Now that we've seen it a few times how do you feel about extra innings starting with a runner on 2nd base?

 

It’s just as stupid as I thought it would be. 

No. Burn it in a fire

Imagine if they started the extra innings with bases loaded and two outs. 😂

2 minutes ago, SirFishFan said:

Imagine if they started the extra innings with bases loaded and two outs. 😂

YA KNOW ...

Stinks.  Only makes sense this year and it still stinks to watch it.

30 minutes ago, SirFishFan said:

Imagine if they started the extra innings with bases loaded and two outs. 😂

This sounds like something Manfred would be all for.

I actually like it. Honestly, it adds a ton of pressure to get a win in the 9th.

The argument for it is that it creates a different strategy and can be fun to watch in a car wreck type of way but I just hate the awkward feeling of how we played a game for nine innings and we couldn't decide a winner (usually because both teams are playing well) and so now we need to break this tie but now the tiebreaker is something totally different it feels like we're playing something unrelated to the previous nine innings.

It's an extreme example to illustrate my point but it's like say you were in a foot race with someone and you get to the finish line at the same time and instead of doing another race to determine a winner you just decide to play paper rock scissors and let that decide it. 

1 minute ago, Photo-Realistic Billy said:

it adds a ton of pressure to get a win in the 9th.

Ok but was that pressure not already there? What team isn't trying to win before the 9th?

The new rule is complete trash and I will be very upset if it remains in the game beyond COVID-times. 

ditch it.  it's awful.  I'm sure it'll stay because it certainly ends games faster that head to extra innings - or it seems to anyway  but man, it feels like some shitty weird exhibition bs.

I've said this many times but at the very least wait until like the 13th inning or so if they plan to do this in the future. The point is to avoid extra long games so after 3 extra innings then maybe that can be a concern but there's no need for this in the 10th-12th innings. 

6 minutes ago, SilverBullet said:

I've said this many times but at the very least wait until like the 13th inning or so if they plan to do this in the future. The point is to avoid extra long games so after 3 extra innings then maybe that can be a concern but there's no need for this in the 10th-12th innings. 

Right. 10th inning is dumb, 11th inning still dumb. 12th is earliest I'd "accept" it.

5 minutes ago, Michael said:

Right. 10th inning is dumb, 11th inning still dumb. 12th is earliest I'd "accept" it.

Waiting 3 innings gives every spot in the lineup at least one more chance to bat. Seems like a fair trade off if they really wanna push this.

Hate it. 

I've been to minor league games where it was done and now have seen it in the majors and I get the reasoning behind it to save arms, but I hate it.  I also feel bad for the pitcher that comes in and gets a loss in that situation 

It's fucking stupid

22 minutes ago, fanofthefish said:

I've been to minor league games where it was done and now have seen it in the majors and I get the reasoning behind it to save arms, but I hate it.  I also feel bad for the pitcher that comes in and gets a loss in that situation 

Yeah, I didnt even take that into account, that's a very cheap "loss" to get hung on you and despite Wins and Losses not being looked at as closely as in olden days - I'm pretty sure pitchers still take pride in their W-L records.

1 hour ago, SilverBullet said:

Waiting 3 innings gives every spot in the lineup at least one more chance to bat. Seems like a fair trade off if they really wanna push this.

Agreed - and what's even the percentage of games that go into extra innings, let alone the 13th in a normal situation? (Normal being no auto-runner on 2nd of course)

So 13th would be OK with me, maybe 12th. And that's it.

1 hour ago, SilverBullet said:

Waiting 3 innings gives every spot in the lineup at least one more chance to bat. Seems like a fair trade off if they really wanna push this.

This sounds better to me.

1 hour ago, SilverBullet said:

I've said this many times but at the very least wait until like the 13th inning or so if they plan to do this in the future. The point is to avoid extra long games so after 3 extra innings then maybe that can be a concern but there's no need for this in the 10th-12th innings. 

I could get on board with this version.

This reminds a little of hockey with their 3 on 3 OT rule. That sucks and this sucks.

4 hours ago, SilverBullet said:

The argument for it is that it creates a different strategy and can be fun to watch in a car wreck type of way but I just hate the awkward feeling of how we played a game for nine innings and we couldn't decide a winner (usually because both teams are playing well) and so now we need to break this tie but now the tiebreaker is something totally different it feels like we're playing something unrelated to the previous nine innings.

It's an extreme example to illustrate my point but it's like say you were in a foot race with someone and you get to the finish line at the same time and instead of doing another race to determine a winner you just decide to play paper rock scissors and let that decide it. 

Nailed it.

Like I said before, reminds me of the hockey OT rule. So dumb.

1 hour ago, Mr. Man said:

This reminds a little of hockey with their 3 on 3 OT rule. That sucks and this sucks.

When did they do that?