Kitty stole my idea

[Craig Arko]

7-inning games. Solves a wealth of problems, starting with game time and number of pitchers on a squad.

 

http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/23474497/jim-kaat-says-mlb-adapt-7-inning-games-effort-improve-sport

 

Okay, in fairness to Mr. Kaat, he wouldn’t know I’ve been thinking about this for the past couple of years.

[Thrylos]

 

7-inning games. Solves a wealth of problems,

 

The problem is that those "problems" are not really problems.

 

Also, if some fans want seven inning games, every game can be that, if they leave or shut down the TV after the seventh inning...

[twinsguy45]

I've just been listening to Mackey and Judd talk about this. My feeling is, no matter what you try to do to "speed up the game" or make it shorter, it's not going to matter as long as the alarming and accelerating trend of shortening attention spans continues. The very nature of how baseball is played is what is not appealing to younger generations. It is totally different from just about any other sport. If you try to change the fundamental sport to appease the younger generation, it will cease to be baseball.

[mickeymental]

i think high schools stole your idea.

[Shaitan]

They may as well add time clocks, players who only play offense, and one-game playoffs while they're at it.

[wsnydes]

I don't really think that this solves any problem.  It's treating a symptom, but not the disease.  the real issue is pace of play.  The slow tempo and pace of play results in longer games.  Sort out the areas that create the lack of rhythm and tempo and that shortens the game naturally.  Minor league games go by in a breeze and they hold your attention because there is a flow to them that isn't there at the MLB level. 

 

Cutting two innings off of the end of the game doesn't solve any of the issues that plague baseball.  I don't mind a 4-hour game if it's 14-13 because there are things happening.  I do mind a 4-hour game if it's 2-1.  That's just ridiculous.  That reflects a lack of game action, which in my view, is the heart of the problem.  I think this suggestion just misses the point.

[twinsguy45]

I still think it's the game itself. What is the "pace of play" in soccer, which is supposedly gaining popularity? To me, it's boring as hell. But there's constant motion. No scoring, mind you, but constant motion. It's today's mind set; nobody has patience for a big payoff, or to watch a pitcher work his craft and set up hitters. The very essence of what makes up baseball is not working with the gotta-have-it-all-now generation.

[twinsguy45]

They keep talking about a pitch clock. Implement it for Pete's sake, before they have to transform the sport into something true baseball fans don't even want to watch.

[TheLeviathan]

I'm not sure how this would ever really happen and I echo others that suggest it doesn't solve anything.  

 

This is not, IMO, because of short attention spans.  It's because of a variety of other factors fully within baseball's control that they have chosen to ignore:

 

1. They have priced young people and families out of consistent opportunities to experience the sport.

 

2.  They have chosen marketing dollars over quality of product.  Meaning they would rather extend commercial breaks and please their cable benefactors over making sure the game translates well.

 

3. Too often fun is policed out of the game.

 

They share some of these concerns with other sports, but none of those sports play 162 games and are around for half a year.  The length of the season makes it less vital to be present/tuned-in for every game, which puts a different onus on baseball to keep people's attention.  These three things hurt that IMO.

[Teflon]

There's also the economics. A 7 inning game means fewer broadcast ads sold. (And fewer concessions) There would need to be significant increases in attendance and TV/Radio ratings to break even. If not, then it's either higher prices - which will cause sponsors to leave - of more ads between innings which defeats the purpose of the change. 

[Sssuperdave]

This seems like an overly dramatic solution that might not actually solve anything.  As others have pointed out it's not the total game time that is the problem so much as the pace of play, or perhaps more accurately said pace of interesting plays (e.g. a ton of walks and strikeouts are still boring even if they happen kinda quickly)

 

When it comes to pace of play, I'm always surprised that the fan-less game back on April 29, 2015 between the Orioles and White Sox isn't discussed more often.  This was an 8-2 game with 15 hits and 2 walks that took a mere 2 hours and 3 minutes.  The key variable differentiating it from all other games was that there were no fans in the stadium due to riots following the Freddie Gray's death.  You can read an interesting account of it here:  http://www.masslive.com/sports/2015/04/baltimore_orioles_no-fan_game.html

 

I'm not suggesting that a solution to the pace of pay problem is to have games with no live fans, as that is preposterous.  But, I think this game should be studied carefully to help understand truly why games take so long.  People toss out lots of theories like time between pitches, batters stepping out of the box too much, deeper counts, etc. etc. etc.  But, here's a perfect counterexample.  Pace of play measures from this game should be studied and then steps could be taken to see if it could somehow be mimicked in games where there are live fans.

[Teflon]

I get your point, Sssuperdave - but looking at the boxscore for that fanless game in 2015 shows it was atypical in that the Orioles scored 6 of their 8 runs in the 1st inning so the rest of the game ended up being fairly compact. Also only 2 total walks in the game, as you noted - so home plate umpire Jerry Layne's strike zone probably contributed to the pacing, as well.

[Sssuperdave]

 

I get your point, Sssuperdave - but looking at the boxscore for that fanless game in 2015 shows it was atypical in that the Orioles scored 6 of their 8 runs in the 1st inning so the rest of the game ended up being fairly compact. Also only 2 total walks in the game, as you noted - so home plate umpire Jerry Layne's strike zone probably contributed to the pacing, as well.

Oh, I certainly could be convinced that there were reasons beyond the lack of fans that caused the game to be short, but that was the shortest game the Orioles played all year, and the next 4 slowest games were all low scoring. There is an 8-3 game on August 24th that was 2 hours 18 minutes that could be a counterexample, but if feels like cherry-picking to me.

 

The strike zone comment might be more on target - total # of pitches on the 2 hour 3 minute game was 227, which is quite low. It would be interesting to see a study correlating # of pitches with length of game. Are longer games driven more by # of pitches or length between pitches? While I don't have the data at my fingertips to answer this, I would think MLB would.

 

 

[Sssuperdave]

Here's a really interesting sbnation article comparing a game from 1984 with a game from 2014 with an almost identical number of pitches, base runners, and plate appearances, but where the 2014 game took 35 minutes longer:

 

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

 

The main conclusion is that time between pitches is the #1 driver of the increase in length:

 

 

 

In the 1984 game, there were 70 inaction pitches that were returned to the pitcher and thrown back to the plate within 15 seconds.

In the 2014 game, there were 10.

In the 1984 game, there were 32 balls, called strikes, or swinging strikes that took 20 seconds or more between pitches

In 2014, there were 87 balls, called strikes, or swinging strikes that took 20 seconds or more between pitches.

 

"inaction" pitches in the above quote are pitches where the catcher catches the ball and throws it back to the pitcher, so things other than hits, fouls, etc.

 

A pitch clock is sounding better and better.

[Taildragger8791]

I doubt teams give up the edge they're trying to get from micromanaging every situation due to advanced stats/analysis they didn't have before. Instead they can take it further by having starters go 3-5 innings and then yank them as soon as they stumble. Heck, you'd probably start to see minor-league style bullpen games or rotations shortened to 4 starters who throw fewer innings per start. So the 30-40 minutes you shaved off will get eaten back into by an even worse pace of play.

[Teflon]

First thought: outlawing beach balls in Anaheim would be a start.

 

Second thought: Kaat's proposal, however you feel about it, at least gets people talking about the issue.

 

Third thought: My particular pet peeve is a pitcher that doesn't want to pitch. You know the one. He just stands on the mound staring in as the catcher goes through two or three sets of signs until finally the hitter thinks "Enough of this BS" and calls time. If we ever do get automated strike zones, I would like to program them to start shrinking about ten seconds after the pitcher gets the ball back from the catcher.

 

 

[Shaitan]

Let's just appoint Mark Beurhle as the next commish.

[ashbury]

I doubt teams give up the edge they're trying to get from micromanaging every situation due to advanced stats/analysis they didn't have before. Instead they can take it further by having starters go 3-5 innings and then yank them as soon as they stumble. Heck, you'd probably start to see minor-league style bullpen games or rotations shortened to 4 starters who throw fewer innings per start. So the 30-40 minutes you shaved off will get eaten back into by an even worse pace of play.

Make it a lively 11 innings then.