I completely agree with the need to increase the pace of play. However, in watching college games where there is a clock I see a few flaws. One is with runners on base the pitcher can reset the clock by stepping off and feigning a play on a runner. Most pitchers now do this same non-pickoff pickoff move.
This leads to the bigger flaw which is while the pitcher has the ability to reset the clock, the batter does not. Twice I've seen a batter called out on a non-pitched third strike, because the hitter was deemed to have delayed the game. In both instances it was not at all obvious the batter was at fault! It appeared that the pitcher and batter were simultaneously indecisive, yet the judgment was the batter was at fault!
I've yet to see a batter walked on a delay penalty called against the pitcher.
So a fundamental issue is a pitch clock would require the pitcher to throw the ball in a certain amount of time. But the rule implementation, at least in college, is a batter can be penalized even if the pitch hasn't been thrown. To me, this is as if in the NBA you penalized the team on defense if the team on offense - the team holding the ball - doesn't shoot in time. Of course, in the NBA, the shot clock literally means the team with the ball must make a legitimate shot - ball touches rim - within the time window. If not, the team with the ball is penalized.
Yet because of safety reasons, in baseball the pitcher can not throw if the judgment is the batter isn't ready. And therein lies a huge problem. The pitch clock involves a very significant eye of the beholder judgement of whether or not the batter is delaying.
There will as Joe said, be some bounceback as enforcement gets a bit more lax, but it does not surprise me a bit that there was an immediate change. The reason of course, being what I have said all along: It is not the pitchers, it is the batters and umpires. Don't get me wrong, there are a few pitchers that are a problem, but the vast majority of pitchers beat the time - at least after the batter finally gets settled. I have gone through games with a stopwatch over the years, (Yes, it is a sickness) and the amount of time hitters and umpires waste (Umpires have gotten to the point where they grant the hitter time routinely, and hitters don't even wait for them to say yes, knowing it will be granted, and it didn't used to be that way. I have seen them do it twice between pitches. I have seen them do it with the pitcher in the windup) easily more than twice the time that the pitcher wastes in a game, and often a much bigger ratio than that.
I am not aware of all of the details of the rule changes, but the important thing is that they also penalize the hitter. The hitter should be in the box in approximately half the time the pitcher has, and the pitcher should have the right to make his pitch after that time without worrying about whether the hitter is ready. I don't know how the hitter side worked tonight, or the details of what hitters had to change, but that is the key.
I saw where some people said things about the pitch calling tech, and I have to say that at least with my team, it has clearly sped things up a bit and worked more smoothly also. While there may have been some kind of anomaly play with the crowd that was widely shown, overall it saves time.
The other thing that went into effect this weekend was limiting the number of disengagements from the rubber per at-bat (i.e. two pickoffs, and a third is either picked off or balked a base). But that goes for a whole lot of disengagements - - stepoffs, catcher defensive signs, defensive timeouts, etc.
Curious, is that two attempts per batter, or two overall? (If the runner was still there for a second batter) I think two is a little harsh. Holding runners is difficult. Obviously more difficult than fans think. I never threw over more than 3 times in an at bat, but sometimes I needed that third one. Also making it arbitrary like that kind of give the runner carte blanche. They know the guy can't throw over again. But I guess on the other hand, rewarding speed more might get a few more speedy guys over power guys in the lineup over time, and that would be good for the game.
I believe it's two attempts per at-bat. So let's say I throw over to first twice and then the runner steals second base. I still have zero disengagements left with the same batter up.
I’d ban any pitcher-catcher conferences and any mound visits except for pitcher change. Not on the same page? tough shit, figure it out. Get the signals straight before the game, get the strategy right before the game.
It's like with anything. The change will go in, the players & some fans will scream like it's the end of the world. Then everyone adjusts. Remember how poorly the umpires checking the pitchers after every inning went (to remove foreign substances from the game)? For a week. Now, nobody even mentions it. The pitch clock will go the same. Once everyone adjusts it will be a non issue & the games will go faster. But, like with anything, it's only as good as the enforcement. I think of how hockey keeps struggling with enforcing interference. When they do, games are better and more free flowing. When they don't, it goes back to the mess that it was.
The commercials during MLB games are a much bigger part of the equation than they are for minor league baseball. A LOT more money is at stake here, and given that they have gone and started showing commercials during the actual game action the last few years, I suspect that there will be some kind of backlash from advertisers, as the implementation of a pitch clock would necessarily allow less time for that kind of thing as well.
Another issue, one that could be seen in the Yanks-O's game Friday night, is that the new anti-sign-stealing technology is going to be at odds with the new anti-pitch-delaying tech.
With the bases loaded and only one out in a 1-1 game in the bottom of the 11th, Chapman was having trouble hearing the pitches being called by Trevino through the earpiece due to the crown noise. The crowd, such as it was (~32K paid but probably less than 20K by the time the last pitch was thrown, nearly four and a half hours after the game started), seemed to recognize the problem and lean into it, making more noise the more Chapman covered his left ear in a futile attempt to hear the pitch being called.
That last pitch took almost TWO FULL MINUTES, partially because of the tech issue.
~15 sec to settle down back on the mound after Ball 3 was thrown (replay time)
~1:00 trying to hear each other
~30 more seconds to have a mound conference
~10 more seconds to settle down and throw the pitch.
And of course it was Ball 4 anyway, to lose the game. If he'd just reared back and thrown immediately when he got the ball back after Ball 3, it could not have gone any worse. If the ump had called him for delaying, it would have been no worse.
So if they're going to implement yet more technology to help improve the quality of the on-field product, they really ought to work out the kinks of the stuff they've just implemented first, or you'll end up with a bunch of automatic balls called on pitchers who would really like to throw a pitch but simply can't hear the call.
By all means - bring on the clock. It will help. But this problem requires multiple solutions.
The thing that has always killed me, even as a little kid almost 50 years ago, is the mid-inning stoppage for new reliever to 'warm up' on the mound AFTER they have already been warming up in the bullpen.
Please point to one other team sport that stops the game for a substitute, who is already warmed up mind you, to practice on the field of play prior to the game re-starting.
This is literally the biggest waste of time in the game. It was one thing when teams used 2-3 MAYBE 4 pitchers in a game. Today its at LEAST 5, likely 7 PER TEAM.
Give these guys 3 throws at most - then we are ready to go.
I thought the inning changeover warmup was for commercials.
Otherwise, you are right. Between changeovers, let the pitcher throw 3 warmup pitches and let there be no other warming up with the other fielders. That would shave 15 minutes off the game time!
I am in for limiting warm-up pitches between innings for the pitchers already in the game. For relievers the real issue is the landing point. And it gets re-shaped every game depending on where each pitcher steps to land. The actual mound is the only place where pitchers from both teams are pitching and landing
Baseball "tradition" is this: pitcher gets the ball, pitcher checks the signs, pitcher pitches the ball. This standing around stuff (both pitcher and batter) is ruining baseball, although it must be good for the beer concessions. Play ball!
The pitch clock is great and I’ve been a fan since the first time I saw it used, but when it comes to longer games, the real culprit is television. Since every game is now televised, every half inning means 3-4 minutes of commercials. That’s easily an hour of commercial time every game. And heaven forbid a mid-inning pitching change. That always means another 2 minutes of ads. It adds up. Unfortunately it’s the price that fans pay for being able to watch any team on any given night.
I love how golf and other sports are doing the "play through" concept with commercials. Maybe something for baseball to consider, especially between batters or other natural lulls.
Attended last Friday’s Yanks v O’s game @ OPACY, which Birds won with bases-loaded walk by Aroldis in the 11th. Digital clock begins 2:00 countdown at conclusion of each half-inning. Do the math— even if strictly enforced (it wasn’t), that accounts for 44-minutes of what approximately was a 4 ½ hour game.
Couldn’t agree more. We wish the players and umpires could do it themselves, but they’ve proven they can’t. Kind of like getting everyone to wear a seatbelt. Laws and penalties had to be enacted and enforced before most everyone finally now wears a seatbelt.
I'll just be happy to see something actually tried out by MLB. Let's see what the pitch clock does.
Having said that, as others have pointed out, it's more about what happens during play rather than the time between, but I think a pitch clock could be a positive small step.
We are going to see a limited ban on the shift as well, so maybe a little more time is shaved off with the elimination of every fielder consulting a card from their back pocket and watching 3B move over to the other side of 2B or short right field.
Perhaps robo umps force more pitches in the zone and more swings and maybe more contact and better balls in play. Pitchers can't depend on pitch framing for false called strikes or induce poor contact of pitches outside the zone as easily.
The limit on pitcher rosters may lead to less pitching changes shaving off a little more time.
I'm in favour of losing instant replay for the regular season, I believe it does even out over 162. Playoffs is a different story, but at least make base stealing calls non-reviewable. Shave off more time and I don't like the "out" call on a guy losing contact with his chest or armpit for a split second while still over the bag when he's clearly beaten the throw.
I don't think we're rolling back between inning or mid-inning break for commercials due to revenue, but shave a little time over a lot of things and we'll see significantly shorter games.
Robert, I like your idea about keeping the instant reply for the playoffs. I agree that its likely those call even out during the course of the season. I think maybe they should start in August or September for teams that are in the Wild Card hunt.
I see what you mean, but then that makes for an odd application of the rules and what would be the cut-off for "in the Wild Card Hunt?"
Plus this infers that these games mean more, whereas April and May games are just as important to a teams record.
Seeing my Jays miss the post-season by 1 game in a tough division makes me wish Montoya had Lourdes Gurriel or others bunt less early in the season, especially with 2 strikes or perhaps managing our bullpen better before we got to crunch time, while also finishing up a little better in September.
Not that there is a realistic chance of this happening, since change is slow with MLB and we are still stuck with Montoya.
Whether or not there's any evidence that a pitch clock will affect pitcher injury rates, there is LOTS of evidence that teams won't make that a primary concern. Or do you know of any team in the past 10 years that has told their pitchers to throw easier and keep from trying to strike everyone out, as opposed to having more spare arms ready to go when one breaks down? Teams will invest in training and care, but only in order to keep pitchers throwing at 100% as long as possible.
Once more, with feeling: it's not time of game that's the issue, it's pace of play. I'll watch an action-packed 3 1/2 hour game anytime - hey, that's how long Springsteen plays for, right? The pitch clock is a great idea and I'm all for it. Let's not lose sight of the real issue, though - pace of play. The pitch clock is super helpful in kicking that up a few notches, it seems, which is great! But I'll say it one more time - I don't mind a long game, so long as it's long because there is exciting stuff happening. Cutting down time of game is less important to me than cutting down dead time between plate appearances and pitches. So, again, hooray to the pitch clock! I just want to be clear about exactly why.
Maybe I'm missing something but is that not the exact purpose of the pitch clock? To cut down on dead time and increase the pace, which also reduces the overall time
You're spot on - but I did feel that Joe was framing the article more in terms of how the pitch clock shortens games, rather than speeds up pace of play. For me, shorter games are a sort of irrelevant, maybe sometimes pleasant side effect of a pitch clock, not the main goal. And I wanted to say that straight and clearly.
Add the clock to the time between innings. I’m pretty sure the average time between innings is more like three minutes than the preferable two. And that is really def time.
Baseball, and Profesional sports in general, is an escape. It's taking time from life for some fun. It's extasy and heartache rolled up in a game where you can forget about our sorrows, troubles, and the daily grind. But I get it, you've got time to keep, so your escape must be done in less than 3 hours. Me, I'd rather my escape be timeless.
I completely agree with the need to increase the pace of play. However, in watching college games where there is a clock I see a few flaws. One is with runners on base the pitcher can reset the clock by stepping off and feigning a play on a runner. Most pitchers now do this same non-pickoff pickoff move.
This leads to the bigger flaw which is while the pitcher has the ability to reset the clock, the batter does not. Twice I've seen a batter called out on a non-pitched third strike, because the hitter was deemed to have delayed the game. In both instances it was not at all obvious the batter was at fault! It appeared that the pitcher and batter were simultaneously indecisive, yet the judgment was the batter was at fault!
I've yet to see a batter walked on a delay penalty called against the pitcher.
So a fundamental issue is a pitch clock would require the pitcher to throw the ball in a certain amount of time. But the rule implementation, at least in college, is a batter can be penalized even if the pitch hasn't been thrown. To me, this is as if in the NBA you penalized the team on defense if the team on offense - the team holding the ball - doesn't shoot in time. Of course, in the NBA, the shot clock literally means the team with the ball must make a legitimate shot - ball touches rim - within the time window. If not, the team with the ball is penalized.
Yet because of safety reasons, in baseball the pitcher can not throw if the judgment is the batter isn't ready. And therein lies a huge problem. The pitch clock involves a very significant eye of the beholder judgement of whether or not the batter is delaying.
There will as Joe said, be some bounceback as enforcement gets a bit more lax, but it does not surprise me a bit that there was an immediate change. The reason of course, being what I have said all along: It is not the pitchers, it is the batters and umpires. Don't get me wrong, there are a few pitchers that are a problem, but the vast majority of pitchers beat the time - at least after the batter finally gets settled. I have gone through games with a stopwatch over the years, (Yes, it is a sickness) and the amount of time hitters and umpires waste (Umpires have gotten to the point where they grant the hitter time routinely, and hitters don't even wait for them to say yes, knowing it will be granted, and it didn't used to be that way. I have seen them do it twice between pitches. I have seen them do it with the pitcher in the windup) easily more than twice the time that the pitcher wastes in a game, and often a much bigger ratio than that.
I am not aware of all of the details of the rule changes, but the important thing is that they also penalize the hitter. The hitter should be in the box in approximately half the time the pitcher has, and the pitcher should have the right to make his pitch after that time without worrying about whether the hitter is ready. I don't know how the hitter side worked tonight, or the details of what hitters had to change, but that is the key.
I saw where some people said things about the pitch calling tech, and I have to say that at least with my team, it has clearly sped things up a bit and worked more smoothly also. While there may have been some kind of anomaly play with the crowd that was widely shown, overall it saves time.
With nobody on base, don’t let the batter leave the box. With runners on, batter has 7-8 seconds to get the sign. Pitch clock stays the same
The other thing that went into effect this weekend was limiting the number of disengagements from the rubber per at-bat (i.e. two pickoffs, and a third is either picked off or balked a base). But that goes for a whole lot of disengagements - - stepoffs, catcher defensive signs, defensive timeouts, etc.
Curious, is that two attempts per batter, or two overall? (If the runner was still there for a second batter) I think two is a little harsh. Holding runners is difficult. Obviously more difficult than fans think. I never threw over more than 3 times in an at bat, but sometimes I needed that third one. Also making it arbitrary like that kind of give the runner carte blanche. They know the guy can't throw over again. But I guess on the other hand, rewarding speed more might get a few more speedy guys over power guys in the lineup over time, and that would be good for the game.
I believe it's two attempts per at-bat. So let's say I throw over to first twice and then the runner steals second base. I still have zero disengagements left with the same batter up.
I’d ban any pitcher-catcher conferences and any mound visits except for pitcher change. Not on the same page? tough shit, figure it out. Get the signals straight before the game, get the strategy right before the game.
And with the Astros mic the catcher can just tell the pitcher what to do, so signals are moot
It's like with anything. The change will go in, the players & some fans will scream like it's the end of the world. Then everyone adjusts. Remember how poorly the umpires checking the pitchers after every inning went (to remove foreign substances from the game)? For a week. Now, nobody even mentions it. The pitch clock will go the same. Once everyone adjusts it will be a non issue & the games will go faster. But, like with anything, it's only as good as the enforcement. I think of how hockey keeps struggling with enforcing interference. When they do, games are better and more free flowing. When they don't, it goes back to the mess that it was.
The commercials during MLB games are a much bigger part of the equation than they are for minor league baseball. A LOT more money is at stake here, and given that they have gone and started showing commercials during the actual game action the last few years, I suspect that there will be some kind of backlash from advertisers, as the implementation of a pitch clock would necessarily allow less time for that kind of thing as well.
Another issue, one that could be seen in the Yanks-O's game Friday night, is that the new anti-sign-stealing technology is going to be at odds with the new anti-pitch-delaying tech.
With the bases loaded and only one out in a 1-1 game in the bottom of the 11th, Chapman was having trouble hearing the pitches being called by Trevino through the earpiece due to the crown noise. The crowd, such as it was (~32K paid but probably less than 20K by the time the last pitch was thrown, nearly four and a half hours after the game started), seemed to recognize the problem and lean into it, making more noise the more Chapman covered his left ear in a futile attempt to hear the pitch being called.
That last pitch took almost TWO FULL MINUTES, partially because of the tech issue.
~15 sec to settle down back on the mound after Ball 3 was thrown (replay time)
~1:00 trying to hear each other
~30 more seconds to have a mound conference
~10 more seconds to settle down and throw the pitch.
And of course it was Ball 4 anyway, to lose the game. If he'd just reared back and thrown immediately when he got the ball back after Ball 3, it could not have gone any worse. If the ump had called him for delaying, it would have been no worse.
So if they're going to implement yet more technology to help improve the quality of the on-field product, they really ought to work out the kinks of the stuff they've just implemented first, or you'll end up with a bunch of automatic balls called on pitchers who would really like to throw a pitch but simply can't hear the call.
By all means - bring on the clock. It will help. But this problem requires multiple solutions.
The thing that has always killed me, even as a little kid almost 50 years ago, is the mid-inning stoppage for new reliever to 'warm up' on the mound AFTER they have already been warming up in the bullpen.
Please point to one other team sport that stops the game for a substitute, who is already warmed up mind you, to practice on the field of play prior to the game re-starting.
This is literally the biggest waste of time in the game. It was one thing when teams used 2-3 MAYBE 4 pitchers in a game. Today its at LEAST 5, likely 7 PER TEAM.
Give these guys 3 throws at most - then we are ready to go.
I thought the inning changeover warmup was for commercials.
Otherwise, you are right. Between changeovers, let the pitcher throw 3 warmup pitches and let there be no other warming up with the other fielders. That would shave 15 minutes off the game time!
With what shall they fix it, dear Liza?
Dirt
I am in for limiting warm-up pitches between innings for the pitchers already in the game. For relievers the real issue is the landing point. And it gets re-shaped every game depending on where each pitcher steps to land. The actual mound is the only place where pitchers from both teams are pitching and landing
Baseball "tradition" is this: pitcher gets the ball, pitcher checks the signs, pitcher pitches the ball. This standing around stuff (both pitcher and batter) is ruining baseball, although it must be good for the beer concessions. Play ball!
The pitch clock is great and I’ve been a fan since the first time I saw it used, but when it comes to longer games, the real culprit is television. Since every game is now televised, every half inning means 3-4 minutes of commercials. That’s easily an hour of commercial time every game. And heaven forbid a mid-inning pitching change. That always means another 2 minutes of ads. It adds up. Unfortunately it’s the price that fans pay for being able to watch any team on any given night.
If only it were possible to watch any team on any given night. You must be new here ;-)
It's 2 minutes of commercials between half-innings.
I love how golf and other sports are doing the "play through" concept with commercials. Maybe something for baseball to consider, especially between batters or other natural lulls.
They're already doing it, in addition to the time extenders, not in place of.
Attended last Friday’s Yanks v O’s game @ OPACY, which Birds won with bases-loaded walk by Aroldis in the 11th. Digital clock begins 2:00 countdown at conclusion of each half-inning. Do the math— even if strictly enforced (it wasn’t), that accounts for 44-minutes of what approximately was a 4 ½ hour game.
Couldn’t agree more. We wish the players and umpires could do it themselves, but they’ve proven they can’t. Kind of like getting everyone to wear a seatbelt. Laws and penalties had to be enacted and enforced before most everyone finally now wears a seatbelt.
I'll just be happy to see something actually tried out by MLB. Let's see what the pitch clock does.
Having said that, as others have pointed out, it's more about what happens during play rather than the time between, but I think a pitch clock could be a positive small step.
We are going to see a limited ban on the shift as well, so maybe a little more time is shaved off with the elimination of every fielder consulting a card from their back pocket and watching 3B move over to the other side of 2B or short right field.
Perhaps robo umps force more pitches in the zone and more swings and maybe more contact and better balls in play. Pitchers can't depend on pitch framing for false called strikes or induce poor contact of pitches outside the zone as easily.
The limit on pitcher rosters may lead to less pitching changes shaving off a little more time.
I'm in favour of losing instant replay for the regular season, I believe it does even out over 162. Playoffs is a different story, but at least make base stealing calls non-reviewable. Shave off more time and I don't like the "out" call on a guy losing contact with his chest or armpit for a split second while still over the bag when he's clearly beaten the throw.
I don't think we're rolling back between inning or mid-inning break for commercials due to revenue, but shave a little time over a lot of things and we'll see significantly shorter games.
Robert, I like your idea about keeping the instant reply for the playoffs. I agree that its likely those call even out during the course of the season. I think maybe they should start in August or September for teams that are in the Wild Card hunt.
I see what you mean, but then that makes for an odd application of the rules and what would be the cut-off for "in the Wild Card Hunt?"
Plus this infers that these games mean more, whereas April and May games are just as important to a teams record.
Seeing my Jays miss the post-season by 1 game in a tough division makes me wish Montoya had Lourdes Gurriel or others bunt less early in the season, especially with 2 strikes or perhaps managing our bullpen better before we got to crunch time, while also finishing up a little better in September.
Not that there is a realistic chance of this happening, since change is slow with MLB and we are still stuck with Montoya.
Yes, you are probably right. However, given the slowness of change, let's see when we get the actual pitch clock.
Also, with the expanded playoffs, I would love to see a return to 154 games.
There is a lot of concern about injury, so an extra day off a month should help pitchers recover and with expanded playoff, who needs 162 anymore?
Owners.
Whether or not there's any evidence that a pitch clock will affect pitcher injury rates, there is LOTS of evidence that teams won't make that a primary concern. Or do you know of any team in the past 10 years that has told their pitchers to throw easier and keep from trying to strike everyone out, as opposed to having more spare arms ready to go when one breaks down? Teams will invest in training and care, but only in order to keep pitchers throwing at 100% as long as possible.
Once more, with feeling: it's not time of game that's the issue, it's pace of play. I'll watch an action-packed 3 1/2 hour game anytime - hey, that's how long Springsteen plays for, right? The pitch clock is a great idea and I'm all for it. Let's not lose sight of the real issue, though - pace of play. The pitch clock is super helpful in kicking that up a few notches, it seems, which is great! But I'll say it one more time - I don't mind a long game, so long as it's long because there is exciting stuff happening. Cutting down time of game is less important to me than cutting down dead time between plate appearances and pitches. So, again, hooray to the pitch clock! I just want to be clear about exactly why.
Maybe I'm missing something but is that not the exact purpose of the pitch clock? To cut down on dead time and increase the pace, which also reduces the overall time
You're spot on - but I did feel that Joe was framing the article more in terms of how the pitch clock shortens games, rather than speeds up pace of play. For me, shorter games are a sort of irrelevant, maybe sometimes pleasant side effect of a pitch clock, not the main goal. And I wanted to say that straight and clearly.
Add the clock to the time between innings. I’m pretty sure the average time between innings is more like three minutes than the preferable two. And that is really def time.
just because we'd prefer shorter breaks between innings doesn't mean that the teams/broadcasters will give up the income from their commercials.
Baseball, and Profesional sports in general, is an escape. It's taking time from life for some fun. It's extasy and heartache rolled up in a game where you can forget about our sorrows, troubles, and the daily grind. But I get it, you've got time to keep, so your escape must be done in less than 3 hours. Me, I'd rather my escape be timeless.