What’s the last two words of ...

2008: Number of teams averaging less than 7 Ks/ game - 20

2018: Number of teams averaging less than 7 Ks/ game - 0

I doubt anybody on Eastern Time made it through that game unless their team was in it.  Going to bed in the tenth was the smartest thing I’ve done in a while.

The last two words for me were "good night".  I looked when I got up this morning. 

All the analytics have ruined the action in baseball. Singles, base running, situational hitting all create plays and force action. The new age of launch angle and pull everything because it might result in a home run is killing the action in baseball. 20 strikeouts is becoming the norm for a game now. Sure pitchers are better, but are hitters getting worse or are they just more selfish? Take a look at the list of most strikeouts in a season. 90% of them are from 2004 on. About 60% from 2010 on. How players don't bunt away from the shift is absolutely beyond me. Guys hitting .230 are leading off in a tie game with nobody on the left side of the infield and striking out on 3 pitches. Homers are exciting, but not when they're sandwiched between 6 strikeouts and 4 pop outs. Yeah Stanton hits moon shots, but he's on a $300 mill contract to lead the league in strikeouts. It's not fun to watch and it will be a problem when the younger generation stops watching games on TV

I don’t believe the hitters are worse. I believe the hitters are doing what the analytics demand. The analytics say “this” is how you win a baseball game. It’s changed how the game is played. It changes how we accept what we see as viewable baseball. 

Despite the numbers the Sox put up this year and the number of games they won there were plenty of games I got bored watching.

Every post season has a hitting hero turned flop. There’s also a hero out of nowhere. I would have to say Mookie Betts is the hitting hero turned flop this post season.,

PABaseball posted:

All the analytics have ruined the action in baseball. Singles, base running, situational hitting all create plays and force action. The new age of launch angle and pull everything because it might result in a home run is killing the action in baseball. 20 strikeouts is becoming the norm for a game now. Sure pitchers are better, but are hitters getting worse or are they just more selfish? Take a look at the list of most strikeouts in a season. 90% of them are from 2004 on. About 60% from 2010 on. How players don't bunt away from the shift is absolutely beyond me. Guys hitting .230 are leading off in a tie game with nobody on the left side of the infield and striking out on 3 pitches. Homers are exciting, but not when they're sandwiched between 6 strikeouts and 4 pop outs. Yeah Stanton hits moon shots, but he's on a $300 mill contract to lead the league in strikeouts. It's not fun to watch and it will be a problem when the younger generation stops watching games on TV

IMO, MLB does have a problem, because many people agree with you. But analytics isn't doing anything. The teams that use data to make decisions are winning more than those who don't. No team is going to stop doing that just because many people don't like the style of play. Average runs scored per game was 4.45 this year. That's higher than 2010-2015. Teams aren't playing for singles (incl bunt singles) because the pitching is so good. They can't string together enough of those hits to score. FB velocity has increased 4 mph since 2000. Similar for most offspeed pitches. The pitchers are just better than the hitters right now. And or course the shift has made singles even harder to come by. Lowering the mound, shrinking the strike zone, or something else to help the offense might change the equation back to favoring getting men on base. But right now, following the data leads to runs and wins.

BTW, I'm in the minority that enjoys the modern game. (Not more than when I was a kid, but I still enjoy it.) For me, there's action in the pitcher vs hitter battles. The pitchers are making unbelievable pitches. And the defenses can be insanely good.

To each his own, it’s not 1965 anymore. Dudes aren’t smoking in between innings and taking amphetamenes to stay up from benders the night before.  

MidAtlanticDad posted:

IMO, MLB does have a problem, because many people agree with you. But analytics isn't doing anything. The teams that use data to make decisions are winning more than those who don't. No team is going to stop doing that just because many people don't like the style of play. 

BTW, I'm in the minority that enjoys the modern game. (Not more than when I was a kid, but I still enjoy it.) For me, there's action in the pitcher vs hitter battles. The pitchers are making unbelievable pitches. And the defenses can be insanely good.

Look at the WS winners in the past 10 years. With the exception of the 09 Yankees they were all teams who hit for average, got on base, played small ball, and did not strike out often. So the teams who rely on the data are not winning more often. I have no problem with the data. Matchups, lineups, pinch hitters, etc. My problem is more with the launch angle, attack angle, etc and practicing it as religion. Man on 2nd no outs and an 0-2 count, maybe forget about the launch angle and try to move the runner over. But that doesn't happen. Situational hitting and good baseball gets dismissed because people believe that the strikeout is worth the chance for a homer. Players like LaStella and Torreyes can't crack a roster because they don't have a high enough WAR or hit HRs. 

People can live with Sosa, Judge, Trout, Dunn striking out because they hit 40+ HRs a year and most of the time hit over .290 (except for Dunn).  But when you hit .238 with 20 something homers you're really no good to the team. 

Baseball's problem is not the HRs, its the 20 strikeouts they're mixed in with. Ks = no action

Last night I kept thinking ... There’s another fly out to the outfield. It seemed like there were a lot. The game seems like strikeout, flyout or homer to me. 

The shifts have made it so that it is virtually impossible to get a ground ball hit, especially with the bases empty.  The proliferation of quality relievers means that a hitter never faces a tired pitcher, and doesn't see the same guy more than twice in a game.  That said, I'm still loving it as much as ever.  The strategy is still there, its just moved on from deciding when to bunt or steal to figuring out who should pitch to whom.

K9 posted:

... I'm still loving it as much as ever.  The strategy is still there, its just moved on from deciding when to bunt or steal to figuring out who should pitch to whom.

Matchup baseball is ok to a point.  But every pitching change means I have to see four or five more commercials (one of which is guaranteed to be a Chevy ad I have seen 300 times, allegedly featuring "real people, not actors").  Or on the rare occasions I actually get to attend an MLB game, I have to listen to the same old pop songs while the scoreboard video screen plays a "kiss cam" or some such (which is OK in small doses, but not for every inning plus 11 calls to the bullpen).

I wonder if the rules should limit pitching changes?  (They did it for mound visits--that has worked out ok.)  Of course, you'd still have to allow teams to replace an injured P, so maybe you'd see soccer-style faking, with guys grabbing their ankles and writhing on the ground, then getting up and jogging off the field...?

The postseason has long been a different animal.  But in most games, I hate seeing a guy come in to face a single batter (often followed by two other guys who face two batters each, then the set-up guy, then the closer).  I love a good pitching duel, but 9-inning regular season games shouldn't last 3 hours.

I don't really have an issue with the three hour games. High school games take 2 hours and they're only 7 innings with a lot less pitching changes. 

I think the commercials in between innings are what's really doing it for me. Too much downtime. 3 minutes of commercials is a long time, especially when the pitchers only get 5 warmups. They gotta make their money, but I think it will hurt them eventually  

K9 posted:

The shifts have made it so that it is virtually impossible to get a ground ball hit, especially with the bases empty.  The proliferation of quality relievers means that a hitter never faces a tired pitcher, and doesn't see the same guy more than twice in a game.  That said, I'm still loving it as much as ever.  The strategy is still there, its just moved on from deciding when to bunt or steal to figuring out who should pitch to whom.

Strongly agree.  I love where the game is right now.  And love the innovations in strategy and approach.

3and2Fastball posted:

K9 posted:

The shifts have made it so that it is virtually impossible to get a ground ball hit, especially with the bases empty.  The proliferation of quality relievers means that a hitter never faces a tired pitcher, and doesn't see the same guy more than twice in a game.  That said, I'm still loving it as much as ever.  The strategy is still there, its just moved on from deciding when to bunt or steal to figuring out who should pitch to whom.

Strongly agree.  I love where the game is right now.  And love the innovations in strategy and approach.

I agree hitters today aren't likely to get ground ball hits.  But is that because of the shift, or because hitters 1) work on uppercut swings, not on driving the ball to all fields and 2) get paid for HRs, not for singles, even to the extent they could get them?  Granted they were special talents, but nobody would have shifted on Tony Gwynn, Rod Carew, Ichiro in his prime...  Those guys faced very different pitching, true.  But it seems to me that if/when teams decide they will pay for ground ball singles, we will see more of them again. 

I get that hitting a 98 mph fastball at all is hard, even for professionals.  But I shake my head when I see a RH hitter trying to pull the ball when he is facing no infielders to the right of second base. 

PABaseball posted:

I don't really have an issue with the three hour games. High school games take 2 hours and they're only 7 innings with a lot less pitching changes. 

I think the commercials in between innings are what's really doing it for me. Too much downtime. 3 minutes of commercials is a long time, especially when the pitchers only get 5 warmups. They gotta make their money, but I think it will hurt them eventually  

Sure, some 3-hour games fly by, while some 2.5 hour games seem to take forever.  

How about limiting pitching changes?  It would change in-game strategy--maybe not in a good way.  I am always reluctant to see major rule changes, but I wonder if this might help save baseball from disappearing down a black hole of stats-driven tedium.

I'd obviously like to see less, but I don't have a problem with the pitching changes. It's the commercials during the pitching changes that make me lose interest. Would prefer to see a quick 60-90 second spot then back to the action. 

The commercial breaks seem long because they were only two minutes during the regular season. I timed the ads to three and a half minutes in the World Series.

BUT, those split screen ads in between pitches have to go! Maybe they can be ignored during the regular season to have two minutes inning breaks. But, cut it out with two strikes on a hitter in the 9th inning of a potential championship clinching game.

PABaseball posted:

 

Look at the WS winners in the past 10 years. With the exception of the 09 Yankees they were all teams who hit for average, got on base, played small ball, and did not strike out often. So the teams who rely on the data are not winning more often. I have no problem with the data. Matchups, lineups, pinch hitters, etc. My problem is more with the launch angle, attack angle, etc and practicing it as religion. Man on 2nd no outs and an 0-2 count, maybe forget about the launch angle and try to move the runner over. But that doesn't happen. Situational hitting and good baseball gets dismissed because people believe that the strikeout is worth the chance for a homer. Players like LaStella and Torreyes can't crack a roster because they don't have a high enough WAR or hit HRs. 

People can live with Sosa, Judge, Trout, Dunn striking out because they hit 40+ HRs a year and most of the time hit over .290 (except for Dunn).  But when you hit .238 with 20 something homers you're really no good to the team. 

Baseball's problem is not the HRs, its the 20 strikeouts they're mixed in with. Ks = no action

I have said it before and I'll say it again - baseball needs radical rule changes.  The best thing they can do is change the number of pitches for strikeouts and walks from 3/4 to 2/3.  So a 3 ball count becomes a base on balls and 2 strikes become a strikeout.

On top of that allow only 1 or 2 foul balls with 1 strike and it becomes a strikeout.  End the 10 pitch at bat.  Also increase the penalty for a base on balls from one base with forces to two bases for all runners.  So a walk with 2nd and 3rd becomes 2 runs.  No more intentional - unintentional walks to avoid good hitters swinging the bat.  We pay to see Aaron Judge swing - not to pitched around because the pitcher thinks he has a better chance of whiffing Stanton.

Make pitchers throw strikes and make hitters hit the ball.

The point of these rule changes is to drastically reduce the number of pitches in a game.  These rule changes would probably cut 75 to 100 pitches out of a game and probably would equal 30 to 45 minutes.  It might bring back the complete game because pitchers might be able to navigate a lineup in 10-12 pitches per inning rather than 15-18.  A typical at bat would probably be 3/4 pitches and there would be way more 1 and 2 pitch at bats.  

There are other things that could be done like reducing the number of players in the game from 9 to 7.  Better hitters would get 150 to 200 more ab's every year and a premium would return to putting the ball in play.  

Purists will scream but these exact types of rules changes were done a 140 years ago when the number of balls required for a base on balls was changed several times reducing the number from 8 to 4 by 1889.  So it is not a unheard of approach.

Further if you want to say it changes the game too much - take a look at the NFL  now and 25 years ago - totally different game.  NBA same thing with the use of 3 point shot.  Both games changed rules to reward premium offensive skills of passing in NFL and shooting in NBA.  Both games are now much more action oriented and have reduced plodding players to the ash heap. 

Baseball needs some of this kind of thinking to rebalance contact hitting with the homerun as offensive strategy.

luv baseball posted:

I have said it before and I'll say it again - baseball needs radical rule changes.  The best thing they can do is change the number of pitches for strikeouts and walks from 3/4 to 2/3.  So a 3 ball count becomes a base on balls and 2 strikes become a strikeout.

On top of that allow only 1 or 2 foul balls with 1 strike and it becomes a strikeout.  End the 10 pitch at bat.  Also increase the penalty for a base on balls from one base with forces to two bases for all runners.  So a walk with 2nd and 3rd becomes 2 runs.  No more intentional - unintentional walks to avoid good hitters swinging the bat.  We pay to see Aaron Judge swing - not to pitched around because the pitcher thinks he has a better chance of whiffing Stanton.

Make pitchers throw strikes and make hitters hit the ball.

The point of these rule changes is to drastically reduce the number of pitches in a game.  These rule changes would probably cut 75 to 100 pitches out of a game and probably would equal 30 to 45 minutes.  It might bring back the complete game because pitchers might be able to navigate a lineup in 10-12 pitches per inning rather than 15-18.  A typical at bat would probably be 3/4 pitches and there would be way more 1 and 2 pitch at bats.  

There are other things that could be done like reducing the number of players in the game from 9 to 7.  Better hitters would get 150 to 200 more ab's every year and a premium would return to putting the ball in play.  

Purists will scream but these exact types of rules changes were done a 140 years ago when the number of balls required for a base on balls was changed several times reducing the number from 8 to 4 by 1889.  So it is not a unheard of approach.

Further if you want to say it changes the game too much - take a look at the NFL  now and 25 years ago - totally different game.  NBA same thing with the use of 3 point shot.  Both games changed rules to reward premium offensive skills of passing in NFL and shooting in NBA.  Both games are now much more action oriented and have reduced plodding players to the ash heap. 

Baseball needs some of this kind of thinking to rebalance contact hitting with the homerun as offensive strategy.

So you're saying you'd like to create a new game that would be inspired by baseball...?   You like baseball so much, you want there to be an additional game that resembles it?

luv baseball posted:

 

Baseball needs some of this kind of thinking to rebalance contact hitting with the homerun as offensive strategy.

Check out the idea of a "dynamic strike zone":

https://sports.yahoo.com/10-de...blems-070035170.html

"Dynamic Strike Zone is awfully compelling. Now, first off, a caveat, and a very important one: This idea depends on an automatic strike zone called by a computerized system, and higher-ups at Major League Baseball still do not believe the league’s technology, for its large leap forward, is consistent enough to take balls and strikes from umpires and hand them to machines. That said, it is only a matter of time until it is, and when that tipping point comes, Elam’s idea could integrate it in a way that addresses a number of baseball’s problems at once.

The concept is simple: Encourage batters to put the ball in play early in the count by expanding the size of the strike zone as a plate appearance continues. In Elam’s words: “For years, batters have sought to work deep counts – and rightly so for a number of reasons. All the while, the length of games has increased and the percentage of balls in play has decreased (due to the associated increase in strikeouts and walks). By introducing the concept of an expanding strike zone – where the strike zone starts small for every at-bat, then expands slightly after Strike 1, then expands slightly again after Strike 2 – batters would change their approach, knowing that the best pitch to hit is likely to come early in the at-bat.""

Chico Escuela posted:

luv baseball posted:

I have said it before and I'll say it again - baseball needs radical rule changes.  The best thing they can do is change the number of pitches for strikeouts and walks from 3/4 to 2/3.  So a 3 ball count becomes a base on balls and 2 strikes become a strikeout.

On top of that allow only 1 or 2 foul balls with 1 strike and it becomes a strikeout.  End the 10 pitch at bat.  Also increase the penalty for a base on balls from one base with forces to two bases for all runners.  So a walk with 2nd and 3rd becomes 2 runs.  No more intentional - unintentional walks to avoid good hitters swinging the bat.  We pay to see Aaron Judge swing - not to pitched around because the pitcher thinks he has a better chance of whiffing Stanton.

Make pitchers throw strikes and make hitters hit the ball.

The point of these rule changes is to drastically reduce the number of pitches in a game.  These rule changes would probably cut 75 to 100 pitches out of a game and probably would equal 30 to 45 minutes.  It might bring back the complete game because pitchers might be able to navigate a lineup in 10-12 pitches per inning rather than 15-18.  A typical at bat would probably be 3/4 pitches and there would be way more 1 and 2 pitch at bats.  

There are other things that could be done like reducing the number of players in the game from 9 to 7.  Better hitters would get 150 to 200 more ab's every year and a premium would return to putting the ball in play.  

Purists will scream but these exact types of rules changes were done a 140 years ago when the number of balls required for a base on balls was changed several times reducing the number from 8 to 4 by 1889.  So it is not a unheard of approach.

Further if you want to say it changes the game too much - take a look at the NFL  now and 25 years ago - totally different game.  NBA same thing with the use of 3 point shot.  Both games changed rules to reward premium offensive skills of passing in NFL and shooting in NBA.  Both games are now much more action oriented and have reduced plodding players to the ash heap. 

Baseball needs some of this kind of thinking to rebalance contact hitting with the homerun as offensive strategy.

So you're saying you'd like to create a new game that would be inspired by baseball...?   You like baseball so much, you want there to be an additional game that resembles it?

Exactly,  I am heartened that you were able to follow my reference to Football and Basketball changing to become 21st century sports that do not resemble what they were in the 1980's.  Ironically baseball does not either but in a bad way.  Baseball needs to move out of the 19th century.

For the first time in my life I did not sit through an entire baseball game this season.  The sport is unwatchable anymore.  To sit for 3 hours of Homerun derby blows.  I have watched at least 5000 baseball games in my life and it is now a terrible sport to watch.  

Manfred knows what music is facing the sport...losing people like me is a death knell.  It may have already happened I am not sure I will be engaged when spring roles around.

luv baseball posted:

Exactly,  I am heartened that you were able to follow my reference to Football and Basketball changing to become 21st century sports that do not resemble what they were in the 1980's.  Ironically baseball does not either but in a bad way.  Baseball needs to move out of the 19th century.

For the first time in my life I did not sit through an entire baseball game this season.  The sport is unwatchable anymore.  To sit for 3 hours of Homerun derby blows.  I have watched at least 5000 baseball games in my life and it is now a terrible sport to watch.  

Manfred knows what music is facing the sport...losing people like me is a death knell.  It may have already happened I am not sure I will be engaged when spring roles around.

I'm sympathetic (seriously).  And I'm willing to see some experimentation.  But I'm not ready to go so far as you suggest.  At least not yet...  

Have to say I agree with Luv Baseball, the MLB game has become something of a yawner. And it’s creeping it’s way into college and even high school. My son’s high school team last year had over 200 strike outs last year, the most in program history and a 68% increase from the previous season (first year with new head coach as well, entire new staff...). A lot of the boys were tryouts by to lift the ball over the fence and the results were: strike out, pop fly, fly ball, HR (33 last year, 36 the year prior). 

The team is physically smaller this year, so I expect the HR numbers will drop, but the strikeouts are a systemic clue that everyone is changing their approach at the plate.  When your leadoff batter has 40 K’s on the season, something needs to change.

GaryMe posted:

Have to say I agree with Luv Baseball, the MLB game has become something of a yawner. And it’s creeping it’s way into college and even high school. My son’s high school team last year had over 200 strike outs last year, the most in program history and a 68% increase from the previous season (first year with new head coach as well, entire new staff...). A lot of the boys were tryouts by to lift the ball over the fence and the results were: strike out, pop fly, fly ball, HR (33 last year, 36 the year prior). 

The team is physically smaller this year, so I expect the HR numbers will drop, but the strikeouts are a systemic clue that everyone is changing their approach at the plate.  When your leadoff batter has 40 K’s on the season, something needs to change.

All makes sense (though some of that 68% increase may reflect changed personnel due to graduations? that's a huge jump).  But do you have any data on how much pitching has changed over the years?  I'd wager pitchers in your conference are throwing significantly faster, probably with better sliders and cutters, than in years past.  Doesn't that affect offense, too?

Which may just be another reason to make the kind of fundamental changes Luvbaseball suggests.  But then we really would be in a world in which statistical comparisons to prior years would be nigh impossible.  Would it still be baseball...?

Younger guys have the stamina to watch baseball games to the end, just like you low energy old farts used to do.  Baseball is just a symptom.

SultanofSwat posted:

Younger guys have the stamina to watch baseball games to the end, just like you low energy old farts used to do.  Baseball is just a symptom.

No, no--I'm sure the fact I fall asleep on my couch around 10:00 pm these days has nothing to do with being in my 50s.  But why do the waistbands of my pants keep shrinking?  Back in the day, they must have used better fabric.

Chico Escuela posted:

GaryMe posted:

Have to say I agree with Luv Baseball, the MLB game has become something of a yawner. And it’s creeping it’s way into college and even high school. My son’s high school team last year had over 200 strike outs last year, the most in program history and a 68% increase from the previous season (first year with new head coach as well, entire new staff...). A lot of the boys were tryouts by to lift the ball over the fence and the results were: strike out, pop fly, fly ball, HR (33 last year, 36 the year prior). 

The team is physically smaller this year, so I expect the HR numbers will drop, but the strikeouts are a systemic clue that everyone is changing their approach at the plate.  When your leadoff batter has 40 K’s on the season, something needs to change.

All makes sense (though some of that 68% increase may reflect changed personnel due to graduations? that's a huge jump).  But do you have any data on how much pitching has changed over the years?  I'd wager pitchers in your conference are throwing significantly faster, probably with better sliders and cutters, than in years past.  Doesn't that affect offense, too?

Which may just be another reason to make the kind of fundamental changes Luvbaseball suggests.  But then we really would be in a world in which statistical comparisons to prior years would be nigh impossible.  Would it still be baseball...?

Actually, the pitching was down last year IMO, we didn't face a single kid who ended up being drafted, quite a few D1 committed guys, but that is like every year. Velos were on par with previous years and nobody we faced had filthy stuff. Guys in our area on varsity average probably 83-85, with the top guys on each team sitting 88-90. More to the point, we actually played against a team this year that played a shift on our left handed hitters, with great success. So, at least what I saw last year against our team, seems to mirror what is going on in the MLB.

BTW, that leadoff guy with 40 K's (38% K rate during HS season) was a D1 commit who, when he went off to play summer ball in his collegiate summer league, suddenly saw that K rate jump to 60%. Hope that he figures it out, because I don't think that will play well at D1 level.

How about starting with some smaller changes:

• Before every pitch there must be two players in front of the outfield grass on each side of 2nd base
• Every relief pitcher must either: finish an inning or face a minimum of three batters

K9 - I don't think that will address the real problem which is the number of pitches in a game and the lack of the ball in play.  There are nearly 300 pitches per MLB game up from around 260 in the late 80's.  That 40 pitches alone add probably 15 and maybe 20 minutes or more per game when pitching changes are factored.   The tradeoff of HR's for K's which is not solved by the suggestions above - means the game remains essentially unchanged IMO.  But as those rules go - I am ok with both.

I think the goal MLB needs to embrace is the 200 pitch game.  How valuable would a guy like DeGrom be if complete games required 97 pitches.  Get up and take your hacks.  If you want to swing for the fences and not make contact on 2 pitches doing it - there might be a bunch of 6 or 8 pitch innings.  But it would be moving and hitters would radically change to actually hitting the ball.  Couple that with more room by taking players off the field and the game could totally open up.  As a bonus Judge, Betts etc. would get many more chances to hit instead of the guys in the 8/9 holes.  I'd be fine with a 2:23 game of 10-7 where Judge went 3 for 7 and Betts went 5 for 8 and I was spared 4 terrible Neil Walker at bats.

If you want a little less than I suggest then take one player off the field and end the endless foul balls.  You get three strikes and you are out.  Foul ball with 2 strikes - take a seat.  Still make the Walk a 2 base penalty.  7 pitches per at bat max.  The walk would probably disappear as the penalty is so stiff.  That means more pounding the zone and hitters need to hit strikes and no more half swings to foul off really good 1-2 pitch and hope for a mistake.

Less pitches - ball in play.  Those should be the primary objects of any rules changes.