I am realizing that i actually LOVE the extra innings rule!!!

[YourFriendGannon]

A pitcher pitches a perfect game. The score is 0-0 after nine.

The bullshit runner gets placed on second base. Lead off batter grounds out to second, moving the fake runner to third. Next batter hits a sacrifice fly, scoring the run. Final batter strikes out.

Pitcher has allowed an earned run while still pitching a perfect game! And is now on the hook for a loss!

The rule is a fucking joke, period.

Agreed, except the runner from second scoring always results in an unearned run.

 

[Ron G]

Personally, I would prefer the runner start on 1st in the 10th inning, but I digress.

I agree. The home team has a distinct advantage. The visitors are unlikely to bunt the the runner to third. But if the visitors don't score it is more likely that the home team would do so since it would be the winning run not the lead run.

 

[Ron G]

Agreed, except the runner from second scoring always results in an unearned run.

However, it does negate the perfect game and maybe even a no hitter. A nine inning perfect game or no hitter should go into the books as such regardless of the outcome. Got to feel for Harvey Haddix.

 

[Ron G]

fair bit of warning though, even if you somehow mange to convince me (you won't) I was wrong about it, according to my wife I'm never gonna admit to it because I'm a stubborn asshole incapable of admitting I was wrong.

I may be married to your wife's sister.

 

[Montalban]

First off, I know that it is a bastardization to baseball... and is pretty much a gimmick....


BUT it really is a great rule.... it satisfies everything and everyone...

It remains a fair rule since both teams get the same advantage, so no ONE team can say they got screwed..


But it makes that half inning exciting... starting with a man on second, the question is Can you prevent that man from scoring?? so every extra half inning, all starts off with an exciting question...

then there is strategy, does a team go small ball and go all out to get that one runner to score, or do they go for the big inning with risk of total failure...

and then the odds of both teams matching the same results is SIGNIFICANTLY lower... which means the chances of going 12 + innings is less than it ever was...


So, It is a fair rule that doesn't give either team a real advantage
It is more exciting for fans,
there is added strategy for offenses
there is added strategy for pitching and defense
and it successfully speeds up the game...


It checks all 5 boxes of any intended rule change...

So the only thing against the rule is that it is not part of the original rules, and is a gimmick...

Next questions
is it such a bad rule that it will LOSE fans?? the answer is definitely no

Will it help attract new fans?? Absolutely!!! for reasons that were explained earlier, that it speeds up the game, adds excitement, and adds other things...


So i Welcome this rule change to stay... Even though i dont expect it to at all....

I like the rule too. Extra inning games used to last an eternity. Now, it seems every at bat in extra innings counts.

 

[Ron G]

I like the rule too. Extra inning games used to last an eternity. Now, it seems every at bat in extra innings counts.

Hard to argue that it is not fair. But I do think the home team has an increased advantage. The "last bats" is significantly worth more with the man on second, especially if the visitors don't score. One advantage the visitors have is to who they decide to walk in the bottom half of the inning, since if they did not score, that runner is meaningless. Not so for the home team so that might even it out.

 

[msgkings322]

Hard to argue that it is not fair. But I do think the home team has an increased advantage. The "last bats" is significantly worth more with the man on second, especially if the visitors don't score. One advantage the visitors have is to who they decide to walk in the bottom half of the inning, since if they did not score, that runner is meaningless. Not so for the home team so that might even it out.

There's no doubt it gives the home team even more of an advantage than they already have in extras. I think that's a feature not a bug.

 

[Montalban]

Hard to argue that it is not fair. But I do think the home team has an increased advantage. The "last bats" is significantly worth more with the man on second, especially if the visitors don't score. One advantage the visitors have is to who they decide to walk in the bottom half of the inning, since if they did not score, that runner is meaningless. Not so for the home team so that might even it out.

No, I think the home team has that same advantage. They can walk the first hitter and set up the double play or force at third. I'd much rather bat last in extra innings. kind of like college football overtime. Its a big advantage to go second since you know exactly what you have to do.

 

[Ron G]

No, I think the home team has that same advantage. They can walk the first hitter and set up the double play or force at third. I'd much rather bat last in extra innings. kind of like college football overtime. Its a big advantage to go second since you know exactly what you have to do.

Home team is less likely to put an additional run on the bases to create a hope for double pay, unless the runner gets to third with one out and the batter being walked is slow. I am surprised the visitor does not always walk the first or second batter, for sure, if they did not score in top half. The run is inconsequential and sets up the double.

 

[Montalban]

Home team is less likely to put an additional run on the bases to create a hope for double pay, unless the runner gets to third with one out and the batter being walked is slow. I am surprised the visitor does not always walk the first or second batter, for sure, if they did not score in top half. The run is inconsequential and sets up the double.

Agreed

 

[boogiewithstu2007]

I think it’s a good rule, they should use it even in the playoffs, definitely helps speed the game up in extras, adds a little drama also …