http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2336704-mlb-rule-proposal-would-shorten-inning-breaks-latest-details-and-reaction

quote:

---

A new proposal, as shown to Jayson Stark of ESPN.com, would require pitchers to be done with their pre-inning warm-ups and be prepared for their first pitch 30 seconds before the end of each commercial break. Batters would have to be in the box 20 seconds prior to the end of commercials.

---

I think this is a good start. It's crazy that the average baseball game lasts longer than the average NFL game. I think baseball needs to not allow so many warm up pitches for relievers. I start losing interest late in games when managers start using more than one pitcher an inning.

Seems like a lot of trouble to trim 10 minutes off of each game.

quote:

---

If you think baseball games are too long, then you don't really like baseball.

---

This

Agreed.

But Id be interested in how much time is actually wasted, to undo and restrap batting gloves after every pitch. Maybe its not as bad as I think.

One thing that makes baseball great/different is that it isn't bound by time.

quote:

---

The biggest issue is keeping batters in the batters box. If they could do that it would make the game much faster than ten minutes.

---

This.

No more "readjusting the gloves, taking the helmet off and putting it back on, spitting tobacco/seeds, readjust cup, readjust the dirt inside the batters box" routine after each pitch.

I'm looking at you, David Ortiz

quote:

---

If you think baseball games are too long, then you don't really like baseball.

---

I'm a fan of baseball. I'm not a fan of watching guys play catch, warm up, adjust their crotch, or congregate on the mound excessively every game. I think the game would benefit by moving it along a little faster. I know the baseball purists don't like that.

quote:

---

If you think baseball games are too long, then you don't really like baseball.

---

That is a load of BS. The length keeps going up. There was a significant jump over the last 10 years. That is why it was such a pleasure to watch Roy O for so many years. He just fired the ball and din't wait around for anything.

2014: 3:09
2004: 2:51
1994: 2:58
1984: 2:40
1974: 2:29
1964: 2:35
1954: 2:31
1950: 2:23

How much of the jump is attributable to commercial breaks dictating the time between innings once all games were televised?

quote:

---

How much of the jump is attributable to commercial breaks dictating the time between innings once all games were televised?

---

Good question.

Runs per game is actually down this year:
2014: 4.07
2004: 4.81
1994: 4.92
1984: 4.26
1974: 4.12
1964: 4.04
1954: 4.38
1950: 4.85

Strikeouts per game is up:
2014: 7.7
2004: 6.6
1994: 6.2
1984: 5.4
1974: 5.0
1964: 5.9
1954: 4.2
1950: 3.9

quote:

---

quote:

---

If you think baseball games are too long, then you don't really like baseball.

---

That is a load of BS. The length keeps going up. There was a significant jump over the last 10 years. That is why it was such a pleasure to watch Roy O for so many years. He just fired the ball and din't wait around for anything.

2014: 3:09
2004: 2:51
1994: 2:58
1984: 2:40
1974: 2:29
1964: 2:35
1954: 2:31
1950: 2:23

---

This.

I love baseball, but if I could watch the same 9 innings of baseball in less time, I'd be a happy camper.

quote:

---

How much of the jump is attributable to commercial breaks dictating the time between innings once all games were televised?

---

Probably some, but games have been becoming longer and longer even year-to-year over the past decade even though TV hasn't changed much, if at all.

is anyone keeping stats on pitching changes and mound visits? That's what really stretches the game out.

if MLB is serious --- require a pitcher to face a minimum of two batters of record before being allowed to be pulled during an inning.

this stuff where a team uses 3 or 4 pitchers in an inning is ridiculous - especially when the team at bat hasn't scored yet

It is, but has that really changed in the past 10 years? Compared to 25-30 years ago, sure. It's a big reason why games would be 2:45-2:50 vs. 2:30. But I don't think it explains losing 20 minutes in the past 10 years. I still think it boils down to how much dilly-dallying the pitchers and hitters are doing between pitches.

quote:

---

It is, but has that really changed in the past 10 years? Compared to 25-30 years ago, sure. It's a big reason why games would be 2:45-2:50 vs. 2:30. But I don't think it explains losing 20 minutes in the past 10 years. I still think it boils down to how much dilly-dallying the pitchers and hitters are doing between pitches.

---

This. Get your ass in the box and get your ass on the rubber. I understand there is some benefit to not letting the hitter or pitcher get into a rhythm, but it is completely over the top. I blame Nomar and Jeter for starting this ****.

quote:

---

Interesting Article by WSJ

By far the most time-consuming period of inaction is the "time between pitches." This took up an average of 1:14:49. That's not all that far from half the WSJ analysis's average game time of 2:58. Technically, the time between pitches begins when the pitch to the batter who saw the last pitch concludeseither when the catcher catches the ball or it is fouled offand ends when the pitcher begins his next pitch. So it includes the unstrapping and re-strapping the batting gloves, sleeve adjusting, helmet adjusting, practice swings, plus the pitcher doing whatever it is he does as well.

---

quote:

---

Then there are the signs and the stare-down. Finally, motion from the set position begins the pitch. Sometimes the pitcher will walk around or pick up the rosin bag, sometimes more than one sign will be necessary, sometimes the batter calls time and the whole process starts over. There are about 150 pitches thrown by each team in the average MLB game. The clock keeps ticking.The amount of inertia during a major-league game has been on the rise. This season's average game time of three hours and three minutes is the longest game duration since Stats LLC started tracking the numbers in 1987, the firm said. In 1987, the average was two hours, 52 minutes. John Thorn, Major League Baseball's official historian, attributes the trend to hitters' increased patience at the plate, which leads to their taking and fouling off more pitches. That, in turn, leads to pitchers' throwing more pitches, hence longer games. The increase also stems from the number of television commercials between half-innings, though there isn't much that can be done about that, Mr. Thorn said. "The underlying financial support of the game is a key feature of its continuing prosperity," he said.

---

quote:

---

How much of the jump is attributable to commercial breaks dictating the time between innings once all games were televised?

---

All games in 2004 were televised and there has been an 18 minute increase to last year.

quote:

---

There are about 150 pitches thrown by each team in the average MLB game.

---

Didn't read the article. How does this compare to the number of pitches in the past? I'd love to see how many average pitches per game were thrown broken down by decade or something.

quote:

---

The increase also stems from the number of television commercials between half-innings, though there isn't much that can be done about that, Mr. Thorn said. "The underlying financial support of the game is a key feature of its continuing prosperity," he said

---

The key to baseball's prosperity is maintaining a paying audience. Maybe they should adjust their model.

Here is a graph of the average number of pitches 1988-2010. This could very well be the main factor causing the increased length of games.

quote:

---

Some random thoughts about the number of pitches per game increasing:

• This affects the length of games, of course. With 8% more pitches, games will take at least 8% longer. Factor in the fact that more pitchers are used per game and the additional pitching changes mean that games are longer by more than 8%.
• In 2009, starting pitchers averaged 95 pitchers per game. In 1988, it was 96 per game.
• Relievers threw 40 pitches per game in 1988 and 52 pitches per game in 2009. (I got those numbers through simple subtraction of the other numbers in this post.) That's a 30% INCREASE.
• Using the PI Pitching Game Finder, I discovered that there were 7,331 relief appearances in 1988 and 14,239 relief appearances in 2009. Normalizing by the number of games in each season (6th columnhere) that works out to 1.75 relief appearances per game in 1988 and 2.93 relief appearances in 2009. So that's a 67% increase in relief appearances.
• Therefore, relief pitchers are actually throwing fewer pitches per appearance these days than they used to, even though relievers in total are throwing more pitches. (Simply put, there are more relievers these days but they throw fewer pitches per appearance--keep in mind this doesn't necessarily mean fewer pitches per plate appearance.)

---

All things considered: I think the process to switching relievers needs to be sped up. We don't need the manager to walk out to make a substitution. I also think fewer warm up pitches from the mound would speed it up a little as well. (Or maybe none since they should be warmed up already. You don't see reserves in basketball come in and shoot a couple shots)

quote:

---

Here is a graph of the average number of pitches 1988-2010. This could very well be the main factor causing the increased length of games.

quote:

---

Some random thoughts about the number of pitches per game increasing:

• This affects the length of games, of course. With 8% more pitches, games will take at least 8% longer. Factor in the fact that more pitchers are used per game and the additional pitching changes mean that games are longer by more than 8%.
• In 2009, starting pitchers averaged 95 pitchers per game. In 1988, it was 96 per game.
• Relievers threw 40 pitches per game in 1988 and 52 pitches per game in 2009. (I got those numbers through simple subtraction of the other numbers in this post.) That's a 30% INCREASE.
• Using the PI Pitching Game Finder, I discovered that there were 7,331 relief appearances in 1988 and 14,239 relief appearances in 2009. Normalizing by the number of games in each season (6th columnhere) that works out to 1.75 relief appearances per game in 1988 and 2.93 relief appearances in 2009. So that's a 67% increase in relief appearances.
• Therefore, relief pitchers are actually throwing fewer pitches per appearance these days than they used to, even though relievers in total are throwing more pitches. (Simply put, there are more relievers these days but they throw fewer pitches per appearance--keep in mind this doesn't necessarily mean fewer pitches per plate appearance.)

---

All things considered: I think the process to switching relievers needs to be sped up. We don't need the manager to walk out to make a substitution. I also think fewer warm up pitches from the mound would speed it up a little as well. (Or maybe none since they should be warmed up already. You don't see reserves in basketball come in and shoot a couple shots)

---

quote:

---

We don't need the manager to walk out to make a substitution. I also think fewer warm up pitches from the mound would speed it up a little as well. (Or maybe none since they should be warmed up already. You don't see reserves in basketball come in and shoot a couple shots)

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

We don't need the manager to walk out to make a substitution. I also think fewer warm up pitches from the mound would speed it up a little as well. (Or maybe none since they should be warmed up already. You don't see reserves in basketball come in and shoot a couple shots)

---

---

I don't mind a few warm-up pitches.

I would have no quaalms if they allowed fewer than the current 8 but its nice for hitters and runners to see a few, and I'm sure its also nice for the catcher to see a few pitches.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

We don't need the manager to walk out to make a substitution. I also think fewer warm up pitches from the mound would speed it up a little as well. (Or maybe none since they should be warmed up already. You don't see reserves in basketball come in and shoot a couple shots)

---

---

I don't mind a few warm-up pitches.

I would have no quaalms if they allowed fewer than the current 8 but its nice for hitters and runners to see a few, and I'm sure its also nice for the catcher to see a few pitches.

---

Also probably helps the pitcher adjust to being on the field as opposed to the bullpen. I'm not going to act like I have any experience pitching, but I would imagine it can be quite different between pitching in a confined bullpen and pitching in the game

quote:

---

Strikeouts per game is up:
2014: 7.7
2004: 6.6
1994: 6.2
1984: 5.4
1974: 5.0
1964: 5.9
1954: 4.2
1950: 3.9

---

SOs make the game last longer. Punish players who strike out!!!

How about telling umpires to call upper limits of the Mlb strike zone? When a pitcher starts an ab with a belt high fast ball only to have it called a ball instead of a strike the has lready lost a quarter of the strike zone, requiring more pitches be thrown.

Television advertising is the real problem. The break between innings and half innings have gotten bigger and bigger in order to cram more adverts in. Then again, that pays the bills.

They shouldn't try to rush the game itself in order to make up time for advertising.

In my opinion when the pitcher takes the mound at the start of an inning - the clock should start. From there you have 30 seconds to warm up. After 30 seconds you get one more pitch to throw down to second. I also say limit mound visits per game. Cut out the intentional walk - anything out of the ordinary is usually a fluke, just give them the base. I also think you need a 5th umpire to manage any pitch clocks, the home plate umpire is too busy watching the pitcher and batter to be worried about enforcing a clock.

There are already rules on the time a pitcher can take and on batters stepping in and out of the box, the just should try and enforce them before doing anything else.

I'd like to see some of the excess time cut out but my primary focus would be on actually enforcing the strike zone how it should be.

K's are up and runs are down. The K zone doesn't appear to be the issue.

K's are up because of hitter approach. Noone cares about K's anymore... Guys are taking gigantic 2 strike hacks on breaking balls away. Gone is the approach to shorten up and make contact with 2 strikes... Guys can strike out a ton but if they can hit 25 bombs and post a .260 average, teams line up to pay them millions

Funny you mention that as a kid that came of baseball age in the 70's & 80's anyone in the meat of the line up hitting below 270 was a liability. I kinda like cybermetrics, but how can 200+ strike outs many with RISP and less than two outs be surpassed by 25 HRs half of which are solo?