05/16/2026 1:10p EDT Toronto Blue Jays at Detroit Tigers

[Tiger337]

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.   

[monkeytargets39]

13 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

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. 

Yeah but getting a runner to second in the first place with no one out doesn’t happen very often either.  But whatever—we both agree that it’s a stupid rule.

The one thing about a HR derby is that it’d keep butts in the seats and people tuned in.  Probably would make a ton of money off of gambling too.  Plus you’d have an MLB network version of “nfl red zone” for it.

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.
 

I feel like even if you change the ball, there’s still going to be pitchers out there that will figure out some way to over-exert themselves and it’ll cause a new type of injury issue.

Edited Sunday at 03:13 PM by monkeytargets39

[Tiger337]

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.  

[monkeytargets39]

10 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

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.  

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.

[Tiger337]

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.  

Edited Sunday at 03:59 PM by Tiger337

[monkeytargets39]

Agreed

[casimir]

3 hours ago, Tiger337 said:

It's been going on since 2020

Another data point proving I’ve lost track of time the last several years.

[chasfh]

5 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

there have always been balks, which  also create a 'result' where no pitch is thrown (in play) so it's a concept already present in the game.

Not what I am talking about, obviously.

[chasfh]

4 hours 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?  

There is no chance Baseball would force their constituents to carry an extra major league salary just for the potential to use them in maybe 10% of the games they play.

[tiger2022]

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.

Edited Sunday at 08:13 PM by tiger2022

[Tiger337]

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.    

[casimir]

2 hours ago, Tiger337 said:

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.    

Gross.

[chasfh]

That would, as a guy who sounds like a cartoon version of Charles Bronson would say, a fridge too far.