Pace of Play

[JohnBriggs12]

When it comes to mid-inning pitching changes, my opinion is that they shouldn't need to enforce a minimum batter faced requirement. Rather it should be like a hockey line change...a new pitcher comes in with no warm ups and it should seem continuous.

 

In hockey when a goalie gets pulled, the backup comes in cold. In football, when a new QB comes in (especially after an injury), they are also cold. There isn't any warmup time with basketball either...players just check-in. Why can't baseball do something similar?

 

Hey I was a bench basketball player in high school. Can't count the number of times I got fouled the first minute I was in a game, some 15 or 20 minutes after pregame warmup was over. Try shooting a free throw without having worked up a sweat in a game yet. Even the best shooters percentage in those situations is way, way down.

[adambr2]

I just find it kind of odd that people complain about too many K's, but most people love K pitchers. Do you really want less Chris Sales and Josh Haders and more Kyle Lohses?

 

Don't think that's a big part of the excitement problem.

[jerichoholicninja]

The thing about strikeouts is that it's not just that pitchers throw harder. I would actually argue strikeouts are up more so because batters just don't care if they strikeout. 2 strike approach like I posted earlier. Batters would rather get caught looking on a close pitch or swing out of their shoes and miss strike 3 then shorten up and put the ball in play.

[paul253]

When it comes to mid-inning pitching changes, my opinion is that they shouldn't need to enforce a minimum batter faced requirement. Rather it should be like a hockey line change...a new pitcher comes in with no warm ups and it should seem continuous.

 

It still takes time though because the manager strolls out to the mound, talks to the pitcher for a bit, then makes the move. Then the new pitcher has to trot in from the bullpen which is usually in the outfield. Then even without warmups he’ll kicked the dirt around the mound a bit to get a good footing.

 

Plus, the warmups often allow pitchers to come in a little before they are ready. Without warmups the manager might send the pitching coach out first or take more time to call for the change. Don’t get me wrong, I’m fine without giving them warmups but on a pitching change the warmups aren’t the biggest time consumer.

[JimH5]

Watching Suter and Max Scherzer vs. almost everyone else, I think a lot of time is wasted by pitchers just not delivering the ball.

 

The pace of Suter and Scherzer is noticeably faster, while the pace of Pedro Strop is terribly slow.

 

A pitch clock could reduce wasted time by the pitchers. Not sure if that's enough, though.

[adambr2]

Watching Suter and Max Scherzer vs. almost everyone else, I think a lot of time is wasted by pitchers just not delivering the ball.

 

The pace of Suter and Scherzer is noticeably faster, while the pace of Pedro Strop is terribly slow.

 

A pitch clock could reduce wasted time by the pitchers. Not sure if that's enough, though.

 

The problem with a pitch clock is that it's going to be a huge deal because it's going to be such a massive change to some pitchers to disrupt their entire rhythm that it could end up affecting careers and be wildly opposed by the MLBPA.

 

I agree that most dead time is between pitches, I just don't know how you would go about the pitch clock. Maybe the best way would be to grandfather every player with MLB service time in now and now draw the line in the sand and say everyone from this point has a pitch clock. Then everyone it across the board in the minors and all the up and coming pitchers can become accustomed to it.

 

It would take years before you'd start to see the real changes from it but it would be about the only way to do it without creating sudden chaos in a season.

[JohnBriggs12]

I just find it kind of odd that people complain about too many K's, but most people love K pitchers. Do you really want less Chris Sales and Josh Haders and more Kyle Lohses?

 

Don't think that's a big part of the excitement problem.

 

Can't have great defensive plays when balls aren't put into play. The hit and run has disappeared completely. The best of the best always fanned a lot of hitters but now it's not just the Chris Sale's of the world that fan a lot of hitters. Almost everyone does. A big strikeout when men are on base can be exciting but I'd like to see some guys hit to get on base.

[homer]

I think if they just use a pitch clock, a "between innings" clock, and a "mid inning pitching change" clock and actually enforce them a lot of this goes away.

[jerichoholicninja]

Watching Suter and Max Scherzer vs. almost everyone else, I think a lot of time is wasted by pitchers just not delivering the ball.

 

The pace of Suter and Scherzer is noticeably faster, while the pace of Pedro Strop is terribly slow.

 

A pitch clock could reduce wasted time by the pitchers. Not sure if that's enough, though.

 

The problem with a pitch clock is that it's going to be a huge deal because it's going to be such a massive change to some pitchers to disrupt their entire rhythm that it could end up affecting careers and be wildly opposed by the MLBPA.

 

I agree that most dead time is between pitches, I just don't know how you would go about the pitch clock. Maybe the best way would be to grandfather every player with MLB service time in now and now draw the line in the sand and say everyone from this point has a pitch clock. Then everyone it across the board in the minors and all the up and coming pitchers can become accustomed to it.

 

It would take years before you'd start to see the real changes from it but it would be about the only way to do it without creating sudden chaos in a season.

 

I would agree that pitchers waste too much time on the mound not doing anything. Just throw the damn ball. Don't like being hurried? Too bad, figure out how to pitch quicker. Same for batters. Stop wasting time outside of the box. If that takes you off your game, too bad. Figure out how to deal with it.

[owbc]

The thing about strikeouts is that it's not just that pitchers throw harder. I would actually argue strikeouts are up more so because batters just don't care if they strikeout. 2 strike approach like I posted earlier. Batters would rather get caught looking on a close pitch or swing out of their shoes and miss strike 3 then shorten up and put the ball in play.

 

Exactly, I think we're nearing the "home run derby" point where hitters are overwhelmingly trying to hit a home run at all times, regardless of the game situation. Sometimes they 'fail' and hit singles/doubles but they usually aren't trying to do that...except for maybe the top 3-5% of all-star caliber hitters and the few remaining speed guys like Dee Gordon who are likely to be extinct soon.

 

There are a ton of reasons for this--pitchers have gotten so good/throw so fast that you have to guess at the plate, defenses + shifting have gotten so good that even hard-hit balls are gobbled up for outs, and hitting home runs is just easier overall because of the small new ballparks and possibly "juiced" baseball.

 

So reducing strikeouts would be really hard without inducing unintended consequences or making dramatic changes that will likely be unpopular. There's no sign of a plateau in strikeout rates so one wonders how high it will get. 25% is in reach in a few years. And of course in certain game situations it is way higher than the league average--e.g. close games with front end bullpen guys pitching.

[danzig6767]

I love baseball, but can't imagine watching it anymore without a DVR to fast forward through the countless Gruber commercials, pitching changes, reviews, and all of the other dead time in the game.

 

I got my mom into the Brewers and was at her house for dinner last week, so i watched the game there. It was torture watching it in live time with all of the stoppages and it was a boring game on top of that.

 

When i'm at Miller Park, all of the dead time doesn't really bother me all that much because i'm with friends and we'll be talking/hanging out. Good times to hit concession stands or bathroom.

 

At home though, it can be brutal to me on the rare times i watch a game live, especially later in some games when it's a parade of pitcher changes.

[danzig6767]

I just find it kind of odd that people complain about too many K's, but most people love K pitchers. Do you really want less Chris Sales and Josh Haders and more Kyle Lohses?

 

Don't think that's a big part of the excitement problem.

But huge K guys like them are the exception.

 

The issue is teams have smartly figured out how important bullpens can be. So most managers no longer keep tiring starters in or starters who typically struggle past the 5th/6th inning, because with 8-9 deep bullpens, protecting the pen isn't as needed.

 

Instead in comes a parade of hard throwing two pitch relievers who often have better K rates than the starters they are replacing.

 

Mix in the analytics angle of many teams prioritizing walks and power from hitters over contact, along with minimizing the running game, quite a few games devolve into a walk, K, and homer fest.

 

I don't mind because i love the sport no matter what, but it's likely not all that appealing to much of the younger generation.

[FVBrewerFan]

I dismiss the premise the game needs to pick up the pace of play. Baseball was not built for constant excitement, and wasn't meant to be on the clock.

 

The only changes I would make is getting rid of the stupid automatic intentional walk, and getting rid of instant replay. Do you want it in the playoffs? Fine, I can compromise there.

 

Otherwise the game is just fine the way it is. Quite honestly, most of the suggestions I've seen here (and other threads where this topic has come up over the years) sound crazy to me. Limiting when you can bring a pitcher in, calling a ball if you throw to first, etc. I can't fathom watching that.

 

You want to speed up the game? Don't make any new rules, just add (or emphasize) an unwritten rule. Make it known to pitchers if they take too long, they may not get calls on the corners. Same thing for batters. Do that, and players will learn to hurry up, believe me.

[pacopete4]

More subjective decisions to the umpire? No thank you.

[bill hAll Star]

I think evolving bullpen use plays a roll. I'd love to see the numbers on how many more pitching changes there are versus 20 years ago. The mid-inning swaps are killers in terms of time wasted.

I attended an Indians game recently. Terry Francona is the absolute worst in this category. I believe I sat through four pitching changes in one half inning. You could see it coming, and the thought in my head was, I could probably stand grab a beer at the stadium bar, finish the beer, and miss no action. I'm thankful that Counsell has gotten away from that approach this season. Hopefully it starts a trend.

 

I'm just guessing here, but my guess is that Counsell makes less changes because this bullpen is loaded with pitchers that can get anyone out. All he has to do is work backward with a lead or close game and most of them are coming in to start an inning and finish said inning.

 

Put Hader in when it's important. Take him out when he hits a pitch count. Go to Jeffress after that if it's mostly righties coming up. A lefty in-between isn't going to make him take Jeffress out because he's probably good enough to get that lefty out and you want him for the righty on deck. So on, so forth.

 

Counsell also generally uses his offensive depth/versatility to make a double switch so that Hader or someone else can go 2 innings if the order was near the pitcher spot.

 

Cleveland has an uncharacteristically terrible bullpen this year. Tito is probably trying to get every edge/matchup he can.

 

I'd say in general, the game is trending a bit toward what Cleveland is doing this year...but I can also see it trending the other way depending on how you look at it. Relievers are getting used more and more and the matchups are played even more and more...however, games may be pitched in a 3-2-2-1-1, 4-2-1-1-1, or 5-2-1-1 (innings pitched) format of pitching in a lot of cases. At the very least, a team is putting a guy in for an entire inning and making the change between innings. Since they are using them more often earlier in the game, it takes out a bit more of the micromanaging later in the game.

 

Back to Cleveland, they've got guys like Kluber and Clevinger going 6+ innings a lot. You've got a completely full bullpen to micromanage every at bat after that if the game is close.

[FVBrewerFan]

More subjective decisions to the umpire? No thank you.

 

Yea, but it would take like two weeks for players to adjust and then no more need to call the corners like that anymore. Very simple solution. But that was my compromise, if we don't want to try that then I'm fine with the current pace of play.

[MadScientist]

Baseball commercials aren’t even long. The pitcher isn’t even warmed up half the time it comes back. Pretty sure the broadcast just returns when the game is ready to continue.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/www.sbnation.com/a/mlb-2017-season-preview/game-length/amp

 

You are right, but it is part of the problem. It isn't 30 seconds per half inning, more like 10 to 15, but is close to 10 minutes extra. Interesting article anyways.

 

Commercials add about 10 minutes to the game more now than before. However the article notes that the big trouble is time between pitches. An interesting corollary is the Friday night game against St. Louis. The Brewers won 11-3, but had Suter on the mound for 7 innings. With 78 batters and 303 pitches thrown, the game was a more reasonable 2:49. With the commercial breaks from the 80's it would have been ~2:39.

 

We just need more pitchers like Suter in baseball.

[jerichoholicninja]

More subjective decisions to the umpire? No thank you.

 

Yea, but it would take like two weeks for players to adjust and then no more need to call the corners like that anymore. Very simple solution. But that was my compromise, if we don't want to try that then I'm fine with the current pace of play.

 

Corners are already a crapshoot with most umpires. This will do nothing but piss off more players, managers, and fans. I agree pretty much every suggestion I've seen about changing rules to speed up the game sounds crazy. Just as crazy as allowing umpires to change the strikezone at their discretion if they feel players are taking too long.

[Patrick425]

I'm torn about this whole subject. I think the pace of play does need to be improved, but I'm not really for changes that have to do with integral parts of the game and strategy. There is a separate thread regarding pick off attempts and an idea to limit those. I'm amused when the crowd boos opponent's pick off attempts. It's a necessary part of the game (and they don't seem quite as annoyed when their team does the same thing).

 

Like JimH, the thing that probably annoys me the most is the amount of time it takes a pitcher between pitches now vs. 2 or 3 decades ago. I think if you were to watch a game from the 70's or 80's you would see that most pitchers worked a pace closer to how Suter works. I would also like to see umpires refrain from granting batters late timeouts just as the pitcher is about to deliver the ball.

 

There are more pitching match up strategies than there was a few decades ago. To me, that's the biggest reason for the increase in time of game. Not sure how you change that. If you look at these stats (link below) you can see the upward trend in pitchers used per game and time of game throughout the years. In 1982 the average time of a 9 inning game was 2 hours and 35 minutes with the average number of pitchers per game at 2.62. Thirty-five years later, the average time is 2:59 and average number of pitchers is 4.24.

 

https://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/MLB/misc.shtml

[FVBrewerFan]

More subjective decisions to the umpire? No thank you.

 

Yea, but it would take like two weeks for players to adjust and then no more need to call the corners like that anymore. Very simple solution. But that was my compromise, if we don't want to try that then I'm fine with the current pace of play.

 

Corners are already a crapshoot with most umpires. This will do nothing but piss off more players, managers, and fans. I agree pretty much every suggestion I've seen about changing rules to speed up the game sounds crazy. Just as crazy as allowing umpires to change the strikezone at their discretion if they feel players are taking too long.

 

It is crazy, I'll grant you that. I don't really like the idea myself, but at least in would be short term and "train" pitchers and batters to hurry up a bit. So it would suck for a couple weeks having umpires tinker with the strike zone. But I will take two weeks of pain without any official rule changes rather than clocks, limiting a pitcher's outing, limiting throws to first, etc.

 

It would be a way to emphasize to the players to move it along or it will hurt them, and that message won't take very long at all. But, like I said, if nothing is done that's perfectly fine with me. Start by getting rid of instant replay and I would be thrilled.

[tmwiese55]

Put in the automated strike zone. Eliminates the arguing all game. But more importantly, now the hitters know that if that ball just touches the zone it's a strike. so they don't have as much incentive to bank on the ump giving him a ball. I suppose this isn't perfect, as there is a good percent of balls that get called strikes (lots in my head in this STL series) but I think the percent would lean in the direction I'm talking. Also, it eliminates the variable of "I probalby can't hit that well so lets just hope he misses the call" from the scenario.

[istanbultaye]

I believe umpires at their discretion can decline time requests by batters, and if they fail to get in the box can call a ball on them? I seem to recall something to that effect several years back when they updated the rules to not allow batters to step out of the box if they didn't swing at a pitch and some other updates? Although I wouldn't want to implement something where an umpire is just calling strikes as a ball because the pitcher took too long, I would be totally on board with:

 

If batter does not enter the box and set up in appropriate amount of time, they are charged with a strike. And, vice versa, if pitcher fails to deliver a pitch in appropriate time they will be charged with a ball. That would speed up the game, and not be a BS thing of calling a ball as a strike or a strike as a ball based on umpires judgement. I'd also like to see umps grant time less often unless there is a pretty obvious reason to grant it, like a bug in the players face or something.

[MadScientist]

I believe umpires at their discretion can decline time requests by batters, and if they fail to get in the box can call a ball on them? I seem to recall something to that effect several years back when they updated the rules to not allow batters to step out of the box if they didn't swing at a pitch and some other updates? Although I wouldn't want to implement something where an umpire is just calling strikes as a ball because the pitcher took too long, I would be totally on board with:

 

If batter does not enter the box and set up in appropriate amount of time, they are charged with a strike. And, vice versa, if pitcher fails to deliver a pitch in appropriate time they will be charged with a ball. That would speed up the game, and not be a BS thing of calling a ball as a strike or a strike as a ball based on umpires judgement. I'd also like to see umps grant time less often unless there is a pretty obvious reason to grant it, like a bug in the players face or something.

If pitchers work quick, there will be less of the time calling. Most of the time, batters call time because the pitcher is just staring at them instead of throwing the ball. There will still be some gamesmanship by some batters trying to slow down a quick pitchers, but that's when the ump can stop granting time outs by the batter.

[istanbultaye]

Exactly! It's just important to have the rules going both ways, so that one side can't abuse the other.

[jerichoholicninja]

Right now, umpires can call a strike if the batter is not in the box in time. I can only remember one time in the last 10 years or so that has even happened in the majors. I do remember a few years ago a minor league batter struck out seeing only 1 pitch. He didn't like the strike 1 call so he argued outside of the box and the umpire just called strike 2 and 3 while he was standing there without a pitch being thrown. I believe the same is also true for a pitcher, that an umpire can call a ball if he taking too long between pitches. Once again, pretty much never happens. Umpires do absolutely nothing to enforce batters staying in the box between pitches. If they would actually do their job and start to enforce that, you could probably shave 5-10 minutes off a game.