2 ms·
Yes, the pitch clock and the relievers' requirement to face at least three batters in an inning have done a very good job of handling game times. At some point
by mkovach 1y ago
Yes, the pitch clock and the relievers' requirement to face at least three batters in an inning have done a very good job of handling game times.
At some point, as the game continues to evolve, I think we'll see an upward swing in game times in the future, but I don't believe it will trend as high as it has before. I think that sub-three-hour games will remain the sweet spot going forward.
Now, for sub-two-hour games, this is one I wish I could watch and re-watch
https://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/1908/B10020CLE1908.htm https://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/1908/B10020CLE1908.htm
In the middle of a pennant race, Addie Joss pitched a 74-pitch perfect game against Ed Walsh, who had already won 39 games that year. The game kept Cleveland in the running for the pennant. Game time? 1:40 minutes. The minimum number of batters for a nine-inning game is 54, this game had 56.
- jamesmontalvo3 1y agoWouldn’t the minimum be 51? 932 =54, but if the team batting second is winning after the top of the 9th then they don’t need to play the bottom of the ninth, so subtract 3? Not a baseball person.
- mkovach 1y agoYou are correct. I should have clarified that for this game, Cleveland was visiting Chicago, so they got to bat in the ninth.
- xhkkffbf 1y agoI thought the same thing. And if you have rain , they can call the game "complete" if the losing team had 5 half innings at bat. So that could be 28. Assume 27 outs and one home run by the home team.
- mkovach 1y agoNot for no-hitters, perfect games. The pitcher has to complete nine innings.