Nardi wrote:
good dolphin wrote:
extra innings runner on second is the obvious
it changes the game of baseball for expediency
id rather have ties
You don't get it either. Baseball isn't dying because of ghost runners and pitch clocks. It's dying because it's clunky. And it's a purposely clunky game whether it's 2 hrs, 3 hrs, or 4 hrs. Everybody has figured out the probabilities of winning and it's boring as fuck.
How do you legislate against:
Tommy john
162 games followed by soon to be 14 playoff teams
Pitchers not giving in and batters seeing many pitches
HR or K or BB outcome
Defense being the desert tray rather than an entree
The parade of specialists coming in from the bullpen sweatshop to protect the big money 5 and flyers' arms.
Every manager's strategy is exactly the same. All player development is exactly the same. All the players are indistinguishable in their approach. It's a factory of sameness.
Offense in baseball is way too dependent on HR's. I don't know how offenses are able to overcome teams using starters for less innings because they can then turn to 4 or 5 (maybe more) options that all throw near 100 MPH, but the game is boring.
There could be something to limiting pitching changes in a 9 inning game (maybe you let teams do whatever if it goes extra innings), but I can already hear the complaints if a pitcher goes longer and then gets injured....so any change like this would probably not happen and, even if it did, it would still probably allow for teams to go through too many pitchers.
A starter though, in many rotations, has become a a 4-5 IP especially beyond the top 2 starters on most teams. If a starter goes 6 IP, that becomes the equivalent of a complete game these days.