Turning Back the Clock

Editor’s Note: This is the second in a 10-part series commemorating baseball’s new commissioner with advice for his tenure. To read more about this series, click here.

Oh look, another Yankees-Red Sox game that's sure to last 4.5 hours. (via Ryosuke Yagi)

Oh look, another Yankees-Red Sox game that’s sure to last 4.5 hours. (via Ryosuke Yagi)

Incoming Commissioner Rob Manfred is inheriting an enterprise that, while vigorous and strong, is not without its troubles. Some arose during Bud Selig’s tenure without being addressed, such as the growing incongruity of MLB’s blackout system in an era of streaming video. Some were tackled and began moving toward resolution, like PED policy—though Selig’s complicity in letting that problem become as bad as it did is a matter not of whether, but of how much.

There is one matter, though, that was a problem when Selig became acting commissioner, and has grown unchecked into something approaching a crisis. The game on the field is taking too long, longer than it needs to, and much longer than it used to.

I admit I’ve been a pest about this matter before, complaining about it when doing recaps of postseason games that kept me up way past my bedtime. I felt a touch guilty, and tried to restrain myself from going into full-fledged rants. No longer. It’s time to commit to being a pest, for the good of the game.

Some fans don’t see longer games as a problem. I’m not likely to convert those of you to my stance, but if I avoid ranting in favor of cogent argument, I hope you will avoid scorn (or clicking to some other site) in favor of not throwing vegetables while I stand on the soapbox. You will find, however, that a lot of people are inclined to agree with the guy on the soapbox.

The problem of longer games has been chronic, but recently has grown acute. From 1992, when Selig became acting commissioner, until 2012, the average length of a baseball game went from 2:54:21 to 3:00:10, a gain of somewhat less than six minutes. (Granted, the progress was a zig-zag, not a straight line.) From 2012 to 2014, it lengthened to 3:07:47, a gain of over seven and a half minutes. That adds up to over 13 minutes added to the average game length during Selig’s tenure, almost four-sevenths of that in the last two seasons alone.

There’s another way to look at the seismic movement of the last two years. For certain years, I counted up the numbers of games that took no longer than 2:30 while going at least eight and a half innings (meaning not shortened for rain or other reasons). I also tallied the games that ended in nine (or eight and a half) innings that took at least 3:30 to play (which excludes extra-inning contests).

Long and Short Games
Breakdown 1992 2012 2013 2014
Total games 2,106 2,430 2,431 2,430
>= 3:30 81 130 181 244
<= 2:30 387 222 183 121
Ratio 0.21 0.59 0.99 2.02

The short category outnumbered the long by almost five to one just 22 seasons ago. That ratio is now one-half to one, and the main inflection point came in the last two years. Short games are becoming a thing of the past, supplanted by trials of the spectators’ patience. I was about to call them “marathons,” but with the current marathon record having just fallen under 2:03:00, those classic tests of endurance are quick compared to baseball these days.

The entire problem of longer games cannot be laid at Selig’s feet. In research I did on another story, I came across a reporter in a 1913 newspaper lamenting how long baseball took those days. With distressing and growing frequency, game times would reach or even exceed … two hours.

Were he alive today, he might gladly transfer to the paper’s obituary department, thinking it’d be livelier.

So people have been complaining about this matter for over a century. Maybe it wasn’t really a problem then, but since his day, the game has gotten over 50 percent longer. To say this increase hasn’t gotten us to the point of a problem, or worse, borders on absurdity.

Longer games would be forgivable, even laudable, if there were 50 percent more of a game to watch. There isn’t. Granted, a hundred years ago we were in the Deadball Era, offense systematically smothered. Fans would have accepted a longer game if it came with more action—and did. The offensive explosion that attended the rise of Babe Ruth provided just that. Yet note above that in 1939, with the offensive revolution still burning, games had only gotten 10 minutes longer than a quarter-century before. The cost to the attention span was reasonable.

We have no such justification for subsequent lengthening of the game, especially the most recent spike. Offense today is not burgeoning but retreating, to the point where it may soon need official attention (especially the soaring strikeouts). By the previous example, we should expect games to get shorter, but they’re getting longer, swimming fast against the current. Dare we wonder how long they’d be if the high-offense game of 10 and 20 years ago came back?

Some will ask why we should care about this. Why is taking three hours to watch a baseball game intrinsically worse than taking two hours to watch it? You’re still getting the whole game. In fact, you’re getting more leisure time for your money, in ticket prices or cable subscription fees—and if it’s on free TV, you’re practically stealing from the league. It’s a pastime: why are you upset about it passing time?

This notion ends up corrosive to baseball. The bigger your commitment of time to a leisure activity, the less actual leisure there is in it. It moves closer to being a duty, one to be borne, or shirked. The longer the game, the more you’re tempted to duck out midway and get back to other things, or just peek in when you estimate it’s close to the end. You’ll end up caring less about the results, less about the process (meaning the playing), less about the game.

And let’s not forget the barriers raised against younger fans, at least in the east of the country. Games in the regular season that start shortly after seven will generally end after 10, too late for many kids to watch to the end. With the World Series beginning an hour later, the situation grows worse for what is supposed to be the showcase of the league. These problems would still exist with the game at two and a half hours, but every little bit helps. Or hurts.

As I implied, this isn’t such a problem for kids on the West Coast—assuming they have the patience to stick with the whole game in the first place. Perhaps the MLB offices have dispassionately calculated that what they lose in the East, they gain back in the West by sneaking a piece of the Series (and other playoff games) into prime time for more ad revenue. That equation might work for the present, letting executives move on to the problem of fan demographics growing older, without seeing the connection.

There. That soapbox moment is over. Wasn’t so bad, was it?


Having properly bemoaned the problem, it’s time to discharge the responsibility that comes with complaint: figuring out a solution. Fortunately, others are already working in that direction. Perhaps the most notable of them aren’t even in Organized Baseball.

The Atlantic League, an independent baseball league operating mostly in the Northeast, grew concerned about the lengthening times of its own games. The league average in 2013 was 3:02, almost the same as the majors*. The league  was  facing patrons, especially those with children, leaving in mid-game because it had just gotten too late.

* For those inclined to blame television for ever-lengthening major league games, a group in which I hover on the edges, this is a sharp counter-argument. The Atlantic League isn’t stretching out between-inning breaks to cram in more TV commercials. Radio might be another matter, but that doesn’t contribute nearly as big a piece of overall revenues, even for the minors, so the tail probably isn’t strong enough to wag the dog.

Rather than wait for the established leagues to act so it could follow their lead, the Atlantic League blazed its own trail. It formed a Pace of Play Committee, chaired by ex-Houston Astros president Tal Smith, which solicited suggestions from fans and media as well as its own members. The league came up with a list of six measures, later trimmed to five, that it began implementing in games on Aug. 1, 2014. The measures were:

  1. Limiting teams to three “time-outs” a game for mound visits by managers, coaches or players, those time-outs limited to 45 seconds each. Pitching changes are not included, and an extra time-out is granted for the 10th inning and every third extra inning thereafter.
  2. Automatically awarding an intentional walk upon the signal of the manager or catcher, without the need to throw four wide.
  3. Limiting warm-up pitches at the start of an inning, or when a reliever enters, from eight to six.
  4. Directing umpires to apply and enforce Rule 6.02 (restricting batters “stepping out”) and Rule 8.04 (requiring the pitcher to throw within 12 seconds when bases are empty).
  5. Encouraging umpires to exercise their power to control the pace of play (and to call the book strike zone).

The rejected measure would have mandated a substitute runner for a catcher who reached base on offense, so he would not waste time putting his equipment back on when the inning ended. This idea echoes the old-time tradition of “courtesy runners,” who could run for a hurt or shaken-up player without requiring him to come out of the game. To the regret of catchers’ knees everywhere, the committee considered this a bridge too far, though it may be considered again in the future.

With many curious eyes observing, games in the Atlantic League promptly became brisker. In the first month under the new rules, average game time fell to 2:53, nine minutes quicker than in 2013. The proportion of regulation games lasting three hours or longer fell from 42 percent to 26, and regulation games lasting no more than 2:30 rose from eight to 22 percent. Major league baseball hasn’t seen that last level for a couple of decades.

The Atlantic League is not declaring victory and stopping the reforms. The Pace of Play Committee has more than a dozen proposals still in some level of consideration, and the 2015 season may see several of them adopted. With a couple, though, we didn’t need to wait.

Around the end of the Atlantic League’s season in late September, Selig appointed his own Pace of Game Committee, headed by Atlanta Braves president John Schuerholz. As further indication that the matter was getting serious attention*, MLB tried out some rule changes of its own. Not in the majors, but in its own convenient substitute for an experimental lab, the Arizona Fall League.

* One may reasonably argue that a committee isn’t necessarily serious, but I’m giving it the benefit of the doubt.

AFL games in late 2014 featured the automatic intentional walk, along with a requirement for batters to keep at least one foot in the batter’s box between pitches, except on foul balls, wild pitches, and a couple other exceptions. A subset of games, played at Salt River Fields, added some more radical changes, most of which involved an import from the worlds of football and basketball: the play clock.

A pair of clocks on either side of home plate was used to count down time between innings (limited to 2:05), time during pitching changes, and most notably, time between pitches. Pitchers were given 20 seconds, whether or not anybody was on base, between receiving the ball and coming set. (Technically, they could hold the set as long as they wanted before pitching.) This differed from the Rule 8.04 requirements, showing that MLB was emulating but not aping the Atlantic League’s changes.

Players in the AFL adapted fairly readily to the changes, or at least said so for the media. Those who promulgated the test haven’t been as enthusiastic. Press reports indicate the play clock will not be appearing in the majors this upcoming season.

The other changes, along with a modification of the replay rule to make managers decide more quickly whether to challenge a call, may have better chances. A quarterly owners’ meeting in Arizona on Wednesday and Thursday could produce the first clear indication of what reforms, if any, will be implemented for 2015.

It would be the first clear indication because the Pace of Game Committee has been notably silent since being formed. There is some irony, and hopefully no foreshadowing, that a group formed to get games moving more quickly has been taking its time making any public progress. The AFL tests were announced mere days after the committee came into being. If the committee guided this action in its first days, I’ll cheerfully eat my words, but there is room for doubt.

There is another, possibly unfair, reason to doubt much progress from this group. Two of the most grievous offenders in slowing the pace of play have been the New York Yankees and Boston Red Sox. Even back to the late 1990s, any game between the two, especially in October, seems fated to last four hours or more. Among the seven members of the Pace of Play Committee are Michael Gordon and Tom Werner, second and third largest shareholders of the Red Sox. A third is Joe Torre, manager of the Yankees for so many late-night tussles.

But another appointment Selig made to the committee gives much better reason for optimism. It was the chief operating officer of MLB and, by the way, the commissioner-elect, Rob Manfred. Maybe this signals that Manfred is committed to bringing the length of games under control. If so, we should be seeing action on that front very soon.

$0.02, Mine

I have so far limited my personal opinions in this piece to the desirability of shorter games, and some speculation on how productive certain committee members might be. Truth is, I’m plenty more opinionated than that. I’ll close with my own thoughts on the best course to take with improving the pace of the game.

One matter that’s gotten only slight attention here so far is the effect of replay. There’s no doubt it has lengthened games, though by how much is more debatable. There’s also no chance replay will be broomed for the sake of a shorter game, since there’s no chance replay will be broomed at all. One needed reform made the need for another more pressing, and baseball will have to live with that.

Fortunately, the process of working out replay’s bugs should alleviate matters. The time that replays take will probably be a bit streamlined this coming year, from experience and internal tweaks. Making managers decide more quickly whether to challenge a play would help even more. The spectacle of a manager sauntering out to chat with an ump, stalling until he gets the signal from his dugout, is an obvious waste of time. Tackling obvious problems is a hallmark for effective reform, and I trust it’ll be done here.

Confession time: I’m not a big fan of the automatic intentional walk. Usually nothing happens on them, but sometimes, as in Game Four of the Nationals-Giants NLDS last October, it does. A change that both disrupts the standard on-field actions and lowers the chance of an exciting play from slim to none injures the aesthetics of the game. I believe that even necessary reforms should seek to accomplish the most with the least disruption. The automatic intentional walk is something that should be saved for if and when other changes prove to be insufficient.

(This controversy reminds me of the tart comment, I think by Don Drysdale, that an intentional walk is a waste of three pitches. Perhaps that’s the compromise solution, in a different form. Make the pitcher throw one semi-symbolic wide pitch to complete the intentional walk, leaving some chance that it’ll get away and send the runners scurrying.)

And the way to do the most with the least disruption would be to do what is already supposed to be done. Rules 6.02 and 8.04 empower umpires to prevent stalling by batters and pitchers alike. The Atlantic League directed umpires to apply those rules, and to use their other power to control the pace of play.

That, in my opinion, is the true foundation of any effort to tighten up game times. Bill James has written that umpires once were zealous in keeping the game moving along because games faced a time limit: sundown in an age before lights at ballparks. Once lights came in and erased that deadline, umpires’ attention to game pace endured a while from force of habit, but eventually decayed to nothing.

If we want to speed up games, Plan A should be to restore the umpires’ mandate to do it themselves. It requires no rule changes, though it does require the players to accept that the umps have this authority and will use it. They’ve adjusted to this kind of thing in the Atlantic League and the Arizona Fall League; they can do it in the majors.

Active participation by the umpires strikes me as the indispensable foundation for any improvement of the pace of play. If Manfred and the committee did nothing else but direct umpires to enforce those rules, and a better pace in general, we would make real progress. Probably not enough, but a year under that regime would give them a good chance to analyze how much further they needed to go, and what measures would accomplish this with the least alteration to the game.

Overly long games are a real problem, but there’s ample reason to believe it can be turned around. If the incoming commissioner follows through with his place on the Pace of Game Committee, he can get a handle on it quickly, and have a worthy accomplishment in his first year on the job. I hope it won’t be the only one.

References and Resources

A writer for The Hardball Times, Shane has been writing about baseball and science fiction since 1997. His stories have been translated into French, Russian and Japanese, and he was nominated for the 2002 Hugo Award.
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Jim S.
7 years ago

Why not pay the umpires a monetary bonus for a reduction in the average length of games? That might get their attention. The larger the reduction, the larger the bonus.

7 years ago
Reply to  Jim S.

Makes sense. I like it.

7 years ago

What if you just clone Mark Buehrle? Or force every pitcher into a Clockwork Orange style chair and make hem watch his pace until they adopt it.

7 years ago

Excellent article! I learned a lot from reading it. Agree that enforcement of current rules should be the first step.

7 years ago

Have the crew chief file a full report after any game that lasts longer than 3 hours, with detailed explanations of why the game lasted so long, what steps could have been taken to avoid this, and why these steps were not taken. Failure to file this report results in a suspension and could escalate in cases of repeated incidents. If the game lasts under 3 hours, there is no need to file a report at all.

I think umpires would gladly keep the game moving along quickly if it meant they could avoid a bureaucratic, intentionally embarrassing self-report like this. It’s not a catch-all solution, but it certainly couldn’t hurt.

(the other) Walter
7 years ago

I’m solidly in the “this is much ado about nothing” camp. Football is as popular as ever, and:

“An average professional football game lasts 3 hours and 12 minutes, but if you tally up the time when the ball is actually in play, the action amounts to a mere 11 minutes.”

It’s less about games being 6 minutes longer, and more about “is the game fun”. For me, yes it is. But I think there’s plenty that could be done to make it more enjoyable to watch for tv-fans – a lot more “cameras in the stands” sort of thing, etc.

Matthew Murphy
7 years ago

People don’t mind the length of football games as much because the vast majority of the games occur on Sunday afternoon. People who like the NFL pretty much already have their entire Sunday set aside for watching football, so whether the games are 2:50 or 3:10 doesn’t make a huge difference. If you want to watch every single game your team plays in, you might have to stay up late for a couple Thursday/Sunday/Monday night games, but the vast majority of them will be Sunday afternoon.
With the majority of baseball games taking place on weeknights, having to commit three hours to watching a game is a bit tougher. This is especially true for east coasters watching games in the central time zone, where having a game finish at 11pm versus 11:15 could make a big difference.

a eskpert
7 years ago

There’s only a handful of Football games a week, though.

7 years ago

Length of time by itself is not an issue. If a game is exciting, I don’t mind if it’s 3, 3.5 hours. The problem is that most games have so much time waiting for pitchers to throw, managers slowly walking out, batters re-adjusting their gloves every AB. Enforce the rules to prevent stalling by not giving in to every time out request by a batter, and don’t let them step out of the batter’s box between pitches, and that can likely shave a solid amount of time off a game without actually reducing the interest.

Greg F
7 years ago

A very good article. A couple of thoughts:

1)At one time there was a rule on the books that a pitch had to be delivered within 20 seconds, or an automatic ball was called. I know the rule has generally been ignored, but is it still on the books? Perhaps time to dust this off.

2)I like the idea of one pitch for an intentional walk. It does keep possibilities in the game that you don’t have by just announcing it – and you don’t have to use 4 pitches to do this.

The Stranger
7 years ago

I agree with previous commenters that the issue is more about the game being interesting than the actual amount of time. I’d be interested in seeing a breakdown of exactly where the time goes during an average game today as compared to 1992. Is it just a matter of pitchers taking longer between pitches and batters stepping out after every pitch, or are there more mound visits and mid-inning pitching changes now? Some of both?

Personally, though, I think the most annoying thing in baseball is the mid-inning pitching change. Commercial break, one batter, commercial break. It’s part of the game and I can’t see how you would change it, but it makes it hard to enjoy the televised game.

(the other) Walter
7 years ago

Agree @ the commercial-break/4 pitches / commercial thing…which begs the question: “Is it mostly the TV watching fan that says the game is too long, while the at-the-ballpark-fan is fine?”

7 years ago

I like watching games in the park. When things get dull, I can look around at other stuff — fans sitting nearby, where the outfielders are aligned, how the wind’s blowing, what’s going on over the outfield wall.

TV, you’re stuck with the view TV gives you. I can’t watch baseball on TV at all. Especially on nice days, when I feel like I should be doing something outside.

This is not to say I don’t ever sit in the park and watch a pitcher work the count to three balls on every batter and walk the bases loaded and feel like screaming “THROW SOME G-D STRIKES!!! I ONLY HAVE 20 YEARS TO LIVE!!!”

7 years ago

Short of using a clock which will solve the issue for sure, how about the following tweaks?
Make the pitcher receive the return throw from the catcher on or near the rubber. No walking half way to the plate or around the mound after they catch the ball. Catchers need to start the signal giving process as soon as they return the ball to the pitcher instead of waiting for the hitter get his signal & get into the batter’s box. If in the catcher’s opinion,the hitter has adjusted his position in the box,allow the catcher to restart the process. Encourage a faster system for changing pitches(wipes/rubs by the pitcher)to change pitches or locations faster without having to go through the entire signal giving process. Same thing for bench coaches controlling the running game. Instead of waiting for the 3rd base coach to finish his signal giving process before they give a throw over ,step off etc. make them give it as soon as the catcher returns the ball to the pitcher. Allow them a redo after the signals are given if they pick something up.

7 years ago

I like the Atlantic League’s idea of limiting mound visits. Those are a really annoying waste of time. If the pitcher and catcher can’t get their signs straight before the game or between innings – tough. Batters don’t get to have the hitting coach run out and talk them through a tough at bat so why should pitchers have this privilege?

But the biggest difference I can see is in the length of the commercial breaks between innings. When I was growing up night games began at 8 PM and were typically over by 10:30 (or earlier). Now games start an hour earlier and, at best, end up at the same time. Network games are worse but this disease seems to have infected local broadcasts as well. I don’t have a solution, well I do (take less money for broadcast rights in exchange for fewer commercials) but I don’t think it will happen.

Paul G.
7 years ago

I’m curious if there is any correlation between length of game and durability of starting pitchers. Less sitting on the bench time might make some difference.

7 years ago

“This controversy reminds me of the tart comment, I think by Don Drysdale, that an intentional walk is a waste of three pitches.”

What an awesome line! Thanks; I’ve been chuckling all morning.

Greg F
7 years ago
Reply to  Jeff

Drysdale’s idea of one pitch instead of 4 is what made me suggest the 1 pitch intentional walk – keeps some of the drama – but reduces the time involved.

Dennis Bedard
7 years ago

I enjoy gong to the ball park early, watching batting practice, reading the program, and having a hot dog and beer. I like spending the dead time talking to my friends about different aspects of the game being played. If you like watching baseball, time is immaterial. But if they want to shorten the game, eliminate the pre-inning warm ups. Why does a pitcher have to throw 9 pitches before every inning and the players have to throw the ball around the infield? Total waste of time. But it is part of the baseball experience so it stays. That would take away 20 minutes easily. Again, TV plays a large part of these delays.

7 years ago

My friend and I argue this all the time. I cannot stand the slow pace, but he always asks me why the extra fifteen minutes make a difference. My response is that any activity has a natural pace, and that the pace is what matters. If you slow down a symphony’s tempo too much, all the dramatic tension is lost, and the musical elements don’t occur at the proper pace, thereby ruining the experience. Your favorite rock-n-roll song would have no interest for you if it were played at a pace that was 10% slower. For me, that’s the rub with the slow games; there is so much down time that one loses track of what was happening. Monopoly is a fun game, but only when everyone takes her/his turn at a reasonable pace. If one player stares at the board for five seconds before rolling the dice each time, then it becomes much less enjoyable, even though five seconds isn’t normally an inordinately long period of time.

And I’m discouraged that our local independent-league games also stretch out to the three-hour mark. All these 19-year old college kids step out of the box and glare around after every pitch, as if it’s the ninth inning of the World Series.

7 years ago
Reply to  Deadheadbrewer

This is the thing. Everyone is preening now, even when there aren’t any cameras around to preen for.

I keep coming back to this: I have a DVD of Game 7 of the 1960 World Series, one of the great games ever, and the players did nothing like they do now. And these were the Yankees, who had every reason to preen (but probably hadn’t cottoned to TV just yet). I noticed this almost immediately. Batters got in the batter’s box and pretty much stayed there. Pitchers got the sign, wound up and threw. And this great game that featured 19 runs, 24 hits, nine pitchers and all the pressure of a winner-take-all game, took 2:36 to play.

Maybe we should blame Mike Hargrove. He got a funny nickname out of stalling and stalling and stalling, and maybe he made it cool to see how long you could stay out of the box. Maybe everyone now wants to be like Mike.

It would have been fun to see Bob Gibson pitch to him. Gibson hated anyone and anything that slowed his rhythm (I can remember announcers in the 1960s coming back from commercial break and the count would be 0-1).

Alas, no interleague play in 1974-75.

james wilson
7 years ago

Go to a twelve second rule. Hitters may step out once in an at-bat. Pitchers may go over once in an at-bat.

Five second rule for replay. If you know you have been hosed, you do not need the dog and pony show. Challenge.

Shane Tourtellotte
7 years ago

Bucdaddy, I have that DVD too. It is nice to see such an action-packed game move so swiftly. To be fair, the game had zero strikeouts and just five walks, that a low total for a 10-9 game, meaning PAs were generally getting finished fast. Also, Game Six in 1975 took just over four hours, and it’s still compelling at that length. Long doesn’t have to be dull, but dull is more often long than not.

I do imagine Bob Gibson would have found a way to police time-wasting in the batter’s box, but A) he’s long gone from the mound, and B) there haven’t been many others like him. (Nolan Ryan comes to mind.) Somebody has to police it, and the natural candidates are the umpires.

7 years ago

The Fisk game went extra innings, didn’t it?

(Looks it up.)

Yeah, 12 innings, and four hours for a 12-inning World Series game doesn’t seem hugely unreasonable. It’s the nine-inning, 4 1/2-hour Yankees-Bosox-type marathons that probably skew the MLB average time of game a few minutes all by themselves that seem interminable, because they are.

7 years ago

BTW, IMO, it’s not just baseball games that are getting longer. College football games seem to last close to 3:30 and NFL games are pretty well over 3 hours. It seems like even the average college basketball game runs 2:15, 2:20 (and the last two minutes are almost always unwatchable). The NBA, I don’t watch, but the games run pretty much close to 2.5 hours, right?

The only sport that seems to have addressed its length of time successfully (and I’m not sure that was the point) came when the NHL eliminated the two-line pass as a reason to stop play. NHL games speed along at about 2:20, 2:30 now, where IIRC back in the day they always ran about 2:40.

I’m pretty much convinced this also is because television doesn’t give a crap how long games are. If all baseball games came in under 2:30 and football under 3:00 and basketball under 2:00, ESPN would have to find something else to fill the rest of the time. I doubt ESPN really wants to do that. The longer the games, the better. ESPN would be happy if all games last eight hours.

Yehoshua Friedman
7 years ago

Cut the roster sizes hence decrease the number of substitutions, cut the commercial breaks. Bring back complete games by starters. A pitcher cannot be replaced unless injured on penalty of forfeit. The players’ association might agree to reduced roster sizes by reducing the years of control before free agency. Commercial breaks would be harder.

Casey Bell
7 years ago

While I personally feel that the average game should take no more than 2 and a half hours to play, it’s obviously not an issue for a lot of fans. Just look at attendence at the ball parks. Fifty years ago, teams that averaged 18,000 fans per game were doing pretty good.
These days most teams draw over 30,000 per game DESPITE the slower pace of play.

I can’t believe that the current trends of more strikeouts and longer games can continue very much longer without having a negative impact on attendence and more importantly, on the number of people watching the game from home.

One trend I’d like to see reversed is the frequency of mid-inning pitching changes. One
pitcher starts the inning, pitches to one or two batters, then gets replaced by a left specialist who pitches to 1 or 2 batters, who is then replaced by yet another pitcher etc etc etc! Boring!

How about a new rule. Any relief pitcher brought into the game must pitch to at least 3 batters OR until the end of the inning before he can be replaced. This would be bad news for the families of lefty specialists but for the rest of us it would mean fewer pitching changes, more action, and shorter games.

As far as automatic intentional walks are concerned, I’m all for it. The author is against them because they will eliminate the occasionial “excitement” that occurs on a botched intentional walk but I would gladly forego those rare instances in exchange for having
fewer dead spots in the action.