New extra innings rule

[Caporegime]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

Now you need only show that was the reason for the proposed change. Otherwise, have fun tilting at that strawman. .

I thought I did, and that reason is even alluded to in one or two of the articles I linked to above, hence your "strawman" jab was totally unnecessary.

I had you pegged for a traditionalist. I mean, one would figure that a guy who can produce accurate minor league schedules from 1930's would be less amenable to some half-assed, shuck and jive gimmick to shorten the length of baseball games.

[bleachercreature]

Another disgraceful pathetic abomination brought to you by Rob Manfred. Manfred is committing to destroying baseball.

[Caporegime]

Originally Posted by bleachercreature

Another disgraceful pathetic abomination brought to you by Rob Manfred. Manfred is committing to destroying baseball.

Sadly, I have to agree with your assessment of Manfred's "leadership" thus far. Between this asinine proposal and his being "open" to banning defensive shifts, I'm rapidly losing confidence in him.

He initially said all the right things, but so far the only thing he really seems committed to is expanding MLB into Mexico someday. Mexico? Really? With all of its socioeconomic problems, which includes far higher crime rates than we ever experienced, including during the crack epidemic of the 1980's, drug cartels that literally control more of the Mexican countryside than their federal government does, and crushing poverty on a scale that is simply unknown in the U.S. What next, maybe placing a team in Mogadishu by 2030?

This guy is rapidly making me long for the unimaginative, stiff-as-a-board, used-car-salesman approach of Dud Selig.

[Caporegime]

Originally Posted by r0nster

@ Caporegime
Besides, the children....OMG! Won't someone please think of the children?!? If they're forced to watch a baseball game that's over 3 hours in length, it might stunt their growth!



I think the point is being missed as I have learned that with each passing generation the creativity in playing various games gets limiting. Sometimes on their own or simple factors as not enough friends. I have played baseball with 2 people in my backyard made with simple rules we devised.
How about the fact players want quick money and baseball doesn't do that unlike basketball and football. So the parents get them on to a different game.
As for the time differences yes before radio advertisement the games were much quicker then with the advent of TV the times got longer then it became 2 minute commercials then 1 minute commercials for pitching changes as such. Before you bash baseball with 3 hour games you might be surprised with hockey and basketball and football times from first kickoff to when it ends ... you would be surprised who has the longest game. All sports are pretty close Nascar by far is the longest.
So the bottom line is game itself is NOT the problem.

Excellent points! Thank you.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by Sweed

The stupidity of this can't even begin to be described.

Allowing ties would be preferable whether after the 9th (you bet get that game over and move on) or having a max number of innings at which time the game would be declared a tie. This would still be stupid but at least you'd have the strategy of "playing for a tie" in place and it would have to be earned by actually getting men on base the "old fashioned way", you know by hit, bb, error, hbp.

I know they could make it so you didn't actually have to score a run to win. Instead any runner reaching base in extra innings would result in a "point" for the batting team. These points would be a separate stat from runs and would, in the absence of a run determine the winner. One run scored trumps all points accumulated by the other team. IE visiting team loads bases (3pts), hits into a home to 1b DP, next guy walks (now 4 pts scored because as we all know by rule you can't lose a point once it's been earned ), next guy K's leaving the batting team with 4 points. Home team comes up and first guy hits a home run. Home team wins on a walk-off because one run trumps all points scored!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Yeah, this is pure genius. How is it I don't work for MLB

It's all Trumps fault.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by bleachercreature

Another disgraceful pathetic abomination brought to you by Rob Manfred. Manfred is committing to destroying baseball.

Hey, Hyperbole just made another friend!

(Seriously, the 2010s need to be named the emotional overreaction decade. Calm, rational, and dispassionate thinking has passed from the stage, apparently.)

[Padreman]

The biggest change I think I can handle is DH in the NL other than that I can't see rules like this come in, I was against replay

[SaoMagnifico]

I'd rather see ties (which would be nice to have in OOTP, actually, especially for spring training games) than this stupid rule implemented.

[Cryomaniac]

Originally Posted by DB930

From what I remember when I read the story about this proposal, I think(?) it's a rule that's actually already used in some international leagues/tournaments. If that's the case, then it should be an option in the game, no matter how stupid it is...

The Olympics used it, or a version of it. And presumably will again when it comes back.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Caporegime

I thought I did, and that reason is even alluded to in one or two of the articles I linked to above, hence your "strawman" jab was totally unnecessary.

It's all in good fun. Don't take any of this too seriously.

You are quite correct in that the "the sky is falling!" attitude towards baseball has a long and storied history in the sport.

Originally Posted by Caporegime

I had you pegged for a traditionalist. I mean, one would figure that a guy who can produce accurate minor league schedules from 1930's would be less amenable to some half-assed, shuck and jive gimmick to shorten the length of baseball games.

It is hard for me to get worked up over something that would only apply to the lowest level of minors where there are no fans watching and the intent is to help with player usage matters. I doubt you'd see this rule being used in the higher minors, let alone the majors, where the MLBPA would have to approve it.

Arguably, folks should be just as irked that the minors play 7-inning games in a doubleheader rather than true, proper 9-inning games. But no one cares since the majors use 9-inning games.

[jpeters1734]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

It's all in good fun. Don't take any of this too seriously.

You are quite correct in that the "the sky is falling!" attitude towards baseball has a long and storied history in the sport.

It is hard for me to get worked up over something that would only apply to the lowest level of minors where there are no fans watching and the intent is to help with player usage matters. I doubt you'd see this rule being used in the higher minors, let alone the majors, where the MLBPA would have to approve it.

Arguably, folks should be just as irked that the minors play 7-inning games in a doubleheader rather than true, proper 9-inning games. But no one cares since the majors use 9-inning games.

I'm opposed to how this is being presented. It's being tested in rookie ball for what purpose? If it's successful in rookie ball, how long before it's being pushed for the MLB? Is it really hard to imagine that being the end goal for a guy that would ban shifts?

[Statsman1]

Doesn't it feel, though, like the social backlash from this (I mean, just look at this thread) will prevent it from being used at the MLB, in the end? I don't blame anyone for TRYING to shorten the overall time it takes to play the games, but there are other ways to do it without resorting to artificially creating base runners...like fewer commercials between half-innings, fewer visits to the mound, the pitch clock, removal of throwing 4 balls deliberately on an intentional walk, etc.

To me, it seems like they'll try it, and while it will shorten the length of time a game takes overall, the overall reaction to this will cause the concept to die on the vine.

Personally, I don't like the idea anyway. I'm a relief pitcher in my baseball league, and if I came in to pitch in the 10th, and there was already a runner on 2nd, and my first pitch was mis-handled by the catcher and that runner scored....hoo boy, that's a tough addition to the ol' W-L record, not to mention the damage to the ERA (if that's an earned run).

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by jpeters1734

I'm opposed to how this is being presented. It's being tested in rookie ball for what purpose? If it's successful in rookie ball, how long before it's being pushed for the MLB? Is it really hard to imagine that being the end goal for a guy that would ban shifts?

Rookie ball is such a far cry from the MLB. LGO, how large are rookie league rosters? How many pitchers do teams normally carry?

[jpeters1734]

Originally Posted by David Watts

Rookie ball is such a far cry from the MLB. LGO, how large are rookie league rosters? How many pitchers do teams normally carry?

Of course it is. But who cares about extra innings in rookie ball? They should have presented this as a way to end meaningless games, not as a test

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by jpeters1734

Of course it is. But who cares about extra innings in rookie ball? They should have presented this as a way to end meaningless games, not as a test

That I can agree with. Maybe a matter of bad wording more than anything else. But, saying it's being considered for player personel reasons at the lowest minor league levels, doesn't get you sports radio time. Had to drive to Beaumont last week and other than Charles Oakley and the Knicks, this rule change was topic number one on the radio. Thing is, it took me getting to my destination and checking out the OOTP boards to find out that it was a low minors deal.

[AlpineSK]

How about this for a solution: If the game is tied after say.... 13 innings, they "sim" the game with OOTP18 with the rosters of the day. Who ever wins takes home the victory. Heck, do best of 7.

[Cryomaniac]

Originally Posted by AlpineSK

How about this for a solution: If the game is tied after say.... 13 innings, they "sim" the game with OOTP18 with the rosters of the day. Who ever wins takes home the victory. Heck, do best of 7.

Sounds suitably meta

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by jpeters1734

I'm opposed to how this is being presented. It's being tested in rookie ball for what purpose?

The article stated the reasons. As to how it's being presented, how much of that is due to the nature of journalism these days, which focuses on controversy and click-bait?

Originally Posted by Statsman1

Doesn't it feel, though, like the social backlash from this (I mean, just look at this thread) will prevent it from being used at the MLB, in the end? I don't blame anyone for TRYING to shorten the overall time it takes to play the games, but there are other ways to do it without resorting to artificially creating base runners...like fewer commercials between half-innings, fewer visits to the mound, the pitch clock, removal of throwing 4 balls deliberately on an intentional walk, etc.

None of the circumstances you named are even remotely considerations in the AZL or GCL, the leagues in which this proposed rule would apply.

Originally Posted by jpeters1734

If it's successful in rookie ball, how long before it's being pushed for the MLB?

Originally Posted by Statsman1

To me, it seems like they'll try it, and while it will shorten the length of time a game takes overall, the overall reaction to this will cause the concept to die on the vine.

MLB has never adopted the 7-inning game rule for doubleheaders (be they regular or split). It has not adopted the far more lenient suspended game rules the minor leagues use. And the MLBPA would have to give its blessing for the proposal to be used at the major league level (assuming the ownership and GMs voted to adopt it; they can't even agree on the DH rule).

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by David Watts

Rookie ball is such a far cry from the MLB. LGO, how large are rookie league rosters? How many pitchers do teams normally carry?

35-man roster. Minimum of 12 pitchers on the roster, if I recall correctly.

[Caporegime]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

It's all in good fun. Don't take any of this too seriously.

You are quite correct in that the "the sky is falling!" attitude towards baseball has a long and storied history in the sport.

It is hard for me to get worked up over something that would only apply to the lowest level of minors where there are no fans watching and the intent is to help with player usage matters. I doubt you'd see this rule being used in the higher minors, let alone the majors, where the MLBPA would have to approve it.

Arguably, folks should be just as irked that the minors play 7-inning games in a doubleheader rather than true, proper 9-inning games. But no one cares since the majors use 9-inning games.

The problem I have with that argument is that the lower minor league levels are precisely the place where I would expect young players in any organization to be learning how to play the game the correct way, regardless of the inning. This just isn't the right way to play the game.

It's in precisely situations like an extra inning game and the extra pressure that accompanies them that one would expect young players to be working on such things as bunting, situational hitting, improving their endurance (both physical & mental), not to mention it being a good way for an organization to properly evaluate individual players and their performances in critical situations such as that. All that gets tossed out with the day-old Gatorade when this gimmick gets employed instead of proper baseball rules.