The runner on second in extra innings rule - it sucks

Fender57

BoltTalker
Sep 7, 2008
6,794
2,628
340
I like watching sports but it can be very time consuming. When a game goes to overtime or extra innings it starts to really take a toll, maybe interfering with other things that needs to be done. I'm all for speeding up the game, especially baseball since it's not as fast paced as most other sports. Things like a timer between pitches, or reducing the time when changing pitchers or speeding up extra innings are great IMO. Baseball has historically very resistant to change which I think has always been a big negative so I love the fact that they're finally doing some bold things.
Yeah that’s where I disagree. I lean towards being a purist. The game takes as long as it should take, I don’t necessarily buy into fitting it into everyone’s schedule. I get why though, it’s about viewership and ratings.
 

Gill Man

Inaugural SAN DIEGO Charger Fan Since 1962 FUDEAN
Staff member
Moderator
Sep 1, 2017
11,180
3,075
330
They continue with the order. Last man at bat from the previous inning goes to second base.
I'm not sure I'm at all on board with that. In fact it is BS. What they've done IMO by putting a man on 2nd is a 'sudden death" similar to college football or soccer etc. And in that case that is total BS to disadvantage one team if they happen to be at the bottom of the order and the other team is at the top of the order. BS IMO. I mean I LOVE it right now because we just kicked the Gnats ass into SF bay in the 10th. But to be fair, both teams oughta start out fairly equally in a sudden death situation. This would be akin to college football sudden death and one team has to put in backups LOLOLOL.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fender57

Gill Man

Inaugural SAN DIEGO Charger Fan Since 1962 FUDEAN
Staff member
Moderator
Sep 1, 2017
11,180
3,075
330
I like watching sports but it can be very time consuming. When a game goes to overtime or extra innings it starts to really take a toll, maybe interfering with other things that needs to be done. I'm all for speeding up the game, especially baseball since it's not as fast paced as most other sports. Things like a timer between pitches, or reducing the time when changing pitchers or speeding up extra innings are great IMO. Baseball has historically very resistant to change which I think has always been a big negative so I love the fact that they're finally doing some bold things.
Gotta admit if it's later at night and they hit extra innings it can be almost painful to sit thru another 5-6 innings until a decision is rendered. Day game no big deal. Maybe it's 'cause I'm old LOL.
 

Fender57

BoltTalker
Sep 7, 2008
6,794
2,628
340
I'm not sure I'm at all on board with that. In fact it is BS. What they've done IMO by putting a man on 2nd is a 'sudden death" similar to college football or soccer etc. And in that case that is total BS to disadvantage one team if they happen to be at the bottom of the order and the other team is at the top of the order. BS IMO. I mean I LOVE it right now because we just kicked the Gnats ass into SF bay in the 10th. But to be fair, both teams oughta start out fairly equally in a sudden death situation. This would be akin to college football sudden death and one team has to put in backups LOLOLOL.
On top of everything you say, it is simply unnatural in a game that has rules that was fairly seamless in function. The perfect game story above about Harvey Haddix is a good example. If there is a no hitter or perfect going on it really screws up the game and it becomes an asterisk. Not natural at all. I know this is a very rare occurrence but still, in a natural progression of the process the no hitter is still intact. Putting a guy on second is marring the situation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gill Man

Gill Man

Inaugural SAN DIEGO Charger Fan Since 1962 FUDEAN
Staff member
Moderator
Sep 1, 2017
11,180
3,075
330
On top of everything you say, it is simply unnatural in a game that has rules that was fairly seamless in function. The perfect game story above about Harvey Haddix is a good example. If there is a no hitter or perfect going on it really screws up the game and it becomes an asterisk. Not natural at all. I know this is a very rare occurrence but still, in a natural progression of the process the no hitter is still intact. Putting a guy on second is marring the situation.
yeah agree, for a purist this stuff is total crap and unworthy. What the hell, cancel culture LOL. Seriously, this is more of a generational thing. Us fans who lived thru a very purist form of football and baseball back in the day still appreciate the vast differences. The younger generation who never experienced it at all, do not know the difference. Plus everyone nowadays is in a big hurry, instant gratification so they can get back to whatever, social media, texting etc etc. To me football is the greatest change and very much for the worse. We saw a very slight glimpse of a more real version of the original American football when the Fleet were playing......time between plays was shortened so the game speeded up. But add to that all the other nonsense nowdays...substitutions, free agency, players all roided up, astroturf, indoor domed stadiums etc etc....it's an entirely different sport. It's now a BS game.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Fender57

TTK

EX-Charger Fan
Jul 30, 2007
2,902
1,033
290
Whether it's people, companies or whatever, adaption is needed to survive. Baseball's popularity is not increasing, it's declining. I think someone over there finally knocked some sense into the commissioner and owner's heads after decades of ignoring it.

They just released the average age for a baseball fan and it's 57. That's insane. I think there are very few business would be happy with that statistic. I'm in my 40's so MLB has already lost a good chunk of my age group. None of my friends care about baseball anymore. It's mainly NFL, MMA, and NBA. Younger generations don't have the attention span, and honestly everyone's attention span as a whole is not what it used to be due to technology. Even older Americans scoff at watching soccer because there's "not enough scoring" or it's "too boring". Good luck trying to get Gen-Z to sit through a four hour 14-inning baseball game that 2-2. My son likes baseball a little bit but he would never watch an entire game like that. That is virtually impossible to happen. He has no problem watching a Twitch stream for a couple of hours though.

MLB has to make changes to start appealing to younger viewers to convert them into fans otherwise they're going to be in trouble if that average age keeps going up until that generation is no longer around.

You guys might hate it but that's just the reality of it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lance19

TTK

EX-Charger Fan
Jul 30, 2007
2,902
1,033
290

Extra innings runner on base rule

What we love or hate about it


Bradford Doolittle: It's a gimmick, and it's not the way major league games should be decided. I understand that so far, the rule has been popular. But the message the reaction sends is being misinterpreted. What I get from it is that what people like about it is that the rule forces teams to (mostly) think beyond playing for the home run. The strategies that come into play when an inning starts with a runner already on second base are ... just baseball, in the way that we've mostly known it up to the past few years.

People like a diversity of strategy, and while home runs have their appeal, they can't be the only on-field offering baseball features. Address the over-incentivization of home runs, and the practice of carrying too many pitchers, and you have a better balanced and nuanced game and this silly gimmick is not needed. And as for using it as a game-shortening measure, it's a ham-handed and misguided way of dealing with what is the real underlying problem.

Miller: Every half-inning goes in terrifyingly unpredictable, dynamic directions, flowering into unanticipated strategic dilemmas and wild swings in win expectancy with nearly every play. And the fan has some faith that the viewing experience will deliver what it promised -- a victor -- at a reasonable hour.

David Schoenfield: While the one or two games every year that go 17 or 18 innings are always fun, I think the idea of a long extra-inning game is actually more exciting than the actual product. If a game goes that long, it's usually because nothing is happening. Indeed, the collective batting average in extra innings last year was .233, the lowest of any inning. The collective slugging percentage was .394, the lowest of any inning. Now we have instant excitement and strategic options with the runner on second base. In fact, this rule is helping keep the sacrifice bunt from complete extinction. There have been just 20 sac bunts all season through Sunday, with six of those coming in extra innings.

How it's impacting the game

Last season 91 of 208 extra-inning games went 10 innings (43.8%). It's a small sample size with just 16 extra-inning games through Monday, but nine of those (56.3%) were over after 10 innings and another five were over after 11 innings -- so that's 87.5% of extra-inning games over after 11 innings compared to 71.6% last year. So, games are ending a little quicker, and of course the marathon games are unlikely (we've had two 13-inning games). But it's not a HUGE difference. The biggest impact might be the elimination of the marathon games, which can wipe out an entire bullpen in one night and have a potential ripple effect for several days thereafter (including forcing a team to send a player to the minors for no other reason than to get a fresh arm up).

Based on early returns, the new rule has shortened the length of extra-inning games while increasing the prevalence of scoring and deemphasizing all-or-nothing approaches. The average number of extra innings in games tied after nine frames has dropped from 2.14 to 1.57 over last season, while the runs-per-nine total has skyrocketed from 4.26 to 8.43. (Though, because runs scored by the free baserunner are unearned, extra-inning ERA has actually declined.) There has also been an increase in elective strategy. On a per-nine-innings basis in extra innings, steals have gone from 0.62 to 1.08, successful sacrifices have gone from 0.35 to 1.08 and intentional walks have gone from 0.85 to 1.43. Meanwhile, homers per nine innings during extra innings have dropped from 1.30 to 0.36. Through Monday, there had been as many extra-inning triples (two) as homers.

Verdict: Keep it or lose it?

Doolittle: Lose it.

Miller: Keep it.

Schoenfield: Keep it.
 

handoverfist

BoltTalker
Sep 10, 2018
1,453
1,104
200
56

Extra innings runner on base rule

What we love or hate about it


Bradford Doolittle: It's a gimmick, and it's not the way major league games should be decided. I understand that so far, the rule has been popular. But the message the reaction sends is being misinterpreted. What I get from it is that what people like about it is that the rule forces teams to (mostly) think beyond playing for the home run. The strategies that come into play when an inning starts with a runner already on second base are ... just baseball, in the way that we've mostly known it up to the past few years.

People like a diversity of strategy, and while home runs have their appeal, they can't be the only on-field offering baseball features. Address the over-incentivization of home runs, and the practice of carrying too many pitchers, and you have a better balanced and nuanced game and this silly gimmick is not needed. And as for using it as a game-shortening measure, it's a ham-handed and misguided way of dealing with what is the real underlying problem.

Miller: Every half-inning goes in terrifyingly unpredictable, dynamic directions, flowering into unanticipated strategic dilemmas and wild swings in win expectancy with nearly every play. And the fan has some faith that the viewing experience will deliver what it promised -- a victor -- at a reasonable hour.

David Schoenfield: While the one or two games every year that go 17 or 18 innings are always fun, I think the idea of a long extra-inning game is actually more exciting than the actual product. If a game goes that long, it's usually because nothing is happening. Indeed, the collective batting average in extra innings last year was .233, the lowest of any inning. The collective slugging percentage was .394, the lowest of any inning. Now we have instant excitement and strategic options with the runner on second base. In fact, this rule is helping keep the sacrifice bunt from complete extinction. There have been just 20 sac bunts all season through Sunday, with six of those coming in extra innings.

How it's impacting the game

Last season 91 of 208 extra-inning games went 10 innings (43.8%). It's a small sample size with just 16 extra-inning games through Monday, but nine of those (56.3%) were over after 10 innings and another five were over after 11 innings -- so that's 87.5% of extra-inning games over after 11 innings compared to 71.6% last year. So, games are ending a little quicker, and of course the marathon games are unlikely (we've had two 13-inning games). But it's not a HUGE difference. The biggest impact might be the elimination of the marathon games, which can wipe out an entire bullpen in one night and have a potential ripple effect for several days thereafter (including forcing a team to send a player to the minors for no other reason than to get a fresh arm up).

Based on early returns, the new rule has shortened the length of extra-inning games while increasing the prevalence of scoring and deemphasizing all-or-nothing approaches. The average number of extra innings in games tied after nine frames has dropped from 2.14 to 1.57 over last season, while the runs-per-nine total has skyrocketed from 4.26 to 8.43. (Though, because runs scored by the free baserunner are unearned, extra-inning ERA has actually declined.) There has also been an increase in elective strategy. On a per-nine-innings basis in extra innings, steals have gone from 0.62 to 1.08, successful sacrifices have gone from 0.35 to 1.08 and intentional walks have gone from 0.85 to 1.43. Meanwhile, homers per nine innings during extra innings have dropped from 1.30 to 0.36. Through Monday, there had been as many extra-inning triples (two) as homers.

Verdict: Keep it or lose it?

Doolittle: Lose it.

Miller: Keep it.

Schoenfield: Keep it.
That was a really long and sneaky way of calling Fender Mr. Doolittle!
 
  • Haha
Reactions: TTK

TTK

EX-Charger Fan
Jul 30, 2007
2,902
1,033
290
The 10th inning last night was fire. Keep this rule forever! :)
 

Gill Man

Inaugural SAN DIEGO Charger Fan Since 1962 FUDEAN
Staff member
Moderator
Sep 1, 2017
11,180
3,075
330
The 10th inning last night was fire. Keep this rule forever! :)
ha! It's great when it works out for your team. Yes it was enjoyable last nite! LOL
 

TTK

EX-Charger Fan
Jul 30, 2007
2,902
1,033
290
ha! It's great when it works out for your team. Yes it was enjoyable last nite! LOL
But both halves of the inning were exciting. Quantril loading the bases, losing the lead, then Hill coming in and getting out of it. Then of course the dramatic grand slam. That inning had far more excitement than the rest of the game combined. It was pretty much a snoozefest for the last 5-6 innings.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gill Man

Fender57

BoltTalker
Sep 7, 2008
6,794
2,628
340
But both halves of the inning were exciting. Quantril loading the bases, losing the lead, then Hill coming in and getting out of it. Then of course the dramatic grand slam. That inning had far more excitement than the rest of the game combined. It was pretty much a snoozefest for the last 5-6 innings.
Let’s put the ball on a tee as well. That would be super exciting, start off the inning with a two-run blast. Old-timers can make it to their bedtime no problem, and bored millennials can go back to Call of Duty!
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Gill Man

Fender57

BoltTalker
Sep 7, 2008
6,794
2,628
340
Better yet, let’s start off with a runner on second in the 9th inning. Why risk boring fans with the threat of an extra inning game? Even better, tied after 8, home run derby.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Gill Man

TTK

EX-Charger Fan
Jul 30, 2007
2,902
1,033
290
Better yet, let’s start off with a runner on second in the 9th inning. Why risk boring fans with the threat of an extra inning game? Even better, tied after 8, home run derby.
Let's not swing at 3-0 pitches too! :)
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Gill Man

Gill Man

Inaugural SAN DIEGO Charger Fan Since 1962 FUDEAN
Staff member
Moderator
Sep 1, 2017
11,180
3,075
330
I think the runner on second is fine but they should make it legal to tackle the guy , so he's not a lock to score on a single. Heck even a HR in extra innings should not be a lock. Tackling allowed. Brawls that ensue after that are to be encouraged. Last man standing's team wins! (So thus it would behoove teams to draft some enforcers LOL)
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Fender57

Fender57

BoltTalker
Sep 7, 2008
6,794
2,628
340
I think the runner on second is fine but they should make it legal to tackle the guy , so he's not a lock to score on a single. Heck even a HR in extra innings should not be a lock. Tackling allowed. Brawls that ensue after that are to be encouraged. Last man standing's team wins! (So thus it would behoove teams to draft some enforcers LOL)
And get rid of running the baselines. What kind of archaic nonsense is this? If I guy can hit and get to the base safely, that’s all that matters.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gill Man

Gill Man

Inaugural SAN DIEGO Charger Fan Since 1962 FUDEAN
Staff member
Moderator
Sep 1, 2017
11,180
3,075
330
And get rid of running the baselines. What kind of archaic nonsense is this? If I guy can hit and get to the base safely, that’s all that matters.
that's a stupid rule, a written rule about running in the baselines. It should be 'unwritten'. Tinkler would be good with that.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Fender57

Fender57

BoltTalker
Sep 7, 2008
6,794
2,628
340
Nothing exciting about that win. Glad they got the W but what a cheap way to win.
 

TTK

EX-Charger Fan
Jul 30, 2007
2,902
1,033
290
I think it's exciting. It brings in a lot of strategy that you don't see a lot of anymore. The sacrifice bunt which is pretty much dead now has been used regularly in extra inning games now. We saw the Padres use it yesterday but today they decided to let Cronenworth swing away and they made the right decision. The Padres could have easily lost the game in the 10th but Johnson was able to get out of it. Padres made the plays. Texas didn't.

And it shouldn't have been a "cheap" win. Myers held up so Texas should have had a chance to hold on but you can't make mistakes like that in a critical moment. They deserved to lose.
 

Fender57

BoltTalker
Sep 7, 2008
6,794
2,628
340
I think it's exciting. It brings in a lot of strategy that you don't see a lot of anymore. The sacrifice bunt which is pretty much dead now has been used regularly in extra inning games now. We saw the Padres use it yesterday but today they decided to let Cronenworth swing away and they made the right decision. The Padres could have easily lost the game in the 10th but Johnson was able to get out of it. Padres made the plays. Texas didn't.

And it shouldn't have been a "cheap" win. Myers held up so Texas should have had a chance to hold on but you can't make mistakes like that in a critical moment. They deserved to lose.
It’s cheap because you put a runner on second. A guy scores a run without a plate appearance, he just magically appears on the base. To me it would’ve been exciting if Myers battled his way to second base. But just giving a runner the base so you aren’t forced to watch more baseball is backwards to me.
 

TTK

EX-Charger Fan
Jul 30, 2007
2,902
1,033
290
It’s cheap because you put a runner on second. A guy scores a run without a plate appearance, he just magically appears on the base. To me it would’ve been exciting if Myers battled his way to second base. But just giving a runner the base so you aren’t forced to watch more baseball is backwards to me.
I get that but it's like soccer. A lot of soccer fans hate the game coming down to PKs but the game might go on for hours more if they don't do that. Watching 3+ hours of baseball every day is already an insane investment of time.

Extra inning games also kills bullpens and bullpens are pretty much at a historic horrific level already. There's so many benefits to ending the game quicker at the expense of the "cheapness" of it

I keep harping on this but baseball needs change. That average fan age of 57 isn't getting younger every year..
 

Fender57

BoltTalker
Sep 7, 2008
6,794
2,628
340
I get that but it's like soccer. A lot of soccer fans hate the game coming down to PKs but the game might go on for hours more if they don't do that. Watching 3+ hours of baseball every day is already an insane investment of time.

Extra inning games also kills bullpens and bullpens are pretty much at a historic horrific level already. There's so many benefits to ending the game quicker at the expense of the "cheapness" of it

I keep harping on this but baseball needs change. That average fan age of 57 isn't getting younger every year..
Extra innings have nothing to do with baseball losing interest. The owners running the game are simply not marketing the game correctly. There is nothing wrong with the game itself, at the risk of sounding like James Earl Jones, it has and will always withstand the test of time. MLB is “floundering” (I use quotes because they can still somehow pay Machado $300M) but baseball will survive.