This is a late comment because, ironically enough, I went to an MLB game last night….
I used to think that JVL’s (and JS’s) comments on the pitch clock (and other baseball rules changes) were mostly tongue-in-cheek, given the almost apocalyptic nature of the comments (“ruining the game”). But this has come up so often that I wonder if may…
This is a late comment because, ironically enough, I went to an MLB game last night….
I used to think that JVL’s (and JS’s) comments on the pitch clock (and other baseball rules changes) were mostly tongue-in-cheek, given the almost apocalyptic nature of the comments (“ruining the game”). But this has come up so often that I wonder if maybe they truly believe that the pitch clock is really as bad as they portray it.
The batch of baseball rules changes can be divided into two basic camps, those that affect the way the game is actually played (DH, limited pickoff throws, no shift, extra-inning rules, etc.) and those that don’t (limited mound visits and the pitch clock). [Note: I’m not sure where to put the “three batter minimum” rule because while it doesn’t affect the actual play, it does affect managerial strategy.] I’m not a big fan of the first group of rule changes. So if I had a vote, I’d can them.
But the pitch clock is, in my opinion, an unmitigated good. All it does is shorten the time between pitches. It doesn’t affect the play of the game in any way. So I have to ask: exactly why is it such a bad idea (I’m honestly asking because I cannot think of any reason to oppose it)?
I like to play golf, but I hate playing with slow people. Would anyone rather play with a group that basically just gets up there and hits the ball or a group who acts like their playing in the final round of The Masters? And even the PGA penalizes players for slow play.
And my response to the “because I guess you want to get done with the joy of baseball and back to the drudgery of life quicker” statement is that it’s not the right question. Consider this: MLB games are now about 30 minutes shorter than they were last year. Given that the other rules changes have likely added some offense (which adds to the game time), this means that they have eliminated at least 30 minutes of DEAD TIME. How much “joy” is there in 30 minutes of literally dead time? So no matter what level of drudgery any particular person has in their life, I don’t understand why anyone would want to spend 30 minutes basically watching the grass grow.
We’re not giving up any “joy of baseball” – we’re giving up dead time. It’s sort of equivalent to allowing each NBA team an additional 12 time outs during a game (each time out lasts 75 seconds). Who would want that? It would just lengthen the game without adding any action.
Today’s game lengths are on par with what they were forty years ago. And the only reason that the games have gotten longer is that the players have added so much dead time. Baseball had a lot of “joy” for me back then.
This is a late comment because, ironically enough, I went to an MLB game last night….
I used to think that JVL’s (and JS’s) comments on the pitch clock (and other baseball rules changes) were mostly tongue-in-cheek, given the almost apocalyptic nature of the comments (“ruining the game”). But this has come up so often that I wonder if maybe they truly believe that the pitch clock is really as bad as they portray it.
The batch of baseball rules changes can be divided into two basic camps, those that affect the way the game is actually played (DH, limited pickoff throws, no shift, extra-inning rules, etc.) and those that don’t (limited mound visits and the pitch clock). [Note: I’m not sure where to put the “three batter minimum” rule because while it doesn’t affect the actual play, it does affect managerial strategy.] I’m not a big fan of the first group of rule changes. So if I had a vote, I’d can them.
But the pitch clock is, in my opinion, an unmitigated good. All it does is shorten the time between pitches. It doesn’t affect the play of the game in any way. So I have to ask: exactly why is it such a bad idea (I’m honestly asking because I cannot think of any reason to oppose it)?
I like to play golf, but I hate playing with slow people. Would anyone rather play with a group that basically just gets up there and hits the ball or a group who acts like their playing in the final round of The Masters? And even the PGA penalizes players for slow play.
And my response to the “because I guess you want to get done with the joy of baseball and back to the drudgery of life quicker” statement is that it’s not the right question. Consider this: MLB games are now about 30 minutes shorter than they were last year. Given that the other rules changes have likely added some offense (which adds to the game time), this means that they have eliminated at least 30 minutes of DEAD TIME. How much “joy” is there in 30 minutes of literally dead time? So no matter what level of drudgery any particular person has in their life, I don’t understand why anyone would want to spend 30 minutes basically watching the grass grow.
We’re not giving up any “joy of baseball” – we’re giving up dead time. It’s sort of equivalent to allowing each NBA team an additional 12 time outs during a game (each time out lasts 75 seconds). Who would want that? It would just lengthen the game without adding any action.
Today’s game lengths are on par with what they were forty years ago. And the only reason that the games have gotten longer is that the players have added so much dead time. Baseball had a lot of “joy” for me back then.
QED