6 things I learned watching the pitch clock in action

[Auggie]

Not me, the author at the link, MLB.com contributor Anthony Castrovince, with thoughts on how the pitch clock affects minor league play (full story at the link): https://www.mlb.com/news/how-pitch-clock-is-working-in-minor-leagues-in-2022

1. The clock works.
"In the time since pitch clock was put in place on April 15, the average game has taken 2:35 to play."

2. The clock can possibly improve player health and performance.

3. The clock adds intrigue to the running game.
"With Minor League pitchers limited to two step-offs or pickoff attempts under the 2022 rules, it should come as no surprise that runners are attempting to steal more bases and are successful more frequently."

4. Pitchers have found a new cat-and-mouse game.
"The clock gives an inherent advantage to pitchers who work quickly. But the nine-second feature -- combined with the limitation on timeouts -- provides an added advantage to those comfortable with long holds."

5. The clock operator is an X-factor (at least in the Minors).
"When the pitch clock reaches the big leagues, consistency and a well-trained operator will of course be of paramount importance. And Major League umpires will be able to learn from those in the Minors who experienced this experimental season."

6. Everyone is learning as they go.

-----------------

Which begs the question: is Castrovince a paid stooge of the league?

Me: I loathe the idea of putting a clock on every damn pitch. And I especially loathe the rules that feel so, uh, Little League, such as:

"Under the current pitch clock rules in MLB, there is a 14-second timer between pitches with no one on base and 18 seconds with a runner on base (19 seconds in Triple-A). There is a 30-second timer between batters. If a pitcher fails to throw a pitch in time, it is an automatic ball. If a hitter is not ready in time, it is an automatic strike. Each batter gets one timeout per plate appearance, and pitchers get a total of two step-offs or pickoffs per batter."

Really? They're going to micro-manage The Show to this level of absurdity???

[SheltieLover]

1. Ridiculous, imo.

I agree.

[brush]

2. IMO it's worth trying. The game needs help as...

football and basketball have long surpassed it in popularity. The games are too long. Baseball still hasn't figured out how to market their stars like football does Brady and basketball does LeBron, Curry, Barkley and Shaq.

Barkley and Shaq are long-retired and they have more national commercials/visibility than any baseball player, including Mike Trout and Shohei Ohtani.

Trout has been the best in the game for a decade and Ohtani is the best thing since Babe Ruth. Baseball should team with an ad agency to pair those two together in a great campaign as they're both Angels...showing their likeability and their faces. It's a no-brainer that should've been done already.

I'm an Indians fan from way back (hate the new name) and I despair the state the game is in right now.

[ProfessorGAC]

3. I Like It!

As long as it punishes the time wasting hitters, too.
Games literally take 51 minutes longer on average, than they were 45 years ago.
There are 30 seconds of extra ads each half inning. That's only 9 minutes.
The other 42 minutes add NOTHING to the fan experience.
If only half of that is caused by dawdling (and I think that's understated), 21 minutes of dead time is eliminated.
I don't watch games for, & most fans don't go to see an extra 21 minutes (at least) of zero action.
I honestly don't understand the purism that resists this idea.
I would think such purism would be rooted in the pace of play as it was for the first 120 years of the professional game. If so, how could a purist/traditionalist oppose it?