Game ends on "batter not alert" call.

[flyingron]

Today's BOS/ATL interesting end with the "Batter not alert." Atlanta's Conley was up in the bottom of the ninth, tie-score, bases loaded, two-outs, full-count. Strike three called (game over, no extra innings in the preseason).

[SeeingEyeDog]

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/35734633/pitch-clock-violation-ends-braves-red-sox-spring-game-tie

Is this called in the World Series? I acknowledge that the 100% absolutely correct call was made and the plate umpire gets full marks. Is this really the kind of outcome baseball fans want to see? A walk-off pitch clock violation to end the game?

~Dawg

[agdz59]

2 hours ago, SeeingEyeDog said:

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/35734633/pitch-clock-violation-ends-braves-red-sox-spring-game-tie

Is this called in the World Series? I acknowledge that the 100% absolutely correct call was made and the plate umpire gets full marks. Is this really the kind of outcome baseball fans want to see? A walk-off pitch clock violation to end the game?

~Dawg

Rules is rules.  If they don't want this to happen, don't make the rule.

[SeeingEyeDog]

15 hours ago, agdz59 said:

Rules is rules.  If they don't want this to happen, don't make the rule.

Right...thanks...I was unclear on that until now...

~Dawg

[stevis]

21 hours ago, SeeingEyeDog said:

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/35734633/pitch-clock-violation-ends-braves-red-sox-spring-game-tie

Is this called in the World Series? I acknowledge that the 100% absolutely correct call was made and the plate umpire gets full marks. Is this really the kind of outcome baseball fans want to see? A walk-off pitch clock violation to end the game?

~Dawg

If it happens occasionally to get the typical game closer to 2:40...yeah, yeah I do.

[JonnyCat]

1 hour ago, stevis said:

If it happens occasionally to get the typical game closer to 2:40...yeah, yeah I do.

I would agree if the games will be realistically any shorter.

However, I don't think any of the rule changes will have an appreciable effect on the game time. The real issue is obviously the commercial time in between innings, pitching changes, and just the nature of the game. Sometimes pitchers struggle and go deep in counts, or a few runs get scored, etc. It's just the game, it takes about 3 hours at the professional level. What is it going to shave, maybe 5 minutes on a good day? Baseball is just a naturally boring game. But to the true baseball fan, I'm perfectly content to sit and focus on a game for 3 or more hours. I can do that because I grew up with the game and that is my level of expectation.

Sadly, today's society doesn't have that kind of attention span. Baseball is trying to appease the IPhone/Android crowd that can't pay attention for more that 5 seconds at a time. All they are trying to do is cater to the crowd that won't ever be satisfied. The true baseball fan really wants the game to largely remain the same and the cost of going to games lowered, as in ticket prices, parking fees, and concession prices. Sadly the almighty dollar is in the way of making any meaningful changes. Baseball nowadays is trying to make changes in the name of pace of play, that won't have a significant impact on the actual time of the game. They are misguided, and not actually realistically even wanting to shorten the games. They can't, it's that nature of the game. The only realistic way they could appreciably shorten the game would be to sacrifice a great deal of advertising money. Like that will ever happen. They just want people to think they are doing something about it. IMO.

Kind of like looking for the origins of Covid in the wet markets, instead of the BSL-4 lab in Wuhan that studies bat coronaviruses. It only looks like they are making an effort to find the root cause.

(I just couldn't resist. Damn-it, I hate myself!   ) 

[Richvee]

Here’s my take. It will help…. A little. Time in between pitches is insane. But that’s only one of the reasons.  There’s so many reasons games are longer now than ever before. 
Batters are way more selective than ever. 
Batters foul off more pitches than ever. 
Pitching changes. 
Coach mound visits. 
Replay delays. 
 

We’ll see how it goes. I don’t mind  long games. It’s the dead time that’s increased and hopefully this resolves some of it. 

[stevis]

Truth is it's less the game time than the pace.

I watched the Tom Seaver no-hitter on MLB Network over the winter, and pitchers got the ball back and threw. That was a game! Playing baseball without incentivizing the glance at the phone between every pitch will help.

To each their own on what they're willing to put up with for that.

[ErichKeane]

I'm a fan of the pitch clock, of all the changes to this year's MLB rules, its the only one I like (and I say this as a Nomar fan!).  The game USED to be fast, and is pretty quick at all levels, except for MLB, where I zone out and have to switch channels while waiting for a pitcher and batter to stare lovingly at each other waiting for SOMEONE to get ready.  Repeat 200x a game.

The players will get used to it, and the games will be shorter (MiLB games reduced by ~25 minutes IIRC), but more importantly, the games will be quicker.  The part of the game I want to see is the pitches, and the hits, not the waiting between.  This won't get called 99% of games once the players all get used to it, and we'll all get better baseball.

 

 

[agdz59]

1 hour ago, JonnyCat said:

I would agree if the games will be realistically any shorter.

However, I don't think any of the rule changes will have an appreciable effect on the game time.

Took this from a tweet from Mike Monaco that I saw on another forum:

 

Quote

 

2022 MLB Average Game Length: 3:07

MLB Spring Training Game Times, Saturday: 3:06 3:06 3:03 2:54 2:47 2:39 2:35 2:34 2:33 2:32 2:31 2:29 2:26 2:23 2:21 2:16 2:15

 

Yeah - small sample size and its spring training and not regular season.  But the average of Saturday's games was just over 2:37 or  1/2 hour shorter than last year's average.  Be interesting to see if the advertised "more hits, more steals, less strike-outs" comes to pass as well.  Good start though!

[umpstu]

39 minutes ago, ErichKeane said:

I'm a fan of the pitch clock, of all the changes to this year's MLB rules, its the only one I like (and I say this as a Nomar fan!).  The game USED to be fast, and is pretty quick at all levels, except for MLB, where I zone out and have to switch channels while waiting for a pitcher and batter to stare lovingly at each other waiting for SOMEONE to get ready.  Repeat 200x a game.

The players will get used to it, and the games will be shorter (MiLB games reduced by ~25 minutes IIRC), but more importantly, the games will be quicker.  The part of the game I want to see is the pitches, and the hits, not the waiting between.  This won't get called 99% of games once the players all get used to it, and we'll all get better baseball.

 

 

And the younger players and umpires have been using new rules in MILB for a while now.  The old farts better get used to the new rules. Adapt or die type of thing.

[Richvee]

37 minutes ago, agdz59 said:

Be interesting to see if the advertised "more hits, more steals, less strike-outs" comes to pass as well.  Good start though!

Here’s the stat I think we all need to see. “ Balls in play per minute. “ 

they seem to track everything, and this seems like the bottom line of really needs to change at he MLB level. 

[JonnyCat]

2 hours ago, agdz59 said:

Yeah - small sample size and its spring training and not regular season.  But the average of Saturday's games was just over 2:37 or  1/2 hour shorter than last year's average.  Be interesting to see if the advertised "more hits, more steals, less strike-outs" comes to pass as well.  Good start though!

Interesting. Here is an article about that.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/maurybrown/2023/02/26/first-weekend-of-spring-training-shows-pitch-clock-shaving-nearly-30-minutes-off-games/?sh=30d4f60969d0

I'll still wait and see if it has any appreciable effect during the regular season. Even if it does shave some time off the clock, will it accomplish MLB's objective? And what exactly is that objective? I know they want to shorten games and increase pace of play. But will that alone fill more seats, and have more people tune in on TV? That must be the actual objective. I just think the very construct of baseball is boring for many people. I just don't know if it is entertainment that appeals to the largely low attention span of today's society. It's just the nature of how it's played.

IMO, one of the reasons football is king is because you can focus on a play at a designated time, every-time, during a game. Your attention is diverted to a play at a set time, then play relaxes, and you can focus on something else. Rinse, repeat. It works very well with our short attention span society. Baseball is something that you have to pay attention to for much of the game, and for long stretches at a time. You never know when something is going to happen. Look away, even for a couple of seconds and you miss a play. And plays (other than routine outs), particularly scoring plays, happen few and far between. In football, something is going to happen on each play, and that's all you have to pay attention to. You will know when the play is being ran. In between plays, your attention can be focused on something else, like your phone.

 

[Richvee]

7 hours ago, JonnyCat said:

I just think the very construct of baseball is boring for many people. I just don't know if it is entertainment that appeals to the largely low attention span of today's society

This. I think this is the truth...And MLB is doing all it possibly can to change the actual construct of the game to appeal to the short attention span segment. 

[JonnyCat]

2 hours ago, Richvee said:

This. I think this is the truth...And MLB is doing all it possibly can to change the actual construct of the game to appeal to the short attention span segment. 

Seems like it to me. Manipulate the rules to affect the outcome of the game. Unfortunately, it's less about the game and more about the entertainment value. Pro sports teams are in the entertainment business. Right or wrong, they'll do whatever they can to maximize the value.

Those of us that have been around a while (I hate I can say that about myself ), have seen the game change greatly over the years, and not just in baseball. Football used to be more of a defensive game. Now many games seem to come down to the wire with teams seemingly scoring at will. Can't touch the receivers and get a PI or holding penalty at a crucial time to miraculously keep the drive alive. Can't score for 3 quarters, that's okay, we'll somehow be able to score 3 touchdowns inside of a few minutes to make the game close. Not sure when traveling became the norm in basketball, and you might as well just tune into the last 5 minutes of a game to see who wins. (as long as you have about an hour to spare).

Yes, the game is not the same to me. Honestly, I rarely watch any pro sports as a fan anymore due to the way the games have changed, and to the cost. I have better things to do with my time and money. Nothing wrong with how I feel, nor is it wrong if today's society likes the way pro sports are being played. It's not the same game I grew up with and frankly, I just don't like the way it's played. So I chose not to watch.

[834k3r]

1 hour ago, JonnyCat said:

Manipulate the rules to affect the outcome of the game.

As I was driving in to work today, the pundits on MLB Radio were discussing the catcher may have intentionally caused the batter to be "not aware." The catcher was standing up longer than usual, which may have caused the batter's lack of "awareness." Another example of teams using the rules to benefit them.

[Richvee]

1 hour ago, 834k3r said:

As I was driving in to work today, the pundits on MLB Radio were discussing the catcher may have intentionally caused the batter to be "not aware." The catcher was standing up longer than usual, which may have caused the batter's lack of "awareness." Another example of teams using the rules to benefit them.

We haven’t even begun to see all the unintended consequences of these new rules. Sit tight. 

[beerguy55]

14 hours ago, JonnyCat said:

I just think the very construct of baseball is boring for many people. I just don't know if it is entertainment that appeals to the largely low attention span of today's society. It's just the nature of how it's played.

Yes and no - I will only talk of my personal perspective as someone who has loved the from the first time he put on a glove.  I have become more increasingly annoyed with game times over the past decade or so.   I'm much more willing to watch a ball game if I know it's going to come in closer to 2:30 than 3:30...I just have other things I want to do with my time.  It's not so much about the action in that window...it's simply the size of the window.

I was present for a fantastic pitching duel last year - Manoah vs Ohtani.....both threw 7 innings.  Manoah 4 hits, 1 ER, Ohtani 2 hits, 0 ER.  Great game.

That somehow still ended up at 3:20...the final two innings were ridiculous.  I love the ball park experience, and sometimes the game is secondary, but I'd still like to be able to do other stuff during my day.

Soccer is usually two hours in and out...most NFL games fit into a 3 hour window.  Most NHL games are under 2 1/2.  NBA too.

That's what MLB is competing with.

I don't care what happens in that 2.5-3 hours...I know some games will be more interesting than others.   But I really need to get ramped up to commit more than three hours of my time to something like that.  Yeah, I will and do watch movies that are 3-4 hours...but I plan for it....and I don't do it every day.

EDIT: for the same reason I like the extra inning baserunner rule (regular season) - those games are indeed ending sooner...less TV time for the viewer, and save some pitchers at the same time...it's good for everybody.

[TheRockawayKid]

18 hours ago, stevis said:

Truth is it's less the game time than the pace.

I watched the Tom Seaver no-hitter on MLB Network over the winter, and pitchers got the ball back and threw. That was a game! Playing baseball without incentivizing the glance at the phone between every pitch will help.

To each their own on what they're willing to put up with for that.

Yes, this is what MLB wants to see. If there's a lot of "action," that's great, even if it takes five hours. But a 1-0 game with 5 combined hits shouldn't take 3:30. That's what they're going to cut down on. 

[JonnyCat]

1 hour ago, beerguy55 said:

I don't care what happens in that 2.5-3 hours...I know some games will be more interesting than others.   But I really need to get ramped up to commit more than three hours of my time to something like that.  Yeah, I will and do watch movies that are 3-4 hours...but I plan for it....and I don't do it every day.

I understand what you are saying. But even if you go back to the 1950's, the average game time was still about 2.5 hrs long. Now the average game time hovers around 3 hours. Were talking only a 30 minute difference. See for yourself: https://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/majors/misc.shtml

Are we just now starting to complain about the game times, when they have been relatively consistent for the past 70 years? Are the games longer now because of the longer commercial time outs between innings? Were they shorter years ago? IDK. That in and of itself could explain the longer games in recent years if in between inning times have increased. I don't think the actual game takes that much longer today. I think today's society is too impatient and constantly has to occupy any free time with doing something. People are just constantly filling their lives with distractions.

When I go to the ballpark, that's my entertainment for the night, the game. I don't care if it takes 2.5 hours or 3.5 hours (extra innings can be different if maybe you have work or a prior commitment the next day). I've committed to the night out and to the game. The time difference doesn't matter to me. I'm there for the game. And when I'm there, I'm not looking at my phone, I'm not figuring out what I'm going to do next, or who I'm going to text, or who I'm going to call, or what stupid video I'm going to watch, or what I'm going to post on Fakebook, or what Tik-Tok I'm going to watch/make, or what picture I must absolutely share with my friends so I can make them feel jealous that I'm doing something fun and they're not, or sharing that picture of what I'm eating because I'm so narcissistic to think that my life is so goddamn important I must feel the need to share it with all my followers, blah, blah, blah. I usually don't even bring my phone. I'm enjoying the game and the company of my wife/kids/friends, etc. We'll talk about the game, interact, you know, what we used to do before the magic box made everyone unsociable and incapable of human interaction, kindness, and decency.

I'm there for the game, and not anything else. IMO, it's not as much the length of the game, as it is societies short attention span.

[Scissors]

1 hour ago, JonnyCat said:

I understand what you are saying. But even if you go back to the 1950's, the average game time was still about 2.5 hrs long. Now the average game time hovers around 3 hours. Were talking only a 30 minute difference. See for yourself: https://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/majors/misc.shtml

Are we just now starting to complain about the game times, when they have been relatively consistent for the past 70 years? Are the games longer now because of the longer commercial time outs between innings? Were they shorter years ago? IDK. That in and of itself could explain the longer games in recent years if in between inning times have increased. I don't think the actual game takes that much longer today. I think today's society is too impatient and constantly has to occupy any free time with doing something. People are just constantly filling their lives with distractions.

When I go to the ballpark, that's my entertainment for the night, the game. I don't care if it takes 2.5 hours or 3.5 hours (extra innings can be different if maybe you have work or a prior commitment the next day). I've committed to the night out and to the game. The time difference doesn't matter to me. I'm there for the game. And when I'm there, I'm not looking at my phone, I'm not figuring out what I'm going to do next, or who I'm going to text, or who I'm going to call, or what stupid video I'm going to watch, or what I'm going to post on Fakebook, or what Tik-Tok I'm going to watch/make, or what picture I must absolutely share with my friends so I can make them feel jealous that I'm doing something fun and they're not, or sharing that picture of what I'm eating because I'm so narcissistic to think that my life is so goddamn important I must feel the need to share it with all my followers, blah, blah, blah. I usually don't even bring my phone. I'm enjoying the game and the company of my wife/kids/friends, etc. We'll talk about the game, interact, you know, what we used to do before the magic box made everyone unsociable and incapable of human interaction, kindness, and decency.

I'm there for the game, and not anything else. IMO, it's not as much the length of the game, as it is societies short attention span.

Ballpark is a night out, of course. But watching a game on TV? Nope. I have other stuff to do. Plus, the TV audience is who they're appealing to anyways.

[kylehutson]

ADD-boy checking in here.

1) I've always got some form of entertainment with me besides what's at-hand. It has to be something really engaging for me to concentrate on one thing. Work, home, whatever. When I'm umpiring, that's usually the longest I go without having *something* else to keep my brain moving. When I was in school, it was books. Now it's usually my phone. For example, I'm a huge Chiefs fan (even through many of the terrible years - I'm no bandwagon fan), and I still had my phone on most of the way through the Superbowl. In that regard, pace of play doesn't matter much.

2) I remember many years ago (before I discovered umpiring) what my favorite sport was. My reply was "to watch or to play?" I loved playing baseball, but it's quite frankly boring to watch, especially on TV. Going to the ballpark is a social event. You go, hang out with your friends, pitchers and batters are doing their thing, with the attendees oblivious to it all. You hear a bat crack. Everybody pays attention to see what happens. Then back to the socializing. Contrast that to a football game where you watch what's going on, then you watch the scoreboard to watch the replay for what you may have missed. Lather, rinse, repeat.

In today's society, I'd wager I'm more then norm than the uber inside-baseball fans.

What's my point? I don't know. I had one when I started, but then the ADD kicked in again.

[JonnyCat]

31 minutes ago, Scissors said:

Ballpark is a night out, of course. But watching a game on TV? Nope. I have other stuff to do. Plus, the TV audience is who they're appealing to anyways.

Regardless for me, if I'm committed to the game, in person or on TV, I don't give a crap if it's 2.5 hours or 3 hours. I'm committed to watch that game with my team and nothing else. I'm perfectly fine with idle time. It wouldn't matter if the game was 2 hours. Baseball is too boring for today's society. They are not going to make it more appealing by cutting 20 minutes off the game time. People aren't tuning in because it doesn't bode well with today's short attention span and constant distractions.

Now with that being said, I hardly watch pro sports any more, haven't for years. But for baseball, it's not because of game times or pace of play. The way the game is played on the professional level is what I grew up with, it's how the game is played. For me, until recently, it's largely remained the same. That to me is the beauty of baseball, its timeless appeal. That's my expectation of how the game is played. I don't need it to change because that's what its always been for me. The money and the changes are whats driving me away. It's like moving next to an airport and complaining it's too noisy. That's the way airports are, and you knew that going in.

The only reason pro sports wants to change is because of money. I understand that, and never begrudge someone a profit, but I don't like it, and I don't spend my money to support it.

[JonnyCat]

47 minutes ago, kylehutson said:

In today's society, I'd wager I'm more then norm than the uber inside-baseball fans.

You probably are. The opinions of the majority are driving the narrative.

If you were to ask me about what to change in baseball, pace of play would be waaaaaay down the list. I don't want the game to change. One of the reasons I don't watch football is because of the rule changes favoring offense.

What I do want from baseball is this: Lower the costs to attend a game. Stop with the hype. I don't need the endless rhetoric during games, the constant fawning over the big name players, the pre-game analysis, the in-game analysis, the post-game analysis, the constant speculation, the in-game interviews, the constant babbling (how I miss you Vin Scully), the elevation of sports player to celebrity status, and the long commercial breaks. I don't want the game to change at all, I want the idiots in charge to change. But I'm not driving the narrative, and they certainly won't sacrifice one bit of the almighty dollar to appease an dumb-ass like me. 

59 minutes ago, kylehutson said:

What's my point? I don't know. I had one when I started, but then the ADD kicked in again.

I'm sure it was a good one though! 

[SeeingEyeDog]

Baseball...America's past time. The definition being "America's favorite way to pass the time". You know, back in the days when we had "nothing to do". Well, it's a different time now. Americans now have "plenty to do". People aren't just on their phones at the ballpark because they need the stimulation in between plays...no. Wireless technology has forever torn down the wall between our professional lives and our personal lives. Many of us have indeed had to take business communications while at the ballpark. More importantly, there are so many more things vying for our entertainment dollars and entertainment attention. Baseball is a conversational game in a way other games are not. My Dad and I used to sit and watch games at the stadium with our eyes on the field and we would talk about girls, cars, European literature, films, etc...Listen to any baseball broadcast versus the other sports...Vin Scully made an artform out of digging up trivia on players (even non-Dodgers) and using that to fill the spaces in between pitches. "Guerrero now...with the count 0-2...calls for time. Guerrero 0 for 47 at home in night games on a Tuesday with a full moon. Frazier winds and deals...back in Brooklyn, we would say Pedro is due...CRACK! Guerrero rips it down the 1st base line and it's a fair ball!" Right on cue...

Morning radio said these new pitch clock rules have reduced spring training games by an average of 28 minutes. Other than @beerguy55, I don't know anyone who has said they are not going to the ballpark because the games take too long. And I suspect that a 28 minute reduction is NOT going to bring the masses back to baseball. Each owner has 81 chances to fill their ballpark. If you didn't sell out the game? Your prices were too high.

Here's year over year league attendance going back to 1889, if you like: https://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/majors/misc.shtml

MLB attendance peaked in 2007 (MLB's last expansion was 1998 bringing them to 30 teams) with 79.4M fans attending games. 2022 attendance was down to 64.5 million. That's nearly a 20 percent decline and of course, attendance is still recovering from the impact of COVID. I don't think a 28 minute reduction in pace of play is going to close a nearly 15 million fan drop in attendance.

In closing, while I applaud the gamesmanship...if F2s are going to stand up or otherwise disconcert the batter or render F1 unable to deliver the baseball, that should not be a strike on the batter. That should be a ball to the batter for "delay of game" or the catcher "not being alert" to the pitcher.

~Dawg