Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 46

Thread: Start extra innings with a runner on second base?

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    3,742
    Read an interesting point on FanGraphs the other day... Baseball is putting a lot of effort into speeding up the game in order to appeal to the younger audiences. Do we have any evidence that speeding up the game will increase its popularity?

    Besides, isn't an extra-inning game a tightly contested game anyways? If you're not interested in a tie game then I doubt you would be interested in baseball regardless of any rule change.
    Rest in Peace Jose Fernandez (1992-2016)

  2. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by ipitch View Post
    And here's the first pitch...
    Ball - in the dirt

    Here comes the next pitch...
    Ball - way outside

    Repeat.
    Fine. Same as in a regular HR Derby, the batter is under no obligation to swing. Each team gets three batters & 1 (one) pitcher. Keep throwing 'em into the dirt till your arm falls off.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    An hour from Cooperstown
    Posts
    10,242
    Quote Originally Posted by westsidegrounds View Post
    Fine. Same as in a regular HR Derby, the batter is under no obligation to swing. Each team gets three batters & 1 (one) pitcher. Keep throwing 'em into the dirt till your arm falls off.
    This is the "thrills, color, and excitement" you promised in your previous post?
    Shalom, y'all!
    What's the rumpus?

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    8,253
    Quote Originally Posted by westsidegrounds View Post
    Fine. Same as in a regular HR Derby, the batter is under no obligation to swing. Each team gets three batters & 1 (one) pitcher. Keep throwing 'em into the dirt till your arm falls off.
    20 mph pitch in the dirt...

    22 mph pitch in the dirt...

    19 mph pitch in the dirt...

    Arm fall off? You haven't thought your idea through. You'd have to give a free "HR" to any batter that is "walked." Or something like that. If there is no penalty for throwing a ball, then the pitchers won't throw strikes.
    Last edited by ipitch; 02-09-2017 at 01:58 PM.

  5. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by ipitch View Post
    20 mph pitch in the dirt...

    22 mph pitch in the dirt...

    19 mph pitch in the dirt...

    Arm fall off? You haven't thought your idea through. You'd have to give a free "HR" to any batter that is "walked." Or something like that. If there is no penalty for throwing a ball, then the pitchers won't throw strikes.
    All right, good. That makes it even better. Ahem:

    Four balls = 1 home run for the batting team. That would be cumulative - if the pitcher throws eight balls in the course of an "at bat" in which the batter hits 3 HR, the hitter's team scores a total of 5 HR for that at bat.

    Oh, and hitting a fair ball that doesn't go for a homer is a strike, three strikes & yer out. Real strikes, swinging or called, also count towards an out. And of course we'd have robo-umps, so there couldn't possibly be any argument on balls & strikes.

    No fielders. This is just between the pitcher & the batter.

    All kidding aside, that might be kind of cool. And not totally divorced from reality - it would be like the penalty shootout in soccer.

  6. #26
    If you're going to decide tie games by a HR derby, might as well do it as they do the actual ASG derby: batters get to face pitches intentionally grooved, by someone who is trying to help them, i.e., one of their teammates. There is nothing unfair about this, since both teams would benefit equally from this.

    A batter would either get a fixed number of pitches, or has recently been the case in the ASG, get as many pitches as he can handle in a fixed amount of time. Each team could send up their best power hitter, and if the two batters tie, they would go to the second best batter, and so on.

    I actually like this idea. It would almost always end the game pretty quickly. Of course, it would favor teams with power hitters, and if a team missed the playoffs because it lost a game in this manner, I'm sure there would be a lot of complaining.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    1,851
    Quote Originally Posted by Francoeurstein View Post
    Besides, isn't an extra-inning game a tightly contested game anyways? If you're not interested in a tie game then I doubt you would be interested in baseball regardless of any rule change.
    This.

    Extra-inning games are pretty exciting stuff. At least these games are exciting for real fans, but apparently not sufficiently exciting for some fans and one wonders which group. Further, what happens when the experiment falls short on expectations and there is a perception of trying something else? That is called the slippery slope of bastardizing the game, once bastardized, it snowballs further until we don't even recognize what we are watching.

    Ipitch, you say the sky isn't falling. To which, I must agree that it isn't falling yet. However, this proposal over extra-innings game ending rule changes reeks---- absolutely reeks---- of panic.

    We know that baby boomers as a rule are supporting the game today. We are paying for the outlandish ticket prices, paying for pay-per-view, including the MLB channel and other forms. We are buying the bulk of the merchandise for ourselves and families. That gravy train will have its limit, however. When our generation is too old to do all that, the next generation is far more unlikely to do the same. This must bother MLB powers-that-be, and so we are entertaining this discussion. And to reiterate what I said previously, the discussion and most else put forth in this thread amount to bastardizing the game. Once we attempt this, the slippery slope begins.

    Could there be any other justification that MLB is panicked over how to attract fans who are currently younger than age 52-53? Could there be any doubt that MLB might have reason to panic, given the larger picture over finances for younger folks?

    Yep, panic. The sky isn't falling today, and the proposal would take place as an experiment in the low minors before it was taken seriously. For that reason, the sky isn't falling.

    Yet, I propose that someone in MLB (Commissioner Rob Manfred?) has longterm visions of a falling sky.
    Catfish Hunter, RIP. Mark Fidrych, RIP. Skip Caray, RIP. Tony Gwynn, #19, RIP

    A fanatic is someone who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. -- Winston Churchill.

    Experience is the hardest teacher. She gives the test first and the lesson later. -- Dan Quisenberry.

  8. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Stolensingle View Post
    If you're going to decide tie games by a HR derby, might as well do it as they do the actual ASG derby: batters get to face pitches intentionally grooved,
    That would be a possible way to go. But you would lose the batter/pitcher battle element. It would just be a contest of which team has the best sluggers.

    I think this would be just the ticket for that new Continental League they've been talking about. Anybody have Branch Rickey's phone number?

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    The Wettest Part of the Ocean
    Posts
    5,954
    Quote Originally Posted by SamtheBravesFan View Post
    Yes, let's adopt the cheap things the international scene has done to end games faster, that'll REALLY go over well.
    They've used the international tie breaker rules over here in the Australian Baseball League (11th inning onwards, each team starts with runners on first and second) and it kills the game. It gives such a cheap ending to what are usually really good games.
    RIP - HGF [1937-2009]

  10. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by brewcrew82 View Post
    They've used the international tie breaker rules over here in the Australian Baseball League (11th inning onwards, each team starts with runners on first and second) and it kills the game. It gives such a cheap ending to what are usually really good games.
    Whoa. They really do that? I thought it was just a dumb idea somebody dreamed up to fill a column on a slow news day.

    Sure seems like a great way to develop people's appreciation of baseball though.

    The preceding sentence contains sarcasm.

  11. #31
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    The Wettest Part of the Ocean
    Posts
    5,954
    Quote Originally Posted by westsidegrounds View Post
    Whoa. They really do that? I thought it was just a dumb idea somebody dreamed up to fill a column on a slow news day.

    Sure seems like a great way to develop people's appreciation of baseball though.

    The preceding sentence contains sarcasm.
    They are the international tie breaker rules used in all IBAF tournaments. Absolutely ghastly rule.

    The MLB plan alters it in that there will only be a runner on second.
    RIP - HGF [1937-2009]

  12. #32
    If a pitcher has a perfect game through 9 innings of a 0-0 game, will he still be considered perfect with the baserunner on 2nd in extra innings? If the runner moves to 3rd on a groundout and scores on a sacrifice fly in the bottom of the 10th will he get credit for a 29 out perfect game despite losing?

  13. #33
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Anderson, SC
    Posts
    12,203
    Quote Originally Posted by nobody View Post
    If a pitcher has a perfect game through 9 innings of a 0-0 game, will he still be considered perfect with the baserunner on 2nd in extra innings? If the runner moves to 3rd on a groundout and scores on a sacrifice fly in the bottom of the 10th will he get credit for a 29 out perfect game despite losing?
    Obviously he would. He didn't allow any hits or walks. That's why they can't go through with something like this. I'd rather have a visible pitch clock than this; that's how dumb an idea it is.
    52 wins to match last year's total

  14. #34
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Cleveland area
    Posts
    245
    What's never mentioned in discussions to 'speed up the game' is the simple fact that the main reason post-season games are so long, and regular season games got to be that way also is commercial breaks. They get even longer during the playoffs. They go from about 2 minutes (about 2 and a half for nationally televised) in the regular season to at least 3 for post-season. Do the math over nine innings...will this change? Not in a million years. The game itself is fine, leave it alone.

  15. #35
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    8,253
    If they are going to make a change, how about this?

    innings 10-12: no runner on base
    innings 13+: start with runner on 2nd (or maybe 1st)

    It's less radical, and it essentially solves the "perfect game" issue. Not a lot of perfect games are still going in the 13th.
    Last edited by ipitch; 02-10-2017 at 09:17 AM.

  16. #36
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    An hour from Cooperstown
    Posts
    10,242
    Quote Originally Posted by ipitch View Post
    If they are going to make a change, how about this?

    innings 10-12: no runner on base
    innings 13+: start with runner on 2nd (or maybe 1st)

    It's less radical, and it essentially solves the "perfect game" issue. Not a lot of perfect games are still going in the 13th.
    One was, so it's not unprecedented.

    The whole idea is absurd, IMO. It's a radical solution to a nonexistent problem.
    Shalom, y'all!
    What's the rumpus?

  17. #37
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Anderson, SC
    Posts
    12,203
    Someone brought it up on Fangraphs and I kind of agree: I'd much rather be like Japan and have the game called a tie after twelve innings than have to resort to screwing with the nature of the game just to make it end a little faster.
    52 wins to match last year's total

  18. #38
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    5,681
    Quote Originally Posted by PRW View Post
    I'm going to pop some popcorn and enjoy the responses to this proposition ...

    http://www.si.com/mlb/2017/02/08/mlb...er-second-base
    I'd rather the Cubs win the next 50 World Series than see this.
    "If on-base percentage is so important, then why don't they put it on the scoreboard?" -Jeff Francoeur"

    Play the Who am I? game in trivia and you can make this signature line yours for three days (baseball signatures only!)


    Go here for all your 1920's/1930's OF info

  19. #39
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    The Wettest Part of the Ocean
    Posts
    5,954
    As an update, Manfred doesn't see this as being used at the Major League level. At the lower Minor League levels it probably isn't the end of the world.

    http://mlb.nbcsports.com/2017/02/16/...-league-level/
    RIP - HGF [1937-2009]

  20. #40
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Bay Area, CA
    Posts
    5,250
    This idea is stupider than the new Intentional Walk rule change, which to date is the stupidest rule change in the history of sports.
    San Francisco Giants, World Series Champions in 2010, 2012, and 2014!!!

    "Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts" ~ Albert Einstein

    "Royals wear crowns, but Champions Kiss the Ring" ~ Jeremy Affeldt

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •