Fixing MLB

[MD Longhorn]

OK... I know, that implies it's broken, and I don't really think that... but I do think we've lost a lot of fans, from casual to serious, because of a number of issues. To me, all the gabbing about replay is immaterial to whether fans want to watch. It seems, from talking to people that don't watch, that the main culprit is the pace of the game and/or the length of the game.

Proposal:
1) Between pitches, the batter has 10 seconds to get his sign and get into the box, ready for the pitch.
2) Once the batter is ready, the pitcher has 10 seconds to pitch or throw to a base.
3) Pitchers may throw to a base only twice per "situation" (see below). A third throw MUST result in an out, or the baserunner advances (the allowing of the 3rd throw makes it so baserunners can take a little more lead after 2 throws ... but can't go TOO far as they are still liable to be thrown out)
4) Catchers may meet with a pitcher once per batter. A 2nd visit counts as a coach visit.

This would get rid of the endless getting in and out of the box, the batter calling time because the pitcher took too long, etc. It would also get rid of the waste-of-time lob-pickoff throw.

Part of the reason (sometimes) for the waste-of-time lobbing to a base is to allow a reliever to warm up a tad longer. Since we don't want added injuries caused by this speed up, a relief pitcher is allowed an extra minute on the mound when he first comes in.

(Situation: Defined as one specific batter/runner/outs configuration. Joe Smith batting, John Doe on first is a situation. Should Doe move to 2nd - we have a new situation, the throw-over counting starts over. Should Smith get out and a new batter come in, new situation. Should an out be obtained elsewhere or any other baserunner move, it's a new situation.)

[greymule]

If when I was between 8 and 25 you had told me that I would lose interest in Major League Baseball to the point where I watch only one or two games a year, I would have said you were nuts. But you would have been right.

The pace of the game is a big part of it. Nine-inning regular-season games that last 5 hours don't help. It's also the steroids, the overexpansion, the meaningless division championships, the weakened team identities. . . .

I last owned season tickets (Phillies) in the mid-1990s. When the inning ended, the players would sit in the dugout for a minute or so before walking out to their positions. Even then, they stood around until the signal came down from the box that the TV commercials were over. The advertising delays between innings must add half and hour to every nine-inning game.

Maybe something like the rules you're suggesting would help, but I remember well when nobody was hurrying the games along, yet they still were over in two hours. Everybody expected the game to move along, so it usually did.

In the meantime, I'll take NCAA softball over MLB any time.

[centkyref]

Interesting idea. I seem to remember the SEC (and possibly other conferences as well) experimenting with a pitch clock similar to the shot clock in basketball. Never did hear how that worked out. Would be interested to know if anybody here has any insight.

That's all well and good, but (IMO) the biggest problem with the pace of games is the offense/defense imbalance. How do we measure time in baseball? OUTS! With bandbox ballparks, juiced balls, juiced players, a diluted talent pool, etc...outs can be darned hard to come by.

I guess chicks dig the long ball, but for five hours? Until the balance is restored at least somewhat, we are going to get long games. Let's start with slowing down the balls. The steroids issue seems to be heading down the right path finally. The breaks between innings is driven by TV. Never get that time back; no way the owners and players give that money back.

[JJ]

Start everyone with a 1-1 count. Some will argue that it "changes the tradition of the game"....but so does everything else being discussed...

JJ

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by JJ

Start everyone with a 1-1 count. Some will argue that it "changes the tradition of the game"....but so does everything else being discussed...

JJ

That sounds communist, like 3 downs in football. Or Canadian.

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by centkyref

Interesting idea. I seem to remember the SEC (and possibly other conferences as well) experimenting with a pitch clock similar to the shot clock in basketball. Never did hear how that worked out. Would be interested to know if anybody here has any insight.

That's all well and good, but (IMO) the biggest problem with the pace of games is the offense/defense imbalance. How do we measure time in baseball? OUTS! With bandbox ballparks, juiced balls, juiced players, a diluted talent pool, etc...outs can be darned hard to come by.

I guess chicks dig the long ball, but for five hours? Until the balance is restored at least somewhat, we are going to get long games. Let's start with slowing down the balls. The steroids issue seems to be heading down the right path finally. The breaks between innings is driven by TV. Never get that time back; no way the owners and players give that money back.

The NCAA is implementing the 20-second clock between pitches (with no runners on) and the 90-second clock between innings (108 seconds for televised games) for 2011. Some conferences are putting actual clocks in the stadiums during the season.

I think you guys are exaggerating this a little. There are rules in place to speed up games, but some umpires don't enforce them. One of the base umpires has a stopwatch and the between-inning breaks aren't what makes games take a long time. Also, aside from extra inning games, I haven't seen many, if any that last five hours.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by zm1283

The NCAA is implementing the 20-second clock between pitches (with no runners on) and the 90-second clock between innings (108 seconds for televised games) for 2011. Some conferences are putting actual clocks in the stadiums during the season.

I think you guys are exaggerating this a little. There are rules in place to speed up games, but some umpires don't enforce them. One of the base umpires has a stopwatch and the between-inning breaks aren't what makes games take a long time. Also, aside from extra inning games, I haven't seen many, if any that last five hours.

A few seasons ago, one of the D3 conferences I was working made a huge deal about pace of play. So I started carrying a stopwatch out on the field and enforced the 1 minute rule strictly. At 1 minute after the third out (which was liberally measured, cause I wouldn't start the watch until the last player on defense crossed the foul line), I'd call for one more pitch. The first couple of innings, the pitchers only got a couple of pitches, but they caught on when they realized I was serious.

The next week I got a call from the assignor telling me to stop doing that. I asked him about the long spiel he made about pace of play and he cared more about the coaches whining to him than actually backing up what he said in the spring.

I'll believe it when I see it. One of the reasons I walked away from college baseball was the pace of play. The teams played 18-inning doubleheaders every day and I frequent had more than 6 hours at the ballpark and the most I ever made in those 6+ hours was $185. And with a 2 hour drive each way and the requirement to be there an hour early and no rooms for the umpires, it was an 11 hour Saturday with bad baseball.

With the new bats and actual clocks forcing things to move along, maybe college baseball will be a quick, crisp game again.

[greymule]

As I've mentioned before on these threads, in 1969 I played in a semipro tournament in which a 20-second clock had been implemented. Major League Baseball sent several officials, including Monte Irvin, to observe the effect of the clock on the game. (Even 41 years ago, MLB had some concern about the pace of the game.)

We were prepared—had a guy assigned to warn our pitcher when the limit was approaching. We were all watching the clock for a couple of innings, until everybody realized that 20 seconds was actually a pretty long time. Most pitches were 10-12 seconds apart, sometimes faster. After a few innings, nobody was watching the clock.

I think everybody back then was simply accustomed to a fairly brisk pace and went with the natural flow. Any batter who insisted on going through a 17-step ritual between pitches would have taken a lot of heat, and in those days the bench jockeying was bad.

[centkyref]

[QUOTE=zm1283;697488]The NCAA is implementing the 20-second clock between pitches (with no runners on) and the 90-second clock between innings (108 seconds for televised games) for 2011. Some conferences are putting actual clocks in the stadiums during the season.

Do you know how the mechanics of this works? Which umpire watches the clock? When does the clock actually start and stop?

[greymule]

The clock in our tournament was mounted over the fence in dead center. Therefore, the PU, with the clock visible over the pitcher's head, must have had responsibility. I'm not sure exactly what the clock did when the digital countdown hit zero, but it must have lit up or buzzed or blinked or something obvious. (No microchips back then. It must have been a mechanical system like the old basketball scoreboards.)

The clock started when the pitcher regained possession of the ball, but I'm not sure of all the details, like what happened if runners were on or the batter stepped out or a pickoff was attempted. I'm also not sure exactly what had to be started or completed by the time the clock ran down.

The NJ newspapers mentioned the clock and the MLB reps but made a much bigger deal over the fact that Bernice Gera umpired some of the games. Some people attended just to see a woman umpire.

I think the clock was gone the next year, and the big news was that Jim Bouton brought his knuckleball to the tourney (for our team).

[zm1283]

[QUOTE=centkyref;697502]

Originally Posted by zm1283

The NCAA is implementing the 20-second clock between pitches (with no runners on) and the 90-second clock between innings (108 seconds for televised games) for 2011. Some conferences are putting actual clocks in the stadiums during the season.

Do you know how the mechanics of this works? Which umpire watches the clock? When does the clock actually start and stop?

Here is the NCAA rule change. The BU in a 2-man crew or U3 in a 3-man crew carry the stopwatch.

Rule 9-2c: Pace of Play. With the bases unoccupied, the pitcher shall deliver the ball within 20 seconds after receiving the ball. Add penalty to 9-2c: PENALTY: After a team warning, a ball will be called each time the rule is violated. A.R.—Coaches are prohibited from arguing a 20-second rule violation. A warning is given and an ejection of the head coach on subsequent violations.

Rationale: To address pace of play concerns.

Rule 9-2i: Procedure between innings. For non-televised games, teams will be allowed a maximum of 90 seconds between half-innings. For televised games, it is recommended that the time between each half-inning will be 108-seconds between each half inning. For games being played under a television agreement, the time between innings may be extended by contract. The clock starts with the last out of an inning and stops when the pitcher engages the rubber. In the case of an injury or an ejection of the pitcher, the umpire-in-chief shall allow the relief pitcher an adequate time to warm-up.

PENALTY for i: A ball will be called when the defense violates and a strike will be called when the offense violates.

Rationale: The time between innings, in some cases, is a cause of longer game times. Timing and making this sequence consistent will assist in the overall administration of the game.

[Umpmazza]

Originally Posted by zm1283

The NCAA is implementing the 20-second clock between pitches (with no runners on)

i hate to break it to you, but the 20 sec has been a rule for at least 5 yrs now...

The SEC used it int he Conference tourney, they will use it this yr. the others conferences have the choice to use, if 1 school doesn't want to use, then none of them use it.

tony Thompson was telling us about it last weekend at his camp.

[GA Umpire]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Proposal:
1) Between pitches, the batter has 10 seconds to get his sign and get into the box, ready for the pitch.
2) Once the batter is ready, the pitcher has 10 seconds to pitch or throw to a base.
3) Pitchers may throw to a base only twice per "situation" (see below). A third throw MUST result in an out, or the baserunner advances (the allowing of the 3rd throw makes it so baserunners can take a little more lead after 2 throws ... but can't go TOO far as they are still liable to be thrown out)
4) Catchers may meet with a pitcher once per batter. A 2nd visit counts as a coach visit.

I agree with 1 and 4. It doesn't take even 10 seconds to get a sign. And, coaches abuse the catcher going out far too often. This would help.

2 and 3 affect the game too much. A runner would just have to have to count to 10 and then start running. Less than 10, then they are on their own. If 10, just run. Why time it? And, after 2 throws, why worry about a pick-off attempt? Just wait 10 seconds and then run.

I agree with half but disagree with half. A real problem is many have developed attention deficit and can't stick with something too long. If there isn't immediate action within 10 seconds, it's time to change the channel. Baseball has been this way for a very long time.

Games average about 2 1/2 hours since I don't know when. Many are taking about 3 1/2 hours and maybe shouldn't. But, so does a football game. I know many times where the game started at 8 pm and wasn't over until well after 11 pm. The only difference is attention span that something isn't happening within 40 seconds of the last play more than just a pitch being thrown.

[PeteBooth]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

OK... It seems, from talking to people that don't watch, that the main culprit is the pace of the game and/or the length of the game.

While the pace of the game is A reason IMO, it's not the MAIN culprit.

IMO, the MAIN culprit is Cable specifically channels such as the YES network etc.

In order to compete, teams need their own cable deals. Unlike the NFL, baseball is a REGIONAL sport.

A good example is last weeks Monday night game between the Titans and the Jags which was up against the Phillies / Giants.

The Titans / Jags football game is Not a BIG game yet it still had better ratings than the baseball game. Yes the baseball game was on Turner compared to the football game which was on ESPN, but the point is football is KING.

The OTHER MAIN culprit is that baseball does NOT have a salary cap which means for the most part you can "pencil in" the Yanks every year for a playoff berth. Since 1995 the Yanks have only missed the playoffs once.

IMO, a system that allows one team to spend over a zillion dollars on players is a joke.

Just look at the Cleveland Indians. At one time the Indians had both Lee and CC on THEIR team. Those 2 F1's are no longer there.

At one time the Seattle Mariners had AROD, The BIG UNIT and Griffy Jr. (in his prime) all on the same team. Talk about a potential dynesty. They all left.

The Yankee infield alone is over $80 million.

Look at the Tampa Bay Rays. They will go through another transition year. They can't sign Crawford etc.

The Yanks will most likely sign Lee next year plus who knows. That's what is wrong with baseball. Many of the teams like the Pirates are no more than an advanced Triple A team who support the bigger clubs once a player can get arbritration or go through Free agency. It's an 'auction" once these teams know that cannot pay the player.

While the pace of the game etc might be a factor, IMO those are minor compared to what's really wrong with baseball.

Pete Booth

[TussAgee11]

A common misconception or misunderstanding. Popular to contrary belief,

Organizations like the Pirates and other lower level lower market franchises make boat loads of cash. The make the majority of this money by keeping costs low (salaries) and having revenue high (localized TV deals). Performance of the team no longer matters since they do not rely on the gates to run the organization.

The TV deals are driven up and up and up by ESPN and the higher markets. Localized Fox Sports affiliates still are paying alot of money for the rights to cover even the lower level teams.

The Yankees / Red Sox / Mets have a business model that is just different than the lower level teams. Both methods make money. If you are a lower-market franchise, why risk spending more on performance when there is no payout for it other than increased ticket sales, which will not drive up overall revenue since you had to pay players in order to get that attendance.

So it becomes a popularity contest. Which teams have the most fans watching every game, which leads to higher TV contracts? Those are the teams that spend the most. Its the best situation the league could ask for, the fan base's favorite teams most likely will be around come October.

Parody in performance will only dilute the dollars, which the owners simply do not want. They like it the way it is, and so do the players. Its a business...