The most excellent Tom Verducci just wrote a zinger of a piece for Sports Illustrated with the headline: “Baseball’s Greatest Threat Isn’t the Lockout.” I highly recommend that you read all of it.
Remember a whole lot of, “it’s not us, it’s the market!” stuff from my banker friends back in 2008/2009. In any event, the irony of an article about ‘how to make game with more play & options’ at a time many are promoting DH over pitchers batting in the NL is like wearing sunglasses and asking why room got so dark. There should be some changes alright. Want creative? Tie using relief pitchers to losing the DH, w pitchers batting.
Are we sure the owners want to do anything about pace of play? How much do they make on ticket sales versus concessions? And a slow game means more concessions earnings, both because the game itself takes longer and because there are more gaps in the action so people are comfortable going to buy food at the concessions.
My favorite part of watching a baseball game is the fielding. When an outfielder jumps and stretches his arm like Mr. Fantastic, it is thrilling. What should have turned into a home run is an out. So we do need hits. The problem now is we. have no games.
Didn’t they expand the strike zone during the home run craze? I think pitch clock, batter stays in the batters box and tighten up the strike zone should be the first things they try. And a rule change to minimize roster call ups and demotions. Then you lower the mound. Do each of these and see where you are in the next five years. Then consider deadening the ball
I am with Joe Sheehan – I think you have to let fielders play where they want to. I think natural selection over time will eliminate the hitters who cannot bunt or go the other way.
"Then consider deadening the ball" Not to disagree with your other points, but this should be done first. You see his study shows from 2016-2021, and they were using a livelier ball for basically the entire run. I don't think any team has taken a two strike approach in that entire length of time, because frankly, why would you? It has become easier to hit home runs. The ball is livelier, pitchers are throwing harder than ever, hitters are stronger. Between that and the advent of statcast stuff and the launch angle revolution, the game changed. With hte ball less juiced, the statistical advantage for the three true outcome game plan lessens.
Don't get me wrong, they need to do other things as well, as these trends were already entrenched. Between 2006 and 2016, strikeouts were up 23%, Hits were down 6%, Three true outcomes were up 13%, steals down 8%, batting average down 14 points, Balls in play down 7%. I am sure the things it takes a bit more time to do research on (like games with 5 pitchers) were also on the same trend. Games were 13 minutes longer in 2016 than 2006. ( and have gotten 7 minutes longer since - about the same pace)
I agree with you 100%. After I did that post, I thought about it more. It seems like deadening the ball is the simplest, easiest way to decrease home runs, which should increase pitchers throwing strikes rather than nibbling and therefore decrease walks and strikeouts. Plus it makes fielding, the running game, taking the extra bass etc. all more important. And the ball has been livened and deadened numerous times in baseball history, so there should be less pushback.
And then for pace of play, I think my post could’ve been better organized. There are really four issues – time between pitches, time between at bats, time between innings, and pitching changes. The first three can be fixed with time limits and strict enforcement. For pitching changes, I am against limiting warm-up pitches because the mound changes based on who is stepping where, so the pitchers need to get used to that. We have enough pictures getting injured. So maybe requirements of minimum number of batters faced, or a limit on pitching changes. And a limit on roster moves, so a team can’t switch out relief pitchers every other game.
Great article by Verducci. I think there are a number of things where we can nibble at the edges.
I think things to limit number of pitchers carried on a given day would help, pitch clock for sure, etc.
But at a fundamental level, as players become more and more specialized focused on "best" results, we are going to approach the same cliff.
Three true outcomes has been analytically proven to give a team the best chance of winning. How do you discourage players from working on the things that are in demand? How do you convince front offices to take players that don't fit an optimal profile, other than the allure of saving salary? Its a problem.
It's not wrong to want to bring balance to the force, but will the solution require killing a bunch of Jedi younglings?
The biggest obstacle, to me at least, is the pure physicality that exists in the game today. Pitchers today have a massive advantage over batters. Overall pitch speed increasing, and movement. The spin rate issues we have been experiencing lately are part of the overall analytic trend, and unfortunately as many pitchers got used to using sticky stuff to maintain some control over their filth, they are throwing pitches that are patently unfair. And as we see when we ban that sticky stuff, there are cries that they can no longer throw the pitches they want to. Well, that's okay. The good pitchers will figure it out.
But the speed is definitely an issue. Hitters have not yet caught up to pitching. So is it time to seriously think about moving the mound back a couple of feet? I think so. I suspect without some serious genetic engineering that we are close to peaking as far as pitch speed, bat speed, etc.
I think eliminating the shift would be pretty substantial. Similar to other sports that impose boundaries on players, it can be done. Infielders need to start in the infield. SS needs to be on the left hand side of 2nd base. Etc. This one seems easy. Takes some strategy away, but when every team adopts that strategy, is it really meaningful? We could say batters should learn to adjust, but much more difficult proposition now than it was 20 years ago. There are only so many split seconds to deal with, and when pitcher speed and stuff as good as it is now, I think it stretches the realm of decision making to expect batters to adjust.
Want to make baseball more exciting? Make it about money and have 3 rule changes.
1. No more intentional walks allowed and for any 4 pitch walk, the batter gets 2 bases.
2. All pitchers must finish 2 innings (minimum batters faced is 4) or give up 3 runs, unless injured. “Injured” pitchers cannot play for 7 days and no new pitcher can replace him on the 26 man active roster. So, he better be hurt vs. faking it.
3. Any player that strikes out twice in a game, must be removed from the game. Then suspended without pay for the next game. AND owners must TRIPLE that suspended pay, with 4 days’ worth of pay going to charity.
Without batters swinging for the fences and accepting strikeouts as just a normal out, there will be more balls-in-play. Now batters are more willing to shorten up and hit against the shift. They will probably hit fewer HRs, but that would lead to more strategies to score runs (steal bases, hit-and-run, go for the triple, (even the dreaded bunt brings discussion if/when to do it)). Yes, there will likely be more boring ground/fly outs, but also more great defensive plays and probably more errors, which also brings pain/excitement.
However, the key is to incentivize ($$$) hitting the ball from both the players and owners. (If you want to fine the manager and general manager for a team striking out 4 or more times in a game, I am good with that idea too.)
Other changes needed, but weighted scoring could be set up to deliberately reward those aspects of the game we want to emphasize. I agree it would completely change the game, but that’s the point.
My whole life my consumption of MLB has been almost exclusively through standings, box scores, and baseball reference career pages. Because of that, I haven't really noticed and don't really care about pace of play or other aesthetic issues. But I'm also probably not contributing much to MLB's bottom line.
I’m thinking about a column over at The Athletic where a smart, analytically minded reader was savaging Amed Rosario’s value to the Guardians. And, look, I absolutely think the commenter was basically right, although he overstated things a bit - possibly in reaction to the previous commenter claiming that Rosario was better at SS than Lindor. (That is NOT true in any version of baseball.)
But: as someone who watched way too many Guardians games last year - this is what divorce will do to you - I will tell you that there was nothing as fun as watching him rip a line drive and cut loose on the basepaths. Baseball is impoverished if its strategy excludes players with Rosario’s skills in favor of guys who mash and walk and nothing else. As impoverished as football would be if its best strategy were still three yards and a cloud of dust.
The contradiction, perhaps, is that the things that lead to more scoring make football more exciting, while they often make baseball less exciting. The game would have to accept that fewer runs scored is better.
I commend to you the Brilliant Readers the article Bill James wrote in 1996 in his New Historical Baseball Abstract titled "The Perfect Machine". He made the same points (crying in the wilderness perhaps) 20 years ago. He specifically compared college basketball and baseball and how the former is willing and ready to change rules of the game, while the latter is not. I love baseball. But if my team isn't playing, I have little to no interest in watching a game--especially a playoff game. I don't have time for that. That's not to say I'm special. But if baseball loses my interest, I shudder to think what hope it has.
I realize I am more angry than most regarding the 2017 Astros, but I do wonder how much having a public cheating scandal in the World Series plays into the public perception of MLB.
It seems like a perfect storm of MLBs current problems.
Through their electronic sign-stealing regime the Astros were able to make contact and play a lot of "ball-in-play" baseball with less strikeouts. When you know what's coming it makes sense. I remember it being an entertaining WS and I didn't have a rooting interest.
If I remember correctly, wasn't there also a lot of suspicion about Astros pitchers spin rates?
So we have amped up sign-stealing, Astros balls-in-play versus big market Dodgers analytics, pitcher substances... now we only need a PED suspect
At the same time we had John Smoltz in the booth moaning about the game and "analytics" without delving into what is actually happening on the field. He's doing his best "back in my day the right way" routine and feeding the casual viewer fodder to tear down the current game.
This is baseball's biggest stage and he's complaining and telling viewers how terrible the game is. This is who MLB thinks should be broadcasting the World Series.
2 years later when the scandal breaks, MLB pretty much looks the other way. Cheating in the World Series and the result stands and no player gets so much as a suspension nor fine.
If you are a casual fan, what would you think about a cheating scandal in the championship where the league allowed all the pieces of metal to be kept, no player to be punished and those coaches that were involved already allowed back in the game?
Lost in the Astros scandal was that the Rays lost a division series to the Astros 3-2 with the home team winning every game. And if memory serves, the Rays dominated at home. The Dodgers have a beef but the Rays do too.
Joe's point that the coaches and managers and players try only to win, not to make the game entertaining, is spot-on, and reminds me of my favorite chapter from Nick Hornby's Fever Pitch. Mediocre teams in English football would, when facing better competition, play absurdly conservatively, aiming for a 0-0 draw. One manager, criticized for these tactics, snapped, "If you want entertainment, go and watch clowns." People ridiculed him for it, but Hornby's point is that this manager was correct: a manager's job is to protect his team's interests, not the sport's interests. It's the job of the governing body of the sport to set the rules so the managers' interests align with more entertaining play.
I agree with your thought that it is the job of the governing body of the sport to an extent- I think it is also the owners' responsibility, just like with any business that wants to be successful for the long term (especially since the so-called governing body is just a mouth-piece for the owners.
As far as the players go- they average a 2.7 year career- I don't see how they would feel a vested interest in protecting the future of the game.
Remember a whole lot of, “it’s not us, it’s the market!” stuff from my banker friends back in 2008/2009. In any event, the irony of an article about ‘how to make game with more play & options’ at a time many are promoting DH over pitchers batting in the NL is like wearing sunglasses and asking why room got so dark. There should be some changes alright. Want creative? Tie using relief pitchers to losing the DH, w pitchers batting.
Are we sure the owners want to do anything about pace of play? How much do they make on ticket sales versus concessions? And a slow game means more concessions earnings, both because the game itself takes longer and because there are more gaps in the action so people are comfortable going to buy food at the concessions.
Joe: Send both pieces to Theo Epstein and tell him time to save us again….earn your paycheck wunderkind, what have you done for us lately 😉.
My favorite part of watching a baseball game is the fielding. When an outfielder jumps and stretches his arm like Mr. Fantastic, it is thrilling. What should have turned into a home run is an out. So we do need hits. The problem now is we. have no games.
Verducci does a great job.
Didn’t they expand the strike zone during the home run craze? I think pitch clock, batter stays in the batters box and tighten up the strike zone should be the first things they try. And a rule change to minimize roster call ups and demotions. Then you lower the mound. Do each of these and see where you are in the next five years. Then consider deadening the ball
I am with Joe Sheehan – I think you have to let fielders play where they want to. I think natural selection over time will eliminate the hitters who cannot bunt or go the other way.
"Then consider deadening the ball" Not to disagree with your other points, but this should be done first. You see his study shows from 2016-2021, and they were using a livelier ball for basically the entire run. I don't think any team has taken a two strike approach in that entire length of time, because frankly, why would you? It has become easier to hit home runs. The ball is livelier, pitchers are throwing harder than ever, hitters are stronger. Between that and the advent of statcast stuff and the launch angle revolution, the game changed. With hte ball less juiced, the statistical advantage for the three true outcome game plan lessens.
Don't get me wrong, they need to do other things as well, as these trends were already entrenched. Between 2006 and 2016, strikeouts were up 23%, Hits were down 6%, Three true outcomes were up 13%, steals down 8%, batting average down 14 points, Balls in play down 7%. I am sure the things it takes a bit more time to do research on (like games with 5 pitchers) were also on the same trend. Games were 13 minutes longer in 2016 than 2006. ( and have gotten 7 minutes longer since - about the same pace)
I agree with you 100%. After I did that post, I thought about it more. It seems like deadening the ball is the simplest, easiest way to decrease home runs, which should increase pitchers throwing strikes rather than nibbling and therefore decrease walks and strikeouts. Plus it makes fielding, the running game, taking the extra bass etc. all more important. And the ball has been livened and deadened numerous times in baseball history, so there should be less pushback.
And then for pace of play, I think my post could’ve been better organized. There are really four issues – time between pitches, time between at bats, time between innings, and pitching changes. The first three can be fixed with time limits and strict enforcement. For pitching changes, I am against limiting warm-up pitches because the mound changes based on who is stepping where, so the pitchers need to get used to that. We have enough pictures getting injured. So maybe requirements of minimum number of batters faced, or a limit on pitching changes. And a limit on roster moves, so a team can’t switch out relief pitchers every other game.
Great article by Verducci. I think there are a number of things where we can nibble at the edges.
I think things to limit number of pitchers carried on a given day would help, pitch clock for sure, etc.
But at a fundamental level, as players become more and more specialized focused on "best" results, we are going to approach the same cliff.
Three true outcomes has been analytically proven to give a team the best chance of winning. How do you discourage players from working on the things that are in demand? How do you convince front offices to take players that don't fit an optimal profile, other than the allure of saving salary? Its a problem.
It's not wrong to want to bring balance to the force, but will the solution require killing a bunch of Jedi younglings?
The biggest obstacle, to me at least, is the pure physicality that exists in the game today. Pitchers today have a massive advantage over batters. Overall pitch speed increasing, and movement. The spin rate issues we have been experiencing lately are part of the overall analytic trend, and unfortunately as many pitchers got used to using sticky stuff to maintain some control over their filth, they are throwing pitches that are patently unfair. And as we see when we ban that sticky stuff, there are cries that they can no longer throw the pitches they want to. Well, that's okay. The good pitchers will figure it out.
But the speed is definitely an issue. Hitters have not yet caught up to pitching. So is it time to seriously think about moving the mound back a couple of feet? I think so. I suspect without some serious genetic engineering that we are close to peaking as far as pitch speed, bat speed, etc.
I think eliminating the shift would be pretty substantial. Similar to other sports that impose boundaries on players, it can be done. Infielders need to start in the infield. SS needs to be on the left hand side of 2nd base. Etc. This one seems easy. Takes some strategy away, but when every team adopts that strategy, is it really meaningful? We could say batters should learn to adjust, but much more difficult proposition now than it was 20 years ago. There are only so many split seconds to deal with, and when pitcher speed and stuff as good as it is now, I think it stretches the realm of decision making to expect batters to adjust.
Want to make baseball more exciting? Make it about money and have 3 rule changes.
1. No more intentional walks allowed and for any 4 pitch walk, the batter gets 2 bases.
2. All pitchers must finish 2 innings (minimum batters faced is 4) or give up 3 runs, unless injured. “Injured” pitchers cannot play for 7 days and no new pitcher can replace him on the 26 man active roster. So, he better be hurt vs. faking it.
3. Any player that strikes out twice in a game, must be removed from the game. Then suspended without pay for the next game. AND owners must TRIPLE that suspended pay, with 4 days’ worth of pay going to charity.
Without batters swinging for the fences and accepting strikeouts as just a normal out, there will be more balls-in-play. Now batters are more willing to shorten up and hit against the shift. They will probably hit fewer HRs, but that would lead to more strategies to score runs (steal bases, hit-and-run, go for the triple, (even the dreaded bunt brings discussion if/when to do it)). Yes, there will likely be more boring ground/fly outs, but also more great defensive plays and probably more errors, which also brings pain/excitement.
However, the key is to incentivize ($$$) hitting the ball from both the players and owners. (If you want to fine the manager and general manager for a team striking out 4 or more times in a game, I am good with that idea too.)
Other changes needed, but weighted scoring could be set up to deliberately reward those aspects of the game we want to emphasize. I agree it would completely change the game, but that’s the point.
Thanks for your thoughts.
Instead of worrying about the shift how about they just teach minor leaguers to bunt to 3rd.
Eliminate foul balls as strikes.
?? Pretty sure that will not shorten the game.
My whole life my consumption of MLB has been almost exclusively through standings, box scores, and baseball reference career pages. Because of that, I haven't really noticed and don't really care about pace of play or other aesthetic issues. But I'm also probably not contributing much to MLB's bottom line.
I’m thinking about a column over at The Athletic where a smart, analytically minded reader was savaging Amed Rosario’s value to the Guardians. And, look, I absolutely think the commenter was basically right, although he overstated things a bit - possibly in reaction to the previous commenter claiming that Rosario was better at SS than Lindor. (That is NOT true in any version of baseball.)
But: as someone who watched way too many Guardians games last year - this is what divorce will do to you - I will tell you that there was nothing as fun as watching him rip a line drive and cut loose on the basepaths. Baseball is impoverished if its strategy excludes players with Rosario’s skills in favor of guys who mash and walk and nothing else. As impoverished as football would be if its best strategy were still three yards and a cloud of dust.
The contradiction, perhaps, is that the things that lead to more scoring make football more exciting, while they often make baseball less exciting. The game would have to accept that fewer runs scored is better.
I commend to you the Brilliant Readers the article Bill James wrote in 1996 in his New Historical Baseball Abstract titled "The Perfect Machine". He made the same points (crying in the wilderness perhaps) 20 years ago. He specifically compared college basketball and baseball and how the former is willing and ready to change rules of the game, while the latter is not. I love baseball. But if my team isn't playing, I have little to no interest in watching a game--especially a playoff game. I don't have time for that. That's not to say I'm special. But if baseball loses my interest, I shudder to think what hope it has.
I realize I am more angry than most regarding the 2017 Astros, but I do wonder how much having a public cheating scandal in the World Series plays into the public perception of MLB.
It seems like a perfect storm of MLBs current problems.
Through their electronic sign-stealing regime the Astros were able to make contact and play a lot of "ball-in-play" baseball with less strikeouts. When you know what's coming it makes sense. I remember it being an entertaining WS and I didn't have a rooting interest.
If I remember correctly, wasn't there also a lot of suspicion about Astros pitchers spin rates?
So we have amped up sign-stealing, Astros balls-in-play versus big market Dodgers analytics, pitcher substances... now we only need a PED suspect
At the same time we had John Smoltz in the booth moaning about the game and "analytics" without delving into what is actually happening on the field. He's doing his best "back in my day the right way" routine and feeding the casual viewer fodder to tear down the current game.
This is baseball's biggest stage and he's complaining and telling viewers how terrible the game is. This is who MLB thinks should be broadcasting the World Series.
2 years later when the scandal breaks, MLB pretty much looks the other way. Cheating in the World Series and the result stands and no player gets so much as a suspension nor fine.
If you are a casual fan, what would you think about a cheating scandal in the championship where the league allowed all the pieces of metal to be kept, no player to be punished and those coaches that were involved already allowed back in the game?
Lost in the Astros scandal was that the Rays lost a division series to the Astros 3-2 with the home team winning every game. And if memory serves, the Rays dominated at home. The Dodgers have a beef but the Rays do too.
I think the most astute comment was actually with regard to Smoltz and his bashing the current game.
And Verducci's article had the same problem.
Lots of good points here, but man, if noted broadcasters and journalists continually bash the game/analytics/whatever, then there's a big problem.
You mean like if a football team took video of their opponents practices?
Joe's point that the coaches and managers and players try only to win, not to make the game entertaining, is spot-on, and reminds me of my favorite chapter from Nick Hornby's Fever Pitch. Mediocre teams in English football would, when facing better competition, play absurdly conservatively, aiming for a 0-0 draw. One manager, criticized for these tactics, snapped, "If you want entertainment, go and watch clowns." People ridiculed him for it, but Hornby's point is that this manager was correct: a manager's job is to protect his team's interests, not the sport's interests. It's the job of the governing body of the sport to set the rules so the managers' interests align with more entertaining play.
I agree with your thought that it is the job of the governing body of the sport to an extent- I think it is also the owners' responsibility, just like with any business that wants to be successful for the long term (especially since the so-called governing body is just a mouth-piece for the owners.
As far as the players go- they average a 2.7 year career- I don't see how they would feel a vested interest in protecting the future of the game.