Master Index of Archived Threads


Round up the usual suspects

Frayed Knot Sep 22 2014 08:34 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Oct 18 2014 07:26 AM

Commish Selig has named his 'select committee' (he seems to have a lot of those) to study and recommend improvements towards reducing the length of games. I like to think the three-page letter I wrote to Bud last winter was the impetus behind this but I suspect not. Anyway, lots of familiar close-to-Bud names wind up on this panel: John Schuerholz, Sandy Alderson; MLB Players Association exec Tony Clark; Red Sox partner Michael Gordon; COO/Commissioner-elect Rob Manfred; MLB VP Joe Torre; and Red Sox chairman Tom Werner -- and nothing says shorter games than a group populated by Yankees and Red Sox You're a bit late to the party Bud (probably from staying up to midnight watching the 7 PM games end) and you're taking your usual consensus approach so that no one can accuse you of being too radical (although why you'd care about that on your way out the door I can't figure). But hopefully something comes out of this other than merely 'suggestions' and I take it that you took note of the pasting that Roger Goodell got this week with his press conference which basically said: 'We're going to fix this although I can't say how or when, just trust us' IOW: Something concrete = Good; Vague promises = Not so much

metirish Sep 22 2014 08:40 PM Re: Round up the usual suspects

Money for old rope that lot , SNY fit in so many commercials that they far too often miss pitches, hits etc. coming back, there's a fix right there.

Zvon Sep 22 2014 08:41 PM Re: Round up the usual suspects

Did you really write a letter to the Commish? If so, I salute you.

Frayed Knot Sep 22 2014 08:57 PM Re: Round up the usual suspects

SNY fit in so many commercials that they far too often miss pitches, hits etc. coming back, there's a fix right there. Well that's SNY's problem (and YES's, and a bunch of other outlets). As long as the game isn't being delayed past the assigned time for between innings breaks (2:05 for most games, 2:25 for GotW, 2:55 for playoffs) then the station sticking in extra ads just makes themselves look bad but doesn't really extend the game. Sometimes it seems that those time limits are NOT followed but, if so, then that's on the umps rather than the local carrier. Zvon wrote: Did you really write a letter to the Commish? If so, I salute you. Sure did. I figured you guys were sick of listening to me bitch about it here so I gathered a bunch of what I wrote around this place and stuck it in an envelope headed for Park Avenue. All it got me was a (months later) 'Thank you for your input' kind of response but I figure if I'm going to keep carping about it I might as well do so to someone who's in position to do something about it rather than keep annoying you folks.

Frayed Knot Oct 01 2014 02:39 PM Re: Round up the usual suspects Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Oct 01 2014 05:11 PM

Recommendations from the 'Pace of Game Initiative' committee will get a test run during Arizona Fall Lg games. Among the rules in effect: * A hitter must keep one foot inside the batter's box throughout his plate appearance. Exceptions include a foul ball or a foul tip, a pitch forcing the batter out of the batter's box, a request for time out being granted, a wild pitch or a passed ball and several others. --- This will be an obvious improvement. Plus the biggest thing here is simply to stop the players from getting into their wandering habits in the first place. * Intentional walks will no longer include the pitcher lobbing four balls outside the strike zone. Instead, the manager will signal to the home-plate umpire and the batter will take first base. --- This has been a longtime complaint of some folks but I think it's small potatoes. I like forcing pitchers to actually throw the ball (ya never know what might happen!) and the time saved is really minimal. * There will be a maximum break of two minutes and five seconds between innings, with hitters required to be in the batter's box by the one minute and 45 seconds mark. If a hitter doesn't comply, the umpire will call a strike. If the hitter is ready but the pitcher doesn't deliver a pitch by two minutes and five seconds, the umpire will call a ball. --- This is the other prime culprit and another one where there's long been a proscribed limit that's been ignored. Having the batter actually in the box when the station comes back from commercial, as opposed to still swinging bats in the on-deck circle listening to his personal walk-up music, will be a pleasure. * There will be a maximum of two minutes and 30 seconds allowed for pitching changes, including those that occur during an inning break. The clock starts when the reliever enters the playing field. The penalty will be that the umpire calls a ball. --- Fine, but I don't know why they need 2-1/2 minutes. Eliminating (or at least cutting down from eight) the warmup pitches on the mound for a reliever (a tradition that dates back to when bullpen mounds weren't on a par with the field mound) could easily cut this down to 90 seconds or less. * Each team will be permitted three "timeout" conferences covering any meeting involving pitchers and catchers, managers, coaches and batters. Timeouts during pitching changes and those that result from an injury or other emergency will not be counted toward the limit. --- I can just hear Jorge Posada saying; "That's three trips per batter, right?" * Additionally, at one of the AFL parks they're going to experiment with visible pitch clocks, operated independently of the umpiring crew, which will require the pitcher to pitch within 20 seconds of the batter stepping in the box. --- I've long been wary of a 'shot-clock' type of solution, but the league has put themselves into situation where it might be the best answer. Now if only they had started this stuff maybe two decades ago.

Edgy MD Oct 01 2014 02:54 PM Re: Round up the usual suspects

I have no problem with allowing a pitcher to throw his four pitches. (Hey, at least it's nominal action!) This isn't where the problem is. I'm surprised they didn't do anything with trimming time off of replay challenges. (1) There's no point really for managers to have to cross the field to speak with an umpire, when a signal to a base coach or defensive player can do it. (2) There's no need for umpires to have to don coil-wire headsets behind home plate when they can carry around wireless bluetooth tech.

sharpie Oct 01 2014 03:02 PM Re: Round up the usual suspects

That's also part of the honorable blue ribbon committee's scope: In addition, the MLB video-review system that started this year will be in use and will include experimental rules regarding scope, initiation and time limits.

d'Kong76 Oct 01 2014 03:12 PM Re: Round up the usual suspects

All steps in the right direction, I guess. I agree that the four intentional walk pitches should be thrown. How many times do see a guy almost sail one with a guy on base that could advance? And yeah, the dufflebag and headphones is so 90's with what's available out there today.

Mets – Willets Point Oct 01 2014 03:51 PM Re: Round up the usual suspects

No George Mitchell.

seawolf17 Oct 01 2014 05:17 PM Re: Round up the usual suspects

Mets – Willets Point wrote: No George Mitchell. Ooh! That means we can have steroids back!

Frayed Knot Oct 01 2014 05:20 PM Re: Round up the usual suspects

Edgy MD wrote: I'm surprised they didn't do anything with trimming time off of replay challenges. Since replay was first argued for and proposed in football* some 30 years ago, the big selling point from its proponents has been that it'll only cover a limited scope of plays ("heavens no, it'll never be used for ball spotting") and that it'll have a time limit. And yet 30 some years later they continue to grow the number of things it covers and it only gets longer and longer. Yes better technology could shave a few seconds here or there, but the whole 'limited' replay concept remains an exercise in trying to stay only somewhat pregnant. If you're going to use it it's going to take time. * actually in one of the rival leagues first, not in the NFL who demeaned it as a gimmick unworthy of their time. They did that with a lot of rule changes (goalposts in the back of the end zone, radios in helmets, moved kickoffs, 2-point conversions, etc.) and yet somehow get credit for being an innovative league

Ashie62 Oct 01 2014 05:58 PM Re: Round up the usual suspects

It seems many batters leave the box after every pitch and do an OCD driven wristband gymnastics.

Edgy MD Oct 01 2014 08:52 PM Re: Round up the usual suspects

Yes, it's going to take time, but a lot of time could be carved off with the way they practice it, and there are certainly more challenges per game than intentional walks. And I think it would have served the game well for them to address this.

Lefty Specialist Oct 02 2014 06:25 AM Re: Round up the usual suspects

There are more times where the manager strolls out to the first-base umpire, all the while looking at his bench coach to see if they should challenge a play. That probably happens three times as much as actual challenges. Get rid of that little bit of kabuki theater, and you'll probably cut a few minutes off each game.

Edgy MD Oct 02 2014 06:34 AM Re: Round up the usual suspects

Pat Zachry. It's only the most obvious thing in the world. But that's what you get when you convene a bunch of managers with political capital but not the studied expertise on the particular issue. Managers, of course, HATE their pitchers throwing four extra inconsequential pitches. Personally, I think it buys warmup time for those pitchers' successors a lot more meaningfully than fake mound conferences do.

Frayed Knot Oct 02 2014 06:51 AM Re: Round up the usual suspects

Some would argue that the waiting for the signal from the dugout time is simply replacing the dirt-kicking, hat-throwing, tantrum time that managers used to have instead, so, in effect, little time is lost or gained. And then if you're not going to do it via manager challenges, then how? Where a time limit needs to be imposed is in the review itself, where if the folks back in NYC haven't found enough evidence to overturn after 'X' amount of time then the call stands. That always leaves open the possibility that a percentage of wrong calls won't get reversed but when most replay proponents envisioned how it would work I highly doubt they were all up in arms over the split-millimeter type of calls where someone needs a magnifying glass up against an 80-inch hi-def screen to determine whether the ball actually settled into the 1st baseman's glove before the runner's spikes hit the pillow or the other way around. Those, I'm sure, are the time-consuming ones since you and I could do the obvious calls from our couches without needing 14 angles and a room full of consultants. But when the stated purpose is "to get it right" then it becomes tough to keep down the number and type of plays that can't be reviewed and we wind up constantly chasing the idealistic goal of; 'oh replay would be perfect if we just do it this way ...'.

Benjamin Grimm Oct 02 2014 07:07 AM Re: Round up the usual suspects

I don't like the intentional walk suggestion. There have been times when it's led to a wild pitch, so I think the pitcher should have to execute. (I've often thought that if I was a batter being intentionally walked, I'd swing at the fourth pitch, just to make the pitcher have to throw a fifth pitch. And maybe, I'd even swing at the fifth pitch to entice him to try to get me out on the sixth pitch.) As for the reviews, I would like to end the farce. Let the manager call a 30-second timeout to determine whether or not he wants to post a challenge. And maybe he can be limited to how many times he can do this. I don't mind the time for the reviews. I was at a game in Pittsburgh where a challenge was made in a key spot, and they showed the replays on the scoreboard as the review was underway. There was a terrific feeling of suspense in the ballpark. These reviews can have just as much drama as what happens on the field. I do like the idea of one foot in the batter's box, and encouraging the pitcher to pitch more quickly. Reducing the amount of time between innings is also a good idea. Entertainment shows have been challenged to come up with ways to advertise even though people fast-forward through commercials. Sports events, more likely to be watched live, don't have to worry about that, but they can maximize their in-game spots. ("This foul ball sponsored by Toyota.") I know this kind of thing is awful and annoying, but if it leads to shorter commercial breaks and games ending earlier, I'd be willing to put up with it. (I've pretty much learned how to tune out that noise by now anyway.)

Frayed Knot Oct 02 2014 07:22 AM Re: Round up the usual suspects

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Reducing the amount of time between innings is also a good idea. Entertainment shows have been challenged to come up with ways to advertise even though people fast-forward through commercials. Sports events, more likely to be watched live, don't have to worry about that, but they can maximize their in-game spots. ("This foul ball sponsored by Toyota.") I know this kind of thing is awful and annoying, but if it leads to shorter commercial breaks and games ending earlier, I'd be willing to put up with it. (I've pretty much learned how to tune out that noise by now anyway.) The thing is, they're not even reducing the time between innings (Heck, we'd all like to reduce commercial time but we know that's not going to happen) merely taking steps to ensure that the game is ready to go as soon as the allowed time is up. Nothing more annoying then waiting out the allotted commercial time* only to have it be another 20-30 seconds before the first pitch is thrown. If they stick to their guns on this one (a REAL big IF) then the batter is going to be in the box when the station break ends. Then, as soon as the ump gets the signal that break time is over, he simply points to the pitcher and they're ready to go. * 2:05 for most games, 2:25 for GotW, 2:55 for post-season

Edgy MD Oct 02 2014 07:37 AM Re: Round up the usual suspects

Frayed Knot wrote: Some would argue that the waiting for the signal from the dugout time is simply replacing the dirt-kicking, hat-throwing, tantrum time that managers used to have instead, so, in effect, little time is lost or gained. People can argue whatever they want. I'd like to see them back that one up with data. Frayed Knot wrote: And then if you're not going to do it via manager challenges, then how? Base coaches, already on the scene, can approach the ump and ask for an appeal, following signals from the manager in the dugout, if necessary. If the defensive team wants to challenge, their designated defensive captain can make the appeal. Easy peazy.

Ceetar Oct 02 2014 07:39 AM Re: Round up the usual suspects

I'm sure they're still tweaking the replay rules. first year bugs and all. I'd get rid of the manager challenges entirely. Leave it up to the umpires to review it and get it right. This preserves the managers right to come out and yell at them to review it the same way they used to that people miss so much. It'd also get rid of the 'theater' of them waiting for the signal to review. If they go out there with nothing to say, delay of game them and award a ball. If they go out there and yell, they risk ejection. And this may be the best part, if they wait for conclusive evidence via video review, the game may proceed before they can object. Which means the other team has an incentive to not dilly dally. And if the team possibly wanting a review shuffles their feet, that's when you enforce the delay of game penalties.

Frayed Knot Oct 02 2014 07:46 AM Re: Round up the usual suspects

Edgy MD wrote: Frayed Knot wrote: And then if you're not going to do it via manager challenges, then how? Base coaches, already on the scene, can approach the ump and ask for an appeal, following signals from the manager in the dugout, if necessary. If the defensive team wants to challenge, their designated defensive captain can make the appeal. Easy peazy. How does any of that do away with the stalling tactics? Whether it's the manager stalling while waiting for the guy on the phone, or the base coach/defensive captain stalling for a signal from the manager who's waiting for the go-ahead from the guys on the phone, I don't see how we're getting anywhere.

Edgy MD Oct 02 2014 08:06 AM Re: Round up the usual suspects

Frayed Knot wrote: Frayed Knot wrote: And then if you're not going to do it via manager challenges, then how? Base coaches, already on the scene, can approach the ump and ask for an appeal, following signals from the manager in the dugout, if necessary. If the defensive team wants to challenge, their designated defensive captain can make the appeal. Easy peazy. How does any of that do away with the stalling tactics? Whether it's the manager stalling while waiting for the guy on the phone, or the base coach/defensive captain stalling for a signal from the manager who's waiting for the go-ahead from the guys on the phone, I don't see how we're getting anywhere. I find that hard to believe. We don't waste time with the farce of a fat old guy climbing out of the dugout and crossing the field slowly while pretending like he's scuttling, which is the biggest stalling tactic of them all. Somebody on the field wants to ask for an appeal, he can, but his time is limited to a specific length and then he's cut dead. Easy. Peazy. You wire the head ump to call mission control without having to set up a com center behind home plate. Also easy.

Frayed Knot Oct 02 2014 12:36 PM Re: Round up the usual suspects

You find it hard to believe that base coaches or 'defensive captains' will stall while waiting for a signal from the dugout via their man upstairs just like the manager now does? I find that hard to believe. Edgy MD wrote: We don't waste time with the farce of a fat old guy climbing out of the dugout and crossing the field slowly while pretending like he's scuttling, which is the biggest stalling tactic of them all. Somebody on the field wants to ask for an appeal, he can, but his time is limited to a specific length and then he's cut dead. Easy. Peazy. Hey, if they're going to set up a time limit for appeals then it hardly matters who does the challenging. But I think MLB would be wary of doing that without also increasing the number of challenges per game since teams will be less sure about the ultimate outcome if they have to challenge prior to receiving guidance from upstairs. And, sure, wireless technology would at least solve the problem of looking like MLB is behind the times ... although maybe they feel they need the bigger, noise-cancelling types to hear what NYC is telling them.

Edgy MD Oct 02 2014 12:46 PM Re: Round up the usual suspects

Frayed Knot wrote: You find it hard to believe that base coaches or 'defensive captains' will stall while waiting for a signal from the dugout via their man upstairs just like the manager now does? I find that hard to believe. No. That's exactly not what I wrote. I wrote about the manager crossing the field.

MFS62 Oct 02 2014 12:54 PM Re: Round up the usual suspects

Charlie Finley proposed the 20 second "countdown clock" (among other things) when he owned the KC A's. IIRC, he had a clock installed in KC and MLB made him take it down. http://www.nytimes.com/1986/05/20/sport ... lie-o.html MLB rejected the ideas (his defense of "You want to speed up the game. Don't you?" fell on deaf ears). What's next? Orange baseballs? Later

Frayed Knot Oct 18 2014 07:34 AM Re: Round up the usual suspects

* Additionally, at one of the AFL parks they're going to experiment with visible pitch clocks, operated independently of the umpiring crew, which will require the pitcher to pitch within 20 seconds of the batter stepping in the box. --- I've long been wary of a 'shot-clock' type of solution, but the league has put themselves into situation where it might be the best answer. The average AFL game under the 'pitch clock' conditions so far has been 2:38, a figure which includes yesterday's 11 inning tie game which went 3:12 The actual clock is only being used in one location in the AFL and so the sample here is still only a handful of games. The first game or two did have some automatic balls called as a penalty for not delivering the pitch within the set amount of time although not in this most recent one as the players start getting used to the rule.

Frayed Knot Nov 19 2014 06:59 AM Re: Round up the usual suspects

The results are in from the AFL games (as I continue my obsession with this topic) which either used the 'speed-up' rules [keep foot in box, etc.] or, in one of the stadiums, the 20-second pitch clock: All AFL games 2013 (w/o speed-up rules): 2:53 All AFL games 2014 (combined) -- 2:45 2014 AFL games w/pitch clock -- 2:42 2014 AFL games just w/batters box rule -- 2:46 Extrapolated average MLB games based on time per/AB -- 2:39 (there were more ABs/game in the avg MLB game than in a typical AFL contest, ergo: more time saved) I believe the average MLB game time in 2014 was just under 3:00 even so we're talking about 20 minutes per/game saved That's the good news as released by Joe Torre at the recent GM meetings. Now for the bad news. Again, from Joe Torre: "As far as being able to implement it {at the MLB level], you have to understand that this has to be in conjunction with the Players Association, as it was with our collision play," Torre said. "Trying to implement that so close to the season last year was really tough. Maybe as much as we suggest it, but understand that players have a certain habit of doing things. But this has been, just from all the evidence we've had from the Fall League, a real positive as far as gathering information. That's what we have to do first before we figure out what will work at the Major League level." But the collision play was a change in the rules. These rules (at least the ones not involving a 'play clock' which was more an experiment than anything else) are ones that already exist and I have no idea why they think they need the players' blessing in order to start to enforce them. I realize that they just can't do it without letting them in on how things are going to go down from now on but that hardly requires a lengthy break-in period.

Edgy MD Nov 19 2014 07:22 AM Re: Round up the usual suspects

"Trying to implement that so close to the season last year was really tough." And thus, kind of an embarrassment, trying to enforce a rule when nobody was really sure what it meant. Tough part about extrapolating AFL data is that they're going to have more pitching changes in the first half of the game.

MFS62 Dec 07 2014 08:15 AM Re: Round up the usual suspects

Here's my proposal: Any relief pitcher entering a game with no outs must face at least three batters. And any relief pitcher entering a game with at least one out must complete the inning. (Number of outs and number of batters can be negotiated with Union) Later

bmfc1 Dec 07 2014 08:40 AM Re: Round up the usual suspects

Thank you FK. MLB doesn't want to shorten the games--shorter games means fewer commercials (remember that commercials happen during a game, not just between innings). Someone is likely looking at that and thinking "its only 8 minutes." I want those 8 minutes! The words "bad news" and "Joe Torre" seem to go together.

Lefty Specialist Dec 07 2014 08:46 AM Re: Round up the usual suspects

MFS62 wrote: Here's my proposal: Any relief pitcher entering a game with no outs must face at least three batters. And any relief pitcher entering a game with at least one out must complete the inning. (Number of outs and number of batters can be negotiated with Union) Later What if a pitcher is totally ineffective, and gives up 5 hits in a row? You can't be forced to keep him in.

MFS62 Dec 07 2014 08:52 AM Re: Round up the usual suspects

Lefty Specialist wrote: Here's my proposal: Any relief pitcher entering a game with no outs must face at least three batters. And any relief pitcher entering a game with at least one out must complete the inning. (Number of outs and number of batters can be negotiated with Union) Later What if a pitcher is totally ineffective, and gives up 5 hits in a row? You can't be forced to keep him in. At the start of an inning? My rule accommodates that. And the corollary to my new rule is that it may spur offense, which baseball has been looking to do since steroids have been banned. Maybe the negotiation would include an effectiveness clause, too. Later

Frayed Knot Dec 07 2014 08:59 AM Re: Round up the usual suspects

That proposal, and several others out there, substantially alter the game which I don't support especially since the crime of this whole trend is that nothing really needs to altered except the pace at which it's played. No one realistically is asking to return to the days where there was no TV and so games with about 45 seconds between half-innings were routinely being played in under 2 hours. Rather it's the half-hour that's been tacked on, not on top of the game in the days of grainy black and white film but just in the last two or three decades, games that were well within the memory of most current fans. And, yeah, increased use of relievers is part of that, but quicken each pitch thrown by just one second and you shorten the game about four minutes without doing anything else. Make that three seconds per pitch plus some minor adjustments such as being ready to go as soon as the assigned between-innings break is done and maybe reducing on-field strategy meetings and you can easily lop 15-20 minutes off the game without losing a single piece of strategy or action. On the other hand if you want to do away with the tradition of having incoming relievers throw warm-ups on the mound after they've already warmed-up in the pen then I'm with you. The original purpose of allowing it, because bullpen mounds were often inferior and not the same on the real mound, went away decades ago. Warm-ups at the beginning of innings - sure, but within an inning - nope, get your throwing done in the pen. This would save at least a minute per in-inning change.

Frayed Knot Dec 07 2014 09:03 AM Re: Round up the usual suspects

Thank you FK. MLB doesn't want to shorten the games--shorter games means fewer commercials (remember that commercials happen during a game, not just between innings). Someone is likely looking at that and thinking "its only 8 minutes." I want those 8 minutes! The words "bad news" and "Joe Torre" seem to go together. But the biggest problem isn't commercial time, it's the slow pace that occurs during supposedly live action. The amount of allotted time for commercial breaks [2:05 for most games, 2:25 for GotW (FOX Saturday and ESPN Sunday night), and 2:55 for post-season] hasn't changed in years, and yet the time-creep continues upward.

MFS62 Dec 07 2014 09:05 AM Re: Round up the usual suspects

Frayed Knot wrote: On the other hand if you want to do away with the tradition of having incoming relievers throw warm-ups on the mound after they've already warmed-up in the pen then I'm with you. The original purpose of allowing it, because bullpen mounds were often inferior and not the same on the real mound, went away decades ago. Warm-ups at the beginning of innings - sure, but within an inning - nope, get your throwing done in the pen. This would save at least a minute per in-inning change. That'll do it. Later

bmfc1 Dec 07 2014 12:02 PM Re: Round up the usual suspects

Thank you FK. MLB doesn't want to shorten the games--shorter games means fewer commercials (remember that commercials happen during a game, not just between innings). Someone is likely looking at that and thinking "its only 8 minutes." I want those 8 minutes! The words "bad news" and "Joe Torre" seem to go together. But the biggest problem isn't commercial time, it's the slow pace that occurs during supposedly live action. The amount of allotted time for commercial breaks [2:05 for most games, 2:25 for GotW (FOX Saturday and ESPN Sunday night), and 2:55 for post-season] hasn't changed in years, and yet the time-creep continues upward. It's all problematic. If MLB wanted to do something about the problem right away and do something that doesn't required MLBA OK, it would make the commercial breaks 90 seconds. They won't because it will cost them money but if they were serious about the issue, this is one way to help solve it. Cutting back merely one 30 second spot from all of the scenarios saves 9 minutes.

Frayed Knot Dec 07 2014 01:16 PM Re: Round up the usual suspects

Well sure, we'd all like to see less commercial time, but that's not going to happen in baseball anymore than it's going to happen in football, or on the nightly news, or during a hit sitcom.

bmfc1 Dec 07 2014 03:27 PM Re: Round up the usual suspects

I didn't know that we were only allowed to suggest rule changes that you deem to be realistic. Of course it will never happen because MLB only cares about making money. The point was that if MLB was serious about fixing the issue of lengthy games, it could, right now, without involving the MLPA, even if that fix was "unrealistic" to you.

Frayed Knot Dec 07 2014 06:14 PM Re: Round up the usual suspects

Well if we're going to do away with various sources of the business's income then we can propose dropping 90 seconds out of the between innings time and cut out a half-hour or more. But ... - the length of games is only part of the problem as game times have been increasing despite the fact that the commercial time hasn't increased in recent years. The pace of games during the non-commercial time is at least as big a problem as merely the length and it's something they need to address even if they were of a mind to cut commercial time. I shouldn't be able to go in the kitchen as mix a drink between pitches - unilaterally cutting the commercial time is not something the league could simply decide to do on their own as those times are written into the contracts they have with the various broadcasters. At best they'd have to wait until the current contracts end and those tend to be longer than their deals with the players union. - I still don't understand why they think they need player union approval to enforce those pitch and batters box rules that are already on the books.

Rockin' Doc Dec 07 2014 07:53 PM Re: Round up the usual suspects

There is far too much posturing and stalling from both hitters and pitchers. The slow pace of play is ruining the beautiful game of baseball. Hitters simply need get in the batter's box, then pitchers need to get the sign from the catcher and throw the damn ball. It's not rocket science.

Frayed Knot Jan 15 2015 09:52 PM Re: Round up the usual suspects

20 pitch clock to be used in all AA & AAA stadiums in 2015 Still some details still to be worked out but MLB has a great laboratory in which to try out these kind of ideas so why not.

Ashie62 Jan 16 2015 02:15 AM Re: Round up the usual suspects

Keep the batters in the box. No more strolls between every pitch.

metsmarathon Jan 16 2015 06:58 AM Re: Round up the usual suspects

i like and support the idea, if not the execution. i think an official digital clock is a jarring incongruity in a baseball game. an analog countdown timer, on the other hand, would be kinda cool. and would allow the teams the opportunity to inject some personality and individualism into the affair. picture if you will, a giant clock with mr met on hte face, in pitching position. his hand is hte hand of the clock, and in it, the ball. as hte timer counts down, his hand goes up. when the time is up, his hand it at the top of hte face, in hte 12:00 position, ready to release the ball. throw your pitch before mr met does, or you get a ball! way more fun than a shot clock.

Benjamin Grimm Feb 20 2015 12:17 PM Re: Round up the usual suspects

MLB announces pace-of-play changes and replay tweaks By David Brown | Baseball Writer February 20, 2015 11:07 am ET Major League Baseball wants games to move along more crisply and, as expected Friday morning, announced new rules in pace-of-game regulations and video replay etiquette. As our own Mike Axisa wrote Thursday night after broad sketches of the new rules leaked to Fox Sports, those changes include: • Managers must challenge replays from dugout. No more slow walks over to umpires on the field in order to stall while team replay mavens check their TV monitors. MLB is making other replay tweaks as well, including adding an additional manager's challenge for playoff games, regular-season tiebreakers and the All-Star game. Also: tag-up plays will be reviewable going forward. And no instant replay will be used in spring training this season. • Batters must keep one foot in the batter's box "unless an established exception occurs." Exceptions include actions such as bunting, or when there's a wild pitch, for example. This might be the most "invasive" of the changes, something batters will have to get used to. • Play must resume promptly once a broadcast returns from a commercial break. To that end, timers will be installed in each ballpark to assist umpires in keeping everyone on task. The new regulations were part of a joint effort among the league, the players association and the umpires union to help shorten the length of ballgames, which lasted about 3.13 hours in 2014 and, apparently, make everyone in North America too sleepy. In a statement, commissioner Rob Manfred said: "These changes represent a step forward in our efforts to streamline the pace of play. The most fundamental starting point for improving the pace of the average game involves getting into and out of breaks seamlessly. In addition, the batter's box rule will help speed up a basic action of the game." One takeaway from all of this: With the addition of physical timers "counting down" in each ballpark, we can be fairly certain that a "pitch clock" component will be added to the game in the near future. The upper levels of the minor leagues are experimenting with it in 2015, and with MLB already adding a clock to games to regulate pace coming out of commercial breaks, it's just a matter of... time until the clock is used after every pitch in order to "keep the game moving." One would think that umpires would be able to keep the game moving just by concerted effort, but that's not how MLB wants to do it. MLB had been unique. Now it has a clock like other sports.

Benjamin Grimm Feb 20 2015 12:18 PM Re: Round up the usual suspects

In general, I think I approve of all three bullet points. Especially the one about the foot in the batters box.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Feb 20 2015 12:29 PM Re: Round up the usual suspects

And I'm sure that one-foot-in won't be a big adjustment for most guys to make, because if there's one thing with which baseball players are totally okay, it's small, forced changes to their routines.

Edgy MD Feb 20 2015 12:35 PM Re: Round up the usual suspects

CBS Sports wrote: • Managers must challenge replays from dugout. No more slow walks over to umpires on the field in order to stall while team replay mavens check their TV monitors. Hey, look.

Frayed Knot Feb 20 2015 01:33 PM Re: Round up the usual suspects

Plus umpire Tim McClellan has retired, so not having to wait for his delayed strikes alone will save 15 or 20 minutes per game.

Benjamin Grimm Feb 20 2015 01:41 PM Re: Round up the usual suspects

CBS Sports wrote: • Managers must challenge replays from dugout. No more slow walks over to umpires on the field in order to stall while team replay mavens check their TV monitors. So does this mean that managers won't get a chance to peek at the replay before they make a challenge? Or are managers going to have the ability to call a, say, 20-second timeout so they can review?

metsmarathon Feb 20 2015 01:48 PM Re: Round up the usual suspects

Benjamin Grimm wrote: CBS Sports wrote: MLB had been unique. Now it has a clock like other sports. mlb is stil unique, in that the clock is not used to regulate the length of hte game, merely the pace of the breaks in the play. it's still ridiculous, to an extent, that hte umpires need a clock to be able to enfore that kind of thing. maybe instead of a big ol' clock, the umpires could have, oh, i dunno, a watch? hell, give 'em all smart watches that are tied into the timing. thye could even use them to track pitch timing, instead of having some big intrusive and incongruous shot clock.

Benjamin Grimm Feb 20 2015 02:50 PM Re: Round up the usual suspects

The New York Times wrote: Managers will also be impacted in their method of challenging a call. Last season, the first with widespread instant replay, managers routinely left the field to feign an argument with the umpire, while keeping an eye on the dugout. Behind the scenes, a team video coordinator would study the replay and tell a coach whether the manager should issue a challenge. The manager would not leave the field until getting his signal from the coach. Those tactics were not part of the rules, and served as a tedious sidelight to an otherwise effective replay rollout. Managers can still rush onto the field to challenge a potential inning-ending out. But in other instances, they are now instructed to stay in the dugout and signal to the umpire from the top step – verbally or with a hand signal — that they are considering a challenge.

Frayed Knot Feb 20 2015 02:54 PM Re: Round up the usual suspects

IOW, no quicker, just different.

Edgy MD Feb 20 2015 04:13 PM Re: Round up the usual suspects

That certainly remains to be seen. I imagine none of us has an average amount of time spent on issuing a challenge.

Ceetar Feb 21 2015 07:23 AM Re: Round up the usual suspects

I'm looking forward to a lot of awkwardly milling around as players instinctively start running off the field for the typical inning ending 6-3 groundout and then the manager comes out to challenge something and the player are all halfway to the dugout and unsure if they should retreat or hang out and wait..

Frayed Knot May 03 2015 09:11 AM Re: Round up the usual suspects

Just a small non-scientific note on pace of game: Saturday night's game was the first time this year I joined a game late and watched the early innings via DVR and 'caught up' by skipping commercials -- and, based on what I saw, things seem to be looking up. -- The 'four clicks' method of skipping ahead 30 seconds at a time between half-innings used to bring you to the end of the commercial break but still maybe 20-30 seconds from the first pitch as pitchers were still finishing warmups, batters hadn't approach the box yet, promos were still being announced, etc. But last night that same 2-minute jump ahead took you right about to the first pitch of the inning. -- Jumping ahead that same 30 seconds between outs is something I usually don't do although have in the past if I was way behind in the game. I tried that a few times last night just to check and most times it would cause me to miss the first pitch to the next hitter, something that didn't use to happen. Now what we need to hope for is that this non-dragging method of play becomes second nature to all concerned as opposed to the scenario where it all goes by the wayside by mid-season and we're back to the same ass-dragging pace they got used to over the last couple decades.

Frayed Knot Oct 05 2015 07:30 AM Re: Round up the usual suspects

Time of Game stats for 2015 are in. According to BB-Ref, the average 9 inning game this season was 3:00, down from 3:07 in 2014, even though scoring was up somewhat [R/g down 0.2; Shutout% down .57% SLGA up 19 points]. Manfred made some remarks last week about how he wasn't going to be satisfied with just that progress and that they'd continue to look at various other solutions; he mentioned things like the possibility of capping mound visits (Yay!!), or requiring incoming pitchers to face at least two batters (not so Yay). What they wind up doing (or not) remains to be seen but I at least like the idea that he didn't just say; "There, mission accomplished". My personal observation was that the tightened up pace early in the season slackened off somewhat as it got towards the end. This showed up in both longer game times and the between innings gaps. And while September games are often longer due to 59 man bullpens and the like, things seemed to be trending longer even before that although I have no specific data to back that up. NL games continue to be quicker than AL