2B2E292F272D342920333538410 wrote: Time in between pitches seems like a huge issue to me. I wonder if anyone tracks this.
I think it must be tracked to some extent in order to develop rules for the proposed pitch clock.
Experimental Rule Changes in the Atlantic League last season
Moderators: SammyKhalifa, Doc, Bobster
Experimental Rule Changes in the Atlantic League last season
Just watch the 1960 world series game where they scored like 19 runs. The game was played in 2 hours 36 minutes. Hardly any ball changes, they simply wiped it off and the pitcher threw it again. Very little stepping out of the batter's box. Points are well taken regarding the time being taken between innings.
-
DemDog
Experimental Rule Changes in the Atlantic League last season
0F26202C2E430 wrote: Just watch the 1960 world series game where they scored like 19 runs. The game was played in 2 hours 36 minutes. Hardly any ball changes, they simply wiped it off and the pitcher threw it again. Very little stepping out of the batter's box. Points are well taken regarding the time being taken between innings.
In those days the grounds crew did not manicure the infield dirt every 3 innings. Only once per game in the 5th inning. Ask Tony Kubek about that!
In those days the grounds crew did not manicure the infield dirt every 3 innings. Only once per game in the 5th inning. Ask Tony Kubek about that!
-
johnfluharty
Experimental Rule Changes in the Atlantic League last season
6D44424E4C210 wrote: Just watch the 1960 world series game where they scored like 19 runs. The game was played in 2 hours 36 minutes. Hardly any ball changes, they simply wiped it off and the pitcher threw it again. Very little stepping out of the batter's box. Points are well taken regarding the time being taken between innings.
I would love to see us return to that sort of fast-paced game.
I would love to see us return to that sort of fast-paced game.
-
Bobster21
Experimental Rule Changes in the Atlantic League last season
4E4B4C4A4248514C4556505D240 wrote: Just watch the 1960 world series game where they scored like 19 runs. The game was played in 2 hours 36 minutes. Hardly any ball changes, they simply wiped it off and the pitcher threw it again. Very little stepping out of the batter's box. Points are well taken regarding the time being taken between innings.
I would love to see us return to that sort of fast-paced game.
To be fair, game 7 of 1960 was essentially an 8 1/2 inning game as only 1 batter appeared in the bottom of the 9th. But 2.5 hours was pretty standard for that series.
Game 1- 2:29 6-4. 8.5 innings, 4 pitching changes.
Game 2- 3:14 16-3 9 innings, 6 pitching changes.
Game 3- 2:41 10-0 8.5 innings, 5 pitching changes.
Game 4- 2:29 3-2 9 innings, 3 pitching changes.
Game 5- 2:32 5-2 9 innings, 4 pitching changes.
Game 6- 2:38 12-0 9 innings, 5 pitching changes.
Game 7- 2:36 10-9 8.5 innings + 1 batter, 7 pitching changes.
Although 2 games resulted in 19 runs scored, game 2 (16-3) involved 32 hits and 8 walks. Game 7 (10-9) involved only 24 hits and 5 walks. And it included a lengthy delay tending to the injured Tony Kubek. It's notable that only 2 games involved more than a combined 5 pitching changes. And none involved more than 7.
In today's MLB, it's normal for both teams to designate a different reliever for the 7th, 8th and 9th. That's a total of 6 pitching changes not counting any that are made in mid-inning because someone gets into a jam. Or was only brought in to face 1 batter (which has been changed by the new 3 batter rule). Or because a starter who was cruising along is pulled at 100 pitches. The way the game is played today is more time consuming because of numerous stoppages of play for pitching changes. It used to be that if a starter was cruising along, he might go 8 or 9 innings with 0 or 1 pitching change. Today, such a pitcher is pulled mid inning at 100 pitches (usually by the 6th or 7th inning) and 3 or more relievers will follow.
I would love to see us return to that sort of fast-paced game.
To be fair, game 7 of 1960 was essentially an 8 1/2 inning game as only 1 batter appeared in the bottom of the 9th. But 2.5 hours was pretty standard for that series.
Game 1- 2:29 6-4. 8.5 innings, 4 pitching changes.
Game 2- 3:14 16-3 9 innings, 6 pitching changes.
Game 3- 2:41 10-0 8.5 innings, 5 pitching changes.
Game 4- 2:29 3-2 9 innings, 3 pitching changes.
Game 5- 2:32 5-2 9 innings, 4 pitching changes.
Game 6- 2:38 12-0 9 innings, 5 pitching changes.
Game 7- 2:36 10-9 8.5 innings + 1 batter, 7 pitching changes.
Although 2 games resulted in 19 runs scored, game 2 (16-3) involved 32 hits and 8 walks. Game 7 (10-9) involved only 24 hits and 5 walks. And it included a lengthy delay tending to the injured Tony Kubek. It's notable that only 2 games involved more than a combined 5 pitching changes. And none involved more than 7.
In today's MLB, it's normal for both teams to designate a different reliever for the 7th, 8th and 9th. That's a total of 6 pitching changes not counting any that are made in mid-inning because someone gets into a jam. Or was only brought in to face 1 batter (which has been changed by the new 3 batter rule). Or because a starter who was cruising along is pulled at 100 pitches. The way the game is played today is more time consuming because of numerous stoppages of play for pitching changes. It used to be that if a starter was cruising along, he might go 8 or 9 innings with 0 or 1 pitching change. Today, such a pitcher is pulled mid inning at 100 pitches (usually by the 6th or 7th inning) and 3 or more relievers will follow.
Experimental Rule Changes in the Atlantic League last season
163B36272031266665540 wrote: Just watch the 1960 world series game where they scored like 19 runs. The game was played in 2 hours 36 minutes. Hardly any ball changes, they simply wiped it off and the pitcher threw it again. Very little stepping out of the batter's box. Points are well taken regarding the time being taken between innings.
I would love to see us return to that sort of fast-paced game.
To be fair, game 7 of 1960 was essentially an 8 1/2 inning game as only 1 batter appeared in the bottom of the 9th. But 2.5 hours was pretty standard for that series.
Game 1- 2:29 6-4. 8.5 innings, 4 pitching changes.
Game 2- 3:14 16-3 9 innings, 6 pitching changes.
Game 3- 2:41 10-0 8.5 innings, 5 pitching changes.
Game 4- 2:29 3-2 9 innings, 3 pitching changes.
Game 5- 2:32 5-2 9 innings, 4 pitching changes.
Game 6- 2:38 12-0 9 innings, 5 pitching changes.
Game 7- 2:36 10-9 8.5 innings + 1 batter, 7 pitching changes.
Although 2 games resulted in 19 runs scored, game 2 (16-3) involved 32 hits and 8 walks. Game 7 (10-9) involved only 24 hits and 5 walks. And it included a lengthy delay tending to the injured Tony Kubek. It's notable that only 2 games involved more than a combined 5 pitching changes. And none involved more than 7.
In today's MLB, it's normal for both teams to designate a different reliever for the 7th, 8th and 9th. That's a total of 6 pitching changes not counting any that are made in mid-inning because someone gets into a jam. Or was only brought in to face 1 batter (which has been changed by the new 3 batter rule). Or because a starter who was cruising along is pulled at 100 pitches. The way the game is played today is more time consuming because of numerous stoppages of play for pitching changes. It used to be that if a starter was cruising along, he might go 8 or 9 innings with 0 or 1 pitching change. Today, such a pitcher is pulled mid inning at 100 pitches (usually by the 6th or 7th inning) and 3 or more relievers will follow.
yeah, today's game would have had twice as many pitching changes.
I would love to see us return to that sort of fast-paced game.
To be fair, game 7 of 1960 was essentially an 8 1/2 inning game as only 1 batter appeared in the bottom of the 9th. But 2.5 hours was pretty standard for that series.
Game 1- 2:29 6-4. 8.5 innings, 4 pitching changes.
Game 2- 3:14 16-3 9 innings, 6 pitching changes.
Game 3- 2:41 10-0 8.5 innings, 5 pitching changes.
Game 4- 2:29 3-2 9 innings, 3 pitching changes.
Game 5- 2:32 5-2 9 innings, 4 pitching changes.
Game 6- 2:38 12-0 9 innings, 5 pitching changes.
Game 7- 2:36 10-9 8.5 innings + 1 batter, 7 pitching changes.
Although 2 games resulted in 19 runs scored, game 2 (16-3) involved 32 hits and 8 walks. Game 7 (10-9) involved only 24 hits and 5 walks. And it included a lengthy delay tending to the injured Tony Kubek. It's notable that only 2 games involved more than a combined 5 pitching changes. And none involved more than 7.
In today's MLB, it's normal for both teams to designate a different reliever for the 7th, 8th and 9th. That's a total of 6 pitching changes not counting any that are made in mid-inning because someone gets into a jam. Or was only brought in to face 1 batter (which has been changed by the new 3 batter rule). Or because a starter who was cruising along is pulled at 100 pitches. The way the game is played today is more time consuming because of numerous stoppages of play for pitching changes. It used to be that if a starter was cruising along, he might go 8 or 9 innings with 0 or 1 pitching change. Today, such a pitcher is pulled mid inning at 100 pitches (usually by the 6th or 7th inning) and 3 or more relievers will follow.
yeah, today's game would have had twice as many pitching changes.
Experimental Rule Changes in the Atlantic League last season
1979 World Series:
Game 1: 3:18
Game 2: 3:13
Game 3: 2:51
Game 4: 3:48
Game 5: 2:54
Game 6: 2:30
Game 7: 2:54
Pace of play has been an issue for quite some time. I think it's more of an issue these days because boomers have to go to bed earlier.
Game 1: 3:18
Game 2: 3:13
Game 3: 2:51
Game 4: 3:48
Game 5: 2:54
Game 6: 2:30
Game 7: 2:54
Pace of play has been an issue for quite some time. I think it's more of an issue these days because boomers have to go to bed earlier.
Experimental Rule Changes in the Atlantic League last season
Want to see the pace of play stepped up? Call the actual strike zone and make a walk 3 balls. Pitchers can throw strikes, but how many 3-2 counts started out as 0-2 or 1-2 with 2 pitches way out of the zone? Get the umpires to aggressively call the defined zone as strikes, pitchers won't waste pitches, they'll be in the zone and batters will be swinging. I would bet that if a walk was 3 pitches, we'd see many more first pitch hits, the walk rate would go down, and complete games would be much more common.
-
Bobster21
Experimental Rule Changes in the Atlantic League last season
44436661677A6667090 wrote: Want to see the pace of play stepped up? Call the actual strike zone and make a walk 3 balls. Pitchers can throw strikes, but how many 3-2 counts started out as 0-2 or 1-2 with 2 pitches way out of the zone? Get the umpires to aggressively call the defined zone as strikes, pitchers won't waste pitches, they'll be in the zone and batters will be swinging. I would bet that if a walk was 3 pitches, we'd see many more first pitch hits, the walk rate would go down, and complete games would be much more common.
Making a 3-ball walk would drastically change the game. I'd hate that. But I agree that enforcement of the actual strike zone would have batters swinging instead of trying to drive up pitch counts while taking pitches that are incorrectly called balls. I also agree about all those 0-2 counts that become 3-2 counts. It seems pitchers have lost the art of wasting pitches. It seems to me that when a Pirates pitcher gets ahead 0-2, he then throws pitches nowhere near the strike zone that don't even tempt the batter. The idea of wasting pitches is to get the batter to get himself out by offering at something out of the zone. But it has to be close enough to tempt the batter. Too often now it seems automatic to throw 3 pitches in the dirt after an 0-2 count.
Making a 3-ball walk would drastically change the game. I'd hate that. But I agree that enforcement of the actual strike zone would have batters swinging instead of trying to drive up pitch counts while taking pitches that are incorrectly called balls. I also agree about all those 0-2 counts that become 3-2 counts. It seems pitchers have lost the art of wasting pitches. It seems to me that when a Pirates pitcher gets ahead 0-2, he then throws pitches nowhere near the strike zone that don't even tempt the batter. The idea of wasting pitches is to get the batter to get himself out by offering at something out of the zone. But it has to be close enough to tempt the batter. Too often now it seems automatic to throw 3 pitches in the dirt after an 0-2 count.