IBB called from the dugout.

[PMike]

40727E7E6A587B727F7A7572130 wrote: They said on the radio this morning that game times have gone up 42 minutes since 1970-something. 



I'm really starting to think strikeouts per game have a lot to do with it though.  It's not like the number of intentional walks has changed much. 


I heard that too. I think a huge chuck of that is attributed to Bobsters post about commercials just above yours.



The other thing they said on the radio during that segment was the amount of walks/strikeouts last year was an all time high. Then they made the observation about all of the non-action (or something like that) stuff that happens because of walks and strikeouts. Less balls being put in play and less action. I thought that was an interesting observation. It's ironic, the point of an at bat in baseball today seems to be to see pitches and work the pitcher. This mindset seems to be at the expense of swinging at pitches over the middle of the plate earlier in the count. Or, to actually get hits. The result is likely all of the walks and strikeouts. The further you wait into the count, the less likely you are going to see a meat pitch.



Back to the topic, commercial times aren't going to decline. I daresay, if anything, they will increase. The game drags for me when pitchers/hitters take too much time between pitches and when the catchers incessantly go to the mound. Instant reply is also generally too long. There is no need for the umpire to run to the dugout. Give him a walkie talkie and lets get going. In this day and age, copious pitching changes and long inning breaks are here to stay.

[SammyKhalifa]

Yeah, I was suprised looking at the numbers through that years that while strikeouts have incresased tremendously, walks have remained relatively static. So while more pitches are being taken, it's not helping players get on base (though it probably is helping their team in later innings).



I'd still like to see some sort of # of pitches through the years. If, for example, there are 20% more actual pitches thrown during the course of a game than before then no amount of tweaking visits to the mound, etc., is going to get that game time down. Like you said, though, it's the down time that really drags things.



Did find THIS just now (answering my own question a bit) but the data only goes to 1988.



http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/ ... /7533.html



I really wished it covered a longer span. We complain about pitchers being taken out faster, but they're pitching the same number of pitches (again only back to 88) just fewer innings. That means more relievers and by definition more pitching changes. Chicken/egg I guess. Maybe the games aren't longer because there are more relievers used, but there are more relievers used because the games are longer.

[dogknot17@yahoo.co]

I think the new era of stats has made the games longer too. There is so much data out there. Players tendencies are exposed more and more.



There is less "see the ball, hit the ball" approaches. Hitters wait for that third pitch that is usually a curve ball up in the zone because that is what the stat sheet shows.



I also don't mind the replay system. It brings added drama as usually it is a crucial moment setting up a run.



The electronic strike zone would be my next biggest change. That will cut down time too as there would be no more questions about being a strike/ball, stepping out of the box, pitchers walking around the mound in disgust, and arguing from the dugout.



I actually don't mind the lengths of games. A game under three hours is fine with me.

[Bobster21]

404B434F4A4B501513645D454C4B4B0A474B240 wrote: I think the new era of stats has made the games longer too.  There is so much data out there.  Players tendencies are exposed more and more.



There is less "see the ball, hit the ball" approaches.  Hitters wait for that third pitch that is usually a curve ball up in the zone because that is what the stat sheet shows. 



I also don't mind the replay system.  It brings added drama as usually it is a crucial moment setting up a run.



The electronic strike zone would be my next biggest change.  That will cut down time too as there would be no more questions about being a strike/ball, stepping out of the box, pitchers walking around the mound in disgust, and arguing from the dugout. 



I actually don't mind the lengths of games.  A game under three hours is fine with me. 


I'm totally in favor of electronic ball/strike calls being relayed to the home plate ump, as has been tested. It would speed up the game just by calling a strike a strike. How many times do we see a pitcher throwing extra pitches after the batter should have been struck out but the call was missed?

[IABucFan]

I think there is so much at play here, it's hard to sum it all up at once. But, here are the things I'm considering:



1. Almost by definition, MLB doesn't care about people posting on this message board. Or people watching MLB Network or listening to MLB Network Radio in mid-February. They've already got us. We're diehards and we aren't going anywhere. They're trying to grow the game among casual fans, and what they are being told is that young people are flocking to the NBA and NFL because there is more "action." Whatever. From my POV as a rabid fan, watching a strikeout or a walk IS part of the action. I couldn't care less about home runs, a play at the plate, whatever. When I watch baseball, I care about one thing and one thing only...at the end of the game, do the Pittsburgh Pirates have a bigger number in the "R" column than does their opponent? That's it. I don't care if the Pirates get no-hit. As long as they score more runs that their opponent. I don't care if those runs come on a balk, an error, a passed ball, a two-run double, a homer, or a sac fly. I don't care if they prevent their opponent from scoring by a strikeout, a nifty double play, or an outfielder laying out to catch a fly ball. I DON'T CARE!!!



But, that's precisely the point. Most kids come to the ballpark and want to see Andrew McCutchen hit a home run. They don't care what the final score is. So, what will help Andrew McCutchen hit more home runs? Raise the strike zone. Never mind that this will actually LENGTHEN games. It will make them more exciting. Again, I couldn't care less if Andrew McCutchen hits zero or 50 home runs. I care a great deal about whether the Pirates win 75 games or 90 games this year.



2. MLB really doesn't care about how many butts are in seats. Case in point...they play tons of games in northern cities when it's cold out and attendance is depressed. They play tons of getaway daytime games. Heck...last year they played an O's/Rays game in front of LITERALLY zero fans. None. Zilch. But, they care a great deal about how many eyes are watching on TV. This leads to point number three...and probably my most important point.



3. Baseball has what I'll term an "unholy" trinity: the owners, the RSNs, and cable companies. The owners want the multi-billion dollar TV deals. To get them, the RSNs need advertising revenue. They also need rights fees from the cable companies. This leads to a number of things that essentially screw the fans:



a. Blackouts...allow me a moment to do my yearly anti-blackout rant, because I think it's related. Here in Iowa, we are blacked out of five teams (it used to be six, but I believe the Royals finally renounced their claim to Iowa as "home" territory). Of these five teams, anywhere you go in Iowa, only one RSN is carried on local cable. So, for instance, where I live, I can get FSN North and so I get all the Twins games. But, unless you subscribe to DISH or DirecTV, you cannot watch the Cardinals, Cubs, Brewers, or White Sox here...not on cable and not on PayPer View. So, even though I'm an MLB.tv subscriber, whenever the Pirates play the Cubs, Brewers, or Cards, I can't watch the game, even though I've already paid for it through my MLB.tv subscription.



But, we are told, blackouts are a necessary evil as they ensure that people can't cord cut. In many respects, live sports are the only thing keeping cable and satellite TV alive.



b. Longer commercial breaks. In order to get that advertising revenue, we need advertising time. Baseball can't mess with that, so they have to mess with the actual game. It's even worse on nationally televised games on ESPN and FOX. In addition, as others have noted, it makes it almost unbearable to go to a game. There is some gimmick literally every half inning. It's enough to almost drive you crazy.



c. Bloated salaries...I've got no problem with making money, but as I've said a number of times, only in the messed up economic world of MLB is a salary of $3 million dollars (Dellin Betances) considered "underpaid." Only in MLB is Giancarlo Stanton's $300 million salary considered "underpaid" according to Keith Olberman.



Again, I don't fault the players for wanting to get paid. But, these salaries have to come from somewhere. Where do they come from? Rising cable TV costs, merchandise sales, and rising costs to go to a game.



I firmly believe that baseball is in a great place in terms of the game's popularity. But the almighty dollar is threatening to kill the game due to the greed of owners, the cable companies, and the RSNs. This tinkering around the edges that Manfred keeps pushing is merely that...tinkering around the edges. It does nothing to address the fundamental problems facing the game.



I used this analogy earlier in the thread and I'll use it again...it's like Congress cutting $1 million out of the federal budget and patting themselves on the back for doing something to address our $20 trillion national debt. In other words, it's not even a drop in the bucket. Neither is anything Manfred is proposing.

[PMike]

292122150326010E600 wrote:



But, we are told, blackouts are a necessary evil as they ensure that people can't cord cut.  In many respects, live sports are the only thing keeping cable and satellite TV alive.






You said a lot of great stuff, but this was the most memorable. This is larger than just baseball and this topic. Lots of people in our culture are cutting the cord. The people who haven't are from two perspectives:



1. Technologically unable to handle streaming services and getting them to the monitor. A lot of the older people I know would fall under this category.



2. Sports fans. Millenials are largely cutting the cord...unless you watch sports. Football stands alone cause it is one day a week and you can have a good time going to a local bar to watch it. You can also usually pick it up on network TV. Baseball and hockey, the Pirates and Pens are the only reasons we have Comcast/Dish/Directv/etc. There are lots of people like us...and they know it.

[SammyKhalifa]

A lot of good points in here, thank you. One thing it does all come back around too, though, is that getting rid of intentional base on balls does nothing for any of it.



If anything it helps the casual fans--they'll play the chicken sound effect, people get to boo, etc.

[iabucco]

797172455376515E300 wrote: I think there is so much at play here, it's hard to sum it all up at once.  But, here are the things I'm considering:



1.  Almost by definition, MLB doesn't care about people posting on this message board.  Or people watching MLB Network or listening to MLB Network Radio in mid-February.  They've already got us.  We're diehards and we aren't going anywhere.  They're trying to grow the game among casual fans, and what they are being told is that young people are flocking to the NBA and NFL because there is more "action."  Whatever.  From my POV as a rabid fan, watching a strikeout or a walk IS part of the action.  I couldn't care less about home runs, a play at the plate, whatever.  When I watch baseball, I care about one thing and one thing only...at the end of the game, do the Pittsburgh Pirates have a bigger number in the "R" column than does their opponent?  That's it.  I don't care if the Pirates get no-hit.  As long as they score more runs that their opponent.  I don't care if those runs come on a balk, an error, a passed ball, a two-run double, a homer, or a sac fly.  I don't care if they prevent their opponent from scoring by a strikeout, a nifty double play, or an outfielder laying out to catch a fly ball.  I DON'T CARE!!! 



But, that's precisely the point.  Most kids come to the ballpark and want to see Andrew McCutchen hit a home run.  They don't care what the final score is.  So, what will help Andrew McCutchen hit more home runs?  Raise the strike zone.  Never mind that this will actually LENGTHEN games.  It will make them more exciting.  Again, I couldn't care less if Andrew McCutchen hits zero or 50 home runs.  I care a great deal about whether the Pirates win 75 games or 90 games this year.



2.  MLB really doesn't care about how many butts are in seats.  Case in point...they play tons of games in northern cities when it's cold out and attendance is depressed.  They play tons of getaway daytime games.  Heck...last year they played an O's/Rays game in front of LITERALLY zero fans.  None.  Zilch.  But, they care a great deal about how many eyes are watching on TV.  This leads to point number three...and probably my most important point.



3.  Baseball has what I'll term an "unholy" trinity:  the owners, the RSNs, and cable companies.  The owners want the multi-billion dollar TV deals.  To get them, the RSNs need advertising revenue.  They also need rights fees from the cable companies.  This leads to a number of things that essentially screw the fans:



a.  Blackouts...allow me a moment to do my yearly anti-blackout rant, because I think it's related.  Here in Iowa, we are blacked out of five teams (it used to be six, but I believe the Royals finally renounced their claim to Iowa as "home" territory).  Of these five teams, anywhere you go in Iowa, only one RSN is carried on local cable.  So, for instance, where I live, I can get FSN North and so I get all the Twins games.  But, unless you subscribe to DISH or DirecTV, you cannot watch the Cardinals, Cubs, Brewers, or White Sox here...not on cable and not on PayPer View.  So, even though I'm an MLB.tv subscriber, whenever the Pirates play the Cubs, Brewers, or Cards, I can't watch the game, even though I've already paid for it through my MLB.tv subscription.



But, we are told, blackouts are a necessary evil as they ensure that people can't cord cut.  In many respects, live sports are the only thing keeping cable and satellite TV alive.



b.  Longer commercial breaks.  In order to get that advertising revenue, we need advertising time.  Baseball can't mess with that, so they have to mess with the actual game.  It's even worse on nationally televised games on ESPN and FOX.  In addition, as others have noted, it makes it almost unbearable to go to a game.  There is some gimmick literally every half inning.  It's enough to almost drive you crazy.



c.  Bloated salaries...I've got no problem with making money, but as I've said a number of times, only in the messed up economic world of MLB is a salary of $3 million dollars (Dellin Betances) considered "underpaid."  Only in MLB is Giancarlo Stanton's $300 million salary considered "underpaid" according to Keith Olberman.



Again, I don't fault the players for wanting to get paid.  But, these salaries have to come from somewhere.  Where do they come from?  Rising cable TV costs, merchandise sales, and rising costs to go to a game.



I firmly believe that baseball is in a great place in terms of the game's popularity.  But the almighty dollar is threatening to kill the game due to the greed of owners, the cable companies, and the RSNs.  This tinkering around the edges that Manfred keeps pushing is merely that...tinkering around the edges.  It does nothing to address the fundamental problems facing the game.



I used this analogy earlier in the thread and I'll use it again...it's like Congress cutting $1 million out of the federal budget and patting themselves on the back for doing something to address our $20 trillion national debt.  In other words, it's not even a drop in the bucket.  Neither is anything Manfred is proposing.




Actually, if you subscribe to directv you can get the Cards and Cubs in Des Moines but have to pay for an extra Fox Sports subscription to get the Royals, twins and brewers. I used to do that but I cut our cable bill.

[IABucFan]

4F474453454549260 wrote: I think there is so much at play here, it's hard to sum it all up at once.  But, here are the things I'm considering:



1.  Almost by definition, MLB doesn't care about people posting on this message board.  Or people watching MLB Network or listening to MLB Network Radio in mid-February.  They've already got us.  We're diehards and we aren't going anywhere.  They're trying to grow the game among casual fans, and what they are being told is that young people are flocking to the NBA and NFL because there is more "action."  Whatever.  From my POV as a rabid fan, watching a strikeout or a walk IS part of the action.  I couldn't care less about home runs, a play at the plate, whatever.  When I watch baseball, I care about one thing and one thing only...at the end of the game, do the Pittsburgh Pirates have a bigger number in the "R" column than does their opponent?  That's it.  I don't care if the Pirates get no-hit.  As long as they score more runs that their opponent.  I don't care if those runs come on a balk, an error, a passed ball, a two-run double, a homer, or a sac fly.  I don't care if they prevent their opponent from scoring by a strikeout, a nifty double play, or an outfielder laying out to catch a fly ball.  I DON'T CARE!!! 



But, that's precisely the point.  Most kids come to the ballpark and want to see Andrew McCutchen hit a home run.  They don't care what the final score is.  So, what will help Andrew McCutchen hit more home runs?  Raise the strike zone.  Never mind that this will actually LENGTHEN games.  It will make them more exciting.  Again, I couldn't care less if Andrew McCutchen hits zero or 50 home runs.  I care a great deal about whether the Pirates win 75 games or 90 games this year.



2.  MLB really doesn't care about how many butts are in seats.  Case in point...they play tons of games in northern cities when it's cold out and attendance is depressed.  They play tons of getaway daytime games.  Heck...last year they played an O's/Rays game in front of LITERALLY zero fans.  None.  Zilch.  But, they care a great deal about how many eyes are watching on TV.  This leads to point number three...and probably my most important point.



3.  Baseball has what I'll term an "unholy" trinity:  the owners, the RSNs, and cable companies.  The owners want the multi-billion dollar TV deals.  To get them, the RSNs need advertising revenue.  They also need rights fees from the cable companies.  This leads to a number of things that essentially screw the fans:



a.  Blackouts...allow me a moment to do my yearly anti-blackout rant, because I think it's related.  Here in Iowa, we are blacked out of five teams (it used to be six, but I believe the Royals finally renounced their claim to Iowa as "home" territory).  Of these five teams, anywhere you go in Iowa, only one RSN is carried on local cable.  So, for instance, where I live, I can get FSN North and so I get all the Twins games.  But, unless you subscribe to DISH or DirecTV, you cannot watch the Cardinals, Cubs, Brewers, or White Sox here...not on cable and not on PayPer View.  So, even though I'm an MLB.tv subscriber, whenever the Pirates play the Cubs, Brewers, or Cards, I can't watch the game, even though I've already paid for it through my MLB.tv subscription.



But, we are told, blackouts are a necessary evil as they ensure that people can't cord cut.  In many respects, live sports are the only thing keeping cable and satellite TV alive.



b.  Longer commercial breaks.  In order to get that advertising revenue, we need advertising time.  Baseball can't mess with that, so they have to mess with the actual game.  It's even worse on nationally televised games on ESPN and FOX.  In addition, as others have noted, it makes it almost unbearable to go to a game.  There is some gimmick literally every half inning.  It's enough to almost drive you crazy.



c.  Bloated salaries...I've got no problem with making money, but as I've said a number of times, only in the messed up economic world of MLB is a salary of $3 million dollars (Dellin Betances) considered "underpaid."  Only in MLB is Giancarlo Stanton's $300 million salary considered "underpaid" according to Keith Olberman.



Again, I don't fault the players for wanting to get paid.  But, these salaries have to come from somewhere.  Where do they come from?  Rising cable TV costs, merchandise sales, and rising costs to go to a game.



I firmly believe that baseball is in a great place in terms of the game's popularity.  But the almighty dollar is threatening to kill the game due to the greed of owners, the cable companies, and the RSNs.  This tinkering around the edges that Manfred keeps pushing is merely that...tinkering around the edges.  It does nothing to address the fundamental problems facing the game.



I used this analogy earlier in the thread and I'll use it again...it's like Congress cutting $1 million out of the federal budget and patting themselves on the back for doing something to address our $20 trillion national debt.  In other words, it's not even a drop in the bucket.  Neither is anything Manfred is proposing.




Actually, if you subscribe to directv you can get the Cards and Cubs in Des Moines but have to pay for an extra Fox Sports subscription to get the Royals, twins and brewers.  I used to do that but I cut our cable bill. 


With my dad's Directv subscription, he got RSNs for all six. Regardless, I'm not paying for Directv to get 60 Pirates games or so.

[dogknot17@yahoo.co]

I fall in that category of not switching because of live sports. I had to get the Sports Package to get ESPNU to see Pitt basketball games. I never miss a Steelers game, even though they are mostly the national game, and I watch a ton of Pirates games.



I can't switch.