2021 Misc. MLB News

[Oxy]

I always thought Daron Sutton was a terrible broadcaster.

 

I thought his style was annoying, but I couldn't objectively say that he was terrible. He was comfortable and smooth.

[Outlander]

I liked the buckethead brigade that he came up with during some of those losing seasons but can see him wearing out his welcome with teams. Didn't think it would take only 90 days though.

[Simba2020]

Sounds like 7-inning double headers and starting extra innings with a runner on second will be coming to an end next year. I for one will be glad, particular with the latter.

 

[MrTPlush]

I was pretty neutral on the prior...helps we have three pitchers and an elite pen arm to mow down other teams.

 

The runner on second I never really liked. The wins didn't even feel that exciting. More like a joke.

[Mr Southpaw]

I was pretty neutral on the prior...helps we have three pitchers and an elite pen arm to mow down other teams.

 

The runner on second I never really liked. The wins didn't even feel that exciting. More like a joke.

Starting the inning with a runner on first base seems a little more appropriate. At least you need a double or multiple things to happen to get the run across.

[folly412]

Feels like we would have had a bunch of 14 inning affairs so far if there wasn't a runner on, given the generally good pitching and bad hitting.

[SeaBass]

I like the runner on 2nd rule, there's something to be said for having a likelihood of a short period of extended play. The NFL has a path to shortened overtime, each team possesses the ball once and then it goes to sudden death. The NBA has a 5 minute period. Why does baseball have to extend for potentially hours?

 

Perhaps they're open to tweaking it, runner on 1st instead of 2nd, maybe if the inning ends (one that begins with a runner on base) with 1 team ahead by only 1 run, with that margin being a result of only one total run scoring, an additional inning is played to see if that lead can stand. Maybe the 10th inning is played under normal rules before adding the runner on base to begin the 11th. Something. There has to be some option that works towards a conclusion that is somewhat speedy in the regular season. Heck, I think I'd even entertain having games end in a tie instead of enduring an 18 inning marathon that wrecks both teams' pitching staffs.

[MrTPlush]

Id be interested to see the breakdown of viewership for extra inning games the last few years compared to 2019 and before. Do people actually cling on to watching any longer and if they do...is it really that meaningful or matter that much?

 

The fact it was assured to end in an inning or two certainly made me cling to games a bit longer...but I can't say my enjoyment really benefited from it. Though I still check out sometimes after 9 and if a game doesn't end in 11 innings I am definitely going to bed.

 

I guess I never found the super long games to really be a detriment to peoples enjoyment as they don't happen frequently enough. Most people probably don't even watch 9 innings let alone 10+. Never once have I been annoyed or angry for a game taking too long in extras.

Edited July 13, 2021 by MrTPlush

[madbad2000]

I like the runner on 2nd rule, there's something to be said for having a likelihood of a short period of extended play. The NFL has a path to shortened overtime, each team possesses the ball once and then it goes to sudden death. The NBA has a 5 minute period. Why does baseball have to extend for potentially hours?

 

Perhaps they're open to tweaking it, runner on 1st instead of 2nd, maybe if the inning ends (one that begins with a runner on base) with 1 team ahead by only 1 run, with that margin being a result of only one total run scoring, an additional inning is played to see if that lead can stand. Maybe the 10th inning is played under normal rules before adding the runner on base to begin the 11th. Something. There has to be some option that works towards a conclusion that is somewhat speedy in the regular season. Heck, I think I'd even entertain having games end in a tie instead of enduring an 18 inning marathon that wrecks both teams' pitching staffs.

 

Lets get a bit more creative. Why not do something like a shootout, but home run derby style? Everyone in the lineup gets one swing from your own selected pitcher/coach. Go from there.

[pitchleague]

My wife and I have discussed how they could make extra innings a bit more interesting.

 

Our idea started with inning number 10 having no runners on base (as used to be the rule.)

 

Inning number 11 (if needed) both teams get a runner on first base.

 

Inning number 12 (if needed) both teams get a runner on first and second base.

 

Inning number 13 (if needed) and beyond start with the bases loaded.

 

 

In retrospect, we were just goofing off, coming up with ideas. But it was fun to imagine what could happen in each scenario.

 

 

Personally, I'm glad they will go back to 9 inning doubleheaders and no runners on base for extras. Of course, I am of the "more baseball? GREAT!!!!" camp so doubleheaders and long extra inning games have never bothered me. Yes, I get tired just like most people, but, to me, it's fun and, potentially, rewarding.

[SeaBass]

Id be interested to see the breakdown of viewership for extra inning games the last few years compared to 2019 and before. Do people actually cling on to watching any longer and if they do...is it really that meaningful or matter that much?

 

The fact it was assured to end in an inning or two certainly made me cling to games a bit longer...but I can't say my enjoyment really benefited from it. Though I still check out sometimes after 9 and if a game doesn't end in 11 innings I am definitely going to bed.

 

I guess I never found the super long games to really be a detriment to peoples enjoyment as they don't happen frequently enough. Most people probably don't even watch 9 innings let alone 10+. Never once have I been annoyed or angry for a game taking too long in extras.

I'd like clarification on the enjoyment aspect because it doesn't sound like you particularly have an enjoyment benefit from a long extra innings game either. Which would you say gave you more enjoyment?

 

I just wonder if people cling to the "extra innings to infinity" side of the argument only because that's how it's always been. I understand that change is hard but I find it difficult to accept that the traditional way is the only way crowd is right.

 

I'm more receptive to the criticism of the runner on 2nd rule because it's too easy to score. How can a balance be struck that allows for a shorter experience while still feeling like the end result is earned and satisfying?

[MrTPlush]

Id be interested to see the breakdown of viewership for extra inning games the last few years compared to 2019 and before. Do people actually cling on to watching any longer and if they do...is it really that meaningful or matter that much?

 

The fact it was assured to end in an inning or two certainly made me cling to games a bit longer...but I can't say my enjoyment really benefited from it. Though I still check out sometimes after 9 and if a game doesn't end in 11 innings I am definitely going to bed.

 

I guess I never found the super long games to really be a detriment to peoples enjoyment as they don't happen frequently enough. Most people probably don't even watch 9 innings let alone 10+. Never once have I been annoyed or angry for a game taking too long in extras.

I'd like clarification on the enjoyment aspect because it doesn't sound like you particularly have an enjoyment benefit from a long extra innings game either. Which would you say gave you more enjoyment?

 

I just wonder if people cling to the "extra innings to infinity" side of the argument only because that's how it's always been. I understand that change is hard but I find it difficult to accept that the traditional way is the only way crowd is right.

 

I'm more receptive to the criticism of the runner on 2nd rule because it's too easy to score. How can a balance be struck that allows for a shorter experience while still feeling like the end result is earned and satisfying?

 

I don't really enjoy long games, but the whole runner on second makes it not feel earned. It is just not a great way to see a game end when I invested 3+ hours in a night to watch it. So I don't enjoy either, but I really don't like the runner on 2nd. In reality I rarely even watch entire games. Either because I am busy or go to bed before 9 innings can even finish.

 

12+ inning games by year:

 

2019: 6

2018: 3

2017: 2 (both 12 innings)

2016: 3

2015: 2

 

What exactly are we trying to avoid? There are 162 games a year and we average, what, 4 of these longer games? Even with the rule in place we still see quite a few 11 inning games and an occasional 12 inning one. There is no middle ground to be struck. If you start the guy at 1st the rule becomes really pointless. I mean how many games does the average fan sit down and watch to the end very end? 1/3, maybe? So that fan is likely to encounter one long extra inning game a year.

 

You would be surprised how many extra inning games went 10 or 11 innings before this rule:

 

2019: 9/15

2018: 13/16

2017: 14/16

2016: 10/13

2015: 7/9

[SeaBass]

Id be interested to see the breakdown of viewership for extra inning games the last few years compared to 2019 and before. Do people actually cling on to watching any longer and if they do...is it really that meaningful or matter that much?

 

The fact it was assured to end in an inning or two certainly made me cling to games a bit longer...but I can't say my enjoyment really benefited from it. Though I still check out sometimes after 9 and if a game doesn't end in 11 innings I am definitely going to bed.

 

I guess I never found the super long games to really be a detriment to peoples enjoyment as they don't happen frequently enough. Most people probably don't even watch 9 innings let alone 10+. Never once have I been annoyed or angry for a game taking too long in extras.

I'd like clarification on the enjoyment aspect because it doesn't sound like you particularly have an enjoyment benefit from a long extra innings game either. Which would you say gave you more enjoyment?

 

I just wonder if people cling to the "extra innings to infinity" side of the argument only because that's how it's always been. I understand that change is hard but I find it difficult to accept that the traditional way is the only way crowd is right.

 

I'm more receptive to the criticism of the runner on 2nd rule because it's too easy to score. How can a balance be struck that allows for a shorter experience while still feeling like the end result is earned and satisfying?

 

I don't really enjoy long games, but the whole runner on second makes it not feel earned. It is just not a great way to see a game end when I invested 3+ hours in a night to watch it. So I don't enjoy either, but I really don't like the runner on 2nd. In reality I rarely even watch entire games. Either because I am busy or go to bed before 9 innings can even finish.

 

12+ inning games by year:

 

2019: 6

2018: 3

2017: 2 (both 12 innings)

2016: 3

2015: 2

 

What exactly are we trying to avoid? There are 162 games a year and we average, what, 4 of these longer games? Even with the rule in place we still see quite a few 11 inning games and an occasional 12 inning one. There is no middle ground to be struck. If you start the guy at 1st the rule becomes really pointless. I mean how many games does the average fan sit down and watch to the end very end? 1/3, maybe? So that fan is likely to encounter one long extra inning game a year.

 

You would be surprised how many extra inning games went 10 or 11 innings before this rule:

 

2019: 9/15

2018: 13/16

2017: 14/16

2016: 10/13

2015: 7/9

For me it's not so much that a game might go 12 innings, that doesn't feel excessive. It's that any game could potentially add over an hour of play time. Generally I'd hope that in an average game 1 hour of play time would equal around 3 complete innings. 3 hours for a 9 inning game isn't the worst thing, some go longer and some are shorter. So you get to 12 innings and that's 4 hours. Baseball already has this issue with games being excessively long, that's not too long for me but for a more casual fan that might feel like it's not worth it. Now what if it was a longer than average game already and it's going to extra innings. With the runner on 2nd rule there is at least an expectation that the game will end in a timely manner once you've gotten to that point. Without it a viewer's expectation is left to the imagination. I think there is some value in having the expectation that the game will resolve sooner rather than later.

 

What other sport has games last that long? The NFL with overtime could still end in a tie but rarely has since the adoption of the new rules, those games generally are resolved pretty quickly. The NBA has the 5 minute overtime which might add 10 to 15 minutes of game time but there can be multiple overtimes if games remain tied, those happen but not too often. I would venture that, without researching it, neither of those sports have an issue with extending the game for an hour or longer solely with overtime play. Yet baseball could easily do that and still be a 12 inning game.

 

I think as fans we are entitled to a 9 inning game and once it gets to the point of extra innings finding a way to enhance an expectation that the game will resolve quickly would be beneficial for all parties involved in the contest.

[tmwiese55]

I thought the runner on 2nd was gimmicky going into it and wouldn't like. But at this point I'm for it, though not adamantly. Essentially it means you're on edge/excited that something could happen at all times. For me, if I'm flipping around stations and get to a baseball game and see runners on, I'll stop and watch because it's likely to have something happen. This creates that every inning of extras rather than the 'oh here we go, we could be here forever' type mindset that sets in. Or if you're actually at the game, how long do you ride it out? With the current 3TO issues and general dominance of pitching I think this leads to this being needed even more. I liked someone compromise above though, maybe 10th inning is normal and then go to this way of doing it after.

 

I'm for DHs going back to 9 innings though, can't get behind that. You're adding an extra P as it is for the games. I'd rather let them add two spots if needed than go to 7 innings, or possibly other ideas on how to manipulate the rosters to help the pens.

[SeaBass]

I think that's a really good point, I'd prefer a revision to the extra innings rules whether that's a runner on 2nd or something else but it won't be devastating to me if it just goes back to the traditional rules. The rule I want very badly is the universal DH. I feel like it's a near certainty to happen but we're talking about MLB and the union needing to agree on it and that's a whole different beast even though it seems both sides really want it.

[tmwiese55]

Yea if a runner on 2nd is too gimmicky then a HR contest is drastically beyond that so doesn't solve anything

[adambr2]

If you want to make it interesting but not go as gimmicky as a HR contest, start in extra innings with the bases loaded.

 

All runs that start on the bases are unearned. Games will be over in a hurry and then you'll REALLY have to start thinking about how much more value those strikeout pitchers have in extras.

[BruisedCrew]

I’d have to go back and count the results of all of the All Star Games since 1970, but unless the NL mounts a big comeback tonight, the record of the Brewers’ league in ASGs is about to drop to something like 10-40-1. They joined the NL at just about the time that dominance in ASGs shifted from the NL to the AL.

[DHonks]

MLB games are shorter than NFL and NBA games, AP I don’t buy that they are too long.

 

I don’t mind the rubbers on 2nd rule, but I wish it started in the 12th inning.

[DuWayne Steurer]

MLB games are shorter than NFL and NBA games, AP I don’t buy that they are too long.

 

I don’t mind the rubbers on 2nd rule, but I wish it started in the 12th inning.

 

As of 2018 the NBA average game time was 2 hours 18 minutes. That's 45 minutes less than an MLB game.

[rondoman]

MLB games are shorter than NFL and NBA games, AP I don’t buy that they are too long.

 

I don’t mind the rubbers on 2nd rule, but I wish it started in the 12th inning.

 

NBA games aren't even close to MLB games in gametime length.

[TURBO]

NFL games are almost unwatchable. The amount of commercials is actually comical.

 

I can watch an NFL game and it feels like I saw nothing but commercials when it finally ends.

[Oxy]

NFL games are almost unwatchable. The amount of commercials is actually comical.

 

I can watch an NFL game and it feels like I saw nothing but commercials when it finally ends.

 

 

Well, sure, but you're drunk, full of pizza, have a new cell phone, switched car insurance companies 4 times and re-invested your life saving by divesting with 8 different financial companies that hopefully do not conflict with your insurance company and new cell phone carrier...

[homer]

I like that NFL games start on time.

[Underachiever]

I’d have to go back and count the results of all of the All Star Games since 1970, but unless the NL mounts a big comeback tonight, the record of the Brewers’ league in ASGs is about to drop to something like 10-40-1. They joined the NL at just about the time that dominance in ASGs shifted from the NL to the AL.

I looked it up last night. 13-37-1 by my calculations.