Trouble finding common ground
Will a pitch clock be implemented?
For the time being, no. However, that does not mean that it is still not on the forefront of their minds. A pitch clock seems like the best way to shorten games, but the players are giving this idea a lot of push back.
A solid argument against the pitch clock, mentioned by Jayson Stark of ESPN, is that players are already pitching under the 20 second mark that would be on a pitch clock. Out of 155 starting pitchers that threw over 750 pitches, only three averaged more than 20.9 seconds per pitch with no one on base. Those three were Sonny Gray, Matt Garza and Yu Darvish.
The issue with this is that it does not factor in runners on base or relievers, which would be an interesting stat to look at. The later parts of the games tend to take longer due to the heightened circumstances. Either way, this does not completely discredit the argument for a pitch clock to shorten game time.
What else can be done?
The fact that the MLB is shortening time between innings means that they are very serious about fixing this problem. They are sacrificing a fair share of revenue if they are cutting down the amount of air time sponsors get between innings.
Some other measures that baseball can take are limiting the amount of pitching changes, cutting down mound visits even more or potentially putting on a runner at second to start out every inning in extras.
These solutions are all one that could potentially change the game fundamentally. The problem is that the game may have to change in those sort of ways in order to make this work. It would be ideal if game time was closer to two hours and 45 minutes within the next ten years. Whether or not it is will be up to how the players react to it though.
Featured image from CBS Sports
“From Our Haus to Yours”