Buster Olney's discussion with a senior baseball exec ... where they talk about going to seven-inning games ... is interesting.
Not because it will ever happen, but because it points to reasons the game does need to speed up, IMO.
I think there's an opportunity to speed it up between pitches. Leave the darn gloves alone. Stay in the box. Drives me crazy.
Replies sorted oldest to newest
The only two things that will speed up the game - get them in the box and get them on the mound. Both are at fault in my opinion.
Follow the rules. There is supposed to be a pitch timer in place and you're not supposed to leave the batters' box. But neither of those seem to be enforced...
I agree that the game needs to be sped up, but it lasts almost as long as a NFL or NBA game.
Not to change the topic, but that reminded me of another topic... Ever think that they will shorten the season to something closer to 100 games?
I know that baseball is deep in tradition and it will never happen, but just throwing the idea out there.
Best ways to speed up game
1. Call a strike a strike - there is an official definition - use it. When is the last time pitches above the belly button were called a strike at MLB level?
2. Pitchers pitch more quickly - batters stay in box
No more than one catcher or any other visit to mound per inning. How about an umpire not allowing a batter-requested time out?
Eliminate a minute of ads between innings and cut salaries. There's seventeen minutes right there. (Then I woke up)
No more than one catcher or any other visit to mound per inning. How about an umpire not allowing a batter-requested time out?
This seems like the best way to do this since it doesn't require a rule change.
1. Call a strike a strike - there is an official definition - use it. When is the last time pitches above the belly button were called a strike at MLB level?
If this ever came to pass, it would not only speed up games significantly... But it would also fundamentally transform the game for the better IMO. "Earning a walk" was never intended to be an offensive strategy for a hitter... And it still shouldn't be. It's dull. Is there anything more anti-climactic than an extremely close pitch being taken for ball four on a full count? It adds time and pitch count and leads to an unsatisfactory conclusion from fans point of view. The competition between hitter and pitcher should ideally end with a definitive outcome as often as possible. A walk is an outcome, but it's dull and sort of inconclusive. Keep the ball in play, force the tempo of the game to be action oriented. Even a simple ground out is action from a fan's point of view. Not suggesting enlarging the zone unnaturally, or even going all the way to the arm pits. Just call the letters to the knees and if it ticks the black in or out... then it's a strike.
Years ago when I umped youth games, I told the coaches during the meeting "send them up here looking to swing... I'll be looking for strikes to call". Is there anything more sickening than a 10 yo with his bat on shoulder waiting out a kid who is trying his best just to lay the ball down the pipe? Taking a couple of very hittable strikes in route to a walk. SWING THE #*%**# BAT! In MLB, should be same conceptual default... which is per the original rules of the game: the expectation should be for offense to occur... The zone should be generous. If the pitcher fails to come into that generous zone 4 times in an AB then fine... award the BB. But basically... If it's a borderline pitch, the default should be to call it. If it's close enough for Jeter to finically follow into the mitt on his tip toes, then it was close enough to call a strike.
Anyway... +1 to jhelbling. That's probably my biggest complaint against the great game as you can probably tell. Fixing it would do a lot of good things... a positive domino effect. Would speed up games... but even better, it would make games of any length much more enjoyable for fans. That's an even better marketing strategy.
