MLB Proposed Pace of Play Changes

I love baseball.  And I am a traditionalist.  But games are far too long and I find myself flipping channels, looking at my phone, etc., between pitches and batters.  I want so badly to sit through a game and really focus on pitch sequencing and the fine details of the game, but I just can't do it anymore.  Maybe the games have gotten longer, but I'm only 30, so its not like I was watching games in the 70s.  Maybe I've gotten OCD with the prevalence of smart phones, but I'm 30, not 15.  I don't know.  Anyway, I think they've got some terrific ideas to speed up the game without altering the nature of the game.

Here's what I've seen so far:

1. Minor Leagues using pitch clocks (that give them nearly twice the time permitted under the rules)
2. Limiting warm up time between innings ( requiring pitchers to finish their warm-up pitches and be ready to make their first pitch of an inning 30 seconds before the end of all between-inning commercial breaks, but not limiting the commerical breaks, of course).
3. mandate that hitters keep one foot in the batter's box between pitches ( http://www.si.com/mlb/2015/01/20/mlb-proposal-shortened-inning-breaks)
4. cut back on the allotted time for pitching changes ( http://www.si.com/mlb/2015/01/20/mlb-proposal-shortened-inning-breaks)
5. limit trips to the mound

The average game last year was 3:08.  I think they've got to get down to 2:30.  Maybe they can't get the average there, but if they could get 1/2 of the games to finish that quick, that would be great.  The three hour game should be a rarity.  The three and a half hour game should end with both teams in jail.

Some thoughts about each:

1. The rules give you 12 seconds after catching the ball to throw a pitch (if the bases are empty) otherwise you get a ball.  Obviously, this is not enforced. Last year the average time was 23 seconds. Say we could save 5 seconds on every pitch, at something like 250 pitches per game, we'd save 21 minutes per game!  I think the test case in the minors was for 20 seconds, though.  So its more like 12 minutes per game.

I'm not crazy about a basketball style shot clock ticking away and pitchers being rushed to throw. But I think this is a necessary evil.  Hopefully they can incorporate it into scoreboards rather than having big ugly shot clocks.  Also, the penalty isn't a run or a base, its just a ball.  Enough that a pitcher will have to keep to the time, but not enough that there is likely to be many game altering penalties.

2.  Commericals are supposed to be limited to 2:05, and teams take a couple minutes after that to throw the first pitch.  MLB thinks they can cut 10-15 minutes just by requiring them to be ready to go when the break ends. I can't imagine a downside to this.

3.  I havent seen estimates on this, but I think there's no reason for a batter to delay.  The pitcher should just go whenever he is ready.

4. Again, I don't know of any estimates, but it seems like this would have little if any effect on the game.

5.  Same.

It seems like they could cut a half hour off of games by using all of these, and the pitch clock is really the only thing that would be noticeable.

What do you think?

You obviously know the game and are a fan.  Same here.  Recent MLB seasons have turned baseball into an exercise in watching paint dry or grass grow.  The saddest part is the game is even SLOWER at the ball park!  At least at home you can channel surf, check your phone or go get a snack.

I agree with the items MLB is looking into to help speed up the game.  Shorter between inning breaks are a must.  Getting pitchers to throw pitches at faster intervals is the second 'must-have' to help shorten a game.  Batters should NOT be allowed to leave the box after the first pitch of an at-bat is thrown.  Stepping out, looking to 3rd base coach for signs after every pitch makes an at-bat last 50% longer than it should.  Keeping on foot out and sticking a 'speak to the hand' gesture at the umpire is a recent habit that slows the game even more.

As a purest of baseball, I wholeheartedly agree changes need to be made. Let me make this argument.

1. Batters arrive at the plate with a 1-1 count.  The benefit is the pitcher must throw strikes and hittable pitches to batters. Another byproduct of this is reduced pitch count per games, more complete games by pitchers, fewer bullpen guys required and extended years of service for the highest cost employees in the game -- starting pitchers!

I played a lot of softball in my life.  Played in summer leagues where this rule, (1-1 count upon arriving at the plate) was in place.  a 7-inning game was completed in 1:00 - 1:20 tops.  Also played in fall-ball double header leagues where batters arrived at the plate with a 3-2 count.  We completed double-headers in an hour and a half, tops!

MLB needs to make some serious changes to reduce game length and move it from a 'watching paint dry' experience to something worth watching again.

dave

I have a problem with shortening games of leisure. MLB is a game you watch to relax, and have fun. I also think baseball is game, that was designed to be seen in person. I will  sit through 9 innings at a ball park just because there are so many other things going on besides baseball.  I think the argument to shorten MLB games is coming from TV executives who want more time to for other shows. More shows offer more time for commercials. More commercials mean more revenue.

Myself, I watch very few sporting events on TV because of too many commercials. That, and the boring talking heads.  Not because the games are too long. I pay very little attention to the regular season of most sports. My interest in any one sport peaks during that sport's play offs. That's usually when the best are playing against the best players of that particular sport.

Game 7 of the World Series I would watch in it's entirety. I start paying attention during the conference championships in the NBA. I like to watch 3  of the 4 golf majors. (Golf should be played, not watched is my motto)  I probably watch more regular season NFL games than any other sport. An NFL get together with friends, drinks, and food flying around is fun time.

Cubs, Packers, The Masters, Open Championship, and the NBA conference championships get most of my TV watching.

Pretty much agree 100% on everything you said.

I can't see how they'd get away without having a clock the pitcher could see, so I'd bet they'll put something against the backstop, low and off to the side a bit.

One extra comment on the pitching changes:  The dude is already warm, so give him 3 pitches or something to get used to the mound and the catcher and get on with it.

How does it work when guys are on base?  No changes?

I agree. Though even when the game was very popular for me in the 90's I really never watched it on TV much. I just never thought it was that good for TV viewing.

I do not mind the pitch clock. Though a cheap way around that would be to just throw a lazy pitch to first base to reset the clock. No way you can deny them that right because it would give a base runner free reign to know that the pitcher is not going to throw over there.

Though I am kinda surprised the games are still so long. Hitting has gone down hill a ton in the past decade. Usually a pitchers duel are the fastest games.

I think maybe a good way to do the pitch count would be maybe you have 36 seconds to throw three pitches. That way if they do two pitches quickly they can take their time and still meet the requirement of a 12 second clock over 3 pitches. At least I think that gives more leeway for the pitcher to mix up the pace if he wants.

I remember several years ago there was a change in MLB designed to speed the game up... it had something to do with pitching or pitchers or something like that... it sped the game up a bit but apparently the game has evolved for the worse now. I haven't watched MLB for a long time because the games are too long... among other reasons. I'm all for shortening the game.

I have a hunch there will be no clocks with runners on base for this exact reason.  With guys on base, same ol, same ol, but with no runners, come on guys, chop chop.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/12320861/major-league-baseball-shrink-strike-zone-2016-report-says

Not technically a pace of play change, but if this were implemented in 2016, it would certainly go some distance towards negating whatever changes they make this year to try and speed up the games.  Smaller strike zone begats more balls begats more walks begats more hitable strikes begats more offense begats more scoring begats more pitching changes begats longer games.

Perhaps the changes they make this year will just cancel out with this change?  I'd go for faster games, but same-length games that were more exciting would also be an improvement.  Most ideal would be faster AND more exciting. :)

Is there a rule against throwing to first

I read an interesting take on fangraphs that suggested that its not just the length of the game but also the frequency of scoring that hurts baseball's pace.  It argued that pace should be viewed as something like runs per hour.  Its a combination of the lower runs scored together with the longer games that make the game so slow today.  Fewer runs were scored in the deadball era but the games were a half hour shorter.

I don't mind the pendulum swinging between offense and defense so long as it not purely do to the manipulation of the rules like the NFL, and I do think they need to get the game time down in an absolute sense, but I thought this perspective made a lot of sense.

Here's the article: http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/just-a-bit-outside/story/faster-pace-of-play-and-more-offense-possible-012815