Tiger337

42 minutes ago, Deleterious said:

 

Things people need to survive going up more than luxuries.  

1 hour ago, tiger2022 said:

A home run contest to decide the game....kind of as ludicrous as soccer having a shootout at the end...not that I watch soccer or care about it at all.

They tried in the minors a few years ago.  They used in the allstar game last year and fans loved it.  It's stupid, but I wouldn't rule out them trying in the MLB regular season some time in the future.    

7 minutes ago, monkeytargets39 said:

Probably not.  If it’s an average of 4 games per year, why do we need a Manfred runner at all then?  Trying to solve a problem that doesn’t really exist.  I kind of understood during the perspective of COVID, but we are past that now.

According to AI, the majority of fans do not like the rule.  I am not sure that's true, but I think that the majority of avid fans don't like it.  The players like it, so maybe do it after 11 innings?  I still wouldn't like it, but if they have to do it, after 11 innings is better than after 9 innings.  

11 minutes ago, monkeytargets39 said:

Im not a fan of games ending in ties, but it is probably the most pure way to do it outside of just playing extras until one team wins.

If they call a tie after 11 innings, there would not be that many of them.  Before the rule change, 9.5% of games went extra innings, but only 2.5% went beyond 11 innings.  2.5% is an average of 4 games per year for every team.  

Are they really saving bullpens by what they are doing?  There seems to be just as many injuries if not more than ever.  

4 minutes ago, monkeytargets39 said:

My question would be just how many games were really going beyond maybe 11 innings prior?  Was it really so much that they had to bastardize the concept of the game with the extra runner?  If it’s that important to end the game quickly if it’s tied after regulation, then just do a 1-on-1 homerun derby and whichever teams player hits the most HR after 10 or 20 pitches wins.  The MLB equivalent of an NHL shootout

Tango doesn't like the home run derby idea beause he says a home run contest is something that never happens in a real game whereas trying to get a runner home from second happens all the time.  Anyway, amost all his readers disliked the idea of the extra inning base runner. 

I think there are solutions to the bullpen protection issue which don't involve bastardizing the game.  Expanding rosters like you said is one of them.  I think changing the ball, so pitchers are not forced to throw with max effort on every pitch is another one.   

1 minute ago, monkeytargets39 said:

What if they did something like expanding the roster to 27 players but that extra player can only be used as your extra innings pitcher?  
 

He can’t pitch at any other point in any game and you cannot swap that person out with anyone on the active roster unless you actually use options or DFA them.  They only exist to pitch extras.  
 

This way you aren’t frying your bullpen by going into extras and the longer they pitch in extras the more likely they run out of gas and start giving up hard contact.  Might be an interesting strategy on how teams manage that roster spot and who they put there.  Do you sign a stud and have him just ride the bench until you play extras, or do you put a gas can out there and use your best pitchers in regulation innings.

That could work, but I don't think protecting the bullpen is the only reason for the rule change.  I remember a discussion on Tom Tango's site, not long before the rule change was made.  He posed a question to readers asking them how they felt about putting a runner on second in extra innings.  He works in the game, so I got the feeling he had some inside information and that it was not just one of his thought exercises.  He strongly supported the move and his main reason was that fans don't want to stay at games for hours and hours watching extra innings.  I think protecting the bullpen is a benefit of the move, but not the primary one.  

31 minutes ago, casimir said:

Is this the second season of the extra inning runner rule?  Has there been a comparison of extra inning game lengths, say the last decade of no extra inning runner vs extra inning runner?

It's been going on since 2020

1 hour ago, chasfh said:

In a similar sense, assessing automatic balls and strikes on pitches not thrown is not baseball, either.

I don't really like those either, although they happen so infrequently as to not fundamentally change the way the game is played.  

16 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

but speaking of stats and ghost runner rule, I don't get how it can make any sense to charge any pitcher with that run. OK - so it is unearned, it's still a run me might not have allowed if that runner weren't put there. Since 'nobody' is charge with the runner appearing there, 'nobody' should be charged when he scores. But of course then they would have to add a column to a teams RA labeled 'ghost runners' otherwise runs charged to pitchers wouldn't total all runs. They are both bad solutions but I'd rather see the extra column in the stats because that is the way it should be down to maintains statistical consistency for the pitchers who pitch in extras.

That's what I meant about being able to track every play.  When I was a kid, I would listen to Tigers game on the radio and keep a box sore.  Every play would be tracked.  And that has been done officially for every game for decades.  That's what I meant by every play is tracked.  That was beautiful and orderly and now it's gone.  You described the pitcher stat problem.  But what about the base runner?  The runner gets credit for scoring a run without anybody even reaching base.  That just throws the whole system out of order.  

12 minutes ago, Sports_Freak said:

Stats and keeping track of every play in baseball is all good and fine. The only problem I have with the saber side of stats is when people cherry pick stats. But the only thing that really matters, in the end, is wins and losses. Its why they play the game. And since the rules are exactly the same for every team, the results can't be described as "fake." Fake would be something that isn't real, not legitimate. The wins and losses are very real, whether we like them or not. TBH, the ghost runner really irritates me because it just doesn't seem like the Tigers, as a team, are very good at playing "small ball." I mean, with a runner at 2nd base and no outs? You don't even need a hit to score a run. And look at us...we even have an acronym for it...TTBDNS.

LOL, This has nothing to with saber.  It has to do with playing BASEBALL as it has always been played.  By fundamentally changing the rules if the game to allow free baserunners, it is no longer baseball.  You are creating wins and losses by changing the rules of the game because the real game is not giving you the result that you want.  

13 minutes ago, Sports_Freak said:

Sports have different playoff rules. Football games can end in a tie during the regular season. Same with hockey. If baseball ended regular season games in ties, the playoffs would be different. 

All throughout the history of the game, before the extra-base-runner rule, every event in the game was a real event that could be earned and tracked. That was part of the beauty of baseball.  One of the things that has always appealed to me about baseball is that they didn't resort to cheap gimmicks to appeal to new fans. I really don't care what they do in other sports.  I think the football overtime rules are stupid, but I don't care about the game enough to get upset about it.  

I would not mind if they eliminated ties in post-season.  The rules of playing the game would still be the same as the tie games in regular season.  They would just keep on playing in the playoffs.    

Just now, gehringer_2 said:

True.

Of course what would be even better for the game would be to solve the risk factors for pitchers, then some other stuff could follow.

I agree.  

5 minutes ago, Sports_Freak said:

I'm not capable of watching a game for 2 1/2 hours and then just walking away if it goes to extra innings. I just have a problem with the use of the word "fake." The results are very real and totally effect the standings.

It's a win/loss according to the rules.  It's just not real baseball.  If it was real baseball, they wouldn't switch back to the traditional rules for the playoffs.  

1 minute ago, gehringer_2 said:

I don't have any sympathy. Teams know the rules. If they don't want to invest in the skills to be better at getting a runner around from second base in 3 outs they are going to lose some close games to teams that do. Seems fair to me. 

On aesthetic grounds I don't like the rule either, but unless the game somehow changes to reduce the demands on pitchers, I don't see it going back.

I don't think the rule is unfair or bad for the Tigers.  I don't like the rule for baseball.  As far as I am concerned, what's good for the game always comes before what's good for the Tigers.    

7 minutes ago, Sports_Freak said:

I don't like the stupid ghost runner either but it's the same rules for every team. If MLB is so worried about extra innings using too many pitchers or results taking too long, just end games in a tie. 

Exactly!

Quote

But as it is, the results are important to a teams season success. To ignore a game after watching 9 complete innings doesn't make much sense. Put it this way, if Detroit needed to win game 162 to make the playoffs and it went to extra innings, would you turn the game off and ignore the results? 😅

I would watch it, but it would be a lot less satisfying than getting into the playoffs without that BS.  

1 hour ago, tiger2022 said:

Its all about getting the games over quicker.  Maybe play an extra inning and call it a tie?

You could have a new pitcher stat, ties if you were the guy in the 10th inning.

I would be fine with ties.  They could have two extra innings and then call it a tie.  If you can't decide the game playing real baseball, then just call it a tie.  

2 hours ago, Sports_Freak said:

The results matter. So whether your opinion is you like it or don't like it, the results go into the record books as a loss. So in that regard, it's not "fake."

It's fake because putting base runners on base for free is not baseball.  I know it counts the same in the standings which sucks, but when I am sitting there watching a game and I see a base runner on base, it is no longer a baseball game for me.  

25 minutes ago, Edman85 said:

And this manager works with the Illitch companies now, I assume? Seems to be in the water there these days...

I think this kind of crap happens in a lot of places, especially in the male environment of pro sports.  It's good that the Tigers organization is addressing it.  

Extra innng losses don't feel as bad because it's fake baseball.  I did watch it this time...mostly because I wanted to see McGonigle and Dingler bat.    

6 minutes ago, NorthWoods said:

I'm probably with you on that.   We didn't have nearly the information or the cynicism we have now.

Can you imagine the webz today if a team likw 1968 was running out a ss/3B combo batting .135 & .200?    With OPS of .399 & .556?    Yet somehow that team won 103 games.

I thought then with all the youngsters coming up Les Cain, Tommy Matchick, Wayne Comer, Jon Warden that it would go on for years.....but alas.

Others were talking about their 1st game, I knew mine was in '67 and a DH vs the Indians.   This seems to have been it since it was around my birthday and on a Sunday when my Dad could have taken me.  And all through my younger years he liked getting value for his dollar and going to doubleheaders.

 

I have no special memory of my first live game.  It was at Fenway, but I don't know when it was.  What I do remember was becoming a Tigers fan.  We lived in Massachusetts, so everyone in the neighborhood was a Red Sox fan.  However, my father was a huge Cardinals fan, so I learned to hate the Red Sox in 1967.  I was a Cardinals fan for a while, but my father told me I couldn't be a Cardinals fan because that was his team.  The Tigers were good, so I chose them.  As my family was spending a week in Cape Cod, I was listening to the games on the radio with my father.  I think there was one TV game.   In seven games between the Red Sox and Tigers, I remember the Tigers going 5-2 winning the middle 5 games.  This would make it August 9 - August 18, 1968.  I remember it as a 7-game series, but it was really back to back weekend series.  I have no memory of the Cleveland series in between.  Anyway, my team beat my father's team in the World Series and I never turned back.  

3 hours ago, Sports_Freak said:

On the MLB website for today's game;

I saw "Fluharty 5.40 ERA" and though "****, didn't he just pitch?"

38 minutes ago, NorthWoods said:

I remember having high hopes for Dave Lemanczyk

At that time, I had high hopes for every player that was called up.  

On 5/13/2026 at 5:01 PM, CMRivdogs said:

But he isn’t “taking a salary”

Probably another lie the Right is telling the American populace 

My MAGA and semi-MAGA friends are more proud of the fact that Trump "doesn't take a salary" than anything else about him.  They think they are going to get me on that every time.  

Tork might be batting .180 and can't field, but he's clutch.  That's something you can't teach.