A Crucial Point With Regard to the Pitch Clock
The pitch clock is coming. It’s coming to the major leagues, and it is inevitable. It’s existed in the minors for a handful of years, and the whole idea there was that it was a trial. A test, before implementation on the biggest stage. From the sounds of things, you can expect to see pitchers — and hitters! — operating with a clock as soon as 2018. Whether you love it or hate it, don’t blame me. I’m just the messenger. And actually, no, Buster Olney is the messenger. I’m just the messenger’s messenger. An excerpt from his report:
But the foundation of the changes to come in 2018 will be in the implementation of a pitch clock, sources say, and MLB is intent on using the same limit used in the minor leagues the past three seasons — 20 seconds between pitches when there are no runners on base.
[…]
Twenty seconds, with pitchers required to begin their motion within 20 seconds of the previous pitch.
There are two key points in there:
- 20 seconds
- when there are no runners on base
If you check out our leaderboards, you’ll see that the league-average pace this past season was a hair over 24 seconds. Pace is the average time between pitches — cutting out pick-offs and mound visits and whatnot — and 24 is greater than 20. Now, the writing suggests pitchers would just have to begin throwing at 20 seconds, so maybe it would work out to be more like a 21- or 22-second cap. Your takeaway might be that a great number of pitchers will be affected. To say nothing of the hitters who have developed their own particular time-wasting quirks.
But the runners-on-base part is significant. There’s a truth you might feel, without truly knowing: Pitchers work faster when the bases are empty.
Pedro Baez is probably the current face of slow pitchers. He did average the slowest pace in all of baseball last season, and so it’s deserved. I want to show you something, with help from Baseball Savant. Here are all of Baez’s career games. I’m not talented enough to just pull all of Baez’s actual pace data when there have and haven’t been runners, but I can show you all his individual game paces, along with the rates of pitches thrown in those games with runners on. It works! The relationship is clear.
As Baez has thrown more and more pitches with runners on, he’s worked slower and slower. He’s made 24 career appearances in which he threw every pitch with a runner on, and his average pace in those games is 36.6 seconds. He’s made 62 career appearances in which he threw every pitch with no runner on, and his average pace in those games is 27.6 seconds. Still slow! Still needs to be sped up. But that’s a nine-second difference. Baez has responded to the situation, and he isn’t alone.
I found a post from January of 2015, written, coincidentally enough, by Sean Dolinar. He found that, with the bases empty, pitchers tended to deliver pitches within roughly 20 seconds. With runners on, however, they slowed down substantially, by eight, nine, or ten seconds. And it makes sense; those runners might be threats to advance, and the situations are more important, more threatening. Pitchers have to be more careful, and their attention is divided.
So while a pitch clock would make a real difference in the majors, it wouldn’t be as dramatic as you might be inclined to think, if it’s only active when the bases are empty. Certain pitchers would be forced to speed up, pitchers like Baez and dozens of others, but most pitchers would be able to work more or less like normal. Which, I think, is how the pitch clock has been received in the minors — most players have said they’ve hardly even noticed it. The real slow-downs take place when there’s a runner or two or three, and it doesn’t look like those situations are being targeted. Not as Olney wrote his report.
Maybe that just means this can be taken further down the road. And we can’t reach any certain conclusions when we don’t yet have an actual rule, with actual, explicit details. This is for baseball to sort out in the coming months. But it sounds like we’re about to have a pitch clock. And it sounds like it should have only a modest effect. Maybe that’s a good thing and maybe that’s a bad thing, but it’s a thing, and it’s for us and everyone else to get used to.
Jeff made Lookout Landing a thing, but he does not still write there about the Mariners. He does write here, sometimes about the Mariners, but usually not.
How is it enforced and what is the penalty, at least in the minor league trials? A free base and an am ump with a timer? Id feel bad for those guys having one more thing to have to focus on.
I also can’t wait for the Jedi mind trick skill of a batter drawing pitch clock violations. Hooray for more data points!
I think there’s a clock in the stadium for that. Similar to NFL delay of game with the play clock. I think the penalty for it would be an automatic ball.
As someone who has literally been the one starting and stopping the clock at the AAA level, I can tell you that it is not enforced.
There’s a clock on display in the stands. In theory if the pitcher isn’t ready to throw when it hits zero, the ump awards a ball to the batter. If the batter isn’t ready to go, the ump awards a strike to the pitcher (or so I was told). In practice, in the handful of AAA I’ve attended, I’ve never seen it happen.
The game is more interesting when there are runners on base. The amount of time being cut out may be small, but it’s the worst bits of the game.
I think a pitch clock with runners on base could lead to more excitement.
20 seconds and a throw has to occur, in any direction.
Think about the chicken game that could result between the pitcher and the runner. I think it would make quite a few runners take more gambles. The pitch clock is getting to 17 seconds left and you know a throw absolutely has to happen in the next 3 seconds. Do you time your jump to that 20 second mark and just go knowing a throw will happen at that time, or do you play it safe and just stick next to the bag.
Just think of the pressure that could add to the situation for the pitcher. Do you just play it safe and lollipop a pickoff to get the clock to reset and cut the pressure? Do you use your actual good pickoff move hoping to get the runner leaning on the gamble? Or do you just throw the pitch knowing the runner can time you up and trust your catcher can do his job?
I could see a situation like this resulting in the rise again of the situational hit and run type batter that you can just trust to get the bat on the ball since the running game could open up more. Who doesn’t like the hit and run?
MLB wants more action, this would give it to them. It would add a lot of tension for fans of both teams. Think the last 5 seconds on the shot clock in the NBA. No matter which team you are rooting for, you are always on the edge of your seat thinking a great play will happen, and in either direction
To your first point, I’m not a big fan of a pitcher being forced to throw to first or home within 20 seconds. Yes we’ll have more steals, CS’s, errors and pickoffs, but at what point does it not become baseball anymore? With a runner reaching first, then third on an overthrow. Then balk because the pitcher was trying to rush.
I really dont want to see important games decided that way
I have no problem with the clock as the rules are currently listed though!
simple solution if the pitcher wants more time is as I suggested, lollipop a throw over to first. Don’t even actually try to pick the runner off. Just lob it over, get the ball back, and the time resets. I am sure we can go through each season and count on a single hand how many times these throws get away.
The only player I can think of that this would have an impact on is Jon Lester, but even he was doing better with pickoffs last year.
I firmly believe that if you can decide to throw a slider, fastball, changeup, curve, knuckleball, or whatever and execute it in 20 seconds without a runner on first, then you can do the exact same thing with a runner on first. The only variables are attempt a pick off, alter delivery, and alter time to plate. By keeping the clock on in all situations, you only really make a slight adjustment to the ability to alter the time to the plate, and even then the pitcher can decide to throw at 5 seconds or the full 20. If a pitcher is a good planner with their time, it should never be an issue.
I don’t see how it makes anything “not baseball anymore.” Rules change slightly in everything over time. Laws change our behavior by making it illegal for us to do things. Baseball adds a rule where you cannot block the plate if you are a catcher.
My suggestion changes nothing about the fundamentals of the game. It takes what has been a proposed rule change and suggests it be made consistent, instead of a rule that only applies in certain situations. Baseball also has stated that they would like to accomplish two things in the sport on the field. 1. Improve pace of play. 2. Create more action and potential for scoring runs. My suggestion to keep a rule consistent does both, with the addition of adding an element of suspense for the viewer, so even if the pace does start to lag there is more to be invested in.
If there are 300 pitches thrown in a game. 100 by each started and then 50 by each team’s RP, and then we assume that about 50% of pitches are thrown with no runners on base. Obviously not accurate, but just a quick guess. That would cut 10 minutes off of every game instantly by saving 4 seconds per pitch. That is significant. Certainly not the 20+ minutes it would be with runners included, but 10 is a great start.
“That would cut 10 minutes off of every game instantly by saving 4 seconds per pitch.”
No, it would cut rather more than 4 seconds per pitch. The current average is 24 seconds. If you set a 20 second cap, the new average will not be 20 seconds — it will be well below 20 seconds.
Except the average is 24 seconds overall, not 24 seconds without runners on base. If we assume your 50/50 view, then it could be 30 seconds with guys on and 18 seconds without guys on, and then almost no savings.
The problem with that math is that the 24 second average is for all pitches, and that an analysis from 2015 found that “with the bases empty, pitchers tended to deliver pitches within roughly 20 seconds”. We have ample evidence that pitchers take longer between pitches with runners on base, which is part of the average time of 24 seconds between pitches.
So what we really need to know, to calculate the time savings from this rule, is just how many pitches are thrown in greater than 20 seconds when the bases are empty.
A pitch clock? Dumb & dumber.
Why not have a pitch clock like a chess clock? Get so many minutes for 27 batters that way if pitcher wants more time in a crucial situation, he can take it as long as he makes up for it elsewhere.
What happens when a team runs up against a team that works the clock and they have more than the average number of pitches?
Or what if one team throws 200 pitches because they are getting knocked around, while the other team has a pitcher being dominant and getting a ton of first pitch groundouts?
What happens in the extra inning games?
The typical game exceptionally rarely ever sees a 27 batter game. That is a perfect game, or every single runner reaching base either getting doubled up or picked off.
There simply isn’t a set number of batters in a game, nor is it equal to both sides.
I read the suggestion as you’d add N seconds to the clock with each plate appearance. You can use all N, or bank some for later, or draw down your reserve.
But that isn’t how chess works. At the start of the chess match you set each clock to the agreed on time, such as 30 minutes. You then can take as long for each move as you want, but once that 30 minutes runs out, you lose. The suggestion doesn’t make mention of adding time, just setting up a clock like in chess. Sure the pitcher could take up all the time but like a minute for one pitch, but he would have to make up all the other pitches in that last minute.
That’s just one kind of chess clock. Most tournament chess is played using chess clocks with a per-move increment, such as 30 minutes per side at the start of the game plus 30 extra seconds for each new move.
Should have said time per certain number of pitches instead of batters. Penalty would not be as severe as a lose.
What happens when the clock strikes zero? In chess you concede the game. Curling also use a game clock, and you lose the ability to play offense or defense when your time hits zero (meaning your opponent most likely win, unless they also zero out before scoring to victory).
One of the beautiful things about baseball is the lack of “game” clock, only outs. I don’t have a problem with a pace clock resulting in balls or strikes though.
Yeah, not a particularly notable difference, but this is just the league’s way of getting everyone used to having a pitch clock in general. Once it’s a part of the game, it’s there to stay, and adjustments to the rule set around the pitch clock will just seem natural.
a first batter full count would save an average of 28 seconds in that scenario. It would be noticeable.
Yes it is a tiny difference on one single pitch, but start adding them up, and they make a huge difference.
That doesn’t add up to much. You’re using the best case scenario and extrapolating from there. It’s not like every pitcher takes the max amount of time, and on every pitch with no one on base. Either way, I’m fine with it, I just don’t think it makes any difference in the viewing experience at all. But this is the tip of the iceberg. They’ll go to using it with runners on eventually.
Directly from the article, the stated current average time is 24 seconds. If you cut down 4 seconds off of every pitch in the game, it is ~20 minutes, give or take a few minutes, on average on every game. If it is just for when runners are not on base, it is ~10 minutes on average for every game.
I am not using best case scenario at all. I am using the average scenario, and stating what the difference would be with the changes. You are correct in stating that some pitchers take much less time than others. Others also take much more time than that.
The average pace is the issue, not the players who work at a good pace. It will be much more noticeable with the worse offenders. Greg Maddux or Mark Burhle would see no impact by this because they were notoriously fast. Kershaw probably will see no impact. Those who work unbearable slow will be impacted, and those are the people that we want to move quicker.
“the stated current average time is 24 seconds. If you cut down 4 seconds off of every pitch in the game”
This is the problem- the pitch clock rule will not apply to every pitch in the game. The rule will only apply to bases-empty PAs, which have disproportionately fast paces. Baez, for example, averaged 31.1 seconds between pitches this year. The 27.6 from the article isn’t a perfect comparison because it only uses a subset of his bases-empty PAs, but if a ~3-second difference persists between all paces and bases-empty paces, you’re looking at a ~21-second average for situations that will be affected by the pitch clock. That probably has an effect more like cutting an average of 2 seconds from the bases-empty half of PAs.
Keep in mind the 20 seconds is a cap, so the average after it is implemented will be substantially lower than 20 seconds. Probably below 19.
hope to see something done to speed up the game. I hope the umpires will enforce the rule and the players don’t throw a fit. A man can dream
If it is enforced, it will make much more than a 4 second difference. It would be incredibly dumb to wait until the last second to start every time. If you have 20 seconds, you best average 15 so you can shake off a sign or two once in a while.
Which reminds me…umps better also start refusing to grant time to batters, catchers, and pitchers at the same time. A simple timeout limit per game to kill the mound meetings needs to be there too, or it might get even slower…
At least in the AA games I’ve attended, the clock is still used with runners on…the pitcher has to come set within the 20 seconds, then the clock is shut off.
As an avid east coast fan who missed most of Game 5’s excitement due to having a normal sleep schedule, I’m all for speeding up the game. However, I have doubts that a pitch clock is practical, and the comment that it isn’t enforced in AAA (anecdotally) supports my doubts.
The main reason is that it both batter and pitcher are responsible for the time between pitches – notice that the first 15 seconds typically consist of the batter readjusting all of his equipment, and only after that does the pitcher go into his routine. (We’ve seen pitcher delay stats, does anyone have hitter-specific stats? Big Papi?) So how does the umpire decide who is responsible when awarding either a ‘ball’ or ‘strike’ when the clock runs out? Or do we actually need *two* clocks, one for the batter and then one for the pitcher? (and will there be instant replays to decide cases where it comes down to the fraction of a second?)
Unless the batter has time-out, the pitcher is free to pitch at any time
Instead of a pitch clock, couldn’t they just keep track of pitch times for each pitcher and then use fines and/or suspensions to force the worst offenders to change?
Years ago Bill James made a suggestion that pitchers be allowed a specific number of throws to 1B that fail to get the runner out. After that, each throw that fails to get the runner out is a ball-or some such penalty.
Suppose a pitcher were allowed 2 throws to 1B to try a pickoff, and after that, if he fails to pick off a runner, it is a ball. If he does succeed, of course the out counts and there is no penalty. Wouldn’t that speed up the pace (again, the issue is pace, not game length) and add interesting strategy? After 2 failed throws, does the runner risk a bigger lead? Does the pitcher risk another throw? Would there be more excitement on the bases with more stolen base efforts?
It might also be combined with a loosening of the rules on balks so that pitchers have a better chance of picking the runner off so that the rule does not unduly favor the runners.
Oh yes, and it would certainly eliminate the lob throws, or throws intended simply to hold the runner close, that just waste time and create no excitement or energy in the game.
small point I think is important: part of the reason pitchers slow down with runners on base is to let base runners stiffen up in their leads. If you go right away, right after the runner has reached their maximum point of their lead, the runner is still loose. However, if you wait 10 seconds, the runner won’t be as explosive having been in place for the time.