OPINION: Time to Shave Time Off Major League Baseball Games!

One of the most romantic aspects of Major League Baseball is the consistency of its rules, which allows the sport to translate from one generation to the next. Such common threads therefore provide fans the liberty to compare players like Mickey Mantle against those of Mike Trout or Bryce Harper today.

It’s fun to do so… It’s interesting to do so

… It’s what makes baseball so great, and brings fans young and old together—each sharing their love for our National Pastime.

Yes, MLB definitely should try to maintain its bonds that tie history with the present—rules by-and-large needing to stay the same… 90 feet between the bases, 60 feet 6 inches from the pitching rubber to home plate, and on-and-on.

Nevertheless, one thing that really has strayed from the lore of baseball is the time it takes to play a nine-inning game. Once a competition regularly lasting about two hours when Babe Ruth graced the diamond, and yet still a game that finished at an average of two hours and thirty-nine minutes as recently as 1984 (the season our Cubs once again took the world by storm), those same match-ups are now lasting three hours and five minutes to contest in 2019—a duration that represents an all-time high for MLB.

Certainly, we have to acknowledge some reasons for a baseball game to take fifty percent longer from the 1920’s through the 1940’s than it does currently. First, there lacked television access for viewers, which would require commercial breaks as players changed sides from one half-inning to the next. Also, starting pitchers assumed a different role—in the past being a time where if a hurler took the ball, his goal… and often accomplishment… was to pitch a complete game; all nine innings—almost unheard of today.

… But to go from two hours to over three in the present day? Simply, there is just no excuse—and remember an MLB game today already has implemented rules intended speed up its competition, though those actions have shown little positive effect… examples being a non-pitch intentional walk, mound visits being reduced, batters required to remain in the box between pitches, pitch clocks with no one on base, and as of 2020 relievers required to face a minimum of three batters before each may be lifted from the game are just several alterations that either haven’t worked, or are unlikely to do so going forward. Instead, the only thing that resulted were still longer games than even ten years before (and noticeably so).

Other rules being thrown about as potential ideas go so far as to starting a runner on 2^nd base following the 11^th Inning (being tested in minor league games), as well as making the designated hitter a universal rule for both the American AND National Leagues.

Those latest two ideas don’t seem to really address the problem either, for waiting until the 11^th Inning to “speed up a game” does not account for the previous ten frames, which can still be played at a “snail’s pace;” nor does adding a DH for each league, that concept likely more to satisfy the MLB Player’s Association than reducing time-of-game.

Instead, we propose a different and better idea in moving along the duration of an MLB competition…

Our plan is therefore the ultimate agenda to speed up a game by at least an hour, if not more—going back to the days of Ty Cobb, Rogers Hornsby, and even Ted Williams—while not losing any of the sport’s integrity…such as reducing a contest’s innings (from say nine to seven), or skewing of MLB records and equivalent statistics going forward. Actually, not much in game play will alter itself, even though there would occur the biggest change in over 100-plus years at the same time!

Accepting this new vision will require an open mind, and we ask you do so before agreeing with or rejecting our plan; so come with us and think outside-the-box—because the more you ponder it, the more you may like it.

To begin, why should it be required that teams switch from batting to the field after just three outs? Instead, why can’t each side maintain its position at the plate or amongst the defense for a duration of nine outs, but still clearing the bases fresh after three players have been retired each “inning”—or segment—just as before?

Essentially, the visiting club will have its opportunity to compete in multiple turns as the “offensive team,” while clearing the bases anew after each three outs, and repeating that plan for what would be equal to three innings of game play under current rules. Then, of course, the home team would get its shot at scoring under the same plan.

Our idea is that this system could occur twice per team, thus being the equivalent of playing six innings of an MLB game. Then each contest would revert to its typical play, road and home clubs alternating hitting in the 7^th Inning and beyond, with three outs each—and therefore maintaining the excitement and intrigue of late-game situations that have fans and teams at the edge of their seats.

By consolidating the first “six innings” (which would normally include eleven breaks between each half inning), every contest will now instead only have three stoppages in play over that time—a plan which would rapidly reduce the time of game. Additionally, there would be no need to “warm up” between innings, nor would there be wasted minutes for players to “get into position,” and so forth.

Let’s take a look how this actually would work: For instance, the Dodgers are visiting beautiful Wrigley Field. During their first time at bat, Los Angeles gets a man to 2^nd base, but can't advance him homeward before recording a 3rd out. Under this scenario, that runner must then return to the dugout as usual and concluding what would be an inning of play.Though in our proposal, the Dodgers and Cubs wouldn't change from offense to defense. Rather, the Dodgers would merely bring up their next hitter to bat (say the 5^th positioned hitter in its line-up) to start the top the 2nd inning, as a club normally would. Essentially, the home team plays the field for three consecutive innings, the teams then flip, and so forth as proposed above.

Sure, it’s very possible teams and their related ownership groups could be divided over this idea. That said, positives might include generating a more engaged fan base—as games would shorten, potentially attracting more fans that have lesser attention spans, including children and our youth. Not to mention, the future health of baseball, or any sport for that matter, hugely depends on younger and new generations falling in love with the game. More experienced/older fans also have an incentive to enjoy this idea, as working a full day, and then attending an often-played night game, could return that demographic to bed close to 11 pm or later—only for those consumers requiring a return to work again, tired the next day.

True, there are potential pitfalls to our proposal, as shorter games may lead to less concession sales, as well as reduced television revenue from the lack of breaks—and similar. Also, players complaints might reject longer stretches in the field, especially so for pitchers, as starters would need to throw many more offerings without a significant pause in action.

But with such potential drawbacks, we have just a start of many answers of which we’d love to share and have you join in on the suggestions…

For one, why not follow the lead of world soccer, and allow more advertising marks from sponsors on the screen during a game—perhaps neatly placed near the score box of an MLB contest, and/or slightly reducing the screen to allow a border with ads and corresponding company tag lines… possibly allowing for those companies to keep their spots up for longer than the standard thirty seconds to compensate for necessary in-game presentations. Even though we might hate commercials and advertisements that often intrude on our sports during action, one must understand that such commercials pay the players and teams so we can enjoy the game.Therefore, following this guide would go far in eliminating any negative financial impact on baseball, or its players and owners alike.

Secondly, teams might be able to expand its rosters to lessen the possible injury impact—or fatigue—for pitchers, relievers gracing more spots per team. Further, this option might be intriguing for the Player’s Union, as any time they can add jobs, it represents a huge positive for that association.

Yes, this might be a radical plan—but sometimes big problems need big ideas and answers. With our proposal, the game largely remains the same, but just in a sped-up state—including a drastic reduction of stoppages in play. Records, streaks, and the like would be preserved in line with MLB history; and again, the game’s integrity would not be altered.

Great plan, right?!

What do you think, fans? Tell us your thoughts on this proposal, and what your ideas might be to speed up a great sport that is taking longer to play each season!