MLB Pitch Clock Problems: Better Now than Later

By LOU ORLANDO AST. SPORTS EDITOR

Picture the scene. Bottom of the ninth. Tie game. Bases loaded. Two outs. A 3-2 count. You can’t dream up a better scenario. All of the possibilities and all of the tension. No matter what happens, this will undoubtedly be thrilling. We could see a game winning hit or a game saving strikeout. Perhaps even a foul ball to keep things right where we stand. Or maybe… a pitch clock violation resulting in strike three? Well, that seems kind of anticlimactic.

That’s exactly what happened in a Spring Training game between the Atlanta Braves and the Boston Red Sox. With the game tied 6-6, Boston’s Ryan Kwiatkowski got set to deliver a full count, two-out pitch to Atlanta’s Cal Conley. There was just one problem — Conley wasn’t ready to hit. A pitch clock violation was called, and the game ended in a 6-6 tie.

It’s been an inauspicious start for Major League Baseball’s new pitch clock. Starting this season, a timer will be put in place to help improve the pace of play. This involves enforcing a 30-second timer in between batters, a 15-second timer in between pitches and a limit to the number of pickoffs. Furthermore, a batter must be in the box and ready to hit with eight seconds left on the timer. Needless to say, it’s an adjustment, and unsurprisingly, one the fans aren’t too thrilled about.

Anytime changes are made to a sport like baseball in which tradition is so closely rooted to its core, there’s going to be pushback and outrage. And naturally, anytime a game ends because of a pitch clock violation, there’s going to be rage, chaos and potentially threats of extreme violence towards MLB commissioner Rob Manfred.

Now, it’s worth noting that if the Braves-Red Sox exhibition game were a regular season affair, the game would not end, but rather move into extra innings (where fans would get to see a ghost runner at second — but that’s a separate discussion). Still, no one wants to see a game go into extra innings because of a pitch clock violation. Especially not with the bases loaded and a full count. What if the game wasn’t tied? What if a team won a regular season game because of a pitch clock violation? These are all valid concerns that people have every right to ask.

The goal of the pitch clock is to speed up a game that was trending in the wrong direction in terms of average game length. In 2022, the average length of a baseball game was three hours and six minutes. The previous year, it was a record three hours and 11 minutes. In the small sample size of Spring Training, games are averaging closer to two hours and 30 minutes, an average runtime we haven’t seen since the 1970s. If this average were to hold up over the course of the regular season, it would be the first time since 2011 that the average length of an MLB game was under three hours. Outside of a blip in 2000, the average length of a game was under three hours for every season in existence prior to 2012. It’s only been until fairly recently that we’ve crossed the three-hour barrier.

I think it’s important to highlight that this rule has the game’s best interest in mind. A quicker pace would lead to less dead time between pitches and more action every minute. Furthermore, the pitch clock would theoretically make it more difficult for pitchers to throw max effort every pitch. This would suggest an uptick in contact and a decrease in the home run-or-bust, swing-and-miss game about which fans often complain. The MLB very clearly believes that more balls in play equals more action.

Critics raise the point that sometimes the game slowing down is a good thing, particularly in these big moments. I don’t necessarily disagree, but I also think we’re conditioned to think that way because that’s how we’ve consumed every big moment. A couple summers ago, I sat down and watched some of the postseason games from the Mets’ 1986 World Series run. I’m no Mets fan, but it really is some of the