Appreciating Extra Innings
I was in Vancouver last weekend following along with the hockey games and got to raging against the overtime method used in the final game. I can understand limiting overtimes during the run up to the medal games as there are a lot of games to play in a short amount of time but for the medal games I firmly believe it should stay 5-on-5 and go until somebody scores.
My discussion on the matter lead me back to thinking about NFL’s overtime rules, which seem to be under review, and then to Tango’s two prompts about possible rule changes in baseball and it clicked how much I enjoy baseball’s overtime rules compared to every other sports.
To me, baseball gets it perfect. I want overtimes to not fundamentally change the sport and I want them to present equitable opportunities for both teams. The NFL fails drastically on the latter aspect and college football on the former. I think shootouts and penalty kicks and other gimmicks are dumb, but tolerable if you really cannot stomach the idea of a tie and they are contained to the regular season only.
When it comes to the playoffs though, you need to let the players play the sport they’re being paid for. Does anyone enjoy the World Cup being decided on penalty kicks? The US-Canada gold medal game was thrilling but the chance of a shootout deciding it was a possible wet blanket hovering over the enthralling overtime period.
I know some people toy around with the idea of modifying the innings once extras are reached. I understand the thoughts behind starting each inning with a man on second for example, but I am perfectly content with extra innings as they are now. It makes games longer, sure, but that extra tension is part of the fun for me.
I am by no means a traditionalist and generally welcome discussion on any subject that might conceivably make a sport more enjoyable, but it’s a subjective measure of enjoyment and personally there’s no way to top what we have now. Kudos, baseball, for getting that one right.
Matthew Carruth is a software engineer who has been fascinated with baseball statistics since age five. When not dissecting baseball, he is watching hockey or playing soccer.
Well, baseball is popularly notorious for going on and on and on, even when it’s just nine innings, so it’s appropriate that the tie-breaker rule should be more of the same.
And there is something to be said for those absolutely epic 14+ inning affairs where you see almost two full games and every player from both teams and it seems the game ultimately turns on which team’s worst bullpen arm is actually the worst.
When it comes to the other sports (I don’t know how much we should wander off baseball, but you opened the door), I much prefer the college football overtime rules to the NFL, but then I prefer just about every rule difference in college to the NFL. A big part of the reason I watch college football (and generally can’t be bothered with the snoozefest of the No Fun League) is for all the unexpected gadget plays. The college overtime rules just give you that in condensed form (especially the on the occasions it goes to triple overtime and they have to start going for the 2 point conversion every time).
I actually don’t have a problem with the way the Olympic hockey rule worked (especially since they were playing on the smaller NHL ice — having four skaters got it back to the more open international hockey feel, which I prefer). But I think they should actually extend it: every five minutes the extra period goes on, each team has to remove one more player (skater or goalie, at the coach’s discretion). So the first five minutes you’d have five players, the second five minutes you’d have four, the third five minutes you’d have three, and in the final five minutes it would be two on two — almost a shoot-out, but better (substitutions would be pretty tricky at that point, requiring the goalie to ice the puck while the skaters changed). If that’s too extreme, I suppose you could start out with the full six players and count down from there, ending at 3 on 3. But at least then the shoot-out would seem like the natural end-point of a progression, rather than a lamely artificial way to force a resolution.
(MLB soccer should go into its extra time the same way, IMO, pulling a player every few minutes until somebody scores.)
As a hardcore baseball fan, I love baseball’s current “overtime” system. However, I can totally understand why so many groups of people want it changed.
– The players/coaches/broadcasters/anyone responsible for bring baseball into households: Would you like to work a 12-16 hour shift? That’s the equivalent of a 13-18 inning game.
– Front office execs: Risk of injury to their investments. Imagine Ruben Amaro holding his breath if, in the 16th inning, Chase Utley hits a slow dribbler up the middle and is busting his ass to get to first base before the throw.
– Casual fans: Most Americans have short attention spans; they can barely get through nine innings, let alone more.
– TV/radio stations: Listeners dwindle as the game goes on and extra innings causes them to push back/eliminating their other programs in that time slot.
If it’s up to me, being someone who simply watches the games, I’m keeping it the same. But at the same time I don’t really disagree with the objections.
I’m not sure if I agree with your last three points. There’s nothing *more* risky about an extra inning as compared to a normal one. If the excitement of extra innings can’t hold casual fans, that’s their loss, and do listeners actually dwindle as the game goes on? I’d expect (especially if people have, as you claim, short attention spans) more people to tune in for the end of the game to see the outcome. Of course, if the network has Heidi lined up and ready to go, they can always cut the game off.
There’s nothing *more* risky about an extra inning as compared to a normal one.
Sure there is. Fatigue increases injury risk.
wheee. i only paid for 9 innings! Then it is usually off to a nearby bar to watch the conclusion.
The NFL’s suggestion to change their overtimes is just ridiculous. It should remain simple, but make more sense. However, their suggestion seems to make it more difficult. If you score a touchdown, you win. If you score a field goal, then you kickoff to the opposing team, and they get to try and score a field goal or touchdown. If they get the TD, then they win. ARGH.
I do think that baseball has the best method, but it helps that it’s one of the few games that doesn’t use a clock. I know some people don’t like the extra frames, but most extra inning games only go to the 10th or 11th inning (well, so it seems, anyway). The 14 inning games are pretty rare. To be honest, I like seeing the abnormally long games, because it becomes interesting to look at the box score in the morning and see how a manager tried to use his bullpen and bench to help his team win the game.
Then again, I’m biased because I’m not a “casual fan.”
Back in 2000 I had full season tickets so really didn’t mind missing a inning or so. One lazy day after missing most of a game I asked my wife if she wanted to run down to Safeco for the end of the game and she said yes. We got there just in time for the seventh in stretch and watched 12 innings until Cameron won it in the 19th. That said…I’ve always enjoyed the 14th inning stretch and would hate to see it changed.
We were at that game for all 19 innings. Our friend joined us in the second inning and never left his seat. What a bladder!
I propose this idea, and if this ever catches on, I deserve credit. I’m just calling that out ahead of time, regardless of whether anybody has ever considered it before. But for football rather than breaking up play for a dramatic, stupid coin toss, just keep playing. Add another 15 on the clock and either play it out or go sudden death. But at the end of regulation, the team with the ball automatically loses the ball, and has to kickoff.
Then teams would punt with 5 seconds left just to get the ball back. No thanks.
I like it, except whichever team has the ball at the end of regulation keeps it, because Christian makes a good point.
I have yet to see anyone anywhere propose the easiest, simplest, and most equitable fix to football: home team gets the ball in OT.
It satisfies every possible desire.
1) Everyone knows ahead of time who gets the ball in OT, so both teams will play accordingly. A visiting team with the ball and 30 seconds left in the 4th quarter will certainly be more aggressive knowing they have to give the ball up.
2) It increases the advantage for home teams. Over the past 10 years, the home team advantage in football has dwindled because of increasingly cavernous stadiums and “hardcore” fans being priced out.
3) No weird gimmicks.
4) If the home team takes the ball down and gets a field goal or touchdown, good. They are the home team. It’s the visitors’ responsibility to come into their house and win it.
After the extra OT period, however long you want to make it (10, 15, whatever), it’s a tie. That’s it.
This method works in every single game except the Super Bowl. You could either have some kind of tiebreaker like they do in the regular season (record, record vs. each other, record vs. common opponents, etc.) or you do a coin toss. Or just alternate “home” teams every year. Since the SB has never gone into OT, I doubt it would matter much.
There you go. We just fixed football. You’re welcome.
Oh, I forgot to say that you would just keep playing in the playoffs and SB. It seems obvious that you can’t have a tie, but maybe it needed to be said.
If, for some reason, the OT ended and it was still tied in the playoffs, you could either give the ball to the home team again in the new period, or give it to the visiting team, or do a coin toss. When it gets to double OT, I’m less concerned about fairness. If you can’t score in OT, I don’t feel much sympathy for you in double OT.
One thing to be said about the nfl rule is that previous to moving the kickoff from the 35 to the 30 the (in order to decrease touchbacks, 1994?) the coin flip only determined the winner about 52% of the time. that number has jumped to about 60% since then with the better field position. Also soccer games might go forever if there’s no penalty kicks. yeah penalties suck but you just cant play keep playing till somebody scores, cause that might be 9 hours(especially if the italians are playing). Soccer to me seems the best suited for a reduction of players as time goes on. I think the best for the nfl would be to guarantee one possesion to each team. no “well if it’s a field goal.. but if its a touch down..” one possesion each, if its still tied sudden death.
If moving the kickoff back is what started the current overtime advantage situation, then why not move it back up to the 35 just for overtime? Or maybe the 37 or something, hire some statisticians to finely tune the point of overtime kickoff every year based on offensive and defensive trends.
That bad part of this is that it doesn’t account for the vast differences in scoring environment based on the teams’ match-up (this seems bigger in football than most other sports but I could be imagining things), and it feels wrong to adjust the rules based on which teams are playing. A more offensive matchup would give an advantage to the receiving team, and the kicking team would have the benefit in a better defensive matchup.
But I’m not sure I find that a big enough problem to not like the proposal.
I agree with the article completely. The added intensity that comes with extra innings is one of the things that I love most about baseball. I also like watching as managers struggle to figure out how to best utilize their shrinking benches and bullpens. If there are people who don’t have attention spans long enough to watch extra innings, when the home team can end the game at any moment, then they do not deserve to carry the title of “baseball fan.”
I am also curious where Bill Baer found that “so many groups of people want it changed.” None of your supposed arguments made by those people (none of whom I have met) make sense:
1. Yes, I would love to work extra hours as a player/coach/broadcaster to bring to the fans a more exciting game.
2. Sure, fatigue can raise the chances of injury, but the change I think would be negligible. Besides, with a 25 man roster, it’s not like everyone has to play the whole game.
3. I covered attention spans and casual “fans” above.
4. Are you sure watchers dwindle? I will admit that some games can get boring in the middle innings, but I would never watch 9 innings, and then turn off the TV as the game goes into extras. And a game doesn’t have to go into overtime to cut into later programming, plenty of games (all sports) exceed the time allotted by the station in regulation. It’s just part of today’s programming, they have to pick a time slot so that they are always showing something that interests viewers in order to maximize ratings and profit.
One more thing, my NFL overtime solution would be to only allow TD’s and Safeties. Sudden death still, but with no field goals.
@ Max
1. You’re so cool, you can be contrarian on the Internet!
2. Teams tend to keep their regulars in during extra innings. A memorable one for me:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/NYN/NYN200605230.shtml
The only players that came out for the Phillies were the pitchers and the 7- and 8-hole hitters (for a double-switch). All eight of the Mets’ starters played the whole game.
Ryan Madson, a reliever, pitched 7 innings.
3. That’s irrelevant to the point.
4. If you’re disagreeing with my statement that viewers/listeners dwindle as the game goes on, then you’re supporting either that viewer/listenership stays exactly the same or that it increases. Which statement do you want to defend? Neither are logical.
Most games are broadcast between 7 and 10 PM EST. People watching will become disinterested, fall asleep, have family matters to attend to, leave the bar, etc. There’s no logical reason to think that people that tune in stick around for the entirety of the game. Hardcore baseball fans like you and I will, of course, but hardcore baseball fans only make up a small part of the viewer/listenership.
And yes, an overtime game DOES cut into programming. Look at your TV guide. I just checked WGN and today they are airing a baseball game from 3 to 6 PM. From 6 to 7 PM they are airing two episodes of Becker. If the game today goes longer (and it’s spring training, so it won’t exceed 10 innings) the channel has to cut into Becker. Whether Becker is popular or not is irrelevant; it’s still a scheduling mishap that the channel has to adjust for and would prefer to avoid.
Just in case you ask “why not schedule games longer than three hours?” — what happens when the game is 2 hours and 30 minutes long? That’s just another scheduling mishap but at least in the current scenario they will not have a lull in programming.
MLB should not change a thing – ‘free baseball’ is a great tradition and it does not fundamentally alter the structure of the game, as has been pointed out. Does anyone here have numbers on the average lengths of extra inning games? We all remember the epic 18 inning affairs that happen a few times per season, but it seems to me the majority of extra inning games do not require more than 2 or 3 innings to complete, which is not such a significant extra amount of time as it would seem given that the structure of the game is identical for the first 9 innings and the extras.
As for the NFL, the overtime rules should be changed but kept simple. Coin toss as always, but the game cannot end until each team has had at least one possession (so after each team has had the ball once it becomes sudden death). This then replicates the end of a game with teams trying to do anything they can to get into position to score before time expires (as well as dueling 2-minute drives) and it gets rid of the feeling of the unjustness of immediate sudden death where a team can lose following a good kickoff run back, one 20 yard pass, and a field goal without ever having gotten to touch the ball after playing to a tie for 60 minutes.
“We all remember the epic 18 inning affairs that happen a few times per season”
I’ve been to something like 700 games and I think I have seen the “14th inning stretch” three or four times. Seems to me (i.e. I have no stats to back this up) that epic length games occur about once every 4-5 years for a team. Any extra three inning may mean that a syndicated episode of Friends doesn’t get shown but I doubt it has a significant affect on revenue.
…now if they’d just restart beer sales once it hits the 12th inning.
I think what he meant was that for the entire MLB, there are a few 18 inning games a year
I remember one exchange with my wife about an extra inning game:
Wife: “When are you going to take out the garbage.”
Me: “After the game is over.”
Wife: “How many innings are there in a baseball game again.”
Me: “Nine.”
Wife: “What inning is this?”
Me: “Tenth.”
Wife walks away muttering and shaking head.
Whenever my girl asks me when a game is going to end, I always say: “Baseball has no clock, it ends when it ends.” It drives her nuts.
With that said, while at a game, she will not want to leave until its over. In the past two seasons we’ve seen a 13 inning (I believe) White Sox win over the Angels, with Jim Thome hitting a monstrous walk off blast. That, and we were at the Twins/Tigers game 163, which is hands down the most exciting game either of us has ever been to. The extra inning rules is what made that game memorable.
Enthusiastic agreement with the original post. I can see the arguments that extraordinarily long games put too much of a strain on everyone (and I think Selig was right to call the 2002 All-Star game), but there’s just no substitute for playing the game the way you play it the rest of the time.
The NBA is the other league that gets it right, and I’d like to see the NFL adopt similar rules — play one extra ten-minute period, whoever’s ahead at the end wins, if the score is tied it’s a tie. Sudden death is almost as ridiculous in the NFL as it would be in baseball.
As a long time hockey fan, I’d like to say I actually enjoyed the 4-on-4 OT in the Olympics. As epic as overtime can be in NHL playoff hockey, the bottom line is that it’s *usually* not very good hockey. Both teams typically sit back and play a very passive dump-and-chase-type game, waiting for the other team to make a mistake. That, more than anything, is what leads to 2-, 3- and 4-OT games. And to take this one step further, I think it would be AWESOME if the NHL ditched the gimmicky shootout in the regular season and if after 5 minutes of 4-on-4 hockey it’s still tied, now you go to 5 minutes of 3-on-3 hockey. Now THAT would be exciting. If it’s still tied after 10 minutes of OT, both teams get their point and everyone goes home. The excitement in hockey comes from skating and odd-man rushes — where the speed and beauty of the game can shine. And in a 4-on-4 setting, you’ve got far more room to roam than 5-on-5.
The best option (though concededly unlikely to go through) is for each team to bid on a starting field position prior to the overtime. Each coach tells the referee what yard line he would accept the ball and whoever accepts it closer to their own end zone gets it.
This is a simple approach that would only require an explanation of the bidding process to viewers, and would allow the game to go on as normally as possible afterward.
What yard line do you think teams would settle on? The 15?
Wow, that’s a really interesting idea. Which coach trusts his goal-line defense more? You’d have to have some “lockbox” approach where each coach writes down his “bid” and puts it in a ballot box for the ref to open, but TV certainly knows how to dress up gameshows with equally simplistic rules to build tension and get people to watch, so the networks might actually like it. Which, ultimately, is all the NFL cares about anyway so it might actually fly.
Yeah, that’s the Bill Simmons’ solution – blind bids on how far back you’re willing to start with the ball.
Kevin – almost any and every opinion can at some point be considered the “Bill Simmons solution” He spouts off in all directions, frequently vaguely, and then wants to claim credit later on when he gets something right.
Haha, fair enough.
I totally agree about not changing the MLB extra innings system. Once you get into that stage of the game–an inevitably close game, btw–the extra length is part of the drama.
Case in point: one of the best games I’ve seen in years was the Cards-Dodgers 15-inning affair last July, with the Cards tying it in the ninth to force extras, both teams scoring a run in the eleventh, Ryan Ludwick throwing out Manny Ramirez to preserve the tie in, I want to say, the thirteenth, and (who else?) Albert Pujols ending it with a line drive over the pulled-in center fielder in the fifteenth. (http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/SLN/SLN200907290.shtml) Awesome game; no gimmicky system can possibly provide the sheer tension of that evening.
Also, I like the fact that MLB’s overtime system is so pure. Game not over after nine? Just keep playing until it is, boys! No other sport has that elegance, although the NHL’s playoff overtime comes close.
Well in the Football (Soccer) World-Cup, and in Soccer in general… there is nothing more thrilling than a Penalty-Shootout. Since there is a draw possible in Soccer and a game ends after 90 miniutes in every normal league match. Only in cups there is this overtime and penalty-shootout rule. these fights are the most memorable and thrilling games of them all. And that is not just my opinion. Every game where an overtime is possible in Soccer has a really special feeling. And I know what I am talking about. I am German and a big Soccer-Fan. Season Tickets for 5 straight years.
NOTHING CAN TOP A PENALTY-SHOOTOUT. So don’t hate on it buddy. It is THE MOST tense and thrilling thing that can happen in a Soccer match.
best wishes from Germany (big time baseball-fan though, too xD)
XDXD Hell yeah dude. Remember when Italy scored those two goals on Germany in the last 2 minutes or so in the 2nd frame of extra time? Best metaphorical genocide ever (given it was played in Germany [World Cup 06 semifinals]).
ERRRRR… Baseball extra innings is fine IMO. I would not like to change it by any means. Also, I think it should be noted in case anyone cares, that extra innings also tend to go by faster (just observation though) given that usually no one is scoring. I don’t know if this is a fact as I may be suffering from confirmation bias but it definitely seems that way and doesn’t seem to be too far of a stretch to say so.
I think that soccer shoot-outs are considered a necessary evil rather than an ideal.
Defending your penalty area with three minutes to go sitting on a one-goal lead against a team that’s pummeling you can induce more soiling than a shoot-out.
Each inning, a team takes one more player from the defense out. Start out with like 3rd base or LF then keep going until the only player on defense is the pitcher! Perfect plan if you ask me………
“It is THE MOST tense and thrilling thing that can happen in a Soccer match.”
Haha that’s not exactly saying much.
I don’t actually advocate this, but am throwing it into the pot for the heck of it as it’s still semi-relevent.
In cricket a tied game (rare in itself) can result in what they call a Bowl-Out with bowlers challenged to hit the stumps from the regulation distance on an unguarded wicket (i.e. no batsmen).
I suppose that the baseball equivalent would be something like, you play 3 extra innings and then if still tied after 12 have a ‘pitch out’. An ump drags the frame of a strikezone onto home plate and pitchers have to hit it with a legal pitch (no batter involved) in a sudden-death mode. Presumably for that to work you’d need to employ a smaller target than a conventional strike zone as I’d imagine that most pitchers would be able to hit it consistently.
But, of course, pressure would find its way of telling eventually, especially if your win/loss/play-off hope hinges on being able to hit a 12″ square that’s 60′ away.
OK, can’t help thinking this.
I attend a good number of minor league games, and at most of these games there is a fan event which resembles a bean-bag toss. Tossing balls into a cardboard cutout with specific holes. The cutout is usually painted for whomever is sponsoring gimmick (e.g. the NY Lottery Ball toss) where the contestant wins some tickets or whatever for getting the ball into the hole, or a certain number, or whatever.
In any event, I’d hate to see MLB turn overtime into a glorified ball-toss. It is essentially awesome the way it currently is. I always hate watching people play a different game to decide overtime, than the one they spent hours playing to get to overtime.
I agree with this article but I can kinda see the argument about the extremely long games and the toll it takes on the players/umps/coaches and even the employees at the park and announcers but as pointed out by a few people those really long games(14 innings +) are a fairly rare occurrence. I don’t have a stat on me but I would imagine a team may average 1 or so games like that a year tops so it’s not like teams have to deal with it often.
As far as the OT situation in other sports I don’t really like any of them as much in baseball because they change the way the game was played for the entire game up until that point but I can understand why they do it.
Basketball OTs aren’t a major difference but they do shorten the periods and foul situations.(I believe they have less fouls before teams can get in the penalty) I really don’t have a big problem with this because it’s still 5 minutes which gives each team ample time to have equal possessions. It’s not like it’s only a minute or 2 where the team that wins the jump ball may have a decisive advantage. The one thing I’d change is allow a player to have more personal fouls before being ejected in overtime games. You’re allowed 6 whether you play no overtimes or 10 overtimes.
In hockey you have the sudden death followed by the shootouts. In my eyes ideally there wouldn’t be shootouts and it would just be like how it is in the playoffs and you go until a team scores but I know with hockey being so hard on the body and how relatively often it goes to shootouts to begin with it would take it’s toll big time on the players if they had to play another 2 periods that much so I can see why they would do this. But personally as much as ties suck I think a game depending on shootouts is even worse. It would be like a baseball game ending on a HR derby or something. I think if you’re not going to play more than 1 extra period then just have ties like there used to be.
Footballs OT seems to have the most critics and I can understand why. It just seems stupid to have an outcome of a game be so heavily decided on something you have no control over like a coin toss. Personally I think they should just play one extra quarter like any other quarter and if it still is a tie then go to a sudden death. I know football is a rough sport but since they only play once a week and usually on average teams play maybe 1 OT game a year an extra quarter isn’t going to kill them.
Get some
I had to read it twice because my mind wondered off for some reason. I think it is because of lack of sleep. I do think you for taking the time to post this.
I am always searching for things on info that I don’t know about, even though it might be old news. It is hard to find things that you don’t know of, because what do you look for? 😉 This was right up my alley on something new to me. Awsome read! Thanks.