Nu Roolz Chatter (split from assorted IGTs)

[Gwreck]

The originally-scheduled game on Saturday was 4:10, so unlike most twi-night doubleheaders, attendance may well be higher at the start of the first game compared to the second game.



7 inning games remain an embarrassment and blight on the sport.

[bmfc1]

7 inning games remain an embarrassment and blight on the sport.

The fans might think so but the owners and players seem to disagree:

https://sny.tv/articles/mlb-exec-seven-inning-doubleheaders-could-stay-attractive-to-owners-playershttps://sny.tv/articles/mlb-exec-seven-inning-doubleheaders-could-stay-attractive-to-owners-players

[Ceetar]

it's Martino, citations needed.

[G-Fafif]

7 inning games remain an embarrassment and blight on the sport. The fans might think so but the owners and players seem to disagree: https://sny.tv/articles/mlb-exec-seven-inning-doubleheaders-could-stay-attractive-to-owners-playershttps://sny.tv/articles/mlb-exec-seven-inning-doubleheaders-could-stay-attractive-to-owners-players

Very much a Martino story. Clubs and players are OK with it, who cares what grousing fans think?

[Johnny Lunchbucket]

I'd prefer baseball like God intended but 7-inning DHs to me are a far smaller offense than magic runners. It's a big deal now because the Mets have been so unlucky when it comes to weather and covid.



After all in theory any and every game is a 5-inning affair under existing rules and nobody popped a vein calling it an abomination. Also, games are way too long and 2 in one day is a lot. There's no arguing that

[kcmets]

Lotta good stuff buried in IGT's re: 7 inning games. Shame because it's buried.



Someone tweet to the media that players should take a 22% cut in pay for these

games. That'll get another pot boiling!

[Gwreck]

[CROSSOUT][/CROSSOUT]

Johnny Lunchbucket wrote: I'd prefer baseball like God intended but 7-inning DHs to me are a far smaller offense than magic runners.

I agree the automatic runner is worse. But just because something else is worse doesn't mean that the first thing isn't also bad.

After all in theory any and every game is a 5-inning affair under existing rules and nobody popped a vein calling it an abomination.

This isn't a fair comparison, because the 7-inning games have no potential to ever go the full regulation length.



7 inning games are intolerable because:

-Customers are being cheated. A ticket is sold with with the potential that 9 innings will be played is clearly more valuable than a ticket that yields 22% less potentiality.

(As discussed elsewhere, this problem can be ameliorated by making all split DHes 9 innings)



-Short games privilege the weaker teams. The advantage of the Mets' generally excellent bullpen and starting pitching is diminished when the games are shorter.



-There is a competitive imbalance when teams start playing by different rules.

Also, games are way too long and 2 in one day is a lot. There's no arguing that

I personally don't see this as the crisis that others do (and there is an argument to be made here). But say we all agree. There's still no statistically significant portion of the fanbase is affected by two 9-inning games being scheduled on the same day.

Edited July 8, 2021 by Guest

[Frayed Knot]

As always, all these problems that seven inning games and curtailing XI games are meant to fix stem from the fact that 3-1/2 hour games are considerably more common than 2-1/2 games.

Fix that issue and so many of the other ones go away.

[Edgy MD]

I don't think that's likely so. I think giving people less for their buck is the sort of change that tends to stick.

[bmfc1]

=Gwreck post_id=70716 time=1625790569 user_id=56]
-Short games privilege the weaker teams. The advantage of the Mets' generally excellent bullpen and starting pitching is diminished when the games are shorter.



-There is a competitive imbalance when teams start playing by different rules.

[bmfc1]

Frayed Knot wrote: As always, all these problems that seven inning games and curtailing XI games are meant to fix stem from the fact that 3-1/2 hour games are considerably more common than 2-1/2 games. Fix that issue and so many of the other ones go away.

Correct. They won't do anything to seriously fix the problems that lengthen games so they keep picking around the edges.

[Edgy MD]

Dumb question on this topic — I assume we still get the magic runner business in the post-season, right?

[G-Fafif]

Edgy MD wrote: Dumb question on this topic — I assume we still get the magic runner business in the post-season, right?

I don't believe so. Last year, which birthed this BS, gave us normal extras



https://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/ATL/ATL202009300.shtmlhttps://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/ATL/ATL202009300.shtml

[Johnny Lunchbucket]

Edgy MD wrote: I don't think that's likely so. I think giving people less for their buck is the sort of change that tends to stick.

That's very true. I can in fact imagine a near-future in which all games are scheduled for 7 innings. People'll howl, but they could soften the blow by positioning it as, you play up to 9 innings of real baseball and the 10th begins the Magic Runner bullshit. That would preserve a modicum of heritage.



As I've said I wouldn't recommend this but you could see it.



The other radical rules compromise you might consider? 3 balls for a walk.



This topic deserves a split

[Edgy MD]

Fellow admins, feel free to extract IGT posts about seven-inning slates and magic runners and intentional walks and three-batter minima and such and merge them into this thread.

[Johnny Lunchbucket]

3 Balls for a Walk:



Positives:

--saves a lot of time (theoretically?)

--saves a lot of pitches (probably?)

--"levels" the pitcher-hitter confrontation at the heart of the sport (a 2-2 pitch is no longer advantage pitcher)

--likely heightens offense

--better than increasing the number of strikes for same effect

--can be positioned as a "fairness" initiative and accompany the introduction of robo-strike zones

--can accompany reversal of other rules changes that aren't as effective and/or stupider





Negs:

--interferes with tradtition (but only since the 1890s)

--likely to result in a shitload more walks which could increase game times

--will fuck up every record

--might require even more tinkering, for example, 2x "called" strikes

[Marshmallowmilkshake]

My fear with the seven-inning double-header games is that they crack the door open for eliminating nine-inning games altogether. That seems like a radical idea, but I remember ESPN's Karl Ravech talking on Buster Olney's podcast, saying he is all in on seven-inning games, and thinks MLB is headed there in the not-so-distant future.



Now, I get that sportswriters tend to like short games. What's a magical evening for us is a daily grind for them, and they want to file their stories and get the heck out. But that would be a fundamental change to the game that would alter stats and everything else. There would be stats for the nine-inning era and the seven-inning era.

[Ceetar]

7 inning games are bad. They just don't flow right. Eventually we'd get a little used to them, but not really. When a game is in the 5th and you're muff a chance and go to the 6th down 2-1, normally you're like "Okay, we're figuring this out, all out players get another shot at least it's just 1 run, we've got 12 outs to play with. But if it's 7 innings, now you've got 6 outs to play with and it might be the back end of your lineup. It's just too short. For a game with as much luck as baseball, it's just not a good look to take away that length. It's like if we went back to a 150 or so game season, or dilluted the playoffs. you're raising the chance a worse team sneaks in.



And yes, it's competitively imbalanced. The shorter games are a different strategy, different pitcher usage, might require a 6th starter more often, and the teams that play them are random. The game DOESN'T need more randomness (cc: people looking to ban the shift).



The zombie runner is dumb too, for reasons much akin to why people dislike the NHL shootout. It's different rules determining who wins the game, though not as drastically. At least the NHL is roughly putting a harder time limit on a game that's already timed, but the sudden urgency just doesn't fly in baseball. ESPECIALLY in the 10th (or 8th). Also, for a sport that flaps a lot about wanting more balls in play, zombie runners certainly incentive strikeout pitchers who can keep the runner at second. And they also incentive very uninteresting sac bunting and intentional walking.



And don't get me started on the stupid 3-batter rule or designated a player a pitcher or a hitter.





none of these are time of the game fixes, which baseball doesn't really care about, because their main customer is the TV networks that don't care because more commercials. And it's the networks that are slowing the game down. For a game that's so laden with strategy discussions, they sure do cut away from the game at the most strategic points. Instead of cutting away at key 7th inning pitching changes, sponsor a "strategy session brought to you by Geico" and have the announcers actually talk about the game, the pitcher coming in, the matchup, the reason it might happen.

[Lefty Specialist]

Edgy MD wrote: I don't think that's likely so. I think giving people less for their buck is the sort of change that tends to stick.

(Looks at the 52 ounce bottle of Tropicana Orange Juice that used to be 64 ounces but still costs the same)

[Ceetar]

That's the one argument I don't really buy. You're not paying per inning. You're paying for the successful completion of a competition between two ball clubs. That happens whether it's 5innings of a rain shortened game, 7 inning DH, or 20 marathon. (so no ties!)



There used to be more marbles in hungry hungry hippos too, but someone still wins every time.

[Johnny Lunchbucket]

Games ARE too long today, and it's not just sportswriters who think so. It's a baseball thing, but it's also a baseball's-place-in-society-over-the-longer-term thing. We have to stop debating that.



Rob Manfred may be an asshole but I believe he is trying to act for the longer-term health of the sport by adjusting it to how the society consumes a crowded field of entertainment options within the context of how the game has evolved (players are so good at baseball today it's maxed-out it's gameplay). We wouldn't be talking about any of this if this wasn't the case.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I agree. But shaving the number of innings to shorten the game is like cutting off your leg to lose weight. It will work, but it's probably not the best idea.



I'd like to see them increase the pace. The pitcher gets the ball, he throws the ball. Enforce the clock. I don't know what the ideal interval between pitches should be. 15 seconds? 20? Whatever, find a number and make it stick. If the pitcher doesn't throw the ball, it's a ball. If the batter isn't in the box, it's a strike. Reducing the milling about between pitches would go a long way.

[Gwreck]

I'd like to see them increase the pace. The pitcher gets the ball, he throws the ball. Enforce the clock. I don't know what the ideal interval between pitches should be. 15 seconds? 20? Whatever, find a number and make it stick. If the pitcher doesn't throw the ball, it's a ball. If the batter isn't in the box, it's a strike. Reducing the milling about between pitches would go a long way.

Ben Grimm is correct. That is easily the best way to speed the game up. And it doesn't require making up new stupid rules to do so.

[kcmets]

I agree, word for word. 20 seconds would do, but 15 is better imo.



Pitcher wants to fix his hair, play with his jock strap or just fart around as part of

some outdated (or needs to be) routine - air horn goes off, BALL TWO.



Same with batters. Readjusting the velcro on batting gloves, lollygaggiing with the

helmet or tardiness to step up to the plate - air horn goes off, STRIKE TWO.



A strict pitch clock is definitely worth trying out for a full season or two before they

just cut all games to 7 innings all willy nilly.



Buy a fucking clue, Manfred.



PLAY BALL!!

[Johnny Lunchbucket]

I agree with all that, and also, as been advanced here before, curtailing or eliminating on-mound warmups from entering relievers. But even then, is it enough?



Is my 3 balls rule too radical? That's a weird change I'd like to see experiments with

[dinosaur jesus]

There is a point at which I'm willing to give up on baseball, to say this isn't baseball anymore and I just don't care. Automatic intentional walks wasn't it. The extra-inning runner wasn't either. The universal DH probably won't be. But seven-inning games, or three-pitch walks, or moving the pitcher's mound back, might just about do it for me.



I know, I should have quit back in 1887, when they went from six balls to five for a walk. Or 1893, when they moved the pitching distance back from fifty feet. Or 1920, when they started replacing the ball every time a fly landed on it or something. But every man's got his limits.



Yes, just enforce time limits. Every other measure is bullshit, and most of them don't even accomplish anything.

[kcmets]

And media types and announcers with mics and camera face time that applaud

the seven inning games can lick fatted sac.

[Ceetar]

3 balls is less baseball. We don't need less baseball we need faster paced baseball. This is why the 7 inning rule and the zombie runner are so dumb. They're just giving us less baseball, but they're not making the baseball any faster.



It's the same amount of baseball, but happening over a longer stretch. But Manfred has been focusing on the baseball part, and not that longer stretch part. He's seemingly targeting a segment of sports fandom that's about quick hits, constant drama, etc. more playoffs, more high leverage stuff. If it wasn't so specifically tied to revenue, they'd absolutely try to cut the season shorter.

[Edgy MD]

Yeah, agreeing that games are too long is one thing. But (and I don't want to jump to the conclusion that Manfred is a terribly informed non-fan), there's not enough real thought or discussion about what the wheat is and what the chaff is, and that's maddening.



Let me put one on the table: The first thing you do to compress the action in baseball — stop expanding the roster. I don't care if it's a double-header and I don't care if there's a plague on. Twenty-five men.



Second thing to do — end the merry-go-round call-ups. If you call a guy up, he has to stay for a minimum number of games. If you send a guy down, he has to stay for a minimum number of games.



First thing you learn in the study of disarmament is that when a person or a nation has weapons, they are psychologically motivated to use those weapons. Give a manager 27 players and three more in a taxi out in the parking lot, he is going to deploy them. This means longer games, with more substitution, wars of attrition taking longer to play themselves out, and shorter workdays by the pitcher who you came to see.

[kcmets]

Johnny Lunchbucket wrote: Is my 3 balls rule too radical?

I think it is. I could get behind a four-fouls-your-out thing though. This came up some

time ago and that's how we played it growing up in the school yard.



I'd really rather no changes, just saying. Four hour games don't bother me in the DVR age.