Possible new extra inning rule

[Mitchrapp]

MLB is addressing a problem that does not exist. There were 185 EI games in 2016. 4.5% lasted past the 15th inning. That's 8 games. 67% of the games were over by the 11th inning. So some 30% went ended between the 12th and 14 inning. If pitchers were not used like Kleenexs, teams would not run out of them in extra innings.

It's not going to be implemented by MLB. Commish said so..

 

[byco42]

It's not going to be implemented by MLB. Commish said so..

A certain guarantee that it will be ensconced in baseball tradition by 2019.

 

[Rebbiv]

I understand all of those stats. What I said was that the teams that have a competitive advantage already had that advantage through the first 9 innings. You seemed to disagree with that.

How and in what regards? You cannot prove what you are claiming. Period.

 

[Rebbiv]

It's not going to be implemented by MLB. Commish said so..

http://detroitsportsforum.com/showpost.php?p=739714&postcount=47

 

[tomdalton22]

How and in what regards? You cannot prove what you are claiming. Period.

so you are saying a team that hits better and pitches better doesn't have an advantage?

 

[Rebbiv]

so you are saying a team that hits better and pitches better doesn't have an advantage?

Sorry, but I don't think you get it. It is like implementing the "luck dog" in NASCAR. For whatever reason, a driver goes a lap down and then, because of a caution, he gets to be back on the lead lap. That rule was implemented to appease the fans.

A game goes into extra innings. One team used 5 pitchers during the first 9 innings, the other just one. Who does this new rule favor?

 

[tinselwolverine]

Sorry, but I don't think you get it. It is like implementing the "luck dog" in NASCAR. For whatever reason, a driver goes a lap down and then, because of a caution, he gets to be back on the lead lap. That rule was implemented to appease the fans.

A game goes into extra innings. One team used 5 pitchers during the first 9 innings, the other just one. Who does this new rule favor?

The rule doesn't favor either team.

The team that had only used just one pitcher is at the advantage going into extra innings, with or without the rule.

Based on your premise, maybe the new rule should be that going into extra innings, pitchers that have been used already during the regular innings should be allowed to come back into the game, so that neither team enters the extra innings at an advantage or a disadvantage.

Or maybe they should just stop keeping score and give everybody a participation trophy at the end of two and a half hours of playing.

 

[Rebbiv]

The rule doesn't favor either team.

The team that had only used just one pitcher is at the advantage going into extra innings, with or without the rule.

Based on your premise, maybe the new rule should be that going into extra innings, pitchers that have been used already during the regular innings should be allowed to come back into the game, so that neither team enters the extra innings at an advantage or a disadvantage.

Or maybe they should just stop keeping score and give everybody a participation trophy at the end of two and a half hours of playing.

Sorry even you are missing out. While the team that used only 1 pitcher clearly has the advantage, the new rule minimizes that advantage greatly. And it isn't about "equaling" the advantages. It is playing 9 innings a certain way and then changing the conditions. What is it that you don't get? All because of 1-2% of all games. I swear it is like carrying on a conversation with a 3-year old.

 

[tinselwolverine]

More like an almost 4-year-old.

But you're right I didn't get your point that the advantage is minimized.

Maybe you didn't make it clear or maybe I missed it, but that is a point.

1 to 2% would be if the rule was applied after 12 innings. Currently close to 10% of games go past nine innings.

 

[Rebbiv]

More like an almost 4-year-old.

But you're right I didn't get your point that the advantage is minimized.

Maybe you didn't make it clear or maybe I missed it, but that is a point.

1 to 2% would be if the rule was applied after 12 innings. Currently close to 10% of games go past nine innings.

But wait, there is a large part of games tied after 8 innings. Why not apply the rule to the 9th inning to avoid extra innings? Sarcasm here. But all the same arguments exist.

http://www.hardballtimes.com/beyond-the-ninth-inning/

 

[tomdalton22]

Sorry even you are missing out. While the team that used only 1 pitcher clearly has the advantage, the new rule minimizes that advantage greatly. And it isn't about "equaling" the advantages. It is playing 9 innings a certain way and then changing the conditions. What is it that you don't get? All because of 1-2% of all games. I swear it is like carrying on a conversation with a 3-year old.

nobody is saying that it is was good idea. We are disagreeing with you that the rule would give an unfair advantage to one team over another. I think we are saying that those teams already had an advantage. whether it was they were a better hitting team or pitching team, they had that advantage all game long.

 

[dale675]

I feel the advantage would go to who has the speedster sitting on the bench. The Quintin Berry type guy who gets to trot out to 2nd base. I guess I don't know how the rule would even work in terms of who has to go to 2nd. Bench guy? Last guy up? Next guy up? Maybe you guys mentioned it but I didn't go through all 10 pages to be honest. I flat out hate the idea of this rule. But if a team gets to take a guy off the bench does that mean he has to enter the game? In a game that goes 13-14+ innings you will end up using pitchers as runners and that will start to rustle their jimmies. Bad idea over all IMO. You want to shorted the game? Shave 15 seconds off each commercial break between innings. 15 seconds less warm up time is not going to bother anyone on the field I don't think.


/rant
:ugh:

 

[tomdalton22]

I feel the advantage would go to who has the speedster sitting on the bench. The Quintin Berry type guy who gets to trot out to 2nd base. I guess I don't know how the rule would even work in terms of who has to go to 2nd. Bench guy? Last guy up? Next guy up? Maybe you guys mentioned it but I didn't go through all 10 pages to be honest. I flat out hate the idea of this rule. But if a team gets to take a guy off the bench does that mean he has to enter the game? In a game that goes 13-14+ innings you will end up using pitchers as runners and that will start to rustle their jimmies. Bad idea over all IMO. You want to shorted the game? Shave 15 seconds off each commercial break between innings. 15 seconds less warm up time is not going to bother anyone on the field I don't think.


/rant
:ugh:

I agree, it was a terrible idea.

 

[Rebbiv]

nobody is saying that it is was good idea. We are disagreeing with you that the rule would give an unfair advantage to one team over another. I think we are saying that those teams already had an advantage. whether it was they were a better hitting team or pitching team, they had that advantage all game long.

Sorry Tom. I disagree. You are forcing those situations unduly. The teams didn't put themselves into that situation, either positively or negatively. This stupid rule did. Saying they had that advantage all game long? You mean they started every inning with a man on 2B and no out? Because that is the advantage we are talking about.

 

[tomdalton22]

Sorry Tom. I disagree. You are forcing those situations unduly. The teams didn't put themselves into that situation, either positively or negatively. This stupid rule did. Saying they had that advantage all game long? You mean they started every inning with a man on 2B and no out? Because that is the advantage we are talking about.

the had the advantage all game because they had the better hitting, pitching or defense. The proposed rule gives each team the same opportunity to start the extra innings with a man on 2B. The team that already had the better hitting team still has that advantage. Just like the team with the better pitchers or defense still has that advantage. Forcing the situations unduly has no impact on what we are debating.

 

[gotime909]

the had the advantage all game because they had the better hitting, pitching or defense. The proposed rule gives each team the same opportunity to start the extra innings with a man on 2B. The team that already had the better hitting team still has that advantage. Just like the team with the better pitchers or defense still has that advantage. Forcing the situations unduly has no impact on what we are debating.

This

 

[Mitchrapp]

the had the advantage all game because they had the better hitting, pitching or defense. The proposed rule gives each team the same opportunity to start the extra innings with a man on 2B. The team that already had the better hitting team still has that advantage. Just like the team with the better pitchers or defense still has that advantage. Forcing the situations unduly has no impact on what we are debating.

What if Detroit's opponent has the advantage all game but come 10th inning we start with Miggy at bat with guy on 2nd, and they have their 8th guy in the lineup at bat, who for the season has a .214 average and can't bunt? Does that change the advantage somewhat?

 

[Rebbiv]

Sorry Tom. I disagree. You are forcing those situations unduly. The teams didn't put themselves into that situation, either positively or negatively. This stupid rule did. Saying they had that advantage all game long? You mean they started every inning with a man on 2B and no out? Because that is the advantage we are talking about.

This

 

[dale675]

How could one possibly think a station to station team like the Tiger's does not have a disadvantage? Tigers took the extra base a leage low 34% of the time, while teams like San Diego 50%, Cleveland 45%, Cubs 43%.


http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/MLB/2016-baserunning-batting.shtml

Column to the far right - 2ndSH(runner on 2nd when single hit and runner scores)

CLE 129
KCR 123
CHW 123
CHC 118
...
MLB AVG 101
...
DET 94
...
NYM 73

Obviously there are other ways to accomplish scoring the runner but you get the idea.

 

[Mitchrapp]

How could one possibly think a station to station team like the Tiger's does not have a disadvantage? Tigers took the extra base a leage low 34% of the time, while teams like San Diego 50%, Cleveland 45%, Cubs 43%.


http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/MLB/2016-baserunning-batting.shtml

Column to the far right - 2ndSH(runner on 2nd when single hit and runner scores)

CLE 129
KCR 123
CHW 123
CHC 118
...
MLB AVG 101
...
DET 94
...
NYM 73

Obviously there are other ways to accomplish scoring the runner but you get the idea.

But this situation might be different. They wouldn't be started Victor at 2B in the 10th. They'd have a speed replacement..