I may just sound like the "get off my lawn" old fella, or maybe I just fall in a class of baseball traditionalists, but I hate the proposed rule changes. Baseball is a game that sadly is falling behind, the NBA and NFL are stealing the hearts of Americans and the world due to their changing roles in social media and player recognition. Baseball used to be known as America's past time, the sport that got all the summer attention and was able to get us all through the dog days of summer and connect us to the sports of fall. We now live in an era where attention spans are thinned, instead of sitting down with a cold beer and watching a ball game, we spend our summers breaking down the offensive lines of our football teams, or discussing why our favourite basketball player is picking fights on the internet. I will take a second and tip my cap to those holding the keys to the baseball world however, as they are understanding the challenges ahead and are attempting to alter the way the game is played for the better. Unfortunately, I strongly dislike the approaches being taken... and here's why.
We all know that it takes a true baseball fan, or maybe even a wager on a team, for a fan to be fully engaged in a 9 inning baseball game. However, the efforts being made by MLB are going to shave off a handful of minutes at best, jeopardizing the roots of the game for a few minutes that will not suck in the average fan. According to USA Today, the average length of a baseball game is 3 hours and 5 minutes, in comparison to the NHL or NBA this is about half of an hour above their average game. Although this does not sound great, the interesting thing is that an NFL game takes roughly 3 hours 12 minutes.... and is the highest grossing sport of the big four. So we know the length of the game is not the issue, fans have no problem allocating 2.5-3.5 hours to follow or watch a game, therefore it is what is on the field of play. Baseball is the only of the four major sports without some sort of intermission or break, and this is not something that will be implemented anytime soon because rest is not as desperately needed.
So why is MLB's suggestion to induce pitch clocks, or minimum batters faced? At best, these pitch clocks will shave off a few minutes and will still average much higher than their competitors. So what really is the issue? REPLAYS. Do not get me wrong, I love the replay system in baseball, and although it is sometimes used for reasons it should not, I am all for getting the call right and making sure the game of inches is correctly played. Where I take issue with replays is the length of said reviews. I thought I was alone and stupid for thinking this, until I heard Trevor Bauer of the Cleveland Indians speak on it during Barstool's "Starting 9" podcast. The discussions of pace of play are as old as the replay system in baseball, instead of setting a timer on the pitchers, lets set it on the review system. Often enough fans are left wondering what is taking replay so long, and with the possibility of multiple replays occurring per game, the game is dragged on. My suggestion is, scrap that bull crap where coaches wait to decide on a challenge, and then once the challenge is called upon, start a one minute timer. The replay system in New York is elite, with many angles and screens to show the play. A minute is more than enough time to decide on a play on the field, and if no evidence is found in that time? Inconclusive.
The next issue at hand is this proposal of a minimum batters faced by a pitcher. Wow. Where to start with this one? Well, first off, this just totally removes the control from the manager, especially when the game is on the line. Baseball is wonderful because of the analytics and stats at hand, lefties and righties battling in situations based on this large chunk of data. But now I cannot bring in my lefty specialist when I would like. The situations that provoke these discussions happen in the postseason for the most part, when rosters consist of 40 players and the bullpens are deep. In the postseason these events can be excused, because everything is on the line, a team did not grind 162 games just to be robbed a title due to some rule that will hardly save time at all. In the regular season, a player rarely faces less than two batters unless he is ending an inning or gets taken deep. So why is this a rule? I would rather suggest less warmup pitches, thus resulting in no commercial break, and hardly any delay in the game. If a manager can foresee a matchup that he deems favourable to him, he will have more than enough time to ensure his guys in the bullpen are prepared, so injuries will not be an issue. Where injuries are an issue is when they become faked. Am I wrong to think that guys will potentially pull themselves from games with an "injury" when they are getting shelled and do not want to face the minimum batters? There are loopholes in this rule to begin with, and again, the efforts to speed up the game are hurting it a hell of a lot more than helping it.
Baseball is a traditional game, if you grew up around baseball you love and appreciate the sound that comes off a wood bat, the smell of hot dogs and especially the strategy that comes into play. There are so many things that make baseball, baseball. I understand why the MLB board feels the pressure to adapt, but if baseball is a dying sport then let it die happily. Adjusting the game in these regards just kills the way it is meant to be played. I am usually the number one advocate for change, the 3-point line was a fantastic add to basketball, just as the forward pass was to football, yet the proposed changes to baseball are not changes that will further the game like these. The changes at hand are for the people off the field not on it, and at the end of the day these changes hardly make a dent into the 3 hour games we are so accustomed to as it is.
We all know that it takes a true baseball fan, or maybe even a wager on a team, for a fan to be fully engaged in a 9 inning baseball game. However, the efforts being made by MLB are going to shave off a handful of minutes at best, jeopardizing the roots of the game for a few minutes that will not suck in the average fan. According to USA Today, the average length of a baseball game is 3 hours and 5 minutes, in comparison to the NHL or NBA this is about half of an hour above their average game. Although this does not sound great, the interesting thing is that an NFL game takes roughly 3 hours 12 minutes.... and is the highest grossing sport of the big four. So we know the length of the game is not the issue, fans have no problem allocating 2.5-3.5 hours to follow or watch a game, therefore it is what is on the field of play. Baseball is the only of the four major sports without some sort of intermission or break, and this is not something that will be implemented anytime soon because rest is not as desperately needed.
So why is MLB's suggestion to induce pitch clocks, or minimum batters faced? At best, these pitch clocks will shave off a few minutes and will still average much higher than their competitors. So what really is the issue? REPLAYS. Do not get me wrong, I love the replay system in baseball, and although it is sometimes used for reasons it should not, I am all for getting the call right and making sure the game of inches is correctly played. Where I take issue with replays is the length of said reviews. I thought I was alone and stupid for thinking this, until I heard Trevor Bauer of the Cleveland Indians speak on it during Barstool's "Starting 9" podcast. The discussions of pace of play are as old as the replay system in baseball, instead of setting a timer on the pitchers, lets set it on the review system. Often enough fans are left wondering what is taking replay so long, and with the possibility of multiple replays occurring per game, the game is dragged on. My suggestion is, scrap that bull crap where coaches wait to decide on a challenge, and then once the challenge is called upon, start a one minute timer. The replay system in New York is elite, with many angles and screens to show the play. A minute is more than enough time to decide on a play on the field, and if no evidence is found in that time? Inconclusive.
The next issue at hand is this proposal of a minimum batters faced by a pitcher. Wow. Where to start with this one? Well, first off, this just totally removes the control from the manager, especially when the game is on the line. Baseball is wonderful because of the analytics and stats at hand, lefties and righties battling in situations based on this large chunk of data. But now I cannot bring in my lefty specialist when I would like. The situations that provoke these discussions happen in the postseason for the most part, when rosters consist of 40 players and the bullpens are deep. In the postseason these events can be excused, because everything is on the line, a team did not grind 162 games just to be robbed a title due to some rule that will hardly save time at all. In the regular season, a player rarely faces less than two batters unless he is ending an inning or gets taken deep. So why is this a rule? I would rather suggest less warmup pitches, thus resulting in no commercial break, and hardly any delay in the game. If a manager can foresee a matchup that he deems favourable to him, he will have more than enough time to ensure his guys in the bullpen are prepared, so injuries will not be an issue. Where injuries are an issue is when they become faked. Am I wrong to think that guys will potentially pull themselves from games with an "injury" when they are getting shelled and do not want to face the minimum batters? There are loopholes in this rule to begin with, and again, the efforts to speed up the game are hurting it a hell of a lot more than helping it.
Baseball is a traditional game, if you grew up around baseball you love and appreciate the sound that comes off a wood bat, the smell of hot dogs and especially the strategy that comes into play. There are so many things that make baseball, baseball. I understand why the MLB board feels the pressure to adapt, but if baseball is a dying sport then let it die happily. Adjusting the game in these regards just kills the way it is meant to be played. I am usually the number one advocate for change, the 3-point line was a fantastic add to basketball, just as the forward pass was to football, yet the proposed changes to baseball are not changes that will further the game like these. The changes at hand are for the people off the field not on it, and at the end of the day these changes hardly make a dent into the 3 hour games we are so accustomed to as it is.
Comments
Post a Comment