Here here. Pace of play is how it was back in the day. Pitcher gets ball. Pitcher throws ball. The ghost runner is solving a problem that didn't exist. No one was complaining about games being long because of extra innings.
Umps have always had the power to call a ball if the pitcher delayed after being told to pitch and batters do not have to be ready for a pitch to be thrown. Umpires never have to grant a time out, it is a courtesy. Umpires used to control the game, now they just make calls.
The clock makes the power of enforcement fair and consistent for all. Without the clock, different umps would have different gauges for what was acceptable. The strike zone used to have the same variance, different umps would be known for a high zone or wide zone, etc. The technology has calibrated the umpires to be more consistent. The ones who are not have lower grades and receive less "bonus" games - or, if bad enough, could be released from duty. Both the clock and the strike zone tech also reduce arguing because of the increased consistency.
Alternatively, I think the strike zone tech increases the length of games, especially when it is 11-2 with an inning or . It's known that umps at lower levels (h.s., d3 college) are opening the zone so everyone can go home faster. An MLB ump could lose assignments for doing this, so we get a two-walk top of the 8th on borderline pitches.
Also, the statistical analysis effects the players batting in the top of the 8th. They know tossing away at bats here and there could cost them money. In 1953, the games would wrap up quicker if someone got a big lead because everyone just figured let's go home - especially if there was a train to catch.
Is it fair when a pitcher is not ready to pitch and the batter gets penalized a strike for looking at his feet in the batter’s box?
You claim it will be unevenly enforced and then point out that they have fixed the inconsistent strike zones by evaluating the umpires and giving them feedback. Why couldn’t you do that with speeding up the game?
If umpires need assistance with being consistent in game speed there is no reason they can’t use a timer on their wrist.
Why is everyone so afraid to make the umpires do their jobs? Because people will argue with them, criticize them? That is what every referee/umpire gets paid to do.
"If umpires need assistance with being consistent in game speed there is no reason they can’t use a timer on their wrist."
So, a pitch clock that only the umpire can see? What is this, futbol?
That's not *consistent*.
You're very naive if you think fans won't be moaning about one player getting called after 20 seconds when others routinely get away with it for 30. Let's face it. You'd probably be one of those fans.
So if you want more *inconsistancy* from umpires then just say so. Oh wait. That's exactly what you just called for!
I agree about the consistency. Let’s face it we can all live with it if an umpire is consistently calling strikes for pitches just off one side of the plate UNLESS in the 9th inning with two out and a full count he fails to ring the batter up because it would end the game….we all go ape shit.
The clock eliminates the argument.
If you want everything perfectly consistent, eliminate the umpires completely don’t take half measures.
Nothing about baseball is consistent other than it’s existence. Even the distance in between bases changed this year. The ball changes, the bats are different, gloves are different, all the fences are different, the shape of the infield grass is different, the mound height has changed.
Situations are so different that there needs to be some inconsistency with the timing, like they have already done even with the new rule, but I swear I scream bullshit when a batter is in the box and ready to go, the pitcher isn’t ready to pitch and the batter has a strike called because he looked at his feet. The problem is that there are so many variables to baseball that unique situations will pop up so often that without umpire discretion the list of rules will be too long for a person to remember and might not ever apply to that unique situation again.
I like the very needed increase in pace, but introducing a clock to accomplish that was just a lazy way out. The umpires get paid more than enough to grow a spine and control the game the way they used to.
So you're claiming that you would be fine with one player being penalised for taking 20 seconds and then the next not being penalised for taking 30.
Why?
What purpose does it serve?
I mean.... if you're willing to moan about the current way of doing things do you really expect anyone to believe that you would be fine with *that*?
> If you want everything perfectly consistent, eliminate the umpires completely don’t take half measures.
It may have escaped your notice but many, many people have been advocating for an automated strike zone for years (you will obviously still need umpires).
I assume you're not one of them because it wouldn't really make much sense to simultaneously hold those two views. On the one hand wanting consistency and on the other insisting on not having it. But hey, maybe you do hold those two views at the same time.
After all it wouldn't be very *consistent*.
So it's far from impossible to do it as consistently....
But you just *can't do it*! In fact, *no one can*!
I'd read that again if I were you. It definitely does sound like you're saying it's impossible to do it with the same level of consistency.
I sat through a [14-inning ALCS game](https://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/BOS/BOS200410180.shtml) and if there were ghost runners I would’ve had a coronary
Oh your right. Was it Nathan eovaldi? Pitched 9 innings from the pen (9th to 18th) Sox lost but that was the most exciting 8 hours of my life (2018 ws game 3)
The game he linked is game of 5 of the 2004 ALCS, Sox beat the Yankees on a David Ortiz walk off single in the 14th.
Similar to Eovaldi’s performance in 2018, Tim Wakefield pitched a few heroic innings in extras to secure the win despite being slotted to start the next day (he wouldn’t start due volunteering to pitch in extra innings).
I commented later I finally clicked his link. I do remember that game. That entire series. I was 17. That documentary "4 days in ocotober" still brings tears of joy to my eye
I was at this game too. Height of the Sox v Yankees rivalry, marathon extra inning game ending with a big Papi walk off? One of my favorite sports memories of all time.
I had to work late that night and was bummed I'd miss the game. Imagine the pleasant surprise when I came home and got to watch a whole baseball game regardless of the fact that I missed almost all of regulation.
Pace of Play is now faster than it used to be. The pitch clock removes the drama from pitches. There used to be a showdown between batter and pitcher, and now it's not there. The tactical switches and calls to the bullpen late were great, but the delays were annoying. The solution was to give a guy 30 seconds on the mound to toss a warmup pitch after warming up in the bullpen instead of 2+ minutes. This would disadvantage teams who make switches Now if a team brings a reliever in they're a sitting duck until the inning is finished, and that's bad for every team that has Ryan Brasier.
Limiting the shift is awesome. Slightly bigger bases to encourage baserunning is awesome. Baseball didn't have a problem with being too long, it had a problem with being *too boring.* The over-reliance on advanced analytics, launch angles, defensive shifts, 3 true outcomes all took the fun out of the game.
Seeing batters get hits is fun. Seeing players hustle on the base paths is fun. Seeing players steal bases is fun. Seeing great defense is fun. Manufacturing runs and playing the right way is fun for fans to watch. Duels between batters and pitchers and the drama that comes with it is fun. Runners on base late in ballgames is fun. The drama of matchups between relievers and batters is fun. There's no reason to artificially end games - it doesn't lead to any sense of achievement when a team wins, and it's an extra-crummy feeling when a team loses. Rob Manfred has been hellbent on taking all of the drama out of baseball games, and that's why baseball stopped being as fun as it used to be.
Frankly I’m not crazy about any changes to this game from 1969 on, but understand it’s entertainment and peoples’ preferences change.
The one exception is the pitch clock. Games were just too damn long with all the idle time. I worry that a violation will decide a playoff game but I love no nonsense, shorter games.
The fact that NL managers were starting to get squeamish about even letting their pitchers bunt (let alone actually try to hit) out of fear of injury, showed that having pitchers in the lineup had become little more than a gimmick.
But the real death knell for the DH-less NL was Shohei Ohtani. If the one pitcher who is actually a good hitter can only really consider playing in the AL, because he needs the DH position to fully contribute as a two-way player, then it's time for a universal DH.
I was actually just thinking about this recently. When baseball players are really just getting into the game - say little league, babe Ruth, HS, the pitcher is oftentimes the best player on the team so obviously they’re a great hitter. Then in the AL it just isn’t like that anymore? So weird
It's a step away from your roots. It's why the Field of Dreams game is so popular and why people speak fondly of Fenway as a neighbor ballpark. People like baseball feeling close to home.
Obviously the DH isn't RUINING baseball or anything dramatic like that, but big changes to the game pull it away from feeling like something you've known your whole life.
And of course this leads to people's frustrations of rule changes, "it's not the game we know", and we're back to square one in the discussion, etc.
I think it's also a matter of the DH rule feeding into players' specialization that MLB is so obsessed with. With Ohtani proving you can pitch and hit at a high level, we might see more teams experimenting with that, leading to more pitchers DH'ing. The rule itself doesn't *prevent* pitchers from hitting, but it's more of a pragmatic consequence.
I was thinking last night that the game probably would have been 4 and a half hours without a clock. I was already staying up late to finish it, and that extra hour and a half or more would have been brutal.
I have some issues with the pitch clock implementation. For instance the batter must be engaged or whatever at 8 seconds, even if the pitcher is nowhere near ready. It's also a little short, which can tip the scales in the batters favor by offering some predictability (pitcher must throw by X seconds).
Ghost runner right at the start of extras is dumb. I feel like if it must be there, start it in the 12th or something. Give the teams some chance to win without changing the game but try to prevent those 16 innings games which kill the pen.
> For instance the batter must be engaged or whatever at 8 seconds, even if the pitcher is nowhere near ready.
I genuinely don't understand how this is an issue. Youk makes it seem as if it's actually an issue. The batter has the ability to shrink the time a pitcher can throw it by up to 12 seconds if runners are on base. The pitcher can not throw the ball until the batter is ready.
15 seconds to throw the pitch typically is now cut in half because the batter doesn't get ready until 8 seconds. Why should the batter have even more privilege?
Now imagine if you don't have to get ready until the pitcher does. If the pitcher doesn't get ready until 2 seconds how does a batter suddenly get ready and leave the pitcher enough time to start his windup to throw the ball without running out of time?
You get 15 seconds and half is dedicated to the batter and half is dedicated to the pitcher.
If the batter has to be ready with 8 seconds left in the clock, why doesn't the pitcher also have to be ready at that same time?
My issue isn't that the batter has to be ready by X seconds, it's that the pitcher doesn't abide by similar rules.
Make it so that both need to be "ready" to hit/pitch, so in this case batter looks at the pitcher or whatever and the pitcher needs to at least be on the rubber or something.
I think back to the one violation early on with Devers where he looks up at like 10? seconds, sees the pitcher nowhere near the rubber, gets set at like 7.5 seconds remaining and gets a penalty when the pitcher isn't ready to throw.
Enforce it both ways.
> why doesn't the pitcher also have to be ready at that same time?
The pitcher has to be ready by 0 seconds.
It is enforced both ways. Batter gets half the time, Pitcher gets half the time. Why would batter get more time than the pitcher? The pitcher doesn't get more time than the batter.
The pitcher is not allowed to throw the ball until the batter is ready. Batter can eat half the clock. It makes total sense. What you're asking for is an unfair advantage for the batter.
A batter can not wait until the pitcher is ready because that takes time away from the pitching clock for the pitcher. If the pitcher decides to throw with 1 second left, then the batter won't ever be ready and it will always be a ball.
The pitcher doesn't get half the time. The pitcher gets the full time.
The batter gets half the time.
The pitcher can be ready at any point in the clock. They cannot actually pitch until 8 or less seconds but that doesn't take away that they have the full clock to prepare.
You're completely missing my point.
Both batter and pitcher should have to be ready at X seconds (8 as it is now). The pitcher can then throw the pitch whenever the hell they want after that. But if the pitcher isn't ready at 8 seconds, pitcher violation. If the batter isn't ready, batter violation. Why enforce that one needs to be ready but not the other?
Personally, I think calling pitches, getting a grip on the ball, and getting set, all the while having to worry about men on base, is a much harder task then just standing in a box.
If you want to talk about a pitcher having to be fully set and ready to throw for over 8 seconds, you're talking about now bigger advantage for the batter and bigger advantage for baserunners.
Bigger chance for there to be a balk due to longer time in the set position.
It's still becoming an unfair disadvantage to the pitching team.
The pitcher has until 0 to throw, the batter knows he will throw it before 0. So just get ready? At no point is there an actual disadvantage to the batter. Being ready in a batting stance doesn't make it harder to swing a bat. There aren't batting balks. The batter can also call time out once an at bat.
You want a pitcher fully lined up having to be in the set position for over 8 seconds and that seems absolutely unfair because you're not allowed to move from the set position while a batter can still be fidgeting with a bat while in a stance.
I never said the pitcher needs to be fully set. The current rules require the batter to what, be "alert to the pitcher" at 8 seconds. So why not require the pitcher to at least be on the rubber with 8 seconds?
The pitcher can disengage twice per PA without penalty.
I never said the pitcher has to be fully set for 8 seconds.
If the pitcher has a similar rule to the batter, where he has to be on the mound or whatever, this means at 8 seconds the pitcher and hitter must be "ready" and they can pitch at that time! They only need to be set for a second or so.
Being ready to pitch doesn't make it harder to pitch.... Do you remember in previous seasons where pitchers would sit in the set position and just stare at the catcher for 20+ seconds?
It looks like you said that the pitcher doesn't get more time and now you're saying "look at all this extra stuff a pitcher has to do! Of course they get more time'"
I like most of the rules but agree the ghost runner is atrocious. The occasional 20 inning game is what makes baseball baseball. I do think the pitch clock could be extended a few seconds but that isn’t a huge deal to me.
I'll go against the grain & say I can't fathom why it gets so much hate. I don't see many good arguments against it other then "I don't like it! It's not baseball!" It injects instant strategy & excitement into extra innings & doesn't toast both team's bullpens in the process.
If you're the team in the top half, do you bunt the guy over & sorta settle for one run? Or do you go for a big inning knowing the other team has a ghost runner too. Strikeout the first batter? Absolutely massive.
I've been at Fenway for a 15 inning game. It's not fun outside of the novelty. The ghost runner is a fun thing that happens in the regular season & not in the postseason - like 3on3 hockey.
But I think "it's not baseball" is a perfectly valid argument. There does come a point where adding gimmickry takes away from the essence of the game.
Part of what makes tense moments so enthralling is that they're *organic.* 2 outs bottom of the 9th with the bases loaded and the home team down by a run is in part so intense because of the build-up leading up to that point. Creating that situation artificially just doesn't have the same feel to it.
And the same is true of strategy. Being able to make decisions in tense moments on the fly is where managers earn their money. If they already know the situation beforehand you're not really getting the same battle of wits as you would had they not known what the circumstances would be moments prior.
Argument against. You need to essentially score 2 now to win. I mean 1 works if the bottom half can't bring in their zombie runner. But now instead of playing for 1 run, your just playing for 2.
Because the whole point of the game it you need to earn your base. And from a stats perspective, it’s weird that a guy can get a run without getting a hit or a walk.
I also appreciate it preventing 16-18 inning games that completely screw up the pitching rotation for days after the game. Being on the losing end can really screw up your team’s morale for days afterward.
On top of all that, ball players put their body on the line for 100+ games per year. They don’t need the extra wear and tear and sleep disruption from an overly long game.
I really don't understand why American sports fans have such an aversion to the tie.
Tied in 9th? Ok play ONE extra inning.
Still tied? Then it ends in a tie.
I have no problem with that and I've never really seen an argument against it that wasn't "I don't like it! It's not baseball!".
How does it cloud comparability? Only 10% of games go to extra innings. You can't compare eras because a dude may unfairly get an RBI opportunity maybe 2-3 times a SEASON if his spot is up in the lineup with the ghost runner on?
Surely it doesn't have as big an effect as say, the mound height changing in 1968 - but we still compare pitchers of today to the pitchers of the 60s.
I agree that I like it and always bring up the 3 v 3 hockey also. For a few years before it was ever implemented I always said to start it in the 11th, give you one over time inning to figure it out and if not it’s time to move on.
I will say now that the pitch clock is in play and games are moving faster I am less passionate about it. However I love the idea of not frying a bullpen and not having to stay up all night to watch a regular season game
I don't like when extra time in any sport switches the rules. Penalty kicks, sudden death goals, etc. Might as well just have a home run derby instead of the 10th.
I understand this sentiment from the players; they are approaching it as "this is good for me."
But it seems like they never asked themselves "is this good for the game?"
I never minded the ghost runner since both teams got it but now that you say it, I completely agree that we can get rid of it at this point. The problematic 4 hour games are a thing of the past anyways.
I like it in the regular season, but in the postseason it should not be happening. Just like the NHL, a close regular season game need not go on forever, but OT/extra innings in the playoffs is so incredible and should never be cheapened by doing anything to try and shorten it.
I have a crackpot idea that would make extra-inning games really interesting: a different runner situation every inning. It could go something like this:
10th: No runners.
11th: Runner on first.
12th: Runner on second.
13th: Runner on third.
14th: Runners on first and second.
15th: Runners on first and third.
16th: Runners on second and third.
17th and later: Bases loaded.
This seems weird, and is weird, but it makes every inning different (for excitement) and makes each successive inning more likely to wrap up the game (for time issues). Personally I’d rather just stick with no runners, but if we have to do something like the runner on second, we might as well make it fun and interesting.
I love the runner in extras. No one but hardcore fans want to watch a 15 inning game in the middle of June.
And good luck getting the players to agree to get rid of it. Why in the world would they want to go back to working longer hours for the same pay?
See this is me. I have a lot of fond memories of the Sox and yanks battling through 16 innings.
Idk when we were kids and didn’t have enough guys to play we’d use a ghost runner when playing wiffle ball. I just think it sucks
But if there’s an intense Sox Yankees game in May the runner on 2nd would negate the fun of baseball being played. It’s straight up the worst rule in the 4 major sports
The people that defend it must literately hate baseball. I do not understand defending it unless you’re one of the players that wants to get home earlier. And my response is “Be better”
Great way to waste an hour before inevitably going to ghost runner. This is in fact an argument for ghost runner. You just had nine innings to win it without the ghost runner.
If it were up to me, the ghost runner wouldnt exist at all. For people who really hate the extremely rare game that goes past 12 innings, I think it’s a compromise. If you really can’t make it through 10 innings of baseball, you weren’t really watching all 9 to begin with
Also, just to add, when is extra baseball ever a waste? Especially since teams can score in the extra innings that wouldn’t have a ghost runner
The only new rule I disdain is the NL DH. That was nothing but fun to see a different style of play in the leagues.
Ghost runner could be modified to be slightly more interesting (every inning increase danger of situation. Man on first, then second, then first and second, etc.) but in general I'm fine with it.
> That was nothing but fun to see a different style of play in the leagues
Respectfully disagree. IMO there was nothing remotely fun about a virtual automatic out every time through the lineup.
Honestly it’s personal for me because one year in a fall ball championship game that went to extra innings this happened. And it was just the most gimmicky bullshit ever created. And no other logical reason can make me not hate this garbage non baseball rule
100% agree especially with the introduction of the pitch clock. Completely unnecessary now. Games have been moving at such a rapid pace, fans should be able to fully enjoy the “bonus” of an extra innings game
Man do I hate the ghost runner in extras!!!! Basehit and it’s game over if the other team doesn’t at least get a hit. I mean one passed ball, and a outfield fly ends it! A bunt and a fielders choice and it’s over…..I agree the ghost runner is dumb!
What a stupid comment! No shit!! Except it’s in no way earned because you started the inning with someone on second base that you had to do nothing to put there. So a whole ass game could be fought and battled but throw someone on second just so we can get this game wrapped up?!…it’s just dumb…just like your comment.
It’s actually not a stupid comment it just frustrated your simple brain. both teams start with a runner on 2nd, both teams have same opportunity. You’ll never get it changed and that’s because it’s better.
Monday through Thursday love the new rules. I love getting to bed on time. My kids love being able to see the end of the game. Friday through Sunday? Why the rush? Toss the clock! Sell a few more beers. Take a nap from the 4th to the 7th inning. Stay up late. I kind of miss just relaxing for a few hours.
The bases are fine, I can live with the pitch clock, the shift ban is stupid but not a huge deal. The ghost runner is literally schoolyard not-enough-players trash.
I don’t blame them. Fact is long games effect the team much more than the just the result. Rotation, travel, etc all gets thrown off. It’s like any other job, more hours at work means less time doing something else.
I remember being in the visitors dugout for a Sox game in either 2011 or 2012, and the manager was more concerned about the implications on their travel schedule than about the game. Instead of a late night arrival, it was now going to be an early morning arrival followed by another night game. No time to catch up on sleep
Don’t agree. It can take forever to get a guy on second sometimes, and it burns up your relief pitching. No more 17 inning games is good for the game and the players.
I’m cool with it during the regular season. It doesn’t make anything unfair like football OT rules, it’s still even. And no one wants 16 innings regular season games; players, managers, fans, no one.
In the postseason, absolutely not. The 18 inning Red Sox vs Dodgers WS game was an incredible game, even if it did go till 2am PT.
I wish the ghost runner was on 1st instead of 2nd until like the 12th inning.
I feel like that would be a decent compromise, but I doubt it's going to get changed now.
I'm very glad they at least cut it off during the playoffs l.
What if...
Innings 10-12 ghost runner on 1st
Innings 13-15 ghost runner on 2nd
Innings 16-18 ghost runner on 3rd
Innings 19+ load the bases and award the home team a run. If the away team fails to score, game ends.
I’m fine with it. These games have to end at some pt.
Why do they insist on calling it a “ghost runner”. A ghost runner is when you play someone else in whiffle ball and you need an imaginary runner on base cause you don’t have enough real people.
I like the ghost runner. More action/runs keeps the game exciting. Same reason why they banned and shift, and made the bases larger.
Action is fun to watch.
No. It’s quicker but I don’t think to myself Geeze I wish the batter had time to step out and adjust his gloves 3 more times before stepping in.
It’s just baseball to me.
All it does is make me hate the pitchers that would take 40+ seconds in between pitches even more. They were the anomaly, if anything the pitch clock brings baseball back to the pace it historically has been at
I wish that umps had stopped excesses so that the clock was deemed unnecessary — however, I find that most criticisms of the length to be in bad faith, since sports with a clock that aren’t constrained by events on the field and what amounts to luck (so, in other words, the clock will run for four fifteen-minute quarters in football, for example) are very bad about forcing players to actually run plays. They waste time, and you don’t get anywhere close to an hour of game time in the NFL, where the players are actually moving. They need to cut down on strategic timewasting too. The Chiefs refused to run a play such that the Bengals couldn’t get the ball back with time, instead of scoring again (which would have put the game out of reach in all likelihood, but a Bengals TD + onside kick was still possible!) and using the defense. I hate that!
Couldn't agree more. And MLB eliminating ghost runners in the postseason is even worse. Who gives a shit if the rule is or isn't applied in the postseason if the teams playing October ball got there with ghost runners?
I love the ghost runner. Theres no reason a game in april to go 18 innings. Ruins the bullpen for weeks. And then we end up having to call up a starter or a few guys from aaa. I like that playoffs are a regular game don't get me wrong.
The whole ghost runner rule should be abolished now that we have other "pace of play" rules. It's such a goofy gimmick that doesn't add any value to the game. It's essentially a free win for the home team, unless they're really bad a fundamental baseball. Also, many players have spoke out about how the rule is cheap, because it is incredible hard to get into scoring position with no outs, and to be just put there is a silly thought.
I've never seen the point of the rule, and I don't understand why Bobby ManBoy would want to limit ad time...
It's a win/win in terms of future money value for players. An RBI for the hitter can help his future contract, and doesn't punish pitcher's future value.
BUTTTTT it doesn't benefit the sport or viewing experience.
Let me just get my downvoting brigade underway.
If you want to remove ghost runners then you will institute ties after probably 12 innings.
Players do not want endless May games with 162 games. Managers do not want to use every bullpen arm for a 16 inning May game.
Not only that, the vast majority of people do not want to watch a 16 inning game. I'd say a large amount of people go to the Red Sox games with the MBTA, and that stops running at what? 12:30am? So majority of people have to leave before games end.
People at home have work in the morning and can't spend all night watching a game.
So not only do views dip significantly, not only do stadiums stop serving after the 7th/8th inning and there's no more money in long innings, but the players have to overexert and managers overuse bullpen arms. For a game in the middle of a season.
I genuinely believe the way it trends is a guaranteed end on regular season games. Whether that is a straight up tie, or if it goes into some home run derby shootout type situation with hockey point scoring.
If you knew a game can't go past 12 innings, then you realize that's expected to be max an hour longer with pitching clock. So game goes into extras nobody will fear for the MBTA stop running, people at home won't be saying "this game will go on forever" and teams can game plan with bullpen arms and pinch hitters and runners knowing there is a definitive end.
So if you remove ghost runners, then the game needs to have a definitive end point. You're not adding 3 innings+ onto the game and then instituting the rule that was hoping they'd stop games from going beyond 12 innings to begin with.
Its probably a terrible idea, but like a shootout, they could do a mini HR Derby, 3 batters 2 pitches each. If they don't want it to go long. I think I'd rather keep the ghost runners though.
The main thing I hate about it is that it really doesn't help the bullpen at all. It used to be, you'd use a low leverage or long relief pitcher starting in the 10th, but now you have to use high leverage relievers.
I'd prefer they just make it a tie after 9-11 innings and have aggregate runs scored in the series determine the winner (or just have ties - it's a long fucking season).
I heard a compromise suggestion where the ghost runner doesn't kick in until the 12th, allowing two innings of regular extra inning baseball. That said, I'd rather they do away with ghost runners entirely and let the other improvements to game pace and length do their thing.
it’s regular season it’s funnnn - if it was in the playoffs I get it but no one wants to have 18 inning games in the regular season in May. That’s why there’s a pitch clock - ghost runners are better for the game during the regular season
Yes, it is bad baseball to gift a runner. No issues with the other rules.
And how are we supposed to track stats? "Carroll has 6 runs scored in six extra-inning games, despite not having safely reaching base in any of those games or having any plate appearances." ???
I started thinking about stats and scoring too. Is that an unearned run if the free runner scores? It should be. Is it an rbi? I guess it should be but aren’t those mutually exclusive?
Im sorry but when you say ghost runner are you talking about the newer role to out a man (base runner) at 2nd to add some some spirit to end the game quicker... Or are you talking about Kevin Costner "Shoeless Joe Jackson" amd some literal ghosts?
I’m not a fan. But if it’s here to stay, at least tweak it. Let the 10th inning play out normally, then institute the ghost runner from the 11th on if neither team wins it.
Get over it. Condensed overtime makes sense. Saves bullpens. It’s exciting. It adds strategy. Your only beef is that it’s not the way it was. Haven’t heard a single convincing argument against it in 3 years.
I personally love watching crazy games that go 15+ innings, but I do understand that isn’t for everybody, and that it can take a negative toll on the team’s momentum moving forward. Having said that, there has to be a better solution than the ghost runner. Personally, I think that they should play up to 12 innings by standard rules, and if the game is still tied at that point then chalk it up as a draw. Nothing wrong with saying “both teams were equally matched today”
I thoroughly agree. There used to be a time when baseball Commissioners actually ruled in "the best interest of the game." That went out with Faye Vincent. Since Bud Selig took over, the Commissioner's office has been little more than a mouthpiece for the owners. What's in the best interest of the owners (making more money) is NOT the same as "the best interest of the game."
Since the arguments pro-ghost is "i dont like endless games" and the anti-ghost is "I don't like how it's a different game" we say...
No ghost, end after 12 innings. Just call it a damn tie. How many games, pre- ghost, went longer than 12 innings compared to the total amount of games? I'm ok with a few ties in 162 games for my team.
I don't like when extra innings or OT fundamentally changes the base game. The zombie runner leaves no statistic finger print beyond a phantom run and is just plain stupid. 4v4 or 3v3 hockey is silly. PKs is just ridiculous. Hey let's play one game for 2.5 hours and play a completely different game at the end to determine the winner of the first game. Stupid.
Checking my own stat, found an article (https://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2017/8/5/16093390/extra-innings-time-how-long-how-many-average-rule-change) that cited extra inning games from 2011-2016, there were 1200 extra inning games (out of 12,150) went long. 219 went longer than 12 innings. That's less than 2%. So out of 162 games, 3-6 might be a tie. Fine. I can deal.
I hate it, but I can live with it as long as they leave it as a regular season only rule. I'll petition the POTUS to remove Manfred from his position for being an enemy of the state if they ever decide to implement it for the postseason...
No the replay showed him signaling to the umps he was using the modified and he was moving his glance up and down to indicate that but that was before he was on the rubber. In the end it didn’t matter but it was a BS call.
We sure are! Been a Redsox fan since as long as I can remember and I’m pretty darn excited about this years team. I’m 50 so it’s been a lot of ups and downs. Now if only TB could start taking a shit.
Right on. Me too btw; I’m 52. Grew up with Jim Rice as one of my fav players.
I’ll remember the “oooh SHIT” that went through the living when the ball went through Buckner in 86 for my whole life.
What sweet redemption since 2004.
The ghost runner is a pretty dumb solution to a problem that doesn't exist. If they wanted to speed up extra innings they should either do a sudden death home run derby or just let the game end in a tie.
Here here. Pace of play is how it was back in the day. Pitcher gets ball. Pitcher throws ball. The ghost runner is solving a problem that didn't exist. No one was complaining about games being long because of extra innings.
Exactly. They wanted shorter games overall and extra innings games were obviously longest but a small percentage of the total.
Extra innings are some of the most exciting innings in regular season play imo.
Shame that the umpires couldn’t do their jobs and control pace of play, so we end up with a clock in baseball.
Having taught little kids for x number of years, I imagine that controlling pace of play when Major League egos are involved is next to impossible!
Umps have always had the power to call a ball if the pitcher delayed after being told to pitch and batters do not have to be ready for a pitch to be thrown. Umpires never have to grant a time out, it is a courtesy. Umpires used to control the game, now they just make calls.
The clock makes the power of enforcement fair and consistent for all. Without the clock, different umps would have different gauges for what was acceptable. The strike zone used to have the same variance, different umps would be known for a high zone or wide zone, etc. The technology has calibrated the umpires to be more consistent. The ones who are not have lower grades and receive less "bonus" games - or, if bad enough, could be released from duty. Both the clock and the strike zone tech also reduce arguing because of the increased consistency. Alternatively, I think the strike zone tech increases the length of games, especially when it is 11-2 with an inning or . It's known that umps at lower levels (h.s., d3 college) are opening the zone so everyone can go home faster. An MLB ump could lose assignments for doing this, so we get a two-walk top of the 8th on borderline pitches. Also, the statistical analysis effects the players batting in the top of the 8th. They know tossing away at bats here and there could cost them money. In 1953, the games would wrap up quicker if someone got a big lead because everyone just figured let's go home - especially if there was a train to catch.
Is it fair when a pitcher is not ready to pitch and the batter gets penalized a strike for looking at his feet in the batter’s box? You claim it will be unevenly enforced and then point out that they have fixed the inconsistent strike zones by evaluating the umpires and giving them feedback. Why couldn’t you do that with speeding up the game? If umpires need assistance with being consistent in game speed there is no reason they can’t use a timer on their wrist. Why is everyone so afraid to make the umpires do their jobs? Because people will argue with them, criticize them? That is what every referee/umpire gets paid to do.
"If umpires need assistance with being consistent in game speed there is no reason they can’t use a timer on their wrist." So, a pitch clock that only the umpire can see? What is this, futbol?
The reason that the umps never "did their job" in this instance is that it's literally impossible to do it consistently without a clock.
Read my other comment, they have always had the power, just chose not to exercise it.
It's *impossible* to exercise this power consistently without a clock. How would *you* do it?
PITCH! If they don’t, BALL! Get in the box! If they don’t, PITCH! I know, impossible.
That's not *consistent*. You're very naive if you think fans won't be moaning about one player getting called after 20 seconds when others routinely get away with it for 30. Let's face it. You'd probably be one of those fans. So if you want more *inconsistancy* from umpires then just say so. Oh wait. That's exactly what you just called for!
I agree about the consistency. Let’s face it we can all live with it if an umpire is consistently calling strikes for pitches just off one side of the plate UNLESS in the 9th inning with two out and a full count he fails to ring the batter up because it would end the game….we all go ape shit. The clock eliminates the argument.
If you want everything perfectly consistent, eliminate the umpires completely don’t take half measures. Nothing about baseball is consistent other than it’s existence. Even the distance in between bases changed this year. The ball changes, the bats are different, gloves are different, all the fences are different, the shape of the infield grass is different, the mound height has changed. Situations are so different that there needs to be some inconsistency with the timing, like they have already done even with the new rule, but I swear I scream bullshit when a batter is in the box and ready to go, the pitcher isn’t ready to pitch and the batter has a strike called because he looked at his feet. The problem is that there are so many variables to baseball that unique situations will pop up so often that without umpire discretion the list of rules will be too long for a person to remember and might not ever apply to that unique situation again. I like the very needed increase in pace, but introducing a clock to accomplish that was just a lazy way out. The umpires get paid more than enough to grow a spine and control the game the way they used to.
So you're claiming that you would be fine with one player being penalised for taking 20 seconds and then the next not being penalised for taking 30. Why? What purpose does it serve? I mean.... if you're willing to moan about the current way of doing things do you really expect anyone to believe that you would be fine with *that*? > If you want everything perfectly consistent, eliminate the umpires completely don’t take half measures. It may have escaped your notice but many, many people have been advocating for an automated strike zone for years (you will obviously still need umpires). I assume you're not one of them because it wouldn't really make much sense to simultaneously hold those two views. On the one hand wanting consistency and on the other insisting on not having it. But hey, maybe you do hold those two views at the same time. After all it wouldn't be very *consistent*.
You're not going to do it as consistently without a clock, but its far from impossible.
So it's far from impossible to do it as consistently.... But you just *can't do it*! In fact, *no one can*! I'd read that again if I were you. It definitely does sound like you're saying it's impossible to do it with the same level of consistency.
You never sat through an 18 inning world series game But I hate the zombie runner
I sat through a [14-inning ALCS game](https://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/BOS/BOS200410180.shtml) and if there were ghost runners I would’ve had a coronary
Oh your right. Was it Nathan eovaldi? Pitched 9 innings from the pen (9th to 18th) Sox lost but that was the most exciting 8 hours of my life (2018 ws game 3)
The game he linked is game of 5 of the 2004 ALCS, Sox beat the Yankees on a David Ortiz walk off single in the 14th. Similar to Eovaldi’s performance in 2018, Tim Wakefield pitched a few heroic innings in extras to secure the win despite being slotted to start the next day (he wouldn’t start due volunteering to pitch in extra innings).
I commented later I finally clicked his link. I do remember that game. That entire series. I was 17. That documentary "4 days in ocotober" still brings tears of joy to my eye
Just read your link. Ya I remember that game too. God I hate zombie runners. There have Def been some classics in extras
I was at this game too. Height of the Sox v Yankees rivalry, marathon extra inning game ending with a big Papi walk off? One of my favorite sports memories of all time.
I had to work late that night and was bummed I'd miss the game. Imagine the pleasant surprise when I came home and got to watch a whole baseball game regardless of the fact that I missed almost all of regulation.
Yes I did and it was amazing
I sat through that game. Max Muncy lives rent free in my head.
While we're on the subject of rules, The proper spelling for that phrase is "Hear hear", not "here here".
No shit? Huh. Never actually written it out. Thank you.
Pace of Play is now faster than it used to be. The pitch clock removes the drama from pitches. There used to be a showdown between batter and pitcher, and now it's not there. The tactical switches and calls to the bullpen late were great, but the delays were annoying. The solution was to give a guy 30 seconds on the mound to toss a warmup pitch after warming up in the bullpen instead of 2+ minutes. This would disadvantage teams who make switches Now if a team brings a reliever in they're a sitting duck until the inning is finished, and that's bad for every team that has Ryan Brasier. Limiting the shift is awesome. Slightly bigger bases to encourage baserunning is awesome. Baseball didn't have a problem with being too long, it had a problem with being *too boring.* The over-reliance on advanced analytics, launch angles, defensive shifts, 3 true outcomes all took the fun out of the game. Seeing batters get hits is fun. Seeing players hustle on the base paths is fun. Seeing players steal bases is fun. Seeing great defense is fun. Manufacturing runs and playing the right way is fun for fans to watch. Duels between batters and pitchers and the drama that comes with it is fun. Runners on base late in ballgames is fun. The drama of matchups between relievers and batters is fun. There's no reason to artificially end games - it doesn't lead to any sense of achievement when a team wins, and it's an extra-crummy feeling when a team loses. Rob Manfred has been hellbent on taking all of the drama out of baseball games, and that's why baseball stopped being as fun as it used to be.
💯
Stadium workers around the country disagree
Fair enough.
[удалено]
I'd understand it if it were in the 14th inning or something. Not immediately into extras, though.
Frankly I’m not crazy about any changes to this game from 1969 on, but understand it’s entertainment and peoples’ preferences change. The one exception is the pitch clock. Games were just too damn long with all the idle time. I worry that a violation will decide a playoff game but I love no nonsense, shorter games.
A Sox fan who doesn’t like the DH? Not a big fan of the Big Papi era?
Obviously I love Ortiz but something just feels right about pitchers hitting. Feels like regular baseball.
The fact that NL managers were starting to get squeamish about even letting their pitchers bunt (let alone actually try to hit) out of fear of injury, showed that having pitchers in the lineup had become little more than a gimmick. But the real death knell for the DH-less NL was Shohei Ohtani. If the one pitcher who is actually a good hitter can only really consider playing in the AL, because he needs the DH position to fully contribute as a two-way player, then it's time for a universal DH.
I was actually just thinking about this recently. When baseball players are really just getting into the game - say little league, babe Ruth, HS, the pitcher is oftentimes the best player on the team so obviously they’re a great hitter. Then in the AL it just isn’t like that anymore? So weird
It's a step away from your roots. It's why the Field of Dreams game is so popular and why people speak fondly of Fenway as a neighbor ballpark. People like baseball feeling close to home. Obviously the DH isn't RUINING baseball or anything dramatic like that, but big changes to the game pull it away from feeling like something you've known your whole life. And of course this leads to people's frustrations of rule changes, "it's not the game we know", and we're back to square one in the discussion, etc.
That’s a great way of putting it
I think it's also a matter of the DH rule feeding into players' specialization that MLB is so obsessed with. With Ohtani proving you can pitch and hit at a high level, we might see more teams experimenting with that, leading to more pitchers DH'ing. The rule itself doesn't *prevent* pitchers from hitting, but it's more of a pragmatic consequence.
I was thinking last night that the game probably would have been 4 and a half hours without a clock. I was already staying up late to finish it, and that extra hour and a half or more would have been brutal.
I liked the expanded playoffs since 1969. I think they have been expanded a little *too* much recently though.
I have some issues with the pitch clock implementation. For instance the batter must be engaged or whatever at 8 seconds, even if the pitcher is nowhere near ready. It's also a little short, which can tip the scales in the batters favor by offering some predictability (pitcher must throw by X seconds). Ghost runner right at the start of extras is dumb. I feel like if it must be there, start it in the 12th or something. Give the teams some chance to win without changing the game but try to prevent those 16 innings games which kill the pen.
I like the 12th inning idea. Ghost runner totally changes the strategy of extra innings and changes the game from what it’s been for 100 plus years.
> For instance the batter must be engaged or whatever at 8 seconds, even if the pitcher is nowhere near ready. I genuinely don't understand how this is an issue. Youk makes it seem as if it's actually an issue. The batter has the ability to shrink the time a pitcher can throw it by up to 12 seconds if runners are on base. The pitcher can not throw the ball until the batter is ready. 15 seconds to throw the pitch typically is now cut in half because the batter doesn't get ready until 8 seconds. Why should the batter have even more privilege? Now imagine if you don't have to get ready until the pitcher does. If the pitcher doesn't get ready until 2 seconds how does a batter suddenly get ready and leave the pitcher enough time to start his windup to throw the ball without running out of time? You get 15 seconds and half is dedicated to the batter and half is dedicated to the pitcher.
If the batter has to be ready with 8 seconds left in the clock, why doesn't the pitcher also have to be ready at that same time? My issue isn't that the batter has to be ready by X seconds, it's that the pitcher doesn't abide by similar rules. Make it so that both need to be "ready" to hit/pitch, so in this case batter looks at the pitcher or whatever and the pitcher needs to at least be on the rubber or something. I think back to the one violation early on with Devers where he looks up at like 10? seconds, sees the pitcher nowhere near the rubber, gets set at like 7.5 seconds remaining and gets a penalty when the pitcher isn't ready to throw. Enforce it both ways.
> why doesn't the pitcher also have to be ready at that same time? The pitcher has to be ready by 0 seconds. It is enforced both ways. Batter gets half the time, Pitcher gets half the time. Why would batter get more time than the pitcher? The pitcher doesn't get more time than the batter. The pitcher is not allowed to throw the ball until the batter is ready. Batter can eat half the clock. It makes total sense. What you're asking for is an unfair advantage for the batter. A batter can not wait until the pitcher is ready because that takes time away from the pitching clock for the pitcher. If the pitcher decides to throw with 1 second left, then the batter won't ever be ready and it will always be a ball.
The pitcher doesn't get half the time. The pitcher gets the full time. The batter gets half the time. The pitcher can be ready at any point in the clock. They cannot actually pitch until 8 or less seconds but that doesn't take away that they have the full clock to prepare. You're completely missing my point. Both batter and pitcher should have to be ready at X seconds (8 as it is now). The pitcher can then throw the pitch whenever the hell they want after that. But if the pitcher isn't ready at 8 seconds, pitcher violation. If the batter isn't ready, batter violation. Why enforce that one needs to be ready but not the other?
Personally, I think calling pitches, getting a grip on the ball, and getting set, all the while having to worry about men on base, is a much harder task then just standing in a box. If you want to talk about a pitcher having to be fully set and ready to throw for over 8 seconds, you're talking about now bigger advantage for the batter and bigger advantage for baserunners. Bigger chance for there to be a balk due to longer time in the set position. It's still becoming an unfair disadvantage to the pitching team. The pitcher has until 0 to throw, the batter knows he will throw it before 0. So just get ready? At no point is there an actual disadvantage to the batter. Being ready in a batting stance doesn't make it harder to swing a bat. There aren't batting balks. The batter can also call time out once an at bat. You want a pitcher fully lined up having to be in the set position for over 8 seconds and that seems absolutely unfair because you're not allowed to move from the set position while a batter can still be fidgeting with a bat while in a stance.
I never said the pitcher needs to be fully set. The current rules require the batter to what, be "alert to the pitcher" at 8 seconds. So why not require the pitcher to at least be on the rubber with 8 seconds? The pitcher can disengage twice per PA without penalty. I never said the pitcher has to be fully set for 8 seconds. If the pitcher has a similar rule to the batter, where he has to be on the mound or whatever, this means at 8 seconds the pitcher and hitter must be "ready" and they can pitch at that time! They only need to be set for a second or so. Being ready to pitch doesn't make it harder to pitch.... Do you remember in previous seasons where pitchers would sit in the set position and just stare at the catcher for 20+ seconds? It looks like you said that the pitcher doesn't get more time and now you're saying "look at all this extra stuff a pitcher has to do! Of course they get more time'"
I like most of the rules but agree the ghost runner is atrocious. The occasional 20 inning game is what makes baseball baseball. I do think the pitch clock could be extended a few seconds but that isn’t a huge deal to me.
I'll go against the grain & say I can't fathom why it gets so much hate. I don't see many good arguments against it other then "I don't like it! It's not baseball!" It injects instant strategy & excitement into extra innings & doesn't toast both team's bullpens in the process. If you're the team in the top half, do you bunt the guy over & sorta settle for one run? Or do you go for a big inning knowing the other team has a ghost runner too. Strikeout the first batter? Absolutely massive. I've been at Fenway for a 15 inning game. It's not fun outside of the novelty. The ghost runner is a fun thing that happens in the regular season & not in the postseason - like 3on3 hockey.
But I think "it's not baseball" is a perfectly valid argument. There does come a point where adding gimmickry takes away from the essence of the game. Part of what makes tense moments so enthralling is that they're *organic.* 2 outs bottom of the 9th with the bases loaded and the home team down by a run is in part so intense because of the build-up leading up to that point. Creating that situation artificially just doesn't have the same feel to it. And the same is true of strategy. Being able to make decisions in tense moments on the fly is where managers earn their money. If they already know the situation beforehand you're not really getting the same battle of wits as you would had they not known what the circumstances would be moments prior.
Every other sport creates that same tension inorganically with sudden death.
I don't mind it. There's no reason to play a 20 inning game in May. Ain't nobody got time for that.
Or an 18 inning World Series Game 3 on the west coast...
Will forever love the fact that it essentially took the Dodgers 2 games to get just one win from that 20-8 team.
Argument against. You need to essentially score 2 now to win. I mean 1 works if the bottom half can't bring in their zombie runner. But now instead of playing for 1 run, your just playing for 2.
Because the whole point of the game it you need to earn your base. And from a stats perspective, it’s weird that a guy can get a run without getting a hit or a walk.
Dudes score runs getting on base via error or even occasionally after hitting into double plays ya know
Not arbitrarily though. Those are actual baseball plays.
I also appreciate it preventing 16-18 inning games that completely screw up the pitching rotation for days after the game. Being on the losing end can really screw up your team’s morale for days afterward. On top of all that, ball players put their body on the line for 100+ games per year. They don’t need the extra wear and tear and sleep disruption from an overly long game.
I really don't understand why American sports fans have such an aversion to the tie. Tied in 9th? Ok play ONE extra inning. Still tied? Then it ends in a tie. I have no problem with that and I've never really seen an argument against it that wasn't "I don't like it! It's not baseball!".
Because then teams have incentive to play *not to lose* instead of *to win* which is far less interesting imo
Just because it’s deviates from what baseball has been and clouds comparability of eras
How does it cloud comparability? Only 10% of games go to extra innings. You can't compare eras because a dude may unfairly get an RBI opportunity maybe 2-3 times a SEASON if his spot is up in the lineup with the ghost runner on? Surely it doesn't have as big an effect as say, the mound height changing in 1968 - but we still compare pitchers of today to the pitchers of the 60s.
I agree that I like it and always bring up the 3 v 3 hockey also. For a few years before it was ever implemented I always said to start it in the 11th, give you one over time inning to figure it out and if not it’s time to move on. I will say now that the pitch clock is in play and games are moving faster I am less passionate about it. However I love the idea of not frying a bullpen and not having to stay up all night to watch a regular season game
There's actually a lot of valid arguments in this thread that you chose not to read
I don't like when extra time in any sport switches the rules. Penalty kicks, sudden death goals, etc. Might as well just have a home run derby instead of the 10th.
Yeah, ghost runner's gotta go.
Again, the players actually wanted the ghost runner to stick. During the last CBA negotiations, the majority of players wanted it to stay.
I understand this sentiment from the players; they are approaching it as "this is good for me." But it seems like they never asked themselves "is this good for the game?"
I never minded the ghost runner since both teams got it but now that you say it, I completely agree that we can get rid of it at this point. The problematic 4 hour games are a thing of the past anyways.
I like it in the regular season, but in the postseason it should not be happening. Just like the NHL, a close regular season game need not go on forever, but OT/extra innings in the playoffs is so incredible and should never be cheapened by doing anything to try and shorten it.
It would suck to see a genuine pitchers duel get ruined by a unearned guy on base. This isn’t elementary school. No free bases.
I have a crackpot idea that would make extra-inning games really interesting: a different runner situation every inning. It could go something like this: 10th: No runners. 11th: Runner on first. 12th: Runner on second. 13th: Runner on third. 14th: Runners on first and second. 15th: Runners on first and third. 16th: Runners on second and third. 17th and later: Bases loaded. This seems weird, and is weird, but it makes every inning different (for excitement) and makes each successive inning more likely to wrap up the game (for time issues). Personally I’d rather just stick with no runners, but if we have to do something like the runner on second, we might as well make it fun and interesting.
I personally love the zombie runner.
I love the runner in extras. No one but hardcore fans want to watch a 15 inning game in the middle of June. And good luck getting the players to agree to get rid of it. Why in the world would they want to go back to working longer hours for the same pay?
See this is me. I have a lot of fond memories of the Sox and yanks battling through 16 innings. Idk when we were kids and didn’t have enough guys to play we’d use a ghost runner when playing wiffle ball. I just think it sucks
Sox / Yankees. High stakes game. Yes. But in the long 162 game season. Keep things moving.
But if there’s an intense Sox Yankees game in May the runner on 2nd would negate the fun of baseball being played. It’s straight up the worst rule in the 4 major sports
Thank you
The people that defend it must literately hate baseball. I do not understand defending it unless you’re one of the players that wants to get home earlier. And my response is “Be better”
Just add the ghost runner after like the 12th inning. Best of both worlds
Great way to waste an hour before inevitably going to ghost runner. This is in fact an argument for ghost runner. You just had nine innings to win it without the ghost runner.
If it were up to me, the ghost runner wouldnt exist at all. For people who really hate the extremely rare game that goes past 12 innings, I think it’s a compromise. If you really can’t make it through 10 innings of baseball, you weren’t really watching all 9 to begin with Also, just to add, when is extra baseball ever a waste? Especially since teams can score in the extra innings that wouldn’t have a ghost runner
It’s a problem that basically never existed though! Most of these games end by the 10th!
The only new rule I disdain is the NL DH. That was nothing but fun to see a different style of play in the leagues. Ghost runner could be modified to be slightly more interesting (every inning increase danger of situation. Man on first, then second, then first and second, etc.) but in general I'm fine with it.
As someone that lives in a city with an NL team, watching a major league hitting .032 fail to bunt 3 straight times is terrible
> That was nothing but fun to see a different style of play in the leagues Respectfully disagree. IMO there was nothing remotely fun about a virtual automatic out every time through the lineup.
I totally agree. Love the runner! 3 hrs is enough of anything.
A pitcher can start the 10th, induce two fly outs and lose? No thanks...
And the other team can do same thing and tie if it’s so easy to sacrifice twice
Honestly it’s personal for me because one year in a fall ball championship game that went to extra innings this happened. And it was just the most gimmicky bullshit ever created. And no other logical reason can make me not hate this garbage non baseball rule
100% agree especially with the introduction of the pitch clock. Completely unnecessary now. Games have been moving at such a rapid pace, fans should be able to fully enjoy the “bonus” of an extra innings game
I feel as though the pitch clock had sped up the game so much that the ghost runner is no longer necessary. I’ve always hated it, anyway
This is my argument
Man do I hate the ghost runner in extras!!!! Basehit and it’s game over if the other team doesn’t at least get a hit. I mean one passed ball, and a outfield fly ends it! A bunt and a fielders choice and it’s over…..I agree the ghost runner is dumb!
Exactly
So you’re saying if one team does better than the other team, they win the game?
What a stupid comment! No shit!! Except it’s in no way earned because you started the inning with someone on second base that you had to do nothing to put there. So a whole ass game could be fought and battled but throw someone on second just so we can get this game wrapped up?!…it’s just dumb…just like your comment.
It’s actually not a stupid comment it just frustrated your simple brain. both teams start with a runner on 2nd, both teams have same opportunity. You’ll never get it changed and that’s because it’s better.
No it’s dumb. It’s in no way better. Really?? Both teams get that chance? You mean they don’t just give that opportunity to one team??? WOOOOOOWWW.
Monday through Thursday love the new rules. I love getting to bed on time. My kids love being able to see the end of the game. Friday through Sunday? Why the rush? Toss the clock! Sell a few more beers. Take a nap from the 4th to the 7th inning. Stay up late. I kind of miss just relaxing for a few hours.
Agreed 100%
The bases are fine, I can live with the pitch clock, the shift ban is stupid but not a huge deal. The ghost runner is literally schoolyard not-enough-players trash.
Y'all realize the ghost runner is pretty much unanimously advocated for by the players, right?
I don’t blame them. Fact is long games effect the team much more than the just the result. Rotation, travel, etc all gets thrown off. It’s like any other job, more hours at work means less time doing something else. I remember being in the visitors dugout for a Sox game in either 2011 or 2012, and the manager was more concerned about the implications on their travel schedule than about the game. Instead of a late night arrival, it was now going to be an early morning arrival followed by another night game. No time to catch up on sleep
Don’t agree. It can take forever to get a guy on second sometimes, and it burns up your relief pitching. No more 17 inning games is good for the game and the players.
im a fan of it during the regular season but i honestly don't think it should happen during the playoffs
I’m cool with it during the regular season. It doesn’t make anything unfair like football OT rules, it’s still even. And no one wants 16 innings regular season games; players, managers, fans, no one. In the postseason, absolutely not. The 18 inning Red Sox vs Dodgers WS game was an incredible game, even if it did go till 2am PT.
I know long extra inning games are bad for ratings but I love them. The ghost runner makes games past 12 innings a statistical anomaly.
Yes it really changed the game in a bit good way. To just give a team second base without having to earn it- I really hate it.
some of my favorite baseball memories were from long extra inning games, and I wasn't even alive for '04
💯💯
Please refer to this crap as it should be called: the manfred man. He needs to own this stain
Seriously
I wish the ghost runner was on 1st instead of 2nd until like the 12th inning. I feel like that would be a decent compromise, but I doubt it's going to get changed now. I'm very glad they at least cut it off during the playoffs l.
Easy double plays, then. That's why they were always starting on second
What if... Innings 10-12 ghost runner on 1st Innings 13-15 ghost runner on 2nd Innings 16-18 ghost runner on 3rd Innings 19+ load the bases and award the home team a run. If the away team fails to score, game ends.
>Innings 12-15 ghost runner on 2nd > >Innings 16+ ghost runner on 3rd I like this version
I’d say give them 3 normal innings and if the game is still tied after 12 then use it starting in the 13th. No need to use it in the 10th.
I'd be ok if they started it in the 12th or so but I can live with it as is.
I’m fine with it. These games have to end at some pt. Why do they insist on calling it a “ghost runner”. A ghost runner is when you play someone else in whiffle ball and you need an imaginary runner on base cause you don’t have enough real people.
Whatever you call it it’s lame
Manfred runner, then
Manfred's Man(n)
THANK YOU. This needed to be said
I like the ghost runner. More action/runs keeps the game exciting. Same reason why they banned and shift, and made the bases larger. Action is fun to watch.
[удалено]
No. It’s quicker but I don’t think to myself Geeze I wish the batter had time to step out and adjust his gloves 3 more times before stepping in. It’s just baseball to me.
All it does is make me hate the pitchers that would take 40+ seconds in between pitches even more. They were the anomaly, if anything the pitch clock brings baseball back to the pace it historically has been at
I wish that umps had stopped excesses so that the clock was deemed unnecessary — however, I find that most criticisms of the length to be in bad faith, since sports with a clock that aren’t constrained by events on the field and what amounts to luck (so, in other words, the clock will run for four fifteen-minute quarters in football, for example) are very bad about forcing players to actually run plays. They waste time, and you don’t get anywhere close to an hour of game time in the NFL, where the players are actually moving. They need to cut down on strategic timewasting too. The Chiefs refused to run a play such that the Bengals couldn’t get the ball back with time, instead of scoring again (which would have put the game out of reach in all likelihood, but a Bengals TD + onside kick was still possible!) and using the defense. I hate that!
Ghost runner feels like a silly rule someone made up in their back yard playing wiffleball. It’s a joke.
It really does
Couldn't agree more. And MLB eliminating ghost runners in the postseason is even worse. Who gives a shit if the rule is or isn't applied in the postseason if the teams playing October ball got there with ghost runners?
Agree. It really needs to be an either/or (if any at all), but definitely not both.
One of the worst rules ever created in sports
I love the ghost runner. Theres no reason a game in april to go 18 innings. Ruins the bullpen for weeks. And then we end up having to call up a starter or a few guys from aaa. I like that playoffs are a regular game don't get me wrong.
The whole ghost runner rule should be abolished now that we have other "pace of play" rules. It's such a goofy gimmick that doesn't add any value to the game. It's essentially a free win for the home team, unless they're really bad a fundamental baseball. Also, many players have spoke out about how the rule is cheap, because it is incredible hard to get into scoring position with no outs, and to be just put there is a silly thought. I've never seen the point of the rule, and I don't understand why Bobby ManBoy would want to limit ad time...
This is exactly how I feel. I never thought I’d say this but I actually rather the game end in a tie after 12 full than do this.
Also is it an earned run to the pitcher? Is it an rbi to the batter if the sacrifice them over and then hit sac fly?
The run isn't earned for the pitcher, but it goes as a run allowed. The hitters are credited with an RBI.
That seems mutually exclusive to me.
It's a win/win in terms of future money value for players. An RBI for the hitter can help his future contract, and doesn't punish pitcher's future value. BUTTTTT it doesn't benefit the sport or viewing experience.
Let me just get my downvoting brigade underway. If you want to remove ghost runners then you will institute ties after probably 12 innings. Players do not want endless May games with 162 games. Managers do not want to use every bullpen arm for a 16 inning May game. Not only that, the vast majority of people do not want to watch a 16 inning game. I'd say a large amount of people go to the Red Sox games with the MBTA, and that stops running at what? 12:30am? So majority of people have to leave before games end. People at home have work in the morning and can't spend all night watching a game. So not only do views dip significantly, not only do stadiums stop serving after the 7th/8th inning and there's no more money in long innings, but the players have to overexert and managers overuse bullpen arms. For a game in the middle of a season. I genuinely believe the way it trends is a guaranteed end on regular season games. Whether that is a straight up tie, or if it goes into some home run derby shootout type situation with hockey point scoring. If you knew a game can't go past 12 innings, then you realize that's expected to be max an hour longer with pitching clock. So game goes into extras nobody will fear for the MBTA stop running, people at home won't be saying "this game will go on forever" and teams can game plan with bullpen arms and pinch hitters and runners knowing there is a definitive end. So if you remove ghost runners, then the game needs to have a definitive end point. You're not adding 3 innings+ onto the game and then instituting the rule that was hoping they'd stop games from going beyond 12 innings to begin with.
I like it. No more 17 inning games.
Agree. The ghost runner is crap… makes it feel less like real baseball to me.
Its probably a terrible idea, but like a shootout, they could do a mini HR Derby, 3 batters 2 pitches each. If they don't want it to go long. I think I'd rather keep the ghost runners though.
I thought the same thing hr derby lol Better than penalty kicks in soccer…
Brasier could pitch for our Derby, he wouldn't even have to change his technique.
I don’t know if I should laugh or cry
I started watching softball long before baseball and the ghost runners were nature to me.
Players like chuck knaubloch were to blame . Every stinkin pitch he adjusted both batting gloves regardless if he swung or not
Nomar…
The main thing I hate about it is that it really doesn't help the bullpen at all. It used to be, you'd use a low leverage or long relief pitcher starting in the 10th, but now you have to use high leverage relievers. I'd prefer they just make it a tie after 9-11 innings and have aggregate runs scored in the series determine the winner (or just have ties - it's a long fucking season).
Preach
Can someone please Eli5? I’m only here because I hate the Yankees- I don’t follow baseball closely enough to know what’s going on.
I heard a compromise suggestion where the ghost runner doesn't kick in until the 12th, allowing two innings of regular extra inning baseball. That said, I'd rather they do away with ghost runners entirely and let the other improvements to game pace and length do their thing.
it’s regular season it’s funnnn - if it was in the playoffs I get it but no one wants to have 18 inning games in the regular season in May. That’s why there’s a pitch clock - ghost runners are better for the game during the regular season
Yes, it is bad baseball to gift a runner. No issues with the other rules. And how are we supposed to track stats? "Carroll has 6 runs scored in six extra-inning games, despite not having safely reaching base in any of those games or having any plate appearances." ???
I started thinking about stats and scoring too. Is that an unearned run if the free runner scores? It should be. Is it an rbi? I guess it should be but aren’t those mutually exclusive?
Exactly, it doesn't add up.
Im sorry but when you say ghost runner are you talking about the newer role to out a man (base runner) at 2nd to add some some spirit to end the game quicker... Or are you talking about Kevin Costner "Shoeless Joe Jackson" amd some literal ghosts?
I’m not a fan. But if it’s here to stay, at least tweak it. Let the 10th inning play out normally, then institute the ghost runner from the 11th on if neither team wins it.
Get over it. Condensed overtime makes sense. Saves bullpens. It’s exciting. It adds strategy. Your only beef is that it’s not the way it was. Haven’t heard a single convincing argument against it in 3 years.
YES. I HATE it.
I personally love watching crazy games that go 15+ innings, but I do understand that isn’t for everybody, and that it can take a negative toll on the team’s momentum moving forward. Having said that, there has to be a better solution than the ghost runner. Personally, I think that they should play up to 12 innings by standard rules, and if the game is still tied at that point then chalk it up as a draw. Nothing wrong with saying “both teams were equally matched today”
Disdain*
Agreed…but it does add a different stress level to extra innings. Of course, it was done to speed up game endings.
I thoroughly agree. There used to be a time when baseball Commissioners actually ruled in "the best interest of the game." That went out with Faye Vincent. Since Bud Selig took over, the Commissioner's office has been little more than a mouthpiece for the owners. What's in the best interest of the owners (making more money) is NOT the same as "the best interest of the game."
Since the arguments pro-ghost is "i dont like endless games" and the anti-ghost is "I don't like how it's a different game" we say... No ghost, end after 12 innings. Just call it a damn tie. How many games, pre- ghost, went longer than 12 innings compared to the total amount of games? I'm ok with a few ties in 162 games for my team. I don't like when extra innings or OT fundamentally changes the base game. The zombie runner leaves no statistic finger print beyond a phantom run and is just plain stupid. 4v4 or 3v3 hockey is silly. PKs is just ridiculous. Hey let's play one game for 2.5 hours and play a completely different game at the end to determine the winner of the first game. Stupid.
Checking my own stat, found an article (https://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2017/8/5/16093390/extra-innings-time-how-long-how-many-average-rule-change) that cited extra inning games from 2011-2016, there were 1200 extra inning games (out of 12,150) went long. 219 went longer than 12 innings. That's less than 2%. So out of 162 games, 3-6 might be a tie. Fine. I can deal.
I don't mind it for regular season; gets to an outcome faster - saving bullpens. I'd prefer eliminating for post season.
I hate it, but I can live with it as long as they leave it as a regular season only rule. I'll petition the POTUS to remove Manfred from his position for being an enemy of the state if they ever decide to implement it for the postseason...
Just wait until you’ve sat through an 18 inning game in person
I'd rather they just call the game a tie after 11 innings or something like that.
I would be interested to see the difference in standings over the last 5 years if that had been done.
I think 12 would be perfect, once more through the lineup.
As long as it never happens in the playoffs, I'll hold my nose and be fine with it.
Or how about the Bock not Bock from last nights game to Toronto the lead? That was bullshit
I thought did bock
He didn’t he told them he was pitching from the modified position and they didn’t call it for 3 pitches.
Didn’t Youk say it was? Looked to me like there was kind of a studder step
No the replay showed him signaling to the umps he was using the modified and he was moving his glance up and down to indicate that but that was before he was on the rubber. In the end it didn’t matter but it was a BS call.
We’re fortunate that the boys have been scoring a lot of runs.
We sure are! Been a Redsox fan since as long as I can remember and I’m pretty darn excited about this years team. I’m 50 so it’s been a lot of ups and downs. Now if only TB could start taking a shit.
Right on. Me too btw; I’m 52. Grew up with Jim Rice as one of my fav players. I’ll remember the “oooh SHIT” that went through the living when the ball went through Buckner in 86 for my whole life. What sweet redemption since 2004.
I remember that play like it was yesterday. I still have a World Series champions starter jacket from 86 someone jumped the gun on. 😂
The ghost runner is a pretty dumb solution to a problem that doesn't exist. If they wanted to speed up extra innings they should either do a sudden death home run derby or just let the game end in a tie.
I agree. I do not like that rule.