Man on 2nd 10th inning rule

[NakedReporta]

That's how much I hate this rule. I'd rather they just call the game after 12, and it goes down as a tie, counting as a half-win and a half-loss toward your win percentage. No pitching win or loss is awarded.


Or, if you don't like that, tie counts as a win for the home team after 11-1/2, or if they re-tie/go ahead in the bottom of the 12th. No pitching win or loss is awarded if a tie, but is if the home team hits a walk-off HR in the bottom 12th that actually gives them a lead (Example: Visitors score 2 in top of 12th to go up 6-4, Home team gets single run, followed by walkoff 3RHR to win game outright in bottom 12th 8-6).



Anything is better than artificially putting a runner on base. You might as well finish the game with a home run derby or a sausage race.

[SirSaab]

Originally Posted by NakedReporta

That's how much I hate this rule. I'd rather they just call the game after 12, and it goes down as a tie, counting as a half-win and a half-loss toward your win percentage. No pitching win or loss is awarded.


Or, if you don't like that, tie counts as a win for the home team after 11-1/2, or if they re-tie/go ahead in the bottom of the 12th. No pitching win or loss is awarded if a tie, but is if the home team hits a walk-off HR in the bottom 12th that actually gives them a lead (Example: Visitors score 2 in top of 12th to go up 6-4, Home team gets single run, followed by walkoff 3RHR to win game outright in bottom 12th 8-6).



Anything is better than artificially putting a runner on base. You might as well finish the game with a home run derby or a sausage race.

Honestly, a homerun derby would be better. At least that would be kind of like a shootout in hockey/football (not American football).

[Will_L]

Tied after nine innings?
Dueling mascots at 20 paces, adds an element of drama & danger, you could even call it a jobs creation program since one of the teams will need a new mascot.

[Greenbay]

I've seen a couple of 20+ inning games in my lifetime. They are rare and very memorable. I'd hate see them go away completely. Starting with a runner on 2nd seems really unfair to the pitcher. On the other hand, I recently moved to the central time zone. I watch a lot of West coast games and it gets pretty late. Shorting the game does get me to bed earlier.

[TomVeal]

Originally Posted by SirSaab

Ok, What do you think about runners on 2nd in extras in 2120?

By then I'll be berating the rule change (pushed through by Commissioner Rob Manfred III) allowing separate offense and defense teams.

[oldfatbaldguy]

Games are too long because of deep counts, foul balls, players standing around instead of playing and too much time between half-innings. Extra innings hadn't changed and weren't the problem. Cheapening the result after I've invested three or four hours in the game isn't the way to make me more interested in baseball.

[PocketsAintFull]

I quite like the rule and tactically it feels like a little like College Football overtime, with both teams getting a shot at a set scenario and balancing out the risk/reward.

I was watching my team in OOTP play an extra innings game and it still went 3 innings extra (think the innings went 0-0, 1-1, 3-1). Endless extra innings just doesn't make sense to me when there's already been a 3-4 hour game and long extra inning games can kill a bullpen or affect a rotation for the next week.

That being said, I'm not against either a variation of the rule (eg. runner on first) or a tie, either after 9 or 12 or something.

[NakedReporta]

Play up to three extra innings. If still tied through 12, we go to the top of the 13th. If visitors score, they win. If home team pitching holds them scoreless, home team wins. This would STILL be better than runner on 2nd.