New Extra Innings Rule

[Taylor]

Unsurprisingly, I hate it. Speeding up the game is a good goal, but by artificially putting a runner in scoring position, you're messing with the flow of the game.

Edited August 3, 2020 by Taylor

[NrM]

it sucks

[failos]

[Keener]

I think most of us will hate it, mostly because our team is dogshit with runners in scoring position.  Therefore, built in disadvantage.

[Junkballer]

When hockey went to the shootout, hard core fans almost universally disliked it and casual fans (the majority) liked it.  After time, many who disliked have become neutral or even embraced it and the shootout is far more of an inorganic mechanism than the free runner.  Over time, the free runner will seem less of a spectacle.  It does have some qualities in that it creates instant tension and favors small ball.  If anything it gives small ball too much of a platform.  One successful bunt and a long fly ball gives you a guaranteed run. 

I prefer giving teams a 4th out vs. 3, or, starting a man on 1st, but do tend to agree with needing to do something curtail extra innings.

[zenmaster]

It changes the game completely so I hate it. 

[Stradling]

I’m fine with it for this year.  

[Jeff Fletcher]

It’s really no different than college football’s OT or (as mentioned) a shootout. 
 

It doesn’t bother me. It definitely creates a lot of tension. 

[Slegnaac]

As we saw, both teams scored in the 10th, so it didn't really make the game shorter. 

If they want the game to be shorter, they should allow the team that last scored in the previous 9 innings to start with a runner at second in the 10th, the other team does not get the advantage.  If it goes to 11 the other team gets the advantage.  If it goes longer the advantage continues to shift back and forth.

[John Taylor]

Honestly I see the 2020 season as the "Gas Leak" season where they throw shit at a wall and see what sticks. I'll be more disappointed if the rule sticks beyond this season.

[Angels in 2030]

The difference with hockey is that the losing team still gets a point for the tie.  The winner gets an extra point.  
i can’t stand the new rule. I’d prefer either end in a tie (because of the CV situation for one year) or give the losing team a tie rather than a Straight up loss.  
 

heck I might even just prefer having one guy get 5 pitches for HR derby.  The hockey shootout route.  It’s a similar wackiness as now and ends the game quickly.  And fun wackiness for fans.  A team winning on two sacrifices is lame.  

[Justin]

It's not baseball. They might as well let the first batter of each extra inning use an aluminum bat, too. 

I knew I would hate it, but I wasn't prepared for what a Grumpy Old Man it would make me. 

That being said, does it really matter this season? 

[Lou]

3 hours ago, Junkballer said:

When hockey went to the shootout, hard core fans almost universally disliked it and casual fans (the majority) liked it.  After time, many who disliked have become neutral or even embraced it and the shootout is far more of an inorganic mechanism than the free runner.  Over time, the free runner will seem less of a spectacle.  It does have some qualities in that it creates instant tension and favors small ball.  If anything it gives small ball too much of a platform.  One successful bunt and a long fly ball gives you a guaranteed run. 

I prefer giving teams a 4th out vs. 3, or, starting a man on 1st, but do tend to agree with needing to do something curtail extra innings.

What you're forgetting is that nobody really cares about hockey.

[Angel Oracle]

2 hours ago, Slegnaac said:

As we saw, both teams scored in the 10th, so it didn't really make the game shorter. 

If they want the game to be shorter, they should allow the team that last scored in the previous 9 innings to start with a runner at second in the 10th, the other team does not get the advantage.  If it goes to 11 the other team gets the advantage.  If it goes longer the advantage continues to shift back and forth.

This

My thought is to keep the extra innings as it always was (no baserunners to start), and then suspend the game after say 12 innings if still tied and finish that game the next day the two teams play.  

[yk9001]

1 hour ago, Angel Oracle said:

This

My thought is to keep the extra innings as it always was (no baserunners to start), and then suspend the game after say 12 innings if still tied and finish that game the next day the two teams play.  

What in the absolute heck?  What do we do in august and september?

The new way is fine.  More strategy.  Shorter games.  Remember, we're here for a good time, not a long time.

[Tank]

I’m okay with it. Interested to see stats about it after the season is over.

[Mark68]

I feel better about my ex-wife than I do about this rule.

 

 

And I loathe my ex.