Jump to content





Bleacher Nation is on Facebook, and you should totally "Like" us:
 


Bleacher Nation is also on Twitter, and you should totally follow us:




Upcoming Calendar Events

There are no forthcoming calendar events

Today's birthdays

No members are celebrating a birthday today

Photo

Pace of baseball


  • Please log in to reply
10 replies to this topic

Poll: Pace of baseball (19 member(s) have cast votes)

What do you think of the pace of baseball?

  1. Too slow. (3 votes [15.79%])

    Percentage of vote: 15.79%

  2. Too fast. (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  3. Just right. (16 votes [84.21%])

    Percentage of vote: 84.21%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 Diesel

Diesel

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 211 posts

Posted 04 July 2012 - 09:08 PM

Today I came across this article whining about the pace of a baseball game. I personally like the pace of baseball especially when I go to see one live. When I spend my money to go see a game I want to spend as much time at the park as possible. I think the only people who really want the game sped up are the owners who want to get their hourly employees off the clock as quickly as possible. Baseball is one of those things that really can bring a family together. Why would you want to ruin it by cutting the time you get to spend at the park. What do you guys think?

http://espn.go.com/e...ce-play-problem

Here is the article I mentioned. Also part of the reason I avoid espn these days.

#2 Luke

Luke

    Bleacher Hero

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,082 posts
  • Twitter:@ltblaize
  • LocationMaryland

Posted 04 July 2012 - 09:50 PM

So ESPN had a guy who knows next to nothing about baseball write an article on baseball. Surprise! It's a terrible article that shows how much he doesn't know about baseball.

Really? Limit the pitcher to two pick off throws to first per batter? Does he not realize that the pitcher isn't stalling, he's trying to keep the runner close enough to the bag that he can't steal second? With that stupid rule in place, after the second pick off attempt the runner could slowly stroll all the way to second base before the pitch was thrown and the pitcher could do nothing about it. Stolen base records would start falling like snow flakes in a Siberian blizzard. And most of the steals would be as uninteresting as listening to an old timer talk about a Siberian blizzard back in the day.

He does raise one valid point, though. The umpires are not enforcing a lot of the rules governing batter behavior between pitches, and some batters are taking advantage of that. Other than that, he was writing nothing more than a cheap and unintelligent piece of link-baiting trash.

#3 Crockett

Crockett

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 243 posts

Posted 04 July 2012 - 10:23 PM

So ESPN had a guy who knows next to nothing about baseball write an article on baseball. Surprise! It's a terrible article that shows how much he doesn't know about baseball.

Really? Limit the pitcher to two pick off throws to first per batter? Does he not realize that the pitcher isn't stalling, he's trying to keep the runner close enough to the bag that he can't steal second? With that stupid rule in place, after the second pick off attempt the runner could slowly stroll all the way to second base before the pitch was thrown and the pitcher could do nothing about it. Stolen base records would start falling like snow flakes in a Siberian blizzard. And most of the steals would be as uninteresting as listening to an old timer talk about a Siberian blizzard back in the day.

He does raise one valid point, though. The umpires are not enforcing a lot of the rules governing batter behavior between pitches, and some batters are taking advantage of that. Other than that, he was writing nothing more than a cheap and unintelligent piece of link-baiting trash.


I really hate Rick Reilly.

That being said, the Red Sox, for instance, really do push the limits of reality as far as the batter being in the box, etc. The White Sox games are about to add 10 minutes in length with the addition of Youkilis, one of the worst offenders.

#4 Brady

Brady

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 485 posts

Posted 05 July 2012 - 03:51 AM

I dont use baseball as an exciting thrill ride that keeps my eyes glued to the screen (at least not during the regular season regularly and being a Cubs fan doesn't help that any). Going to a game is about the atmosphere, a nice beer, a hot dog and a ball game. I usually watch the ball game at work while I am doing something else and occasionally I catch myself staring at the game more than my work but that isn't a bad thing. If you want people running non-stop go watch dunkball (I am a Phoenix Suns fan and I do not agree with what the owner is doing. They need to find a way to make owners care about winning not just making money. Profit sharing seems to have sparked that fire beneath NFL owners but now I have to watch my favorite player go to a team I hate. GRRR... At least the cubs seem to be trying to improve). So yea. I watch about 3 baseball games a day and umpire 2 games every other weekend (8yr olds to high school) so I love me some baseball.

#5 FFP

FFP

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 406 posts
  • LocationWorcester County, Massachusetts

Posted 05 July 2012 - 04:11 AM

Baseball could speed up games virtually by better use of technology and human video producers. Going to a game 'live' is a fine way to fritter away four hours of a day; but following a team for a full season requires full use of game summaries (Zogie), box scores (enhanced, esp.), (hours) old game threads, databases, spraycharts, et al; as well as the traditional live tv and radio broadcasts. (Edit: just looked back and realized I did not include newspaper reports...how quickly we forget.)

MLB should offer a standardized, daily, (web-based? Fee?) one hour video summary. (How the hell does MLB expect a sport to survive when we've got threads at fan sites discussing just how we can better peak through the knot holes in their dumbass blackouts?)

It would be great to see every pitch, but you know, we have careers and families and stuff, too. (I attended, watched, or listened to every pitch live of the BoSox in '84. NEVER again)

Technology (like we're using here) makes our game better. I think we could draw more young fans with quicker, less restricted, access to the sport, too.

But, going to a game will remain (and should remain) the meditative, social, gustatory, nostalgic time warp it always has been.

Edited by FromFenwayPahk, 05 July 2012 - 04:48 AM.


#6 fromthemitten

fromthemitten

    sleeps in too late to answer the calendar trivia

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,471 posts
  • Twitter:fromthemitten
  • Locationin a van down by the river

Posted 05 July 2012 - 01:09 PM

um has Rick Reilly ever watched a football game?

run play
PENALTY refs argue about it
do the play again
punt
COMMERCIAL BREAK
incomplete pass
penalty - refs take five minutes to argue about it
run play
UH OH SOMEBODY'S INJURED
COMMERCIAL BREAK
pass
timeout team sits around picking their nose for a minute and a half
incomplete pass UH OH COACHES CHALLENGE
ref stares into camera for ten minutes while they show the play over and over again
COMMERCIAL BREAK
ref is still staring a the camera... maybe he's adjusting his fantasy baseball lineup on that thing
ref announces decision
punt
COMMERCIAL BREAK
another run play
another guy gets injured
COMMERCIAL BREAK

this doesn't include the gap between each play where they have to set the chains, place the ball, and wait for the coach's play call to come... this is longer than the distance between any pitch

so pretty much Rick Reilly is a jackass who doesn't know what he's talking about and is whining about how baseball ruined your dinner plans. YOU'RE GETTING PAID $1.5 MILLION DOLLARS A YEAR TO WRITE ABOUT SPORTS DUDE. I WOULD TRADE JOBS WITH YOU IN A HEARTBEAT.... shit if they paid me $1.5 million I'd even go as low as to watch a soccer game.

and the average NFL game is longer than the average MLB game.
suck it Rick

#7 Diesel

Diesel

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 211 posts

Posted 05 July 2012 - 08:10 PM

Thanks for the opinions everyone. I love baseball. It has always been the number one way I have gotten friends and family together. When I was a kid it was the best memory I had as a family and I will never forget going to baseball games, mostly single A games in San Bernardino but also some Dodgers and Angels games. I enjoy nothing more that going to a live baseball game and I do not ever want them to speed up the pace to something absurd because I love taking my nephew to games.

As far as football yeah I agree that the pace goes way too slow especially late in the game. I love football but it is retarded how often they slow the game down mostly in favor of commercials. I read after a Monday night game where the titans were up big on a Monday night game where the refs were telling Jeff Fisher to call his time outs because they hadn't had enough commercials. How is that for being paced too slow that they want to call time outs just to add commercials.

Go Cubs and go baseball!

#8 daddies3angels

daddies3angels

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 19 posts
  • Twitter:daddies3angels
  • LocationPeoria IL

Posted 07 July 2012 - 02:15 PM

only people who bitch about the time of the game are reporters. They rather have the game last 2 hrs so they can have only a 4 hour work day. Fans who pay tons of money to go to games want there money worth.

#9 Spriggs

Spriggs

    Bleacher Hero

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,018 posts
  • LocationArizona

Posted 12 July 2012 - 03:21 PM

I think the flow of the game is almost perfect as it is, but there is one rule change I would like to introduce that would not only cut down on the total time of the game, but at the same time, improve the flow of it.

The change would be to outlaw all pitching changes once an inning starts (with an exception for certain injuries). This would not eliminate strategies, it would only change strategies. This might threaten the careers of a few LOOGYs - but who cares?

#10 fromthemitten

fromthemitten

    sleeps in too late to answer the calendar trivia

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,471 posts
  • Twitter:fromthemitten
  • Locationin a van down by the river

Posted 20 July 2012 - 08:54 PM

That's not gonna happen... I don't think either the MLB or the Union will make a rule that forces a pitcher to go out there and get torched for 10 runs in a single inning if he just doesn't "have" it

#11 Spriggs

Spriggs

    Bleacher Hero

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,018 posts
  • LocationArizona

Posted 24 July 2012 - 11:32 PM

That's a good point. So maybe instead of having to finish the inning, it would make more sense to have the rule say something to the effect of either finishing the inning or facing 5 batters at a minimum. Something to elihminate all those pitching changes and long innings at the end of games. It would also inject more offense by eliminating all the match up advantages that get tilted in favor of the pitcher




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Bleacher Nation is not affiliated in any way with Major League Baseball or the Chicago National League Ballclub (that's the Cubs).