Baseball History Comes Alive Now Ranked #2 by Feedspot Among All Internet Baseball History Websites and Blogs!
Guest Submissions from Our Readers Always Welcome!
Please note: As we compose new blog entries, we will now send each one out to all our subscribers as we post them. Here’s a link to see the entire Blog Archives -GL
THE BASEBALL HISTORY COMES ALIVE BLOG
Please note: As we compose new blog entries, we will now send each one out to all our subscribers as we post them. Here’s a link to see the entire Blog Archives -GL
April 7, 2021
New Blog Topic: WHAT DOES MLB HAVE AGAINST EXTRA-INNING GAMES
When we were kids we always got excited when a ballgame went into extra innings. And why not? You got to see more baseball and every time the home team came up there was a chance the game would end quickly. If the visiting team scored in the top half of the inning then the pressure was on the home team to either tie it again or win it. There was always something special about an extra-inning ballgame. And on those occasions when a game went into the 14th, 15th, or 16th inning, the suspense grew even more.
But today it seems like the extra-inning game has become an anathema. MLB, in its desire to shorten games, has taken a big bite out of the extra-inning game in a most un-baseball-like way. After trying it out in the pandemic shortened season of 2020, MLB has continued with a rule that puts a runner on second base to begin the 10th inning. Just puts the runner there. He doesn’t have to earn his way on with a hit or a walk and a stolen base. Before the inning even begins a player emerges from the dugout and goes out to second base. This will be continued every half-inning until the game ends.
The discussion about this began several years ago, but at that time the concern was the very long game, one that went past the 12th inning. The initial talk was to maybe wait until the 12th before putting the free runner on second. But somehow MLB, in its infinite wisdom, decided to implement the rule immediately and in the 10th inning.
The extra-inning game has been part of baseball since the beginning and, yes, there have been some very long games. The longest ever occurred on May 1, 1920, when the old Brooklyn Robins and Boston Braves played a 26-inning, 1-1 tie, the game called because of darkness. There were 26 total hits and yet the game took just three hours and fifty minutes, the time of some nine-inning games today. Even more amazing is the fact that both pitchers, Leon Cadore of the Dodgers and Joe Oeschger of the Braves, both went the entire distance. Something called Tom Tango’s old pitch count estimator said that Cadore threw 338 pitches and Oeschger 316. It may not be accurate, but both pitchers had to be around or over the 300 pitch mark.
More recently the St. Louis Cardinals defeated the New York Mets, 4-3, in a 25-inning game on September 11, 1974, and the Chicago White Sox topped the Milwaukee Brewers in 25 innings, 7-6, on May 8, 1984. That game was also the longest in time, taking eight hours and six minutes to complete, more than twice the time it took the Robins and Braves to play 26 innings 64 years earlier.
I think these kinds of games – or even games of 17 or 18 innings – are what MLB wants to avoid, apparently at all costs. But how often do they happen? Not very, according to some interesting numbers. From 2011 through 2016 there were 14,577 regular-season games played. Of those, only 1,301 went into extra innings. There were 572 10-inning games, 315 11-inning games, 177 12-inning games, and 109 13-inning games. From there the numbers get even smaller. There were just 17 16-inning games and a total of 20 games lasting between 17 and 20 innings. Out of 14,577 total games. Is that so terrible, something MLB should be concerned about?
Here’s what I think is going on. For several years now, MLB had talked about shortening games, which now run regularly more than three hours. They’re doing little things like making the intentional walk automatic without the pitcher having to throw four wide ones, limiting managers’ trips to the mound, and asking players not to continually step out of the batter’s box. They’re thinking about implementing a pitch clock, requiring pitchers to throw the next pitch within 20 or even 15 seconds of getting the ball back from the catcher. All to save just a few minutes. Yet at the same time, they have the instant replay rule, which can take several minutes each time the umps put on the headphones. And the constant pitching changes, which now often see 10 or even more pitchers enter a game, eat up a heckuva lot of time. The complete game has become something of a rarity.
Yet at the same time, the price of attending a baseball game continues to climb. Ticket prices are sky high in many ballparks, the price of parking, food, and merchandise is at an all-time high. If it costs so much for an individual or a family of four to attend a ballgame, why try to rush them out of the ballpark in two and a half hours? No, I think the real reason is the television audience. MLB feels that with a long game there is more chance of the fans at home turning the channel and losing interest, especially with an extra-inning game going 12 innings or more. Their solution is having a runner at second to begin an extra inning. To me, that’s not baseball and it could foreshadow more non-baseball rules on the horizon. If it continues, baseball will no longer be the best game ever invented, the perfect sport. And for longtime fans like myself, that’s not an easy thought to swallow.
The game is already dragging by the lack of balls in play, the emphasis on the home run which has led to far more strikeouts. In that respect, the game has already slowed down with far less action and strategy until someone hits the ball over the fence. Another possible reason for the extra inning rule is the use of pitchers. In 1920 both Cadore and Oeschgar pitched all 26 innings. As recently as July of 1963 the Giants Juan Marichal and the Braves’ Warren Spahn pitched all 16 innings of a game eventually won on a Willie Mays home run. Spahn, who was 42 years old at the time and would win 23 games that year. Marichal would win 25, so throwing 16 innings and more than 200 pitches each didn’t seem to hurt them.
Today, with teams often using five or six pitchers in a nine-inning game, there’s probably a concern about what can happen if a game goes 17 or 18 innings. What if one or both of the teams ran out of pitchers and the game had to continue with position players on the mound. That would be quite an embarrassment for MLB. If they start each extra inning with a runner on second, the chances of a very long extra-inning game are remote.
So in many ways, it’s the changing game, the modern game, that has led to this rule. I think it’s a rule today’s fans will get used to and accept readily. Some journalists have already written that they like the rule and think it’s a good thing. But it’s something I can’t accept because, to me, it violates everything that makes baseball, baseball. And it worries me about what may come next.
What do you think? I’d love to hear your opinions about this rule and why you like or dislike it. So let me know in your comments and we can discuss.
Bill Gutman
As always, we enjoy reading your comments
Here’s a link to see the entire Blog Archives
Agree 100%. And don’t be surprised when, a few seasons from now, 7-inning games are “introduced on a trial basis.” We already have them for minor-league doubleheaders.
And major league doubleheaders. Atlanta and the Nationals played two seven-inning games today.
Don’t like the 7-inning game idea at all, David. But I wouldn’t be surprised if it were “introduced on a trial basis,” as you say, sometime soon.
Bill, all your points are well taken, as usual. And, sure, extra innings as a red-hot fan were deliciously excruciating–if your team lost, of course, you could forget the delicious part. But then three hours plus wasn’t bad for 10 or 12 innings or so. Now, with nine innings often running that long, it turns into an agonizing game of attrition, in a full fledged marathon. So, moving more toward sooner sudden death might be a good idea.
Agree, the guy on second automatically to start the 10th stinks. I like starting the 12th with a man on first base. This way, you have the sudden death element for three innings with no frills, and now it gets really intense. Plus, you can bring in the strategy of a steal, bunt or hit and run immediately to spike the excitement.
I could not stay out of this discussion Bill G. so thanks for posting! You probably know already that I don’t agree (nor does my son, my podcost co-host & he does represent a younger viewpoint). I think I’d be fine going to an extra inning game in the 1970’s and before when as Bill S. points out the games were just…shorter. Less than 5% of MLB games go into extra innings. Of course my mother years ago attended what she said was her only game(s) at Shea and of course it was the famed May 31 Doubleheader with the Giants and of course she only went to the nightcap. Which went 23 innings and 7 1/2 hours. I wish I could ask her about it but I feel pretty sure she never attended a game after that.
Anyway, 5% is less than 120 per season. But still about 4 per week if you average it out over 26 weeks. Playing the 10th inning clean with no baserunners is what I’d vote for. Then we can quibble over the runner being on base and which base in the 11th inning and beyond. In the meantime the risk of longer games by NOT having any rule is more pronounced on pitching staffs than ever since there’s a dearth of relief pitching in MLB as it is. Mainly because it’s so darned difficult! I’d be willing to be that most fans would say no thanks to watching a 15 inning game in its entirety at the ballpark. As for 7 inning doubleheaders, the players and coaches seem to be favorably inclined so far which surprises me. Since there are no DH’s scheduled anymore it does not make a big difference for the most part anyway. Still it seems like a change from last year’s season that had a purpose different from what it became.
Hey Bill.
As you can see, people already like the idea of the free runner on second. I’d still rather see a runner get to second by leading off with a double, or a single or walk, then stealing second. If it has to be I could probably go along with your suggestion. Start the 12th with a runner on first. Long extra inning games occur so infrequently I don’t know why they’ve become a curse, unless teams fear running out of pitchers because they use so many in the first nine. And why are the games so long? How about those 10 pitching changes. Manager walks to mound. Pitcher walked to dugout. Relieve trots in from the pen and then adjusts the dirt around the rubber before taking his eight warmup pitches. Multiply that by ten and how much time has gone by. Not to mention longer commercial breaks. At least with your way some of the old strategies would come into play, things you don’t see that often anymore. The sac bunt, the steal, the hit and run. Instead of Spahn and Sain, and pray for rain, today we have Swing for the fences because it makes the most senses.
bill
Hi Mark. I certainly understand your point of view. My biggest concern is that the sport seems to be on its way to becoming something that isn’t really baseball anymore. If they decided to have a home run derby after the 12th inning to decide a game, fans today would probably love it. Be like the shoot out in hockey, which I won’t comment on since I’m no longer a real fan of the sport. And the almost total reliance on the three point shot has turned me off from basketball. But back to baseball. Don’t think there’s a dearth of relief pitching today. They just use too many relievers. As I said to Bill S. above, nine or ten pitching changes during a game is what eats up a huge chunk of time and helps make the game longer. I also could probably live with the suggestion Bill S. made about putting a runner on first to start the 12th. Then we might see some of the old strategies come into play, things we miss today with everyone swinging for the fences. Yes, I’m old school having grown up with the game in the 1950s. And many from my generation feel the same way and are often bored with the game they’re playing today. It’s not that I reject everything from the modern world. I’m pretty computer saavy, but won’t own a smartphone. And I’d love to see another baseball game at the Polo Grounds or Ebbets Field, places the modern fan often calls dumps. I call today’s stadiums amusement parks. But anyway, we’re not that far apart. My next blog will deal with ace pitchers no longer being allowed to go the distance. You might find that one interesting, too. Thanks, as always, for commenting.
Bill
I always enjoy the civility of the discussion Bill G. I agree we’re not that far apart and there’s a part of me that wants to go back and watch a game live in 1955 just because the experience would be both different and similar. I look forward to your next post. Thanks.
Mark
Red Sox played a 12 inning game last night that went 4 hrs: 36 minutes. The element of the runner on second actually made the game more interesting as it came into play in both the 11th and 12th inning.
The length of games is so interminable, I have to admit I find it interesting; and I have always been a traditionalist.
I have always stayed to the end of games until the last few years when they stretch over 3 and a half hours. Something had to be done.
Hi Paul. Yes, the games are longer today. But as I said to Bill S. and Mark, how about the time it takes for those nine or ten pitching changes a game. I think in the game you mentioned with the Red Sox there were 14 pitchers used, seven on each side. Quite time consuming to make those changes, especially in mid inning. And, of course, the between innings commercials are longer and baseball won’t give up the money they make from them. My problem with the runner on second to start the tenth is simply that it isn’t baseball and my fear is that other rules will follow that again will change the the sport. Look at my replies to Bill S. and Mark. I might be able to live with Bill S.’s suggestion about a runner on first to start the 12. But there just aren’t that many games that go to those crazy lengths of, say, 16 innings or more. And as I also said, with the prices they charge today, why rush the fans out of the ballpark. I know that many people like the runner-on-second rule and it’s something fans today will get used to and accept quickly. I just don’t happen to be one of them. And while we’re at it, they should also bring back the four wide pitches for an intentional walk. I’m sure we’ve both seen things happen when the pitcher has to actually throw the four balls.
Bill
It looks like picnic ball. It doesn’t belong.
Yes, bring back four pitched balls for the intentional walk. The time saved is minuscule.
Another time eater is the greater number of strikeouts (bigger counts), back when Bill G. and I watched, six or seven K’s per game was a lot.
The purists would squawk but I’d limit the endless throws to first base. Three throws max to keep the runner honest.
And, absolutely, starters should gear to go at least eight innings, with a pitch count range of up to 125 if the pitcher is breezing. Less, of course, if he’s in a survival struggle every inning.
The joke of the strikeout is that in the old days players hated to strike out. If a guy K’d the at bat was considered a total failure. Today it’s accepted as part of the game and players don’t look at it the same way. It’s like, Oh well, maybe I’ll hit one out next time up. Even Mike Trout, widely considered the game’s best player over the last decade, once fanned 184 times in a season. Multiply that by two and you have just one fewer strikeout than Joe DiMaggio had in his entire 13-year career. Enough said.
Although I love baseball very much, I always feel that the process of baseball games is too long. It would be very good if we can rely on some good rules to shorten the game time.
Although I like baseball very much, I also think that the time of the baseball game is too long. If there are more than a dozen innings of overtime, I think I will really see it falling asleep
Seems as though MLB wants to be more like the NFL, NBA, and video games … and is doing everything it can to make that happen, even if that means destroying baseball in the process. But of course baseball isn’t like football, basketball, or any other sport, and shouldn’t try to be. It’s more cerebral, more complex, more nuanced, has more subtleties, and requires more skill (and more skills). And apparently its unique qualities are a problem for those who claim the games are too slow and/or too long. (To be clear, I play high-level baseball, basketball, football, and tennis … so I’m not coming at this from a naïve, uninformed, or entirely biased perspective.)
Nor do I think every innovation is necessarily bad for the game. For example, I’m in favor of a pitch clock, because so many pitchers delay too much between pitches, walking around the mound, doing nothing in particular. Most great pitchers get the ball and pitch it … their quicker tempo gives them more control of the pitcher/hitter duel, and of course keeps the defense (and the fans) more involved and alert.
As for extra-inning games, automatic runners, and proposals for tie games: some of the best games go into extras, and perhaps they require nothing more than dedicated fans and greater attention spans to appreciate. MLB is obviously committed to keeping the extra-inning automatic runner, although I’d prefer that he start at first base, not second. And I’m not a fan of tie games, but I think MLB has every intention of implementing them … limiting games to perhaps no more than ten or twelve innings. (FWIW, I think the more innings a baseball game goes, the better … whether I’m playing in it or watching it.)
Great insight, Brad…thanks for checking in. I agree with everything you said. Please keep in touch!