OnlyBucs

1C3D351C373F580 wrote: If you want NL teams to keep an extra bat, how about a rule change where you can pinch hit once a game and leave the player who is being pinch hit for in the game?  That could potentially keep pitchers in the game longer and give more at bats to bench players.  It would also create a lot of strategy for when to use that option.  I am not saying that I support this as it is tinkering with the game but I would rather see this than a runner on second in extra innings. 


To make your suggestion a bit more confusing and complicated.  Why not give the manager the choice of either keeping the guy pinch-hit for (pitcher) in the game or keeping the guy who pinch-hit on the bench to pinch-hit one more time.  Does any of this make sense?   :o




It makes as much sense as starting extra innings with a runner on 2nd base... I do not like changing the rules but this would also limit double switches and extend the bench.



Here is a farcical suggestion that I would name the LaRussa Rule: Any pitcher brought into the game must face a minimum of two batters, unless he recorded the third out of an inning. I am not really for that rule but any chance I can to mock LaRussa is a chance I must take.

Is there talk of putting a man on second base in extra innings in the majors? If so, it is still rare and not worth an extra roster player.



*Since 2012, there have been 1,200 extra inning games. How many of these games went 10 innings, you ask? Just 524, or 43.7 percent. But, 981 of the 1,200 games — or 81.8 percent — end by the 12th. It’s very rare that you see a game go 15 innings or longer, as there have only been 58 such games in the last 5 ½ years, or about 4.8 percent of total extra inning affairs. Here’s the entire breakdown.



* https://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2017/ ... ule-change

5B53504751515D320 wrote: If you want NL teams to keep an extra bat, how about a rule change where you can pinch hit once a game and leave the player who is being pinch hit for in the game?  That could potentially keep pitchers in the game longer and give more at bats to bench players.  It would also create a lot of strategy for when to use that option.  I am not saying that I support this as it is tinkering with the game but I would rather see this than a runner on second in extra innings. 


To make your suggestion a bit more confusing and complicated.  Why not give the manager the choice of either keeping the guy pinch-hit for (pitcher) in the game or keeping the guy who pinch-hit on the bench to pinch-hit one more time.  Does any of this make sense?   :o




It makes as much sense as starting extra innings with a runner on 2nd base... I do not like changing the rules but this would also limit double switches and extend the bench. 



Here is a farcical suggestion that I would name the LaRussa Rule:  Any pitcher brought into the game must face a minimum of two batters, unless he recorded the third out of an inning.  I am not really for that rule but any chance I can to mock LaRussa is a chance I must take. 


You bet this is as bad as a guy on second to start extra innings. I really feel that they are messing with the game too darn much. I would simply get rid of the DH, flush the replay challenge or at best give one challenge and that is it win or loose. If you keep the challenge make it so that it goes for only 1 minute not the usual 3-5 minutes. Talking about long games that is some of the cause.

I don't understand why they are so concerned with the length of the game. With the prices of tickets nowadays, I want more for my buck.



People will still come late and leave early. That is their choice. Who cares?



Are the lengths worse than they were in the 80's and 90's? Games used to start at 7:35 in those days. I hate messing with history and stats to please so little.

Personally, I want to see shorter games. But, MLB keeps tinkering around the edges. They won't mess with the one area that would actually make a noticeable impact because it eats into the bottom line, and that is to reduce the length and number of commercials. Maybe they could figure out a way to do this...in the World Cup, ads are run on the screen during action. I think there currently is 1:30 between half-innings for most games, 2:00 for games on national TV. If they reduced that to 1:00 and 1:30 respectively, you'd immediately save 9 minutes for a 9 inning game. Heck, even cutting 15 seconds per half inning would save you 4:30 right off the bat.



I suppose you'd have to make some concessions, like if the catcher makes the third out of the inning and needs time to gear up.



But, ultimately, I think MLB is going to have to change this, if for no other reason, more and more people are cord-cutting. On MLB.tv you get the same ads running over and over and over, or a blank screen that just says "There's a break in the action...we'll be back shortly," or something like that. Maybe the future entails not including RSNs on cable and satellite packages, and if you want to watch live baseball, everybody will need to subscribe to a streaming service. That could end the blackouts, and keep the revenue stream up. The RSNs can get a kickback from the subscription fees to offset loss of ad revenue, and you can cut out the middle man--namely, commercials.

4249414D4849521711665F474E4949084549260 wrote: I don't understand why they are so concerned with the length of the game.  With the prices of tickets nowadays, I want more for my buck. 



People will still come late and leave early.  That is their choice.  Who cares? 



Are the lengths worse than they were in the 80's and 90's?  Games used to start at 7:35 in those days.  I hate messing with history and stats to please so little.    


I don't remember the exact years (probably 1960's early 1970's) but at one time Pirate games started at 8:05.



Here are times of 1979 World Series games



Game 1: 3:18 Pirates used 5 pitchers

Game 2: 3:13 both teams used 3 pitchers

Game 3: 2:51 Pirates used 4 pitchers

Game 4: 3:48 both teams used 4 pitchers

Game 5: 2:54 Pirates 2 pitchers, O's 4.

Game 6: 2:30 each team 2 pitchers, 3 inning save for Teke

Game 7 2:54 Pirates used 4 pitchers, O's 6



I don't know why game 4 was so long. O's scored 6 runs in 8th that would have been a slow half inning. O's used 19 players in the game, Pirates 14.



1971 times



game 1: 2:06

Game 2: 2:55

Game 3: 2:20

Game 4: 2:48

Game 5: 2:16

Game 6: 2:59 (ten innings)

Game 7: 2:10



Average MLB game time was 2:56 in 2015 (12 minutes less than average time in 2014 due to changes to speed up game)



https://www.foxsports.com/mlb/story/mlb ... fix-051716