MLB trying to pick up pace of play

[Brandon]

Awww, 11:30 too late for you mr geezer.

 

Im kidding by the way.  But seriously, how people leave games early is beyond me.  I mean isnt that a waste of money then since your paying to see a 9 inning game?

 

You're young, you don't have kids, married with a spouse to consider, or a real career yet.

 

When you get older you'll realize some things take precedence over a baseball game.

 

There's a reason I said a Tuesday (inferring a weekday game) and not a weekend game where we could rage with your kind on the Budweiser patio.

[Angel Oracle]

I'm always pretty strong with my opinions, but on this one, if I'm honest, it won't change whether or not I tune in to my team or go to games when I'm in Seattle even if nothing is done to address the pace.

 

I'd still watch a lot of nationally televised games, too, just not Sux/Yank$ games which are unbearable with all of the down time. 

Has there ever been a Skanks/Sux 9 inning game that lasted under 3.5 hours? 

[Vegas Halo Fan]

I don't think baseball fans are giving up on watching the games because they've become too slow paced. However, I have heard many people say that they will not watch baseball because the game is too slow paced and boring. A lot of people won't give the game a chance because it's too slow paced, not because it takes too long. It's probably especially boring for people that don't understand many of the game's nuances. 

 

If MLB made it so that the game moved at a significantly faster pace, I think young people and casual fans would give it a try. 

 

The younger generation, unlike some of us oldies, have grown up with the NFL supplanting MLB as the national pastime. Constant action, violent hits, all of it working perfectly with a generation used to instant gratification and constant entertainment.

[ELEVEN]

Fair enough. Maybe I'm biased because I get a lot done during a baseball game. I hate the specter of having a clock and would prefer having the umpires enforce the rules as written which I think would go a long way to speed things up. Sure, you would have some initial blow ups, but once everyone understood this is how the rules are going to be implemented it would become less of an issue.

Somehow putting Joe West in charge of more things has fail written all over it.

[AngelsSurfer]

Awww, 11:30 too late for you mr geezer.

 

Im kidding by the way.  But seriously, how people leave games early is beyond me.  I mean isnt that a waste of money then since your paying to see a 9 inning game?

No kids, childfree, fairly young, and I leave games early sometimes. I try not to, because I do like to be there for the last out.

However, in my case, transportation is an issue. I take the Angels Express, and that leaves at 11:30 at the latest, regardless if the game is over or not. And that's usually the last train of the night in both directions out of Anaheim (to LA or Oceanside) so there's no way to skip it and stay later. Also an issue is that connecting mass transit from either LA or Oceanside usually ends around midnight or 1am, so if you're getting there too late, you're stranded.

 

If I were to drive, it's at least an hour from my home to Angels Stadium, assuming the 5 is moving. Games sometimes seem to let out about the time Disneyland is closing or the fireworks there are over, so the freeway can be a mess. I'd imagine that some fans live even further away. If someone's leaving a game at 11:30 and it's taking them, say, an hour and a half or two hours to get home, it might be a bit of a problem if they need to be up at 6 or 7 for work the next morning. If they HAVE brought a kid to the game, by 10 or 11 they might be getting completely overtired. So the only answer is to leave before the game is over.

 

As to the pace of the games, it IS annoying and time consuming when certain batters feel the need to go for a walk and spend five minutes fussing between each pitch (I love Calhoun but he's so bad about this). If they were to finally enforce the rule about batters needing to keep one foot in the box, unless they're dodging a wild pitch, I think it would be a good thing. Letting pitchers and catchers do intentional walks without going through the whole four pitch rigmarole? Also a good thing. I don't know how I feel about the pitch clock, though. I think it might mess up some pitchers' ability to get signs from their catchers and decide on a pitch.

Edited January 17, 2015 by AngelsSurfer

[Stradling]

I have season tickets and if the game is dragging on or if it is a blow out one way or another, I will leave early, especially if school is still in and I take my son. I have never considered it a waste of money, because in my mind the money is pre-spent if that makes sense. If the Angels are playing like crap I will leave really early, 6th inning or so. If the game is well played but playing out slow, I have no problem staying the entire game. There have been games where I have left early, and driven home (30 miles) and still see the end of the game on TV. I do love the fact that baseball is different and not dictated by a clock, however I am in favor of a pitch clock of some sort; I have shared this story on here in the past, but about 5 years ago or so I was watching a game from the 70's that Mark Fydrich was pitching and it was a TOTALLY different game. The batter never stepped completely out of the box. The pitcher got the ball and pitched. The game just seemed like it was going in fast forward. I was mesmerized by it all, it just seemed to flow a helluva lot better. If the people that don't mind the pace of today's game watched a game like that they would be shocked at how different it is. If you were to show the two games side by side you would think the game from 35 years ago was a higher level, because of the pace of the game.

[Angel Oracle]

As a nearly 50 years fan of MLB, I can vouch too for the huge change in the pace of play from the. 60s and 70s.

Seems that 9 inning games routinely lasted on average about 2.2 to 2.5 hours in that era.

Batters didn't step out constantly.

Pitchers got the throw back from the catcher and pitched pretty quickly.

Catchers didn't make incessant trips to the mound.

Pitching changes were far fewer.

And if the batter did step out, you could count on the pitcher taking care of it.

[Sully151]

Baseball is like sailing, hours of doing nothing interspersed with a few seconds of fear, panic, excitement and joy. And plenty of time to drink a beer.

[Brent Maguire]

I like the pitch clock idea but I think the sport can just enforce pitchers throwing quicker and batters not stepping out and solve the problem without this. 

 

Seriously, how many minutes could you cut off from a game by just making batters stay in the box or setting a limit on how many times they can step out? I'm guessing 20 minutes could be shaved off this way. 

[Ray McKigney]

Interesting article about the subject:

 

http://m.mlb.com/news/article/106668344/terence-moore-bring-on-pace-of-play-improvements

[AngelsLakersFan]

Interesting article about the subject:

 

http://m.mlb.com/news/article/106668344/terence-moore-bring-on-pace-of-play-improvements

 

"Teams only were allowed three timeouts during games to conference on the mound, and that included extra innings."

 

This!

I've been saying for years that they need to get rid of timeout. The game should never stop if possible. 

Batters asking for timeout, baserunners returning their body armor to the first base coach. Pitchers and catchers chatting on the mound. Get rid of it all. The game will be more exciting for it.

 

Give each team one timeout per inning, which they can use for substitutions, or however they like. Let batters step out of the box at their own risk (they should be able to be tagged out, outside the box - which makes sense to me). Don't ever tell the pitcher that he has to wait for the batter. Once that foot is in the box for the first time the pitcher should be able to throw. 

[CaliAngel]

Baseball is like sailing, hours of doing nothing interspersed with a few seconds of fear, panic, excitement and joy. And plenty of time to drink a beer.

 

And if you look down for 1 second to grab your beer, you can miss the most important play of the game.

[ELEVEN]

Thats why you always hold onto a beer with each hand.

[Guest]

Managers need to make a quicker decision on play review challenges.

10 seconds

 

Agreed. They also should have an additional umpire in the stadium monitoriting all the feeds of the game and communicating via radio to the umps on the field. A lot of the cases that go to replay are obvious to the viewer on TV on the spot, and should be corrected in as much time as it takes a hoemplate umpire to appeal to a 3rd base umpire on a checkswing, instead of the manager going back and watching thetape, then calling NY and the umpires there only starting to look at the video once a review has been requested.

[Troll Daddy]

One of the beauties of baseball is it is an untimed game. I don't care for the pitch clock idea. Batters stepping out after every pitch is a big deal, as is a pitcher throwing to first base 87 times without throwing a pitch (although I have never understood why crowds boo when an opposing pitcher does this, but not their own).

In terms of the game's traditions, if a pitcher hits a batter and it appears to be intentional, the other team should get a free shot without a warning from the umpires. Once it is even, then tell both sides, "No more".

The free shot idea is brilliant!

[Guest]

The free shot idea is brilliant!

It used to be an unwritten rule in baseball, that's the reason the commentator in

was so annoyed by an ejection.

[disarcina]

does this mean they are going to cut down on the commercial breaks?  don't think so.

 

and here's the (name the sponsor) call to the bullpen...........

[AngelsFanSince86]

Agreed. They also should have an additional umpire in the stadium monitoriting all the feeds of the game and communicating via radio to the umps on the field. A lot of the cases that go to replay are obvious to the viewer on TV on the spot, and should be corrected in as much time as it takes a hoemplate umpire to appeal to a 3rd base umpire on a checkswing, instead of the manager going back and watching thetape, then calling NY and the umpires there only starting to look at the video once a review has been requested.

 

One of my good friends suggested this same thing and I really like the idea.  

 

 

Managers need to make a quicker decision on play review challenges.

10 seconds

 

I agree they need to limit the amount of time managers take to challenge reviews, but 10 seconds is a bit short.  Many of the plays are very close and need more time than that to get a good idea of the outcome.

[AngelsFanSince86]

I think the pitch clock can be effective, once the players get used to it. The pitcher does not have to literally pitch the ball within 20 seconds. They only have to come set on the rubber within 20 seconds. Once they come set, I believe they can stand there for as long as they want before they pitch the ball or throw to first. This would still eliminate the drawn out performance that many relief pitchers perform, in which they take forever to get the sign, play with their hat, fiddle with their glove, spit on their hand, and fix their jock in between each pitch before getting on the damn rubber. 

 

Having said that, I do agree that literally placing a pitch clock in every stadium seems wrong. It could work fine if the umpires actually forced the pitchers to become set on the rubber within a reasonable amount of time. 

 

I'm glad that MLB is also looking into changing the rules on challenges. It's really lame seeing the managers come out of the dugout 3 or 4 times a game just to stand around and BS with the umpire until the coach in the dugout signals whether or not they should challenge the play. 

 

Yeah I like this idea.  Although I still think a physical clock is necessary to make any of this stuff work.  I just don't see how you can define a "reasonable amount of time" without giving precise numbers and then sticking to them.  The amount of time needs to be decided and not just left up to the umps. If you give the umps free reign to decide what a reasonable amount of time is, it may not change much of anything.

[DW711]

Baseball is like sailing, hours of doing nothing interspersed with a few seconds of fear, panic, excitement and joy. And plenty of time to drink a beer.

 

Add golf to that.

[Junkballer]

http://www.livestrong.com/article/449125-how-much-actual-playtime-occurs-in-a-baseball-game/

 

According to this article, 2 games were timed for actual time the ball was in play.  They included the time from the ball leaving the pitchers hand to the catcher and on balls that were hit, the time until the player was called safe or out.  The two games, which were from different eras and timed by different people, came up with 8.5 minutes and about 12.3 minutes of time in play.  

 

Baseball is obviously a different animal from football because you can ignore what happens in between whistles in football and still have an almost complete understanding of the game, whereas you can't say the same if you only viewed a baseball game from the time the ball left the pitchers hand to when the catcher caught it or a player was called safe/out.  That being said, it does highlight one of the characteristics of the sport that can be polarizing, the action/waiting ratio.  It comes down to personal preference of course whether you mind the increase in non-essential waiting time.  For myself, as much as I love the game, I have a hard time spending an entire hour, let alone 3 during a weeknight. Even on weekends I can't spend the time to watch a whole game without liberal use of the fast-forward button on the DVR.  When I'm at a game, I'm focused on the game for the most part, not socializing or playing with my phone, so I wan't the play to flow quickly. I'd welcome a pitch clock, reduction in mound visits, and requiring the batter to stay in the box and be prepared to take the next pitch. Tighten up the waiting time and I'd watch more and probably go to more games.