Beat The Clock

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
16,055
I am not really understanding what happened. He was in the box. If he was in the box on time, but wasn't paying attention to the pitcher, then the pitcher has the right to throw the pitch. It's on the batter to pay attention in there.

The rule should be he gets in the box within the time limit. If he THEN decides to do a ten second Willie Mays Hayes routine, the pitcher has no need to wait for him to finish. As soon as the pitcher is ready to throw, and the batter is in the box, the pitcher can let it go.
You don’t see a danger there? Someone could get killed.
 

AB in DC

OG Football Writing
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2002
14,212
Springfield, VA
You don’t see a danger there? Someone could get killed.
After 123 years you don't think batters have figured this out by now? What exactly do you think would happen, they'd forget that someone has a 5 ounce projectile only 60.5 feet away from them? Has what you're worried about ever happened at any time in baseball history? That argument is absurd.
 

Obscure Name

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 29, 2006
26,864
Western Mass
I am not really understanding what happened. He was in the box. If he was in the box on time, but wasn't paying attention to the pitcher, then the pitcher has the right to throw the pitch. It's on the batter to pay attention in there.

The rule should be he gets in the box within the time limit. If he THEN decides to do a ten second Willie Mays Hayes routine, the pitcher has no need to wait for him to finish. As soon as the pitcher is ready to throw, and the batter is in the box, the pitcher can let it go.
Quick pitches have always been illegal, though. It's not a new rule, they're just putting a time limit on the batter.

Rule 8.05(e) Comment: A quick pitch is an illegal pitch. Umpires will judge a quick pitch as one delivered before the batter is reasonably set in the batter’s box. With runners on base the penalty is a balk; with no runners on base, it is a ball. The quick pitch is dangerous and should not be permitted.
 

Remagellan

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Because I'm starting to look at this:

Phillies 9 (11 hits), Pirates 7 (9 hits)--time of game: 2:43

Cardinals 12 (12 hits), Mets 7 (13 hits)--time of game: 2:59

As a relative purist, I was not happy when the pitch clock was proposed, but there's no argument with the results. If even slugfests can be delivered in under 3 hours, what is there to complain about?
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
16,055
After 123 years you don't think batters have figured this out by now? What exactly do you think would happen, they'd forget that someone has a 5 ounce projectile only 60.5 feet away from them? Has what you're worried about ever happened at any time in baseball history? That argument is absurd.
You are calling it absurd, so maybe there is another reason why MLB wrote the rule such that the batter has to be “alert” to the pitcher by a certain point or else it was an automatic strike. Tell me the rationale that I am missing.

In the past a batter could look down and put his hand up to the pitcher and dug his spikes in the batter’s box or whatever for fifteen seconds and the umpire allowed it; that option doesn’t exist anymore. I imagine they don’t want the batters looking down when a pitch is thrown for safety reasons.
I can’t recall the last time I saw a pitch thrown with a batter not even looking.
 

Sin Duda

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
921
(B)Austin Texas
After 123 years you don't think batters have figured this out by now? What exactly do you think would happen, they'd forget that someone has a 5 ounce projectile only 60.5 feet away from them? Has what you're worried about ever happened at any time in baseball history? That argument is absurd.
I'm not sure how long you're going to defend that hill, AB, but the league will always look at safety as a key part of this. The batter has to be more than in the box, he has to be looking at the pitcher so he is ready to move out of the path of a 100 mph fastball.
 

CoffeeNerdness

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 6, 2012
9,025
After 123 years you don't think batters have figured this out by now? What exactly do you think would happen, they'd forget that someone has a 5 ounce projectile only 60.5 feet away from them? Has what you're worried about ever happened at any time in baseball history? That argument is absurd.
123 years without a pitch clock and 123 years where the batter could dictate when the pitch was thrown and they had the ump there in service of their needs.

Thank god that bs like this is gone for good.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHj1qW-xCOI
 

jteders1

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 5, 2022
136
Something not mentioned regarding the batter being ready, in theory the batter could just stare down at the catcher and try to see what button he pushes on the pitch wristband. Clearly the pitch won't be relayed until the hitter is not looking. In addition to the safety issue, which is so obvious, I can't believe we're even discussing this, there is a competitive balance aspect to it as well. Otherwise, why wouldn't the batter step in, stare down at the catcher, and just wait out the inevitable ball call because the pitcher can't receive the sign.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
43,830
AZ
Not that anyone cares but this is not great for us west coast Red Sox fans. I have usually been able to get the game on and all my getting home from work stuff done by around 6:50. Used to mean I would get a couple of innings. Maybe three versus the Yankees.

Probably just means I will not get MLB package this year but will get Sirius to listen on the drive home.

One thing that I am not looking forward to is announcers kvelling about the new rule. I am fine with people talking about how it is good for fans, but a pet peeve is announcers who constantly talk about how they want to leave when the pitcher is wasting time or how late they are going to get back to their hotel.
 

CoffeeNerdness

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 6, 2012
9,025
Something not mentioned regarding the batter being ready, in theory the batter could just stare down at the catcher and try to see what button he pushes on the pitch wristband. Clearly the pitch won't be relayed until the hitter is not looking. In addition to the safety issue, which is so obvious, I can't believe we're even discussing this, there is a competitive balance aspect to it as well. Otherwise, why wouldn't the batter step in, stare down at the catcher, and just wait out the inevitable ball call because the pitcher can't receive the sign.
You'd need to do more than just look at the buttons pressed, you'd need to decipher pattern first. The pitcher has the ability to call the game via PitchCom this year as well.

61734

I'm with you though the pushback on the batter alertness part of the rule is somewhat baffling. Also, on the catcher being set like in the Braves v. Sox situation-- if the batter is paying more attention to what the catcher is going than the clock that's on them. Total non-issue. A QB who takes a delay would get laughed at for blaming the defense shifting as the playclock was running out.
 

gammoseditor

also had a stroke
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2005
4,309
Somerville, MA
I’ve been thinking about this in comparison to the NBA instituting a shot clock. At the time I’m sure there were basketball purists making the same arguments against it. But does anyone think they’d be better off without it? A few years before its implementation there was a game that ended 19-18 including a 3-1 4th quarter.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
25,298
You don’t see a danger there? Someone could get killed.
No, I don't see much danger there at all. Do your pre-bat routine with a foot outside the box. Do it quickly, and then step in, ready to hit. The pitcher then begins his motion, and everyone is good to go.

I don't see an issue with this.
 

8slim

has trust issues
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
25,695
Unreal America
Because I'm starting to look at this:

Phillies 9 (11 hits), Pirates 7 (9 hits)--time of game: 2:43

Cardinals 12 (12 hits), Mets 7 (13 hits)--time of game: 2:59

As a relative purist, I was not happy when the pitch clock was proposed, but there's no argument with the results. If even slugfests can be delivered in under 3 hours, what is there to complain about?
Hard to argue with these kind of results. Baseball doesn't *have* to be a 3 1/2 hour slog. There's nothing "pure" about that. IMHO, there is no downside to this.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
21,875
Rogers Park
I am not really understanding what happened. He was in the box. If he was in the box on time, but wasn't paying attention to the pitcher, then the pitcher has the right to throw the pitch. It's on the batter to pay attention in there.

The rule should be he gets in the box within the time limit. If he THEN decides to do a ten second Willie Mays Hayes routine, the pitcher has no need to wait for him to finish. As soon as the pitcher is ready to throw, and the batter is in the box, the pitcher can let it go.
No, I don't see much danger there at all. Do your pre-bat routine with a foot outside the box. Do it quickly, and then step in, ready to hit. The pitcher then begins his motion, and everyone is good to go.

I don't see an issue with this.
I think you’re not taking the safety issue seriously enough here. These pitchers throw *hard.*

This first version of the rule isn’t necessarily the best of all possible versions, but there really does need to be something about assuring the hitter is prepared, or else we will absolutely get injuries. How that preparation is determined and enforced seems like it might be improved, but there needs to be something.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
16,055
Here is the violation that resulted in a strike. Ignore the catcher. I think the risk of a pitch being thrown to a batter at this moment is not absurd but indeed obvious. And I do not recall pitches being thrown to a batter who in this vulnerable position. The difference is that now the batter is required to be in a pitch-ready position within a specific period of time. I do not understand why that is some terrible rule.
 

CoffeeNerdness

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 6, 2012
9,025
Even a batter who's fully attentive is still in danger of being hit and badly injured. Why are helmets mandatory? Why do players wear optional protective gear like elbow pads, hand guards, and jaw guards? I'd bet most hitters, while perhaps annoyed they can't dictate the flow of an AB and now have to pay attention to a clock, are perfectly ok with the rule as is.
 

Toe Nash

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2005
5,723
02130
Why would you ignore the catcher? Part of the reason the batter is looking at the dirt is because the catcher and the pitcher are clearly not about to deliver a pitch to him. He's not just standing there thinking about his girlfriend or something.

If you watch the whole sequence he looks at the pitcher by 6 seconds and at around 10 seconds, when he steps into the box, the catcher is still standing outside the catcher's box. Nowhere is he at risk of being beaned and if they wanted to quick pitch he would be able to tell and look up: View: https://youtu.be/O_z5WIxjlO4?t=112


If the rule were such that you should be ready by 8 seconds, the pitcher may throw his pitch by then, but it's not an automatic strike, then this batter would sense the movement of the catcher and pitcher if they were about to deliver and look up. More likely, he would be sure to not be in the better's box unless he was ready to at least jump out of the way if the pitch were inside. It's not a bigger issue than any other pitch.
 

Toe Nash

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2005
5,723
02130
Even a batter who's fully attentive is still in danger of being hit and badly injured. Why are helmets mandatory? Why do players wear optional protective gear like elbow pads, hand guards, and jaw guards? I'd bet most hitters, while perhaps annoyed they can't dictate the flow of an AB and now have to pay attention to a clock, are perfectly ok with the rule as is.
Right. As I said upthread we still tolerate intentional HBP far more than we should. If you're going to be a stickler for player safety that would be a much bigger fish to fry, and there is always going to be some risk of a wild fastball up high. Fortunately only one player has ever died and that was before helmets and when pitchers were allowed to rub shit all over the ball to make it hard to see.
 

Frisbetarian

♫ ♫ ♫ ♫ ♫ ♫
Moderator
SoSH Member
Dec 3, 2003
5,293
Off the beaten track
I see a few possible unintended consequences of the clock which I haven't seen mentioned here, and would love to get your collective takes on their viability. I also have a question about this which I hope some will respond to.

First, will forcing pitchers to throw with less rest between pitches potentially lead to more injuries? In a long inning, 25+ pitches, when the pitcher is struggling and tired, I could see this clock increasing the possibility of injury. How about effectiveness, will that be diminished in long innings? For the weightlifters, think of German Volume Training, and how having to do multiple sets with short rest affects your number of reps. Also, related to the above, could this clock precipitate the need for more pitching changes? Will the starters, with less rest between pitches, tire more quickly?

My question concerns how this clock will affect team defense. Anyone who has pitched at any level has undoubtedly heard a coach say, "get the ball and throw it quickly to keep the defense on its toes." With the assumption that taking less time between pitches improves defense. What say you, SoSH, is that true? Will the clock lead to a uptick in defense? I actually did some work on this a few years ago, and it might be on the board somewhere. But that was older data, and I cannot say for sure what my methodology was.
 

8slim

has trust issues
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
25,695
Unreal America
I presume there was lots of data analyzed as this has been implemented at the minor league level over the past few years? Were there reports of increased injuries?

What I've read to-date is that it may result in pitchers not throwing at max velocity on every pitch, which IMHO would be a good thing and possibly reduce injuries.

Also read the defenders love this because it allows them to stay sharper in the field.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
25,298
I think you’re not taking the safety issue seriously enough here. These pitchers throw *hard.*

This first version of the rule isn’t necessarily the best of all possible versions, but there really does need to be something about assuring the hitter is prepared, or else we will absolutely get injuries. How that preparation is determined and enforced seems like it might be improved, but there needs to be something.
I know they throw hard. Really hard. That's why a hitter needs to do his pre-bat routine before stepping into the box. But once he steps into the box, he needs to be ready to hit.

The pitcher isn't like, spring loaded, so that the INSTANT the batter's second foot enters the box the pitch will be coming 100mph. The pitcher will be ready to throw. The hitter will do his pre-bat routine. Then when the batter steps in and gets in his stance, the pitcher will start his windup (or will come to the set) and then the pitch will come. (that last part does take a little bit of time)

No, I don't think safety is really an issue here. It won't take people long to adjust in their preparation.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
25,298
I presume there was lots of data analyzed as this has been implemented at the minor league level over the past few years? Were there reports of increased injuries?

What I've read to-date is that it may result in pitchers not throwing at max velocity on every pitch, which IMHO would be a good thing and possibly reduce injuries.

Also read the defenders love this because it allows them to stay sharper in the field.
I think this is right. I've argued that pitchers won't be able to give max effort on each pitch like they kind of do now, precisely because the time between pitches will be less. That's less recovery time. So they'll have to dial it back just a little, which should result in more balls put in play and that, combined with the shift rules, should result in more hits and activity on the bases. Which should make for a more enjoyable baseball experience.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
16,055
I know they throw hard. Really hard. That's why a hitter needs to do his pre-bat routine before stepping into the box. But once he steps into the box, he needs to be ready to hit.

The hitter will do his pre-bat routine. Then when the batter steps in and gets in his stance, the pitcher will start his windup (or will come to the set) and then the pitch will come.
And your argument is that it is not materially safer - if the batter is NOT in his ready to bat stance and is in fact looking down, but the pitcher is nearing a time clock violation - to call an auto strike rather than have the pitcher pitch.

I don’t have any clue as to what is wrong with calling an auto strike on the batter for lack of timeliness just as we call an auto ball on the pitcher for lack of timeliness.
But ok. I’ll move on.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
25,298
And your argument is that it is not materially safer - if the batter is NOT in his ready to bat stance and is in fact looking down, but the pitcher is nearing a time clock violation - to call an auto strike rather than have the pitcher pitch.

I don’t have any clue as to what is wrong with calling an auto strike on the batter for lack of timeliness just as we call an auto ball on the pitcher for lack of timeliness.
But ok. I’ll move on.
No. I'm saying: (1) The whole pitcher pitching thing takes longer than you think. They won't literally throw the ball the second the batter steps in the box. The pitcher will need to wind up and throw (or come to a set and throw). And (2) it won't take the hitters long AT ALL to adjust and do their pre-bat routine quickly and outside the box, and as soon as they step in, they're looking at the pitcher ready to hit.

(I'm not arguing against the auto strike...I'm just saying that there's also nothing wrong with allowing the pitcher to begin his throwing motion once the batter is in the box. There's no need to wait til the batter gets in the box and THEN get "ready". He should be ready the moment he steps into the box.)
 

Just a bit outside

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 6, 2011
8,322
Monument, CO
I think we will certainly see and increase in injuries if pitchers don't adjust. Less recovery time between pitches is going to make it hard to go 100% all the time. Pitchers will tire more quickly if they keep throwing 100% on every pitch and this would lead to more pitching changes. It will be really interesting to see how a team, like the Rays, who led the charge in guys throwing 100% of every pitch adjust. 12 seconds between pitches is a lot less than the 20-30 some pitchers were taking.

This is the best article I could find talking about the injury risk and how teams and players will try and work around it.

https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Daily/Issues/2022/05/18/Technology/an-mlb-pitch-clock-is-imminent-and-maybe-only-tech-and-data-can-prevent-the-downside-pitcher-fatigue
Mike Sonne wrote his Ph.D. thesis on muscle fatigue prediction and has studied workplace ergonomics extensively. Among his other projects was consulting on the design of assembly lines at Ford Motor Company and devising the appropriate number of rest breaks to prevent injuries.

When interest in a baseball pitch clock heightened in 2015, Sonne and co-author Peter Keir researched its effect through a series of computer simulations. They concluded, “This study has shown the implementation of pitch clocks, or enforcement of existing pace of play rules, will increase the fatigue accumulated in the forearm and elbow musculature and could jeopardize joint stability.”

That finding was published in the Journal of Sports Sciences in 2016, but Sonne says now that the premise is rather intuitive, too.

“It doesn't require any machine learning or anything like that,” says Sonne, now the chief scientific officer of 3MotionAI, maker of ProPlayAI. “You just think about, if you go to the gym and you do 10 reps and you shorten the time between the 10 reps, it's a lot more tiring by the end of it.”

Later that year, a research group in Taiwan conducted a similar study but experimented with college pitchers instead of computer simulations. The study was admittedly small—only seven pitchers completed all three phases—but gave empirical, physiological evidence to the effects of pitch clocks. Each pitcher was evaluated for pitching performance (velocity and location) and muscle inflammation and damage (via blood biomarkers) when throwing pitches every 8, 12 and 20 seconds for seven innings.
Their results, which were published in the December 2016 issue of Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, indicated that an eight-second pace was untenable, and there was also notable muscle inflammation lingering after the 12-second paced outing.

“Our data suggests that 20 is much better than 12,” says Donovan Fogt, one of the study’s co-authors and formerly a kinesiology professor before working as a scientist reviewer, vetting military research at Brooke Army Medical Center. He advises using the two completed papers as a guide to drive the study design of larger-scale research.
The article goes on to talk about how training and biometrics will help pitchers adapt. It is a great read.
 

The_Dali

New Member
Jul 2, 2021
148
Read through all of this… I think the point of emphasis early in the spring is to establish the clock. That means being a stickler and hard-ass. Once everyone gets the hang of it I’m sure we will see a relaxation. I completely doubt a game would be ended on a call like the Sox-braves in the regular season.

I’ve been to about 20 minor league games over the last few seasons and never witnessed a called violation.

Other minor league viewers, have you seen any?
 

Over Guapo Grande

panty merchant
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2005
4,675
Worcester
Read through all of this… I think the point of emphasis early in the spring is to establish the clock. That means being a stickler and hard-ass. Once everyone gets the hang of it I’m sure we will see a relaxation. I completely doubt a game would be ended on a call like the Sox-braves in the regular season.

I’ve been to about 20 minor league games over the last few seasons and never witnessed a called violation.

Other minor league viewers, have you seen any?
I was at a game where Darwinzon Hernandez had an Immaculate+ inning. He struck out the side in 8 pitches.
 

Daniel_Son

Member
SoSH Member
May 25, 2021
1,808
San Diego
Read through all of this… I think the point of emphasis early in the spring is to establish the clock. That means being a stickler and hard-ass. Once everyone gets the hang of it I’m sure we will see a relaxation. I completely doubt a game would be ended on a call like the Sox-braves in the regular season.

I’ve been to about 20 minor league games over the last few seasons and never witnessed a called violation.

Other minor league viewers, have you seen any?
I'd hope that they keep the same level of rule enforcement throughout the year, regardless of the game, player, or situation. If it's lax all year, then fine, but if it's strict all year then you need to keep it strict. If a big game ends on an umpire call, that's on the players who didn't adjust. They need to follow the rules.
 

Gdiguy

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
6,316
San Diego, CA
I'd hope that they keep the same level of rule enforcement throughout the year, regardless of the game, player, or situation. If it's lax all year, then fine, but if it's strict all year then you need to keep it strict. If a big game ends on an umpire call, that's on the players who didn't adjust. They need to follow the rules.
I still don't totally know how I feel here - because I almost think that my ideal situation is that it's enforced equally all times except if it's the 7th inning or later and the tying run is at bat, at which point enforcement is dropped completely

Because that's kind of what I think would be ideal - having the 3rd inning of a 0-0 game take 10 minutes of batting glove tugging and rosin bag playing is annoying, but I do think that when you have the closer in the 9th with a 1 run lead and a man on second, having some additional tension build there is actually beneficial. So I dunno
 

AlNipper49

Huge Member
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 3, 2001
45,125
Mtigawi
I’ve probably watched more minors games than majors games the past few years. I love it even more in person. It gives a slight element of suspense in between pitches. It’s literally and figuratively a game changer.
 
I still don't totally know how I feel here - because I almost think that my ideal situation is that it's enforced equally all times except if it's the 7th inning or later and the tying run is at bat, at which point enforcement is dropped completely

Because that's kind of what I think would be ideal - having the 3rd inning of a 0-0 game take 10 minutes of batting glove tugging and rosin bag playing is annoying, but I do think that when you have the closer in the 9th with a 1 run lead and a man on second, having some additional tension build there is actually beneficial. So I dunno
I see what you are saying, but I agree with @Daniel_Son here. It's not good form to play by one set of rules the vast majority of the time and then have the players do something different in some tiny subset of situations. That said, if the rules aren't going to be enforced uniformly across all situations, I'd prefer it to be codified like you suggest. The last thing we need is for it to be up to the umpires whether to enforce the rules or not.
 

dhappy42

Straw Man
Oct 27, 2013
15,804
Michigan
Anyone not liking the pitch clock?

It may be because of how it’s being enforced early in spring training, but I’m not a fan of the new rules. I’m not against a pitch clock per se. I’d prefer a 20-second clock with no separate timer on the batter.
 

geoflin

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 26, 2004
721
Melrose MA
The problem with that is the batter could wait until 2 seconds left to get in the box and be ready, forcing the pitcher to be late.
 

Green Monster

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2000
2,278
CT
Sox/Astros today....hitter apparently called for Not engaging the pitcher. Nobody knows what is going on. Youk is trying to provide comentary and he is clearly confused...."we have no way of knowing what is going on".

It just seems like a $hit show
 

cornwalls@6

Less observant than others
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
6,358
from the wilds of western ma
Watching some ST games and I have to say that the pitch clock has to be the frontrunner & favorite for MVP :)
Agree. And I'm somewhat surprised at what an immediate and transformative effect it's having on the entertainment value of the games. I thought it may take time to see it. But, I now think this may go down in history with the end of the dead ball era, the lowering of the pitching mound, and the introduction of the DH on the list of things that dramatically improved the game, and moved it forward.
 
Why would that force a pitcher to be late?
It would force the pitcher to maintain a state of readiness while the batter basically doesn't until the very last second. Even then, how do you determine who is at fault for a violation? It seems to me that it would take even more subjective judgment on the part of the umps than the current system does. Like, what if the batter gets into a ready stance, but with one foot just outside the box and then waits until the clock is about to hit 0 before rapidly planting that foot inside the box. The pitcher basically has a fraction of a second to go into their delivery. Either the rule states that the onus is on the pitcher as long as the batter is ready, or it has to call for the umpire to make some sort of judgment call as to who is at fault for the violation. If the pitcher gets some sort of grace period after the batter is ready in order to release, then you're basically just replicating a two-timer system like the current one.

If there aren't clear expectations on the hitter and batter that expects the hitter to be ready in a specific time frame, and then allows the pitcher some short but reasonable amount of time further to begin delivery, then the system lends itself to extreme gaming.

As it is now, play with the pitch clock largely looks like baseball as usual but faster, and with occasional automatic strikes and balls sprinkled in. If both the batter and the pitcher are on the exact same clock, I think it devolves into a game of chicken with batters actively angling for automatic balls and/or forcing the pitcher to rush. That will be far more disruptive to the way the game is played now.

Honestly I think it would actually be clearer if there were completely separate clocks for the pitcher and hitter rather than telling the hitter that they have until X seconds are left on the pitch clock.
 

OCST

Sunny von Bulow
SoSH Member
Jan 10, 2004
24,744
The 718
I’ve probably watched more minors games than majors games the past few years. I love it even more in person. It gives a slight element of suspense in between pitches. It’s literally and figuratively a game changer.
Yup. Not only does the whole thing move more briskly but it adds to the focus on each pitch. Especially for kids whose attention can wandereven kids as young as 4 or 5 really get it, it’s simple to understand at a gut level.

I am becoming more of a fan of this the more I watch it, I have to admit.
Hard agree.