There's no tying in baseball!

[Sammys Boombox]

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.

 

I think they're technically considered unplayed games

[bcl412]

Baseball is awesome. Long games are awesome. Stop trying to "fix" baseball. It's charm is the slow pace that bulds anticipation and I love it contrast to the other sports.

[Brian]

Terrible: Start innings with runners on base

 

Better: Ties after 12

 

Best: leave it alone

[WrigleyField 22]

Terrible: Start innings with runners on base

 

Better: Ties after 12

 

Best: leave it alone

I would say terrible, less terrible, the only option.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

a tie is easily the worst option

[BigSlick]

All of these weird rules they keep trying to put in to increase pace of play are inferior and more drastic than just instituting and enforcing a pitch clock.

 

Some may feel thats a more fundamental change than the others, but I would welcome it.

[BigbadB]

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

 

 

Me: Went to the game last night.

 

Anyone: Oh yeah? Who won?

 

Me: No one!

 

Leave it alone!

[Derwood]

All of these weird rules they keep trying to put in to increase pace of play are inferior and more drastic than just instituting and enforcing a pitch clock.

 

Some may feel thats a more fundamental change than the others, but I would welcome it.

 

Its rule changes to appease casual fans who don't really like baseball that much. It's a weird demographic to appeal to

[soccer10k]

If you end games after 12 innings we'd no longer get position players pitching, which is always fun.

 

The John Baker game was one of the highlights of the 2014 season. Scoreless 16th inning on the mound followed by a walk to start the bottom half and scoring the winning run.

[Banedon]

Me: Went to the game last night.

 

Anyone: Oh yeah? Who won?

 

Me: No one!

 

Leave it alone!

 

Only other major sport where this is not a possibility is the NBA. Somehow the NFL, NHL, and MLS fans all cope just fine.

 

Its rule changes to appease casual fans who don't really like baseball that much. It's a weird demographic to appeal to

 

How is that weird? The whole point is to try to get people that don't watch the game because it's too long or too boring to watch the game. I mean, disagree with it...that's fine. I'm obviously in the minority liking this idea. But it's not at all a weird demographic to appeal to.

[Derwood]

Because casual fans who think the games are too long will always think the game is too long. It's a game with a lot of "no-action" time, and barring a pitch clock, it will always be that way. Changing extra innings or eliminating four pitch IBB's is t adding a single fan

[Banedon]

Because casual fans who think the games are too long will always think the game is too long. It's a game with a lot of "no-action" time, and barring a pitch clock, it will always be that way. Changing extra innings or eliminating four pitch IBB's is t adding a single fan

 

This sounds well researched and factual, so how can I argue?

[Derwood]

Because casual fans who think the games are too long will always think the game is too long. It's a game with a lot of "no-action" time, and barring a pitch clock, it will always be that way. Changing extra innings or eliminating four pitch IBB's is t adding a single fan

 

This sounds well researched and factual, so how can I argue?

 

I'll go do some research on how ending games in a tie will add thousands of fans. BRB

[Banedon]

Because casual fans who think the games are too long will always think the game is too long. It's a game with a lot of "no-action" time, and barring a pitch clock, it will always be that way. Changing extra innings or eliminating four pitch IBB's is t adding a single fan

 

This sounds well researched and factual, so how can I argue?

 

I'll go do some research on how ending games in a tie will add thousands of fans. BRB

 

Just one fan. Not thousands. You said it wouldn't add one.

[sneakypower]

read this one as There's no trying in baseball! and wondered why we had an Aramis Ramirez thread

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Only other major sport where this is not a possibility is the NBA. Somehow the NFL, NHL, and MLS fans all cope just fine.

ties are dumb in any and every sport. I did a quick poll of everyone in the room, and it was unanimous

[SouthSideRyan]

Me: Went to the game last night.

 

Anyone: Oh yeah? Who won?

 

Me: No one!

 

Leave it alone!

 

Only other major sport where this is not a possibility is the NBA. Somehow the NFL, NHL, and MLS fans all cope just fine.

 

There are no ties in the NHL.

[Tim]

I feel this is the pernicious influence of soccer hooligans attempting to ruin other sports.

[Banedon]

Me: Went to the game last night.

 

Anyone: Oh yeah? Who won?

 

Me: No one!

 

Leave it alone!

 

Only other major sport where this is not a possibility is the NBA. Somehow the NFL, NHL, and MLS fans all cope just fine.

 

There are no ties in the NHL.

 

Ugh...yeah ok...shootouts...whatever. I was thinking of the regular season games stopping before endless overtime during the regular season and whoops.

[bcl412]

I feel like the ties kind of make sense in other sports that have had ties. Having a tie at the end of a random inning kinda feels like an arbitrary stopping point and that annoys me.

 

The whole "let's make games quicker" thing is an attempt to bring in more fans. I can't see how adding ties to an American sport would do that. Hockey stopped having ties in an attempt to add more fans (and I'm not even sure if it worked or not)

[Bote McBoteface]

They were just talking about this topic on mlb network. I had a random thought the other day about it and figured id share it. Keep in mind, my preference is to leave it as is. But, if I were to make a change for the sake of making a change, I'd much prefer the game to end with a home run derby. Play 12 innings, if it is tied each team picks 3 players, each get 10 pitches of BP fastballs, most home runs wins the game. Every pitcher gets a no decision.

 

I dont love it, but i like it better than a tie or putting runners on base.

[WrigleyField 22]

Eww.

 

I maintain this is mostly a roster-rule issue which can be changed with little to no effect to the game rules.

[SouthSideRyan]

Eww.

 

I maintain this is mostly a roster-rule issue which can be changed with little to no effect to the game rules.

 

I maintain it's a nothing issue.

[WrigleyField 22]

Eww.

 

I maintain this is mostly a roster-rule issue which can be changed with little to no effect to the game rules.

 

I maintain it's a nothing issue.

Fans aren't tuning out because of long 12 inning games, but because of long 9 inning games. The extra inning thing seems to be more of a management issue in an era where pitches are tracked more closely and teams worry about managing their staffs with extra innings, especially long marathon 12+ games. So offer some type of roster flexibility to address that concern and focus the pace efforts on the other 9 innings.

[champaignchris]

There are no ties in the NHL.

 

I hope no one is holding up hockey's end of game solution as any sort of example as to how it should be done.

 

Unless someone thinks deciding the winner of about 20% of the season with an end-of-game home run derby is a good idea.