MLB Off-Topic

[Master Live 013]

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">

[Ghost Of The Year]

Quote: Originally Posted by Master Live 013

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]

Quote: Originally Posted by Ghost Of The Year

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]

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]

Quote: Originally Posted by Blzer

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]

Quote: Originally Posted by DrJones

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.

Quote:

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).

Quote:

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.

[Ghost Of The Year]

Quote: Originally Posted by Master Live 013

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.

They need to get it back down to 25 man rosters. And the way to entice the MLBPA to approve it is by expanding to 32 teams. The first wave of MLB expansion was in the early 1960's, after having played 60 years with 16 teams. The second wave of expansion was in the late 1960's. The third wave of expansion was in the late 1970's. The fourth wave of expansion was the early 1990's. The last wave of expansion was the late 1990's. So now since the expansion era started, this 25 years without expanding is easily the longest drought of not expanding, handily beating the period 1978-1992. Expansion is way overdue and two more teams is doable, especially if you consider 30 teams X 26 players = 780 and 32 teams X 25 players = 800. That's adding 20 jobs to the MLBPA. I believe they would accept that.

[DrJones]

Quote: Originally Posted by Ghost Of The Year

Because they recognized when too much was too much.

That's why I disagree with your premise that owners push hard for HR because they think that HR = $$$. Baseball owners never voluntarily sacrifice short-term $$$.

Quote: Originally Posted by Ghost Of The Year

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).

Sure, you and I (the fans) don't want that. But will organizations really tell their hitters to try to play more of an aesthetically pleasing base-to-base style? Only if they think that gives them a better chance of winning games, and I don't think that's the case. They think that throwing 100mph is the best way to prevent hits (of all kinds), and they think that the best way of combating 100mph is to hit home runs (because that's easier to do against smoke than stringing 2-3 singles together). If the pitching mound is raised 3 inches, would teams really win more games by letting their starter pitch the 6th/7th innings as opposed to having fireballer relievers mow down batters even more effectively instead? Every advantage that a raised mound gives starters also applies to relievers, and relievers are cheaper to boot.

I might be out to lunch on this, but I personally feel that raising the mound would result in an even more extreme version of what we see now - more strikeouts, fewer hits. Yes, there would be fewer home runs, but also fewer singles and doubles, so I think orgs would double down on K as the most effective way of run prevention and HR as the most effective way of run creation. I think the mandatory 6-inning rule (again, I'm not necessarily endorsing this) would come much closer to getting the stylistic changes you want.

Quote: Originally Posted by Ghost Of The Year

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.

Again, that presumes that the Tampas of this world will think that they can gain a competitive advantage and save money by relying more on their starters and less on their bullpen. I have a tough time believing that.