Ghost runner rule now permanent

[Harry Chappas]

1 hour ago, Squirmin' for Yermin said:

Do people enjoy the college football overtime rules (ball starts on 35, first team to score more than the other, going back to back, wins).  This is the exact same thing, but in baseball form.

What has been done to the NCAA playoff system is a disgrace they should just go back to ties. 

[wegner]

This bullshit rule is just confusing....I turn on the game in the 10th excited that Josh Harrison led off the inning with a double and then realize that all he did was make the last out in the 9th.

[Superstar Lamar]

If they are going to insist on this rule, teams should be required to hand out orange slices and juice boxes to everyone after the game

[wegner]

8 minutes ago, Superstar Lamar said:

If they are going to insist on this rule, teams should be required to hand out orange slices and juice boxes to everyone after the game

I'm all for participation trophies in MLB, but they'd probably be announced on ESPN so our Sox would never get any.

[flavum]

Don’t understand why they couldn’t play regular baseball in the 10th and 11th, when most extra inning games end anyway.

I’ll be turning the game off after the 9th. These are coin flip games. Hopefully better teams win most of these in the long run, and when the Sox are good, they win the majority. I won’t be watching.

[Eminor3rd]

7 hours ago, TheBooneLoganEra said:

It puts the home team at an immediate disadvantage. The road team gets to hit with a tie score and generally, less pressure in the top half of the inning. Whereas in most instances, the home team will be playing for a tie, and a more pressure filled half inning. 

There have been some quality baseball games I've watched where when this rule takes effect the whole tone of the game changes. Well pitched or defensively sound games go sideways and it detracts from the games integrity. There are many downsides if you choose to examine it. 

This doesn’t make sense. It increases each team’s chance to score equally, and then the normal forces of the game situation take place. Differences in the home/away dynamic are already present on instances where the away team scores… it just now is more likely to happen sooner. But it’s also easier for the home team to defend, with or without more pressure. And if you think getting the first bite at it in the top of the tenth confers an advantage, you also have to acknowledge the even greater advantage of being the home team in the bottom half of the inning in instances where the away team fails to score in the top.

Separately, what are the “many downsides”?

[Kyyle23]

I get that they want to reduce game times but it sucks that they haven’t even gotten to the pitch clock yet and this is already coded into the system.  

[Balta1701]

13 minutes ago, Kyyle23 said:

I get that they want to reduce game times but it sucks that they haven’t even gotten to the pitch clock yet and this is already coded into the system.  

As far as I can tell the big league pitch clock starts this year? Are you just saying it’s disappointing they set this one up first?

[southsider2k5]

I have not heard this one before, but apparently some call the extra inning runner the Manfred Man, and I am here for it.

[Kyyle23]

2 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

As far as I can tell the big league pitch clock starts this year? Are you just saying it’s disappointing they set this one up first?

Yea, pitch clock should have been introduced way before 12” international softball extra inning rules were 

[Eminor3rd]

2 hours ago, Quin said:

Nah. I dislike when the rules of a game change in overtime.

I don’t think anyone is looking at this like “let’s change baseball because we feel like it needs tinkering.” But this change makes sense for the same reason college football overtime makes sense: the likelihood of scoring in each possession is low in both sports, so an indefinite tiebreaker can last way too long. For baseball, this was fine when a two hour game could stretch to a three hour game, but the reality of MLB today is that the average game length is already long enough that the typical fan can barely fit it into their day. Die hards like all of us don’t care, but we have to realize that it’s bad for the game if it bleeds fans, and it’s really hard to maintain or grow internet in a product where your average consumption involves giving up on the game before it ends.

I see this change as taking a handful more games per year accessible to the average fan to watch, and allowing thousands of fans to stick it out to the end of a game instead of bailing early, which is huge because that game will probably be the only one that most of those fans attend in the whole year. 

[Lip Man 1]

Excellent take on the new rules and what it is doing to the game itself:

https://www.southsidesox.com/2023/2/14/23598790/mlb-rules-changes-against-endless-tweaking-keep-baseball-from-becoming-football

[Chick Mercedes]

23 hours ago, Squirmin' for Yermin said:

It was awesome.  Absolutely loved it.  Game is too slow, and takes too long.  This adds instant action

It’s fake baseball. May as well have them play dodgeball in the outfield for the win.

[Dick Allen]

1 hour ago, Eminor3rd said:

I don’t think anyone is looking at this like “let’s change baseball because we feel like it needs tinkering.” But this change makes sense for the same reason college football overtime makes sense: the likelihood of scoring in each possession is low in both sports, so an indefinite tiebreaker can last way too long. For baseball, this was fine when a two hour game could stretch to a three hour game, but the reality of MLB today is that the average game length is already long enough that the typical fan can barely fit it into their day. Die hards like all of us don’t care, but we have to realize that it’s bad for the game if it bleeds fans, and it’s really hard to maintain or grow internet in a product where your average consumption involves giving up on the game before it ends.

I see this change as taking a handful more games per year accessible to the average fan to watch, and allowing thousands of fans to stick it out to the end of a game instead of bailing early, which is huge because that game will probably be the only one that most of those fans attend in the whole year. 

The length of the games should drop significantly this year. I think, since most concession stands have been closed up, beer sales have stopped, the teams couldn't care less how many people are in the stands for the 13th inning. The rule is there so they won't burn pitchers. If that's the case, why not do it in the postseason as well? 

[wegner]

1 hour ago, southsider2k5 said:

I have not heard this one before, but apparently some call the extra inning runner the Manfred Man, and I am here for it.

 

[ChiSox59]

1 hour ago, Eminor3rd said:

I don’t think anyone is looking at this like “let’s change baseball because we feel like it needs tinkering.” But this change makes sense for the same reason college football overtime makes sense: the likelihood of scoring in each possession is low in both sports, so an indefinite tiebreaker can last way too long. For baseball, this was fine when a two hour game could stretch to a three hour game, but the reality of MLB today is that the average game length is already long enough that the typical fan can barely fit it into their day. Die hards like all of us don’t care, but we have to realize that it’s bad for the game if it bleeds fans, and it’s really hard to maintain or grow internet in a product where your average consumption involves giving up on the game before it ends.

I see this change as taking a handful more games per year accessible to the average fan to watch, and allowing thousands of fans to stick it out to the end of a game instead of bailing early, which is huge because that game will probably be the only one that most of those fans attend in the whole year. 

There are better ways to speed up the game though.  Pitch clock (coming), cutting down on pitching changes (already in effect), shorter commercial breaks (god forbid!), making the batters stay in the box (and actually enforce it).  I could go on.

It is what it is, and I get how marathon games aren't great for the players but at least give the game 2 more innings to finish organically before this BS.  

[4uckOffCommieScum]

28 minutes ago, wegner said:

 

I was thinking more a long the lines of do wah diddy dumb, diddy do

[wegner]

11 minutes ago, FourEyesShottenhoffer said:

I was thinking more a long the lines of do wah diddy dumb, diddy do

Yeah but I don't think the phantom runner looks good or looks fine but I am about to lose my mind that this is a permanent rule change.

[Chick Mercedes]

2 minutes ago, wegner said:

Yeah but I don't think the phantom runner looks good or looks fine but I am about to lose my mind that this is a permanent rule change.

If there has to be change, change the definition of game to 13 innings, whatever, and deal with ties in the standings. Just do it. Changing the competition itself is very disturbing.

[Big Hurtin]

3 hours ago, southsider2k5 said:

I have not heard this one before, but apparently some call the extra inning runner the Manfred Man, and I am here for it.

 

[FloydBannister1983]

On 2/13/2023 at 12:35 PM, ChiSox59 said:

I think its purely to avoid the handful of marathon games each season that obviously the players hate, the staff hates, and it ruins pens for weeks.  But its rare, and it stupid to ruin all extra inning games for that.

Start the rule in the 12th.  I could live with that.  

I guess I "get it", but still hate it.  

Nothing too wrong with calling a game a tie.

[FloydBannister1983]

On 2/13/2023 at 1:00 PM, CaliSoxFanViaSWside said:

I agree. No reason to burn a bunch of arms in a long season because of extra innings games especially if you happen to be one of those teams that goes too extra innings often. This isn't the old days when pitchers could throw so many innings. Most relievers are good for only 1 inning these days.

You can't be a traditionalist if the game has changed and it has.

You can’t be a traditionalist if you hate many of the ways the game has changed?  
 

I would rather the game end in a tie.

[FloydBannister1983]

22 hours ago, Superstar Lamar said:

I'd rather end in ties than continue with this rule

Agreed wholeheartedly.

[Iwritecode]

40 minutes ago, FloydBannister1983 said:

Nothing too wrong with calling a game a tie.

 

36 minutes ago, FloydBannister1983 said:

You can’t be a traditionalist if you hate many of the ways the game has changed?  
 

I would rather the game end in a tie.

 

28 minutes ago, FloydBannister1983 said:

Agreed wholeheartedly.

 

I'm a little unclear on your position about games ending in ties...

[southsider2k5]

The word "traditionalist" gets thrown around too much in baseball.  I don't know why we pretend that baseball rules have always been the same, but that isn't really the case.

Some of the early rules of baseball included...

-playing until someone scored 21 times.

-The original distance between bases was 42 paces

-Strikes weren't originally a thing.  Then umpires had to warn players to swing at good pitches before calling a strike.

-Not only was a flyball an out, but also if caught on the first bounce

-No provisions for balls or walks were made

-For a 20 year period you could request a high or low pitch.

-Pitches were done underhand

-for a long time ground rule doubles of today were home runs

My wonder isn't with trying to adjust to changes in the game, it is that i swear I read somewhere that this didn't actually reduce the number of pitches thrown in extra inning games at all once all of the extra offense was factored in.