Tick Tock Jeurys

[Frayed Knot]

Not to pick on Familia who, at least as far as I know, isn't particularly slow in delivering pitches (at least for a reliever) ... but I just couldn't resist the pun.


Anyway, with the talks between the player's union and the commissioner's office once again breaking down over the topic of pace of play changes -- the union has told MLB that their side can reach no consensus among its members over alterations -- Commissioner Manfred seems prepared to unilaterally impose a pitch clock starting in the 2018 season.

No formal announcement is expected until the owners meetings which take place from Jan 30 thru Feb 1 (in Beverly Hills if you're in the neighborhood and want to drop by) but the league has the power to impose changes without the union's approval with one year's notice and that notice was given when the union basically gave the same answer last year.

[nymr83]

I guess if the union cant agree internally there isn't much to so but move forward without them.

I like the idea of impriving pace of play. Lets start by cutting tv commercial breaks down, the players don't need that long to get back to the dugout.

A pitch clock with nobody on base seems like a good starting point. The batter must have an equal obligation to get in the box and stay there.

[Edgy MD]

I'm telling you: Disallow teams from delaying the game in order to do their own video reviews before deciding whether to lodge a protest and you cut 90 minutes out right right there. Any other measures are just dribs and drabs. And those dribs and drabs will immediately be offset by more video review delays.

[nymr83]

Cutting the time between innings could legitimately save 9 minutes per game.

The replay thing? Yeah, there needs to be a timer there too. In fact I'd say the review should be asked for almost immediately or else it wasn't obvious enough to warrant replay.

[Frayed Knot]

We can dream about cutting between inning breaks all we want but:
a) those times are set into contracts with networks both local and national so it's not something Manfred would, or even could, simply alter by decree. And that's all before he'd need to get around to telling the lords of the realm that they'd be losing some 25% of their in-game ad revenues.
those mandated commercial break times haven't increased in a number of years now and game times are still going up anyway so the real culprit of in-game dead-time lies elsewhere.

[Ceetar]

no, the only real place to cut significant time, barring literally legislating that the pitcher has to immediately throw the ball again when he gets it, is to eliminate warmup pitches. This would also technically eliminate some commercial breaks though, which is probably why it's not being discussed. It's really the only time of game something isn't happening.

Even replays if you dislike them have everyone arguing/discussing/clamoring about whether the call was or wasn't right. There's some bitching when it's like a play at first with 2 outs and no one on, but the drama when it's say a trapped catch in the outfield that may or may not score 2 and tie the game isn't dead time. And it feeds that outside the game discussion/fan debate that is important to interest in the sport.

[Edgy MD]

Watching a manager stand on the field doing nothing while he waits for a second-hand signal from the dugout about what the video review team suggests doesn't add drama, it subtracts it.

[Centerfield]

Challenges should be done by the naked eye.

If you want to challenge the judgement of the umpire you should have the same set of tools he has.

This would limit challenges greatly.

[Ceetar]

if we upgraded the technology to call balls and strikes, fair/foul, maybe even safe/out, most replays wouldn't even need to happen.

[dgwphotography]

Call the high strike, and make batters stay in the box. Calling the high strike means fewer walks, fewer pitches thrown, pitchers going longer, fewer pitching changes...

[Guest 41Forever]

I think nothing destroys the pace of the game more than the endless changing of relievers in the late innings. Starter goes six innings, closer gets the ninth and the seventh and eighth are an endless parade of one-batter specialists — all with a manager walking to mound, player running in, warm-ups....

That said, I question the seriousness of the effort to shorten games. Every minute in the ballpark is another moment to sell a beer, shirt, hot dog...

[Benjamin Grimm]

Yes, but on the other hand, it's someone who goes to bed without seeing the commercials that air in the later innings.

Making pitching changes quicker would help a lot, I think. Limit it to three warm-up pitches on the mound. (How many do they currently get?)

[Ceetar]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Yes, but on the other hand, it's someone who goes to bed without seeing the commercials that air in the later innings. Making pitching changes quicker would help a lot, I think. Limit it to three warm-up pitches on the mound. (How many do they currently get?)

8.

one commercial, for the time to get the reliever to the mound. as many warmup pitches as he can fit in before 45 seconds are up. go.

no one truly cares about pace of play though. The biggest complainers are the media, so it just sounds louder.

[Edgy MD]

I care.

[Ceetar]

I'm generalizing. Reducing a game from 3:05 to 2:55 or whatever literally isn't going to make a single person say "hey, now i'll watch!"

[Benjamin Grimm]

Yeah, I do too.

[Frayed Knot]

Buck Showalter makes that argument all the time, except that he says no one cares about game times except the writers and umpires - and I think part of the reason the players haven't gotten on board with this (aside from pitchers and hitters coming at things from an opposite viewpoint) is that they don't perceive a problem either; they're getting paid so things must be great!

But the players, and Buck, are wrong; it matters.
It matters to those who have to get up early in the morning and so have trouble staying awake for the end of east coast games, and then totally punt on ones in the C/M/P time zones
It matters to parents who have kids with 2-1/2 hours worth of patience but not 3-1/2
It matters in those cities (many of them) where public transportation doesn't run 24/7 - ask Nats fans about that whenever a game runs long or just about every post-season game in their short history
And it matters to the casual fan who's not going to attend or tune into a game if he doesn't have a vested rooting interest because he doesn't want to invest three to four hours.

We're all geeks here. But just because we (some of us anyway) stay up until 2 in the morning doesn't mean everyone does and you can't run a business that increasingly caters just to the geeks.





In 2007, when I believe the same between inning break times as now were in place, 1/3 of all MLB game were done in under 2:40 -- this past season it was less than one game in eight (11.9%)
Less than 9% (8.9%) of 2007 games ran over 3:20; in 2017 nearly 1/4 of them did (22.7%)
Name any cut-off you want and the difference is huge and that's just in the last decade, I'm not going back to when the games were played only in black and white (except there was no black) and the home gate accounted for most of a team's income.
I'd like to back things up to maybe where the games were in the late 80's -- the '86 Mets for instance played Six games that year which ran over 3:20, this past year we witnessed 30 -- but at the moment I'd settle for 2007

And these numbers, btw, only include 9 inning games as are the 'averages' that MLB releases. Throw in extra inning games plus post-season and things really blow up.

[Ceetar]

Baseball is not in any danger. They should absolutely try to curb dead time, as they always should. But they're not exactly desperate to make drastic changes. Put the pitch clock in and hurry things along I guess, but baseball is not on some slow march to obscurity.

[Centerfield]

Buck Showalter makes that argument all the time, except that he says no one cares about game times except the writers and umpires - and I think part of the reason the players haven't gotten on board with this (aside from pitchers and hitters coming at things from an opposite viewpoint) is that they don't perceive a problem either; they're getting paid so things must be great! But the players, and Buck, are wrong; it matters. It matters to those who have to get up early in the morning and so have trouble staying awake for the end of east coast games, and then totally punt on ones in the C/M/P time zones It matters to parents who have kids with 2-1/2 hours worth of patience but not 3-1/2 It matters in those cities (many of them) where public transportation doesn't run 24/7 - ask Nats fans about that whenever a game runs long or just about every post-season game in their short history And it matters to the casual fan who's not going to attend or tune into a game if he doesn't have a vested rooting interest because he doesn't want to invest three to four hours. We're all geeks here. But just because we (some of us anyway) stay up until 2 in the morning doesn't mean everyone does and you can't run a business that increasingly caters just to the geeks. In 2007, when I believe the same between inning break times as now were in place, 1/3 of all MLB game were done in under 2:40 -- this past season it was less than one game in eight (11.9%) Less than 9% (8.9%) of 2007 games ran over 3:20; in 2017 nearly 1/4 of them did (22.7%) Name any cut-off you want and the difference is huge and that's just in the last decade, I'm not going back to when the games were played only in black and white (except there was no black) and the home gate accounted for most of a team's income. I'd like to back things up to maybe where the games were in the late 80's -- the '86 Mets for instance played Six games that year which ran over 3:20, this past year we witnessed 30 -- but at the moment I'd settle for 2007 And these numbers, btw, only include 9 inning games as are the 'averages' that MLB releases. Throw in extra inning games plus post-season and things really blow up.

Yup. I'm one of those that don't care about game time at all. If there were measures in place to shorten the work day, I'd be out picketing in support of it. But baseball games? Let's play forever.

But that doesn't mean I don't realize that game times matter. Big difference between 2:40 and 3:20.

[Frayed Knot]

Centerfield wrote: Yup. I'm one of those that don't care about game time at all. If there were measures in place to shorten the work day, I'd be out picketing in support of it. But baseball games? Let's play forever.

Except that we're not getting anything extra for all the extra time we're being forced to invest.
1987 had averaged slightly more runs/game (0.16) and saw more plate appearances/game (0.7) as compared to 2017, yet games averaged nearly half an hour shorter (24 min).

Even *I* have enough of a life to where I could be doing things with that time.

[Ceetar]

Frayed Knot wrote: Even *I* have enough of a life to where I could be doing things with that time.

Are you not doing other things with that time? I mean, pitching changes are the perfect time to bitch about the manager on twitter and check other games.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Looks like we have an announcement:

MLB pace-of-play rule changes: Mound visit limits, no pitch clock, shorter commercials

After weeks of negotiations with the MLB Players' Association, Major League Baseball and commissioner Rob Manfred announced a series of pace-of-play rule changes Monday. There will be no pitch clock in 2018, but there will be a limit on mound visits.

In an effort to cut down on downtime within games, each team will now be limited to six mounds visits per game, plus one additional mound visit for every extra-inning played. Here is the league's official description of a mound visit: A manager or coach trip to the mound to meet with the pitcher shall constitute a visit. A player leaving his position to confer with the pitcher, including a pitcher leaving the mound to confer with another player, shall also constitute a mound visit, regardless of where the visit occurs or the length of the visit. That means going forward, a mound visit will include visits by coaches and managers, as well as visits by other players. If the catcher goes to the mound, it counts as a visit. If an infielder goes to the mound, it counts as a visit. Also, the second mound visit of an inning requires a pitching change. That remains the same.

[Frayed Knot]

It's a start anyway.
I would have liked to see even quicker in-inning pitching changes -- as in ZERO additional warmups on top of your bullpen warmups -- but that didn't even seem to be in the discussion rumors so I didn't have high hopes for that one.

From the linked article:
There are, of course, exemptions to the mound visit rule. The following does not count against each team's mount visit total:

A pitcher-catcher conference between batters.
An infielder goes to the mound to clean his spikes during rainy conditions.
Any visit involving a potential injury.
Any visit after a pinch-hitter is announced.
Also, if a team has exhausted their six mound visits, the umpire has the discretion to allow the catcher to visit the pitcher following a cross-up.
The MLBPA had concerns about potential injuries resulting from the battery getting their signs mixed up.


The pinch-hitter exemption bothers me. It's not like the other team is bringing in someone who you weren't aware was on the roster!!
There's plenty of time before games and between innings for strategy. Have the rules favor the prepared team!

[Edgy MD]

Mound visits ain't the problem. Go after the time un-necessarily wasted on replay reviews, ye Lords of the Game.

[Frayed Knot]

The biggest problem with replays is the 'dry-runs' which wind up eating up as much as 30 seconds at a time but aren't actually considered replays if the manager ultimately opts not to challenge.
I'd be all for a 10-second decision cut-off which would eliminate waiting for word from the video guy in the sky but that apparently was never part of the proposal either.

And while I've been as critical of the replay system as anyone, aside from the dry runs, replay reviews themselves average under 2/game for both teams combined.
Mound visits are the bigger problem IMO because they're much more frequent and often at least as time consuming.
That they're going to try to cut back to a six per game per team (not including the exceptions of course) is a sign of how out of hand they've become.
Hell, in Yanqui games I think the average is about six per/inning when the pinstripers are on the field and it's only that low because Jorge Posada retired. He alone was often good for 2 or 3 mound visits per batter.

[Benjamin Grimm]

They've also shortened the commercial breaks between innings by 20 seconds. That will automatically shorten each game by at least five minutes.

And...

As part of the shortened commercial breaks, pitchers can throw as many warm-up pitches as they want before the timer runs out, though they are no longer guaranteed eight warm-up pitches.

[Edgy MD]

Frayed Knot wrote: The biggest problem with replays is the 'dry-runs' which wind up eating up as much as 30 seconds at a time but aren't actually considered replays if the manager ultimately opts not to challenge.

Often eats up more than 30 seconds.

[Zvon]

Centerfield wrote: Yup. I'm one of those that don't care about game time at all. If there were measures in place to shorten the work day, I'd be out picketing in support of it. But baseball games? Let's play forever. But that doesn't mean I don't realize that game times matter. Big difference between 2:40 and 3:20.

Totally this for me.

I think a pitcher entering a game, even after warm-ups in the pen, should be able to throw a few from the mound before facing a batter. Because mounds can be in different shape day to day, even in the same park. Especially mid game, after much use.

I really wish they'd just leave the game alone.

[Zvon]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: They've also shortened the commercial breaks between innings by 20 seconds. That will automatically shorten each game by at least five minutes. And... As part of the shortened commercial breaks, pitchers can throw as many warm-up pitches as they want before the timer runs out, though they are no longer guaranteed eight warm-up pitches.

I'm surprised about this.
To compensate for shortening the commercial time will they raise the cost of the commercials for the advertiser? It always seems to be just about the money.

[Frayed Knot]

Zvon wrote: I really wish they'd just leave the game alone.

So do I.
If the game was left alone it wouldn't be taking 20% longer than the version most of us grew up on.