36 thoughts on “June 10, 2020: Slip Slidin’ Away”

  1. Last night on Twitter someone posted jokingly posted: what if MLB had a one game schedule and the games all started at 7:00 pm on August 26 and the team that wins their game the fastest is the champion?

    Obviously not going to happen but what if it did? If you were a MLB team, how would you game it? Assume that both teams wanted to be champs and were acting in their own self interest. If you got to a big lead early, I'm guessing the other team would slow things down, making sure that they weren't the reason other team was champs. Would both teams try to quickly get outs and take a stab at a late inning homer? Problem with that is if it goes to extra innings, both teams may be out of luck. Thoughts?

    2. Find the best Buehrle clone you can. Someone that gets moderate strikeouts, no walks, and groundballs paired with elite fielders around the diamond. The other side would be someone that gets pop ups easily with great outfielders. Hope you get a couple solo home runs to carry you.

        1. In 2004, they faced off five times: May 16, May 21, June 29, September 15, and September 20. The longest game, a blowout, took 2:34.

          The just missed in 2005 but faced each other three times in 2006: May 14, July 26, and August 27. The first two weren't quick but the final game was completed in 2:21. That was the final time they faced each other.

          Good Blackburn and Buehrle finished a 1-0 game on June 16, 2011 in 2:09. The game that always comes to mind for quick games is July 17, 2010. The was Buehrle vs Pavano. They both finished the 3-2 game in 1:52. That's the fastest game of the last ten years. There was a 1:54 game last year. But it was 6.5 innings. The only faster game in the previous 30 years that at least finished the top of the ninth was in 2007. Carlos Silva v Joe Blanton, both CG, in 1:49. You have to go back to 1982 to find a faster game, or the 60s and 70s to get a few (seven) more.

          1. I'm about 99% sure that Buehrle vs Pavano game was followed by thunder, lightning, torrential rain, and tornado sirens just after 9pm. I think that's related.

            1. I was at that game and you are right. You could see the black clouds rolling in. 15 minutes after the game ended, downpour.

              1. I was at the Pizza Luce Block Party and the downpour began just after the transition from Har Mar Superstar to Brother Ali.

                1. I was at the DCI (Drum Corps International) competition at TCF Bank Stadium. When the storm came we spent about 45 minutes in the stairwells. Those competitions are structured with the best drum & bugle corps at the end of the event, so having the thing cancelled 2/3s through really did suck.

          2. I thought Buehrle and Radke had some quick match-ups as well. As a side note, I think some of those Buehrle-Silva games were at the end of the era where not all games were televised. Those non-televised day games were notable faster than televised games, even with pitchers that didn't work quite as fast.

            Either way, it's clear pitchers make a big difference on game pace. I hate that the angle on improving pace of play is all about appealing to the young fans with no attention span, or people who don't like baseball in the first place. I love baseball and a fast-paced 2-hour game with hitters putting the ball in play is one of my favorite things. Sure, every now and then a 3.5-hour drawn-out affair can be memorable, but that shouldn't be the norm for a mid-May game between two cellar dwellers.

            If you had a pitch clock, an automated strike zone, and stricter limits on relief pitchers--something like each team gets three relief pitchers per game except for emergencies, and in the case of an emergency you are forced to put the substituted pitcher on the IL--the game would still have everything that makes baseball great. Bonus points if you find a way to reduce (but obviously not eliminate) strikeouts, walks, and home runs--I paid to see the players performing at the plate and in the field.

            1. I've watched some replays of old games and the hitters and pitchers both worked much more quickly. There are ways to speed it up without changing much about the game.

              1. I do agree that the hitters are slower now, but I can't help but feel that it's somewhat in reaction to the pitchers taking more time. Basically, the more time a pitcher stands up their negotiating the sign with their catcher, the more likely it is that a hitter is going to feel off-balance or whatever and call for time.

                1. Speed them both up. I think it could also bring back the stolen base as it would be easier to time.

    3. Hmm, I feel like you want to go up swinging first pitch. But that incentivizes people to throw absolute junk. But lots of walks are just as bad for the pitching team as the hitting team.

      It would behoove both teams to have a Buehrle-esque pitcher on the mound to keep things moving.

      I suppose at some point once a team is down, they'll have to decide whether they wanna keep things moving in the hopes they'll get back in it (since the now-winning team will definitely want the pace picked up)^ or purposely spoil things.

      ^I suppose at some point people are going to intentially swing and miss to get out faster.

      This is all making me think of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbados_4%E2%80%932_Grenada_%281994_Caribbean_Cup_qualification%29

      1. Yeah, I don't think you would try to spoil the pace until super late in the game--you're only ruining your own chances if you slow the game down. If the other team has a big early lead, they might actually be almost trying to get out to speed through their half of the innings, which gives you a chance to stay in the game. And if the other team has a big early lead, you'd expect their pitchers to really be working in the zone, so you should have your chances at the plate to get back in it.

        Basically everything about trying to finish the game more quickly plays in favor of the team which is trailing--the winning team won't want to spend unnecessary time padding their lead, the winning team will want to throw strikes to keep the game moving, and the winning team won't want to make strategic pitching changes because that will slow down the game as well.

        I wonder if you could devise some sort of point system that would effectively accomplish a lot of this without having to race every team. Like if a game finishes under two hours, the winning team gets 2 points and the losing team gets 1 point. If the game finishes over two hours, the winning team gets 1 point and the losing team gets 0 points. I guess even in that scenario, the losing team is going to want to slow down the game, especially in an intradivisional match-up, because even though winning a slow game doesn't get them more than losing a fast game, winning a slow game would hurt their opponent more.

        In the end, they'd probably be better off just instituting a chess clock type of pitch clock for each team when they are pitching. I also think that starting the 11th inning and beyond with a runner on second base in the regular season is a good idea, tradition and records be damned. Most fans just don't have time for marathon games and it's disappointing to feel forced into leaving before the game is decided.

        1. Runner on second base is boring to me. Bunt and/or IBB are the likely outcomes. Might as well start with a runner on 3rd and 1 out if you're going to go with a runner on second.

          Better option is to start with bases loaded, which has more variety of outcomes and opportunities than a runner on second.

            1. As long as there are stiff penalties for stalling. I'd hate to see the bases loaded game ending with a mound conference.

              1. You could make it "no inning can start after four hours" to avoid stalling in that way.

          3. I don't see anything wrong with bunt attempts in that situation. How would a bunt attempt starting the inning be any less boring than someone swinging away with no outs and no one on? Make the hitter execute the bunt, make the fielding team execute on defense. Some teams might even be able to pick off the lead runner if the bunt is bad--or even get a double play on a popped-up bunt.

            I also think the likelihood of a team ordering a bunt in that situation is overstated. Most teams are not going to bunt with their 2-5 hitters and a runner in scoring position, and that's nearly half the lineup. And it would reward teams with deeper positional benches that could put in a faster base runner on second base, which would reduce the impact of moving the runner from second to third with a bunt.

            IBB'ing the runner in a -2-, 0-out situation seems like generally a dumb move, especially in the top of the inning where 1 run doesn't sink you automatically, and it would then make a sac bunt that much better--moving the inning to -23, 1 out. An IBB there sets up force outs, but also really forces the pitcher to throw strikes, and opens you up to a big inning. Sure a double play would end the inning, but it's more likely you don't get a double play and then you're stuck with another hitter that you have to throw strikes to.

            In a --3, 1-out situation, an IBB to set up a double play might sometimes make sense, but are you really going to IBB, say, a 9 hitter to put the lead-off man up to the plate?

            1. Runner on 2nd no outs more consistently leads to the same outcomes than bases loaded no outs. If the idea is to break the tie, based loaded gives a better chance to do that. Each team is more likely to score one run in runner on 2nd ball, it is more likely that teams will score different amounts of runs in bases-loaded ball.

              And, overstated or not, the same limited set of strategies are still more likely to be employed in runner on 2nd ball.

              It is a far less interesting and less effective approach than bases-loaded ball.

                1. You should run the numbers on those probabilities. Runner on 2nd gives you roughly 29% of innings with the same outcome. Bases empty leads to a scoreless inning 50%+ of the time, adding in 1-1 innings, the empty bases scenario remains tied over 80% of the time.

        2. Having followed the minor leagues, where they've used the "start with a man on second" rule, I can't say I care for it much. I'd rather just leave things the way they've been forever, but if we can't do that, I'd rather just call the game a tie than settle it that way.

          1. I have no problem with the tie notion.

            Though, personally, I find the pace of play to be a much bigger problem than the ultimate length of some games because of extra innings. A 9 inning game that takes 3.5 hours is likely more problematic than a 12 inning game that takes 3.5 hours.

          2. really, with minor leaguers, there probably is no good reason to even allow extras. Maybe call ties after 12? That can't affect many games anyway, and it would provide a tiny bit of relief to underpaid and overworked young professionals.

  2. Mighty Cristobal dumped 1/4" on us yesterday, despite pretty much running right over us. I'll give him a pass thanks to the low 70s temp today (albeit breezy) - nice deck post staining weather

    2. Not the only Cristóbal suddenly having diminished influence around the country.

Comments are closed.