New Intentional Walk Rule: Like It?
 

Sorry, but I do not. Intentional walks are not why baseball games are too long. And changing a million years of baseball tradition for no reason seems silly. Didn't the A's strike out Johnny Bench in the World Series by calling for an intentional walk on 3 and 2 or something, but then the pitcher actually threw it over the plate? It can affect a game.

What I'd like to see is a limit to the number of total pitching related timeouts a team can call per game. This would include everything from the catcher going to the mound to the pitching coach to manager visits.

Why do the manager and the catcher have to go to the mound to make a pitching change? Just let him signal it from the dugout. If he wants to actually go to the mound it would count as a team timeout. And limit the number of warm up pitches a relief pitcher gets. Aren't they warmed up already when they come in? Give him a couple pitches to get used to the mound and go!

I don't mind it. The only negative is there will be less "Not Top 10" plays from pitchers screwing up the Intentional Walk. But you're right, it doesn't ruin any strategic aspect of the game. I'd prefer if they didn't do stuff like this, but this isn't the worst thing in the world.

I'm not a "shorten the game" guy. I don't care about society's all-of-a-sudden short attention span. I think it's a load of crap, first of all, and I think there's a large amount of politics involved in the media's discussion about it. NFL games last 3.5-4 hours, but only contain 11(!) minutes of actual game play.

As stated in Field of Dreams, "The only constant throughout life is baseball."

This.

...and that may lead to the pitcher faking an injury just so the reliever can get warmed up...

The mound becomes a truly slippery slope.




.

Another Time Solution
 

Instead of throwing four balls for an intentional pass, why not just let the batter take first by announcing the intent by asking the batter to stand on home plate and throw an eephus pitch guaranteeing a hit by pitch without risk of injury.

Problem solved

That's a great idea, Frank:D

I don't see the problem that the game has to begin with. The amount of time the game takes is not excessively long as compared to hockey or football. In fact, it seems baseball games are shorter.

Most of us see no great reason for any change, but there is a demand out 'there', mostly by Broadcast or Advertising Execs, that, in today's society, sports have to be high-speed action all the time. NASCAR and the NBA are just two sports whose pace Baseball has to compete against.

While Fans pay to go see the teams play and buy programs, jerseys and the like, the big money comes from Broadcast contracts and when push comes to shove, the fans' opinion becomes secondary - and eventually, we learn to adjust to those changes.

I realize that changing the intentional walk to a hand signal from the dugout may be a tiny adjustment in the scheme of things, and that, in another century someone like Johnny Bench might be able to lace a 'Ric' flair to right-field once in his career, but, as least that change won't upset the apple cart.

Trying to dictate how many pitching changes can be made in a game could endanger arms and, therefore, would never be allowed by the players union.

Too many throws to first along with varying deliveries of pitches are tried-and-true strategies designed to slow down the running game. You could never say that the pitcher can only throw over twice, because the runner would take off 100% of the time after the second throw...and never before. How stupid would that look?

OUR Game has changed very little over its lifetime and whatever changes are made usually wind up making it a more enjoyable 'product' to watch. IMO

But...We ALL miss the Good Ole' Days.



.

It's absurd if you ask me. The pitcher still has to throw the ball to the catcher and the catcher back to the pitcher. Anything can happen during that exchange. Why even bother to have infielders throw to first if they field an infield ground ball if your POV is there's a pre determined outcome just because someone would like to do something.

I'll give you basketball, but NASCAR?

They could cut the coverage of most races down to a highlight reel of pit stops and crashes and get a 500 done in like 20 minutes.

NESN does baseball broadcasts the day after the game like that, they cut out the bits where people are ambling to the plate while a song plays, or the relief pitcher is wandering in from the bullpen and then throwing about double his pitch count for "warmups". It's cut down to about an hour I think.


Just last week I read where some baseball executive was saying this rule was just for the low minors where it's an instructional league and throwing the four lobs isn't at all important.
But now it's for everyone?!
And it's expected to save a whole 14 seconds a game......:mad:

Steve B

I think that all statistics; Hits, Runs, Errors, Strike Outs, Walks etc. should be submitted, stamped by a Public Notary at game time. Have the players spend the time signing autographs for the kids and have a computer run the stats and declare a winner. CGI highlights could then run on the Jumbo-Tron. Everybody could be home by 9PM.....West Coast games would be available for East Coast People. There... that solves that.:D:)

I'd rather they drop the prices of parking, tickets and concessions
 

Don't care what the owners or players want. Not a fan of the Networks.

Prefer minor league games these days, just a more fun and affordable evening.

Oh yeah. Screw the Cubs.

Read somewhere that it will quicken the average game 14 seconds, what a joke.

My MO is to have the Braves game on TV, but muted as I HATE 'Slip' Carey.

Don Sutton is GREAT on Braves Radio and I've enjoyed that mix.



.

I'm not a fan of the new IBB rule.

A thought struck me, if the intention of this rule is to save time, and make the game faster, why not make a change that would (I assume) save considerably more time.

According to Retrosheet, there were 932 IBB last season, but there were 5,610 HR. If MLB really wants to cut down the length of games maybe they should just have the batter, and any runners, run straight into the dugout the moment the umpire signals a HR.

I'm not sure if I'm trying to be facetious or sarcastic, probably a bit of both.

As a full time baseball fan who didn't watch the superbowl, couldn't care less about sports that treat college athletes as slaves, and thinks that all sports with clocks are inherently dumb, I am curious about this whole "speeding up the game" thing.

Why do I read about how baseball games at 3 hours in length need to be sped up, but football games, which are played to a clock that is either 48 or 60 minutes long (I really don't know) take three hours out of the TV schedule and nobody seems to complain about the other two (or more) hours?

Not that I care, but I am curious.

Doug

Speeding the game up is mostly about the complaints of people unfamiliar with the game - in other words potential new customers. Other sports are simpler to watch, with more "action" for example soccer where someone is running somewhere pretty much all he time. Same for Hockey and basketball. Football has more obvious activity than baseball, but with lots of brief breaks.
The interesting aspects of baseball are less obvious, and it takes a pretty good commentator to point them out. Jerry Remy does a good job of it as do some others. His book about how to watch baseball is a good read as well.


I think of it more as an effort to make the game match the modern lifestyle where everyone wants quick results handed to them, and can't /won't pay attention to anything that isn't consistently flashy.

Oddly, while tennis has lots of action I find it nearly unwatchable. (At least since Nastase retired) Golf is also painfully slow, and there isn't much call to speed that up.

Steve B

I suppose I should mention that the card club had a team for a few years in a modified softball league. And we did intentional walks the way the new rules will work. We just told the umpire we were walking someone. We were the only team that did intentional walks.

I agree Steve - I prefer to listen to golf and tennis on the radio anyway.

I couldn't disagree more with this. Older fans grew up watching baseball games that never took longer than 2 and 1/2 hours. Game 6 of the 1935 World Series (no, I'm not that old!) which the Tigers won 4-3 in the bottom of the ninth took 1:58 to play. Today that game would have taken 3 hours at least. How can this be when the rules haven't changed? Pitching changes, commercials, batters constantly stepping out of the batters box, visits to the mound, etc. All these little strategy ploys that do nothing but delay the actual game.

There was once a time in baseball when the pitching coach didn't feel the need to visit the mound every time a pitcher walked a batter, and the game was better for it, not worse. The same thing happens at my son's high school games. If a coach or player can delay the game in an effort to help his team, he will. It doesn't mean it should be allowed. A hockey coach can't just call time in the middle of a period and walk out onto the ice to talk strategy with his goalie while 20,000 people are watching in the stands. Why should I have to watch a 60 year pitching coach waddle out to the mound for a 5 minute visit to talk strategy? Strategy should be discussed during natural breaks in a game.

Baseball games are practically unwatchable without doing something else at the same time - like reading War & Peace. GET ON WITH IT!!!

... While possibly spurning the incredibly large and deeply en-rooted fan base the sport already has.

Sorry, but if you can't appreciate and enjoy baseball as it has been for over 100 years, then the sport isn't for you. Instead, I have a sport where thugs and criminals get to have a train wreck collision for 11 minutes every Sunday, while you sit and watch those "11 minutes of action" for 3-4 hours.

I will never understand the need in this country to ruin and take away what other people enjoy, just because they can't appreciate it or don't like it.

I'm really starting to hate Manfred.

I'll answer both at once without quoting, I'd have to do some copying and pasting to quote both and frankly I'm feeling lazy.

SAllen-
My comment wasn't about how I view the game, rather about how far more casual fans or people new to the game view it. Or perhaps how the current commissioner and some others think those people view it. (Some of it may also be TV wanting to shorten the game part of the game allowing more commercial time.)

I also think that limiting the "posing" that happens in the game today would shorten the games far more than changing the intentional walk rule.
But the same people wanting the game shorter also want it more "entertaining" so we have walk up music for every batter, and other sort of silly stuff that is entertaining to a point, but really not baseball.
Totally agree, get up to bat and get on with it!

KMay -

I personally like the game just fine as it is.
There will always be changes, some small, some bigger. I started paying attention as a kid in late 73, so to me the DH in the AL but not NL is just how baseball is. And that was a really major change.
I don't like it, but changing the intentional walk isn't quite on the same scale as rule changes go.
I enjoy both Baseball and Football, for different reasons. Hockey and Basketball a bit less as they've both changed a lot since I was into them.

The younger friends and relatives I have that don't quite get baseball all have a standing offer to watch a game with me so I can explain all the subtle stuff going on away from what the TV focuses on. Like where the catcher sets up vs where the pitch really is. (Many good catchers will sometimes set up "wrong" and correct as the pitch is being released, something that surprised me when I learned of it.) And how that affects where the fielders play.
Only one taker so far, and even the bit I know changed his whole perception of the game from nine guys mostly standing around until there was some brief frantic activity to one with more appreciation for that "standing around" which is such a big part of the game.
Another was complaining about Manny Ramirez a few years ago, saying he was lazy and had to go because of it. When I told him to watch closely and notice how Manny would sort of meander over to a ball whether a popup or clean hit to the outfield (The laziness) then note how quickly he threw the ball once he got it. And how regularly that caught the baserunner a bit off guard. There's a reason he had a decent number of outfield assists. Again, something that totally changed how he saw the player. To this day I'm still not sure if it was actually Manny being a bit lazy or if it was truly just an act as I suspected.

Overall, I don't like the change, but I think it's something we'll eventually get used to.

Steve B

In the NFL they got rid of the easy easy extra points. Yes sometimes something wierd happened, even more so then on intentional walks but i dont miss them at all.

I quit watching games on TV for years because it is just so boring. I blame it on the constant commercials and not the game itself.

EDIT: There is nothing worse in sports that the last minute in a basketball game.

I'm somewhat with you that the game is just fine as it is. I would like to see them bring back collisions at home plate. I don't know why they got rid of that entertaining aspect of the game. I'd also like to see them allow managers the opportunity to argue calls again. Screw replay. Even when it's used it isn't always right.

I just don't understand what they are trying to accomplish with these petty little rule changes. John Kruk said there's an IBB once very 2 games. If it shaves 14 seconds off per IBB, that's 7 seconds a game. What a joke. And it doesn't stop here. They're going to look at more aspects going into next season. It's annoying. Leave my baseball alone. Haha.

Also, I was watching MLBTV and they were with Benjie Molina at the Giants' camp. He talked about framing pitches, and how catchers will set up "wrong" to sell a pitch that comes back over the plate. Pretty interesting stuff.

But the point is that the game ISN"T the same as it has been for over 100 years.
This graph says it all. This is NOT the same game our grandparents watched. What the hell is going on to make the game last over an hour longer than when it was the #1 sport in America? You would think games were 12 innings today, not 9.

And again, IBB's are not the cause. It's the over-coaching and constant time-outs, whether caused by excessive visits to the mound by catchers, coaches, and other players, or batters constantly stepping out and adjusting every piece of equipment on their bodies, or 10 minute stoppages every time a new pitcher enters the game. If they would just address these issues, they'd cut at least a 1/2 hour off of every game.

If I were the commissioner:
1. A pitching coach would not be allowed to visit the mound unless he's removing the pitcher. And I'd eventually make it a rule that pitching changes would be called from the dugout, and the manager would be allowed maybe one visit to the mound per game. If you're going to use 4 pitchers a game I want to make the transition from one pitcher to the next as seamless as possible to keep the flow of the game moving. I'd also limit the number of warm-up pitches the new pitcher is allowed. You already warmed up in the bullpen. Get in there and go!

2. Catchers would get 1 visit to the mound per inning.

3. Infielders would not be allowed to call time out for a strategy session at the mound. Or maybe 1 per game at most.

Attachment 263710

Does that graph depict actual game play, or start-to-finish times?

Two things...

1) If it's start-to-finish times, that's easily explained by the increase in advertisements/media timeouts, which has nothing to do with the game of baseball itself.

2) Pitchers aren't used the same. Bullpens are utilized more in today's game than ever before. "Bullpen games" blow, but it is what it is. Those don't happen very often.


I agree mound visits should be limited, though.

Also cut out the thing where a manager will swap a relief pitcher out multiple times in an inning, sometimes to just handle a single batter. I get that it is a strategy that apparently does work, but that really does drag the game out.

If it was the true intention of the powers that be to shorten the length of a baseball game the first place anyone with an IQ above Mr. Potato Head would look is the time between innings. Unfortunately that would require them to trod on their relationship with advertisers (=$$$), and this is against their religion.
For a Baseball Commissioner to have the effrontery to announce this change as an attemt to speed up the game makes me seriously question his qualifications for the job.

Hard to believe that all those home run trots can add that much...

slow games
 

http://redirect.viglink.com/?format=...lt%3D%22%22%3E

This link is from one of Stephens ads in the BST for a 1952 Sporting News. They were trying to speed up the game back in 52.

I think that batters should be put on the clock. After the ball enters the catchers glove, the batter should have 20 seconds to scratch their nuts, adjust their gloves, spit, and stretch, and if they are not ready to bat at that point then a strike is called. The same thing with the pitchers. Once the batter is in the box, the pitcher has 20 seconds to make the pitch, or a ball is called.

i hate it. If u want to int walk a guy u need to throw 4 pitches away from him. 1 - what if theres a wild pitch?
2 - what if catcher drops ball with a man on?
3 - what if u have a man on 2b and u want to swipe 3b?

taking away from the strategy of the game is always a bad thing imo