Is it cool now to complain about game lengths?

[Who'sYourData?]

2 minutes ago, Brad said:

Like a reliever having to face three batters?

In my day an MLB roster had a long reliever, a couple of middle relievers and a closer.  Do I think 8 man bullpens and relievers that come in for one batter and leave are ridiculous?  Yep.

So I think it is a weird rule, but anything to keep a manager from parading in RP after RP is ok in my book.  If you aren't good enough to face more than one batter, you should not be a pro pitcher.  Your arm won't fall off.  Nowadays a SP gripes about pitching more than 5 innings.  Suck it up, man.

[BullyPulpit]

1 minute ago, Brad said:

Like a reliever having to face three batters?

I love that rule. Forces teams to be far more strategic in their use of pitchers. Tradition for tradition's sake is silly. 

[BullyPulpit]

3 minutes ago, Rocky Style said:

I think this obscures the shrinkflation argument that is happening.

Except that the initial data suggests that we are only losing 2 plays per game on average. 

[Brad]

2 minutes ago, Who'sYourData? said:

So I think it is a weird rule, but anything to keep a manager from parading in RP after RP is ok in my book. 

Might have made sense to limit number of pitchers on rosters and not made dumb rules. (Union outcry)

The game is already gone, full of flaws.  That horse left the barn as they say. 

[Brad]

2 minutes ago, BullyPulpit said:

orces teams to be far more strategic in their use of pitchers. Tradition for tradition's sake is silly. 

I disagree, to me it's far less strategic, but that makes it better for the average fan.

[BullyPulpit]

Just now, Brad said:

Might have made sense to limit number of pitchers on rosters and not made dumb rules. (Union outcry)

The game is already gone, full of flaws.  That horse left the barn as they say. 

The rules changes that were made are sensible. Do you really want to see a pitcher make a half-hearted throw over to 1st base 6 times in an at-bat? Stolen bases make the game way more entertaining and highlight an aspect of the game that isn't just focused on strikeouts and homeruns. 

[Rocky Style]

Just now, BullyPulpit said:

Except that the initial data suggests that we are only losing 2 plays per game on average. 

I've seen different initial data on week 0 and 1. But maybe they are fixing this after all the complaints.  

The title of the thread says "game lengths" but I think no one is arguing about the game length, but rather the actual "clock time" it takes to get through a game with all the stoppages and TV timeouts.

[BullyPulpit]

Just now, Rocky Style said:

I've seen different initial data on week 0 and 1. But maybe they are fixing this after all the complaints.  

The title of the thread says "game lengths" but I think no one is arguing about the game length, but rather the actual "clock time" it takes to get through a game with all the stoppages and TV timeouts.

Those clock stoppages and TV timeouts enable us to watch USF v. WKU play. Would you rather it be like 2003 when we would struggle to get to watch the games? You have to accept the good with the bad. Again, we are talking about an additional half hour 12 times per year. It also provides ample time to get another drink, take a leak, and do small household chores on a Saturday. 

[BullyPulpit]

3 minutes ago, Rocky Style said:

I've seen different initial data on week 0 and 1. But maybe they are fixing this after all the complaints.  

The title of the thread says "game lengths" but I think no one is arguing about the game length, but rather the actual "clock time" it takes to get through a game with all the stoppages and TV timeouts.

 

[Rocky Style]

Just now, BullyPulpit said:

Those clock stoppages and TV timeouts enable us to watch USF v. WKU play. Would you rather it be like 2003 when we would struggle to get to watch the games?

No, but the thing people are noting there are more stoppages, not that commercials should not exist.