Recently read a few articles about that. Suggestions were lower mound, smaller strike zone and one even suggested moving the mound back (the rationale was that the geometric middle of the home to second diagonal is actually 63 feet and not 60 so it would be logical to have the rubber at 63).
Would create more actuon and offense. Would suck for the pitchers but if every pitcher had a 5 era it just would be a differetdifferent baseline.
Replies sorted oldest to newest
MLB is in big trouble and reducing Ks isn't going to help much, as seen by the new pace of play changes to speed up the game.
Why would a 5ERA be acceptable to a pitcher who is hoping to one day make the Hall of Fame?
The length of the game as well as higher costs to attend has become a real concern for MLB. They are losing fan attendance ( with exceptions) at the stadium as well as viewership ( especially among the younger generation) on TV. Also the lack of talent, as well as changing the roster too frequently hasn't helped.
JMO
In a word, no. MLB should not do anything at all. This strikeout situation (I'd call it an epidemic!) lies in the decisions hitters are making or not making. Strikeouts are at an all time high because hitters are being taught :
1) to come out of their cleats and swing for the fences even with two strikes. The idea of choking up, and putting a ball in play is absolutely foreign in todays professional game.
2) hit the lower half of the ball to impart a launch angle. So not only do they want athletes to do one of the hardest things in all of sports (hit a fast moving ball that has spin) but they want you to hit the lower half of the ball. Good luck with that at any level!
Possibly MLB could publish and distribute a pamphlet on swing reduction and hitting line drives to better help their hitters.
PS...I was watching an MLB game the other day. The infield had shifted entirely to the right side. There were 4 IFs from 2nd based to 1st base. They were giving this guy a bunt single to any place on the left side of the infield. He wouldn't take it. He struck out looking. That in a nutshell is what is wrong with hitters in todays professional game.
The game is perfect the way it is, it just needs smarter players willing to do things to help their team.
As always, JMO
I like the part about needing smarter players willing to do things to help their team.
Fenway IMO nailed it.
Sabermetrics actually encourage the swinging for the fences. they say that basically an out in play isn't much better than a K and it is not worth trading off power for contact.
also it isn't clear that the hitters are to blame for the Ks. this article says it might be mostly more velo and more breaking balls https://www.fangraphs.com/blog...-all-the-strikeouts/ and also there isn't a clear relationship between Ks and higher launch angle.
Totally agree with Fenway. The launch angle "revolution" may have led to more long fly balls leaving the park, but it also makes hitters who relentlessly pursue launch angle ripe for the pickings by the likes of Corey Kluber.
Over time, as hitters and pitchers adjust to each other, the game will reach some new equilibrium between power and contact. I think you see that already in the likes of Jose Ramirez and Francisco Lindor, both of whom are hitting lots of dingers, but mostly of the line drive variety. And Ramirez in particular almost never strikes out.
I thought of myself as a big MLB fan, but this past weekend when we were at a tournament out of state gave me perspective on the type of fan I am. I think I'm really just a fan of my favorite team, for the most part (the Brewers)
When killing time at the hotel in between my kids' games, since we were out of market the Brewers weren't on. I watched the College World Series a lot and the World Cup a little, but wasn't interested in whatever random MLB game was on.
I still love the MLB postseason, but mostly, I realized, during the season I just follow my team.
If the Angels were on more often, I'd watch them. Trout is must see TV
Just my two cents
Players are too worried about their "next contract" and forgetting that baseball in general is a game of failure. All the new 3 and 4 letter symbols for contrived statistics that the normal person cannot fathom - get rid of them. String together a few hits however you can - 4 straight hits have to lead to at least 1 run. Once you get a couple on, pressure on the pitching/defense builds up. Not taking opportunities given you by beating the shift is just senseless. Watched Mariners and Red Sox the other night - knuckleballs from one side and precision pitching from the other, nothing to do with velocity - didn't like the outcome, but appreciated the pitching efforts.
Read something today where Manfred was partially blaming weather for the drop in attendance. As if!!! As usual the answers to those issues can be round right here on this site by the collective knowledge of HSBBW! No need for surveys and studies. Perhaps MLB needs change at the top of the batting order. Get in touch with the game rather than shaking hands with all the execs and kissing company's $$'s in order to gain revenue. Those companies are probably looking at the most recent tax law changes and perhaps rethinking their own ticket purchasing policies and sponsorship options. Don't wait until it's too late.
I do think mlb will look for more high contact hitters now. MLB has confirmed that the ball is juiced and because of this it might make sense to have contact hitters who have decent but not great pop and can lift the ball, because if you make contact with this ball at a decent angle it flies out and you don't have to swing super hard.
lindor and altuve are like this. they have a bit of pop but nothing special in that regard but they square so many balls up that they will still hit 25 bombs or so.
but the time of the pure slap hitting infielder who doesn't strike out and hits 6 homers a year is over I believe.
Read something today where Manfred was partially blaming weather for the drop in attendance.
The weather has improved. Attendance has not.
You can’t watch every game unless you don’t have a life, But until last year I had the Red Sox game on in the background almost every day. I watched less last year. The only full game I’ve watched this year is opening day. I used to always watch the MLB tv morning after “game in twenty minutes” where they only show the result pitch. I didn’t bother to purchase MLB tv for the first time in several years this year.
The Red Sox are a candidate to bomb a team on any given night. They score a lot of runs. But they don’t score in that many innings or even threaten to score. Rather than watch the game I often check the line score, watch the innings they score and then the last two innings if the game. There are too many boring innings. Last year the Sox were almost unwatchable. And they won their division!
I would rather bike to and be outside watching a high school or travel game than watch MLB. Big deal Chris Sale has a 10:9 K:Inn ratio. Everyone does.
From the Bill Chuck files — “In Joey Gallo’s first 68 games with the Rangers this season, he whiffed 99 times. In 1935, Hall of Famer Jimmie Foxx led the AL with 99 strikeouts in 147 games and 649 plate appearances.’’
- Boston Sunday Globe
Here is another option. I am not advocating this necessarily nor is it my intent to sidetrack this post. There are players who K (either swing or called) frequently because they perceive the pitch being a strike based on how home blue strike zone is that day. If a computer were calling pitches it will be fairly consistent throughout the game and season. A test run was conducted with a minor league team for some games. Results were analyzed and categorized by an ivy league college professor. I don't recall the exact results but I do remember the computer was much more accurate than a human, percentage of questionable balls/strikes decreased, there were minimal extra time it added between pitches. If the batter no longer has to "guess" if blue is going to call a perceived strike they will decrease chasing after those pitches, thus 'theoretically" may not K as much. Just something to file away in your personal filing cabinet.
Homeruns and offense are exciting, so deadening the ball seems like a non-starter. With increased "HR-swings" comes increased strikeouts.
Now they might decide to eliminate the defensive shifts. My so, a LH hitter, would drop bunts all day long if all 4 defenders were right of 2B. Actually, he hits to all fields so much I doubt "the book" would say to shift. Heck, getting bunt base hits, I've been told, is a hoot.
Trust In Him posted:Here is another option. I am not advocating this necessarily nor is it my intent to sidetrack this post. There are players who K (either swing or called) frequently because they perceive the pitch being a strike based on how home blue strike zone is that day. If a computer were calling pitches it will be fairly consistent throughout the game and season. A test run was conducted with a minor league team for some games. Results were analyzed and categorized by an ivy league college professor. I don't recall the exact results but I do remember the computer was much more accurate than a human, percentage of questionable balls/strikes decreased, there were minimal extra time it added between pitches. If the batter no longer has to "guess" if blue is going to call a perceived strike they will decrease chasing after those pitches, thus 'theoretically" may not K as much. Just something to file away in your personal filing cabinet.
I agree. However most sabermetric studies say the electronic ump would increase Ks because umps still call a smaller zone than the book says.
If you do electronic ump you likely have to tighten the rulebook zone.
If you make the zone smaller, in theory then you end up with more walks and less offense other than maybe more runs by walks. The game takes longer and you lose more interest. I wonder what percentage of people would rather see a 2 hour game that is 2-1 or 3-2 vs a 4 hour game that is 10-12? I don't think you can look at one solution in a vacuum without looking at game times. I would think that expanding the zone (or calling it as rule book says) would actually make the game better and quicker IMHO. If guys are striking out at record pace with the zone shrinking, making it smaller will just allow them to sit on pitches more.
I am not one of those that loves to see HRs. 5 or more pitches for a strikeout will shorten the pitchers time on the mound and makes the game longer.
What happened to the strategy? There is none, but swing for the fences. I don't care for the shift, get rid of it.
Big problem is that MLB is losing the younger generation. Football and basketball has taken over. They prefer the faster paced, shorter time span sports.
I have watched 1, ONE ML game on TV. I don't plan on watching again until playoffs, hoping someone else gets in this year. Unless you are a true fan, it's tough to give up 4 hours. It's just not fun to watch anymore.
JMO
If the MLB owners wanted to reduce strikeouts they would with the approval of the player agents negotiate a system of "bonus" $$$ for a % of strikeouts to the # of "At Bats". Williams, DiMaggio, Mays, Aaron, Clemente all had a very low strikeout ratio to the # of AB's for each season.
Bob
Not sure if it was much noticed, But MLB and a private equity firm with long ties to professional baseball, have agreed to purchase the Rawlings Sporting Goods company.
Of interest to this discussion in my opinion, is the Press statement from MLB....
“MLB is excited to take an ownership position in one of the most iconic brands in sports and further build on the Rawlings legacy, which dates back to 1887,” said Chris Marinak, MLB’s executive vice president for strategy, technology & innovation, in a press statement. ” We are particularly interested in providing even more input and direction on the production of the Official Ball of Major League Baseball, one of the most important on-field products to the play of our great game.”
MLB will now have the control of the ball's manufacture. If that is an avenue that might be taken.
