The Cause of Lengthening MLB Games
Over at ESPN, Jayson Stark talked to Rob Manfred about the fact that, a year after chopping six minutes off the length of the average Major League game, those gains have been almost entirely lost in the first six weeks of 2016. Included in that piece was this chart, which shows the trend over the last 11 years.
| SEASON | TIME OF GAME |
| 2006 | 2:48:11 |
| 2007 | 2:51:13 |
| 2008 | 2:50:38 |
| 2009 | 2:51:47 |
| 2010 | 2:50:46 |
| 2011 | 2:51:57 |
| 2012 | 2:55:58 |
| 2013 | 2:58:51 |
| 2014 | 3:02:21 |
| 2015 | 2:56:14 |
| 2016 | 3:00:26 |
The four minute and 12 second gain from last year to this year is actually larger than any of the per-season gains made during the 2011-2014 stretch when MLB games lengthened quickly; that kind of rise in game length is clearly frustrating to Manfred, especially after the gains they made last year. As the commissioner notes to Stark in the piece, MLB believes there are a variety of factors contributing to the longer games, with players not taking the pace-of-play initiatives as seriously this year, cold weather, and simply the structural change in results all contributing. Stark points out that walks and strikeouts are both up again, so overall pitches are up, and more pitches equals more time. But let’s try to go beyond that and look and see if we can quantify the differences in game length this year.
At the risk of oversimplifying things, there are essentially three buckets of variables that affect game length: the number of batters per game, the length of each at-bat, and then the dead-time elements; pitching changes, managerial arguments, replays, second baseman punching the lights out of bat-flippers, etc… The dead-time bucket is the hardest one to control; you can’t really legislate number of pitching changes easily, and while the league can work on speeding up replay, as Stark notes, there just aren’t enough of them to really be driving a big increase in game length.
So let’s focus mostly on the first two factors; the quantity of batters and the length of each at-bat.
This is the bucket that got the most attention in Stark’s piece, noting that walks and strikeouts are both up significantly, and those are the at-bats that require the most pitches, thus lengthening each at-bat. The move away from contact baseball has been a factor in the lengthening of games, and it isn’t a coincidence that games are getting longer at the same time that ball-in-play rates are at historic lows.
But this part can also be easily overstated. We’re averaging 3.88 pitches per plate appearance in MLB this year; it was 3.82 last year, and in that same area for the past decade. At 38 plate appearances per team per game, that change results in an addition of 2.14 pitches for each side, or 4.3 extra pitches for each game. The league takes approximately 23 seconds between pitches, so we’re talking about 95 seconds in added time from the increase in pitches per plate appearance.
When dealing with a four minute increase, this is part of the problem, but it certainly isn’t the whole issue. The issue of whether more walks and strikeouts are good or bad for baseball is an issue worth discussing, but we should be careful not to tie the lengthening of games from last year to this year entirely to that somewhat separate issue. There have been more pitches to batters this year, and time of game is up, but we can’t draw a straight line between those two things and call it a day.
In fact, a bigger issue in the at-bat length is the issue that MLB was trying to change so significantly last year; the time between pitches. The biggest driver of the reduction in game length last year is that pitchers cut almost a full second off time between pitches last year, going from 23.0 seconds in 2014 to 22.1 seconds in 2015. This year, we’re back up to 22.6 seconds between pitches, and with the league throwing 289 pitches per game, that half second increase adds 144 additional seconds to each game.
The total increase in game length over last year is 252 seconds, so the increase in time between pitches results in 58 percent of the the total increase. And this is just straight dead time. While additional pitches may not be ideal, they are at least still game action; time between pitches is just players standing around not doing anything. This is where the league and the player’s association will have to work together to find some differences in how players were acting last year versus how they’re acting this year, and get them back to their 2015 rituals.
As you probably guessed from the above paragraph, the fact that we’re at a 252 second increase over last year, with 144 seconds being eaten up by time between pitches and 95 seconds going to extra pitches per batter, there isn’t a lot of time left for much else; those two variables account for 95% of the total increase. So everything else is kind of fighting over the scraps, or are offset by changes in other areas.
But those scraps can still be worth talking about. As noted above, an average MLB plate appearance averages just under four pitches, so each at-bat lasts about 90 seconds, not including the roughly 20 to 25 seconds or so that it takes for a batter to walk to the plate and begin his at-bat; including that, each additional batter adds almost two minutes to a game. So, any kind of increase in number of batters can quickly extend the time of game, which is one of the reasons why the desire to add offense back to the game is seen as anathema to the idea of shortening game length.
But even with offense spiking up a little bit this year — league wOBA is .318, which would be the highest season average since 2010, and we haven’t even played the warm summer months yet — we’re not actually seeing a huge increase in batters per game. Per Baseball-Reference’s league index page, we’re at 37.97 batters per team per game this year, up from 37.8 last year. That means the league is seeing one additional at-bat roughly every three games, which works out to about an extra 30 to 40 seconds added per game. It’s not nothing, but it’s definitely a smaller factor than the at-bat length increases discussed above.
Of course, if league offense continues to trend back upwards, this will be an issue the league will have to account for in the future. Teams averaged over 38 plate appearances per game from 1990 until 2012, so the drop under 38 PA/G is a recent effect, and probably one that won’t last. If the game is going to see more offense, it’s also going to have more batters per game, and that could push the game length higher, which will have to be offset by changes elsewhere if the league wants to get back under the three hour mark.
But for this year, the issue isn’t really extra hitters, or the small upwards trend in offense. The issue is primarily a pace problem (again), with pitchers standing around holding the ball for too long between deliveries. The increases in pitches per plate appearance are also a real contributing factor, but should probably be a lower priority fix than the pace issue, since those additional pitches are at least still something worth watching.
Game length and pace of play are inextricably linked. For MLB, the story might currently be about the average game time going over the three hour mark again, but if the league can get the players back on the pace-of-play initiative that started last year, they can not only speed up the games, but shorten them as well.
Dave is the Managing Editor of FanGraphs.
I know this will never happen, because, you know, *money*, but it would be great if they could just cut the commercial breaks a little shorter. In a game that goes 8.5 innings, there are ~16 commercial breaks. Now of course pace of play should be quickened so during the game there is less dead time, but getting rid of ~15 seconds of commercials per break would make up for about 4 minutes of time as well.
Let me know when you agree to take a pay cut, and I’ll revisit your suggestion.
I will quote myself here: “I know this will never happen, because, you know, *money*”.
It’s a counterfactual. And a nonstarter. But it’s fun to imagine fewer commercials, just like it’s fun to imagine there will never be ads on MLB jerseys.
There are a lot more than 16 commercial breaks, once you add in the pitching changes.
True!
Richie, that’s looking at it in a vacuum.
If less commercials and quicker play lead to more viewers, it is possible that MLB would have more revenue. It’s not a direct increasing slope (number of ads and total revenue). If it were, let’s just have nonstop ads like an infomercial
i actually think MLB has the commercial breaks nailed down. between innings i know it will be only 2:15 (or whatever the exact amount is legislated to be now) before the broadcast picks back up. a lot different in my mind than other major sports where it can be 3-5 minutes before going back to the game. of course, pitching changes, etc make that all add up, but at least the brunt of the commercial breaks are just a shade over 2 minutes.
It could happen if one could make a case that shorter games bring more eyes. If MLB cuts ad time by 5% and sees viewership climb by 6%, they may do this. If they truly believe game length is keeping people away, then reducing ad time to increase viewership isn’t a bad idea from an economic standpoint.
Continuous little tweaks aren’t enough. We need an 8-inning game with an 8-man batting order (no P or DH); this would preserve continuity of stats, allow same rules in both leagues, and disproportionately reduce pitching changes (because in effect we’d be eliminating the 6th or 7th inning).
What an idiotic comment. If you don’t like the game go watch something really boring… like soccer.
Hey! Soccer’s my second-favorite sport 🙁
I find it somewhat amusing that my 3 favorite sports are the least watched in America: Baseball, hockey, and soccer.
Meanwhile, I find both NFL and NBA to be incredibly boring.
I don’t have a problem with MLB game length, but yeah, soccer is painful to watch. If they increased the speed of play, I might be tempted to watch. Of course, those who like it, are ok with the speed of play and it’s extremely popular. Why would FIFA ruin a popular game just to maybe bring in fans like me? Why would MLB do this when their game is enjoying extreme popularity? I’m ok with them tweaking the rules, but don’t change the game just to maybe attract a few new fans.
That won’t preserve the continuity of anything.
It wasn’t just pitchers, it was hitters stepping out after each stinkin’ pitch. (this Brewer fan is looking at you, Ryan Braun) Are you sure the hitters haven’t regressed into this awful habit? Or is that still being enforced or observed?
I’m quite convinced they have. Enforcement basically stopped during the second half of last year, after the league announced they were so happy with the gains already achieved that they weren’t actually going to follow through on the warning letters and fine anyone.
Anecdotally, I saw the same thing at the beginning of the year. Brian Dozier would take an outside strike, then step out of the batter’s box. The pitcher waited patiently, the umpire made no indication he was in a hurry, and Dozier was allowed to step out all he wanted.
Seriously. I love Lorenzo Cain, but how much time gets saved if he doesn’t adjust his batting gloves 18 times per plate appearance?
I did the math. The increase in game time is entirely due to Ryan Braun and Clay Buchholtz. Let’s just give these two a strong talking to and shave off those four minutes.
My wife agrees with you. She’s not a fan, and her impression of watching me watch baseball this year is that it consists 37% of adjusting batting gloves. She scoffed openly at the idea that there are < 30 seconds between pitches, and times a few to prove it. It's only < 30 seconds if you don't count the haberdashery.
“you can’t really legislate number of pitching changes easily”
Sure, but you CAN legislate how long each one takes, just like you can legislate time between pitches. Set a time limit for when the manager leaves the dugout to “play ball” – the time the batter returns to the box and the pitcher must be ready to deliver a pitch. This makes the manager have to at least jog out of the dugout, the reliever jog in from the pen, and sets a threshold on warm up tosses from the game mound. I’m sure it would be within the league’s abilities to research a reasonable time for this, like they did with the time limit on mound visits. However, teams may not like it since it limits the commercial break (say from 30-45 seconds to 15-30).
Right now the clock starts when the reliever comes out of the pen. If you change the clock to start when the manager crosses the foul line, you save 15 seconds per pitching change.
Otherwise, I still think they should change the replays. Managers must decide immediately whether to challenge, but the challenge will also have a 2 minute clock. If they can’t find an angle to overturn the play in 2 minutes, then don’t overturn it. While there may only be one actual challenge per game, every game has 2 or 3 cases where everyone stands around for 30 seconds waiting for the team to decide to challenge or not. If you know they only have 2 minutes to view the video, then if it’s an obvious play, it will get overturned, but if they have to get down to the frame by frame to figure it out, then let the play on the field stand.
I agree with you that the replay system is stupid, but I agree with the article that I’m not entirely sure you read that replay isn’t really the cause of the glacial pace of play. One thing at a time.
(For a game lasting longer than four hours, call your doctor right away, as this may be a sign of a serious condition called redsoxversusyankeestelevitis.)
Mark Buehrle retiring alone probably accounts for a decent chunk of the pace increase for pitchers. I’m only half-joking.
If you add in the ripple effect that ultimately lets the Reds bullpen all play in the majors, it might be 100% of it.
The decrease in game time from 2014 to 2015 should be attributed mostly to the retirement of Josh Beckett.
Beckett took almost as much time between pitches as it takes for a Jered Weaver fastball to cross the plate.
Derek Jeter and Daisuke Matsuzaka were the slowest players in the league in 2014.
Why not just have umpires remotely look at each play, essentially giving each play an instant replay to the umpires. Many blown calls are pretty obvious when you see them on replay. The current long looks at the coach on the phone giving a thumbs up or down is stupid.
True, but once again, replay isn’t the main issue here.
I don’t understand why pace of play is an issue. Who cares? Other than the mostly tongue in cheek jabs at the Yankees and Red Sox for playing five hour long games, is there really an outcry about baseball being too long? Especially when we are talking about a handful of minutes. I find it hard to believe that pace of play is causing MLB to lose fans or making baseball less accessible to a larger audience. I just don’t see any serious complaints about baseball being too long from anyone, so the question is, why does this matter?
If it is about making baseball more accessible and bringing in a wider audience, pace of play should be down at the bottom of priorities. MLB’s unwritten rules, incredibly soft stance on violence (on and off the field) and absurd blackout/TV rules are doing more than enough to prevent MLB from gaining fans, especially from the black community.
Could MLB do more to eliminate the dead time? Sure. Make pitchers speed up, limit mound trips by the catcher, give auto-strikes to hitters who step out after every pitch, stop forcing the awkward, uncomfortable fake patriotism of God Bless America on people. Does MLB need to? No. MLB has far more important things it needs to focus on than games gaining 12 minutes on average over a decade.
absurd blackout/TV rules
^this
Agreed. Also, if it’s game length that is preventing some viewers from becoming invested, I doubt a 4 minute difference makes an appreciable dent in the worn out attention-span/ time that can be made available for the sport. As a Dodger fan, I’d much rather have the ACTUAL accessibility of the games addressed.
Precisely. The overall length of games is not pushing people away from baseball or preventing people from becoming baseball fans. The fact that fans in the same city as their team cannot watch their team’s games certainly is. And it is not limited to the Dodgers situation, if you don’t have cable, you’re blacked out from watching your “local” team even with the new single team MLBtv package. Simply watching baseball on TV is a pricey endeavor, if blackout rules even allow it.
On top of TV viewing, the cost to actually attend baseball games is insane. Ticket prices have skyrocketed, as have concession prices. $8-10 beer, $5 sodas and hot dogs, etc are not prices most people are willing to pay more than a couple times a year, if that.
Those problems aren’t unique to baseball, the NFL and NBA are similar, but over far shorter seasons. MLB isn’t just a grind for the players day in and day out, it is a grind for fans as well and casual fans or people new to the sport just can’t justify the cost and effort it takes to be a fan.
Bottom line: It isn’t a pace of play issue with baseball, it is an issue with the product as a whole. Of course baseball games could stand to be shorter, but pace of play surely isn’t a priority. Let’s focus on making the game more accessible to everyone, especially young people, women and minorities, and then work on tweaking the game’s minor annoyances like pace of play.
I completely agree with this. Although, making stuff cheaper at a ballpark probably won’t be an issue for the teams that sell out almost constantly, but yes. And how about getting rid of StubHub and all the other places that just make tickets more expensive?
Yes, cutting a game by 6 minutes seems pointless. Now, if you could get games to 2 1/2 hours, I’m listening. Ain’t gonna happen tho
Agree that cutting a game by 6 minutes is essentially meaningless. For example, if you asked the average viewer of a baseball game how long that game actually lasted, I would wager that the variance of estimates would be much greater than 6 minutes. Further, we also would need to know the standard deviation of the average game. We currently do see a lot of games that finish in less than 2.5 hours – but are those games really more enjoyable to watch? It seems difficult to quantify, but I doubt that the time length of baseball games has much of a consequential effect on fan satisfaction.
As noted above, the more concerning issue is the availability of baseball games to the local TV market. Focusing on pace-of-play issues instead of TV market availability is like focusing on cleaning the windows of a house instead of the source of smoke that’s pouring out of the windows.
That’s another good point, are the 2-2.5 hour games more enjoyable? What makes a game enjoyable? Is the ability to enjoy a game tied to its length? I don’t think so. The Cubs played a 2:10 game vs the Brewers Tuesday that was one of the most dull games I’ve seen and there was a no hitter through 7. Sure, there are also tons of dull 3.5-4 hour games that are 15-2 blow outs with 10 pitching changes. Maybe a mercy rule type situation helps prevent that, I don’t know.
I do know that baseball has a long list of problems it needs to address and the pace of play and overall length of games shouldn’t even be on it right now.
I think longer games are more likely, on average, to be dull. Sure, there are anecdotes that disprove this all over, but we’re talking trends.
Agreed. I think any change for the shorter is a good idea, but I’d like to see something bigger. Reduce bullpen sizes, or number of substitutions per game. Something.
I think it’s a slow drip-drip effect of people gradually getting tired of endless delays – adjusting gloves, pitching changes, all those little things that aren’t part of the game.
Okay, baseball is making money, but how long were games when baseball was the biggest sport in the country? Perhaps we ought to look towards that a little, as it can’t be worse than what we have now. I love baseball and I’m bored to death of the constant little delays.
The biggest factor last year was commercials. Unless they are longer this year, there should not be that much of a difference in game length, and 4 minutes one way or the other is not a big deal.
More plays being reviewed, more runs being scored, and abandoning the requirement batters stay in the box may be factors in longer games.
Frankly, if runs are being scored, I don’t mind game length.
I would like to see all mound visits except for pitching changes banned. Also, eliminate warmups for relievers and commercials when they come in. Thats what bullpens are for, warming up. Make the reliever sprint by giving him 30 seconds to get to the mound and first pitch must follow within 20 seconds. Those changes will knock at least 5 minutes off games
Those 10 pitch AB get boring though. Tighten the strike zone so more hittable pitches are thrown, and there will be earlier contact and more runs. Games may not be any shorter, but they will be more entertaining
As an ardent fan of minor-league baseball, I can tell you the pitch clocks are worth the 15 minutes per game they shaved off Triple-A times last year, and after the first game you attend, you hardly notice them at all.
As an SEC college baseball fan, the pitch cloclocks help a lot. And they are not noticed as a fan unless you look for it. The clock only runs with the bases empty. But the 20 second clock keeps things moving along nicely.
If anyone has ever attended an untelevised college or minor league game, you can really see the impact advertising has on game length. 2-2.5 hour games are common.
When Vin Scully is calling out Pedro Baez for taking 23 minutes to throw 21 pitches in a half-inning, as occurred earlier this week, pace of play is an issue.
Everything from pitch clocks, to limiting pitching coach visits, etc., etc. can and should be reviewed to shorten the game without changing the basics of the contest.
“Children ages 6-17 account for only 4.3 percent of the World Series TV audience.” Boston Globe 2014. https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2014/10/25/world-series-isn-what-used/zQc6Q2OkZUuWgnvyToxzSN/story.html
Today’s FanGraphs supporting members like me will sit through the twists and turns of a 4-hour, 9-inning broadcast. Signs are abundant that many in the next generation will not.
I don’t know if the world series viewership is the best number there…those games are played later, with more ads/intros/pre-game hype and occur on school nights
Having watched that particular Dodger game, and many Dodger games in general, I would say that is a Pedro Baez problem, not a MLB problem. Baez has been the slowest working reliever in baseball for a while now, I believe the only one over 30 seconds/pitch since the start of 2015. In situations like that, it should be on the ump to speed up a particularly slow pitcher. If it becomes more wide spread, MLB can add a pitch clock but there are only a handful of pitchers I would consider to be exceptionally slow. Baez, Tazawa and Melancon come to mind as three incredibly slow workers.
Children aged 6-17 are not watching baseball because it is slow, they are not watching baseball because baseball is very difficult to watch on television. Not because of the product, but because nationally televised playoff games are on late at night during weekdays and because local games during the season are incredibly tough to find. Kids aren’t going to spend $120 on MLBtv and depending on where you live, your local team may not be on TV, may be difficult to find or simply may not interest you.
You also can’t underestimate the role playing baseball has in watching it for children. Less and less kids are interested in playing baseball, especially minorities, in part because baseball is incredibly expensive to play competitively even at youth levels. The equipment alone costs hundreds, never mind travel, fees, etc. Again, MLB needs to make the sport more accessible before they do anything else.
The “no kid viewers because of blackout rules” sounds like nonsense. Do you have any evidence to back this up? Kids will have parents with cable packages. Or MLB.tv subscriptions.
From an enjoyment standpoint, I think we have to consider not just the length of the game, nor “pace” defined as live vs. dead ball situations, but the composition of what we consider “action”.
While there is certainly enjoyment to be had in watching pitchers pitch, batted balls do the heavy lifting for excitement. While the game has gotten longer, I would suggest that the metric which actually most closely mirrors our feelings of excitement is % of game time during which a ball is in play. This is the balance that is off. This is why people think fondly of the 80’s.
I suggest that if excitement is the goal, any proposed changes should be attempting to decrease strikeouts and walks, maximizing the amount of time the ball is in play.
I watch a lot of baseball games front to back, and I had no inkling from watching games that game length was back up until Manfred said something and articles started popping up.
I would argue that it is impossible for a person to notice an increase of 4 minutes per game based on feel. We’re talking about 4 minutes over 9 innings, so about 30 seconds per inning an average (about the equivalent of an extra pitch). Not to mention that the variance in game lengths is probably much larger than the year-over-year difference in game lengths. I find it incredible that anyone could reliably detect the difference.
I wish they could tweak the replay system a tad. I don’t know how it works, but every time they go to check it seems to take 4-5 minutes. They need to introduce a policy of too close to overturn. If it’s that close and you can’t be certain, hurry up and let the call stand. So a clock on the replay would be nice.
I get that the whole point of MLB focusing on this is to increase its appeal to casual fans so they might not care how someone like me feels. But to me, the length of games is not an issue; the pace of play is. As others have said, you can’t really feel how long a game is in real time, especially in terms of ~5 minute average changes. What you can feel is whether the game is dragging along and losing your attention. Stoppages in play are the real culprit here. Baseball already suffers from the (false) narrative that other sports require more athleticism and generally are more exciting. Five minute replays, frequent ad breaks, and constant stepping out/off, all feed into that narrative because nothing is happening. So to me, MLB would be better served focusing on minimizing “dead time” in games and letting game length sort itself out. A fan can always get up and leave in the 8th inning if time is short, but if someone flips to another channel because the game isn’t actually being played, you’re not getting that person back.
Hmm Not yet asked/stated is the abundance of shifts. Each and every batter, it seems that the defense has to take a new position. Pitcher isnt going to pitch until the defense is set …FOR THIS BATTER. That takes time. Can there be any connection between far more shifting and higher game times?
I’m surprised no one has mentioned the connection between offense being up and pitching pace slowing down. Pitchers take more time between pitches with men on base — so it feels like the increase in offense this season (meaning more men on base) is responsible for at least some of the uptick in time between pitches.
As Dave mentioned, though, the problem is what to do about it. If you want more offense in baseball, you might have to put up with longer games.
Baseball has become a big yawn years ago. Stupid rules like balks, designated hitters for pitchers, playing in April and October when players can barely feel their fingers, pitchers taking forever to throw a pitch, pitchers throwing umpteen times to first base without pitching to the batter, etc. Shorten the season dramatically. Only soccer is more boring to watch. Oh yeah, and quit paying these guys ten of millions of dollars that the fans have to pay for.