Strikeouts are killing baseball

I'd probably go for 2-0.

It would mean managers would be damn sure before making mid-inning pitching changes, because your new pitcher would have to open up with a couple grooveballs right down the middle.
It would also put an absolute end to one-batter situational pitching changes.

 

LOOGY is one of the great acronyms though.

 

It's one of ciscforkoke's lame attempts to engage the board. It doesn't really mean anything, but he desperately wants it to inspire the masses.

 

Dick, highly doubt the avg time of game of his starts was 2:20. For me, would rather watch hard throwers, even those with bad control. Buehrle of course was a very good pitcher, just I like watching guys who throw hard.

 

Here are his first 18 starts one of the years I covered him:

1 - 2:46
2 - 2:34
3 - 2:36
4 - 3:01
5 - 2:43
6 - 2:45
7 - 3:01
8 - 2:20
9 - 2:34
10 - 2:20
11 - 2:14
12 - 2:50
13 - 2:57
14 - 2:18
15 - 3:02
16 - 2:31
17 - 2:04
18 - 2:18

 

Buehrle worked fast as hell. He's a legend among beat writers for getting us to the bar after the game in record time.

When he was with the White Sox, the joke was that if he pitched on Fireworks Night, everyone would have to wait around after the game was over for it to get dark.

 

2:04! The sub-two hour baseball game is nearly as elusive as the sub-two hour marathon.

God love Mark Buehrle.

 

My experience suggests beat writers are far more apt to complain about the length of games than fans. I think this skews perception.

 

I don't think fans necessarily process it that way, i.e. that the raw length of the game is bothersome. The problem is that the game drags because there is so much down time.

 

This is possible. I was obsessed with time of game when I was on the beat, mostly because I had a deadline to hit. A guy would get beaned and be out cold on the dirt and I'd be like, GET UP YOU FAKER TIME'S A WASTIN'.