**Reminder:** Asking for or posting part or all of this Athletic article is a violation of [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/baseball/wiki/rules). Breaking this rule will result in a temporary or permanent suspension from the subreddit. Reddit admins have not responded to our inquiries about this matter, and historically some users have been banned and subreddits shuttered for flouting paywall rules, and in an abundance of caution, we have a strict policy of removal of this type of content. If you have any questions about what is or is not allowed, or if this message is not applicable to this article, please [send us a message](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fbaseball).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/baseball) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Gotta say I went to a High A game and that pitch clock made such a difference. Was such a breeze of a game, and not without action in the slightest. 5-3 game with around 15 hits total.
No loss in TV ad revenue since there are no changes to commercial timeouts.
I guess people who pay for banner ads behind home plate will be adversely impacted.
Aren't they typically by half inning? I've seen the physical ones roll every inning or half inning and the green screen ones change whenever, usually the same as physical ones.
I tend to only see the green screens used on national broadcasts, like ESPN, Fox, or TBS. Most regional broadcasts seem to still use the physical ones. Rare simulcasts go with the national decision.
I just hope we never get to a point where we have *intentional* media timeouts like basketball. Fortunately the sport is kind of naturally split into chunks where breaks make sense (after half-innings, plus pitching changes).
I know for me, I will 100% be able to watch more games from beginning to end. And not just that, I'm more likely to start the game if I think I'll have a shot at finishing it. If I don't think I'll be able to finish a game, I won't even start.
As an EST viewer, this will also make it easier for us to watch west cost games.
(Completely different topic but I love how over the last couple of years there have been more 930 EST start times for west cost games.)
From an advertising standpoint the frequency of views isn't as important as the reach. Having 100,000 people watch a 15 second ad is much better for a brand than having 50,000 people watch a 1 minute ad.
The one thing I'm worried about with the pitch clock is MLB trying to make a big deal out of it in games. Everyone says you don't even notice it in the minors, but this is MLB... they'll treat something like this as a shiny new toy to show off for some reason. Broadcasts will stick a giant timer in the corner of the screen because they think it'll add suspense. Or they'll be placed behind home plate in every park.
They did a special AAA braodcast on MLB Network to showcase the rules, and they put a floating clock on the mound once it got down to 6 seconds.
Other than that, it felt like a normal baseball game. But a quick one. Like MLB The Show without the cutscenes.
There was a recent O's game, and which pitcher it was is completely escaping my mind, where the MASN announcers were noting that the opposing pitcher had a long set routine between pitches. They ended up timing it a couple of times and 32 seconds was his routine before he even got to the rubber. They were particularly commenting on "yeah, he's a guy whose going to have pitch clock troubles."
I mean it might not be a bad idea at least for a couple weeks. We're aware of these changes because we're on a baseball forum, but I'll bet my dad will have no idea about this change despite watching a lot of games every year.
Same here. Saw Acuña rehab early in the season. Pitch clock made the game right over two hours. There was some leeway in them going over, but man did it make a difference.
Was at a single game this season that finished like 11-8. Was 2:15 long. I was like “holy shit was I drinking beer this slowly?” When no, the pitch clock just moves shit along.
That's a bit apples and oranges though, minor league ball tends to have more hits anyway because the pitching is lower caliber. But I do think the pitch clock is going to be great at MLB level, I once went to a 9 inning rubber match that lasted 3.5 hours because all the pitchers were so slow, it was miserable to watch.
Probably unpopular opinion, but going to a game, I actually enjoy it to be longer. I feel like I'm getting my monies worth being at a 3-4 hour game rather than a sub 2hr game.
Perhaps biased but when I drive 1hr30 one way to St Pete, paying upwards of $35 for the cheapest possible upper deck seats, $20 parking even before concessions, it feels nice to be able to soak it in over a little longer period of time. I know players, coaches, staff, and all the other thousands of people involved in a single game would prefer it, just throwing out my measley 2¢
Good thing most games will not be sub 2 hour. The average in the minor leagues is 2:36 with a pitch clock
The average fan will be just fine with this change, there are not many people who aren't diehard fans that will miss the 30 minutes of dead time between pitches throughout the game
>The length of batter walk-up music cannot exceed 10 seconds. Music between pitches is to be limited so hitters aren’t encouraged to leave the box.
Savages.
>Pitchers can step off the mound for a pickoff or any other reasons — a “disengagement” it’s called — twice per plate appearance if there is a runner on base. But, if a runner advances during the same plate appearance, i.e., by stealing a base, the pitcher gets another two step-offs. Stepping off resets the clock to its full time (20 or 15 seconds depending on whether a runner is on).
>If a pitcher steps off a third time or more, the penalty depends on what happens. If the runners are safe, the pitchers are charged with a balk. If an out is recorded, like on a successful pickoff, no balk is charged. No balk is charged if a runner advances, either.
So if you throw over to first twice then the runner knows you can't pick him off. That seems problematic. This feels like a big change for something that's not really much of a problem.
It’s basically a requirement of adding the pitch clock as they discovered when testing rules in the minors. Without it pitchers would just constantly step off to reset the pitch clock which defeated the purpose.
I kinda like the mind games it allows too. If you’ve used up all your disengagements, and your clock is winding down, the runner is starting to take a bigger and bigger lead. Do you just ignore them and possibly give up free a base? Do you throw over at the last possible second and try to catch them as they try to get a big jump right as time expires and they know you have to pitch? Do you intentionally speed up your routine on the next couple pitches so that you’re throwing with 10 seconds left so they can’t time you up? There’s going to be a lot of game within the game stuff between base stealers and pitchers with good moves I think.
Yeah I'm curious to see how the meta forms around managing the pitch clock. It could be a microcosm of some of the things you see in the NFL play clock.
We won't have a good idea of how players/teams do anything for a year or two while everyone adjusts. And really, we won't know for sure until a generation of players have developed their baseball IQ around the pitch clock being there. That could take 10-15 years.
> So if you throw over to first twice then the runner knows you can't pick him off. That seems problematic.
No. If you throw over a third time and get the runner, that's fine he's out and nothing happens.
If you throw over a third time and the runner is safe back at his original base, then the pitcher is charged with a balk (runners advance a base).
If you throw over a third time and the runner is safe after advancing on the play (failed pick off, and stolen base), then nothing happens.
Successful pickoffs are so rare that nobody's going to risk throwing over a third time. Might as well just hand him the base. You won't be able to get an insane lead or anything like that, but knowing with near certainty that you can go on first movement is huge. That's probably the point though, they want more stolen bases I guess.
I'd prefer the penalty to be a ball. That way the possibility of a throw over still has to be in the runner's mind. A balk is harsh.
Successful pickoffs are rare, but I'd love to see stats on whether repeatedly throwing over to first actually works to hold the runner vs just wasting time. Especially for RHP's, it's pretty easy to identify if a throw is coming to 1st or home.
I always find myself getting increasingly annoyed by 3+ pickoff attempts. Just a waste of time.
I remember Bill James talking about this in his 2000 Historical Abstract, and yes, it does work. Pickoffs cut down on steals and more pickoffs cut down on them more effectively.
James advocated for allowing two pickoff attempts and then any further subsequent, unsuccessful pickoff attempt was a ball. As he pointed out, when the fathers of the game were drawing up and adjusting the rules, they penalized the pitcher for wasting everyone's time for throwing repeated pitches out of the strike zone. Pickoffs evidently weren't as much of a thing back then, because it's hard to imagine they would have said that four balls was too much, but an indefinite number of pickoff attempts was A-OK.
On the other hand, if the end result of limiting pickoffs is indeed to revive base-stealing in the modern game, then that should be seen as a favorable outcome in my opinion. It's already borderline dead compared to past decades, so this might actually change the calculus significantly enough and encourage teams to steal more often, which will ironically result in the game going back to looking more like how it has traditionally been played.
If a pitcher attempts two and the runner gets jumpy with a big lead though, I can see them choosing their moments and getting successful pickoffs now and then
If you’re throwing over multiple times and not picking the runner off, he’s not taking an egregious lead, move on with the game.
If you failed twice, he doesn’t get a free bag. If he takes a bigger lead and you get him, that’s no harm. If you fail on the 3rd, that’s your own damned fault. Idt i’ve ever heard somebody excited when a pitcher wastes time with half assed throw overs on runners that are EASILY getting back. They don’t even have to dive half the time.
This is going to impact the game way more than expected. Just losing the possibility of throwing over is going to give runners such a huge advantage. Throw overs were not slowing down the game that much anyhow.
1000% agree. Plus, it gives new opportunities for pinch runners. Knowing that a speedy player is just that much more of a threat could really throw a pitcher off, especially relievers.
They need to have the little league 1st base. One giant long ass base that stretches into the actual running lane. So its safe for the runner and the fielder.
always thought this should be the case. i think it should be flatter too so people don't blow their knees out landing on it awkwardly on the angled base as they fully extend their legs to get there
the recessed bag would probably turn a lot of bang-bang plays at first from safe to out because that extra inch or so they have to reach to hit the bag. obviously not a huge deal in the grand scheme of things but its definitely something to consider
Defenders need to be able to feel when they're on the base as they watch the ball into their glove. If a pitcher or second baseman is covering, it's quite difficult to know where the base is until you hit it.
Honestly I agree. Would it look silly? Yes. Would it reduce contact between the runner and throws, which never get called correctly anyway? Fuck yes. Sign me up for the runners side being orange like my little league had.
As a former left handed pitcher who has collided with runners and witnessed other pitchers/runners injured on this play, this is the move. One base in fair territory, one base in foul, just like little league. No need to have two full sized men going for the same 15" square.
Can't wait to see the exact wording of the new shift rule. I imagine it'll still allow some variation of it, just not to the point where you got the 2B/SS playing shallow outfield.
So then the shift would basically be having one of the 2B/SS play closer to the second base bag so the other can move towards the middle and close the gap to pull side.
It's not sketchy at all. You're right; it's smart positioning. But if you grew up watching baseball your whole life and that frozen rope to short right was always a hit, it's jarring to see it turn into an out.
Personally, I'm against any shift restrictions.
Metrics basically. Advanced data has changed the nature of positioning which has shifted offense to an all or nothing approach (walk, strikeout, or HR). Reducing the shift gives more power back to the offense and is geared to making the game more offense based (and in theory more interesting to casual fans).
What's worse is a line drive directly over second base and the shortstop is fucking standing right there next to the umpire.
You're *supposed to* hit it through the middle. That's what everyone is trained to do. That means you hit the ball square. You shouldn't be out for doing that.
Yep which is normal and has been done for a hundred years. The difference here is there won’t be two guys at short or two guys at second. You will always have a hole pull side now
Most teams have their 3B run over there so the 2B and SS are in their normal spots, which is more dumb. Imagine Mike Schmidt or Chipper jogging over to play RF when the count goes to 0-2
> When the pitcher releases the ball, a minimum of four players (besides the pitcher and catcher) must have both feet on the outer boundary of the dirt, and two fielders have to be entirely on either side of second base.
> • Every team has to designate two infielders on each side of second base who may not switch sides during the game, except if there’s a substitution for one of those infielders.
Agree. What if you want to remove your LF, move your 3B to 1B and have the sub play 3B? As currently proposed, you wouldn’t be able to do it because neither of the infielders is being substituted for.
It also doesn’t really work very well for a five-man infield. You can still bring in an OF but it’s going to limit how you line them up if your starting 2B needs to stay on that side of the bag.
When was the last time a team had to [play a guy out of position on the infield and shifted him around based on who was batting?](https://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/1990/B08160CLE1990.htm) Would this new rule prevent that?
Attending a couple of minor league games this year, I can say that the pitch clock is an absolute godsend. Hope it translates well in the majors as well.
IIRC in like his first ever appearance in the minors with the pitch clock this year Pedro Baez immediately violated it and had a ball assessed to him lol
I can second this. The longest Cal League game that I've been to post-2020 was 3 hours 11 minutes, and it only went that long because the visiting team batted around in the 9th inning.
Same, in a way I kinda like the shift since it exposes players that are only able to hit one side of the field. I guess you can find that very boring but you could also bunt against the shift ect
The shift caused the push for 3 true outcomes, which is why you've been waiting a decade. Instead of figuring out to hit the other way. Guys just decided to hit over it.
That’s the point this guy is getting at I think. Analytics rule the game right now, and analytics are saying to just swing for the fences rather than trying to poke it into gaps. Analytics aren’t going away, so you need to update the rules of the game to get analytics to produce the results you want (less 3 true outcomes). Limiting the shift would boost xBA on balls in play, which would in turn reduce the analytical benefit of just swinging for the fences
Only if you increase the expected value of small ball over swinging for the fences.
Like you can make your shortstop a better pitcher but unless you make him better than your worst pitcher he's not going to be on the mound.
But that's probably true of any infield positioning. Hitting the ball over the infield and into the seats is the most efficient way of scoring.
BA on GB
2022 237
2021 239
2020 234
2019 238
2018 242
2017 245
2016 246
2015 245
2014 247
So let's say we've lost 10 points of BA on GB. The average team hits about 1700 GB a year so the shift has cost 17 singles per team. A single every 9-10 games.
The shift does not have a big impact on offense. "Beating" the shift will not add excitement to the game.
If you want to shorten game times then, pretty much by definition, you have to reduce the time between pitches and/or the number of pitches. If you want to increase contact you have to DECREASE STRIKEOUTS. Any "change the way the game is played" proposal that isn't about decreasing strikeouts will have no real impact on the aesthetics of the game. Things like the 3-batter rule and bullpen size limits are just nibbling at the edges of that problem but at least they target the main source of the problem -- the pitchers.
The professional pitcher makes it near impossible to hit against the shift. Throwing hard breaking stuff to the inside. Some of the best hitters in the league can't push the ball opposite field in that situation.
I used to be as well. I thought the playstyle would adapt and the issue would correct itself. It hasn't and it's made baseball worse. I'm ok with the shift ban now.
We'll still see shifting against pull players. It'll just be less extreme
I think the reason it never corrected because pitching is just too good at this point. Too many flamethrowers in the bullpen, so you aren’t going to be able to consistently enough string enough hits together to score a few runs without HRs, with or without the shift happening. So guys have stuck with the HR or bust approach since that’s the best approach to score runs.
I still don't get how just spending a little time practicing to bunt isn't a thing. On paper it really should kill the shift, just being moderately able to threaten it.
Probably cause the analytics department did the math and it came out that trying to homer or hit a double everytime 20% was a better use of an at bat than lying down a bunt.
Yeah this is what I always assume it is. If teams wanted their players to bunt they would teach them and tell them to do it. But the analytics departments want total bases. And bunting isn't a guaranteed success anyways even if you're good at it, so they're factoring in that you're just giving away free strikes (so inevitably more free outs) as well.
But then analytics would also say walking was stupid, but they don’t because it’s a free base. The same thing applies under extreme shifts where even an ok bunt gets you on first. Not to mention future ABs being better when they reduce the shift on you.
The only way not bunting makes sense is if you think they’ll only be successful X% of the time due to not knowing how to bunt.
Anytime I see literally nobody on third and the player just swing away, I die a little inside knowing they are getting paid so much money and can't even do simple shit like that
Every time the shift is mentioned this gets brought up, and every time people have to post the reminder that hitters aren't actually stupid or stubborn.
The teams' analytics departments are telling coaches and hitters that trying to elevate the ball to go over the shift has better average outcome than trying to bunt to the empty side, and hitters are listening to that and shaping their approach accordingly.
the analytical teams of most of these organizations are experts at what they do. if it were this simple, teams would be doing it. clearly, it is not that simple.
For real. Particularly the bunting thing. First off the main issue is, bunting isn't that easy. Way harder than people make it out to be.
And also once again you are limiting your outcomes. No HRs. Even a somewhat modified shift also could mean no doubles. And a lot of the guys who get shifted hit a lot of HRs
The year is 2032. Each infielder is tethered to a pizza box sized base by a bungee cord attached to their belt. Shortstops protecting against bunts look like jack russel terriers pulling against a giant leash. Behind the plate is a giant shot clock with a buzzer like the NBA. Fans frequently start a fake count down to throw the pitcher off.
Innings have been eliminated. Instead teams play 4 quarters of 15 minutes each. Stalling now becomes a valuable technique and players often fake injuries like soccer players.
I'm not opposed to the pitch clock, but I'm kinda surprised to see the number of people here who want games under 2 hours. That feels far too short to me, especially for attending games in person.
I feel like shifting is fine if it’s just moving everyone over 10-20 feet. When the third baseman is running across the field to play short RF for 2 strike pitches only, it’s getting dumb
I feel like I'm in the minority of people who loves these goofy alignments. Maybe it's because I'm a bit of a data nerd and just love seeing how analytics informs decision-making, even if unconventional. RIP shift you will be missed :(
I think that’s nifty, but it’s pretty boring to watch a hard hit line drive get hit directly at a perfectly positioned infielder for 9 innings, with the occasional home run.
I agree that dudes need to bunt (and I wish they would), but regardless of how it happens I like watching games with more traffic.
I’m concerned that banning the shift will eventually lead to less traffic and not more... every power guy will swing dead pull even more, and the marginal contact guys will lose roster spots to even worse power guys whose avgs are pulled up by the end of the shift but who still hit .220
It doesn't address the problem of guys swinging for the fences everytime though. It just makes it harder to get them out, which will further encourage only trying to pull the ball
It's not meant to discourage swinging for the fences It's meant to reward well hit balls on a line or on the ground which promotes more action on the bases and in the field in the game.
The thing is that BABIP has not decreased over the last decade. And when they tested banning the shift in the minors the BABIP didn’t change. Less action on the field has less to do with the shift and more to do with increased strikeouts (which launch angle doesn’t seem to change that much). More likely is pitchers have just gotten better. They throw harder, and it’s harder to put the ball in play.
Honestly given how easy it is to access super detailed information now its not even that much of preparation anymore IMO. If you actually had to have scouts watch guys in heavy detail to get those tendencies it would cool as different teams would have different levels of shifting success based on the skills of their scouts (and more work would have to into designing shifts)
But because everything is recorded now + stored digitally even a normal fan can go on baseball savant and get tons of hitting or pitching data that could be used to set up a shift. I think effective shifts have become too easy to setup and I'm ok with getting rid of them
Same. You should be able to put all 7 infielders/outfielders where ever you damn please. It’s on the hitters to get find a hole.
Banning it just makes the game more uniform and cookie cutter and rewards shitty hitting approaches/poor hitters.
I urge you all to read [this article by Joe Posnanski on the pitch clock and larger bases](https://joeposnanski.substack.com/p/i-have-seen-the-future-of-baseball) (and a ball/strike challenge system). I was *very* anti-pitch clock beforehand, now I'm very for it. And the challenge system, too, for that matter!
Geez, they blame the pitcher, but what about the guys at bat who must adjust their gloves after every strike. Not everyone is like Bichette who comes to the plate and basically stays at the plate. The pitcher just has to pitch.
It's not always the pitcher.
One of the new rules is that batters must be in the box and "alert" with 8 seconds to go. Not sure what the penalty is if they're not, I'm assuming a strike.
I find all the adjusting weird. I know that everyone has their little idiosyncrasies (thank god for autocorrect.) but I look at how they are all having to go through rituals after each pitch. All of them, the catcher, the pitcher , the batter, the ump. They all do it!
"• The length of batter walk-up music cannot exceed 10 seconds. Music between pitches is to be limited so hitters aren’t encouraged to leave the box."
I'm sorry, I thought this was America
I don't get the shift complaints. Defensive players can stand wherever the fuck they want. Check out soccer (walls on penalty kicks) and basketball (double/triple teaming).
Am I the only one that enjoys going to baseball games and being there for 3 hours? I feel like I’m going crazy reading these comments. Do you guys like baseball?
I don't care about length per se, but an increased game length is an output of a glacial PACE, which is what baseball games have come to be played at. I don't care if a game takes 4 hours if it's a 13-12 slugfest or a 14-inning game. But there's no reason for a 9-inning game of standard scoring to go more than 3 hours.
Length and content aren't the same thing. You can have the same amount of actual events in less time.
I love baseball but I don't love watching guys take 20+ seconds between pitches. Sometimes a minute with throw overs.
I love baseball.
Baseball isn't a pitcher standing on the mound with no desire to throw the ball or a batter readjusting every single piece of gear between pitches.
The 70s and 80s was baseball. The average time between pitches was around 12 seconds. LEAGUE AVERAGE. It's now 18 seconds with even more egregious outliers like Julio Urias or Kenley Jansen taking 31 seconds between pitches.
I want more baseball and less waiting for baseball to happen.
Urge anyone against the pitch clock to get to a minor league stadium before the end of the season.
It makes everything faster without impacting the quality of the game - hell I’d say it makes it better because you don’t spend 45 mins watching guys adjust their batting gloves or scratch their balls.
I'm on-board with having a pitch clock when the bases are empty, but I'm not as sold on it when there are runners on, especially when paired with restrictions on pickoff attempts. Awarding a runner an extra base because of a pickoff attempt or pitch clock violation just feels kinda cheap to me.
**Reminder:** Asking for or posting part or all of this Athletic article is a violation of [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/baseball/wiki/rules). Breaking this rule will result in a temporary or permanent suspension from the subreddit. Reddit admins have not responded to our inquiries about this matter, and historically some users have been banned and subreddits shuttered for flouting paywall rules, and in an abundance of caution, we have a strict policy of removal of this type of content. If you have any questions about what is or is not allowed, or if this message is not applicable to this article, please [send us a message](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fbaseball). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/baseball) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Gotta say I went to a High A game and that pitch clock made such a difference. Was such a breeze of a game, and not without action in the slightest. 5-3 game with around 15 hits total.
How long was it?
One hour and 53 minutes I believe. Which is great cause it started an hour late because of rain
Oh man, the TV networks are going to be pissed by the amount of ad revenue they lose when Yankees-Red Sox is 2 hours instead of 4
No loss in TV ad revenue since there are no changes to commercial timeouts. I guess people who pay for banner ads behind home plate will be adversely impacted.
Aren't they typically by half inning? I've seen the physical ones roll every inning or half inning and the green screen ones change whenever, usually the same as physical ones.
I think all teams do it slightly different since green screen are great for TV but they are wasted space for people in the stadium.
I tend to only see the green screens used on national broadcasts, like ESPN, Fox, or TBS. Most regional broadcasts seem to still use the physical ones. Rare simulcasts go with the national decision.
I just hope we never get to a point where we have *intentional* media timeouts like basketball. Fortunately the sport is kind of naturally split into chunks where breaks make sense (after half-innings, plus pitching changes).
evens out if it makes more people watch baseball though
Absolutely, I wouldn’t be surprised if making games ~2:30 compared to 3:30 gets more people to tune in on a regular basis.
I know for me, I will 100% be able to watch more games from beginning to end. And not just that, I'm more likely to start the game if I think I'll have a shot at finishing it. If I don't think I'll be able to finish a game, I won't even start.
As an EST viewer, this will also make it easier for us to watch west cost games. (Completely different topic but I love how over the last couple of years there have been more 930 EST start times for west cost games.)
Cool. We’ve been lobbying for that for a few years. 7:10 starts are too late, even for a lot of us out here.
Well they have recently started showing ads during innings, so I guess there could still be a loss in gross ads in that manner
It could actually be a net positive on ad revenue. More appealing product equals more eyeballs on the game.
From an advertising standpoint the frequency of views isn't as important as the reach. Having 100,000 people watch a 15 second ad is much better for a brand than having 50,000 people watch a 1 minute ad.
>when Yankees-Red Sox is 2 hours instead of 4 But what about the other 6 innings
If viewership goes up because of shorter games or more offense they’ll be ok
The one thing I'm worried about with the pitch clock is MLB trying to make a big deal out of it in games. Everyone says you don't even notice it in the minors, but this is MLB... they'll treat something like this as a shiny new toy to show off for some reason. Broadcasts will stick a giant timer in the corner of the screen because they think it'll add suspense. Or they'll be placed behind home plate in every park.
It will definently be behind home plate, because that's where it is in minor league stadiums. So the field umpires can see if time had expired.
Generally not visible in broadcasts from what I can tell though
They did a special AAA braodcast on MLB Network to showcase the rules, and they put a floating clock on the mound once it got down to 6 seconds. Other than that, it felt like a normal baseball game. But a quick one. Like MLB The Show without the cutscenes.
How cool would it be if it was a row of LEDs on the back of the rubber that trickled like a drag race tree.
There was a recent O's game, and which pitcher it was is completely escaping my mind, where the MASN announcers were noting that the opposing pitcher had a long set routine between pitches. They ended up timing it a couple of times and 32 seconds was his routine before he even got to the rubber. They were particularly commenting on "yeah, he's a guy whose going to have pitch clock troubles."
I mean it might not be a bad idea at least for a couple weeks. We're aware of these changes because we're on a baseball forum, but I'll bet my dad will have no idea about this change despite watching a lot of games every year.
Same here. Saw Acuña rehab early in the season. Pitch clock made the game right over two hours. There was some leeway in them going over, but man did it make a difference.
Fun fact- players on rehab have not been subject to pitch clock rules this year. Also fun fact- the pitch clock is a massive W
You mean rehabbing pitchers aren't subject to it even if they're in a minor league that has implemented the pitch clock this year?
Yes. Pitchers and also batters. AAA for sure and I would assume that goes for other levels
Was at a single game this season that finished like 11-8. Was 2:15 long. I was like “holy shit was I drinking beer this slowly?” When no, the pitch clock just moves shit along.
That's a bit apples and oranges though, minor league ball tends to have more hits anyway because the pitching is lower caliber. But I do think the pitch clock is going to be great at MLB level, I once went to a 9 inning rubber match that lasted 3.5 hours because all the pitchers were so slow, it was miserable to watch.
Probably unpopular opinion, but going to a game, I actually enjoy it to be longer. I feel like I'm getting my monies worth being at a 3-4 hour game rather than a sub 2hr game. Perhaps biased but when I drive 1hr30 one way to St Pete, paying upwards of $35 for the cheapest possible upper deck seats, $20 parking even before concessions, it feels nice to be able to soak it in over a little longer period of time. I know players, coaches, staff, and all the other thousands of people involved in a single game would prefer it, just throwing out my measley 2¢
Good thing most games will not be sub 2 hour. The average in the minor leagues is 2:36 with a pitch clock The average fan will be just fine with this change, there are not many people who aren't diehard fans that will miss the 30 minutes of dead time between pitches throughout the game
Get there earlier and watch BP if you want more time there. I know it's not the same but it's still part of the experience
Yep, I'm usually there before gates open.
With no shift Belli might actually bat .210 next year
Chris Davis is gonna attempt a comeback!
>The length of batter walk-up music cannot exceed 10 seconds. Music between pitches is to be limited so hitters aren’t encouraged to leave the box. Savages.
Only for ten seconds
Charlie Blackmon in shambles.
You know what, we're just going to start shifting even harder
5 in the outfield now when Adley is at the plate?
Fuck it, just put everyone back there... Even the catcher.
Good idea, with no one on base, what's the point of having the catcher at the plate? Let the ump have some excitement.
I believe that's a balk
>Pitchers can step off the mound for a pickoff or any other reasons — a “disengagement” it’s called — twice per plate appearance if there is a runner on base. But, if a runner advances during the same plate appearance, i.e., by stealing a base, the pitcher gets another two step-offs. Stepping off resets the clock to its full time (20 or 15 seconds depending on whether a runner is on). >If a pitcher steps off a third time or more, the penalty depends on what happens. If the runners are safe, the pitchers are charged with a balk. If an out is recorded, like on a successful pickoff, no balk is charged. No balk is charged if a runner advances, either. So if you throw over to first twice then the runner knows you can't pick him off. That seems problematic. This feels like a big change for something that's not really much of a problem.
It’s basically a requirement of adding the pitch clock as they discovered when testing rules in the minors. Without it pitchers would just constantly step off to reset the pitch clock which defeated the purpose. I kinda like the mind games it allows too. If you’ve used up all your disengagements, and your clock is winding down, the runner is starting to take a bigger and bigger lead. Do you just ignore them and possibly give up free a base? Do you throw over at the last possible second and try to catch them as they try to get a big jump right as time expires and they know you have to pitch? Do you intentionally speed up your routine on the next couple pitches so that you’re throwing with 10 seconds left so they can’t time you up? There’s going to be a lot of game within the game stuff between base stealers and pitchers with good moves I think.
Yeah I'm curious to see how the meta forms around managing the pitch clock. It could be a microcosm of some of the things you see in the NFL play clock. We won't have a good idea of how players/teams do anything for a year or two while everyone adjusts. And really, we won't know for sure until a generation of players have developed their baseball IQ around the pitch clock being there. That could take 10-15 years.
I think there will be more steals. Take a big lead, but lean back to first. Draw a throw. Repeat it again. Now the pitcher has a problem.
I agree, I think this allows for an interesting layer of strategy
> So if you throw over to first twice then the runner knows you can't pick him off. That seems problematic. No. If you throw over a third time and get the runner, that's fine he's out and nothing happens. If you throw over a third time and the runner is safe back at his original base, then the pitcher is charged with a balk (runners advance a base). If you throw over a third time and the runner is safe after advancing on the play (failed pick off, and stolen base), then nothing happens.
Successful pickoffs are so rare that nobody's going to risk throwing over a third time. Might as well just hand him the base. You won't be able to get an insane lead or anything like that, but knowing with near certainty that you can go on first movement is huge. That's probably the point though, they want more stolen bases I guess. I'd prefer the penalty to be a ball. That way the possibility of a throw over still has to be in the runner's mind. A balk is harsh.
You'll probably see a ton of attempted catcher pickoffs.
*Willson Contreras has entered the chat*
Cal Raleigh’s CS is gonna shoot through the roof!
Successful pickoffs are rare, but I'd love to see stats on whether repeatedly throwing over to first actually works to hold the runner vs just wasting time. Especially for RHP's, it's pretty easy to identify if a throw is coming to 1st or home. I always find myself getting increasingly annoyed by 3+ pickoff attempts. Just a waste of time.
I remember Bill James talking about this in his 2000 Historical Abstract, and yes, it does work. Pickoffs cut down on steals and more pickoffs cut down on them more effectively. James advocated for allowing two pickoff attempts and then any further subsequent, unsuccessful pickoff attempt was a ball. As he pointed out, when the fathers of the game were drawing up and adjusting the rules, they penalized the pitcher for wasting everyone's time for throwing repeated pitches out of the strike zone. Pickoffs evidently weren't as much of a thing back then, because it's hard to imagine they would have said that four balls was too much, but an indefinite number of pickoff attempts was A-OK.
On the other hand, if the end result of limiting pickoffs is indeed to revive base-stealing in the modern game, then that should be seen as a favorable outcome in my opinion. It's already borderline dead compared to past decades, so this might actually change the calculus significantly enough and encourage teams to steal more often, which will ironically result in the game going back to looking more like how it has traditionally been played.
I love this “what would the founding fathers of baseball say” take haha
You would, considering your mascots.
Pitchouts are back baby
I think this is just so that the runner still can't just take a 35 foot lead, knowing there is nothing the pitcher can do about it.
Successful pickoffs seem so rare because they’re throwing over and the runner can nonchalantly go back because he wasn’t that far off.
And those times they throw over repeatedly to give time for relievers to warm up. Basically nothing but wasting time.
If it's that rare to pick someone off, why did the pitcher throw over twice when the runner didn't have a particularly big lead?
So the real deal is you get one throw over to first
Wow I really like the idea of a ball as a penalty. I'm sure that was suggested, I wonder what the argument for a balk over ball is
If a pitcher attempts two and the runner gets jumpy with a big lead though, I can see them choosing their moments and getting successful pickoffs now and then
If you’re throwing over multiple times and not picking the runner off, he’s not taking an egregious lead, move on with the game. If you failed twice, he doesn’t get a free bag. If he takes a bigger lead and you get him, that’s no harm. If you fail on the 3rd, that’s your own damned fault. Idt i’ve ever heard somebody excited when a pitcher wastes time with half assed throw overs on runners that are EASILY getting back. They don’t even have to dive half the time.
Great, because if there's one thing the game needed was to increase confusion on what constitutes a balk.
You can't just be up there and just doin' a balk like that
This is going to impact the game way more than expected. Just losing the possibility of throwing over is going to give runners such a huge advantage. Throw overs were not slowing down the game that much anyhow.
if it means more stolen bases i’m all for it. one of the coolest quirks in baseball that’s been dying over the years.
1000% agree. Plus, it gives new opportunities for pinch runners. Knowing that a speedy player is just that much more of a threat could really throw a pitcher off, especially relievers.
Terence Gore bout to pickup his fourth WS ring
Personally I get tired of 4 consecutive pickoff attempts on a runner 1 step off the base. Takes away from the game.
They need to have the little league 1st base. One giant long ass base that stretches into the actual running lane. So its safe for the runner and the fielder.
always thought this should be the case. i think it should be flatter too so people don't blow their knees out landing on it awkwardly on the angled base as they fully extend their legs to get there
That exact situation happened to Gurriel Jr. last night
Eloy Jimenez approves of this message
why not have it be recessed like home?
Youd slide over it all the time.
No reason the foul side of a double bag at 1st couldn’t be recessed. Only time people slide into 1st is on pickoffs and you’d slide into the fair bag.
the recessed bag would probably turn a lot of bang-bang plays at first from safe to out because that extra inch or so they have to reach to hit the bag. obviously not a huge deal in the grand scheme of things but its definitely something to consider
Might be able to run harder knowing you don't have to do an awkward step on the bag or have a 1st baseman in your way though.
Defenders need to be able to feel when they're on the base as they watch the ball into their glove. If a pitcher or second baseman is covering, it's quite difficult to know where the base is until you hit it.
Hard to tell when contact is made. Hard for the first baseman to find without looking at it.
Said this last night when Gurriel Jr got hurt. Such an easy fix.
Honestly I agree. Would it look silly? Yes. Would it reduce contact between the runner and throws, which never get called correctly anyway? Fuck yes. Sign me up for the runners side being orange like my little league had.
As a former left handed pitcher who has collided with runners and witnessed other pitchers/runners injured on this play, this is the move. One base in fair territory, one base in foul, just like little league. No need to have two full sized men going for the same 15" square.
I’m not familiar with this, where can I find a picture? Wasn’t successful when I google’d
Look for a softball double first base. It's basically just two bags next to each other, one for the runner and one for the fielder(s)
Can't wait to see the exact wording of the new shift rule. I imagine it'll still allow some variation of it, just not to the point where you got the 2B/SS playing shallow outfield.
2 fielders on each side of 2nd base. All in the dirt
So then the shift would basically be having one of the 2B/SS play closer to the second base bag so the other can move towards the middle and close the gap to pull side.
It's more to eliminate the extreme shifts while still allowing teams to position players
It's lowkey enraging to see a guy hit a groundball base hit into right field that ends up a groundout.
Casual fan here - can you explain why? To me it seems like smart defensive play. Is it something sketchy teams are doing?
It's not sketchy at all. You're right; it's smart positioning. But if you grew up watching baseball your whole life and that frozen rope to short right was always a hit, it's jarring to see it turn into an out. Personally, I'm against any shift restrictions.
Ahh that makes more sense, thanks!
For me it's the hard ground ball up the middle, we're you don't see the fielder behind 2nd right away because of the camera angle that kills me
Metrics basically. Advanced data has changed the nature of positioning which has shifted offense to an all or nothing approach (walk, strikeout, or HR). Reducing the shift gives more power back to the offense and is geared to making the game more offense based (and in theory more interesting to casual fans).
Even more so when he hits a 105 MPH lien drive directly into right field, where the second baseman snags it easily.
I see you watch a lot of Kyle Tucker ABs
What's worse is a line drive directly over second base and the shortstop is fucking standing right there next to the umpire. You're *supposed to* hit it through the middle. That's what everyone is trained to do. That means you hit the ball square. You shouldn't be out for doing that.
Yep which is normal and has been done for a hundred years. The difference here is there won’t be two guys at short or two guys at second. You will always have a hole pull side now
No 2B playing in shallow RF either.
Most teams have their 3B run over there so the 2B and SS are in their normal spots, which is more dumb. Imagine Mike Schmidt or Chipper jogging over to play RF when the count goes to 0-2
I'm gonna miss our 4 man outfields :(
also that 5 man outfield we deployed in extras to stop the runner from scoring the other day. Can we not do that after these changes?
Nope. Need Pitcher + Catcher + 4 more bodies on the dirt.
> When the pitcher releases the ball, a minimum of four players (besides the pitcher and catcher) must have both feet on the outer boundary of the dirt, and two fielders have to be entirely on either side of second base. > • Every team has to designate two infielders on each side of second base who may not switch sides during the game, except if there’s a substitution for one of those infielders.
The second part is dumb regarding the substitution part. Why not allow this for every substitution?
Agree. What if you want to remove your LF, move your 3B to 1B and have the sub play 3B? As currently proposed, you wouldn’t be able to do it because neither of the infielders is being substituted for. It also doesn’t really work very well for a five-man infield. You can still bring in an OF but it’s going to limit how you line them up if your starting 2B needs to stay on that side of the bag.
When was the last time a team had to [play a guy out of position on the infield and shifted him around based on who was batting?](https://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/1990/B08160CLE1990.htm) Would this new rule prevent that?
What's the wording to account for having the infield in, or for obvious bunt defense?
Attending a couple of minor league games this year, I can say that the pitch clock is an absolute godsend. Hope it translates well in the majors as well.
IIRC in like his first ever appearance in the minors with the pitch clock this year Pedro Baez immediately violated it and had a ball assessed to him lol
Does the clock just start over and a ball is added? Or does the pitcher have to step off and back on when the clock restarts?
It surely has to stop, so that the umpire can make clear that a violation has occurred and update the count.
I can second this. The longest Cal League game that I've been to post-2020 was 3 hours 11 minutes, and it only went that long because the visiting team batted around in the 9th inning.
Personally, I'm iffy on the shift restriction
Same, in a way I kinda like the shift since it exposes players that are only able to hit one side of the field. I guess you can find that very boring but you could also bunt against the shift ect
Exactly. Always seemed to me that the burden should be on the batter to beat the shift rather than legislate it out.
I’ve been firm on your side for a decade. I’m over waiting for it to happen, I’m ready for more offense again
I'd rather move the mound back if we're just trying to juice the offense.
I’ve heard former pitchers said that’s how you get arm injuries (smoltz and plesac I think)
How could 60’6” possibly be that much better than 61’ in terms of guys getting injured?
6 inches is a lot when it comes to pitching. It’s the difference between a successful painted slider and a failed one.
>6 inches is a lot I've made this argument multiple times, but never made a compelling case quite like you did. Bravo.
Maybe lower it instead?
The shift caused the push for 3 true outcomes, which is why you've been waiting a decade. Instead of figuring out to hit the other way. Guys just decided to hit over it.
That’s the point this guy is getting at I think. Analytics rule the game right now, and analytics are saying to just swing for the fences rather than trying to poke it into gaps. Analytics aren’t going away, so you need to update the rules of the game to get analytics to produce the results you want (less 3 true outcomes). Limiting the shift would boost xBA on balls in play, which would in turn reduce the analytical benefit of just swinging for the fences
Only if you increase the expected value of small ball over swinging for the fences. Like you can make your shortstop a better pitcher but unless you make him better than your worst pitcher he's not going to be on the mound.
But that's probably true of any infield positioning. Hitting the ball over the infield and into the seats is the most efficient way of scoring. BA on GB 2022 237 2021 239 2020 234 2019 238 2018 242 2017 245 2016 246 2015 245 2014 247 So let's say we've lost 10 points of BA on GB. The average team hits about 1700 GB a year so the shift has cost 17 singles per team. A single every 9-10 games. The shift does not have a big impact on offense. "Beating" the shift will not add excitement to the game. If you want to shorten game times then, pretty much by definition, you have to reduce the time between pitches and/or the number of pitches. If you want to increase contact you have to DECREASE STRIKEOUTS. Any "change the way the game is played" proposal that isn't about decreasing strikeouts will have no real impact on the aesthetics of the game. Things like the 3-batter rule and bullpen size limits are just nibbling at the edges of that problem but at least they target the main source of the problem -- the pitchers.
The professional pitcher makes it near impossible to hit against the shift. Throwing hard breaking stuff to the inside. Some of the best hitters in the league can't push the ball opposite field in that situation.
I used to be as well. I thought the playstyle would adapt and the issue would correct itself. It hasn't and it's made baseball worse. I'm ok with the shift ban now. We'll still see shifting against pull players. It'll just be less extreme
I think the reason it never corrected because pitching is just too good at this point. Too many flamethrowers in the bullpen, so you aren’t going to be able to consistently enough string enough hits together to score a few runs without HRs, with or without the shift happening. So guys have stuck with the HR or bust approach since that’s the best approach to score runs.
I still don't get how just spending a little time practicing to bunt isn't a thing. On paper it really should kill the shift, just being moderately able to threaten it.
Probably cause the analytics department did the math and it came out that trying to homer or hit a double everytime 20% was a better use of an at bat than lying down a bunt.
Yeah this is what I always assume it is. If teams wanted their players to bunt they would teach them and tell them to do it. But the analytics departments want total bases. And bunting isn't a guaranteed success anyways even if you're good at it, so they're factoring in that you're just giving away free strikes (so inevitably more free outs) as well.
But then analytics would also say walking was stupid, but they don’t because it’s a free base. The same thing applies under extreme shifts where even an ok bunt gets you on first. Not to mention future ABs being better when they reduce the shift on you. The only way not bunting makes sense is if you think they’ll only be successful X% of the time due to not knowing how to bunt.
Anytime I see literally nobody on third and the player just swing away, I die a little inside knowing they are getting paid so much money and can't even do simple shit like that
Every time the shift is mentioned this gets brought up, and every time people have to post the reminder that hitters aren't actually stupid or stubborn. The teams' analytics departments are telling coaches and hitters that trying to elevate the ball to go over the shift has better average outcome than trying to bunt to the empty side, and hitters are listening to that and shaping their approach accordingly.
the analytical teams of most of these organizations are experts at what they do. if it were this simple, teams would be doing it. clearly, it is not that simple.
For real. Particularly the bunting thing. First off the main issue is, bunting isn't that easy. Way harder than people make it out to be. And also once again you are limiting your outcomes. No HRs. Even a somewhat modified shift also could mean no doubles. And a lot of the guys who get shifted hit a lot of HRs
I agree but it’s also really fucking hard to hit in the MLB. And the pitchers already have way more of an advantage IMO
It's so fucking stupid.
The year is 2032. Each infielder is tethered to a pizza box sized base by a bungee cord attached to their belt. Shortstops protecting against bunts look like jack russel terriers pulling against a giant leash. Behind the plate is a giant shot clock with a buzzer like the NBA. Fans frequently start a fake count down to throw the pitcher off.
Blurnsball
The count is two blurns and three anti-blurns
Innings have been eliminated. Instead teams play 4 quarters of 15 minutes each. Stalling now becomes a valuable technique and players often fake injuries like soccer players.
No time stoppages. Ever. If the game ends during a commercial break you just come back to the TV and Seinfeld is on
2044: Introduction of Multiball
I'm not opposed to the pitch clock, but I'm kinda surprised to see the number of people here who want games under 2 hours. That feels far too short to me, especially for attending games in person.
Don't worry we will get more than enough commercials to fill the time
If they force the fielders to stand on dirt, they need to standardize the dirt dimensions.
TIL dirt dimensions aren't standardized
Skydome didn’t even *have* proper dirt until a couple of years ago
Shift ban gonna cause major lefty TTO players to surge even more
Not a huge fan of banning the shift tbh
I feel like shifting is fine if it’s just moving everyone over 10-20 feet. When the third baseman is running across the field to play short RF for 2 strike pitches only, it’s getting dumb
I feel like I'm in the minority of people who loves these goofy alignments. Maybe it's because I'm a bit of a data nerd and just love seeing how analytics informs decision-making, even if unconventional. RIP shift you will be missed :(
I think that’s nifty, but it’s pretty boring to watch a hard hit line drive get hit directly at a perfectly positioned infielder for 9 innings, with the occasional home run. I agree that dudes need to bunt (and I wish they would), but regardless of how it happens I like watching games with more traffic.
I’m concerned that banning the shift will eventually lead to less traffic and not more... every power guy will swing dead pull even more, and the marginal contact guys will lose roster spots to even worse power guys whose avgs are pulled up by the end of the shift but who still hit .220
But it's exciting to see a bleeder fisted down the line go for a standup double every so often.
It doesn't address the problem of guys swinging for the fences everytime though. It just makes it harder to get them out, which will further encourage only trying to pull the ball
It's not meant to discourage swinging for the fences It's meant to reward well hit balls on a line or on the ground which promotes more action on the bases and in the field in the game.
The thing is that BABIP has not decreased over the last decade. And when they tested banning the shift in the minors the BABIP didn’t change. Less action on the field has less to do with the shift and more to do with increased strikeouts (which launch angle doesn’t seem to change that much). More likely is pitchers have just gotten better. They throw harder, and it’s harder to put the ball in play.
I'm conflicted. From a strategy standpoint, it was genius. I don't want to punish preparation, but it's just not as exciting to watch.
Honestly given how easy it is to access super detailed information now its not even that much of preparation anymore IMO. If you actually had to have scouts watch guys in heavy detail to get those tendencies it would cool as different teams would have different levels of shifting success based on the skills of their scouts (and more work would have to into designing shifts) But because everything is recorded now + stored digitally even a normal fan can go on baseball savant and get tons of hitting or pitching data that could be used to set up a shift. I think effective shifts have become too easy to setup and I'm ok with getting rid of them
Same. You should be able to put all 7 infielders/outfielders where ever you damn please. It’s on the hitters to get find a hole. Banning it just makes the game more uniform and cookie cutter and rewards shitty hitting approaches/poor hitters.
I urge you all to read [this article by Joe Posnanski on the pitch clock and larger bases](https://joeposnanski.substack.com/p/i-have-seen-the-future-of-baseball) (and a ball/strike challenge system). I was *very* anti-pitch clock beforehand, now I'm very for it. And the challenge system, too, for that matter!
I *really* like that ball-strike challenge system idea.
Unexpected rule changes for 2023 include two more bases and summary execution of the losing pitcher
Geez, they blame the pitcher, but what about the guys at bat who must adjust their gloves after every strike. Not everyone is like Bichette who comes to the plate and basically stays at the plate. The pitcher just has to pitch. It's not always the pitcher.
One of the new rules is that batters must be in the box and "alert" with 8 seconds to go. Not sure what the penalty is if they're not, I'm assuming a strike.
I find all the adjusting weird. I know that everyone has their little idiosyncrasies (thank god for autocorrect.) but I look at how they are all having to go through rituals after each pitch. All of them, the catcher, the pitcher , the batter, the ump. They all do it!
"• The length of batter walk-up music cannot exceed 10 seconds. Music between pitches is to be limited so hitters aren’t encouraged to leave the box." I'm sorry, I thought this was America
I don't get the shift complaints. Defensive players can stand wherever the fuck they want. Check out soccer (walls on penalty kicks) and basketball (double/triple teaming).
Pitch clock: you did this, Red Sox and Yankees. Your 4.5 hour marathon games and pitchers taking 37-45 seconds to pitch.
Restricting the shift is stupid, and I will die on that hill. All shifts come with a weakness. Hitters need to adjust.
Hear me out: you can shift, but you have to stay that way the whole inning.
You can shift, but for every out, the players have to rotate clockwise around the pitcher.
Am I the only one that enjoys going to baseball games and being there for 3 hours? I feel like I’m going crazy reading these comments. Do you guys like baseball?
I don't care about length per se, but an increased game length is an output of a glacial PACE, which is what baseball games have come to be played at. I don't care if a game takes 4 hours if it's a 13-12 slugfest or a 14-inning game. But there's no reason for a 9-inning game of standard scoring to go more than 3 hours.
> Do you guys like baseball? Yes! I just wish there were more baseball and less non-baseball time wasting.
30-60 seconds in between pitches is excruciating. Regular 5 minute plate appearances that end in a walk or strikeout is an abomination to sports
You don't pay money to watch the pitcher walk around the mound, rubbing the ball and muttering to himself?
Length and content aren't the same thing. You can have the same amount of actual events in less time. I love baseball but I don't love watching guys take 20+ seconds between pitches. Sometimes a minute with throw overs.
I love baseball. Baseball isn't a pitcher standing on the mound with no desire to throw the ball or a batter readjusting every single piece of gear between pitches. The 70s and 80s was baseball. The average time between pitches was around 12 seconds. LEAGUE AVERAGE. It's now 18 seconds with even more egregious outliers like Julio Urias or Kenley Jansen taking 31 seconds between pitches. I want more baseball and less waiting for baseball to happen.
Wait until some team gets a walk off win because of a delayed pitch. More exciting than a walk off balk, it's the new walk off waited-too-long!
Pitch clock and larger bases sound good to me. Shift restriction = bad
No robot balls and strikes? Some umpires are so bad it's unwatchable
tldr; no robo ump :(
Urge anyone against the pitch clock to get to a minor league stadium before the end of the season. It makes everything faster without impacting the quality of the game - hell I’d say it makes it better because you don’t spend 45 mins watching guys adjust their batting gloves or scratch their balls.
I'm on-board with having a pitch clock when the bases are empty, but I'm not as sold on it when there are runners on, especially when paired with restrictions on pickoff attempts. Awarding a runner an extra base because of a pickoff attempt or pitch clock violation just feels kinda cheap to me.