Is it time to think about lowering the mound again?

675 runs is a far cry from 555, and nobody's winning batting titles with .301 averages.  I don't see much of a trend downward until 2010, and what trend there is seems to be a moderate decline.  I wouldn't lower the mound again.

Furthermore, what MLB does should not trickle down to amateur baseball, IMO.

IMO - the largest reason for the recent decline in run production, is attributed to a drop in the big power numbers, which is likely a result of the crack down on PED's.  It has always been touted that offense puts fans in the seats, and makes the game more enjoyable.  IMO - a 2-1 game is just as exciting.  

The HS, and College game has been affected by the change in bat (BBCOR), and the past few years, the CWS power numbers have been way down.  I don't particularly like altering the game to offset current trends.  I think the mound is low enough --- just my opinion.

I don't think any thing radical will be done nor should it be done to the height of the mound. The above RS chart itself shows that 675 RS per team is not historically low especially compared to the expansion years of 1961 and and most of the 1950's.

The drop is as mentioned above somewhat due to cleaning up most of the PED's, the normal cycle of pitching versus hitting, one being dominant for a while over the other, and the extreme number of K's by the batters which is due to a different outlook by batters as opposed to times as late as the 1970's.

Batters just aren't as concerned with their strikeouts as they were in past decades and to a certain extent neither are the clubs. The choke up the bat hitters that were three or four inches on the bat as late as the early 1970's no longer exists. Guys that would strike out 15-25 times are pretty much extinct since that time also. Now I know outs are outs whether they are by K or any other method and may not have a large affect on RS but putting the ball in play more leads to more hits, errors and of course DP's too. I think its just the mindset of just not having a plan and just going up there and swinging as hard as they can has cut down on RS a little.

The high scoring era of 1993-2009 was due not only to PEDs but also pitching was generally poor during this era, smaller parks were built, and some expansion took place. All of this added up to an explosion of offense. We may never see quite the perfect storm for offense in our lifetimes again but we are not in 1968 either. Believe me, I followed that season closely as you could in those days, and even saw Denny McLain win his 30th victory on national TV with a young Reggie Jackson hitting two Hrs to almost cost him the game.

Do you think that maybe the new era of managers or College coaches who were pitchers or catcher might change in the strategy of the game?

"one run vs the 3 run HR"

Question: can a coach teach a player to hit 3 run HR?

Bob

I would not lower the mound, but I would tighten the strike zone. 

I'm probably missing something, but I don't see in stats' table evidence that the height of the mound is the main factor. WAY too many other variables.

That said ... jemaz: at what levels do you think the strike zone should be tightened?

My experience, as the dad of a 2016 who's playing all over, is that hitters are not aggressive enough. When they're young, they need to HIT. Toomany are looking for walks. Tightening the zone only encourages that habit.

If you're talking about post-HS, I can't argue, because JP isn't there yet -- but whaddya think about pre-college?

Tightening the strike zone at the MLB level will make the TTO (BB/K/HR) approach to hitting worse, though it would probably boost the offense.

I don't think the offensive level is a real problem, and though I'm not particularly annoyed by the TTO approach to hitting, I can sympathize with those who'd prefer to see more balls in play.  One solution to that is to make the strike zone bigger (mainly up and down), not smaller.  Walks would go down, but with walks harder to come by the incentive to put the ball in play would go up, and I don't know that we wouldn't also see a decline (or at least not an increase) in strikeouts since a lot of the strikeout problem now is due to the incentive to take strikes to work the count.

Defenses are improving all the time too, though, so it's far from a guarantee that more balls in play would lead to more offense.

I don't see changing the height of the mound for pros as being a good thing.  Nor would "tightening the zone". It took long enough to open it up a bit (especially the high pitch). No one likes sitting through a walk-fest. Big innings in the majors are far and few between and they'll happen regardless of whether the mound is lower.  Earl Weaver disciples would be happy - two walks, followed by a grooved pitch, and a 3-run homerun...  Happens too often and we have the bullpen parade.  Turn an exciting game into a blowout in a hurry - now who really wants to sit through that?  Thank god for the remote control!

I definitely agree with jp24 - batters today are all too often taught to look at pitches. So their coach has them look at two right down the middle, then both bitch and moan when the umpire calls strike 3 on the edge. Keep the game moving - no small wonder why youth baseball loses athletes to other sports.

In college, I wonder how much changing the ball will affect things.  My son was at a camp yesterday and got to throw one... He said he couldn't get the feel of the ball for his change and curve. Cutters, splitters, forks, etc. type pitchers will have a tough time adjusting.  So if you're a batter and you know the pitcher cannot get 2, 3, 4 over for strikes, you're pretty much sitting dead red...  For reference:

http://community.hsbaseballweb.../college-ball-change

I agree. Has nothing to do with mound height but decline in PED use.

I don't agree with tightening the zone for HS, college, you get enough of that as you move up the milb ladder. 

Originally Posted by jp24:

…My experience, as the dad of a 2016 who's playing all over, is that hitters are not aggressive enough. When they're young, they need to HIT. Toomany are looking for walks. Tightening the zone only encourages that habit.

I happen to agree, but there are difficulties trying to present a case that hitters aren’t “aggressive” enough. How can aggressiveness be measured in a way that everyone at the amateur level could easily do it? I’ve monkeyed around with it in many different ways, but I have the luxury of a wide variety of data points most don’t have.

Using pitches per PA or AB just doesn’t give enough precision.

JohnF,

How long it takes for any college pitcher to get used to the seams will vary greatly from pitcher to pitcher, and it has nothing to do with their skills.

John F:

I don't see baseball losing players to other sports -- at least good ones. I know that some people will say that a lot of kids have turned to lacrosse, but the lacrosse players I have ever seen who gave up baseball were more of a case of baseball giving up on them. They might have been tough and athletic, but they just did not have the skills or quickness to stand out in baseball.

Throughout the history of the game, adjustments have been required that restore balance and (with the exception of PEDs) the balance is needed by the offense. Pitching always advances quicker than hitting.

Can't argue with "staying in the zone" -- but if the "zone" is two or three inches off the plate, and has been all game for both teams, they gotta swing, right? I know that kinda makes your point -- that the zone should be tighter, but as long as umps are human, I just don't see it changing.

Nice data but I don't like the idea of lowering the mound.  Until they're forced into boring shootouts, I don't see a problem at this point in time.