Let’s Pick Up the Pace

Earlier this week, colleague Nicolas Stellini made an impassioned defense of the traditional intentional walk, which is endangered according to a Jayson Stark ESPN report. We know MLB commissioner Rob Manfred has made quickening the game’s “pace of action” one of his priorities, and Stark reported that MLB has proposed two rule changes to the MLBPA: raising the strike zone above the knees and transforming the intentional walk to an automatic one.

But it’s unclear whether these two measures, if implemented, would result in a brisker pace of play. Eliminating the traditional intentional-walk process would have little effect, as Stark notes:

“In an age in which intentional walks actually have been declining — there were just 932 all last season (or one every 2.6 games) — that time savings would be minimal. But MLB sees the practice of lobbing four meaningless pitches as antiquated, so eliminating them would serve as much as a statement as it would a practical attempt to speed up the game.”

The growth of the bottom of strike zone has also been a focus of the commissioner, who is concerned with the record levels of strikeouts and the fewer and fewer balls put in play. They’re reasonable concerns, as there is a lot of standing around in today’s game. From Stark:

“The change in the strike zone, however, could have a much more dramatic effect, MLB believes. Its intent is to produce more balls in play, more baserunners and more action at a time when nearly 30 percent of all hitters either walk or strike out — the highest rate of “non-action” in the game’s history.

Changes to the strike zone, however, could and likely would have dramatic effects and unintended consequences. The change would reduce the strike zone by an estimated 34 square inches, which according to Jon Roegele’s excellent research, would reduce the strike zone by 7.2%.

You Aren't a FanGraphs Member
It looks like you aren't yet a FanGraphs Member (or aren't logged in). We aren't mad, just disappointed.
We get it. You want to read this article. But before we let you get back to it, we'd like to point out a few of the good reasons why you should become a Member.
1. Ad Free viewing! We won't bug you with this ad, or any other.
2. Unlimited articles! Non-Members only get to read 10 free articles a month. Members never get cut off.
3. Dark mode and Classic mode!
4. Custom player page dashboards! Choose the player cards you want, in the order you want them.
5. One-click data exports! Export our projections and leaderboards for your personal projects.
6. Remove the photos on the home page! (Honestly, this doesn't sound so great to us, but some people wanted it, and we like to give our Members what they want.)
7. Even more Steamer projections! We have handedness, percentile, and context neutral projections available for Members only.
8. Get FanGraphs Walk-Off, a customized year end review! Find out exactly how you used FanGraphs this year, and how that compares to other Members. Don't be a victim of FOMO.
9. A weekly mailbag column, exclusively for Members.
10. Help support FanGraphs and our entire staff! Our Members provide us with critical resources to improve the site and deliver new features!
We hope you'll consider a Membership today, for yourself or as a gift! And we realize this has been an awfully long sales pitch, so we've also removed all the other ads in this article. We didn't want to overdo it.

A smaller strike zone could result in fewer strikes, more pitches, more hitter’s count, more baserunners and more methodical pitchers anxiously stepping off the rubber and taking tours around the mound to ponder their next pitch sequence. Baseball’s strike zone shrunk for the first time in the PITCHf/x era last year, according to Roegele’s research, and run scoring and game times were up. While more balls could be put in play, it’s not clear – at least to me – that the game’s actual pace would improve and overall game time would decrease. After all, more run scoring usually means longer games and more calls to the bullpen.

Baseball was on the right track in 2015 when it announced its first wave of pace-of-play rule changes, including the most significant one: requiring batters to keep one foot in the batter’s box between pitches unless there was a foul ball or wild pitch or one of several other exceptions.

And to compel behavior to change, violators of the pace rules were to be fined. MLB was really just electing to enforce a rule that already existed, 6.02b, which states “The batter is not at liberty to step in and out of the batter’s box at will.”

There has been a log of focus on the mound in efforts to hasten play. And there are some egregious violators of pace decorum, with Pedro Baez and Junichi Tazawa representing the two pitchers last season who required 30 seconds (a full TV commercial!) between pitches. Pitch clocks, controversial in a game without a timer, were implemented in the minors last year and Manfred eventually wants the 20-second clocks in the majors. Clocks, of course, would help quicken the pace.

But I found in 2014 that much of the game’s pace and time-of-game issues were perhaps more so attributed to the batter than the pitcher. As an experiment, I put a stopwatch on every batter who stepped out of the box with two feet during a Pirates-Cardinals game and this is what I found during the 3-hour, 37-minute, nine-inning affair that included only 10 combined strikeouts: 190 times a batter left the batter’s box after a pitch. The total time spent out of the box: 39 minutes and 51 seconds.

That’s a lot of dead time. Perhaps it explains, in large part, why the average time of game has increased from 2 hours and 25 minutes in 1963 to 3 hours and 8 minutes in 2014. Maybe we should blame Mike Hargrove for those hours spent at the stadium and in front of the TV that we’re never going to get back:

Said Bud Selig to a group of reporters at PNC Park in 2014: “A guy gets in the batter’s box, ball one, and now he’s adjusting all this crap he has on. And I’m thinking to myself watching the game, ‘What is he adjusting? He hasn’t swung the bat.’”

But in 2015, the one-foot-in-box change seemed to have an effect. As the seconds between pitches had increased to a PITCHf/x-era record 23 in 2014, up from 21.6 in 2008, the seconds between pitches declined to 22.1 in 2015. While a 9/10 of a second difference from 2014 to 2015 pace doesn’t seem like much of a pace change, that’s about 200 hours of savings over the course of the 710,000 pitches thrown in a season. Quickening the pace to, say, 20 seconds would reduce more than 400 hours of dead time per season.

But after the rule change’s initial success in 2015, when the time between pitches was reduced by a second and game length reduced by eight minutes in the first month of the season, MLB and the union immediately began to talk about relaxing fines and limiting punishment to only the most serious offenders. Last season, the game’s pace slowed to 22.7 seconds per pitch, the second slowest pace in the PITCHf/x era.

It doesn’t require much of a leap to wonder if the slowing of pace in 2016 was tied to a lack of vigilance in enforcing batters to remain in the box. After six minutes were trimmed from average game times in 2015, down to 2 hours and 56 minutes, the average game reached three hours in 2016. There are many MLB hitters who do not want their between-pitch routines disrupted, but it’s unclear whether they are really providing any benefit.

Speeding up the game is understandably a focus as baseball tries to better reach and capture younger audiences. The average length of an NBA game is 2 hours and 20 minutes. For what it’s worth, the official NBA Twitter account has 24.2 million followers as of this afternoon. MLB’s account has 6.7 million.

Baseball must pick up its pace to keep audiences engaged in a world where attention spans are increasingly challenged and shortened. But to speed up the game, baseball does not necessarily need new rules – a pitch clock would help – or new strike zone, it simply could begin by better enforcing an existing rule: having batters keep a foot in the box.





A Cleveland native, FanGraphs writer Travis Sawchik is the author of the New York Times bestselling book, Big Data Baseball. He also contributes to The Athletic Cleveland, and has written for the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, among other outlets. Follow him on Twitter @Travis_Sawchik.

54 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
sideshowraheem
9 years ago

Eliminating batters stepping out of the box with each pitch would be a big step in the right direction. Watch older games from even the 1980’s and you dont see players step out as often and as for long.

If they really wanted to speed things up they’d shorten the time period for breaks between pitching changes. That would go a long way.

Then they could work on all of these damn mound visits.

shaq_diesel
9 years ago
Reply to  sideshowraheem

I love how Bonds wouldn’t even bother to look at the third base coach. He knew no hit and run or other hijinx was happening with him in the box.

jianadaren
9 years ago
Reply to  shaq_diesel

Ban the third base coach.

Michael K Woods
9 years ago

Perhaps Pitchers could be encouraged to legally “quick pitch” more often. This would force hitters to get ready in the batter’s box earlier.

Monsignor Martinez
9 years ago

^^This.

Doug LampertMember since 2016
9 years ago

I like it, simple enough rule, if the Umpire doesn’t call time, then the pitcher can simply deliver the pitch at any time after at least 3 seconds have passed since he received it. Maybe make it 6 seconds if the batter swung.

v2miccaMember since 2016
9 years ago

Umpires also need to limit the number of Catcher Visits to the mound. I largely blame Jorge Posada for the increase in this practice as I swear he would make a slow trot to the mound three to four times an inning.

MJBuddyMember since 2020
9 years ago
Reply to  v2micca

How about trips to the mound cost a called ball? A systematic penalty seems better than subjective application.

OkraMember since 2016
9 years ago

Yes, make hitters keep a foot in the box. Plus –

A. Eliminate trips to the mound (for both coaches and infielders) except for pitching changes. These are professionals making millions … be prepared. If a pitcher is injured he can signal to come out of the game.

B. Require pitchers to face at least two hitters. The increase in one out pitchers consumes lots of time. If the pitcher is removed without facing two hitters then he is unavailable for the next 6 games (removes the possibility of teams claiming a pitcher was injured to get around the rule).

Chili Davis Eyes
9 years ago

It’s probably hard for umpires to enforce a rule when there is no punishment for breaking it. My humble suggestion: once a batter is in the box, he has to stay there (unless granted a time out). If he steps out, it’s a called strike. Same deal for pitchers: if they leave the mound between pitches, it’s a called ball.

bobr
9 years ago

I have never understood the need for lengthy discussion of this issue. The rules are already in the rule book. If a batter steps out without being granted time out, a power completely within the umpire’s discretion, the umpire signals the pitcher to pitch and will call it a strike if it is.

I am not sure what the rule is about pitchers throwing within a certain time frame, but I know there is one, (20 sec? 12 sec?) and don’t want to look it up now, but my guess is the batter is awarded a ball. Of course that time rule only applies with nobody on base.

In any case, make clear at the start of the season the rules will be enforced and then do so. Things like altering the strike zone are bound to have unforeseen that we don’t like.

bananas
9 years ago
Reply to  bobr

I don’t disagree, but enforcing rules differently than every other umpire might feel good for your principles, but also is a great way to get fired.

baycommuterMember since 2016
9 years ago
Reply to  bananas

Yes. The league has to tell the umpires “we’re grading you on pace of play and don’t worry about complaints.” The umpires will then pass that along to the catchers, who will understand what that implies.

bobr
9 years ago
Reply to  baycommuter

Precisely. It’s not my point for individual umpires to decide, but for the major league front office inform the umps to enforce rules already in the book.

CarrotJuice
9 years ago

As a millennial baseball fan, I’d say that blackout rules are having a much bigger effect on lack of youth interest in baseball. I don’t own a TV, nor does almost anyone else I know. I’m just lucky I’m a Cubs fan living in NYC.

JBurgers
9 years ago
Reply to  CarrotJuice

Couldn’t agree with this more. If we’re talking about shaving 5-10 minutes from the average game, that’s just a 2-5% decrease – how much would most fans even notice this unless it were actually a statistic that was tracked? Meanwhile, there is a large percentage of the younger generation that are ditching TVs or cable and simply stream shows/events on their computers. If you live in Chicago, this means you cannot watch Cubs or White Sox games. Turning away a large population of interested viewers seems like a bigger problem than turning a 3 hour game into 2 hours and 55 minutes.

bananas
9 years ago

Is there any meaningful research that says younger audiences will grow if games are shortened? It’s easy to theorize, but hockey games are short and hockey is not popular. Cricket games are long and it’s one of the most popular in the world amongst young people. Soccer games are “long and boring and nothing happens” to american eyes, but it’s the world’s game. Tennis matches are super quick and most neighborhoods have tennis courts, but you don’t see young kids lining up for the us open.

Don’t get me wrong – I would love to see a red sox yankees game take less than 4 hours. There’s just way too many other factors for me to reasonably conclude “short games = young people will love us”. Would love to be shown otherwise though, since pace of play is probably the easiest thing to fix (unlike, e.g., access for urban youth)

Famous Mortimer
9 years ago
Reply to  bananas

Soccer games last 105 minutes. And for the two halves, there are no breaks in the action. Neither long or boring.

OneearMember since 2018
9 years ago

There are so many easy fixes. The will to implement them isn’t there.

John Autin
9 years ago

Thanks for writing the common-sense viewpoint, Travis.

Pace of play isn’t a huge priority for me, but I’d welcome the gains available just by enforcing existing rules. And I’m deeply wary of indirect approaches like changing the strike zone. Tinkering with the essential rules should be a last resort, after much thought and study.

Richie
9 years ago
Reply to  John Autin

Yeah, messing around with the strike zone is an insane idea when there are so many simpler things you can do.

Richie
9 years ago
Reply to  Richie

If they are making the pitching clocks and the ‘no-stepping-out’ stuff work in the minors, then we will have them in the majors within 10 years.

kenai kings
9 years ago

The argument that baseball has too much down time and that is why it lacks a following among younger fans is a dubious argument.
Look at football (which is #1 among all fans)… every play has a stoppage of close to twenty seconds. That is five to ten seconds of action followed by twenty seconds of men huddling up. And lets not forget all the video reviews. Basketball is not much better. The crux of the issue regarding the popularity for any spectator sport is the entertainment value.
The emphasis should be on bringing more bang for the buck for the fanbase. One idea; a skills competition during the game: incorporated between each half inning while the pitcher warms up. Fans could take their swings at a pitching machine for $$ or pitch to a backstop for a radar gun measure. There are various fan friendly activities throughout the minors that could be adopted (the evidence is there that attendance is up in the minor leagues). Another aspect is lack of scoring. One rule change I advocate to stimulate scoring is… Ground Rule Triples. A few more runs created and the added element of the pitcher and runner on thirdbase dynamic.

dl80Member since 2026
9 years ago
Reply to  kenai kings

Football ratings (at least professional) were down significantly this year, though.

OkraMember since 2016
9 years ago

What about only taking a commercial break after a full inning instead of after each half inning? Maybe offset the ad revenue loss through a combination of occasional small ads in the corner of the screen (like soccer) and increased prices for the smaller number of commercial air time for sale

LHPSU
9 years ago
Reply to  Okra

Shorten commercial breaks. Reduce/eliminate blackouts on MLB.com
In exchange, let TV providers run ads on MLB.com broadcasts. There’s a lot of air time there that’s not being utilized.

Matt
9 years ago

Is a waning attention span really the reason baseball can’t keep audiences engaged? I don’t accept that premise. Does baseball magically get hugely popular if games are finishing up in a tight 2:30 like the NBA? No, it doesn’t.

Pace of play has absolutely nothing to do with baseballs popularity, or the popularity of any sport for that matter. Football is almost entirely dead time between plays and yet it remains the most popular sport in the country. Why? Because it is a more accessible and properly marketed product.

It is hard as hell to get into baseball. You really, really have to want it and go out of your way to be a fan. Blackout rules make it tough just to watch games at home, never mind the cost to actually attend just 1 of 162 games. Being a baseball fan is a grind. Shortening individual games may lessen a tiny aspect of that grind, but the benefit is more for established fans, not fans looking to get into it. I also think pace of play becomes less of an issue if you shorten the season from 162 to something in the 140-150 range, with the added benefit of non November World Series games.

If you want to expand MLB’s popularity, you have to make the game more accessible first. Until that happens, none of this really matters.

Famous Mortimer
9 years ago
Reply to  Matt

I think less dead time in games would make it more interesting to watch.

JaysCraze
9 years ago

Someone made a point in the other article about lack of warm up time for the following batter, but didn’t really elaborate.

Every batter has a warm up routine that they go through during the preceding player’s AB. So this new rule could also mess with the following batter’s prep work and thereby, his AB. If we let the batter continue with his regular warm up, we’ve lost virtually all time saved. If we don’t let the batter warm up, he is now at a (for some players, I’d imagine, a big) disadvantage.

lincredible
9 years ago

The ironic thing here is that all this shortening of the game is little in comparison to the time taken for commercial breaks. Craig Edwards had a great post last year talking about Ad Revenue (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/estimated-tv-revenues-for-all-30-mlb-teams/). No matter what the MLB decides to do, the cable companies will have the final say.

Maybe I’m old, but I have no problem with intentional walks, especially when this happens: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6YzVvtxoaY

mtsw
9 years ago

If MLB wants to seriously improve pace issues they should stop the inexorable creep of fences inwards, especially along the foul lines. Creating greater rewards for power pull hitters encourages three-true-outcomes, low-contact pull hitters, and simultaneously hurts more athletic, contact-oriented spray hitters by reducing the size of the outfield.

Until MLB confronts the contradiction between “chicks dig the long ball! Fans want more scoring” and “fans are bored! Fans want shorter games and more balls in play” it’s hard to take their efforts here seriously.

carterMember since 2020
9 years ago
Reply to  mtsw

Without any data to back this up, I can assure you that most casual baseball fans would prefer to see McGwire at the plate than Wade Boggs

Sammy Sooser
9 years ago

I’m curious about historical foul outs, but not sure where I’d find data on said phenomenon. With foul territory shrinking so dramatically in the stadium building boom of the last 25 years or so (anecdotally, anyway – I’d like to see how much on a % basis), that’s a lot of quick, easy outs that just turned into a new life up there.

PC1970Member since 2024
9 years ago
Reply to  Sammy Sooser

The reason for the decreasing foul territory is the desire to get fans close to the action. The bigger the foul ground, the further away the paying patrons are from the field.

Sammy Sooser
9 years ago
Reply to  PC1970

I’m aware of the reasons for decreased foul territory. Were I curious about the reason behind it, I might have asked something like, “I wonder if PC1970 knows why there is less foul territory?”. I skipped right on past you, more’s the pity.

PC1970Member since 2024
9 years ago
Reply to  Sammy Sooser

At least I now know who the asshole is in this thread.

Totally unnecessary smart ass response on your part.

Sammy Sooser
9 years ago
Reply to  PC1970

So… don’t reply with an answer to a question that was unasked, and refrain from doing so in a patronizing way.

“The bigger the foul ground, the further away the paying patrons are from the field.”

Anything else to contribute, Cap’n?

rosen380
9 years ago
Reply to  Sammy Sooser

“I’m curious about historical foul outs, but not sure where I’d find data on said phenomenon.”

Wouldn’t it presumably be an increasing BABIP? Replace foul outs with some proportion of everything else and you are trading outs on balls in play for some other outs but also some other hits and such…?

Sammy Sooser
9 years ago
Reply to  rosen380

Assuming teams haven’t gotten better or worse at turning batted balls into outs all over the field, then the difference would answer the question. I don’t know the answer to that off the top of my head, but were I pressed to guess, I’d say that, at the very least, the figure hasn’t remained static.

dl80Member since 2026
9 years ago

Most of these fixes are small ones, and while that means the benefits are small, so are the negatives.

Easy fixes that ought to be implemented, even if they don’t (individually) save a lot of time:

– pitch clock for pitchers
– force the batter to stay in the box with both feet (part of the problem is managers wanting to micromanage every pitch of every at bat, driving the need for new signs after each pitch)
– one catcher visit per pitcher per inning
– force all pitchers to pitch to at least 3 batters (unless injured, and then they must go on a at least a shortened 7-day DL)

Other than the pitcher minimum, none of these are going to really change the nature of the game in any way. And that change mostly just brings things back to how they were in the early 1990s and before, when there were very few 1-out relief pitchers.

Then the big one: shorten commercial breaks and enforce the strict rule of commercial breaks that was implemented in 2015. Shorten the breaks to 2 minutes and 10 seconds, allowing 4 30-second commercials. When those 2 minutes and 10 seconds are up, the pitch has to be thrown.

The breaks are currently 2:25 or 2:45 depending on if it is a national game, and they are never strictly followed. At a minimum, shortening the breaks saves 15-30 seconds every half inning, or between 4:15 and 8:30 per game. More if you realize we’re wasting another 15-30 seconds currently beyond the actual time limit for commercials.

Edit: These changes could probably get the game times down to 2:40 or lower. I know I’d watch a lot more games if they were closer to 2 hours and 30 minutes instead of 3 hours plus. I often DVR games and start watching an hour in so that I can fast-forward through commercials and dead time.

Even with fewer commercials, you would think it would be better for the advertisers if I’m watching some commercials instead of none.

rosen380
9 years ago
Reply to  dl80

“force all pitchers to pitch to at least 3 batters (unless injured, and then they must go on a at least a shortened 7-day DL)”

Last year there were 1827 occurrences of a pitcher facing less than three batters [and not finishing the game]. There are 2430 games in a season, so we’re talking a reduction of 0.75 per game.

Lets say a pitcher finishes an inning with 1-2 batters faced. Do you want to force that pitcher to stay in for the next inning? If the manager is going to want to pull them as soon as possible, you might be adding an extra break since as soon as the pitcher finished their third batter they then get pulled mid-inning, roll commercial.

Or what if their batting order spot comes up in the next half inning? If they can’t be pulled yet, then the manager is forced to bat this pitcher?

Lets assume that three batter minimum is waived so long as the following pitching change is happening during the regular between inning break. I don’t have a good way of checking this automatically, so looking at the first 20 of the 1827 of them by hand.

70% finished their inning, so lets say something like 60-80% is a pretty good guess overall, then the 0.75 reduction per game drops to 0.15-0.30 per game.

If a mid-inning pitching change adds 2.5-3.5 minutes, then this rule change would shave like 25-65 seconds per game.

dl80Member since 2026
9 years ago
Reply to  rosen380

I think that’s a good change to add about finishing an inning. And while 25-65 seconds per game is not much, it will add up when we can do 5 or 6 changes that each do a half a minute or a minute.

difflja
9 years ago

Terry…..I could not agree more…..this is easily the biggest waste of unnecessary time in the game. Love the Selig comment—why the adjustments after taking a pitch?? It’s tough to break customs, but can be done. Just enforce the rules….

Almost finished Big Data Baseball—–what a marvelous piece of work!! Articulate, insightful and enjoyable—-a virtual grand salami!! Props to you and all who assisted. Not only does it reveal the very practical use of analytics, it also shows how the smartly the Pirates organization brought everyone into a new model. Very well done, thank you!!

Baltar
9 years ago

I propose a more radical time-saving rule: managers and coaches are forbidden from the playing field, except for base coaches in their boxes, trainers when there is possible injury, and a few steps out of the dugout to signal a pitching change. Those infernal trips to the mound are maddening. I can’t think of another sport that allows this except the high bar event in gymnastics which does not stop the action.
I also agree with the 20-second rule but an automatic ball if the pitcher is the violator and an automatic strike if the batter is–not a fine.

mike sixelMember since 2016
9 years ago
Reply to  Baltar

Think of them as timeouts…then you can see that football and basketball do this all the time.

bndj88Member since 2017
9 years ago

It’s unclear what problem MLB is trying to solve. Shortening the game is not the same as speeding up pace of play is not the same as getting more balls in play is not the same as scoring more runs is not the same as attracting new young fans… etc.

We can theorize for days about good and bad policies to address some/all of these goals but at this point it looks like MLB doesn’t even know what it wants to do (much less how). I worry as a result we’ll end up with scattershot changes to game-play on the field without a strong enough reason, which to me would be lamentable.

DeadheadbrewerMember since 2016
9 years ago
Reply to  bndj88

I agree, bndj88, about the conflicting goals. And I disagree with this general premise that I keep hearing that it’s because of the Millenials’ short attention spans. I’m in my late 40s, and don’t even use a smart phone. I listen to musical works that are 40 minutes long, doing nothing but staring at my speakers. Compared to many, my attention span is quite long, and yet I can’t abide the pace of play in today’s game. I turn a game on, with every intention of seeing it through, but after watching mostly wrist-band adjustments for 30 minutes, I go find something else to do.

Millenials are no different than us older luddites; they just want things to progress at a reasonable pace, which baseball refuses to do these days.

Famous Mortimer
9 years ago
Reply to  Deadheadbrewer

Completely agree. Does anyone enjoy watching a batter adjust his gloves three times per AB? For those people who say it’ll upset their rhythm or whatever, they’re highly trained millionaire athletes, I’m sure they’ll adapt.

channelclemente
9 years ago

Stop trying to fix what isn’t broken.

MustBunique
9 years ago

This. How about polling the fg readers about what they think regarding game length and what sacrifices/changes they would be willing to make to speed up the game?

JUICEMANE
9 years ago

Listen to baseball on the radio

carterMember since 2020
9 years ago

I like the ideas. Foot in the box. 20 second pitch clock.

With that said, look around you. Look at what is currently going on in the USA.

When I go to the bar to watch a baseball game and they are charging $50 cover for a UFC fight and its packed to the brim, and playoff baseball is not on ANY of the TV’s it is pretty easy to see what is really going on. Its like the Mike Judge movie Idiocracy with the tv show about guys getting kicked in the nuts. Baseball is a thinking mans game. Does that even sound like something that would appeal to your peers right now?

carterMember since 2020
9 years ago
Reply to  carter

That does not mean we should not try. They should certainly try to enforce rules they already have in place. They should certainly not have these absurd blackout restrictions. I am sure that would help viewership quite a bit. With that said, sometimes it feels like Idiocracy was a prophecy.

DannyMember since 2016
9 years ago

I cannot say this enough; I consider pace of play and the three-true-outcomes issue separate and unequal problems. Baseball has to stop thinking of them as two sides of the same coin that they can and must fix simultaneously.

Personally, I think the TTO problem is by far the more pernicious.