New Intentional Walk Rule: Like It?

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by Tripredacus

I don't see the problem that the game has to begin with. The amount of time the game takes is not excessively long as compared to hockey or football. In fact, it seems baseball games are shorter.

Most of us see no great reason for any change, but there is a demand out 'there', mostly by Broadcast or Advertising Execs, that, in today's society, sports have to be high-speed action all the time. NASCAR and the NBA are just two sports whose pace Baseball has to compete against.

While Fans pay to go see the teams play and buy programs, jerseys and the like, the big money comes from Broadcast contracts and when push comes to shove, the fans' opinion becomes secondary - and eventually, we learn to adjust to those changes.

I realize that changing the intentional walk to a hand signal from the dugout may be a tiny adjustment in the scheme of things, and that, in another century someone like Johnny Bench might be able to lace a 'Ric' flair to right-field once in his career, but, as least that change won't upset the apple cart.

Trying to dictate how many pitching changes can be made in a game could endanger arms and, therefore, would never be allowed by the players union.

Too many throws to first along with varying deliveries of pitches are tried-and-true strategies designed to slow down the running game. You could never say that the pitcher can only throw over twice, because the runner would take off 100% of the time after the second throw...and never before. How stupid would that look?

OUR Game has changed very little over its lifetime and whatever changes are made usually wind up making it a more enjoyable 'product' to watch. IMO

But...We ALL miss the Good Ole' Days.



.

[packs]

It's absurd if you ask me. The pitcher still has to throw the ball to the catcher and the catcher back to the pitcher. Anything can happen during that exchange. Why even bother to have infielders throw to first if they field an infield ground ball if your POV is there's a pre determined outcome just because someone would like to do something.

[Bocabirdman]

I think that all statistics; Hits, Runs, Errors, Strike Outs, Walks etc. should be submitted, stamped by a Public Notary at game time. Have the players spend the time signing autographs for the kids and have a computer run the stats and declare a winner. CGI highlights could then run on the Jumbo-Tron. Everybody could be home by 9PM.....West Coast games would be available for East Coast People. There... that solves that.

[drmondobueno]

Don't care what the owners or players want. Not a fan of the Networks.

Prefer minor league games these days, just a more fun and affordable evening.

Oh yeah. Screw the Cubs.

[clydepepper]

My MO is to have the Braves game on TV, but muted as I HATE 'Slip' Carey.

Don Sutton is GREAT on Braves Radio and I've enjoyed that mix.



.

[doug.goodman]

I'm not a fan of the new IBB rule.

A thought struck me, if the intention of this rule is to save time, and make the game faster, why not make a change that would (I assume) save considerably more time.

According to Retrosheet, there were 932 IBB last season, but there were 5,610 HR. If MLB really wants to cut down the length of games maybe they should just have the batter, and any runners, run straight into the dugout the moment the umpire signals a HR.

I'm not sure if I'm trying to be facetious or sarcastic, probably a bit of both.

As a full time baseball fan who didn't watch the superbowl, couldn't care less about sports that treat college athletes as slaves, and thinks that all sports with clocks are inherently dumb, I am curious about this whole "speeding up the game" thing.

Why do I read about how baseball games at 3 hours in length need to be sped up, but football games, which are played to a clock that is either 48 or 60 minutes long (I really don't know) take three hours out of the TV schedule and nobody seems to complain about the other two (or more) hours?

Not that I care, but I am curious.

Doug

[steve B]

Speeding the game up is mostly about the complaints of people unfamiliar with the game - in other words potential new customers. Other sports are simpler to watch, with more "action" for example soccer where someone is running somewhere pretty much all he time. Same for Hockey and basketball. Football has more obvious activity than baseball, but with lots of brief breaks.
The interesting aspects of baseball are less obvious, and it takes a pretty good commentator to point them out. Jerry Remy does a good job of it as do some others. His book about how to watch baseball is a good read as well.


I think of it more as an effort to make the game match the modern lifestyle where everyone wants quick results handed to them, and can't /won't pay attention to anything that isn't consistently flashy.

Oddly, while tennis has lots of action I find it nearly unwatchable. (At least since Nastase retired) Golf is also painfully slow, and there isn't much call to speed that up.

Steve B

[Snapolit1]

Read somewhere that it will quicken the average game 14 seconds, what a joke.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

[SIZE="4"] NASCAR and the NBA are just two sports whose pace Baseball has to compete against.

I'll give you basketball, but NASCAR?

They could cut the coverage of most races down to a highlight reel of pit stops and crashes and get a 500 done in like 20 minutes.

NESN does baseball broadcasts the day after the game like that, they cut out the bits where people are ambling to the plate while a song plays, or the relief pitcher is wandering in from the bullpen and then throwing about double his pitch count for "warmups". It's cut down to about an hour I think.


Just last week I read where some baseball executive was saying this rule was just for the low minors where it's an instructional league and throwing the four lobs isn't at all important.
But now it's for everyone?!
And it's expected to save a whole 14 seconds a game......

Steve B