Round up the usual suspects

[Frayed Knot]

Commish Selig has named his 'select committee' (he seems to have a lot of those) to study and recommend improvements towards reducing the length of games. I like to think the three-page letter I wrote to Bud last winter was the impetus behind this but I suspect not.
Anyway, lots of familiar close-to-Bud names wind up on this panel: John Schuerholz, Sandy Alderson; MLB Players Association exec Tony Clark; Red Sox partner Michael Gordon; COO/Commissioner-elect Rob Manfred; MLB VP Joe Torre; and Red Sox chairman Tom Werner -- and nothing says shorter games than a group populated by Yankees and Red Sox

You're a bit late to the party Bud (probably from staying up to midnight watching the 7 PM games end) and you're taking your usual consensus approach so that no one can accuse you of being too radical (although why you'd care about that on your way out the door I can't figure). But hopefully something comes out of this other than merely 'suggestions' and I take it that you took note of the pasting that Roger Goodell got this week with his press conference which basically said: 'We're going to fix this although I can't say how or when, just trust us'
IOW: Something concrete = Good; Vague promises = Not so much

Edited September 22, 2014 by Guest

[metirish]

Money for old rope that lot , SNY fit in so many commercials that they far too often miss pitches, hits etc. coming back, there's a fix right there.

[Zvon]

Did you really write a letter to the Commish? If so, I salute you.

[Frayed Knot]

SNY fit in so many commercials that they far too often miss pitches, hits etc. coming back, there's a fix right there.

Well that's SNY's problem (and YES's, and a bunch of other outlets). As long as the game isn't being delayed past the assigned time for between innings breaks (2:05 for most games, 2:25 for GotW, 2:55 for playoffs) then the station sticking in extra ads just makes themselves look bad but doesn't really extend the game. Sometimes it seems that those time limits are NOT followed but, if so, then that's on the umps rather than the local carrier.

Zvon wrote: Did you really write a letter to the Commish? If so, I salute you.

Sure did. I figured you guys were sick of listening to me bitch about it here so I gathered a bunch of what I wrote around this place and stuck it in an envelope headed for Park Avenue.
All it got me was a (months later) 'Thank you for your input' kind of response but I figure if I'm going to keep carping about it I might as well do so to someone who's in position to do something about it rather than keep annoying you folks.

[Frayed Knot]

Recommendations from the 'Pace of Game Initiative' committee will get a test run during Arizona Fall Lg games.
Among the rules in effect:

* A hitter must keep one foot inside the batter's box throughout his plate appearance. Exceptions include a foul ball or a foul tip, a pitch forcing the batter out of the batter's box, a request for time out being granted, a wild pitch or a passed ball and several others. --- This will be an obvious improvement. Plus the biggest thing here is simply to stop the players from getting into their wandering habits in the first place.

* Intentional walks will no longer include the pitcher lobbing four balls outside the strike zone. Instead, the manager will signal to the home-plate umpire and the batter will take first base. --- This has been a longtime complaint of some folks but I think it's small potatoes. I like forcing pitchers to actually throw the ball (ya never know what might happen!) and the time saved is really minimal.

* There will be a maximum break of two minutes and five seconds between innings, with hitters required to be in the batter's box by the one minute and 45 seconds mark. If a hitter doesn't comply, the umpire will call a strike. If the hitter is ready but the pitcher doesn't deliver a pitch by two minutes and five seconds, the umpire will call a ball. --- This is the other prime culprit and another one where there's long been a proscribed limit that's been ignored. Having the batter actually in the box when the station comes back from commercial, as opposed to still swinging bats in the on-deck circle listening to his personal walk-up music, will be a pleasure.

* There will be a maximum of two minutes and 30 seconds allowed for pitching changes, including those that occur during an inning break. The clock starts when the reliever enters the playing field. The penalty will be that the umpire calls a ball. --- Fine, but I don't know why they need 2-1/2 minutes. Eliminating (or at least cutting down from eight) the warmup pitches on the mound for a reliever (a tradition that dates back to when bullpen mounds weren't on a par with the field mound) could easily cut this down to 90 seconds or less.

* Each team will be permitted three "timeout" conferences covering any meeting involving pitchers and catchers, managers, coaches and batters. Timeouts during pitching changes and those that result from an injury or other emergency will not be counted toward the limit. --- I can just hear Jorge Posada saying; "That's three trips per batter, right?"

* Additionally, at one of the AFL parks they're going to experiment with visible pitch clocks, operated independently of the umpiring crew, which will require the pitcher to pitch within 20 seconds of the batter stepping in the box. --- I've long been wary of a 'shot-clock' type of solution, but the league has put themselves into situation where it might be the best answer.




Now if only they had started this stuff maybe two decades ago.

Edited October 1, 2014 by Guest

[Edgy MD]

I have no problem with allowing a pitcher to throw his four pitches. (Hey, at least it's nominal action!) This isn't where the problem is.

I'm surprised they didn't do anything with trimming time off of replay challenges. (1) There's no point really for managers to have to cross the field to speak with an umpire, when a signal to a base coach or defensive player can do it. (2) There's no need for umpires to have to don coil-wire headsets behind home plate when they can carry around wireless bluetooth tech.

[Guest sharpie]

That's also part of the honorable blue ribbon committee's scope:

In addition, the MLB video-review system that started this year will be in use and will include experimental rules regarding scope, initiation and time limits.

[Guest d'Kong76]

All steps in the right direction, I guess. I agree that
the four intentional walk pitches should be thrown. How
many times do see a guy almost sail one with a guy on base
that could advance?

And yeah, the dufflebag and headphones is so 90's with what's
available out there today.

[Guest Mets � Willets Point]

No George Mitchell.

[seawolf17]

Mets � Willets Point wrote: No George Mitchell.

Ooh! That means we can have steroids back!

[Frayed Knot]

Edgy MD wrote: I'm surprised they didn't do anything with trimming time off of replay challenges.

Since replay was first argued for and proposed in football* some 30 years ago, the big selling point from its proponents has been that it'll only cover a limited scope of plays ("heavens no, it'll never be used for ball spotting") and that it'll have a time limit. And yet 30 some years later they continue to grow the number of things it covers and it only gets longer and longer.
Yes better technology could shave a few seconds here or there, but the whole 'limited' replay concept remains an exercise in trying to stay only somewhat pregnant. If you're going to use it it's going to take time.





* actually in one of the rival leagues first, not in the NFL who demeaned it as a gimmick unworthy of their time. They did that with a lot of rule changes (goalposts in the back of the end zone, radios in helmets, moved kickoffs, 2-point conversions, etc.) and yet somehow get credit for being an innovative league

[ashie62]

It seems many batters leave the box after every pitch and do an OCD driven wristband gymnastics.

[Edgy MD]

Yes, it's going to take time, but a lot of time could be carved off with the way they practice it, and there are certainly more challenges per game than intentional walks. And I think it would have served the game well for them to address this.

[Lefty Specialist]

There are more times where the manager strolls out to the first-base umpire, all the while looking at his bench coach to see if they should challenge a play. That probably happens three times as much as actual challenges. Get rid of that little bit of kabuki theater, and you'll probably cut a few minutes off each game.

[Edgy MD]

Pat Zachry. It's only the most obvious thing in the world.

But that's what you get when you convene a bunch of managers with political capital but not the studied expertise on the particular issue.

Managers, of course, HATE their pitchers throwing four extra inconsequential pitches. Personally, I think it buys warmup time for those pitchers' successors a lot more meaningfully than fake mound conferences do.

[Frayed Knot]

Some would argue that the waiting for the signal from the dugout time is simply replacing the dirt-kicking, hat-throwing, tantrum time that managers used to have instead, so, in effect, little time is lost or gained. And then if you're not going to do it via manager challenges, then how?

Where a time limit needs to be imposed is in the review itself, where if the folks back in NYC haven't found enough evidence to overturn after 'X' amount of time then the call stands. That always leaves open the possibility that a percentage of wrong calls won't get reversed but when most replay proponents envisioned how it would work I highly doubt they were all up in arms over the split-millimeter type of calls where someone needs a magnifying glass up against an 80-inch hi-def screen to determine whether the ball actually settled into the 1st baseman's glove before the runner's spikes hit the pillow or the other way around. Those, I'm sure, are the time-consuming ones since you and I could do the obvious calls from our couches without needing 14 angles and a room full of consultants. But when the stated purpose is "to get it right" then it becomes tough to keep down the number and type of plays that can't be reviewed and we wind up constantly chasing the idealistic goal of; 'oh replay would be perfect if we just do it this way ...'.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I don't like the intentional walk suggestion. There have been times when it's led to a wild pitch, so I think the pitcher should have to execute. (I've often thought that if I was a batter being intentionally walked, I'd swing at the fourth pitch, just to make the pitcher have to throw a fifth pitch. And maybe, I'd even swing at the fifth pitch to entice him to try to get me out on the sixth pitch.)

As for the reviews, I would like to end the farce. Let the manager call a 30-second timeout to determine whether or not he wants to post a challenge. And maybe he can be limited to how many times he can do this. I don't mind the time for the reviews. I was at a game in Pittsburgh where a challenge was made in a key spot, and they showed the replays on the scoreboard as the review was underway. There was a terrific feeling of suspense in the ballpark. These reviews can have just as much drama as what happens on the field.

I do like the idea of one foot in the batter's box, and encouraging the pitcher to pitch more quickly. Reducing the amount of time between innings is also a good idea. Entertainment shows have been challenged to come up with ways to advertise even though people fast-forward through commercials. Sports events, more likely to be watched live, don't have to worry about that, but they can maximize their in-game spots. ("This foul ball sponsored by Toyota.") I know this kind of thing is awful and annoying, but if it leads to shorter commercial breaks and games ending earlier, I'd be willing to put up with it. (I've pretty much learned how to tune out that noise by now anyway.)

[Frayed Knot]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Reducing the amount of time between innings is also a good idea. Entertainment shows have been challenged to come up with ways to advertise even though people fast-forward through commercials. Sports events, more likely to be watched live, don't have to worry about that, but they can maximize their in-game spots. ("This foul ball sponsored by Toyota.") I know this kind of thing is awful and annoying, but if it leads to shorter commercial breaks and games ending earlier, I'd be willing to put up with it. (I've pretty much learned how to tune out that noise by now anyway.)

The thing is, they're not even reducing the time between innings (Heck, we'd all like to reduce commercial time but we know that's not going to happen) merely taking steps to ensure that the game is ready to go as soon as the allowed time is up. Nothing more annoying then waiting out the allotted commercial time* only to have it be another 20-30 seconds before the first pitch is thrown. If they stick to their guns on this one (a REAL big IF) then the batter is going to be in the box when the station break ends. Then, as soon as the ump gets the signal that break time is over, he simply points to the pitcher and they're ready to go.





* 2:05 for most games, 2:25 for GotW, 2:55 for post-season

[Edgy MD]

Frayed Knot wrote: Some would argue that the waiting for the signal from the dugout time is simply replacing the dirt-kicking, hat-throwing, tantrum time that managers used to have instead, so, in effect, little time is lost or gained.

People can argue whatever they want. I'd like to see them back that one up with data.

Frayed Knot wrote: And then if you're not going to do it via manager challenges, then how?

Base coaches, already on the scene, can approach the ump and ask for an appeal, following signals from the manager in the dugout, if necessary.

If the defensive team wants to challenge, their designated defensive captain can make the appeal. Easy peazy.

[Ceetar]

I'm sure they're still tweaking the replay rules. first year bugs and all.

I'd get rid of the manager challenges entirely. Leave it up to the umpires to review it and get it right. This preserves the managers right to come out and yell at them to review it the same way they used to that people miss so much. It'd also get rid of the 'theater' of them waiting for the signal to review. If they go out there with nothing to say, delay of game them and award a ball. If they go out there and yell, they risk ejection.

And this may be the best part, if they wait for conclusive evidence via video review, the game may proceed before they can object. Which means the other team has an incentive to not dilly dally. And if the team possibly wanting a review shuffles their feet, that's when you enforce the delay of game penalties.

[Frayed Knot]

Edgy MD wrote: Frayed Knot wrote: And then if you're not going to do it via manager challenges, then how? Base coaches, already on the scene, can approach the ump and ask for an appeal, following signals from the manager in the dugout, if necessary. If the defensive team wants to challenge, their designated defensive captain can make the appeal. Easy peazy.

How does any of that do away with the stalling tactics?
Whether it's the manager stalling while waiting for the guy on the phone, or the base coach/defensive captain stalling for a signal from the manager who's waiting for the go-ahead from the guys on the phone, I don't see how we're getting anywhere.

[Edgy MD]

Frayed Knot wrote: Frayed Knot wrote: And then if you're not going to do it via manager challenges, then how? Base coaches, already on the scene, can approach the ump and ask for an appeal, following signals from the manager in the dugout, if necessary. If the defensive team wants to challenge, their designated defensive captain can make the appeal. Easy peazy. How does any of that do away with the stalling tactics? Whether it's the manager stalling while waiting for the guy on the phone, or the base coach/defensive captain stalling for a signal from the manager who's waiting for the go-ahead from the guys on the phone, I don't see how we're getting anywhere.

I find that hard to believe.

We don't waste time with the farce of a fat old guy climbing out of the dugout and crossing the field slowly while pretending like he's scuttling, which is the biggest stalling tactic of them all. Somebody on the field wants to ask for an appeal, he can, but his time is limited to a specific length and then he's cut dead. Easy. Peazy.

You wire the head ump to call mission control without having to set up a com center behind home plate. Also easy.

[Frayed Knot]

You find it hard to believe that base coaches or 'defensive captains' will stall while waiting for a signal from the dugout via their man upstairs just like the manager now does? I find that hard to believe.

Edgy MD wrote: We don't waste time with the farce of a fat old guy climbing out of the dugout and crossing the field slowly while pretending like he's scuttling, which is the biggest stalling tactic of them all. Somebody on the field wants to ask for an appeal, he can, but his time is limited to a specific length and then he's cut dead. Easy. Peazy.

Hey, if they're going to set up a time limit for appeals then it hardly matters who does the challenging.
But I think MLB would be wary of doing that without also increasing the number of challenges per game since teams will be less sure about the ultimate outcome if they have to challenge prior to receiving guidance from upstairs.


And, sure, wireless technology would at least solve the problem of looking like MLB is behind the times ... although maybe they feel they need the bigger, noise-cancelling types to hear what NYC is telling them.

[Edgy MD]

Frayed Knot wrote: You find it hard to believe that base coaches or 'defensive captains' will stall while waiting for a signal from the dugout via their man upstairs just like the manager now does? I find that hard to believe.

No. That's exactly not what I wrote. I wrote about the manager crossing the field.

[MFS62]

Charlie Finley proposed the 20 second "countdown clock" (among other things) when he owned the KC A's. IIRC, he had a clock installed in KC and MLB made him take it down.
http://www.nytimes.com/1986/05/20/sports/scouting-the-pastime-according-to-charlie-o.html

MLB rejected the ideas (his defense of "You want to speed up the game. Don't you?" fell on deaf ears).

What's next? Orange baseballs?

Later

[Frayed Knot]

* Additionally, at one of the AFL parks they're going to experiment with visible pitch clocks, operated independently of the umpiring crew, which will require the pitcher to pitch within 20 seconds of the batter stepping in the box. --- I've long been wary of a 'shot-clock' type of solution, but the league has put themselves into situation where it might be the best answer.

The average AFL game under the 'pitch clock' conditions so far has been 2:38, a figure which includes yesterday's 11 inning tie game which went 3:12
The actual clock is only being used in one location in the AFL and so the sample here is still only a handful of games. The first game or two did have some automatic balls called as a penalty for not delivering the pitch within the set amount of time although not in this most recent one as the players start getting used to the rule.

[Frayed Knot]

The results are in from the AFL games (as I continue my obsession with this topic) which either used the 'speed-up' rules [keep foot in box, etc.] or, in one of the stadiums, the 20-second pitch clock:

All AFL games 2013 (w/o speed-up rules): 2:53
All AFL games 2014 (combined) -- 2:45
2014 AFL games w/pitch clock -- 2:42
2014 AFL games just w/batters box rule -- 2:46
Extrapolated average MLB games based on time per/AB -- 2:39 (there were more ABs/game in the avg MLB game than in a typical AFL contest, ergo: more time saved)
I believe the average MLB game time in 2014 was just under 3:00 even so we're talking about 20 minutes per/game saved


That's the good news as released by Joe Torre at the recent GM meetings.

Now for the bad news.
Again, from Joe Torre: "As far as being able to implement it {at the MLB level], you have to understand that this has to be in conjunction with the Players Association, as it was with our collision play," Torre said. "Trying to implement that so close to the season last year was really tough. Maybe as much as we suggest it, but understand that players have a certain habit of doing things. But this has been, just from all the evidence we've had from the Fall League, a real positive as far as gathering information. That's what we have to do first before we figure out what will work at the Major League level."

But the collision play was a change in the rules. These rules (at least the ones not involving a 'play clock' which was more an experiment than anything else) are ones that already exist and I have no idea why they think they need the players' blessing in order to start to enforce them. I realize that they just can't do it without letting them in on how things are going to go down from now on but that hardly requires a lengthy break-in period.

[Edgy MD]

"Trying to implement that so close to the season last year was really tough."

And thus, kind of an embarrassment, trying to enforce a rule when nobody was really sure what it meant.

Tough part about extrapolating AFL data is that they're going to have more pitching changes in the first half of the game.

[MFS62]

Here's my proposal:
Any relief pitcher entering a game with no outs must face at least three batters. And any relief pitcher entering a game with at least one out must complete the inning.
(Number of outs and number of batters can be negotiated with Union)

Later

[bmfc1]

Thank you FK. MLB doesn't want to shorten the games--shorter games means fewer commercials (remember that commercials happen during a game, not just between innings). Someone is likely looking at that and thinking "its only 8 minutes." I want those 8 minutes!

The words "bad news" and "Joe Torre" seem to go together.