There's no tying in baseball!

[Banedon]

http://nypost.com/2017/04/15/baseball-should-have-tie-games-whether-you-like-it-or-not/

 

Title of the thread not withstanding, I'm all for this. Nobody cares after the 12th inning anyway.

[OleMissCub]

Guess I'll be a meathead traditionalist on this issue. I don't like the idea.

[OleMissCub]

This season Gulf Coast League, Arizona Rookie League and probably the Dominican Summer League games tied after nine innings will begin the 10th inning and each subsequent extra inning as needed with a runner on second and no outs.

 

So where are those runners going to come from on a box score?

[Transmogrified Tiger]

"The problem with baseball is that there's too much dead time and not enough excitement"

 

"yeah but if there's a tie after 9 innings you play sudden death innings until there's a winner, even if it means pitchers hitting or hitters pitching"

 

"no thanks, a tie will do just fine"

[Sammys Boombox]

I heard on the radio (so not sure about source) that there were 99 games last year in MLB that exceeded 10 innings. That works out to just over 1 per month per team. Leave baseball alone.

 

That said, if forced to choose I would much rather have ties after 12 innings than the dumb rule where each team starts with a runner on 2B.

 

Free baseball and the sudden death type nature. Extra innings are the best.

 

There are just so many better ways to deal with the only real potential problem - too many innings thrown by relievers. Like, day after 12+ innings game each team that played in that game can replace a player on their 25-man roster for up to 2 days. Like an extra inning induced 1-2 day DL.

Edited April 21, 2017 by Sammys Boombox

[Banedon]

"The problem with baseball is that there's too much dead time and not enough excitement"

 

"yeah but if there's a tie after 9 innings you play sudden death innings until there's a winner, even if it means pitchers hitting or hitters pitching"

 

"no thanks, a tie will do just fine"

 

"Pitchers get injured way too often"

 

"Make em pitch 19 inning games in April!"

[OleMissCub]

Do those runners that score from second get charged as an earned run against the pitcher?

 

They have to give the L to someone and so they are going to give it to a guy who inherited an invented runner at 2nd and then gave up a single? That's lame.

Edited April 21, 2017 by OleMissCub

[javy knows my name]

horsefeathers it

[bukie]

Do those runners that score from second get charged as an earned run against the pitcher?

 

They have to give the L to someone and so they are going to give it to a guy who inherited an invented runner at 2nd and then gave up a single? That's lame.

Yes the pitcher loss is lame.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

"The problem with baseball is that there's too much dead time and not enough excitement"

 

"yeah but if there's a tie after 9 innings you play sudden death innings until there's a winner, even if it means pitchers hitting or hitters pitching"

 

"no thanks, a tie will do just fine"

 

"Pitchers get injured way too often"

 

"Make em pitch 19 inning games in April!"

 

No one cares about the long relievers that bear the brunt of extra inning games. Also, a long extra inning game or two isn't going to be the difference between a pitcher breaking or not, it's a negligible difference between the manager's discretion of just using that guy an extra time or two over the course of a month.

[Banedon]

"The problem with baseball is that there's too much dead time and not enough excitement"

 

"yeah but if there's a tie after 9 innings you play sudden death innings until there's a winner, even if it means pitchers hitting or hitters pitching"

 

"no thanks, a tie will do just fine"

 

"Pitchers get injured way too often"

 

"Make em pitch 19 inning games in April!"

 

No one cares about the long relievers that bear the brunt of extra inning games. Also, a long extra inning game or two isn't going to be the difference between a pitcher breaking or not, it's a negligible difference between the manager's discretion of just using that guy an extra time or two over the course of a month.

 

But the impact lasts longer than a game. The bullpen is taxed, so the next game we have to run the starter longer.

 

I'm not saying any pitcher is breaking just because of lengthy games...like you said, it doesn't happen frequently enough. But I just don't see the upside. What's to gain? By the 13th inning, fans are just ready for it to be over...players are tired...call it a tie and move on.

 

Save the marathon games for the playoffs, like hockey does.

[bukie]

Go 10 innings, then do a 3 player, one swing HR derby to declare a winner.

[cl smooth]

Go 10 innings, then do a 3 player, one swing HR derby to declare a winner.

 

that'll be amazing during games when the wind is blowing in.

[Andy]

Guess I'll be a meathead traditionalist on this issue. I don't like the idea.

To probably no one's surprise (my inner self is in my 50s), I don't either.

 

Not that this one thing is a valid point in favor of this position, but probably my favorite "meaningless in the big picture but charming" Cubs thing was when nobody Ryan O'Malley randomly had to pitch a game because we'd played 16 innings in Houston the night before, and he pitched 8 innings of brilliant baseball in what he knew would likely be his only MLB appearance. That's something that only happened because we don't do ties.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

 

"Pitchers get injured way too often"

 

"Make em pitch 19 inning games in April!"

 

No one cares about the long relievers that bear the brunt of extra inning games. Also, a long extra inning game or two isn't going to be the difference between a pitcher breaking or not, it's a negligible difference between the manager's discretion of just using that guy an extra time or two over the course of a month.

 

But the impact lasts longer than a game. The bullpen is taxed, so the next game we have to run the starter longer.

 

I'm not saying any pitcher is breaking just because of lengthy games...like you said, it doesn't happen frequently enough. But I just don't see the upside. What's to gain? By the 13th inning, fans are just ready for it to be over...players are tired...call it a tie and move on.

 

Save the marathon games for the playoffs, like hockey does.

 

By this logic MLB should also have a slaughter rule to shorten games to 5 innings if one team is up by 5 runs or w/e. This is a solution in search of a problem.

[Liam Neeson]

Another "boo hoo I have to cover baseball games for a living and they go to long sometimes" article.

 

Minor league games should end after the 9th inning.

Edited April 21, 2017 by Liam Neeson

[Clem Fandango]

This season Gulf Coast League, Arizona Rookie League and probably the Dominican Summer League games tied after nine innings will begin the 10th inning and each subsequent extra inning as needed with a runner on second and no outs.

 

So where are those runners going to come from on a box score?

 

That's some backyard pee-wee league baseball [expletive] right there. Making the games a tie after 12 innings and no winner, okay I understand the reasoning, but this idea? horsefeathers all of this idea.

[Banedon]

 

No one cares about the long relievers that bear the brunt of extra inning games. Also, a long extra inning game or two isn't going to be the difference between a pitcher breaking or not, it's a negligible difference between the manager's discretion of just using that guy an extra time or two over the course of a month.

 

But the impact lasts longer than a game. The bullpen is taxed, so the next game we have to run the starter longer.

 

I'm not saying any pitcher is breaking just because of lengthy games...like you said, it doesn't happen frequently enough. But I just don't see the upside. What's to gain? By the 13th inning, fans are just ready for it to be over...players are tired...call it a tie and move on.

 

Save the marathon games for the playoffs, like hockey does.

 

By this logic MLB should also have a slaughter rule to shorten games to 5 innings if one team is up by 5 runs or w/e. This is a solution in search of a problem.

 

Nah, that happens far more often, and would have a much larger impact. This is a change that would be to what you already showed was a very small number of games.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

ties are terrible in any sport, and you should feel bad for supporting the idea.

 

[Sammys Boombox]

 

But the impact lasts longer than a game. The bullpen is taxed, so the next game we have to run the starter longer.

 

I'm not saying any pitcher is breaking just because of lengthy games...like you said, it doesn't happen frequently enough. But I just don't see the upside. What's to gain? By the 13th inning, fans are just ready for it to be over...players are tired...call it a tie and move on.

 

Save the marathon games for the playoffs, like hockey does.

 

By this logic MLB should also have a slaughter rule to shorten games to 5 innings if one team is up by 5 runs or w/e. This is a solution in search of a problem.

 

Nah, that happens far more often, and would have a much larger impact. This is a change that would be to what you already showed was a very small number of games.

 

Like I said, there are better solutions such as adding players to the 25 man roster for a few days.

[SouthSideRyan]

Make all the games sudden death from the beginning.

[Cubswin11]

 

By this logic MLB should also have a slaughter rule to shorten games to 5 innings if one team is up by 5 runs or w/e. This is a solution in search of a problem.

 

Nah, that happens far more often, and would have a much larger impact. This is a change that would be to what you already showed was a very small number of games.

 

Like I said, there are better solutions such as adding players to the 25 man roster for a few days.

This would be my solution and seems reasonable. Any game that goes over x innings (13?) a team is allowed to carry 26 or 27 guys (have to be pitchers) for the next 2-3 days. Or create a special 2-3 day "DL" that after a game goes over X innings you can put 2-3 pitchers on it (had to of pitched in said game) and call 2-3 pitchers up.

[eee123]

Guess I'll be a meathead traditionalist on this issue. I don't like the idea.

 

The Cubs' record shows lots of ties back in the 40s through 60s, as do the records of most other teams. Obviously some were due to lack of lights, but lots of others were just called as ties after 10 innings or whatever.

 

This is minutiae, but I'm not sure I understand why the ties, last year's tie included, don't appear to be factored into the win percentage.

Edited April 21, 2017 by eee123

[CubInOK]

#LeaveBaseballAlone

[WrigleyField 22]

I feel like any argument in favor of a major rule change ultimately ends up arguing "look, it will impact relatively few amount of games", which kind of undermines the argumemt for needing a change amyways.

 

The best arguments in relation to this "issue" is roster construction and related rules... which basically has always changed, so why not change those to whatever you need rather than the rules of actual gameplay?