The zombie runner rule is now permanent

[BobbyStrawberry]

The writing was on the wall when they kept it for last year, but it's still disappointing IMO. I used to look forward to extra innings but not anymore. Thanks, Manfred!

[philliesfan]

So the player is put at second and scores on a home run. Then he gets credit for scoring a run possibly the winning run, in the history books without even getting a plate appearance. What a joke. One of the worst rules in baseball I think.
Bob

[Carter08]

I like it. Completely understand the arguments against it though.

[edtiques]

They're ruining the game with nonsense like this. What are they thinking?

[jayshum]

When the rule was first introduced, I didn't think I would like it, but after seeing it in use for a few seasons, I have been ok with it. There is definitely some additional strategy added to extra innings instead of what often happened when games would drag on and it looked like every batter was just trying to hit a home run to win the game.

I see it like hockey overtime rules and the eventual shootout so that games don't go on forever. As long as they don't start using the ghost runner in the playoffs, I'm good with it. A 20 inning regular season game can really mess up a team's pitching for a few games afterward so this makes that less likely.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by jayshum

When the rule was first introduced, I didn't think I would like it, but after seeing it in use for a few seasons, I have been ok with it. There is definitely some additional strategy added to extra innings instead of what often happened when games would drag on and it looked like every batter was just trying to hit a home run to win the game.

I see it like hockey overtime rules and the eventual shootout so that games don't go on forever. As long as they don't start using the ghost runner in the playoffs, I'm good with it. A 20 inning regular season game can really mess up a team's pitching for a few games afterward so this makes that less likely.

Agreed. If anything the rule takes us back in time where contact hitters are rewarded.

[mrreality68]

Originally Posted by jayshum

When the rule was first introduced, I didn't think I would like it, but after seeing it in use for a few seasons, I have been ok with it. There is definitely some additional strategy added to extra innings instead of what often happened when games would drag on and it looked like every batter was just trying to hit a home run to win the game.

I see it like hockey overtime rules and the eventual shootout so that games don't go on forever. As long as they don't start using the ghost runner in the playoffs, I'm good with it. A 20 inning regular season game can really mess up a team's pitching for a few games afterward so this makes that less likely.

I agree. I had doubts but it does not bother me (as long as not used in playoff’s which it currently is not)

Also like that it adds strategy and also helps the games have shorter extra innings.
I always hated a position player sometimes being used as a pitcher

[packs]

Is it a perfect game if you pitch 9 and 2/3rds perfect baseball but give up two long fly balls to lead off the bottom of the 10th and lose on a sac fly?

[JollyElm]

I can't for the life of me express how absolutely, mind-numbingly pathetic this stupid rule is. My gawd!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I guess when my backyard Wiffle Ball game is deadlocked, we'll need to start extras with a runner on second.

What's going to be changed next? Starting EVERY inning with a runner on second?

MLB continues to become a bigger and bigger embarrassment by the day.

[Snapolit1]

Doesn't bother me.

Just like I don't go to see movies that are 3 and a half hours long, I understand why many people have no interest in a 4 hour + baseball game.

No other major sport goes on for 4 or 5 hours.

[Snapolit1]

Originally Posted by edtiques

They're ruining the game with nonsense like this. What are they thinking?

They are thinking that 99.999% of the American public has no interest in a 4 hour + baseball game. And, for good or for bad, they are correct.

[BobbyStrawberry]

I dislike it for many reasons:

1) Long extra inning games are fun
2) It feels to me, even after three years of it now , incredibly artificial. (Like they introduced an element that shouldn't be there)
3) It violates a fundamental rule of the game - you have to reach base in order to score
4) As others have stated, it messes with stats in a way that seems goofy

I get that MLB is trying to shorten games, but as fans, don't you want more of the game? I honestly would have preferred games to end in a tie after 12 innings than this.

And one other point that struck me - the fact that they will only do this for regular season games, to me, is a tacit admission that the idea is silly: "Oh, don't worry fans, we'll still play real baseball in extra innings when the games actually count"

[Mike D.]

Those zombies have a heck of a union...

Like it or hate it, but with it's stated goal being to do away with crazy long extra inning games it can't be argued that it isn't successful.

From mlbtraderumors.com:

"Though the change rankled many baseball purists, there’s little doubting that it was successful in accomplishing the goal of preventing exceptionally long games. As pointed out by Eno Sarris of The Athletic, there were only 11 games to reach the 13th inning last year, compared to 37 in 2019. There were also no games that went beyond the 15th in 2022, while it happened eight times in 2019."

[Mark17]

Put a clock on the pitcher. If he doesn't deliver within 20 seconds of him getting the ball in his hands, the ump calls a ball and the clock restarts. That's how it works in football with the play clock. Same with batters - make them stay in the box.

It seems to me that people who like the zombie rule see baseball as entertainment mostly, while people (like me) who hate the zombie see baseball more as a continuous, ongoing history.

[JollyElm]

Better yet, start extra innings with the bases loaded and blindfold the pitcher and make him pitch underhanded!! Or, how about eliminating the pitcher altogether and putting the ball on a tee?? Or, if it's entertainment baseball 'fans' want, how about just having all extra innings pitched by the botox-addicted ladies from one of the 'Real Housewives of...' shows?? That fits in perfectly with traditional baseball, right???

It saddens me to no end that there are people out there who actually think the pathetic zombie rule is a good thing.

[Jim65]

It doesn't happen enough for me to get worked up about it or feel its ruining the game. It definitely adds a different strategy, which makes extra innings a bit more interesting.

[Snapolit1]

Hate to be the one to break the news, but baseball is an entertainment product and not a religion. To some degree it has to adapt to changing societal norms.

Though even the church has to adapt. My mom loves watching mass on her iPad from around the country every Sunday.

[timzcardz]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Hate to be the one to break the news, but baseball is an entertainment product and not a religion.

Well that statement is sacrilegious!

If they want to shorten the game, then why not just call it a tie? And maybe give everyone can get a participation trophy?

[1952boyntoncollector]

I hate the NL DH and I hate getting rid of the shift but i like the extra inning rules a lot....18 inning marathons with people playing out of position is silly.

people get credit for winning hits when hit it over the head of a pitcher playing outfield or getting a hit off a fielder?

in soccer they got penalty kicks.... ...heck i would be ok with a home run derby in extra innings after the 12th inning or something..

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

I dislike it for many reasons:

1) Long extra inning games are fun (yeah thats why more than half the stadium is empty after 11th inning or so)
2) It feels to me, even after three years of it now , incredibly artificial. (Like they introduced an element that shouldn't be there) (DH isnt artificial? banning the shift?)
3) It violates a fundamental rule of the game - you have to reach base in order to score (you only allowed to reach base if you can be tied after 9 innings, if you dont you dont reach base like that)
4) As others have stated, it messes with stats in a way that seems goofy (getting hits off fielders or scoring a double in the gap because pitcher is playing the outfield doesnt mess with the stats?)

I get that MLB is trying to shorten games, but as fans, don't you want more of the game? I honestly would have preferred games to end in a tie after 12 innings than this. (yeah thats why hockey got rid of only ties, and have expanded how ties are done because ties are so great)

And one other point that struck me - the fact that they will only do this for regular season games, to me, is a tacit admission that the idea is silly: "Oh, don't worry fans, we'll still play real baseball in extra innings when the games actually count"

NFL has different OT rules now for regular season and postseason

[Snapolit1]

I saw they have passed new rules limiting when a team can use a non pitcher to pitch. I have no issue with that either. The proliferation of non-pitcher pitchers last year lobbing 50 mph golpher balls was getting a little ridiculous. Cute once in a while, not all the time.

[D. Bergin]

Put me with the "I don't like it" crowd.

The problem in baseball is 4 hour 9 inning games. Nobody was clamoring for the rarer occasions of extra inning games being artificially shortened....except maybe the owners who don't want to pay ballpark attendants, and the secretary who has to make travel arrangements for the team the next day.

Regardless of how much money they make nowadays, I gotta think most players have an Ernie Banks "Let's Play Two" mentality, when it comes right down to it.

For what it's worth, I also hated when they introduced the Shoot-out in Hockey.

No, it's not going to ruin the game...and fans will get used to it...and it's probably somehow "for the best"...but I still don't like it.

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

For what it's worth, I also hated when they introduced the Shoot-out in Hockey.

I hated the shoot-out at first too but they needed to do something. Back in the day teams played too cautious in overtime to not lose and just get the one point, now that the one point is guaranteed, teams can go for it, to get the extra point.I learned to like the shoot-out because I hate ties.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Doesn't bother me.

Just like I don't go to see movies that are 3 and a half hours long, I understand why many people have no interest in a 4 hour + baseball game.

No other major sport goes on for 4 or 5 hours.

Depending on format, Cricket matches can be very long. Like average 7.5 hours a day over 5 days for test matches. Or, if you just want a one day international 7.5 -8 hours.

Lemans is a pretty big deal and is 24 hours.

It's not popular now, but in the 20's-30's six day bike racing was one of the biggest sports around. Stars were paid much more than baseball players. (In case you got bored, those took.... 6 days. )

The Reno air races take an entire week.

Those are or were major sports. And take a long time.

[steve B]

Part of the appeal of baseball is it's lack of a clock and fairly slow pace, even the quicker older game. The stretches of relaxing yet suspense filled time, punctuated by a few random moments of frantic activity.

If it's nonstop action and instant gratification you want maybe a nice videogame tournament?

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by packs

Is it a perfect game if you pitch 9 and 2/3rds perfect baseball but give up two long fly balls to lead off the bottom of the 10th and lose on a sac fly?

I would say yes. What a weird result that would be.

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

Better yet, start extra innings with the bases loaded and blindfold the pitcher and make him pitch underhanded!! Or, how about eliminating the pitcher altogether and putting the ball on a tee?? Or, if it's entertainment baseball 'fans' want, how about just having all extra innings pitched by the botox-addicted ladies from one of the 'Real Housewives of...' shows?? That fits in perfectly with traditional baseball, right???

It saddens me to no end that there are people out there who actually think the pathetic zombie rule is a good thing.

I know change is hard for you, Darren.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Gorditadogg

I would say yes. What a weird result that would be.

right or pitch 12 innings but your fielders are normally relief pitchers and make errors so the players get on base and later score...can always come up with scenerios and its a team sport

[Exhibitman]

Does everyone get a juice box too? And whose mommy brings them?

[jingram058]

I envision Steve being an okay guy, as far as that goes. But he is the only person I know or even remotely know out of thousands who is a defender of baseball such as it is today. Nothing you say is going to make any impression on him with regard to changing his mind. He's as hard over on baseball today as anyone around. It just is what it is.

I have so many radio and TV broadcasts of real baseball games that it just doesn't matter.

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by packs

Is it a perfect game if you pitch 9 and 2/3rds perfect baseball but give up two long fly balls to lead off the bottom of the 10th and lose on a sac fly?

I would say maybe not because you did not get through the last out of the inning. But yes if you pitched the top of the 10th and gave up those two long fly balls and then retired the next man and your team could not rally in the bottom half of the inning. Yep, 30 up, 30 down and tagged with a loss.

Maybe you could get a perfect-perfect game if you picked off the bonus runner and then got the rest as well.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

Maybe you could get a perfect-perfect game if you picked off the bonus runner and then got the rest as well.

Not according to precedent. In 1915, Ernie Shore came into a game in the first inning after Babe Ruth walked the first batter and then got ejected for starting a fight. The runner was caught stealing, and Shore went on to retire the next 26 batters. He was not credited with pitching a perfect game even though he got the inherited runner, then everyone else. He is credited with a no-hitter.

But, since anything is now subject to change, in the name of making the National Pastime "more fan friendly," maybe they would also change the definition of a perfect game to take into account zombie runners.

Baseball has such a rich history and tradition. I hate seeing it defaced because some people can't appreciate it for what it is.

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Not according to precedent. In 1915, Ernie Shore came into a game in the first inning after Babe Ruth walked the first batter and then got ejected for starting a fight. The runner was caught stealing, and Shore went on to retire the next 26 batters. He was not credited with pitching a perfect game even though he got the inherited runner, then everyone else. He is credited with a no-hitter.

But, since anything is now subject to change, in the name of making the National Pastime "more fan friendly," maybe they would also change the definition of a perfect game to take into account zombie runners.

Baseball has such a rich history and tradition. I hate seeing it defaced because some people can't appreciate it for what it is.

I am aware of Ernie Shore's performance, but unlike the hypothetical I raised, he did not begin the game and face every batter, and not every batter was retired. He is credited with being part of a combined no-hitter.

To your point, I believe they would have to change the definition of a perfect game, but it is inherently contradictory to state someone pitched a perfect game and lost. Yet that possibility exists. Let's hope it arises so the debate fun can get started

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by Gorditadogg

I know change is hard for you, Darren.

Ridiculously stupid change is hard for any normal person.

[Lucas00]

I don't mind the other changes much and actually kinda like them. But this Zombie runner change is horrendous imo.

[DFWGrapher]

I want a hybrid of it.

Innings 10-12: play like normal, as something like 80% of all extra inning games prior to the zombie runner rule still ended in 10, 11, or 12 and should only tack on an extra hour, tops. If still tied...

Inning 13: zombie runner at first.
Inning 14: zombie runner at second.
Inning 15: zombie runner at third.
Inning 16: zombie runners at first and second
Inning 17: zombie runners at first and third
Inning 18: zombie runners at second and third
Inning 19+: zombie apocalypse: bases loaded

[jayshum]

I think the limit on pitchers being allowed to step off the rubber or throw to a base only twice during an at bat is a much more impactful change than the runner on second in extra innings. The ghost runner only happens in a small percentage of games while the limits on pitchers will every inning that a runner gets on base.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by DFWGrapher

I want a hybrid of it.

Innings 10-12: play like normal, as something like 80% of all extra inning games prior to the zombie runner rule still ended in 10, 11, or 12 and should only tack on an extra hour, tops. If still tied...

Inning 13: zombie runner at first.
Inning 14: zombie runner at second.
Inning 15: zombie runner at third.
Inning 16: zombie runners at first and second
Inning 17: zombie runners at first and third
Inning 18: zombie runners at second and third
Inning 19+: zombie apocalypse: bases loaded

I like the new rule as is but this would be great as well.

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by philliesfan

So the player is put at second and scores on a home run. Then he gets credit for scoring a run possibly the winning run, in the history books without even getting a plate appearance. What a joke. One of the worst rules in baseball I think.
Bob

Herb Washington scored 33 runs in his career

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by DFWGrapher

I want a hybrid of it.

Innings 10-12: play like normal, as something like 80% of all extra inning games prior to the zombie runner rule still ended in 10, 11, or 12 and should only tack on an extra hour, tops. If still tied...

Inning 13: zombie runner at first.
Inning 14: zombie runner at second.
Inning 15: zombie runner at third.
Inning 16: zombie runners at first and second
Inning 17: zombie runners at first and third
Inning 18: zombie runners at second and third
Inning 19+: zombie apocalypse: bases loaded

I would be ok with something like this where the first few extra innings where normal then some type of runner was added automatically. I'm not sure I would want to see more than a runner on second to start the inning, but I do like the description provided for innings 19+

[mrreality68]

The game is always evolving regardless if we want to or not.

Think about the changes over the years from no Dh, to DH in 1 league, to now in both
# of games played during the regular season
# of teams to make playoffs
Different Playoff Formats
Bigger Bases
Pitching time clock
Ghost Runner
Video Replay
and so much more

[Snapolit1]

I've yet to hear the issue with the size of bases requiring a new base size.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by DFWGrapher

I want a hybrid of it.

Innings 10-12: play like normal, as something like 80% of all extra inning games prior to the zombie runner rule still ended in 10, 11, or 12 and should only tack on an extra hour, tops. If still tied...

Inning 13: zombie runner at first. IF zombie bites first basemen then 2 zombies
Inning 14: zombie runner at second. Zombie can bite the SS or 2b, if can bite both its a different type of double play
Inning 15: zombie runner at third. (the third basemen watching the 'double play' earlier may elect for a new 'shift' so he can stand over in the shallow outfield or the other side of 2nd, but geez they got RID of the shift? Did they know getting rid of the shift will cause more zombie runners)
Inning 16: zombie runners at first and second (probably nobody playing defense now)
Inning 17: zombie runners at first and third (ditto)
Inning 18: zombie runners at second and third (ditto)
Inning 19+: zombie apocalypse: bases loaded

Yes the bases loaded and the entire field is now loaded with zombies who were unable to 'shift' The DH will be the most safest position as he does not have to play the field...

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by doug.goodman

Herb Washington scored 33 runs in his career

One of my favorites of the 1970s, with Don "Slick" Watts of basketball. Per Wikipedia:

Washington played in 105 MLB games without batting, pitching, or fielding, playing exclusively as a pinch runner. He had 31 stolen bases in 48 attempts and scored 33 runs during his short career. Washington is one of only seven players to have more game appearances than plate appearances, presumably excluding starting pitchers who played primarily for the American League, and relief pitchers.

Washington's 1975 Topps baseball card is the only baseball card ever released that uses the "pinch runner" position label.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

One of my favorites of the 1970s, with Don "Slick" Watts of basketball. Per Wikipedia:

Washington played in 105 MLB games without batting, pitching, or fielding, playing exclusively as a pinch runner. He had 31 stolen bases in 48 attempts and scored 33 runs during his short career. Washington is one of only seven players to have more game appearances than plate appearances, presumably excluding starting pitchers who played primarily for the American League, and relief pitchers.

Washington's 1975 Topps baseball card is the only baseball card ever released that uses the "pinch runner" position label.

if he was 45 or higher out of 48 he probably plays more years...thats an awful percentage if thats your only skill...at least some speedsters can play sick outfield

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

Ridiculously stupid change is hard for any normal person.

As are ridiculously stupid hot takes

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

[steve B]

What many don't seem to realize is that not all change is good.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by steve B

What many don't seem to realize is that not all change is good.

I don’t like some changes like bringing the DH to the NL but I like this one.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

I've yet to hear the issue with the size of bases requiring a new base size.

I thought the impetus behind MLB increasing the size of the bases was so that fielders, especially first basemen, wouldn't have their feet in the way of baserunners during plays, and thus further reduce the chances of player injuries from tripping or being stepped on during game play. You do occasionally see a first baseman get his foot stepped on, or the baserunner tripping over the first baseman's foot, while trying to beat out a close play at first base and/or grabbing a somewhat errant throw to first base. Of all the more recent rule changes, this is one I can most live with as it seems to be solely about reducing player injuries, and has virtually no real effect or impact on the game itself otherwise. The worst thing it does is reduce the distance between bases by no more than few inches. I can easily live with that if it does help to reduce player injuries.

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by jayshum

I think the limit on pitchers being allowed to step off the rubber or throw to a base only twice during an at bat is a much more impactful change than the runner on second in extra innings. The ghost runner only happens in a small percentage of games while the limits on pitchers will every inning that a runner gets on base.

I agree. This, combined with the larger base sizes, will open up the running game some. The bases will be 6 inches closer, which may help a bit, but also will be easier to stay on after the slide.

Just for clarity, you can step off or throw to a base twice without penalty. You can then throw a third time, but need to get the runner out, or else he advances.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk