MLB game length edges up in 2019

Commercials. It's really the only answer. Pitchers get 5 warm up pitches between innings and they cut to a 2.5 minute commercial x 16/17 + any additional pitching changes/challenges.

Nothing about the game is too slow other than strikeouts result in longer ABs but that is a separate issue. I will watch the wild card game tonight start to finish, I can't remember the last time I watched a regular season game start to finish. 

Replay... 

People didn't expect reviewing calls would wind up taking more time? I was never a big fan of replay.  But if you're going to have it, limit it.  If the guys reviewing can't decide within 30 seconds, it's too close to call and the call stands.  These 2, 3, 4 minute waits to hear safe or out are just ridiculous.

MLB attendance was the lowest in sixteen years,

The time between pitches is drastically different than it was decades ago. That can, and should, be addressed. Play with the velcro of your gloves on the bench, not during between every pitch on your AB. 

There is no doubt that the increased amount of pitchers used during a game (i.e. "openers")also slows things down. Perhaps don't allow warm up pitches?

 I don't think the braintrust running baseball will change till numbers drop precipitously, at which time they have lost a generation of BB watching fans.

57special posted:

The time between pitches is drastically different than it was decades ago. That can, and should, be addressed. Play with the velcro of your gloves on the bench, not during between every pitch on your AB. 

 

There is no doubt that the increased amount of pitchers used during a game (i.e. "openers")also slows things down. Perhaps don't allow warm up pitches?

 

 I don't think the braintrust running baseball will change till numbers drop precipitously, at which time they have lost a generation of BB watching fans.

Good call re: the velcro - that is starting to drive me nuts!  Does everybody's velcro become unfastened between each swing LOL?  I'd like to see a rule that you have to stay in the box unless there is a foul tip - and to be fair, a rule that the pitcher can't walk off the mound or delay either.  Shouldn't need these type of rules but it's just out of hand.  Play the game and stop worrying about the darn batting gloves!

Kill three birds with one stone.  

Games times are up.   Homeruns are up.   People get hit with pitches after self-aggrandizing homerun trots.   So, when a homerun is hit,  it is recorded and the hitter goes to the dugout (no running around the bases) thereby saving about 3-5 minutes per game just in homeruns....or up to 10 minutes if you are the all or none home run hitting Yankees or Brewers.

As always, JMO.

The answer is fewer pitches in the game and the ball in play more.  Radical rule changes are necessary to cut 100 pitches out of every game from 350 to 250 or less.

Here is a quick list of suggestions:  3 Ball walks.  2 Strike punch outs.  No more than 2 foul balls at 1 strike.  A base on balls gets treated like a ground rule double.  Take 1 or 2 players off the field and out of the batting order.  Pitch clock of 12 seconds for balls not in play.  18 if it is hit.  Get it - set up and pitch it again.  No screwing around.

Change the game so at bats are 6 pitches max.  Penalty for walks is high forcing pitchers to throw strikes.  Hitters have to put it in play.  Open up the field to change the value of a fair ball.  As long as the analytics prize the Home Run & walks at the expense of all else the game sucks. 

It is 1970's football with teams using 40 running plays and 20 passes and 13-10 scores.  The NFL changed the entire game and it is far more entertaining now than it was then.

With these changes most at bats will result in resolution in 3 or 4 pitches most of the time.  In addition star players plate appearances would go up by 30 or 40%.  You would see Mookie Betts or Aaron Judge get 200+ more plate appearances over 150 games rather than seeing the 8th and 9th hitter 6/8 times.  You might also see the return of the complete game if starters can get a few <=10 pitch innings in a start if they are dealing. 

The game has to cut 1/3 of the time and get back toward a 2 hour event rather than 3 to become watchable.  It is unlikely I will watch an entire post season game in all of their gory 3 1/2 hour bore fest.  That would keep me up past midnight off of an 8:30 start.   Get the games going at 7:05 and done by 9:15 by having pitchers throw strike 1 and batters looking to put it in play and run the bases more aggressively.

What is the most exciting play in baseball?  IMO it is a bases loaded ball in the gap.  There are at least 18 people moving with a  purpose on those plays.  8 Defenders (only the opposite side OF is not truly in play).  4 Offensive players, 2 offensive coaches and 4 umpires.  It is a ballet of activity and just beautiful to watch.

A home run involves 1 player - the outfielder jogging back to watch it sail out with the occasional jumping attempt.  Somewhere around 5,000 times - it stops being interesting.

luv baseball posted:

The answer is fewer pitches in the game and the ball in play more.  Radical rule changes are necessary to cut 100 pitches out of every game from 350 to 250 or less.

Here is a quick list of suggestions:  3 Ball walks.  2 Strike punch outs.  No more than 2 foul balls at 1 strike.  A base on balls gets treated like a ground rule double.  Take 1 or 2 players off the field and out of the batting order.  Pitch clock of 12 seconds for balls not in play.  18 if it is hit.  Get it - set up and pitch it again.  No screwing around.

Change the game so at bats are 6 pitches max.  Penalty for walks is high forcing pitchers to throw strikes.  Hitters have to put it in play.  Open up the field to change the value of a fair ball.  As long as the analytics prize the Home Run & walks at the expense of all else the game sucks. 

It is 1970's football with teams using 40 running plays and 20 passes and 13-10 scores.  The NFL changed the entire game and it is far more entertaining now than it was then.

With these changes most at bats will result in resolution in 3 or 4 pitches most of the time.  In addition star players plate appearances would go up by 30 or 40%.  You would see Mookie Betts or Aaron Judge get 200+ more plate appearances over 150 games rather than seeing the 8th and 9th hitter 6/8 times.  You might also see the return of the complete game if starters can get a few <=10 pitch innings in a start if they are dealing. 

The game has to cut 1/3 of the time and get back toward a 2 hour event rather than 3 to become watchable.  It is unlikely I will watch an entire post season game in all of their gory 3 1/2 hour bore fest.  That would keep me up past midnight off of an 8:30 start.   Get the games going at 7:05 and done by 9:15 by having pitchers throw strike 1 and batters looking to put it in play and run the bases more aggressively.

What is the most exciting play in baseball?  IMO it is a bases loaded ball in the gap.  There are at least 18 people moving with a  purpose on those plays.  8 Defenders (only the opposite side OF is not truly in play).  4 Offensive players, 2 offensive coaches and 4 umpires.  It is a ballet of activity and just beautiful to watch.

A home run involves 1 player - the outfielder jogging back to watch it sail out with the occasional jumping attempt.  Somewhere around 5,000 times - it stops being interesting.

Is this satire? Or maybe sarcasm?

bballman posted:

luv baseball posted:

The answer is fewer pitches in the game and the ball in play more.  Radical rule changes are necessary to cut 100 pitches out of every game from 350 to 250 or less.

Here is a quick list of suggestions:  3 Ball walks.  2 Strike punch outs.  No more than 2 foul balls at 1 strike.  A base on balls gets treated like a ground rule double.  Take 1 or 2 players off the field and out of the batting order.  Pitch clock of 12 seconds for balls not in play.  18 if it is hit.  Get it - set up and pitch it again.  No screwing around.

Change the game so at bats are 6 pitches max.  Penalty for walks is high forcing pitchers to throw strikes.  Hitters have to put it in play.  Open up the field to change the value of a fair ball.  As long as the analytics prize the Home Run & walks at the expense of all else the game sucks. 

It is 1970's football with teams using 40 running plays and 20 passes and 13-10 scores.  The NFL changed the entire game and it is far more entertaining now than it was then.

With these changes most at bats will result in resolution in 3 or 4 pitches most of the time.  In addition star players plate appearances would go up by 30 or 40%.  You would see Mookie Betts or Aaron Judge get 200+ more plate appearances over 150 games rather than seeing the 8th and 9th hitter 6/8 times.  You might also see the return of the complete game if starters can get a few <=10 pitch innings in a start if they are dealing. 

The game has to cut 1/3 of the time and get back toward a 2 hour event rather than 3 to become watchable.  It is unlikely I will watch an entire post season game in all of their gory 3 1/2 hour bore fest.  That would keep me up past midnight off of an 8:30 start.   Get the games going at 7:05 and done by 9:15 by having pitchers throw strike 1 and batters looking to put it in play and run the bases more aggressively.

What is the most exciting play in baseball?  IMO it is a bases loaded ball in the gap.  There are at least 18 people moving with a  purpose on those plays.  8 Defenders (only the opposite side OF is not truly in play).  4 Offensive players, 2 offensive coaches and 4 umpires.  It is a ballet of activity and just beautiful to watch.

A home run involves 1 player - the outfielder jogging back to watch it sail out with the occasional jumping attempt.  Somewhere around 5,000 times - it stops being interesting.

Is this satire? Or maybe sarcasm?

No - I have posted all of this before.  Baseball needs to think big because the product stinks and is getting worse.  The 14% decline in attendance over the last 10 years is the trickle that presages the torrent of the death of the fan base.

Remember how terrible ideas the wild card and interleague were?  Now considered good moves by most.  

I find myself no longer looking for baseball to watch on TV.  I get everything I need in 15 minutes of highlights on MLB while I eat my cereal.  A dozen homerun swings, 10 k's and 5 good defensive plays.  All presented by a leggy girl poured into too tight of a dress in 7 inch heels.  All that is missing is the pole.

They can and probably will ride the decline but 25 years from now when 40% of the current fans are under the field of dreams instead of at it and another 1/3 are too old to go to the park, it will be too late.  I am 57 and if I am not dead I will be 82.  By then I probably won't have been to a park for at least 10 years or more - depending on if I have grandchildren to take and my kids permit it.  Truth be told I am not sure I will ever go to the park again.   Over 50% of baseball fanbase is older than me.  It will be replaced at too low of a ratio for the current financial situation to improve.  Perhaps the growth of Latin population will bail them out.  Maybe they expand into Asia and kill 8 US based teams for Japan, Korea and Taiwan.  

No sarcasm - just demographic truth unless the game changes to attract our children and grandchildren or finds new markets.  It might be too late anyway - but doing nothing is the worst move IMO.

Watched last night's game, Suter, Brewer pitcher, worked extremely fast.  Well, that was his desire.  Instead, batter steps out of the box between every pitch and intentionally takes his time, in order to slow down the pitcher. 

Think MLB tried to do away with this but either eliminated the rule or does not inforce it.

Luv CalvinBall would be a better handle. 

fenwaysouth posted:

Kill three birds with one stone.  

Games times are up.   Homeruns are up.   People get hit with pitches after self-aggrandizing homerun trots.   So, when a homerun is hit,  it is recorded and the hitter goes to the dugout (no running around the bases) thereby saving about 3-5 minutes per game just in homeruns....or up to 10 minutes if you are the all or none home run hitting Yankees or Brewers.

As always, JMO.

That's a great idea, and one I've never thought of.

Oh, and the refastening the velcro is something that is actually taught. It is supposed to allow the blood flow to go back into the hands.

Observations on the theme ...

Back in the early 80’s a Dodger fan wrote to the Times the games are too long. They need to be shortened to seven innings. Given Dodger fans were known for arriving in the third and leaving in the seventh I figured he was just another stereotypical Dodger fan. The last few years I’ve been thinking the writer was ahead of his time. 

From what I’ve witnessed visiting the assisted living home people in their 80’s become diehard fans for the first three innings before their heads start bobbing. They don’t have much else. 

I'm so into MLB baseball the past few years I forgot there was a game on last night. 

The pole dancing announcer is so funny I’m reposting it on Facebook for friends. It’s so true in every sport.

I wonder how much of the current dissatisfaction with MLB is because the game has changed (which it surely has), and how much is due to fans and the world they live in changing (less time available, more entertainment options—sports and otherwise, etc.).

And there sure do seem to be more commercials. (Does anyone have any figures on whether that is really the case?) But that seems to me to be true of NFL and NBA games also. (I don’t know hockey well enough to follow it.)  I will never be a big soccer fan, but when I do watch a game it is *wonderful* to see 45 minutes plus of play with no commercial breaks. 

Chico - great screen name btw - You are undoubtedly correct that there are many multiples of options for free time now compared to three networks and a couple of regional choices most people would have had in the 70's.

For me though - watching a game with 20-25 k's just blows.  Homeruns are cool but at the expense of the ball in play nore than it is - no thank you. 

12 pitch at bats are overrated as well.  All it does is lessen the value of great pitching by turning too many pitchers into 5/6 inning guys that should be 7 or 8.  Drive out pitch count to get good pitching out of there for inferior relivers.   That would be like limiting the number of shots a star basketball player could take or passes for a QB.  Just dumb not to make rules that benefit having the stars be the show.  Who wants to see Juerys Familia over Jake deGrom?  

I also think they can use the split screen ads more than they do.  Might be able to cut the between inning time down quite a bit if they did.

RJM - Thanks for sharing the pole line - I actually thought it was pretty funny when I posted it.  Glad to know I am not the only one with a sense of humor anymore.