If they really want to shorten the game, they should put a 20 second clock on commercials. Putting in a DH wouldn’t shorten it at all. I think starting with a runner on second is crazy. The longest game I ever saw was 21 innings and I loved it. Unfortunately I had to leave after 18 to have the Metro still running.
As it happened just last night I watched Dennis Martinez’s 1991 perfect game. It took exactly 2:14, essentially 15 min/inning. Of course it helped that it was doubly perfect for 5 1/2 inning and even then I think the Expos had only 6 base runners (and both runs were unearned). When I was a kid, I once listened to a game that lasted 1:35 and games under 2 hours happened from time to time. But commercial time is a big time-waster.
The DH has to pitch the next inning.
No mound visits at all.
The pitcher who starts the inning finishes the inning.
I do foresee a few problems with rule 2 under my scenario. After throwing maybe 50, 60 even 100 pitches naturally there will be some slowing down of play. They can call it the Brad Ausmus rule.
When I go, I get my money’s worth and I stay no matter the score. If I see 6 innings of free baseball, all the better. Some people have to get up and go to work or whatever or they’re not big fans so that’s why they leave. If they’re fans, they’re happy to see free innings.
Get rid of instant replay to shorten the game. They pass a rule that lengthens the game and now provide us with a ridiculous list of things to shorten the game, with the IMHO hopes that we “compromise” by rejecting the absurd suggestion of starting a runner on second base in extra innings in exchange for some of the other things. Ban the DH in both leagues. The DH is an affront to God.
There is nothing wrong with baseball. Not every game has to be an action-packed video game.
Each team should have an offense and defense, like football. And the batters should hit the ball off a tee. Then we could watch the little white ball go hiiiiigh in the sky and see the numbers on the scoreboard get really big! Wheee!
OK, more serious answers:
I don’t get a chance to watch much baseball these days, but the slow pace has never bothered me much. I do get annoyed at some batters for acting like the batter’s box is filled with hot coals, but, meh.
Reducing mound visits to 5 from 6: Sure, that sounds fine. It doesn’t sound like it would accomplish much, but OK.
Requiring pitchers to face a minimum of 3 batters: I’m on the fence about this one. I don’t think I would have a problem with it. It changes the strategy for the manager, but it still presents interesting in-game challenges to ponder and argue over without fundamentally changing the game.
20-second pitch clock: I would still watch baseball, but I’d have to work hard to ignore the fact that there was a [shudder] clock involved. If I want to see athletes racing against a clock, I’ll go back to being a hockey fan.
DH in the NL: The DH is an abomination unto God. I hear St. Louis might be getting an MLS team!
Starting all extra innings with a runner on 2nd base: What the fuck is this? Baseball? Never heard of it.
Even if I can no longer be a fan, I sincerely hope they never change the rule that a runner who advances a base without the defense trying to prevent it, is not awarded a stolen base. That’s a good rule.
If all these so-called “fixes” are being considered, isn’t it time for the powers-that-be to admit that the automatic intentional walk rule has been a failure?
I support the pitch clock idea. Worked just fine in the Triple-A games I’ve been to. And yeah, keep the batter from constantly stepping out to adjust gloves or hitch up his undies. And no spitting.
The idea of having relief pitchers face a minimum of three batters is interesting (though it would spell the end of super-specialists, like the lefty brought in to face only one hitter). Maybe instead limit the number of relievers used per inning.
Don’t much care for the other proposed changes, and the one putting a runner on second in extra innings is dumb in my view.
Frankly, I don’t mind “free innings” (i.e., a game that goes to extra innings). At least that’s likely to have some tension and interest. What I mind is how damned long it’s now taking them to deliver the same 9-inning product that they’ve been delivering for decades.
The average length of a game is now over 3 hours. That’s 20 minutes longer than games were thirty years ago, and 30 minutes longer than they were forty years ago. Much of that extra time is spent on baseball not actually being played (i.e., longer commercial breaks, pitchers wandering around, batters wandering around, pitching changes, etc.), and that is what really needs to be changed. IMO.
I’m just not sure why MLB would want to impose a universal DH. A stronger contingent of fans despise the DH. The compromise in place since 1973 has worked well. Those that like the extra offense can watch AL games. Those that want the purer aspect of the sport can watch NL games.
If the idea of pitchers striking out and being poor hitters makes you not like the game, the go watch the White Sox instead of the Cubs. Especially now with interleague play, fans get to experience both.
Why piss off half of the fan base for a non-issue? Both sides are accommodated now. The players union can just piss right off. Whatever your opinion of unions in general, I do not see the need to unionize people who have tremendous marketable skills, that their pay is based upon merit and market forces, and who make six figure salaries to start. It’s not a coal mine.
Whatever your opinion of unions in general, it’s unlikely to the extreme that the players would enjoy the compensation and free agency they have today without the MLBPA.
Yeah, it’s not a coal mine, but they can expect to play in the majors for less than six years. Most other people have many more years of peak or near-peak earning power, at least 25, if not 30, on average.
Whatever your opinion of unions in general, sports is a business in which labor is the product, and there is no competition in the market, because a U.S.-style sports league is by definition a cartel with every opportunity to collude to depress the price of the market. How can you say that player compensation is based on free-market merit with a straight face?
Before the players union started gaining ground c.1970, the major leagues were a plantation with unconscionable elements like the reserve clause.
And even with some degree of union strength, owners have still collided as often as they could to cheat players out of a fair bargaining position.
Big time sports owners are basically racketeers in form and by nature, and without a strong union to oppose them they take every advantage imaginable.
As it is, they cheat and blackmail taxpayers at every turn.
When it comes down to it, the players are the money in sports, and t should be their kingdom to run. Absent that, give them a strong union.
Just like other employers, we have seen exactly what the robber barons do when they’re unchecked. There’s zero reason to give them an inch of wiggle room.
[ol]
[li]20-second pitch clock[/li][li]Reducing mound visits to 5 from 6[/li][li]Starting all extra innings with a runner on 2nd base[/li][li]Requiring pitchers to face a minimum of 3 batters (unless they close out an inning)[/li][li]Extending the DH to the National League[/li][/ol]
The DH should be removed from the AL long before we talk about adding it to the NL. I actually think the pitch clock isn’t a terrible idea. In general it won’t effect the game and may speed it up a bit. I don’t think mound visits are really that impactful one way or another so this one doesn’t bother me. I think ending regular season games after 9 innings in a tie is a better idea than giving a base runner for the regular season and for post season they can just keep playing I don’t remember any one bitching that Dodgers/Astros game went too long. The extra runner isn’t terrible it just isn’t the best way to handle it. I don’t get the minimum batters thing. If too many pitching changes is a issue just shrink roster size or put a limit to the total number of pitchers that can be used in a game, which has its own set of issues.
I really like the idea proposed above that relief pitchers come in ready to pitch. They just came out of the bull pen where they were warming up already. Why should they need more? There would of course still be the exception of when you’re replacing an injured pitcher.
The pitch count is not a terrible idea, especially if the batter has to be ready by the 13 second mark. Watching batters step out and adjust every item on their uniform between every pitch gets old.
Next least objectionable is the mound visits. I’m sure the stat is available somewhere, but I couldn’t find it. How often did teams use up their 6 allotted visits last year? But my opinion is that 6 is fine and doesn’t need to be reduced.
I follow the AL and therefore like the DH, but I know they’d lose a lot of NL fans if they tried to implement a DH so no. Although for the life of me I can’t understand why NL fans are so enamored with watching a guy flail away mostly ineffectually in the batters box. When I watch a guy bat, I want to see someone who actually has a chance to get a hit. Watching the pitching pitcher so totally dominate the hitting pitcher just isn’t fun for me. Watching that kind of domination really isn’t much fun any time (unless it’s OSU dominating Michigan. Then that’s OK)
Don’t like the idea of making a relief pitcher pitch to 3 batters. That eliminates a lot of strategy. Things like when to bring in the situational lefty & when to bring in a pinch hitter.
The runner on 2nd in extra innings is just right out. Totally stupid. Unfortunately, I think it’s coming.
