New extra inning rule being tested

[bcl412]

I'm fine with the rule for non MLB games.I don't see the point of changing a game that's had the same basic rules forever. I like that baseball is like that and other sports aren't.

[Cubswin11]

I honestly don't mind the rule at the minor league level since teams monitor and have restrictions on their young pitching so much. Limiting the amount of innings the young prospects need to pitch or over extend themselves is probably a good thing since this rule should limit the marathon extra-inning games. Edited February 9, 2017 by Cubswin11

[sneakypower]

[Banedon]

http://www.speakgif.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/donald-trump-great-idea-animated-gif.gif

[WrigleyField 22]

I honestly don't mind the rule at the minor league level since teams monitor and have restrictions their young pitching so much. Limiting the amount of innings the young prospects need to pitch or over extend themselves is probably a good thing since this rule should limit the marathon extra-inning games.

Then just end the game in a tie. Or go super gimicky and end it with a HR derby.

[Regular Show]

 

I completely concur -- this is a horrible idea that should have never come out in the public sphere. You want to discuss it behind closed doors, well, fine I guess...but don't expect fans or the media to really get behind this idea. It's dumb and pointless.

 

I think it's pretty obvious where you can save time and speed up games -- limit all the later inning, time-killing pitcher changes. Make relief pitchers face a minimum of two/three batters before you can replace them to get the matchup advantage. Yes, this will kill some of the strategy inherent in the game, but big deal. Relief pitcher specialization has gone too far IMO.

 

Also, create a damn standardized, automatic strike zone that doesn't rely on the (poor and inconsistent) judgement of temperamental shitty umps. That is what I most want to see implemented.

[Cubswin11]

I honestly don't mind the rule at the minor league level since teams monitor and have restrictions their young pitching so much. Limiting the amount of innings the young prospects need to pitch or over extend themselves is probably a good thing since this rule should limit the marathon extra-inning games.

Then just end the game in a tie. Or go super gimicky and end it with a HR derby.

I'd be fine ending in a tie, who gives a horsefeathers about minor league W/L records

[Derwood]

Stop trying to change baseball so that people who don't like baseball might watch once in a while

[Banedon]

Do you guys think they should use a glow baseball so people can follow the ball better?

 

☐ Yes

 

☐ No

[David]

Hoyer actually defended this idea yesterday on the radio (FWIW, he said he was playing devil's advocate - but the way he made his case seemed as if he might have actually believed it) saying that long extra inning games screw the pitching staff up for a long time and it's one of the things they dislike most as executives.

[Sammy Sofa]

Welp, Hoyer's gotta go.

[jersey cubs fan]

Welp, Hoyer's gotta go.

I get it though, he's expecting to finish at a certain time but then it keeps going and arms are getting sore and that carries over into the next day or even a week.

[Andy]

Hoyer actually defended this idea yesterday on the radio (FWIW, he said he was playing devil's advocate - but the way he made his case seemed as if he might have actually believed it) saying that long extra inning games screw the pitching staff up for a long time and it's one of the things they dislike most as executives.

I would tell Hoyer that if they don't want to mess up pitching staffs, then institute ties. This idea is grab-bag bullcrap, just like every other idea Manfred has proposed.

[Sammy Sofa]

He'd probably also prefer it if pitchers could be stretched out by having batters have a limit on the number of pitches they can see in an AB, but that would be a terrible idea, too.

 

Also: he's a big fan of batters being forced to swing at every other pitch with their eyes closed after the 7th inning stretch.

[MWV]

Has there been any elaboration as to how this rule would operate with respect to bench management? Would the first man up in the inning automatically take second? Would each manager be able to designate a runner for the duration of extra innings? Would managers have to burn a new pinch runner each inning? Of course, tacit in all of these questions is the understanding that this proposed rule is very stupid, as well as dumb.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Has there been any elaboration as to how this rule would operate with respect to bench management? Would the first man up in the inning automatically take second? Would each manager be able to designate a runner for the duration of extra innings? Would managers have to burn a new pinch runner each inning? Of course, tacit in all of these questions is the understanding that this proposed rule is very stupid, as well as dumb.

historically it's been he who made the last out takes 2nd, but I'm not sure if that's the actual rule or not. the first man due up in the inning still bats first

 

ETA: I say that because there was a time when it was experimented with runners at both 1st and 2nd, and those had to be 2 consecutive batters in the order but not necessarily the final 2 from the inning before

[David]

Hoyer actually defended this idea yesterday on the radio (FWIW, he said he was playing devil's advocate - but the way he made his case seemed as if he might have actually believed it) saying that long extra inning games screw the pitching staff up for a long time and it's one of the things they dislike most as executives.

I would tell Hoyer that if they don't want to mess up pitching staffs, then institute ties. This idea is grab-bag bullcrap, just like every other idea Manfred has proposed.

 

While I think the idea is bullcrap, ties are way more disgusting. Leave that crap to the soccer dorks (and yea, very occasionally, football).

[Sammys Boombox]

The only two sports I deeply care about are MLB and NFL.

 

For MLB I'm in the vast majority: leave extra innings alone. If forced to choose between this proposed rule and having the game end in a tie after 12 innings I would actually choose the tie.

 

For the NFL I prefer regular season games have no OT as the coin flip is way too important and each game in the NFL means so much. For the postseason I really like what college does where each team is guaranteed the same number of possessions, but I don't like how they start at the 35. I have no idea what a good method would be, but I know there has to be some idea out there that would be fair to both teams while still feeling more like football (field position game) than what college does.

[jersey cubs fan]

The only two sports I deeply care about are MLB and NFL.

 

For MLB I'm in the vast majority: leave extra innings alone. If forced to choose between this proposed rule and having the game end in a tie after 12 innings I would actually choose the tie.

 

For the NFL I prefer regular season games have no OT as the coin flip is way too important and each game in the NFL means so much. For the postseason I really like what college does where each team is guaranteed the same number of possessions, but I don't like how they start at the 35. I have no idea what a good method would be, but I know there has to be some idea out there that would be fair to both teams while still feeling more like football (field position game) than what college does.

Is the coin flip that much of a factor now, with the flip winning team needing a TD to end it?

 

What about the concept of a game that ends in a tie just continues as if the end of the 4th was the same as the end of the 1st or 3rd? If you tie it on a last second play, you kick off to the other team to start 5th QTR and its' now first team to score wins.

 

I really hate getting hung up on the "fairness" question in OT because that never takes into account that both teams had the same exact chance to win in regulation. If you lose in OT you put yourself in a position to lose in OT by not winning in regulation.

[WrigleyField 22]

The only two sports I deeply care about are MLB and NFL.

 

For MLB I'm in the vast majority: leave extra innings alone. If forced to choose between this proposed rule and having the game end in a tie after 12 innings I would actually choose the tie.

 

For the NFL I prefer regular season games have no OT as the coin flip is way too important and each game in the NFL means so much. For the postseason I really like what college does where each team is guaranteed the same number of possessions, but I don't like how they start at the 35. I have no idea what a good method would be, but I know there has to be some idea out there that would be fair to both teams while still feeling more like football (field position game) than what college does.

Is the coin flip that much of a factor now, with the flip winning team needing a TD to end it?

 

What about the concept of a game that ends in a tie just continues as if the end of the 4th was the same as the end of the 1st or 3rd? If you tie it on a last second play, you kick off to the other team to start 5th QTR and its' now first team to score wins.

 

I really hate getting hung up on the "fairness" question in OT because that never takes into account that both teams had the same exact chance to win in regulation. If you lose in OT you put yourself in a position to lose in OT by not winning in regulation.

Agreed with most of this.

 

Also, I'm not sure the stats back up the assertion that the coin flip is so important. I think I read that the winning team on the coin flip was about 50/50.

[David]

I would have zero issue with NFL playoff games playing normal but shortened (maybe half length) period overtime until one of them ended with a team leading. I really don't see a need for any form of sudden death in the playoffs.

[jersey cubs fan]

I would have zero issue with NFL playoff games playing normal but shortened (maybe half length) period overtime until one of them ended with a team leading. I really don't see a need for any form of sudden death in the playoffs.

WTF is wrong with sudden death? It's more exciting and typically leads to not having games last too long. Too much football is a bad thing, especially for the body. There is no good reason to play a bunch of over time periods until you end one with a team having a lead.

[David]

I would have zero issue with NFL playoff games playing normal but shortened (maybe half length) period overtime until one of them ended with a team leading. I really don't see a need for any form of sudden death in the playoffs.

WTF is wrong with sudden death? It's more exciting and typically leads to not having games last too long. Too much football is a bad thing, especially for the body. There is no good reason to play a bunch of over time periods until you end one with a team having a lead.

 

It's a playoff game. It's not gonna happen that often.

 

I'm just not a fan of sudden death...especially in a sport like football where possessions work the way they do. I prefer timed periods where they just play the game until the clock expires, like every other non overtime game.

 

(Baseball is different, obviously, because it's completely different than every other major sport in how the "clock" works, so the home team sudden death thing is a very different animal.)

[jersey cubs fan]

I would have zero issue with NFL playoff games playing normal but shortened (maybe half length) period overtime until one of them ended with a team leading. I really don't see a need for any form of sudden death in the playoffs.

WTF is wrong with sudden death? It's more exciting and typically leads to not having games last too long. Too much football is a bad thing, especially for the body. There is no good reason to play a bunch of over time periods until you end one with a team having a lead.

 

It's a playoff game. It's not gonna happen that often.

 

I'm just not a fan of sudden death...especially in a sport like football where possessions work the way they do. I prefer timed periods where they just play the game until the clock expires, like every other non overtime game.

 

(Baseball is different, obviously, because it's completely different than every other major sport in how the "clock" works, so the home team sudden death thing is a very different animal.)

Every time I ask this question nobody gives a good answer, and that continues.

 

I just don't like it isn't an answer. Sudden death is good and fine and the way possessions work in football works just fine when OT comes along. You say yourself that it doesn't happen that often. This is another "solution looking for a problem".

 

 

If you give NFL coaches the ability to play for the tie in shortened OT periods, they will do just that and games will go on forever.

[David]

WTF is wrong with sudden death? It's more exciting and typically leads to not having games last too long. Too much football is a bad thing, especially for the body. There is no good reason to play a bunch of over time periods until you end one with a team having a lead.

 

It's a playoff game. It's not gonna happen that often.

 

I'm just not a fan of sudden death...especially in a sport like football where possessions work the way they do. I prefer timed periods where they just play the game until the clock expires, like every other non overtime game.

 

(Baseball is different, obviously, because it's completely different than every other major sport in how the "clock" works, so the home team sudden death thing is a very different animal.)

Every time I ask this question nobody gives a good answer, and that continues.

 

I just don't like it isn't an answer. Sudden death is good and fine and the way possessions work in football works just fine when OT comes along. You say yourself that it doesn't happen that often. This is another "solution looking for a problem".

 

 

If you give NFL coaches the ability to play for the tie in shortened OT periods, they will do just that and games will go on forever.

 

I don't like it is an answer. It is my answer. Yours is "it's good and fine and more exciting." I don't think it's more exciting, you do. I think it changes the game fundamentally in a way that I am not fond of, particularly in a sudden death playoff game. Yes, it works the way it is. I like my way better, though. What more do you want me to say?