Speed up Baseball Games?

[EarlJam]

Can't recall where I heard it, but I recently heard measures were going to be taken to speed up baseball games.

I don't like this. 2.5 - 3.5 hours is okay with me, considering the $$$ I spend and the fact I love being at the ballpark.

What do all of you think?

-EJ

[OldPhiKap]

Baseball takes way too long. I don't see how they're gonna get the next generation of fans, given that the games don't end until way past bedtime.

I always loved to go see games when Greg Maddox pitched. One hour, fifty minutes, and you were headed backt o the car. That's the way it aughta be.

[EarlJam]

I always loved to go see games when Greg Maddox pitched. One hour, fifty minutes, and you were headed backt o the car. That's the way it aughta be.

I don't get that mentality though. Not that I'm saying it's wrong. It's not at all. It's not a right or wrong issue. But seems to me if you have the "get it over with so we can get to the car and go home" mindset, then maybe you're not the biggest baseball fan.

Again, NOT questioning your "fandom" or "comment." This isn't right or wrong, I just don't get it.

As a huge baseball fan, I want to be at the park as long as possible (then again I'm not a parent, so I can't pretend to understand how that affects things).

But I come from the school of Ernie Banks: "Let's Play Two!"

-EarlJam

[brevity]

Speed up baseball games? Nah. Just start them earlier, or offer discounted tickets for families for daytime games on weekends so that weeknight games are mostly attended by adults. Either way, extra inning games will be welcomed rather than viewed as a hassle.

Just another reason that people on the West Coast live a better life.

[EarlJam]

Speed up baseball games? Nah. Just start them earlier, or offer discounted tickets for families for daytime games on weekends so that weeknight games are mostly attended by adults. Either way, extra inning games will be welcomed rather than viewed as a hassle.

Just another reason that people on the West Coast live a better life.

How ironic that "Brevity" voted for not shortening the games!! :)

-EJ

[dkbaseball]

I'm one to just hang out at the park, but I don't like seeing half the crowd leave around the sixth inning because of a slow-paced game.There are at least two changes I'd like to see to move things along a little bit. The first appplies mainly to college games -- for about 15 years or so now college coaches have taken to calling the pitches, giving it first from the bench to the catcher, who then gives it to the pitcher. This adds several seconds to every at bat, and also can be a hindrance to pitchers who like to work quickly. I'd also like to see some sort of limit on how many times a pitcher can go over to first for a given base runner. It's a real interest killer when they go over time and again. You want to keep people from stealing? Get a catcher with a cannon arm, and pitchers who can deliver quickly to the plate from the stretch.

[OZZIE4DUKE]

Don't let batters play with their batting gloves after every pitch. It's like watching Sergio regrip his golf club 12 zillion times before hitting his shot. That should cut a good 20 minutes out of most games.

Other than that, leave the game alone.

[billybreen]

How ironic that "Brevity" voted for not shortening the games!! :)

-EJ

El Duderino isn't into the whole brevity thing.

[brevity]

How ironic that "Brevity" voted for not shortening the games!! :)

-EJ

In reality, I just catch the highlights on SportsCenter, if at all. So that's pretty brief. But if I were at a ballpark, and wasn't miserably hot, I'd be fine with the game length.

[YmoBeThere]

Actually, I don't mind making it an all day event, love going to watch BP before the game. But if the action is too slow during the game, it does get frustrating. I actually like low scoring games...

[2535Miles]

Leave em be. A day at the ball park is supposed to be just that, a whole day. I'm not worried about getting my money's worth, I just enjoy being out in the ballpark.

If you get a chance, you have to check out a day game at Petco Park in San Diego. It's got to be one of the most family friendly parks, five dollar tickets for the Park in the Park, and you can sit in the historic Western Metal Building and watch the game.

[Jarhead]

...and when the limit on the pitcher throwing to 1st is reached, the base runner can start walking to second as soon as the pitcher gets the ball? Or, the pitcher can throw the ball to the shortstop for a relay to first, or to the second baseman if the base runner has walked too far. That'll add five minutes to every at bat.

By the way, the mgrs in MLB have been sending in the signs via the catcher for several years. I don't see a way to stop that except to put in a college basketball 5 count on the pitcher, and batter -- the pitcher has to throw in 5, and the batter has to be ready in 5. I'm not serious even one iota. I love it at the ball park or in front of the flat panel (can't say tube anymore). Alone, or with somebody. That's why I am so pi55ed at MLB for taking the Braves away from WTBS and/or Fox sports. I used to watch almost every Braves game. But I've only watched one this year. Woe is me.

And I hate the DH, too.

[Bluedawg]

baseball is not a timed game. You play 9 innings or until someone wins. All this crap about speeding up sporting events is ridiculous.

I've heard they may stop stopping the clock when a ball carrier runs out of bounds in college football, except for the last 2 minutes.

Its all a means to try and pacify TV.

[Bluedawg]

for about 15 years or so now college coaches have taken to calling the pitches, giving it first from the bench to the catcher, who then gives it to the pitcher. This adds several seconds to every at bat, and also can be a hindrance to pitchers who like to work quickly.

Many MLB managers also call pitches. watch how many catchers take a quick glance. They just do it faster.

[Bluedawg]

Don't let batters play with their batting gloves after every pitch. It's like watching Sergio regrip his golf club 12 zillion times before hitting his shot. That should cut a good 20 minutes out of most games.

Other than that, leave the game alone.

The umpires, especially the plate ump, controls a lot of this. they allow batters to call way too many time outs.

[Bluedawg]

Leave em be. A day at the ball park is supposed to be just that, a whole day. I'm not worried about getting my money's worth, I just enjoy being out in the ballpark.

If you get a chance, you have to check out a day game at Petco Park in San Diego. It's got to be one of the most family friendly parks, five dollar tickets for the Park in the Park, and you can sit in the historic Western Metal Building and watch the game.

At one time The Ted had five dollar tickets. I assume they still do. My CEO told me about them.

[devildeac]

...and when the limit on the pitcher throwing to 1st is reached, the base runner can start walking to second as soon as the pitcher gets the ball? Or, the pitcher can throw the ball to the shortstop for a relay to first, or to the second baseman if the base runner has walked too far. That'll add five minutes to every at bat.

By the way, the mgrs in MLB have been sending in the signs via the catcher for several years. I don't see a way to stop that except to put in a college basketball 5 count on the pitcher, and batter -- the pitcher has to throw in 5, and the batter has to be ready in 5. I'm not serious even one iota. I love it at the ball park or in front of the flat panel (can't say tube anymore). Alone, or with somebody. That's why I am so pi55ed at MLB for taking the Braves away from WTBS and/or Fox sports. I used to watch almost every Braves game. But I've only watched one this year. Woe is me.

And I hate the DH, too.

Sad day for me, too when the Braves disappeared from TBS. We watched them from about 1977 or 1978 (when they were truly horrid) until last year when the games were still fairly available. The good thing is that now I have more time for DBR:o:D.

[knights68]

I am not a rabid fan of baseball, a casual observer to say. I vote for NOT shortening the game and keep things as they are.
Now granted if you have a family and small kids, an extended baseball game probably is not a first choice and odds are you'd have to leave before the game is over.

However, for me as a single guy, I enjoy going to the Durham Bulls (at the DBAP) as I have realized it's just just the baseball you go to see. Enjoying the atmosphere, the "sideshows" and more is the way to go. Even works better when you go with your date!

[throatybeard]

I've never understood why everyone complains about the length of baseball games when FB games routinely take close to 3.5 hrs.

[billybreen]

I've never understood why everyone complains about the length of baseball games when FB games routinely take close to 3.5 hrs.

Because football doesn't suck.

[colchar]

Because football doesn't suck.

Too true.

A report was released sometime over the last couple of years which stated that the everage baseball game lasted somwhere around 3.5hrs but that the ball was actually in play for only 11 minutes of that time.* Talk about boring.



*I am providing those numbers from memory as I don't remember the exact figures.

[EarlJam]

Too true.

A report was released sometime over the last couple of years which stated that the everage baseball game lasted somwhere around 3.5hrs but that the ball was actually in play for only 11 minutes of that time.* Talk about boring.

*I am providing those numbers from memory as I don't remember the exact figures.

Even in football, the ball is not in play for anywhere near the majority of the 3.5 hours.

If you love baseball, there's so much more to enjoy, watch, than just the ball being in play (e.g. positioning of the players; pitching match-ups, holding runners on base, who will the manager use from the bullpen, etc.)

Then there are the intangables (e.g. beanballs; bench clearings (I saw one in Yankee Stadium last week); scantly clad "healthy" women (I saw 6,542 at Turner Field yesterday ;)).

Baseball. It's a GOOD thing.

-EarlJam

[dkbaseball]

Because football doesn't suck.

Sounds like the lingering resentment of yet another frustrated Little Leaguer banished to the ignominy of right field.

Part of baseball's problem with its would-be fan base it that it provides a substantial percentage of American males with one of their first unpleasant tastes of failure and humiliation. Football, and even basketball, are a little bit different in terms of the humiliation they administer. Once you reach the high school level, you have to have a certain size or speed to play, and the individual failures aren't quite so conspicuous within the team concept. But baseball is a skill-intensive game that ordinary size people can play, so that excuse is taken away, and the mano-a-mano nature of pitching and hitting means that individual failures become highly conspicuous. At the plate, you either hit the ball or you don't; on the mound you either get it over or you don't; in the field you catch it and throw it accurately or you don't. It's there for God and everybody to see.

Most are able to forgive the game and forget, perhaps even learn to appreciate the hard life lessons. But some -- especially in today's "self-esteem" society -- carry the grudges to their graves. The parents can contrive to give trophies to everybody, but the individual player remembers whether he did it or didn't do it.

[colchar]

Sounds like the lingering resentment of yet another frustrated Little Leaguer banished to the ignominy of right field.

Part of baseball's problem with its would-be fan base it that it provides a substantial percentage of American males with one of their first unpleasant tastes of failure and humiliation. Football, and even basketball, are a little bit different in terms of the humiliation they administer. Once you reach the high school level, you have to have a certain size or speed to play, and the individual failures aren't quite so conspicuous within the team concept. But baseball is a skill-intensive game that ordinary size people can play, so that excuse is taken away, and the mano-a-mano nature of pitching and hitting means that individual failures become highly conspicuous. At the plate, you either hit the ball or you don't; on the mound you either get it over or you don't; in the field you catch it and throw it accurately or you don't. It's there for God and everybody to see.

Most are able to forgive the game and forget, perhaps even learn to appreciate the hard life lessons. But some -- especially in today's "self-esteem" society -- carry the grudges to their graves. The parents can contrive to give trophies to everybody, but the individual player remembers whether he did it or didn't do it.

Sorry, but you're way off base. Baseball's problem with it potential fanbase is that it is ridiculously boring to watch.

Baseball is fun to play (whether in a competitive league, a beer league, or just with a bunch of friends on a Sunday afternoon) but it is boring as hell to watch. Seriously, it bores some of us (me, in particular) to tears. I consider it the second most boring sport on the planet (cricket wins that title).

And I, for one, am a pretty good player. I can field (played catcher until my knees gave up on me and now play first, third, or any outfield position) and I can definitely hit (used to be a bit of a power hitter until I tore my left shoulder apart). In fact, I played the sport for years. So my distaste for baseball has nothing to do with lack of ability and the shame that you assume goes along with that. I just hate watching the game being played because it is so ridiculously boring and over-analyzed (see next paragraph).

"Well Bob, Jimbo is at bat. On days when his Mom's sister's neighbor's cat has hard food instead of soft food, and the wind is blowing from the east at no more than 10mph, he is hitting .273 BUT on days when his Dad's brother's dog has hard food and two doggie treats in the morning and the wind is blowing from the east at 10mph he is hitting .277 so I wonder what the opposing manager is going to do? Think he'll let the starter pitch to him or will he bring in a reliever?"

Really, really, boring (and this from someone who played for years and understands the strategy involved).

[billybreen]

Sounds like the lingering resentment of yet another frustrated Little Leaguer banished to the ignominy of right field.

Part of baseball's problem with its would-be fan base it that it provides a substantial percentage of American males with one of their first unpleasant tastes of failure and humiliation. Football, and even basketball, are a little bit different in terms of the humiliation they administer. Once you reach the high school level, you have to have a certain size or speed to play, and the individual failures aren't quite so conspicuous within the team concept. But baseball is a skill-intensive game that ordinary size people can play, so that excuse is taken away, and the mano-a-mano nature of pitching and hitting means that individual failures become highly conspicuous. At the plate, you either hit the ball or you don't; on the mound you either get it over or you don't; in the field you catch it and throw it accurately or you don't. It's there for God and everybody to see.

Most are able to forgive the game and forget, perhaps even learn to appreciate the hard life lessons. But some -- especially in today's "self-esteem" society -- carry the grudges to their graves. The parents can contrive to give trophies to everybody, but the individual player remembers whether he did it or didn't do it.

Wow, was that a rant!

For the record, I was atrocious at all sports. If anything, I'd say that I was most humiliated on the basketball court, yet basketball remains my favorite sport. It's absurd dime-store psychology to imply that deep-seated personal animosity borne out of my failure to be a competent athlete manifests itself as my dislike for baseball (or hockey or soccer). The fact that baseball is slow, boring, and unenjoyable to watch is a far more direct and likely explanation.

Hope you feel better, though. Apologies for insulting your true love. ;)

[billybreen]

Even in football, the ball is not in play for anywhere near the majority of the 3.5 hours.

If you love baseball, there's so much more to enjoy, watch, than just the ball being in play (e.g. positioning of the players; pitching match-ups, holding runners on base, who will the manager use from the bullpen, etc.)

Then there are the intangables (e.g. beanballs; bench clearings (I saw one in Yankee Stadium last week); scantly clad "healthy" women (I saw 6,542 at Turner Field yesterday ;)).

Baseball. It's a GOOD thing.

-EarlJam

I think you're making the argument for baseball as a pastime (like sailing or crochet) rather than a sport. Spending the afternoon drinking at a ballpark is a fine way to kill a day, but it's hard to enjoy the game by itself.

[dkbaseball]

Wow, was that a rant!

For the record, I was atrocious at all sports. If anything, I'd say that I was most humiliated on the basketball court, yet basketball remains my favorite sport. It's absurd dime-store psychology to imply that deep-seated personal animosity borne out of my failure to be a competent athlete manifests itself as my dislike for baseball (or hockey or soccer). The fact that baseball is slow, boring, and unenjoyable to watch is a far more direct and likely explanation.

Hope you feel better, though. Apologies for insulting your true love. ;)

Yes, sort of like telling me my baby is ugly and deformed.

This is just a generic rant that I've used to counter "baseball is boring" since long before you were born, and nothing personal is intended. I do think it has a kernel of truth in it. I think that people appreciate sports more when they can identify with the skills involved. Hockey, soccer and lacrosse just look like random chaos to me since I've never tried to develop the necessary skills for them, and to me they are boring, though I suppose they would meet the criteria of those who think a sport needs to have a lot of action going on to be watchable.

[colchar]

Yes, sort of like telling me my baby is ugly and deformed.


Well I guess that might be true if you had invented baseball.



This is just a generic rant that I've used to counter "baseball is boring" since long before you were born,


You've been wrong for a long long time then.



I do think it has a kernel of truth in it.


It doesn't. Trust me.




I think that people appreciate sports more when they can identify with the skills involved.


Neither of us is denying the skill involved in baseball (I quite agree that one of the hardest things to do in professional sports is to hit a major league pitch) but the skill of the players doesn't change the fact that the sport is boring as heck to watch.

[dkbaseball]

the skill of the players doesn't change the fact that the sport is boring as heck to watch.

Well, this is the quintessential pointless argument of the "I say tomato you say tomato" variety, isn't it? I don't think the sport is boring, and millions of other people don't either. You're certainly entitled to your opinion. And I really don't know what else there is to say about it.

[Cell-R]

Too true.

A report was released sometime over the last couple of years which stated that the everage baseball game lasted somwhere around 3.5hrs but that the ball was actually in play for only 11 minutes of that time.* Talk about boring.



*I am providing those numbers from memory as I don't remember the exact figures.



I'm not a huge fan of baseball, but during a football game isn't the ball in play for much less than 11 minutes in a 2.5-4 hour game?

Unless i'm misunderstanding, you are using an argument against baseball that can be used against your own "non-sucky" sport!

[EarlJam]

I'm not a huge fan of baseball, but during a football game isn't the ball in play for much less than 11 minutes in a 2.5-4 hour game?

Unless i'm misunderstanding, you are using an argument against baseball that can be used against your own "non-sucky" sport!

Indeed. see my earlier post.

If all you are there for is the time the ball is "in action", you just aren't a knowledgable fan.

-EarlJam

[billybreen]

If all you are there for is the time the ball is "in action", you just aren't a knowledgable (sic) fan.

I kind of get what you're saying, but I don't think it's a really compelling point. There's still the question of why I should bother becoming knowledgeable about sports that don't really interest me.

I appreciate a sport that can 'degrade gracefully.' That is, even without understanding the complexity, it's exciting and compelling. Of course, learning more about the sport should reward that study with an appreciation of the game on different levels.

By that crude metric I would argue that football offers a slightly better initial experience than baseball, if for no other reason than that it's deliciously violent. Once you learn how the game is scored, there's usually enough excitement to keep you involved, even if you can't tell a nickel from a dime.

But I can't think of anything better than basketball in terms of time to value. That's a 2, outside that arc is a 3, and free throws are 1 point. Enjoy.

[Bluedawg]

I kind of get what you're saying, but I don't think it's a really compelling point. There's still the question of why I should bother becoming knowledgeable about sports that don't really interest me.


You are correct. but then why go on a thread about that sport, and why try to trash it for people who do enjoy it.

[billybreen]

You are correct. but then why go on a thread about that sport, and why try to trash it for people who do enjoy it.

This is a thread asking for feedback on whether baseball games should be sped up. Isn't it fair for those of us who gave up on the game to discuss why we did?

Now, if I walked into a random Orioles, Braves, or fantasy baseball thread to explain why I think baseball sucks, you would have more of a point. That would be pretty jerky.

[colchar]

I'm not a huge fan of baseball, but during a football game isn't the ball in play for much less than 11 minutes in a 2.5-4 hour game?

Unless i'm misunderstanding, you are using an argument against baseball that can be used against your own "non-sucky" sport!

I haven't mentioned football in this thread (I merely agreed that football doesn't suck). Even when the ball is actually in play in a baseball game it is boring as heck. Gee, a flyball to left field...how interesting. At least in football the time when the ball is in play is generally interesting (noticed I said generally - as in, not always). The same cannot be said for baseball.

[colchar]

Indeed. see my earlier post.

If all you are there for is the time the ball is "in action", you just aren't a knowledgable fan.

-EarlJam

But I am knowledgable. I just don't find it all that interesting to try an guess whether or not the manager is going to pull the pitcher in favour of an other-handed pitcher (especially for just one batter) or to wonder whether the batter will notice that the shortstop is cheating towards second thus making him try to hit it through the gap between short and third. Sorry...just not all that entertaining to me at all.

Give me hockey every time.

[Duke4Ever32]

Give me hockey every time.

Yawn. Baseball can be boring, but hockey has to be the most boring sport ever invented. I'd rather be on death row than have to watch a hockey game. At least there would be some interesting conversation on death row.

[colchar]

Yawn. Baseball can be boring, but hockey has to be the most boring sport ever invented. I'd rather be on death row than have to watch a hockey game. At least there would be some interesting conversation on death row.

Oh please. I'd love to hear what, exactly, is so boring about hockey. Is it the goals? The hits? The skill involved? The fact that you are guaranteed a minimum of sixty minutes of playing time (ie. puck in play) every game?

[billybreen]

Oh please. I'd love to hear what, exactly, is so boring about hockey. Is it the goals? The hits? The skill involved? The fact that you are guaranteed a minimum of sixty minutes of playing time (ie. puck in play) every game?

For me it's the low scoring and the endless chasing of the puck. It's just soccer with skates and sticks. No thanks.

[Duke4Ever32]

For me it's the low scoring and the endless chasing of the puck. It's just soccer with skates and sticks. No thanks.

Bingo. And watching men on skates chase a flat object just does nothing for me. I'd rather watch dogs chase a ball.

[colchar]

For me it's the low scoring and the endless chasing of the puck. It's just soccer with skates and sticks. No thanks.

You sound like exactly the type of person that Gary Bettman (worst thing to ever happen to the NHL) is targeting with his drive to increase scoring. Nothing beats a good back and forth hockey game regardless of how low the final score might be.

And comparing it to soccer but with sticks and skates is fightin' words up here - especially as there is no comparison between the two sports.

[colchar]

I'd rather watch dogs chase a ball.

Or grown men in shorts running 94 feet to put a ball into a net, then turning around and doing the exact same thing again but in the opposite direction - to be repeated ad nauseum for 40 minutes?

[Duke4Ever32]

Nothing beats a good back and forth hockey game regardless of how low the final score might be.

I think it's a Canadian thing. For most Americans, nothing beats a good back and forth hockey game except for everything else. Admittedly, I don't understand the rules (like how sometimes apparently it's okay to assault someone and other times you get penalized), but I could just never get interested in it enough to even care about the rules.

[Duke4Ever32]

Or grown men in shorts running 94 feet to put a ball into a net, then turning around and doing the exact same thing again but in the opposite direction - to be repeated ad nauseum for 40 minutes?

Hey! You're talkin' 'bout religion now! ;)

[Duke4Ever32]

Or grown men in shorts running 94 feet to put a ball into a net, then turning around and doing the exact same thing again but in the opposite direction - to be repeated ad nauseum for 40 minutes?

Maybe the low percentage of success each trip in hockey also has something to do with it - that's not present in basketball. Watching people fail repeatedly just doesn't sound exciting. Sort of like endless futility or something!

[billybreen]

And comparing it to soccer but with sticks and skates is fightin' words up here - especially as there is no comparison between the two sports.

See, Bluedawg, I'm an equal opportunity offender. ;)

[Johnboy]

I used to think baseball was boring - boring to play and boring to watch. Then I had kids who wanted to play baseball. All of a sudden, with a real rooting interest, I began to appreciate the game, and I find it very exciting now, even when I don't have a rooting interest.

[Bluedawg]

This is a thread asking for feedback on whether baseball games should be sped up. Isn't it fair for those of us who gave up on the game to discuss why we did?

These were the options:


Yes. These games take forever.
No. I love the ballpark and want to get my money's worth.
Make the games longer.

baseball sucks was not one of them.

yes you can and you did. But why belabor the point.


I haven't mentioned football in this thread (I merely agreed that football doesn't suck). Even when the ball is actually in play in a baseball game it is boring as heck. Gee, a flyball to left field...how interesting. At least in football the time when the ball is in play is generally interesting (noticed I said generally - as in, not always). The same cannot be said for baseball.

But at least you have good company.

[Bluedawg]

But I am knowledgable.

Give me hockey every time.

Just because you are knowledgeable doesn't mean you understand the game. Tim McCarver is a prime example.

Now...hockey i find dull probably because although I am knowledgeable about the game I don't understand all of the games' nuances. I don't truly understand the game.

[Bluedawg]

Maybe the low percentage of success each trip in hockey also has something to do with it - that's not present in basketball. Watching people fail repeatedly just doesn't sound exciting. Sort of like endless futility or something!

this is one thing baseball and hockey have in common. You can fail 60 to 70% of the time and be considered playing at the top of your game.

[Bluedawg]

Now, if I walked into a random Orioles, Braves, or fantasy baseball thread to explain why I think baseball sucks, you would have more of a point. That would be pretty jerky.

Well, I have to give you credit for that. I searched the Atlanta Braves thread and could not find you.

[colchar]

I think it's a Canadian thing. For most Americans, nothing beats a good back and forth hockey game except for everything else.

My cousin and his family in California are hockey fanatics. Absolute fanatics. And no, they aren't transplanted Canadians (only a very few family member moved here from Scotland), they are transplanted Scots.

[colchar]

Hey! You're talkin' 'bout religion now! ;)

My religion is hockey so all the other sports are mere pretenders.

[colchar]

Maybe the low percentage of success each trip in hockey also has something to do with it - that's not present in basketball. Watching people fail repeatedly just doesn't sound exciting. Sort of like endless futility or something!

I know a lot of people who think basketball is boring because they score on so many of their trips downcourt. They see it as two-pointer. Ho hum. Free throws at the other end. Ho hum. Two pointer at the opposite end. Ho hum. Boring.*



* We all know that defense barely exists in the NBA except, perhaps, in the playoffs.

[colchar]

Just because you are knowledgeable doesn't mean you understand the game.


But I do understand it. Quite well in fact. I played it for years and was a religious Blue Jays fan until they won back-to-back WS titles.



Tim McCarver is a prime example.


Well played.



Now...hockey i find dull probably because although I am knowledgeable about the game I don't understand all of the games' nuances. I don't truly understand the game.

That might be part of your problem (also that most US broadcasts of games I've seen have been pretty poor in comparison to Canadian broadcasts). I understand it so well (I played at a very high level for 12 years - a former teammate played in the NHL for 15 years - and have been watching it since I was a kid) that I can tell what is going on even without looking at the screen and without commentary. Hockey Night in Canada (the national broadcast on CBC every Saturday night which shows at least two games back-to-back) has a feature between periods during which they show highlights from the previous period, without any commentary, but with the sounds of the game itself left in. I can't count the number of times I haven't been paying attention but have heard something (usually sitting at my computer because my chair faces away from the tv in this room) and turned to my Dad or a buddy to say "Did X just happen?" and have been right. I'd wager an awful lot of Canadian fans could do exactly the same thing. Many of us have almost a sixth-sense where hockey is concerned.

[Bluedawg]

I understand it so well that I can tell what is going on even without looking at the screen and without commentary.

This means, since you can tell what is going on in a hockey game without seeing it or hearing anything about it, you can tell us what is happening in every game anywhere in the world at any given time.

Next hockey season I'll quiz you.:cool:

[colchar]

This means, since you can tell what is going on in a hockey game without seeing it or hearing anything about it, you can tell us what is happening in every game anywhere in the world at any given time.

Next hockey season I'll quiz you.:cool:

No...I have to be able to hear the sounds of the game itself to know what is going on (notice I said they show replays without commentary but with the sounds of the game itself left in).

[rsvman]

I don't really like baseball, and I don't know much about baseball. Clue me in: are there ANY time limits to ANY activity WHATSOEVER in baseball? In other words, does the batter have a certain amount of time in which to get himself into the batter's box, or can he stand there and knock dust off his shoes forever if he feels so compelled? Does the pitcher eventually have to actually deliver a pitch, or could he throw to first base over and over again until everybody either went home or died? I seriously don't know.

If the answer to either of the above questions is "there's no time limit" then I think there SHOULD be a time limit.

I also think that after a certain number of foul balls, a third strike should be called. You've all been there when the batter gets two strikes on him and then proceeds to hit 17 straight pitches into foul territory? Why couldn't we say that when you have two strikes, if you hit 7 foul balls you're out, or something?

[colchar]

I also think that after a certain number of foul balls, a third strike should be called. You've all been there when the batter gets two strikes on him and then proceeds to hit 17 straight pitches into foul territory? Why couldn't we say that when you have two strikes, if you hit 7 foul balls you're out, or something?

That would be an unfair advantage for the pitcher.

[cato]

I also think that after a certain number of foul balls, a third strike should be called. You've all been there when the batter gets two strikes on him and then proceeds to hit 17 straight pitches into foul territory? Why couldn't we say that when you have two strikes, if you hit 7 foul balls you're out, or something?

Would you support a rule in basketball that says that after 3 offensive rebounds in one possession, the ball should be turned over to the other team?

[rsvman]

I appreciate both replies to my question about consecutive foul balls. As I said, I know very, very little about baseball and have never been involved in it. From the perspective of an absolute outsider, it seems rather arbitrary that the first two times you hit a foul ball, it's a strike, but thereafter it's not. An offensive rebound is an offensive rebound, but a foul ball is not a foul ball, apparently, because the outcome of a foul ball depends upon when it is hit. To me, it seems arbitrary, and, if so, I didn't see why it couldn't also arbitrarily be decided that at some point a third strike could be called.

I really don't even pretend to understand baseball, and I can see that those who do think the idea is preposterous, so perhaps it is.:)

[Bluedawg]

I found this interesting reading the rules of baseball:


Umpires will not call "Time" at the request of the batter or any member of his team once the pitcher has started his windup or has come to a set position even though the batter claims "dust in his eyes," "steamed glasses," "didn't get the sign" or for any other cause.
http://baseball-almanac.com/rule6.shtml


How many time have we seen time called as a pitcher starts his wind-up.

[Bluedawg]

Clue me in: are there ANY time limits to ANY activity WHATSOEVER in baseball?

yes, but they are not ordained time limites. they are up to the discretion of the umpire.


In other words, does the batter have a certain amount of time in which to get himself into the batter's box, or can he stand there and knock dust off his shoes forever if he feels so compelled?

There are no prescribed time limits for the batter to get into the batters box. If he does not enter the box when instructed the umpire can instruct the pitcher to pitch and regardless of where it goes call it a strike. I’ve seen them do it.



Does the pitcher eventually have to actually deliver a pitch, or could he throw to first base over and over again until everybody either went home or died?

Again, its up to the discretion of the umpire. I’ve seen a pitcher take forever to deliver the ball, the umpire instruct him to pitch, he does not so the ump called a ball.

As far as throwing to 1st, I’ve never seen an umpire tell a pitcher to stop but I have seen to catcher go out and talk to a pitcher after multiple throws. With the mask on you can’t see the faces of the catcher or ump so I suspected the catcher was instructed to have a chant with the pitcher. Anyway, most throw overs are called by the manager.


I also think that after a certain number of foul balls, a third strike should be called. You've all been there when the batter gets two strikes on him and then proceeds to hit 17 straight pitches into foul territory? Why couldn't we say that when you have two strikes, if you hit 7 foul balls you're out, or something?

One of the answers you received on this I liked...it would give the pitcher an unfair advantage. A good pitcher can force a batter to hit it foul, therefore having an automatic out on X # of foul balls would be unfair.

You also have to understand a lot of foul balls affect everyone, the pitcher, the batter, and any base runners. It wears them down. Plus the relationship between the batter and pitcher is a total mind game. The pitcher wants the batter to hit the pitch he wants, and the batter wants to be pitched the pitch he wants to hit. They both try to force their will.

Plus not all of the foul balls are hit by the batter. Many times a good pitcher will force a batter to hit the ball foul because he wants to set up his “strike out” pitch and he wants to control the thinking process of the batter.

[cato]

How many time have we seen time called as a pitcher starts his wind-up.

I can't recall any.

[Bluedawg]

I can't recall any.

Interesting...I see it every game.

I've also seen teh batteer sep out without visibally calling time, and the umpire gave it to him...also a rule violation.

[cato]

Interesting...I see it every game.

I've also seen teh batteer sep out without visibally calling time, and the umpire gave it to him...also a rule violation.

Interesting . . . every game?

[billybreen]

Interesting . . . every game?

Bluedawg knows how to make baseball more exciting -- alcohol. :)

[Bluedawg]

Interesting . . . every game?

yes...but who know what i wrote...

[dkbaseball]

I have seen to catcher go out and talk to a pitcher after multiple throws. With the mask on you can’t see the faces of the catcher or ump so I suspected the catcher was instructed to have a chant with the pitcher. Anyway, most throw overs are called by the manager.

Now that would speed up the game -- have the catcher go talk to the pitcher about how many times he is throwing over to first. What chant do they use? "Ommm?";) And are you seriously suggesting that the pitcher in his stretch looks over to the manager to see if he should hold the baserunner? Kind of a strain on the old neck if a righthander's manager is in the first base dugout, or third base dugout for a lefty. Personally, I'd be in open rebellion against any manager who imposed that extra burden on me in the already difficult situation of focusing on both the runner and the pitch. Trust me: that doesn't happen.

Sorry, BD, but this fruit was hanging too low not to pick. I'm with you though on the number of times one sees timeout called after the pitcher has gone into his windup. Happens far more these days, when hitters seem to think their precious cadence is going to be upset if the pitcher takes too much time delivering the ball.

[Bluedawg]

Bluedawg knows how to make baseball more exciting -- alcohol. :)

And no...I had not been drinking when i wrote whatever i wrote. yes...that was all me...sad

[Bluedawg]

Interesting...I see it every game.

I've also seen teh batteer sep out without visibally calling time, and the umpire gave it to him...also a rule violation.

What this should have said is: I've also seen the batter step out without visibly requesting time, and the umpire giving it to him...also a rule violation.

One way to speed up the game is for the umpires to enforce the rules.

[fuse]

Because football doesn't suck.

Going to a baseball game is really just an excuse to hang out with friends and drink beer- does anyone really watch the game?

I find it sad that baseball is so boring and yet is "America's sport".

Lacrosse, Basketball, Football- any one of them would be a great choice for America's sport.

The best way to shorten the game of baseball is to stop playing :-)

[colchar]

Lacrosse, Basketball, Football- any one of them would be a great choice for America's sport.



That's fine, except for the fact that lacrosse is Canadian and basketball was invented by a Canadian (although he was living in the US when he invented the game).

[Bluedawg]

Going to a baseball game is really just an excuse to hang out with friends and drink beer- does anyone really watch the game?

Well, since I don't drink...i do.

[EarlJam]

Well, since I don't drink...i do.

Reminds me of a time in '91 when I was at Memorial Stadium in Baltimore with a bunch of my buddies. Got so drunk I got double vision. Hard as I tried, I couldn't see just one right fielder (we were in the right field bleachers). I think I saw two Larry Sheets out there - and that's one too many Larry Sheets. No wait. That's two too many Larry Sheets.

Dude could lose a race to a pine tree.

Also, the year before that, Gary Sheffield (then with Milwaukee (who was in the American League), gave me, EarlJam, the finger.

We had good times at Memorial Stadium. Even if during summer day games the aluminum and concrete monstrosity (sp) would heat up to about 437 degrees.

-EarlJam

[billybreen]

That's fine, except for the fact that lacrosse is Canadian and basketball was invented by a Canadian (although he was living in the US when he invented the game).

It's interesting that whenever a Canadian does something noteworthy they are living in the States. I guess we bring out the best in Canadians.