Reusse: Playoff Pace Of Game

[Eris]

I thought the Nationals-Dodgers game 5 was one of the best elimination games that I can remember (up there with Jack Morris's game 7 in 1991).  Despite living on the East coast and needing to get up early the next day, I could not stop watching the game.  I don't know how anyone who calls themselves a baseball fan could complain that the game took 4 and 1/2 hours.

 

One criticism that I wish would be addressed is that the games start early enough so that children and us middle aged guys and gals on the East coast could watch the entire game and still get to bed by a reasonable hour (by 10:30 pm would nice).   

[DAM DC Twins Fans]

I didn't watch the game...I cant remember the last post-season baseball game I have watched--probably Twins a few years back.  NO BASEBALL GAME SHOULD LAST 4 HOURS  (barring extra innings).  Commercials are too long--pitching changes are too long--replay review is way too long.  2016 was my 60th season watching baseball for the first half of those I could see a doubleheader in 5 hours.  no way that could happen today.

 

Thank you Bud Selig.

 

Many of you will say I am not a true fan...I will say not of 3 minute commercial breaks between innings and calls for the bull pen.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Again, I do not get baseball fans who want shorter seasons and/or fewer games.  People with casual interest in baseball, sure.  Fans no way.

 

I enjoy pumpkin pie.  I don't want to eat it for every meal for the rest of my life.  This is just bogus logic that you probably don't really buy yourself.  I'm sure there are things you are a "fan" of that you don't want to have oversaturated or overdone.

[Vanimal46]

One easy criticism is that game didn't get over until 1 AM on the east coast. It has to be a constant battle if you have young children. Do you let them stay up to watch their favorite team? I don't see how you can... The late starts are a killer even for adults who have to get up the next day for work.

[SF Twins Fan]

 

I didn't watch the game...I cant remember the last post-season baseball game I have watched--probably Twins a few years back.  NO BASEBALL GAME SHOULD LAST 4 HOURS  (barring extra innings).  Commercials are too long--pitching changes are too long--replay review is way too long.  2016 was my 60th season watching baseball for the first half of those I could see a doubleheader in 5 hours.  no way that could happen today.

 

Thank you Bud Selig.

 

Many of you will say I am not a true fan...I will say not of 3 minute commercial breaks between innings and calls for the bull pen.

 

I couldn't agree with this more. I consider my self a "true" baseball fan as some of you call it.  I love watching the game and there is nothing better than playoff baseball.  I love the intricacies of the game and looking deeper at the stats.  While a lot of casual baseball fans don't love low scoring pitching duels I could watch pitchers go for no hit bids all day long.  The pressure on them and the potential for any one pitch the become a hit is as exciting as it gets.  I grew up as a kid dreaming of being up in the ninth inning with runners on and two outs but like was mentioned above no 9 INNING GAME SHOULD EVER BE 4 AND A HALF HOURS.  The last 2 or 3 innings were exciting but it shouldn't take almost 3 hours to complete those innings.  So, if you think that doesn't make me a "true" baseball fan than you don't have a clue what you're taking about.  I'm as big of an advocate for the game of baseball as anyone and defend it and try to persuade non baseball fans all the time how good of a game it truly is.  But a 4 and a half hour game isn't good baseball.  Parts of it are good but the overall product isn't.  Too many stoppages for commercials, too many stoppages for pitching games, too many stoppages for replay and just overall too long of a game.  Game 5 of the Cubs Giants series is a perfect example.  5 pitching changes in the top half of the ninth inning to get 3 outs is insane because of the slow trips to the mound, discuss for a few seconds, then signal for the next reliever who you already know is going to come in.  All this leads to too many commercials after every pitching change.  

[biggentleben]

 

The fact that hockey and baseball are being played at the same time is kinda sad. MLB maybe has gotten a little greedy with the number of games and the growing playoffs. It could trim down the schedule, wrap things up by hockey season, and avoid conflicting so much with NHL and NFL.

 

Or the NHL conflict has been there for decades and really isn't that big of a deal. The NHL starts in early October (typically in single season days of October), and the MLB playoffs have never been completed in single-digit days in October. In fact, I did not look at every single season, but I did random season selection all the way back to 1900 and found not one single season ending before double-digit October days, even before playoffs or the World Series existed.

[biggentleben]

 

One easy criticism is that game didn't get over until 1 AM on the east coast. It has to be a constant battle if you have young children. Do you let them stay up to watch their favorite team? I don't see how you can... The late starts are a killer even for adults who have to get up the next day for work.

 

Okay, and do you punish your children by not allowing them to watch the game of their favorite team if they're a Red Sox fan because their favorite team starts their games before you're home from school/work/etc.?

 

I think part of the issue is that so much of the worry is "whatever will the East Coast fans do with such a late game?!" when the consideration is never given the other direction. A good friend of mine moved out to San Diego and was already a Chargers fan. He got season tickets and proudly claimed he had watched every snap of every game until this season - when the NFL scheduled the Charges for an east coast game on a Sunday when he would be in church with his family, at 9am. No one seems to worry the other direction.

[Vanimal46]

Okay, and do you punish your children by not allowing them to watch the game of their favorite team if they're a Red Sox fan because their favorite team starts their games before you're home from school/work/etc.?

 

I think part of the issue is that so much of the worry is "whatever will the East Coast fans do with such a late game?!" when the consideration is never given the other direction. A good friend of mine moved out to San Diego and was already a Chargers fan. He got season tickets and proudly claimed he had watched every snap of every game until this season - when the NFL scheduled the Charges for an east coast game on a Sunday when he would be in church with his family, at 9am. No one seems to worry the other direction.

No, I would not punish my hypothetical kid for starting to watch a game prior to me coming home from work.

 

I would be upset if he or she decided to stay up late to watch the game and they were a complete mess the next morning.

[jimmer]

 

No, I would not punish my hypothetical kid for starting to watch a game prior to me coming home from work.

I would be upset if he or she decided to stay up late to watch the game and they were a complete mess the next morning.

Used to have a pastor who, during football season, set the masses he would do based on when the 49ers were playing. We had mass at 5:30 on Saturday, and then 8:30, 10:00 and 11:30 on Sunday and whenever the 49ers were playing, the associate pastor would do those masses.

[Platoon]

Regarding comments about old baseball people. I am one! And while I know the comments weren't a knock on us elderly, there is something else to point out. Too often in this age of metrics, the fact that the game itself hasn't really changed. There are discussions about the value of home runs vs the accompanying extra strike outs, and how to analyze the value of the sum of the two. There are more and more metrics to analyze defense and pitching value. But to some, me, it seems like something gets lost. Defense and pitching, and fundamentals still wins. Always. But too many players are judged sufficient if there bat carries their glove, in a defensive position. It never really will. The fact that you can hide about two bad gloves on the corners on every team hasn't changed in years. The Twins thought they could alter the equation, and the sum of their efforts came to 103.

[biggentleben]

 

No, I would not punish my hypothetical kid for starting to watch a game prior to me coming home from work.

I would be upset if he or she decided to stay up late to watch the game and they were a complete mess the next morning.

 

I'm assuming, of course, that your young child is not home alone and would be awaiting you picking them up from day care or wherever on your way home from work.

[Vanimal46]

I'm assuming, of course, that your young child is not home alone and would be awaiting you picking them up from day care or wherever on your way home from work.

Gotcha. If the kid has an opportunity to watch the game before I pick him/her up from daycare I don't see the harm in that.

[biggentleben]

 

Gotcha. If the kid has an opportunity to watch the game before I pick him/her up from daycare I don't see the harm in that.

 

I'm just saying that many won't have that chance because their day care or after school program won't have the game on, and then they're at the mercy of the East Coast overlords. That's the entire point. This country spans multiple time zones, so attempting to accommodate all fans everywhere ends up hurting fans of the local teams on both coasts. I'm quite alright with having the time be set for the local team and those of us who want to follow the team in other time zones get jobbed. That's the nature of the beast.

[biggentleben]

Less than three hours in post season baseball. Are you not impressed?

[spinowner]

For a long time MLB has allowed the tail to wag the dog by giving TV the authority to set start times and the length of between-inning breaks. I have to accept that this will never change since all teams generate necessary income that way but I wish we could have 60-second between-inning breaks like in the olden days. That alone would cut about 20 minutes from every game, more in the postseason.

Regarding pace of play I don't support anything that would fundamentally change the way the game is played or managed. While the pitch clock has some proponents I would accept it only when the bases are empty and only if there's a similar clock for a batter to step into the batter's box. I think it could give an unfair advantage to a baserunner to use it with runners on base.

I still say the only acceptable changes that could speed games up are to raise the upper boundary of the strike zone and to lower the height of the mound. A larger zone means fewer balls and more swings sooner in the count. A lower mound prevents a concomitant increase in strikeouts. Fewer walks, no increase in strikeouts, shorter at-bats, more balls put in play, faster pace of play. By the way, there's no guarantee that this would shorten game times but my guess is that it would.

As for challenges I think they are here to stay. One way to eliminate the pause while a manager decides whether to challenge a call would be to allow teams to wait until after the following at-bat to make a challenge. However, if a challenge overturns a call it means an at-bat would have to be repeated. It would require some study to see which way uses more time, and it probably wouldn't make more than a couple minutes difference in a game anyway. 

 

[Vanimal46]

 

Less than three hours in post season baseball. Are you not impressed?

Very impressed. 2 hours 45 minutes and we're moving on with our lives. I love a good pitching duel in the post season. More importantly, I enjoy a fast moving pitching duel. 

[Mike Sixel]

The old "if you aren't a fan like I am, you are doing it wrong" argument, my favorite of all time when it comes to entertainment...

 

I like baseball. But there is no way I could watch a game at that pace. I can't watch any sport at that pace. Just awful. 

 

No idea how to fix it, other than limiting warmup pitches and commercial breaks that happen close together (just as I don't think the NFL should go to commercial before AND after a kick).

[Halsey Hall]

The one thing about these long commercials is that I see less of them.  I flip the channel to Alaska, the last frontier, or something else.  I see a baseball game and another program all at the same time.

 

And, yes, Ruesse is one of the best when it comes to baseball.  He's doing his final lap now and is enjoying getting some folks riled up a bit and I'm getting a kick out of it.

[gil4]

 

Brilliant analogy! Agreed 100%, there's so much filler in between the action that it can be hard to watch.

If Manfred really wants to increase pace of play, don't allow commercial breaks to occur after every single pitching change.

I think that's sarcasm.  I hope it's sarcasm.  The problem isn't the commercial, it's the break.

 

A couple of changes I would like to see:

 

1.  We already require a pitcher to pitch to the end of one AB; make it 3 AB or until the end of the inning.  (No more LOOGY is a good thing.) 

2.  We give the pitcher 8 warm-up pitches.  Give him 1 min or 3 pitches from the time the team makes the substitution.  They don't need to warm up while we're watching; they have a bullpen for that.  A couple of pitches to get used to the mound should suffice.

 

In the top of the 7th, the Nats used 6 pitchers to face 8 batters.  That's ridiculous.  I was really hoping the game would go 18 innings so we could see Bryce Harper pitch with an elimination game on the line.

 

 

[Vanimal46]

 

I think that's sarcasm.  I hope it's sarcasm.  The problem isn't the commercial, it's the break.

 

A couple of changes I would like to see:

 

1.  We already require a pitcher to pitch to the end of one AB; make it 3 AB or until the end of the inning.  (No more LOOGY is a good thing.) 

2.  We give the pitcher 8 warm-up pitches.  Give him 1 min or 3 pitches from the time the team makes the substitution.  They don't need to warm up while we're watching; they have a bullpen for that.  A couple of pitches to get used to the mound should suffice.

 

In the top of the 7th, the Nats used 6 pitchers to face 8 batters.  That's ridiculous.  I was really hoping the game would go 18 innings so we could see Bryce harper pitch with an elimination game on the line.

I don't agree with your first point. That takes some strategy out of the game, and LOOGY's are useful to get a crucial out. 

 

I agree completely with your 2nd point. The reliever just spent 5-10 minutes throwing 20+ pitches in the bullpen. They don't need another 8 pitches as a warm up when they get on the mound. 3 warm up pitches to get used to the mound, and get the show on the road. 

[Mike Sixel]

 

I think that's sarcasm.  I hope it's sarcasm.  The problem isn't the commercial, it's the break.

 

A couple of changes I would like to see:

 

1.  We already require a pitcher to pitch to the end of one AB; make it 3 AB or until the end of the inning.  (No more LOOGY is a good thing.) 

2.  We give the pitcher 8 warm-up pitches.  Give him 1 min or 3 pitches from the time the team makes the substitution.  They don't need to warm up while we're watching; they have a bullpen for that.  A couple of pitches to get used to the mound should suffice.

 

In the top of the 7th, the Nats used 6 pitchers to face 8 batters.  That's ridiculous.  I was really hoping the game would go 18 innings so we could see Bryce harper pitch with an elimination game on the line.

 

couldn't disagree more with number 1. Why is no more LOOGY a good thing? 

 

But number 2? Yes, agreed.

[gil4]

 

Regarding pace of play I don't support anything that would fundamentally change the way the game is played or managed.

I do, because managers have changed the way they manage, and I think we need to reign them back in a bit. 

 

In the top of the 7th, the Nats used 6 pitchers to face 8 batters. That's ridiculous.  I prefer baseball to chess, and that looks more like chess.

 

 

[gil4]

 

I don't agree with your first point. That takes some strategy out of the game, and LOOGY's are useful to get a crucial out. 

 

couldn't disagree more with number 1. Why is no more LOOGY a good thing? 

 

I would prefer teams bring in a good pitcher to get a crucial out.  No more LOOGY might mean no more 13 pitchers on the roster (and might mean fewer teams carrying 12 pitchers.)  It would mean teams wouldn't have an incentive to carry a guy on the roster whose sole purpose is to disrupt the flow of the game.

 

This matchup game is not the way the game has always been played.  Managers have gone off the deep end with their pitching changes, and I think we should rein them in a bit.  Maybe 2 batters would be better, but changing pitchers for every batter is boring.  I like to watch the players play.  I enjoy the strategy in the flow of the game, but the constant pitching changes are out of hand.

[Mike Sixel]

 

I would prefer teams bring in a good pitcher to get a crucial out.  No more LOOGY might mean no more 13 pitchers on the roster (and might mean fewer teams carrying 12 pitchers.)  It would mean teams wouldn't have an incentive to carry a guy on the roster whose sole purpose is to disrupt the flow of the game.

 

This matchup game is not the way the game has always been played.  Managers have gone off the deep end with their pitching changes, and I think we should rein them in a bit.  Maybe 2 batters would be better, but changing pitchers for every batter is boring.  I like to watch the players play.  I enjoy the strategy in the flow of the game, but the constant pitching changes are out of hand.

 

People used to say walks were a sign a hitter was bad, people used to sacrifice bunt a lot, the game has changed, it will always change.....

[gil4]

 

People used to say walks were a sign a hitter was bad, people used to sacrifice bunt a lot, the game has changed, it will always change.....

Neither of those resulted in a constant disruption of the game - if anything, they produced the opposite.  There have always been minor rule changes when the game gets out of balance, and I don't think forcing a pitcher to face more than one batter is unreasonable.   

[biggentleben]

 

I do, because managers have changed the way they manage, and I think we need to reign them back in a bit. 

 

In the top of the 7th, the Nats used 6 pitchers to face 8 batters. That's ridiculous.  I prefer baseball to chess, and that looks more like chess.

 

Um, I won't do it because, frankly, I'm not going to spend the time, but the internet is filled with comparisons of baseball and chess. That's a very common comparison made, frankly. Baseball is played as much by out-thinking and out-maneuvering your opponent as it is out-"athleting" your opponent.

 

I did have a fun time listening to the 538 hot take podcast recently where they discussed playoff baseball and bullpen usage. They brought out a game in the Mantle Yankees dynasty where five pinch hitters were used in one single inning and four pitchers were used by the opposition. But, obviously this is all new, modern, terrible stuff that is ruining the game now....

[gil4]

 

I did have a fun time listening to the 538 hot take podcast recently where they discussed playoff baseball and bullpen usage. They brought out a game in the Mantle Yankees dynasty where five pinch hitters were used in one single inning and four pitchers were used by the opposition. But, obviously this is all new, modern, terrible stuff that is ruining the game now....

 

It happened once in 1957 is not the same as seeing it on a regular basis, which we do now.  I'd be interested in seeing a breakdown of the number of relief pitchers used and the average number of batters faced (and maybe a breakdown of batters face - the % that face 1 batter, 2 batters, etc.)

[biggentleben]

 

It happened once in 1957 is not the same as seeing it on a regular basis, which we do now.  I'd be interested in seeing a breakdown of the number of relief pitchers used and the average number of batters faced (and maybe a breakdown of batters face - the % that face 1 batter, 2 batters, etc.)

 

I'm saying it's always been there. It was incredibly against the norms then, but in the playoffs, it would happen. You don't typically see five pitchers in an inning in the majors in a regular season game now either (though it's not as incredulous as in the 50s and 60s era they were referencing), but in the playoffs, that stuff happens.

[wsnydes]

My issue with lengths of the game is less about the actual time elapsed, but with how the game actually moves.  If there are constant starts and stops with delays, even a 3 hour game seems to take an eternity.  But if a game has a fluid flow and rhythm to it without delays and excessive breaks, even a 4 hour game would be fine.  For me, it's all about the flow.  I don't necessarily want to sit through a four and a half hour game, but if its a fluid game then it isn't so bad.  If simply wanting fluidity to return to the game makes me less of a fan, then I guess that I'm less of a fan.  I don't want less baseball, I want less of a herky-jerky flow to baseball.

 

I'll never be supportive of means to reduce game length that alter the way the game is managed by its participants.  

 

Also, there are ways to condense a schedule without eliminating games.  They're called scheduled double headers.  Schedule half a dozen of them for each team on Saturday's and you've cut a week out of the regular season.  Baseball shouldn't be played in November.  

[Mike Sixel]

Committing even 3 hours to any one activity isn't easy, especially during the work week. But, yes, even for those of us that like sports, it's the pace that really matters.