every playoffs is a variancefest but people like it because it adds perceived parity and excitement and certain media folks like it because they can build narratives like "team x chokes" or "some stuff just doesn't work in the playoffs" when teams are just running bad. And obv. the leagues like it because of the $$$

Baseball's popularity would come back if they would just let the players juice. Was a much better game in the 90's early 2000's.

Baseball games taking longer than they used to is 90% about more frequent pitcher changes, and more pitchers being used per game.

I went in to BBREF earlier hoping to find some telling data but did not. I went back to 1985 and checked on the length of all the Game 7s of the WS (most important games) to see how long they were.

1985 2:46 11 runs scored 9 innings
1986 3:11 13 runs scored 9 innings (Buckner game)
1987 3:04 6 runs scored 9 innings
1991 3:23 1 run (10 innings) JACK MORRIS MUSTACHE GOAT HALL OF FAMER GRIT GAME
1997 4:10 5 runs (11 innings)
2001 3:20 5 runs 9 innings (best game OAT?)
2011 3:17 8 runs 9 innings

Kinda surprised. I would have expected to see a much larger increase. But I gave up after looking at these games only. I know there are games over 4 hours in the playoffs but not going to dig them up.

The running clock after a false start is the dumbest rule in sports, and I'm shocked someone hasn't used it to intentionally run time off the clock yet

Funny, I was just talking about this rule. If I feel it's an abuse of the timing rules I can start the clock on the snap. I could also throw an unsportsmanlike.

You are right though, it's a bad rule and it will probably change.

don't be, in '85, '86, and '11 the game 7's were an afterthought because all the drama took place in the game 6's of those series.

it'd probably be more instructive to look at all world series games but it'd also take a lot longer.

here's a good case study

2001 WS by Time:
1) 2:44 2) 2:35 3) 3:26 4) 3:31 (10) 5) 4:15 (12) 6) 3:33 7) 3:20

and the only reason game 6 took more than the other 3 NL-rules games was because the D-Backs scored 15 runs.

You're telling me those game 7s went quickly b/c the team that lost game 6 didn't really care anymore and was just going through the motions?

LOL @ that.

I mean I agree that the game 7s aren't automatically going to be the most important or longest games but it was an easy way to keep the data fair for my almost non-existent research attempt.

in '85 all 11 runs were scored by the same team.

2011 texas scored 2 in the top of the 1st, STL scored 2 in the bottom of the 1st, texas only got 3 hits in the last 8 innings.

'86 is a less obvious case, boston had a 3-0 lead headed into the sixth, didn't matter. last 4 innings went 3 - 3 - 2 - x.

so yeah it looks to me like they just didn't have it anymore.

this inexplicably happened to the lakers all the time in the past decade.

2003: SA wins game 5 96-94 (Horry misses game winner), LA implodes game 6 AT HOME and loses by 28.

2004: to quote ILOVEPOKER929 "PISTONS GOAT"

2006: bryant wins game 4 to take 3-1 series lead, lose game 6 in OT, implode in game 7 and lose by 31.

2008: boston was just better, but come on... 131-92 with a chance to go to a game 7?

2011: i mean, dallas did some version of this to everybody that playoffs but they came back in the 4th quarters of both games 1 and 3 which led to... 122-86

sometimes teams reach a moment where they just know it's not going to happen and they mentally check out. that's why they call it 'getting game 6'd' now.

That's soccer. Scores would be 3 to 2. It would kill fantasy football.

that would be awful, all you have to do to kill offense is have all 11 line up on the line of scrimmage.

wait, i just described... rugby?

A muffed punt that goes out the back of the end zone is a safety

If you want to speed up baseball games, eliminate warm ups that go on at the start of every half inning. Have the players/pitcher keep loose in the dugout or in a facility directly behind it.

Boom, about 40 unnecessary minutes of non action shaved off a 9 inning game. Maybe give the pitcher 2 warm up pitches off the game mound before each inning. By the time he's thrown those 2 warm ups the fielders will have had enough time to hustle out to their positions, which will in turn keep them loose. It isnt necessary to spend 2 or 3 minutes prior to every half inning having the fielders lazily toss balls to each other.

No other sport wastes so much time having the players warm up again and again each time they take the field.

But personally, i enjoy baseballs slow pace

If you eliminate warmups between innings, how are you going to pay the players' salaries without all those beer commercials.

This seems like a no-brainer.

Unless of course the false start happens when a trailing team has the ball, in which case the clock *should* run so they can't get free timeouts at a cost of only five yards. Which is exactly why the rule is for the clock to run.

And by rule, the referee has discretion to not run the clock, and instead start it on the snap, if the offense has the lead, and in the ref's judgment the offense is gaining an "unfair" advantage by the clock running.

In other words: the rule is perfectly fine. The refs who enforced it improperly during the Alabama game yesterday, on the other hand, are not fine.

It's a terrible rule because it already exists, and it's boring as hell; it's called the Kansas City Chiefs' offense.

Football. Retire the chains. For nearly 20 years TV has been faster and better at calling 1st downs than the refs.

Even in this case I don't see if it's that huge a problem...for a team to false start intentionally, the offensive linemen have to be set, in which case you're practically ready to run another play anyway. Not like you'll be saving more than like 5 seconds of clock in exchange for the 5 yards.

. Nvm

Not sure if it's been posted already ITT, but the sec admits the refs made a mistake running the clock after a false start in the Bama arky game.

http://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/ark...clock-mistake/

is this the right rule? I have seen it continue running after penalties on the offense tons of times not just this year, but over several seasons.

By default, the clock runs after offensive penalties, but there are specific exceptions carved out if the offense is also protecting a lead late in the game.

Committing a penalty is, by definition, an "obviously unfair" tactic, and by rule the refs should not have run the clock after Alabama's false start. Or after Rutgers committed a false start late in the game last week, for that matter.