So Just How Much Less Baseball Will the New Extra Innings Rule Give Us?
Amid the bevy of rule changes and health and safety precautions accompanying the return of major league baseball in 2020, there’s one in particular that feels like it comes straight out of Little League: the addition of a runner on second base at the start of extra innings. Initially one of Rob Manfred’s many trial balloons floated with the idea of shortening games, the rule has worked its way slowly up the organized-ball ladder, debuting in the World Baseball Classic in 2017, getting added to the Gulf Coast and Arizona Leagues that summer, and eventually becoming the law of the land throughout all levels of the minors in 2018. Not that it was bound for the bigs any time soon: Back in 2017, Manfred said he “[didn’t] really expect that we’re ever going to apply [the rule] at the major league level.”
Well, times have changed — or more accurately, the COVID-19 pandemic and the subsequent shortening of the season have led Manfred and company to bring the rule into play, likely for this year only. And on the surface, that makes sense: With only 60 games on the calendar and a potentially limited window in which to play them, it’s in everyone’s best interests to wrap things up quickly. As with the season on the whole, the less baseball, the better.
But how much less baseball is that rule going to create? We have two years’ worth of data from the minors to work with, and per MiLB, the results are notable. Over the last two seasons, just 43 total games went more than three extra innings, compared to 345 in 2016 and ‘17 combined. And as Baseball America’s JJ Cooper notes, nearly three-quarters of all extra-innings minor league games last year and the year before ended in the 10th, as opposed to just under half in the two seasons prior. And nearly all of them — 93% — finished in the 10th or 11th, representing a 20% increase.
That stands to reason. The rule — which puts a runner on second base to lead off the inning — creates a situation in which runs are the norm. A quick check of run expectancy tables shows that a runner on second with no outs led to an average of 1.1 runs scored and created a 61% chance of at least one run scoring from 2010 through ‘15. Both teams get the runner in their half of the inning, so it’s not an unfair advantage for either side, but it does allow the visiting team a chance to take a quick lead or give the home team an immediate opportunity to walk things off. Minor league fans have also noted how the rule immediately ups the drama of extras while also putting a new focus on fundamentals and putting the ball in play.
But what I’m mostly curious about is how often we would see the new rule in action. To find out, we’ll use last year’s schedule to see just how many times we got extra innings, and how long those games went.
To start, some basic numbers. Of the 2,429 unique games played in the 2019 major league season, 208 went past the ninth. That’s already a relatively small percentage: 8.6%, or once every 12 games. Still, that means we got extra innings roughly every day. Most of those games, though, didn’t last very long. Of those 208 contests, 95 finished in the 10th, leaving 113 games that reached the 11th or beyond, or 4.6% of all games played — once every 22 games, or about every other day. And of those 113 games, 57 came to a conclusion in the 11th. We’re now down to 56 games that saw the 12th, or a minuscule 2.3% of the season. Your odds of watching a game that goes that long are one in 42; you might get one once a week.
Do the math, and the result is that 73% of games that went into extras and 97.7% of all games in 2019 ended in the 11th inning or earlier. That suggests that, for the majors, the time suck that is extra innings is a problem a minority of the time. The great majority of games never even get past the ninth, and in a fitting display of entropy, they usually run out of steam after one or two innings of free baseball.
But if there is one real benefit to the runner on second in extras, it’s that it’s most likely to prevent marathons — games that stretch on into the 12th and deep into the night. As noted above, the minors saw a gigantic decrease in games that went three or more innings past the ninth. Granted, there weren’t all that many to begin with, and that’s true of games in the majors as well. Of those 56 games that reached 12 innings, the upper limit was a September 24 match between the Cardinals and Diamondbacks that saw Arizona walk it off with two outs in the 19th. That game lasted a mind-bending six hours and 53 minutes, which I imagine everyone involved would rather never do again.
That kind of grueling affair is hyper-rare, though: In all of MLB history, there have only ever been 84 games to get to or go past the 19th. You’ll see one a year, if that. If these are the games that the league is trying to avoid, then it probably didn’t need to do anything; it’s more likely than not that in a 60-game stretch, we never would’ve seen a single one. That’s true even if you lower the threshold to 15 innings. There were only 16 of those games in 2019, or 0.6% of the season. That’s once every 160 games, or about twice a month. These are uncommon events on their own.
But what about the literal time saved — the minutes and potentially hours shaved off tired bodies and bleary minds? There’s some value there. The games that were done in 10 innings last year lasted on average three hours and 34 minutes, or 29 minutes longer than 2019’s nine-inning average. A half hour chopped is nothing to sneeze at, especially when the goal is not to be on the field a minute longer than is necessary. Not all those games are created equal, though. To cherry pick, an April 6 game between the Pirates and Reds that ended with one out in the bottom of the 10th took three hours and 11 minutes. That’s only six extra minutes of baseball compared to your average nine-inning affair, and it’s hard to imagine the runner on second would’ve sped things up much more than that.
Tossing that runner on second base, then, probably won’t have much of an impact on the season. In the likeliest scenario, you might avoid 20–30 extra innings played total. In exchange, you’ve started to fiddle with the legitimacy and strategy of the game in a way that may have unintended consequences. While managers, pitchers, and fans may appreciate getting rid of 15-inning slogs, how will they feel the first time a game is lost because a runner magically appeared on second, moved over to third on a bunt, and scored the winning run on a sacrifice fly? In a short campaign where every game is now much more important, how badly will it sting if that one loss — one that maybe wouldn’t have happened had the rule not been in place — is the difference between a division title and second place, or the playoffs and the offseason?
And this rule could backfire, too. With each team getting the runner on second in each half-inning, you run the risk of the visiting team scoring in the top of the frame only for the home team to tie it in the bottom half and force more baseball. Theoretically, the rule could create longer games by upping everyone’s chances of scoring. Similarly, you might see more multi-run extra innings, which would by default take longer than scoreless frames. But in the interest of keeping things compact — a fitting move considering our subject — that’s a tangent that I’ll leave for another day.
Exactly how teams handle the runner on second the first time they encounter it will be a fascinating peek into the mindset of modern managers and a small nightmare for official scorers, if nothing else. (The runner will be ruled to have reached on an error that no one committed, which raises all kinds of metaphysical questions.) But the rule’s purpose isn’t to improve the game; it’s to end it. And while that’s an understandable impulse given the constraints of the pandemic, tweaking the formula to produce a solution more quickly feels antithetical to the spirit of baseball, where play can go on (and on and on) indefinitely. It’ll be a shame to lose that reality, as well as the silliness that those seemingly endless games create, for a slightly higher chance of going home earlier.
I, a long time, steadfast lover of baseball who has been starved for the game that I have enjoyed for over 30 years, am losing interest in that game because of rule changes like this. MLB must have done the math and determined that in order for the game to thrive long term, they must attract new fans at the expense of losing older fans. I understand the business model. It is a hard truth, though.
The “fan appeal” angle of this is just PR. I haven’t done a scientific poll or anything, but every time this comes up reactions are overwhelmingly negative. It’s unlikely that new fans would be drawn in by this change, either- if you don’t like baseball to begin with, “we made some of the games shorter!” is not an effective sales pitch. (Anyone who loves the first nine innings but thinks extras are too much already has a remedy- they can stop watching).
No, the people who want this are the ones who got to vote on it- players and owners. Players (understandably) hate extra-inning games, and owners would rather not keep the stadium open an extra hour.
Agree on that last point for the owners especially when beer sales have stopped for an hour already
I’m glad baseball is (will be) back. You seem to have a healthy, reality based perspective about change unlike many baseball fans who prefer the “Grand Torino” approach.
The reality is baseball has changed and will change… we should expect steps to shorten the game, make the game safer for athletes, and expect the season to be shortened and playoffs expanded. NASCAR said it best, change will cause some fans to leave the sport, and hopefully more to become fans of a more welcoming game (especially to young fans).
Yeah I don’t think we want baseball to go in the same direction as NASCAR. Both attendance and TV ratings for NASCAR have been moving in the wrong direction for some time now.
What NASCAR has recently done is awesome, I’m actually watching again for first time since Earnhardt Sr. was driving.
I agree 100% on this point. I can see the reasoning of certain rule changes for safety purposes (ex: sliding around 2nd base and home plate), but one reason I always liked baseball more than other sports was for the relative consistency of its rules and statistics over time. I am in my early 30s and ready to move on to focusing on other sports.
The following rule changes are insulting that they claim to make the game “more entertaining” or “faster” (which somehow equals more entertaining) when I believe they only make the rules needlessly more complicated. Just make batters stay in the box and tell pitchers to pitch faster. Or have fewer commercials. Baseball will never be as popular as it was in the past due to competition from other sports. But it does not need to alienate the fans like me that still enjoyed it.
1. No pitching for Intentional Walks (I love seeing the occasional WP or Steal or Swing). There are 0.3 IBB per game
2. No ‘fake to 3rd, throw to 1st’ pickoff move.
3. Forcing relief pitchers to pitch to 3 batters or finish the inning. (roster limits make frequent relief pitching changes (as in playoff games) untenable for regular-season success).
4. Designating roster players as ‘pitchers’ or ‘position players’ (just let everyone be a baseball player)
5. Starting with a runner on 2nd in extra innings. (now we don’t even need to throw pitches to end a baseball game; could just start on 2nd and score with two balks). One of my favorite parts of the long baseball season is when I have a chance to stay up to watch a game go beyond the 13th inning.
None of these changes have made the game more entertaining for me. It just makes me like it less, especially with the insulting goal of ‘making the game shorter’ or ‘making it more exciting’. It’s just making it needlessly complicated. People won’t start liking baseball more because it takes 2 hours and 45 minutes instead of 3 hours.
Because … lawyers. They’ve never seen a set of rules they don’t want to fiddle with.
It does bring up an interesting (annoying) tactic, though. If the game is tied going into the ninth, and your team is down two outs, and the batter coming up is (say) a defense-first catcher, you’d be mad not to substitute for the best base-runner on your bench (and it might even be a pitcher!). Even on a third out, that gives you an expected outcome of +1 in the tenth.
Probably not something considered in the Minors. But slivers of runs matter far more in the Majors.
I hope this monstrosity dies a fiery death once 2020 is over.
Why not start the inning with a runner on third?
Why not start every extra innings with the Top of the Order?
Why not let teams re-shuffle their lineup to maximize their run scoring chances?
better yet, let’s just give each team a run every extra inning #universalbasicruns
I hate this rule. It gives a huge unfair advantage to the home team. If the visiting fails to score, bunt the runner to 3rd, and then the game’s basically over as it only takes a sac fly or wild pitch to end the game.
It’s no different than college football overtime if the team with the ball first doesn’t score. Defending team only needs a field-goal to win. If the away team wants to score, they can drop down that sac-bunt just as easy as the home team can.
That said, I still don’t like the rule.
It’s not quite that easy for the visitors. It isn’t sudden death, so they don’t know that one run will win it since the home team still gets to bat and could score 2, but if the visitors don’t score, the home team knows one run ends it and bunting becomes a little bit more of a good idea, though not a lot.
Even in a tie game, bunting isn’t as sure a thing as Monsignor Martinez makes it out to be. According to the run expectancy tables referenced in the article, the odds of scoring a run with a man on 2nd, no outs, is 61.4% and only goes up to 63.4% with man on third, 1 out.
On the other hand, with a man on 2nd and nobody out, the average team scores 0.15 runs more than man on third, one out (1.1 vs 0.95). If the visitors score more runs, that obviously puts a lot of pressure on the home team and they no longer have the option of playing for one.
This is also all context-neutral. So if Mike Trout or Mookie Betts are up, you probably don’t want them bunting.
Have you seen the bunting skills in MLB. Kind of a rare skill. sadly
It’s not sudden death in college football, either. Each team gets a shot.
I don’t like the rule either, but if they were going to test it out any year this is the right one. Who knows, after a short season of it maybe everyone will like it.
“It’s no different than college football overtime…”
Some of us like the fact that baseball doesn’t really have any close resemblances to other major sports.
The rule is just plain awful. I can sort of see the justification for it this year, but please, please, please, let it be this year only.
The home team ALWAYS has an advantage in baseball, it’s part of the nature of the game. What keeps it from being an “unfair” advantage is the fact that each team plays half its games at home. And if you want to only consider extra inning games, in the long run they would even out to being half at home, half on the road as well.
I can’t believe they actually implemented this. Only MLB would be trying to *reduce* its product.
I have better things to do with my time than watch a bunch of idiot billionaires kill a sport.
Sadly, I don’t.
Does that make me a bad person?
There were only 2,129 unique games last year, so all your rates are half of what they should be.
At some point, I’d be ok with something like this. With pitcher injuries seemingly on the rise every year, reducing strain and and minimizing over-use is important. 18 inning games might be rare but I can’t image they are good for pitchers arms.
That being said, I’d hate this rule a lot less if it was the 12th inning and later. Give us 3 normal innings in extras before stuff gets weird. I think I’d like 12th inning => man on first, 13th inning => man on 2nd, 14th inning => man on third. Then maybe call it a tie at that point. I don’t hate ties. Whoever wins a 13 inning game is a toss-up anyway and at that point neither team can complain if they don’t get a win.
I’d honestly prefer it if they just call the game a tie at some point. The Japanese and Korean leagues both have a maximum of 12 innings in the regular season. Ties were common in MLB before stadium lights, so in a sense, the current lack of them is just a failure of rules to keep pace with technology. As you noted, it’s a tiny number of games which are already coin-flips, and in which neither team has really earned a win. It’s not a rule change I’d like, but it’s better than this gimmicky nonsense we have now.
For everyone complaining about this rule change – this is almost certainly a temporary measure. I can’t imagine anyone in baseball actually wants this long-term. Yeah, it’s weird, and as Jon says it might not even have the intended effect, but this season was always going to be weird anyway, if this is what it takes to get baseball this year then I think we should all accept it, rather than whining and complaining and pretending we all suddenly hate baseball now because of one minor rule change.
I’d rather have a tie after nine for regular season game.
Ties/ draws should not exist.
I disagree. Let’s call it even
There is NO tying in baseball.
Of course there is tying in baseball. At pretty much every level of baseball there are ties. Even in the major leagues there were ties before modern stadium lights were installed everywhere. I would prefer a tie (maybe after 12 innings) to these stupid gimmicks.
A better solution, and likely to produce shorter games:
If a team leaves runners on base to end the 9th or later inning, those runners go back to that base to begin any subsequent extra inning. (If the last out is a force out, the batter who hit into the force out begins the next inning at first base).
I haven’t crunched any numbers, but it stands to reason that this change would maximize the chance of one team outscoring the other within any given extra frame (more so than starting the extra frame with a runner on second).
This would motivate infinite pickoff attempts.
Actually it seems like a good idea to limit pick off attempts. Creates a new strategic aspect where if the cap is something like 5 pick offs on the 5th attempt the pitcher would know that he has to either catch the guy or give up the steal for free.
A balk, surely? (I’m beginning to hate myself for even thinking about this stuff.)
I dunno, I think this is getting into “she swallowed the cat to catch the bird to catch the spider to catch the fly” territory.
I don’t know why she swallowed the fly.
Just as ball 4 against the batter lets him take his base, why not make it 4 unsuccessful pickoff throws to the same runner in his stint at the same base, and then he gets to move up a base without jeopardy?
Honest question. A new pitcher comes in to start the 10th and inherits the runner in scoring position… is that run charged to the previous pitcher, the new pitcher? Is the run earned or unearned? Tough break for those long relievers just trying to stay on the roster while buoying their ERA stats with garbage in their few opportunities… Talk about a terrible rule that will have some wacky, unforeseen impacts.
It would appear the run would count as an unearned run, which seems like an ironic way to end a game… Theoretically, a team could pitch a perfect game (?) and still lose.
https://www.si.com/mlb/2020/06/23/mlb-runner-on-second-rule-extra-innings-2020-season
Under this rule, there can be no such thing as an extra-inning perfect game. The unattributed “error” responsible for putting the runner on will spoil it automatically.
A pitcher could face 29 batters over 9.2 IP, walk nobody, hit nobody, give up no hits, there could be no errors, and as the result of a sac bunt or ground out followed by a sac fly, could lose a game 1 – 0 despite retiring every batter he faced. Or throw in a SB and he could do it in 28 batters.
The pitcher could *strike out* the first 29 batters faced, no dropped third strikes or anything like that, but then balk twice with the 30th guy up–game over.
I love this rule. It has been standard in international play for a long time. American fans will warm up to it once it has been introduced.
I can’t invest four hours to watch a regular-season game on TV. I have other obligations in life. When I was a teenager I would gladly sit in front of the TV all day.
I have seen this rule play out the minors. What I have observed is that teams automatically bunt to lead off an inning in extras to get the runner over to thirdwith one out. Innings become a bit boring, because teams all use the same strategy and play for one run. I saw one extra-inning game last year that was scoreless in extras until the bottom of the he 12th.
A better rule would be to start all extra innings with the bases loaded. This takes away the bunt and offers far more interesting innings. With the potential for multiple runs comes a better chance to end it after 10 innings.
Starting each extra inning with the bases loaded is an excellent idea.
It will be interesting to see if MLB goes the bunting route or with the recent power surge, if they still let their better players bat.
I’d also expect a no-one-out, bases-loaded situation lead to more 4 man OFs. Since the home team knows they will get the same situation, the incentive goes towards limiting the run damage – not necessarily preventing any runs (i.e. playing the infield in).
I’m imagining 2 or 3 infielders to guard against the slap hit / bunt but then extra guys in the OF to prevent gap shots that could clear the bases.
Why not just start every inning of every game with the bases loaded? Games will be shorter because of increased frequency of double plays, and extra innings will be rare due to the number of runs scored (and variance thereof).
It is not “standard in international play.” It’s been used in the WBC, at the urging of Manfred. No foreign leagues that I’m aware of use this rule.
That doesn’t sound like an improvement and I think you’re dead wrong if you really believe that American fans will embrace this change in the short term.
If the game is too long for some people, they should go take care of their other obligations and come back and finish the game on a streaming site, like MLB TV. Why do the rules of the game need to change to accommodate the preferences of a small number of individuals? There is no clock for a reason. The game of baseball is not supposed to be constrained by the attention spans of the viewing audience.
“I love it but it’s totally boring!”
Sounds like I’m in the minority but I kind of like the rule. Those 18 inning marathons are unique but they are also major headaches for teams and usually result in a minor league call-up the next day who is out of his depth and guaranteed to pitch 2-3 innings and get shelled.
One of the problems I’ve read with the current rule in the minors is that something like 3/4 of the innings go: bunt the guy to 3rd and then the defense intentionally walks the next hitter to set up a double play. Boring when there is no strategy involved and it becomes automatic. I almost wonder if it wouldn’t be better to go all in and start with the bases loaded. You can’t play for 1 run in that scenario. You need to score a couple runs.
“…usually result in a minor league call-up the next day who is out of his depth and guaranteed to pitch 2-3 innings and get shelled.”
A feature not a bug. I enjoy marathon games for the fact that as they stretch on, psychology increases the perceived value of a win/loss because of the increasing investment of resources — despite the fact that it’s still just a single win or a loss.
What bothers me most about all this is that they should have gotten really weird with the rules. 7-inning games. Weekly double-headers (to support travel and rest). Ties. 30 man rosters.
We all know this season is going to be weird from a numbers perspective, let’s just be weird about it all.
Downside of this rule – we will see less position players pitching after teams run out of pitchers in the marathon games.
If 18 inning games are rare, extra inning games where position players pitch are even more rare.
So the run expectancy is 1.1 runs with a guy starting on second. But what is the distribution of run probabilities? Seems like getting that one guy in is easy, more than one run is hard. So it seems to me many games will go back and forth, one run scored per team per inning for a while. Maybe starting the inning with men on 1st AND 2nd would spread the distribution a bit.
From the Run Expectancy charts – the chance of scoring a run goes from 27% to 61%. High enough to generate runs but far from automatic so it will shorten extra innings.
If you click through the “per MiLB” link at the top of the article, you can see that it increased the number of games decided in 11 innings to 93% of the time and cut 13+ inning games by about 88% over a 2 year span. In terms of raw totals, there were 345 MiLB games from 2016-2017 that went 13+ innings and only 43 in 2018-2019.
This seems like it will encourage teams to carry another one or two of high 4 seam fastball relievers. They are more difficult for hitters to lay down for a sac bunt.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aLg4nfo-6szU3JbFqa6qmdcEcswKPmOc5Vm4QaFnokA/edit?usp=sharing
So who will be the guy standing on 2nd base to start the inning? Any random runner or will the next guy due up just be placed on second base and whats the scoring rule allowing him to reach?
Guy who made the last out of previous inning. Think an error not charged to anyone.
if a game is tied at the end of 9 innings, the Home team decides if play continues by sending out a pitcher…if they do, they play the inning and both teams bat…if the game is tied after the 10th inning, the Home team decides again by sending out a pitcher and both teams play the 11th inning…if the game remains tied after the 11th, same decision “play on or not”
the Home Team Manager decides how deep he wants to go to get a win…his decision(s) will be based on his lineup, his won-loss, the opponent, his opponent’s available players and maybe even what teams in his division have done that day
every time he sends a pitcher to the mound in extra innings, he’s challenging his opponent to play on…if a tie suits the condition and standings position of his team, he takes it at nine or the start of any inning thereafter
I love it. Let’s get weird.
One quirk is that we could see a 2 pitch inning.
1 pitch out, IBB, and then DP.
Granted it would be very unlikely.
With or without this rule, you can have a 0-pitch inning. 3 IBBs (or 2 thanks to the gift runner), 3 pickoffs.
i cannot stand the idea of the arbitrary, magical runner that appears out of nowhere to take second base without scoring a hit or walking to get on base and then stealing his way over or being advanced by the batter behind him reaching base.
That is often called a Rickey Run. Thanks Rookie of the Year.
I don’t remember all that much from the 2018 world series a year and half later, but I remember Game 3.
I understand the utility of the application of the rule in the minors, which are essentially about development, instead of purely wins and losses. But this seems someone absurd–it doesn’t make a meaningful difference in time saved and distorts the product. Seems like a change for the sake of it.
Not old enough to be a traditionalist but while I initially hated this idea, I kind of like how it brings out a skill set that’s fading from baseball and maybe will lend itself to some unlikely heroes based on speed, contact and yea…some bunting. I’m down for some more exciting plays at the plate and snap throws to 3rd. Might as well try it this season since it’s already FUBARed
By all accounts, I would have to be considered a baseball traditionalist. I hate the DH, hate the idea of steroids users being in the Hall of Fame, hate the auto-intentional walk.
But I do not mind this rule at all. The level to which one of those incredibly long games messes with a team’s pitching staff is just incredibly unfair – no team should have to head into the rest of their week with a dog-tired pitching staff just because they were competing under the rules. Yes, the concept of playing on until you have a winner has a certain baseball romanticism, but I can live with a rule change that reduces unfairness.
One more thing: I actually think the rule would be better if the runner were put on first base instead of second. That puts a stolen base squarely in play (which would be exciting), and reduces the chances that a home team who kept the visitors from scoring will play for a bunt and sac fly combo. That is not a cool way to win a game.
“[T]he upper limit was a… game [that] lasted a mind-bending six hours and 53 minutes, which I imagine everyone involved would rather never do again.”
I believe you are correct in your assessment, sir.
It’s a little bit apples and oranges, but I’m an NCAA football official, and a few years ago I worked a game that went 5 overtime periods. It was an exciting, meaningful game, and the fans were really into it. But it also took four-and-a-half-hours to play. It’s fun to be able to say I did it, but I’ll be perfectly happy if I never do it again. I’m very fit for a dude my age, but I could barely walk for two days, and it literally took all week for I and my crewmates to physically recover enough to be able to officiate our next game.
Having officiated both sports, I can definitively say football is considerably more taxing than baseball, but seven hours… the mental exhaustion alone would put me out of action for days.
I’m not in love with the gimmicky-ness of the new rule. Although as you point out, we really won’t be missing much baseball because of it. As a fan, I can largely do without the occasional seven hour marathon.
On the other hand, if MLB eliminated those crazy long games completely, I’d miss the goofiness that those marathons sometimes produce, like Chris Davis going 0-for-8 and getting the win, or Stevie Wilkerson becoming the first position player in history to get a save while averaging 54 mph on his pitches!
I detest this rule. If they MUST try to shorten extra innings (which are the most exciting baseball in the regular season) I’d much rather something like each team gets to play one fewer defender for each extra inning. At least that would be entertaining and encourage balls in play. An arbitrary runner on second is BORING.
I would rather the game be decided by home run derby after 12 innings than this garbage. At least that would be fun to watch.
And then if no one scores in the 10th, for the 11th inning they can play coach-pitch.
Such an incredibly stupid rule. If they want to make games shorter, play 3 innings max of extras. After 12 innings it’s a tie.
I’m just waiting for Blurnsball.