The start of the baseball season is particularly interesting this year with the introduction of significant rules changes aimed at speeding up the pace of play and making games more exciting. At the center of these changes is the institution of a clock that now dictates the time frame between pitches. Vetted extensively in the minor leagues, the pitch clock has been shown to reduce game times to about two hours and thirty minutes; consistent with what we saw back in the 1980s and 1990s, and about 25 to 30 minutes quicker than what we’ve seen over recent seasons.
The adoption of the pitch clock has not been without some rancor. As with any significant change, there are detractors who complained this innovation would upend tradition and erode the natural rhythm of the game. I’m a lifelong baseball junkie, and I have to admit that before looking at the data, and watching the pitch clock in action, I had some reservations. Now, after seeing the clock during spring training and over the first week of the season, I’m a big fan of it. And as a sports researcher, I’m happy to report that so is the public.
advertisement
advertisement
We asked sports fans at the end of March whether they thought the new pitch clock was going to be good for the game, and a majority agreed. More significantly, the younger generation of fans, the cohort under age 45 that many surmised was losing interest in the game, were even more positive about the change than the more entrenched older fans.
But what has me most excited about the public’s embracing the pitch clock, is that for the first time in my recent memory, baseball finally seems to be getting some positive vibes from the sports media. It had been so exasperating to read the droning narrative of the past several years that baseball was too slow and not exciting enough to captivate today’s attention deficit fan. It was ironic so many had harped on the three-hour average game length, when several studies showed that the average football game, with all of its play stoppages, was actually running just as long, if not longer.
Now, if game times hold, the average baseball game will be quicker than football and on par with the hockey and basketball. That’s one less gripe that people can throw at “America’s pastime.”
I’ve seen a resurgence in fan engagement and participation, particularly among younger people, for quite some time. Who would have thought it would take the institution of a clock to get the sports press to notice.
I haven't watched baseball in years (an avid fan and player in my youth), but this new pitch clock has me motivated to at least check it out again.
I don't think it's fair to compare football to baseball; however. Baseball is very repetitive and linear. Football has far more variables, it's a contact sport, and at least we can see replays between plays. There's a lot of waiting in baseball. That cannot be said of football.
I'll agree that MNF is almost unbearable because of the commercial interruptions, but I still don't think you can compare the two sports.
Jon, you so the marketing so you would have a better point of view. I guess speeding up the game is necessary, so go for it. But I think MLB consistently errs in how it represents the game with quick cut action--mainly home runs. It's a game of great plays and superb pitching. Mainly,it's a game of strategy for individual batters, pitchers, situations, even stadiums. To me, baseball is chess for everyman. I wish MLB would at least try to sell baseball as a game for thinkers, in maybe 10-20% of its advertising.