October 01, 2014

So they want to move the game along, but they have no problem with the delays the "play review process" or "instant replay" slow the games down to a crawl. Otherwise, I like the game the way it is.

posted by HateTheMedia at 04:41 PM on October 01, 2014

I like all these ideas and I like instant replay. Speed up the regular plays and take the time to get the 1% right.

The time between pitches rule could lead to some epic managerial meltdowns. Can't wait for the first called strike if the batter isn't in the box 1:45 after the ball gets to the pitcher.

posted by deflated at 06:24 PM on October 01, 2014

(In keeping with yeraftmas format....)

1. Yep, I like that one too. Although I'll manage to contradict this somehow.

2. Hate it. If the the decision is to intentionally walk my big, dangerous hitter, then I want that pitcher to throw that ball 4 times. Lobs or not, those are 4 more pitches that could result in a positive for me. Yerfatma showed that IBBs aren't often enough to affect the speed of the game, but it seems when they do happen, the game could very well be on the line.

3. Love it. I don't know how accurate I am on this, but the best way to speed up the game, is probably to speed up the things that are holding up the game from being played, not the game itself. So this rule seems to most affect the broadcast advertising sold,... or we just won't see the first few pitches. The increase is related to several factors not directly correlated with the game, notably increased time between innings for TV and radio commercials.

4. Hopefully there is a stipulation provided for unexpected injuries? It's tough to get a guy going that fast if he's relieving in the 2nd inning.

5. What's the penalty for this? Ball? Ejection?

6. 12 seconds with the bases empty! Gees. I'll probably being timing everything in 12 second increments for a while. This one I don't like at all. I hope it never makes it out of the AFL. I enjoy the late inning stare downs, challenges, barking, aspects of the game. I like the big, national broadcast games that add the extra pressure, make the players second guess, and gives pitchers the yips. I also like the furious pitcher who is set on the rubber immediately after catching the ball. I like it when the home fans are enough to cause a batter to step out, or an opposing catcher to have to go to the mound to calm his pitcher. I understand it all as forms of intimidation or trying to psych out your opponent. Gamesmanship. We need more of it. This seems to just make the game robotic.

All in all, I say leave the game alone. I don't need a 2:30 hour game. If I go to the stadium, I'm all for the 3+ hour event. If I'm at home, I can get a lot done while listening to a game. I'm in no rush. Life's to short to speed everything up. Savor something. Honestly, we're only talking about 25 minutes difference between what was and what is, isn't there some thing else to concentrate on?

Baseball needs to be sped up. The game will fade without faster play.

Fade from who? To whom are these changes intended to benefit?

posted by BoKnows at 08:39 PM on October 01, 2014

TV ratings, fan support, youth participation and cultural prominence.

Well I guess that's pretty much everyone. Haha. Is this factual? Looks to me that attendance is way up from 30 years ago despite the 20% increase of game length. Has there been any evidence that a 25-30 minute shorter game would actually increase the things you mentioned? I suspect it would be a less than significant result and terribly hard to measure. But I guess if there is a Pace of Play committee, then they gotta do something. I usually wait until something is broken before I go fiddling with it.

I'm not bored during games. Even the long ones in April. Some are short, some are not. I'm not going to watch the first 7 innings of a game then get upset because I missed MASH.

"Thirty years ago, the average time of a game was 2 hours 35 minutes. This season, through last Sunday's games, it was 3 hours 2 minutes 47 seconds, which would be the longest on record." -- New York Times

I just don't see how shortening a game will increase youth participation, but I guess Joe Torre knows today's youth better than I do.

posted by BoKnows at 09:16 PM on October 01, 2014

Not a fan of #2. IBB can some times fail. And when they do fail, it is spectularly funny.

posted by jmauro at 09:23 PM on October 01, 2014

IBB can some times fail.

Yes it can.

posted by grum@work at 09:28 PM on October 01, 2014

OK, my turn:

1. This is already a rule in high school and NCAA competition. The rule also contains exceptions for a swing and miss where the batter loses balance and exits the batters' box and any time there is a play after the pitch (wild pitch, passed ball, stolen base and throw, attempted pickoff). Exceptions are also for foul balls, batter attempting to get out of the way of a pitch, and one or two others that I cannot recall (reminder to self, dig out rule and case books before springtime).

2. I don't like this either. It is used in high school, NCAA, youth baseball, and the like. There are three things that can happen during an intentional walk, any of which can lead to some excitement. a. The batter can reach out and poke a close one to the opposite field. The fielders are usually not really ready for this. b. The pitcher can toss one way too wide for a wild pitch and advance by the runners. c. The catcher can cause a balk by exiting his box prior to the time of the pitch. This is covered by the rule that all fielders must be in fair territory except the catcher, who must be in his box. The time of the pitch is not when the ball is released but when the pitcher is committed to pitching and cannot stop without committing a balk.

3. Why not go back to the old rule of 1 minute between innings, clock started when all playing action has stopped at the third out? The numbers quoted for time of games, 2:35 30 years ago vs 3:02 now is not that great, when you consider that at least 16 of those minutes were added when the time between innings was changed to accommodate the TV advertisers. Go back to the old rule and you now have an average time of 2:46, and that is only 11 minutes longer. Soccer can make do with commercials flashed on the screen and snuck in during stoppages, ice hockey is the same, but the powers that be are backsliding with TV time outs. Advertisers on baseball games could be placated with silent on-screen messages or brief voice announcements. My between half-innings chant for many years was, "Come on, boys, hustle on and off. Let's keep the game moving. look like you're alive out here."

4. That makes sense. Call a ball for every 20 seconds over the limit, as long as the batter has entered the batters' box.

5. Limit the manager or pitching coach's visits to 3 (If a pitcher is changed during the visit, it doesn't count in the 3. Add one per inning for extra innings), but put no limit on infield conferences without a coach present. The umpire knows when it has gone on too long, and he should start out there to break it up after 15 or 20 seconds. If that doesn't happen, it's bad umpiring.

6. The limit should be 20 seconds to pitch or attempt a pickoff. There should be a similar rule for batters to get into the box in 20 seconds after the ball has been returned to the pitcher following a play or the start of an inning or a relief pitcher's 8-pitch warmup. With runners on base, stepping off the pitcher's plate should restart the clock, but the time should then be reduced to perhaps 10 to 15 seconds. Forget about clocks. Let the umpires do the job. Baseball is not a timed game, so if one umpire counts a bit slowly or quickly, let the players deal with it.

Oh heck. Forget about rule changes. Just put me in charge, and I'll have 2-hour ball games. Strike zones enlarged, players forced to hustle on and off. Pitchers made to hurry up and pitch. Batters told to stop fidgeting and get ready to hit. The umpires are in charge of the game once it starts. Let them have the authority to make the game quicker without changing the rules. Slow pitcher who refuses to step it up? Strike zone dead center from top of belt buckle to bottom of belt buckle. Batter who needs to perform yoga exercises between pitches? Strike zone from dugout to dugout and top of backstop to shoe laces.

posted by Howard_T at 11:19 PM on October 01, 2014

I really am annoyed by all the fidgeting players do in and around the batter's box, often after every single pitch. I don't think it is the length of the game that is a problem, but all of the time wasting that happens between pitches. I endorse 1 and 3.

It happens in tennis, too. When I watch Nadal, I yell "just serve already."

posted by bperk at 07:16 AM on October 02, 2014

I think the excitement the game offers is more apparent when it doesn't drag on and on because of slow pitchers, slow hitters and lots of conferences on the mound.

I'm a lifer who embraced the game as an eight-year-old. I organized sandlot games where we got four kids a side all summer long and listened to Dick Risenhoover call Rangers games on WBAP throughout elementary school. I still enjoy baseball. But I don't see my sons' generation taking to the game the way I did, and I think slow play is a factor.

posted by rcade at 08:50 AM on October 02, 2014

But I don't see my sons' generation taking to the game the way I did, and I think slow play is a factor.

Do you honestly think that is about games being 15-30 minutes longer, or due to the fact that kids have way, way more options available to them now than they did when you grew up?

I go to a bunch of games and I don't see kids really falling apart in the 6th inning. Mostly, they have their face in a Nintendo DS or an iPhone from the start. I think baseball is dealing with what every sport is dealing with - that kids have other, sexy options out there and aren't as into sports as they used to be.

Going to a game is an experience. If I can't realistically get a hot dog or have a pee without missing action, it's going to make games less fun to be at. I, personally, would hate to watch a run walked in because a pitcher took 22 seconds to deliver a pitch. The proceduralization of games is not necessarily making them any more entertaining - just more predictable and consistent. Video replay is a bore live but decent TV on key plays.

Again - effective is better than efficient. Baseball is never going to be a high-action thriller. It's not the point. Like golf, the whole romance has been getting out of the hustle-and-bustle and enjoying a few hours of peanuts, cracker jacks, and never going back to real life.

posted by dfleming at 11:01 AM on October 02, 2014

I don't see any of the six experimental rules that would make baseball worse on TV

The intentional walk one is worse for TV and live viewing.

A batter starts walking to the plate, and then suddenly puts down his bat, takes off his batting gloves, removes his batting helmet, takes off his shin guard/elbow pad, and then starts walking towards first base while the bat boy starts to clean up the mess he's left behind. All the while, no one in the stands or on TV has seen anything happen and is confused. The signal from the opposing dugout that was flashed to the umpire was missed by everyone watching the game.

Make the pitcher throw the four balls for the intentional walk. It also gives the live fans ample time to boo the opposition while it happens.

posted by grum@work at 12:04 PM on October 02, 2014

Or they could use a one pitch intentional walk.

Let's not do that. Anything that skews stats historically is weird to me. Which is another argument against changing IBBs.

posted by yerfatma at 01:32 PM on October 02, 2014

Except when it is.

I can't recall a single intentional walk that was exciting in the entire time I've been following the game. Can you?

posted by rcade at 07:59 AM on October 03, 2014

I can't recall a single intentional walk that was exciting in the entire time I've been following the game. Can you?

Miguel Cabrera ignores an "intentional walk".

One of many "exciting" intentional walks.

posted by grum@work at 08:51 AM on October 03, 2014

As for getting out of the hustle and bustle, would any team sport but baseball be described that way for spectators? It's an odd selling point. Hustle and bustle is pretty entertaining in soccer, football, hockey and basketball.

Baseball's refined cousin cricket has the same sort of relaxed pace, and it's still crazy popular. The "fan-friendly" version of cricket, Twenty 20, runs for about 3 hours a match (as opposed to the ODI or Tests that take between 1 full day and 5 days).

posted by grum@work at 02:47 PM on October 03, 2014

... that take between 1 full day and 5 days.

I take back anything I said about the slow pace of baseball.

Baseball has always had a different pace than those sports, and yet has somehow survived for over a hundred years.

The question isn't whether it's going to survive, it's whether the sport will continue to fade in prominence and cultural impact. It was once *the* American pro team sport. Now that's quite obviously the NFL. Survival isn't in question. Baseball can survive as a well-attended niche sport, just like hockey.

But remember what it was like when ESPN dropped hockey and a big chunk of its time on SportsCenter disappeared? How would that feel if it happened to baseball?

I'm surprised there are so many voices here for baseball doing nothing about game length and speed of play. Do you all really think baseball needs no changes? If so, how do you explain the long drop in World Series ratings, and why is that not a problem?

posted by rcade at 05:56 AM on October 04, 2014

But remember what it was like when ESPN dropped hockey and a big chunk of its time on SportsCenter disappeared? How would that feel if it happened to baseball?

Again - baseball TV contracts continue to be more valuable than ever. This is nowhere near being a reality. Baseball is still #2 in the major 4 for ratings.

I'm surprised there are so many voices here for baseball doing nothing about game length and speed of play. Do you all really think baseball needs no changes? If so, how do you explain the long drop in World Series ratings, and why is that not a problem?

There's been a huge dip since the 2005 PED congress hearings that has never been recovered. They have a 4-7 game series' held in October - which, since the 1980's, has meant they're competing at night with prime-time shows on an expanding dial of channels.

The Super Bowl, comparatively, is one Sunday night in February, at the same time every year, and has nothing else to compete with on the dial. It also has a shit-ton of people who don't watch the game content who watch the program.

Additionally - MLB.TV and online streaming mean Neilsen ratings aren't necessarily capturing the whole picture anymore. I haven't watched a game on cable TV in years. Multiple time-zones and a 4-7 game series mean people who have to go to work can't necessarily catch San Francisco finals games.

There's also the argument that a successful Toronto team captures an entire Canada market (see: 1992 and 1993's super ratings), and they've been out of it for so long that it barely registers up here.

The point being - concluding the game is too long, in a very changing world, is the reason people don't watch the World Series anymore is ignoring a lot of factors - one huge one being, a lot of people still haven't forgiven baseball for the PED scandal.

posted by dfleming at 05:48 PM on October 04, 2014

If so, how do you explain the long drop in World Series ratings, and why is that not a problem?

I find that national broadcasts have become insufferable. For me it's not the games that have become unwatchable, but everything else around it. In-game interviews, sideline reporters, unnecessary crowd shots, stars of FOX tv shows that are planted in the crowd, etc. I've always thought of baseball as the one sport that speaks for itself. The big moments are obvious. I don't need to be spoon-fed drama. (Or maybe I've just become grumpy as I've aged.)

Granted, I'm only speaking for myself in this regard, but I can't imagine being the only person turned off by the broadcast, not the game itself. These days I really only watch the post-season when my team is involved. And even then, I'll usually mute the tv and turn on the radio.

posted by goddam at 01:49 AM on October 05, 2014

I was looking for an example of one in which something exciting happened as the balls were being thrown.

I don't know what you qualify as exciting. I've tried my best to describe my version.

An automatic IBB would have the same decisions, strategy and so on.

But not the same human element that would otherwise be forced to throw the ball four times. I like the nuance possibilities. Should we just make a TD worth 7 points since the extra point conversion rate is 99+%? That could save time too, probably 3-5 minutes of kick time plus commercials. In baseball you're only talking about 1-2 minutes maybe each game. That's not too much of an impact from the Pace of Game committee. Maybe they are getting paid by minutes saved?

...and for stat purposes four balls could be put on the pitcher automatically as well.

Me no like this. I just threw up a little.

I find that national broadcasts have become insufferable.

Well, that pesky game keeps interrupting their entertainment show.

If so, how do you explain the long drop in World Series ratings, and why is that not a problem?

Geography. If the WS this year is StL vs. KC, will the coasts tune in for the annual FOX show a with a little baseball in the background?

But I think your question is valid. My answer is that during the playoffs and WS, it's not the game that changes - it's the broadcast that turns what would be a 3 hour game into 4+. And that's when people tune out. The PoG committee needs to focus on the problem, "What's the problem?"

Looks like FOX got involved and eventually took over the broadcasts around 1996, and ratings have been stagnant since then, aside from 2004,...maybe it's not the game?

posted by BoKnows at 02:29 PM on October 05, 2014

What nuances? Have you ever in a lifetime of watching MLB seen something exciting happen during those four balls being thrown? Ball to the backstop advancing runners? Player swinging at a pitch and hitting it? Pigeon knocked unconcious by the ball? Attractive fan leave seats behind home plate? Anything?

Along with the multiple links posted in this thread and others that I have sought out...yes, sure I have. I follow all of MLB pretty closely each year so I'm probably an above average test. Although, I don't think I've seen those examples live in-person. Except the attractive fan, I don't miss many of those....But just because things are rare, doesn't make them boring to me.

The things you call exciting about an IBB involve the strategy of walking someone intentionally, which would be identical whether the IBB is four actual pitches or a manager's command.

Nope. An automatic IBB does not allow the on-deck hitter to stand there and stew about the fact the he is considered the easy out. An automatic IBB does not allow the mishandling of a ball by either the pitcher or the catcher - and I have seen some of those come real close to bouncing away or being overthrown. It does not allow for a potential balk, which could change the AB all together. It does not allow for a batter to take a hack at a close pitch. It does not allow for the fans to get involved and boo that visiting pitcher that's walking your guy.

Imagine this: Bottom 9, 2 out, runners on 1st and 2nd, down by 3, #4 hitter at the plate. An IBB is apparent and is signaled. The catcher stands up and holds out his palm to the outside of the box. During those four pitches, the home fans have started a chant, the wave, booing the pitcher, cheering for the batter, they stand up, wave their rally towels, and put on their rally caps. The home manager puts in the pinch runner to increase speed on the bases. The decibels increase as the four pitches are thrown, all in anticipation of a possible grand slam to win, or a double to tie. To me, that is exciting. It's not 2 minutes wasted... in fact, a whole lot has happened! I certainly have not witnessed 35,000 fans disgruntled, bored, or falling asleep during this time-consuming boring baseball play. Have you?

For me, it's about the mental game as much as the physical. We are human and we fuck up sometimes. I like the human element in baseball - without it, I'd absolutely then get bored.

I am unsure that we will find a relative measure of excitement surrounding IBBs.

And really, the issue was brought forth by MLB to satisfy time concerns, not boring-ness. That's the reason I compared it to the PAT. At least the NFL is trying to increase the level of difficulty to then increase excitement, rather than removing it altogether. Still, if the goal is to reduce game time, IBBs are hardly the issue. If MLB is truly concerned about what 10 year olds will be consuming in the future, I think preserving the game and being able to offer a product with integrity would be at the top of the list, not some dumbed-down, fast-track version that only supports todays loss of attention span.

A more efficient game is not necessarily a more entertaining one.

posted by BoKnows at 06:02 PM on October 05, 2014

An automatic IBB does not allow the mishandling of a ball by either the pitcher or the catcher - and I have seen some of those come real close to bouncing away or being overthrown.

When the best you can say is that you saw some come "real close" to disaster, that says it all. I've been following the game since 1974. I can't recall a single time anyone botched an IBB toss.

I appreciate your attempt to find drama in the IBB, but my personal preference is to see how the automatic IBB feels in play as the experiment is attempted. I don't think the four soft tosses would be missed.

... I think preserving the game and being able to offer a product with integrity would be at the top of the list, not some dumbed-down, fast-track version that only supports todays loss of attention span.

Baseball isn't smarter today because it's played in over three hours -- the longest average game time on record -- instead of in 2 hours and 35 minutes like it was in the 1980s.

Did you think the game was a "dumbed-down, fast track version" that lacked integrity 30 years ago?

posted by rcade at 10:14 PM on October 05, 2014

Sport, especially baseball for me, is about the point between possibility and result, when the quantum outcome cloud collapses into a single kinetic event.

That's a beautiful phrase, but I prefer possibilities that actually happen sometimes. While he was with the Texas Rangers, Len Barker threw a pitch so wild it went over the backstop. To me, waiting for the hypothetical botched IBB is like waiting for another pitch over the backstop after 36 years. It would be funny, but hardly of such consequence that the opportunity must always be preserved.

I'm not focusing on automatic IBBs as much as I'm endorsing a liberal approach to making the game faster. If that idea failed and others succeeded, that's fine with me.

posted by rcade at 09:21 AM on October 06, 2014

It's the fragmentation of the viewing public that has driven down ratings.

The audience is fragmented, but if that's the whole story the NFL and NBA would be seeing the same decline as baseball.

Numbers before cable TV came along don't matter much for comparative purposes. Of course we all watched Marcus Welby, M.D. in 1970. The TV had 3 national broadcast channels and a handful of small UHF stations.

As for alternate viewing audiences on PVRs and devices, Nielsen tries to count those too.

posted by rcade at 12:29 PM on October 06, 2014

That's a ridiculous over-simplification, but we have annual stories about the shocking decline in baseball's popularity without any concrete evidence it exists.

What evidence would you accept?

posted by rcade at 01:09 PM on October 06, 2014

The audience is fragmented, but if that's the whole story the NFL and NBA would be seeing the same decline as baseball.

Monday Night Football:
The highest-rated Monday Night Football telecast on ABC was the Miami Dolphins' victory over the previously undefeated Chicago Bears on December 2, 1985, which drew a national Nielsen rating of 29.6 and a share of 46.

The highest-rated Monday Night Football game on ESPN, and the highest-rated program in U.S. cable television history at that time, was the Minnesota Vikings' defeat of the Green Bay Packers 3023 on October 5, 2009, with a rating of 15.3.

Looks like the same sort of decline as other TV ratings...

posted by grum@work at 05:04 PM on October 06, 2014

I appreciate your attempt to find drama in the IBB, but my personal preference is to see how the automatic IBB feels in play as the experiment is attempted. I don't think the four soft tosses would be missed.

I'm not attempting to find drama. That's how I see baseball. I can have a preference too, yes? I detailed the scenario to explain what it was that I found exciting about those four pitches - per your requests.

Did you think the game was a "dumbed-down, fast track version" that lacked integrity 30 years ago?

Really? How did you extrapolate that? C'mon man.

I think the 2hr 35min games date back to the 60's, not the 80's.

I'll bet it takes you a little longer to get things done vs. 30 years ago, yes? Well, no matter how hard you try, you'll never reach that benchmark from those little rcade days. Should we then start to cut things off of you?

Agree to disagree is where I am. But I do hope the old white guys in charge learn to check their egos at the door, and stop trying to do what's best for the kids. (read: bank accounts)

posted by BoKnows at 06:32 PM on October 06, 2014

When you went on a tear about not turning baseball into a "dumbed-down, fast-track version" lacking int.....

I suggested that trimming a 2014 game down by minutes would be the "fast-track" version. Trying to press rewind will not work when the goal is the future.

1984 was 1984. They were bitching about integrity lost from the 50's, ain't that how it works?

Nope. I sourced it in a comment and it was about games 30 years ago.

There may be a disagreement? (Over minutes, ironically.)

Where did I ever suggest otherwise?

It's in the way you look at me now. The way you just shuffle past me on the upper level concourse. They way you scoff at the guy with all the peanut shells. It's just not the same anymore. Not sense last year's ESPN NHL fantasy hockey playoffs. I just want your love back rcade. And justgary too. A little fraze is good, plus that fatma chick. It's just not the way it was anymore, let's cut out the comment section from sportsfilter in order to protect future users from all that recreation time wasted so they can recreate twice as many times!

posted by BoKnows at 06:58 PM on October 06, 2014

Monday Night Football used to pull in twice that back in the 80s.

Yes it did, when it was on broadcast TV. The Sunday Night Football audience shows what MNF ratings would likely be if it had not been moved to ESPN.

Those are VERY limited ranges (8 years) to make grand pronouncements of improved viewership.

They show significant viewer growth in the past decade, though, and that's something baseball is not experiencing nationally.

MLB doesn't help itself by scattering playoff games across four channels -- five if some games overlap and start on Fox Sports 2. Fans whose TV provider doesn't have MLB Network or FS2 are going to be thrilled when games are airing on those networks.

posted by rcade at 08:41 AM on October 07, 2014

I think they got burned by not being specific enough with Fox in the contract; no idea how old their deal is, but I'm guessing at the time Fox maybe had FX on cable and that was it. So MLB was probably happy to agree to let Fox air games on the OTA network and use their cable channels as backups if games overlapped. Now Fox has dumped them onto channels some people don't even have. Like poor Peter King when he's in a hotel room!

Also, the rise of FS1 and 2 burns me because we only get FS1 and the interesting (to me) Champion's League game always seems to be on FS2.

posted by yerfatma at 10:49 AM on October 07, 2014