• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

Poll: MLB rule putting runner on second to begin each team’s at bat beginning in 10th inning

Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Do you favor the new extra innings rule in MLB?

  • Total voters
    35
Lord, I hate it. And yet I vote in favor of it.
When I see the "unearned runner" start an inning out there, a wave of revulsion grips me. I am almost insulted by the cheapening of what I will forever consider the core values of this game:
  • The central skill of this game is control of the strike zone.
  • The single most important counting statistic is Outs.
It's arena football. It's indoor soccer.
But it works.

In a way, I'll miss watching a manager's best laid plans blown up, and seeing bizarre and unlikely extra inning configurations on the field. Sure it was extremely rare to see, say, a pitcher being forced to play RF, but there was always that chance in every game you'd watch. To see a team literally running out of players was novel and hilarious, and I'm sad that it's gone.

I'm also sad that there's no such thing as Wade Boggs or Tony Gwynn. George Brett. Rod Carew.

I would never seek change to my game, but change has Always happened. It happened when Candy LaChance first curved a pitch. It happened when players started taking their gloves back to the bench. It happened when Cap Anson led the charge to bar black ballplayers from the majors. Jackie Robinson. Steroids. Sticky. First baseman playing behind the runner. Platooning. Baseball history is nothing more than a constant stream of temblors which shift boundary lines and change the direction of rivers.

To stop evolving is deadly, literally and figuratively.

The stupid thing works and that means we're still alive.

Now do something about these damned cheating hurlers!
 
Again for me, I really wish they would allow for 9 additional outs (3 innings) before putting a runner on 2nd, but I am in "favor" of it.

If game speed/length is the problem, it really comes down to some of these pitcher and batter rituals.
 
I have absolutely zero concerns with game duration. I think MLB's efforts are misplaced with that regards. Nobody is going to be less of a fan because of an extra 10 minutes.

Winning or losing one game out of 162 is so inconsequential--I think nearly every team would rather have this rule in place than possibly get stuck playing a 16 inning game that depletes every bullpen arm, then brings in a starter to really fuck up the rotation and hurt their team for multiple future games.

The runner on second removes those games, which unfairly hurt teams in the grand scheme of things. That's why I am strongly in favor of this rule.

I'd also be fine with it just being a single extra inning, and if we're tied after 10, call it a tie.

As long as you don't apply these rules to the postseason, I'm all in.
 
Last edited:
Hey, let’s speed up the game! Three balls is a walk, two strikes is an out, a foul ball after having one strike is an out, and start each inning with a runner on 3rd. From the time the ball gets returned to the pitcher, pitcher has 10 seconds to release the next pitch. Batter cannot call time out and if batter steps out of batters box, pitch still is delivered and is an automatic strike.

There, I sped up baseball by at least 2 hours.

You’re welcome...
 
The extra inning rule made the most sense for the various minor leagues.
That was where the rule was implemented in the 2019 season.
 
Out of the Rafters at the Q said:
I have absolutely zero concerns with game duration. I think MLB's efforts are misplaced with that regards. Nobody is going to be less of a fan because of an extra 10 minutes.

Winning or losing one game out of 162 is so inconsequential--I think nearly every team would rather have this rule in place than possibly get stuck playing a 16 inning game that depletes every bullpen arm, then brings in a starter to really fuck up the rotation and hurt their team for multiple future games.

The runner on second removes those games, which unfairly hurt teams in the grand scheme of things. That's why I am strongly in favor of this rule.

I'd also be fine with it just being a single extra inning, and if we're tied after 10, call it a tie.

As long as you don't apply these rules to the postseason, I'm all in.
Click to expand...
Isn’t it rare for a game to go beyond 10 innings anyway?
According to FanGraphs, 113 games, or 4.6 percent of the 2,429 major league games played last season, reached the 11th inning. Ninety-eight percent of all MLB games in 2019 ended in the 11th inning or earlier.

95% of games were ending in the 10th inning anyways. What is the number up to now? 97%?

 
Derek said:
Isn’t it rare for a game to go beyond 10 innings anyway?
According to FanGraphs, 113 games, or 4.6 percent of the 2,429 major league games played last season, reached the 11th inning. Ninety-eight percent of all MLB games in 2019 ended in the 11th inning or earlier.

95% of games were ending in the 10th inning anyways. What is the number up to now? 97%?

Click to expand...
Are you trying to argue that we shouldn't try to do anything because the number of games that go long is so small, or that since there is soo few games that go long, it won't hurt to solve for them?
 
Out of the Rafters at the Q said:
Are you trying to argue that we shouldn't try to do anything because the number of games that go long is so small, or that since there is soo few games that go long, it won't hurt to solve for them?
Click to expand...
I'm saying that they're trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

As you said, call it a tie after 10/11 innings if you want.
 
I really don't care about how long the game is after being invested for 9 innings haha.

If anything it makes the game more interesting. I'm good either way so I voted in favor.

I've said this before, but if they really want to once and for all shorten the game without doing anything wacky, no more batters calling time at the plate.
 
ice cream man said:
I really don't care about how long the game is after being invested for 9 innings haha.

If anything it makes the game more interesting. I'm good either way so I voted in favor.

I've said this before, but if they really want to once and for all shorten the game without doing anything wacky, no more batters calling time at the plate.
Click to expand...
Pitchers taking 10 minutes in between pitches is a bigger problem than the batters in between pitches.
 
I'm an old guy. I voted no.
Baseball has been played basically the same way for 150 years. That's the beauty of the game.

TBH, I think the biggest challenge today is the shift. A batter that hits the ball squarely over the infield should be rewarded with a hit.
 
Derek said:
I'm saying that they're trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

As you said, call it a tie after 10/11 innings if you want.
Click to expand...
Sorry but I view 2-4% as more than a "problem that doesnt exist". This rule is specifically deigned to curtail long games. If you want to tweak it to start after the 10th inning i wouldnt put up much of a fight. However the idea that we should wait for 3 additional innings before trying anything just doesnt make sense.

Personally I think the idea is awesome. It reminds me of 4v4 in hockey. It introduces forced chaos to a game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-14: "Time for Playoff Vengeance on Mickey"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:14: " Time for Playoff Vengeance on Mickey."
Top