Extra Inning Rule

[Texsox]

I like the idea of trying to end extra inning games sooner but runner on 2nd in the 10th? Not so much. Two sacs and a win seems hollow.

Couple ideas that might be better (besides leave it alone)

Three balls for a walk.

Or

10th inning regular

11th runner on 1st

12th runner on 2nd 

Or

Home run shootout if we're going to make this a circus sideshow.

And pinning a loss on a pitcher who didn't allow the winning run on base is wrong on so many levels.

[flavum]

I posted this in the other thread:

The extra inning rule with a man on 2nd. Watching MLB Network earlier, and Mark DeRosa nailed it— if they were going to do it, start it in the 12th inning. Play real baseball for at least 2 more innings.

And he’s right. This is unscientific, but I looked at last year’s first 60 games for each team, and the average team played 5 extra inning games and 11 total extra innings (rounded up). Most games that go to extras, end in 10 or 11 anyway, so that would have been the way to go. Me personally? I would have no problem with ties after 12, but if they’re going to play the man on 2nd thing, start it in the 12th.

[southsider2k5]

48 minutes ago, flavum said:

I posted this in the other thread:

The extra inning rule with a man on 2nd. Watching MLB Network earlier, and Mark DeRosa nailed it— if they were going to do it, start it in the 12th inning. Play real baseball for at least 2 more innings.

And he’s right. This is unscientific, but I looked at last year’s first 60 games for each team, and the average team played 5 extra inning games and 11 total extra innings (rounded up). Most games that go to extras, end in 10 or 11 anyway, so that would have been the way to go. Me personally? I would have no problem with ties after 12, but if they’re going to play the man on 2nd thing, start it in the 12th.

This would be better.

[Leonard Zelig]

Is that rule change only for this season?

[flavum]

3 minutes ago, Leonard Zelig said:

Is that rule change only for this season?

Yes, they want to limit the exposure time, so trying to avoid 14+ inning games. Hopefully this is just a one year rule. 

[Leonard Zelig]

3 minutes ago, flavum said:

Yes, they want to limit the exposure time, so trying to avoid 14+ inning games. Hopefully this is just a one year rule. 

Good, hopefully this trial shows this to be a bad idea. 

[Texsox]

I'd like to see it change for the last ten games. Imagine having a playoff berth decided by an extra inning parody.

[poppysox]

3 hours ago, flavum said:

I posted this in the other thread:

The extra inning rule with a man on 2nd. Watching MLB Network earlier, and Mark DeRosa nailed it— if they were going to do it, start it in the 12th inning. Play real baseball for at least 2 more innings.

And he’s right. This is unscientific, but I looked at last year’s first 60 games for each team, and the average team played 5 extra inning games and 11 total extra innings (rounded up). Most games that go to extras, end in 10 or 11 anyway, so that would have been the way to go. Me personally? I would have no problem with ties after 12, but if they’re going to play the man on 2nd thing, start it in the 12th.

The powers that be really need to stop jacking around with the game.  This man on second stuff is not baseball.

[iWiN4PreP]

This was an awful rule change. People in this thread have significantly better ideas here. 

[oldsox]

40 minutes ago, iWiN4PreP said:

This was an awful rule change. People in this thread have significantly better ideas here. 

Owners aren't in this thread.  That explains the stupidity of the rule.

[ChiSoxJon]

3 hours ago, poppysox said:

The powers that be really need to stop jacking around with the game.  This man on second stuff is not baseball.

Like it or hate it (It's disgraceful to me), it ain't baseball

How does this impact stats by the way? GrandSlam but only 3 RBIs? What about ERA? Comical