I'd like clarification on the enjoyment aspect because it doesn't sound like you particularly have an enjoyment benefit from a long extra innings game either. Which would you say gave you more enjoyment? I just wonder if people cling to the "extra innings to infinity" side of the argument only because that's how it's always been. I understand that change is hard but I find it difficult to accept that the traditional way is the only way crowd is right. I'm more receptive to the criticism of the runner on 2nd rule because it's too easy to score. How can a balance be struck that allows for a shorter experience while still feeling like the end result is earned and satisfying? I don't really enjoy long games, but the whole runner on second makes it not feel earned. It is just not a great way to see a game end when I invested 3+ hours in a night to watch it. So I don't enjoy either, but I really don't like the runner on 2nd. In reality I rarely even watch entire games. Either because I am busy or go to bed before 9 innings can even finish. 12+ inning games by year: 2019: 6 2018: 3 2017: 2 (both 12 innings) 2016: 3 2015: 2 What exactly are we trying to avoid? There are 162 games a year and we average, what, 4 of these longer games? Even with the rule in place we still see quite a few 11 inning games and an occasional 12 inning one. There is no middle ground to be struck. If you start the guy at 1st the rule becomes really pointless. I mean how many games does the average fan sit down and watch to the end very end? 1/3, maybe? So that fan is likely to encounter one long extra inning game a year. You would be surprised how many extra inning games went 10 or 11 innings before this rule: 2019: 9/15 2018: 13/16 2017: 14/16 2016: 10/13 2015: 7/9