Extra Inning Idea

[Grandstander]

Originally Posted by Statz2k10

I think it depends on what runner you put on 2nd and would teams build there 25 man roster differently? Would they be willing to sacrifice in one area to have more fast runners on there team.

Most teams will get into 15-20 extra inning games each season. Fewer than half of those go 12 innings or more, so let us estimate that the need for the extra inning runner will come up 5-10 times a year. That certainly does not justify wasting a roster space on a speedster, or even withholding a speedster in case he is needed for that singular purpose.

The closest comparison might be to Charlie Finley's employment of a designated runner in the'60's and '70's, a position first filled by Allan "The Panamanian Flash" Lewis, and then by track star Herb Washington. In six seasons Lewis stole 44 bases and was caught 17 times, a 72 % success rate which is just barely over the break even point where it neither helps nor hurts the team. Washington, in two seasons, stole 31 bases and was caught 17 times, a 65 % success rate, or the break even point. Washington's contribution was basically nothing, a wash. Both men were massive wastes of roster spots. Having someone around for the 5 to 10 extra inning games where the runner is needed, is even less justified.

[7express]

This whole thing is completely nonsense!

I don't have the actual numbers, mainly because I don't have time to count each extra inning game and how long it took, but if I had to guess I would say close to if not more than 75% of ALL extra inning games in the last 5 years have ended by the 12th inning. Of those 25% extra inning games that last longer than 12 innings I'd say 20% of those are finished by the 15th, so really you are looking at roughly, from what I can account, 5% of all extra inning games the last 5 years that last 16+ innings. Who cares?? Most Yankees/Red Sox 9 INNING games will take longer to finish than some of these 10 or 11 inning games, shouldn't we shorten those times first before we mess with something that has been going on for 150 years??

[2x3x29x41]

Some data:

On the subject of how many games go into extra innings, from 2012 thru early August 2017 there were precisely 1200 major league games that went extra innings. Back-of-the-napkin shows that to be just under 7%, or about 11 extra inning games per franchise per season.
https://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/20...ge-rule-change

More interesting is the distribution of the number of innings.

10 innings: 524 games (43.7%)
11 innings: 295 games (24.6%)
12 innings: 162 games (13.5%)
13 innings: 103 games (8.6%)
14 innings: 58 games (4.8%)
15 innings: 21 games (1.8%)
16 innings: 17 games (1.4%)
17 innings: 5 games (0.4%)
18 innings: 8 games (0.7%)
19 innings: 6 games (0.5%)
20 innings: 1 game (0.1%)

On average, a team plays a 13+-inning game 1.3 time per season. It's really not an issue.

Originally Posted by Grandstander

Does putting a runner on base really change the probability of shortening the game? Both sides will have the advantage, so it is a wash. You increase the chances of a run being scored, but you increase it for both teams.

Yes, it's a wash because it doesn't give an advantage to either team. But it does increase the likelihood of a game ending sooner. That's a function of higher scoring. The variable score possibilities are increased. For example, soccer is a very low-scoring game. In the Premier League, more than a quarter of all games are draws. By comparison, not once in the modern NFL has the league ever seen even 10% of games ending tied after regulation. Why? Low scoring in soccer, higher scoring in football. Of course, back in the day far more NFL games were tied after regulation. Why? Lower scoring than now.

The bottom line is that more scoring decreases the chances of a game remaining tied after a given inning.

Note:
I could not possibly care less if MLB implements this plan, or uses a home-run derby, or has managers arm-wrestle to determine the outcome. I merely think the numbers are interesting.

[Grandstander]

Originally Posted by 2x3x29x41

Yes, it's a wash because it doesn't give an advantage to either team. But it does increase the likelihood of a game ending sooner. That's a function of higher scoring. The variable score possibilities are increased. For example, soccer is a very low-scoring game. In the Premier League, more than a quarter of all games are draws. By comparison, not once in the modern NFL has the league ever seen even 10% of games ending tied after regulation. Why? Low scoring in soccer, higher scoring in football. Of course, back in the day far more NFL games were tied after regulation. Why? Lower scoring than now.

The bottom line is that more scoring decreases the chances of a game remaining tied after a given inning.
.

The variation in football is not more scoring, it is higher and staggered values for the scores. A 28-21 football final means one team outscored the other with four touchdowns to three. A 4-3 baseball score would not be seen as a high scoring game. Every score in baseball, or soccer, is one run or one point. In football it is possible to score 2, 3, 6, 7, or 8 points with a single scoring event. Of course a tie would be less likely with so many variables. Even a grand slam in baseball isn't really variable scoring, it is scoring one run four times.

There is also the impact on strategies to take into consideration. If you are starting an inning with a runner on first and no one out, then the temptation will be strong to use one run strategies (bunt, stolen base) to grab the lead in the top of the inning, or if still tied in the bottom of that inning. As Earl Weaver correctly perceived...if you play for one run, that's probably all you're going to get. That means there will be cases where the visiting team may grab a 1 run lead in the top of an extra inning, but it will have come at the expense of a theoretical multi score inning. That makes it less likely that the game will untie itself.

[Bitey]

As much as I hate the DH rule, maybe the NL should implement it for extra innings.