OT: How to win a baseball game without scoring a run

[Doctor Worm]

It was recently done in the independent Frontier League, under their sudden death tiebreaker rule.

If a game is tied after 9 innings, they play a 10th inning under the free runner rule. If still tied after 10, the tiebreaker rule is invoked. Works like this:

The home team decides whether they want to go on offense or defense. The team on offense places a free runner on first (not second) and they play a half inning as normal. If the team on offense scores, game over, they win. If they don't score, game over, they lose.

So if the game is scoreless after 10, a team can win (and has won) without scoring a run.

Obviously the purpose of the rule is to get games over with. It is not uncommon for MLB to use the Indy leagues as a lab to test proposed rule changes. I don't see this one going anywhere though.

 

[Brisket and Bourbon]

Still better than a stupid turning the nfl

 

[dconifer]

Still better than a stupid turning the nfl

There's some kind of hypocrisy in these gimmick ways that are being instituted to break ties. The authorities feel fans are not satisfied with ties (that doesn't apply to me; a tie is legit), but they don't want to break the tie by continuing with legitimate competition for as long as it takes, because these same fans don't have the attention span for it. So they have a tiddly-winks contest to break the tie.

I'm so sick of that expression about how a tie is "like kissing your sister."

 

[DJ Spanky]

I hate the shortcuts they're taking to break ties. I still don't see the problem in college football with a tie, but, no, let's go to 7 overtime periods to break it. Just phenomenally stupid. Now the whole thing with MLB putting a runner on base in extra innings. Even more stupid.

Still better than a stupid turning the nfl

I'm not even sure what this means.

 

[Dpgru]

I'm not even sure what this means.

I am glad I am not the only one.

 

[Doctor Worm]

I hate the shortcuts they're taking to break ties. I still don't see the problem in college football with a tie, but, no, let's go to 7 overtime periods to break it. Just phenomenally stupid. Now the whole thing with MLB putting a runner on base in extra innings. Even more stupid.



I'm not even sure what this means.

Like it or not, ties are a thing of the past. The genie's not going back into that bottle.

So the question then becomes, how best to end the game? Here we are left to balance two competing objectives:

1) The tiebreaker should mimic the "actual" competition as closely as possible.

2) The tiebreaker should get the game over with, sooner rather than later.

Recent rule changes have emphasized the second objective. And with good reason. In the case of MLB, the free runner rule is maybe the only thing that ownership, management, and players all agree on. Because it gets games over with.

 

[DJ Spanky]

1) The tiebreaker should mimic the "actual" competition as closely as possible.

2) The tiebreaker should get the game over with, sooner rather than later.

The NFL Sudden Death format was the most enjoyable in my view. 15 minutes, got the game over.

 

[Plum Street]

how many fans in the stands in this crappy league after 9 innings anyway ?

 

[Doctor Worm]

The NFL Sudden Death format was the most enjoyable in my view. 15 minutes, got the game over.

IMO it fell short on both of my defined criteria.

1) It didn't mimic the actual competition closely enough, so much so that the coin toss became the most important play of the game.

2) It got the game over with, but not quickly enough. This is a big deal in the NFL when you've got defined time windows and you don't want games running over.

So, they cut the OT to 10 minutes, and they made the rules more equitable for the team that lost the toss. Well done NFL.

 

[Doctor Worm]

how many fans in the stands in this crappy league after 9 innings anyway ?

A lot more than after 12 or 14 or 17.

 

[DJ Spanky]

IMO it fell short on both of my defined criteria.

I didn't say it did. I said I found it the most enjoyable.

 

[Shelby65]

I hate the shortcuts they're taking to break ties. I still don't see the problem in college football with a tie, but, no, let's go to 7 overtime periods to break it. Just phenomenally stupid. Now the whole thing with MLB putting a runner on base in extra innings. Even more stupid.



I'm not even sure what this means.

It means he had 1 or 10 too many shots of bourbon

 

[Source]

OT: How to win a baseball game without scoring a run​

OR...... you can accept a 9-0 forfeit before the game begins.

Forfeit #1

In 1902 the New York Giants were owned by Andrew Freedman, a New York real estate man and Tammany Hall politician, and the club was doing poorly. To get better players he bought the Baltimore Orioles American League club on July 16, 1902. Immediately four players were transferred to the Giants in the other league and two others were released. The Orioles had a home game with the St. Louis Browns the next day, but, when time came for the game Baltimore had no team. The St. Louis players took to the field and umpire Caruthers waited five minutes for the home team to show up, then forfeited to St. Louis when the Orioles remained absent. It was the only forfeit the Browns were involved in during a half century of play.

Forfeit #2

The second forfeit game that didn’t start was scheduled for the Polo Grounds August 7, 1906 with the Chicago Cubs the visitors. During the game of the day before, umpire Jimmy Johnstone had made some decisions that aroused both teams against him. When Johnstone and Bob Emslie reached the ball park Johnstone was told he could not enter the grounds The Giants didn’t want him as an umpire after his performance of the day before. Emslie’s entrance was not barred so he went inside a short distance then retreated, refusing to take part in the game if his partner was refused admittance. Then Johnstone forfeited the game to the Cubs.

Source: Paul Doherty, SABR