Games are 7 innings. The end.

979ag said:

---

aggie1906 said:

---

979ag said:

---

aggie1906 said:

---

2. Pitch clocks. Stop farting around and throw the damn ball. It was magic watching Roy O work. Dude would catch and be ready to fire it back home.

3. Get in the damn box and swing. Home ump would be tasked with keeping the game moving. If the batter was being excessive between pitches then he would be warned. If it continued then the ump gives the go ahead to the pitcher to throw.

---

Baseball is a thinking man's game. If you speed everything up and take the thinking and strategy out of it, baseball will lose it's integrity. People don't have a problem with football games being 4 hours and there only being 12 minutes of actual game play.

---

I'm am not talking about rushing people. Some people are just excessive with the time between pitches. I want to eliminate that.

---

And shave off 3 minutes at the end of the game? Player's have their own routine that they have been doing since High School. There's no reason to destroy a player's comfort just to save 5 minutes.

---

There is something like say 250 pitches per game. If I shave 3 secs off each that adds up to around 13 minutes. That's 35 hours per per season per team.

mike_ags_fan12 said:

---

I'd limit extra innings to 3. If still tied, 10 pitch HR derby. Keeps a clock out of a game and it's entertains

---

HELL NO!

jkag89 said:

---

Say Chowdah said:

---

Games are 7 innings. The end.

---

Got more than my fill of seven inning games watching college ball in the late '80s/early '90s when the first game of double headers were 7 innings. Seven inning games flat out suck.

---

I agree. If you want to shorten games, 7 innings. That is it. Everything else is not going to fix the issue.

The game has changed since Abner Doubleday invented it (or at least wrote out the rules) and the first leagues were formed.

In the beginning (and for the first 80 or so years) the pitcher pitched the entire game. Now that 3 pitchers in an inning is common, the games are really long.

There is no answer that is going to make everyone happy so whatever it takes to "fix" it is going to be a very radical change.

So either shorten the games or radically change the rules for pitching substitutions (IE between innings only unless of an injury). So if that type of change is too much, it isn't going to change the length of the games (if the length of the games are really the issue).

Calling the strike zone as actually defined (letters to the top of the knees) would go a long way in shortening games.

I know was mentioned earlier, I would go to electronic balls and strikes and I would have replays done in NY or wherever, they determine if a play is reviewable or not. With the way technology is now, baseball needs to utilize technology as an advantage to speed up the game where possible. I would also not be opposed to a pitcher wearing an earpiece where the manager can only communicate to the pitcher twice in an inning, much like an OC or D.C. Calling in a play in football. If the manager goes to the mound then it means he is removing the pitcher.

jkag89 said:

---

Calling the strike zone as actually defined (letters to the top of the knees) would go a long way in shortening games.

---

There is truth here. But didn't the MLB actually reduce the strike zone in their rule book to increase offense?

So the steady decrease in starter innings, constant switching of pitchers, they had to decrease the strike zone, which causes more working of the count.

But if they went back to the old strike zone - coupled with the constant pitching changes - will games become too pitcher centric? I mean the days of getting to a tired pitcher are over anyway! There is no assuming a pitcher will tire and score runs. The pitchers aren't in the game if they are tired (unless they have a no hitter or the team needs to save the pen).

So in the end, if they want to shorten games we're left with two viable options - reduce the number of innings or reduce the pitching changes.

But I'd also like to see batters stay in the effing box too!

So no, I really don't want to go to a 7 inning game. But unless they change the strikezone (good point) and reduce the pitching changes, the game we have is the game we will have.

Baseball doesn't need to change the game.

Baseball needs to change the way games are broadcast. This is my first year in 8 years or so that I have access to ROOT Sports every day. If MLB.com didn't have their stupid blackout rules, I could have been watching every day for the last 8 years living in Austin. Baseball is not a game that you can watch once every few months and feel like you have an investment in the team.

Since I've had the broadcast back, I've spent decent money in the Astros shop online. I'm planning a trip back to Houston with my kids to take in a series at MMP. We've gone to a few Round Rock Express games. My three year old can reliably rattle off her favorite players and can start recognizing teams we don't like. All that wouldn't happen without reliable access.

Quote:

---

Baseball is not a game that you can watch once every few months and feel like you have an investment in the team.

---

+1

jopatura said:

---

Baseball doesn't need to change the game.

Baseball needs to change the way games are broadcast. This is my first year in 8 years or so that I have access to ROOT Sports every day. If MLB.com didn't have their stupid blackout rules, I could have been watching every day for the last 8 years living in Austin. Baseball is not a game that you can watch once every few months and feel like you have an investment in the team.

Since I've had the broadcast back, I've spent decent money in the Astros shop online. I'm planning a trip back to Houston with my kids to take in a series at MMP. We've gone to a few Round Rock Express games. My three year old can reliably rattle off her favorite players and can start recognizing teams we don't like. All that wouldn't happen without reliable access.

---

This X100. Baseball has 162 games, I don't think they need to blackout like the NFL does to get fans to the games. Fortunately, I live near minute maid so I get out to 10-15 games a year, but I am much more eager to go and spend money when I can watch them more often. I could understand if baseball blacked out marquee, primetime games but blacking out a tuesday game against the Twins isn't getting more people to the ballparks.

Aside from that, I don't think baseball needs to be "saved". It's a different game, different pace, and caters to different fans than football does. If I could suggest anything, it would be like others here have said - they need to cut down on the number of mound visits in an inning.

Also:

I really do like the idea of publicizing the umpires' stats on blown calls. If they don't improve, then use the computer. Good idea, previous poster.

*Road team: Gray / Home Team: White Throwback games on Saturday or Sunday
*Bring back This Week in Baseball, hosted by Bill Murray
*Less interleague
*Joe Torre: Commissioner

The game itself is fine. I never bought the idea that the game is too long and needs to be sped up. Besides, there are ample provisions already in the rule book that can address pacing if utilized properly (i.e. calling automatic balls/strikes when someone is lollygagging around).

The real problem is accessibility. If MLB wants more people to watch to games, they need to quit making it hard for people to watch them. You would think that MLB would want to make it as easy as possible for fans living 50+ miles away from the closest big league team to find a broadcast. Not so, because thanks to MLB's travesty of a blackout system, as many as six teams can claim the farthest reaches of Nowhere, USA as their territory and prevent on-line streaming.

1 said:

---

Also:

I really do like the idea of publicizing the umpires' stats on blown calls. If they don't improve, then use the computer. Good idea, previous poster.

*Road team: Gray / Home Team: White Throwback games on Saturday or Sunday
*Bring back This Week in Baseball, hosted by Bill Murray
*Less interleague
*Joe Torre: Commissioner

---

I think MLB umps are pretty darn good actually.

Gotta cut down on the dead time. Batters calling time outs after they're in the box, pitchers meandering around the mound between pitches, managers and catchers mound visits for the 6 pitching changes in the last 3 innings, etc.

Here are some things I would consider...

7 innings with 4 outs each inning

start each AB with 1 ball and 1 strike

All pitchers must pitch to three batters min, except for injury. If a pitcher is removed for injury before the three batter rule, then he can't pitch for a week.

electronic calling of balls and strikes

2 infielders must play to one side of 2nd base and 2 on the other. If you pull in an OF as a fifth IF, then he can be anywhere.

pitch clock of 20 seconds, batter can't step out of the box

HBP is 2 bases, not one

So many here seem to have a healthy respect for baseball's timeless traditions.

That's why I find it shocking so many want to see electronic calling of balls and strikes. I find the idea depressing. Watching batters and umps scream at each other is solid entertainment for me. Both teams get screwed here and there and I just kind of accept it as part of a beautiful game.

Like someone above mentioned, these umps are pretty good at watching the plate.

Corporal Punishment said:

---

So many here seem to have a healthy respect for baseball's timeless traditions.

That's why I find it shocking so many want to see electronic calling of balls and strikes. I find the idea depressing. Watching batters and umps scream at each other is solid entertainment for me. Both teams get screwed here and there and I just kind of accept it as part of a beautiful game.

Like someone above mentioned, these umps are pretty good at watching the plate.

---

Yeah, but they don't really ever argue about ball/strike calls because they would be immediately ejected. I love tradition, but robo umps, like the designated hitter and indoor stadiums before them, would make baseball better.

I agree to an extent.

That's why I think there just needs to be a tweak to the system that holds umpires accountable.

How awesome would it be to see a correct call percentage next to each umpire's name when they show them on TV and commentators say 'Man Joe West is rough behind the plate so the pitchers can expect to get squeezed tonight.'

A missed ball or strike here or there isn't that big of a deal. It's when you get a guy behind the plate who has a constantly changing zone that is absolutely maddening, especially for people who love the game. You'll often even hear it said that even if you're going to call a narrow/wide strikezone, do it consistently so the players can adjust. If you know the guy is calling the pitch off the black a strike every time, you can adjust your approach, knowing that you have to swing at that pitch the rest of the night. Conversely, if you know he's not calling anything above the belt, you don't have to protect against a high strike call.

It's the inconsistency that has to be addressed. An inconsistent strike zone has too much impact on the outcome of a game, IMO.

Someone posted a video a while back about a test being done in a A or AA ballpark where the umpire wore an earpiece and there was a light in the outfield. When the ball was pitched, it was immediately registered as a ball or strike by a computer, at which point a person watching the computer would tell the umpire through the earpiece ball or strike and the light would light up for a strike. From the video shown, there was no real impact/lag to the umpire making the call.

Finally, yes, it is fun to watch a manager and umpire go at it...as long as it isn't your team that has been getting the short end of the stick all night, especially when there is something (i.e. playoff spot) on the line. IMO, the human element beyond the athletes on the field should never be the deciding factor of a game. That's part of what makes the NBA so painful to watch - whether or not a call is made is hugely dependent on who the player being fouled/called for the foul is. That's not right.

Don't have ridiculous prices at the ballpark. It should cost $15 for a tiny Digiorno and the smallest Coke available...

I wouldn't make any major fundamental changes to the game. Instead, I would take a long term approach and invest heavily in teaching the game to young kids. Everyone I know who watches baseball regularly now, played a lot when they were kids. I would focus on building baseball academies across the country, especially in the inner cities where football and basketball are more popular.

Ag_07 said:

---

I agree to an extent.

That's why I think there just needs to be a tweak to the system that holds umpires accountable.

How awesome would it be to see a correct call percentage next to each umpire's name when they show them on TV and commentators say 'Man Joe West is rough behind the plate so the pitchers can expect to get squeezed tonight.'

---

But at the end of the day, umpires are human so there will be umpire error, regardless of the amount of "accountability" that is added. I have no idea what the average call percentage for an MLB umpire, but what if you cannot find any human umpires who can consistently maintain a call percentage of better than say 95%, 90%? At what point/percentage do you give up on the human element?

Saw my first MLB game live 53 years ago and grew up loving the game. Back then they played in 2:30 or so and it was that way until the late 80's probably. The never ending stepping in and out of the box, playing with the gloves, trips to the mound, starters who can't go 6 innings, etc make the games longer. For people who aren't in love with the game that's a turn off.

Someone mentioned every game should be available on TV, streaming, etc. When I was a kid living far from any MLB city we listened on the radio and got to see 1 game per week. To me there's over saturation. If I can't watch tonight I can watch tomorrow night.

I've got a 14 year old sports crazy son and he never asks to go to MMP. We can watch at home if we choose to and if you don't live ITL it takes too dang much time to drive in, park, watch the game and get home. Even using my company's season tickets it's ridiculous how much it costs to go to a game.

Tebow hit a walk-off HR in the 7th inning last night. I hope all of y'all, "Change it to 7 innings," people were watching. Sounds like your type of game.

Yeah I get that.

You'd have to do a lot of groundwork in figuring out what exactly is acceptable.

For example a .300 BA is only being successful 30% of the time but it's regarded as pretty good. MLB would have to lay some groundwork and say that quality umpires get XX% calls correct or set an acceptable range. The goal is not 100% correct calls, but some achievable and measurable threshold needs to be set.

With baseball being as stat driven as it is and the technology available I think it can it can be done.

Now if umpires would ever agree to it is another story for another thread.

The only reason I bring it up is because even though we as fans do not see it there is a lot of accountability for umpires behind the scenes, and yet we still perceive them as needing to improve. Becoming a major league umpire is one of the most difficult things to accomplish. The number of openings are limited every year, and it is very difficult to achieve. The minor league umpires are highly scrutinized on the way up, and once a person is determined not to have the stuff to be a major league umpire, they basically cut them from the minors and move others in to see if they may have the ability.

Which raises the question, how the hell does a CB Bucknor or Angel Hernandez ever make it to the majors? Were they good at some point in their careers and then just started sucking more and more each season?

knoxtom said:

---

Here are some things I would consider...

7 innings with 4 outs each inning

start each AB with 1 ball and 1 strike

All pitchers must pitch to three batters min, except for injury. If a pitcher is removed for injury before the three batter rule, then he can't pitch for a week.

electronic calling of balls and strikes

2 infielders must play to one side of 2nd base and 2 on the other. If you pull in an OF as a fifth IF, then he can be anywhere.

pitch clock of 20 seconds, batter can't step out of the box

HBP is 2 bases, not one

---

So you want to fundamentally change how baseball is played? This is probably the worst set of ideas I've ever seen