‘But It’s Tradition!’ Is No Reason To Ban Tie Games In MLB
- Thread starter Yappi
- Start date
Taco MacArthur
Active member
I'd be 100% on board with having ties, especially over having a runner on 2nd to start extra innings. I like this idea and agree with the thread title.
14Red
Well-known member
I can only guess you like soccer and hockey? I would do anything to not have ties. It makes no sense to have ties. How many games go more than 12-13 innings anyway. Also, is it not up to the managers to always have a "long" man in the pen in case of a long extra inning game. Also, most major league teams have an easy way of bringing up fresh arms daily, so if you run a guy out here for 6-7 innings in relief, just call up a fresh arm the next day to fill that spot.
Sig Hansen
Well-known member
What percentage of games go past the twelfth inning? 5-8%? Again, this is Manfred trying to toy with a fairly minor issue while totally ignoring the dead-time between pitches. With that said I don't really have a problem with this proposal. It's just not really going to fix all that much.
Taco MacArthur
Active member
Yeah. I'm also a fan of the NFL. I can only guess you don't like soccer, hockey and football?
I guess you're a fan of bastardizing a sport by automatically putting a runner on 2nd base? Why am I asking? It's a dumb idea so of course you're a fan of it.
EagleGuy
Well-known member
Go to two strikes (most players take the first one anyway) for a strikeout. Or, give the batter one strike to begin with. And, three balls = a walk. Two outs per inning instead of three.
Ties would be okay with me if they want to keep piddling around. Or, just leave the game alone! The middle innings were meant for naps, anyway.
Ties would be okay with me if they want to keep piddling around. Or, just leave the game alone! The middle innings were meant for naps, anyway.
Thavoice
Well-known member
Absolutely freaking ed to have ties in baseball or to do what softball does with a runner at second base.
I am not a fan of the hockey shootout but to keep playing during the regular season isn't really feasible and it is much better than having a tie.
As a consumer, either in attendance or spending time on TV, I wholeheartedly want a team to win, and a team to lose, when I attend or spend my time watching.
A tie?
Absolutennot acceptable.
It is bad enough that the NFL has a tie every so often. Was at the Falcons/steelers tie a number of years ago and the feeling you get it just total blah in investing that much and nothing comes out of it.
I am not a fan of the hockey shootout but to keep playing during the regular season isn't really feasible and it is much better than having a tie.
As a consumer, either in attendance or spending time on TV, I wholeheartedly want a team to win, and a team to lose, when I attend or spend my time watching.
A tie?
Absolutennot acceptable.
It is bad enough that the NFL has a tie every so often. Was at the Falcons/steelers tie a number of years ago and the feeling you get it just total blah in investing that much and nothing comes out of it.
Sig Hansen
Well-known member
ronnie mund
Well-known member
I personally enjoy games that go into extras. No ties I say.
14Red
Well-known member
I watch nearly every Reds game. My point is if you are going to establish a finite ending to the game, you could get rid of a few back end pitchers.
I'm ok with playing until a winner. If managers want to use 3 pitchers in the 8th inning and they get stuck in a 17 inning game, then so be it. They are big boys, let them finish.
WinstonSmith
New member
I would prefer ties over extras, except of course for the playoffs. The season is already way too damn long as it is, who cares if each team has a handful of ties?
wolves82
Highly Respected Expert
Lots of people on here missing the point, and making nonsensical comments. Allow me to straighten out a few...
The ties / extra innings discussion is not about speed of the game. Most games go 9 innings and are too long, you are right about that. Tightening up the dead time between pitches should be task #1. But the extra innings issue is about not decimating a team's pitching staff for just one game. Especially when the fans have shown they don't care. Just watch the stadium empty out each inning after #10.
See above, most fans don't care. Just watch the stadium empty out each inning after #10. By inning 14 or 15 most normal fans have left because they have work or other commitments the next day. TV's get turned off and people go to bed. Is that satisfying for fans? I'd rather see a tie column in the standings than watch a game get decided based on whose 6th OF is the better pitcher.
Very few games go beyond 12 innings. Cutting 5 roster spots has NOTHING to do with this. With 20 on the roster: you have 8 position players starting, 5 guys in the rotation. That leaves 7 more players. What do you suggest for the other 7 spots, genius? Another catcher for sure, 1 infielder, 1 outfielder, and 4 bullpen guys? There would almost never be a pinch hitter available. No team could survive a 7 game week with that thin of a roster. Especially the Reds. Dumbest post ever.
The ties / extra innings discussion is not about speed of the game. Most games go 9 innings and are too long, you are right about that. Tightening up the dead time between pitches should be task #1. But the extra innings issue is about not decimating a team's pitching staff for just one game. Especially when the fans have shown they don't care. Just watch the stadium empty out each inning after #10.
See above, most fans don't care. Just watch the stadium empty out each inning after #10. By inning 14 or 15 most normal fans have left because they have work or other commitments the next day. TV's get turned off and people go to bed. Is that satisfying for fans? I'd rather see a tie column in the standings than watch a game get decided based on whose 6th OF is the better pitcher.
Very few games go beyond 12 innings. Cutting 5 roster spots has NOTHING to do with this. With 20 on the roster: you have 8 position players starting, 5 guys in the rotation. That leaves 7 more players. What do you suggest for the other 7 spots, genius? Another catcher for sure, 1 infielder, 1 outfielder, and 4 bullpen guys? There would almost never be a pinch hitter available. No team could survive a 7 game week with that thin of a roster. Especially the Reds. Dumbest post ever.
eastside_purple
Well-known member
There's no tying in baseball.
Monclova Steve
Well-known member
:clap::clap:
Monclova Steve
Well-known member
Much of the appeal of baseball has been its timelessness. It is (except for the DH mad:) -- for the most part -- the same game as it's been for over 100 years.
Ties? I guess I could live with that if necessary.
Putting a runner on 2nd in extra innings? Sacrilege. BTW, do these stats count as a run scored, RBI, etc.? Who gets picked to be the runner (is it one of the guys already in the game or someone still on the bench)?
Please, let's don't start toying with the game itself just to satisfy some current fad. I understand that baseball needs to speed up to gain broader appeal, but IMHO this way isn't it.
mad:) -- for the most part -- the same game as it's been for over 100 years.Ties? I guess I could live with that if necessary.
Putting a runner on 2nd in extra innings? Sacrilege. BTW, do these stats count as a run scored, RBI, etc.? Who gets picked to be the runner (is it one of the guys already in the game or someone still on the bench)?
Please, let's don't start toying with the game itself just to satisfy some current fad. I understand that baseball needs to speed up to gain broader appeal, but IMHO this way isn't it.
EagleGuy
Well-known member
Much of the appeal of baseball has been its timelessness. It is (except for the DH
Ties? I guess I could live with that if necessary.
Putting a runner on 2nd in extra innings? Sacrilege. BTW, do these stats count as a run scored, RBI, etc.? Who gets picked to be the runner (is it one of the guys already in the game or someone still on the bench)?
Please, let's don't start toying with the game itself just to satisfy some current fad. I understand that baseball needs to speed up to gain broader appeal, but IMHO this way isn't it.
Unfortunately, short of reducing the number of innings in a game, which should not and will not ever happen, there is little that can be done to significantly shorten a ball game. The pace of the game is part of the essence of the game. Leave it alone, except doing away with the DH.
wolves82
Highly Respected Expert
False! http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2015/1/29/7921283/baseball-game-length-visual-analysis
Average 9-inning game length has been increasing steadily.
- 1:56 in 1930
- 2:20 in 1950
- 2:30 in 1970
- 2:47 in 1990
- 3:02 in 2010
I LOVE baseball. But there is nothing charming or fun about watching a pitcher tug on his sleeves, pace around the mound, step off the rubber repeatedly, while the batter steps out, adjusts his cup, rubs his bat down, etc. Every pitch.
I realize that with TV involved, and the specialization of bullpens leading to multiple pitching changes, the games will be longer than they were in the past. But if they just enforce the rules already on the books, there would be a lot less dead time between pitches. Get in the box and hit! Get on the mound and throw it! Games could easily be cut back to 2:40 or so.
Shorten the game?
Ok,
Shorten the commercials, that is time between innings and pitching change.
Only allow 1 trip per mound per game be it manager or catcher..... they are professionals right???
Instant replay should be immediate... no 30 second rule.... I think it is BS that they can look at a replay and then decide if they want it reviewed or not.... do it now or not at all....
This would save time in my opinion and would bring us back to 2 1/2 hour games.....
Ok,
Shorten the commercials, that is time between innings and pitching change.
Only allow 1 trip per mound per game be it manager or catcher..... they are professionals right???
Instant replay should be immediate... no 30 second rule.... I think it is BS that they can look at a replay and then decide if they want it reviewed or not.... do it now or not at all....
This would save time in my opinion and would bring us back to 2 1/2 hour games.....
EagleGuy
Well-known member
Good stats. I can only relate to 1970.
I don't know the average number of pitches thrown per game, but just assuming 150 pitches and 20 seconds between pitches (?), I can see where a game could be cut back to 2:40 (a good start), if the time between pitches is cut in half.
150 x 10 = 1500 seconds and 1500 seconds / 60 = 25 minutes
Assuming the average game today takes ~ 3 hours, 10 minutes (?), those 25 minutes would take the total time down to 2:45, close to the suggested 2:40.
Can pitchers/batters be sped up that much? Personally, I doubt it. However, five seconds improvement may be possible and an admirable target. I believe the time between pitches has increased about one second each of the last two years (if my hearing and memory serves). How about a one second deduction each year until that five second market is reached? And, then a re-evaluation?
EagleGuy
Well-known member
Good suggestions.
Shorter commercials would require making up the lost revenue in other ways, such as having the announcers/others plug products during the game (no more than a few times, please) or projecting product names on the field (limit this too, please) or something else. I would be okay with shorter commercials, though I would have to move faster to and back from the kitchen/bathroom.
I could go with limited mound trips. Could you settle for two or three by any team member? Or, is that the average now?
Yes! Instant replay should be immediate. Or, better yet, eliminated. It takes the human (if you can call an umpire a human) element out of the game. Heck, if we're going to use instant replay, get rid of umpires all together and go to electronic calls for balls/strikes and out/save plays! Those guys never called me Safe! at home anyway... :dang:
Good suggestions.
Shorter commercials would require making up the lost revenue in other ways, such as having the announcers/others plug products during the game (no more than a few times, please) or projecting product names on the field (limit this too, please) or something else. I would be okay with shorter commercials, though I would have to move faster to and back from the kitchen/bathroom.
I could go with limited mound trips. Could you settle for two or three by any team member? Or, is that the average now?
Yes! Instant replay should be immediate. Or, better yet, eliminated. It takes the human (if you can call an umpire a human) element out of the game. Heck, if we're going to use instant replay, get rid of umpires all together and go to electronic calls for balls/strikes and out/save plays! Those guys never called me Safe! at home anyway... :dang:
I like just one (Hockey only has 1 timeout) but maybe I could settle for one per pitcher....
Revenue... no, just make cuts or maybe the big wigs make a little less. Soccer has zero commercials until halftime.... as for commercials while play is in play I see that while watching the REDS on Fox Sports plus all the advertisement around the field and behind the plate....
I'll add another one... this would save just a few seconds each time it happens but this happens a lot. Just keep the same ball instead of throwing it out of play each time it hits the dirt....
simkon
Well-known member
A few things have led to longer games primarily
1. The gap in-between innings is actually quite a bit longer than it used to be, sometime in the late 70's/ early 80's they kept increasing it to make room for more commercials on television and radio. They also increased the break in the action when a new pitcher comes in to accommodate commercials as well.
2. A lot more batters are seeing more pitches per at bat and walking. Or put another way pitchers don't pitch to contact as much and strikeout or walk batters more often which takes longer. Pitchers are throwing a lot more pitches per inning as a result.
3. More long innings where teams score 5+ runs in an inning due to the mop up pitcher not being able to get anyone out.
4. And of course way too many pitching changes and mound visits, that is one of the biggest differences in strategy. It used to be the starting pitcher threw 9 innings unless he was getting killed and if he was taken out the relief pitcher generally finished the game. The majority of the time most games had each team use 1 or 2 pitchers for a 9 inning game, or occasionally 3 if there was a rain delay or the 1st reliever had a really hard time. Extra inning games often only had 2 or 3 pitchers as well.
1. The gap in-between innings is actually quite a bit longer than it used to be, sometime in the late 70's/ early 80's they kept increasing it to make room for more commercials on television and radio. They also increased the break in the action when a new pitcher comes in to accommodate commercials as well.
2. A lot more batters are seeing more pitches per at bat and walking. Or put another way pitchers don't pitch to contact as much and strikeout or walk batters more often which takes longer. Pitchers are throwing a lot more pitches per inning as a result.
3. More long innings where teams score 5+ runs in an inning due to the mop up pitcher not being able to get anyone out.
4. And of course way too many pitching changes and mound visits, that is one of the biggest differences in strategy. It used to be the starting pitcher threw 9 innings unless he was getting killed and if he was taken out the relief pitcher generally finished the game. The majority of the time most games had each team use 1 or 2 pitchers for a 9 inning game, or occasionally 3 if there was a rain delay or the 1st reliever had a really hard time. Extra inning games often only had 2 or 3 pitchers as well.
EagleGuy
Well-known member
wolves82
Highly Respected Expert
Good stats. I can only relate to 1970.
I don't know the average number of pitches thrown per game, but just assuming 150 pitches and 20 seconds between pitches (?), I can see where a game could be cut back to 2:40 (a good start), if the time between pitches is cut in half.
150 x 10 = 1500 seconds and 1500 seconds / 60 = 25 minutes
Assuming the average game today takes ~ 3 hours, 10 minutes (?), those 25 minutes would take the total time down to 2:45, close to the suggested 2:40.
Can pitchers/batters be sped up that much? Personally, I doubt it. However, five seconds improvement may be possible and an admirable target. I believe the time between pitches has increased about one second each of the last two years (if my hearing and memory serves). How about a one second deduction each year until that five second market is reached? And, then a re-evaluation?
If a starting pitcher is going well, he typically gets yanked around 100-110 pitches (inning 7 or 8). When pitcher throws a complete game and is under 100 they say he was very efficient with his pitches. So 150 is way way low.
I found this: http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/7533.html
Pitch count per game is on the rise also the last decade; thus the problem.
Basically 290 pitches per game for both teams combined.
simkon
Well-known member
On an unrelated note a list of active leaders in complete games
1. CC Sabathia 38, 493 starts, 13 starts per CG
2. B Colon 36, 511 starts, 14 starts per CG
3. C Kershaw 24, 277 starts, 11.5 starts per CG
4. C Kluber 21, 146 starts, 7 starts per CG
5. J Vazquez 18, 450 starts, 25 starts per CG
6. T Hudson 16, 482 starts, 30 starts per CG
7. F Hernandez 15, 364 starts, 24 starts per CG
8. J Shields 13, 355 starts, 27 starts per CG
8. J Verlander 13, 364 starts, 28 starts per CG
So with the exception of Kershaw and also Kluber's one exceptional season, it seems complete games are really a thing of the past, and the increase in use in relievers has caused games to last much longer.
So assuming roughly 30 starts per season, or theoretically a max of 35 starts, even the best pitchers only get one or two per season these days with the exception of Kershaw who would get 3 or 4. Kluber's numbers are skewed a bit from not having as many starts as everyone else and picking up a bunch in one extremely good and lucky season.
Notice CC and Bartolo have so much more because they got them mostly back when they were pitching for Cleveland still and they have been around the longest back before RPs were used as much in a more specialized role.
1. CC Sabathia 38, 493 starts, 13 starts per CG
2. B Colon 36, 511 starts, 14 starts per CG
3. C Kershaw 24, 277 starts, 11.5 starts per CG
4. C Kluber 21, 146 starts, 7 starts per CG
5. J Vazquez 18, 450 starts, 25 starts per CG
6. T Hudson 16, 482 starts, 30 starts per CG
7. F Hernandez 15, 364 starts, 24 starts per CG
8. J Shields 13, 355 starts, 27 starts per CG
8. J Verlander 13, 364 starts, 28 starts per CG
So with the exception of Kershaw and also Kluber's one exceptional season, it seems complete games are really a thing of the past, and the increase in use in relievers has caused games to last much longer.
So assuming roughly 30 starts per season, or theoretically a max of 35 starts, even the best pitchers only get one or two per season these days with the exception of Kershaw who would get 3 or 4. Kluber's numbers are skewed a bit from not having as many starts as everyone else and picking up a bunch in one extremely good and lucky season.
Notice CC and Bartolo have so much more because they got them mostly back when they were pitching for Cleveland still and they have been around the longest back before RPs were used as much in a more specialized role.