Does MLB Need More Offense In the Modern Game?
On Sunday, Commissioner Manfred made some comments about considering the idea of restricting defensive shifts, an idea to which there was a considerable amount of public pushback. In an interview with Ken Rosenthal last night, Manfred clarified his position, and noted that there’s nothing wrong with exploring the idea of making changes even if they aren’t needed, chalking up the comments to nothing more than due diligence. On that point, I fully agree with him, as there’s no harm in asking questions.
There’s an implicit assumption in this particular question, however. The goal of restricting shifts would be to raise the level of offense in the game today, so those in favor of such an idea are tacitly stating that run scoring in Major League Baseball is currently lower than they would prefer. As offense has cratered over the last five years, it feels like the balance has shifted too far in favor of the pitchers, with the increasing size of the strike zone the primary culprit. As the game sets strikeout record after strikeout record, it becomes easy to conclude that changes are necessary, and the current run environment is just too low.
But I guess I’m not entirely sure that’s true. For reference, here is a chart of league average team runs per game for the 20th and 21st centuries.
Over the last 115 years, team run scoring has fluctuated around an average of about 4.4 runs per game. There was a sustained valley during the Dead Ball Era — and a small dip in the late 1960s before the mound was lowered and the DH was introduced — and sustained peaks during Babe Ruth’s prime and the Steroid Era, but mostly, the game has hung out between 4.0 and 5.0 runs per game, though generally closer to the lower end of that range. So, while the recent drops have pushed the game back down towards the 4.0 mark, we’re not really in a long sustained period of offensive ineptitude.
In fact, only the last four years have even been below the 4.38 R/G historical average, and 2014’s 4.07 runs per game mark is only the 28th lowest run scoring season in these last 115 years. It’s on the low end of the normal range, but it doesn’t seem like we’re yet at a crisis point to where we’d say the run environment is too different from the one the last few generations have seen. If 4.4 runs per game is the accepted normal point, is 4.1 runs per game really far enough away from that to think that we’re losing a generation of future fans due to the lack of offense?
Certainly, with questions of aesthetics like this, there is plenty of room for reasonable people to disagree. I don’t know that there is any one best run environment, as there are simply a series of trade-offs to be made when choosing how many runs we want to see in a normal game. But given how much emphasis in being placed on shortening the length of MLB’s games, it seems a little strange to also be prioritizing the infusion of offense back into the sport.
For me, I actually think something like this level of run scoring is just fine. I don’t need more runs to enjoy a baseball game, and I enjoy the increased competitiveness that comes with compressing the scores downwards. I think the lower run environment is part of why lower revenue teams are competing more capably with their richer brethren — when the spread in run differential is smaller, randomness plays a larger role — and I think there’s value in sustaining this level of competitive balance. I’m not married to 4.1 runs per game, but I have a slight preference for something in the 4.0 to 4.3 range.
Of course, this is mostly just a preference issue, not a clear better-or-worse discussion. Perhaps you prefer more offense, and enjoyed the sport more when the average was closer to 5.0 runs per game. I don’t think there’s any question that home runs are one of the most exciting events to happen in a game, and perhaps it’s as simple for many as more home runs equals more overall excitement. For all the modern-day handwringing about the damage that the Steroid Era did to the game’s credibility, the sport did surge in popularity when middle infielders looked like bodybuilders.
But I haven’t seen a lot of evidence that the decline in run scoring has been matched by a decline in interest in the game. Revenues continue to climb to record levels. Attendance is up. Television contract renewals suggest that the game remains one of the most valuable properties for networks to broadcast. If there’s been a big backlash against Major League Baseball because of its current level of run scoring, I haven’t really seen it.
Of course, that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t consider that there might be negative effects. Perhaps we’re just not measuring them well, or maybe they have a lagging effect and will start to manifest in a few years. Maybe the concern isn’t about the current level of run scoring, but the sharp downwards trend. Maybe we’re fine with 4.1 runs per game, but think that if changes aren’t made, we could end up at 3.7 sooner than later. Perhaps these conversations aren’t as much about about adding offense to current levels as it is from keeping run scoring from eroding even further.
But as the chart shows, I’m not so sure we should be that concerned about the recent downwards trend. Historically, we haven’t really seen the game take long slow declines into very low levels of offense; instead, we’ve seen the bottom drop out all at once, with corrections coming not long after. The game is cyclical, and doesn’t always require human intervention to find an equilibrium. And realistically, we’re not that far away from the normal as it is, and we’re only five years removed from the last season that matched the historical average run environment.
For me, I’m not sure MLB needs more run scoring. When we talk about the level of pitcher dominance in the game today, I think we’re mostly talking about the ever-increasing strikeout rate. The current lack of contact in MLB is absolutely something I think we should be concerned about, as the type of game we have today is dramatically different than the one that has been seen previously. Here’s what the percentage of walks, strikeouts, and hit by pitches looks like historically.
This is a clear trend, and one that is showing no signs of slowing down. This is the issue that I think MLB should be most aggressively trying to counteract. We’re reaching the point where one in every three plate appearances ends without any movement from the defenders. This is where I’d suggest there is evidence for intervention, and a strong case can be made for not just waiting for things to correct themselves.
But this is all maybe easier said than done, especially if we’re not really trying to infuse a lot of offense back into the game. If MLB managed to reduce the called strike zone in an effort to increase the number of balls in play, it would result in an uptick in run scoring, and likely an increase in the length of games as well. And perhaps that’s a trade-off that many would rather not make, preferring a shorter game with fewer balls in play over three hour affairs where the defenders have to get more exercise.
So, just for fun, let’s put this to a couple of polls. What kind of run environment do you favor, and are you more concerned with the time of game or the the types of events that occur during the game itself?
Dave is the Managing Editor of FanGraphs.
Nice bearish action after that head and shoulder chart formation.
Mortimer, your brother is not well. We better call an ambulance.
F*ck him! Now you listen to me. I want trading reopened right now. Get those brokers back in here! Turn those machines back on! Turn those machines back on!!!
MERRY NEW YEAR!
MLB doesn’t want more contact. Strikeouts are sexy. You know what’s boring? Routine infield grounders. Innings that go groundout, groundout, walk, groundout put casual fans to sleep. “More scoring” might be the excuse, but what they really want is more action. If that means more runs that’s great, but it’s really secondary.
Outs in play lead to better chance of highlight reels. Or bloopers.
Groundouts are also communist and strikeouts are about individual achievement – in other words, America.
Pitchers do get all the credit for groundouts, but this isn’t really fair.
Sorry, groundouts out-America strikeouts.
This is great.
“Don’t try to strike everybody out. Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they’re fascist. Throw some ground balls – it’s more democratic.”
-Bull Durham
>Strikeouts are sexy.
Strikeouts are time consuming. The biggest problem in baseball today is that the average game time. I love baseball, but a droning four-hour 400-pitch snoozer plain sucks unless you’re trying to drink the beer stand dry on a sunny day in the Wrigley bleachers.
What keeps fans involves are brisk innings that command attention because there are only about ten pitches in every half. Great spectator baseball involves contact and scoring, but typically not three nine-pitch walks and three nine-pitch strikeouts in an inning.
I mostly agree with you on “more action.” That would include more fielding plays and more baserunners, but fewer homers, K’s and BB’s.
What really bores me, though, are all the time between pitches, visits to the mound and changes of pitchers. The waste time bothers me, but not the length of the game per se.
Isn’t this discussion kind of a knee jerk reaction? Could it be more simple than baseball changing fundamentally? Teams were bombarded by amazing amounts of offense through the steroid era, could it be that baseball tried to respond through better defense and pitching? I would think that as team owners become more wary of a decline in interest they will switch priority to finding more offense. As a former pitcher I love the current state of the game, and prefer watching games that finish in 13 innings 1-0. Just means more baseball…
Great big + for that one. I love games where the first team to make a mistake loses it. Tense, compelling, great P&D = highlight reel material. Home runs are rally killers. Much rather see a 2 run single.
That’s right, home runs are rally killers. This guy, he knows what’s up.
Maybe in narrative terms, rather than WPA?
But, but, the Padres are stupid for prioritizing offense!
How do you know that a smaller strike zone would increase balls in play? How do you know that it would not merely increase the amount of walks?
While walks would increase, it would also increase the level of quality contact, as batters are swinging at more pitches in their wheelhouse and less pitches that are not.
I think that with the strike zone as large as it is, batters engage in far more “defensive swings” to protect the zone. This causes a handful of strikeouts, probably, on swinging strike 3s, but it also induces weak contact which puts poorer balls in play.
Finally, I don’t know if we have data to support this, but I personally believe that the expanded strike zone leads to more foul balls. A lot of those defensive swings are to foul off pitches at or even slightly below the knees so the batter “stays alive”.
Returning the strike zone to its historical size would increase the amount of walks, but batters refusing to bite on those pitches is not the only adjustment. Pitchers will also adjust by painting the new corners – and maybe those new corners will be easier to square up and hit into fair territory.
If what you’re asking for is more contact, one way to achieve that would be to try to rein in the low and outside strike that seems to be in favor now. It’s totally understandable why pitchers would want to keep it low and away, especially to power hitters. Don’t give that strike as much, make them get it up and over the plate. And call the high strike more. That change alone if applied consistently so that the pitchers expect it would reduce ground balls and probably allow the home run rate to rise a bit.
Yes, exactly!
Agreed on both counts.
Personally I am more in the bucket of “let the game just evolve naturally”. However, I do not consider that low-expanding zone to be a natural development, and in general unnatural developments are usually a bad thing.
That said, why exactly is the zone expanding? Is it due to far advanced league-wide pitch-framing improvements (which typically steal low strikes), just how the zone has drifted over the years in response to Questec, or something else? I do not know.
Hopefully the results show that most fans don’t care about the length of games and aren’t just aking tribute to Mr Banks.
What?
His ‘aking’ was meant to be ‘making.’
For me, low scoring games are the best. Nothing is more exciting than a one run ball game in the ninth. When a team is always within striking distance, it makes every play, walk, bunt, and single ten times more exciting. For me the most boring thing in baseball is a blowout. It doesn’t matter how many homeruns are hit, a day at the ballpark without parity is just not as good.
I like variety in my baseball. I have enjoyed lots of 12-8 type games during the PED era, but I love a good pitching duel too.
Depends how you got to that 1 run ball game in the 9th. If it’s because of dominate pitching and great defense, then it’s exciting. If it’s because runs are simply too hard to come by, it’s pretty boring.
If it’s because runs are simply too hard to come by, isn’t that because of dominant pitching and/or great defense?
I mean, if we’re talking about inept offense that’s another story entirely, but I don’t know if that’s the case, except for at Phillies games.
There is a Blowout Threshold beyond which blowouts go from dull right back to the pinnacle of entertainment, like my favourite blowout of all-time, Germany 7-1 Brazil.
True, but only because that level of blow out is rare. If say 12-2 baseball games seemed to happen once a week, it would probably take 20-3 games to get the blow out fans heart pumping.
i want 4.8-5.0, but i don’t see that as an option
Dave’s sending you a message.
Honestly, I don’t know if I really would have noticed the offensive decline over the last few years if I didn’t so frequently look at stats adjusted for run environment. The decline in run environment obviously is not affecting all teams equally though. As a Dodger fan, my team has still had a decent offense, but being a Padres fan might be unbearable.
I think the lower run scoring environment is a problem and wonder if that affects National TV ratings. I’ll watch my team regardless of the score but it’s hard to watch the Royals play the Indians for 9 innings of 4-2 baseball.
But the second graph is really the issue for me. As someone said, it’s not more offense but more action and more variety. In an individual game it’s fun to watch our pitcher rack up double digit strikeouts or better yet 14 or 15. But over the long haul of the season, strikeouts are boring.
I’d just fix the bottom of the strikezone. I’m not sure it would lead to longer games. Pitchers would have to throw more hittable pitches and batters would go after pitches early in the count. I assume at bats that end in strikeouts are longer than those that end with a ball in play.
The TV blackout rules are the #1 reason for baseball not being more popular. In the city of Memphis, where I now live, Reds, Braves, Cardinal, and Indians games are blacked out. Without an expensive baseball sports package on tv, seeing a weekly baseball game is not easy to do, and when they are telecast they are nearly all Yankee vs Red Sox games (ugh!). We are technically a Cardinals city, but I have not seen a Cardinals game on local TV in many many years. Meanwhile, I can watch 3-4 NFL games every week without any extra expenditure over my usual tv. As well as every Tennesee Titans game! Same for basketball! Which sports do you think local kids watch? The ones they can watch…. basketball and football!
It seems like there are a handful of parts of the country that just get totally hosed by the rules.
I don’t think fans care about the length of the game, as much as they care about the pace of the game.
For me, it’s both. I just don’t have 4 hours in a day to spend on a baseball game, even if it’s an exciting one.
That’s really too simple an answer, even if they cut 30 minutes off of a 4 hour game (which is pretty unrealistic) I doubt there’d be some sort of significant change in who could get a whole game in on a regular basis (of course I cheat anyway, I time-shift the first third of a game anyway).
Let’s assume an average game has 80 plate appearances (27 outs x 2 plus 13 x 2 others). An average game is 3 hours. If you can shave just 10 seconds (2.5 seconds per pitch) off each plate appearance, that’s 800 seconds. 800 seconds is over 13 minutes. No, that’s not half an hour, but start adding in things like mid-inning pitching changes or mound visit restrictions, and another 5-7 minutes is probably possible. All without changing anything that really matters to the game, or for revenue.
Right, the average is around 3 hours now. In the 70s it was closer to 2:30. Maybe we can’t get back to that because the number of pitches per PA is rising, but actually enforcing time to the plate, not granting every time out request, etc. could definitely put a 15 minute dent in things.
To me, that is significant. And it would make a difference in how many complete games I get to watch.
As a parent of a young boy, I have had enough of attending 4 hour games. I’m a season ticket holder and school night games are a real bear when they drag to 11pm. I love baseball, but it doesn’t need to take so long as we have direct evidence from previous eras. Of course the easiest solution is to shorten inning breaks and pitching changes, but TV will never give up that revenue.
I never have time for any baseball games (to strictly just sit there and watch), but almost never miss a one. The reason is I have a rule that, outside of playoff games, if I’m going to be watching/listening to a game, I must be doing something productive at the same time, whether it be simply running errands, exercising, cooking, cleaning, or checking off items on a honey-do list. I also occasionally batch certain items I do for work together that can be done while listening to a game. The net result is that all those otherwise unenjoyable tasks become nicer to do with a game on, and I get a ton of stuff done during the baseball season, and generally that’s also the time of year I’m in the best physical shape. All because of baseball and its lengthy, daily games. 🙂
One of the main reasons I don’t watch more baseball is the length of games. It is not a sport for people with jobs or kids.
I recommend radio.
This right here.
This. More balls in play and the game length and runs per game will take care of themselves.
I think polling FG readers is a bit biased for these polls, don’t you?
The desire is to get the level of interest of the CASUAL fan. In the offense heavy eras, where hallowed records were constantly at risk, casual fan interest surged. I think you are more likely to keep a casual fan’s interest when its a high offense era and the score is, say, 7-2 in the eighth. In the current state, most of us diehards would even turn the game off. But most would keep it on in a higher offense era because there is a higher perceived potential for an exciting rally. Forget the length of game issue at that point – if you’re interested, you’re interested, even if the game lasts an extra 15 minutes.
Even in 5 run/game environment a 7-2 game in the eighth is over and I suspect casual fans know this.
And duh a poll on fangraphs is biased, but I’m pretty sure it would be impossible for Dave to get Gallup to run the same poll…
You are correct, this entire discussion is futile. The individuals reading/ commenting here are largely irrelevant to the future success of the sport. The casual fans will determine if baseball ends up like boxing or horse racing, and I get the impression that the casual fans think baseball is boring.
I also think the tv revenue bubble is about to burst. At some point consumers are going to reject the higher cable/satellite bills that these deals lead to. In fact it has already started. The steroid era helped bring fans back to the game and all the new stadiums helped boost attendance, i am very interested to see where baseball goes next.
I think you’re onto something here around the idea that when hallowed records are at risk, the casual fan cares more. The thing about the steroid era is that home runs were hit in ridiculous numbers league wide, partly because of PEDs (working with that narrative, at least), and partly because people just didn’t hit home runs as much in years gone by.
In low-run environments, one would expect pitcher stats to be out of this world, and for records to be set, but because pitchers no longer throw 300 innings per season, they simply can’t break counting stat records, other than goofy ones like saves.
For example, Clayton Kershaw struck out 31.9% of batters last season to lead the majors. But he only threw 198.1 innings. By contrast, in Nolan Ryan’s 1973 season, for which he holds the record of 383 Ks, he threw 326 innings, striking out only 28.3% of batters. Chris Sale (30.4%), and Corey Kluber (28.3%) were also just as good or better than Ryan’s numbers that year. Now obviously a part of what makes that record-breaking season so impressive is that Ryan was so good for so many innings.
But I believe the point stands: pitchers very possibly could have set records last season if the game were played differently; if pitchers threw fourth game, and for 8 innings per game, for example. But the game isn’t played like that any longer, and that’s fine.
Screw the casual fan and his/her short attention span. Let them watch hockey fights and TMZ.
Lower scoring and longer games seems to make baseball more like soccer, and we know we hate soccer in the US.
(I’m kidding of course, kinda, sort of)
Lower scoring, fine, longer games though? Almost all soccer games come in under two hours.
Maybe it just seems like forever to score that one goal??
I’m for slightly more scoring and modest effort to shorten the game at the same time, but in different aspects.
I’d love to see this new lower strike trend reversed. And while I don’t like the idea of a pitch clock, I would support more effort to get pitchers to throw the ball at a faster rate, and prevent the batter from stepping out so often. This could be done behind the scenes, so to speak, with fines. Let the appearance of the game go on as usual, with umpires trying to remind batters and pitchers to keep things moving, but have the league monitor players and warn, then fine players who consistently slow the game down.
To me this whole thing doesn’t seem like we need something as drastic as a pitch clock. The last thing I want is a giant timer behind the umpires head or something. The game of baseball is supposed to appear to happen regardless of time. That’s one of the great things about it. Its one of the only sports without a clock. Lets keep it that way, while also keeping an eye on players slowing things down.
Another idea I’ve often thought of is limiting pitcher substitutions in an inning to be equal to = (number of batters reach base)/2 + 1 (of course substitutions for injury are ok too, but if you use this the pitch you took out won’t be available for the next game). So, if no one is on base, the defensive team can only make one pitching change, and two runners have to reach base to make a second change. This allows the defense to make a change, or a couple, if things start getting out of hand, but it prevents the rather absurd 4 lefty-righty pitching changes per inning when the only thing that happens is a lead off single, or something, which especially becomes a problem late in the year when the rosters expand. And that’s a problem the “pitch clock” can’t solve. Also by limiting the defense, rather than offense, it should help bring scoring up as well.
Oh and on that, lets not expand the rosters either, or at least not so much. That would help speed up the game for 2 months out of the year.
This post has me wishing *you* were commissioner. All solid points..
Thanks,
I certain take the job if anyone actually offered it to me.
I like these ideas although I take a slightly different approach. I believe we should limit timeout. Really they should just get rid of it near completely all around the game.
Each team can get one timeout per inning (really 9, plus one for each extra inning). These timeouts can be used for anything, mound visits, play substitutions, baserunners returning their elbow pads to a base coach, a batter stepping out of the box, etc. Everything we use timeout for now without even thinking.
Point is, don’t let the game ever stop. Timeout is called far too often, and the reason for that is because it’s free. Not only does this speed up the game, I think it would make it more exciting. Want to have another pow-wow on the mound? Better keep an eye on those base runners!
I was also thinking about this last season and, of course, one of the reasons games really start taking so long on the latter third (and partially probably a bit why strikeouts are up and scoring down) is because every team now keeps a bunch of high octane specialists in the pen and outside of the 9th inning, are changing pitchers frequently, sometimes every batter.
So one potential fix would simply be to make a rule that relief pitchers who start an inning, must finish it outside of an injury or reaching some maximum pitch count (like 30 pitches or something in the inning).
And, of course, there’d have to be some rules to keep managers from abusing that, simply saying a pitcher is injured when they are not. Perhaps making a rule that if they are removed because of an alleged injury, they aren’t allowed to pitch for the next XYZ days.
If nothing else, it would certainly make the last third of the game more interesting with run scoring up quite a bit when the runs potentially count the most and are the most dramatic. Would add quite a bit of excitement, instead of one batter faced, new pitcher, that we often get in close games today, which takes the game to a screeching halt in the worst way (where you just sit there watching/listening to ads while the new pitcher warms up.)
I think that limiting pitching substitutions would be the best change that baseball could make. I’ve thought for a while that any pitcher entering the game should need to face a minimum of two batters. The bullpen parade in the later innings can be hard to watch sometimes.
I agree. Only allowing a pitching change 1) after the pitcher has completed an inning (be the pitcher of record when the final out has been recorded) or 2) allowed a run to score, would greatly limit the number of within inning pitching changes and specialist one-out relievers on pitching rosters. There could also be an injury exemption to remove a pitcher (pitcher must go on DL).
My 2000 OPS would’ve led the league by a WIDE margin last year. The game needs me back. The comeback is live.
-Richie “King of Trade Value” Hidalgo
P.S. I also hit 44 bombs and played good defense in CF making $300k. Just saying…
Dude, baseball has gone into its own Operation Shutdown when it comes to you.
Wrong dude!
To be honest, the run scoring environment doesn’t concern me at all. It’s the length of the games, which is directly attributable to the pace of play. I love watching the games, but even so, it’s annoying to see the pitcher toss one outside for a ball, get the ball back, adjust his cap, kick some dirt around, while the batter steps out, leans the bat against his leg, adjusts his armor, his gloves, his helmet, takes a breath, steps in, the pitcher gets set, then there’s waiting, waiting, waiting, cause the pitcher and the catcher aren’t on the same page, so the catcher has to go out there and talk to him, then everyone is finally ready and the pitcher throws one in the dirt for another ball.
I love this game; every game could end 1-0 for all I care. I just don’t like seeing the scenario I described above repeated ad nauseam.
Perhaps if you watched a more exciting team!
sick burn
There should be an option:
“I don’t care about the scoring environment, I want shorter games.”
I’m in this line. I like the variety of baseball scores, and it doesn’t matter much to me if the average is 4.0 or 5.0. But fewer delays between pitches would be awfully nice.
I voted for the lower scoring if it means shorter games because it was the closest. I would have voted for the option you suggest if it had been there.
I find it silly that MLB is so interested in increasing the amount of offense in games yet also is making a concerted effort to shorten the length of games. More offense equals longer games on average. You can’t have it both ways.
Of course you can. Prior to 1960, the average length of a game was 2 1/2 hours or less and from around 1920-1960, offense was greater than today, sometimes much greater.
How much time did they have in commercial breaks?
How much time does soccer have in commercial breaks?
I think pace of play is a bigger problem than the length of the game. If games are long because there’s a lot of offense, that’s one thing. But 2-1 games lasting four hours because every single batter now has Nomar’s between-pitch ritual is ridiculous.
Should have nipped this in the bud with Mike Hargrove.
http://youtu.be/8tGm_JajqLo
I voted for tldr;
Other than batters and some pitchers is there anyone not concerned about the pace of play? To me this seems like the obvious fix as not only is it fairly easy to implement (simply keeping the hitter in the box would probably fix it) but it also has zero effect on the game.
if they step out of the box they can be tagged out!
Once they step in the box the pitcher doesn’t ever have to wait for the batter to ‘get ready.’
I would like to see players averages creep back up. What’s the MLB average for average? 250 something?
I would like to see more guys with 25 wins, but what can you say, some of these newfangled ‘statistics’ suggest that it’s a stupid stat to focus on.
I think some changes need to be implemented. I know there have been ebbs and flows in the past, but there have also been changes in the past (lowering the mound and eliminating roids, for example). I think the change in strike zone is a must, but I think it’s well past time the NL adopt the DH. There’s no good reason for the leagues to have different rules, AND there’s even no-er good reason for us to have to watch pitchers attempt to bunt or hit 2-3 times a game.
You don’t want to watch pitchers at the plate? Sounds like you want an eight man lineup.
I’d like to watch DH’s to have to play the field. There is no good reason to allow a team to have a guy that can’t field a baseball.
One thing I have thought of, and not seen anyone else propose, is the change of a walk to 3 balls. That would force pitchers to throw more to the strike zone, shorten at bats, maybe increase offence and game length. If it was 9 balls before a walk was issued back in the 1800s maybe a 21st century change should bring it down even further. Although a more properly enforced strike zone will probably have the same effect.
It would also restore the multiples of three that all the other game counters have.
That’s outside the box of you. Perhaps you’re unfamiliar of baseball’s aversion towards change.
Interesting, but would be a completely different game. Baseball history would have to start over. None of our offensive or pitching stats would matter anymore. I don’t want to destroy a game as beautiful as baseball.
But we still count statistics from an era when the game was very, very different.
I’m glad you mentioned that one because I’ve been thinking the same thing. Although I was thinking 3 balls and 2 strikes. It’s a pretty drastic change and one I’m not necessarily advocating, but I’d be really curious to see what the game would look like that way.
What percentage of run prevention is defense (to including catcher framing/blocking, etc) and what percentage is pitching?
Limit pitching changes to 1 per inning or none mid-inning. It would lead to relief pitchers having to have more than one skill, but in the meantime, until that happens, it would allow for better odds for the batter if he can face an opposite handed relief pitcher who may have come in to face the guy in front of him. Quicker games, or if not, more offense at higher leverage situations that will get fans excited.
Or just lots of walks and terrible pitching because you have to keep a RP in who has lost “it” (or never had “it”) on that day.
“I think the lower run environment is part of why lower revenue teams are competing more capably with their richer brethren — when the spread in run differential is smaller, randomness plays a larger role”
I believe that this comment hits the nail on the head. Baseball wants to see Red Sox vs Yankees. Exploring changes that would reduce randomness and allow for larger markets to be more predictably successful is what is desired. This just continues the same trend, like limiting spending in the draft. The less ways for small market teams to do something different to be successful, the better.
is there a historical pattern suggesting that low scoring environments are associated with greater parity? sure seems possible.
that is fascinating, and I never considered it until now.
No.
Actually the ‘5K%,etc’ trend has slowed, at least twice, for about a decade each time. Now, the slope over the last 20-30 years is ~1/2 to 3/4 what it was in the region up to 1970. In any case it’s unrelated to run production. That’s a strawman. You guys need to revisit the concordance between the question you’re asking and the analysis you’re using.
Well said, Dave.
I’m actually quite surprised at the results. I thought more people would favour more runs.
I definitely prefer the high run scoring environment because it separates the players more. The better hitters were better and the better pitchers were better in the late 90’s and early 00’s (relative to their peers). I like to see that massive spread.
Could the run environment actually be a result of a stronger, deeper talent pool?
We know the performance is a function of environment. All time great performances happen when conditions are favorable. This means that high variance in player performance is evidence of a lower talent pool.
That hitters are having trouble separating themselves from the pack could speak to deeper talent pools making it difficult for hitters to feast on weak pitching – rather than simply referencing the run environment.
Perhaps Clayton Kershaw disproves this theory.
The subject is baseball equilibrium – everyone knows the hitter should be doing better. Nice article.
Instituting reasonable PED testing looks like it would help the hitters. Clear path to a heavy PED use training program is there for all the players. After the second pee test of the year, its all good. Very key 2014 players did indeed notch up late in the year…just being the messenger, here.
Most PED use and weight/muscle gain is done in the offseason when you have 7 days to report for a test. During season you just need maintenance which is relatively easy for young players with normal testosterone levels, but a bit more difficult for older players who have less testosterone. Until last year DHEA helped as its a testosterone precursor, but it was added to the banned list last year
They need to just start taking the low hanging fruit to make the game slightly faster paced. 5 minutes here and there really add up. Keeping players in the box and on the mound, fixing the challenge system, reduce mound visits, and maybe penalize pick-off attempts that are buying time for a reliever to warm up. I agree with keeping away from a clock system and instead doing warnings and retroactive fines.
I think that you may be overly aggressive in assuming that an uptick in contact rate would result in longer games due to possible higher run scoring. If anything it will cut down on extended at bats and pitch counts due to balls being put in play earlier in the count and more often.
I like the current run-scoring environment far more than the steroid era. What I don’t like are all the strikeouts.
Baseball should be more concerned with the rising strikeout levels than actual scoring.
My wife is a casual baseball fan. She has no problems with the length of games because she finds baseball interesting. To the contray she finds football super boring and has no patience for football what so ever. Baseball is about the pitcher and the hitter and she enjoys that. The only way to reduce the time for casual fans that think the game is to long and make the game 7 inns.
or do something far less nuclear like shorten inning breaks, stop all the pitcher/batter time outs, speed up pitching changes/mound visits, and eliminate manager stall tactics (like the replay shuffle). The game can be played by the exact same rules it always has been and get times back in the 2:30 to 3 hr range.
Loved the article and the comments. A couple of random thoughts… modern stadiums are a factor in pace of game. Cant think of any bullpens that are currently beside a dugout. Also, umps have very little control of pace between innings, TV is also a factor in pace. The use of relievers is my vote for the biggest single factor, and that’s not going to change. Saw a DiceK start in 2013, it was ridiculous how long he took between pitches. I think the best answer lies in pushing for a faster time between pitches.
Just restrict the use of relievers. You can only replace the pitcher one per inning. There rule changed.
Too many low scoring games are boring. With huge ticket prices and excessively long games despite the scoring drought, it challenges even the most die hard fans to watch these games. So yes, they need to increase scoring, which means shrinking the strike zone back to pre-pitch f/x levels. Never complained about game length in a 12-10 slug fest, but all these 2-1 games make the games tedious.
you want the juice or not.
It’s all basically irrelevant. What we don’t want is interminable delays between every pitch. Umpires aren’t comfortable enforcing the rules that would prevent this, which is why the dreaded shot clock makes sense.
The game does need smaller strike zones but not via a rule change. The game needs more Eddie Gaedels.
I have three drastic suggested changes but please read them before judging.
1. Move all fences back to 450ft in every direction (standardize across the leagues).
A homerun is exciting but too often it promotes slower play with one-tooled players. Moving the fences back will encourage more aggressive pitching and more athletic players. While creating more opportunities for exciting Triples and Inside-the-park Homeruns.
2. Reduce the needed Balls for a walk to 2 and the needed Strikes for a K to 1.
Lowering the pitches needed for an at-bat instantly speeds up the time it takes to play a game. Hitters will now be looking to swing right away. Pitchers can now last much longer in games and will have fewer injuries as well.
3. Move the pitching Rubber back.
With smaller pitch counts and a larger outfield this is required to keep the run balance in check. Making it easier for hitters to get a hold of a pitch will cause a lot more balls in play and require strong defenses to counteract the tide.
These changes, while drastic, will result in a better overall game. Traditions are hard to drop, so I actually doubt these will be implemented. But hey, the pitching rubber used to be 50ft away from the Plate and while 3 strikes seems sacred it really isn’t. A better game can be had if we are willing to accept change. If implemented, games would likely have higher scores and shorter times. Players would become better defenders and more athletic in general.
Anyway something to think about.
So… like softball?
I recently watched a large chunk of Jim Maloney’s 1965 no-hitter. There were a some noticeable differences impacting the pace of that game versus today’s games. Most of them were the obvious ones such as the batter staying in the box and the pitcher setting up and delivering the pitch in a timely manner. However, one thing that really jumped out at me was the fact that the baseball was infrequently replaced. Regardless of whether it was a foul tip, a groundout, or a passes ball, the same ball generally stayed in play. I was surprised at the extent of which not replacing the ball kept alive the pace of the game. I wonder if there are counts of the average number of baseballs used in a game today compared to 50 years ago. Does anyone know?
I can’t speak for 50 years ago, but today I believe the average life span of a baseball is just over 3 pitches.
I keep pushing eliminating timeout. One of the side effects is that the umpire won’t be able to throw out the ball every time it hits the ground. If we cut out all of these unnecessary pauses the pacing and excitement will dramatically improve.
Shorten the games with fewer pitching changes, or at the very least more restrictive rules regarding them. Make the time between pitches shorter, both those things should help offense a bit and shorten the game.
If that is not enough lower the mound a bit. You could always get rid of the 7th inning stretch.
Since assanine suggestions seem to be in play here; I want Pitch tracker strike zones adjusted for ball park factors – so Coors has a big k zone and Petco has a small one.
Dave – the premise that baseball is cyclical and therefore may not need tweaking to help offense is missing a key point. The start of every inflationary period can be marked by a significant league or world change.
1920- live ball, outlawed spitters
1945- WWII ends and regulars return
1968- mound lowered
1992- PEDs
While you could argue there will always be a ‘next PED’ the other major inflection points were primarily event driven. and I’m pretty sure we don’t have to worry about Mike Trout enlisting anytime soon.
It isnt the shift, IMO its the bullpens and their usage. Used to be, starters were expected to go 8 innings, complete games were the norm. If the starter went only six, it was considered a marginal, to bad outing. Nowadays, starters just creep over five, and then the parade of six to eight more gas throwers out there. Manfred, how bout limiting bullpen usage instead of shifts??
I’m sorry but strikeouts are not communist, they’re capitalist. Know why? Strikeouts mean longer PAs. Longer PAs means more in-game advertising. More in-game advertising means more $$$ for multi-billion dollar corporations. Every time there is a one pitch out a Gatorade exec cringes and I smile. Oh do I smile
I’m not sorry and balls in play are communist, they’re not capitalist. I don’t know why! Balls in play mean shorter times not spent at the plate. Less out-of-game advertising means less $$$ for penniless people. At no time that there is a 33-pitch ball in play a Powerade grunt mailroom worker smiles and everyone except me cringes.
The Hardball Times talked about expanding the league, due to the increasing population meaning there are more people per team than at any point in baseball’s history. Expanding drops the average skill level a little, which will increase scoring.
I found the article interesting, for the things it missed out. It felt like trying to win a court case rather than come to an understanding. Talking about popularity, the one thing Dave didn’t mention was viewing figures, which are on a steady decline. And I think that’s a little more important than the amount of money teams make from cable deals – deals on which the bubble is already bursting, due to…can you guess?…reduced viewing figures disappointing the advertisers.
I’d rather you were honest than picking and choosing your figures to try and “win” a debate. Fangraphs readers are absolutely not the target audience for any changes to the game, as we’ll be watching anyway. It’s those people who enjoy the game but work and have kids and literally can’t spend 4 hours a night on a game. Just knowing that baseball was trying to speed up would help those casual fans, I’m sure.
Baseball is not as popular as it was, and your lack of willingness to tackle that elephant in the room head on is a problem for your analysis. The game needs to change, because this cyclical idea of yours completely ignores the huge changes to the game that improved the run-scoring of previous eras.
Amazed to see that the peaks in the PED years were actually lower than the peaks from the early live ball era. Changing the game has more effect than changing the players?
The batted ball and the fielder in action are what makes the game go. The biggest improvement that could be made here is the split screen on television.
When the pitcher is pitching, which does not take up a wide screen, pan the field and the dugouts for interesting things going on, instead of useless graphics. We are not watching the NFL here, dude.
When a home run is hit, the ball’s path does not take up the full screen. Show the batter moving into his home run trot or the dugout reaction. Heck, do that on fly balls.
On a triple, it’s important to be able to see both the fielder and the batter hauling ass. It’s also important to see the rest of the fielders moving into position, but you can’t have everything.
Too often, with only one view, we’re left to imagine the remainder of the field. There is so much going on left rot. Ponder you that.
Hitters foul off too many strikes down and away to get the pitch they want. That drives up pitch counts which lengthens games….pitchers hit 100 pitches by the 7th inning now, especially if they are facing Boston or the Yanks. I pay to watch a good pitcher go the distance, not be out of the game before the 7th inning.
I don’t know how this development is stymied. Maybe calling high strikes (at the letters like it used to be) makes the fouling off more difficult and causes pop-ups or K’s
What really hasn’t been addressed is why are hitters striking out so much today. Yes, the strike zone is probably one factor but IMO a larger factor is the poor approach that many hitters take. There are far too many players swinging for the fences that shouldn’t be.
You are all swatting a gnats and can’t see the horseflies! Offense started dropping when the pitching staffs increased to 11, then 12, an, at times, 13 pitchers. I have been a fan for 65 years and baseball has been fun until it became a pitcher’s game, with specialized pitchers to get one batter out, and so on. Now there are not as many reserves who could step up and get a hit. Reserves have even become specialized, and sometimes, it was the only chance to make a play or get that crucial hit. Pitching staffs should be limited to TEN. That used to be fine. Think of the time you would lessen a game by because there would be fewer pitching changes, less trips to the mound, etc. Owners – think of the money you would save by not having those extra high-priced specialty pitchers. I am not suggesting reducing the 25-man rosters, because then, more potential game-breakers would be available. There are more advantages to this proposal. I a surprised nobody has even considered this. It’s worth discussing and deeper consideration.
your second poll is indifferent to readers who may be relatively indifferent themselves to the run scoring environment within the parameters you’ve laid out, but may be interested in seeing ballgames either shortened or lengthened.
1. I don’t think the runs-per-game situation is remotely problematic. As many have stated, a tense 1-0 game can be an awesome viewing experience. Conversely, many of us love homers, baserunners, 3-run triples, back-to-back HR, the whole thing. Baseball is great because it can be entertaining in either low-scoring or high-scoring games.
2. On the other hand, I think the pace-of-play issue is gigantic, and I’m glad the the new Commish feels the same way. On this issue, I’m all for DRASTIC changes (despite the fact that on most issues, I’m a baseball traditionalist).
Anything that’ll stop hitters from taking time between each pitch to examine their wristbands, anything that’ll stop pitchers from slowly strolling around the mound and then casually delivering a pitch 30 seconds later, anything that’ll stop managers from using 4 relievers in a half-inning…I don’t care if it’s drastic action, or action that’s not in-line with historical norms. Just freaking implement it!
3. Bill James summed it up nicely, way back in the ’90’s: Anything that is stalling, or “horsing around crap” that ballplayers do to prevent the game from actually being played should be outlawed. Immediately.
Do away with the ground rule double.
Make it a ‘ground rule triple’
Then we can see the pitcher sweat over that runner on third messing with him.
By my calculations .6 runs created per game =1458 per season across MLB.
Does any stat service track runs lost to grd’s?
I like the game better during the steroid era. I understand why people like the game today, because of the fact that it stresses strategy and fundamentals like bunting and pitching and defense. However, I like pitching duals better during the steroid era, because it meant that pitching did it against the greatest lineups, which increased the state of impressiveness. I mean let’s face it, I’m not going to be impressed by Kershaw going out there and pitching a complete game shutout when it’s against most lineups that struggle to hit. I want to see pitchers show they can do it against really great lineups. I means if pitchers can’t prove they can do it against any group of hitters (whether steroid hitters or not), what does it say about them other than they can shut down pukey lineups, which most can do. My point is why is one pitcher who shuts down a weak lineup any different than another pitcher who shuts down the same weak lineup? I mean convincing me that a pitcher with a 3.50 ERA is not pitching well enough compared to a 2.50 ERA pitcher is like comparing apples to oranges form me. I mean when I never fear a pitcher can get hit, it zaps my interest, because it becomes all too predictable that a pitcher will be successful because hitters are that bad. I mean let’s face it, what made for a greater pitching dual, one that occurred in the steroid era or one that occurred today? For me it’s the steroid era, because you felt more fear and tension that the game could end at anytime with those type of offenses whereas today you feel like it could take forever.