The zombie runner rule is now permanent

[edtiques]

They're ruining the game with nonsense like this. What are they thinking?

[jayshum]

When the rule was first introduced, I didn't think I would like it, but after seeing it in use for a few seasons, I have been ok with it. There is definitely some additional strategy added to extra innings instead of what often happened when games would drag on and it looked like every batter was just trying to hit a home run to win the game.

I see it like hockey overtime rules and the eventual shootout so that games don't go on forever. As long as they don't start using the ghost runner in the playoffs, I'm good with it. A 20 inning regular season game can really mess up a team's pitching for a few games afterward so this makes that less likely.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by jayshum

When the rule was first introduced, I didn't think I would like it, but after seeing it in use for a few seasons, I have been ok with it. There is definitely some additional strategy added to extra innings instead of what often happened when games would drag on and it looked like every batter was just trying to hit a home run to win the game.

I see it like hockey overtime rules and the eventual shootout so that games don't go on forever. As long as they don't start using the ghost runner in the playoffs, I'm good with it. A 20 inning regular season game can really mess up a team's pitching for a few games afterward so this makes that less likely.

Agreed. If anything the rule takes us back in time where contact hitters are rewarded.

[mrreality68]

Originally Posted by jayshum

When the rule was first introduced, I didn't think I would like it, but after seeing it in use for a few seasons, I have been ok with it. There is definitely some additional strategy added to extra innings instead of what often happened when games would drag on and it looked like every batter was just trying to hit a home run to win the game.

I see it like hockey overtime rules and the eventual shootout so that games don't go on forever. As long as they don't start using the ghost runner in the playoffs, I'm good with it. A 20 inning regular season game can really mess up a team's pitching for a few games afterward so this makes that less likely.

I agree. I had doubts but it does not bother me (as long as not used in playoff’s which it currently is not)

Also like that it adds strategy and also helps the games have shorter extra innings.
I always hated a position player sometimes being used as a pitcher

[packs]

Is it a perfect game if you pitch 9 and 2/3rds perfect baseball but give up two long fly balls to lead off the bottom of the 10th and lose on a sac fly?

[JollyElm]

I can't for the life of me express how absolutely, mind-numbingly pathetic this stupid rule is. My gawd!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I guess when my backyard Wiffle Ball game is deadlocked, we'll need to start extras with a runner on second.

What's going to be changed next? Starting EVERY inning with a runner on second?

MLB continues to become a bigger and bigger embarrassment by the day.

[Snapolit1]

Doesn't bother me.

Just like I don't go to see movies that are 3 and a half hours long, I understand why many people have no interest in a 4 hour + baseball game.

No other major sport goes on for 4 or 5 hours.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Doesn't bother me.

Just like I don't go to see movies that are 3 and a half hours long, I understand why many people have no interest in a 4 hour + baseball game.

No other major sport goes on for 4 or 5 hours.

Depending on format, Cricket matches can be very long. Like average 7.5 hours a day over 5 days for test matches. Or, if you just want a one day international 7.5 -8 hours.

Lemans is a pretty big deal and is 24 hours.

It's not popular now, but in the 20's-30's six day bike racing was one of the biggest sports around. Stars were paid much more than baseball players. (In case you got bored, those took.... 6 days. )

The Reno air races take an entire week.

Those are or were major sports. And take a long time.

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by packs

Is it a perfect game if you pitch 9 and 2/3rds perfect baseball but give up two long fly balls to lead off the bottom of the 10th and lose on a sac fly?

I would say yes. What a weird result that would be.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Gorditadogg

I would say yes. What a weird result that would be.

right or pitch 12 innings but your fielders are normally relief pitchers and make errors so the players get on base and later score...can always come up with scenerios and its a team sport

[Exhibitman]

Does everyone get a juice box too? And whose mommy brings them?

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by packs

Is it a perfect game if you pitch 9 and 2/3rds perfect baseball but give up two long fly balls to lead off the bottom of the 10th and lose on a sac fly?

I would say maybe not because you did not get through the last out of the inning. But yes if you pitched the top of the 10th and gave up those two long fly balls and then retired the next man and your team could not rally in the bottom half of the inning. Yep, 30 up, 30 down and tagged with a loss.

Maybe you could get a perfect-perfect game if you picked off the bonus runner and then got the rest as well.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

Maybe you could get a perfect-perfect game if you picked off the bonus runner and then got the rest as well.

Not according to precedent. In 1915, Ernie Shore came into a game in the first inning after Babe Ruth walked the first batter and then got ejected for starting a fight. The runner was caught stealing, and Shore went on to retire the next 26 batters. He was not credited with pitching a perfect game even though he got the inherited runner, then everyone else. He is credited with a no-hitter.

But, since anything is now subject to change, in the name of making the National Pastime "more fan friendly," maybe they would also change the definition of a perfect game to take into account zombie runners.

Baseball has such a rich history and tradition. I hate seeing it defaced because some people can't appreciate it for what it is.

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Not according to precedent. In 1915, Ernie Shore came into a game in the first inning after Babe Ruth walked the first batter and then got ejected for starting a fight. The runner was caught stealing, and Shore went on to retire the next 26 batters. He was not credited with pitching a perfect game even though he got the inherited runner, then everyone else. He is credited with a no-hitter.

But, since anything is now subject to change, in the name of making the National Pastime "more fan friendly," maybe they would also change the definition of a perfect game to take into account zombie runners.

Baseball has such a rich history and tradition. I hate seeing it defaced because some people can't appreciate it for what it is.

I am aware of Ernie Shore's performance, but unlike the hypothetical I raised, he did not begin the game and face every batter, and not every batter was retired. He is credited with being part of a combined no-hitter.

To your point, I believe they would have to change the definition of a perfect game, but it is inherently contradictory to state someone pitched a perfect game and lost. Yet that possibility exists. Let's hope it arises so the debate fun can get started

[Snapolit1]

Originally Posted by edtiques

They're ruining the game with nonsense like this. What are they thinking?

They are thinking that 99.999% of the American public has no interest in a 4 hour + baseball game. And, for good or for bad, they are correct.

[BobbyStrawberry]

I dislike it for many reasons:

1) Long extra inning games are fun
2) It feels to me, even after three years of it now , incredibly artificial. (Like they introduced an element that shouldn't be there)
3) It violates a fundamental rule of the game - you have to reach base in order to score
4) As others have stated, it messes with stats in a way that seems goofy

I get that MLB is trying to shorten games, but as fans, don't you want more of the game? I honestly would have preferred games to end in a tie after 12 innings than this.

And one other point that struck me - the fact that they will only do this for regular season games, to me, is a tacit admission that the idea is silly: "Oh, don't worry fans, we'll still play real baseball in extra innings when the games actually count"

[Mike D.]

Those zombies have a heck of a union...

Like it or hate it, but with it's stated goal being to do away with crazy long extra inning games it can't be argued that it isn't successful.

From mlbtraderumors.com:

"Though the change rankled many baseball purists, there’s little doubting that it was successful in accomplishing the goal of preventing exceptionally long games. As pointed out by Eno Sarris of The Athletic, there were only 11 games to reach the 13th inning last year, compared to 37 in 2019. There were also no games that went beyond the 15th in 2022, while it happened eight times in 2019."

[Mark17]

Put a clock on the pitcher. If he doesn't deliver within 20 seconds of him getting the ball in his hands, the ump calls a ball and the clock restarts. That's how it works in football with the play clock. Same with batters - make them stay in the box.

It seems to me that people who like the zombie rule see baseball as entertainment mostly, while people (like me) who hate the zombie see baseball more as a continuous, ongoing history.

[JollyElm]

Better yet, start extra innings with the bases loaded and blindfold the pitcher and make him pitch underhanded!! Or, how about eliminating the pitcher altogether and putting the ball on a tee?? Or, if it's entertainment baseball 'fans' want, how about just having all extra innings pitched by the botox-addicted ladies from one of the 'Real Housewives of...' shows?? That fits in perfectly with traditional baseball, right???

It saddens me to no end that there are people out there who actually think the pathetic zombie rule is a good thing.

[Jim65]

It doesn't happen enough for me to get worked up about it or feel its ruining the game. It definitely adds a different strategy, which makes extra innings a bit more interesting.

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

Better yet, start extra innings with the bases loaded and blindfold the pitcher and make him pitch underhanded!! Or, how about eliminating the pitcher altogether and putting the ball on a tee?? Or, if it's entertainment baseball 'fans' want, how about just having all extra innings pitched by the botox-addicted ladies from one of the 'Real Housewives of...' shows?? That fits in perfectly with traditional baseball, right???

It saddens me to no end that there are people out there who actually think the pathetic zombie rule is a good thing.

I know change is hard for you, Darren.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

I dislike it for many reasons:

1) Long extra inning games are fun (yeah thats why more than half the stadium is empty after 11th inning or so)
2) It feels to me, even after three years of it now , incredibly artificial. (Like they introduced an element that shouldn't be there) (DH isnt artificial? banning the shift?)
3) It violates a fundamental rule of the game - you have to reach base in order to score (you only allowed to reach base if you can be tied after 9 innings, if you dont you dont reach base like that)
4) As others have stated, it messes with stats in a way that seems goofy (getting hits off fielders or scoring a double in the gap because pitcher is playing the outfield doesnt mess with the stats?)

I get that MLB is trying to shorten games, but as fans, don't you want more of the game? I honestly would have preferred games to end in a tie after 12 innings than this. (yeah thats why hockey got rid of only ties, and have expanded how ties are done because ties are so great)

And one other point that struck me - the fact that they will only do this for regular season games, to me, is a tacit admission that the idea is silly: "Oh, don't worry fans, we'll still play real baseball in extra innings when the games actually count"

NFL has different OT rules now for regular season and postseason

[Snapolit1]

I saw they have passed new rules limiting when a team can use a non pitcher to pitch. I have no issue with that either. The proliferation of non-pitcher pitchers last year lobbing 50 mph golpher balls was getting a little ridiculous. Cute once in a while, not all the time.

[D. Bergin]

Put me with the "I don't like it" crowd.

The problem in baseball is 4 hour 9 inning games. Nobody was clamoring for the rarer occasions of extra inning games being artificially shortened....except maybe the owners who don't want to pay ballpark attendants, and the secretary who has to make travel arrangements for the team the next day.

Regardless of how much money they make nowadays, I gotta think most players have an Ernie Banks "Let's Play Two" mentality, when it comes right down to it.

For what it's worth, I also hated when they introduced the Shoot-out in Hockey.

No, it's not going to ruin the game...and fans will get used to it...and it's probably somehow "for the best"...but I still don't like it.

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

For what it's worth, I also hated when they introduced the Shoot-out in Hockey.

I hated the shoot-out at first too but they needed to do something. Back in the day teams played too cautious in overtime to not lose and just get the one point, now that the one point is guaranteed, teams can go for it, to get the extra point.I learned to like the shoot-out because I hate ties.