MLB Will Implement Three New Rule Changes To Speed Up Games

[owbc]

People are really up in arms about an extra 10-15 minutes in average game time versus 10+ years ago? It's another manufactured controversy.

 

People have been complaining about the increasing time of game for several years now. It never really bothered me until the Brewers became one of the top offenders. The Brewers and Pirates played a 1-0 game last year with 12 total hits that took 3 hours and 34 minutes. It took 57 seconds per pitch! Did you see how empty Miller Park was getting in the 8th and 9th innings last year? The fans are definitely getting sick of it and it will start hurting interest if it hasn't already.

 

In the past 10 years, there has been a 15% reduction in scoring combined with a 10% increase in the time of game. That's incredible. It's great that MLB is being proactive about this before it becomes an even bigger problem than it already is.

[Mays Hayes]

So if a manager comes out of the dugout to argue about a call, can he still challenge the call after he gets back to the dugout?

[pete]

Is my memory failing me or did Braun not do the glove thing every time last season? I guess comparing rituals is kind of pointless, but the Josh Harrison toe tap every time... come on.

 

But the Tulo wander surely takes the most time. The new rule should be called the Tulo rule

[Invader3K]

I'm in favor of all of these rules. Maybe it's because I'm getting older, but I just don't have the patience for long games like I used to.

[DuWayne Steurer]

Sounds like conspiracy theory to me. Pretty much everyone I know thinks baseball games are too long and that includes many long term die hard fans. Ryan Braun does not need to adjust his batting gloves every single pitch and delay the game 20 seconds every time. It has just reached absurd levels at this point.

 

People are really up in arms about an extra 10-15 minutes in average game time versus 10+ years ago? It's another manufactured controversy.

 

 

I don't think it's manufactured. I wouldn't call it a 'controversy', but I do believe that the average fan would prefer a shorter game, yes. And yes, I do believe that the 'average' fan should absolutely be catered to to some degree. When you have players doing things that are absolutely unnecessary (adjusting batting gloves after every single pitch) that add completely unnecessary time to a game, then yes, I can see the reason to create rule changes to take that time off the game.

[JackNicholson1974]

Anyone remember when football games started at 12:00 noon and then promptly at 3:00 pm CST? It was rare, but on occasion the noon game ran over a bit into the 3:00 game. Now the games are scheduled for noon and either 3:15 or 3:30 and we still have run over. Football games have increased in time by 15-25 minutes in the past 20 years and 90% of the game is just guys standing around on the field. Yet, nobody busts their chops about it like baseball.

[FVBrewerFan]

I don't like these changes. Games are longer for two reasons. 1) More pitching changes (which nobody can do anything about and 2) Instant Replay.

 

Keeping the Manager in the dugout will have no effect. If there is a close play, pitcher or batter can slow things down so their team has a chance to review it. Then it is challenged. Umpire leisurely walks over the dugout to put the headset on. Other umps leisurely walk over to join him. Eventually a decision is made (often incorrectly) and then the umps stroll back to their positions on the field. All of this so they may or may not get a call right that has almost no statistical effect on the game, let alone the season.

 

As far as the batter goes, it's part of the game. The batter has been mentally preparing a certain way before every pitch for years. Making him speed up isn't right, and frankly good umpires do affine job on their own limiting too much in between pitch nonsense.

 

I'm sure MLB has spent millions on consultants telling them to speed up the game, as often is the case they're wrong.

[Patrick425]

I'm in favor of all of these rules. Maybe it's because I'm getting older, but I just don't have the patience for long games like I used to.

 

I'm with you. Not sure how old you are but games were a lot shorter when I was in my teens (late 70's and early 80's). One article I found stated that the average time of a game in 1981 was 2:33 vs. 3:02 in 2014. I went to retrosheet.org and picked 5 random 9 inning games from 1978, 1980, 1982, 1984. This is what I found:

 

1978: 2:32, 2:37, 2:27, 2:29, 2:13

1980: 2:53, 2:21, 2:08, 2:23, 3:20 (10-12 score)

1982: 3:23, 2:16, 2:44, 2:51, 2:20

1984: 3:11, 2:50, 2:39, 3:03 (11-10 score), 2:21

 

5 random games from 2014: 3:05, 3:05, 2:41, 3:17, 3:16

 

The average game time has increased about 1/2 hour (not 10 or 15 minutes), since the late 70's/early 80's and I'm guessing if you went back another 20 years or so the increased time would be about 40 minutes.

 

It's not that I don't enjoy watching baseball. I just don't want to spend 3+ hours watching something that should take no more than 2 hours and 45 minutes to complete. Just because I enjoy an activity or a form of entertainment, doesn't mean I have unlimited free time to enjoy that event. What really bothers me is the post-season when games routinely end after 11pm central time. I get up at 5:45 every day for work...it gets to be 10:30 or 11:00 and I have to start fighting off sleep.

 

edit:

I don't like these changes. Games are longer for two reasons. 1) More pitching changes (which nobody can do anything about and 2) Instant Replay.

 

Perhaps if you are talking about the last 5 or 10 years or so, this is true. However, if you ever get a chance to watch a video of a game from 30 or 35 years ago notice how much quicker the pitchers work and how seldom batters step out of the box and walk around. Most of the pace of play slow down over the long term is because of the players (and I'll also put part of the blame the extra commercial time in today's game)

 

People are unhappy about the prospect of a pitching clock. However, this rule is really already in the books (with no one on base), but not really enforced. Rule 8.04 - 12 seconds for a pitcher to get rid of the ball: http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/official_info/official_rules/pitcher_8.jsp

[igor67]

It's the silly minute creep. The game doesn't start at 7, it starts at 7:10, instead of being 3 hours it's 3:15. So the game really gets done at almost 10:30, which means actually getting into bed at 11. I get up at 5:30 as well, so being up late is a poor plan. Once in a while if there are extra innings or something it is not a big deal, but knocking that extra 15 minutes off makes a big difference.

[Fear The Chorizo]

I'm the first to say that one of the beauties of baseball is there isn't a game clock. Certain games are going to run longer than others with pitching changes, high scoring games, poorly pitched games with lots of walks...But, there are so many things that take extra seconds here and there that add up over the course of breaks between 300 or so pitches, 17 or so half innings, half a dozen or so pitching changes, etc. Here's a few things I think they could do to the gameday experience to make the players drive when play resumes more than they currently do.

 

1 - restrict the batter walk-up music to the first time through the order. restrict how often music and crowd prompts can be played between pitches each inning. When the sound system is blaring it's not like the ball can be in play.

 

2 - MLB should look for corporate sponsors to provide 30-45 second advertising between half innings for the 6th, 8th, and 9th innings. Leave prolonged commercial breaks for innings 1-5 and the 7th (gives time for the stretch), but keep the game feed on during the other 1/2 innings to keep late innings moving along. half the time the games in the hands of the bullpens by then so there are already pitching changes going on - what's the point of two commercial breaks for two pitching changes followed by another one 1 pitch later after a reliver gets out of an inning?

 

3 - Adopt rules along the lines of tennis, where they switch out game balls at the start of predetermined sets or games. Baseball can increase or decrease that frequency based on gameday conditions (rain/cold/etc), but do away with the process of switching baseballs every time a ball hits the dirt.

 

4 - start games at 7:05 - I agree with the minute creep making games seem longer than they already are because start times keep getting pushed for advertising revenue streams.

[MadScientist]

I don't like these changes. Games are longer for two reasons. 1) More pitching changes (which nobody can do anything about and 2) Instant Replay.

 

Keeping the Manager in the dugout will have no effect. If there is a close play, pitcher or batter can slow things down so their team has a chance to review it. Then it is challenged. Umpire leisurely walks over the dugout to put the headset on. Other umps leisurely walk over to join him. Eventually a decision is made (often incorrectly) and then the umps stroll back to their positions on the field. All of this so they may or may not get a call right that has almost no statistical effect on the game, let alone the season.

 

As far as the batter goes, it's part of the game. The batter has been mentally preparing a certain way before every pitch for years. Making him speed up isn't right, and frankly good umpires do affine job on their own limiting too much in between pitch nonsense.

 

I'm sure MLB has spent millions on consultants telling them to speed up the game, as often is the case they're wrong.

 

The change for the number of pitching changes (e.g. minimum of 2 batters unless the end of inning is hit) will likely come in the next year or two. The replay rule will help because the managers would make the game pause for a minute before the challenge, and often not challenge. Batters will not be able to slow things down as much.

 

The routines have become too long and elaborate, at least for some players. We'll see how it works for this year.

 

Two slow downs that won't be changed are 1) batters working the count more and 2) all games being televised. TV inning breaks make for longer games, although I did catch a Cubs game once in the late 80's that managed to complete in under 2 hours despite TV.

[Ennder]

Anyone remember when football games started at 12:00 noon and then promptly at 3:00 pm CST? It was rare, but on occasion the noon game ran over a bit into the 3:00 game. Now the games are scheduled for noon and either 3:15 or 3:30 and we still have run over. Football games have increased in time by 15-25 minutes in the past 20 years and 90% of the game is just guys standing around on the field. Yet, nobody busts their chops about it like baseball.

 

Football is a once a week game that is generally outside business hours. Football is built so that it is watchable no matter what. But I will say that football games are too long now too and they are trying to find ways to make them shorter as well.

[1992casey]

People have been complaining about the increasing time of game for several years now.

I think the complaints have been going on for a couple of decades. As Patrick425 points out, the real comparison is to games from 30 years ago. The relevance of the past few years is that things have continued to get worse.

 

Football is also too long. The Packer game on the Sunday after the Kennedy assassination wasn't televised. I recall reading that it was done in two hours and ten minutes.

[FVBrewerFan]

The change for the number of pitching changes (e.g. minimum of 2 batters unless the end of inning is hit) will likely come in the next year or two.

 

I can't imagine MLB coming up with a rule that dictates how long a relief appearance can be, number of relief appearances, allowed, etc. But if they do, that may be the last straw for me as a MLB fan. Maybe some day they can take all the strategy out of the game, just put a pitching machine out there and see how many HRs a team can hit in an hour. There. Two problems WHOAA SOLVVD. I just shortened the game and made it more entertaining.

 

 

The replay rule will help because the managers would make the game pause for a minute before the challenge, and often not challenge. Batters will not be able to slow things down as much.

 

Why not? They can walk back to the on deck circle for more pine tar, go back to get a new bat, walk up to the plate slowly. They can slow things down as much as they want.

[MadScientist]

The change for the number of pitching changes (e.g. minimum of 2 batters unless the end of inning is hit) will likely come in the next year or two.

 

I can't imagine MLB coming up with a rule that dictates how long a relief appearance can be, number of relief appearances, allowed, etc. But if they do, that may be the last straw for me as a MLB fan.

 

They already tested that and a few other changes in the fall league. This one pitcher per batter 'strategy' is a new creation that has hurt watchablility of games. Yea it works, TLR is in the hall of fame because of it, but ending his annoying legacy to the game would be a great improvement.

 

The replay rule will help because the managers would make the game pause for a minute before the challenge, and often not challenge. Batters will not be able to slow things down as much.

 

Why not? They can walk back to the on deck circle for more pine tar, go back to get a new bat, walk up to the plate slowly. They can slow things down as much as they want.

Umpires don't have to grant batters a time out for that sort of thing, but if teams are still delaying before a challenge too much, MLB can institute a timer so that challenges have to be called within 15 seconds of the previous play ending. Or just scrap challenge based replay all together.

[monty57]

Anything to cut commercials down with I'm fine with too. I obviously don't watch commercials often on TV and I think it kills the in person experience. I'm not one to get up 10 times a game to get food/drink/bathroom and I'm not a fan of those who do, get the game going. They'll bring almost anything you want to the seat and if you need something get up once in the game and get while stopping at the bathroom, done.

 

Making all games pay-per-view would do that. Personally, I'm fine with TV commercials paying the way so I can see the games for free.

 

9/11 was 14 years ago, time to ditch GBA on Sunday and holiday games.

 

America has been a country for over 200 years, so we could probably get rid of singing the National Anthem. Jackie Robinson was a rookie in 1947, so we could stop honoring him.

 

Some things have a lot more meaning than others, so we continue a tradition so that people do not forget why the tradition began.

[pete]

I'd be ok with skipping the National Anthem. I don't really want any politics or religion at a sporting event.

 

Do you consider GBA a tradition for some reason? It was sung before 9/11 at some ball games. Take Me Out To The Ballgame is the tradition that was lost.

[torts]

It will be interesting to see how they implement this. For example, what's the penalty if a batter takes both feet out of the box? Is it a called strike? I remember several years ago (15? 20?..more?) where they decided to tighten up the rules on the definition of a balk. If I remember correctly they decided to be more strict on the enforcement of having to come to a noticeable set position before beginning your motion. There were an insane amount of balk calls on opening day that year. I want to say there were 4 or 5 balks called during the Brewer's opening game.

 

the penalty is going to be with fines, not balls/strikes, and the fines will be minimal.

 

According to the rule book, it's a strike if the batter is not in the box.

 

• When players violate one of the new rules -- by not being ready to pitch or hit when the clock counts down or when a hitter leaves the batter's box between pitches -- they are subject to fines up to $500 per violation. However, umpires are expected to be instructed not to go out of their way to indicate that a player has committed a violation. Instead, they would be told just to mark down the infraction on their card, much the way they would if there was an equipment violation.

 

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/12375199/mlb-explains-changes-pace-game-policy

[tmwiese55]

"anything to cut commercials down with I'm fine with too. I obviously don't watch commercials often on TV and I think it kills the in person experience. I'm not one to get up 10 times a game to get food/drink/bathroom and I'm not a fan of those who do, get the game going. They'll bring almost anything you want to the seat and if you need something get up once in the game and get while stopping at the bathroom, done.

 

Making all games pay-per-view would do that. Personally, I'm fine with TV commercials paying the way so I can see the games for free."

 

Yes I of course prefer them being free as well. However, it has gotten more and more every year so anything to curb the greed is fine by me. I understand they have to be involved but instead of 90 seconds, wouldn't it be nice to only be 60. or instead 120, they're 90 etc.

 

This one of the reasons the NFL has almost become unwatchable to me unless it's the Packers playing, who I even still fall asleep. There was a huge uptick in commercials about 8 years ago (not only in how many but in how long they are) along with the huge financial boom that has been the nfl. For example, TD is scored, 3 minute commercial. Kickoff for touchback, 3 minute commercial. Yet this country is obsessed with the NFL while complaining about how slow MLB is.

 

I also agree with the games should start at 7 instead of 7:10. Now that every team has their 30 minute pregame show there is no need for this anymore. It used to be there in order to give a short preview, not needed anymore.

[DuWayne Steurer]

I also agree with the games should start at 7 instead of 7:10. Now that every team has their 30 minute pregame show there is no need for this anymore. It used to be there in order to give a short preview, not needed anymore.

 

My problem with pregame shows is that in a 162 game season, there is no need for a half hour pre-game show before each and every game. A half hour pre-game before the first game in a series would be fine, or even the first game of the week, but a half hour before every game is wholly unnecessary.

[danzig6767]

Anything to cut commercials down with I'm fine with too. I obviously don't watch commercials often on TV and I think it kills the in person experience. I'm not one to get up 10 times a game to get food/drink/bathroom and I'm not a fan of those who do, get the game going. They'll bring almost anything you want to the seat and if you need something get up once in the game and get while stopping at the bathroom, done.

 

Making all games pay-per-view would do that. Personally, I'm fine with TV commercials paying the way so I can see the games for free.

That's why i DVR most Brewers games.

 

Say the game starts at seven o'clock. I'll record the game and watch something else i've recorded for about an hour or do something i needed to get done. This then allows me to fast forward through nearly all of the commercials during the Brewers game, which is especially nice during those awful stretches later in most games where there are numerous pitching changes

 

I do the same for Packers games except when i have friends over for some 3PM or night games. There are soooooooo many commercials during an NFL game, but if i simply start watching it about an hour later, i get to skip past nearly all commercials. Such a better viewing experience.

 

It's weird sometimes if i watch a game live, i'll find myself grabbing for the remote here and there to fast forward through a set of commercials out of habit, but then realize oh that's right, i actually have to watch commercials this time. Can't imagine life anymore without a DVR.

[pete]

I don't know if its true, but according to a Chicago radio person, there is 11 minutes of actual football in an NFL game.

[stoutdude04]

Ortiz had an interesting comment today. He mentioned that stepping out of the box isnt about wasting time, but trying to prepare for the next pitch. He said he uses that time to think about what pitch the pitcher throw. To me that does make some sense and certainly makes me want to look at this rule closer.

[TooLiveBrew]

Ortiz had an interesting comment today. He mentioned that stepping out of the box isnt about wasting time, but trying to prepare for the next pitch. He said he uses that time to think about what pitch the pitcher throw. To me that does make some sense and certainly makes me want to look at this rule closer.

Yeah, I don't want anything to do with a 'shot clock' or anything for batters or pitchers. If re-adjusting his batting gloves puts Braun's mind/body at ease in the batter's box, so be it. Same goes for anyone else, honestly. I know I always used to fidget & pull up the sleeve on my back arm as I was getting set in the box. The sleeve wouldn't prevent me from hitting the ball (my lack of talent took care of that), but it was something that just made me feel comfortable once I got the sleeve positioned in a way that felt like it wasn't impeding my swing.

[danzig6767]

Ortiz had an interesting comment today. He mentioned that stepping out of the box isnt about wasting time, but trying to prepare for the next pitch. He said he uses that time to think about what pitch the pitcher throw. To me that does make some sense and certainly makes me want to look at this rule closer.

Yeah, I don't want anything to do with a 'shot clock' or anything for batters or pitchers. If re-adjusting his batting gloves puts Braun's mind/body at ease in the batter's box, so be it. Same goes for anyone else, honestly. I know I always used to fidget & pull up the sleeve on my back arm as I was getting set in the box. The sleeve wouldn't prevent me from hitting the ball (my lack of talent took care of that), but it was something that just made me feel comfortable once I got the sleeve positioned in a way that felt like it wasn't impeding my swing.

It's habit, probably something similar to what free throw shooters go through before taking the foul shot.