Round up the usual suspects

[Lefty Specialist]

MFS62 wrote: 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

What if a pitcher is totally ineffective, and gives up 5 hits in a row? You can't be forced to keep him in.

[MFS62]

Lefty Specialist wrote: 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 What if a pitcher is totally ineffective, and gives up 5 hits in a row? You can't be forced to keep him in.

At the start of an inning? My rule accommodates that. And the corollary to my new rule is that it may spur offense, which baseball has been looking to do since steroids have been banned. Maybe the negotiation would include an effectiveness clause, too.

Later

[Frayed Knot]

That proposal, and several others out there, substantially alter the game which I don't support especially since the crime of this whole trend is that nothing really needs to altered except the pace at which it's played.
No one realistically is asking to return to the days where there was no TV and so games with about 45 seconds between half-innings were routinely being played in under 2 hours.
Rather it's the half-hour that's been tacked on, not on top of the game in the days of grainy black and white film but just in the last two or three decades, games that were well within the memory of most current fans. And, yeah, increased use of relievers is part of that, but quicken each pitch thrown by just one second and you shorten the game about four minutes without doing anything else. Make that three seconds per pitch plus some minor adjustments such as being ready to go as soon as the assigned between-innings break is done and maybe reducing on-field strategy meetings and you can easily lop 15-20 minutes off the game without losing a single piece of strategy or action.

On the other hand if you want to do away with the tradition of having incoming relievers throw warm-ups on the mound after they've already warmed-up in the pen then I'm with you. The original purpose of allowing it, because bullpen mounds were often inferior and not the same on the real mound, went away decades ago. Warm-ups at the beginning of innings - sure, but within an inning - nope, get your throwing done in the pen. This would save at least a minute per in-inning change.

[Frayed Knot]

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.

But the biggest problem isn't commercial time, it's the slow pace that occurs during supposedly live action. The amount of allotted time for commercial breaks [2:05 for most games, 2:25 for GotW (FOX Saturday and ESPN Sunday night), and 2:55 for post-season] hasn't changed in years, and yet the time-creep continues upward.

[MFS62]

Frayed Knot wrote: On the other hand if you want to do away with the tradition of having incoming relievers throw warm-ups on the mound after they've already warmed-up in the pen then I'm with you. The original purpose of allowing it, because bullpen mounds were often inferior and not the same on the real mound, went away decades ago. Warm-ups at the beginning of innings - sure, but within an inning - nope, get your throwing done in the pen. This would save at least a minute per in-inning change.

That'll do it.
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. But the biggest problem isn't commercial time, it's the slow pace that occurs during supposedly live action. The amount of allotted time for commercial breaks [2:05 for most games, 2:25 for GotW (FOX Saturday and ESPN Sunday night), and 2:55 for post-season] hasn't changed in years, and yet the time-creep continues upward.

It's all problematic. If MLB wanted to do something about the problem right away and do something that doesn't required MLBA OK, it would make the commercial breaks 90 seconds. They won't because it will cost them money but if they were serious about the issue, this is one way to help solve it. Cutting back merely one 30 second spot from all of the scenarios saves 9 minutes.

[Frayed Knot]

Well sure, we'd all like to see less commercial time, but that's not going to happen in baseball anymore than it's going to happen in football, or on the nightly news, or during a hit sitcom.

[bmfc1]

I didn't know that we were only allowed to suggest rule changes that you deem to be realistic. Of course it will never happen because MLB only cares about making money. The point was that if MLB was serious about fixing the issue of lengthy games, it could, right now, without involving the MLPA, even if that fix was "unrealistic" to you.

[Frayed Knot]

Well if we're going to do away with various sources of the business's income then we can propose dropping 90 seconds out of the between innings time and cut out a half-hour or more.

But ...

- the length of games is only part of the problem as game times have been increasing despite the fact that the commercial time hasn't increased in recent years. The pace of games during the non-commercial time is at least as big a problem as merely the length and it's something they need to address even if they were of a mind to cut commercial time. I shouldn't be able to go in the kitchen as mix a drink between pitches

- unilaterally cutting the commercial time is not something the league could simply decide to do on their own as those times are written into the contracts they have with the various broadcasters. At best they'd have to wait until the current contracts end and those tend to be longer than their deals with the players union.

- I still don't understand why they think they need player union approval to enforce those pitch and batters box rules that are already on the books.

[Guest Rockin' Doc]

There is far too much posturing and stalling from both hitters and pitchers. The slow pace of play is ruining the beautiful game of baseball.

Hitters simply need get in the batter's box, then pitchers need to get the sign from the catcher and throw the damn ball. It's not rocket science.

[Frayed Knot]

20 pitch clock to be used in all AA & AAA stadiums in 2015
Still some details still to be worked out but MLB has a great laboratory in which to try out these kind of ideas so why not.

[ashie62]

Keep the batters in the box.

No more strolls between every pitch.

[metsmarathon]

i like and support the idea, if not the execution. i think an official digital clock is a jarring incongruity in a baseball game.

an analog countdown timer, on the other hand, would be kinda cool. and would allow the teams the opportunity to inject some personality and individualism into the affair.

picture if you will, a giant clock with mr met on hte face, in pitching position. his hand is hte hand of the clock, and in it, the ball. as hte timer counts down, his hand goes up. when the time is up, his hand it at the top of hte face, in hte 12:00 position, ready to release the ball. throw your pitch before mr met does, or you get a ball!

way more fun than a shot clock.

[Benjamin Grimm]

MLB announces pace-of-play changes and replay tweaks By David Brown | Baseball Writer February 20, 2015 11:07 am ET Major League Baseball wants games to move along more crisply and, as expected Friday morning, announced new rules in pace-of-game regulations and video replay etiquette. As our own Mike Axisa wrote Thursday night after broad sketches of the new rules leaked to Fox Sports, those changes include: � Managers must challenge replays from dugout. No more slow walks over to umpires on the field in order to stall while team replay mavens check their TV monitors. MLB is making other replay tweaks as well, including adding an additional manager's challenge for playoff games, regular-season tiebreakers and the All-Star game. Also: tag-up plays will be reviewable going forward. And no instant replay will be used in spring training this season. � Batters must keep one foot in the batter's box "unless an established exception occurs." Exceptions include actions such as bunting, or when there's a wild pitch, for example. This might be the most "invasive" of the changes, something batters will have to get used to. � Play must resume promptly once a broadcast returns from a commercial break. To that end, timers will be installed in each ballpark to assist umpires in keeping everyone on task. The new regulations were part of a joint effort among the league, the players association and the umpires union to help shorten the length of ballgames, which lasted about 3.13 hours in 2014 and, apparently, make everyone in North America too sleepy. In a statement, commissioner Rob Manfred said: "These changes represent a step forward in our efforts to streamline the pace of play. The most fundamental starting point for improving the pace of the average game involves getting into and out of breaks seamlessly. In addition, the batter's box rule will help speed up a basic action of the game." One takeaway from all of this: With the addition of physical timers "counting down" in each ballpark, we can be fairly certain that a "pitch clock" component will be added to the game in the near future. The upper levels of the minor leagues are experimenting with it in 2015, and with MLB already adding a clock to games to regulate pace coming out of commercial breaks, it's just a matter of... time until the clock is used after every pitch in order to "keep the game moving." One would think that umpires would be able to keep the game moving just by concerted effort, but that's not how MLB wants to do it. MLB had been unique. Now it has a clock like other sports.

[Benjamin Grimm]

In general, I think I approve of all three bullet points. Especially the one about the foot in the batters box.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

And I'm sure that one-foot-in won't be a big adjustment for most guys to make, because if there's one thing with which baseball players are totally okay, it's small, forced changes to their routines.

[Edgy MD]

CBS Sports wrote: � Managers must challenge replays from dugout. No more slow walks over to umpires on the field in order to stall while team replay mavens check their TV monitors.

Hey, look.

[Frayed Knot]

Plus umpire Tim McClellan has retired, so not having to wait for his delayed strikes alone will save 15 or 20 minutes per game.

[Benjamin Grimm]

CBS Sports wrote: � Managers must challenge replays from dugout. No more slow walks over to umpires on the field in order to stall while team replay mavens check their TV monitors.

So does this mean that managers won't get a chance to peek at the replay before they make a challenge? Or are managers going to have the ability to call a, say, 20-second timeout so they can review?

[metsmarathon]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: CBS Sports wrote: MLB had been unique. Now it has a clock like other sports.

mlb is stil unique, in that the clock is not used to regulate the length of hte game, merely the pace of the breaks in the play.

it's still ridiculous, to an extent, that hte umpires need a clock to be able to enfore that kind of thing. maybe instead of a big ol' clock, the umpires could have, oh, i dunno, a watch?

hell, give 'em all smart watches that are tied into the timing. thye could even use them to track pitch timing, instead of having some big intrusive and incongruous shot clock.

[Benjamin Grimm]

The New York Times wrote: Managers will also be impacted in their method of challenging a call. Last season, the first with widespread instant replay, managers routinely left the field to feign an argument with the umpire, while keeping an eye on the dugout. Behind the scenes, a team video coordinator would study the replay and tell a coach whether the manager should issue a challenge. The manager would not leave the field until getting his signal from the coach. Those tactics were not part of the rules, and served as a tedious sidelight to an otherwise effective replay rollout. Managers can still rush onto the field to challenge a potential inning-ending out. But in other instances, they are now instructed to stay in the dugout and signal to the umpire from the top step � verbally or with a hand signal � that they are considering a challenge.

[Frayed Knot]

IOW, no quicker, just different.

[Edgy MD]

That certainly remains to be seen. I imagine none of us has an average amount of time spent on issuing a challenge.

[Ceetar]

I'm looking forward to a lot of awkwardly milling around as players instinctively start running off the field for the typical inning ending 6-3 groundout and then the manager comes out to challenge something and the player are all halfway to the dugout and unsure if they should retreat or hang out and wait..

[Frayed Knot]

Just a small non-scientific note on pace of game: Saturday night's game was the first time this year I joined a game late and watched the early innings via DVR and 'caught up' by skipping commercials -- and, based on what I saw, things seem to be looking up.
-- The 'four clicks' method of skipping ahead 30 seconds at a time between half-innings used to bring you to the end of the commercial break but still maybe 20-30 seconds from the first pitch as pitchers were still finishing warmups, batters hadn't approach the box yet, promos were still being announced, etc. But last night that same 2-minute jump ahead took you right about to the first pitch of the inning.
-- Jumping ahead that same 30 seconds between outs is something I usually don't do although have in the past if I was way behind in the game. I tried that a few times last night just to check and most times it would cause me to miss the first pitch to the next hitter, something that didn't use to happen.

Now what we need to hope for is that this non-dragging method of play becomes second nature to all concerned as opposed to the scenario where it all goes by the wayside by mid-season and we're back to the same ass-dragging pace they got used to over the last couple decades.

[Frayed Knot]

Time of Game stats for 2015 are in.
According to BB-Ref, the average 9 inning game this season was 3:00, down from 3:07 in 2014, even though scoring was up somewhat [R/g down 0.2; Shutout% down .57% SLGA up 19 points].

Manfred made some remarks last week about how he wasn't going to be satisfied with just that progress and that they'd continue to look at various other solutions; he mentioned things like the possibility of capping mound visits (Yay!!), or requiring incoming pitchers to face at least two batters (not so Yay). What they wind up doing (or not) remains to be seen but I at least like the idea that he didn't just say; "There, mission accomplished".

My personal observation was that the tightened up pace early in the season slackened off somewhat as it got towards the end. This showed up in both longer game times and the between innings gaps. And while September games are often longer due to 59 man bullpens and the like, things seemed to be trending longer even before that although I have no specific data to back that up.
NL games continue to be quicker than AL