Major League Baseball, as it is a product and a business with a bottom line, is still concerned with pace of play and how the game is perceived by many fans.
Baseball doesn't have a clock always winding down. In some ways, this is one of its greatest charms. But it is a more methodical game with built-in pauses between the action, an aspect that some fans _ namely the fringe fans the game would love to pull in _ might not entirely love. Not everyone wants a 3{ game each night, and the league is well aware of it.
It's become one of the prime focuses of Commissioner Rob Manfred. But lately, the pace-of-play initiative coming from the league's office has resembled more of an obsession.
The league has made headway on the length of its games in the past few years thanks to a couple of practical changes to streamline the action. Those recent changes include hitters needing to keep at least one foot inside the batter's box after a pitch (unless it was fouled off or brushed the hitter back), visits to the mound now being timed and in-stadium clocks requiring players to be ready by the conclusion of commercial breaks.
The average game length in 2014, before those changes, was three hours, eight minutes. That dropped to two hours, 56 minutes in 2015. It raised a bit to just over three hours last season, but it's still an improvement on previous times, and the changes didn't take away from the game. It was mostly just a kick in the pants for players at different times to get a move on.
More changes are likely on the way. Some of the proposals make perfect sense. Some seem to stray from the game's core principles.
The one that's received the most attention is the idea of, in extra innings, putting a runner on second base to begin the inning. It's been received with almost universal criticism, and with good reason.
As of now, the proposal has just been to experiment with the idea in the minor leagues. Manfred backtracked a bit on this a few days ago, saying the league doesn't expect the proposed rule to ever make it to the major league level. Rather, he hopes the league can learn something from it.
It's just not a good idea, to put it lightly. Making it so both teams have an easier time scoring one run doesn't necessarily do much to break the deadlock. It also creates the possibility that a pitcher could throw a 10-inning perfect game and lose with the help of a few well-placed groundball outs. Most proposed rule changes are just aimed at getting things going when they don't need to be paused. This one changes the game's composition.
More importantly, it shows the league is willing to try some out-of-left-field ideas to speed up the game and limit any longer nights.
Other proposals include raising the strike zone to just above the knee and doing away with intentional walks. The hope with raising the strike zone is to create more offense and thus, more action. It's in part a reactionary proposal in response to the run of quality pitching in the past several years. It was talked about last spring as well, and some Indians pitchers did mention that the lower part of the strike zone is often called with more inconsistency than other sections. But raising the strike zone a few inches won't necessarily resolve that issue, either.
Eliminating intentional walks, meaning pitchers won't just throw four pitches any more, is a cosmetic idea. Intentional walks are rare and don't take up much time to begin with. The idea here is to eliminate dead air, but if a hitter is being intentionally walked, it's often to set up one of the game's key moments. The tension is normally rising as the four balls are being tossed.
The recent proposal that is needed is a time limit on how long managers have to challenge a play and potentially another limit on how long the replay crew in New York has to make a decision. If the league wants to eliminate down time, this might be its best target. Nothing halts a game like a manger standing on the field waiting to get word from upstairs on what to do, and the players and umpires standing around before anything can be done toward the actual replay review, which is likely going to take an additional minute or two. It doesn't occur too often, but it's also an easy fix to nudge teams toward needing to make a quicker decision. The primary goal of replay is to get the call correct. The secondary goal should be to do it as quickly as possible.
It's clear that pace of play is one of Manfred's key focuses. Many of the initiated changes thus far have been positive and well-received. Keeping game times down is a good idea for a sport wanting to reach out to a broader audience. The league has begun to accomplish that without getting in the way of the flow of the game. But in terms of some of these proposals and experiments, such as putting a runner on second to begin an inning, it seems as though the league is entering no-idea-is-a-bad-idea territory. That might not be the case.
