Do you loooooong for shorter games?

[CometKid24]

I looked up the 1938 box scores for Johnny Vander Meer's no-hitters on baseball-reference.com. I couldn't believe how short all the game times were, so here's what I did (yes, I have no life -- and too much if it is wasted on between-pitch rituals by batters and pitchers). To get a small sampling, I looked at two-week stretches of Reds games (9-inning games only) from May 1-15 of 1938, 1975 and 2013. Here are the average game times:
2013: 3:07
1975: 2:38
1938: 2:05
For World Series, I did 7-game series (to get a better sampling; 9-inning games only) for 2011, 1975 and 1940. Average game times were:
2011: 3:30
1975: 2:38
1940: 2:04 (Can you imagine a Game 7 of 1:47?)

At this rate, those of you still around in 5-6 decades will be watching (or not) games that average 4 hours!

What are your solutions? :help:

[moewan]

I think a big reason is longer commercial breaks in between innings

[maestrohound]

I actually don't really mind it, especially at the ballpark. Pretty relaxing three hours is sometimes nicer than two. But yes, I think the blame is on TV and its commercials.

[redsfan30]

When I was younger, the longer the game the better. But now that I have grown up I love a quick 2 1/2 hour game, especially games that I attend.

I have a two hour drive home after every game. A few years ago it wasn't much for me to make that drive and get up and go to work the next morning without a problem. Anymore, that long drive and getting up early for work isn't getting any easier.

[SpiritofStLouis]

I have no qualms with the length of games. I enjoy the fact that baseball has no clock, and the leisurely pace allows me to multitask (food, drink, bathroom, conversation when at the game).

Now, having the last 2 minutes of a basketball game take 20 minutes is irritating.

[texasdave]

I would like a shorter game. I hate to admit this but I get bored during a lot of these games. Today's game was 3:24 and there was not a ton of action. One pet peeve is when a batter has to step out of the box and adjust his gloves after each pitch. Really?

[RedlegJake]

Football, too, is more irritating to me than baseball. Football has a clock - it just never seems to run...baseball otoh is driven by the mannerisms and nuances of the pitcher and batter with just its obligatory breaks for the media that pays the freight. Because there is no clock per se I guess I don't feel the same time pressure. It's much more of an elapsing opportunities in baseball without any particular timing attached. 6 outs to go...5...4...come dammit...down to our last three!
Like Spirit I multi task baseball games which is nice too...

[RedlegJake]

Interesting topic for a thread btw Comet!

[Jmiller21kg]

I think managers who make multiple pitching changes really slow down the game, like bringing in one pitcher to face 1 batter then taking him out. It's mostly strategy though (leftie vs leftie, etc.) but it gets annoying sometimes.

[Kiko]

I think managers who make multiple pitching changes really slow down the game, like bringing in one pitcher to face 1 batter then taking him out. It's mostly strategy though (leftie vs leftie, etc.) but it gets annoying sometimes.

Yep, commercial breaks and pitching changes are the biggest culprits for extending the game. Personally, I wish the games were in the 2-2.5 hrs time frame especially if I am watching the game in person.

[mth123]

It's not really length that is the problem, it's pace of the game. It can go on all night if it keeps moving along. I love baseball as much as anybody, but nothing irritates me more than a really slow and deliberate pitcher out there on the mound or hitters who constantly are fooling around out of the box instead of getting in there and hitting. Commercial Breaks and pitching changes don't bother me much, but dead time during a plate appearance because the pitcher and hitter don't get down to business is what is slowing the pace and lengthening the games in a bad way. IMO, when they are talking about shortening the game, this is where the focus needs to be. Shortening it in other ways may make the game shorter, but it doesn't really make it more appealing to the casual fan. Speeding the pace of the game is what gets the short attention span types involved IMO.

[cumberlandreds]

I've read that before the 1920's games that if a game went more than two hours it was considered very long. If you look at games in the dead ball era most were played in under two hours. Some doubleheaders would be played in 2 1/2 hours or less. I really don't think TV has had that much effect. Maybe added 10 minutes a game. I think most of it is the batters stepping out on every pitch. I don't think that happened much in days gone by. Now every hitter steps out,waves his bat around,adjust something or another,spits and then climbs back in. The only reason I can think of is to get more airtime. So in that sense TV has had and effect on length of games.

[cumberlandreds]

Football, too, is more irritating to me than baseball. Football has a clock - it just never seems to run...baseball otoh is driven by the mannerisms and nuances of the pitcher and batter with just its obligatory breaks for the media that pays the freight. Because there is no clock per se I guess I don't feel the same time pressure. It's much more of an elapsing opportunities in baseball without any particular timing attached. 6 outs to go...5...4...come dammit...down to our last three!
Like Spirit I multi task baseball games which is nice too...

I agree with you about football. Way too many stoppages in play now. I think the NFL is nearly unwatchable with all the TV breaks they have now. They kickoff,TV break. Three plays and out another TV break. Team scores,TV break. They kickoff another TV break. SHeeeesh can you play 10 minutes without a TV break. When I watch NFL now I DVR it and skip through the commercial. I had the NFL Redzone one year when I was still with DISH. I enjoyed that. No TV breaks at all. Of course you don't stay with any one game so if you want to watch one specific team that's no good for you.
Basketball is almost as bad now. In Colleges they have TV breaks at the under 16,12,8 and 4 minutes marks of each half. Plus each team has five timeouts to take. The end of games can get really long and boring considering all of the fouling that can go on too.

[CometKid24]

It's not really length that is the problem, it's pace of the game. It can go on all night if it keeps moving along. I love baseball as much as anybody, but nothing irritates me more than a really slow and deliberate pitcher out there on the mound or hitters who constantly are fooling around out of the box instead of getting in there and hitting. Commercial Breaks and pitching changes don't bother me much, but dead time during a plate appearance because the pitcher and hitter don't get down to business is what is slowing the pace and lengthening the games in a bad way. IMO, when they are talking about shortening the game, this is where the focus needs to be. Shortening it in other ways may make the game shorter, but it doesn't really make it more appealing to the casual fan. Speeding the pace of the game is what gets the short attention span types involved IMO.
I think all pitchers should be required to watch a video of Tom Browning. Get the ball, get the sign, pitch, repeat, and if the batter wasn't ready, they watched a called strike. Or if they stepped out, they got buzzed inside. And batters shouldn't be allowed to step out unless there's a really good reason.

[Rojo]

It's not really length that is the problem, it's pace of the game. It can go on all night if it keeps moving along. I love baseball as much as anybody, but nothing irritates me more than a really slow and deliberate pitcher out there on the mound or hitters who constantly are fooling around out of the box instead of getting in there and hitting.

Bingo. Usually when this topic comes up somebody will chime in about how the games aren't too long for them because, see, they really love baseball more than you do.

I think Citizen Kane's a great movie. But as much as I love it, I don't think it would benefit by having a bunch of meaningless scenes added.

Bill James had the right phrase for it: "draining the inaction".

[marcshoe]

All depends on who's winning.

[Eric from NC]

I think the average national league game of about 2:50 is about right. I have to admit I have lost any enthusiasm for instant reply on every play. I thought the NBA playoffs were ridiculous when they would review every out of bounds call in the last 5 minutes. If they reviewed every tag out play the games would definitely go to 4 hours.

[dougdirt]

Players are taking more pitches than ever before. Over a game, that adds up. Add in the modern bullpen and commercials and you are probably looking at 25 minutes right there.

[miamiredskin]

Once a player steps in the box, he should not be allowed to step out until his AB is over. And the pitcher can't leave the mound until then, either.

Catcher gets 10 seconds on conference, period.

No reason for the mgr to walk to mound to pull a pitcher. Do football coaches go out to the huddle to pull a player? Do bball coaches go out on the court?
I know John McGraw did it, but a lot has changed in 90 years, why not this too?

The game is a tedious. Pretty sad when m multitasking and/or DVRing are the only ways to get through it.

[JaxRed]

Does anyone know the time between innings before TV?

[Sea Ray]

Does anyone know the time between innings before TV?

For a locally televised game it's 2:05 IRC. It couldn't have been that much different in 1940. I think a lot of the difference is pitching changes, LOOGYs etc.

[REDREAD]

I agree with other posters that the all the stepping off the mound and batter's box gets annoying.

I love to watch the Reds, but if we are behind in a game, it can get irritating to watch the visitor's half of an inning (even if the Reds are pitching well).

I would like to limit the batter to stepping out of the box twice per at bat.
If he steps out anymore than that, he gets a strike called.
Hopefully, players will then only step out at most once per at bat, and save the second time for contact lense emergency, etc.

I would like a clock on the pitcher. He is required to throw the ball within a certain time limit. I think there might actually be a rule on this, and it's just not enforced.
Pitcher takes too long, a ball is called. Maybe allow for the catcher to occcasionally visit the mound and other stuff.. but man.. I have left the room with the game on at times, because the action just totally slows down. It bothers me more than the commerical breaks.

[JaxRed]

I think the pitching changes are big part also, which is why a reliever ought to get 2 throws only. He's already warmed up...

[miamiredskin]

I think the pitching changes are big part also, which is why a reliever ought to get 2 throws only. He's already warmed up...

yep

[Goose]

The game's length doesn't bother me, it is all the wasted time during the game that annoys me.

[Beer&Bourbon]

I think the pitching changes are big part also, which is why a reliever ought to get 2 throws only. He's already warmed up...

Another vote for this. The Giants brought a bunch of different relievers in during the 4.5ish hour game on Wednesday. I know it went to extra innings, but when we see three or four pitchers in an inning, I don't want to see them each warming up on the mound for 10 minutes.

[Nathan]

Another vote for this. The Giants brought a bunch of different relievers in during the 4.5ish hour game on Wednesday. I know it went to extra innings, but when we see three or four pitchers in an inning, I don't want to see them each warming up on the mound for 10 minutes.

The first nine innings lasted about 4 hours.. It was a long game regardless of the extra innings.

[nismoredlegs]

I have no issues with the lengths of the games. I love the fact that the clock does not determine the outcome of the game. That's one reason baseball is so much better than the NBA and the NFL or that flop sport soccer where they end in draws. HUHHH!??

If this means the pitchers speed through lineups and the game ends in 2hrs; so be it. If it means the batters can't get a run across the plate in 18 innings. So be it. Maybe I am more patient than others, or it's because I roll with the punches. I just don't see any point in complaining about the time.

Being a baseball fan, you should know it is never set in time. Going to a game, you should be aware, you may not make it home in time for bed.

Longer games are more enjoyable at the ballpark. When I go to a game, I watch the actual play, converse with others, take piss breaks, walk around sometimes, enjoy BP, etc.

TV is a different story, just turn the TV off and check the box score tomorrow.
Love water cooler conversations. "Did you see Bailey's no hitter last night?!" ..."No man, I turned it off and went to bed." Then you laugh at yourself. Good memories.

OP, nice title by the way.

[joshua]

Baseball has been roughly the same game for decades, that's why I love it. Baseball doesn't add three point lines or make it harder to defend a receiver... the game today is the same game Babe Ruth played.

This isn't football where physical dominance is the most important attribute for a player. Baseball requires a lot of thinking and strategy, pitcher vs batter especially. If a pitcher has to take another five seconds to get prepared to throw a pitch, I don't care. Imagine a full count, bases loaded, tied ballgame in the ninth inning. Crowd is going crazy. The pitcher is shaking off signs and then suddenly, the umpire decided the pitcher has taken too long and calls ball four. The winning run crosses the plate without a ball ever being thrown. I know this happens occasionally because of balks, but I still feel that's pretty cheap. It's supposed to be about the pitcher vs the batter and then suddenly it's about the pitcher vs the clock.

In a world that's becoming more and more fast paced every year, I don't think baseball should change its ways.

[gilpdawg]

I like baseball. Why would I want less of it?