According to Baseball Savant, balls hit 101mph off the bat at a launch angle between 24 and 38 degrees resulted in a HR almost 43% of the time in 2021. This year, it's a paltry 29.7%. Smaller sample size, obviously (only 47 such batted balls this year compared to 804 in 2021) but still, the trend is staggering.
In a more general way, even though hard-hit balls are occurring at about the same rate as last year, they are not turning into hits, and especially into homers, as often.
In 2021 there were 49,558 batted balls of 95mph or more, or about 10.21 per game, which became homers 12% of the time. This year, it's 10.13 per game, a difference of less than 1%, but they're turning into homers at a rate of only 9.4%, a decrease of more than 20%.
Overall in 2022, the leagues have an average exit velo of 89mph, with an average launch angle of 12.8 degrees and a barrel percentage of 39.5%, all slightly UP from last year (88.8mph, 12.6deg, and 38.7%, respectively), such that the expected BA and SLG are up, but the ACTUAL BA and SLG (and also OBP, slightly), are in fact DOWN. Batting average is down 11 points from the abysmal low of .244 it hit last year. SLG is down 34 points! How the hell can Barrels be up but slugging be down unless they have screwed around with the ball itself?
It seems they have greatly increased the drag coefficient on the ball such that even very hard hit balls that travel at an angle that would normally carry them out of the park can no longer quite get there, at least not as often. This is a HUGE difference and with the data available publicly these days, it's an obvious one.
This seems like an extreme overreaction. It was only a few years ago in 2019 that people were crying about the high number of home runs, lamenting the end of the game as we know it and wondering what in the world we could ever do to change the endless parade of home run hitters. Panicking that the home run rate was significantly higher than any year in history.
So, baseball does the humidor thing and we are now lamenting the loss of the home run? Pick a lane people!
A couple of things to consider first: Spring Training started 4 weeks late, so for the hitting (which always seems to be a little behind the pitching early in the year) it is still March 22nd. Secondly, it has been a much colder than usual April over most of the country. As a small example, my baseball city in the midwest has been more than 4 degrees cooler on average since April 7th (the beginning of the season) and 4 degrees is actually a big difference.
But the biggest thing to consider is that home runs aren't that low. Despite the fact that it is early in a cold April with a shortened spring training, the home run rate is higher than 2010, 2011, 2013, and 2014. (When people seemed to be happy about a return to balance) Oh, not to mention every single season in history prior to 1994 (when the steroid era began in earnest) with the exception of 1987. (When the biggest story of the season was the juiced ball) This season, right now, before summer is even close, ranks 26th in home run rate over the last 100 years, and I guarantee it will end higher than that.
2. For every between-inning pitching change, the batting team is awarded one extra out in the inning in which the new pitcher enters. You want to pull the starter after the 4th? Fine, but now you have to record 4 outs when I bat in the fifth. You want to use your 7th inning guy, then your 8th inning guy, then your 9th inning guy? Fine, but now you have to get 4 outs in each of those innings.
Radical, but I like this. You could combine them into a single rule. Just give an extra out for each pitching change, under all circumstances. The LOOGY becomes a lot less appealing if switching him in and out gives the batting team two extra outs for the inning
I absolutely adore baseball when I was a kid. Now I really struggle to watch for a variety of reasons that Joe has outlined here and elsewhere. I really hope at some point they make the changes they need to bring back a watchable version of this thing.
"I am once again asking" for MLB - or at least anyone reading this comment - to consider the following proposal:
Game Eligible Pitchers.
1.) Before every game, each manager is allowed to designate up to five pitchers who are eligible for use in that game, including the starter. During regular nine innings of the game, only pitchers who are named on the Game Eligible Pitchers list can be inserted into the game as a pitcher;
a.) If a game eligible pitcher is injured and has to leave the game, the manager of that player's team may replace him on the list with another available player, but it's a one-out, one-in situation;
b.) If the game goes to extra innings, all players on both teams who have not yet exited the game become eligible to pitch;
c.) If at any point a team takes a 5-run lead (or more), all players on both teams who have not yet left the game become eligible to pitch.
Sound good? Anyone see any potential unintended consequences of implementing my idea? The only thing I can think of is that it might be the death knell of the LOOGY (if that hasn't happened already). I can't find one reason why this wouldn't result in the following:
1. Fewer pitching changes
2. An end to the endless parade of faceless relievers
3. Pitchers - especially starters - no longer can always put maximum effort into every pitch, as they now may be required to stay on the mound for more than just one inning (or less).
I like the idea but wonder if teams would be able to get around the spirit of it somewhat by still carrying extra relievers on the roster but rotating them so they’d only throw 2 or maybe 3 short outings a week.
I’d want to make sure that teams can’t just swap out fresh relievers to handle the middle innings day after day.
Hey Mike, I read your comment and thought about it a bit. And I realized: that's probably exactly what teams would do. But that begs the question: why is that a bad thing? When I game it out, I see the 5 eligible pitcher rule working out something like this:
1. Starter probably needs to stay in at least 5+ innings, preferably 6, better 7, yadda yards
2. Manager has only 4 options when starter comes out, and invariably an elite late inning pitcher or perhaps trad 9th inning closer will be 1 of them
3. 3 pitchers left. Manager will want to have 1 pitcher who they prefer not to use unless necessary, so...
4. 2 pitchers will be the "bridge" to the elite guy (or however it plays out), with the pitcher from clause #3 as a backup option
So to me, this already heavily bakes in an incentive for a prominent starter and for that matter a prominent closer. Does the average fan - or even the hardcore fan - truly care on a buy-the-jersey level who pitches the 7th inning, or 6th? Many fanbases probably not even the 8th. So I think in conclusion that while your worries as stated are sound, they are sort of beside the point (no offense). The middle innings relievers being different day to day isn't really a problem in terms of what my proposal sets out to achieve: to re-emphasize the role of the starting pitcher, and to cut down on pitching changes per game.
I agree with what you’re trying to do and like the idea. What I’m wondering is, would teams still be able to run out two relievers to pitch say the 5th through 7th and have those guys consistently throwing in the upper 90’s because they don’t have to pitch for a few days?
To me, that’s a big part of what’s killing offense. I’m thinking if you force pitchers to pitch more - starters longer and relievers more often - they’ll have to pace themselves more. Then your choice for the middle innings is a starter who can’t go as all out as he would pitching 4-5 innings or a reliever who can’t burn himself out if he has to pitch again sooner.
Your proposal might well accomplish that as is though.
My only issue - is this proposal enough? This will limit changes and encourage longer starts, but I would still be in favor of a pitching clock and not letting the batter out of the batters box. And restricting the shift.
You'll find no argument from me on any of your further proposed changes, all of which I'm in favor of to at least some degree. My main focus with what I've written is restructuring the game so that there is more of an emphasis on starting pitching, which I believe is good for the game holistically, as well as cutting down on pitching changes, the current preponderance of which I believe lengthens games in a negative way.
To add on to my comments below, MLB has barely started optimizing for pitcher usage. The 7th inning (or sometimes even the 5th) of all but the very best starters is less effective than pretty much any reliever, and nothing we do can change this fact.
In addition, there is a VAST difference between the leverage of different innings. Teams have barely started exploiting this, but they will if MLB ever limits roster sizes (or perhaps even if not).
-- A single mop-up guy who pitches every low-leverage inning. Swap him out for another AAA arm if he gets tired or hurt, but until then have him pitch every inning when trailing by 5+, when leading by 7+, or when trailing late by 3+. It doesn't matter if he gets slammed every time out, since these games are pretty much determined already. The couple of extra games lost with this strategy will be more than made up for with fresh arms.
-- A team that scores 5+ runs in the top of the 1st will save their top starter for another day and pitch someone else. Sure, a worse starter might blow the game, but you've got to play the percentages.
-- Close games will still be a parade of middle relievers since this is still the most effective pitching strategy. But then in the next game the manager will be even more ready than usual to pull the plug and send in mop-up guy in the 3rd inning.
-- There will be more roster churn, up to the allowed limits. Pitch flamethrowing middle reliever guy 10 times in 2 weeks, then send him down to AAA for 2 weeks where he only pitches twice, then repeat. Or just put him on the 10 day IL.
I imagine there are other tricks too. And I don't think there's really any (reasonable, known) way to stop this trend. If you let a mile race be a run as a relay, don't complain when it turns into a 4x4.
See, I knew you hated my Jays after the AL east preview lol. Those pitchers are Blue Jay's (Mayza, Cimber, Romano). Great post otherwise.
"Then after Manoah left, the Blue Jays managed to scratch out only one run off relievers Mike Truk, Kevin Nogilny and Scott Dorque. No, I’m sorry, those are Super Nintendo made-up names again; it was actually Bobson Dugnutt, Jeromy Gride and Todd Bonzalez. No, those are also made-up Super Nintendo names. Stop that!
The actual pitchers were Tim Mayza, Adam Cimber and Jordan Romano."
My brother and I were talking recently about the 1971 opener between St. Louis and Chicago, won by the Cubs, 2-1 in 10 innings. Both Fergie Jenkins and Bob Gibson went the distance on a cold Chicago afternoon. This game highlights the lack of star-quality starting pitchers today. Take a look at the Opening Day starters in 1971: Tom Seaver, Doc Ellis, Bert Blyleven, Juan Marichal, Tommy John, Catfish Hunter, Dave McNally, both Gaylord and Jim Perry, Mickey Lolich, Claude Osteen, Don Wilson, and Jenkins and Gibson. A lot of Hall of Famers in this group.
The biggest problem is that having starting pitchers never has been a good strategy. The strikeouts and lack of extra-base hits are tractable problems: some combination of lowering the mound, deadening the ball, and a pitch clock should help with these problems since it pushes the incentives in the right direction.
But I don’t see any competitive incentives pushing managers in the direction of longer starts or fewer relievers. In fact, the better hitting stats in the first three innings means that baseball hasn’t yet gone far ENOUGH in the direction of shorter starts. If those first three innings currently have the weakest pitching, then starters need to be on an even shorter lead or more teams need to try the opener or something.
I think the main thing keeping starters around at this point is tradition. If baseball were just starting now as a new sport, and you knew what you know now about the way that pitchers operate, would you even have a “starter” in the way they exist now? I imagine that the ideal schema would be to have roughly 6-8 pitchers per game, mostly pitching 1-2 innings each until the score gets lopsided and a long reliever is brought in to mop up or hold the 7-run lead. The best pitchers maybe would get 2 or even 3 innings per appearance, or they would pitch more frequently, or they would be “closers”. But I don’t see how a 6-inning start survives in this new world.
And I think the same would have been true back in the day. You always hear that pitchers could go easier for the bottom half of the lineup, but it’s not like those guys never got any hits. I’m very confident that if you brought the current pitcher usage to 1920s or 1950s (or even 1910s or 1960s) MLB, it would drive down runs then too.
We either need to accept that a parade of relievers is ok as long as the game is fast-paced with lots of action, or we need stringent rules forcing a style of pitcher usage that has proven to be radically suboptimal. But the “reliever parade” is a qualitatively different problem that the rest of the in-game issues facing MLB; we know how to address those to a certain extent, if the will is there. But the reliever parade issue in my opinion is embedded in the structure of baseball in a way the others aren’t. It just took us 100 years to fully figure out it was there.
Good points. Luckily (for me, at least), not having a starting pitcher go (say) 7 or 8 innings is not a huge deal for me. Sure, I prefer it, but a fast paced game with lots of base hits and baserunners while each pitcher only goes through the lineup once? I could live with that.
Maybe, but I'm not sure. First, as others have mentioned, the players' association isn't thrilled with the idea.
But also, fewer pitchers on the roster doesn't say anything about what is allowed for an individual game. Suppose rosters are allowed 10 pitchers at a time. I see teams moving towards the following:
-- Moving pitchers back and forth from AAA even more than they do now. Have him up for two weeks pitching lots of innings, then send him down for two weeks with a maintenance-level workload. Of course, it depends on the specific rules around call-ups, but both the pitching changes in recent years and the decline of the minor leagues as their own entities point towards this trend.
-- Mid-length, more frequent appearances. It's always going to be the case that the 7th inning of all but the very best starter is less effective than the first inning of pretty much any reliever.
-- Teams that are quickly to "give up" and put in a mop-up guy, or even a position player. The reality is that down even two runs in the last third of the game, your pitching innings are pretty low leverage. Yeah, you'll lose out on a couple wins where your lineup mounted a comeback but the mop-up guy had already given up two runs and so the comeback fell short. But the vast majority of the time, you won't change the outcome by doing this, and you'll preserve the all-important freshness for tomorrow.
All of this combines to say: teams haven't finished optimizing for pitcher workload, not even close. So putting restrictive rules on the number of pitchers would probably help address the problem, at least in the short-term, but it would also put pressure on teams to optimize even harder.
I thought they've limited the number of times players can bounce between AAA and the majors starting this year. If that's the case, bouncing pitchers from game to game wouldn't happen much.
First, let's not forget that the reliever usage is particularly extreme due to the owner-initiated lockout. Also — and I can only speak as an Orioles fan — we have had zero problem getting on base so far this season. However, I've lost count of how many times we've loaded the bases over the first nine games and stranded all runners.
While I agree with others who've commented about the desperate need for a pitch clock and robots calling balls & strikes, I think the league has (again) messed with the balls to "de-juice" them, and I also think that a lot of the batters are, physiologically speaking, still in spring training form. I expect the HRs to increase as they get more reps and the weather warms up.
I had hoped that batters who face the shift would eventually conquer it since, well, they’re professionals. That hasn’t much happened. Remember how they tried to teach you how to bunt in Little League? You should have listened.
Limit the number of pitchers per roster? Good luck getting the Players Union to agree to that.
Pitch clock? Should have been instituted 15 years ago. Why is that one so difficult?
Good luck getting the next generations to support MLB.
I don’t follow the logic. Would you rather start an inning with a runner on first or nobody on base? I want to see you guys like Kenny Loften or Brett Butler. A good bunter should be able to bunt for a hit like 75+% of the time against the shift. I think what you are seeing is a bunch of players who never learned to bunt because they were always the best hitters growing up. And it is very hard to learn that at the major league level. Current major leaguers will not re-learn how to hit to beat the shift. But different types of hitters will be selected to advance through the minors if the shift continues, and those will be the guys who can bunt, go the other way, etc.
There's a great article in the Bridgewater (NJ) Courier-News titled "Youthful Interest is Drifting From Baseball" that's right on point.
From June 4, 1925.
The owners largely are dopes who aren't helping, but IMO the game remains beautiful and in no danger (and in absolutely no need for changes that alter how the game is played, such as the idiotic ghost runner or the three-batter minimum) but for the fact that most people are being priced out and timed out of what makes kids love the game, which is attending in person in decent seats in the glorious sunshine and warm temperatures and eating hot dogs and popcorn and peanuts.
Does MLB need union agreement to limit the number of pitchers on a roster? I know Manfred can unilaterally change rules with 45 days notice, but I'm not sure what "rules" that applies to.
Shouldn't be a thing, actually. Game rosters have to be composed of players on the 40-man Major League roster, so they're getting paid MLB money whether they're in AAA or up with the big club. As long as they're getting paid, the union is fine.
I think plan b has to revolve around pitch clocks and roster restrictions.
Pitch clocks will reduce velocity by reducing time between pitches. There’s been research in this area that shows a lack of recovery between pitches will bring pitch speed down.
The roster is obvious- if you give a manager 15 pitchers he will use them. If he only has 10 or 11, the incentives change a lot over 162 games.
Maybe more important than roster limits is to limit the number of moves, either per player or per team or both. Stop shuttling pitchers between MLB and AAA.
According to Baseball Savant, balls hit 101mph off the bat at a launch angle between 24 and 38 degrees resulted in a HR almost 43% of the time in 2021. This year, it's a paltry 29.7%. Smaller sample size, obviously (only 47 such batted balls this year compared to 804 in 2021) but still, the trend is staggering.
In a more general way, even though hard-hit balls are occurring at about the same rate as last year, they are not turning into hits, and especially into homers, as often.
In 2021 there were 49,558 batted balls of 95mph or more, or about 10.21 per game, which became homers 12% of the time. This year, it's 10.13 per game, a difference of less than 1%, but they're turning into homers at a rate of only 9.4%, a decrease of more than 20%.
Overall in 2022, the leagues have an average exit velo of 89mph, with an average launch angle of 12.8 degrees and a barrel percentage of 39.5%, all slightly UP from last year (88.8mph, 12.6deg, and 38.7%, respectively), such that the expected BA and SLG are up, but the ACTUAL BA and SLG (and also OBP, slightly), are in fact DOWN. Batting average is down 11 points from the abysmal low of .244 it hit last year. SLG is down 34 points! How the hell can Barrels be up but slugging be down unless they have screwed around with the ball itself?
It seems they have greatly increased the drag coefficient on the ball such that even very hard hit balls that travel at an angle that would normally carry them out of the park can no longer quite get there, at least not as often. This is a HUGE difference and with the data available publicly these days, it's an obvious one.
This seems like an extreme overreaction. It was only a few years ago in 2019 that people were crying about the high number of home runs, lamenting the end of the game as we know it and wondering what in the world we could ever do to change the endless parade of home run hitters. Panicking that the home run rate was significantly higher than any year in history.
So, baseball does the humidor thing and we are now lamenting the loss of the home run? Pick a lane people!
A couple of things to consider first: Spring Training started 4 weeks late, so for the hitting (which always seems to be a little behind the pitching early in the year) it is still March 22nd. Secondly, it has been a much colder than usual April over most of the country. As a small example, my baseball city in the midwest has been more than 4 degrees cooler on average since April 7th (the beginning of the season) and 4 degrees is actually a big difference.
But the biggest thing to consider is that home runs aren't that low. Despite the fact that it is early in a cold April with a shortened spring training, the home run rate is higher than 2010, 2011, 2013, and 2014. (When people seemed to be happy about a return to balance) Oh, not to mention every single season in history prior to 1994 (when the steroid era began in earnest) with the exception of 1987. (When the biggest story of the season was the juiced ball) This season, right now, before summer is even close, ranks 26th in home run rate over the last 100 years, and I guarantee it will end higher than that.
No one's getting a hit off of Todd Bonzalez.
1. Mid-inning pitching changes are illegal.
2. For every between-inning pitching change, the batting team is awarded one extra out in the inning in which the new pitcher enters. You want to pull the starter after the 4th? Fine, but now you have to record 4 outs when I bat in the fifth. You want to use your 7th inning guy, then your 8th inning guy, then your 9th inning guy? Fine, but now you have to get 4 outs in each of those innings.
Radical, but I like this. You could combine them into a single rule. Just give an extra out for each pitching change, under all circumstances. The LOOGY becomes a lot less appealing if switching him in and out gives the batting team two extra outs for the inning
I absolutely adore baseball when I was a kid. Now I really struggle to watch for a variety of reasons that Joe has outlined here and elsewhere. I really hope at some point they make the changes they need to bring back a watchable version of this thing.
Depending on who you ask, baseball is 75% pitching except for the 90% that's mental and the other half that's physical.
And here I thought we’d get a delightful ‘can you believe Pujols start since returning to St Louis?’ kind of story.
"I am once again asking" for MLB - or at least anyone reading this comment - to consider the following proposal:
Game Eligible Pitchers.
1.) Before every game, each manager is allowed to designate up to five pitchers who are eligible for use in that game, including the starter. During regular nine innings of the game, only pitchers who are named on the Game Eligible Pitchers list can be inserted into the game as a pitcher;
a.) If a game eligible pitcher is injured and has to leave the game, the manager of that player's team may replace him on the list with another available player, but it's a one-out, one-in situation;
b.) If the game goes to extra innings, all players on both teams who have not yet exited the game become eligible to pitch;
c.) If at any point a team takes a 5-run lead (or more), all players on both teams who have not yet left the game become eligible to pitch.
Sound good? Anyone see any potential unintended consequences of implementing my idea? The only thing I can think of is that it might be the death knell of the LOOGY (if that hasn't happened already). I can't find one reason why this wouldn't result in the following:
1. Fewer pitching changes
2. An end to the endless parade of faceless relievers
3. Pitchers - especially starters - no longer can always put maximum effort into every pitch, as they now may be required to stay on the mound for more than just one inning (or less).
4. Faster pace of game
I like the idea but wonder if teams would be able to get around the spirit of it somewhat by still carrying extra relievers on the roster but rotating them so they’d only throw 2 or maybe 3 short outings a week.
I’d want to make sure that teams can’t just swap out fresh relievers to handle the middle innings day after day.
Hey Mike, I read your comment and thought about it a bit. And I realized: that's probably exactly what teams would do. But that begs the question: why is that a bad thing? When I game it out, I see the 5 eligible pitcher rule working out something like this:
1. Starter probably needs to stay in at least 5+ innings, preferably 6, better 7, yadda yards
2. Manager has only 4 options when starter comes out, and invariably an elite late inning pitcher or perhaps trad 9th inning closer will be 1 of them
3. 3 pitchers left. Manager will want to have 1 pitcher who they prefer not to use unless necessary, so...
4. 2 pitchers will be the "bridge" to the elite guy (or however it plays out), with the pitcher from clause #3 as a backup option
So to me, this already heavily bakes in an incentive for a prominent starter and for that matter a prominent closer. Does the average fan - or even the hardcore fan - truly care on a buy-the-jersey level who pitches the 7th inning, or 6th? Many fanbases probably not even the 8th. So I think in conclusion that while your worries as stated are sound, they are sort of beside the point (no offense). The middle innings relievers being different day to day isn't really a problem in terms of what my proposal sets out to achieve: to re-emphasize the role of the starting pitcher, and to cut down on pitching changes per game.
I agree with what you’re trying to do and like the idea. What I’m wondering is, would teams still be able to run out two relievers to pitch say the 5th through 7th and have those guys consistently throwing in the upper 90’s because they don’t have to pitch for a few days?
To me, that’s a big part of what’s killing offense. I’m thinking if you force pitchers to pitch more - starters longer and relievers more often - they’ll have to pace themselves more. Then your choice for the middle innings is a starter who can’t go as all out as he would pitching 4-5 innings or a reliever who can’t burn himself out if he has to pitch again sooner.
Your proposal might well accomplish that as is though.
You're right about LOOGYs - the 3-batter minimum put paid to that.
My only issue - is this proposal enough? This will limit changes and encourage longer starts, but I would still be in favor of a pitching clock and not letting the batter out of the batters box. And restricting the shift.
You'll find no argument from me on any of your further proposed changes, all of which I'm in favor of to at least some degree. My main focus with what I've written is restructuring the game so that there is more of an emphasis on starting pitching, which I believe is good for the game holistically, as well as cutting down on pitching changes, the current preponderance of which I believe lengthens games in a negative way.
To add on to my comments below, MLB has barely started optimizing for pitcher usage. The 7th inning (or sometimes even the 5th) of all but the very best starters is less effective than pretty much any reliever, and nothing we do can change this fact.
In addition, there is a VAST difference between the leverage of different innings. Teams have barely started exploiting this, but they will if MLB ever limits roster sizes (or perhaps even if not).
-- A single mop-up guy who pitches every low-leverage inning. Swap him out for another AAA arm if he gets tired or hurt, but until then have him pitch every inning when trailing by 5+, when leading by 7+, or when trailing late by 3+. It doesn't matter if he gets slammed every time out, since these games are pretty much determined already. The couple of extra games lost with this strategy will be more than made up for with fresh arms.
-- A team that scores 5+ runs in the top of the 1st will save their top starter for another day and pitch someone else. Sure, a worse starter might blow the game, but you've got to play the percentages.
-- Close games will still be a parade of middle relievers since this is still the most effective pitching strategy. But then in the next game the manager will be even more ready than usual to pull the plug and send in mop-up guy in the 3rd inning.
-- There will be more roster churn, up to the allowed limits. Pitch flamethrowing middle reliever guy 10 times in 2 weeks, then send him down to AAA for 2 weeks where he only pitches twice, then repeat. Or just put him on the 10 day IL.
I imagine there are other tricks too. And I don't think there's really any (reasonable, known) way to stop this trend. If you let a mile race be a run as a relay, don't complain when it turns into a 4x4.
See, I knew you hated my Jays after the AL east preview lol. Those pitchers are Blue Jay's (Mayza, Cimber, Romano). Great post otherwise.
"Then after Manoah left, the Blue Jays managed to scratch out only one run off relievers Mike Truk, Kevin Nogilny and Scott Dorque. No, I’m sorry, those are Super Nintendo made-up names again; it was actually Bobson Dugnutt, Jeromy Gride and Todd Bonzalez. No, those are also made-up Super Nintendo names. Stop that!
The actual pitchers were Tim Mayza, Adam Cimber and Jordan Romano."
My brother and I were talking recently about the 1971 opener between St. Louis and Chicago, won by the Cubs, 2-1 in 10 innings. Both Fergie Jenkins and Bob Gibson went the distance on a cold Chicago afternoon. This game highlights the lack of star-quality starting pitchers today. Take a look at the Opening Day starters in 1971: Tom Seaver, Doc Ellis, Bert Blyleven, Juan Marichal, Tommy John, Catfish Hunter, Dave McNally, both Gaylord and Jim Perry, Mickey Lolich, Claude Osteen, Don Wilson, and Jenkins and Gibson. A lot of Hall of Famers in this group.
Whereas none of the 2022 opening day starters are in the Hall of Fame?
The biggest problem is that having starting pitchers never has been a good strategy. The strikeouts and lack of extra-base hits are tractable problems: some combination of lowering the mound, deadening the ball, and a pitch clock should help with these problems since it pushes the incentives in the right direction.
But I don’t see any competitive incentives pushing managers in the direction of longer starts or fewer relievers. In fact, the better hitting stats in the first three innings means that baseball hasn’t yet gone far ENOUGH in the direction of shorter starts. If those first three innings currently have the weakest pitching, then starters need to be on an even shorter lead or more teams need to try the opener or something.
I think the main thing keeping starters around at this point is tradition. If baseball were just starting now as a new sport, and you knew what you know now about the way that pitchers operate, would you even have a “starter” in the way they exist now? I imagine that the ideal schema would be to have roughly 6-8 pitchers per game, mostly pitching 1-2 innings each until the score gets lopsided and a long reliever is brought in to mop up or hold the 7-run lead. The best pitchers maybe would get 2 or even 3 innings per appearance, or they would pitch more frequently, or they would be “closers”. But I don’t see how a 6-inning start survives in this new world.
And I think the same would have been true back in the day. You always hear that pitchers could go easier for the bottom half of the lineup, but it’s not like those guys never got any hits. I’m very confident that if you brought the current pitcher usage to 1920s or 1950s (or even 1910s or 1960s) MLB, it would drive down runs then too.
We either need to accept that a parade of relievers is ok as long as the game is fast-paced with lots of action, or we need stringent rules forcing a style of pitcher usage that has proven to be radically suboptimal. But the “reliever parade” is a qualitatively different problem that the rest of the in-game issues facing MLB; we know how to address those to a certain extent, if the will is there. But the reliever parade issue in my opinion is embedded in the structure of baseball in a way the others aren’t. It just took us 100 years to fully figure out it was there.
Good points. Luckily (for me, at least), not having a starting pitcher go (say) 7 or 8 innings is not a huge deal for me. Sure, I prefer it, but a fast paced game with lots of base hits and baserunners while each pitcher only goes through the lineup once? I could live with that.
If they had to carry fewer pitchers, that would do it, right? Of course it would cause other problems.
Maybe, but I'm not sure. First, as others have mentioned, the players' association isn't thrilled with the idea.
But also, fewer pitchers on the roster doesn't say anything about what is allowed for an individual game. Suppose rosters are allowed 10 pitchers at a time. I see teams moving towards the following:
-- Moving pitchers back and forth from AAA even more than they do now. Have him up for two weeks pitching lots of innings, then send him down for two weeks with a maintenance-level workload. Of course, it depends on the specific rules around call-ups, but both the pitching changes in recent years and the decline of the minor leagues as their own entities point towards this trend.
-- Mid-length, more frequent appearances. It's always going to be the case that the 7th inning of all but the very best starter is less effective than the first inning of pretty much any reliever.
-- Teams that are quickly to "give up" and put in a mop-up guy, or even a position player. The reality is that down even two runs in the last third of the game, your pitching innings are pretty low leverage. Yeah, you'll lose out on a couple wins where your lineup mounted a comeback but the mop-up guy had already given up two runs and so the comeback fell short. But the vast majority of the time, you won't change the outcome by doing this, and you'll preserve the all-important freshness for tomorrow.
All of this combines to say: teams haven't finished optimizing for pitcher workload, not even close. So putting restrictive rules on the number of pitchers would probably help address the problem, at least in the short-term, but it would also put pressure on teams to optimize even harder.
I thought they've limited the number of times players can bounce between AAA and the majors starting this year. If that's the case, bouncing pitchers from game to game wouldn't happen much.
First, let's not forget that the reliever usage is particularly extreme due to the owner-initiated lockout. Also — and I can only speak as an Orioles fan — we have had zero problem getting on base so far this season. However, I've lost count of how many times we've loaded the bases over the first nine games and stranded all runners.
While I agree with others who've commented about the desperate need for a pitch clock and robots calling balls & strikes, I think the league has (again) messed with the balls to "de-juice" them, and I also think that a lot of the batters are, physiologically speaking, still in spring training form. I expect the HRs to increase as they get more reps and the weather warms up.
Sleve McDichael is a legend. He and Karl Dandleton were basically unstoppable.
I had hoped that batters who face the shift would eventually conquer it since, well, they’re professionals. That hasn’t much happened. Remember how they tried to teach you how to bunt in Little League? You should have listened.
Limit the number of pitchers per roster? Good luck getting the Players Union to agree to that.
Pitch clock? Should have been instituted 15 years ago. Why is that one so difficult?
Good luck getting the next generations to support MLB.
Read this about beating the shift.. it's just not going to happen: https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/24049347/mlb-hitters-explain-why-just-beat-shift
I don’t follow the logic. Would you rather start an inning with a runner on first or nobody on base? I want to see you guys like Kenny Loften or Brett Butler. A good bunter should be able to bunt for a hit like 75+% of the time against the shift. I think what you are seeing is a bunch of players who never learned to bunt because they were always the best hitters growing up. And it is very hard to learn that at the major league level. Current major leaguers will not re-learn how to hit to beat the shift. But different types of hitters will be selected to advance through the minors if the shift continues, and those will be the guys who can bunt, go the other way, etc.
Great article with baseball logic that I would never think of. Thanks.
There's a great article in the Bridgewater (NJ) Courier-News titled "Youthful Interest is Drifting From Baseball" that's right on point.
From June 4, 1925.
The owners largely are dopes who aren't helping, but IMO the game remains beautiful and in no danger (and in absolutely no need for changes that alter how the game is played, such as the idiotic ghost runner or the three-batter minimum) but for the fact that most people are being priced out and timed out of what makes kids love the game, which is attending in person in decent seats in the glorious sunshine and warm temperatures and eating hot dogs and popcorn and peanuts.
Does MLB need union agreement to limit the number of pitchers on a roster? I know Manfred can unilaterally change rules with 45 days notice, but I'm not sure what "rules" that applies to.
Shouldn't be a thing, actually. Game rosters have to be composed of players on the 40-man Major League roster, so they're getting paid MLB money whether they're in AAA or up with the big club. As long as they're getting paid, the union is fine.
I think plan b has to revolve around pitch clocks and roster restrictions.
Pitch clocks will reduce velocity by reducing time between pitches. There’s been research in this area that shows a lack of recovery between pitches will bring pitch speed down.
The roster is obvious- if you give a manager 15 pitchers he will use them. If he only has 10 or 11, the incentives change a lot over 162 games.
We need to incentivize long starts again.
Maybe more important than roster limits is to limit the number of moves, either per player or per team or both. Stop shuttling pitchers between MLB and AAA.