On April 29, 2015 one of the greatest natural experiments in the history of professional baseball was unknowingly carried out, and the results have profound implications for the future of baseball as we know it. At last we have an explanation for why baseball games are so long, and what Major League Baseball can do to shorten game times. MLB may not like the answer.
One game took place in Cincinnati, where the Brewers beat the Red by the final score of 8-3. There were 23,012 fans in attendance, and the game took nearly three hours to play (2 hours and 58 minutes, to be precise).
Meanwhile, 519 miles to the east, The Chicago White Sox lost to the Baltimore Orioles by the nearly identical score of 8-2. The game time was a mere 2 hours and 3 minutes, nearly an hour shorter than the game played in Cincinnati. The attendance in Baltimore? Zero.
Two baseball games were played on the same day, with nearly identical scores, one taking a full hour less time, and the principle difference between the two contests was that there were no fans to slow things down. MLB played the game without letting fans into the stadium in order to allow Baltimore’s strained police force to concentrate their attention elsewhere. Apparently cancelling the previous two games maxed out how many games could be rescheduled with the White Sox, and playing at the National’s ballpark in DC was not an option.
The Orioles’ next three games with Tampa Bay would be played in Florida, which should be an interesting natural experiment about whether home field advantage comes from sleeping in a familiar bed or getting to bat in the bottom of the ninth.
So, based upon a sample size of one game, we can conclude that having 23,000 fans in attendance will create a one hour delay in how long it takes to play a baseball game. Why should this be? Are ballplayers more efficient without fans to play to? Do batters not feel the need to step into and out of the box when there are no fans to impress? Do relief pitchers work faster when there is nobody there to be enthralled by their scowling and posturing?
Speeding up the game has been MLB’s primary mission this season. So far game times are down by nearly nine minutes, from 3 hours and 2 minutes last year to 2 hours 54 minutes so far this season. But imagine how far the average game time would drop if we could shave 56 minutes off a game merely by not letting anybody into the stands to watch it.
This is, admittedly, a radical solution. Obviously the biggest flaw in not allowing anyone into the stadium is the loss of revenue for the owners. But maybe that’s a good thing. One problem football is facing is that now it is preferable to watch football games in one’s own home on a large plasma TV screen than freezing in a stadium a mile away from the field. Now with instant replay and new “stat-cast” games that display statistical information like pitch speed, batted ball velocity, and the angle the ball was struck at, maybe watching baseball on TV is a better fan experience.
Build much smaller parks with limited seating, televise every home game, and live off of the TV revenue and ancillary money streams (like selling the seats from the old stadium you tore down to build the new smaller one).
MLB may have finally identified the biggest problem facing professional sports: the fans. Getting rid of the fans is the first step towards improving sports in America. Why go to a crowded stadium, get through security, pay $20 for a beer and a hot dog, and put up with the loud-mouthed yahoos around you when you can enjoy Vin Scully waxing poetic on a big screen TV at home?
Of course once the fans are eliminated, owners will work on developing a way to get rid of the players. You can’t stop progress.
No comments:
Post a Comment