2021-08-09: Brewers (Peralta) at Cubs (Mills) [Game Postponed]

[adambr2]

Is it just me or is a split 7 inning doubleheader probably for the best anyway? Minimize the pen. Although we probably can't expect a long outing out of Ashby anyway.

 

I think they are great……wouldn’t mind it as a permanent change though I know it won’t be.

 

Agreed, 7 inning double headers are great. Wish they'd just schedule two a month or so for every team as a regular part of the schedule and give a few more days off during the season.

 

It's one of the very few things MLB has done right in the Manfred era, so it won't last.

[rickh150]

Is it just me or is a split 7 inning doubleheader probably for the best anyway? Minimize the pen. Although we probably can't expect a long outing out of Ashby anyway.

 

I think they are great……wouldn’t mind it as a permanent change though I know it won’t be.

 

Agreed, 7 inning double headers are great. Wish they'd just schedule two a month or so for every team as a regular part of the schedule and give a few more days off during the season.

 

It's one of the very few things MLB has done right in the Manfred era, so it won't last.

 

Agreed… why go back? The guy at 2nd in the 10th too. Nobody wants to be there for 17 innings of baseball with work or another game the next day.

[Cool Hand Lucroy]

Pitching matchups for this series are actually not as favorable as I'd thought...

 

Still think the Brewers play well, and it's a net positive that today is PPD. Still, goes both ways. Four fewer innings for a depleted Cubs pen, and they're throwing a guy who may not be quite stretched in game 1 tomorrow. Gotta make it tough on him.

[adambr2]

Cousins is set to be activated tomorrow, so more help is on the way.

[igor67]

For tomorrow I'm a big fan of the 7 inning doubleheaders, but I'm not sure in general. I do dislike the man on second for sure though and will be glad to see it go.

[adambr2]

We did gain a half game on the Reds today, so sometimes less is more.

[DuWayne Steurer]

I'm not a fan, exactly, of the man on 2nd. But I think the benefit has been that in extras, we are not just seeing batter after batter going to the plate swinging for the fence. I don't know if there's a better way to induce that honestly, and I hate staying up til midnight for 14 inning games that feature little action after the 9th.

[DHonks]

I'd like to see the 10th inning (and maybe the 11th) played with nobody on base. But I definitely feel that by the 12th it's a fine idea.

[Fear The Chorizo]

I'd like to see the 10th inning (and maybe the 11th) played with nobody on base. But I definitely feel that by the 12th it's a fine idea.

 

Yeah, that would be my recommendation too....at least get through 11 innings before starting with a runner on 2nd. With it going straight to starting with a runner on 2nd to start the 10th, it almost feels a bit like teams should be awarded points in the standings ala hockey, where wins count as two and getting into extras but losing still counts as 1. I get the reasoning behind trying to end extra inning games before they drag on past 12-13 innings....but then again I looked at a fangraphs article about this:

 

During the 2019 season, only 8.6% of all games went into extras. 208 total games. 95 of those games ended after 10 innings, with 57 more ending in the 11th. That left just 56 out of 2,429 games that went 12+ innings. And thinking of how these revamped extra inning games go - I'm pretty sure they probably take just as long if not longer to complete each inning. So if MLB was hoping this was a way to reduce game times or wear and tear on players/pitchers, I think it has backfired. Sure, it's prevented marathon extra inning games from happening, but the format is how we go from a 2-1 score into the 9th with Saturday's game and wind up with a 9-6 final in 11 that still took 4.5 hours to complete.

[BruisedCrew]

I'd like to see the 10th inning (and maybe the 11th) played with nobody on base. But I definitely feel that by the 12th it's a fine idea.

 

Yeah, that would be my recommendation too....at least get through 11 innings before starting with a runner on 2nd. With it going straight to starting with a runner on 2nd to start the 10th, it almost feels a bit like teams should be awarded points in the standings ala hockey, where wins count as two and getting into extras but losing still counts as 1. I get the reasoning behind trying to end extra inning games before they drag on past 12-13 innings....but then again I looked at a fangraphs article about this:

 

During the 2019 season, only 8.6% of all games went into extras. 208 total games. 95 of those games ended after 10 innings, with 57 more ending in the 11th. That left just 56 out of 2,429 games that went 12+ innings. And thinking of how these revamped extra inning games go - I'm pretty sure they probably take just as long if not longer to complete each inning. So if MLB was hoping this was a way to reduce game times or wear and tear on players/pitchers, I think it has backfired. Sure, it's prevented marathon extra inning games from happening, but the format is how we go from a 2-1 score into the 9th with Saturday's game and wind up with a 9-6 final in 11 that still took 4.5 hours to complete.

 

How did it backfire? Backfiring would mean that it made things worse, not that it hasn’t completely resolved a problem.

 

The fact that extra inning games are now almost always completed in one or two innings that have action and scoring threats and don’t use up as many pitchers accomplishes something positive both for fans that don’t want marathon games and teams that don’t want to have to cover 15 or more innings. I’d rather have a 9-6 11 inning game that takes 4.5 hours than a 3-2 17 inning game that takes 6 hours. A lot more extra inning games now are like Friday’s with a quick resolution.

[Fear The Chorizo]

I'd like to see the 10th inning (and maybe the 11th) played with nobody on base. But I definitely feel that by the 12th it's a fine idea.

 

Yeah, that would be my recommendation too....at least get through 11 innings before starting with a runner on 2nd. With it going straight to starting with a runner on 2nd to start the 10th, it almost feels a bit like teams should be awarded points in the standings ala hockey, where wins count as two and getting into extras but losing still counts as 1. I get the reasoning behind trying to end extra inning games before they drag on past 12-13 innings....but then again I looked at a fangraphs article about this:

 

During the 2019 season, only 8.6% of all games went into extras. 208 total games. 95 of those games ended after 10 innings, with 57 more ending in the 11th. That left just 56 out of 2,429 games that went 12+ innings. And thinking of how these revamped extra inning games go - I'm pretty sure they probably take just as long if not longer to complete each inning. So if MLB was hoping this was a way to reduce game times or wear and tear on players/pitchers, I think it has backfired. Sure, it's prevented marathon extra inning games from happening, but the format is how we go from a 2-1 score into the 9th with Saturday's game and wind up with a 9-6 final in 11 that still took 4.5 hours to complete.

 

How did it backfire? Backfiring would mean that it made things worse, not that it hasn’t completely resolved a problem.

 

The fact that extra inning games are now almost always completed in one or two innings that have action and scoring threats and don’t use up as many pitchers accomplishes something positive both for fans that don’t want marathon games and teams that don’t want to have to cover 15 or more innings. I’d rather have a 9-6 11 inning game that takes 4.5 hours than a 3-2 17 inning game that takes 6 hours. A lot more extra inning games now are like Friday’s with a quick resolution.

 

The point I'm making is most of the extra inning games before this rule change were resolved before getting to inning 12 and beyond, and took less game time to finish than the new extra innings format. With the extra roster spot and ability to shuttle arms off the back end of a team's 40 man roster, the wear and tear of marathon games on players is overblown considering the frequency of such games is about 1 or 2 per season per team.

 

Does the new rule help prevent 50 games that go 12 innings or longer? Yes. Does the new rule make all the 10 and 11 inning games take less overall game time? No.

[BruisedCrew]

 

How did it backfire? Backfiring would mean that it made things worse, not that it hasn’t completely resolved a problem.

 

The fact that extra inning games are now almost always completed in one or two innings that have action and scoring threats and don’t use up as many pitchers accomplishes something positive both for fans that don’t want marathon games and teams that don’t want to have to cover 15 or more innings. I’d rather have a 9-6 11 inning game that takes 4.5 hours than a 3-2 17 inning game that takes 6 hours. A lot more extra inning games now are like Friday’s with a quick resolution.

 

The point I'm making is most of the extra inning games before this rule change were resolved before getting to inning 12 and beyond, and took less game time to finish than the new extra innings format. With the extra roster spot and ability to shuttle arms off the back end of a team's 40 man roster, the wear and tear of marathon games on players is overblown considering the frequency of such games is about 1 or 2 per season per team.

 

Does the new rule help prevent 50 games that go 12 innings or longer? Yes. Does the new rule make all the 10 and 11 inning games take less overall game time? No.

 

And my point is that forcing the game to a conclusion is preferable from a fan’s perspective than the potential for the game to go several more innings. I know that under the normal rule, if a night game went into extra innings I would usually turn it off and go to bed. Now I will stick it out for extra innings because of the near certainty of the game being decided relatively quickly.

 

As long as the rule doesn’t make things worse, it didn’t backfire. 50 games going 12 innings or more would average to over 3 per team, since each game affects two teams. Eliminating those is a positive result right there. IMHO, maybe or maybe not adding a few minutes to a 10 or 11 inning game is not very significant.

 

You bring up Saturday’s bizarre game as an example of adding time to a game. But, what about Friday, when the Giants went out 1-2-3 and the Brewers won on a walk off single by the first batter. There have been several games like that this season.