Are they doing this because of pace of game or to protect their pitchers? It seems like the latter so any rules to speed up the game are missing the point, no?
MLB to experiment starting runner at 2B in extras in the minors (rookie league)
- Thread starter soxhop411
- Start date
Judging by the TV ratings and crowds in the stands for marathon extra-inning games, you are not in the minority.
If this rule ever sees the light of day in The Show, it will be regular-season only, and probably won't kick in until the 12th or 13th inning. Frankly, I'll be surprised if it even gets that far -- I think this is strictly an idea to shorten minor-league games, and in that context, I think it's worth testing. Who the fuck stays to watch the end of a 15-inning minor-league game??
The weird thing to me is just sticking a player on second. I could understand giving hitters an extra base on hits. Like singles become doubles, doubles become triples, triples become homers. Heck even a BB goes to 2nd. Or more conservatively, BBs and singles start on 2nd, doubles and triples stay the same. Not sure if I'd like these ideas but at least they earned it buy getting a hit or a walk
Edit: a fast guy who never hits homers ending a game on a triple might be cool
Edit: a fast guy who never hits homers ending a game on a triple might be cool
Last edited:
Agree. If you watch any game from the 70s, it's amazing how snappy the games were.
if baseball wants to be TV friendly, they do need to do something. Refusing balls and strikes is one easy way. It would also have some unintended consequences, such as eliminating some middle reliever spots and making #1 starters even more valuable.
I can understand doing this in the low minors where the rosters are smaller than the 25 we have in MLB (and I *LIKE* Chris Davis pitching, even if we lose), and the pitchers are younger and fans are young families with kids with bedtimes and maybe you need to speed things up there. But I don't like this in AAA or the big leagues at all.
They leave because most have work or school the next morning. Does this guy really think that people only like baseball when it's played in innings 1-9?
How would games not counting in the standings work when there is a tie for the last playoff spot and one team is 86-75 and the other is 85-74? Percentage points? The games have to count so that every team had the same "total outcome" of games. The 1 game playoff they play now seems like the logical answer but the gap between games in extra innings last year was 18. LAA played 4, the Braves played 22. Granted, most of those games probably ended in 12 and under but that could make for some weird hypotheticals. A 88-70 record vs a 79-61record. Tie.
Right - most games start at 7, are on weeknights, and go 3+ hours. When you start tacking on extra innings, you're talking about people getting home very late, and having to work in the morning.
People don't leave because its boring - they leave because real life intrudes.
I didn't get that either. Why is fans leaving extra-inning games before they're over a problem?
100% agree that roster flexibility is the issue here, if in fact extra innings is actually a problem.
I understand the desire for most of the pace of game initiatives even though I am strongly opposed to them*.
This, however, makes no sense.
*I hate the idea of any clock in baseball. The lack of a clock is one of the aspects of baseball that makes it the greatest sport in my opinion. That said, I don't always have four hours to watch a game that could easily take 3 hours if batters stayed in the box, and mound visits weren't milked like crazy for warming relievers or selecting that perfect pitch.
I understand the desire for most of the pace of game initiatives even though I am strongly opposed to them*.
This, however, makes no sense.
*I hate the idea of any clock in baseball. The lack of a clock is one of the aspects of baseball that makes it the greatest sport in my opinion. That said, I don't always have four hours to watch a game that could easily take 3 hours if batters stayed in the box, and mound visits weren't milked like crazy for warming relievers or selecting that perfect pitch.
I love that like four people, Posnanski and Torre included, have said ominously, "this is a problem."
What is the problem?!
What is the problem?!
It's 2017, people go looking for problems.
I hate the term, but this really is "First World Problems"
Aren't most teams local games on their own or Fox Sports channels? I'm sure whatever ratings innings 10-18 get are better than whatever Yankeeography or whatever the local teams broadcast at 11-1 am.
Are a few extra innings of baseball affecting anything in your day to day?
When we have people bitching about a fucking 90 year old baseball logo or a 100 year old NFL team name, yeah, people need to get a life.
Like I said, people have way too much time on their hands.
Why would a batter-runner who made it to first EVER try for second if you were King?
Unless I'm missing some irony, you not only ascribed my opinion to a single sentence pulled out of a paragraph-length post, you also omitted the following sentence where I said I'm not sure I'd like the idea. Impressive posting. Remarkable stuff.
Well, I'm more decisive. I do not like the idea. I explained why. Update us when you come to your conclusion.
But would you prefer it, or the other idea I threw out there, getting an extra base, to just sticking a runner on second?
I've certainly come to a conclusion , which is that it's better when posters quote short posts in full, and bold portions to be addressed, instead of cherry picking parts out of context, so as to avoid creating a straw man.
I've certainly come to a conclusion , which is that it's better when posters quote short posts in full, and bold portions to be addressed, instead of cherry picking parts out of context, so as to avoid creating a straw man.
Last edited:
TV friendliness is skating to where the puck used to be, honestly. If they want to attract young fans, they need to be encouraging, not discouraging, the sharing of highlight videos. Every time Bradley throws a rope to catch a runner stretching, or Trout pulls back a HR, or Simmons does some shortstop wizardry, or NRI Wily Mo Peña comes off the bench and hits a ball into Lake Erie on two bounces, they should blow up Facebook and Twitter. Remind people how awesome baseball is. Think about ways of engaging with baseball other than *watching entire games,* but that might escalate casual fans into fans who want to watch entire games. The NBA is great at this.
You could probably sell ad overlays on widely distributed highlights for meaningful money.
Why don't they just start any extra-inning games an hour earlier?
(still a better idea than ghost-runner on 2nd)
Starting before 7 would be worse. That's about as early as you can start and still allow most working people to get home and have dinner or get to the park and get seated and still catch the first pitch. If anything, a 7:30 start would be the way to go. There's a reason major dramas don't start until 8.
Reduce the between innings commercial break by 60 seconds and put ads on uniforms to make up for the lost revenue.
It's hard to eat stadium food from home.
Maybe "or" means something different in Oz?
Maybe humour does. I mean, you're a cyborg who doesn't accept humour but you should be able to recognise it by now. Regardless, if you want to try and focus on specifics, you didn't indicate anything about also eating at a stadium. Which is exactly what the teams wants you to do, where the food options are markedly better than ever before. And it's a three hour game; you're actually allowed to get up at some point and go buy food.
I know enough not to take comedy advice from someone who thinks that the 20th iteration of a stale robot joke that wasn't funny the first time is the height of hilarity.
My point was that between either getting home and settled in with the family (dinner, etc) before putting the game on TV, or getting to the stadium and getting seated, 7pm is about as early as you can comfortably push game starts for people who have work and lives. Having a hot dog at the game is one of life's great pleasures, but I'm not sure it matters in this context.
Adam Selene jokes aside, the food thing is a weird comment by you. Stadium food is a lot more than hot dogs these days.
The context I brought up food in was explicitly not related to going to the ballpark. Syd's the one who brought stadium food into the discussion, for reasons of relevance I'm still struggling to grasp (hence the tongue-in-cheek mention of hot dogs).
I must have lost the plot. I read you as saying: get home, eat, go to park (post 78)
Syd: why not just eat at the park
I see later you clarified the "or" to get home, eat, watch tv, but I don't see how that is really a big problem.
Now I'm confused, I just reread it and it looks okay to me: "That's about as early as you can start and still allow most working people to get home and have dinner or get to the park and get seated and still catch the first pitch".
But obviously there's an alternate reading escaping me since it appears to have confused both you and Syd.
Scenario 1: Leave work, get home, have dinner in time to turn on TV for first pitch
Or different Scenario 2: Leave work, go to park, get to your seat in time for first pitch.
Either way, starting things much before 7 makes it tough on people with normal jobs.
That would really depend on your job and where you live (commute, traffic, etc) no?
If you teach in your hometown, sure, you're home by 4 or something. If you don't walk out the door at 5 on the dot or have a commute, it's probably not likely you're cooking dinner and getting your family fed by 7 for first pitch. And far more people do that than go to the park and get dinner there.
Edit: which is to say nothing of comparison of what a team takes in in revenue from their TV contract vs concessions and tickets. The prices at a ballgame are high not just because of gouging but because most of it is contracted out, so the team isn't making as much as you think once all the bills get paid. They're much more inclined to cater to the home viewer for the tv deals, which is why you don't see more day games.
I mean... if that isn't the best answer ever...
I know what your point was... it truly wasn't that intellectual... I think it's, at best, inconsequential to the entire discussion. Sort of like the 'save the curtains, end daylight savings argument.' I mean, yes, there certainly are people who enjoy their meatloaf at home with the family. I'm sure it's all very convenient for those people. And that's a nice little by-product of a 7pm start. I'm sure it helps them get changed into their gear and maybe, if they duck out of work a little early or right on 5 they can even hit the gym first. But all that stuff is so completely irrelevant as to be ridiculous.
That you then focused on 'OR' as if you thought the 'OR' was the crux of the issue, and something I actually didn't get rather than tackling the whole of your statement, and something so important it was worth the snarky 'did you read my post, bro!?!?'... that's the reason I want you to get an upgrade, duder.
I can not fuckin believe that the discussion of this moronic idea has not been met with unanimous disapproval.
There should be a new sandbox for you people.
There should be a new sandbox for you people.
By the by, there's almost no chance at all this specific idea plays at the ML level. Once it works its way up to a level where the hitters aren't total shite, that runner will score too often for both teams to matter, and they'll need to drop or adjust it. Runner on first after 11 or something would be a much more balanced compromise with competition and tradition.
Figuring out how to win even when your plan gets blown to hell...that's kind of the point of sports. And life, and so forth.
I cannot believe that any baseball fan can support this idea. It is entirely without merit. MLB is going to continue allowing batters to step out after every pitch and adjust every piece of clothing and equipment on their body, but when we come to the part of the game that requires rapt attention and where one mistake or one great play can win a game, they want to hurry up and end it?
Arghhhhh.
This was my first thought. Is there any data to show that this radical change will actually make games shorter? Won't it prolong as many games as it shortens?
When I started watching baseball the players left their gloves in the outfield and trotted/ran into the dugout after the third out of an inning and an out to their defensive positions. Relief pitchers ran in from the bullpen. You didn't have players putting on body armor and taking it off when they got on base, changing batting gloves for sliding gloves or stepping out of the batter's box after every pitch to adjust the Velcro on their gloves; you didn't have as many pitching changes with the associated stalling at the mound to give the reliever more time to warm; you didn't have the challenges that required umpires to don headphones.
They have rules to keep batters in the box, to limit the amount of time between pitches. They don't enforce them. Cutting another 30 seconds off commercial breaks would only reduce the time of games by nine minutes for a nine-inning game. There is a limit to how much time between innings can be cut, sponsors aside: the offensive and defensive sides have to swap. There are, say, 300 pitches in a game: cut one second off each PA and you reduce game time by five minutes; two seconds, 10 minutes, etc.
If MLB is intent upon doing something"Gimmicky," then how about home field advantage? The home team wins the ties.
I'm in the "hate this idea with a bloody passion" group. Of course, I'm also in the "extra innings = free baseball!" group. But to address the issue of extra inning games taking a toll on fragile pitching staffs (a legit argument), I'd combine/modify two ideas from above: Adopt an innings cap that temporarily halts play after, say, the 12th inning (something that's been in place in the past in cities with curfews). Then allow a call-up/temp roster addition for whenever the game is to be continued. That adequately addresses the burden on the pitching staff, without fundamentally changing how the game is played and won.
As for Posnanski's point, since I usually stay until the end of games, I like that others leave. Makes getting to my car and dealing with post-game traffic easier for me! Besides, people have always left games early, long before the 9th inning, in fact....
As for Posnanski's point, since I usually stay until the end of games, I like that others leave. Makes getting to my car and dealing with post-game traffic easier for me! Besides, people have always left games early, long before the 9th inning, in fact....
The point being made is that it's a problem for baseball.
Casual fans who have to leave before a game actually ends because it's a school night leave feeling, in many cases, ripped off that they don't get to see the end of the game. When people pay for a product and end up feeling ripped off, that's bad for the brand. That's Posnanski's point.
Disagree with that point all you want, but can it with the straw men.
There is no commandment that there has to be 4 balls and 3 strikes. As I'm sure you know, baseball has been played with different rules with regards to balls and strikes.
To me, there's no real good reason that there are 4 balls and 3 strikes other than that's the way it's always been. Reducing that to 3 balls and 2 strikes might actually up the drama. Maybe not. But it would eliminate some of the middle relievers we see; it would allow the best pitchers to have the most impact on the game; it may help to keep the best pitchers healthier; and it would reduce the time of play.
At any rate, it's just another one of my dreams that will never come true. But I don't think it's a "gimmick." If it's ever enacted, it would be as a response to a changed world around us.