Proposed Pace-of-Play Rule Changes, by the Numbers

When Rob Manfred officially took over as MLB commissioner, he went on a bit of a media tour, explaining his plans to better the game of baseball. Among the things discussed were pace of play and possibly banning the defensive shifts. The latter has been discussed on these pages already, so I won’t get into that. But I do want to dive into pace of play for a bit.

One of the proposed changes involves installing a pitch clock. In fact, the Arizona Fall League was used as a bit of a test case already. The idea seems simple enough. The time between every pitch should last no more than 20 seconds. So, taking what we know about pace numbers and applying that restraint, what kind of change can we expect?

Looking at FanGraphs data from 2014 alone, I took the total pitches and pace data from every pitcher (minimum 10 IP). I took a weighted average of the pace numbers, to try and get as accurate of a number as I could (more weight to the time taken by the guys who throw the most pitches).

Here’s what was discovered:

  • Weighted average of time between pitches: 23 seconds
  • Total pitches logged by PitchF/X in 2014: 704,974
  • 2430 major league games
  • 290 pitches per game

A 20-second pitch clock means three seconds would be lobbed off of every pitch. That’s 870 seconds saved, or 14.5 minutes, or about 8% of the total game time.

If you wanted to get turbo-aggressive, you could turn to MLB rule 8.04:

When the bases are unoccupied, the pitcher shall deliver the ball to the batter within 12 seconds after he receives the ball.

There are a lot of rules that aren’t really enforced these days, but say the new commish wants to flex his newly-found muscle and implement this rule as well.

  • 170,876 total pitches thrown with the bases empty
  • 70 pitches per game thrown with no runners on

If pitchers only had 12 seconds to throw in this scenario, it would knock 11 seconds off each pitch. Over 70 pitches, that comes out to 770 seconds or around 13 minutes. Add in the remaining 220 innings at the usual three seconds a piece, and you get … around 14 minutes. All that math to save about 30 seconds.

So 14 minutes seems to be the magic number — a little less than 8% of total game time. But 8% is 8%, and considering a lot of the other percents (rest of the time to play the game, commercial breaks, pitching changes, etc.) probably aren’t going anywhere, 8% is not an insignificant number. There are certainly other factors to consider, but we’re doing this in a bit of a vacuum.

It remains to be seen what steps will be taken, if any, to increase pace of play. But if it’s done using some sort of time restriction on pitchers, we can expect a maximum of 14 minutes or so to be saved, on average. At least now we know. And I have it on good authority that knowing is around 50% of the battle.





David G. Temple is the Managing Editor of TechGraphs and a contributor to FanGraphs, NotGraphs and The Hardball Times. He hosts the award-eligible podcast Stealing Home. Dayn Perry once called him a "Bible Made of Lasers." Follow him on Twitter @davidgtemple.

22 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Buck Farmer
9 years ago

The savings would likely be even more considering pitchers won’t risk waiting until exactly 20 seconds to pitch. Most will probably pitch within the 15 to 18 second range.

vivalajeter
9 years ago
Reply to  Buck Farmer

On top of this, we’d really need to find the number of pitches thrown above 20 seconds (and the average time of them), as well as the pitches under 20 seconds.

If you had two pitches, one was 15 seconds and the other was 25 seconds, this analysis would say that we wouldn’t save any time because we already average 20 seconds. But the reality is that the ’15 second’ pitch would remain unchanged while the ’25 second’ pitch would be faster, and we’d ultimately save 5 seconds.

This is all partially offset by the comment below though, as some of the time is when the catcher still holds the ball.

Mark L
9 years ago
Reply to  vivalajeter

Why? That’a a pointlessly complicated way of doing things. We already have an average of all pitches and can work from that.

vivalajeter
9 years ago
Reply to  Mark L

How is it pointless? The average doesn’t really help us because it assumes that the fast working pitchers would slow down their pace to 20 seconds in between pitches. If the average was exactly 20 seconds, it would say that the limit wouldn’t save any time. We know that that’s not the case.

The slow working pitchers would speed up, saving time, and the fast working pitchers would continue doing what they’re doing.

DBA455
9 years ago
Reply to  vivalajeter

Good point.