Article: Players’ Union Rejects Pace Of Play Proposals

[Sam Morley]

 

Well we can either suck it up and roll with the changes or be content to watch baseball the way WE want to see it and let it die with our generations.

If MLB wants to outlive us it can't cater to Twins Daily poster, it already has us. It has to cater to the new generations who at this point have no interest. Sorry, the only way to stop evolution is to cease to exist. I'll take change over killing the sport for good.

 

The evolution analogy is interesting.

 

I think there are some very good, natural ways that technology is influencing and changing the game. I would describe these as being akin to the process of evolution. Technology is good in baseball for documentation, analysis, and instruction. Its amazingly enjoyable to watch baseball on television in high definition from multiple perspectives. I love it. It's also great to be able to reference and relive moments in baseball history. Maybe the Twins will never win another world series title, but I can always watch the footage of Kirby's game six walkoff. Computers have enabled staggering amounts of statistical analysis to be consumable and useable. I don't love all of the effects of this analysis on the game (extreme infield shifting, early exits for starting pitchers) but I see these changes as being naturally occurring without artificially manipulating the structure or definitive qualities of the game. For that reason, I accept them; I see them as being, as you have put it, evolutionary. Video technology is also amazing for instruction. For the first time in the history of the game, video analysis of mechanics is verifying the true components of an ideal swing (Ted Williams and rotational theory being validated and the old hands first-downward ax chop being debunked). I could make a case that there was something charming and romantic about the mystery of the swing, of the vying arguments and theories, of the way even people who were so good at doing it didn't really understand what they were doing; and that we are losing something fun in knowing for sure what is exactly the right way to do it is. Video analysis of pitching mechanics is yielding greater understanding of flaws that lead to injury. 

 

Again, I think these are some examples of natural changes in the game, changes that can be appropriately described as evolutionary. I'm willing to accept both the things I like and dislike about them, I'm willing to accept evolutionary changes.

 

What I'm less willing to accept, and at some point not at all willing to accept, are artificial, forcefully imposed changes. The type of changes that might be less akin to evolution and more so to genetic modification or genetic engineering. Video reviews/challenges, clocks of any type for any reason, automated strike zones are as to artificial modification and not so much evolution. I've accepted, under protest, video review; I probably will do the same with the proposed clock. I'll be out the day they introduce the automated strike zone. I mean, I guess I'll be investigating what the Saints have to offer a little more seriously. 

 

I can't really draw any theoretical connections between the artificial changes and attracting a younger demographic of viewership. Is the idea that younger people are more accustomed to technology and its ubiquitous application and are turned off when it plays a less significant role? Isn't there just as much grounding on which to anticipate a backlash against the pervasiveness of technology? Why shouldn't baseball be looking to capitalize on its natural, organic beauty; to appeal to the person looking for an alternative to the noxious hype of the NBA/NFL; the person who prefers a handful of wild blueberries to a handful of skittles; the person who prefers the subtle imperfections of craftsmanship to the sterility of the mass produced? To the extent that MLB is even competing with the other pro sports leagues, why should it try to be more like them rather than try to set itself apart? 

 

To the extent that there is a connection between the artificial changes and attracting a younger audience; why should I defer to their whimsy, to their fickle, impressionable nature? I was their age once; I was once seduced by the hype of NBA Inside Stuff and hi-top sneakers. They will grow up. They will be sick of clocks, buzzers, timeouts to check video, watching people run back and forth, and sick of the latest "Chris Paul is headed back to LA to play the Clippers for the first time since being traded to the Rockets- will the fans boo or applaud him, will his old teammates embrace him or turn a cold shoulder?!" Baseball will be waiting- hopefully it's not all mucked up.

[Sam Morley]

 

Here is some evidence to the contrary:

 

https://www.sbnation.com/a/mlb-2017-season-preview/game-length

 

They compared video of very similar games from 1984 and 2014. The conclusion:

 

I mean, that's interesting and compelling. It's even more compelling in conjunction with your other post countering my assumption that there has been an increase in pitching changes. 

 

I could say that it's only suggestive and not conclusive. Hand selecting one game from each season, even if the author is totally impartial and seeking an objective observation- which I trust he is- is still too small a sample size to really conclude anything authoritatively, right? 

 

I don't know, I probably should concede that point. 

 

I also don't really care that the games are taking longer, but it's also fine with me if the league wants to try to speed them up, as long as they find a way to do it naturally. 

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I also don't really care that the games are taking longer, but it's also fine with me if the league wants to try to speed them up, as long as they find a way to do it naturally. 

Actually, the pitch clock might be the least intrusive / most "natural" way to do it.  No changes in rules or definitions, no subjective rulings to argue or be ignored, just a mostly invisible, objective clock to train players to keep their routines within the rulebook definitions (what is that, 12 seconds with bases empty? 20 seconds with runners on?).  I don't think anyone has much noticed the pitch clock already in effect at minor league games.

[Sam Morley]

 

There's a thread with poll numbers on it.  There are actually a number of alarming trends in baseball.

 

Like, for example, the vast majority of people that watch baseball today will likely be dead by the year 2040.  And virtually all of them are white.  You should check out the thread and look into things a bit, it might explain why baseball is taking the matter so seriously.

 

I think showing an effort to fix this is a good thing.  Too often, baseball players seem to give no care at all to how much they are dragging things out.  spycake's post seems to indicate they have more than doubled their lollygagging between pitches in just 30 years.  We should be looking to reverse that for the health of the sport.

 

Where is the thread? 

 

Polls are bogus.

 

In twenty years "the vast majority of people who watch baseball will be dead and virtually all of them are white"?  Bogus.

 

Of professional sports in the U.S., baseball is by far the most racially diverse. The NHL is homogenous, the NBA is homogenous, the NFL is more diverse than those two but less diverse than MLB. 

 

The NFL will be dead by 2040... maybe.

[Sam Morley]

 

Actually, the pitch clock might be the least intrusive / most "natural" way to do it.  No changes in rules or definitions, no subjective rulings to argue or be ignored, just a mostly invisible, objective clock to train players to keep their routines within the rulebook definitions (what is that, 12 seconds with bases empty? 20 seconds with runners on?).  I don't think anyone has much noticed the pitch clock already in effect at minor league games.

 

I wouldn't couple 'least intrusive' with 'most natural'. It could be done in an un-intrusive way. That doesn't make it natural. It's still an artificial element, and in that regard, I'm resisting it on principle, not necessarily on effect.

 

As to the effect, my prediction is that it will be intrusive to viewing the game, mostly on TV. I think broadcasts will treat it the same way the NFL broadcasts treat the play clock, and the NBA treats the shot clock. It works great for those games because those sports are structurally built around a clock that counts down. A clock that counts down is natural to those games. When I'm watching baseball on TV, I don't want to see a countdown clock blinking red next to the ball-strike-out graphic. I don't want to hear commentators referencing or talking about the clock. I don't want it in the stadiums either, next to the radar gun reading or wherever, so that fans at the game can start countdown chants while a pitcher is getting ready to deliver.

 

I guess, if they give the umps a little pocket stop watch and tell them the time allotments and to enforce them, that seems like a reasonable place to start.   

[TheLeviathan]

 

Wasn't that just among people that listed baseball as the "favorite" sport?  Which doesn't really matter, if millions of younger, non-white people are making the trek to the ballpark every year as a social thing, or out of interest for their second or third favorite sport (something they wouldn't have done, or couldn't afford to do, just a couple generations ago, when baseball was the primary "favorite" of a larger share of people).

 

I'm still not really convinced baseball is taking the matter all that seriously yet. Could be posturing or a bargaining chip with players; could be for show like the toothless initiative from a couple years ago. The length of game and pace of play stuff has just gotten kind of ridiculous, particularly in the postseason, with enough publicity that MLB has had to address it somehow.

 

You may not take interest in it, but baseball is.  And I believe rightly so.  RB listed a number of concerning demographic trends that baseball is also likely taking stock of. 

 

This is not a problem you address after the situation has become a red alert.  It's wise to try and get well ahead of the issue, because if the symptoms manifest as a full blown disease, it'll be hard to ever recover.  The symptoms are different, but boxing would be a cautionary tale.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I wouldn't couple 'least intrusive' with 'most natural'. It could be done in an un-intrusive way. That doesn't make it natural. It's still an artificial element, and in that regard, I'm resisting it on principle, not necessarily on effect.

 

As to the effect, my prediction is that it will be intrusive to viewing the game, mostly on TV. I think broadcasts will treat it the same way the NFL broadcasts treat the play clock, and the NBA treats the shot clock. It works great for those games because those sports are structurally built around a clock that counts down. A clock that counts down is natural to those games. When I'm watching baseball on TV, I don't want to see a countdown clock blinking red next to the ball-strike-out graphic. I don't want to hear commentators referencing or talking about the clock. I don't want it in the stadiums either, next to the radar gun reading or wherever, so that fans at the game can start countdown chants while a pitcher is getting ready to deliver.

 

I guess, if they give the umps a little pocket stop watch and tell them the time allotments and to enforce them, that seems like a reasonable place to start.   

 

I highly doubt that it would be treated like a shot clock or play clock.  It has no effect on the viewer, it is just an impartial reminder to the players about following the rulebook-defined pace.  I'd wager that within a month or two, it wouldn't even have any effect on the players, they would already be trained to follow that pace again, just as they have done for the rest of their baseball careers (high school, college, minors).

 

There is no purely "natural" solution to this problem.  You can't do any umpire-based solutions -- umpires will fail to enforce them effectively, just like the pace-of-game initiatives from a couple years ago, and just like umpires already liberally allow time to be called, just because they want to avoid conflict.  And I don't necessarily blame them.  But that means you need something external and objective that they will follow just like the players, hence the clock.

 

Just installing an external, objective clock to remind players of the already defined rulebook pace is the most "natural", effective solution you will find.  It doesn't really add or change any rules.

 

Do you know there's already a between-innings clock in MLB?  At least, I have seen it at Target Field. Doesn't really have much effect, because between innings time isn't the root problem, but it just exists in the ballpark, the umpires and players follow it, and the fans ignore it.  There's also a pitch clock in the minors that is treated similarly.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Where is the thread? 

 

Polls are bogus.

 

In twenty years "the vast majority of people who watch baseball will be dead and virtually all of them are white"?  Bogus.

 

Of professional sports in the U.S., baseball is by far the most racially diverse. The NHL is homogenous, the NBA is homogenous, the NFL is more diverse than those two but less diverse than MLB. 

 

The NFL will be dead by 2040... maybe.

 

 I didn't say the number of people playing currently, I said the people watching on TV.  

 

That article is rich with a lot of information, none of it particularly encouraging for baseball's long term health.  And you can bet MLB knows it too.

 

So you're welcome to your nostalgia, but my love for the game tends to make me favor it's success over nostalgia.  Heavy-handed nostalgia could suffocate the game to death and we might eventually be nostalgic for the days when baseball was relevant.

Edited January 22, 2018 by TheLeviathan

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

You may not take interest in it, but baseball is.

"Baseball is dying" predictions are about as old as the sport itself. I am sure the sport and business will continue evolving like everything does, but no, I don't believe it is in any kind of "sky is falling" mode as you have described.

[TheLeviathan]

 

"Baseball is dying" predictions are about as old as the sport itself. I am sure the sport and business will continue evolving like everything does, but no, I don't believe it is in any kind of "sky is falling" mode as you have described.

 

Good thing no one said that.  Baseball is concerned about their demographics and about the sport getting a rep for being slow and dull.

 

And they should be.  Those aren't things you wear like a badge of honor if you want to stay relevant.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Good thing no one said that.  Baseball is concerned about their demographics and about the sport getting a rep for being slow and dull.

 

And they should be.  Those aren't things you wear like a badge of honor if you want to stay relevant.

Sure, like any business would do.  I wouldn't call the current state of affairs "alarming" as you did, but to each his own.  I'll drop this aside.

[ashbury]

This seems like a hard thing to quantify. Are plate appearances timed? If so, for how long have they been timing them?

There have been various studies. Here is one:

https://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2015/1/29/7921283/baseball-game-length-visual-analysis

 

Among his conclusions:

• the time between pitches has increased by 1.5 seconds since 2007, which amounts to almost eight minutes a game.
• game length has increased when holding constant the number of plate appearances

Take a look and see what you think.

[laloesch]

I went to a game on Sunday between the Charlotte Knights (White Sox AAA) and Norfolk Tides (Orioles) and saw some of the rule changes in person for the first time and i gotta admit i love it. The innings breaks are max. 2min. 25 seconds and the pitchers have 20 seconds between batters to begin motion. It really does keep the game moving at a good pace and it's awesome. IMO that's how the game was meant to be played and was played long before TV and all the damn commercials. The game i went to was about 2hrs 15 minutes.  MLB could learn a thing or two from AAA.  

Edited May 2, 2018 by laloesch

[Vanimal46]

I went to a game on Sunday between the Charlotte Knights (White Sox AAA) and Norfolk Tides (Orioles) and saw some of the rule changes in person for the first time and i gotta admit i love it. The innings breaks are max. 2min. 25 seconds and the pitchers have 20 seconds between batters to begin motion. It really does keep the game moving at a good pace and it's awesome. IMO that's how the game was meant to be played and was played long before TV and all the damn commercials. The game i went to was about 2hrs 15 minutes. MLB could learn a thing or two from AAA.

Couldn't agree more. Round Rock Express games (Rangers AAA) are a delight to attend. The longest game I've seen was maybe 3 hours which took extra innings to finish.

 

It's not just the pitchers in MLB that are slowing down pace. Batters contribute to the problem too by constantly stepping out of the box adjusting their gloves, helmet, etc.

Edited May 2, 2018 by Vanimal46