how to embed from DropBox
https://www.dropbox.com/s/r7iy9jc3q0ag126/world_series_times.jpg?dl=0
edit: don't know how to embed from DropBox
Hey, Sumner H, thanks for switching the graph to a site that allows embedding. I signed up for DropBox after I did the graph and found out it doesn't work the way I thought it would.
I've heard and read from journalists/reporters in their 20's exactly what RingoOSU was saying.
As someone that's always had baseball in their life it's actually something I never thought of, but listening to these other views was rather damning. The attitude being (to paraphrase) it doesn't matter what they do, I and the people I know, don't care about the sport.
So I believe there is some truth to what RingoOSU said. There may in fact be a generation that sees baseball as an afterthought. The best-case-scenario for MLB is bringing back past fans that may have lost interest, and more importantly attracting kids and creating lifelong fans.
As for the actual changes, I'm glad to see that they are starting to make pace a priority, and I think they were smart for doing it this way, by easing into it and not starting with something radical.
As someone that's always had baseball in their life it's actually something I never thought of, but listening to these other views was rather damning. The attitude being (to paraphrase) it doesn't matter what they do, I and the people I know, don't care about the sport.
So I believe there is some truth to what RingoOSU said. There may in fact be a generation that sees baseball as an afterthought. The best-case-scenario for MLB is bringing back past fans that may have lost interest, and more importantly attracting kids and creating lifelong fans.
As for the actual changes, I'm glad to see that they are starting to make pace a priority, and I think they were smart for doing it this way, by easing into it and not starting with something radical.