It's the same today as it was 25-30 years ago. Every player has their own rhythm. Players will slow the game down or speed it up trying to gain an edge. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Baseball is not a "clock" game. You would know that if you played this game for an extended period of "time".

If it was the same today as 25-30 years ago, we wouldn't have 4 hour games instead of 2 1/2 hour games.

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/28/2017 9:17:00 PM (view original):
If it was the same today as 25-30 years ago, we wouldn't have 4 hour games instead of 2 1/2 hour games.

Just because you type it doesn't make it true. All games vary in time it takes to finish.

Well, I could look it up and post links but that's just silliness. There's a reason they're considering ridiculous changes to speed the game. And that's because the game times are much longer than in previous eras.

Agree or disagree?

I quit playing partway through high school, but I know up to the high school level I would never have had any problem with a 20 second pitch clock. 20 seconds is a fairly long time. This of course depends on having a reasonable person controlling it, just as with the play clock in football. If you step off to look a runner back, it has to reset. But 20 seconds still gives you plenty of opportunity to vary your hold times.

Redsfive, do you really not think games have gotten longer? 20 years ago a 3 hour game was still considered long. Now that's below average.

Look at 27 years ago, that graph shows 15 minute difference, not the hour and a half exaggeration typed earlier. Maybe most of that 15 minutes is sponsorship time, maybe sponsorship time has caused these games to hit the 3 hour mark. The commish won't address that issue because it's revenue. It's the commercials that cause me to change channels on anything I'm watching and sometimes I come back to a previous channel.

The difference between 1990 and today is the amount of mid-inning pitcher changes, as managers are looking for R/L matchups between pitchers and hitters late in games. Which in turn leads to more commercial breaks.

But you can't deny that pitchers and hitters themselves cause more delays than they did 30-35 years ago. Hitters stepping out of the box between pitches to adjust their gloves, apply more pine tar to their bats, etc. Pitchers stepping off the rubber to rub up the ball, compose themselves, etc.

Like I mentioned earlier, look at games from the 70's and watch the pace. There are plenty of old games on YouTube. Pitchers stayed on the mound, looked for their signs, and delivered the pitch. Hitters stayed in the box. The game had a much better flow than it does today.

That's indisputable to anybody who watched games in the 70's and early 80's, and who watch games today.

60s, 70s, early 80s were around 2:30. They're over 3 now(30 years later). It's is not the "same" as you stated at 8:02. It simply is not.

Posted by redsfive on 3/1/2017 7:17:00 AM (view original):
Look at 27 years ago, that graph shows 15 minute difference, not the hour and a half exaggeration typed earlier. Maybe most of that 15 minutes is sponsorship time, maybe sponsorship time has caused these games to hit the 3 hour mark. The commish won't address that issue because it's revenue. It's the commercials that cause me to change channels on anything I'm watching and sometimes I come back to a previous channel.

MLB has also been talking about an associated inning-change clock, which would absolutely cap commercial time. And 15 minutes is still quite substantial. I remember hearing that Minor League games were shortened by typically 9-15 minutes by the pitch clock, so that should work out pretty nicely...

Posted by dahsdebater on 3/1/2017 12:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by redsfive on 3/1/2017 7:17:00 AM (view original):
Look at 27 years ago, that graph shows 15 minute difference, not the hour and a half exaggeration typed earlier. Maybe most of that 15 minutes is sponsorship time, maybe sponsorship time has caused these games to hit the 3 hour mark. The commish won't address that issue because it's revenue. It's the commercials that cause me to change channels on anything I'm watching and sometimes I come back to a previous channel.

MLB has also been talking about an associated inning-change clock, which would absolutely cap commercial time. And 15 minutes is still quite substantial. I remember hearing that Minor League games were shortened by typically 9-15 minutes by the pitch clock, so that should work out pretty nicely...

As long as "pitch-clock" penalties are post-game fines, I have no problem with that.

If it results in the umpire calling "BALL", then it's stupid because no umpire would/should enforce that in the ninth inning of a tie game.

MLBPA

Then fine the team. Pool the money at the end of the year, and make a donation to a Player Retirement fund or something....

But the consequence of a violation (or non-call of a violation) shouldn't affect the outcome of a game.

I can't imagine the owners rushing to that unless the TV money dries up. And, with 10,000 sports networks needing content, I doubt that happens.

Posted by toddcommish on 3/1/2017 1:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 3/1/2017 12:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by redsfive on 3/1/2017 7:17:00 AM (view original):
Look at 27 years ago, that graph shows 15 minute difference, not the hour and a half exaggeration typed earlier. Maybe most of that 15 minutes is sponsorship time, maybe sponsorship time has caused these games to hit the 3 hour mark. The commish won't address that issue because it's revenue. It's the commercials that cause me to change channels on anything I'm watching and sometimes I come back to a previous channel.

MLB has also been talking about an associated inning-change clock, which would absolutely cap commercial time. And 15 minutes is still quite substantial. I remember hearing that Minor League games were shortened by typically 9-15 minutes by the pitch clock, so that should work out pretty nicely...

As long as "pitch-clock" penalties are post-game fines, I have no problem with that.

If it results in the umpire calling "BALL", then it's stupid because no umpire would/should enforce that in the ninth inning of a tie game.

Why not? Should an ump not call a balk in the 9th inning of a tie game? If it's the rule, you abide by it or pay the price.

Players and teams don't care about measily warnings or fines, as proven when they tried this previously. It'll only take a couple times before a pitcher or hitter stops delaying and does what they're supposed to do.

Posted by redsfive on 2/28/2017 8:02:00 PM (view original):
It's the same today as it was 25-30 years ago. Every player has their own rhythm. Players will slow the game down or speed it up trying to gain an edge. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Baseball is not a "clock" game. You would know that if you played this game for an extended period of "time".

Oh brother. There's always one. "Well, if you'd actually played the game, you'd know..."

I've played my whole life. And while baseball is not a "clock" game, there are still things that can unnecessarily delay the process. Let's say each team sends 40 hitters to the plate in a game. The difference between 20 seconds and 30 seconds per pitch is over 13 minutes.