Tie breakers

[Appling]

Most team sports have invented ways of quickly resolving a tied score at the end of regulation play.

Football once accepted ties as a legitimate way to end a game, but no more. "Sudden death" overtime (first team to score wins) was seen as favoring the team that first gets the ball in overtime, so now we have a very different way to resolve the game: each team gets the ball in the other team's territory, and has one series of offensive plays to score by any means. The other team then gets a chance to match or improve. Almost certain to score at least a field goal. Very different from the game in regulation time.

Hockey has invented an overtime where one skater is matched against the goalie --no defence men to help. Teams take turns. First to score when the other team fails is the winner. Again very different from the regular game, when placement of defensive skaters is very important.

Basketball overtime is much like the rules for regular play, except that star players may have been ejected for reaching the limit for personal fouls. Likely that overtime is played with a different cast of characters, so "bench strength" is important.

But baseball seems to keep on playing inning after inning. If you thought a nine inning game would be over in 3 hours, you may find an extra-inning game go on for another 8 or ten or more innings before one team emerges as the victor, several hours later. Extra innings are especially likely in a low-scoring game.

Extra innings can ruin your planning for that day. Do you stay to the end or leave before it's over?

Should baseball modify its rules to increase scoring in extra innings --or find some other way to bring the game to a swift conclusion? Or should baseball stay loyal to its rules and just keep on playing " 'til it's over"?

[Bluesteve32]

Leave it alone. The team with the deepest bench and pitching will win those marathons. Besides, most end with only a couple of extra innings and those types of games are only a handful a season.

Otherwise, in soccer, where no one can score in 90 minutes of action, then they play like 20 minutes of non-sudden death (that mean it could still be a tie), then you have a silly shootout. That would be like a home run derby or a free throw contest settling a baseball or basketball game respectively.

In football, the NCAA tiebreaker was adopted from NFHS (high school) rules. In HS, the ball is on the ten yard line and NCAA it is from the 25 yard line and each team gets a series of downs to score. If no one scores, they do it again. This is more practical that a full overtime quarter since those players have played for 60 minutes (48 in HS). It also guarentees some type of scoring, ever a field goal.

Some softball groups are going with adding a baserunner after the 10 or 11th inning (I don't remember which, softball is normally seven innings) to get some scoring.

[Appling]

That would be like a home run derby or a free throw contest settling a baseball or basketball game respectively.

That might do it: a home run derby to decide the winner of a tied MLB game. or maybe require 4 or 5 outs to retire the side in extra innings. Think outside the box! (Those other sports did it.)

Or maybe a tie after nine innings is a legitamite result itself. Credit each team with 1/2 win and 1/2 loss. Wouldn't that be good solution in the long run?

But baseball will probably continue in its stodgy ways, faithful to tradition and keeping rules unchanged as much as possible! (Is this bad?)

[west coast orange and black]

i vote for the teams to continue play to decide the winner.

doing so keeps pace with the idea that baseball is played on a field that stretches into infinity, and that limitless time is involved.

[trosmok]

'till the cows come home

Extra innings can ruin your planning for that day. Do you stay to the end or leave before it's over?

I like extra innings, and have not left a game before it was over since I skated out of an eight run visitor's lead in the ninth, only to have the home team score eight, send it into extras, and win it in eleven. I love 2:15 pitching duels that end 1-0, but I also enjoy a 5-5 tie after nine that forces the managers to manufacture a run. Even better is that if the visitors score one or two in the top of the extra, the home team can still tie or win in the bottom. Unless, of course, puppet Selig has a say, and then it's declared a tie when he gets tired of watching. Extra innings give the fans more baseball for their dollar, just like the old doubleheaders did, but in this day and age, some sincere idiots have decided: "if it ain't broke, break it!"

[west coast orange and black]

trosmok: I like extra innings ... "if it ain't broke, break it!"

i'm with you, man.

[KingNothing13]

I LOVE extra inning games. Let them go. It is not broken.

I thought Football was still sudden death, and a tie if no one scored in the 15 min OT. When did that change, and do you have linkage to back it up?

And hockey first plays a 4-on-4 5 min. OT period, then does a 3 man shootout. If it is still tied, they keep doing the shootout until one team scores and the other doesn't.

[KHenry14]

There's a reason Stanley Cup hockey is so exciting....they play till there's a winner. That makes the tension ratchet up exponentially. The same holds true for baseball. I've been to a couple of 16 inning games and one 18 inning, (one was at Candlestick and I still haven't defrosted!) and even though that's a long time to be at the ol' ball yard, it was a lot of fun. Every pitch seems to be magnified in importance. Walk a leadoff guy, and everything changes. Hang a curve and the ball games's over. Why change something that has worked well for a 100 years?

KH14

[jpenrod]

Football once accepted ties as a legitimate way to end a game, but no more. "Sudden death" overtime (first team to score wins) was seen as favoring the team that first gets the ball in overtime, so now we have a very different way to resolve the game: each team gets the ball in the other team's territory, and has one series of offensive plays to score by any means. The other team then gets a chance to match or improve. Almost certain to score at least a field goal. Very different from the game in regulation time.

On a Technicality a tie is still an acceptable outcome in the NFL during the regular season. if the teams are tied at the end of regulation then they play an extra puarter of sudden death football (first team to score wins); however if niether team scores before time expires in the extra "quarter" the game ends in a ties. NCAA does use the you try and score then we try to score approach.

Your question was should MLB change the rules of how the play out tie games, for me the answer is simply, NO! I love extra inning games and I detest the thought of a game ending anyway other than with the winner being decided by who scores the most runs. Baseball's approachseems to me, to be the fairest approach. both teams get an equal opportunity and the decision is clear and obvious.

[west coast orange and black]

KHenry14: I've been to a couple of 16 inning games and one 18 inning, (one was at Candlestick and I still haven't defrosted!)...

was one of these decided by a willie mac homer that landed all the way up in the third deck?

[trosmok]

Get those kids off the street, and bring them home!

The building tension of each extra inning is what sets baseball apart from and above the other team sports. No gimmicks needed to decide an evenly matched contest, simply continue until one more player crosses the plate than the opponent's team with equal opportunity.

re; the old SF ballpark: "You know it's summertime at Candlestick when the fog rolls in, the wind kicks up, and you see the centerfielder slicing open a caribou to survive the ninth inning."~Bob Sarlette

[Bluesteve32]

That might do it: a home run derby to decide the winner of a tied MLB game. or maybe require 4 or 5 outs to retire the side in extra innings. Think outside the box! (Those other sports did it.)

Or maybe a tie after nine innings is a legitamite result itself. Credit each team with 1/2 win and 1/2 loss. Wouldn't that be good solution in the long run?

But baseball will probably continue in its stodgy ways, faithful to tradition and keeping rules unchanged as much as possible! (Is this bad?)

Because it is baseball and baseball, especially at the professional level, soes not end in ties. Ties are for soccer.

[KCGHOST]

Extra innings is the only way to go. It gives each team a fair chance to win the game. The pro football "sudden death" system is terribly flawed. The basketball overtime is very similar to as extra innings and offers each team a fair chance to win the game. The hockey system is rather contrived, but is probably done to protect the health of the players.

[Bluesteve32]

Extra innings is the only way to go. It gives each team a fair chance to win the game. The pro football "sudden death" system is terribly flawed. The basketball overtime is very similar to as extra innings and offers each team a fair chance to win the game. The hockey system is rather contrived, but is probably done to protect the health of the players.

As for hockey, I like the shootout for these regular season games. There were too many ties before. In the Stanley Cup Playoffs, they play until they drop. Anyone remember that game some years ago between the Capitals and the Islanders? They played several overtimes, four or five (maybe more) and it was quite exciting.

In the mid-1980s USC and UCLA played a triple overtime thriller, before the shot clock. I was watching that in a group and no one left for any mistake would have meant the game and every pass was designed to create an opening, but both teams defense was up to the task. One of the few times I was actually excited about a basketball game and when I talked about it to someone a few years later, he said, "You sound like a baseball fan discribing that game."

"Of course," I replied, "and you know that I am."

[Williamsburg2599]

As for hockey, I like the shootout for these regular season games. There were too many ties before. In the Stanley Cup Playoffs, they play until they drop. Anyone remember that game some years ago between the Capitals and the Islanders? They played several overtimes, four or five (maybe more) and it was quite exciting.

In the mid-1980s USC and UCLA played a triple overtime thriller, before the shot clock. I was watching that in a group and no one left for any mistake would have meant the game and every pass was designed to create an opening, but both teams defense was up to the task. One of the few times I was actually excited about a basketball game and when I talked about it to someone a few years later, he said, "You sound like a baseball fan discribing that game."

"Of course," I replied, "and you know that I am."

Shoot-outs are amazing for hockey and are probabily one of the things that snatched the NHL from the graveyard.However, extra innings are fine as they are. Ive been to sevral extra inning games, one that went 16 innings, and it was extremly exciting.Every at bat could change the game.Its fine the way it is, except when the games run pass my bedtime lol