What MLB Will Look Like in 20 Years

Nothing groundbreaking in those predictions.  I'm certain there will actually be changes that few are anticipating.  All of those were fairly predictable

3and2Fastball posted:

Nothing groundbreaking in those predictions.  I'm certain there will actually be changes that few are anticipating.  All of those were fairly predictable

Fair enough. But if it was easy to predict the next big trend we'd all be zillionaires.

I think the notion that the plate ump will move to the mound is ludicrous.  First of all, no, it's not easier to call pitches back there, and second, it's freaking dangerous.  However, I think that what we'll see is not that far from what is described. PU will have augmented reality headgear that shows the path of the pitch much like we see on TV but from his POV, with the zone visible.

Fans at games will also have all kinds of options for views on their augmented reality glasses, which will be as ubiquitous as smartphones are now. A fair number of people will also have chip implants, including athletes in other sports, though perhaps not baseball.  These won't turn them into Robocop - at this point they will just make info available to their augmented reality contact lenses without external devices, and allow trainers and coaches to track physical and performance data.

One thing that wasn't addressed at all is the rise in both velocity and velocity caused injuries.  Will the average pitch be 100mph?  Will the rate of TJ surgeries be nearly 100%? And will the rules be tweaked at all as a result?

Here's one more radical idea. Just as the copyright piracy of Napster and its successors ruined the model of the music business and forced musicans to go back to basics and make money performing in front of live audiences, the proliferation of pirated sports feeds on the internet will make network broadcasts obsolete and ruin the big money TV model, radically downsizing the sports industry and making teams earn their money from ticket sales, with both owners and athletes settling for a fraction of current rates.   This will be a very painful transition but one side effect is that games in all sports will become much faster as TV commercial breaks are no longer required.

Yeah, Kirkjian stated something to the effect of "what the game will look like.." so it was meant to be a safe prediction as opposed to anything groundbreaking.  

I totally agree, JCG, about the ump behind the mound.  That is NOT a good place to call pitches... very hard to get the top and bottom of the zone right from there.  I do think the game will eventually incorporate some level of electronic ball/strike calling before too long.

My prediction, unfortunately, is that peripheral entertainment at games will continue to be a bigger aspect.  Not a big fan of Star Wars theme night, although it seems to draw.  On the brighter side, I believe that food and beverage options will continue to improve as will comfort options such as misters, shade and heaters.  I would love to see the return of more grass berm, picnic areas and other family friendly options.

good article,  really spawns some other questions that may make interesting threads on this forum.

I have a few, but i'll start with one: 

   How will pro scouting and player evaluation change in the next 20 years? 

  I just watched my son go through this process over the past year.  starting with the tryouts for Area Code games, and East Coast Pro, and ending with the draft last week. 

I'm sure others on this board have in past years, or will going forward.  As a friend of mine said- "we've been doing this for a year, and I'm dumber now than when we started".    Our sons aside, as neither of them were drafted in the end. but looking back on the process it was fascinating-   it all seems unbelievably unscientific.   And seems like it is pretty much the same as it has must have been for the past many ( 20-30 ?) years. 

Run the 60, take infield/outfield, and BP.    the 60 still blows my mind, who cares how fast you run 60 yards?  Why isn't it 90 feet?   And if it is so important, why not make it consistent?  How can you compare kids that ran on turf to kids that run in uncut outfield grass against a 20mph wind?   If you want to test explosiveness/quick twitch athleticism, why no vertical jump or some other measurement. Seems like most scouts agree with this- but yet here we are still running 60?    that's just one example, I could go on,  but I'm through with my rant.  But it would be interesting to hear others thoughts on this.

I really don't understand why people get hung up on the technical details of the electronic strike zone (I do understand why people debate its inevitability). You don't need sensors. A governing body measures everyone's height at the beginning of every season, and that determines the top/bottom of his zone. You have long legs? You crouch more than another guy? Who cares??? The variation is insignificant, and as long as it's consistent it isn't worth worrying about. Guys will get used it quickly. Guys with longer arms don't get a wider strike zone, right?

As soon as someone introduces a reliable system that can tell where the ball passed through the rectangular prism above the plate (the pointed end doesn't really even come into play), we're ready for electronic balls and strikes.

pabaseballdad posted:

 

 How will pro scouting and player evaluation change in the next 20 years? 

  I just watched my son go through this process over the past year.  starting with the tryouts for Area Code games, and East Coast Pro, and ending with the draft last week. 

I'm sure others on this board have in past years, or will going forward.  As a friend of mine said- "we've been doing this for a year, and I'm dumber now than when we started".    Our sons aside, as neither of them were drafted in the end. but looking back on the process it was fascinating-   it all seems unbelievably unscientific.   And seems like it is pretty much the same as it has must have been for the past many ( 20-30 ?) years. 

Run the 60, take infield/outfield, and BP.    the 60 still blows my mind, who cares how fast you run 60 yards?  Why isn't it 90 feet?   And if it is so important, why not make it consistent?  How can you compare kids that ran on turf to kids that run in uncut outfield grass against a 20mph wind?   If you want to test explosiveness/quick twitch athleticism, why no vertical jump or some other measurement. Seems like most scouts agree with this- but yet here we are still running 60?    that's just one example, I could go on,  but I'm through with my rant.  But it would be interesting to hear others thoughts on this.

 

I strongly agree.  I think Scouting will change dramatically, incorporating all kinds of ways to measure biomechanical data that hasn't even been invented yet.    I could see the 60 taking on less importance in favor of the 30 & 10, but still being run as a means of measuring general athleticism

I think DNA testing will be a huge part of scouting 20 years from now (maybe 10), enabling scouts to better project where an athlete will be in 5-10 years in terms of growth & durability and scouts will have a much better look at athletic potential through science.

There will be medical breakthroughs in terms of surgery, and some sort of preventative Tommy John will be as common as Lasik is right now.

There will be a push back against it, but in 20 years International players will be part of the MLB Draft

Mid - Yup, that's what I always thought would make most sense.  A guy will be assigned one of maybe 4 to 6 different top/bottom size zones based on height.  Should be very simple to implement now, based on the much more complex version currently being used in tennis.  Seems like they have it down to fractions of an inch.