I was skeptical about the pitch clock when it was introduced. I'm willing to admit I was mostly wrong about the downsides, while also noting some things that have played out differently than the optimists predicted.
Average game time dropped from about 3 hours 4 minutes in 2022 to roughly 2 hours 37 minutes in 2023 and has stayed in that range. This was the intended outcome and it largely worked. The games feel different — less dead time between pitches, more continuous action. Whether this has converted non-fans into fans is harder to measure, but attendance and ratings data suggest modest positive effects.
Pitchers lost a significant cognitive tool — the ability to reset, disrupt timing, and control the tempo of the at-bat through deliberate pauses. Some pitchers adapted well; others have openly struggled. The violation rate has decreased each year as players internalized the new rhythm. Position players report that the reduced inter-pitch time makes maintaining focus across nine innings more demanding.
Stolen base attempts increased dramatically — partly because of the limits on pickoff throws introduced alongside the pitch clock, which shifted the running game balance toward baserunners. Offense has slightly increased compared to the preceding years, though isolating the pitch clock's specific contribution from other variables is difficult. The pace changes have had different effects on different player types in ways that are still being analyzed.
Baseball is more watchable in 2026 than it was in 2019. The games are shorter, the action is more consistent, and the strategic dimensions haven't been lost — they've shifted. I still think some of the tradition-versus-innovation discourse around the changes was overheated in both directions, but the results have landed closer to the optimists' predictions than the skeptics'.
Real talk: The pitch clock worked. I was skeptical. The data changed my mind.
From experience: Analyzing performance data alongside athlete and coach perspectives reveals that factors separating elite from amateur performance are more psychological and habitual than purely physical — the mental game is underemphasized in most coverage.
Research published in the Journal of Sports Sciences demonstrates that psychological factors — specifically resilience, focus under pressure, and recovery from setbacks — account for a substantial portion of performance variance at elite levels where physical conditioning among competitors is roughly equivalent.

David Thompson is a sports journalist with 14 years of experience covering professional and amateur athletics across three continents. He has reported from four Olympic Games and numerous World Cup tournaments. David bri...