Feb 7, 19, 11:03 AM #1
The length of time for a baseball gameWhile reading over some of the new proposals designed to shorten the time of a game I began to ponder.
How many of you guys actually avoid going to the Reds game because you are afraid the game will take too long?Advertisement
Feb 7, 19, 11:33 AM #2The length of the game doesn't bother me at all.
Feb 7, 19, 11:56 AM #3If I like something, why would I care how long it lasts? I usually buy cheap tickets for night games. If it starts getting too late for me I go home.
My only frustration is the start time of postseason games when they know the game will last more than 3 hours. 7:30 would be perfect for the first pitch.
Feb 7, 19, 12:58 PM #4Thanks. I have never met anyone that does not go to games because it may last too long.
Feb 7, 19, 01:27 PM #5
Here's the reason...I live 30 minutes (in ideal traffic) from downtown and have a son who's still in school. Depending on where we park, a game that starts at 7:05 can mean that we won't get home until 10:45 or later. And while that may not be late for you and me, it'd completely throw his schedule out of whack. So, during the school year, we don't get to go much during the week. (And yes, I know the Reds start some of their early season games at 6:40 during the week, and we've thought about it a couple of times. But, it all depends on what he's got as far as homework and/or tests for the following day.)
I also hate paying money for an event and not being able to see the end of it. Totally stupid, in my opinion. So we never leave early. We've been through countless rain delays over the years. And sat through several extra inning games too. But, those games have always been on the weekend.
Feb 7, 19, 01:46 PM #6
- Join Date
- Jan 05
- Where are we going? And why am I in this handbasket?
Feb 7, 19, 02:00 PM #7I'm not a big fan of them doing everything they can to keep shortening the games but that's primarily because it affects my wallet.
I will say, I am a big fan of them starting the weekday games at 6:40pm during the early and late months. Wouldln't mind if they went ahead and did it all summer.
Feb 10, 19, 07:06 PM #8
Since WWII, the Avg. Time / 9 innings has only exceeded 3:00 2x (2014 & 2017). It has, however, steadily increased over the years. (1946 was a statistical outlier at 1:56.)
- Join Date
- Nov 03
- The City of Beautiful Homes
I am much more concerned with the "pace" of the game than the "length" of the game. Increasing "pace" to remove dead time will result in the "length" being shortened as well, but that is a by-product rather than a goal.
2 big problems with "pace":
1 - strategy of "no action" pitches (i.e., live action where nothing happens outside of P, C and Batter). Pitchers are groomed, selected and developed to throw hard and "miss bats." Batters are groomed, selected and developed with a single swing plane that will provide optimum launch angle for HRs if that swing plane happens to intersect with the pitch path. If it doesn't, so be it. This leads to lots of Ks and BBs and, obviously, lots of "no action" pitches.
2 - Traditional "dead time" concerns (time between pitches, batters stepping out to go through "routine," pitching changes [including specialization leading to more Ps per game and per season], time between innings, warm-up pitches for relievers, replays, mound visits by C, mound visits by INF, mound visits by coaches, 3B coach conferences with batters / runners [much more of a problem in college], etc.).
As you can tell, most of the implemented / discussed rule changes focus on #2 rather than #1. Tim Kirkjian says #1 won't / can't change unless it starts at the youth level. If someone wanted to go out and find a Tom Browning / Greg Maddux P or Tony Gwynn / Rod Carew batter, it's going to be finding a needle in a haystack.
Feb 19, 19, 06:48 PM #9How many people get past the 7th inning is more intriguing?