Right, it’s a way to controll this without doing anything extra. MLB could just say that ups were being graded on the pace of the game and that umps who moved the game along best got playoff spots. That gives them an incentive to deal with the unhappy players and we don’t have to change the game at all.
You say this like its a feature.
Sure, I like baseball. If we can speed the game up without changing it I don’t see how it couldn’t be a win.
Tough road ahead for the Mets. 4 game series starts tonight against the Padres, a couple with the Orioles, then 3 more with the Padres and 4 with the Cubs
Carrasco, McNeil and Conforto will not be available. I would be happy with 5-8
Cubbies are rolling. If we’re still humming when we face the Mets and we win that series we’ll be living large on the Northside.
I think I have a very elegant solution to that; the pitcher gets one FREE pickoff throw unless there’s three balls in the count. After that the pitcher make elect to use another pickoff throw - but that throw is counted as a ball.
What you’ll create there is an interesting dynamic between pitcher and runner. After one pickoff throw (and that one throw will be saved for GOOD ones, not just lazy tosses) the pitcher risks accepting a ball… but given that, the runner will become very aggressive, which in turn means a savvy pitcher might be able to pick him off, which is more than worth giving up one ball in the count.
Once you get to Ball 3 the limit goes away.
I don’t like the complexity of that.
How about this idea. Paint a line some distance from the bag. If the runner is inside that line no pickoffs are allowed. Obviously this line is in a place where the runner has no real advantage and the chance of a successful pickoff is practically zero.
When the runner gambles and gets out into the base path on the far side of the line, all bets are off. The game of cat and mouse can proceed.
I think what the goal is is to eliminate the lazy, time wasting throws that aren’t a serious effort to pick off a runner. The ones which are basically a pitcher stalling or antagonizing the offense. Not to materially change the strategy. If this cuts down the number of throws by half and eliminates all of the truly lazy throws would we call that success?
That’s one of James’s ideas. I’m actually not super fond of it, though I see the point.
I got like 15% of the way through his article and bailed. What a torturous read, lol. Funny that he starts the article with an admonishment of all the people who didn’t read it.
I’m curious what about it bumps you.
I’ve watched semi-pro ball that had a pitch clock. I believe it was 20 seconds, and the clock would start as soon as the pitcher had the ball on the mound. If the batter wasn’t in the batter’s box ready to swing when the clock expired, it was an automatic strike. If the pitcher wasn’t on the rubber ready to start his motion when the clock expired, it was a ball.
Granted, these were college-age kids who were eager to play ball, but as I recall, it worked quite well.
It has many good ideas and a fundamentally excellent explanation of the problems baseball has. If you aren’t going to read the article, I’m sure not gonna retype it.
The Orioles are horrible again after a decent start. When I was a kid the Orioles had been good for so long it was hard to imagine they could ever not be good.
Sorry, I meant what issues you had with the lead-off line idea specifically.
I have two problems with it:
-
It’s an area of enforcement where you’ll have controversial calls and managers arguing and replays and shit. We don’t need more of that.
-
I suspect you’ll encourage runners to simply never lead further than the line. A runner leading past it is at risk; one not leading past it literally cannot be picked off. Leading past it not only creates risk but is a huge signal to the defense. This could actually DISCOURAGE basestealing.
What I like about a throw limit is that it might really substantially increase basestealing (good) while cutting down on pickoff throws (also good.) I’m struggling to see a downside.
If I could implement just three of James’s ideas now, they would be
- Reducing the ability of batters to step out of the box,
- Limit pickoff throws, and
- Any equipment the batter wears (e.g. armor) must be worn for his entire time on the field as an offensive player. You hit with it, you gotta run with it. It only comes off when the half inning ends.
Seriously, in a typical game how much time is spent on pickoff throws to first? I’m thinking 5 minutes tops. What slows the game down are batters that step out of the box every pitch and adjust their gloves or whatnot. Step in the box and stay there unless say you get knocked down avoiding a pitch.
I’m against the 3 batter minimum. I’d rather see roster limits on pitchers and reduction in warmup tosses from the game mound.
Is the pace of the game really a problem? Ever come home from the ballpark and say “gee, I spent too long there”? Watching on tv, you’ve got the between inning times to go to the bathroom or get a snack or catch a minute of news. Or just record the game and start watching it an hour into it, zapping through the commercials. I’m not sure the game lengths are a huge problem.
Minor league note: Durham Bulls pitcher Tyler Zombro is in stable condition after being struck by a line drive last night. Wishing him a speedy recovery. Very scary situation that suspended play for the rest of the night.
Although with almost every game a night game, sometimes you do need to get to bed.
Good point. I think ET games should start at 7:00 or earlier so day workers can get some sleep. The stupidest thing MLB does is start WS games at 8:30.
It would be a nightmare to enforce. What if a runner started moving back to first before the pitcher threw? Are we going to have replays of when he crossed the line vs when the pitcher threw?
I think there are some good and unique ideas here and some terrible ones. A lot of them limit strategy and innovation, which I prefer not to do, but might be necessary in some cases. for instance agree with him that finding a way for starters to pitch longer is beneficial even if it destroys the option of openers.
Personally I don’t think baseball has a pace of play problem as a much as a lack of action problem. Football has a ton of downtime too, but no one complains because the action is good. I’d much rather baseball focus on increasing balls in play than worrying too much about time between pitches.
The pace of the game isn’t the same thing as how long the game lasts. It’s about how slowly it goes.
And IMHO the biggest problem is the time between pitches. When the pitcher is taking a long time between piches, or the batter is dicking around, that’s when I want to scream “Get on with it already!”
Both are problems. Both significantly affect the pace of play. Every little bit’s a problem, and the throws to first are 95% a waste of time.
Yes, it is. And it’s not just the LENGTH. It’s the pace.
Look, I am quite literally the biggest baseball fan I know. I live and breathe the sport. Games are too slow now; I find myself frustrated by the pace, frustrated by the fact that it takes so long to get them over with. I know from firsthand experience that my kids reach their limit of interest at around two and a half to three hours when we’re at the game - which used to be about as long as a game took but isn’t anymore. I am pretty sure the reason I don’t actively watch live games as much as I used to is in part because they’re longer and slower than they used to be. Every little bit matters.
I am not the only baseball fan I know who thinks that way, and you cannot think of this sort of problem as a binary thing. No, people don’t up and say “The games are 20 minutes too long, therefore I hate baseball now.” But small differences do make small differences in behaviour. It might make a person enjoy the experience just a little bit less, which makes them a little bit less likely to turn the game on or fork out money to go to the ballpark. They watch 30 games on TV instead of 35, go to the stadium twice a year instead of three. Those little bits start to add up. Attendance is down about 8-10 percent over its peak. It’s not down 90 percent; it didn’t drop 8-10 percent all in one shot. It’s just been bleeding for years, and sooner or later the patient is going to be in REALLY serious trouble.
Why not fix this?
A new article on SI.com about pitchers doctoring baseballs, which they are terming “the new steroids.” From the article: