Nowhere near as knowledegable in baseball as I am in others, so, curious how this OP’ll get eviscerated as to why that’s not a good idea.
I’d probably watch more if games they were ‘closer’ (huh, get it?) to two hours, than three. Maybe a batter should be allowed only once to monkey around (quickly, doze-face) with his gloves, per every at bat?
Or set up a competition / awards system for the entire pitching roster of a given team, whereby the pitcher who has amassed the least total of accumulated seconds between pitches wins, say, a cornballer or something at the end of the week.
ETA: To revise last rule change: the average amount of seconds between pitches, that is.
It’s not a crazy idea because the MLB is already planning on doing a 20 second pitch clock, supposedly they’ll implement it in 2022.
They’ve already used it in Spring Training.
So in other words, you’re proposing a rule change that’s already being adopted.
Oh - already being done in spring training. Hopefully the change has been a generally welcome one.
Why?
Not seeing any issue in starting the clock as soon as buddy steps into the batter’s box.
I don’t have a fundamental objection to trying out rules like this to see what happens, but I also have noticed that football works basically the same as baseball, in terms of a lot of nothing happening interrupted by very short plays. The NFL uses a 40-second play clock and just as many commercial breaks per game as baseball, plus a halftime break, and no one seems to complain about the length of its games, which are just as long as MLB’s.
The NFL runs about 130 plays per game whereas an MLB game has 295 pitches on average. There’s also much more happening between plays in baseball - other than watching who is in motion on the line there’s nothing going on in a football game until the snap, whereas runners taking leads and catchers setting up is at least equivalent in terms of impact on the subsequent play if not more so.
College football is even worse than the NFL on all of these counts.
I wonder if the people complaining about the length of baseball games and the amount of downtime, who don’t make similar complaints about football, just don’t like baseball given the alternative options in sports and entertainment, and aren’t the right audience for trying to expand its popularity. It seems that baseball has a lot of stronger points than “potentially it’s over quickly” that could be leveraged by a more competent MLB leadership.
The average NFL play is a lot more impactful than the average MLB pitch, which makes waiting around for the former easier than waiting around for the latter. (In addition, each NFL game is itself a much bigger deal than each MLB game, since there are so many fewer of them.)
Me - more of a hockey/footy/b-ball/tennis dude than any of that other stuff, with football and baseball being much more bog standard excitement fare in my books, however I would totally consider myself quite the ripe audience for expanding its popularity if there’s a good hour shaved off.
ETA: Sure, tennis matches can sometimes go on, but even most best-of-five’s don’t push two hours too often.
I don’t feel you can make this comparison between the two games. In football, the teams are reacting to changing circumstances and need to choose which play they’re going to make - which will involve moving players around and substituting some of them on and off the field.
You don’t have this level of planning going on in baseball. The pitcher is going to throw the ball and the batter is going to try to hit it. (Although maybe it would make the game more fun if the pitcher communicated with the catcher by yelling “Omaha” instead of making hand signals.)
That’s part of it, yes. The fact NFL and NCAA football games are really long and largely devoid of anything happening is rarely mentioned.
The thing is, baseball games ARE getting longer, whereas football games have always been about as long as they are now, so people are used to NFL games being really long, whereas MLB fans have experienced an increase in game length within living memory. In the 37 years I’ve been watching baseball, the average game has gotten twenty percent longer.
Consider basketball. An NBA game has 48 minutes of ACTUAL play, about four times more than an NFL or MLB game. But that doesn’t mean an NBA game could be four times long than an NFL game, or even AS long; an NBA games is over in about 2:20. If they started taking 2:45, people would bitch about it, and quite justifiably so. But if the MLB could cut it to 2:45 I’d be thrilled. Why is that?
Entertainment is extremely dependent on pacing and timing. If you go to a comedy club to watch a show, the show will be between 90 and 100 minutes along, and the amount of time spent on stage by each comedian - and it will almost always be three or four, including the host - is a very predictable number. That’s because it works. If it goes to 120 minutes it’s too long, and if it stops at 75 you’ll feel it was too short. One type of entertainment is nopt necessary going to be as long as another; a standup comedy show with multiple comedians should be 90 minutes long (a single comedian’s show - even a truye star - should not be that long, though) but a stage musical can be 120-150 minutes if there’s an intermission. Comedy movies should be shorter than dramas. Rock songs work best at about four minutes long.
There’s no reason a baseball game, football game, or basketball game should necessarily be the same length. I think there is good reason to think that 2:40 is about right but 3:05 means the dramatic tension is being lost. I love baseball more than I love most of my relatives, but I absolutely believe the games are too long (more precisely, they are too slow; it’s pace. A thrilling 11-inning game would be delightful at 3:05.) So it’s not just people who don’t like baseball.
I don’t see a whole lot of difference between the kind of adjustments made between plays in football and those in baseball - pitchers and catchers are always responding to the count and the baserunners. In fact, it’s more interesting to those in the know because they have to do it nonverbally and while playing the game, as opposed to quarterbacks getting radio instructions from the coaches on the sideline. I take for granted that “everybody” understands what’s going on under the surface of a baseball game, but I’m probably from the last generation where playing Little League as a kid was a default expectation.
I do like that I can watch an entire college basketball game in under two hours. But the NBA takes forever and is way more popular. So again I wonder how much this really matters.
One thing I don’t understand about people complaining about the length of baseball games, they don’t complain about other sports which are comparable in length. Nor even of other activities.
So baseball is 3:06 (reported average of 2020 season games). Football is 3:12 but only 1:00 of actual on-field action. I have yet to hear that football games are too long.
Both hockey and basketball are 2:20. In the case of basketball, there’s only 0:48 of actual playing time so there’s a large percentage of the time that is “dead” time, for whatever reason. Making the calculation, it’s 57% dead time in hockey, 66% in basketball, 69% in football. If we put 2 minutes between each half inning, baseball has only 20% dead time.
I’ve always said those who complain about length of baseball games is because they don’t like the game or find it boring. I’ve rarely, if ever, found a game too long, I enjoy it too much. I have on the other hand often been bored and wondering when a less than 2-hour movie will end.
Nothing MLB is doing is reducing the length of games. The average has been 3:00+ (high is 3:10 in 2019), when the league implemented some measures. It’s been over 2:45 since 1986 but I don’t recall people saying back then games were too long. They’ve been over 2:30 since 1977.
Not throwing four pitches on an intentional walk is a joke. The rule saying a batter much stay in the box is not implemented. Last year’s rule that a pitcher must throw to at least three batters has done nothing. Heck, even 7-inning doubleheaders has not. Baseball is not meant to be on a clock and whatever rule there is, players and managers will find other ways to slow the game down.
One thing that seems to have increased in my mind the length of games are the video reviews. We didn’t have them in the day. Sure, occasionally you’d have a manager argue a close call but that was part of the fun. I kind of miss those days not to mention the manager using everything in his arsenal to try to win a game and use three pitchers in an inning.
I don’t understand how you come up with this. Why is all time in baseball that’s not in a commercial considered action, but not all time in basketball without a commercial?
In time just not in commercial all action, in which case all your numbers for football, basketball and hockey are wrong? Or is it just action when play is taking place, in which case your number for football is still wrong - it’s way too high - and baseball’s wrong too, but you got hockey and basketball correct?
The difference is that selecting and executing a football play is much more complex than a baseball pitch. It’s reasonable to give a team the additional 10-20 seconds to decide and execute a play - which involves eleven players - than for a pitcher and his catcher to make up their mind what pitch to throw. In fact, even at the line of scrimmage, it is common for the QB to call audibles and change the play or route based off of what he sees.
I think the prima donna reputation of some pitchers also is a factor in the annoyance of some fans and less willingness to cut them slack, time-wise.
For an example of having the wrong priorities - MLB should be selling the experience of going to a baseball game.
*Any pro game, even at the lowest minor league level, involves people doing things that are impressive (hitting 90mph pitches) whereas semipro football is full of washouts from D-III colleges who are barely doing anything more than the fans who play flag football on Saturdays in the park could.
*Getting outside and enjoying a hot dog and a beer for a few hours in the summer is worth the nominal cost of minor league tickets - usually it’s barely $10 to get in and the food is priced way lower than at MLB parks. People are going to be falling all over themselves to find things to do once the vaccination rollout is complete and whoever is ready to take their money is going to benefit. Baseball seems to be totally uninterested in occupying that position.
*Teams can truly represent your hometown instead of the nearest MLB-sized city, which may be hundreds of miles away for some people.
*There should be a synergistic relationship between playing baseball/softball recreationally and watching it.
*During the June to September zone when there’s no football, basketball, or hockey, baseball can further extend its reach by televising high-level minor league games.
Instead of doing any of these things and trying to revive minor league baseball as the profitable, reliable entertainment product that it was for over a hundred years, MLB has contracted the minor leagues and is reorganizing them in a way that will make following teams more difficult and less interesting.
Fixing MLB’s appalling lack of interest in expanding amateur participation, star visibility, national TV exposure, and minor league viability is going to do way more than these second-shaving gimmicks.
FWIW, if I recall right, the XFL originally considered adopting a very short play clock - perhaps even just 25 seconds, if I’m not mistaken - last season, to really cut down on delay and keep the game going to viewers’ satisfaction, but did not because they decided that such a short play clock would really reduce the quality of play and play-calling on the field.
In addition, football is far more tiring than baseball. Baseball involves comparatively much less exertion. A wide receiver who’s just run a 50-yard go route in six seconds on the previous play is going to need the additional ten or twenty seconds to catch his breath and rest before the next play in a way that a pitcher on the mound wouldn’t.
I’ve been a baseball fan since the mid '70s. What bothers me about baseball games today is not the length of the games per se (I mean, I watch NFL football, and the games are the same length), it’s that they’re a half-hour longer now than they were 40 years ago (or even 30 years ago), with no appreciable increase in the amount of game action.
It’s additional commercial time, and additional pitching changes, but I believe that the single biggest issue – and which could easily be fixed – is the fucking around that occurs in between every single pitch. 40 years ago, Mike Hargrove was nicknamed “The Human Rain Delay” because he stepped out of the batter’s box and adjusted his gloves after every pitch; today, every batter does that. Nearly ever pitcher steps off the rubber after pitches, and sometimes walks around the mound.
All of that slows down the game, and adds absolutely zero fan appeal.
I don’t think we’ve reached the point where having large crowds gather together to watch a sporting event is something we should be encouraging.
300M vaccines are promised by July. But the lack of interest in promoting live baseball has been going on since well before the pandemic.
Exactly. IT’s not length, it’s PACE. A three hour game is fine if it was a wild 9-8 scorefest, but it’s now routine for 4-1 games to go over three hours.
In 2019, there were 9.66 runs scored per game and it took 3:05 to play a nine inning game. In 1987 about the same nu8mber of runs were scored and games were 20 minutes shorter. There’s no good reason for it at all.
Games did not exceed three hours in average length until 2014, and there is no good reason for it; 2014 was actually a LOW scoring year, the lowest in 33 years.
In all sports - get rid of time-outs. Totally unnecessary, unless there’s an injury or something similar. Keep the football clocks running at the same speed the whole game.