The zombie runner rule is now permanent

[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?

[jingram058]

I envision Steve being an okay guy, as far as that goes. But he is the only person I know or even remotely know out of thousands who is a defender of baseball such as it is today. Nothing you say is going to make any impression on him with regard to changing his mind. He's as hard over on baseball today as anyone around. It just is what it is.

I have so many radio and TV broadcasts of real baseball games that it just doesn't matter.

[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