More Nonsense on Time of Game
Today, Ken Rosenthal wrote about a conversation he had with Frank Robinson, who has been tasked by Bud Selig with trying to get a few teams to shorten the length of their games. As Rosenthal notes, MLB has been trying to do this for years, and with no success. They send memos, they ask nicely, umpires complain to the media, and none of it matters.
And yet, somehow, they continue to miss the obvious – they cannot make the games shorter unless they reduce offensive levels. It is a simple fact that run scoring is the main driver of the length of a baseball game. You will never go to a 13-10 slugfest that moves at a brisk pace. The only way for games to end is for 51 or or more outs to be recorded, and every time a batter reaches base safely, he’s extended the time of game without contributing towards its finish.
Yes, the Yankees and Red Sox games always take longer than everyone else. Guess what? The Red Sox score more runs than any other team in baseball, and the Yankees are right behind them. This shouldn’t be any kind of surprise to Robinson, or anyone else in Major League Baseball.
The Yankees and Red Sox have something else in common, of course – an offensive philosophy that values selective hitters. Boston’s hitters see 4.07 pitchers per plate appearance, most in baseball. With hitters like J.D. Drew, Kevin Youkilis, and David Ortiz, the Red Sox have built an offense that was designed to make pitchers work. The Yankees do the same, always loading their line-up with high walk, high power guys who don’t swing very often.
This style of baseball is naturally going to take longer than the Royals or Giants swing-at-anything approach. Guess what, Mr. Robinson? You can’t issue a memo that orders Nick Swisher to swing at pitches out of the strike zone.
If you want Boston and New York (as well as the rest of the league) to play quicker games, you have one option, and one option only – make the strike zone bigger. Over the years, it has steadily shrunk, especially on the high side, where nothing over the belt is a strike anymore. The shrinking strike zone has allowed selective hitters to keep the bat on their shoulders until they get a pitch they can drive, and no amount of complaining about it is going to make them adopt a less effective approach to scoring runs.
Nothing else they do will matter. The only way to shorten a Major League game is to make the strike zone bigger. Until they decide to do that, the rest of this is just posturing.
Dave is the Managing Editor of FanGraphs.
God I hate Joe West.
This.
Wouldn’t another technique be to raise the pitcher’s mound? Although I haven’t really looked for data to support the idea that higher mound = reducing scoring, seems that the ideas was that the 69 decision to lower pitchers mounds was to (a.) standardize the height of pitchers mounds and (b.) promote run production.
Very true. Or bring the mound closer.
Not that I want any of these things.
Or shorten the commercials a litt
Haha am i saying.
This is the answer.
Soccer has no commercials, and billboards EVERYWHERE. If MLB really wanted to take an hour off the game this is the way, but money is actually whats important. In the playoffs, commercials are 3 Min instead of 2.5 mins. Every baseball fan can feel that 30 seconds difference, imagine if it was only 2 min of commercials, how quick it would feel.
The NFL has increased the amount of commercials and commercial breaks steadily over the years, so that now the afternoon games start at 4:30 and are still sometimes pre-empted by late-running 1:00 games. Monday Night Football routinely runs well past midnight. I’ll never understand how people can complain about baseball games taking too long but never say anything about NFL games. Let me know the next time you see a football game under 2.5 hours, which happens all the time in baseball.
God I hate NFL football.
That’s because in football, Bob, your team only plays once a week, and it’s a special event. Baseball is a daily routine. 21 hours per week instead of 3-4 hours per week.
Not that I’m a big football fan (I much prefer baseball, of course), but that’s kind of an important difference.
Commercials coincide with the players switching sides. If they did get rid of commercials this wouldn’t change the time of the game at all. We’d just see players walking off the field, umpires standin around, maybe sweeping the plate, a little around the horn, blah blah blah. If you have ever actually been to a baseball game, I don’t see how you could think this would help.
The writer is correct. This is pretty much the only way to make games shorter. The action would be forced and most likely more outs would be made resulting in a quicker game.
Outside of the ever popular “pitcher shot clock” idea. This would help somewhat but I disagree with the idea. The batter can just call time and step out anyway, so you would have to implement a limit on time requests.
Duncan, the players are milling about waiting for the ad break to end.
Duncan, you need to read this: http://morganensberg.wordpress.com/2010/04/18/bud-selig-should-tell-you-the-truth-about-pace-of-game/
If you want to shorten the length of the game, cut the commercials.
I can care less about the length of games. The more the merrier. If you have somewhere to go, watch soccer. I love the entire narrative that baseball provides, even the time in between pitches and at-bats, which provides time for commentators to share stories and talk shop. One of the beauties of the game is that it doesn’t have a clock.
One idea I’ve always thought of that I never hear anywhere else is to cut down on pitching changes. Specialized, one-out, match-up based pitching changes are a big reason games take so long. I think it would be a good idea that if you took your pitcher out in the middle of the inning, the current batter would get an automatic intentional walk. This might create more offense, but it would also get managers to make less pitching changes.
So basically you’re not playing baseball anymore
Really? I think the players from the beginning of the 20th century would have a hard time recognizing today’s pitching staffs. The game changes. We have a DH now. We’d adapt pretty quickly to limits on the number of available pitchers. Not that I agree with the idea, but its hardly and unreasonable suggestion.
“The only way to shorten a Major League game is to make the strike zone bigger.”
I think batters leaving the box and pitchers walking off the mound much less frequently would yield a big game time reduction, and that those are easily enforceable changes.
Yeah, this seems like an obvious answer to me without vastly changing the game. Don’t let the batters step out every time they ask. Make the pitcher throw the ball.
Agree. This stepout 6 steps, untape the gloves, pull down the gloves, shoot the sleeves, stare at the bat, tip toe in the box, plant the foot, point the bat at the pitcher, pivot the foot around step in pose …oops ball outside, start over. c’mon stand there and hit. I like to see Buehrle stare at these guys, ‘are you done, primadona?’ and fire
Didn’t someone at THT or here do an analysis of the time between pitches for a Sox-Yanks game compared to Rangers-Angels or something? as I remember, it was a pretty big difference.
I found what you’re looking for. It’s extremely significant, and the largest amount of it is just time between pitches and time between at-bats, so you can’t blame it on extra commercial time.
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/blog_article/red-sox-yankees-slow-games/
You have to keep in mind that this data only includes the average time between pitches/batters/innings/etc. So, if the Yankees and Red Sox have more pitches or more ABs per game (and they do), that will also impact the duration.
raise the mound
No. pitch velocity and strikeouts are already very high. raising the mound would mean even fewer balls in play and a more boring game.
Your logic frightens me here, bowie; I agree with you, it’s that you’re using logic in this context. We are supposed to have forgotten how boring the fast games of the 60s were even when we talk about the increased offense. Next, you’ll present even more facts to this argument in which a sport complains about itself. Scary stuff, bowie 🙂
God yes. That and call the strikezone according to the rule book. Put a premium on offense and balance the game again. I’ll die a happy man. Sadly, it will never happen. Chicks and casual fans dig the long ball. To the point where the homerun has been devalued to the only acceptable form of offense instead of an event to be savored and enjoyed. 1-0 doesn’t cut it anymore with the advertisers.
They don’t have to make the strikezone bigger Dave, they just have to actually call the strikezone as its defined in the rules.
The ball is entirely in MLB’s court, and their choice to ignore the obvious (umpire problems) and blame the popular (everyone hates the yankees/redsox) only shows they have no real interest in fixing anything.
Actually you could make games quicker without changing the strike zone. Just stop granting batters time at the plate and don’t allow coaches to make trips to the mound unless there is a pitching change. Both of these things are unnecessary and take up time. Those 2 simple changes would probably save at least 5 minutes per game.
No warm-up pitches for relievers on the mound, and no commercial break for pitching changes. Two or three pitchers per inning max, excluding instances of injury.
Both of those would significantly shorten games (10-15 minutes), while likely increasing offense.
“while likely increasing offense.”
Thus, making the game longer.
This will just lead to more commercials between innings.
I think the best way to to call the game after 7 innings. Starters who can go 7 innings get a complete game, and you have no need for the bullpen in those games. Joking of course.
They could make it like gym class kickball and ban leading-off a base. That would eliminate the need for a pitcher to waste time throwing over, and lead to more double plays.
In doing so, this would greatly reduce the number of stolen bases. I don’t want to see those eliminated from the game.
I’m all for a bigger strike zone, but how about:
–Eliminate, or greatly reduce, mid-inning pitching changes. The rise of specialization does not improve the neutral fan’s viewing experience.
–Charge a ball when the pitcher throws to first base to hold on a runner unless the throw starts a play (successful pickoff, runner tries to take second base).
–Add an extra one-base penalty for four-pitch walks with runners on base.
Who wrote this post, Michael Imperioli?
Eliminating instances for commercial breaks and trips to the mound would significantly shorten the game. Making the strike zone bigger, unless handled by a zombie robot, can only be arbitrarily enforced. It guarantees nothing.
Tightening the rules on time outs, mound visits, and warm-up pitches (eliminate them for relievers) are some of the few ways to definitively shorten games.
Oh, right, the catcher can visit the mound as often as he likes under the current rules. We could do something about that, too — a Posada rule.
“Charge a ball when the pitcher throws to first base to hold on a runner unless the throw starts a play (successful pickoff, runner tries to take second base).”
I just did the math, and it turns out Carl Crawford would steal 964 bases a year with this implementation.
OK, you’re exaggerating, but would the suggestion change the game that much? It’s not like Crawford could move 5 more feet away from first because then it would be easy to pick him off. If he really does run more often, that’s a good thing. More fun to watch. If the pitcher does throw over, you know he’s going to fire it over. More fun to watch. You could get rid of the balk rule, which is all about not deceiving the runner on base. And the catcher could try for pickoffs, which is always a fun play. Baseball’s a well-designed game, but I doubt anyone making the rules would have said:
–“The pitcher can throw to first as often as he wants.”
–“The catcher can visit the pitcher as often as he wants.”
–“By all means slow the game down by changing pitchers in the middle of the inning. There are only 17 built-in stoppages now.”
eliminate the dh
sell more tickets: seat fans in direct center
“sell more tickets: seat fans in direct center”
I’m assuming you’re talking about eliminating the batter’s eye. Good luck getting that to work in Chase Field.
Yes, removing the batter’s eye would likely decrease offense, but it’s also a safety issue. No batter’s eye means hitters will have less time to react to a wayward pitch.
Here is maybe a silly question.
Whats wrong with having a longer game?
Is it just each individuals preference that they have too much going on that they can’t just enjoy the game the way it is. With technology today you can now watch 4+ games at a time.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t like watching Jeter or players similar take forever adjusting everything each pitch and calling for “time” , but its part of the game and part of who Jeter is.
I do wish they called a strike a strike and I hate it when an ump doesn’t just take the high road and let a player vent and leave him be.
Why would baseball want to decrease the amount of time, how does that help them?
Roger that. All this thought going towards fixing a problem that isn’t really a problem. Somehow this idea that baseball’s problem is that it takes too long took hold.
THANK YOU. I’m breaking out the all caps here, I love your point so much. I’m so glad I RTFT before going to make it myself at the bottom.
Baseball games do have a problematic length….they are too SHORT. The season is too SHORT, too. I have to live half the year without baseball. That SUCKS.
Baseball games don’t have set times AND THAT’S AWESOME. I can sit at the edge of my seat or casually watch while even reading or doing something else. I know baseball isn’t hip with the kids and their fancy apple applications and short attention spans and squirrel like twitchiness, but THAT’S THE POINT. And last I checked, the young chuckleheads can still multitask during games, too. I do it with books; they can txt gobblygook to the chump next door within shouting distance from their rumpus room all the same, no?
GAMES ARE TOO SHORT. I never ask for my favorite bands to stop playing at concerts. I loved the length of great books that merited the page counts. I don’t ask for fewer sexual favors from Mrs. Tuttle, and I don’t stop watch them either.
THIS IS A NONISSUE–it’s pandering to non-baseball fans. EFF THEM AND LEAVE THE GAME ALONE.
Sorry for not being entirely calm here. I just love the sport. You probably do, too.
“I have to live half the year without baseball. That SUCKS.”
Actually, that isn’t true. Shortly after the World Series, winter leagues start, and the Caribbean Series wraps up shortly before Spring Training starts.
Amen.
I’ve never quite understood the uproar over game times. Baseball games today take about 3 hours. “Slow” teams like the Yankees might add 10 minutes or so to that, “Fast” teams might cut 10 minutes, but it all works out to around 3 hours.
This fits with what other sports require. Football games last around 3 hours, too, and as we all recall from the WSJ article, only a tiny fraction of that is game action. Even basketball takes about 2.5 hours. The point is, professional team sports, at least in America, tend to last around 2.5-3 hours.
So it’s not like baseball is mired by obscene length. They tend toward the longer half of the spectrum, but not really that much longer than football games. If there’s a problem, it’s one of perception, not reality–common wisdom says football is a fast, action-packed game and baseball is a slow bore, but if you crunch the numbers, they’re basically the same. It’s a marketing problem, not a rules problem.
If they want to reign in some of the time between pitches, fine. Cut out some commercials, awesome. That could probably bolster a marketing attempt at reigning in the perception of length. But this is ultimately not a significant rules issue, and if any of the proposed rules begin impinging on legitimate strategies, I think they’ve gone much too far.
No one has brought up the simple solution to shorten games; eliminate 1 inning of baseball. This would dramatically shorten the games, and in my opinion raise their quality. I don’t need to see a teams 12th best pitcher in the sixth inning. I am fine paying today’s ticket prices and missing out on that experience.
Ha. Ha. Ha. +8.
(innings. But not nine!)
ACK. I voted you up when I hate the sentiment.
Let’s cut out the last half of the 3rd Godfather movie, too; I’m a busy man.
Can’t we just cut out the entirety of the 3rd Godfather movie?
Sure can, Rex. Let’s cut out Pacino’s character, too, from the first two movies: that’ll save time. The trilogy could be watched in a single evening then!
“Two or three pitchers per inning max, excluding instances of injury.”
When a team is out of pitching changes, and the guy on the mound simply cannot get a man out to save his life, the game will get longer instead of shorter.
The issue isn’t just finding a way to make the game shorter- you could do that by playing seven innings instead of nine- but making it shorter without making it less fun. Some of these ideas (bigger strike zone) are more fun for some fans and less for others, some (making it impossible to steal a base) seem like less fun for everybody, but anything that cuts down on the dead time between action is time saved for free.
Agreed. That’s one of the more preposterous comments I’ve ever heard from Dave, and that’s saying something. I literally burst out laughing upon reading it.
This would be referring to this quote:
“Nothing else they do will matter. The only way to shorten a Major League game is to make the strike zone bigger.”
Seriously Dave. Get a fricken clue.
They don’t need to make the strike zone bigger. The strike zone is big enough. What they need to do is enforce the strike zone that is set forth in the rules.
And Dave, you’re overstating it. There are lots of things MLB can do to speed up the game, the strike zone may be one of the most effective, but it’s far from the only thing. Much of the speed of the game has to do with how long the pitcher takes to make his next pitch. Some work fast, others are notoriously slow.
Exactly. If the umpires actually called a normal strike zone, problem solved. Umpires have blocked the use of technology as a key tool for both evaluation and training. They should have their strike zones tracked, with the requirement for improvement in accuracy over time, to some set benchmark.
A game can also end after 4.5 innings if there’s a rain storm that stops the game and the home team is ahead, so the lowest number of outs would be…27. So, we can all do rain dances, hope the home team is always winnig and prepare for every team to be .500…except for the Phillies and Blue Jays.
That would work too, right?
MLB should focus on the PACE of the game (which they can control to some extent), not the length of the game (which is a bit out of their control)
– Batters cannot leave the box during the AB without umpires permission
– Enforce the pitcher’s pace (call a ball)
– Call the strikezone as intended (no need to make it bigger, just call the belt high/waist high strike as intended and the pitch at the needs). This wold greatly reduce the practice of working counts to get pitch counts up as batters would be behind more
– One ‘free’ catcher visit to the mound/inning per pitcher. 2nd visit is the equivalent to a visit by the pitching coach/manager.
That would be “knees” not ‘needs’
“The Strike Zone is defined as that area over home plate the upper limit of which is a horizontal line at the midpoint between the top of the shoulders and the top of the uniform pants, and the lower level is a line at the hollow beneath the kneecap. The Strike Zone shall be determined from the batter’s stance as the batter is prepared to swing at a pitched ball.” Its actually the bottom of the letters on the standard uniform. Most umpires call the belt high fastball?
Whenever a relief pitcher comes in he takes 3 minutes to throw some warmup pitches to the catcher. Wasn’t he just in the bullpen – isn’t he “warm”? I’d love if we eliminated that from games.
leave baseball alone, watch hockey or soccer and enjoy the fast paced tie game!
95% of the suggestions made in these comments are the reason why I have little faith in the intellect of many baseball fans.
Those lazy throws over to first base — everybody loves them. Every night on BBTN I can’t wait to see Top 10 Throw-Overs. I actually hope for runners to get on first so I can watch the pitcher’s technique in tossing the ball to the first baseman. Chicks dig the first-base toss. The game couldn’t possibly survive without those
Nick,
Knock it off. If you can’t learn how to contribute to the discussion without resorting to petty insults, then find somewhere else to comment.
What happened with Nick? Did he make an outlandish claim, deem it the only reasonable solution to a subjective problem, and then lecture people on how to respond to it?
“Without a toss to first, people would run rampant on the basepaths.”
I hope so. I like to watch fast people run. I don’t know that they would run rampant, but they might run more. They would not be taking 20-foot leads, but they might take another couple of feet and there might be more stolen-base attempts. I’d like that. The game should encourage speed.
I’m advocating that a throw to first be scored as a pitchout. There’s not much difference in the two, and it puts the focus back on the batter-vs.-pitcher battle.
“And if a pitcher throws a 4-pitch walk, you give an extra base?”
Well, yes, with runners on and first base open. If I never see another intentional walk, it won’t change my chances of dying happy. As a matter of strategy, an intentional walk would be legal after the pitcher threw a strike.
I want hitters to get in and hit. I want pitchers to throw them strikes. I understand why we have all this specialization, but I also believe the game should have a bias toward action rather than strategy, especially when all that strategerization delays the action.
If people want to see a shorter game, go to a 7 inning minor league game.
3 hours for 9 innings is shorter than a lot of things in life. It’s a heck of a lot shorter than playing 18 holes with 4 people, and about the same duration as football. It’s a lot more engaging than soccer, which only takes slightly shorter (including half time and additional time) than the average baseball game.
Otherwise, tell the umpires to enforce the existing rules. Or, tell MLB to not pinch every last nickel out of advertising. The commercial breaks for bullpen changes seem to take forever. The game goes by a lot quicker in person when your attention isn’t diverted every 7 minutes.
I don’t care how long the game lasts. I’d like to see some of the needless delays for strategic reasons eliminated. I love baseball statistics, but I like to see people play baseball, not stand around thinking.
You want to take away some strategy? Wow.
“What happened with Nick? Did he make an outlandish claim, deem it the only reasonable solution to a subjective problem, and then lecture people on how to respond to it?”
*Snicker*
*Chortle*
“What happened with Nick? Did he make an outlandish claim, deem it the only reasonable solution to a subjective problem, and then lecture people on how to respond to it?”
Win.
The best game I watched this year was 20 innings long. I was never bored and I root for neither team involved in that game.
This too. I don’t understand the complaining about length of games and all the stupid ideas to manipulate rules related to actual gameplay.
I think it’s because baseball is losing a lot of marginal fans with this. I was also watching the 20 inning NYM-STL game with a bunch of people, and the baseball fans of the group loved it. Even though it was fast paced, a lot of people only mildly interested in baseball got tired of it.
Similarly, I know fewer and fewer young people who follow the sport compared to football and basketball. Those who love baseball will do so no matter what pace the game is played, but it can get tiring for others. The cliche of “all baseball players do is stand around” won’t go away if the game is shortened by a few minutes, but a quicker pace may keep some people’s interest. I’m not in favor of affecting gameplay, but comments about catcher visits and batter’s box pauses sound pretty reasonable.
Baseball is a sport built on tension, and to me a lot of it is lost when the batter pauses or the catcher visits the mound a lot. I’ve always loved baseball and most likely always will, but it also makes sense that it’s popularity is waning.
Miles – is there any real evidence that baseball is declining in popularity due to length of game issues? Not being argumentative, just asking. Ticket sales are probably off of peak, but I would say a recessionary economy and high unemployment for 2.5 years would have an effect there, as much or more so than any other single factor.
I would guess, too, that if a casual fan is bored by a 3-hour game, they’re going to be likewise pretty bored by a 2 hour, 45 minute affair. Most of the suggestions offered here (fewer mound visits, enforcing the strike zone, making batters stand in and pitchers throw the ball, fewer or shorter commercial breaks) will just shave a few minutes off the total game time; It’s not going to magically become a 90-minute game with non-stop action.
I wholly agree with the sentiment that it’s a non-problem that is intending to satisfy folks who aren’t really fans anyway. I don’t really perceive there to be a hue and cry from the baseball diehards on this (non)issue.
“What happened to baseball blogging? These days it’s all velvet ropes and posturing. I don’t know about you, but when I write it, I really like to kick back and be myself.”
Fangraphs is turning into the IPCC of baseball blogs. Lots of good information and intentions, but hubris is leading to megalomania and totally absurd conclusions.
IPCC may refer to:
* Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, of the United Nations
* Independent Police Complaints Commission, of England and Wales
* Irish Peatland Conservation Council
* Interworld Police Coordinating Company, a fictional organization in Jack Vance’s novels
* IP Contact Center, a technology from Cisco Systems, since renamed
* Integrated Professional Competency Course,the Intermediate level course of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India
I hope it’s the last one.
They should require the coaches to literally sprint to the mound if they want to visit it. Sprint! Coaching visits would take less time and be much less frequent.
Lou Pinella would die!
And the earthquakes from Manuel would destroy half of Philly.
I don’t buy that the Yanks-Sox take extra time because they are more “selective” and score more runs. That’s overly simplistic. Yes, it adds a few minutes, but it doesn’t explain why even their pitcher’s duels often take 3 1/2 hours. They also have players that take way more time at the plate than other teams, stepping out after every single pitch for up to 10 or even 40 seconds, and pitchers that take their sweet time to pitch. Getting them back in the box quicker, and back toeing the rubber quicker would make it a helluva lot better. You’re not ready to hit? Sorry, strike one buddy. Get in the box, or walk back to the dugout if you’re not ready to hit.
This can happen, an exampe is a pitch to Glen Allen hill. The ump ask pitcher to pitch the ball with Glen out of the box. He stepped back in and drilled it to right field.
He once was arguing balls and strikes with an umpire, who ordered the pitcher to deliver the next pitch while Hill was standing several feet out of the box. With a two strike count, Hill jumped into the box while the ball was being delivered and amazingly slapped the ball to right field for a single.
Here you go Dave, someone’s already done some compiling of this stuff at THT.
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/blog_article/red-sox-yankees-slow-games/
Bill James discussed this subject (how to shorten games) with a lot more thought in his Historical Baseball Abstract. I recommend rereading the essay to anyone who has the book.
A lot is made on the time of game, but as previously mentioned in the comments, the “pace” of the game matters a lot too. The more standing around, the less action, and the less interest. I agree that the Yankees/Sox will take longer than average given they score more runs and take more pitchers, but in all fairness, some of their players absolutely take more time than necessary to play the game (Papelbon anyone?)
The easy stuff is this:
Limit mound visits. Catchers really just should not be able to visit the mound to talk to a pitcher multiple times in at-bat. I think that’s pretty reasonable.
Limit batters leaving the box. I have no problem with a batter stepping out after a foul ball, or hard swing, that’s fine. I do have a problem with batters stepping out after a called ball or strike, when the batter never even moved. Enforce staying in the box on called balls/strikes, it would greatly speed up the pace of the game.
Call a ball if pitchers are taking a long time between pitches. Certain pitchers (Papelbon, and others) stare in at home plate for *long* stretches of time withotu doing anything, to throw batters off. It’s unbelievably frustrating, and boring to watch a game when a pitcher is doing that.
None of this is dramatically changing the rules of the game, and all are perfectly within reason.
I love huge late inning comebacks as much as the next guy, but would not be apposed to a mercy rule (6+ run lead, 7th inning or later). Games with a lot of scoring tend to be longer anyways.
I think pitchers should be timed on the mound, batters should not be able to ask for time (unless bat broken, injury, etc), and some combination of the suggestions above can alleviate new reliever delays/ holding runners on base.
What if that lead was built off a couple 3-run homers? This is completely anecdotal, but a week or so ago, the Twins had a blowout victory and still completed the game in about 2 hours and 40 minutes.
Here’s a fun idea: make at bats last just 1 pitch. If it’s a strike – boom, strikeout. If it’s a ball, take the walk. If it’s foul, you’re out as well.
Not realistic, but it sure would speed things up, wouldn’t it?
I played in a softball league like that. Man, was it fun.
I keep hearing about the strike zone being so much smaller than it used to be but have never seen any evidence for it. The walk rate has remained steady for 50 years or more while the K rate has gone up. That doesn’t mean that the strike zone hasn’t changed, of course, but if it has there has been a shift in the relative strengths of batters and pitchers such that it has neutralized any change. If it’s true that games were considerably shorter years ago (anyone have data for this?) and that hitters aren’t seeing any more pitches (which is suggested by historical BB and K rates) then obviously there is a way to address the problem that doesn’t involve mucking with the strike zone.
One way to make the games shorter: Everyone has to play against #6org. Since they have no offense to speak of, game time will be lowered drastically.
That’s not fair, they’ve got as much of a chance to win it all as anyone this year… right? God that Jack Z is something!
You guys are turning into pricks. Spare other Mariners fans your anti-Dave Cameron rhetoric.
Idiot Fan: Not going far enough fan. These pricks should spare ALL baseball fans their shit.
There’s more to the Yankees playing really long games than scoring. I was keeping track of the Mets/Yankees Friday Night online while I was watching the Braves play the Kansas City Royals.
Despite the fact that the Braves/Royals game had more runs score, more baserunners, the name number of mid-inning pitching changes, and the fact that Braves/Royals game started a half hour earlier, the Braves/Royals game ended before the Met’s Yankees game. Both games entered the top of the 8th approximately the same time, and the Braves game was over while the Mets were still batting in the top of the 8th.
Now yes, there were more pitches thrown in the Yankees/Mets game. That’s largely thanks to the fact that the losing team was at home in that game, so there 54 outs instead of 51 in the Braves/Royals game. But since I was wondering why a 1-0 game was taking so long, I started measuring the time between pitches. It was very often over 45 seconds, and that’s not counting times when there was a pick off attempt or a mound conference. Several times it was over a minute, again with no action between pitches, and at point, nothing happened inside of three minutes except for three pitches.
It may have been mostly the pitchers going that night, but I can’t understand why it should take over a half hour longer for them to have a relatively low scoring game.
The time on that 4-0 Mets win was 3 hours, 41 minutes, by the way.
That same night, the Phillies beat the Twins 9-4 in 2 hours, 49 minutes.
The Angels beat the Cubs 7-6 in 2 hours, 48 minutes.
The Cardinals beat the Athletics 6-4 in a very brisk 2 hours and 28 minutes.
Two words: Bullpen cars.
They can use Pitch f/x to calculate the time between pitches during and inning and then use that as a metric. They can limit timeouts, and speed pitchers up. It’s not like there is nothing they can do, but with Pitch f/x and hit f/x they can come up with meaningful metrics that take into account game action, including stolen bases, pick-off attempts, hits, etc, and find out and fix where the problem is.
You’re right-there actually is plenty they can do without being disruptive to the game. I don’t care if a pitcher wants to throw over to first 10 consecutive times. That’s legitimate game action (if a bit tiresome). It’s the standing around on the mound with nothing happening for over a minute that really bothers me, and nothing to do except listen to the Yankees announcers, who just aren’t that entertaining.
If the Dodgers ever decide to intentionally slow their pacing so that I can listen to more of Vin Scully, that’s perfectly fine.
When I used to play Ken Griffey Jr.’s Slugfest I would set the games to 5 innings because 9 would take to long.
What if you had a time threshold (3.5 hours or something) where once the threshold is met the current inning is treated as the 9th inning?
That’s a horrible idea. If a team scores in the first inning, they can then decide to intentionally delay the game so that it gives the other team fewer chances to bat. That rule would only survive until you had a 5 inning game reach the 3.5 hour threshold.
A time threshold on the game would be as welcome to me as would be calling any ball leaving the field an automatic out, making all HRs outs.
The field is endless. The games are untimed. Change those, and we might as well get a giant rope and call it blurnsball.
Sorry, Radiohead, but y’ll have to stop in the middle of “Paranoid Android” because your show hit your time limit. Sorry, all concert goers must vacate the premises immediately. Show’s over. Too slow, so sorry.
Logic speaks louder than whining.
I was a teenager in 1971, and would keep score of Senator’s games while listening on the radio. Fast forward, oh, a third of a century or so. I take my 87 year old Dad on several Nats road trips in 2005, including first game ever (at Philly) Pittsburgh (beautiful park, really nice fans) and NY Shea (smelly park.) Nats down 8-0 after three, when I say, “Well, I guess this game is over.” Mets fan says “No, it’s not over. It’s never over until the last out is recorded.” OK, not wanting to start an argument, I just nod “OK, whatever.” Nats score 6 runs in the 7th, and two more in the ninth, and Mets fan and I both nod knowingly. (No happy ending here, Nats lose in the tenth.)
That August game notwithstanding, baseball is like Monopoly, when you are losing, it takes too long to end. Comebacks seem futile. Basketball has miracle comebacks all the time (but still, the last two minutes of gametime can take an eternity.)
I’ve rarely wanted a shorter game. I love baseball and want more of it…but I don’t think Dave was advocating less lengthy games so much as pointing out that MLB leaders are silly…something we can certainly all agree with.
Here here. Do real baseball fans really complain about the length of games? Only our wives do because they want to watch something else.
WOW WOW WOW
I never expected a post like this from Fangraphs. Boneheaded, narrow-minded, and short sighted. Yowza.
Run scoring is at something like 4.30 runs per team, per game, compared to something like 5.00 in 2000. Guess what? Games were just as slow then as they are now. Run scoring is as low as its been in years and years and the games are moving no faster.
Did teams from the 70’s and 80’s need a gigantic strike zone to play briskly? Of course not. The culture of the game today is just different, and players, umps, and everyone else is all implicit; it’s a subtle sort of thing.
The way to change it, if you’re going to get heavy about it, might be to limit the number of check throws to first.
Thanks for this piece, and for pointing out the disappearance of the top four or so inches of the strike zone. I’ve been complaining about this for years. The shape of the strike zone has been transformed over the years into something resembling a compressed balloon–bulging sides and flattened top. It’s absurd that umps have neglected strikes high in the zone. Time for the machines to take over!
Lincecum’s time between pitches is under 15 seconds. I know because if i skip forward 15 seconds immediately after the glove pops and the ump calls it, i’ll often miss the next pitch. There are some pitchers that take 30 seconds between pitches. Lincecum throws between 100 and 120 pitches a game, so that time between pitches is “roughly” 1500 to 1800 seconds or 25-30 minutes a game.
Slower pitchers can easily add 5, 10, even 30 minutes to game.
The time spent playing baseball shouldn’t be important. The time spent not playing baseball should be.
Some guys need that extra time to: cool their nerves, focus, select which pitch they actually want, hold a speedy runner, etc.
Just because 1 kid in class finishes his test in 20 minutes, doesn’t mean every other kid should only have 20 minutes to complete it.
I agree with everyone who says its a pace problem. I say this as a fan who has little issue with the pace, but everyone in my family does. Eliminating everything unnecessary that goes on in plate appearances wouldn’t make me enjoy baseball much more, and it wouldn’t make the games so much shorter that it would make a huge difference, but, for the casual fans, the game would be a lot less plodding. It’s just not that interesting to watch the pitcher pace around on the mound or the batter step out and adjust his batting gloves to someone who merely wants to see the result of the next pitch and doesn’t — like most of us — sit and think about all the possibilities.
I disagree with Dave that the only solution to shorten games is to expand the zone. It may or may not be the best, but it’s certainly not the only one. I would be happy with calling the zone correctly (and consistently, by the way). That’s not as big a deal as the pace, though.
I don’t have a problem with the length of a game. I generally do other stuff while watching a game anyways. Longer games mean more concession sales, and more commercials (advertising revenues), so not sure why MLB would want to cut down on this.
I do hate the endless pitcher conferences, time between pitches and stepping out of the batters box, or throwing over to 1B in a non serious attempt to pick off a runner.
They simply need to put in a pitch clock, the pitcher needs to throw the pitch (or to a base) or if he is late an alarm sounds and it is a ball, and the clock resets. Batters should not be allowed to call time out. If he needs to step out, step out, but the pitcher pitches away and it’s a ball or a strike, unless the umpire decides the batter had a good reason (heart attack, stroke, etc).
Catchers should only be allowed to go to the mound once per inning. Anymore than that and a ball is called. Also, end the conferences at the mound with coaches. Teams can use signs to communicate. Anything more to say, say it between innings.
As for expanding the strike zone to reduce the number of pitches thrown, I am all in favor of that. They can juice the ball like they did in 1994 and onward to boost offense if needed. Then maybe HR hitters will get more love. If starters can get to 8 and 9 innings more often, then the number of reliever needed will dwindle, and we may get to 10 man pitching staffs, and maybe even a return to the 4 man rotation. Couple that with getting rid of the DH, and owners will save a pile on salaries (less demand for starting pitchers with a 4 man rotation and middle relievers, and more low paid defensive specialists or utility players will replace them and the DH).
let’s eliminate the pitcher all together and go to a tee while increasing the number of fielders on the field to 20. joking of course.
I’d like to know who (besides Joe West) is behind the push for shorter games.
People who go to games shouldn’t mind long games because they get to enjoy more baseball for their buck.
People who watch games at home shouldn’t mind long games because they are always free to watch as much or as little baseball as they want. If someone isn’t going to watch a baseball game because it’s 3 hours and 20 minutes long, is that person really going to watch a game if it’s 3 hours and 10 minutes long?
Advertisers and networks shouldn’t mind long games because a longer game means more commercials (during pitching changes) and shots of ads on the field. Networks already avoid scheduling popular shows directly after games for obvious reasons.
In its typical moronic fashion, MLB is portraying a non-issue as a problem. No one would care about length of games if MLB didn’t address it like it’s something that needs to be fixed. Meanwhile, MLB plays dumb about the most obvious reason for very lengthy games: commercial breaks are too long. No one likes to watch commercials, but MLB pretends that the length of games is the players’ fault, not MLB’s own fault for allowing so much commercial time.
Umpires already have all the tools they need to prevent players and managers from intentionally delaying games for strategic reasons. This whole “debate” is contrived and stupid.
My thoughts exactly Rich. Thanks for your thoughtful and eloquent post.
As a baseball fan (specifically a Yankees fan), I never seem to notice the slow pace that people often complain about. Notice I said pace of the game, not length. The latter is a result of the former, which is something that MLB refuses to recognize. What I do notice, however, is how slowly the game seems to go if I’m following it on ESPN, where an eternity seems to pass between pitches (I’ll grant some of this is due to slowness of updates, but that’s only a small factor).
The umpires complain about the length of the game, but some of the issues are things they directly control. Stop granting time to batters after they’re in the box and the pitcher is ready to deliver. Stop granting time to catchers so that they can talk to the pitchers quite so often. Call the strike zone as it should be.
Other problems of pace might be unfixable. Papelbon doesn’t need to spend 30 seconds staring down the batter prior to delivering the pitch, and other pitchers don’t need to take a trip around the mound after every pitch. But how do you codify that without making the game more complicated. Would we really want a “pitch clock” between pitches? I’m not sure I would. But maybe it would help.
I know I don’t want to see capricious or nonsensical rules made up that ruin the spirit of the game, such as not allowing pickoff attempts or granting extra bases on walks.
The only problem with the pace of Yankee games is having to hear Michael Kay’s gums flap incessantly about how bad big stadiums are and how Tommy John surgery is good for you.
I wouldn’t want to eliminate anything that would significantly disrupt the flow of the game or the strategy or anything like that, but I would like to see the “pace” quickened, via eliminating the “dead time”.
[1] Batters are not allowed to leave the box in between pitches. The routines have become borderline ridiculous, at the very least unnecessary.
[2] Pitchers are not allowed to leave the mound in between pitches. Go for a strill after the game.
I am not an irrate fan who hates players, etc … I am a former pitcher, now coach, who could go for year-round baseball (if it weren’t so detrimental to the players), but the “dead time” where nothing’s going on except for everyone waiting for a single player to “get ready” is ridiculous.
[3] Call the strike zone, specifically the “high strike”. I’m not asking for any favors for pitchers or for anything ridiculous, just the regular strike zone. Batters take a lot of pitches because getting important and waiting for your pitch is so important, but they also do it because the strike zone is smaller in practice than it should be by definition.
[4] The warm-up pitches in bteween innings are unnecesary. They can be reduced from 6-10 to 3. Players don’t need to “field ground balls” and “play catch” in between innings. This time could be reduced, but I don;t think this is necessarily a major component.
[5] Catchers going to the mound should count as a mound visit.
There are things that can limit the “dead time” or the time spent on things that should be or could be handled elsewhere (such as dugout, team meeting, scoutring meetings, etc).
I don’t think people dislike the length of the game. People dislike the amount of dead time where nothing is happening.
It’s true that smaller strike zones, patient batters and high scoring leads to longer games.
But it’s completely false that this is the ONLY source of long games. These stupid routines in between EVERY pitch are entirely unnecessary, stretch out games. More importantly, it’s the PACE of games, not the total time duration that’s really the issue.
There’s no reason these guys need to walk 20 feet away, take a few more practice swings, re-adjust their batting gloves, etc.
I don’t see anything wrong with the time of games right now. Baseball is just entertainment, and I don’t care if a guy steps out for a few seconds and does some macho moves, it only raises my entertainment value. The only thing that I would advocate would be shorter commercials, but I don’t know if MLB would take that hit willingly.
How about 2K Sports running some different commercials. I can’t take Justin “Frankenstein” Morneau’s zombie-like cue card reading.
The popularity of American sports is correlated with length of game or event.
NFL is about the longest event 3:30
College Football right behind 3:25
MLB next 2:56
NBA 2:25
NHL 2:15
Shall I go on?
Making the strike zone bigger is a reasonable adjustment. Though it doesn’t seem like AL pitchers need the extra help these days.
I puchased the red exerciser to help build weak muscles after back surgery. It’s working. I got red for 30.00. If you shop around you can find anything. I did not purchase it to get a beautiful waist like so many of you. Mine is used for health reasons. It’s something I can do by myself, that’s really helping me. I’m glad I discovered it.