MLB announces pace of play changes

Home The Cardinal Nation Forums Open Forum MLB announces pace of play changes

This topic contains 123 replies, has 19 voices, and was last updated by Avatar gscottar 4 days, 22 hours ago.

Viewing 25 posts - 1 through 25 (of 124 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #44180
    Brian Walton
    Brian Walton
    Keymaster

    Paid - Annual

    #44183
    Brian Walton
    Brian Walton
    Keymaster

    Paid - Annual

    #44187
    Brian Walton
    Brian Walton
    Keymaster

    Paid - Annual

    #44190
    Avatar
    thejager
    Participant

    Paid - Annual

    interesting…all seems in line with general discussions…and IMO should reduce the time a bit

    my issues is still with the consequences…fines won’t do anything to stop people from not abiding…balls and strikes and even outs or disqualifications will however

    the threat of the pitch clock also isnt enough to make batters get into batter boxes earlier or whatever…if there isnt an equal punishment for the offensive side it seems rather unbalanced to see the punishment only effect one side

    #44481
    bicyclemike
    bicyclemike
    Moderator

    Paid - Annual

    In watching games, the two primary reasons they take so long today seem to be primarily the batter-pitcher confrontations are drawn out much moreso than in the past, and the number of foul balls.

    I understand that when you are playing the game, each at-bat is lightning fast in your head. Thus you try to slow it down by stepping out if you are the hitter, or take your time to make sure you and the catcher are on the same page as a pitcher. But it seemed like pitchers used to be in a better groove at one time, and could get the ball and be ready to go.

    I have no idea if more foul balls are hit today than say 30 years ago, but it sure seems that way sometimes. Not much anyone can do about that though, unless a limit was put in place. But that would be far too radical.

    #44485
    Avatar
    gscottar
    Participant

    Paid - Annual

    As jager pointed out the mound visit rule is a farce because there is no stated mechanism to enforce it. A fine? That is a joke. Wilson Contreras has already publicly stated he plans to ignore the rule.

    #44494
    Avatar
    thejager
    Participant

    Paid - Annual

    commercials are why the game is so much longer than it was ages ago…that’s it…it only got worse recently with the things they are addressing.. which is good… but it will never go back to the times pre-tv days

    it’s slowly paced game but it is far from long… football is much more horrendously slow…especially college football…that crap goes on for 4 hours… and so many commercials…

    baseball being “slow” is one of the biggest farcest ever…there is stuff happening about every 20seconds and the action isnt interrupted for time outs or commercial breaks other than at points where gaps in time are needed to play the game (half innings)

    all the minutiae they are “fixing” shouldn’t have ever been allowed to happen in the first place if they woudl have been enforcing rules…they are just making a correction to get back to a norm…but it is still a norm that is post big business and tv revenue

    still no consequences that affect the game (thus their stats and thus paychecks) then it won’t matter at all…. fines are worthless…balls and strikes…outs and ejections…immediate uncontested and non-reducible suspensions? it would be gone in one month….maybe less…all it would take is ONE game decided by someone not following these rules for it to all change…

    #44500
    bicyclemike
    bicyclemike
    Moderator

    Paid - Annual

    The consequences of television is a great point jags. I wonder if there are any metrics available to compare the between-innings-break times from 40-50 years ago and the times today? And of course we have the replay situation now.

    College football is brutal. They have that guy with the white uniform who stands on the field and signifies when the commercials are over and play can resume. It really drags things out. It’s especially tough when you are at a game where the weather is not all that great, which is not that uncommon out here in the mountain west.

    But the big difference in football is they only play a few games. Baseball is played every day, with most games on week nights. It’s tough for a lot of people to commit three-plus hours on a week night for baseball.

    #44517
    Avatar
    thejager
    Participant

    Paid - Annual

    agree BikeMike

    only us crazy people watch every game every day…the commitment to watching every day isnt required for most fans…though more than once a week seems like it should be so time commitment allotted overall makes sense

    Football is extremely boring IMO…35-50 seconds between every single play and more than half the time nothign happens…or very little….and 3 and outs are common…so you get 3 and out punt…5-6 and out punt…tv break…blah blah… the scoring in the game is atrociously slow…way worse than baseball…

    the numbers may be high but the scoring isnt…31-24 (a high scoring game) is what? 6-7 touchdowns and a couple kicks? over 3-4+ hours? but it’s the build up right? blah…it’s a big tease half the time…big build up and NOTHING 10 plays…FG…8 plays punt…8 plays and 3 penalties and a punt oh…and a replay or two.. not that baseball doesnt induce the build up too and have fast half innings…but at least they dont cover up the pace with big numbers…. any game where you dont have to pay attention for large amounts of time seems pretty lazy and boring… outside of a few QB calls and some impressive athleticism from time to time it’s basically just chess by guys wearing headsets in the booths…

    I am also interested in between inning times and bullpen changes etc. pre TV…someone must know all that

    #44520
    Ratsbuddy
    Ratsbuddy
    Participant

    Free

    Look, the problem isn’t that the games take too long. Its what time the game ends. For school kids and people that have to get up early to go to work a three hour game wont be over until well after 10:00. By the time people get home, grab a bite, jump in the shower, etc, its 11:00 or later.

    Do like Cleveland and Arizona, just start the games earlier. Instead of between 7:05/7:15, just start them at 6:35/6:45 and the problem is solved.

    #44522
    Brian Walton
    Brian Walton
    Keymaster

    Paid - Annual

    A team argument to the earlier start times is that some people cannot get to the park after work that fast. I wondered if it isn’t because ad rates are higher in the 7-10 pm block (just a guess).

    #44552
    Avatar
    thejager
    Participant

    Paid - Annual

    start times are definitely an issue too…good point

    still West Coast games for East coast teams cant be creating a lot of ad revenue…moving up the games by 30 minutes might not seem like much…but for those late night SF games…a start time of 930 gets a lot more people watching that the 10:05 ones

    #44555
    bicyclemike
    bicyclemike
    Moderator

    Paid - Annual

    A few years ago the Rockies bumped up their weeknight start times to 6:40. It is actually a win-win, because if you work in an office it is a great excuse to get out a little early to have time to get to the park, and then the game ends a little earlier.

    That’s not as good as the long-ago days of daytime baseball. Games would start around 3PM, so the working stiff got a chance to take a good chunk of the afternoon off and run out to the ball park. Games would usually end around 5:30 at the latest, so there was still plenty of time to be home for dinner. 🙂

    #44557
    Brian Walton
    Brian Walton
    Keymaster

    Paid - Annual

    Oddly, the Cardinals select only Thursday nights to start an hour early, 6:10 instead of 7:10. Why is it a good idea just that one night of the week?

    My only guess is that it is not fan-driven at all. Usually, Thursdays mark the end of a series, so it conceivably gives the teams an hour head start to get out of town and on to the next city.

    #44561
    Avatar
    gscottar
    Participant

    Paid - Annual

    Yes, I seem to remember some negotiations leading up to the current CBA about start times for get away days. That is a big deal for the players as it should be. The worst is that dreaded Sunday night game when you have a game the next night in a different city.

    #44567
    bicyclemike
    bicyclemike
    Moderator

    Paid - Annual

    Mike Shannon hates those Sunday night contests. I don’t like ’em either. Strictly a TV gimmick. But big time sports are run by money, and the money is so huge today that it runs the show.

    #62713
    Brian Walton
    Brian Walton
    Keymaster

    Paid - Annual

    This is not a pace of play change per se, but this thread seemed the best place to put it. The view is that if implemented, a roster expansion would only slow games down. The assumption (which makes sense) is that extra roster spots would be taken up by more relievers, allowing managers to make even more pitching changes.

    #76048
    Brian Walton
    Brian Walton
    Keymaster

    Paid - Annual

    #76049
    stlcard25
    stlcard25
    Participant

    Paid - Annual

    Pull heavy hitters everywhere would rejoice at the end of the shift. Matt Carpenter’s batting average goes up 20 points! Haha

    #76053
    Avatar
    NJ315
    Participant

    So what would be an “illegal” defensive shift? Only the ones affecting pull hitters or are others included? Bringing the infield in? Bringing the outfield in? When does it cross the line from better position to becoming an illegal shift? You should be able to position your players as you see fit. Don’t like hit where they ain’t.

    #76055
    stlcard25
    stlcard25
    Participant

    Paid - Annual

    My guess is they would have a rule that you must have two infielders on each side of second base. That would seem pretty cut and dried.

    #76056
    Avatar
    NJ315
    Participant

    But I could play the 3B at SS and the SS right next to second.

    #76063
    Avatar
    Bob Reed
    Participant

    Paid - Annual

    “You should be able to position your players as you see fit. Don’t like it, hit where they ain’t.”

    Amen, 315. Don’t like the shift? Learn to bunt. If pitchers can learn to bunt, regular hitters can. (The mistake that John Mabry made with Matt Adams, was that Mabry tried to train Adams to slap liners and hard grounders to the opposite field, and that is extremely difficult to do on command, unless you’re Rod Carew or Tony Gwynn. Bunting is much, much easier.)

    The whippersnappers out there, and I guess Rob Manfred is somehow one of them, do not seem to understand that the shift was always a possibility. It’s not like nobody was ever shifted on before — just ask Ted Williams’ chipped frozen head when he thaws out. Despite what you might read at Fangraphs, the “analytics generation” didn’t invent shifting because they’re just so much smarter than all those who came before them.

    The reason there was little or no shifting for decades, was that even the sluggers like Mike Schmidt and Steve Garvey most notably, possessed at least a rudimentary ability to drop a bunt down — if you played them waaay back at third base, or gave them the entire left side of the infield.

    Ban the shift? Learn to bunt, lazybones.

    #76113
    Avatar
    gscottar
    Participant

    Paid - Annual

    I hope the shift is banned. Less shifts means more hits which means more action. This isn’t a new concept. The NBA has had more than one variation of illegal defense for years.

    #76120
    Avatar
    NJ315
    Participant

    The devil is in the details. What is or isn’t an illegal shift? Who makes the call? Will we have more reviews to see if the player “crossed” the line from legal to illegal.

Viewing 25 posts - 1 through 25 (of 124 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

First-hand news and commentary on the St. Louis Cardinals™ and their minor league system for 20 years