MLB Off-Topic

[LowerWolf]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

This six-inning minimum for SPs can’t be an idea they’re actually considering.

[Majingir]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

This six-inning minimum for SPs can’t be an idea they’re actually considering.

When I first heard of that I thought they meant 6 innings to qualify for a win.

[Ghost Of The Year]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

This six-inning minimum for SPs can’t be an idea they’re actually considering.

If they would just raise the mound height to fifteen inches, I truly believe that would solve seventy percent of MLB problems. Most batters would have to change their approach to hitting. The launch angle fad would die a well-deserved death because most batters wouldn't be able to get that perfect angle anymore. They would need to learn to hit singles and then more doubles would increase by extension. Strikeouts would go down, walks would go down, homeruns would go down, stolen bases would go up , pitchers wouldn't feel like every pitch needed to be triple digit mph numbers, pitcher injuries would go down, pitchers would then be able to focus more on control again, it would just be an overall more enjoyable style of baseball. But raising the mound all the way back to 1968 levels at eighteen inches would go too far and give pitchers too much advantage. Pitchers would then just naturally be able to hit that magic six inning mark without making it a rule. Heck, I would even be for letting a starting pitcher only, reenter a game one time per game after being removed.

[DrJones]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

If they would just raise the mound height to fifteen inches, I truly believe that would solve seventy percent of MLB problems. Most batters would have to change their approach to hitting. The launch angle fad would die a well-deserved death because most batters wouldn't be able to get that perfect angle anymore. They would need to learn to hit singles and then more doubles would increase by extension. Strikeouts would go down, walks would go down, homeruns would go down, stolen bases would go up , pitchers wouldn't feel like every pitch needed to be triple digit mph numbers, pitcher injuries would go down, pitchers would then be able to focus more on control again, it would just be an overall more enjoyable style of baseball. But raising the mound all the way back to 1968 levels at eighteen inches would go too far and give pitchers too much advantage. Pitchers would then just naturally be able to hit that magic six inning mark without making it a rule. Heck, I would even be for letting a starting pitcher only, reenter a game one time per game after being removed.

Not sure I'm reading this right. Wouldn't this just make pitchers more effective than they are now? Why would teams suddenly ask their pitchers to throw less hard and give up this advantage? They don't particularly care if their starters get hurt, so long as there's still an army of flamethrowers in the bullpen. The current system is bad for fans and for players (and perhaps for ratings), but the teams themselves are fine with it. They tend not to change unless forced to.

[dubcity]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

Every other sport is trying to evolve, while MLB (correctly) realizes that the evolution of their sport has been a massive L. Obsessive analytics, specialization, etc. Wild to watch it unfold in real time.

[DrJones]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

Every other sport is trying to evolve, while MLB (correctly) realizes that the evolution of their sport has been a massive L. Obsessive analytics, specialization, etc. Wild to watch it unfold in real time.

I don't know if I'd say "evolve" so much as teams in all sports are constantly looking for a competitive edge (going back to the days of spitballs), and unfortunately many of those edges aren't great for entertainment value. There's always going to be a push/pull: leagues in all sports have to continuously react to teams looking for loopholes. You can't count on the teams to police themselves because it's bad business. The two MLB teams who currently spend the least on their analytics departments? The Rockies and the White Sox.

[Master Live 013]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

One change for the worse that took place and I never understood why were rosters going from 25 to 26. Ummm, why? I guess it was COVID, but that has passed so why not go back to 25? MLBPA won't go for it now, but I don't understand why the change was permanent.

[Ghost Of The Year]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

Not sure I'm reading this right. Wouldn't this just make pitchers more effective than they are now? Why would teams suddenly ask their pitchers to throw less hard and give up this advantage? They don't particularly care if their starters get hurt, so long as there's still an army of flamethrowers in the bullpen. The current system is bad for fans and for players (and perhaps for ratings), but the teams themselves are fine with it. They tend not to change unless forced to.

The sheer amount of homeruns have evolved where we are today starting with the 1990's. Pitchers had to evolve too, to the point that the best way to combat the homerun is throwing heat. Its the owners who want the glut of homeruns so until they realize they have actually cheapened the value of it for fans, they aren't going to do anything to reduce them. If/when/until the owners reverse course with the plethora of longball, pitchers won't feel they have to throw 3000 mph to get hitters out. They won't have to risk injury to compete effectively. You put emphasis on pitcher control instead of just throwing as hard as they can, without fear of the homer, they become better pitchers. I wouldn't even call what we have today ''pitchers''. They are only ''throwers''. But I have zero reason to believe the owners will have the good sense to back down from the amount of homeruns anytime soon. They think fans main interest in baseball is rooted in the homer, and want ten homers a game. And MLB ownership is by god going to give it to us, everything else be damned.
Only when they come to the conclusion they are hemorrhaging too much money for injured pitchers will they change. I'm not sure this inevitable change will happen in my lifetime tho.

[Blzer]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

One change for the worse that took place and I never understood why were rosters going from 25 to 26. Ummm, why? I guess it was COVID, but that has passed so why not go back to 25? MLBPA won't go for it now, but I don't understand why the change was permanent.

Shoot, back when I would've bid for 28.

But now you have a universal DH, pitchers face three minimum batters, and a stupid-as-all-hell extra inning baserunner rule that all of this is moot now.

[Master Live 013]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

One thing I have certainly realized is both, that sports change (basketball, baseball, football etc.) even if they seemed mostly static for most of my life so that makes accept some of the changes...

...and recently I realized (with recent changes to baseball and football mainly), back then, I would have had a heart attack with adding a 3-point line and would have gone straight to my grave with the DH.

That or become a bum, homeless and broke, down in a street corner rambling about "if you field, you bat". No doubt in my mind.



******** src="moz-extension://f319ef52-a14e-45ae-be3e-b8addef7be9d/js/app.js" type="text/javascript"></script>

[Ghost Of The Year]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

That or become a bum, homeless and broke, down in a street corner rambling about "if you field, you bat".

I've always had the opinion if they dont want pitchers to bat, thats fine, but you dont need a dh. Just have 8 batters.

[DrJones]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

The sheer amount of homeruns have evolved where we are today starting with the 1990's. Pitchers had to evolve too, to the point that the best way to combat the homerun is throwing heat. Its the owners who want the glut of homeruns so until they realize they have actually cheapened the value of it for fans, they aren't going to do anything to reduce them. If/when/until the owners reverse course with the plethora of longball, pitchers won't feel they have to throw 3000 mph to get hitters out. They won't have to risk injury to compete effectively. You put emphasis on pitcher control instead of just throwing as hard as they can, without fear of the homer, they become better pitchers. I wouldn't even call what we have today ''pitchers''. They are only ''throwers''. But I have zero reason to believe the owners will have the good sense to back down from the amount of homeruns anytime soon. They think fans main interest in baseball is rooted in the homer, and want ten homers a game. And MLB ownership is by god going to give it to us, everything else be damned.
Only when they come to the conclusion they are hemorrhaging too much money for injured pitchers will they change. I'm not sure this inevitable change will happen in my lifetime tho.

I agree with some parts of your premise and disagree with others. While it's true that the initial jump in strikeout rates coincided with the start of the steroids era (1994 or thereabouts), the home run rate has fluctuated wildly over the last 30 years whereas strikeouts have risen steadily. I don't believe that (most) owners believe that HR = $$$, otherwise why not keep the juiced ball from the mid-to-late 2010s?

Total HR across MLB (10 most recent full seasons):

2013 - 4661
2014 - 4186
2015 - 4909
2016 - 5610
2017 - 6105
2018 - 5885
2019 - 6776
2021 - 5940
2022 - 5215
2023 - 5868

Total K across MLB (10 most recent full seasons):

2013 - 36710
2014 - 37441
2015 - 37446
2016 - 38984
2017 - 40104
2018 - 41207
2019 - 42822
2021 - 42104
2022 - 40812
2023 - 41826

So since MLB ditched the juiced ball after the 2019 season, home runs are down 16% but strikeouts have gone down less than 3%. However, this has not resulted in any increase in singles, doubles, triples. See link for where I'm getting my numbers from:

https://www.baseball-reference.com/l...jors/bat.shtml

I think we all agree that baseball would be better served with starters lasting longer, not throwing as hard all the time, and that a balance can be achieved between launch-angle-obsession and small ball. But I think your proposed solution (raising the mound to 15 inches) would only make things worse. Yes, home runs would be suppressed, but so would all other kinds of hits. I don't think most teams will think, "Now that pitchers have more of an advantage, we can stretch out our starters and not rely solely on strikeouts" - the more likely strategies will be, "Now our flamethrowers will dominate more than ever!"

Why do I think that? Because I really don't think owners give a sh** about the health or endurance of their pitchers. I think they're fine with starters going only 4 innings. Their solution to hemorrhaging money on injured pitchers will likely be to avoid paying them in the first place. Blake Snell is 31, won the Cy Young last year, and could only get a 2-year deal. That is the likely future of pitching contracts if it's purely up to the owners - a very few superstars will make the big bucks, but the majority will be cycled through like NFL running backs.

I don't know if a 6-inning minimum is the way to go, but I think it'll take something similarly radical to get what the majority of fans want. I don't see teams voluntarily telling their pitchers to reduce velocity; they'll require rule changes that will force their hand. Severely reducing the number of pitchers available in the bullpen is probably the most organic way of fixing the problem, but the MLBPA will fight that tooth and nail.

[Blzer]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

I didn't understand the six-inning rule at first, but now I see they would have stipulations, such as if they allowed a certain number of runs or threw 100+ pitches... or got injured.

It's more than ridiculous, but I do love me some starting pitchers going deep into games.

[dubcity]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

I didn't understand the six-inning rule at first, but now I see they would have stipulations, such as if they allowed a certain number of runs or threw 100+ pitches... or got injured.

It's more than ridiculous, but I do love me some starting pitchers going deep into games.

It's just their way of gently moving teams in the direction of treating starters like starters used to be. Instead of managers going into reliever mode the second they get the itch, or going full on starter by committee. I doubt they even want to make it a rule, but it's guaranteed that teams won't change on their own.

[Ghost Of The Year]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

I agree with some parts of your premise and disagree with others. While it's true that the initial jump in strikeout rates coincided with the start of the steroids era (1994 or thereabouts), the home run rate has fluctuated wildly over the last 30 years whereas strikeouts have risen steadily. I don't believe that (most) owners believe that HR = $$$, otherwise why not keep the juiced ball from the mid-to-late 2010s?

Because they recognized when too much was too much.

Total HR across MLB (10 most recent full seasons):

2013 - 4661
2014 - 4186
2015 - 4909
2016 - 5610
2017 - 6105
2018 - 5885
2019 - 6776
2021 - 5940
2022 - 5215
2023 - 5868

Total K across MLB (10 most recent full seasons):

2013 - 36710
2014 - 37441
2015 - 37446
2016 - 38984
2017 - 40104
2018 - 41207
2019 - 42822
2021 - 42104
2022 - 40812
2023 - 41826

So since MLB ditched the juiced ball after the 2019 season, home runs are down 16% but strikeouts have gone down less than 3%. However, this has not resulted in any increase in singles, doubles, triples.

It will take time for hitters to unlearn the launch angle way of batting and relearn how to be complete hitters again. This won't happen overnight, or even in one year or two. And obviously some won't be able to do that, and have enough natural power to be longball threats. But there is a place in baseball for them. What we don't need is everyone coming to the plate looking to hit a three run homer (my opinion).

I think we all agree that baseball would be better served with starters lasting longer, not throwing as hard all the time, and that a balance can be achieved between launch-angle-obsession and small ball. But I think your proposed solution (raising the mound to 15 inches) would only make things worse. Yes, home runs would be suppressed, but so would all other kinds of hits. I don't think most teams will think, "Now that pitchers have more of an advantage, we can stretch out our starters and not rely solely on strikeouts" - the more likely strategies will be, "Now our flamethrowers will dominate more than ever!"

20-25 teams will stay this course. To start. The perennial have-nots, the bottom five, already know they can't compete with the money teams and have to find whatever advantage they can to win. Once these five teams start having more success than usual, its a copycat league. Another 5-10 teams will join in. That's all it will require.