extra inning runner

[roger_that]

As threatened, I would like to discuss the runner on 2nd in extras rule, which i only partly understand but detest nonetheless.



In the 6/5 IGT, I offered vaguely other ways of achieving similar ends: the one I like best is to simply eliminate extra innings altogether, and substitute other ways of settling tied games after nine innings. The one I like the best is to track each team's average game time going into the game in question, and awarding the win to that team. This has two separate benefits: 1) it makes teams very conscious of the importance of playing quickly, not dawdling, not wasting everyone's time, since doing so will cost that team a few winnable games each season, and 2) it settles the game in question right quick. In effect, it lets teams know that one team is essentially playing for a tie, which will turn into a victory, and the other team is playing for a win.



Let it be noted that I much prefer just getting rid of the ghost runner. But if the goal is to eliminate extra innings, then this also serves the purpose of speeding up the game, and making the PLAYERS responsible over the long haul for doing that.



I have other ideas, but first I want to get blasted to hell and gone for proposing this one.

[Gwreck]

There was and is no extra innings “problem.” The number of games extending into late innings is very small. Changing the rules is dumb.



There could be no clearer indictment of why this rule is dumb than the fact that it does not apply in the postseason.

[Frayed Knot]

The ghost runner was instituted for Covid reasons obviously, mainly to reduce long games and the travel issues those can cause. Whether one thinks it was the right solution at the time is almost

besides the point now. That they were extended into this season on the excuse that the delayed season and reduced spring training created "safety" concerns is, well, concerning because it comes

off as a justification rather than a real reason.

More concerning still is that the DH was a rule, also originally short-term, created to combat issues, real or perceived, that turned out to be both temporary and not really related to the causes of

the supposed problems it was designed to fix. And now, half a century later, it's cast in stone.





The problem isn't that extra inning games take too long, it's that the game takes too long just to get to the point where you arrive at extra innings.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I would rather see them declare that a game ends in a tie after 12 innings than any other contrived way of trying to end the game sooner.



But that's assuming that there really is a need for this. My real preference is to let games go as long as they need to, like it's always been.

[roger_that]

Another way to settle ties, which would be far more pleasing to fans than this nonsense, would be to conclude batting practice with a Home Run Derby. The way I see it, each team's starting pitcher would conclude his warmups by pitching to his team's designated HR Derby hitter a certain number of pitches, and whichever side had the most balls hit over the fence is that game's winner in the event of a tie. Much more satisfying to the fans, I think.

[Frayed Knot]

Or they could just, y'know, play baseball.

[Ceetar]

Frayed Knot wrote: The problem isn't that extra inning games take too long, it's that the game takes too long just to get to the point where you arrive at extra innings.

that's not the problem either. The 'problem' is trying to do things that appeal to their customers (ESPN, Apple+TV+ whatever, Networks, etc)



So the zombie runner was their hairbrained idea to come up with late season shootout drama. But in a compact time frame so it can be scheduled. It's not good baseball drama, because it induces a lot of IBBs and sacrifices and the boring stuff, but it DOES create near constant "any pitch could win the game" type TV drama. THAT is the goal.



Just like the expanded playoffs are solely because they get more money for playoffs. Like this tweet:

It's why the lockout ended when it did, because the players caved to MLB's fake deadline. That deadline was basically the deadline when they'd have to give money back on the yearly TV deals. That's why despite days off being part of the CBA, fiercely negotiated, they still crammed the extra games into the season when they started late. THAT is why the deadline MLB was proposing seemed so fluid, because they kept figuring "well, if we take away some off days, we still hit our TV threshold where we get the same cash"

[batmagadanleadoff]

How about a karaoke contest? Maybe some AC/DC song where you can't even tell what language the player's singing in, never mind the actual lyrics. Or a hot dog eating contest? They could get sponsors for that. Money..

[batmagadanleadoff]

Think of all the money the team would save on post game buffet if the sponsor had to supply the hot dogs. I'd want Benny Agbayani on my team for that.

[roger_that]

Frayed Knot wrote: Or they could just, y'know, play baseball.

And that would be my preference.



But if they're going to do something to curtail extra innings, I'm trying to point out some ways that would be less damaging and far more fun for the fans to follow.

[Marshmallowmilkshake]

I don't like using gimmicks to end ballgames, and I don't like ties at all.



And I know I'm an outlier, but I don't think the game times are all that bad. It seems like baseball constantly downgrades its product by telling people its games are too long -- especially when some of the length is created by the advertising time between innings and pitching changes. That's especially true in the postseason.



I do think there are ways to improve some of the dead time, like when the batter goes wandering off between every pitch, Yadier Molina makes a dozen trips to the mound and the endless throws over to first where they aren't even seriously trying to pick off the runner. I was at a couple Florida State League games in May and they were using the clock between pitches. There were a couple ball calls and the games moved along, but they also didn't have time between innings for TV ads to slow things down.



So, a long way of saying I think they should just play regular rules in extra innings. If they want to used the automatic runner in the rare occasion when things go 12 innings or more, I can live with that.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I'd much prefer the stupid ghost runner to a Home Run Derby or anything else that takes us further from batting and pitching and fielding and running.

[roger_that]

Well, the HR Derby does involve pitching and hitting of a sort.



And as stated, I'd much prefer my scheme about average game times settling the issue, motivating teams to play their games more expeditiously.

[Johnny Lunchbucket]

It's going to become the norm, and I'm certain MLB would admit that marketing the game to younger fans with short attention spans is one of the reasons behind it--and you can bet there's probably a lot of young fans who DO like it. That it shortens games is only a byproduct and a way to sell it to some who feel that's a problem.



Also-- and mainly playing devil's advocate here -- baseball fans are old white men like most of us and old white men in this country are especially resistant to accepting change to their worldview and the way things "should" be--look no further than debate on the DH 50 years on, or you know, any Republican voter. Plus we're all going die soon and it's going to be our kids and their kids--the ones who grew up with this as the norm, who might over time feel strongly about it's value when they are old men.



As a means of shortening games it's completely inadequate and subtracts from what many of us feel is often the most exciting portion of a game, so much, more work needs to be done on that.

[Frayed Knot]

Wow. Expanded playoffs were about increased income?

Thanks.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Jeez is time flying. There's already a whole generation of adult Mets fans who've never seen a Mets game in real time at Shea Stadium, in person or on TV. Shea, to them, is like the Polo Grounds to me.

[MFS62]

The extra inning runner is a curiosity that isn't an affront to the sensibilities like the DH.



It is an interesting experiment that won't, IMO, effect my enjoyment of a game. It is fair to both teams and is a pleasant change that may bring back fundamental baseball instead of the current boring homer or nothing hitting approach.

I'm willing to see more of it for a while.



Later

[Gwreck]

Frayed Knot wrote: Or they could just, y'know, play baseball.

Correct answer. Stop messing with rules that don't need to be changed.



Speeding up games in innings 1-9 makes a ton of sense.



Trying to shorten the tiny percentage of games that go to extras (and perverting the game as a consequence) does not.

[Johnny Lunchbucket]

I've brought this up before and it's even more radical but if game length is what they really wanted to solve, they should cut games to 7 innings--but throw a bone to old men by saying that games are still 9 innings by keeping the "bonus runner" nonsense where it is in the 10th--so 2 innings of real baseball then the skills competition.



I think the bonus runner biz would also be more palatable were they to give clubs a chance to win in extras. So, go to it in like the 15th or something. But they already opened with a bigger bet.

[batmagadanleadoff]

=MFS62 post_id=94968 time=1654532780 user_id=60]
It is fair to both teams....

[roger_that]

It's a perversion, an abomination, an offense to all that's good and holy.



Pete Alonso is all that stands between me and giving up on baseball altogether at this point.

[Johnny Lunchbucket]

=roger_that post_id=94972 time=1654533422 user_id=128]
It's a perversion, an abomination, an offense to all that's good and holy.



Pete Alonso is all that stands between me and giving up on baseball altogether at this point.

[Gwreck]

Yeah, but how does the extra inning runner solve that?



Speeding up the game in innings 1-9, sure. The occasional extra inning game? It's a dumb rule change that doesn't solve anything important.

[MFS62]

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=94971 time=1654533403 user_id=68]
=MFS62 post_id=94968 time=1654532780 user_id=60]
It is fair to both teams....

[roger_that]

Well, if they're trying to alienate me with all this crap, they're doing an excellent job.

[Johnny Lunchbucket]

=Gwreck post_id=94974 time=1654533764 user_id=56]
Yeah, but how does the extra inning runner solve that?



Speeding up the game in innings 1-9, sure. The occasional extra inning game? It's a dumb rule change that doesn't solve anything important.

[Edgy MD]

Also sold it as a COVID-abatement measure.

[Gwreck]

Hockey's 3-on-3 overtime is amazing, and they should just make that the entire third period.

[Ceetar]

Hockey's 3-on-3 overtime is amazing, and they should just make that the entire third period.

right, it's different rules, but it's still the same sport, the same competition. zombie runner is only barely that. I'm all for new rules that aren't gimmicks, moving the mound, move the bases, whatever. Even banning the shift, as stupid as that is, is at least some semblance of normal. Off-sides is mostly not a thing in baseball, but it's not a foreign concept.



But change for changes sake, there's no reason. It's not so much the concept or that they didn't wait until like the 13th, it's that it's so very blatantly a "Manfred hates baseball" thing that's meant to make the broadcast easier, the end of the game more memeable. Nothing to do with the game itself, or the fans or even safety, no matter what lies they tell. If ESPN found 15 innings profitable, this rule wouldn't exist.

[Edgy MD]

I oppose offsides rules (in ice hockey and fútbol particularly) as well.



You or I may turn our noses up at the selfishness of goalhanging, but it strikes me as a legitimate life choice. If somebody wants to play the heel and ignore the selfless duties of defending in exchange for the glory-hogging of scoring, it's the tradeoff he or she chooses, and presumably the one his or her coach allows. What's the problem?