Great baseball is great baseball, regardless of time.

By: Joe Smeltzer

Photo creds to SB Nation

If you're a baseball fan, you've probably grown tired of either complaining about the pace of play, or tired of listening to others complain about the pace of play.

Once upon a time, baseball was fast moving. There weren't a lot of commercials there weren't a lot of pitching changes, and hitters didn't take a break every five minutes to adjust their stance, swing, or physical appearance. The players played, and the games moved quick. One of the greatest games in sports history, game seven of the 1960 World Series, known for Bill Mazeroski's walk-off home run, is also a perfect example of how different things were back in the good old days.

Every baseball fan is at least somewhat knowledgeable about the Pirates upset win over the mighty Yankees. But an amazing thing to consider about that game seven is that despite it being a high scoring affair, despite it being on national television and despite several mound visits from New York manager Casey Stengel the time of the game was two hours and 36 minutes. Today, if a nine-inning game in the middle of June ends in less than three hours, that's considered solid time.

I believe that every baseball fan sees slow moving games as an issue. The younger generation see a long game as a reason that baseball is dull, while older fans complain about how much faster things moved back in the day. Even for those who defend MLB and say that the pace isn't an issue, I have a hard time believing that they have never once complained about a game that dragged. As I watched Derek Fisher slide into home plate for the winning run Sunday night, I thought to myself; if a baseball game is compelling, does it matter how long it is?

A long time ago, I asked my dad what the longest movie he had ever seen was. I don't remember what his answer was specifically, but when I asked him why he sat through the whole thing, his answer was simple; "Because it was a good movie." The reason I refused to go to bed until after somebody took a 3-2 series lead was that I knew that what I was watching was a classic. I didn't care if the game lasted two, five or eight hours. There aren't a lot of things in this world that are better than an exciting baseball game.

It must be said, however, that I'm not a casual fan. I'm a hardcore baseball lifer that will love the game no matter what, so people like me aren't as bothered by the pace as casual fans are. But I think that the complaints that fans, whether hardcore or casual, are too broad at times, and the issue should be looked at on a case-by-case basis. Sunday night was a perfect example of how a long game can work.

When you look Sunday's game as five hours and 17 minutes of baseball, it seems like proof that the game is too damn slow. If you see it as five hours and 17 minutes of an exciting, back and forth, breathtaking real-life drama that will go down as one of the best games ever, it's proof that there is hope for baseball to thrive regardless of length.

I don't necessarily have a side on the issue of pace of play in baseball. I find baseball exciting just like every other fan, and I see a game that drags as a hassle just like everybody else does. I think Sunday's game would have been great if it went for twice as long as it did. Would Alex Bregman have gotten that winning hit about an hour earlier 40 years ago? Perhaps. But regardless of pace, Sunday's game was awesome and proves that the old game still has its magic.