Miller: Pitch Clocks.. Speed up game, but Players hate it

[ashbury]

48 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

There are dozens of studies that show kids aren't into baseball and are migrating to other sports, anecdotal evidence of stadium attendance aside. Even Little League participation is dropping pretty much every year. The average age of a baseball fan is something like 15 years older than an NBA fan.

This may or may not be a problem.  For example the median age of passengers on cruise ships is somewhere in the 60s, I find after ten seconds of googling - but I doubt whether those companies are striving to change that demographic, because that's the age group where the money is.

The stat you referenced could be a problem if there isn't a steady influx of us elderly folks.  That could in fact be the case, but the stat doesn't say one way or the other.  If sports fans love the NBA in their 30s but then gravitate back to good old baseball later in life, that could be downright healthy for the financials of the sport.

More data needed, IOW.

[Greglw3]

On 5/20/2022 at 12:27 PM, Seth Stohs said:

https://www.startribune.com/twins-saints-pitch-clock-minor-leagues-speeds-slows-royce-lewis-devin-smeltzer/600174872/?fbclid=IwAR1M51NYamGmZoyuL6QdoyLf2BI0sh3Jc4mw08oviq3XsHJznFJOnrrZL3Y

I don't know if anyone likes the idea of a pitch clock, but there are definitely two sides to the discussion... 

1.) In leagues with the pitch clock, games have been shortened by about 24 minutes. 

2.) From the above Phil Miller article, the players - hitters and pitchers - both do not like it. They feel rushed. Their timing can be off. A ball or a strike can be called if the pitcher or hitter isn't ready. Phil talked to several players who have spent time in St. Paul this season for their thoughts. It's interesting. 

Personal opinion: I don't care if games are longer or shorter... but "Pace of Play" is important, in my opinion. I've watched several of Louie Varland's starts for Wichita this year. He works really fast and the game moves along. There isn't much worse than watching a pitcher who works really, really slow. 

Likewise, Chuck Knoblauch was a great player, but watching him step out of the batter's box after every pitch to re-adjust his batting gloves doesn't feel necessary. 

What do you think? 

Did you or have you seen Mike Hargrove who stepped out of the box took off his batting gloves and put them back on while leaning on his bat and more rituals, then got back in for the next pitch. He was 'The Human Rain Delay'!

As a traditionalist and a big fan of baseball history going back to the New York Knickerbockers Baseball Club of the 1850s, I value the lack of a clock in baseball games. Most of my life fellow baseball enthusiasts including nationally prominent ones have relished the fact that "There’s no clock in baseball" and cited that as the one thing that other sports didn’t have that made baseball a relaxed, yet compelling thing of beauty. I think there’s a reason why the song "Take Me Out to the Ballgame" has the line "I don’t care if we ever get back!".

I saw a game in Columbus, I think where they had that big ole 30 second clock ominously counting down constantly throughout the game. Did it speed up the game? Yep! Did I enjoy the game more because it was speeded up? No. I detested it.

I think the powers that be in baseball are way too worried about the pace of the game. When it’s summer and a team is playing reasonable well, most teams will have either sellouts on the weekends or 30,000 fans or more. Why? Because they love baseball the way it’s always been played. Without a clock or other artificial devices in a nearly obsessive attempt to speed up the game - no matter what the cost to the rich experience of experiencing a game without an expanding list of gimmicks to make it shorter.

So, I’m against it but am powerless to do anything about it.

It seems MLB thinks they will attract more fans if the game is shorter. In other words they’ll like it more if they get less of the product instead of more! What?

For those not prone to be baseball fans, they wouldn’t come if they had 2 balls and 1 strike limits. For those that love the game that provides a timeless, almost meditative experience, especially in games where the game is pulsatingly close and you are lost in it, I think most could do without a pitch clock. 

As Ernie Banks used to say to demonstrate his love for the game, a game like no other, "Let’s play two!"

[ashbury]

Mike Hargrove was a fun story when he was unique.  So was Dave Kingman.  But a league full of Hargroves and Kingmans leads to a dull game, in their respective ways.

[Brock Beauchamp]

6 minutes ago, ashbury said:

This may or may not be a problem.  For example the median age of passengers on cruise ships is somewhere in the 60s, I find after ten seconds of googling - but I doubt whether those companies are striving to change that demographic, because that's the age group where the money is.

The stat you referenced could be a problem if there isn't a steady influx of us elderly folks.  That could in fact be the case, but the stat doesn't say one way or the other.  If sports fans love the NBA in their 30s but then gravitate back to good old baseball later in life, that could be downright healthy for the financials of the sport.

More data needed, IOW.

That’s possible but unlikely, as the average age of baseball fans have been climbing for quite some time, IIRC. That likely means baseball is keeping the same fans but not acquiring new fans. 

[ashbury]

5 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

That’s possible but unlikely, as the average age of baseball fans have been climbing for quite some time, IIRC.

With the baby boomer generation working through the system, like the proverbial rat through a boa constrictor, I think such numbers are typical of the population as a whole, and will be for a while longer.

A better-qualified statistician than myself is needed.

[Greglw3]

5 minutes ago, ashbury said:

Mike Hargrove was a fun story when he was unique.  So was Dave Kingman.  But a league full of Hargroves and Kingmans lead to a dull game, in their respective ways.

I think there was only 1 Hargrove. I don’t see baseball within light years of having a league full of Hargroves. I don’t know of many batter delayers but do occasionally see a pitcher who works slow, 

[ashbury]

19 hours ago, Greglw3 said:

I think there was only 1 Hargrove. I don’t see baseball within light years of having a league full of Hargroves. I don’t know of many batter delayers but do occasionally see a pitcher who works slow, 

The pace of play has evolved to the point it's difficult to say, because the batters take a little stroll after each pitch because they know that the pitcher won't be ready anytime soon and the pitchers take their sweet time because they know the batter won't be standing in the box for a while.  But if you just watch the batters in isolation, they look to me like a bunch of Mike Hargroves anymore.

[Brock Beauchamp]

26 minutes ago, Greglw3 said:

Did you or have you seen Mike Hargrove who stepped out of the box took off his batting gloves and put them back on while leaning on his bat and more rituals, then got back in for the next pitch. He was 'The Human Rain Delay'!

As a traditionalist and a big fan of baseball history going back to the New York Knickerbockers Baseball Club of the 1850s, I value the lack of a clock in baseball games. Most of my life fellow baseball enthusiasts including nationally prominent ones have relished the fact that "There’s no clock in baseball" and cited that as the one thing that other sports didn’t have that made baseball a relaxed, yet compelling thing of beauty. I think there’s a reason why the song "Take Me Out to the Ballgame" has the line "I don’t care if we ever get back!".

I saw a game in Columbus, I think where they had that big ole 30 second clock ominously counting down constantly throughout the game. Did it speed up the game? Yep! Did I enjoy the game more because it was speeded up? No. I detested it.

I think the powers that be in baseball are way too worried about the pace of the game. When it’s summer and a team is playing reasonable well, most teams will have either sellouts on the weekends or 30,000 fans or more. Why? Because they love baseball the way it’s always been played. Without a clock or other artificial devices in a nearly obsessive attempt to speed up the game - no matter what the cost to the rich experience of experiencing a game without an expanding list of gimmicks to make it shorter.

So, I’m against it but am powerless to do anything about it.

It seems MLB thinks they will attract more fans if the game is shorter. In other words they’ll like it more if they get less of the product instead of more! What?

For those not prone to be baseball fans, they wouldn’t come if they had 2 balls and 1 strike limits. For those that love the game that provides a timeless, almost meditative experience, especially in games where the game is pulsatingly close and you are lost in it, I think most could do without a pitch clock. 

As Ernie Banks used to say to demonstrate his love for the game, a game like no other, "Let’s play two!"

What I don't understand about this take, and I'm legitimately puzzled by it, is that a pitch clock makes the game more in line with its own history. The abuse of a lack of a pitch clock is what has changed the game and the enforcement of a pitch clock makes it look more like the game we all watched as children.

I had been drifting toward supporting a pitch clock until Covid hit. Without new baseball, I went back and watched a lot of old baseball.

And about two weeks into doing that, it hit me just how much slower and worse the game is now than it was back then. Guys didn't step out of the box 30 years ago. Pitchers didn't circle the mound 30 years ago.

It's going to be difficult to change the Three True Outcomes version of the game but it's really easy to fix the stepping out, endless fiddling of batting gloves, and circling the mound.

And the likely outcome of doing that also reduces the TTO game because if pitchers start losing 2mph on their fastball because they can't take 30 second breaks between pitches, offense and contact improve.

And also, the pitch clock itself is about 60 years old now. It's older than me by 15 years. MLB simply hasn't enforced it.

[Brock Beauchamp]

4 hours ago, rwilfong86 said:

There are other things baseball can do to keep and attract fans without completely changing the game, again I am not against pitch clocks so don't misconstrue what I am saying. Ending blackouts would go a long way to boost fan viewership for many fans, I know people in places in Iowa who have like 6 teams blacked out and where I live in Kansas blackouts prevent me from watching the Royals, Cardinals, Astros, and Rangers (but I can watch the Rockies and Twins which are closer than the Texas teams!). This goes back to my previous statement about baseball selling it's soul for TV revenue. 

Oh, blackouts are *at least* as big of a problem as pace of play but they're two very separate issues. One is a business issue, the other a baseball issue.

[tony&rodney]

I totally disagree with the idea of a pitch clock. Baseball has a long history of timelessness. 

MLB can solve the lengthy delays caused by some batters and some pitchers internally. It can be done.

Then again, I do not get bored watching baseball. I do get irritated by bad baseball.

[Greglw3]

7 hours ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

What I don't understand about this take, and I'm legitimately puzzled by it, is that a pitch clock makes the game more in line with its own history. The abuse of a lack of a pitch clock is what has changed the game and the enforcement of a pitch clock makes it look more like the game we all watched as children.

I had been drifting toward supporting a pitch clock until Covid hit. Without new baseball, I went back and watched a lot of old baseball.

And about two weeks into doing that, it hit me just how much slower and worse the game is now than it was back then. Guys didn't step out of the box 30 years ago. Pitchers didn't circle the mound 30 years ago.

It's going to be difficult to change the Three True Outcomes version of the game but it's really easy to fix the stepping out, endless fiddling of batting gloves, and circling the mound.

And the likely outcome of doing that also reduces the TTO game because if pitchers start losing 2mph on their fastball because they can't take 30 second breaks between pitches, offense and contact improve.

And also, the pitch clock itself is about 60 years old now. It's older than me by 15 years. MLB simply hasn't enforced it.

I don’t know. I’ve been watching all that time. At the time of my first game Killebrew, Zolio Versalles, Jim Kaat, Cesar Tovar were the Twins big stars. I think by and large, the game hasn’t changed in terms of people abusing time limits. There is nobody remotely close to as slow as Mike Hargrove in the batters box. 

A lot of times, hitters do call time now but it’s because the pitcher was too fast. The spate of those occurrences is unparalleled in my lifetime.

And who can forget Gaylord Perry endlessly staring in, the getting some grease from wherever, then standing there and stroking his greased up hair either as a psychological ploy or to get even more substance on the baseball.

You may be right about a pitch clock for 60 years but I, as an avid Twins fan, have never seen a pitch clock in MLB and never heard a baseball announcer refer to one in at least 20 years. Never heard Dick Bremer or Roy Smalley, Justin Morneau or any announcer talk about a pitch clock that’s not being enforced.

What has added to times of play far more than the few who dawdle on the mound or at the plate is a supreme improvement to the game put in about a decade or more ago and that’s the challenge rule. With multiple challenges in one game and occasions where it takes a long time for NY to make a decision, some games may be expanded by 20 or more minutes. But the rule should be kept.

Another difference is that back in the good old days (when I was a kid, there were 10 in the NL and 10 teams in the AL, no playoffs - just the best team in each league went to the WS), the amount of teams playing was smaller by over 1/3. When baseball kept expanding, that brought about a whole lot of pitchers who would not have been in baseball before. They walk people, give up generally more hits. Then when you had staffs like Cuellar, McNally, Palmer, Pat Dobson, the Orioles complete rotation, you had high quality pitchers that sometimes went out and pitched 2 hour games or a little longer. Why? Because they threw strikes, had better quality stuff and could make quick work of an opposing team.

The same could be said of the Mets rotations with Koosman, Seaver, Jon Matlack and maybe Gary Gentry. A very high quality rotation that I would argue made for shorter games.

One more is the dominant A’s in 72-74 with Catfish Hunter, Vida Blue, Ken Holtzman and swing man Blue Moon Odom with Rollie Fingers closing out games in probably 1/3 the time of the Twins’ Pagan for example.

 

[bean5302]

Time between pitches has increased. That data has been tracked. There are about 300 pitches per game. Every 1 second pitches are made slower = 5 minutes of game time. The pitch clock at 18 seconds cutting game time by 24 minutes means the average pitch time was 23 seconds or so which falls right in line with expectations.

Speaking as somebody who has a season ticket package and likes to share one of my seats with a friend, I and my friends like to get home before midnight. I was at the extra inning game against the Guardians last week. It was already too long of a game before the extra innings. 10 inning game and the final timer? 3 hours and 31 minutes. Final score? 3-2. That's absurd. Thankfully, the 7:10pm start time games are few and far between these days and the 14ths game started at 6:10pm I believe. Being at the park until 11pm or later gets real old.

Side note, I don't think the TV time outs are an issue. The players don't spend a lot of time tossing balls in the outfield by the time they get into their positions so shrinking down the break is pretty limited.

I also don't care what the players like in regard to the pitch clock. 18 seconds is generous. I would like to feel the pace at the game when the change is implemented. Going to 15 seconds should be easy... but I don't want the game to feel rushed, either.

[Major League Ready]

The game is going to suffer in popularity if something is not done to increase action.  It might be more cultural changes than changes in the game but that's irrelevant.   The pitch clock alone will not resolve the issue.   That's why the league is evaluating numerous changes.  If you watched the game last night, you heard how the change in the ball this year is already impacting swing planes / bunting and play calling.    

It's widely accepted change is needed so fans complaining about a pitch clock is baffling.  Lots of people don't like change but what's to downside of speeding up the game, especially if it's accompanied by other changes that provide a better product?

[Brock Beauchamp]

7 hours ago, Greglw3 said:

I don’t know. I’ve been watching all that time. At the time of my first game Killebrew, Zolio Versalles, Jim Kaat, Cesar Tovar were the Twins big stars. I think by and large, the game hasn’t changed in terms of people abusing time limits. There is nobody remotely close to as slow as Mike Hargrove in the batters box. 

A lot of times, hitters do call time now but it’s because the pitcher was too fast. The spate of those occurrences is unparalleled in my lifetime.

And who can forget Gaylord Perry endlessly staring in, the getting some grease from wherever, then standing there and stroking his greased up hair either as a psychological ploy or to get even more substance on the baseball.

You may be right about a pitch clock for 60 years but I, as an avid Twins fan, have never seen a pitch clock in MLB and never heard a baseball announcer refer to one in at least 20 years. Never heard Dick Bremer or Roy Smalley, Justin Morneau or any announcer talk about a pitch clock that’s not being enforced.

What has added to times of play far more than the few who dawdle on the mound or at the plate is a supreme improvement to the game put in about a decade or more ago and that’s the challenge rule. With multiple challenges in one game and occasions where it takes a long time for NY to make a decision, some games may be expanded by 20 or more minutes. But the rule should be kept.

Another difference is that back in the good old days (when I was a kid, there were 10 in the NL and 10 teams in the AL, no playoffs - just the best team in each league went to the WS), the amount of teams playing was smaller by over 1/3. When baseball kept expanding, that brought about a whole lot of pitchers who would not have been in baseball before. They walk people, give up generally more hits. Then when you had staffs like Cuellar, McNally, Palmer, Pat Dobson, the Orioles complete rotation, you had high quality pitchers that sometimes went out and pitched 2 hour games or a little longer. Why? Because they threw strikes, had better quality stuff and could make quick work of an opposing team.

The same could be said of the Mets rotations with Koosman, Seaver, Jon Matlack and maybe Gary Gentry. A very high quality rotation that I would argue made for shorter games.

One more is the dominant A’s in 72-74 with Catfish Hunter, Vida Blue, Ken Holtzman and swing man Blue Moon Odom with Rollie Fingers closing out games in probably 1/3 the time of the Twins’ Pagan for example.

Oh my lord, this is so wildly inaccurate and just pretending a game existed that never actually existed.

First, you obviously haven't watched an old game in awhile if you think Mike Hargrove was some outlier in comparison to today's game.

Second, if you think pitching was better 50 years ago, that's just ignorant. When I grew up any guy who threw a fastball that started with a velocity of "9" was a fireballer. Ignoring how velocity has changed the game only makes fixing the game's problems harder to do.

If we can't agree that today's athletes are better, faster, and stronger, there's little point in having this conversation.

[tony&rodney]

Check the attendance for the games yesterday - baseball is doing fine. 

There will be changes ... Baldelli has already called for several bunts and set new records for himself.

[Brock Beauchamp]

11 hours ago, tony&rodney said:

MLB can solve the lengthy delays caused by some batters and some pitchers internally. It can be done.

Okay, how?

[4twinsJA]

I have watched some MiLB games with the pitch clock. I really like the increased pace of the game. 

[rwilfong86]

13 hours ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

Oh, blackouts are *at least* as big of a problem as pace of play but they're two very separate issues. One is a business issue, the other a baseball issue.

But both are issues that impact fan viewership nonetheless. I don't see MLB doing anything about blackouts though, so on the field changes will continue to be their route.

[Brock Beauchamp]

5 minutes ago, rwilfong86 said:

But both are issues that impact fan viewership nonetheless. I don't see MLB doing anything about blackouts though, so on the field changes will continue to be their route.

Blackouts are far more difficult to fix because it pits teams and owners against one another, which creates a stalemate for real change.

And besides, fixing the on-field game isn't the enemy just because it's easier to fix than off-field issues. Hating blackouts shouldn't change our willingness to fix other aspects of the game.

[rwilfong86]

1 minute ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

Blackouts are far more difficult to fix because it pits teams and owners against one another, which creates a stalemate for real change.

And besides, fixing the on-field game isn't the enemy just because it's easier to fix than off-field issues. Hating blackouts shouldn't change our willingness to fix other aspects of the game.

Agreed but these are all things that should be considered. Last nights game actually went by pretty fast, it was the speediest game I've been to this season. Players did a good job of keeping the pace up. 

[Squirrel]

18 hours ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

You can do the math on this. Removing one commercial from each break shortens a game by at least nine minutes but probably not much more than that. I'll be generous and say the average game has four mid-inning pitcher replacements so we're now at 11 minutes.

The article mentions the pitch clock reducing game length by 24 minutes.

Commercials are not the problem.

Do both and reduce the game by 35 minutes ... 

[Vanimal46]

The romanticism from certain fans about baseball having no clock is about theoretically mounting a comeback down 8 runs in the 9th inning. Not about having no timekeeping mechanism in the sport. A pitch clock doesn’t mean there will no longer be exciting comebacks, epic collapses, 15 inning games, etc. It’s simply to stop the constant adjustment of gloves and scratching of their undercarriage in between every pitch. 

I’ve been to way more AAA games than MLB games in recent years and can confirm the clock is not noticeable as a fan. The game flows much better, and the result is the same amount of action in less than 3 hours. Win win. 

[Blyleven2011]

If I was a player today i would hate it too and all the rule changes they have made to change the strategy of the game just so its supposedly speeds up the game  ,,,, 

Yes it's the pitcher the creates the tempo and Joe Ryan and others are very efficient in pitching quick ...

I have a passion for the game as it was originally intended to be played ...

With world changes happening over the years  I enjoy any length of the game  ,,, doubleheaders ,,, extra innings  ....

So I don't have to think of the world changes ,,, I write to my representatives for that   ....

Baseball is baseball  ,,, let's keep it that way ....

Manfred is not good for baseball  , 

That's a change I would like ....

[Greglw3]

12 hours ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

Oh my lord, this is so wildly inaccurate and just pretending a game existed that never actually existed.

First, you obviously haven't watched an old game in awhile if you think Mike Hargrove was some outlier in comparison to today's game.

Second, if you think pitching was better 50 years ago, that's just ignorant. When I grew up any guy who threw a fastball that started with a velocity of "9" was a fireballer. Ignoring how velocity has changed the game only makes fixing the game's problems harder to do.

If we can't agree that today's athletes are better, faster, and stronger, there's little point in having this conversation.

I watched all those old games when they happened. You either never saw Hargrove when he playedi have no knowledge of Hargrove. Anyone who saw his career would tell you in no uncertain terms there is NO ONE in today’s game remotely as delaying on every pitch as Hargrove. 

How could I be inventing a game existed that never existed when I followed baseball religiously in the 1960s but especialy in the 70s 80s. 

Your knowledge of the game is off if you think Seaver, Matlack, Koosman and George Stone (Stone was the 4th starter and 12-3 2.80) were not a better quality pitching staff than any now.

Same with Catfish Hunter (21-7 2.04), Vida Blue(6-10 2.80) , Ken Holtzman (19-11 2.51), Blue Moon Odom (15-6 2.50)  (they  carried the A’s to 3 consecutive World Series)!

And the Orioles had two pitching staffs that would be #1 in baseball today. The first was in the 1971 when Jim Palmer, Cuellar, McNally and Pat Dobson (the whole rotation won 20 games),

The second was when they had Palmer, Flanagan, Steve Stone and Scott McGregor. That rotation consisted of 3 Cy Young Award winners and a 20 game winner in McGregor! Name me a rotation like that today! 

It’s not ignorant, that pitching was better 50 years ago, it’s factual. The examples I cited are irrefutable.  Those kind of staffs don’t exist today due to expansion which often sees AAA pitchers pitching in the majors. Anybody who follows baseball knows that so many fringe pitchers that never could have pitched in the 70s or 80s are playing due to 12 expansion teams being added.

And the part about velocity has nothing to do with it. There were Goose Gossage, Mark Littel, Juan Berenguer, John Hiller, Nolan Ryan, Koosman, Seaver, Vida Blue. They didn’t show the public pitch speeds like they do now. How do you know how fast he threw? How fast did Ryan throw?

I do not agree that todays players are better. The rotations I named above prove that the 20 team format concentrated much more pitching talent on single teams than today.

Stronger than Mike Schmidt, Jim Rice, George Foster, Cecil Fielder, Reggie Jackson? really?

Faster than Maury Wills, Rickey Henderson, Tim Raines, Willie Wilson, Campy Campaneris and Rod Carew. Na

I’m just telling you my opinion.

 

[Brock Beauchamp]

40 minutes ago, Greglw3 said:

I watched all those old games when they happened. You either never saw Hargrove when he playedi have no knowledge of Hargrove. Anyone who saw his career would tell you in no uncertain terms there is NO ONE in today’s game remotely as delaying on every pitch as Hargrove. 

How could I be inventing a game existed that never existed when I followed baseball religiously in the 1960s but especialy in the 70s 80s. 

Your knowledge of the game is off if you think Seaver, Matlack, Koosman and George Stone (Stone was the 4th starter and 12-3 2.80) were not a better quality pitching staff than any now.

Same with Catfish Hunter (21-7 2.04), Vida Blue(6-10 2.80) , Ken Holtzman (19-11 2.51), Blue Moon Odom (15-6 2.50)  (they  carried the A’s to 3 consecutive World Series)!

And the Orioles had two pitching staffs that would be #1 in baseball today. The first was in the 1971 when Jim Palmer, Cuellar, McNally and Pat Dobson (the whole rotation won 20 games),

The second was when they had Palmer, Flanagan, Steve Stone and Scott McGregor. That rotation consisted of 3 Cy Young Award winners and a 20 game winner in McGregor! Name me a rotation like that today! 

It’s not ignorant, that pitching was better 50 years ago, it’s factual. The examples I cited are irrefutable.  Those kind of staffs don’t exist today due to expansion which often sees AAA pitchers pitching in the majors. Anybody who follows baseball knows that so many fringe pitchers that never could have pitched in the 70s or 80s are playing due to 12 expansion teams being added.

And the part about velocity has nothing to do with it. There were Goose Gossage, Mark Littel, Juan Berenguer, John Hiller, Nolan Ryan, Koosman, Seaver, Vida Blue. They didn’t show the public pitch speeds like they do now. How do you know how fast he threw? How fast did Ryan throw?

I do not agree that todays players are better. The rotations I named above prove that the 20 team format concentrated much more pitching talent on single teams than today.

Stronger than Mike Schmidt, Jim Rice, George Foster, Cecil Fielder, Reggie Jackson? really?

Faster than Maury Wills, Rickey Henderson, Tim Raines, Willie Wilson, Campy Campaneris and Rod Carew. Na

I’m just telling you my opinion.

 

The world record for the 100 yard dash was half a second slower in 1968 than it is today.

Pretty much every Olympic record falls at least once a decade.

NFL players are WAY stronger and faster than they were 40 years ago and we have combine numbers to show it.

But sure, I buy into your point that while literally the entire rest of the sports world has become faster and stronger over the decades, baseball players being the fat slobs they are have slid backwards. I mean, back in the day everybody was a Jacob deGrom throwing 103mph and everybody was a human tank like Aaron Judge and Shohei Ohtani. Harmon Killebrew wasn’t only 6’ tall, that’s just my imagination.

During that time, baseball has become a global game and competition for a roster is the highest it’s ever been as Latin and Asian players storm MLB, raising the level of competition even higher. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

46 minutes ago, Greglw3 said:

 

 

What’s hilarious about this is the “human rain delay” took 15 seconds between the first and second pitch, which is outrageous.

So I grabbed the first David Ortiz at-bat I found on YouTube.

How long between the first and second pitch? No big deal, just 18 seconds.

 

[wsnydes]

9 hours ago, Vanimal46 said:

The romanticism from certain fans about baseball having no clock is about theoretically mounting a comeback down 8 runs in the 9th inning. Not about having no timekeeping mechanism in the sport. A pitch clock doesn’t mean there will no longer be exciting comebacks, epic collapses, 15 inning games, etc. It’s simply to stop the constant adjustment of gloves and scratching of their undercarriage in between every pitch. 

I’ve been to way more AAA games than MLB games in recent years and can confirm the clock is not noticeable as a fan. The game flows much better, and the result is the same amount of action in less than 3 hours. Win win. 

Plus, it's not like the game itself is on a clock.  It'll still take as long as it needs to take to complete 9 innings.  It only cuts down on the unnecessary downtime, that's all.

[tony&rodney]

13 hours ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

Okay, how?

That is a job solely for the powers of MLB. My best guess is some form of cooperation between players and umpires using the current rules/ guidelines to reduce game times without a buzzer and a large clock ticking down the seconds for every pitch. If and/or when MLB reaches some consensus on the need to push for less time between pitches/ shorter games, there will be some action. Right now there are experiments in the minor leagues to judge how MLB might proceed. You guess is as good as mine. Everyone has an opinion and that will be one thing that doesn't change no matter what course of action or lack thereof ensues concerning game times.

[TheLeviathan]

10 hours ago, Blyleven2011 said:

If I was a player today i would hate it too and all the rule changes they have made to change the strategy of the game just so its supposedly speeds up the game  ,,,, 

No.  It factually speeds up games and there is evidence to that.

Your entire argument is based on phony skepticism.  The game was never meant to be 4 hours of standing around.

[TheLeviathan]

2 hours ago, Greglw3 said:

I watched all those old games when they happened. You either never saw Hargrove when he playedi have no knowledge of Hargrove. Anyone who saw his career would tell you in no uncertain terms there is NO ONE in today’s game remotely as delaying on every pitch as Hargrove. 

How could I be inventing a game existed that never existed when I followed baseball religiously in the 1960s but especialy in the 70s 80s. 

Your knowledge of the game is off if you think Seaver, Matlack, Koosman and George Stone (Stone was the 4th starter and 12-3 2.80) were not a better quality pitching staff than any now.

Same with Catfish Hunter (21-7 2.04), Vida Blue(6-10 2.80) , Ken Holtzman (19-11 2.51), Blue Moon Odom (15-6 2.50)  (they  carried the A’s to 3 consecutive World Series)!

And the Orioles had two pitching staffs that would be #1 in baseball today. The first was in the 1971 when Jim Palmer, Cuellar, McNally and Pat Dobson (the whole rotation won 20 games),

The second was when they had Palmer, Flanagan, Steve Stone and Scott McGregor. That rotation consisted of 3 Cy Young Award winners and a 20 game winner in McGregor! Name me a rotation like that today! 

It’s not ignorant, that pitching was better 50 years ago, it’s factual. The examples I cited are irrefutable.  Those kind of staffs don’t exist today due to expansion which often sees AAA pitchers pitching in the majors. Anybody who follows baseball knows that so many fringe pitchers that never could have pitched in the 70s or 80s are playing due to 12 expansion teams being added.

And the part about velocity has nothing to do with it. There were Goose Gossage, Mark Littel, Juan Berenguer, John Hiller, Nolan Ryan, Koosman, Seaver, Vida Blue. They didn’t show the public pitch speeds like they do now. How do you know how fast he threw? How fast did Ryan throw?

I do not agree that todays players are better. The rotations I named above prove that the 20 team format concentrated much more pitching talent on single teams than today.

Stronger than Mike Schmidt, Jim Rice, George Foster, Cecil Fielder, Reggie Jackson? really?

Faster than Maury Wills, Rickey Henderson, Tim Raines, Willie Wilson, Campy Campaneris and Rod Carew. Na

I’m just telling you my opinion.

 

Hargrove stood out as the exception.  Now EVERYONE is Mike Hargrove. 

Seriously, this isn't hard.