Possible new extra inning rule

[tomdalton22]

The thing is since the wild card has been added less people are watching. Popularity might not be tied to that but somehow adding wild care teams have not helped people stay tuned..

What happened to when we were kids and we'd be listening to game 162 35 games out of first. Somehow MLB has to get that back. I cringed when I first saw the new CBA and that the Luxury tax was going to 210m in a few years. MLB is destroying itself.

people not staying tuned has nothing to do with baseball. It has everything to do with the other options we have today. I have about 400 TV channels, we record about 15 shows, we binge watch on netflix and there are 290 million websites on the internet. When we were kids there were 3 TV networks and a few radio stations.

 

[tomdalton22]

Cause and effect.

Extra innings as it is does not favor one team over another without injecting influences. For example, one team went to the bullpen after 5, where the other team's starter went 9. In that scenario, the team that went to the bullpen later has the advantage, no? And if it was Verlander that went 9 innings and the other team has stretched their bullpen, then you narrowed the gap away from the Tigers being favored to win. All because you want to shorten the game, not because you want the best team on that day to win.

As pointed out, rarely does a game go past 12 innings to begin with. We are creating conditional variances based on a small subset. Still, all other things being equal, creating these variances will clearly favor one team over the other, rather then having the game or series dictate the outcome. It is all fine for Rookie league or some other "learning" league where paychecks are not on the line.

extra innings with a man on 2nd base does not favor one team over another without injecting influences either. Over time, with a large enough sample size, the better team will win more often.

 

[Mitchrapp]

people not staying tuned has nothing to do with baseball. It has everything to do with the other options we have today. I have about 400 TV channels, we record about 15 shows, we binge watch on netflix and there are 290 million websites on the internet. When we were kids there were 3 TV networks and a few radio stations.

Then why is the NFL over 30% in popularity? Why are other sports staying status quo - College football always seems to be around 10%, weather back in the 80"s or now. NHL went from 2% to 6%. I think the same percentage of people watch sports it's just moved around a little bit. MLB is getting the brunt end of it..

And for someone who has had Netflix, recently cancelled - I can say they're not the same either. They lost 30% of their library the past 18 months. And I'm sure many will say that the crap on today is the same crap we saw 30-40 years ago. Though I'm not sure who has 400 channels. But how much do we surf and go through them all and realize nothing is on?

 

[Mitchrapp]

Also I can't remember what year recently, '14 or 15' they said MLB had their 4th highest attendance ever. That's hard to fathom. But when you see 89% White, 70% male, and 50% 55 and older group (I'm not even there yet) MLB has a problem down the road.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Also I can't remember what year recently, '14 or 15' they said MLB had their 4th highest attendance ever. That's hard to fathom. But when you see 89% White, 70% male, and 50% 55 and older group (I'm not even there yet) MLB has a problem down the road.

That's OK.

By the time that happens, we'll both be either dead or senile.

Either way, we won't be paying attention.

 

[Mitchrapp]

That's OK.

By the time that happens, we'll both be either dead or senile.

Either way, we won't be paying attention.

My prediction MLB will be down to 5% in 5 years. NHL will pass them. I hope I still am alive at that time. Though I could be senile.. 5 years is also when their new CBA expires.. Work stoppage, mark my work..

 

[Rebbiv]

extra innings with a man on 2nd base does not favor one team over another without injecting influences either. Over time, with a large enough sample size, the better team will win more often.

That is a completely false statement and based on no evidence.

 

[tomdalton22]

That is a completely false statement and based on no evidence.

me suggesting that is no different than you saying it would benefit some teams more than others.

 

[tinselwolverine]

When we were kids there were 3 TV networks and a few radio stations.

Remember Don Cherry's Grapevine, eh?

Man, that stuff was must see TV.

 

[Rebbiv]

me suggesting that is no different than you saying it would benefit some teams more than others.

I can back it up with statistics. You cannot.

 

[tomdalton22]

I can back it up with statistics. You cannot.

you think you can, but you can't. It's still conjecture.

 

[tinselwolverine]

you think you can, but you can't. It's still conjecture.

For real.

How can a person back up with statistics something that has never actually happened?

 

[kalinecountry]

Quote: Originally Posted by Mitchrapp View Post
Also I can't remember what year recently, '14 or 15' they said MLB had their 4th highest attendance ever. That's hard to fathom. But when you see 89% White, 70% male, and 50% 55 and older group (I'm not even there yet) MLB has a problem down the road.

That's OK.

By the time that happens, we'll both be either dead or senile.

Either way, we won't be paying attention.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3NP4eahzao
Just like the Timex watches in the tv ad with John Cameron Swayze,
KC takes a licking and keeps on ticking.

 

[Rebbiv]

you think you can, but you can't. It's still conjecture.

A runner on 2nd Base with no outs to start the inning is conjecture? LOL.

Statistics will tell you that not all teams perform the same in that situation, thus giving one team the advantage over the other. What don't you understand about that?

http://www.baseball-reference.com/play-index/split_stats_lg.cgi?full=1&params=bases%7C0%20out%2C%20010%7CAL%7C2016%7Cpitch%7CAB%7C

I am sure BOS pitchers has no advantage over DET pitchers.

Maybe we should use this statistic

http://www.baseball-reference.com/p...gi?full=1&params=bases|RISP|AL|2016|pitch|AB|http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/split.cgi?lg=AL&year=2016&t=p

From a hitting standpoint, maybe all teams are the same:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/p...ull=1&params=bases|0 out, 010|AL|2016|bat|AB|

 

[Mitchrapp]

Quote: Originally Posted by Mitchrapp View Post
Also I can't remember what year recently, '14 or 15' they said MLB had their 4th highest attendance ever. That's hard to fathom. But when you see 89% White, 70% male, and 50% 55 and older group (I'm not even there yet) MLB has a problem down the road.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3NP4eahzao
Just like the Timex watches in the tv ad with John Cameron Swayze,
KC takes a licking and keeps on ticking.

Lol. If you can be okay after getting shot through a window then you the man..

 

[kalinecountry]

Lol. If you can be okay after getting shot through a window then you the man..

LOL. I'm way over the 55 years old and I remembered this guy doing the commercial way back when I was a kid, but could only find this one.
I wear a flak jacket baby:tup:

 

[tomdalton22]

A runner on 2nd Base with no outs to start the inning is conjecture? LOL.

Statistics will tell you that not all teams perform the same in that situation, thus giving one team the advantage over the other. What don't you understand about that?

http://www.baseball-reference.com/play-index/split_stats_lg.cgi?full=1&params=bases%7C0%20out%2C%20010%7CAL%7C2016%7Cpitch%7CAB%7C

I am sure BOS pitchers has no advantage over DET pitchers.

Maybe we should use this statistic

http://www.baseball-reference.com/p...gi?full=1&params=bases|RISP|AL|2016|pitch|AB|http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/split.cgi?lg=AL&year=2016&t=p

From a hitting standpoint, maybe all teams are the same:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/p...ull=1&params=bases|0 out, 010|AL|2016|bat|AB|

but like I said, those advantages or disadvantages are nothing new...those teams were already at an advantage or disadvantage throughout the game. Also, that isn't taking into consideration game situations. If Detroit is playing Boston and it goes to extra innings. The last batter for Bos was their #5 hitter and Detroit's last hitter was their #9. Who has the advantage now?

 

[Rebbiv]

but like I said, those advantages or disadvantages are nothing new...those teams were already at an advantage or disadvantage throughout the game. Also, that isn't taking into consideration game situations. If Detroit is playing Boston and it goes to extra innings. The last batter for Bos was their #5 hitter and Detroit's last hitter was their #9. Who has the advantage now?

But you are injecting it into the game, not letting it happen due to cause and effect, natural developments based on what you are also stating.

You start the inning, man on 2B with no outs. The next hitter dictates what each team does next. If Miggy is up, there is no way you let him hit. You immediately walk him setting up the force. If you are hitting, you want to sacrifice the runner to 3B or at least hit behind the runner. Who on DET can bunt for a sacrifice and/or hit behind the runner? Iggy and who else? Certainly, who each team has in these situations dictate success. But because of team make up, certain teams have the advantage from the beginning.

Chance of scoring in an inning

0 on, 0 out = 26.8%
1 on 2B, 0 out = 41.6%
Men on 1 and 2, 0 out = 61.4%
1 on 3B, 1 out = 66.0%
Men on 2 and 3, 1 out = 67.6%

1 on 2B, 1 out = 39.6%

Percentage of occurrence

0 on, 0 out = 24.4%
0 on, 1 out = 17.5%
0 on, 2 out = 13.9%
1 on 2B, 0 out = 1.5%
Men on 1 and 2, 0 out = 1.4%

**55.8% of all plate appearances occur with no one on base.

 

[byco42]

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.

 

[tomdalton22]

But you are injecting it into the game, not letting it happen due to cause and effect, natural developments based on what you are also stating.

You start the inning, man on 2B with no outs. The next hitter dictates what each team does next. If Miggy is up, there is no way you let him hit. You immediately walk him setting up the force. If you are hitting, you want to sacrifice the runner to 3B or at least hit behind the runner. Who on DET can bunt for a sacrifice and/or hit behind the runner? Iggy and who else? Certainly, who each team has in these situations dictate success. But because of team make up, certain teams have the advantage from the beginning.

Chance of scoring in an inning

0 on, 0 out = 26.8%
1 on 2B, 0 out = 41.6%
Men on 1 and 2, 0 out = 61.4%
1 on 3B, 1 out = 66.0%
Men on 2 and 3, 1 out = 67.6%

1 on 2B, 1 out = 39.6%

Percentage of occurrence

0 on, 0 out = 24.4%
0 on, 1 out = 17.5%
0 on, 2 out = 13.9%
1 on 2B, 0 out = 1.5%
Men on 1 and 2, 0 out = 1.4%

**55.8% of all plate appearances occur with no one on base.

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.