There’s been a lot of noise from Rob Manfred about changing gameplay rules fairly significantly to make fans happier. I don’t get it. I agree with some of this article on the subject. Especially this:
Sure, maybe it’s just a step towards something bigger, but I don’t think I like what it means.
Give Bud Selig credit for being progressive enough to introduce the wild card, interleague play, making the All Star game "matter and eventually the implementation of replay. But he did not change the way the game is played. I think that was important to him. Rob Manfred is obviously not of that mold.
Again, I’m fully aware that it won’t actually save time, but it was such a pointless process that there was no reason to keep it the way it was other than “because that’s how it’s always been done”
I dislike the change, but not out of some misguided “purity” nonsense. Intentionally walking a batter can have consequences with a man on base. It’s four opportunities to steal, and it’s four opportunities to advance if the pitcher or catcher screws up. There is also the opportunity for the batter to whack the shit out of the ball if it drifts toward the plate.
I’d like to see game times reduced, but if MLB thinks anything they do is going to bring in “millennials with short attention spans” or whatever, they’re delusional. The NBA is considering shortening games for that reason. Yeah, good luck.
The change in the intentional walk rule is idiotic. It will do basically nothing to solve the game-length issues that they’re trying to deal with, and it will remove opportunities for excitement and the unusual.
As an Orioles fan, i remember a game some years back when Miguel Cabrera, batting against Baltimore, whacked an intentional ball that stayed close to the plate. There have also been a number of wild pitches in these circumstances, and few have even led to the game-winning run crossing the plate.
Changing the rule is silly not only because IBBs are uncommon, but because when they do occur, it’s often at an important moment in the inning, or in the game, raising the stakes, and thus the consequences of not getting it right.
I agree that a lot of this seems misguided, as opposed to Selig’s changes.
The introduction of another round of playoffs absolutely heightened interest in baseball. There’s not a doubt in my mind whatsoever. It helps that he first year they had a division series you had the epic Mariners-Yankees series, which was awesome, but in general there’s simply no doubt having more teams in contention helps maintain interest. Since the Wild Card was introduced every team has made the playoffs. It would not have happened in a 4-division system and probably never would in a 22-season span.
Now, I don’t happen to be a huge fan of the weirdly unbalanced schedules, but I like interleague play; one leads to the other, but oh well. Again, though, it increases fan interest a little.
The new IBB rule, however, is not going to win baseball one single fan. Not one. There isn’t a person in the entire world to whom this will be the tipping point for watching baseball, and if you believe the pace of play, sped up, will draw more fans in the long run, I believe that, but this won’t increase the pace of play by any reasonable measure. Last year there was an average of one intentional walk every two and a half entire games. Between BOTH teams. Whoop dee frickin’ do.
Now, the idea of reducing the interminable wait for instant replay - they’re capping it at two minutes - is great. There was never any reason for it to be longer than two minutes; a person can watch all available angels, in slo-mo, in two minutes, no problem. You can do it in sixty seconds; I have no idea whatsoever why MLB, which presumably has the tech to wire up a room with a bunch of 4K monitors and feeds from all available cameras for every game, can’t have the replay decision made for any close play almost before the manager makes the challenge. Terrific idea.
But the other stuff dribbling out is just baffling to me. The urgency of the IBB rule is mystifying; this was not one of the 20 most important things they could have changed - and as the linked article points out, this is in a league that is swimming in money, so what’s the panic? Why not try this out in the minors or spring training first?
I also note they’re playing the “we need new staaaaadiums” song again, this time for Phoenix. I don’t know why Phoenix in particular, which doesn’t have a particularly old stadium, is being picked on; I can only assume they heard the Coyotes had found a local sucker to build them another arena (their third, which is about how many fans they have) and decided maybe stadium-building suckers are plentiful in Arizona.
Right, throwing 4 pitches for an iBB is not purity for the sake of purity. The automatic IBB will fundamentally change that part of the game.
Rob Manfred says:
“I’m firmly convinced both our avid fans and casual fans want us to respond to and manage the change that’s going on in the game. I’m certain that our job as stewards of the game is to be responsive to fans, and I reject the notion that we can ‘educate fans’ to embrace the game as it’s currently played.”
WTF is he talking about? “Educate fans?” Who thinks that’s necessary? I’m sure fans generally want a faster pace of play, but do they really want it at the expense of changing the way the game is played? A time limit on visits to the mound, on replay reviews, on batters stepping out, that’s all fine by me.
Hey, here’s another idea, less time between innings! You shorten the game and don’t impact the play on the field. Manfred, however, says nah, that will impact agreements with TV partners.
Fundamentally change that part of the game? What part of the game? The part that’s already been established as inconsequential at best?
Not purposefully singling you out, or trying to seem negative, but it’s statements like that that is the problem with baseball. Any slight change that could help the game be sleeker or smoother is vehemently argued against for no other reason than “but that’s not how it’s supposed to be!”
You (the general you) can’t make an argument against changing something because the event (the IBB in this case) happens so rarely it doesn’t even matter, but then in turn right around and also say you can’t change it because of how super-duper important it is to the game.
I don’t think anyone is trying to argue that getting rid of the old IBB method is the path to new viewership, but it’s looking at the product and figuring out a way to make a subtle change to make it better IS the way to new viewership.
WTF! How about one minute less of fucking Beer Commercials between innings? That’ll save around 18 minutes per game. Christ! Shit!!! Every year they keep chipping away at the game. Bunch of Pricks. I’m only going to Minor League, College, Little League and T Ball games starting this season. Freak’in panzies.
Well how about that, I missed that bit of news. You’re right.
Of course, a fine arenas in a live hockey markets is ready to go in Quebec City so, naturally, they’ll play in Arizona on roller blades or move to Albuquerque or something else equally idiotic.
If there’s one thing about MLB I like, it’s that at least the teams are in relatively logical places. Tampa Bay was ill advised, but that was done in good faith and if they had a stadium that wasn’t a dump and hard to get to it might still work out there.
You know what eats up a lot more time than intentional walks? Having umpires peer at video screens every time a manager decides he’s not sure where the foul pole is. Or extending already overlong breaks to allow TV commercials to finish playing. You know, the things they refuse to roll back even though they hurt the game because chipping away at the older rules means no one today has to look bad.
They’re reducing the time of reviews, to everyone’s enormous relief. No moree than two minutes per review. I’m fine with that. I like instant replay - get the calls right, please. I can wait 90 seconds for a call to be right. But the reviews were incredibly long and I don’t understand why.
Reducing commercials, God, I wish. Cut out one stupid commercial between innings and you’ve shaved off 8.5 minutes from the game time. That’s a big difference, but even more importantly, it speeds up the perceived pace of the game.
It’s not how long the game is. It’s how long it SEEMS. I’m sure everyone here has watched some really exciting football games, but football games are interminably long; almost all of them last longer than three hours. Basketball games are rarely longer than two and a half hours but if it’s a terribly played game decided by 24 points, it feels like ten hours; if it’s a well played nailbiter, the time just whizzes by.
The time between innings is boring. I like watching baseball, and commercials (or standing around at the stadium waiting for the commercials) isn’t baseball. A game might go long because many runs are scored, but then the game is long because things are happening. Or it might go long due to extra innings, but, again, the length is because there is more baseball. More commercials just chop the game up and make it FEEL longer.
You’re right. I guess I don’t really begrudge the instant replay option itself (although I never truly minded adding in the element of human error on the part of an official as long as it’s not egregious,) but just he time that it takes. Watching a game on television or radio just means that there’s a random extra commercial break added in, but it really hurts watching a game in person: the fact that the game is stopping is rarely promptly communicated to fans and the delay felt incredibly longer than the five minutes they actually took.
Cutting it down to two minutes makes it better. Almost as good as if they just let the umpire’s call stand and let the sports reporters eviscerate the poor first base umpire the next morning for having an eye less accurate than a frame-by-frame advance from a camera.
I have to wonder if Rob Manfred is even a baseball fan. Have you ever heard a commissioner of any sport voice their concern for the lack of stimulating action in their sport?
Why would someone who claims to enjoy something wish for it to be over more quickly? Do you go to a concert hoping it will be brief? How about sex, do you try to get it over with as quickly as possible? (ok now, no wisecracks).
If so, you can always tune in (or show up at the park) in the 5th inning . . .