Ghostrunner on 2nd or 12-Inning Ties?

[Amazin69]

Originally Posted by pilight

"Often"? There are three scheduled doubleheaders this year.

True, not many games are scheduled as double-headers on the Official Schedule in place currently. However, there will be a significant number played as such during the course of the season. I meant "scheduled" as in "the teams arrive at the ballpark knowing they'll be playing two games that day".

In absolutely none of those cases do I recall hearing that it was unfair to the fans that 18 innings were planned to be played later that day. Nor do I recall any managers urging a rules change that would have the result of the second game determined by Rock-Paper-Scissors because they'd already played 9 innings, and it's too hard to do that again.

If asking teams to play 18 innings in a day because of scheduling (either pre-planned or compensatory) is okay, I don't see how asking teams to endure the extremely-rare (as you yourself pointed out) advent of a 16-inning contest is somehow unbearable and requires IMO ridiculous "remedies". Tempest, meet teapot, I'd say.

[pilight]

I agree that the free runner isn't necessary. It does reduce the number of marathon games. Over the last three seasons there have been a combined total of two 14+ inning games, one each in 2021 and 2022.

My guess is the change was largely media driven. MLBs video partners want games to fit into broadcast windows. That's why ESPN has been harping on game length.

I have no strong opinion about free runners. I'm accustomed to the because I watch a lot of college softball, which has had them since the mid 1990's spurred by a ridiculous 1991 doubleheader between Creighton and Utah that went 31 and 25 innings and took over 12 hours to complete.

[Jason Moyer]

I'd be ok with 12 innings ties. I'm fine with the ghost runner. I was fine with (and preferred, really) ties in the NHL too. I never really understood the uproar over ties.

[Syd Thrift]

No NBA game has ever gone the equivalent of 15 innings. No NFL game has ever gone more than I think the record is 2 extra quarters. Like it or not, this is what sports fans expect (and honestly one of my favorite things about basketball is that if it’s not a nationally televised game it’s all wrapped up in about 2 1/2 hours). Soccer, even at the highest levels of play, ends after 30 extra minutes and a penalty shootout. These are issues, whether or not you think it’s more manly and awesome to sit through long games. Where other games have figured out for the most part how to make potential ties into tense and exciting affairs (although long sudden death games in the NFL can be execrable too - there was a Hawks-Cardinals game from a few years ago that was a cross between a complete slog and, towards the very end, a comedy of errors). Baseball carries with it that chance that it’ll get long and kind of boring.

You may not care but that fan who bought tickets and leaves a 7:35 start at 1am with the score still tied might not go back again. Baseball has a huge issue right now with the fanbase aging out. Telling the fans to suck it up is just going to cause those fans to move to other sports who don’t tell them to suck it up. They’re not going to win fans back necessarily by playing with extra innings but at least they’re trying. And frankly I feel like a lot of these issues, if we imported our grandparents from the 1950s and made them watch the modern game, they’d dislike it too. It’s gotten very, very static over the years. Maybe they’d even like ties after 12. Maybe the ones who remembered how the NL almost adopted the rule in 1930 would even enjoy the DH.

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by Jason Moyer

I'd be ok with 12 innings ties. I'm fine with the ghost runner. I was fine with (and preferred, really) ties in the NHL too. I never really understood the uproar over ties.

wow u liek 2 kiss ur sister huh

[cephasjames]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

You may not care but that fan who bought tickets and leaves a 7:35 start at 1am with the score still tied might not go back again.

The Tigers are starting all their home night games at 6:35 this season in an attempt to make end times more fan-friendly. Combine that with an average 2:40 game length and games are ending by 9:15. That sounds amazing to me.

[Amazin69]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

No NBA game has ever gone the equivalent of 15 innings. No NFL game has ever gone more than I think the record is 2 extra quarters.

What a lovely way of distorting the issue with apples and oranges. Of course basketball doesn't go as long, given that the far higher volume of scoring causes a wider distribution curve of results, both in-game and during OT. And NFL also scores in a notably-higher percentage of possessions than MLB scores in at-bats, and certainly way higher than the other sudden-death sport, hockey.

Like it or not, this is what sports fans expect

It's awfully convenient to declare that "what sports fans expect" aligns with your preferences. I'm sorry if you value your precious schedule over athletic competition, but that's your issue, not "sports fans" in general.

(and honestly one of my favorite things about basketball is that if it’s not a nationally televised game it’s all wrapped up in about 2 1/2 hours).

(Have you heard of this exciting invention called the DVR? You can spend a couple of hours watching the game, and then take time out to go have dinner/take a nap/work as an assassin for the CIA/whatever before returning to the TV if you're Just.So.Exhausted.)

Soccer, even at the highest levels of play, ends after 30 extra minutes and a penalty shootout.

Soccer's in a rough spot. It's too physically-demanding to just play straight through, but it only has one-way substitution. As we discussed in the World Cup thread, I'd be fine with liberalizing the substitution rules in extra time to avoid the silliness that is penalty kicks.

But baseball doesn't have soccer's limitations, so there's very little point in judging it by the decisions soccer has to make.

And you (conveniently) didn't mention hockey, which also plays as long as they need to, at least in the playoffs. They've had games go for 5 OTs, which is the equivalent of a 24-inning game. I love every single one of those; I still have fond memories of being up half the night in my brother's basement in DC for the Philly-Pittsburgh Keith Primeau marathon.

(I was in town for his wedding. It didn't mess up the planning and my toast was A-1, if I do say so myself. Of course the marriage ended in divorce, but so did his second marriage, so I really don't think we can blame the NHL, after all.)

You may not care but that fan who bought tickets and leaves a 7:35 start at 1am with the score still tied might not go back again.

And now you're just pulling scenarios out of you-know-where. Show me even ONE instance where somebody has said "I stayed all that time for nothing! I'm never going back again! Waaah-waah-Wahhh, I need instant satisfaction!" Even one.

I can do this too. Why don't you care about the fans who bought tickets and then left the game feeling ripped off because all of a sudden some phony "ghost runner" screws his team out of winning a game where the visitors hadn't had a man in scoring position all day and he'd just bet his rent money on his team and now his kids are going to be homeless so he snaps and goes home and blows the house up, killing his whole family? As much evidence of that happening as with your scenario…

Your neurotic need for specified ending-times may make for a lovely discussion with the mental-health professional of your choice. But there's no reason to assume you outnumber those of us who enjoy the building tension of ongoing drama, no matter how much time it takes.

Telling the fans to suck it up is just going to cause those fans to move to other sports who don’t tell them to suck it up.

Who's telling the fans to suck it up? Who claimed this was a problem? Manly Manfred was responding to complaints by MEDIA who didn't like running out of commercials to air.

Well, in the words of Buffy Summers, "let me take this opportunity to NOT care".

(I don't even think Manfred bothered to even claim there was public demand for this. Not that he's ever honest about that, of course.)

And frankly I feel like a lot of these issues, if we imported our grandparents from the 1950s and made them watch the modern game, they’d dislike it too.

Yeah, so many Negroes on the field. Even the Yankees have them now.

More seriously, Grampa might notice that the stadiums are far fuller than in his day, so if he's put off, he might have the decency to admit he's holding a minority opinion on that one. And I don't know how "static" he might find it; if you waited until he lived through the dead-ball 1960s, he'd think this was Action City.

But I think any gripes about things being "static" might have to do with the parade of relief pitchers or the (now-banned) shifts or the TV-mandated boredom of 3 minutes between innings. None of which have a blessed thing to do with whether you like extra innings or not.

Congratulations on a parade of irrelevant arguments! You probably have a future on FOX or MSNBC, depending on which Corporate Party you prefer.

[Amazin69]

And btw, making a decision that certain fans don't like is not "telling the fans to suck it up". And all sports make decisions like that. Is the NBA "telling the fans to suck it up" when they outlaw zone defense? Is the NFL "telling the fans to suck it up" by messing around with the kickoff rules?

Indeed, it seems as if your entire screed is your telling ME to "suck it up". Just saying…

[PocketsAintFull]

Pleasantly surprised I wasn't the only pro-ghost vote so far

Ghost is a weird name though. How about Mystery?

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by Amazin69

And btw, making a decision that certain fans don't like is not "telling the fans to suck it up". And all sports make decisions like that. Is the NBA "telling the fans to suck it up" when they outlaw zone defense? Is the NFL "telling the fans to suck it up" by messing around with the kickoff rules?

Indeed, it seems as if your entire screed is your telling ME to "suck it up". Just saying…

The kickoff rules are specifically in response to both player safety and the fact that kickoffs are kind of boring. And the repeal of illegal defense 20 years ago was also in large part because fans found the rules arcane and hard to follow (which they were). Both of those are literally the opposite of the point you’re trying to make.

[Amazin69]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

The kickoff rules are specifically in response to both player safety and the fact that kickoffs are kind of boring. And the repeal of illegal defense 20 years ago was also in large part because fans found the rules arcane and hard to follow (which they were). Both of those are literally the opposite of the point you’re trying to make.

Still stating your opinion as fact, I see. You might wish to check out this new-fangled website called "YouTube" (or similar sites); they have an awful lot of videos of an awful lot of kickoffs which are far from boring.

(There's this one between Cal and Stanford in 1982…well, I shouldn't spoil it. Go enjoy.)

BTW, what exactly is the "logic" that demands that kickoffs be neutered but leaves punts unchanged? Not actually wondering, but I thought I'd challenge your IMO undeserved certainty.

[Syd Thrift]

Yes, when one presents arguments, one presents them as though their conclusions are factual and leaves it to others to disagree and provide their reason for doing so. In this specific case though I think Jon Bois makes the point much better than I can:

https://youtu.be/t_SsIKgwvz4

[Amazin69]

53 seconds into the video and Bois has chosen to lead off with an occasion where, in a crucial late-season game, a player made a mistake in fielding a kickoff that led to a (presumably) important and (definitely) exciting touchdown? Yeah, I think he just torpedoed his argument right at the start there.

If the argument is player safety, get better equipment. If the argument is "Mike Gillislee is a moron", get smarter players. But clearly the kickoffs themselves offer multifold opportunities for variety, excitement, and game effects up to and including instantly winning a contest.

I can only hope the remaining 15:07 of the video is just as off-point. But I'll never know…

[Syd Thrift]

Nah, the argument is that Bois looked at every single kickoff that turned into a TD over the past I think 15 years and found exactly zero that worked out like the trombone game or the Sooner Schooner game (involving my alma mater!). The fact that in order to find an “exciting” return, you have to go back to college games from 40 years ago should have been a red flag, but dude did his research. The best case scenarios, the most exciting kickoffs, involve a guy making one cut and then outrunning everyone. People think of guys juking around and breaking tackles and all that on exciting returns but those basically only happen on punts.

FWIW Bois also did a deep dive on punts and found that teams tend to be excruciatingly conservative with those as well, although I think times may be changing on that front.

(ETA: I think the Sooner Schooner play might have been a “one cut and breakaway” play even at that; it’s just, stupid Oklahoma let out their stupid prairie schooner too early or perhaps at exactly the right time to allow the rightful Huskies to rightfully triumph)