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

[gehringer_2]

Just now, Tiger337 said:

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.    

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.

[Tiger337]

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.  

[Tiger337]

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.  

[gehringer_2]

3 hours ago, IdahoBert said:

All these guys had to do was score 2 runs in the first full 8 innings. They struck out 14 times! And granted, that two of those came in the bottom of the ninth and the bottom of the 10th that wouldn’t have been played if they had scored two runs in the first full eight innings, but it’s still too common an event. 

And the Blue Jays struck out only six times in 10 innings. Making contact makes a difference.

The last Keith AB was a disappointment. You want more than that from the guy hitting 320 when a single is exactly what you need.

[Sports_Freak]

1 minute ago, Tiger337 said:

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.  

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. 

[Edman85]

6 hours ago, monkeytargets39 said:

It’s way too profitable for Big Medicine to actually strike out cancer.  But that’s for another thread.

No one deserves to suffer from this.

I still maintain the money spent on signs held up at stadiums could go toward much better things.

[Tiger337]

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.    

Edited Sunday at 01:22 AM by Tiger337

[Sports_Freak]

10 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

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.    

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.

[Tiger337]

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.  

[gehringer_2]

35 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

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.  

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 he might not have allowed if that runner weren't put there. Since 'nobody' is charged 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 team's 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 done to maintain statistical consistency for the pitchers who pitch in extras.

Edited Sunday at 02:30 AM by gehringer_2

[Tiger337]

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.  

Edited Sunday at 02:26 AM by Tiger337

[gehringer_2]

OPS of 5 Tigers hitters today: 308, 457, 464, 510, 588

 

[monkeytargets39]

1 hour ago, Edman85 said:

I still maintain the money spent on signs held up at stadiums could go toward much better things.

You can say that about a lot of things unfortunately 

[chasfh]

11 hours 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. 

The more teams invest in players and skills to get a single run around the bases before three runs is up, the less they have to invest in players and skills to get multiple runs around the bases in an inning.

[chasfh]

Bad: Tigers are 2-8 in their last 10.

Less bad: Tigers are not in last place.

[chasfh]

14 hours ago, Tiger337 said:

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.  

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

[gehringer_2]

Just now, chasfh said:

The more teams invest in players and skills to get a single run around the bases before three runs is up, the less they have to invest in players and skills to get multiple runs around the bases in an inning.

Maybe, maybe not, but that's what you pay a GM to decide. And maybe it's just a matter of working a little harder - how much does it really 'cost' to make sure your bad OBP hitters learn to bunt for example? That's always the tyranny of sport - those willing to work harder often end up winning.

[gehringer_2]

5 minutes ago, chasfh said:

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

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.

Edited Sunday at 12:44 PM by gehringer_2

[NorthWoods]

14 hours ago, Tiger337 said:

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.  

It's the one new change I actively dislike.   Like the pitch clock, like the reliever rule, like the appeals, don't mind the shift ban, like the throwing to 1st rule, but really don't like the free runner.   I loved the tension building as extra innings built.

[casimir]

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?

[Tiger337]

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.  

[Tiger337]

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

[monkeytargets39]

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.  To change to a different pitcher in this spot you have to actually use options or DFA them.  They only exist to pitch extras.  If they have to come out due to injury, then you forfeit.
 

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.

 

Likewise, once it goes to extras, you can’t pinch hit anymore unless there’s an actual injury.  Lineups and pitching staff is locked after the 3rd out of the bottom of the ninth.

Edited Sunday at 02:23 PM by monkeytargets39

[Tiger337]

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.  

[monkeytargets39]

17 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

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.  

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

Edited Sunday at 02:46 PM by monkeytargets39