Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 44

Thread: Proposed MLB Rule Changes To Speed Up Games

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Westminster, CO
    Adopted Bronco:
    Phillip, Demaryius, Derek, Shane, Von,
    Posts
    47,828

    Default Proposed MLB Rule Changes To Speed Up Games

    (CBS NY/CBS Local) — Baseball, considered timeless by many, has a problem with time. The pace of play is too slow, and the games take too long. The average MLB game now clocks in at a few minutes over three hours, with around 20 minutes of actual action. Considering each team will play 162 games between late March and late September, that’s a lot of waiting around for something to happen.

    In a saturated entertainment market, sports and otherwise, why watch a baseball game when you can catch the highlights?

    Sports fans are faced with this question almost every day of the regular season, with MLB (and presumably the MLBPA) hoping to keep eyeballs glued to the live action. Recently proposed (and re-proposed) rule changes might help some, even if they ultimately feel like tinkering around the edges. Let’s look at the proposals on the table.
    rest - https://denver.cbslocal.com/2019/02/...atter-minimum/

    Thanks to MasterShake for my great signature
    Rest in Peace - Demaryius (88) - Darrent (27) - Damien (29) - Kenny (11)
    #7 - JOHN - #44 - FLOYD - #80 - ROD
    THIS ONES FOR JOHN
    WOULD YOU RATHER WIN UGLY, OR LOSE PRETTY?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    The Rock of Eternity
    Adopted Bronco:
    Drew Lock
    Posts
    16,031

    Default

    All GREAT ideas, wow
    "I may not be a mathematician, but I can count to a million." - Shannon Sharpe

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Adopted Bronco:
    Pat Bowlen
    Posts
    97,306

    Default

    Pitch clock and real enforcement of it (it’s already a rule) is the only proposal that will have a meaningful impact on time.
    *The statements above are my opinions, unless they are links, because then they are links, which wouldn't make them my opinions, and I suppose stats aren't necessarily opinion, but they are certainly presented to support an opinion. Proceed accordingly.

    Quote Originally Posted by Buff View Post
    What is this, amateur hour? It's TNF against the Jets and you didn't think you'd need extra booze?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Adopted Bronco:
    Demaryius Thomas
    Posts
    31,262

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MOtorboat View Post
    Pitch clock and real enforcement of it (it’s already a rule) is the only proposal that will have a meaningful impact on time.
    Didn't they also claim that they were going to start making batters keep one foot in the box? It seems like it was already a rule but was never enforced and they talked about enforcing it or maybe they talked about making it a rule? I can't remember exactly but seems like there was something about that. I think between pitchers taking their sweet time and batters step out and going through their little routines after every pitch there could be some time shaved off the games there.

    I don't mind the pace of the game to be honest. I like baseball just the way it is.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Adopted Bronco:
    Pat Bowlen
    Posts
    97,306

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chazoe60 View Post
    Didn't they also claim that they were going to start making batters keep one foot in the box? It seems like it was already a rule but was never enforced and they talked about enforcing it or maybe they talked about making it a rule? I can't remember exactly but seems like there was something about that. I think between pitchers taking their sweet time and batters step out and going through their little routines after every pitch there could be some time shaved off the games there.

    I don't mind the pace of the game to be honest. I like baseball just the way it is.
    Yeah, they loosely enforced it for about two months when it was implemented two (?, three?) years ago, and then never really did anything. All the time rules are on the books, and if they’d just enforce them there’d be less of a problem. Regulating relievers batters-faced numbers I really hate, and I don’t think that will have much affect on speeding up the game. Of all the proposals, that’s the one I don’t want to see. And it could have an unintended consequence: If you’ve got a bad bullpen, and you’re forced to leave pitchers in for at least three batters it could compound the time problem if they’re getting beat to a pulp.
    *The statements above are my opinions, unless they are links, because then they are links, which wouldn't make them my opinions, and I suppose stats aren't necessarily opinion, but they are certainly presented to support an opinion. Proceed accordingly.

    Quote Originally Posted by Buff View Post
    What is this, amateur hour? It's TNF against the Jets and you didn't think you'd need extra booze?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Panama
    Adopted Bronco:
    The Albino Rhino
    Posts
    9,816

    Default

    Instead of some of the dumb ideas I've seen, they can shave 30-45 minutes off the average game time and not alter anything else but this one change - start the count at 1-and-1. Or, put another way, make three balls a walk and two strikes a strikeout. They can then do everything just as they do now except forcing the result to happen in fewer pitches. It will seem strange at first but everyone will adapt and all the records in the record book can stay just the way they are. The boredom comes in the 10-15 minutes it sometimes to takes to get a result on an at bat. Statheads have figured out that if the batters wait out the pitchers, they'll reach their pitch count max in the 6th or 7th and have three innings to beat up the bullpen. Til then, they'll try to extend the at bat by any means necessary before actually putting the ball in play.
    I miss the old Mile High Stadium.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Adopted Bronco:
    Pat Bowlen
    Posts
    97,306

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OrangeHoof View Post
    Instead of some of the dumb ideas I've seen, they can shave 30-45 minutes off the average game time and not alter anything else but this one change - start the count at 1-and-1. Or, put another way, make three balls a walk and two strikes a strikeout. They can then do everything just as they do now except forcing the result to happen in fewer pitches. It will seem strange at first but everyone will adapt and all the records in the record book can stay just the way they are. The boredom comes in the 10-15 minutes it sometimes to takes to get a result on an at bat. Statheads have figured out that if the batters wait out the pitchers, they'll reach their pitch count max in the 6th or 7th and have three innings to beat up the bullpen. Til then, they'll try to extend the at bat by any means necessary before actually putting the ball in play.
    That's pretty much the worst idea I've seen. Congrats.
    *The statements above are my opinions, unless they are links, because then they are links, which wouldn't make them my opinions, and I suppose stats aren't necessarily opinion, but they are certainly presented to support an opinion. Proceed accordingly.

    Quote Originally Posted by Buff View Post
    What is this, amateur hour? It's TNF against the Jets and you didn't think you'd need extra booze?

  8. The Following 3 Users High Fived MOtorboat For This Post:


  9. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Adopted Bronco:
    Demaryius Thomas
    Posts
    31,262

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OrangeHoof View Post
    Instead of some of the dumb ideas I've seen, they can shave 30-45 minutes off the average game time and not alter anything else but this one change - start the count at 1-and-1. Or, put another way, make three balls a walk and two strikes a strikeout. They can then do everything just as they do now except forcing the result to happen in fewer pitches. It will seem strange at first but everyone will adapt and all the records in the record book can stay just the way they are. The boredom comes in the 10-15 minutes it sometimes to takes to get a result on an at bat. Statheads have figured out that if the batters wait out the pitchers, they'll reach their pitch count max in the 6th or 7th and have three innings to beat up the bullpen. Til then, they'll try to extend the at bat by any means necessary before actually putting the ball in play.
    So just fundamentally change the entire game? Yeah, that's a God dammed terrible idea. It's not beer league softball it's the mother ******* major leagues.

  10. #9

    Default

    I’d still be ok with only 7 innings.

  11. #10

    Default

    Would be nice to make three the number for both balls and strikes.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaded View Post
    Y’all know I’m an OL Groupie but I think Jeudy is going to be worth missing out on a T, knock on wood.

  12. #11
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Baltimore, MD
    Adopted Bronco:
    Ray Finkel
    Posts
    86,712

    Default

    I have no problem with MLB, dont watch it so no time wasted.

  13. The Following User High Fived Northman For This Post:


  14. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Adopted Bronco:
    Mister Cobble
    Posts
    53,562

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Northman View Post
    I have no problem with MLB, dont watch it so no time wasted.
    Except for the time you forced us to waste reading this pointless post.

  15. The Following 3 Users High Fived BroncoWave For This Post:


  16. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by King87 View Post
    Would be nice to make three the number for both balls and strikes.
    This is why Mo hits you.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaded View Post
    Y’all know I’m an OL Groupie but I think Jeudy is going to be worth missing out on a T, knock on wood.

  17. #14
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Baltimore, MD
    Adopted Bronco:
    Ray Finkel
    Posts
    86,712

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BroncoWave View Post
    Except for the time you forced us to waste reading this pointless post.
    You love my posts, just admit it already.

  18. #15

    Default

    Mo - for the reliever thing, what about a compromise where if the reliever gives up a hit or a walk he can be pulled? Would that help at all?
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaded View Post
    Y’all know I’m an OL Groupie but I think Jeudy is going to be worth missing out on a T, knock on wood.

Go
Shop AFC Champions and Super Bowl gear at the official online Pro Shop of the Denver Broncos!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Proposed rule changes
    By GEM in forum Broncos Talk
    Replies: 66
    Last Post: 03-28-2014, 03:11 AM
  2. Coaches cry foul over proposed rule
    By Denver Native (Carol) in forum High School and College
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-21-2014, 05:28 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
status.broncosforums.com - BroncosForums status updates
Partner with the USA Today Sports Media Group