New extra inning rule being tested

[Boris]

Thank god the Cubs won last year. I can see baseball being a watered down joke of its former self here in the not too distant future and it saddens me deeply.

 

I do not like the new commish and I do not like Joe Torre being involved either. Bye bye baseball.

[Sammy Sofa]

http://i.imgur.com/0PL5j.gif

[Banedon]

Only 3 years away...

 

http://66.90.93.122/album_images/10921-BOXF.jpg

[Sammy Sofa]

Only 3 years away...

 

http://66.90.93.122/album_images/10921-BOXF.jpg

 

Now that I would be OK with.

[Banedon]

[Tracer Bullet]

WHY DO WE WANT LESS BASEBALL?

 

This stuff is so stupid. I'd rather they add 2 more roster spots and make the games 11 innings. Make everyone play in a dome and play year round. There's literally nothing interesting going on until those 2 weekends in March when NCAA hoops are fun and we're talking about ways to reduce the amount of baseball we get to watch? horsefeathers off.

[Andy]

The people that can't pay attention for a full baseball game aren't going to give a horsefeathers when you pat yourself on the back for shaving off 10 minutes a game.

Seriously. I can't horsefeathering stand when sports go out of their way to appease the people that don't like their product to begin with. There is nothing baseball can do to make baseball appealing to people who don't like baseball.

[David]

The people that can't pay attention for a full baseball game aren't going to give a horsefeathers when you pat yourself on the back for shaving off 10 minutes a game.

Seriously. I can't horsefeathering stand when sports go out of their way to appease the people that don't like their product to begin with. There is nothing baseball can do to make baseball appealing to people who don't like baseball.

 

Well, this seems like a silly position.

 

The things they're doing to try to do that, though, are all kinds of wrong.

[Andy]

The people that can't pay attention for a full baseball game aren't going to give a horsefeathers when you pat yourself on the back for shaving off 10 minutes a game.

Seriously. I can't horsefeathering stand when sports go out of their way to appease the people that don't like their product to begin with. There is nothing baseball can do to make baseball appealing to people who don't like baseball.

 

Well, this seems like a silly position.

 

The things they're doing to try to do that, though, are all kinds of wrong.

People who think baseball is boring aren't going to suddenly not think baseball is boring because of any (within reason) rule change MLB could make.

 

As a friend of mine put it, if you can't watch soccer for 20 minutes without wanting them to be able to use their hands and tackle each other, then you won't watch soccer. That doesn't mean it has to change. (An extreme example, I know.)

[David]

Seriously. I can't horsefeathering stand when sports go out of their way to appease the people that don't like their product to begin with. There is nothing baseball can do to make baseball appealing to people who don't like baseball.

 

Well, this seems like a silly position.

 

The things they're doing to try to do that, though, are all kinds of wrong.

People who think baseball is boring aren't going to suddenly not think baseball is boring because of any (within reason) rule change MLB could make.

 

As a friend of mine put it, if you can't watch soccer for 20 minutes without wanting them to be able to use their hands and tackle each other, then you won't watch soccer. That doesn't mean it has to change. (An extreme example, I know.)

 

You said there's nothing baseball can do to make it appealing to people who don't like it. I think there are things baseball can do to win over some of these people. As I alluded to, gimmicky rule changes that make the sport worse are not among those things, though.

[Liam Neeson]

"We're trying to appeal to a larger audience here and that's why we have all these blackout rules in place."

[Sammy Sofa]

 

Well, this seems like a silly position.

 

The things they're doing to try to do that, though, are all kinds of wrong.

People who think baseball is boring aren't going to suddenly not think baseball is boring because of any (within reason) rule change MLB could make.

 

As a friend of mine put it, if you can't watch soccer for 20 minutes without wanting them to be able to use their hands and tackle each other, then you won't watch soccer. That doesn't mean it has to change. (An extreme example, I know.)

 

You said there's nothing baseball can do to make it appealing to people who don't like it. I think there are things baseball can do to win over some of these people.

 

Eh, I agree with him on this. Think about how lame hockey is and how much of an uphill battle it would be to give a horsefeathers about it.

[WrigleyField 22]

People who think baseball is boring aren't going to suddenly not think baseball is boring because of any (within reason) rule change MLB could make.

 

As a friend of mine put it, if you can't watch soccer for 20 minutes without wanting them to be able to use their hands and tackle each other, then you won't watch soccer. That doesn't mean it has to change. (An extreme example, I know.)

 

You said there's nothing baseball can do to make it appealing to people who don't like it. I think there are things baseball can do to win over some of these people.

 

Eh, I agree with him on this. Think about how lame hockey is and how much of an uphill battle it would be to give a horsefeathers about it.

I mean, the opportunity is definitely marginal, and not about bringing in a whole new fan, but bringing back disinterested fans. So, like finding ways to boost overall offense... introducing competetive balance measures... things like that. I dont think some gimicky thing like extra innings rule would do that.

[Sammy Sofa]

Yeah, that I agree with; things like adjusting the mound and/or strikezone, or giving everyone the DH.

[Cubswin11]

Yeah the time thing is so stupid in terms of talking about reducing time to get more fans. If you like baseball and have 2 hours and 50 min to watch a game you have and will watch a game that goes 3 hours and 20 minutes and if you don't like it it doesn't matter the time you aren't changing viewing habits. Most of my friends are casual fans at best who pay some attention to MLB, if suddenly games are uniformly ~20 min shorter they aren't going to go all "OMG take my money, I'm buying MLB TV" and I feel like those friends would be a good representation of the type of fringe fans they are trying to pull in.

[squally1313]

I think you start with speeding up time between innings/pitches, not with penalties that affect the actual game but maybe with a fine system put in place (taking too long on the mound or stepping out of the box too long/too often, so it affects everyone).

 

One mound visit per inning...any pitching changes or anything past that have to be called in from the dugout.

 

There is no reason replays should ever take more than 60 seconds. Get a dedicated team at headquarters and have them in charge of everything.

 

Those seems like much more reasonable ideas that have zero impact on the actual game play. If there isn't any noticeable difference in time of game (which I think drives 'interest'), maybe then you consider more drastic measures...limited pitching changes per inning, altering the mound/strike zone, etc.

[Cubswin11]

You want to bring in more fans/viewers, stop caring about nominal things like time of game and allow PEDs (monitored usage), juice up the balls and bring in the NL DH. Make the 98' HR chase look like little league. Offense sells.

[squally1313]

Yeah the time thing is so stupid in terms of talking about reducing time to get more fans. If you like baseball and have 2 hours and 50 min to watch a game you have and will watch a game that goes 3 hours and 20 minutes and if you don't like it it doesn't matter the time you aren't changing viewing habits. Most of my friends are casual fans at best who pay some attention to MLB, if suddenly games are uniformly ~20 min shorter they aren't going to go all "OMG take my money, I'm buying MLB TV" and I feel like those friends would be a good representation of the type of fringe fans they are trying to pull in.

 

I really think focusing on length of the game is missing the point compared to just trying to improve pace of play. There is something genuinely more enjoyable about watching someone like Mark Buehrle (or Kyle Hendricks) pitch compared to that asshat from the Dodgers. The fact that hitters are told to prioritize OBP and lengthy at bats and pitchers are told to go after strikeouts isn't as aesthetically pleasing, but it's a genuine strategy so I don't think you can do anything to avoid that at this point.

[Cubswin11]

Yeah the time thing is so stupid in terms of talking about reducing time to get more fans. If you like baseball and have 2 hours and 50 min to watch a game you have and will watch a game that goes 3 hours and 20 minutes and if you don't like it it doesn't matter the time you aren't changing viewing habits. Most of my friends are casual fans at best who pay some attention to MLB, if suddenly games are uniformly ~20 min shorter they aren't going to go all "OMG take my money, I'm buying MLB TV" and I feel like those friends would be a good representation of the type of fringe fans they are trying to pull in.

 

I really think focusing on length of the game is missing the point compared to just trying to improve pace of play. There is something genuinely more enjoyable about watching someone like Mark Buehrle (or Kyle Hendricks) pitch compared to that asshat from the Dodgers. The fact that hitters are told to prioritize OBP and lengthy at bats and pitchers are told to go after strikeouts isn't as aesthetically pleasing, but it's a genuine strategy so I don't think you can do anything to avoid that at this point.

I can't personally say any of that matters to me or I've ever thought "oh, Buerhle is pitching this game I gotta watch because it's going to have such great flow!" And this whole time/pace of play thing is to get more viewers or retain viewers, nothing more, nothing less.

 

Like I said if you like baseball you are going to watch a game pretty much regardless of the length of the game. I'd find it hard to believe people are watching less for the sole reason of games going 10-20 min longer or there's some magical time that they are trying to get it down to that if they hit it a lot more people are going to be jumping in to watch. That doesn't mean if there's egregious things making games run longer that can easily be changed they shouldn't do it, but trying to invent rules that have nominal effects just doesn't matter to me and at the end of the day isn't brining any new asses in the seats.

[CubColtPacer]

Yeah the time thing is so stupid in terms of talking about reducing time to get more fans. If you like baseball and have 2 hours and 50 min to watch a game you have and will watch a game that goes 3 hours and 20 minutes and if you don't like it it doesn't matter the time you aren't changing viewing habits. Most of my friends are casual fans at best who pay some attention to MLB, if suddenly games are uniformly ~20 min shorter they aren't going to go all "OMG take my money, I'm buying MLB TV" and I feel like those friends would be a good representation of the type of fringe fans they are trying to pull in.

 

I really think focusing on length of the game is missing the point compared to just trying to improve pace of play. There is something genuinely more enjoyable about watching someone like Mark Buehrle (or Kyle Hendricks) pitch compared to that asshat from the Dodgers. The fact that hitters are told to prioritize OBP and lengthy at bats and pitchers are told to go after strikeouts isn't as aesthetically pleasing, but it's a genuine strategy so I don't think you can do anything to avoid that at this point.

I can't personally say any of that matters to me or I've ever thought "oh, Buerhle is pitching this game I gotta watch because it's going to have such great flow!" And this whole time/pace of play thing is to get more viewers or retain viewers, nothing more, nothing less.

 

Like I said if you like baseball you are going to watch a game pretty much regardless of the length of the game. I'd find it hard to believe people are watching less for the sole reason of games going 10-20 min longer or there's some magical time that they are trying to get it down to that if they hit it a lot more people are going to be jumping in to watch. That doesn't mean if there's egregious things making games run longer that can easily be changed they shouldn't do it, but trying to invent rules that have nominal effects just doesn't matter to me and at the end of the day isn't brining any new asses in the seats.

 

I will fully admit I'm probably one of those people MLB is trying to get. I follow the team all season, but during the regular season I don't actually watch very many games anymore. Games for me start at 8:05 normally. If knew they were going to be done normally at 10:30, I have a reason to flip on at least the last few innings. But I know games are often going to stretch on well past 11, and that's getting too late for me on a typical night. I don't want to start watching a game just to turn it off before the end, so I just avoid it altogether. For big games that's a different story, I was up until 2:45 am for the Giants playoff game. But there are rarely big games in a baseball regular season.

 

Pace of play is a massive issue as well. When there's anticipation and tension because the stakes are high, the slow innings can be great. In a random regular season game, it can be painful.

[jersey cubs fan]

I will fully admit I'm probably one of those people MLB is trying to get. I follow the team all season, but during the regular season I don't actually watch very many games anymore.

 

Makes perfect sense.

 

I don't want to start watching a game just to turn it off before the end, so I just avoid it altogether.

 

Makes no sense to me.

 

I have no problem turning off a regular season game that's running late, or catching a couple minutes or couple innings mid-game.

[SouthSideRyan]

We just had this exciting 7th game of the world series with a dramatic 10th inning win.

 

Now how can we fix that?/

[CubColtPacer]

I am not a fan of this rule btw. Extra inning games are interesting and bring fascinating strategy into play. And the stakes are always high because one swing of the bat can swing the game at any time. They are often the most memorable and fun games of a regular season. Trying to end them early robs a little of that.

 

I saw a fascinating suggestion (on a comments thread no less) that would never fly because it destroys one of the fundamentals of baseball rules, but IMO it would fix some of the issues. Make games 7 innings of 4 outs each. The gametime would be similar, but there would be more scoring. There would be more interesting situations with people on base. And an underrated thing is that it would swing the pendulum back towards contact a little bit, at least on the hitters side. It's a lot easier to string 3 singles together and score a run when you have 4 outs than when you have 3. The biggest issue is pitchers health. Are they healthier because they are sitting down less times, or are they less healthy because they have more innings where they may throw 35-40 pitches?

 

Like I said, it would never fly, and maybe it shouldn't because in some ways it's a fundamental change. But the result would still be baseball IMO.

[CubColtPacer]

I will fully admit I'm probably one of those people MLB is trying to get. I follow the team all season, but during the regular season I don't actually watch very many games anymore.

 

Makes perfect sense.

 

I don't want to start watching a game just to turn it off before the end, so I just avoid it altogether.

 

Makes no sense to me.

 

I have no problem turning off a regular season game that's running late, or catching a couple minutes or couple innings mid-game.

 

I guess I'm just too much of a completionist. If I invest into something, I like to finish it. I can watch just the end of something, but it's difficult to watch the middle and then go to sleep not knowing what the end was.

[WrigleyField 22]

I am not a fan of this rule btw. Extra inning games are interesting and bring fascinating strategy into play. And the stakes are always high because one swing of the bat can swing the game at any time. They are often the most memorable and fun games of a regular season. Trying to end them early robs a little of that.

 

I saw a fascinating suggestion (on a comments thread no less) that would never fly because it destroys one of the fundamentals of baseball rules, but IMO it would fix some of the issues. Make games 7 innings of 4 outs each. The gametime would be similar, but there would be more scoring. There would be more interesting situations with people on base. And an underrated thing is that it would swing the pendulum back towards contact a little bit, at least on the hitters side. It's a lot easier to string 3 singles together and score a run when you have 4 outs than when you have 3. The biggest issue is pitchers health. Are they healthier because they are sitting down less times, or are they less healthy because they have more innings where they may throw 35-40 pitches?

 

Like I said, it would never fly, and maybe it shouldn't because in some ways it's a fundamental change. But the result would still be baseball IMO.

:shock: