Kiss Your Sister? I'm Good
The
2018 MLB season is not even a week old but some are already set to go changing
the game again. This time it’s extra
innings and no, not by putting a runner at second base or anything silly to
start the 11th or 12th, but instead just calling the game
a draw after a certain amount of innings.
Pardon me?
I get baseball has changed. When the rules were first written and the game first began to be played professionally 150 years ago bullpens were hardly even a thing, let alone such a key part like they are today.
We’ve seen starters go from guys that were counted on to go get you 27 outs, to guys who were then asked to go get you 7 innings, and then 6, and now in many cases anything after out number 15 is a major bonus.
Yes, we have more specialists than ever before, but it doesn’t mean they have to be used that way, either.
During Tuesday’s Dodgers TV broadcast, Joe Davis mentioned that the night before LA was likely an inning from seeing position players take the hill in their 15 inning affair at Arizona and we learned Yasiel Puig would have been one of the first arms called upon. Now we would have all eaten that up and enjoyed the hell out of those videos but can we examine why the Dodgers were in that position in the first place?
A quick look of the box score shows 6 different pitchers being used by LA that threw a maximum of 16 pitches.
Baez (16), Alexander (12), Cingrani (12), Chargois (13), Fields (15) and Stripling (9) combined to throw 77 pitches, yet record 16 outs. You mean to tell me that one, if not all of these guys couldn’t have been stretched out a hair longer to prevent the Dodgers from running out of arms as quickly as they did?
Instead of changing the rules and saying “Just end it after 12!” why not leave the rules exactly the way they are and just have managers factor all of this, including the potential for a marathon affair, into their decisions of letting a reliever face just one or two batters?
Put a position player on the mound sooner to better benefit your pen long-term? I already don’t know why that isn’t considered more often.
Bullpens today are used infinitely different than they were one hundred years ago and even though that slows down the game, I’m entirely fine with it. It makes matchups that much more intriguing and makes the decisions a manager makes during the course of a game that much more significant.
But instead of setting a maximum of innings a game can go, why can’t managers take a potential marathon into account in the way they manage the regular 162? I really don’t understand why there is always such a rush by some to put a cap on things like this.
Can you imagine the Cubs and Cardinals playing for a playoff spot in late September with Anthony Rizzo flying out deep to left-center to end the bottom of the 12th and the umps just say “That’s it!” If you think a walk-off win in the middle of a playoff chase is exciting, wait until you see your favorite team’s pitcher escape by earning his team a draw!
I can hear Jason Benetti when the Sox get back to the playoffs in 2020 already:
“Mondcada, ground ball back to the pitcher, he’ll be retired easily but the WHITE SOX TIE THE INDIANS AND THE SOX CLINCH THE AMERICAN LEAGUE CENTRAL!”
Riveting.
Am I the only one who remembers how awful an NHL tie used to be or the rare NFL tie currently is? Play 60+ minutes of hockey and get hit your one point and a tie. I hate the fact a shootout determines a winner today but I’ll gladly take that over a tie.
I also don’t like the fact that overtime in the NHL goes to 3-on-3 for their overtime period. Change the way the game is played for 60 minutes just to find a winner easier? No thanks.
I dislike that much like I wouldn’t like an inning starting with a base-runner just because it happens to be the 11th or 12th.
Let me make it perfectly clear, I despise that idea and I can’t say it strongly enough.
But it would still be infinitely better than finishing a regular season game in a tie.
This isn’t your youth Mustang League at the local Lions Park, its Major League Baseball. Play the game until there is a winner; just we’ve somehow survived doing for as long as MLB has existed.
Pardon me?
I get baseball has changed. When the rules were first written and the game first began to be played professionally 150 years ago bullpens were hardly even a thing, let alone such a key part like they are today.
We’ve seen starters go from guys that were counted on to go get you 27 outs, to guys who were then asked to go get you 7 innings, and then 6, and now in many cases anything after out number 15 is a major bonus.
Yes, we have more specialists than ever before, but it doesn’t mean they have to be used that way, either.
During Tuesday’s Dodgers TV broadcast, Joe Davis mentioned that the night before LA was likely an inning from seeing position players take the hill in their 15 inning affair at Arizona and we learned Yasiel Puig would have been one of the first arms called upon. Now we would have all eaten that up and enjoyed the hell out of those videos but can we examine why the Dodgers were in that position in the first place?
A quick look of the box score shows 6 different pitchers being used by LA that threw a maximum of 16 pitches.
Baez (16), Alexander (12), Cingrani (12), Chargois (13), Fields (15) and Stripling (9) combined to throw 77 pitches, yet record 16 outs. You mean to tell me that one, if not all of these guys couldn’t have been stretched out a hair longer to prevent the Dodgers from running out of arms as quickly as they did?
Instead of changing the rules and saying “Just end it after 12!” why not leave the rules exactly the way they are and just have managers factor all of this, including the potential for a marathon affair, into their decisions of letting a reliever face just one or two batters?
Put a position player on the mound sooner to better benefit your pen long-term? I already don’t know why that isn’t considered more often.
Bullpens today are used infinitely different than they were one hundred years ago and even though that slows down the game, I’m entirely fine with it. It makes matchups that much more intriguing and makes the decisions a manager makes during the course of a game that much more significant.
But instead of setting a maximum of innings a game can go, why can’t managers take a potential marathon into account in the way they manage the regular 162? I really don’t understand why there is always such a rush by some to put a cap on things like this.
Can you imagine the Cubs and Cardinals playing for a playoff spot in late September with Anthony Rizzo flying out deep to left-center to end the bottom of the 12th and the umps just say “That’s it!” If you think a walk-off win in the middle of a playoff chase is exciting, wait until you see your favorite team’s pitcher escape by earning his team a draw!
I can hear Jason Benetti when the Sox get back to the playoffs in 2020 already:
“Mondcada, ground ball back to the pitcher, he’ll be retired easily but the WHITE SOX TIE THE INDIANS AND THE SOX CLINCH THE AMERICAN LEAGUE CENTRAL!”
Riveting.
Am I the only one who remembers how awful an NHL tie used to be or the rare NFL tie currently is? Play 60+ minutes of hockey and get hit your one point and a tie. I hate the fact a shootout determines a winner today but I’ll gladly take that over a tie.
I also don’t like the fact that overtime in the NHL goes to 3-on-3 for their overtime period. Change the way the game is played for 60 minutes just to find a winner easier? No thanks.
I dislike that much like I wouldn’t like an inning starting with a base-runner just because it happens to be the 11th or 12th.
Let me make it perfectly clear, I despise that idea and I can’t say it strongly enough.
But it would still be infinitely better than finishing a regular season game in a tie.
This isn’t your youth Mustang League at the local Lions Park, its Major League Baseball. Play the game until there is a winner; just we’ve somehow survived doing for as long as MLB has existed.
Comments
Post a Comment