PDA

View Full Version : Improving our game of baseball - USA Today



knickfan23
03-08-10, 11:44 AM
Nice piece in USA Today (today) with an 8 man panel moderated by Bob Nightengale game discussing different ways to improve the game in its current form.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/2010-03-07-baseball-roundtable_N.htm

A few highlights (no particular order):

1. REPLAY - The bad calls in last year's postseason highlighted a problem. According to one ump, the most egregious was the play in Game 4 of the ALCS when the Angels tagged out 2 Yankees at 3rd base and only one of them was called out and none of the other 5 umpires stepped in to correct the issue.

The issue doesn't become should we have more replay because many feel its needed. It just becomes "how much?".

2. THE STRIKE ZONE - According to Dusty Baker, the inconsistency of the strike zone is one of the major causes of games being too long. No one knows what a strike is on a given night. He feels there should be umps that strictly work the NL and others the AL. When you have a "tight zone" one night and a "wide strike" another, and a "high strike" the night after, teams don't know what to do.

QuesTec is no longer used. Instead, a system called Zone Evaluation.

From one ump, the graphically imposed strike zone seen on ESPN, FOX and TBS is "phony and inaccurate".

3. SPEED OF PLAY - There's no way a 2-1 game should last over 3 hours. However, a few teams and players are ignoring some of the baseball orders.

Looks like the Yanks and Red Sox are looked at around the league as the two teams who intentionally slow down play (or as it was put "arrogant").

Shrinking the amount of times a catcher can go to the mound during an inning according to Scott Boras would shrink 8 to 10 minutes from a game.


Thought it was interesting. Anyone have any thoughts on changes to the game?

RYMASTER or Ryan_Yankees
03-08-10, 11:47 AM
I've never seen the issue with a game last 3+ hours. Who wants a rushed, 2 hours 15 minutes long game? :dunno:

YankeePride1967
03-08-10, 11:48 AM
I've never seen the issue with a game last 3+ hours. Who wants a rushed, 2 hours 15 minutes long game? :dunno:

Thank you, what's the hurry?

effdamets
03-08-10, 11:49 AM
What I want to know is who are the poeple that want a shorter baseball game?

I know it's not the TV people... or the owners.... The players? Doubtful.

The fans? Not me.

BronxYanks45
03-08-10, 01:01 PM
exactly I personally dont care if a 9 inning game lasts 3 hr 40 mins or 4 hrs and 22 mins, its baseball we dont care about the clock.

as for replay, its fine the way it is now

DEADSOX
03-08-10, 01:07 PM
If you ask me, the longer the better. I remember the few doubleheaders over the past few years and watching the Yankees for 6/7 hours, that was awesome.

NYYDragoon
03-08-10, 01:07 PM
I've never seen the issue with a game last 3+ hours. Who wants a rushed, 2 hours 15 minutes long game? :dunno:Seriously. A 3+ hour 2-1 game means there must have been some good pitching. That's bad why?

Replay needs to be added to close plays at bases and the plate. Create a challenge system. This really isn't that difficult.

fredgmuggs
03-08-10, 01:10 PM
Thank you, what's the hurry?
I think there are things they can do to decrease the time of a game without it affecting it very much. Honestly, I think if they would call a strike on pitches that are above the belt it would speed up play greatly but I don't see that happening. It's astonishing to me how small the strike zone has become up and down.... and how inconsistently wide it has become on the outside corner. Sometimes I think they were better off when they used balloon chest protector and stood directly behind the catcher instead of crouching behind him and lining up on the inside corner. It seems like they're guessing at the outside corner on some nights.

JavyVazquezIsSick
03-08-10, 01:10 PM
Replace umps with computers behnd the plate. Preferably robots.

fredgmuggs
03-08-10, 01:18 PM
Another thing that always stands out in my mind watching an old game is how hitters were ready to hit when they stepped into the box.

None of this 20 second pre-at bat ritual and then stepping out of the box and going through it all over again. And pitchers were quicker between pitches. I'm not sure how you can enforce it because the game has changed but there is a lot of wasted time between pitches now.

NYYRules#1
03-08-10, 01:19 PM
I've never seen the issue with a game last 3+ hours. Who wants a rushed, 2 hours 15 minutes long game? :dunno:

Totally agreed. 3 hours of baseball is great, especially when it's a nice pitcher's duel like that hypothetical "2-1 game that lasts 3 hours" (maybe some casual fans can't appreciate a long, intense pitcher's duel, but most diehard baseball fans certainly do). I hate rushed games - let the players go at their own pace, and if the game takes 3+ hours, great. I absolutely love those 4+ hour Yankees-Red Sox marathons - games that long might not be good for every game of the year, but there's nothing wrong with consistently having 3+ hour games with some 4+ hour ones sprinkled in.

And when I'm at a ballgame, I almost feel like I'm being ripped off when a game goes that short.

effdamets
03-08-10, 01:19 PM
I think there are things they can do to decrease the time of a game without it affecting it very much. Honestly, I think if they would call a strike on pitches that are above the belt it would speed up play greatly but I don't see that happening. It's astonishing to me how small the strike zone has become up and down.... and how inconsistently wide it has become on the outside corner. Sometimes I think they were better off when they used balloon chest protector and stood directly behind the catcher instead of crouching behind him and lining up on the inside corner. It seems like they're guessing at the outside corner on some nights.
Yes Muggz.... you can do a lot of things to speed up the game.
Like make hitters keep one foot in the batters box between pitches unless they are granted time out...

But why? Why are we so intent on making the games shorter?
Baseball was meant to be played at life's leisurely pace!
It is the ONLY team sport that doesn't define its contests with a clock.
(it's also the only sport where the defense holds the ball)

NYYRules#1
03-08-10, 01:24 PM
But why? Why are we so intent on making the games shorter?
Baseball was meant to be played at life's leisurely pace!
It is the ONLY team sport that doesn't define its contests with a clock.
(it's also the only sport where the defense holds the ball)

Exactly. I love how a 9-inning baseball game can take 2 and a half hours one day and 4 hours the next. The lack of a clock is one of the great, unique things about this sport. And having most games be around 3 hours is great, I think. More baseball, more time that fans are in the stands, more concessions sold, more time to watch baseball during any given day.

effdamets
03-08-10, 01:27 PM
Exactly. I love how a 9-inning baseball game can take 2 and a half hours one day and 4 hours the next. The lack of a clock is one of the great, unique things about this sport. And having most games be around 3 hours is great, I think. More baseball, more time that fans are in the stands, more concessions sold, more time to watch baseball during any given day.
Listen - the longer a baseball game goes on, the more I love it.
Sorta like a baseball orgasm!

Is it April yet?

:D

Reggie Smith
03-08-10, 01:41 PM
See, now I have got to the point where I can rarely stand a typical Sox/Yanks game. Honestly, both teams practice great plate discipline, to there are more pitches to see, more walks, and therefore they are longer games. Baseball's biggest problem is holding your attention, so a 4 hour marathon can be brutal at times.

But, I have no suggestions to eleviate that, other than the trips to the mound. I can see why those get out of hand, but if you are selective at the plate...that's a good thing, no?

NYYDragoon
03-08-10, 01:49 PM
I absolutely love those 4+ hour Yankees-Red Sox marathons..Uh, speak for yourself. Your heart must be stronger than mine.

effdamets
03-08-10, 01:57 PM
Uh, speak for yourself. Your heart must be stronger than mine.
Honestly though - I'd rather have a heart wrenching, 4 hour Red Sox/Yankees matchup that tests the faint of heart....than a 2 hour 10 minute thrashing loss to them!!!!!

Rice14
03-08-10, 01:58 PM
Seriously. A 3+ hour 2-1 game means there must have been some good pitching. That's bad why?
.

It's bad if the game was dragged out by trips to the mound, batters stepping out of the box, multiple pitching changes per inning, etc. All the things that take up time but don't provide any action.

I just like a crisply played game. Lots of strikes thrown, balls in play, etc. If that's a 10-9 game that lasts four hours or a 1-0 game that lasts two hours, both are fine with me. Watching a guy like Dice-K pitch is absolutely torturous to me.

effdamets
03-08-10, 01:59 PM
It's bad if the game was dragged out by trips to the mound, batters stepping out of the box, multiple pitching changes per inning, etc. All the things that take up time but don't provide any action.

I just like a crisply played game. Lots of strikes thrown, balls in play, etc. If that's a 10-9 game that lasts four hours or a 1-0 game that lasts two hours, both are fine with me. Watching a guy like Dice-K pitch is absolutely torturous to me.
Multiple pitching changes per inning?
How do you prevent that?
Are you looking to hang guys out to dry? :lol:

Rice14
03-08-10, 02:03 PM
Multiple pitching changes per inning?
How do you prevent that?
Are you looking to hang guys out to dry? :lol:

You can't prevent it, it just drags the game down. Specifically, I was talking about managers who use two or three relievers in the same inning sometimes to get favorable match ups.

NYYDragoon
03-08-10, 02:07 PM
It's bad if the game was dragged out by trips to the mound, batters stepping out of the box, multiple pitching changes per inning, etc. All the things that take up time but don't provide any action.Not to the viewers maybe, but often those moves are essential to the people on the field playing the game.

Rice14
03-08-10, 02:11 PM
Not to the viewers maybe, but often those moves are essential to the people on the field playing the game.

Right, and I'm not suggesting rules changes outlawing such thngs. As a viewer though, it can slow the pace of a game down too much at times. I've watched four hour games that flew right by and I've seen three hour games that felt like they dragged on. For me, my enjoyment is not dependant on a how long the game takes, rather how it flows.

ruthianblast
03-08-10, 02:13 PM
One thing I would like to see is more scheduled double headers on the weekends and during those weeks an extra day off for the players.

I'd like to see the at the plate rituals cut down a bit; you can do whatever, but only while in the batters box and the pitcher may just rear back and quick pitch more often. Do what you need to do prior to the first pitch, once your in; get comfortable.

Replay = Yes. Not on strikes/balls, that's silly. However on foul balls, trapped fly outs and close calls at the plate. Just have an extra umpire in a booth and the Crew Chief can shoot a page up to that umpire to have a play reviewed. Creates an extra umpire position (should make the union happy) while not adding too much dead time within the game.

JDPNYY
03-08-10, 02:25 PM
I think fans of teams like the Orioles and Pirates would like much shorter games.

The Q Bomb
03-08-10, 02:41 PM
I've never seen the issue with a game last 3+ hours. Who wants a rushed, 2 hours 15 minutes long game? :dunno: Agreed - and at $100 a ticket, I want my money's worth! :D Seriously, I don't see what the problem is with long games, unless they are boring - and then the issue is the lousy play - not the length of the game. Yankee and Red Sox players arrogant? Maybe (although, each team gets new players every year - do they only acquire the arrogant ones?) - but their arrogant games are usually anything but boring.

I'm A Wenner!
03-08-10, 04:01 PM
Replace umps with computers behnd the plate. Preferably robots.

I love robots.

knickfan23
03-08-10, 04:30 PM
I think the issue becomes that there have become alot of things during the course of the game that intentionally dragging down play rather than having more action. If you are at the game, it likely is not bothering you unless it's a cold night. However, if you are watching at home (as most people), this is where the speed of the game becomes an problem. In the end, it is about TV presentation.

Does a guy really need to step out of the box after every pitch to adjust every little thing he has, taking 15-20 seconds in the process? Personally, no. Get back in there and let's go.

The pitcher-catcher visits to the mound IMO do need to be reduced. We don't need to have a huddle every three pitches. As I was reading this today at work, I've been rewatching all the Yankee playoff games from last season. The Game 2 ALCS against the Angels saw Molina go to the mound to be "on the same page" with Burnett 6 times in that 5th inning when they tied the score. Did we really need that?

For replay, perhaps you can do a one challenge deal with no penalty. If you win the challenge, you get to keep it. If you lose it, there is no penalty like an 0-1 count or an out taken away, but simply you cannot challenge anymore.

However, it would interesting from the 7th inning on if there is a close play and a manager chooses to use it's challenge when they are trailing by a run or two, gets it wrong and now has given up one of their precious few outs they have left in the game.

kan_t
03-08-10, 05:05 PM
That won't happan. But the simple and easy way to shorten the game time is to shorten commercial time between innings. No baseball fan will complain about that.

NYYDragoon
03-08-10, 05:16 PM
However, it would interesting from the 7th inning on if there is a close play and a manager chooses to use it's challenge when they are trailing by a run or two, gets it wrong and now has given up one of their precious few outs they have left in the game.I don't think the implementation of replay should get that intertwined with the fundamental rules.

NYYRules#1
03-08-10, 06:13 PM
I don't think the implementation of replay should get that intertwined with the fundamental rules.

Agreed, that would be terrible. But there should absolutely be replay. You can give a team 2 challenges per game, and then give umpires the additional power to review a play on their own, or something like that. I'd extend it to everything except balls and strikes.

Ram Man
03-08-10, 07:27 PM
I'd extend it to everything except balls and strikes.

There is a problem in that the reversing of calls by replay is asymmetrical. By that I mean that a ball that is actually foul but is initially called fair may be easily corrected by replay by simply sending runners back to their bases and the batter back to the box.

However, what do you do with a ball that is actually fair but called foul? This could be a line drive down the right field line, a slow roller down the third base line or a pop up that drops behind first. In the end, the adjudication via replay may not be more satisfactory than just letting the umpires call it as they see it.

NYYDragoon
03-08-10, 07:43 PM
The fact of the matter is that it's absolutely absurd that the millions watching on TV can see a replay tens of times within moments of it happening while the umps can't. THAT is asymmetry.

I'm A Wenner!
03-08-10, 07:57 PM
Robots, guys.

http://mind.kaist.ac.kr/3_re/HumanRobot/images/2003_baseball_allstar_02.jpg

delv
03-08-10, 08:05 PM
What garbage. The reason games take so long is because of the length of tv commercials. PERIOD.

knickfan23
03-08-10, 11:50 PM
What garbage. The reason games take so long is because of the length of tv commercials. PERIOD.

But the commercials are part of the reason for the 6.6 billion in revenues.

How is it that the commericials are the problem but all this ancillary stuff in the game isn't? I can't say "it's all part of the game" because all one has to do is go back to old games as recent as the 1990's to see that it wasn't.

Someone, help me to understand this.

(Besides, I'd want to know I have 2-3 minutes to either get food or use the bathroom at the game or at home and be able to get back not miss much of the top or bottom half of an inning)

Miss Yvonne
03-09-10, 06:41 AM
Robots, guys.

http://mind.kaist.ac.kr/3_re/HumanRobot/images/2003_baseball_allstar_02.jpg

Has to be better than CB Bucknor. Has to be.

Nome
03-09-10, 07:28 AM
I've never seen the issue with a game last 3+ hours. Who wants a rushed, 2 hours 15 minutes long game? :dunno:

me!!!

Andy

Nome
03-09-10, 07:36 AM
It's bad if the game was dragged out by trips to the mound, batters stepping out of the box, multiple pitching changes per inning, etc. All the things that take up time but don't provide any action.

I just like a crisply played game. Lots of strikes thrown, balls in play, etc. If that's a 10-9 game that lasts four hours or a 1-0 game that lasts two hours, both are fine with me. Watching a guy like Dice-K pitch is absolutely torturous to me.

Or putting up with Nomar's antics at bat. Seriously Baseball players get bored the longer a game goes and they get back on their heels on the field and don't make as many crisp plays as they do with a quicker game.
Frankly I am not a fan of the between inning antics (three legged races, races around the bases, tee shirts shot into the stands, dizzy bat race and all the rest. I only stand it because some of the fans love it.

The seventh inning stretch used to be OK but these days they seem to prolong it interminably.
If you look at games of the 50's and 60's, you rarely see batters stepping out of the batters box once they got to be at bat.

There is a lot of crap that is not necessary in a game. Can anyone honestly tell me that they don't on occasion get bored at a game. When they were 2 1/2 hours in length I never did.

Andy

35Knucklecurve
03-09-10, 07:45 AM
I've never seen the issue with a game last 3+ hours. Who wants a rushed, 2 hours 15 minutes long game? :dunno:
I never understood that either and I don't recall it being an issue when I was younger, back when dinosaurs roamed the earth. It may be a reflection on our society today which is turbo rushed and people want everything NOW. Why bother to go to a baseball game if you're going to put a time limit on it? That's why it's our national pass time.;)

Nome
03-09-10, 07:48 AM
Let me add some additional comments to the ones above:

First, I am not a fan of instant replay in baseball. I am an oddity because I think the umpires do a great job and that we should live with their decisions right or wrong. Instant replay has it's faults also. I am sure all of you have watched a pro basketball game that takes a half hour to play the last three minutes. Does that add to the enjoyment of the game? Or the football game in the last five minutes.

Second if you want a better understanding of why the strike zone appears to change from umpire to umpire, game to game, inning to inning please get the book "As They See Them, a fan's travels in the land of umpires" By Bruce Weber. It is the best description of an Umpires life and why he calls plays as he does.

Third, I have made several comments about speed of the game above. To add to them and to concur with several posters above, there are several managers who always go by the book so as not to be second guessed and constantly change pitchers (LaRusso, Torre) to gget advantage of the so called Lefty righty matchups.

I like a clean crisp game. I hate pro basketball because I can grow a beard starting from a clean shaven face waiting for the game to end.

Andy

Rice14
03-09-10, 08:31 AM
I never understood that either and I don't recall it being an issue when I was younger, back when dinosaurs roamed the earth. It may be a reflection on our society today which is turbo rushed and people want everything NOW. Why bother to go to a baseball game if you're going to put a time limit on it? That's why it's our national pass time.;)

I think the perception is that the games have gotten longer, but there has not been any additional action added. The extra half an hour you're spending at a game is not filled with actual baseball, but delays in the game.

Nome
03-09-10, 08:57 AM
I think the perception is that the games have gotten longer, but there has not been any additional action added. The extra half an hour you're spending at a game is not filled with actual baseball, but delays in the game.

It is not a perception but a reality, back in the 50's and 60's the games averaged 2 1/2 - 2 3/4 hours and they were action packed, full of excitementand no boredom. Can anyone honestly tell me that they enjoy watching someone like nomar constantly fiddling with his equipment between every pitch, or enjoy seeing like LaRusso or Torre using six pitchers during a single inning? Each pitching change during an inning takes more than five minutes.

I love seeing a good reliever like Mo Rivera pitch, but I long for the days when Whitey Ford would pitch a complete game in under 2 hours. It happened frequently and those were exciting games. Now Whitey didn't always finish his games. He frequently was relieved in the 7th or so, in fact he completed only a little of 1/3 of all the games he started, but he was businesslike on the mound (The Chairman of the Board) and pitched quickly. He was a treasure to watch pitch.

Tell me that you loved to see Al Leiter pitch. He was slow and deliberate to a fault. He probably threw more pitches to a batter than anyone I knew. His ilk were responsible for my waistline because he drove me to the frig for a beer of something because for the relative inaction between pitches when he would circle the mound thinking what he would throw next.

I'm sure we are all different and that's good, but for me the quicker the game with sharper fielding and no nonsence between innings is the baseball I grew up with and the one I truly enjoy.

Andy

Mr. Mxylsplk
03-09-10, 09:04 AM
Can anyone honestly tell me that they enjoy watching someone like nomar constantly fiddling with his equipment between every pitch, or enjoy seeing like LaRusso or Torre using six pitchers during a single inning? Each pitching change during an inning takes more than five minutes.

I'm sure we are all different and that's good, but for me the quicker the game with sharper fielding and no nonsence between innings is the baseball I grew up with and the one I truly enjoy.

Agreed. I have no problem with a game taking awhile because there's a lot going on. But there's a tremendous amount of dead time during games, and that just bores me. There's an awful lot of room to pick up the pace without becoming anything close to rushed.

knickfan23
03-09-10, 09:10 AM
Part II of the panel came out today in the paper.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/2010-03-08-part-2-baseball-roundtable_N.htm

This time, they discussing shortening the postseason schedule and even spring training.

Highlights

SHORTENING THE POSTSEASON - The argument exists that the crazy amount of days off during the postseason played a role in the Yankees winning the World Series. I don't really dispute it.

Solutions presented:

• Eliminate four extra days off rolled into the postseason since 2007, even if it means reduced TV ratings

What MLB has done is attempt to play LCS games on their own day with few doubleheaders in addition to having a day off before Game 5. Also, there is that schedule in the LDS that allows for a day off in between Game 1 and 2 and Game's 4 and 5, allowing Team X to manipulate a series by starting it's 2 best pitchers 4 times out of 5 games.

Both teams played 9 games in 21 days, equating to 12 off days. There are only 18 off days over 162 games.

Said Torii Hunter: "I don't think (the postseason) was fair at all. We're playing the Yankees, and we feel we can beat these guys. Then, just when we think we got them, we have all of these off days.

SEASON LENGTH - Shorten spring training, allowing the season to start earlier and end before Halloween.

I dont know how early you want to start the season. Late March? It's cold enough in April as it is. Snow in some cities. Brutal weather in others. I remember here last year when the White Sox and Twins had a game canceled because of it being "too cold".

Hunter and Hawkins say three and four weeks of spring training, rather than the current six, is enough time to prepare.

Says Boras: "The trouble is that spring training is now about a $15 (million) to $20 million event for teams. They're all making money."

knickfan23
03-09-10, 09:14 AM
Agreed. I have no problem with a game taking awhile because there's a lot going on. But there's a tremendous amount of dead time during games, and that just bores me. There's an awful lot of room to pick up the pace without becoming anything close to rushed.

What, you didn't like the games Steve Trachsel started?

effdamets
03-09-10, 09:14 AM
It is not a perception but a reality, back in the 50's and 60's the games averaged 2 1/2 - 2 3/4 hours and they were action packed, full of excitementand no boredom. Can anyone honestly tell me that they enjoy watching someone like nomar constantly fiddling with his equipment between every pitch, or enjoy seeing like LaRusso or Torre using six pitchers during a single inning? Each pitching change during an inning takes more than five minutes.

I love seeing a good reliever like Mo Rivera pitch, but I long for the days when Whitey Ford would pitch a complete game in under 2 hours. It happened frequently and those were exciting games. Now Whitey didn't always finish his games. He frequently was relieved in the 7th or so, in fact he completed only a little of 1/3 of all the games he started, but he was businesslike on the mound (The Chairman of the Board) and pitched quickly. He was a treasure to watch pitch.

Tell me that you loved to see Al Leiter pitch. He was slow and deliberate to a fault. He probably threw more pitches to a batter than anyone I knew. His ilk were responsible for my waistline because he drove me to the frig for a beer of something because for the relative inaction between pitches when he would circle the mound thinking what he would throw next.

I'm sure we are all different and that's good, but for me the quicker the game with sharper fielding and no nonsence between innings is the baseball I grew up with and the one I truly enjoy.

Andy
The games in the 50's and 60's weren't always televised and sure as sh*t weren't centered around enormous TV dollars.

NYYDragoon
03-09-10, 09:45 AM
First, I am not a fan of instant replay in baseball. I am an oddity because I think the umpires do a great job...Then I think you need to spend less time focusing on the the little things batters do before they step into the box and more on how abysmal umping has gotten over the past few seasons.



SHORTENING THE POSTSEASON - The argument exists that the crazy amount of days off during the postseason played a role in the Yankees winning the World Series. I don't really dispute it. Is anyone else slightly annoyed that three of the proposed changes involve the Yankees?

effdamets
03-09-10, 09:55 AM
Then I think you need to spend less time focusing on the the little things batters do before they step into the box and more on how abysmal umping has gotten over the past few seasons.
I don't believe that the officiating has gotten anymore 'abysmal' than in the past.

The thing now is that the game has gotten so fast and the umpires are more exposed.
Besides that, TV coverage DRIVES the mistakes home. Highlight shows.

And society in general is looking for someone/something to blame for losses.... It adds fuel to the media's fire!

These blown calls have been going on in baseball for 100+ years. To me, it's part of the game.

effdamets
03-09-10, 09:56 AM
Is anyone else slightly annoyed that three of the proposed changes involve the Yankees?
Isn't that Bud Selig's ENTIRE agenda?

fredgmuggs
03-09-10, 09:58 AM
Then I think you need to spend less time focusing on the the little things batters do before they step into the box and more on how abysmal umping has gotten over the past few seasons.

Is anyone else slightly annoyed that three of the proposed changes involve the Yankees?
I'm not completely convinced that the quality of the umpiring is any different than it ever has been.... except now we have technology that details any inefficiencies that we didn't have before.

I've given this example before but I'll repeat it again - I was watching one of the Yankees games from back in the 70's on YES classics and there was a close play at 2B and the umpire called the runner out. To my eyes it looked like the runner was safe but you only saw one replay and the angle was so inconclusive that you really couldn't say for sure if the ump got it wrong. The announcers at the game didn't dwell on the play and they moved away from it without any mention about the possibility that the ump may have made the wrong call.

Now you would see a half dozen replays from various angles in high def super slow motion. There would be no doubt if the runner was safe or out and the announcers would harp on the call if it was incorrect for the rest of the game.

NYYDragoon
03-09-10, 10:02 AM
I'm not completely convinced that the quality of the umpiring is any different than it ever has been.... except now we have technology that details any inefficiencies that we didn't have before.Perhaps. Even so it's a problem. If we have the technology to get it right, why don't we? Again, there's something wrong when everyone in the world knows that a call was poorly made....everyone except for the guys on the field.

And to make things worse, oftentimes the umps stubbornly stand by their miserable calls. Wasn't it during the ALCS when Tim McClelland claimed that he couldn't trust the replay? You can't come up with a better excuse than that?

effdamets
03-09-10, 10:08 AM
Perhaps. Even so it's a problem. If we have the technology to get it right, why don't we? Again, there's something wrong when everyone in the world knows that a call was poorly made....everyone except for the guys on the field.

And to make things worse, oftentimes the umps stubbornly stand by their miserable calls.
Umpires HAVE to stand by their calls.
If they don't, their entire integrity goes to the sh*tpot.
More often than not, AFTER the game ends and the umpire has a chance to see the replays, they admit that they missed a call.

And let's keep the game on the field, wouldn't you agree with that?
The reason YOU (and every other TV viewer) knows that the calls were blown is becasue of the ridiculous 47 replays..... The live audience doesn't get to see that.

There is no real reason to expand the current instant replay system.
What I would liek to see though is the umpires to get together more often to make better decisions.
There are 4 pair of eyes on the field. They are all watching at one time or another. Huddle up and see if anyone else saw the play diffrently.
The most important thing is to get the call right.....
We do this all the time.

fredgmuggs
03-09-10, 10:14 AM
Perhaps. Even so it's a problem. If we have the technology to get it right, why don't we? Again, there's something wrong when everyone in the world knows that a call was poorly made....everyone except for the guys on the field.

And to make things worse, oftentimes the umps stubbornly stand by their miserable calls. Wasn't it during the ALCS when Tim McClelland claimed that he couldn't trust the replay? You can't come up with a better excuse than that?
I think for the most part they are pretty good. One thing technology has shown me, the play they miss the most is the tag play on the bases. If the ball beats the runner, you're called out.

The other thing that's unrelated that I want to say - the YES production of a baseball game is fantastic. Watching a game broadcast from back when is like the difference between a sports car and a horse and buggy.

Rice14
03-09-10, 10:32 AM
I'm not completely convinced that the quality of the umpiring is any different than it ever has been.... except now we have technology that details any inefficiencies that we didn't have before.

I've given this example before but I'll repeat it again - I was watching one of the Yankees games from back in the 70's on YES classics and there was a close play at 2B and the umpire called the runner out. To my eyes it looked like the runner was safe but you only saw one replay and the angle was so inconclusive that you really couldn't say for sure if the ump got it wrong. The announcers at the game didn't dwell on the play and they moved away from it without any mention about the possibility that the ump may have made the wrong call.

Now you would see a half dozen replays from various angles in high def super slow motion. There would be no doubt if the runner was safe or out and the announcers would harp on the call if it was incorrect for the rest of the game.

I agree that technology is the primary reason we've become more aware of "bang, bang" plays being called incorrectly, or we're better aware if a ball right near the line was fair/foul. The umpiring probably hasn't really regressed in that area. Still, there seem to be a few more jaw droppingly bad calls made over the years on plays where it was readily apparent to the naked eye what the call was.

NYYDragoon
03-09-10, 10:42 AM
Umpires HAVE to stand by their calls.
If they don't, their entire integrity goes to the sh*tpot.
Their competence goes to the sh*tpot the moment a bad call is made and everyone in the world sees it over and over again.


More often than not, AFTER the game ends and the umpire has a chance to see the replays, they admit that they missed a call.In game 163 a Brandon Inge HBP wasn't called and they ump didn't apologize until last week (after it happened, his crew chief defended him). And I already mentioned Tim Mcclelland's implication that a video capture of the game was somehow false. Umps admitting they screwed up is rare.


And let's keep the game on the field, wouldn't you agree with that? Sure. So put another ump in the booth who can watch replays on the spot.


There is no real reason to expand the current instant replay system.Uh, yes there is.


I think for the most part they are pretty good.On the field, yes, but when they screw up it can be costly. What is so terrible about them being able to check tough calls?

Now balls and strikes are a different story...

knickfan23
03-09-10, 10:50 AM
Is anyone else slightly annoyed that three of the proposed changes involve the Yankees?

Not really.

I have never been a big fan of having the postseason (by chance) manipulated by a lesser team that can take advantage of the schedule to improve their chances of beating a better team.

NYYDragoon
03-09-10, 11:01 AM
Not really.

I have never been a big fan of having the postseason (by chance) manipulated by a lesser team that can take advantage of the schedule to improve their chances of beating a better team.
But that didn't happen, now did it :D.

(Also, if your 1 - 3 is better than their 1 - 4, doesn't that mean you probably have an advantage to begin with?)

effdamets
03-09-10, 11:12 AM
Their competence goes to the sh*tpot the moment a bad call is made and everyone in the world sees it over and over again.
No it doesn't. ML umpires are expected to get the next call right, no matter how badly they screwed up the previous call.


In game 163 a Brandon Inge HBP wasn't called and they ump didn't apologize until last week (after it happened, his crew chief defended him). And I already mentioned Tim Mcclelland's implication that a video capture of the game was somehow false. Umps admitting they screwed up is rare.
I never said ALL. More often than not. Tim McClellan, who happens to be a fantastic umpire, admitted he was wrong, but, when he was on the field, he "believed in his heart" he was right. If I remember correctly.


Sure. So put another ump in the booth who can watch replays on the spot.
I think this is fine with me. But that's gonna mean more expenses for the ML clubs. They'll have to get that past the owners


Uh, yes there is.
Really - so you want the game to be mucked up by stopping it for every close play at first base? Home runs and maybe fair/foul balls.

fredgmuggs
03-09-10, 11:26 AM
I agree that technology is the primary reason we've become more aware of "bang, bang" plays being called incorrectly, or we're better aware if a ball right near the line was fair/foul. The umpiring probably hasn't really regressed in that area. Still, there seem to be a few more jaw droppingly bad calls made over the years on plays where it was readily apparent to the naked eye what the call was.
Maybe so, I'm just not swayed yet to thinking the umps are worse than they used to be.

A few weeks ago Francesa was doing some live remote from one of the Casinos and he was interviewing Ken Kaiser. Kaiser was telling his stories (I guess he wrote a book) and yucking it up with Francesa and the audience was laughing along with them. I kept thinking to myself - didn't anyone see Kaiser umpire? He was awful. He was arrogant and that wasn't even his worse fault - he was lazy, too. The man literally wouldn't take more than a step in either direction to make a call. I guess the point is there has always been lousy umpires... and good umpires, too. The trick is to weed the lousy umpires out like they did with Kaiser during that umpire purge MLB did many years ago.

NYYDragoon
03-09-10, 11:27 AM
No it doesn't. ML umpires are expected to get the next call right, no matter how badly they screwed up the previous call.They are expected to--it's their job. But my faith in them doing so competently drops with every blown call.


I never said ALL. More often than not. Tim McClellan, who happens to be a fantastic umpire, admitted he was wrong, but, when he was on the field, he "believed in his heart" he was right. If I remember correctly.No, it's not more often than not. As I said, "Umps admitting they screwed up is rare."


I think this is fine with me. But that's gonna mean more expenses for the ML clubs. They'll have to get that past the owners.I think the clubs will take little issue with ensuring that a potential play-at-the-plate which ends the World Series is called correctly. The hurdle is the umps union.


Really - so you want the game to be mucked up by stopping it for every close play at first base? Home runs and maybe fair/foul balls.Many in this thread (and others) have discussed ways to institute a replay system which isn't abused. I personally like the idea of giving each manager two challenge flags or something.

BronxYanks45
03-09-10, 11:34 AM
totally agree on the shorten days off between postseason games. they just have to fiddle with it to the point where its not a huge loss of TV revenue but a small loss.

effdamets
03-09-10, 12:04 PM
They are expected to--it's their job. But my faith in them doing so competently drops with every blown call.
Your faith is misguided. When you think an umpire gets a call wrong, you don't think for one second he is going to call the next guy safe at first when he is clearly out.


No, it's not more often than not. As I said, "Umps admitting they screwed up is rare."
I've seen more occsassions where umires say they've made mistakes (after they've veiwed a replay) than situations where they say they didn't.



I think the clubs will take little issue with ensuring that a potential play-at-the-plate which ends the World Series is called correctly. The hurdle is the umps union.

You're talking about apples and oranges there. The World Series is something different than games in May. Don't forget, the money for the extra 2430 extra umpiring assignments (minimum) has to come from somewhere. You think the players are going to pay?


Many in this thread (and others) have discussed ways to institute a replay system which isn't abused. I personally like the idea of giving each manager two challenge flags or something.
Challenge flags in baseball? I cannot see that working. And besides, you'd be taking a different aspect of the game if that were instituted. The right for managers/players to voice their opinions. Teams would have challenge flags for that voice and once you're out of flags, any arguing, you'd be out of the game. There's no team penalty in baseball. Baseball is just too individual to have team challenge flags.

Look - I'm an umpire. I see a lot of the points from the umpire perpective. I do understand points made by the fans. I agree with about half of the suggestions made.
The best suggestion I heard was making the current system better by having better evaluations of umpires.
Fair/foul balls and homeruns. That's it. Expanding it past that would be changing the game too much.

knickfan23
03-09-10, 12:18 PM
totally agree on the shorten days off between postseason games. they just have to fiddle with it to the point where its not a huge loss of TV revenue but a small loss.

One way to do it is to have contingencies in place in the event a series ends early.

Our series with the Angels ended on a Sunday and we didn't play until Friday. This isn't football.

5 days of nothing was bad. However, the reason for these set dates is for MLB and "it's people" to have hotel rooms and such already in place. It's the same way for the World Series so there is a logistical reason for it.

And why is there a day off before Game 5 of the LCS? I don't get that.

I dont know how you can setup a scenario where if two teams were within a short distance of each other (let's say 2 hours by plane), you can just eliminate the off day for travel and play the game.

effdamets
03-09-10, 12:21 PM
One way to do it is to have contingencies in place in the event a series ends early.

Our series with the Angels ended on a Sunday and we didn't play until Friday. This isn't football.

5 days of nothing was bad. However, the reason for these set dates is for MLB and "it's people" to have hotel rooms and such already in place. It's the same way for the World Series so there is a logistical reason for it.

And why is there a day off before Game 5 of the LCS? I don't get that.

I dont know how you can setup a scenario where if two teams were within a short distance of each other (let's say 2 hours by plane), you can just eliminate the off day for travel and play the game.
Very frustrating.

35Knucklecurve
03-09-10, 12:50 PM
If you ask me, the longer the better. I remember the few doubleheaders over the past few years and watching the Yankees for 6/7 hours, that was awesome.
Twi-night double headers used to be a regular part of the schedule back in the 50's and 60's. Teams would play 2 games on a Tuesday or Friday night and/or a Sunday doubleheader. You paid the same price as it was for a single game. Those were some of the best times. Of course, box seats next to the dugout were $3.25 back then too. ;)

BRNXBMRS
03-09-10, 01:30 PM
Improve the game
Bud Selig quits
Expand the strike zone
Raise the mound
Shorten the length of the commercials between innings (p$$t thi$ i$ the real rea$on the game$ take forever)

BronxYanks45
03-10-10, 01:06 PM
One way to do it is to have contingencies in place in the event a series ends early.

Our series with the Angels ended on a Sunday and we didn't play until Friday. This isn't football.

5 days of nothing was bad. However, the reason for these set dates is for MLB and "it's people" to have hotel rooms and such already in place. It's the same way for the World Series so there is a logistical reason for it.

And why is there a day off before Game 5 of the LCS? I don't get that.

I dont know how you can setup a scenario where if two teams were within a short distance of each other (let's say 2 hours by plane), you can just eliminate the off day for travel and play the game.

yea, but I do think the AL team with best record should still get option to take day off between game 1 and 2. More incentive for team to finish best in AL. otherwise trim the off days

effdamets
03-10-10, 01:11 PM
yea, but I do think the AL team with best record should still get option to take day off between game 1 and 2. More incentive for team to finish best in AL. otherwise trim the off days
Isn't it the ML team with the best record gets the choice?

knickfan23
03-10-10, 02:50 PM
yea, but I do think the AL team with best record should still get option to take day off between game 1 and 2. More incentive for team to finish best in AL. otherwise trim the off days

BY45, I would just eliminate one of the opposing teams home games. Give the #1 seed 4 games at home and 1 on the road. Why do they need two games anyway?

The thing with the schedule as that is you have 3 off days in a 5 game series. Trim one of those days, either on the front end or the back. It's an unnecessary day off to have.

knickfan23
03-10-10, 04:45 PM
Part 3 of the panel discussion came out today.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/2010-03-09-part-3-baseball-roundtable_N.htm

Highlights:

In this round, they discuss the dwindling number of American born black players in baseball.

Hunter made the point that there is a misconception between the American born black player and the Latino born player who is of black complexion and speak Spanish. The public may think there are many black players on a team when in reality, this is not true.

For instance, many infer that Robbie Cano is a black player when he is from the Dominican Republic, speaks Spanish and comes from a completely different culture than say, CC Sabathia even though they may look similarly.

Only 8% of MLB players are American-black, compared to 28% of foreign born players on Opening Day rosters.

Hunter notes that the decline of whites playing baseball has gone down as well. Boras claims the reasons for this is due to money as NFL and NBA money given to those players far exceed what MLB pays. In addition, colleges and universities have very few scholarships now for baseball teams.

While MLB has had the RBI program in the inner cities, the panel feels that more can be done and more money put into cultivating more players of all races born in America as opposed to the large amount of spending outside of the US.

Ram Man
03-10-10, 05:01 PM
While MLB has had the RBI program in the inner cities, the panel feels that more can be done and more money put into cultivating more players of all races born in America as opposed to the large amount of spending outside of the US.

The panel can "feel" anything it wants but until all amateur players are subject to the same entry procedure into organized ball (that is the draft) there will be a financial incentive for the clubs to look for players overseas. Without this distortion, the incentive of all clubs is to field the best team it can from where ever the players come from.

knickfan23
03-10-10, 06:23 PM
The panel can "feel" anything it wants but until all amateur players are subject to the same entry procedure into organized ball (that is the draft) there will be a financial incentive for the clubs to look for players overseas. Without this distortion, the incentive of all clubs is to field the best team it can from where ever the players come from.

I believe that part of the story comes out tomorrow because they talk about the draft, so I'm interested to see what is said about that.

BRNXBMRS
04-27-10, 01:03 PM
Interesting tid bit many of us knew.


... Howie Rose, on WFAN, put the Sunday night rain delay to good use, revealing research he's conducted on how players feel about playing Sunday night on ESPN and the travel ramifications. "They all hate the Sunday night game," he said. "... It's become a necessary evil. It's all about the money." Greed. An interesting concept.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/columnists/raissman/index.html

YankeePride1967
04-27-10, 01:05 PM
One change I heard the committee has suggested is to allow re-entry of players. In what circumstances, I'm not sure.

fredgmuggs
04-27-10, 01:10 PM
One change I heard the committee has suggested is to allow re-entry of players. In what circumstances, I'm not sure.
What would be the purpose of that?

Yankeeah
04-27-10, 01:11 PM
One change I heard the committee has suggested is to allow re-entry of players. In what circumstances, I'm not sure.

That is a horrendous idea. Bring in a lefty to face Johnson. Thames takes Johnson's place. Other teams bring a righty in, so Johnson comes back in. Then the lefty returns etc etc.

fredgmuggs
04-27-10, 01:14 PM
That is a horrendous idea. Bring in a lefty to face Johnson. Thames takes Johnson's place. Other teams bring a righty in, so Johnson comes back in. Then the lefty returns etc etc.
My first reaction is this would allow teams to play with a reduced roster size and would be an economic move, not one that has anything to do with speeding up play.

effdamets
04-27-10, 01:17 PM
That is a horrendous idea. Bring in a lefty to face Johnson. Thames takes Johnson's place. Other teams bring a righty in, so Johnson comes back in. Then the lefty returns etc etc.
First of all - I'm quite certain the rule being discussed is much like the HS rule where your starting 9 all get one re-entry back into the game.
Subs cannot re-enter.

Second - yes... that would be the most disgusting idea to implement of all mankind.

I have the best way to improve the game so dramatically, it will cause most people to oragsm continuously for about 24 hours....
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Fire Selig - that oughtta do it!

Yankeeah
04-27-10, 01:18 PM
My first reaction is this would allow teams to play with a reduced roster size and would be an economic move, not one that has anything to do with speeding up play.

Then finally the Orioles would be able to succeed.

While my scenario obviously wouldn't be allowed, it would result in a lot more pitching changes and have slow runners removed instantly after getting on base only to return.

effdamets
04-27-10, 01:26 PM
Then finally the Orioles would be able to succeed.

While my scenario obviously wouldn't be allowed, it would result in a lot more pitching changes and have slow runners removed instantly after getting on base only to return.
It's not like that at all....
A sub would only be allowed to enter into a single slot in the batting order...once.

It's not gonna happen. The union will never allow jobs to be cut...

NYYDragoon
04-27-10, 01:32 PM
One change I heard the committee has suggested is to allow re-entry of players. In what circumstances, I'm not sure.I thought that was only for the ASG?

YankeePride1967
04-27-10, 01:32 PM
That is a horrendous idea. Bring in a lefty to face Johnson. Thames takes Johnson's place. Other teams bring a righty in, so Johnson comes back in. Then the lefty returns etc etc.

The way it's done at the amateur level, that wouldn't be allowed. The way it works is that each starter would be able to be replaced once and can re-enter one time. So say Cervelli starts and Posada hits for him. Cervelli can replace Posada one time but then Posada is out of the game and then Cervelli would not be able to be replaced again. I heard that it would be more limited of a re-entry (i.e. only for the catcher in case of an injury) anyway.

YankeePride1967
04-27-10, 01:35 PM
I thought that was only for the ASG?

Yes, for the catcher and only if an injury occurs.

Hitman23
04-27-10, 01:35 PM
I don't know what the deal is with making games shorter. These experts think it improves the game but it doesn't. It sucks. Especially at the cost of a game these days, hell I want 7 hours of baseball for the price of my ticket, parking, gas, food, beer, and big foam finger.

fredgmuggs
04-27-10, 01:37 PM
Yes, for the catcher and only if an injury occurs.
You should have said that in the first place. With 12 and 13 man pitching staffs teams can't carry 3 catchers anymore.

YankeePride1967
04-27-10, 01:47 PM
You should have said that in the first place. With 12 and 13 man pitching staffs teams can't carry 3 catchers anymore.

It is likely that it would only be for the catcher, but not a definite.

effdamets
04-27-10, 02:13 PM
I don't know what the deal is with making games shorter. These experts think it improves the game but it doesn't. It sucks. Especially at the cost of a game these days, hell I want 7 hours of baseball for the price of my ticket, parking, gas, food, beer, and big foam finger.
I don't get it either.
I ask the ever-eternal question that I cannot seem to get an answer to.

Exactly who is it that wants to speed up these baseball games?

I don't know about anyone else, but I can watch baseball for long, long stretches of continuous time... I certainly do understand that I am an exception, but come on. It's a game without a clock.
And with the ball park these days, there is more to do behind the stands than there is on the field!

I just don't understand and I don't think I ever will.

If MLB was really intent on shortening games, they wouldn't sell as much commercial/advertisement time in between innings. But since they have NEVER even mentioned that posibility..... I don't take any of their attempts at making the game shorter seriously.

allybear
04-27-10, 02:32 PM
I think the theory is that baseball has lost popularity compared to other sports because the games are too long. I don't get it - a 9-inning baseball game isn't really longer than any other game, it has built-in bathroom/food breaks between innings, and a 3-hour game is the exact length of prime time, so what could be bad?

There are definitely players who should speed up their game (the aforementioned Steve Trachsel and Nomaah come to mind - you could grow old watching them against each other), but overall, whether a game is good or bad doesn't depend on length but excitement (I know that's headed for that POOC-lite thread, but hey...). Seriously, though - a pitcher's duel can be over in 2 hours and be a fantastic game and a hit-fest can go 4 hours and also be a great game.

NYYDragoon
04-27-10, 02:34 PM
Joe West has to make his buffets.

fredgmuggs
04-27-10, 02:41 PM
I think the theory is that baseball has lost popularity compared to other sports because the games are too long. I don't get it - a 9-inning baseball game isn't really longer than any other game, it has built-in bathroom/food breaks between innings, and a 3-hour game is the exact length of prime time, so what could be bad?

There are definitely players who should speed up their game (the aforementioned Steve Trachsel and Nomaah come to mind - you could grow old watching them against each other), but overall, whether a game is good or bad doesn't depend on length but excitement (I know that's headed for that POOC-lite thread, but hey...). Seriously, though - a pitcher's duel can be over in 2 hours and be a fantastic game and a hit-fest can go 4 hours and also be a great game.
If we're posting on a baseball team team message board then we're most likely diehard baseball fans and MLB isn't worried about losing us because we're not going anywhere. They're worried about attracting the casual fan and keeping their interest.

Mr. Mxylsplk
04-27-10, 06:06 PM
Personally, I'd like games to be shorter. I enjoy watching baseball, and it's not that I want to rush through a game, but there's a tremendous amount of downtime in a game, which I find boring. Batters stepping out of the box, pitchers stepping off the rubber, longer inning breaks for nationally televised games - all that burns time without adding anything to the drama or excitement of the game. Especially if it's a weeknight and I'm at the game, I find it awfully frustrating to have to spend my time watching guys futz around and waste my time.

Tifoso
04-27-10, 06:12 PM
Games should be 2 hrs, 2 hrs 15 max

bigjf
04-27-10, 08:21 PM
Games should be 2 hrs, 2 hrs 15 max

Why?

If I saw guys giving away at-bats by grounding out on the first pitch all the time I wouldn't enjoy watching the game. There are some ways to speed the game up a bit, such as not allowing a hitter or pitcher to go for a walk in between pitches with the bases empty. But as far as taking your time with runners on, especially in scoring position in close games, I have no problem with pitchers and hitters taking as long as they need. I would rather have a 4 hour game between two teams playing their best rather than a 2 hour game with two teams who are mailing it in. There are also more pitching changes nowadays. Yanks and Boston play such long games because they work deep counts, but these make for epic games. Joe West can skip a meal.

RYMASTER or Ryan_Yankees
04-27-10, 10:54 PM
One change I heard the committee has suggested is to allow re-entry of players. In what circumstances, I'm not sure.

No x 1,000,000.

NYYDragoon
04-27-10, 10:55 PM
Games should be 2 hrs, 2 hrs 15 maxIt's really hard to put a cap on a game which has no clock.

RYMASTER or Ryan_Yankees
04-27-10, 10:57 PM
Games should be 2 hrs, 2 hrs 15 max

Personally, anything less than 2½ hours and I generally feel like the game was too short.

BRNXBMRS
04-28-10, 08:02 AM
Personally, anything less than 2 hours and I generally feel like the game was too short.

Me 2, but players stepping out of the box after every pitch has to stop. If MLB really wanted to $horten the game$ they would have fewer commercial$, but they wont tell u$ that b/c we are $tupid.

yankeebot
04-28-10, 09:33 AM
Personally, I'd like games to be shorter. I enjoy watching baseball, and it's not that I want to rush through a game, but there's a tremendous amount of downtime in a game, which I find boring. Batters stepping out of the box, pitchers stepping off the rubber, longer inning breaks for nationally televised games - all that burns time without adding anything to the drama or excitement of the game. Especially if it's a weeknight and I'm at the game, I find it awfully frustrating to have to spend my time watching guys futz around and waste my time. http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-FG885_Footba_DV_20100115010106.jpg

Just sayin'.

JDPNYY
04-28-10, 10:10 AM
http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-FG885_Footba_DV_20100115010106.jpg

Just sayin'.

Football - 180 minutes for the game.
180 minutes total
-67 minutes - players standing around
-17 minutes - replays
-11 minutes - actual play
85 minutes - commercials


well 85 minutes minus the 3 seconds for the cheerleaders

Mr. Mxylsplk
04-28-10, 10:20 AM
Just sayin'.
I'm not sure what you're saying. What does wasted time in football have to do with baseball?

yankeebot
04-28-10, 10:31 AM
I'm not sure what you're saying. What does wasted time in football have to do with baseball?Nothing really. I guess you should be glad you're a baseball fan and not a football fan if downtime bothers you. :dunno:

bigjf
04-28-10, 10:44 AM
Football - 180 minutes for the game.
180 minutes total
-67 minutes - players standing around
-17 minutes - replays
-11 minutes - actual play
85 minutes - commercials


well 85 minutes minus the 3 seconds for the cheerleaders

Plus halftime.

JDPNYY
04-28-10, 10:46 AM
Plus halftime.

Halftime is 15 minutes?

3 minutes of witty banter (heh) describing the 5 and a half minutes of action we just saw and 12 minutes of commercials.

Bronson'sCornrows
04-28-10, 10:53 AM
A slow game doesn't bother me from an entertainment standpoint. I often complain about time of game, but only because I have to be up early the next day or had plans for later that night that will cause me to miss something. When it comes to actual enjoyment of the game, a slow, long-ass game with batters stepping out of the box, 100 check throws on the runners at 1st, pitchers taking forever between pitches... none of that ................ detracts from my enjoyment at all.

yankeebot
04-28-10, 10:57 AM
A slow game doesn't bother me from an entertainment standpoint. I often complain about time of game, but only because I have to be up early the next day or had plans for later that night that will cause me to miss something. When it comes to actual enjoyment of the game, a slow, long-ass game with batters stepping out of the box, 100 check throws on the runners at 1st, pitchers taking forever between pitches... none of that ................ detracts from my enjoyment at all.
If you remove the qualifiers - getting up the next day, have to be somewhere, catch the last train, etc etc - I relish the 15 inning marathon. I f'ing love to watch baseball.

Mr. Mxylsplk
04-28-10, 11:35 AM
Nothing really. I guess you should be glad you're a baseball fan and not a football fan if downtime bothers you. :dunno:
I'm both a football fan and a baseball fan. Doesn't mean I don't think both games could stand improvement.

allybear
04-28-10, 12:16 PM
If you remove the qualifiers - getting up the next day, have to be somewhere, catch the last train, etc etc - I relish the 15 inning marathon. I f'ing love to watch baseball.

Same here. :)

The part that is frustrating but understandable from a business standpoint is that during the playoffs/World Series, when you figure most casual or non-fans might happen to watch, there are the most commercials and therefore the game moves the slowest. I realize MLB, the teams, and the networks need to make money, but when you're marketing to people who may have a preconception that baseball moves slowly, taking elongated commercial breaks isn't going to help. It's kind of cliche to say that kids can't stay up and watch the Series, but it's usually true and very sad for the future of the sport.

On a different subject...re-entry? Are they kidding? Just say no!

effdamets
04-28-10, 12:44 PM
I'm both a football fan and a baseball fan. Doesn't mean I don't think both games could stand improvement.
I think therein lies the question...

Why would shortening a baseball game (time wise) improve the game?

BTW - where were all the "I love watching baseball" chicks when I was single? :lol:

Mr. Mxylsplk
04-28-10, 12:48 PM
I think therein lies the question...

Why would shortening a baseball game (time wise) improve the game?

If it was shortened by eliminating wasted time, I don't see how that wouldn't improve the game.

effdamets
04-28-10, 12:52 PM
If it was shortened by eliminating wasted time, I don't see how that wouldn't improve the game.
I don't see how eliminating time would improve it?
Wasted time?
I guess you can make batters keep one foot in the batter's box.
But how much time are you going to eliminate? 5 minutes? 10 Minutes?

Is a 2 hour and 55 minute game THAT much more enjoyuable than a 3 hour and 5 minute game?

fredgmuggs
04-28-10, 12:53 PM
If it was shortened by eliminating wasted time, I don't see how that wouldn't improve the game.I'm with you.

Evidently there are people who are bothered by the length of the game and if that loses viewers it would behoove baseball to look into methods how they can shorten the game without affecting the play on the field. The idea seems basic enough to me.

yankeebot
04-28-10, 12:56 PM
I pointed to Morgan Ensberg's blog on the Arod-walk-across-the-mound and I'll point to him on the pace of the game. It's entirely possible that Morgan Ensberg may have stolen my heart.

http://morganensberg.wordpress.com/2010/04/18/bud-selig-should-tell-you-the-truth-about-pace-of-game/#more-349

YankeePride1967
04-28-10, 01:02 PM
If they can shorten the game WITHOUT AFFECTING THE GAME, fine, but to me I see no need to do it.

BronxYanks45
04-28-10, 01:03 PM
the only thing that bothers me about baseball are people complaining that it needs improvement. MLB is pushing for improvement to draw in fans that say the games are too long and not action packed.

News flash, thats the way baseball is. "The action is the inaction" to quote Ken Burns' Baseball

CoyoteYankee
04-28-10, 01:06 PM
I pointed to Morgan Ensberg's blog on the Arod-walk-across-the-mound and I'll point to him on the pace of the game. It's entirely possible that Morgan Ensberg may have stolen my heart.

http://morganensberg.wordpress.com/2010/04/18/bud-selig-should-tell-you-the-truth-about-pace-of-game/#more-349

I love that he responds to just about all the commenters.

Mr. Mxylsplk
04-28-10, 01:44 PM
I don't see how eliminating time would improve it?
Wasted time?
I guess you can make batters keep one foot in the batter's box.
But how much time are you going to eliminate? 5 minutes? 10 Minutes?

Is a 2 hour and 55 minute game THAT much more enjoyuable than a 3 hour and 5 minute game?
I think it's a lot more than 5 to 10 minutes. There's obviously a lot of natural time between pitches or at-bats, but there's also a tremendous amount of downtime that isn't part of the natural flow of the game imo.

THEBOSS84
04-28-10, 02:07 PM
I love Morgan Ensberg.

JavyVazquezIsSick
04-28-10, 02:10 PM
Can someone post that article, I can't look at blogs at work.

THEBOSS84
04-28-10, 02:13 PM
Can someone post that article, I can't look at blogs at work.

You guys share a name!

yankeebot
04-28-10, 02:14 PM
Can someone post that article, I can't look at blogs at work.
I'll PM it to you.

JavyVazquezIsSick
04-28-10, 02:15 PM
Thanks bot.

Yes, we do Seymour, it's a man's name.

THEBOSS84
04-28-10, 02:17 PM
Thanks bot.

Yes, we do Seymour, it's a man's name.

Clearly, that's debatable. It's unisex.

JavyVazquezIsSick
04-28-10, 02:23 PM
You're unisex.

Wow. Fantastic article. Thanks.

We need a petition to kill Flaherty and replace him with Ensberg.

delv
04-28-10, 02:46 PM
it's alright Morgan. Just blame your parents.


btw, dope blog post

BRNXBMRS
04-29-10, 08:17 AM
I love Morgan Ensberg.

2x....