SeaBass

Wouldn't it have been nice for the broadcasters to pay attention to his performance instead of doing an in depth interview with a mic'd up player in the outfield? I do understand that the in-game ability to talk with a player while he's playing the field can be a fun aspect of a broadcast but sometimes it can feel forced. I'm not sure Joe Buck is much of an asset in these types of things, his personality isn't exactly lighthearted and fun. Plus you've kind of taken away the attention from some guys, all-stars themselves, pitching or batting that also deserve their screen time and it might be their only appearance in the game. It's a difficult balance to strike. Buck's interview with Shohei Ohtani through his interpreter also felt a bit awkward, for the majority of the audience it feels like he's actually interviewing his interpreter, all I wondered about is "how accurately is the interpreter relaying Buck's questions to Shohei and Shohei's answers back to him/the audience?"

Corbin Burnes joins Rollie Fingers (1981) as the only Brewers pitchers to be credited with a loss in an ASG. There have been no Brewers pitchers to earn a win. Prince Fielder (2011) is the only Brewers player to earn the ASG MVP. As far as I can tell no Brewers pitcher has registered a save in an ASG. Former Brewers draftee and closer Doug Jones has an ASG save in 1989 while representing the Cleveland Indians and an ASG win in 1994 while representing the Philadelphia Phillies.

I remember getting our one mandatory guy and then it seemed like he'd never actually get into the game. It used to bother me that the Brewers have been in the league that's been beaten in ASGs going back what seems like forever, now I'm just used to it. This must be a similar feeling to what it's like being a fan of the Detroit Lions.

I think that's a really good point, I'd prefer a revision to the extra innings rules whether that's a runner on 2nd or something else but it won't be devastating to me if it just goes back to the traditional rules. The rule I want very badly is the universal DH. I feel like it's a near certainty to happen but we're talking about MLB and the union needing to agree on it and that's a whole different beast even though it seems both sides really want it.

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 For me it's not so much that a game might go 12 innings, that doesn't feel excessive. It's that any game could potentially add over an hour of play time. Generally I'd hope that in an average game 1 hour of play time would equal around 3 complete innings. 3 hours for a 9 inning game isn't the worst thing, some go longer and some are shorter. So you get to 12 innings and that's 4 hours. Baseball already has this issue with games being excessively long, that's not too long for me but for a more casual fan that might feel like it's not worth it. Now what if it was a longer than average game already and it's going to extra innings. With the runner on 2nd rule there is at least an expectation that the game will end in a timely manner once you've gotten to that point. Without it a viewer's expectation is left to the imagination. I think there is some value in having the expectation that the game will resolve sooner rather than later. What other sport has games last that long? The NFL with overtime could still end in a tie but rarely has since the adoption of the new rules, those games generally are resolved pretty quickly. The NBA has the 5 minute overtime which might add 10 to 15 minutes of game time but there can be multiple overtimes if games remain tied, those happen but not too often. I would venture that, without researching it, neither of those sports have an issue with extending the game for an hour or longer solely with overtime play. Yet baseball could easily do that and still be a 12 inning game. I think as fans we are entitled to a 9 inning game and once it gets to the point of extra innings finding a way to enhance an expectation that the game will resolve quickly would be beneficial for all parties involved in the contest.

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 like the runner on 2nd rule, there's something to be said for having a likelihood of a short period of extended play. The NFL has a path to shortened overtime, each team possesses the ball once and then it goes to sudden death. The NBA has a 5 minute period. Why does baseball have to extend for potentially hours? Perhaps they're open to tweaking it, runner on 1st instead of 2nd, maybe if the inning ends (one that begins with a runner on base) with 1 team ahead by only 1 run, with that margin being a result of only one total run scoring, an additional inning is played to see if that lead can stand. Maybe the 10th inning is played under normal rules before adding the runner on base to begin the 11th. Something. There has to be some option that works towards a conclusion that is somewhat speedy in the regular season. Heck, I think I'd even entertain having games end in a tie instead of enduring an 18 inning marathon that wrecks both teams' pitching staffs.

I think the Reds have a better offense and that's not exactly a controversial opinion. I'll take our pitching. Brewers just need to find ways to score enough runs. We just saw 3 two run games and a one run game, I don't think that's reason to panic. It also felt like every bad break under the sun came our way. It's not like the Reds were out there doing to us what we did to the Cubs a little while back. At worst we have to take one game in Cincinnati. Just don't get swept, winning 2 would be wonderful and sweeping them would be a huge bonus and great way too start the 2nd half.

Brewers didn't get the breaks this series. 4 really close games. I'm not going to overreact to it but in this moment it really sucks. That's why you want the 6 game cushion, so you can weather times like this.

Can we throw some blame at Avi Garcia's flubbed non-catch too?

Let's score some runs.

The cleat portion of his shoe is 3/4 of an inch tall. I don't know how "absolutely" can be determined from the angles provided. I don't have DVR, when I was watching the replays I thought his heel came up but I'm willing to hunt down a video to reevaluate. Yep looks clear cut to me. He does a little hop and the tag is definitely on him. Also, this was a bad time for Hader to lose his mojo.

The cleat portion of his shoe is 3/4 of an inch tall. I don't know how "absolutely" can be determined from the angles provided. I don't have DVR, when I was watching the replays I thought his heel came up but I'm willing to hunt down a video to reevaluate.

The Adames out stealing call, I think the foot absolutely came off the bag, what I'm not happy about is the defender's foot being the reason why.

Congratulations for being right? I still don't understand the need to be blatantly pessimistic but you do you. I don’t consider it pessimistic to hope to get out of an inning with a tie when the opponent has a runner in second with nobody out and a soft tossing, low strikeout pitcher is on the mound. I don’t understand the need for the self righteous, self proclaimed “better fans” to get bent out of shape when people vent. But, I guess, you do you. Nah, you blazed right past reasonable and right into fatalistic. Question the move, say you have a really bad feeling about it, that's fair. You straight out declared defeat or at best a continuation of a stalemate that didn't yet exist. If that's not pessimism to you maybe you need a refresher on the definition. Whatever, it's not my intention to suppress how you express yourself, it rubbed me wrong but it's not like it ruined my day.

I think this is a really good way of pointing out optimism for the Bucks, I know it's a Cowherd video but it's worth listening to the first 2 minutes. I checked out after that.

Congratulations for being right? I still don't understand the need to be blatantly pessimistic but you do you. I think hoping for the tie, starting with the runner on 2nd and Suter on the mound, was incredibly optimistic. Why? How is being that kind of a fan even rewarding? I can get negative and pessimistic with the best of them but expecting defeat before things even start going south just feels masochistic.

You are absolutely correct. Suter would not have been my choice there either and I don't have a problem with people questioning the move, having a bad feeling, etc. There was one person's method of criticizing it that I wasn't a fan of but the act of criticizing the move is more than fair.

It's one game. Let's not blow it out of proportion. It really sucks to lose a winnable game against a great pitcher but it's happened before and it will happen again.

Congratulations for being right? I still don't understand the need to be blatantly pessimistic but you do you.

Um, we have a lead... I think he's not that optimistic that it's going to stay that way. No I get what he meant, but come on.

Um, we have a lead...

Hey a run the hard way! Yelich comes through in the clutch!

Hooray for TV graphics! Also, Hader was bound to blow a save at some point. Is there ever a good time for it? Sigh. Keep it tied, Josh.

Thanks for the graphic guys (the TV guys). Seriously?