Seth, Someone is paying MLB star players between $25-35 million while debates go on about whether the NHLs best players are worth $12M. Clearly somebody likes baseball.
The major point of the column is not supposed to be whether the players can become used to the new rules, instead it is the effect it has on the unfolding drama among fans. The pitch clock and limited pitcher disengagements of the rubber certainly allow time for the game, but I am thinking of the game-within-the-game at crunch time in the 8th inning and beyond.
One thing I'm not clear about is when the clock is supposed to start. Is it when the pitcher receives the ball? What happens if the catcher holds onto it for a while before throwing it back to let the pitcher catch his breath? Is it up to the umpire's discretion?
Couldn't agree more with this. Does make me wonder what has happened to the game that slowed it down so much in the first place. It's hard to remember the games I watched in the late 70s and 80s that were almost alway less than 3 hours. I don't remember a lot of interminable times between pitches except when Mike Hargrove was at bat.
Absolutely on point in every aspect, Griff, as we've come to expect from you over many years, and with an historical perspective we never get form the jumped-up Gen X,Y,Z bloggers now being hired by sports media giants like SN & TSN. My respect & my thanks as now I have a true 'expert' backing up many of my own thoughts & contentions.
I think you're exaggerating the impact of this. Once players get used to the pace, I doubt we'll see more than a very rare ball or strike call due to clock violation. (Have you EVER seen a goalie penalized for touching a puck in the corners? Players adjust to the rules.) I'd like to see the impact on the product before naysaying it with nostalgic, hypothetical counterfactuals.
The issue with this viewpoint is there will be a much smaller game and business of baseball in the future. No matter what I do, I can't get my 12-year-old son to watch baseball. He finds it way too slow and boring. They don't appreciate what we did. They are growing up in a digital world with everything at their fingertips. I applaud MLB for making these changes and think they need to continue to push it. What you see as drama building to a crescendo, the youth see a game that can't hold their attention because they are uninterested in waiting out the process. The fact you cite two examples, one in 1988 and one in 2015 means these moments really happen few and far between. I would argue the Gibson home run would hold 98% of the drama and excitement in the new pitch clock format. The roof at Rogers Centre would explode if Bautista at bat had less time between it too. This generation wants action, action, action. Fight it, and you're essentially saying we were just fine with the horse and buggy over having cars. Times change.
Seth, Someone is paying MLB star players between $25-35 million while debates go on about whether the NHLs best players are worth $12M. Clearly somebody likes baseball.
The major point of the column is not supposed to be whether the players can become used to the new rules, instead it is the effect it has on the unfolding drama among fans. The pitch clock and limited pitcher disengagements of the rubber certainly allow time for the game, but I am thinking of the game-within-the-game at crunch time in the 8th inning and beyond.
One thing I'm not clear about is when the clock is supposed to start. Is it when the pitcher receives the ball? What happens if the catcher holds onto it for a while before throwing it back to let the pitcher catch his breath? Is it up to the umpire's discretion?
That fact is mentioned further down within the column. Thank you.
Couldn't agree more with this. Does make me wonder what has happened to the game that slowed it down so much in the first place. It's hard to remember the games I watched in the late 70s and 80s that were almost alway less than 3 hours. I don't remember a lot of interminable times between pitches except when Mike Hargrove was at bat.
Absolutely on point in every aspect, Griff, as we've come to expect from you over many years, and with an historical perspective we never get form the jumped-up Gen X,Y,Z bloggers now being hired by sports media giants like SN & TSN. My respect & my thanks as now I have a true 'expert' backing up many of my own thoughts & contentions.
I say drop the clock after six. Let the game play out over the final three as it tends to do.
I think you're exaggerating the impact of this. Once players get used to the pace, I doubt we'll see more than a very rare ball or strike call due to clock violation. (Have you EVER seen a goalie penalized for touching a puck in the corners? Players adjust to the rules.) I'd like to see the impact on the product before naysaying it with nostalgic, hypothetical counterfactuals.
The issue with this viewpoint is there will be a much smaller game and business of baseball in the future. No matter what I do, I can't get my 12-year-old son to watch baseball. He finds it way too slow and boring. They don't appreciate what we did. They are growing up in a digital world with everything at their fingertips. I applaud MLB for making these changes and think they need to continue to push it. What you see as drama building to a crescendo, the youth see a game that can't hold their attention because they are uninterested in waiting out the process. The fact you cite two examples, one in 1988 and one in 2015 means these moments really happen few and far between. I would argue the Gibson home run would hold 98% of the drama and excitement in the new pitch clock format. The roof at Rogers Centre would explode if Bautista at bat had less time between it too. This generation wants action, action, action. Fight it, and you're essentially saying we were just fine with the horse and buggy over having cars. Times change.
Griff's solution would not have helped the Bautista situation. That was in the 7th inning.