I think it makes sense to charge a batter his timeout if he has two strikes before ending the at bat on a violation.
Beat The Clock
- Thread starter deythur
- Start date
We can't have important games decided by a rule implemented for marketing purposes.
No way. Those who are slow will suffer and fail. As they should.
Throw the ball. Get in the box. It's not rocket science.
Any time a reliever enters a game with a lead of 3 or less runs is technically a save situation. Can't suspend the pitch clock for that.
If a Conley situation happens again this season, I will be surprised. Let's not overreact to one incident in spring training (where everyone, including the umps, are working the kinks out).
This is not a rule in place for any kind of competitive balance issues, it's solely to make the game more enjoyable to watch. That's marketing. But allow me to rephrase. We can't have important games decided by stupid shit like this. See also, the balk that comes from dropping a ball by accident. It's bullshit.
I don't even know what this is in reference to.
The rule has been in effect in AA and AAA since 2015 although it has really only been strictly enforced the last few years. The players adapted and this really isn’t going to be a long term issue.
The post you responded to was in response to a post about changing the rules in the 9th inning. Why should closers benefit from a rule difference?
Despite the last play, I'm a little surprised by how well the players seem to be adjusting to the pitch clock. In today's game, there were only 3 automatic strikes and no balks. I think they'll figure it out. And I really like the faster pace.
So . . . Get rid of the DH? And third uniforms? And walk up music?
should I continue?
I absolutely love the pitch clock. I could see maybe making it 20 seconds instead of 15, but either way I love it. Will probably watch more games this year than the last few just due to job and life circumstances allowing me to, and I’m really excited about this
I'm actually on your side, but how exactly would an important game be decided by third uniforms or walk-up music?
I agree. I like it a hell of a lot more than the stupid runner on 2nd in extra innings.
Honestly if the pitch clock works they won't need the ghost runner. Games will be shorter and the dumb ghost runner won't matter.
The Manfred Man is to limit the number of extra innings that pitchers have to work, not to shorten time of game. One doesn't have much to do with the other.
Okay, great, but it's a horrible way to end a game?
Also, I think it does have to do with the time of the game -- think about the WS Game in 2018 where it went to a billion innings. The ghost runner probably ends it by the 12th. Game over, shorter game, etc.
I know this. It's good. Determining a playoff game that way is insane. But what about a game between the Mets and Phillies in late September where it might mean the division?
I just hate it, I guess. I think it's a dumb way to let games end early, one way or another. Even if they're trying to save pitchers arms, I don't care. It's bad. If you get to extras, let them play out.
If the Mets or Phillies have a problem, then they should have won one more of the other 161 games.
My gut reaction when they announced the rule was that I hated it, but I've been completely converted watching games with it in place the last couple of years. So many extra innings games just turned into a parade of strikeouts while the teams waited for a homer. The runner breaks the cycle and gets the action going again.
I think a fair compromise for the ghost runner rule would have been to start it in the 11th and not the 10th. It would have given one more non-gimmick inning but still fulfilled it’s stated goal of having few very long games, like 13 innings or longer.
A ball is not worth the same as a strike. It is worth less. The penalty for today's final out was way too onerous relative to the penalty imposed on a pitcher for missing their time limit.
I'm not currently in a situation to write more, buti am eager to discuss soon; the penalty for a hitter is insane versus the same violation for a pitcher.
I'm not currently in a situation to write more, buti am eager to discuss soon; the penalty for a hitter is insane versus the same violation for a pitcher.
I understand and don't disagree with your point but had yesterday's penalty been imposed on the pitcher it would have meant loss of the game. It depends on the situation at the time it happens.
Exactly.
Also agree with those that think they could relax the pitch clock and add some time. Add another 5 seconds. Batter in box with 10 seconds left. Let's go.
Probably a good idea as well although might make some at bats longer.
Last edited:
I’m so so so glad this happened. There needs to be high profile cases for players to get the point. Get in the damn box and get ready to hit. It’s not that difficult.
Those two were jokes. I was serious about the DH. Sometimes changes are good.
View: https://youtu.be/4BgF7Y3q-as
These quotes from Bobby Dalbec and Kensley Jansen show why we need the clock.
When these guys are on the field, they're so focused on the game they lose all sense of time. The players will never speed things up on their own because many of them don't even realize what they're doing to slow things down.
Something else to keep in mind is the umps are probably going to be calling these early spring training games strictly and by the book to get players accustomed to things. Once the regular season starts, we will probably see a little bit more leeway given, particularly in situations like yesterday.
If you recall the ill-fated attempt to enforce the balk rule a spate of years back, the rigid enforcement in ST gave way to not just to a little more leeway but wholesale abandonment of enforcement in the regular season. The Commish appears to be totally invested in the clock, however. This could play out differently, especially if the crowd in the stands watching the clock starts hooting if the visiting pitcher is taking too long.
That is good, but I’m concerned about TV broadcasts feeling the need to put it on-screen in some way.
NESN just confirmed earlier today that regular season broadcasts will have a clock timer incoporated into the ball/strike/score box in the corner of the screen. Similar to NBA shot clock or NFL play clock.
How does that make any sense? Use one set of rules for 162 games and then change the rules for the playoffs??? Will they go back to standard bases and unrestricted pick-offs as well
You must love the NHL.
Also, this isn't news. This is the third straight year they have done it.
I am watching Mets/Nats and the pitch clock should have been implemented years ago. The networks broadcasting the game are going to have to adjust. They are still trying to get crowds shots in and bullshit like that but with the pitchers not dicking around I think they should leave the camera on the players more.
The DH impacts the game itself, it's not just marketing. The other stuff doesn't impact the game at all. You can't lose a game when someone fucks up the walkup music.
The ghost runner is here to stay for the regular season because teams and pitchers don't want their staffs wrecked / injury risk too high in 18 inning marathons.
Why should players in extra innings benefit from a rule difference? Why should ambidextrous pitchers have different rules just for them? Why should two way players get to stay in the game as a hitter when they're removed as a pitcher?
Also, and I cannot stress this enough, the answer is that we can't have important games ended by this stupid shit. And while we're at it, let's kill the intentional walk while we're at it. Fuck that anticompetitive bullshit.
The Manfred Rule does not apply to the playoffs. Remember Seattle and the Astros played long extra inning games this past year
Game ending stupid is all it was and I mean on the part of the player not the rule. It happens all the time with or without a clock. I can't agree with @Rasputin but I understand where he is coming from. But it's here. It's not going anywhere and game outcomes will down the road again depend on it's compliance and enforcement. We might as well enjoy the ride or stop watching. I'm in the former category.
For the record, I'm all for all the new rules. as several have said, it's not complicated. It was a clear violation in the Braves game. There was no extraordinary judgement call involved. The hitter wasn't ready in the time allotted, strike three, tie ballgame. Anyone who makes the same mistake is not paying attention.
At some point the teams might consider themselves fortunate this lesson got learned in Spring Training and not at some critical juncture of the season.
For the record, I'm all for all the new rules. as several have said, it's not complicated. It was a clear violation in the Braves game. There was no extraordinary judgement call involved. The hitter wasn't ready in the time allotted, strike three, tie ballgame. Anyone who makes the same mistake is not paying attention.
At some point the teams might consider themselves fortunate this lesson got learned in Spring Training and not at some critical juncture of the season.
How often is this rule going to lead to a walk off? If it is as common as a walk off balk, then I don’t see it as a big deal. According to Google there have been 23 walk off balks since 1914. That’s a higher number than I would have guessed but not enough to matter. About half of them occur in April/May and there has never been a post season walk off balk.
My biggest issue is the batter wasn't holding anything up. Pitcher had taken several steps toward dugout after previous pitch. The batter was in box and seemed clearly ahead of the pitcher as far as being ready to go.
I agree about spring training and feel these lessons will be learned. I also think the umps will be less strict in calling close violations late in regular season games.
Precisely. This is the best case scenario, a high profile violation that ended a totally meaningless game. Everyone will learn.
I can't overstate how strongly in favor of a clock I am. Baseball desperately needs more action and more pace.
During the COVID lockdown in 2020 my son and I watched parts of a Mets World Series game from '69 that was being aired on SNY. It was stunning how much faster the game moved. It was wonderful.
Beyond the more enjoyable pace and the potential downside of game changing violations will there be a noticeable sea changer in hitter v. batter stats over the course of the season? My initial gut impression is that these rules will favor the pitchers. I think it's advantageous for a pitcher to have a consistent flow that can't get disrupted by timeout gamesmanship or a hitter stepping out every pitch adjusting their gloves, giving their jock the ol' readjust, and generally being able to control the rhythm of any given AB. Less throwing over to first may help maintain focus on the hitter too.
Also, Merloni was mentioning that in the MiLB that some teams used the strategy of purposely taking a balk by throwing over to first a third time. Did I mishear what he was saying because I'm not sure I get the point of that. He called it "balk strategy."
Also, Merloni was mentioning that in the MiLB that some teams used the strategy of purposely taking a balk by throwing over to first a third time. Did I mishear what he was saying because I'm not sure I get the point of that. He called it "balk strategy."
We can and will actually. Regardless of how you feel about it. Do you not assign any personal responsibility to the batter here? The onus is on the player to abide by the rule. The only person who deserves blame is him. The rule is no secret.
I still think there's no need for it to be a judgement call. Is the batter in the box? Simple yes/no question without any analysis of where he's looking. The impetus will be on the batter to know that if he's in the box he can be pitched to. It seems like such an obvious simple step to improve it, having umpires judging "alertness" just convolutes it without any real gain that I can see.