2023 rule changes, unintended consequences

[stlcardsfan]

I went to the Cardinals and Blue Jays game yesterday and they still managed to exceed 3 1/2 hours for a 9 inning game. Admittedly, it wasn't a very pretty game. 10-9 with tons of pitching changes.

However, the game moved noticeably quicker when there was action going on in the field. Which I and everyone seemed to enjoy.

[JustinD]

Originally Posted by stlcardsfan

I went to the Cardinals and Blue Jays game yesterday and they still managed to exceed 3 1/2 hours for a 9 inning game. Admittedly, it wasn't a very pretty game. 10-9 with tons of pitching changes.

However, the game moved noticeably quicker when there was action going on in the field. Which I and everyone seemed to enjoy.

I am taking a wait and see on the clock, but honestly do like it to this point. As to the latter statement, that is where I would like a bit of a change.

To see less pitching changes would help my enjoyment. Something like a minimum batters faced requirement or a per game limit for changes.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by JustinD

I am taking a wait and see on the clock, but honestly do like it to this point. As to the latter statement, that is where I would like a bit of a change.

To see less pitching changes would help my enjoyment. Something like a minimum batters faced requirement or a per game limit for changes.

Pretty sure there is a minimum batters faced requirement already on the books...

IIRC, 3 batters is the minimum, unless the pitcher ends the inning, in which case a new pitcher can start the next inning.

But maybe 3 is too few for your taste? Maybe 5 or 10 would be better?

[raulus]

There's actually an article in today's WSJ suggesting that the pitch clock will provide more rest for players. By shortening up games ~ 20-30 mins apiece, there's about 2.5-3 hours less of playing time each week. That's basically a whole game!

And then when you add in travel schedules and all that jazz, shortening up the game can make a difference on the wear and tear for players. In theory, they can play more games if the games are shorter.

Obviously the counterargument is that the games are shorter but more intense, so there's no real savings in terms of physical exertion.

[Touch'EmAll]

I watched some spring training ball. I felt rushed just watching the game. If the pitch clock was even 5-10 seconds longer would be better. It is the enormous amount of pitcher changes these days that really lengthen the game and make it hard to stay attentive.

[sbfinley]

Originally Posted by stlcardsfan

I went to the Cardinals and Blue Jays game yesterday and they still managed to exceed 3 1/2 hours for a 9 inning game. Admittedly, it wasn't a very pretty game. 10-9 with tons of pitching changes.

However, the game moved noticeably quicker when there was action going on in the field. Which I and everyone seemed to enjoy.

To be fair, that game had 30+ hits and a strike zone the size of a grapefruit. I enjoyed it. 10/12 games clocked in under 3 hours and the late games were over at decent time. If the STL/TOR game would have been played last year it probably would have pushed 5 hours.

[insidethewrapper]

I like the games to be between 2 /1/2 and 3 hours, if less than that I feel like I'm being cheated for the price I pay. Fans will have to drink and eat faster at the games or the vending income etc will be affected.

[doug.goodman]

I just got back from my first game of the season, which went 2 hours and 17 minutes.

I have to say, I did not hate the pitch clock as much I wanted to.

Doug