MLB looking at possible limits on the use of relief pitchers

[jimmer]

 

I also just like when a pitcher takes it upon himself to keep the pace going. Mark Buerhle was great at this. If you blinked, you may have missed an entire game where Buerhle was pitching. 

As opposed to Pelfrey who you only wanted to blink and miss the entire game he pitched?

[wsnydes]

 

That's why I don't spend the money to bring kids and/or people not interested in baseball to the game. 

If I'm MLB, that's a problem.

[d-mac]

 

It all adds up too.  That's an average game.  When I'm at a game and have to work the next morning, a game that gets done at around 10:30 still means that I have another hour at least before my head hits the pillow.  I tend to view sitting at a baseball game to be relaxing, particularly on a nice evening but games can really drag on unnecessarily.  It's different if the game keeps moving and still takes that long.  

 

Again it's 15 minutes. And why should it matter that it's average? How the heck else are you supposed to compare game length between years? You could compare median length of games. I would hypothesize that median game length is actually shorter than the average length, because games on the long end would skew the average for a longer time. I.E., more games between 2.5hrs-3hrs vs 3-3.5hrs, but there are a lot more games 3.5+ than under 2.5. 

[jimmer]

 

If I'm MLB, that's a problem.

Granted, but that's not always about pace of game. In my case, they just don't like the game.

[wsnydes]

 

Again it's 15 minutes. And why should it matter that it's average? How the heck else are you supposed to compare game length between years? You could compare median length of games. I would hypothesize that median game length is actually shorter than the average length, because games on the long end would skew the average for a longer time. I.E., more games between 2.5hrs-3hrs vs 3-3.5hrs, but there are a lot more games 3.5+ than under 2.5. 

I have no issue comparing games by average.  My point is that some games will be a bit shorter, others will be a bit longer.  Most games that I attend end up being 3 hours to 3 hours 15 minute long.  I honestly don't recall any in the last handful of years that were under 2 hours 45 minutes.  The vast majority of them are longer.  My experience would indicate that the majority of games fall into that 3 hour to 3:15 mark, skewing the average.  Games aren't shorter.

[d-mac]

 

I guess I'd have to be included in that group that doesn't like baseball that much.  I only attend 25-30 games a year, spend who knows how many dollars on it.  No wonder I'm miserable!

 

The problem with that line of thinking is that kids don't have the attention span to last that long at a game to begin with, so adding another 15 minutes on average is a big deal.  The game does not survive, let alone grow if kids aren't interested.  That is a fact.  The natural pace of a game is one thing, but there are definitely ways to cut down the time between live action.

 

If you are concerned about attention span then we should make baseball 4 innings long. the marginal effect of 15 minutes on a game that lasts 180 minutes is basically zero. 

[wsnydes]

 

Granted, but that's not always about pace of game. In my case, they just don't like the game.

Agreed, and that's fine.  But there are people that don't like the game because of the pace or that won't take people to games because of the pace.  They're both symptoms of a larger issue.

[wsnydes]

 

If you are concerned about attention span then we should make baseball 4 innings long. the marginal effect of 15 minutes on a game that lasts 180 minutes is basically zero. 

We're going to have to agree to disagree there.  It's one thing if the natural pace of the game simply extends the game with baserunners or scoring or whatever, but there are so many factors that don't need to be there that drag a game out for no reason.  That's generally what I'm talking about.  David Ortiz didn't need to spend 45 seconds between each pitch to adjust his batting gloves.  Pitchers don't need to do a lap around the mound after every out.  Managers don't need to spend 2 minutes reviewing a play before deciding on whether NY needs to review the play.  It shouldn't take 5 minutes for NY to review a play.  These are needless delays in a game that is slow to begin with.

 

Kids are the future of the game and they often don't have long attention spans.  Anything they can do to keep their attention is a benefit to the game.  

[d-mac]

 

I have no issue comparing games by average.  My point is that some games will be a bit shorter, others will be a bit longer.  Most games that I attend end up being 3 hours to 3 hours 15 minute long.  I honestly don't recall any in the last handful of years that were under 2 hours 45 minutes.  The vast majority of them are longer.  My experience would indicate that the majority of games fall into that 3 hour to 3:15 mark, skewing the average.  Games aren't shorter.

 

I think you are mixing up median and average. The average in 2016 is 3 hours, 4 min. The median or middle length game is likely shorter, since as you say, very few are less than 2 hrs and 45 min. Games on the long end (typically high scoring, or extra inning games) will skew the average higher while not affecting the median. 

[d-mac]

 

Agreed, and that's fine.  But there are people that don't like the game because of the pace or that won't take people to games because of the pace.  They're both symptoms of a larger issue.

 

I don't think changing the pace of the game will not attract new fans. It'll just alienate the actual fans if you make the game less recognizable. 

[d-mac]

 

We're going to have to agree to disagree there.  It's one thing if the natural pace of the game simply extends the game with baserunners or scoring or whatever, but there are so many factors that don't need to be there that drag a game out for no reason.  That's generally what I'm talking about.  David Ortiz didn't need to spend 45 seconds between each pitch to adjust his batting gloves.  Pitchers don't need to do a lap around the mound after every out.  Managers don't need to spend 2 minutes reviewing a play before deciding on whether NY needs to review the play.  It shouldn't take 5 minutes for NY to review a play.  These are needless delays in a game that is slow to begin with.

 

Kids are the future of the game and they often don't have long attention spans.  Anything they can do to keep their attention is a benefit to the game.  

 

Since when have kids ever had long attention spans? I have an infant at home. He has the attention span of a goldfish, but that is because he is an infant, not because of technology (oooh scary!). 

[wsnydes]

 

I don't think changing the pace of the game will not attract new fans. It'll just alienate the actual fans if you make the game less recognizable. 

How is cutting David Ortiz's batting glove ritual making the game less recognizable?  It has no impact on play whatsoever, which is why eliminating it affects only the length of time it takes to complete a game.  

[d-mac]

 

How is cutting David Ortiz's batting glove ritual making the game less recognizable?  It has no impact on play whatsoever, which is why eliminating it affects only the length of time it takes to complete a game.  

 

My point is does it matter? If we end down the road of pitch clocks and limiting pitching changes we're on a slippery slope. Trying to be like other sports will ruin what makes baseball appealing to its fans- its uniqueness. 

[Loosey]

 

I guess I'd have to be included in that group that doesn't like baseball that much.  I only attend 25-30 games a year, spend who knows how many dollars on it.  No wonder I'm miserable!

 

The problem with that line of thinking is that kids don't have the attention span to last that long at a game to begin with, so adding another 15 minutes on average is a big deal.  The game does not survive, let alone grow if kids aren't interested.  That is a fact.  The natural pace of a game is one thing, but there are definitely ways to cut down the time between live action.

I would agree with you on that.  My 5 year old gets bored if he doesn't have constant action.  But in reality 2:50 game or a 3:05 game is a long time for a 5 year.  Now when you start talking 10-12 years olds it might make a difference.

 

But really my son likes to go to Twins games because he gets to eat ice cream out of a helmet and is obsessed with TC Bear.  The baseball part of the game is the side show to him.

[wsnydes]

 

I would agree with you on that.  My 5 year old gets bored if he doesn't have constant action.  But in reality 2:50 game or a 3:05 game is a long time for a 5 year.  Now when you start talking 10-12 years olds it might make a difference.

 

But really my son likes to go to Twins games because he gets to eat ice cream out of a helmet and is obsessed with TC Bear.  The baseball part of the game is the side show to him.

I'd argue that the 10-12 year olds are the ones you need to keep interested.  I'd agree that it doesn't much matter to a 5 year old, especially if you're bribing him with ice cream!  

[Mike Sixel]

 

If you are concerned about attention span then we should make baseball 4 innings long. the marginal effect of 15 minutes on a game that lasts 180 minutes is basically zero. 

 

8% is basically zero? How would you feel if your commute was 8% longer? Or if you made 8% more on your 401K? How about if the Twins increased their HR% by 8%?

 

clearly, you are in the minority on this one....as the length of games is talked about A LOT.

[Vanimal46]

 

My point is does it matter? If we end down the road of pitch clocks and limiting pitching changes we're on a slippery slope. Trying to be like other sports will ruin what makes baseball appealing to its fans- its uniqueness. 

I don't know d-mac. I doubt implementing pitch clocks is heading down a slippery slope. Limiting pitching changes I agree is unnecessary. wsnydes and raindog were mentioning before going to AAA games where the pitch clock is implemented. I guess I have seen it too at a Round Rock Express game, though I didn't really pay attention to it.

I will say though the AAA games I've been to have been a breeze, with very little down time. I like that pace in a baseball game.  

[Mike Sixel]

 

My point is does it matter? If we end down the road of pitch clocks and limiting pitching changes we're on a slippery slope. Trying to be like other sports will ruin what makes baseball appealing to its fans- its uniqueness. 

 

ah, ye old slippery slope argument.....should they do nothing to speed up the game?

[wsnydes]

 

My point is does it matter? If we end down the road of pitch clocks and limiting pitching changes we're on a slippery slope. Trying to be like other sports will ruin what makes baseball appealing to its fans- its uniqueness. 

Obviously, I'd argue that it does and you'd argue the opposite.  I don't see how eliminating things that don't impact the game could be a slippery slope.  Nowhere have I suggested that I'd be in favor of limiting pitching changes, I'm not, because that does impact the strategy of the game - which I am adamantly against.  A pitch clock doesn't impact anything.  The uniqueness is the game itself.  Having 5 minutes between pitches makes it no better than football and results in a 4 hour game with 9 minutes of actual action.  

[Vanimal46]

 

8% is basically zero? How would you feel if your commute was 8% longer? Or if you made 8% more on your 401K? How about if the Twins increased their HR% by 8%?

 

clearly, you are in the minority on this one....as the length of games is talked about A LOT.

It's been a talking point for a good 10-15 years, and unfortunately it's not getting any better. There's so many simple things they could do to speed up the game, but for some reason, they refuse to implement or enforce them. 

[wsnydes]

 

I don't know d-mac. I doubt implementing pitch clocks is heading down a slippery slope. Limiting pitching changes I agree is unnecessary. wsnydes and raindog were mentioning before going to AAA games where the pitch clock is implemented. I guess I have seen it too at a Round Rock Express game, though I didn't really pay attention to it.

I will say though the AAA games I've been to have been a breeze, with very little down time. I like that pace in a baseball game.  

It is amazing how quickly AAA games move.  If it weren't for the clock visibly ticking down, you wouldn't even know that it's there.

 

Really, I'd want my pitchers in that kind of rhythm pitch clock or not.

[Willihammer]

Ahhhhh I hate this topic. For many reasons. For starters, in this thread we're talking about length of game. The ESPN article talks about length of game. But Manfred isn't talking about length of game. He's talking about pace of play.

 

"The pitching changes themselves slow the game down, and our relief pitchers have become so dominant at the back end that they actually rob action out of the end of the game"

 

Which is it? Are fans okay with 3 hour games that move along or is game length more of a concern? What do the focus groups actually want, Bob? Sure there is some overlap between the two but let's be clear on the objective. If most fans want the former, then how many minutes do we want to shave off games? 10 minutes? More? If fans want a faster pace, how fast? How badly are Aroldis Chapman and Craig Kimbrel hurting the fan experience, exactly?

[Loosey]

The reality of long games starts with effective pitching.  Look at the Twins game the other day when they lost 1-0.  That was a 2:26 game.

 

Both pitchers were throwing strikes and getting guys out.  Even if that game would have been a 3-2 game it would have still probably been about a 2:45 game.  When pitchers start to throw ball after ball and get 75% of the hitters into a 3 ball count it lengthens the game. 

 

In general that makes for a more enjoyable baseball game and that has nothing to do with length.  When you are watching a sport where the majority of the plays (pitches) nothing happens you need to get more efficient.  I don't know the number of pitches that are put in play (or even swung at) vs the total number of pitches, but throwing strikes makes it more exciting in my opinion.  And that can only improve with the quality of players.  No rules will change that.

[wsnydes]

 

Ahhhhh I hate this topic. For many reasons. For starters, in this thread we're talking about length of game. The ESPN article talks about length of game. But Manfred isn't talking about length of game. He's talking about pace of play.

 

"The pitching changes themselves slow the game down, and our relief pitchers have become so dominant at the back end that they actually rob action out of the end of the game"

 

Which is it? Are fans okay with 3 hour games that move along or is game length more of a concern? What do the focus groups actually want, Bob? Sure there is some overlap between the two but let's be clear on the objective. If most fans want the former, then how many minutes do we want to shave off games? 10 minutes? More? If fans want a faster pace, how fast? How badly are Aroldis Chapman and Craig Kimbrel hurting the fan experience, exactly?

Good post.  For me it's more about pace.  If a game lasts 3.5 hours, but its score is 9-8, that seems acceptable.  There's a reason for it.  Now if that same length game is 1-0, clearly there's a disconnect.  I think Mike Sixel, Vanimal, and I are more concerned with pace which is driven by wasted time.  Even 9-8 games will be shorter if we don't have to endure a 45 second batting glove tightening ritual between each pitch.  

[Mike Sixel]

Good point on pace.....

 

For many fans, it is both, I think. But pace is the worst for all kinds of fans, I'd think.

[wsnydes]

 

Good point on pace.....

 

For many fans, it is both, I think. But pace is the worst for all kinds of fans, I'd think.

I'd agree.  It's what is perceived rather than what has actually elapsed.  

[Willihammer]

 

The reality of long games starts with effective pitching.  Look at the Twins game the other day when they lost 1-0.  That was a 2:26 game.

 

Both pitchers were throwing strikes and getting guys out.  Even if that game would have been a 3-2 game it would have still probably been about a 2:45 game.  When pitchers start to throw ball after ball and get 75% of the hitters into a 3 ball count it lengthens the game. 

 

In general that makes for a more enjoyable baseball game and that has nothing to do with length.  When you are watching a sport where the majority of the plays (pitches) nothing happens you need to get more efficient.  I don't know the number of pitches that are put in play (or even swung at) vs the total number of pitches, but throwing strikes makes it more exciting in my opinion.  And that can only improve with the quality of players.  No rules will change that.

True, but you can't legislate good command into the game. The zone has "expanded" to allow for more strike calls (truly its not expanded; better umpiring, aided by pitch tracking, has caused the called zone to more closely match the rulebook zone). And ironically, Manfred talks about doing the exact opposite - chopping off the bottom third of the zone, in order to necessitate more "action," ie. pace of play. Seems pretty clear this would actually lengthen games further by leading to fewer strike calls, more walks, etc. the exact opposite of the type of game you are describing.

[d-mac]

 

8% is basically zero? How would you feel if your commute was 8% longer? Or if you made 8% more on your 401K? How about if the Twins increased their HR% by 8%?

 

clearly, you are in the minority on this one....as the length of games is talked about A LOT.

 

If we're talking about marginal returns context matters. There are diminishing returns here. The impact of an 8% return is a lot less if you have $100 million vs $100K. If the game was an hour long the impact of an additional 5 minutes is greater than 15 minutes. 

[d-mac]

 

I don't know d-mac. I doubt implementing pitch clocks is heading down a slippery slope. Limiting pitching changes I agree is unnecessary. wsnydes and raindog were mentioning before going to AAA games where the pitch clock is implemented. I guess I have seen it too at a Round Rock Express game, though I didn't really pay attention to it.

I will say though the AAA games I've been to have been a breeze, with very little down time. I like that pace in a baseball game.  

 

Again, making rules changes for greater "entertainment" value generally have not worked that well in the past in other sports. 

 

I'm all for rules that increase player/fan safety. And for changes that eliminate margins of error in officiating (replays, and hopefully a computerized strike zone). What I am against is rule changes that change the parameters of the game. What makes baseball unique relative to other stick and ball sports is that there is no clock or allotted time in which to complete a game. 

[d-mac]

 

ah, ye old slippery slope argument.....should they do nothing to speed up the game?

 

Again I think it's a non-issue.