The difficult they can do quickly. The impossible takes a bit longer.Cut down the time between innings to 90 seconds. I know it will hurt commercial revenue, but it needs to be done.
The difficult they can do quickly. The impossible takes a bit longer.Cut down the time between innings to 90 seconds. I know it will hurt commercial revenue, but it needs to be done.
Here's a better idea. If you bring in a new pitcher in the middle of an inning, the new guy gets no warm-up pitches. The guy has already been warming up in the bullpen, why warm up again just because you're on the mound?This is the most asinine thing I have ever heard.
“@ChrisCarlinSNY: Rob Manfred just told us he would consider limiting the number of pitching changes in the game. Thinks it hurts pace of game.”
#1 makes sense. You're batting .143!I'm interested in the perspective on whether or not baseball is "regional" or not. Personally, I believe that MLB is trying to become less "regional" by emphasizing and marketing player stars over teams, and using inter-league play to broaden appeal of those stars. I think this emphasis makes the sport less "regional", which doesn't work for me. My list of semi-radical ways to improve the game:
1. Eliminate inter-league play -- makes the All-Star game and World Series more dramatic to me.
2. Go back to 2 divisions per league, but the best 2 teams in each division make the playoffs. Eliminates the non-sensical wild-card, heightens the division races, and still allows for all the playoffs they have today (except for the silly play-in game).
3. Allow a maximum of 2 pitching changes per game.
4. Want more action on balls in play? Eliminate the center fielder and the shortstop.
5. Want more balls in play? Push the mound back, increase the size of the ball.
6. Make up for eliminating positions? Add teams in Charlotte (AL) and Montreal (NL)
7. Tired of playing the Rays 19-20 times a year (I am), balance out the schedule a bit. Play only 14 times against each of your 7 division foes, and 8 times against each team in the other division (162 games) or 12/10 instead of 14/8 (add 2 games to go to 164!)
I would have given him half credit on number 7, but he said not wanting to play the Rays 18 to 19 rather than Jays or Orioles.#1 makes sense. You're batting .143!
Have you seen any data from MiLB about how much shorter the average game is this year vs recent years? I haven't, but would be curious how much the clock is helping.Pitch clock is coming. Won't stop throws to first, but it will help. Batter already can't step out of the box, but it's not being enforced like it was early last season with warnings being given to players
Mostly just anecdotal. This article got me a little turgid early last season, but there wasn't much followup. It suggested a savings of up to 15 minutes, depending on league (and only 1 minute in the Texas League).Have you seen any data from MiLB about how much shorter the average game is this year vs recent years? I haven't, but would be curious how much the clock is helping.
That "rarely enforced" phrase bothers me, of course.In a rarely enforced rule, a pitch clock violation was called twice. Springfield reliever Chandler Hawkins was issued a ball to prior to his matchup against Mauricio Ramos for taking longer than the allowed 20 seconds to throw a pitch. Then in the bottom of the same inning, Naturals' reliever Evan Beal was also hit with the same penalty for breaking the 20-second barrier to begin the inning.
Every play in a football game, even the penalties, advances the narrative of the game in an obvious way. Every play results in a change of down or distance or both.This idea football is more fun to than baseball baffles me. There is so much standing around and many commercials and replays that it's maddening.
Every play comes after a lot of standing around, watching replays of boring plays and god help me, the fucking commercials. Touchdown, commercial, extra point, commercial, kickoff, commercial, It's insane.Every play in a football game, even the penalties, advances the narrative of the game in an obvious way. Every play results in a change of down or distance or both.
Only about a quarter of pitches thrown in a baseball game result in either an out or a new baserunner. The rest only change the count and two-strike fouls don't even do that. When you're really into a game and you feel like every pitch matters baseball is incredibly compelling - what's more absorbing than watching your team play in October? - but I think that to the average sports fan watching a typical regular season game baseball just has too few payoffs. When a guy turns on Sunday Night Baseball in July the pitch that takes the count from 2-1 to 3-1 doesn't feel like it means much.
The essential pleasure of watching baseball on TV IMO isn't in watching one individual game it's in watching a team's story unfold over an entire season. The appeal is in watching your team's 162-game story, which is largely played out on RSNs. One of the reasons FOX and ESPN national baseball ratings are lackluster is that the game just isn't built to reward viewing of one game between two (not quite) random teams. Baseball is all about having a favorite team and following it all year and it competes extremely well in this way. The game doesn't need a major overhaul.
Agreed 100% except for the last sentence. For a game that is about the marathon, they should play a more balanced schedule. I'd ideally like to see baseball do what soccer does: play a completely balanced schedule and crown the champion the team with the best record. Then have an "MLB Cup" tournament based on a traditional playoff format. But specifically sell the game such that winning the table is the real prize and the MLB cup is the consolation prize.The essential pleasure of watching baseball on TV IMO isn't in watching one individual game it's in watching a team's story unfold over an entire season. The appeal is in watching your team's 162-game story, which is largely played out on RSNs. One of the reasons FOX and ESPN national baseball ratings are lackluster is that the game just isn't built to reward viewing of one game between two (not quite) random teams. Baseball is all about having a favorite team and following it all year and it competes extremely well in this way. The game doesn't need a major overhaul.
That's a feature, not a bug. Most fans don't want to study the game. They want to tune in and out as the tension rises and falls. They want to be able to go to the kitchen or the bathroom, or play some video games on another monitor, or talk trash with their buddies while the game is on. Most fans watch the game with an implicit red zone channel mindset and asking them to concentrate all the time is a turnoff.Every play comes after a lot of standing around, watching replays of boring plays and god help me, the fucking commercials. Touchdown, commercial, extra point, commercial, kickoff, commercial, It's insane.
I have a hard time believing people who like watching football actually prefer a shit-ton of replays. Sure, there are some plays where that's appropriate. There are also an enormous number where it's not and they show it six times anyway.That's a feature, not a bug. Most fans don't want to study the game. They want to tune in and out as the tension rises and falls. They want to be able to go to the kitchen or the bathroom, or play some video games on another monitor, or talk trash with their buddies while the game is on. Most fans watch the game with an implicit red zone channel mindset and asking them to concentrate all the time is a turnoff.
I'm going to disagree that every play in football advances the narrative in an obvious way. Typical situation: team is trailing 21-10 early in 2nd half. 2nd and 10 on own 40. RB runs for 6 yards to bring up 3rd and 4. Was that a win for the offense or the defense? Both teams might be able to feel happy with that outcome. Until there a 1st down or failed conversion, it's often not that obvious how that play helped which team. In baseball every single pitch has a definite winner and loser. Even if casual fans aren't excited by it.Every play in a football game, even the penalties, advances the narrative of the game in an obvious way. Every play results in a change of down or distance or both.
Only about a quarter of pitches thrown in a baseball game result in either an out or a new baserunner. The rest only change the count and two-strike fouls don't even do that. When you're really into a game and you feel like every pitch matters baseball is incredibly compelling - what's more absorbing than watching your team play in October? - but I think that to the average sports fan watching a typical regular season game baseball just has too few payoffs. When a guy turns on Sunday Night Baseball in July the pitch that takes the count from 2-1 to 3-1 doesn't feel like it means much.
The essential pleasure of watching baseball on TV IMO isn't in watching one individual game it's in watching a team's story unfold over an entire season. The appeal is in watching your team's 162-game story, which is largely played out on RSNs. One of the reasons FOX and ESPN national baseball ratings are lackluster is that the game just isn't built to reward viewing of one game between two (not quite) random teams. Baseball is all about having a favorite team and following it all year and it competes extremely well in this way. The game doesn't need a major overhaul.
I'll agree with you on the case of replays. Once upon a time I believed that replays would give us the objective truth of what happened, but instead we're wasting more and more time on increasingly esoteric metaphysical football questions (how many football moves can dance on the head of pin?)I have a hard time believing people who like watching football actually prefer a shit-ton of replays. Sure, there are some plays where that's appropriate. There are also an enormous number where it's not and they show it six times anyway.
I think this is fairly obvious. Win for the O. A 3rd and 4 is a good position to be in for the conversion. Running the ball if time's a factor would be win for D but that's not case here.I'm going to disagree that every play in football advances the narrative in an obvious way. Typical situation: team is trailing 21-10 early in 2nd half. 2nd and 10 on own 40. RB runs for 6 yards to bring up 3rd and 4. Was that a win for the offense or the defense? Both teams might be able to feel happy with that outcome. Until there a 1st down or failed conversion, it's often not that obvious how that play helped which team. In baseball every single pitch has a definite winner and loser. Even if casual fans aren't excited by it.
I really think this is the way to go. You bring a relief pitcher in, he's facing a minimum of 3 batters or getting the 3rd out, whichever comes first.How about this: a pitcher can't be taken out in the middle of an inning unless he has already faced a minimum of three batters.
The modern methodology of keeping the ball out of play—more pitchers throwing harder and being used more often in shorter bursts—works. In fact, it works too well. Teams used 557 pitchers in 1998; last year, they used a record 735, a 32% increase. We're not even through July, and teams have already used more pitchers this year than they did in the entire 2010 season (635). We are headed for a record number of pitchers for a fourth straight year.
The use of specialized bullpens impacts not only on each game but also baseball's declining pace of action overall. Every other sport holds its audience with the anticipation that the endgame is the most exciting part. Football promises no-huddles, two-minute drills, more passing and onside kicks. Basketball promises more three-point shooting and full-court pressure defense. Hockey promises goalies getting pulled for an extra skater. Things get more frantic.
The opposite happens in baseball because bullpens are so good and relievers throw so hard. Mound visits, jogs from the bullpen, warmup pitches ... the game literally slows down, and so does offense. As compared to the first six innings, scoring drops 15% in the final three innings and the rate of strikeouts goes up 14%. Take a look at this list—paying attention to the years listed—of the seasons with the worst on-base percentages in innings seven through nine since 1974, when such records are available on baseball-reference.com.
1. 2014: .310
2. 2015: .311
3. 2013: .312
4. 1989: .312
5. 2012: .313
6. 2016: .316
In the past five seasons the end of a game has become Dead ball Era baseball—only worse. In those pre-1920 days, hitters actually put the ball in play. This year, 23% of all plate appearances from the seventh through ninth innings end with a strikeout—no defense or base running needed in what is a glorified game of catch between the pitcher and catcher.
Or: Basketball promises a shit-ton of time outs and a parade to the free throw line. And football has more than it's share of late timeouts and clock stoppages as well. But not as bad as basketballThe use of specialized bullpens impacts not only on each game but also baseball's declining pace of action overall. Every other sport holds its audience with the anticipation that the endgame is the most exciting part. Football promises no-huddles, two-minute drills, more passing and onside kicks. Basketball promises more three-point shooting and full-court pressure defense. Hockey promises goalies getting pulled for an extra skater. Things get more frantic.
Ahhh, you haven't seen a game with "The Rem-Dawg" broadcasting.#5 You're right, they won't cut back on commercials. I'm just glad they haven't begun to stop play in the middle of an inning to show commercials.
I'm definitely in favor of 7 inning double headers. I think that will be a much easier sell to the masses.Anything having to do with decreasing player roles is not going to sit well with the players union, nor is a decrease in games by the owners.
The only innings change that makes sense to me is with double headers being 7 each like they do in the minors. Dome/warm weather teams play fewer double headers on average, so it seems like it would relieve the strain on teams that play them more often at least a little bit.
Expanding to 8 divisions of 4 teams seems inevitable and Manfred is for it too.
I would do away with interleague as well. If you keep it, you're playing against at least 19 different teams after realignment (compared to 15 now) which is too many.
64 games vs the west and central (two four game series vs each team).
11 or 12 games (46 total) vs each team in the south division or whatever it is renamed to with two series in each venue.
13 games vs each east team (52 total) with 6 or 7 games in each venue
As far as pace of play, the pitch clock seems the least gimmicky.
There is an easier way to shorten the games than shortening innings (which would reduce scoring). Go to 3 balls and 2 strikes. And for the purists out there, note that the Balls and Strikes have changed over the course of the years.The end result here would be a shorter game with increased offense. The purist in me hates the idea of moving from 9 to 8 innings, but I really think something drastic is needed.
The NL and American Association went to a 4-ball walk in 1889 and strikeouts required 3 strikes from early, on, except for 1887 when it was changed to 4 strikes. From 1888 on it has been 3 strikes. In 1880 the rule was changed to say that the third strike had to be caught in the air but that was later changed to the modern rule that allowed the batter to run if first base was not occupied, etc.There is an easier way to shorten the games than shortening innings (which would reduce scoring). Go to 3 balls and 2 strikes. And for the purists out there, note that the Balls and Strikes have changed over the course of the years....
These are good.- Any visit to the mound by any member of the team counts. 2nd visit in an inning requires pitching change
- 3 warmup pitches for pitcher entering the game
- Batter must remain in box once 1st pitch to him is thrown (exception is a foul ball)
- No replay except for home runs
Let's start with these and see how it goes.
Sure there would be an adjustment period but after you get by that (perhaps by instituting it in the minors first) I think you'd see the pace - and entertainment value - of the game increase dramatically. Each pitch would mean more. You'd also see the best pitchers face the best hitters more often.I think the problem with games dragging on is twofold: The first is the actual amount of time, but probably the bigger problem is pace… that's not just the time wasted between pitches, but the number of at-bats that end without any action. I'm fairly certain that 3 balls and 2 strikes would completely backfire regarding pace. An entire generation of players who have been taught to embrace taking pitches and downplay striking out aren't going to change overnight. The amount of walks and strikeouts would make the game completely unwatchable.
Manfred mentioned that as a possibility in his booth visit in Boston. It could happen.Here is an idea: Give pitchers a earpiece like quarterbacks and don't allow mound visits unless you are pulling the pitcher.
Also drastic, and in line with the type of thinking that needs to be done.There is an easier way to shorten the games than shortening innings (which would reduce scoring). Go to 3 balls and 2 strikes. And for the purists out there, note that the Balls and Strikes have changed over the course of the years.
Most of the interest in the game is when the ball is put in play (or when the batter is struck out or walked). Going to 3 balls and 2 strikes gets to the action more quickly.
Plus the added bonus is that it keeps pitchers healthier for longer. And you would have less need for pitching changes - in fact less need for pitchers, of which there are clearly not enough good ones.
I would love to see an exhibition games played like this. I can imagine how much quicker and more interesting the game would be and you wouldn't really have to change anything else.
Yeah, I've thrown that idea out there as well. I think there are some no brainer changes that should happen like the earpiece, a pitch clock and reducing the time for mid inning pitching changes. I just don't think it's drastic enough.Here is an idea: Give pitchers a earpiece like quarterbacks and don't allow mound visits unless you are pulling the pitcher.
When they first started, pitched were throwing underhand from 50 feet and were no allowed to snap their wrist. Not only that, batters could call for the height of the pitch: high/low/middle. Why not just go to tee ball?BTW, I do know it's never going to happen. But I guess I don't understand why people put so much emphasis on pitches that don't really matter. I mean when they were adjusting the rules in the 1800s, they reduced the number of balls and strikes (at first it was unlimited pitches) in order to make the games shorter and more watchable. Maybe it's time to do that again.