Master Index of Archived Threads


How the Hell ...

Frayed Knot Jun 03 2013 07:36 AM

... does a 2-0, 8-1/2 inning game take over three hours to play? ChiSox at Oakland yesterday clocked in at 3:02 - A's scored one in the 6th plus one in the 8th - and so didn't have to bat in the 9th - the two teams combined for just 9 hits and 3 walks plus one HBP - there were a total of 17 Ks which often take longer than non-K outs but there were also two GiDPs - Nine of the Seventeen half-innings had just three batters (eight were 1-2-3 frames plus one where there was a single then GiDP) and no half-inning had more than five - there were a total of Seven pitchers used but just two in-inning pitching changes - there was One error, plus one passed ball, plus one balk (all of which merely allowed a runner to move up but did not allow a better to reach base who should have been out) - 284 total pitches were thrown, which I believe is somewhat higher than normal (particularly for a low-scoring game) although I'm not sure by how much So what the Fuck were these guys doing that took 182 minutes from first pitch to last?!? There was a small piece in Sunday's NYTimes on game times, specifically on the independent Atlantic League experimenting with trying to speed up their games. In the article they point out that the average time for ML games this season is 2:58, which would tie it for the longest ever (with the 2000 season) if this trend holds through September and makes it a full 25 minutes longer than the 1981 average of 2:33 So far the Atlantic League claims that: by enforcing the strike zone as defined by the rule book which they theorize could lead to more high strikes and batters swinging earlier in the count; by limiting pitchers to under one minute on their pre-inning warmups and 12 seconds per pitch if there's no one on base; and by prohibiting batters from leaving the box after each pitch, they're down about 10-15 minutes per game this year. MLB often makes noises along these same lines but then always seems to let things slide so as to not upset the players and their routines (yeah, go ahead and take a 20-minute stroll between pitches Travis Hafner, we'll wait here for you). But I truly believe that the length and the pacing of these games is the biggest problem baseball has at the moment and is one of the reasons I'm wary of added "instant" replay calls. I've long thought that a way to solve this (or at least try) is to institute in the minors what the Atlantic Lg is doing with the thought of never having them develop the habits of turning each AB into a Three-Act performance. I think the problem is that once they reach the majors and become prima-donnas (or Pre-Madonnas as one poster once put it) it's virtually impossible to break them of those routines. It make take a bunch of years before you'd begin to see any results this way, but whatever else they're trying sure isn't working.

Zvon Jun 03 2013 03:48 PM Re: How the Hell ...

I know in todays fast forward world everyone wants everything to be fast, faster, fastest, but I'm an old school fan who can't get enough baseball. I had no problem with the length of a game. As a matter of fact, if a game was long in time, or extra innings, I always felt KOOL! I'm getting more than my moneys worth! More baseball! I understand why they are trying to speed up games but I don't give a shit. That game? Dunno, but I might fire it up and take a look see on MLB.TV since theres no Met game today.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jun 03 2013 06:21 PM Re: How the Hell ...

So, what you're telling me is, you could have used a two-hour rain delay, say, in the middle of yesterday's Mets-Fish game, and a few more pitching changes? Not every 4-hour-plus game is the Rick Camp game. Most aren't, in fact.

Zvon Jun 03 2013 07:07 PM Re: How the Hell ...

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: So, what you're telling me is, you could have used a two-hour rain delay, say, in the middle of yesterday's Mets-Fish game, and a few more pitching changes? Not every 4-hour-plus game is the Rick Camp game. Most aren't, in fact. Only time spent watching baseball being played should be counted. A boring extra inning game? I love em. One way or the other it's not gonna stay boring.

Frayed Knot Jun 04 2013 06:49 AM Re: How the Hell ...

My point isn't that long games can't be enjoyable or that shorter is always better. There's nothing wrong with a three-hour baseball game or even, in some cases, longer than that. Where you start to run into problems is when three hour games become the average even though there's nothing extra in them as compared to when the average was close to 20% quicker, and we're not talking about games from some ancient grainy black and white video times but in the memory of many current fans. When a sport is competing for viewer eyeballs and asses-in-seats it makes a difference to a lot of people whether their 7:10 local start has a good chance of ending prior to 10PM or is just as likely to still be going at 10:30-10:45 especially on school/work nights and/or in questionable weather. In the case of the example cited above, when a 2-run, 8-1/2 inning game with just 13 total base-runners is busting past the three-hour mark it's tough to come up with an explanation other than that there was a ton of dead time in there somewhere and that's not a good sign for the overall health of the sport. And we haven't even gotten into the post-season games where the times are routinely headed up towards four hours and the TV ratings are (not so coincidentally) headed in the opposite direction.

Zvon Jun 04 2013 03:06 PM Re: How the Hell ...

My point isn't that long games can't be enjoyable or that shorter is always better. There's nothing wrong with a three-hour baseball game or even, in some cases, longer than that. Where you start to run into problems is when three hour games become the average even though there's nothing extra in them as compared to when the average was close to 20% quicker, and we're not talking about games from some ancient grainy black and white video times but in the memory of many current fans. When a sport is competing for viewer eyeballs and asses-in-seats it makes a difference to a lot of people whether their 7:10 local start has a good chance of ending prior to 10PM or is just as likely to still be going at 10:30-10:45 especially on school/work nights and/or in questionable weather. In the case of the example cited above, when a 2-run, 8-1/2 inning game with just 13 total base-runners is busting past the three-hour mark it's tough to come up with an explanation other than that there was a ton of dead time in there somewhere and that's not a good sign for the overall health of the sport. And we haven't even gotten into the post-season games where the times are routinely headed up towards four hours and the TV ratings are (not so coincidentally) headed in the opposite direction. All good points.

Frayed Knot Jun 09 2013 12:27 PM Re: How the Hell ...

Saturday's long-game crimes: Sox & Angels played a split DH at Fenway due to Friday's rain out Game 1 winds up 9-5 Angels and takes Four Hours even Yeah that's a lot of runs and a bunch of hits (26) but, still, whatdafuck you guys doing over there? I kept switching over to that game during breaks in ours and when Mets/Marlins were already into extras they were still in the 7th or 8th in Boston despite the same start time. Game 2 was 7-3 Sox so they only needed 8-1/2 innings and had a bit less offense so they were able to get things in in a swift 3:35 That's 7:35 for two 9-inning games.

Frayed Knot Aug 18 2013 09:11 AM Re: How the Hell ...

Of the 15 games yesterday (Sat, Aug 17) only 3 came in at under 3 hours - and two of those not by much (2:49 & 2:51) The only game that could even reasonably be considered "quick" was Milwaukee's 2-0, 8-1/2 inning win over Cincy, a game that, at 2:28, would have been considered average about 30 years ago. The other 12 games [u:2q3hkxye]averaged[/u:2q3hkxye] 3:43 (aka seven minutes longer than the Mets/Pads slog-fest) and even if you throw out the two extra-innings games the ten 9 inning games checked in at an average of 3:21

MFS62 Aug 18 2013 09:26 AM Re: How the Hell ...

Frayed Knot wrote: There was a small piece in Sunday's NYTimes on game times, specifically on the independent Atlantic League experimenting with trying to speed up their games. So far the Atlantic League claims that: by enforcing the strike zone as defined by the rule book which they theorize could lead to more high strikes and batters swinging earlier in the count; by limiting pitchers to under one minute on their pre-inning warmups and 12 seconds per pitch if there's no one on base; and by prohibiting batters from leaving the box after each pitch, they're down about 10-15 minutes per game this year. What time do they start their games? 7:00 PM Eastern time? As I have mentioned before, the Long Island ducks games are broadcast on 103.9 FM. I get out of work at 10:00 PM and when I get into my car, many of their games are still on. And they aren't always high scoring, either. How long did they used to be? Later

bmfc1 Aug 18 2013 09:49 AM Re: How the Hell ...

Good thread FK. Stop adjusting your batting gloves after every pitch. If you step out of the batters box without having hit the ball, it's a strike. Throw the ball already, you're going to have to so just do it. No more mound visits unless you are changing a pitcher--baseball is the only sport where the manager or a coach can stop the action and hold a meeting on the playing field. Most of all, if baseball is really serious about this, then cut the commercial time between innings--90 seconds is all we need (this will never happen). And no more "God Bless America" in the middle of the 7th inning.

Edgy MD Aug 18 2013 09:05 PM Re: How the Hell ...

On the playing field or not, baseball and basketball get more than a few timeouts for the coaches to confab with their players --- including mandated "TV timeouts."

Ashie62 Aug 18 2013 09:11 PM Re: How the Hell ...

It looks like each team uses about 6 pitchers a game. 12 changes take time? Not an issue 60's-70's

Edgy MD Aug 18 2013 09:25 PM Re: How the Hell ...

The Mets have used 4.23 pitchers per game --- including the extra-inning affairs --- meaning 3.23 pitching changes. My guess would be that the majority of those would be between-innings changes. That's not the crux of it. In fact, the length of games, if I'm not mistaken, had been dropping for a while and seems to have gone up the past few years, even as offense (and therefore pitching changes) has cooled. That miserable game-that-won't-be-named featured at least one time when Mejia wouln't leave the dugout, and then, of course, his injury, after which a cold pitcher had to be brought in, and given as many warm-ups as he wanted.

Zvon Aug 18 2013 10:15 PM Re: How the Hell ...

Its quarter past midnight and the Yankee/Boston game is still on. Ha.

Frayed Knot Aug 19 2013 07:15 AM Re: How the Hell ...

Yup, Yanx-Sawx clocks in at 4:12, only slightly shorter than Pirates-DBacks (4:39) but at least that game had the excuse of going 16 innings. Side note: Pirates used just four pitchers in that game. In total, six of yesterday's fifteen games ran over not just three hours but over 3:15

metsguyinmichigan Aug 19 2013 07:31 AM Re: How the Hell ...

I don't know if there is any incentive for MLB to speed up games. Every minute of a game, someone is on a concession line, in the souvenir store or whatever. Longer games on TV? More time for commercials. The networks must have loved Tony LaRussa, showing ads each time he changed pitchers in the seventh inning.

Benjamin Grimm Aug 19 2013 08:01 AM Re: How the Hell ...

That's all true, but on the other hand, if games are too long, people may be inclined to leave the game early, or turn it off and go to bed before the game ends. Once you realize that you're okay with not staying up to see the end of a playoff or World Series game, the next logical step is to realize that you're okay with not watching at all.

bmfc1 Aug 19 2013 08:17 AM Re: How the Hell ...

Benjamin Grimm wrote: That's all true, but on the other hand, if games are too long, people may be inclined to leave the game early, or turn it off and go to bed before the game ends. Once you realize that you're okay with not staying up to see the end of a playoff or World Series game, the next logical step is to realize that you're okay with not watching at all. Well put BG.

Vic Sage Aug 19 2013 08:28 AM Re: How the Hell ...

These games aren't being extended by exciting explosive action or thrilling tension-filled extra innings, but by tedious time-wasting inactivity that serves no one but the egos and OCD of players and short term financial interests of teams. In the long term, the game is devolving into something that is just too boring for a modern audience to tolerate so MLB, through their inaction, is dooming the game to eventual cult status.

Ceetar Aug 19 2013 08:42 AM Re: How the Hell ...

Vic Sage wrote: These games aren't being extended by exciting explosive action or thrilling tension-filled extra innings, but by tedious time-wasting inactivity that serves no one but the egos and OCD of players and short term financial interests of teams. In the long term, the game is devolving into something that is just too boring for a modern audience to tolerate so MLB, through their inaction, is dooming the game to eventual cult status. I think you've got it backwards. The primadonna stuff is exactly in line with modern audiences. The challenges stuff is stupid in the NFL too, but people still watch. That adds a 'manage at home' angle to it. second-guessing the manager has always been popular and here's another avenue for it. The proper use of the bullpen is another one. I'd love if the games were shorter and more compact, but this just feels like one of those things people like to be pissed off about but doesn't really affect anyone. We're nowhere near even approaching cult status.

Benjamin Grimm Aug 19 2013 08:44 AM Re: How the Hell ...

but this just feels like one of those things people like to be pissed off about but doesn't really affect anyone. It affects everyone who goes to bed before the game ends, because it's running too late. HUGE issue for the post season, at least in the Eastern Time Zone.

Ceetar Aug 19 2013 08:52 AM Re: How the Hell ...

Benjamin Grimm wrote: but this just feels like one of those things people like to be pissed off about but doesn't really affect anyone. It affects everyone who goes to bed before the game ends, because it's running too late. HUGE issue for the post season, at least in the Eastern Time Zone. So why are ratings so high? Why do television people, who study said ratings to place the game at the best time, do so? Why do stadiums sell out? It seems like the 'extra sleep versus end of the game' crowd is not really that large.

Benjamin Grimm Aug 19 2013 08:53 AM Re: How the Hell ...

It may or may not be large, but it surely exists.

Ceetar Aug 19 2013 09:03 AM Re: How the Hell ...

Benjamin Grimm wrote: It may or may not be large, but it surely exists. yes, but are there people that stop becoming baseball fans because of it?

Benjamin Grimm Aug 19 2013 09:05 AM Re: How the Hell ...

Stop entirely? Probably not. But go to fewer games, watch fewer games, spend less money? Definitely.

seawolf17 Aug 19 2013 09:10 AM Re: How the Hell ...

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Stop entirely? Probably not. But go to fewer games, watch fewer games, spend less money? Definitely. /raises hand

Benjamin Grimm Aug 19 2013 09:13 AM Re: How the Hell ...

Me too.

Vic Sage Aug 19 2013 10:03 AM Re: How the Hell ...

Beyond those who do or don't "give up the game", or just pay a lot less attention (and money) to it, it is unknowable how many kids don't ever really invest themselves as fans of the game because of its laborious pacing, but it seems logical that it happens, and more now than ever. talking about current ratings is short term thinking. for example: At some point toward the end of the 19th century, there probably were a number of buggy whip manufacturers. As cars started getting made, some of those companies died out due to lesser demand for buggy whips, but the remaining companies probably did better than ever due to less competition. At some point, there was one company with a monopoly on the market, and it was doing great. Until the industry became entirely obsolete and disappeared into the dustbin of history. Just because the sport is doing well now by some commercial indices doesn't mean MLB is doing a good job of seeding the ground to provide for the game's future relevance, much less its growth. There is always going to be a different pace to baseball than there is to football or basketball. Its a pastoral 19th century game and that's a large part of its appeal. I wouldn't advocate trying to MTV-ize the sport so that our ADD-addled youth will find it more appealing, but there is much to be done to combat its excesses and make the sport at least more tolerable for kids to attend with their parents so that going to games becomes a family ritual they can then pass on to their own kids.

Ceetar Aug 19 2013 07:50 PM Re: How the Hell ...

Apparently Fangraphs has been keeping a Pace stat, time between pitches, since 2007. The leader over that span is Carlos Pena with 27.6. Tied for second at 26 is Robinson Cano and Manny Ramirez. Highest Met is Scott Hairston at 52. 23.3 seconds.

Frayed Knot Aug 20 2013 07:25 AM Re: How the Hell ...

... There is always going to be a different pace to baseball than there is to football or basketball. Its a pastoral 19th century game and that's a large part of its appeal. I wouldn't advocate trying to MTV-ize the sport so that our ADD-addled youth will find it more appealing, but there is much to be done to combat its excesses and make the sport at least more tolerable for kids to attend with their parents so that going to games becomes a family ritual they can then pass on to their own kids. And the thing is, no one is suggesting that baseball has to alter its rules or revert to some plan or condition that existed back during the William McKinley administration or anything, merely a return to how it was played 20 or 30 years ago--well within the lifespan and memory of most of its fans--prior to when this long, slow, creeping trend took the exact same game and morphed it in something with no more action yet somehow taking 20% longer. Apparently Fangraphs has been keeping a Pace stat, time between pitches, since 2007 Jim Bouton once said that if you simply banned velcro you could knock 20 minutes off the game. I'd like to see similar stats which fingered the pitchers most likely to commit clock-a-cide. Jonathan Papelbon c'mon down!! Monday's crime against fluidity: Rays 4 - Orioles 3; 9 innings; 3:56 WHAT THE FUCK WERE THEY DOING THERE?!?!!? I mean I know it's the freakin' American League and all but still, was there some mid-game swarm of locusts in Baltimore last night that I didn't read about? Did the cast of 'The Wire' come out and perform 'Les Miz' during the 7th inning stretch? That's a slightly below average scoring game which, if you sliced an hour off of it, would still be 20 minutes longer than what was the norm just a relatively short time ago.

Ceetar Aug 20 2013 07:36 AM Re: How the Hell ...

same stat is in the Pitch F/X Pitch Discipline pagefor pitchers as well. Edinson Volquez,Jeremy Hellickson,Edwin Jackson,David Price,Hisashi Iwakuma are the top five. 25.7 for Volquez this year. ahh, right, that's filtered by qualified so Paps drops out. hang on.. Papelbon comes in 8th this year (min 30 IP) with 28.9. Joel Peralta (Rays) leads with 31.8. Latroy Hawkins at 55 is the slowest Met, 25.3 If you go cumulative from 2007 with 100IP, Papelbon is second with 30.7. (Must be something about the Sox/AL that makes it worse) But Rafael Betancourt leads with 30.8. Hawkins is 27.2 and 10th on the list.

Ceetar Aug 20 2013 07:42 AM Re: How the Hell ...

This is fun. Mike Pelfrey, minimum 30IP in a season, is tied for the fastest season ever in 2007 (72.2ip) at 15.9 second with Mark Buehrle (who's the best cumulatively as well). Jose Valverde in 2012 took 32.8 seconds between pitches, or more than TWICE as long! '12 Peralta 32.3, '11 Papelbon 31.9, '07 Betancourt 31.9, '13 Peralta 31.8, '12 Broxton 31.8 were also twice as long.

Frayed Knot Aug 20 2013 07:58 AM Re: How the Hell ...

Pelfrey surprises me as I don't remember him as being particularly fast (or slow). Buehrle does not; given three guesses for quickest worker in MLB I would have picked him twice then passed on the third. Relievers are definitely slower as a group. Even when they're in with no one on they tend to act as if the fate of the western world is riding on each pitch. Another thing I've noticed recently is that many of them seem to have developed the habit of coming down off the mound after the delivery as if the catcher would have trouble reaching them with the throw back unless they were some ten feet or more in front of the rubber. That means they then have to walk back before each pitch but, because they don't want to walk on their landing area, they wind up taking the great circle route around the mound and climb back to the top via the 1st base side. That alone makes it to where they don't even begin to look for the sign until 10-15 seconds are spent, and if they, as many do, have a hat-removing/sweat-wiping/deep-breath-taking/uniform-adjusting routine they've grown accustomed to then that time-span can easily get doubled.

Edgy MD Aug 20 2013 08:28 AM Re: How the Hell ...

It's a little tough to compare starters with relievers, pitches with guys on bases with pitches with the bases empty. Good research needs good controls. I haven't clicked and read deeply. Maybe they do have controls.

Ceetar Aug 20 2013 08:33 AM Re: How the Hell ...

Edgy MD wrote: It's a little tough to compare starters with relievers, pitches with guys on bases with pitches with the bases empty. Good research needs good controls. I haven't clicked and read deeply. Maybe they do have controls. You can break it up by splits, which probably helps. I didn't dig that far, I was just grazing the surface as I noticed it while looking at Ike Davis' OSwing%

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Aug 20 2013 10:20 AM Re: How the Hell ...

The numbers seem to square with my memory; over the weekend, I remember thinking during the Volquez/Mejia game that Eddy V reminded me of Trachsel, if Trachsel tried to strike out every-damn-body.

Fman99 Aug 20 2013 10:24 AM Re: How the Hell ...

bmfc1 wrote: Stop adjusting your batting gloves after every pitch. If you step out of the batters box without having hit the ball, it's a strike. Throw the ball already, you're going to have to so just do it. No more mound visits unless you are changing a pitcher--baseball is the only sport where the manager or a coach can stop the action and hold a meeting on the playing field. Most of all, if baseball is really serious about this, then cut the commercial time between innings--90 seconds is all we need (this will never happen). And no more "God Bless America" in the middle of the 7th inning. This.

Frayed Knot Sep 03 2013 12:11 PM Re: How the Hell ...

Somehow, our 3 hour 41 minute disaster in which Matsuzaka was only part of the problem didn't even turn out to be the slowest game of the day on Monday. The Angels beating Tampa 11-2 (the Rays 5th straight loss btw) really put the word Labor into Labor Day by managing to clock in at 3:58. And while I realize that 13 runs, 17 hits, and 14 walks takes a while to play out, that still doesn't explain what they were doing for just a few clicks short of four hours. And if you add those two games to the one where Minnesota scored four in the 9th to beat Houston 10-6 (3:32) and the Dodgers out-lasting the Rox 10-8 (3:38) and it all adds up to Four 9-inning games on the same day that took over 3-1/2 hours. Only two of the other eleven managed to clock in at under 2:45

Frayed Knot Sep 11 2013 04:39 PM Re: How the Hell ...

If it seems like I'm getting obsessive about this topic it's only because I am. BoSox at Rays last night -- a 2-0, 9-inning game with a total of 8 hits, 4 walks, and, although six pitchers were used combined, there was just one in-inning pitching change Game time = 3:09 Now I didn't see any of this game so maybe there was a swarm of bees mid-game that I don't know anything about ... but THREE-OH-NINE?!?! That's the type of game that used to routinely take TWO:09 and even now shouldn't possibly take any longer than 2:39 I'm tempted to say that I have no idea what those guys were doing out there but unfortunately I think it's become all too clear. And, unlike many of the Boston games over the last decade or so, you can't blame it on network TV, you can't place part of the blame on the Yanquis, and they no longer have either Josh Beckett or Dice-K on their roster.

Frayed Knot Oct 06 2013 09:06 AM Re: How the Hell ...

A tale of two playoff games played 40 years (minus a day) apart. Oct 6, 1973 - Game 1 NLCS, Mets @ Cincy Oct 5, 2013 - Game 2 ALDS, Tigers @ A's Oct 6, 1973 Oct 5, 2013 Total Runs Scored 3 1 Combined Hits 9 12 Walks 4 5 Ks 19 22 Pitchers Used 4 6 Total Batters 65 67 Time of Game 2:00 3:23 So two games playoff games, both of which ended in 'walk-off' wins in the bottom of the 9th, one with one out, one with no outs. Both had roughly the same amount of "action": two more pitchers used in yesterday's game and also two more batters faced. Pitch counts are not available for the 1973 game but yesterday's had one more walk plus three more strikeouts. The major difference: this year's game took just shy of 70% longer to play.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Oct 06 2013 10:48 AM Re: How the Hell ...

The longer commercial breaks are one thing, but I would guess pitch counts are another. That one guy fouled off like 7 pitches in one turn at bat vs Verlander. I don;t know if that happened in Seaver's day, for whatever reason.

metsmarathon Oct 06 2013 09:30 PM Re: How the Hell ...

todays game had 122 + 159 = 281 pitches total thrown (includes throws to first and the like), per bbref. no data on number of pitches in the '73 game

Frayed Knot Oct 06 2013 09:45 PM Re: How the Hell ...

I agree that the number of pitches per game is probably higher today than it was back then, although without data it's hard to know that. I also suspect that mound meeting are up (even with Posada's retirement) both the pitcher/catcher ones and the ones involving visits from the dugout. But still, when a 1-0 game with a minimum of hits that doesn't even go the full nine innings can't end in under three hours there's almost no hope for most other post-season contests to get in under three and a half or four.

Edgy MD Oct 06 2013 10:31 PM Re: How the Hell ...

Frayed Knot wrote: I agree that the number of pitches per game is probably higher today than it was back then, although without data it's hard to know that. No, but runs-per-game are certainly known data. And if that's higher, and walks-per-game are higher, and strikeouts-per-game are higher, it would take a colorful statistical miracle for pitches-per-game to not be higher.

Frayed Knot Oct 07 2013 06:09 AM Re: How the Hell ...

The only stat that's appreciably different is strike-outs -- today's game features nearly 45% more than in 1973. Then I think there's the inference that the lessening of stigma attached to the strike-out in turn leads to fewer 'just put it in play' type of defensive two-strike swings which leads to more AB-lengthening foul balls en route to that increased K-rate. Or maybe not, maybe a higher pct of Ks today are of the 3-pitch variety for those same reasons. Walks per/game were actually around 10% lower in 2013 as compared to 40 years earlier while runs scored are virtually the same.

Edgy MD Oct 07 2013 06:15 AM Re: How the Hell ...

Yeah, I just meant if.

Frayed Knot Oct 07 2013 07:09 AM Re: How the Hell ...

And in the case of these specific two playoff games that we're comparing, we know that the difference in walks (1) & Ks (3) & batters faced (2) was only minimal and that there was actually one fewer out needed to decide the longer game. So if we figure that between-inning commercial time is about double now (a mandated 2:55 now as compared to an estimated 90 seconds then) then the 17 half-inning breaks accounts for an added 25-1/2 minutes. Throw in another two minutes say for the lone in-inning pitching change (one on Saturday, none in the '73 game) plus maybe two more for some miscellaneous shit I'm not thinking about right now (was there an 'Up With People' display during the 7th inning stretch?) and we've still accounted for less than 30 of the extra 83 minute difference. That's either a heckuva lot of extra foul balls and deep counts or a whole lotta standing around.

Benjamin Grimm Oct 07 2013 07:23 AM Re: How the Hell ...

I wouldn't discount the "whole lotta standing around". I'd be curious to know the average number of seconds between pitches in 2013 compared to in, say, 1978.