Why Extra Innings Shouldn’t Change
We just had a conversation on Monday about the league’s ideas for changing up the game, and about tilting at windmills. Intentional walks aren’t that big a deal. Now extra innings are killing baseball, apparently.
Jeff Passan has reported that baseball is going to start testing out a new policy at Rookie-level ball. Every extra inning will start with a runner automatically standing on second base, with the idea of ending the game quicker. I can see the argument. Extra innings drag, especially if they go on for extended periods of time. This rule would theoretically protect against 19-inning wars of attrition in which position players get to try out their fastballs. Nobody wants to sit around into the wee hours of the morning until someone finally pushes a run across the plate. That’s the rationale behind this, right?
“What really initiated it is sitting in the dugout in the 15th inning and realizing everybody is going to the plate trying to hit a home run and everyone is trying to end the game themselves,” Joe Torre told Passan. And the same is likely true of the fan still sitting out in the bleachers in the 15th inning, no? Is anybody still watching at home in the 15th inning? The sooner a baseball game can end, the better. That seems to be the message here.
Yet this proposed cure may not be any better than the supposed disease.
The Australian Baseball League has this rule, and some other international formats of play employ it. It hasn’t garnered glowing reviews.
Rules putting runners on in extra innings lead to sac bunts and IBBs. Slows the game and feels exactly like the artificial gimmick it is.
— Ben Badler (@BenBadler) February 8, 2017
As we know, bunts stink. They’re a waste of an out. They work less often than you’d think. It’s not totally uncommon for a runner being bunted over from second to be thrown out at third. Plus, the league just publicly stated its vendetta against old-fashioned intentional walks this week. If MLB is concerned with pace of play, making extra innings even more of a slog through the mud feels quite counterintuitive.
Even if the implementation of the rule shortens extra-inning games, how much value does that provide to the fans? How much more valuable is a 12-inning game than a 15-inning game in the middle of the summer from a viewership-growth standpoint? Furthermore, how good is the quality of play going to be at that point? Extra-inning games tend to involve the last few guys in a team’s bullpen and the very end of the bench. Are a bunch of faceless middle relievers and utility infielders going to make extra innings more exciting when there’s a runner dropped onto second base?
I highly doubt it. Torre’s concern, according to Passan, is that the game gets one-dimensional because everyone wants to hit a homer to end the game. This rule would make the game one-dimensional by forcing everyone to try to bunt runners over. What’s better for marketing and for fan enjoyment: a walk-off home run or a walk-off dribbler up the middle after a few sac-bunt attempts?
There isn’t much to be gained here. In fact, this rule would only make these sorts of games even more laborious for fans. Nobody wants to watch players try to lay down bunts in extra innings, especially in this day and age when the art of bunting has gone the way of the dinosaur and the bullpen car. Hitting is exciting. Comebacks are exciting. Watching the latest nameless call-up from Triple-A magically escaping a 14th-inning date with the heart of the other team’s lineup is exciting and terrifying, which makes it great entertainment. Arbitrarily putting a runner on second base and kicking off a bunting-skills competition is only fun if you have Billy Hamilton on your team.
There’s a sort of delirious joy that comes with a game that drags deep into the night and into the morning. Weird Baseball is an essential part of being a baseball fan in the 21st century. There’s nothing better than staying up late and watching a position player take the mound. There comes a certain point where rooting for an end becomes rooting for more entropy and losing one’s mind to exhaustion-fueled hysteria.
I know. I know. Trust me, it’s a lot more fun than it sounds like.
All of these proposed new rules that are filtering out through the press are almost certainly test balloons. And, admittedly, those of us who read FanGraphs (or write for FanGraphs, even) are more hardcore fans than those whom these proposals seek to serve. We don’t mind when baseball runs long. Adding a pitch clock won’t eliminate extra innings or make them more exciting, but it’ll certainly make them a bit more expedient.
There are some issues with baseball. Extra-inning play isn’t one of them. Extra innings have given baseball some of its most triumphant moments. We shouldn’t seek to ruin that. Letting the game naturally play itself out in extra innings is the best option here. Let’s not fix what isn’t broken.
Nick is a columnist at FanGraphs, and has written previously for Baseball Prospectus and Beyond the Box Score. Yes, he hates your favorite team, just like Joe Buck. You can follow him on Twitter at @StelliniTweets, and can contact him at stellinin1 at gmail.
It would be cruel to end Weird Baseball just as the tools for properly finding and appreciating it (Twitter, MLB.tv Gamechanger) are becoming more prevalent. Back in the day, you might see a pitch of a position player pitching on Sportscenter, now the entire internet is alerted when it occurs.
Exactly! MLB seems to think these games are the problem, but I think they are the best marketing opportunity. I watch a ton of games every year, but most of my sports loving friends don’t. The days I get to talk most about baseball is after a score gets out of control, or the game goes 17 innings (or a perfect game, or scherzer strikes out a thousand people, etc).
Remember when the indians won their 14th straight game in the 19th inning against Toronto? I’m a fan of neither team but talked about that with a bunch of (even non-baseball) people. MLB would be wise to find more ways to get people talking about the game, not fewer.
Agreed, 100%. It’s mystifying to me why MLB seems to regard pace-of-play issues– the actual cause of long games– as insurmountable. The instant intentional walk & the synthetic baserunner ideas are trashy cosmetic “fixes” that will just piss people off and make negligible differences in game length.
If people want to leave games or turn the channel, they are free to do so at any time. I wonder if there isn’t some pressure from owners to shorten games because they have extra costs but little chance at cost recovery once the beer has stopped flowing in the seventh inning.
They could keep selling beer and offer free rides home and/or on-site drunk tanks. They’d probably come out ahead.
Continue serving beer later in the game to fans who can prove they’re taking public transit or a cab home from the game.
I get that in a lot of places this saves lives, but it’s absurd in Yankee Stadium when 75% of the fans take the subway home (don’t get me started on how they stop serving beer in the FIFTH inning in the bleachers there…)
The length of games is not a baseball problem. It’s Major League Baseball’s problem. They would have you look at the issue as if Major League Baseball IS the game. This is not the case. Baseball is a thing wholly separate from the business that uses it as its product. The clearest, simplest, least intrusive and BY FAR most effective way to cut minutes from ballgames is to limit commercials or commercial breaks. Major League Baseball will never do that. So what they do is ignore this solution entirely and act as if the game itself is broken.
There is nothing wrong with the game.
There is something wrong with the business.
Professional sports seeking to make money is just part of the process. The race in revenue fuels the acquisition of talent.
In terms of commercial breaks, I honestly am fine with them as they are if that’s the implicit trade off I take for a team seeking revenue if it means that MLB teams will keep advertisements off their jerseys. The NBA is entering that arena and it’s upsetting.
The greed is out of control. It has not always been this way. Money has always changed hands… but priorities have changed dramatically.
Don’t enable the parasitic owners by acting like the money goes to the players or creates a better product. Great baseball was still played before this current era of maximizing profits.
If the end desire is to shorten the length of games (for whatever reasons), just stick to ideas that are less intrusive…
(1) limit of __ seconds between pitches
(2) limit of one visit to the mound per inning by coaches for non-pithing changes, and one visit by catchers per hitter
(3) reduce warm up pitches after a reliever comes in for a non-injured pitcher
I would go even further and say that it should be one mound visit by a position player OR catcher per inning. There’s a reason you’re allowed to send signs to communicate, you shouldn’t need to actually talk to discuss a strategy.
THANK YOU.
I think this is the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard but if they do it, let the defensive team pick which opponent is put on 2nd base. Oh, 3rd string catcher slower than Ben Molina, get on 2nd!
I think the enjoyment you receive at 2 am when the game ends has a lot to do with the fact you aren’t getting up at 5:45 for work the next day. 10 innings or 24, I’m shutting it off after the 9th.
The runner at 2B is just awful. Why can’t somebody in MLB or TV admit the real problem, whatever that is, so at least we can focus in and try to fix that. I mean, change is the constant so we can’t be afraid of change. The problem is most definitely NOT extra-innings games. And it’s not the few minutes that extra innings or really, even pitch clocks on a starter would gain. Really? Are you really telling me that if the game ends at 9:50 we’re all happy, and if it ends at 10:10 the nation will crumble? Is the problem that networks want to pay less money for games over-running other programming, or that they don’t want to be forced into a lose-lose choice when that happens? Is the problem that there’s a true correlation between game length and paid attendance, or merchandising? Sorry, i’ll sit down now.
“As we know, bunts stink. They’re a waste of an out. They work less often than you’d think. ”
This wrong on two levels. Firstly, because the scenario in question is one of the few in which bunts can be argued to make sense: moving from man on second, nobody out, to man on third with one out is essentially a wash by run expectancy and WPA.
Secondly, because you’re conflating the efficacy of a given tactic and its aesthetic appeal. Lots of tactics that make sense mathematically aren’t necessarily fun to watch and vice versa.
You are 100% correct. The bunt and IBB “arguments” are straw men. Putting a man on second WILL shorten the game in both innings (for sure) and likely time.
Frankly I don’t care either way.
If you want to shorter games time-wise or inning-wise (in extra inning games), the argument that a particular change, “Won’t speed up the game THAT much,” is ridiculous. The point is to implement enough of these changes so that the aggregate IS significant. If you are going to argue against each one of these changes because individually they won’t have much effect (which is true) then you will end up with nothing.
That’s like arguing, “Why should a manager care about bunting too much, when that alone has little effect on a game (which is true)?” And why should a manager worry about having a good batting order because that has little affect on a game (which is true). Why should a manager worry about issuing too many IBB? Why should a manager worry about using his bullpen properly? I hope you are getting the point. We SHOULD worry about ALL the little things when there are many of them and they all add up to something big. In order for me to get an edge at blackjack by card counting I have to at least play basic strategy which involves me making hundreds of individual optimal decisions. Many of them have very little value but unless I adhere to almost all of them I can’t get an edge in the game.
As far as other changes that might have a larger affect on the time of a game, if you don’t think that MLB has considered or is considering them, but you have, you are overestimating your intelligence as compared to theirs. MLB has to consider lots of things with respect to changes that might shorten games, not the least of which is approval from the Player’s Association. These rule changes are not as easily made as you may think.
Finally, if you are of the opinion that shortening MLB games will NOT increase interest in the game and therefore revenue, that’s fine. Just don’t confuse that with the efficacy (or even the aesthetics) of any changes that might achieve that goal.
I just love that MGL’s relate-able factoid is “when i’m counting cards at the casino”. Never change!
Yes, if they want to speed up the game, here are 5 ideas:
1 – Don’t let the pitcher step off unless he’s throwing to a base.
2 – Don’t let the batter step out or call time-outs
3 – Don’t let the pitcher ice the batter (pitcher must deliver the ball within n seconds of batter getting in box, or a ball is called.)
4 – No more timeouts every time a baserunner gets dusty.
5 – Only one mound conference per inning. If you forget the signs, or the scouting report, too bad! Be better prepared next time.
The idea of expediting extra innings is simply wrong. It seems that Crash Davis’ request for a constitutional amendment to outlaw the DH and Astroturf, should include a few more things, such don’t mess with extra innings and intentional walks require 4 balls out of the strike zone.
Does baseball have a time problem? Yeah, probably. It’s not as bad as NCAA football, but it’s there. What would I do? Well I wouldn’t change extra innings, limit “timeouts” (what is a timeout in baseball anyway? where’s the clock to stop?), limit in-inning pitching changes, or wave a hand for an intentional walk.
– I would cut the commercials between innings. Go from the 2:30 they have now to 2 minutes. There’s 8 to 8 1/2 minutes off a 9 inning game right there.
– Rather than limit in-inning pitching changes, limit the number of pitchers on the roster to maybe 11. Then the managers won’t be willing to use a pitcher for only one hitter, as it would be more costly to their staff.
– If the above rule causes angst with regard to pitcher use and rosters, go to a scheme like the NHL, in which you are allowed 20 dressed players each night and 23 total on the roster. MLB might go with 25 and 28. That will help with the day-to-day injuries and allow rest of a heavily used reliever or even last night’s starter, plus it should make the player’s union happy. You’d have to be sure that the 3 reserves aren’t all starting pitchers.
– If you bat with body armor on, you run the dang bases with same body armor. And you don’t get to have someone bring you special base running mitts either.
– Oh, finally, regarding instant replays. The manager doesn’t get to wait to hear from the video booth whether to request a replay. He has to decide right away if he wants a replay or not. I’m willing to give an extra replay to each team to account for this. It’s infuriating to see how many times the manager will delay the game, with his foot on the step, just to step back and skip the replay.
I’m willing to bet these suggestions will average about 10-11 minutes per game saved.
Sorry, but I’ve been really steamed about some of the stupid ideas I’ve been hearing coming from the commissioner’s office.
Sorry, but MLB will never agree to shorten commercial breaks, and restricting roster compositions (although the 25 active of 28 idea has merit) is just as stupid of a suggestion as the ones you’re complaining about.
So, if both teams both have a runner on second, are the odds of the game being shortened really that different? When one team scores the game is not over, so team two can just bunt, sac fly and we are in the same predicament. The “edge” will come with where each team is in their batting order. Team A at the top of the order, versus Team B at the bottom of the order. Seems silly and arbitrary. Executives (and some fans) need to learn baseball is not an immediate gratification sport, it is okay to slow things down and enjoy yourself every once in a while.
The logical solution is, as many have said, is to shorten commercial breaks, but this leads to lost revenue. Why not offset it with putting advertisements on jerseys, or charging slightly more for ad space around the park? Why not run a promotion during extra innings games only, 10% off your purchase at the food stands? The mark ups are so large, they would still likely be making a profit. Partner with nearby restaurants, hotels, shuttle services, etc. to have an extra innings promotion only. Do not change the game that has made billions of dollars for the sake of the executives, change the approach to marketing.
I’ll leave this with one last thought. Somehow 3 plus hours for a football game is okay since it is “action packed”, but the equivalent baseball game is in need of repair?
The way I see it is, if you’re not interested for the first 9 innings, then how is some extra-inning gimmick going to help that?
Since MLB won’t reduce the revenue from commercial breaks in the first 9 innings, could there at least be a limit to one minute of commercial breaks between half-innings after the 9th?
They are clearly conflating pace of play with length of play. This is just another example of the MLB juicing the numbers.
For leagues that already do this, is there enough data to see if this rule has an additional affect on home field advantage? I get the feeling that batting last in this situation and knowing if you can go for 1 run to win would give an advantage over the uncertainty the road team faces “to bunt, or not to bunt”