OT MLB players reject pace of play changes, commish to implement regardless

AdmiralsFan24

Registered User
Mar 22, 2011
14,979
3,896
Wisconsin
Umpires have been asked to impose a speed up in play the last few years and for the most part, they never have. I doubt a clock is going to change much unless it gets to the point of being ridiculous (here's looking at you, Pedro Baez.)

This is really a whole lot of nothing though.
 

Gnashville

HFBoards Hall of Famer
Jan 7, 2003
13,683
3,510
Crossville
MLB players will strongly reject pitch clock proposal, but it won't matter

More contention between league and union.

Sounds like players hope fan backlash is on commish.
the one time I hope the Union wins. Manfred is doing too much to please ESPN (who is pressing these ideas when they have to cut into their 24/7 NBA NFL ass kissing to show a game) and not the fans.

The no pitch intentional walk is stupid and don’t get me started on “the runner on 2nd base” in extra innings idea.
 

blood gin

Registered User
Jan 17, 2017
4,174
2,203
Yea the no pitch intentional walk is moronic, not only does it pretty much make a negligible impact in game times, but it goes against the spirit of the game. If there are men on base the pitcher should be forced to lob it up there. Because we have seen guys buckle and throw it wide, or some hitter step in and try to put an intentional walk pitch into play.

There is nothing wrong with baseball and the game times are fine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gnashville

Gnashville

HFBoards Hall of Famer
Jan 7, 2003
13,683
3,510
Crossville
I'm fine with the no pitch intentional walk. The number of times a pitcher actually throws it wide isn't enough to waste the time of making a pitcher throw it 4 times.
It's not in the spirit of the game and takes away the randomness of the competition.
Example: a runner on third tie game and the batter just walks to first base not exciting.
Or tie game runner on 3rd and the pitcher has to lob 4 pressure packed tosses to the plate. Yes 99% of the time it's a walk and nothing happens but you take away that 1% chance the pitcher chokes and hurls it over the catchers head and the run scores.

The automatic runner on 2nd is the worst idea ever not only does it not fix a problem but statistically the runner could score for both teams in any given inning and continue the tie. Manage pitching better and it's not an issue.
 

BigBadBruins7708

Registered User
Dec 11, 2017
13,578
18,344
Las Vegas
the length of the game is not what's causing fans to tune out. the game is naturally a slower paced, heavy on thinking/strategy game. That just doesnt fit with the instant gratification/no patience general public.

Its the same reason why newspapers are dying in favor of 15sec audio clips and 30sec videos.

Look at it this way.

The average MLB game is 3 hours 5 minutes
The average NFL game is 3 hours 12 minutes

The difference is NFL has "action" every 30 seconds

If they really want to speed up baseball, then eliminate or shorten the amount of commercial breaks. That's what is really inflating the run times of pro sports games.
 

TheTotalPackage

Registered User
Sep 14, 2006
7,302
5,449
Why can't they just let the sport of baseball breathe and be what it is? If people can't enjoy the beauty the sport has to offer by sticking around an extra 10 to 20 minutes, then so be it.

Chisel away a few seconds here and there to compromise what the game has been about for over a century, but hey, let's continue to bombard fans with lengthy breaks between each half inning.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mmvvpp

MNNumbers

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Nov 17, 2011
7,627
2,486
In the case of intentional walks, several interesting things could happen:
1- If the pitch is not far enough away from the plate, the batter might still hit it (and hard).
2- If there are runners on base, the runners could steal (I don't know why there aren't more steals of 3rd in this situation).
3- Especially, with a runner on 3rd and a RH batter, the runner could steal home.

Why managers are so conservative and these things don't happen often is beyond me in a sense. It may be the same reasoning that would have caused Timlin to kick away last Sunday. "If the defense doesn't stop them, it's on the players. If we don't recover the onside kick, it's on me for taking a risk. I'll play conservative so it's not my fault."

But it would be a better, more entertaining game if there were more risks like the above taken.
 

Butch 19

Go cart Mozart
May 12, 2006
16,526
2,831
Geographical Oddity
In the case of intentional walks, several interesting things could happen:
1- If the pitch is not far enough away from the plate, the batter might still hit it (and hard).
2- If there are runners on base, the runners could steal (I don't know why there aren't more steals of 3rd in this situation).
3- Especially, with a runner on 3rd and a RH batter, the runner could steal home.

Why managers are so conservative and these things don't happen often is beyond me in a sense.

1- I have seen this tried maybe twice in my life (and nothing happened)
2 and 3- have never seen these attempted. come on, the catcher is standing up, no one can run on him

The intentional walk rule is a great idea, and I also like the pitch clock.
 

BigBadBruins7708

Registered User
Dec 11, 2017
13,578
18,344
Las Vegas
1- I have seen this tried maybe twice in my life (and nothing happened)
2 and 3- have never seen these attempted. come on, the catcher is standing up, no one can run on him

The intentional walk rule is a great idea, and I also like the pitch clock.

you may want to look again. just in recent years, Vlad Guerrero hit a HR during an intentional walk...Cabrera hit a go ahead single...Gary Sanchez hit a sac fly

mistakes/hits during an intentional walk are rare, but no more so than things like a perfect game, hitting for the cycle, or hitting 4 HR in a game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: robertocarlos

garnetpalmetto

Jerkministrator
Jul 12, 2004
12,476
11,841
Durham, NC
No pitch intentional walk is stupid, runner on 2nd in extra innings is stupid, but I like the idea of a pitch clock.

It's already a thing in the minors IIRC.

Only in Double-A and Triple-A. FWIW I go to a fair number of Durham Bulls (Triple-A, International League) games and it HAS increased pace of play and I've only once seen a pitcher get charged a ball for violating the clock. That said, I'm not a huge fan of the idea. While there are always pitchers and batters who are human rain delays (Nomar Garciaparra, anyone?) I don't think it's shaved off enough time that it's really important that it be mandated across baseball.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Killion

varsaku

Registered User
Feb 14, 2014
2,561
825
United States
Complacency will only kill the sport. Glad, they are being proactive in trying to improve the game. Some moves may be unpopular like this one, but may be beneficial in the long run for the sport. Every major rule change was always met with criticism, across all sport but with time we get accustomed to it.
 

MNNumbers

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Nov 17, 2011
7,627
2,486
1- I have seen this tried maybe twice in my life (and nothing happened)
2 and 3- have never seen these attempted. come on, the catcher is standing up, no one can run on him

The intentional walk rule is a great idea, and I also like the pitch clock.


I completely disagree about 'running on the catcher'. Those pitches come in at about 80mph or even slower sometimes. It's nothing more than a lob toss, and no one is paying attention to the runners. A runner COULD get a good jump. For example....

Stealing 3rd. Pitch is slow. Catcher can't catch it until it crosses the plane of home plate. Right handed batter. It's longer throw, when the runner has a good jump and a slow pitch. I think there is a possibility of making such a play.

Stealing home. It doesn't matter where the catcher is now. In fact standing up, and jumping to the outside to catch the pitch puts him in a much more difficult position to make the play. Again, I'm not saying that teams should try it all the time. I'm just curious why everyone is so conservative.


However, I think that my curiosity is piqued by the question.....How is the pressure from the broadcast partners being placed on MLB?

If the broadcasters are saying..."The problem is that the game is too long....." then a pitch clock makes sense.

But I think the real problem is not how long a time there is between pitches, but rather how long it takes to play a game because of the strategy employed by managers with respect to pitching changes and mound visits.

Therefore, while I would like a pitch clock, I would be much happier to see rules like:
Limits on position players visiting the mound for conversations (catcher excepted).
Any trip from the dugout to the mound requires a pitching change.
Pitchers are required to pitch to 2 batters unless injured (and, if they leave the game for injury, relievers are not available for a week).

And, my personal favorite which I think applies in EVERY SPORT WHERE THERE IS REPLAY:
Teams do not get to look at the replay themselves before deciding to challenge a play. Real time only.
 
Last edited:

Butch 19

Go cart Mozart
May 12, 2006
16,526
2,831
Geographical Oddity
I completely disagree about 'running on the catcher'. Those pitches come in at about 80mph or even slower sometimes. It's nothing more than a lob toss, and no one is paying attention to the runners. A runner COULD get a good jump. For example....

Stealing 3rd. Pitch is slow. Catcher can't catch it until it crosses the plane of home plate. Right handed batter. It's longer throw, when the runner has a good jump and a slow pitch. I think there is a possibility of making such a play.

Stealing home. It doesn't matter where the catcher is now. In fact standing up, and jumping to the outside to catch the pitch puts him in a much more difficult position to make the play. Again, I'm not saying that teams should try it all the time. I'm just curious why everyone is so conservative.


However, I think that my curiosity is piqued by the question.....How is the pressure from the broadcast partners being placed on MLB?

If the broadcasters are saying..."The problem is that the game is too long....." then a pitch clock makes sense.

But I think the real problem is not how long a time there is between pitches, but rather how long it takes to play a game because of the strategy employed by managers with respect to pitching changes and mound visits.

Therefore, while I would like a pitch clock, I would be much happier to see rules like:
Limits on position players visiting the mound for conversations (catcher excepted).
Any trip from the dugout to the mound requires a pitching change.
Pitchers are required to pitch to 2 batters unless injured (and, if they leave the game for injury, relievers are not available for a week).

And, my personal favorite which I think applies in EVERY SPORT WHERE THERE IS REPLAY:
Teams do not get to look at the replay themselves before deciding to challenge a play. Real time only.

you make some interesting points, but I doubt stealing 3rd or home would happen more than 2x a season per team - if that.

there are simply more meetings at the mound in today's game than when a few decades, and they all make the game last longer

I do like your: Pitchers are required to pitch to 2 batters unless injured
 

Kane One

Moderator
Feb 6, 2010
43,088
10,605
Brooklyn, New NY
I like it but I hate the no pitch intentional walk. Also if we have a timer on pitchers, how about we ban batting gloves so we don’t have to waste time watching batters readjust the gloves after every pitch? That garbage wastes more time.
 

TOGuy14

Registered User
Dec 30, 2010
12,061
3,571
Toronto
I think some of the changes are dumb like the runners on second etc. but absolutely agree with no more of these consecutive meetings on the mound between every pitch, stepping out of the batters box after every swing etc
 

golfortennis

Registered User
Oct 25, 2007
1,878
291
I completely disagree about 'running on the catcher'. Those pitches come in at about 80mph or even slower sometimes. It's nothing more than a lob toss, and no one is paying attention to the runners. A runner COULD get a good jump. For example....

Stealing 3rd. Pitch is slow. Catcher can't catch it until it crosses the plane of home plate. Right handed batter. It's longer throw, when the runner has a good jump and a slow pitch. I think there is a possibility of making such a play.

Stealing home. It doesn't matter where the catcher is now. In fact standing up, and jumping to the outside to catch the pitch puts him in a much more difficult position to make the play. Again, I'm not saying that teams should try it all the time. I'm just curious why everyone is so conservative.


However, I think that my curiosity is piqued by the question.....How is the pressure from the broadcast partners being placed on MLB?

If the broadcasters are saying..."The problem is that the game is too long....." then a pitch clock makes sense.

But I think the real problem is not how long a time there is between pitches, but rather how long it takes to play a game because of the strategy employed by managers with respect to pitching changes and mound visits.

Therefore, while I would like a pitch clock, I would be much happier to see rules like:
Limits on position players visiting the mound for conversations (catcher excepted).
Any trip from the dugout to the mound requires a pitching change.
Pitchers are required to pitch to 2 batters unless injured (and, if they leave the game for injury, relievers are not available for a week).

And, my personal favorite which I think applies in EVERY SPORT WHERE THERE IS REPLAY:
Teams do not get to look at the replay themselves before deciding to challenge a play. Real time only.

Well the big problems are the fact the umps don't enforce the rule book(20 seconds is codified in the rulebook, a pitch clock will only make it obvious), and the number of visits to the mound. The moment a guy gets on second, teams are so scared of him stealing the signs the catcher is going to the mound every other pitch. Make any discussion between a pitcher and a teammate a coaching visit(2nd one means a change), and those go away.

And for those talking about attention spans, a 9 inning game should not need more than 2.5 hours to play. There is no strategy that adds an hour and a half to game times. The playoff games at 4 hours are just ridiculous. The games averaged 3:35 this past postseason. Game 6 of the 1986 NLCS took 4:42. Of course that one was 16 innings.

One of the great things about baseball is the tension that can come in high leverage situations. But that tension can only last so long, and if there is a long time between pitches, away it goes.
 

AdmiralsFan24

Registered User
Mar 22, 2011
14,979
3,896
Wisconsin
.
I completely disagree about 'running on the catcher'. Those pitches come in at about 80mph or even slower sometimes. It's nothing more than a lob toss, and no one is paying attention to the runners. A runner COULD get a good jump. For example....

Stealing 3rd. Pitch is slow. Catcher can't catch it until it crosses the plane of home plate. Right handed batter. It's longer throw, when the runner has a good jump and a slow pitch. I think there is a possibility of making such a play.

Do you have any idea how big of a lead a runner would need to have to steal a base on a catcher that's standing with a pitch coming in at 80 mph? There are two things that would happen in your scenario. A runner would try to steal a base with a normal lead and get thrown out by 10-20 feet or a runner would try to get a huge lead to prevent scenario 1 from happening and get picked off before a pitch was even thrown.

This is so dumb. A game is 3 hours. You get 3 hours or more of less action in football and nobody complains. Pitchers aren't going 8 or 9 innings anymore. Hitters aren't swinging at everything anymore so more pitches are being thrown which *gasp* takes more time. There have been over four pitchers used per game per team on average the past 3 years. There were under 3 per game per team in 1989.

The game has changed. They can come up with all of these pitch clocks and everything but it's going to have a minimal effect on time of game. I have no problem cracking down on serial offenders like Pedro Baez who takes a ridiculous amount of time between pitches and guys like Willson Contreras who seemingly have a mound visit every other pitch but for like 99% of the players it's not an issue.
 

BigBadBruins7708

Registered User
Dec 11, 2017
13,578
18,344
Las Vegas
.

Do you have any idea how big of a lead a runner would need to have to steal a base on a catcher that's standing with a pitch coming in at 80 mph? There are two things that would happen in your scenario. A runner would try to steal a base with a normal lead and get thrown out by 10-20 feet or a runner would try to get a huge lead to prevent scenario 1 from happening and get picked off before a pitch was even thrown.

This is so dumb. A game is 3 hours. You get 3 hours or more of less action in football and nobody complains. Pitchers aren't going 8 or 9 innings anymore. Hitters aren't swinging at everything anymore so more pitches are being thrown which *gasp* takes more time. There have been over four pitchers used per game per team on average the past 3 years. There were under 3 per game per team in 1989.

The game has changed. They can come up with all of these pitch clocks and everything but it's going to have a minimal effect on time of game. I have no problem cracking down on serial offenders like Pedro Baez who takes a ridiculous amount of time between pitches and guys like Willson Contreras who seemingly have a mound visit every other pitch but for like 99% of the players it's not an issue.

you're not wrong about number of pitches being up

The average number of pitches thrown per game is rising » Baseball-Reference Blog » Blog Archive

there are 22 more pitches per game than in 1988. at 30 seconds per thats an extra 11 minutes to the game. There's your difference right there.

No amount of changing the game will get batters to swing at more pitches or get pitchers to throw more meatballs.
 

cutchemist42

Registered User
Apr 7, 2011
6,705
220
Winnipeg
Why can't they just let the sport of baseball breathe and be what it is? If people can't enjoy the beauty the sport has to offer by sticking around an extra 10 to 20 minutes, then so be it.

Chisel away a few seconds here and there to compromise what the game has been about for over a century, but hey, let's continue to bombard fans with lengthy breaks between each half inning.

Historically though, this isnt how the game has been played. Even looking back at the length of games in the 70s and 80s shows drastic differences in time. Baseball can be quicker, becausw it used to be.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->