Players’ Union Rejects Pace Of Play Proposals

Can't say I really have a "problem" with most of those proposed additions with the one exception being players talking to the pitcher or "visiting" the mound.   That has been a part of the game since it's inception and IMHO should be left alone.

I would agree that the hitter constantly stepping out of the batters box to adjust every part of his uniform imaginable is mind numbingly irritating, but to me a huge part of that starts with the umpire.   Don't give the player Carte Blanc to step out all willy nilly.   Actually hold his feet to the proverbial fire.   If the hitter keeps stepping out, let the pitcher throw a free strike.   That would keep them honest.

Look, MLB needs to find a way to thread the needle between the length of a game and advertising revenue.

More rules are not always the answer because enforcing rules can have an impact pace of play and the length of a game.

If anything, I find "pace of play" to be somewhat of a deflection from where the problem actually lies.

How soon before the “capologist” becomes a staple of MLB front offices?

hell, I'd like a rule mandating a pitcher must face at least 3 batters, barring injury. the many many pitching changes gets very old.

Also, for me the main frustration when a game takes longer is that it ends later. There comes a certain point on a weeknight where I've just gotta pull the plug and head home/go to bed so I'm not a wreck at work the next day. Why not start the games at 6, or at least 6:30, instead of 7:10?

I don't have a problem with any of the above proposed rule changes. I think they would all help, but I do question 'what constitutes a mound visit?' If a catcher stands up and takes a few steps to the mound, says something to the pitcher and then throws the ball back and returns to behind home plate, is that a "mound visit?" With no runners on, there is no prohibition against the catcher hanging on to the ball for a few extra seconds, before returning it to the pitcher.

I would think a 'mound visit' is anything that can't be done within the pitch clock time. If the catcher can talk to the pitcher when returning the ball and they can deliver the pitch before the timer hits bottom, no problem. If they have to call time for the visit, then it's a mound visit.

Hmm, I don't know how long commercial breaks go for currently... Good point though. If they're eliminating 5 seconds that's not enough to make a difference.

If anything it will end up being 5 less seconds of highlights before the inning begins.

Feels like they are always adding 5 or 10 seconds so to go backwards would be nice just to stop the bleeding so to speak. 

Does anyone know why the union did shoot this down?   Do they value adjusting their batting gloves that much"   I think it was Tom F that made the good point of if they are both a little rushed then it is still fair.   I am sure most offenses in NFL would like a little more time to talk or think about plays but they manage.   It seems like these clocks would be more than fair and as was pointed out if a guy is on  first base a pitcher can always buy time by throwing over there.   If there is not a guy on base then what is the holdup?   I would be ok with the third visit of player, coach or manager initiating a pitching change and I love the idea of a reliever making his way to the field earlier.    Seeing a manager point to the pen holding up an arm holds no value to me.   Three warm up pitches should be enough also.  Should be enough time for a 30 second commercial.

Thyros said

"I'd rather see them get rid of: character races, T-shirt canons, children's games, dedications to veterans, anthem choir and bands, and everything else non-baseball related between innings or before the first pitch, and then try to change the game."

Agree with everything here except instead of getting rid of the canons triple the number and shoot them off as many times as possible for 30 seconds every half inning.    T-shirts are not dangerous, catching them is fun and getting freebies are always nice.   Just do it and don't make a production of it.

I'm all for these changes and more. The pitch clock isn't going to be a factor except with notoriously slow pitchers. Fans won't even notice the clocks and will enjoy pace keeping up throughout the game.

I agree I don't think the pitch clock will be much of an issue.  I don't remember there being any issues with them in the minors.  If someone can bring up problems they had that would be nice to know but I don't remember any.  

Commercials are the biggest time challenge but those won't change because revenue is too important to owners and ultimately players as their salaries depend on revenue.

At any rate I am for some changes.  If they don't work well then fine roll them back but all indications seem to point to these changes not impacting much and hopefully they get players more focused on keeping the game moving.

Are we certain that replay has nothing to do with it? The number of replay occurrences might be down but that doesn't mean the time each one takes can't increase and ultimately affect game length. 

I'm fairly indifferent about the pitcher and hitter clocks. I don't think they'll greatly affect 99% of players. Not sure I'm on board with limiting player mound visits per inning.  Maybe if they were limited to one per batter I'd be willing to cede my position. 

I get kind of annoyed that MLB seems to have no problem altering or adding rules to speed up the game, but when it comes to addressing their own involvement in slowing the pace, their willingness to change seems to fade. 

Can't say I really have a "problem" with most of those proposed additions with the one exception being players talking to the pitcher or "visiting" the mound.   That has been a part of the game since it's inception and IMHO should be left alone.

 

I would agree that the hitter constantly stepping out of the batters box to adjust every part of his uniform imaginable is mind numbingly irritating, but to me a huge part of that starts with the umpire.   Don't give the player Carte Blanc to step out all willy nilly.   Actually hold his feet to the proverbial fire.   If the hitter keeps stepping out, let the pitcher throw a free strike.   That would keep them honest.

As an old guy I remember Mike Hargrove and his antics.  He was called the Human Rain Delay - https://youtu.be/8tGm_JajqLo (watch the video for laughs) but we must realize that we have to address all facets off the game to eliminate the horrible length of game.  Yes - I hate these long games and I love baseball.  Watching the Twins in the sixties and the Braves in the fifties the games really moved along.  It might be hard to get to the bathroom or concessions, but what a pleasure that was to feel like there was no human delay, no need to bring a book to fill the empty spots.

Are we certain that replay has nothing to do with it? The number of replay occurrences might be down but that doesn't mean the time each one takes can't increase and ultimately affect game length. 

 

I'm fairly indifferent about the pitcher and hitter clocks. I don't think they'll greatly affect 99% of players. Not sure I'm on board with limiting player mound visits per inning.  Maybe if they were limited to one per batter I'd be willing to cede my position. 

 

I get kind of annoyed that MLB seems to have no problem altering or adding rules to speed up the game, but when it comes to addressing their own involvement in slowing the pace, their willingness to change seems to fade. 

Everything contributes to this.  Slow pitchers are boring, they detract from the viewers pleasure and contribute to the negative reactions of general fans - check out this list of painful to watch pitchers. http://www.bleacherreport.com/articles/751372-mlb-power-rankings-the-25-most-painful-pitchers-to-watch-in-baseball  As a fan would you object to speeding them up?  I wouldn't.