Obviously use roboumps instead of a challenge system for balls and strikes.
More to the point, what we want is to reduce strikeouts and have more balls in play but fewer home runs, and preferably fewer walks also. The way to do that is to move the pitcher rubber back 3 or even 6 feet and deaden the ball a little. Moving the rubber back only will mostly lead to more home runs. So you should pair it with deadening the ball a little. With pitchers not so afraid of the home run and with far less chance to get a strikeout, they will be motivated to throw it over the plate and pitch to contact. You will get fewer strikeouts, fewer walks, fewer home runs, more balls in play, and fewer pitches per at bat. We could easily have 50% more balls in play in 33% less time, which is a doubling of balls in play per minute of play. And we could have a normal batting average of .290 and teams scoring 5 or 6 runs per game on average. It would be a really exciting sport to watch.
I'm completely opposed to adding another challenge system. So, the Home Plate Umpire has his strike zone that's used all game. Maybe he's giving the high strike and pinched the corners. His interpretation of the strike zone. Suddenly, there's a challenge at a critical time that's now based on the ABS System Strike Zone and not the zone that's been in play all day. 2 different strike zones suddenly in use. Why do we need a challenge? Just use the ABS System full time.
This seams easy. Set the inning managers permitted to sub in reliever. No sooner that the 7th, or say 115 pitches. This restores some semblance of balance, as — regardless of how hard mgr. tries — it generates the feared ‘3rd time through lineup’. In other words two lineup turns favor SP, to one (3rd) lineup turn favoring the hitters. I think this would also remove need for ‘banning shift’. If team bring in reliever on 115 pitch count rule, reliever faces minimum 2 inning or ?55? pitches. None of this 1st inning or bullpen game crap. MLBPA may grumble about effectively ‘capping’ # pitchers (players), so increase salary cap by $20MM (or equiv decent reliever one year salary).
Strikeouts, walks and home runs were all down. That means balls in play were up, (Highest percentage of PAs ending with a ball in play since 2016) and isn't that what we said we wanted?
The strikeout and the walk were two sides of the same coin that artfully portrayed the ongoing conflict between pitcher and hitter. Feel free to surf to my homepage: https://www.tipsportal.com/
Redistribute the weight in the ball toward the surface so it has less spin = pitchers' stuff plays up less. Then deaden the ball so that hitters don't just smack everything over the fence. Result: less superheroic pitchers, fewer Ks, more balls in play, more fun.
(Saw that this was suggested at a SABR conference a few years backbut I don't know whose idea it was.)
Get rid of the stupid box for strike zone - umpires call most close pitches strikes since they’re afraid they will miss one. If you’re gonna insist on that box on broadcast than make the rule the entire ball must be in box and the pendulum will swing the other direction of umpire calls.
I agree that the box (which is not always that accurate, especially the MLB computer box that the people that follow a game on a computer or their phone look at) has heightened the awareness and strike arguments. Though some of the calls that have been called out by websites as bad strike calls were clearly strikes, it is just that networks (and especially game day) tend to put the "dot" where the ball hits the glove, and with a moving ball where it hits the glove has no bearing on whether it is a strike. I have seen examples posted of "bad calls" where it was literally impossible for the ball to get from where it was as it approached the plate to where it ended up without passing over a part of the plate on it's way to being a bit low and outside. On Game day, you can't even see that because let's just say their pitch path is unrealistic.
But no way should we use the TV box to call strikes, or change the rule so that the entire ball passes over the plate. (When I pitched - decades ago now - I used to say the black was mine, and if I hit it consistently, so is the batter) The very definition of the strike zone is a part of the ball passing over the plate at any point in it's path over it (at the required height, of course) In fact, that is why some fans in the minors where they were testing out the robo umps didn't like them. They led to more strikes. People still argued that it was the wrong call as well, because that it what people do.
I have seen some former players saying the pitch clock may cut down on strikeouts. Without as much recovery time between pitches, velocity may drop a bit as a pitcher will not be able to use maximum effort with every pitch. Not sure if this is true or not, but I’m looking forward to finding out.
I would have liked to see it in a vacuum. However, I believe that part of K's finally going down the last couple of years was the shift and teams slowly reacting to it by giving a little less PAs to three true outcome guys and more to action hitters who put the ball in play. When they do away with the shift, the balance will go back the other way, and K's will continue to go up again like they did for 15 years before that.
I believe K's, walks and home runs will all be up next season - meaning balls in play will be down.
Conventional wisdom for weight training is that you need to rest 2-5 minutes between sets to regain (almost) full strength. Obviously there are tons of variables – number of reps, intensity, etc. And pitching is different – basically a series of max effort one rep exercises. But, there should be some physiological data on this.
On pitching, I have to think the proven success of Tommy John Surgery has been a factor. Pitchers are less concerned about blowing out their elbow because they can get their arm rebuilt. So what do we see? Young pitchers hitting triple digits, getting hurt, having TJS, and then coming back with just as much velocity as before.
1. Limit the number of pitchers on a roster to 10-11
2. Managers can only declare 3 pitchers as available for the game (barring injury)
Really, there's no need for weird rules. Just flat-out state what makes the game most fun: a starting pitcher pitching as much as possible, then only 1 or 2 relievers.
I'd also say that incentivizing innings pitched would do a lot. King of like how the definition of a Save made a huge impact on how relief pitchers are used, caring about innings pitched (in contracts, in awards, etc.) would also make pitchers want to stay out as long as possible.
I happen to also think that getting rid of the save would have a nice effect. The only two things that should be talked about when discussing relief pitchers is innings pitched and runs allowed.
Just make it 8 pitchers. Don’t have to worry about saying who is available. And to keep teams from sing pitcher I’d injured and pulling pitchers from minors after every game- making a revolving door of pitchers coming and going, and such United pitchers must be out a minimum of 10 days. We’ll see the starting pitchers go a lot further- in fact I think complete games will become a thing again.
My radical idea is to eliminate the batting order.
Give everyone in the line up 4 AB's for a standard game and 1 additional AB for every 3 Extra Innings played (or some variation). Keep the same rules pitchers needing to face 3 batters minimum, player subs entering have 4 AB's but removed player is done, and then let the managers decide how and when to use the valuable AB's for star batters at opportune circumstances.
I don't know if it would absolutely resolve the strikeouts issue but I think it gives a better chance for some hitters to see a pitcher more often to balance the scales. I also think it addresses the marketing discussion a few PosCast episodes ago where you talked about "moments". NBA has their stars take the final shot, this would give MLB the chance to manufacture those moments for themselves... Think bases loaded, 1 out. Mike Trout at plate for his 3 AB, gets rung up on a questionable pitch for the 2nd out. Angels leave him up there for his 4th AB and another shot to score runs
Love all the ideas being floated around. Something needs to be done. Baseball is boring for even true baseball fans.
What happen to the crackdown on substances on the ball (spider-tack). MLB went hard after it for a while and spin rates went way down (and I assume strikeouts too). Now they seem to turn a blind eye and spin rates are almost back to where they were. What gives?
Obviously use roboumps instead of a challenge system for balls and strikes.
More to the point, what we want is to reduce strikeouts and have more balls in play but fewer home runs, and preferably fewer walks also. The way to do that is to move the pitcher rubber back 3 or even 6 feet and deaden the ball a little. Moving the rubber back only will mostly lead to more home runs. So you should pair it with deadening the ball a little. With pitchers not so afraid of the home run and with far less chance to get a strikeout, they will be motivated to throw it over the plate and pitch to contact. You will get fewer strikeouts, fewer walks, fewer home runs, more balls in play, and fewer pitches per at bat. We could easily have 50% more balls in play in 33% less time, which is a doubling of balls in play per minute of play. And we could have a normal batting average of .290 and teams scoring 5 or 6 runs per game on average. It would be a really exciting sport to watch.
I'm completely opposed to adding another challenge system. So, the Home Plate Umpire has his strike zone that's used all game. Maybe he's giving the high strike and pinched the corners. His interpretation of the strike zone. Suddenly, there's a challenge at a critical time that's now based on the ABS System Strike Zone and not the zone that's been in play all day. 2 different strike zones suddenly in use. Why do we need a challenge? Just use the ABS System full time.
This seams easy. Set the inning managers permitted to sub in reliever. No sooner that the 7th, or say 115 pitches. This restores some semblance of balance, as — regardless of how hard mgr. tries — it generates the feared ‘3rd time through lineup’. In other words two lineup turns favor SP, to one (3rd) lineup turn favoring the hitters. I think this would also remove need for ‘banning shift’. If team bring in reliever on 115 pitch count rule, reliever faces minimum 2 inning or ?55? pitches. None of this 1st inning or bullpen game crap. MLBPA may grumble about effectively ‘capping’ # pitchers (players), so increase salary cap by $20MM (or equiv decent reliever one year salary).
Strikeouts, walks and home runs were all down. That means balls in play were up, (Highest percentage of PAs ending with a ball in play since 2016) and isn't that what we said we wanted?
No more pitchers hitting.
The strikeout and the walk were two sides of the same coin that artfully portrayed the ongoing conflict between pitcher and hitter. Feel free to surf to my homepage: https://www.tipsportal.com/
Only way I see, and I probably don’t agree, is to move distance back from 60’6”.
Redistribute the weight in the ball toward the surface so it has less spin = pitchers' stuff plays up less. Then deaden the ball so that hitters don't just smack everything over the fence. Result: less superheroic pitchers, fewer Ks, more balls in play, more fun.
(Saw that this was suggested at a SABR conference a few years backbut I don't know whose idea it was.)
Get rid of the stupid box for strike zone - umpires call most close pitches strikes since they’re afraid they will miss one. If you’re gonna insist on that box on broadcast than make the rule the entire ball must be in box and the pendulum will swing the other direction of umpire calls.
I agree that the box (which is not always that accurate, especially the MLB computer box that the people that follow a game on a computer or their phone look at) has heightened the awareness and strike arguments. Though some of the calls that have been called out by websites as bad strike calls were clearly strikes, it is just that networks (and especially game day) tend to put the "dot" where the ball hits the glove, and with a moving ball where it hits the glove has no bearing on whether it is a strike. I have seen examples posted of "bad calls" where it was literally impossible for the ball to get from where it was as it approached the plate to where it ended up without passing over a part of the plate on it's way to being a bit low and outside. On Game day, you can't even see that because let's just say their pitch path is unrealistic.
But no way should we use the TV box to call strikes, or change the rule so that the entire ball passes over the plate. (When I pitched - decades ago now - I used to say the black was mine, and if I hit it consistently, so is the batter) The very definition of the strike zone is a part of the ball passing over the plate at any point in it's path over it (at the required height, of course) In fact, that is why some fans in the minors where they were testing out the robo umps didn't like them. They led to more strikes. People still argued that it was the wrong call as well, because that it what people do.
I have seen some former players saying the pitch clock may cut down on strikeouts. Without as much recovery time between pitches, velocity may drop a bit as a pitcher will not be able to use maximum effort with every pitch. Not sure if this is true or not, but I’m looking forward to finding out.
I would have liked to see it in a vacuum. However, I believe that part of K's finally going down the last couple of years was the shift and teams slowly reacting to it by giving a little less PAs to three true outcome guys and more to action hitters who put the ball in play. When they do away with the shift, the balance will go back the other way, and K's will continue to go up again like they did for 15 years before that.
I believe K's, walks and home runs will all be up next season - meaning balls in play will be down.
Conventional wisdom for weight training is that you need to rest 2-5 minutes between sets to regain (almost) full strength. Obviously there are tons of variables – number of reps, intensity, etc. And pitching is different – basically a series of max effort one rep exercises. But, there should be some physiological data on this.
I'll admit that I had high hopes/expectations that cutting down on the sticky stuff would make a meaningful difference, and it clearly didn't.
The easy retort is that they're still using it, but the spin rates say that there was a meaningful drop in usage—it just didn't matter.
Which is actually what the pitchers were saying
On pitching, I have to think the proven success of Tommy John Surgery has been a factor. Pitchers are less concerned about blowing out their elbow because they can get their arm rebuilt. So what do we see? Young pitchers hitting triple digits, getting hurt, having TJS, and then coming back with just as much velocity as before.
I think the obvious two possibilities are:
1. Limit the number of pitchers on a roster to 10-11
2. Managers can only declare 3 pitchers as available for the game (barring injury)
Really, there's no need for weird rules. Just flat-out state what makes the game most fun: a starting pitcher pitching as much as possible, then only 1 or 2 relievers.
I'd also say that incentivizing innings pitched would do a lot. King of like how the definition of a Save made a huge impact on how relief pitchers are used, caring about innings pitched (in contracts, in awards, etc.) would also make pitchers want to stay out as long as possible.
I happen to also think that getting rid of the save would have a nice effect. The only two things that should be talked about when discussing relief pitchers is innings pitched and runs allowed.
Just make it 8 pitchers. Don’t have to worry about saying who is available. And to keep teams from sing pitcher I’d injured and pulling pitchers from minors after every game- making a revolving door of pitchers coming and going, and such United pitchers must be out a minimum of 10 days. We’ll see the starting pitchers go a lot further- in fact I think complete games will become a thing again.
Move the mound back? 61’6”
My radical idea is to eliminate the batting order.
Give everyone in the line up 4 AB's for a standard game and 1 additional AB for every 3 Extra Innings played (or some variation). Keep the same rules pitchers needing to face 3 batters minimum, player subs entering have 4 AB's but removed player is done, and then let the managers decide how and when to use the valuable AB's for star batters at opportune circumstances.
I don't know if it would absolutely resolve the strikeouts issue but I think it gives a better chance for some hitters to see a pitcher more often to balance the scales. I also think it addresses the marketing discussion a few PosCast episodes ago where you talked about "moments". NBA has their stars take the final shot, this would give MLB the chance to manufacture those moments for themselves... Think bases loaded, 1 out. Mike Trout at plate for his 3 AB, gets rung up on a questionable pitch for the 2nd out. Angels leave him up there for his 4th AB and another shot to score runs
Make the ball bigger
Love all the ideas being floated around. Something needs to be done. Baseball is boring for even true baseball fans.
What happen to the crackdown on substances on the ball (spider-tack). MLB went hard after it for a while and spin rates went way down (and I assume strikeouts too). Now they seem to turn a blind eye and spin rates are almost back to where they were. What gives?