Pros and Cons of a Pitch Clock

[Melissa Berman]

Time flies while you’re having fun, but it’s not flying quickly enough, says the MLB. 

And enforced pitch count appears to be coming. What does it mean? 

During Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) negotiations, the MLB Players Association reportedly agreed to allow MLB to ban shifts, to implement a pitch clock, and to make bases larger (not XL pizza box size- from 15” to 18”) effective the 2023 season, subject to those agreements fitting into a total deal. Though the MLBPA appears to be on board with these changes, baseball fans as a whole are not known as being a particularly flexible folk that is eager to embrace change. Needless to say, these potential changes have sparked some conversation. 

Regarding a pitch clock, in particular, there has been serious talk surrounding adding one for years now (since 2014 specifically), but it was ultimately not adopted in 2018 when the MLB implemented a host of other rule changes with the goal to increase the pace of play. MLB's plan is to implement a 14-second pitch clock with the bases empty and a 19-second clock with runners on base.

Here are the pros and cons of each side of the pitch clock argument as well as my personal take: 

PROS

It will speed up games and increase excitement
The paramount objective of the MLB adding a pitch clock is to improve the pace of play, and there seems to be clear evidence that adding one would accomplish this goal. In 2021, a pitch clock experiment in Low-A cut game times by 20 minutes using 15-second and 17-second clocks. In case you question if time in between pitches actually is the long game culprit here, a 2014 study found it was. A 2014 study found that the primary reason for the longer games was time in between pitches.

A number of extra seconds here and there for a pitcher to do his best Joe Nathan horse exhale doesn’t seem like much, but when around 280-300 pitches are thrown per game, it adds up. These days, games are 20 minutes longer than they were a decade ago, when the average game length was 2:50. That’s a lot of time to be buying ballpark beers. The MLB clearly thinks the ever-increasing game length is a problem, wants to keep its fanbase engaged, and desires to reel in some of its younger fans (not that canceling games exactly accomplishes these goals, but that’s a separate matter entirely). The MLB has the oldest fans among the major sports, with an average age of 57, according to a 2017 survey by Sports Business Journal. (The average NBA, NHL, and NFL fans are 42, 49, and 50, respectively). Recapturing this younger demographic is crucial to the sport's vitality and despite what baseball purists would like to admit, these young fans are the future of the game. It’s the MLB’s hope that increased game speed might also make games more action-packed; games will theoretically be cramming more offense and more action into a lot less time. At the minor-league level, albeit with small sample size, they have seen more runs, higher batting averages, more home runs, fewer strikeouts, and fewer pitchers throwing ball four After this lockout, an increase in-game action might be just what the MLB needs to return to relevance (or maybe they’ll just juice the balls again).

Existing pace of play measures are already in place 
Adding a pitch clock isn’t exactly new territory in the MLB- there are already time parameters set up by the MLB for warmup pitches, inning changes, and limiting mound visits, so adding a pitch clock is the logical next step. In the minor leagues, pitch clocks of some sort have been in place for the last seven seasons- it had only been in Double-A and Triple-A before the 2021 season- and minor leaguers didn’t seem to think it was that big of a deal. In addition, because pitch clocks have already been around in some form for more than a handful of years, the number of MLB hitters who have never played in one of those leagues with a clock is now down to slightly more than two per team. The number of pitchers who have never pitched with a clock is around three per team. Of course, though there are a number of veterans who have never stared down a clock, and they are vocal, but the times are a-changin'.  

14/19 seconds is enough time for a pitcher to begin his delivery 
Assuming the MLB keeps with what was implemented in the minor leagues, the pitch clock will not begin to run until the pitcher has the ball on the mound. That should be enough time to check the count and outs, communicate with his catcher, and otherwise go through his established routine.

CONS

Decline in pitching statistics?
I’ll be curious to see what the effect of an MLB pitch clock is on pitching statistics. According to The Athletic, the average fastball velocity without a 15-second clock is 92.3 mph which is nearly the same as with one at 92.4 mph. However, this data comes from a relatively small sample size of minor league play. There’s also more to pitches than just speed- movement and quality of a pitch. Even if fastball velocity with the clock is the same, which in the MLB it very well might not be, it makes theoretical sense the break or movement of a pitch could be affected because of less recovery time and less time for pitchers to get set. After all, the minor leagues have already seen increased batting statistics like batting average and home runs. Despite initial findings that velocity might not be greatly affected, clearly, something is going on, unless all those statistics are flukes. Could a pitch clock lead to increased arm fatigue in pitchers or the need for pitchers with greater stamina?  All of these thoughts are cons if you’re ya know, a pitcher, or love a good pitcher’s duel. 

Hitters and pitchers shouldn’t be rushed 
In the major leagues, every pitch matters, and the pitch type is selected based on the batter and the current game situation. A catcher needs time to work through the current game situation, put down a sign, and potentially put down another sign if the pitcher shakes it off. It’s a chess match, and there is a lot to process. Minor leaguers report hitters too are impacted by pitch clock. Hitters are aware that every at-bat is significant. Big leaguers, especially older veterans, have been raised with the idea that when you’re at the plate, it’s your time; they have established and ingrained routines which yes, might involve messing with their batting gloves between every pitch. Being held to a time clock would be a big mindset switch.

Pitch clocks are antithetical to baseball 
Baseball is an inherently slower-paced sport. There isn’t nonstop action and movement and an incessant flurry of scoring- try basketball or hockey. The fact that it is the only North American sport to be played without a clock is one of the things that makes baseball unique. And is 2 hours and 50 minutes that much different than 3 hours and 10 minutes? Because it’s inherently a slower-paced sport, might the people who are bored at 3:10 still be bored at 2:50? Does shaving off 20 minutes justify potentially altering the feel of the game with its ebbs and flows of suspense? Arguably, it’s a case of the MLB adding more unnecessary rules to further regulate the game. Going to the ballpark is an experience, and people who go plan on spending their entire afternoon or evening there anyway. Also, it may sound petty, but installing big blinking pitch blocks where batters and pitchers can each see them sounds like an eyesore.  

MY TAKE

I am such a devout baseball fan that I don’t mind the current length of games or pace of play. I enjoy the relaxed nature of the sport and how there isn’t an omnipresent clock incessantly ticking down like a football play clock. There are other pace of play measures in place and I’m of the opinion that those are enough. The MLB sure isn’t interested in cutting down commercial breaks to shorten game length, that’s for sure. However, now that the MLBPA is on board, I’m curious to see what effect it has on games once implemented, and maybe we won't even notice the change before too long. And besides, it *was* kind of nice walking out of Target Field at 9:30 p.m. on April 23, 2021 (2:17 game duration) when J.A. Happ had a no-hitter going into the 8th inning, and thus caused the game to go hyper-speed.

So what is your opinion of a pitch clock going in effect? Leave a COMMENT, join the discussion.  

View full article

[Brock Beauchamp]

Excellent piece!

[bean5302]

As somebody who's spent many a night until after 10pm at Target Field, I'm all for the pitch clock. Also, one only has to look at existing MLB rules to see the pitch clock is conservative.

MLB rule 8.04 states a pitcher with possession of the ball and a batter in the box, the pitcher must deliver a pitch within 12 seconds or there will be a called "ball" for delaying the game when no runner are on base and the pitcher has the ball. A pitcher can be ejected from the game for multiple violations.

I think of the pitch clock as a tool to enforce the rule more than a revolutionary concept. MLB has attempted to curb batters stepping out of the box and encourage pitchers to get the pitch to the plate faster in recent years, but just like the "sticky stuff", pitchers have refused to follow the rules and that necessitates a more stringent enforcement. 

The difference between a 15 second time and a 22 second time is about 0.15mph from the linked source below. The linked source explains 0.2mph = 10 runs or 1 win/WAR per season across an entire pitching staff, in theory.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/pitchers-are-slowing-down-to-speed-up/

Honestly, rules to speed up game play, I believe, will improve fan engagement.

 

[Seth Stohs]

I love it. To me, that's the biggest way to improve pace of play... hitters can stay in the box. Pitchers can catch and throw. 

That said, I think that the 14 seconds is really fast... I'd be fine with just a flat 20 seconds for all pitches. Keep the game rolling. 

[RJA]

Outstanding summary of the pros and cons, Melissa.  I definitely would like to see the game speed up some, so I like the pitch clock idea, but I don't want it to create an artificial pace to games.  One of the beautiful parts about our favorite game is that the pace allows fans to talk during the game--what pitch will he throw, where in the stikezone, will the runners be on the move, where are the outfielders playing, should the infield be at double play depth, etc., etc.?  That being said, I think the game has slowed down too much.  I vote with Seth, let's have a pitch clock but not have the time so short between pitches that the game becomes robotic.  BTW, you aren't old enough to have watched Camilo Pascual pitch, but he never could have played with a pitch clock.  He was so slow on the mound that his infielders lost their edge in the field.  Great article. 

[Vanimal46]

Welcome to the front page! The pitch clock, when enforced, is not even noticed by the fans. I attended several AAA games in Texas and the game moved along smoothly without a hitch. It’s ironic to see players like Yu Darvish adhere to the pitch clock rules during a rehab stint, then take 30+ seconds to throw a pitch once he appeared in the majors again. 

[Dman]

I know we have had this debate a few times before but the shot clock in basketball was initially supposed to be bad for the sport with players rushing shots etc but IMO the shot clock literally saved Basketballs pace of play with Zone defenses slowing games to a standstill it was getting brutal to watch.  Pace of play generally adds to the excitement and keeps fans more involved IMO. Not that a pitch clock would have that much influence on a baseball game but it does help keep the pace play moving.

From what I understand as pitchers get used to the clock in the minors it isn't a real issue for them anymore and most seem to like keeping the game moving so for guys that are used to it I don't see it as much of an issue anymore.

Just as there is strategy by slowing down the pace of play there will be just as much strategy keeping things moving with limited time.  I look forward to the pitch clock and given how few issues there have been in the minors don't see it being a big deal in the majors either.

 

[IndianaTwin]

3 hours ago, bean5302 said:

As somebody who's spent many a night until after 10pm at Target Field, I'm all for the pitch clock….

As somebody who’s spent many a night until after 11pm at the radio, I’m all for the pitch clock.

—Indiana (Eastern Time) Twin

PS: It was one thing to grow up in Iowa and stay up late to listen to the west coast games when they lasted 2:30. I don’t even think of staying up late in Eastern time to listen to west coast games when they last 3:30.

[DocBauer]

To address each issue:

1] The larger base idea is mostly to prevent injury, as I understood it's initial milb introduction. And I'm fine with that, as well as the concept that a culminate 3" gained between bases. That may not sound like a lot. But it could assist the excitement of the running game becoming part of the game again. It changes the complection of the "bang-bang" plays at 2B and sometimes at 3B. In a game literally measured by inches, it could bring excitement as well as safety. 

     A] A HR by your favorite team is incredibly exciting!

     B] A triple by your favorite team may actually be more EXCITING to see/watch than a HR.

     C] Your team pulling of a successful SB has to be amongst one of the most exciting things to see.

2] MLB is NOT the wonderful game of local softball leagues with a rover. I am not opposed to shifting your OF, or re-aligning your infield. Never have been. But I've never liked the "over shifts" that have taken place the past few years. And I don't say that because I want Kepler to suddenly be an All Star, LOL. I say it because I think the game has lost some of it's excitement and interest. 

In any sport, you play a position. Let's think the NFL and nickel and dime backs for coverage and even designated rushers. They are adjusting for down and distance. So the offense should adjust, right? And some talk about "hitting the other way" or "laying down  bunts" in MLB. And that's not wrong. But 20÷ years ago pitchers weren't throwing 95-ish without steroids. And the batters were just beginning to work and develop year round. So between pitchers getting even more filthy and lack of teaching, it's too easy to just say "hit the other way or bunt". 

But how about we just resort to the basics of the game? What's wrong with that? In the NFL or NBA there are still rules about man to man or zone. In MLB, I'm 100% about feet in the dirt. Shift your OF, shift your infield. And the SS or 2B can have their foot on the bag, but that's where they begin.

3] I'm fully in favor of a pitch clock. And being OCD, LOL, I hate the 14 and 19 option I've read about. Just make it 15 and 20 for goodness and relative sake. MLB pitchers will adjust...or they won't.  But I'm still confused how this relates to batters as well. Does a batter get to pull away once, twice, to adjust?

And how many times does a pitcher be allowed to step off to re-start the clock?

I'm 100% on a pitch clock, I just to know a few more details. 

[Karbo]

I'm not against a pitch clock, though I don't think it would be needed if the umpires would keep the games moving by keeping the batters in the box more. All this fussing and messing around between pitches is more on the hitters IMO. Why can't the HP ump keep things moving better and signal for the pitch? If the batters not ready, it would be an automatic strike.

[wsnydes]

10 hours ago, Vanimal46 said:

Welcome to the front page! The pitch clock, when enforced, is not even noticed by the fans. I attended several AAA games in Texas and the game moved along smoothly without a hitch. It’s ironic to see players like Yu Darvish adhere to the pitch clock rules during a rehab stint, then take 30+ seconds to throw a pitch once he appeared in the majors again. 

I agree completely, Van.  Been to several minor league games and you don't even know it's there.  The only time I did was when the clock was in the direct line of sight past the pitcher.

Thing is, the rule would have to be enforced to be effective.  Players coming up from the minors have been used to the pitch clock for some time now, so it really shouldn't be that big of an issue of buy-in at this point.  It won't affect those players since they've already been playing with one.

 

[Minderbinder]

The clock timer that's needed more is one between innings.  Give teams 60 seconds to change sides and games will shorten.  Of course, advertisers might whine, but give them in-game crawlers.  I long for the days of 2:20 games.

[Squirrel]

4 minutes ago, Minderbinder said:

The clock timer that's needed more is one between innings.  Give teams 60 seconds to change sides and games will shorten.  Of course, advertisers might whine, but give them in-game crawlers.  I long for the days of 2:20 games.

Yeah ... I would love to see that and think that the between inning time is one of the biggest time wasters. But ... ad dollars ... 

Even so, I think the pitch clock is also a good thing.

[RochesterDave]

I have been watching AAA Red Wing games for years (7?) now with the pitch clock and it has really improved the flow of the game.  The pitchers have gotten used to it and I don’t think I have even seen 1 “ball” called for not complying with the clock.   This is a no brainer! 

[TheLeviathan]

12 hours ago, Vanimal46 said:

Welcome to the front page! The pitch clock, when enforced, is not even noticed by the fans. I attended several AAA games in Texas and the game moved along smoothly without a hitch. It’s ironic to see players like Yu Darvish adhere to the pitch clock rules during a rehab stint, then take 30+ seconds to throw a pitch once he appeared in the majors again. 

[Major League Ready]

12 hours ago, Dman said:

I know we have had this debate a few times before but the shot clock in basketball was initially supposed to be bad for the sport with players rushing shots etc but IMO the shot clock literally saved Basketballs pace of play with Zone defenses slowing games to a standstill it was getting brutal to watch.  Pace of play generally adds to the excitement and keeps fans more involved IMO. Not that a pitch clock would have that much influence on a baseball game but it does help keep the pace play moving.

From what I understand as pitchers get used to the clock in the minors it isn't a real issue for them anymore and most seem to like keeping the game moving so for guys that are used to it I don't see it as much of an issue anymore.

Just as there is strategy by slowing down the pace of play there will be just as much strategy keeping things moving with limited time.  I look forward to the pitch clock and given how few issues there have been in the minors don't see it being a big deal in the majors either.

 

Grant Paulson asked a couple different Milb pitchers about it on his radio show.  in a nutshell, they said it became so natural that they barely noticed it.

[4twinsJA]

I am for almost anything that improves fan engagement of MLB. Pitch clock may be an adjustment for a few pitchers the first year. But, if implemented throughout MiLB, pitchers will be accustomed to it by the time they reach MLB.   Get the batters to stay in box instead of adjusting batting gloves between each pitch.

[terrydactyls]

I guess I just look at the problem of boring baseball different than most.  Whether a pitch is thrown in 14 seconds or 24 seconds is immaterial to me.  That brief period of time doesn't cause me to yawn or fall asleep.  For me, it is the endless swings and misses trying for home runs.  It is a batter facing a shift and trying to beat it by hitting the ball through six players. Wee Willie Keeler once said just "hit 'em where they ain't!"  It is the lack of any threat of a stolen base.  I miss the days when you were actively involved between pitches because Maury Wills, Lou Brock, or Ricky Henderson was on base.  Remember when Rod Carew stole home 7 times in a single season?  That is exciting baseball and makes you pay attention the entire game.  

[spanman2]

Great article and opinions.  I am not sure if games being shorter in duration is the answer for attracting new fans to baseball or not?  Maybe it is.  What I see Target Field being is a big expensive bar during beautiful weather days with a baseball game going on in the background.  It would be interesting to know what % of people there are hardcore baseball/Twins fans or just there to be there.  Appreciate the thoughts/time on the article.  Well done!

[PDX Twin]

2 hours ago, Squirrel said:

Yeah ... I would love to see that and think that the between inning time is one of the biggest time wasters. But ... ad dollars ... 

Even so, I think the pitch clock is also a good thing.

Are the fans who keep the game alive benefiting from those ad dollars? The extra ad between half-innings adds a few feet to the owners' yachts and a few rooms to the star players' mansions, but it certainly doesn't seem to lower ticket prices!

On the pitch clock, I remember Jim Kaat in his later years (not for the Twins) quick-pitching on every pitch in order to throw off the hitters' routines. Maybe one of our pitchers whose raw stuff is not quite enough could try that.

[tony&rodney]

 

17 hours ago, bean5302 said:

MLB rule 8.04 states a pitcher with possession of the ball and a batter in the box, the pitcher must deliver a pitch within 12 seconds or there will be a called "ball" for delaying the game when no runner are on base and the pitcher has the ball. A pitcher can be ejected from the game for multiple violations.

Perhaps this gets amended to 16-20 seconds but it should be enforced. Let the umpires enforce this rule. Like everyone has stated, the players already are used to this from their time in the minor leagues. We need enforcement not more rules that are ignored. Pace of play is easily solved if baseball, in fact, wants this.

One change that might impact play would be to return to 15 day for injured or concussed players and reduce the number of times a team can shuttle a player back and forth to four each season. Additionally, once a player is sent down that player may not return for 15 days. Currently, there are all types of shenanigans played with injuries. Tampa Bay used 41 pitchers last season. Teams and their managers would need to adjust to how they used their pitching staff and 40 person roster. I believe this would reduce injuries as fewer players would be max effort disposable pitchers. 

[Trov]

There has always been a few pitchers that work quickly, one that always comes to mind for me is Mark Buehrle.  He would get the ball, the sign and throw in just a few seconds.  He was a good pitcher overall.  Even when guys were on base he took little time between pitches and his games were very short. 

Personally, I am all for the pitch clock because I feel it has got crazy out of hand with how long some guys take.  It will also lead to a new cat and mouse game when runners are on.  As it will also have limited step offs and throw over.  If it is like the minor league rule, you could only have 2 throws over or step offs, unless the runner took off before the pitch was thrown.  I think there was a gray area of what was considered running going, meaning the runner could not just walk way off the base after 2 throws over.  It will lead to more running game maybe but more trying to catch a guy too with pitch outs after 2 throws over. 

I do think the game needs to speed up, as it has dragged on.  I always enjoy being able to do other things and not miss much going on, but at the same time I do not like 3.5 to 4 hour games every night. 

I think it will take time for the pitchers to adjust to it, but once they do there will not be much of an issue, and we will just accept it as part of the game now.  I get that baseball has never had a clock of any kind, and that is part of the great part of the game, but at some point you need to not just let the game drag on forever.  The game will continue to lose younger fans who want action.  If this will make action happen I am all for it. 

[Melissa Berman]

18 hours ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

Excellent piece!

Thank you so much! I'm having a blast writing!!

[Melissa Berman]

15 hours ago, RJA said:

Outstanding summary of the pros and cons, Melissa.  I definitely would like to see the game speed up some, so I like the pitch clock idea, but I don't want it to create an artificial pace to games.  One of the beautiful parts about our favorite game is that the pace allows fans to talk during the game--what pitch will he throw, where in the stikezone, will the runners be on the move, where are the outfielders playing, should the infield be at double play depth, etc., etc.?  That being said, I think the game has slowed down too much.  I vote with Seth, let's have a pitch clock but not have the time so short between pitches that the game becomes robotic.  BTW, you aren't old enough to have watched Camilo Pascual pitch, but he never could have played with a pitch clock.  He was so slow on the mound that his infielders lost their edge in the field.  Great article. 

Thank you so much for the kind words and I completely agree with you + Seth, Writing this was interesting because during it, it changed from "they MIGHT adopt a pitch clock" to "they will." I likely would've come down stronger against it if it was still up for debate. For me, the intangibles like baseball not being meant to be played with an omnipresent clock and potentially having a "robotic" pace like you mention outweigh the potential benefits.  

[Melissa Berman]

2 hours ago, terrydactyls said:

I guess I just look at the problem of boring baseball different than most.  Whether a pitch is thrown in 14 seconds or 24 seconds is immaterial to me.  That brief period of time doesn't cause me to yawn or fall asleep.  For me, it is the endless swings and misses trying for home runs.  It is a batter facing a shift and trying to beat it by hitting the ball through six players. Wee Willie Keeler once said just "hit 'em where they ain't!"  It is the lack of any threat of a stolen base.  I miss the days when you were actively involved between pitches because Maury Wills, Lou Brock, or Ricky Henderson was on base.  Remember when Rod Carew stole home 7 times in a single season?  That is exciting baseball and makes you pay attention the entire game.  

This is a great point and exactly what I was going for when I talked about people who think the game is boring at its current pace will probably still think it's boring when sped up. It's an inherently more of a chess match, slower paced sport- some of us love it, but it's not for everyone. I agree wholeheartedly that I miss stealing bases and bunting. 

[blindeke]

5 hours ago, Karbo said:

I'm not against a pitch clock, though I don't think it would be needed if the umpires would keep the games moving by keeping the batters in the box more. All this fussing and messing around between pitches is more on the hitters IMO. Why can't the HP ump keep things moving better and signal for the pitch? If the batters not ready, it would be an automatic strike.

This is exactly the deal. I think the slow pace is at least as much on hitters (and specifically on the Red Sox and Yankees hitters from 15 years ago, who started this whole thing) who have to take their batting gloves on and off in between each pitch. If umps would not allow them to call time, and begin to institutionalize quick pitching hitters who are dorking around, they would change real quick. 

[Melissa Berman]

2 hours ago, spanman2 said:

Great article and opinions.  I am not sure if games being shorter in duration is the answer for attracting new fans to baseball or not?  Maybe it is.  What I see Target Field being is a big expensive bar during beautiful weather days with a baseball game going on in the background.  It would be interesting to know what % of people there are hardcore baseball/Twins fans or just there to be there.  Appreciate the thoughts/time on the article.  Well done!

Thank you so much for the kind words, and I'm skeptical that shorter game times in reeling in the younger generation are the answer as well. I think the MLB could be doing much more to market its stars to the younger generation. They're trying- like with their account Cut4 that's devoted to the "fun" side of baseball- but they could do a lot more to make baseball seem cool and fun. I realized they have a marketing problem when I saw a picture of the MLBPA player members and had trouble recognizing some of them out of their uniforms 

[RJA]

15 minutes ago, Melissa Berman said:

Thank you so much for the kind words and I completely agree with you + Seth, Writing this was interesting because during it, it changed from "they MIGHT adopt a pitch clock" to "they will." I likely would've come down stronger against it if it was still up for debate. For me, the intangibles like baseball not being meant to be played with an omnipresent clock and potentially having a "robotic" pace like you mention outweigh the potential benefits.  

Thank you for the kind response.  This is a difficult issue for the reasons you outline.  I grew up with no shifts, many fewer bullpen changes, no pitch clock, and more strategy.  I actually liked that game better.  This strikeout/homerun craziness has severely limited many of the beautiful aspects of the game--like bunting, the hit and run, base stealing, etc.  Plus, the sheer number of pitching changes and the batters and pitchers taking so much time between pitches has added so much time to the game that the pace has become unbearably slow.  The only reason I favor a "generous" play clock is that the games have become so long that I think something must be done to move play along.  I hope it does not end up being a deal with the devil ;).  

[adorduan]

Living in Des Moines, (AAA Cubs) I've been to a bunch of games with the pitch clock. Trust me, it's a good thing, and the pitchers seemed to adapt quickly to where I have only seen it come into play once.

[Craig Arko]

I like the pitch clock, but it must be exactly 18.46 seconds.