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

[Derek]

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.

I guess I don’t like that the rule makes the games worse just to shorten up 1-2% of them.

 

[LL3]

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.

I'm not much for "forced chaos" in baseball (Slider on an ATV was always enough for me), but your arguments/ideas are certainly reasonable. Given a yes or no choice, I do not like the rule... but honestly, I am not all that bothered by it either. I have never cared about the length of a mlb baseball game, but I can respect that others do.

 

[DJTJ]

I favor it, but it has nothing to do with speed.

I like the tactical aspect of it.

 

[Ohio]

Here's why this rule is stupid:

I really don't care about how long the game is after being invested for 9 innings haha.

...

Nobody is going to watch baseball now because of this dumb rule change. Making baseball a 180 minute game instead of 200 minutes has not, and will not, draw a single new fan. All this rule does is change the game for the worse and pisses everyone off in the process.

Stop changing the game for no reason. You want more fans? Market your players better. Get rid of the "unwritten rules" and allow the players to show some damn emotion. Stop teaching players to only swing for home runs.

If Manfred's dumb ass gets rid of the shift in his next failed attempt to draw new fans, I'm going to lose my mind.

 

[Out of the Rafters at the Q]

Here's why this rule is stupid:

...

Nobody is going to watch baseball now because of this dumb rule change. Making baseball a 180 minute game instead of 200 minutes has not, and will not, draw a single new fan. All this rule does is change the game for the worse and pisses everyone off in the process.

Stop changing the game for no reason. You want more fans? Market your players better. Get rid of the "unwritten rules" and allow the players to show some damn emotion. Stop teaching players to only swing for home runs.

If Manfred's dumb ass gets rid of the shift in his next failed attempt to draw new fans, I'm going to lose my mind.

Why do you fixate on the singular item of time, instead of every other argument brought up in this thread?

It comes across as an emotional, angry lashing out.

 

[Ohio]

Why do you fixate on the singular item of time, instead of every other argument brought up in this thread?

It comes across as an emotional, angry lashing out.

Because time is the singular reason the rule exists.

Byproducts of the rule, such as "strategy" don't interest me and are not worth worsening the game.

It's frustrating that baseball refuses to get out of its own way.

 

[Out of the Rafters at the Q]

Because time is the singular reason the rule exists.

Byproducts of the rule, such as "strategy" don't interest me and are not worth worsening the game.

It's frustrating that baseball refuses to get out of its own way.

I disagree. I think the outlier lengthy games that do more harm to a team over the 162-game schedule than they're worth are a driving force as well, and any stance that doesn't consider that is a poor one in my opinion.

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.

 

[DJTJ]

Because time is the singular reason the rule exists.

Byproducts of the rule, such as "strategy" don't interest me and are not worth worsening the game.

It's frustrating that baseball refuses to get out of its own way.

If the point of the game is to make it more exciting, is there really any doubt that, in extras, the drama is cranked by this?

 

[Surge]

@PIP

Baseball is barely rcongnizable anymore!

 

[Criznit]

How about if we're tied after ten, the teams have appliance races or attempt to beat the freeze?

 

[Out of the Rafters at the Q]

@PIP

Baseball is barely rcongnizable anymore!

 

[macbdog]

No one rule change is going to shorten game times. It's going to take a variety of things being tinkered with. I've had no issue with this change because it gives both teams the same chance. And while the marathon games are rare, they are a problem and needed to be addressed. Now get me my robot umpires, enforced pitch clocks/batter step out rules, and bullpen ziplines and we will see some dramatic reduction to game times.

 

[Ohio]

How about if we're tied after ten, the teams have appliance races or attempt to beat the freeze?

I'm all for weiner dog races to break ties.

cc: @The Oi

 

[Derek]

If the point of the game is to make it more exciting, is there really any doubt that, in extras, the drama is cranked by this?

I don't believe it is

 

[bob2the2nd]

factoid of the day

matt stone is worth 700 million
trey parker is only worth 600 million