How the Hell ...

[Frayed Knot]

... does a 2-0, 8-1/2 inning game take over three hours to play?

ChiSox at Oakland yesterday clocked in at 3:02
- A's scored one in the 6th plus one in the 8th - and so didn't have to bat in the 9th
- the two teams combined for just 9 hits and 3 walks plus one HBP
- there were a total of 17 Ks which often take longer than non-K outs but there were also two GiDPs
- Nine of the Seventeen half-innings had just three batters (eight were 1-2-3 frames plus one where there was a single then GiDP) and no half-inning had more than five
- there were a total of Seven pitchers used but just two in-inning pitching changes
- there was One error, plus one passed ball, plus one balk (all of which merely allowed a runner to move up but did not allow a better to reach base who should have been out)
- 284 total pitches were thrown, which I believe is somewhat higher than normal (particularly for a low-scoring game) although I'm not sure by how much

So what the Fuck were these guys doing that took 182 minutes from first pitch to last?!?


There was a small piece in Sunday's NYTimes on game times, specifically on the independent Atlantic League experimenting with trying to speed up their games. In the article they point out that the average time for ML games this season is 2:58, which would tie it for the longest ever (with the 2000 season) if this trend holds through September and makes it a full 25 minutes longer than the 1981 average of 2:33

So far the Atlantic League claims that: by enforcing the strike zone as defined by the rule book which they theorize could lead to more high strikes and batters swinging earlier in the count; by limiting pitchers to under one minute on their pre-inning warmups and 12 seconds per pitch if there's no one on base; and by prohibiting batters from leaving the box after each pitch, they're down about 10-15 minutes per game this year.

MLB often makes noises along these same lines but then always seems to let things slide so as to not upset the players and their routines (yeah, go ahead and take a 20-minute stroll between pitches Travis Hafner, we'll wait here for you). But I truly believe that the length and the pacing of these games is the biggest problem baseball has at the moment and is one of the reasons I'm wary of added "instant" replay calls.
I've long thought that a way to solve this (or at least try) is to institute in the minors what the Atlantic Lg is doing with the thought of never having them develop the habits of turning each AB into a Three-Act performance. I think the problem is that once they reach the majors and become prima-donnas (or Pre-Madonnas as one poster once put it) it's virtually impossible to break them of those routines. It make take a bunch of years before you'd begin to see any results this way, but whatever else they're trying sure isn't working.

[Zvon]

I know in todays fast forward world everyone wants everything to be fast, faster, fastest, but I'm an old school fan who can't get enough baseball. I had no problem with the length of a game. As a matter of fact, if a game was long in time, or extra innings, I always felt KOOL! I'm getting more than my moneys worth! More baseball!

I understand why they are trying to speed up games but I don't give a shit.

That game? Dunno, but I might fire it up and take a look see on MLB.TV since theres no Met game today.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

So, what you're telling me is, you could have used a two-hour rain delay, say, in the middle of yesterday's Mets-Fish game, and a few more pitching changes?

Not every 4-hour-plus game is the Rick Camp game. Most aren't, in fact.

[Zvon]

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: So, what you're telling me is, you could have used a two-hour rain delay, say, in the middle of yesterday's Mets-Fish game, and a few more pitching changes? Not every 4-hour-plus game is the Rick Camp game. Most aren't, in fact.

Only time spent watching baseball being played should be counted. A boring extra inning game? I love em. One way or the other it's not gonna stay boring.

[Frayed Knot]

My point isn't that long games can't be enjoyable or that shorter is always better. There's nothing wrong with a three-hour baseball game or even, in some cases, longer than that. Where you start to run into problems is when three hour games become the average even though there's nothing extra in them as compared to when the average was close to 20% quicker, and we're not talking about games from some ancient grainy black and white video times but in the memory of many current fans. When a sport is competing for viewer eyeballs and asses-in-seats it makes a difference to a lot of people whether their 7:10 local start has a good chance of ending prior to 10PM or is just as likely to still be going at 10:30-10:45 especially on school/work nights and/or in questionable weather.

In the case of the example cited above, when a 2-run, 8-1/2 inning game with just 13 total base-runners is busting past the three-hour mark it's tough to come up with an explanation other than that there was a ton of dead time in there somewhere and that's not a good sign for the overall health of the sport. And we haven't even gotten into the post-season games where the times are routinely headed up towards four hours and the TV ratings are (not so coincidentally) headed in the opposite direction.

[Zvon]

My point isn't that long games can't be enjoyable or that shorter is always better. There's nothing wrong with a three-hour baseball game or even, in some cases, longer than that. Where you start to run into problems is when three hour games become the average even though there's nothing extra in them as compared to when the average was close to 20% quicker, and we're not talking about games from some ancient grainy black and white video times but in the memory of many current fans. When a sport is competing for viewer eyeballs and asses-in-seats it makes a difference to a lot of people whether their 7:10 local start has a good chance of ending prior to 10PM or is just as likely to still be going at 10:30-10:45 especially on school/work nights and/or in questionable weather. In the case of the example cited above, when a 2-run, 8-1/2 inning game with just 13 total base-runners is busting past the three-hour mark it's tough to come up with an explanation other than that there was a ton of dead time in there somewhere and that's not a good sign for the overall health of the sport. And we haven't even gotten into the post-season games where the times are routinely headed up towards four hours and the TV ratings are (not so coincidentally) headed in the opposite direction.

All good points.

[Frayed Knot]

Saturday's long-game crimes:
Sox & Angels played a split DH at Fenway due to Friday's rain out

Game 1 winds up 9-5 Angels and takes Four Hours even
Yeah that's a lot of runs and a bunch of hits (26) but, still, whatdafuck you guys doing over there? I kept switching over to that game during breaks in ours and when Mets/Marlins were already into extras they were still in the 7th or 8th in Boston despite the same start time.

Game 2 was 7-3 Sox so they only needed 8-1/2 innings and had a bit less offense so they were able to get things in in a swift 3:35


That's 7:35 for two 9-inning games.

[Frayed Knot]

Of the 15 games yesterday (Sat, Aug 17) only 3 came in at under 3 hours - and two of those not by much (2:49 & 2:51)
The only game that could even reasonably be considered "quick" was Milwaukee's 2-0, 8-1/2 inning win over Cincy, a game that, at 2:28, would have been considered average about 30 years ago.

The other 12 games [u:2q3hkxye]averaged[/u:2q3hkxye] 3:43 (aka seven minutes longer than the Mets/Pads slog-fest) and even if you throw out the two extra-innings games the ten 9 inning games checked in at an average of 3:21

[MFS62]

Frayed Knot wrote: There was a small piece in Sunday's NYTimes on game times, specifically on the independent Atlantic League experimenting with trying to speed up their games. So far the Atlantic League claims that: by enforcing the strike zone as defined by the rule book which they theorize could lead to more high strikes and batters swinging earlier in the count; by limiting pitchers to under one minute on their pre-inning warmups and 12 seconds per pitch if there's no one on base; and by prohibiting batters from leaving the box after each pitch, they're down about 10-15 minutes per game this year.

What time do they start their games? 7:00 PM Eastern time?

As I have mentioned before, the Long Island ducks games are broadcast on 103.9 FM. I get out of work at 10:00 PM and when I get into my car, many of their games are still on. And they aren't always high scoring, either.
How long did they used to be?

Later

[bmfc1]

Good thread FK.

Stop adjusting your batting gloves after every pitch. If you step out of the batters box without having hit the ball, it's a strike. Throw the ball already, you're going to have to so just do it. No more mound visits unless you are changing a pitcher--baseball is the only sport where the manager or a coach can stop the action and hold a meeting on the playing field. Most of all, if baseball is really serious about this, then cut the commercial time between innings--90 seconds is all we need (this will never happen). And no more "God Bless America" in the middle of the 7th inning.

[Edgy MD]

On the playing field or not, baseball and basketball get more than a few timeouts for the coaches to confab with their players --- including mandated "TV timeouts."

[ashie62]

It looks like each team uses about 6 pitchers a game.

12 changes take time?

Not an issue 60's-70's

[Edgy MD]

The Mets have used 4.23 pitchers per game --- including the extra-inning affairs --- meaning 3.23 pitching changes. My guess would be that the majority of those would be between-innings changes. That's not the crux of it.

In fact, the length of games, if I'm not mistaken, had been dropping for a while and seems to have gone up the past few years, even as offense (and therefore pitching changes) has cooled.

That miserable game-that-won't-be-named featured at least one time when Mejia wouln't leave the dugout, and then, of course, his injury, after which a cold pitcher had to be brought in, and given as many warm-ups as he wanted.

[Zvon]

Its quarter past midnight and the Yankee/Boston game is still on. Ha.

[Frayed Knot]

Yup, Yanx-Sawx clocks in at 4:12, only slightly shorter than Pirates-DBacks (4:39) but at least that game had the excuse of going 16 innings.
Side note: Pirates used just four pitchers in that game.

In total, six of yesterday's fifteen games ran over not just three hours but over 3:15

[Guest metsguyinmichigan]

I don't know if there is any incentive for MLB to speed up games. Every minute of a game, someone is on a concession line, in the souvenir store or whatever. Longer games on TV? More time for commercials. The networks must have loved Tony LaRussa, showing ads each time he changed pitchers in the seventh inning.

[Benjamin Grimm]

That's all true, but on the other hand, if games are too long, people may be inclined to leave the game early, or turn it off and go to bed before the game ends. Once you realize that you're okay with not staying up to see the end of a playoff or World Series game, the next logical step is to realize that you're okay with not watching at all.

[bmfc1]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: That's all true, but on the other hand, if games are too long, people may be inclined to leave the game early, or turn it off and go to bed before the game ends. Once you realize that you're okay with not staying up to see the end of a playoff or World Series game, the next logical step is to realize that you're okay with not watching at all.

Well put BG.

[Vic Sage]

These games aren't being extended by exciting explosive action or thrilling tension-filled extra innings, but by tedious time-wasting inactivity that serves no one but the egos and OCD of players and short term financial interests of teams. In the long term, the game is devolving into something that is just too boring for a modern audience to tolerate so MLB, through their inaction, is dooming the game to eventual cult status.

[Ceetar]

Vic Sage wrote: These games aren't being extended by exciting explosive action or thrilling tension-filled extra innings, but by tedious time-wasting inactivity that serves no one but the egos and OCD of players and short term financial interests of teams. In the long term, the game is devolving into something that is just too boring for a modern audience to tolerate so MLB, through their inaction, is dooming the game to eventual cult status.

I think you've got it backwards. The primadonna stuff is exactly in line with modern audiences. The challenges stuff is stupid in the NFL too, but people still watch. That adds a 'manage at home' angle to it. second-guessing the manager has always been popular and here's another avenue for it. The proper use of the bullpen is another one.

I'd love if the games were shorter and more compact, but this just feels like one of those things people like to be pissed off about but doesn't really affect anyone. We're nowhere near even approaching cult status.

[Benjamin Grimm]

but this just feels like one of those things people like to be pissed off about but doesn't really affect anyone.

It affects everyone who goes to bed before the game ends, because it's running too late. HUGE issue for the post season, at least in the Eastern Time Zone.

[Ceetar]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: but this just feels like one of those things people like to be pissed off about but doesn't really affect anyone. It affects everyone who goes to bed before the game ends, because it's running too late. HUGE issue for the post season, at least in the Eastern Time Zone.

So why are ratings so high? Why do television people, who study said ratings to place the game at the best time, do so? Why do stadiums sell out?

It seems like the 'extra sleep versus end of the game' crowd is not really that large.

[Benjamin Grimm]

It may or may not be large, but it surely exists.

[Ceetar]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: It may or may not be large, but it surely exists.

yes, but are there people that stop becoming baseball fans because of it?

[Benjamin Grimm]

Stop entirely? Probably not. But go to fewer games, watch fewer games, spend less money? Definitely.

[seawolf17]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Stop entirely? Probably not. But go to fewer games, watch fewer games, spend less money? Definitely.

/raises hand

[Benjamin Grimm]

Me too.

[Vic Sage]

Beyond those who do or don't "give up the game", or just pay a lot less attention (and money) to it, it is unknowable how many kids don't ever really invest themselves as fans of the game because of its laborious pacing, but it seems logical that it happens, and more now than ever.

talking about current ratings is short term thinking.

for example: At some point toward the end of the 19th century, there probably were a number of buggy whip manufacturers. As cars started getting made, some of those companies died out due to lesser demand for buggy whips, but the remaining companies probably did better than ever due to less competition. At some point, there was one company with a monopoly on the market, and it was doing great. Until the industry became entirely obsolete and disappeared into the dustbin of history.

Just because the sport is doing well now by some commercial indices doesn't mean MLB is doing a good job of seeding the ground to provide for the game's future relevance, much less its growth. There is always going to be a different pace to baseball than there is to football or basketball. Its a pastoral 19th century game and that's a large part of its appeal. I wouldn't advocate trying to MTV-ize the sport so that our ADD-addled youth will find it more appealing, but there is much to be done to combat its excesses and make the sport at least more tolerable for kids to attend with their parents so that going to games becomes a family ritual they can then pass on to their own kids.

[Ceetar]

Apparently Fangraphs has been keeping a Pace stat, time between pitches, since 2007.

The leader over that span is Carlos Pena with 27.6. Tied for second at 26 is Robinson Cano and Manny Ramirez.

Highest Met is Scott Hairston at 52. 23.3 seconds.

[Frayed Knot]

... There is always going to be a different pace to baseball than there is to football or basketball. Its a pastoral 19th century game and that's a large part of its appeal. I wouldn't advocate trying to MTV-ize the sport so that our ADD-addled youth will find it more appealing, but there is much to be done to combat its excesses and make the sport at least more tolerable for kids to attend with their parents so that going to games becomes a family ritual they can then pass on to their own kids.

And the thing is, no one is suggesting that baseball has to alter its rules or revert to some plan or condition that existed back during the William McKinley administration or anything, merely a return to how it was played 20 or 30 years ago--well within the lifespan and memory of most of its fans--prior to when this long, slow, creeping trend took the exact same game and morphed it in something with no more action yet somehow taking 20% longer.

Apparently Fangraphs has been keeping a Pace stat, time between pitches, since 2007

Jim Bouton once said that if you simply banned velcro you could knock 20 minutes off the game.
I'd like to see similar stats which fingered the pitchers most likely to commit clock-a-cide. Jonathan Papelbon c'mon down!!





Monday's crime against fluidity: Rays 4 - Orioles 3; 9 innings; 3:56
WHAT THE FUCK WERE THEY DOING THERE?!?!!? I mean I know it's the freakin' American League and all but still, was there some mid-game swarm of locusts in Baltimore last night that I didn't read about? Did the cast of 'The Wire' come out and perform 'Les Miz' during the 7th inning stretch?
That's a slightly below average scoring game which, if you sliced an hour off of it, would still be 20 minutes longer than what was the norm just a relatively short time ago.