I remember how after the AL instituted the DH for the pitcher, it wasn't long before they instituted a DH for the catcher, too. It's too bad we don't have anyone who hits and fields in the league anymore.
was joke
I think it's good for the game. Everyone who leaves before the game is decided paid money for a ticket and they don't even know who won. That's not a good experience, and people have legitimate reasons that they can't stick around for 3-3.5+ hours.
Because games end earlier, it makes travel more reasonable for the players, especially if the game goes to extras on a getaway day. And it's better for pitchers' health, too.
I also think that while it's fun to have a long extra-inning game from time-to-time, people overlook how often the next day can wind up being a terrible blowout because there's no one left in the bullpen and Terry Mullholland is sent out there to pitch 3 innings no matter how many runs he allows.
I get why some fans don't like it, but there are good reasons the owners and players like the rule, and I don't see it ever being implemented in the postseason, just like the NHL is never going to decide games by shootout in the playoffs.
Is there strong evidence in the available data to support the premise that this rule actually shortens extra innings games? Because I’ve never seen MLB present it.
The best thing I could think of just off hand was looking at the league-wide splits for 2018-19 versus 2021-22.
2018: 432 extra-inning games, 3883 PA -- 8.99 PA/G
2019: 416 extra-inning games, 3861 PA -- 9.28 PA/G
2021: 432 extra-inning games, 2445 PA -- 5.66 PA/G
2022: 432 extra-inning games, 2395 PA -- 5.54 PA/G
It seems fishy to me that 3 season had exactly the same number of extra-inning games, but either way I think it's pretty clear that there are substantially fewer PA in extra innings since instituting the runner on 2nd base for extra-inning games.
I probably should have looked at the pitching splits first. 2021 has 535.1 IP for 432 G and 2018 has 880.1 IP for 432 G. That's almost a 40% reduction in innings pitched per game, in line with the reduction in PA per game. I'm too lazy to check 2019 and 2022 at the moment, but based on the hitting splits, there's not much reason to think that they'd be a lot different.
Another way to look at this is to count the "extra" extra innings. Every extra inning game has to have at least half an inning (based on how pitcher innings are counted). 2021 had 319.1 "extra" extra innings and 2018 had 664.1 "extra" extra innings, so the difference is a lot more stark when you look at it that way.
What would be better is to know the percentage of 10-inning, 11-inning, 12-inning, 13-inning, etc., games, but I don't have a good source for that at the moment.
It seems fair to conclude there's a shortening effect, but I still don't know if I buy it. My dogs tell me I've worked some pretty long extra innings games the last two seasons.
Just because there is a 40% decrease in the number of plate appearances, that doesn't necessarily mean that there will be a proportional decrease in the amount of time those extra innings take. If pitchers, batters, and runners slow the game down more with a runner on, that could eat away some of the benefits of a shorter game.
I expect overall the extra innings take less time with the free runners than they do without, but that impact may not be quite as big as it would seem looking only at the player stats instead of actual game times.
I would bet the Twins' home extra inning games happen to last longer than the leaguewide average based upon the team's unwillingness you even attempt to move the Manfred Man to third base, which meant games had to go another inning until the visitors scored
Not this year -- we're going to hit more HRs!
After the fifteen- and eighteen-inning games in the playoffs last year, there were quite a number of people suggesting we implement it in the postseason. I don't think it will happen in the World Series, but I could easily see it being used in earlier rounds.
The premise that the game should be played one way for nine innings, and then under a different set of rules for innings after that, is illogical if the goal is to determine what teams are the best under the majority of conditions in which the game is played. That they won’t do this in the postseason just underscore that point.
If teams must be spared at all costs (and changing the rules of the game is a cost), then just institute ties after the 11th inning.
Fully agree.
Right, because it’s totally uncommon to have different tiebreak rules in sports.
So, because other sports have adopted bad ways to break ties, baseball should do the same?
I used to be firmly in the CH camp on this argument, so I definitely understand the points. I guess maybe over the years I've just become more skeptical of arguments based on purity in general, and so applying it to sports feels somewhat strange (though, honestly, I'm probably more comfortable with purity arguments in sports than other areas). I'm not quite sure where I stand anymore on this.
I definitely don't like the Manfred Man, but part of that is based on feeling like there are better tie-break options (give me bases loaded instead of just a runner on 2nd!). And if that's fueling my distaste for the current rule, then that means it isn't the "purity" argument I'm falling back on, but something else. So I guess I can tolerate the runner on 2nd. I also don't like the idea of ties, but I think I could tolerate those too. And though the odd infinite game is a cool occurrance, I don't like the effects such a game can have on a team (and on the fans - both leaving and staying are imperfect choices). But I could tolerate going back to the old way - we tolerated it for decades.
Anyway, I used to have some convictions on this, but the arguments in all directions have mostly convinced me that there isn't an ideal solution. Everyone has convinced me that everyone else sucks. All of the major solutions are imperfect, but tolerable. So I guess I'll tolerate them.
I can obviously tolerate it, too--I clearly haven't stopped watching baseball. That doesn't mean I have to like it. But it is what it is, and I don't imagine it's going to change. So I deal with it.
I view it as a workplace safety issue. Longer games means more pitches thrown. We still have no idea how to keep pitchers healthy and we're forcing teams to push pitchers to throw more to cover the innings. Then there are position players going four or five hours, already tired, and that's ripe for injuries. I don't like the zombie runner but it's so easy to see why players like it.
I'm not the biggest fan of Manfred man, but 15 inning baseball games are terrible for all involved. Since the advent of the Manfred man, the 15 inning affair has all but become extinct, which is a positive.
Since they're not going to go my preferred route (and just what would be so bad about calling it a tie after 12 innings?), they've got to do SOMETHING. This works as well as anything, I guess.
I'm for this.
I think the tie is a good plan, too. We're seeing (finally) the less significance of W/L being viewed properly with Cy voting, etc, who is really hurt by a tie? (other than fans kissing their sister)
Nobody is hurt by a tie. Math is available to help adjust winning percentages in the rare event a team might need to fall back in that to advance to the postseason.
Artificially assigning wins, losses, blown saves, and leverage-based stats to pitchers who are out in the unfortunate situation of dealing with the zombie runner does hurt players. It also hurts the home team, upending the principle that they get last chance to score.
If player safety is the goal, call it a tie after 11 innings. One could argue that increasing the leverage artificially is actually detrimental to player health by creating conditions for riskier play while position players are fatigued.
If juicing up entertainment is the point, then quit pretending games played under those conditions are as legitimate as others. Ties aren’t ideal, but they’re more honest than that.
If player safety truly is the goal, then maybe 9 innings is too long.
These are highly paid professionals. Pitchers today rarely go longer than 7 innings. If anyone has a call to complain about player health and safety, I'd say it would be catchers. Maybe they should be limited to catching 9 innings.
Maybe. And they could expand rosters to distribute the workload and reduce the risk of injury. But we know why MLB won’t do that.
where's that dollar sign on the keyboard again?
Expand the strike zone. If you can put the ball on the edges of an expanded zone, you won't need pitchers to throw 95 to 100.
That's crazy talk. The strike zone is the strike zone: the 6 microns centered between belt and diaphragm, like God intended.
Ant and McDaniels just put on maybe the best defensive possession I've ever seen to close that out.
Yeah, that was rad. Ant’s getting real handy with those postgame interviews also.
Hey, you wanna get mad about it somehow? Five minutes on the last play and they didn't even utter Edwards's or McDaniels's names:
Ludicrous. One of the main reasons the NBA is so successful is that they market their players so well regardless of where they play. This broadcast missed the memo.
That could be the funniest part but favorite part? !?
Twitter brain. Makes people say weird things.
Re: catering - I usually cook for family outings, but this last fall I had Brine's in Stillwater cater the event. Was nice to spend the time talking with family/friends instead of slaving at the grill. Brines did a good job with pulled pork, coleslaw, Vienna rolls. Altho' I'm a better griller. 🙂
I'm not a fan of the Manfred Man in the 10th inning, but I could accept it after the 12th inning, even the 11th. But its here to stay
HR Derby tie-breaker not far behind
I remember how after the AL instituted the DH for the pitcher, it wasn't long before they instituted a DH for the catcher, too. It's too bad we don't have anyone who hits and fields in the league anymore.
was joke
I think it's good for the game. Everyone who leaves before the game is decided paid money for a ticket and they don't even know who won. That's not a good experience, and people have legitimate reasons that they can't stick around for 3-3.5+ hours.
Because games end earlier, it makes travel more reasonable for the players, especially if the game goes to extras on a getaway day. And it's better for pitchers' health, too.
I also think that while it's fun to have a long extra-inning game from time-to-time, people overlook how often the next day can wind up being a terrible blowout because there's no one left in the bullpen and Terry Mullholland is sent out there to pitch 3 innings no matter how many runs he allows.
I get why some fans don't like it, but there are good reasons the owners and players like the rule, and I don't see it ever being implemented in the postseason, just like the NHL is never going to decide games by shootout in the playoffs.
Is there strong evidence in the available data to support the premise that this rule actually shortens extra innings games? Because I’ve never seen MLB present it.
The best thing I could think of just off hand was looking at the league-wide splits for 2018-19 versus 2021-22.
2018: 432 extra-inning games, 3883 PA -- 8.99 PA/G
2019: 416 extra-inning games, 3861 PA -- 9.28 PA/G
2021: 432 extra-inning games, 2445 PA -- 5.66 PA/G
2022: 432 extra-inning games, 2395 PA -- 5.54 PA/G
It seems fishy to me that 3 season had exactly the same number of extra-inning games, but either way I think it's pretty clear that there are substantially fewer PA in extra innings since instituting the runner on 2nd base for extra-inning games.
I probably should have looked at the pitching splits first. 2021 has 535.1 IP for 432 G and 2018 has 880.1 IP for 432 G. That's almost a 40% reduction in innings pitched per game, in line with the reduction in PA per game. I'm too lazy to check 2019 and 2022 at the moment, but based on the hitting splits, there's not much reason to think that they'd be a lot different.
Another way to look at this is to count the "extra" extra innings. Every extra inning game has to have at least half an inning (based on how pitcher innings are counted). 2021 had 319.1 "extra" extra innings and 2018 had 664.1 "extra" extra innings, so the difference is a lot more stark when you look at it that way.
What would be better is to know the percentage of 10-inning, 11-inning, 12-inning, 13-inning, etc., games, but I don't have a good source for that at the moment.
It seems fair to conclude there's a shortening effect, but I still don't know if I buy it. My dogs tell me I've worked some pretty long extra innings games the last two seasons.
Just because there is a 40% decrease in the number of plate appearances, that doesn't necessarily mean that there will be a proportional decrease in the amount of time those extra innings take. If pitchers, batters, and runners slow the game down more with a runner on, that could eat away some of the benefits of a shorter game.
I expect overall the extra innings take less time with the free runners than they do without, but that impact may not be quite as big as it would seem looking only at the player stats instead of actual game times.
I would bet the Twins' home extra inning games happen to last longer than the leaguewide average based upon the team's unwillingness you even attempt to move the Manfred Man to third base, which meant games had to go another inning until the visitors scored
Not this year -- we're going to hit more HRs!
After the fifteen- and eighteen-inning games in the playoffs last year, there were quite a number of people suggesting we implement it in the postseason. I don't think it will happen in the World Series, but I could easily see it being used in earlier rounds.
The premise that the game should be played one way for nine innings, and then under a different set of rules for innings after that, is illogical if the goal is to determine what teams are the best under the majority of conditions in which the game is played. That they won’t do this in the postseason just underscore that point.
If teams must be spared at all costs (and changing the rules of the game is a cost), then just institute ties after the 11th inning.
Fully agree.
Right, because it’s totally uncommon to have different tiebreak rules in sports.
So, because other sports have adopted bad ways to break ties, baseball should do the same?
I used to be firmly in the CH camp on this argument, so I definitely understand the points. I guess maybe over the years I've just become more skeptical of arguments based on purity in general, and so applying it to sports feels somewhat strange (though, honestly, I'm probably more comfortable with purity arguments in sports than other areas). I'm not quite sure where I stand anymore on this.
I definitely don't like the Manfred Man, but part of that is based on feeling like there are better tie-break options (give me bases loaded instead of just a runner on 2nd!). And if that's fueling my distaste for the current rule, then that means it isn't the "purity" argument I'm falling back on, but something else. So I guess I can tolerate the runner on 2nd. I also don't like the idea of ties, but I think I could tolerate those too. And though the odd infinite game is a cool occurrance, I don't like the effects such a game can have on a team (and on the fans - both leaving and staying are imperfect choices). But I could tolerate going back to the old way - we tolerated it for decades.
Anyway, I used to have some convictions on this, but the arguments in all directions have mostly convinced me that there isn't an ideal solution. Everyone has convinced me that everyone else sucks. All of the major solutions are imperfect, but tolerable. So I guess I'll tolerate them.
I can obviously tolerate it, too--I clearly haven't stopped watching baseball. That doesn't mean I have to like it. But it is what it is, and I don't imagine it's going to change. So I deal with it.
I view it as a workplace safety issue. Longer games means more pitches thrown. We still have no idea how to keep pitchers healthy and we're forcing teams to push pitchers to throw more to cover the innings. Then there are position players going four or five hours, already tired, and that's ripe for injuries. I don't like the zombie runner but it's so easy to see why players like it.
I'm not the biggest fan of Manfred man, but 15 inning baseball games are terrible for all involved. Since the advent of the Manfred man, the 15 inning affair has all but become extinct, which is a positive.
Since they're not going to go my preferred route (and just what would be so bad about calling it a tie after 12 innings?), they've got to do SOMETHING. This works as well as anything, I guess.
I'm for this.
I think the tie is a good plan, too. We're seeing (finally) the less significance of W/L being viewed properly with Cy voting, etc, who is really hurt by a tie? (other than fans kissing their sister)
Nobody is hurt by a tie. Math is available to help adjust winning percentages in the rare event a team might need to fall back in that to advance to the postseason.
Artificially assigning wins, losses, blown saves, and leverage-based stats to pitchers who are out in the unfortunate situation of dealing with the zombie runner does hurt players. It also hurts the home team, upending the principle that they get last chance to score.
If player safety is the goal, call it a tie after 11 innings. One could argue that increasing the leverage artificially is actually detrimental to player health by creating conditions for riskier play while position players are fatigued.
If juicing up entertainment is the point, then quit pretending games played under those conditions are as legitimate as others. Ties aren’t ideal, but they’re more honest than that.
If player safety truly is the goal, then maybe 9 innings is too long.
These are highly paid professionals. Pitchers today rarely go longer than 7 innings. If anyone has a call to complain about player health and safety, I'd say it would be catchers. Maybe they should be limited to catching 9 innings.
Maybe. And they could expand rosters to distribute the workload and reduce the risk of injury. But we know why MLB won’t do that.
where's that dollar sign on the keyboard again?
Expand the strike zone. If you can put the ball on the edges of an expanded zone, you won't need pitchers to throw 95 to 100.
That's crazy talk. The strike zone is the strike zone: the 6 microns centered between belt and diaphragm, like God intended.
Ant and McDaniels just put on maybe the best defensive possession I've ever seen to close that out.
Yeah, that was rad. Ant’s getting real handy with those postgame interviews also.
Hey, you wanna get mad about it somehow? Five minutes on the last play and they didn't even utter Edwards's or McDaniels's names:
https://www.nba.com/watch/video/luka-doncic-kyrie-irving-struggle-final-seconds-timberwolves
Ludicrous. One of the main reasons the NBA is so successful is that they market their players so well regardless of where they play. This broadcast missed the memo.
It was pretty great.
Ha! I didn't notice that until now.
That could be the funniest part but favorite part? !?
Twitter brain. Makes people say weird things.
Re: catering - I usually cook for family outings, but this last fall I had Brine's in Stillwater cater the event. Was nice to spend the time talking with family/friends instead of slaving at the grill. Brines did a good job with pulled pork, coleslaw, Vienna rolls. Altho' I'm a better griller. 🙂