2022 MLB (non-Tigers) catch all thread

[CMRivdogs]

How to sporting event prices compare with places like Disney World or even Cedar Point? Where you can spend a mortgage payment to wait i line all day (unless you pay extra). Not to mention exorbitant parking prices.

Or even at afternoon at Greenfield Village where the "exhibits" seem to be placed willy nilly through out the park?

[chasfh]

10 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

Interesting point, but my guess is probably not. It's not like the play clock goes longer in basketball or football or players take longer to serve in Tennis when the game is on the line.

The delays in baseball are actually tension breakers anyway aren't they? A guy steps back to do his gloves or a pitchers goes through the signs repeatedly. It's the pitch you anticipate, so I'm not sure that cutting out things that only break the progression to the pitch will lower the overal game tension or not.....

I’m with you on this. I don’t think 20 seconds with runners on base close and late will be too short a time to move on to the next pitch. I’m actually looking forward to getting used to that quite nicely.

I don’t know whether batters will have a clear view of the clock while in the box and looking toward the pitcher, but if so, one thing that would help him is the certainty that the pitcher must deliver the ball by the deadline when he notices that there are only three, two, whatever, seconds left. That would make it a lot easier for the batter to time the delivery of the pitch, especially coming out of the set. The only real tool the pitcher would have as far as timing anymore would be to deliver the pitch in a hurry, early in the pitch clock count which, if he doesn’t do it exactly right, might end up being an illegal pitch. So to keep things better balanced, I would think only the pitcher will have a clear view of the clock so he can deliver the ball before it runs out, and all the batter will know is that he got into the box before the eight-seconds-left point.

Edited February 27, 2023 by chasfh

[oblong]

I'm still on the fence with the clock.  I like baseball and don't want 2 hour games.  I know that's the extreme and they'll still most likely be 2:40 or so.   I'm thinking purely in terms of going to the games. Not watching on TV.  I enjoy my time there.

With 6:40 start times for night games Monday Thru Thursday, it could mean leaving the ballpark at 9 pm. I know many people cannot get there until 7 at best, border crossings, work, etc.  

My other concern is the time it takes players to adapt.  Let the kids play.  I'm not looking for a Yankees/Red Sox 4 hour marathon.  The time between pitches can be ridiculous sometimes.  

But I admit to being in the minority.  

[gehringer_2]

16 run game played yesterday in less than 3 hrs (2:46). 

 

[gehringer_2]

3 minutes ago, oblong said:

With 6:40 start times for night games Monday Thru Thursday

This seems on odd move to make. They know the games are going to be 1/2 shorter on average, I would have thought they would have let that ride to see how fans responded before moving start times as well.  Maybe they have marketing data that says folks wanted the end a full hour earlier....

[chasfh]

If it so happens that Baseball decides games are too fast, they can always adjust the timing up from 15-20 to, I don’t know, 15-22? Sixteen-twenty-two? Sixteen-twenty-three? They have options at their disposal if it comes down to it.

I can’t imagine Baseball going on record that 2:35 is too fast for an average game time, but I suppose it’s possible. I just keep in mind that baseball became the dominant America sport back when the average game came in under two hours, and it maintained its dominance throughout the short-game-time period into our own childhoods. I can hardly wait to see my first snappy game in ages on April 5.

[chasfh]

11 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

This seems on odd move to make. They know the games are going to be 1/2 shorter on average, I would have thought they would have let that ride to see how fans responded before moving start times as well.  Maybe they have marketing data that says folks wanted the end a full hour earlier....

Didn’t the Tigers have 6:40 game times last year when average games were coming in over three hours? I know the Cubs and a lot of other clubs have had that for a few years. I selfishly love that game-time start and kind of wish they’d extend that throughout the summer.

I think it’s as much about getting parents to bring the kids to games on schoolnights as it is getting the parents themselves home early. Even absent that, I would bet that most people are not going to be disappointed to be leaving the ballpark around 9:15 instead of around 9:45.

Edited February 27, 2023 by chasfh

[oblong]

7 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

This seems on odd move to make. They know the games are going to be 1/2 shorter on average, I would have thought they would have let that ride to see how fans responded before moving start times as well.  Maybe they have marketing data that says folks wanted the end a full hour earlier....

They claim it's based on fan feedback.  We get surveys but I don't remember if that was a question.

I actually prefer 7:15.  Still a lot of people strolling in at that point.  They did it that way for a few years now for April/September games, maybe the first week or so of May, but I thought that had much to do with the weather.  30 min of daylight can make a huge difference that time of year.  It gets cold fast!   And attendance.  They are low attended games so just get it over with I guess.

 

[RandyMarsh]

Regarding the pitch clock I wonder the effect it will have on offense. Theoretically its going to be tougher for pitchers to throw max effort everytime so you would think that the batters are likely to get more hittable pitches. 

On the other hand if the pitchers can and do indeed still throw max effort everytime is it going to lead to even more pitcher injuries?

Edited February 27, 2023 by RandyMarsh

[Tigeraholic1]

Haha here is some perspective, in regards to pitch clock.

 

 

Edited February 27, 2023 by Tigeraholic1

[Tenacious D]

Honestly, I don’t want our home games to end at 9 pm while it’s still light out.  I’m conditioned to watching games later.  What am I going to do at 9:30?  Read a frickin’ book? 

[Tiger337]

I wonder what people in the 60s and 70s did when games were shorter.  

[CMRivdogs]

3 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

I wonder what people in the 60s and 70s did when games were shorter.  

Or weren't constantly on TV. We sat on the porch sipped our Iron City (or local brew) and gossiped about the neighbors.

[chasfh]

14 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

I wonder what people in the 60s and 70s did when games were shorter.  

Ask your parents. I'm sure they remember.

Hey, weren't you born in the 60s? 😁

Edited February 27, 2023 by chasfh

[Tiger337]

2 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Ask your parents. I'm sure they remember.

Hey, weren't you born in the 60s? 😁

I got more sleep!  As I have said before, I don't really care how long games last.  It's the pace of the game that matters.  There has been too much dead time for years.  

[oblong]

I don't think baseball was more popular in the 60s because of the time of games.  I'm not even sure it was more popular.  How do you measure that?  How often were games on TV?  How does attendance compare.  Sure they might have been more aware of what went on but that's because people read newspapers and didn't have so many other options to occupy their mind like today.

Pace is what matters but not the overall time of games.  I like that approach.   Endless pickoff moves, stepping off the mound, pitching changes, extreme cases of batters stepping out and adjustments.... but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have some epic showdowns between a great pitcher and hitter where it simulates an old fashioned western duel.  That creates some good drama, especially in the playoffs.

 

[CMRivdogs]

I had some of my best naps in the '70s when the Game of the Week was on. It was the best way to enjoy a game. Watch the first couple of innings, doze until the 7th or 8th and wake up for the end. If something important happened the tone of the announcers or change in crowd noise roused you enough to pay closer attention.

[casimir]

1 hour ago, oblong said:

I don't think baseball was more popular in the 60s because of the time of games.  I'm not even sure it was more popular.  How do you measure that?  How often were games on TV?  How does attendance compare.  Sure they might have been more aware of what went on but that's because people read newspapers and didn't have so many other options to occupy their mind like today.

Pace is what matters but not the overall time of games.  I like that approach.   Endless pickoff moves, stepping off the mound, pitching changes, extreme cases of batters stepping out and adjustments.... but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have some epic showdowns between a great pitcher and hitter where it simulates an old fashioned western duel.  That creates some good drama, especially in the playoffs.

 

The pitch clock could have some unfortunate effects late in close games.  There's the thrill of tension and amplification of that emotion could be lost due to the pitch clock.  Its probably an unfortunate byproduct that we'll just have to live with.

[chasfh]

I think twenty seconds max between pitches will be plenty enough time to maintain tension and emotion in close and late games with runners on.

[Biff Mayhem]

I like baseball because I can multitask while watching and especially while listening on the radio. That said, I don't think limiting pitch times etc will increase viewership amongst the generations after us. The attention span of the average Gen Z person is not optimized for baseball.

The one positive about it is that the Nomahs of the world, who have their ticks between every at bat, are going to have to speed it up and that's a good thing.

[KL2]

14 hours ago, Tiger337 said:

Which is too much for most families.  I don't really care since I don't go to a lot MLB games.  I am a tv/radio fan.  If I go to a game,it is usually a minor league game.  I don't see how most families can reasonably afford to go to more than a game or two a year.  

It's not. The median household income in this country is $70K. And its considerably higher in metro areas. For a few hours of entertainment the 50-100 is going rate whether it be a sporting event, gymboree or a trip to the aquarium. 

And what families are going to more than a couple of games a year anyway? 

[KL2]

20 minutes ago, casimir said:

The pitch clock could have some unfortunate effects late in close games.  There's the thrill of tension and amplification of that emotion could be lost due to the pitch clock.  Its probably an unfortunate byproduct that we'll just have to live with.

or could it be amplified? Will he/won't he get off the pitch? 

There will be plenty of tensions it just won't wane becuse it lasted 90 seconds and i got bored. Nobody thinks NBA possessions would include more tensions or be amplified if we extend it to a 35 second shot clock. Why is baseball different? 

[casimir]

7 minutes ago, KL2 said:

or could it be amplified? Will he/won't he get off the pitch? 

There will be plenty of tensions it just won't wane becuse it lasted 90 seconds and i got bored. Nobody thinks NBA possessions would include more tensions or be amplified if we extend it to a 35 second shot clock. Why is baseball different? 

Oh, sure, there is a point where the tension and emotion wears off in between pitches.  90 seconds seems an exaggeration.  Is 15 or 20 seconds right for that?  I don't know, it could be.  Quite honestly I've never timed it or thought about it.  But we'll find out.

I think its tough to compare baseball to basketball and hockey because of the orderliness of offense and defense.  Baseball has the half innings where teams trade "possessions" to score.  Basketball and hockey are very different in nature there.  There's always a threat of the defense to quickly turn into offense and a score.  But I do see what you are saying about a 24 second vs 35 second shot clock.

Edited February 27, 2023 by casimir

[casimir]

19 minutes ago, Biff Mayhem said:

I like baseball because I can multitask while watching and especially while listening on the radio. That said, I don't think limiting pitch times etc will increase viewership amongst the generations after us. The attention span of the average Gen Z person is not optimized for baseball.

The one positive about it is that the Nomahs of the world, who have their ticks between every at bat, are going to have to speed it up and that's a good thing.

Yes, this.  I find it so much tougher to multitask while watching basketball and hockey.  The ebb and flow of baseball just lends itself to multitasking so much easier.

[SoCalTiger]

7 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

This seems on odd move to make. They know the games are going to be 1/2 shorter on average, I would have thought they would have let that ride to see how fans responded before moving start times as well.  Maybe they have marketing data that says folks wanted the end a full hour earlier....

Possibly motivation to eat at the ball park with less time after work to fit in a restaurant before the game ?