How Would We Increase Balls in Play?
There’s a difference between watching the game at home and watching at the park, that much is obvious. Personally, I’m more analytical at home, where I have the tools to identify pitch type and location with some precision, for example. At the field, I can only tell velocity and maybe spot the curveballs, so I get an adult soda, a good companion, and I talk and wait.
What am I waiting for? “People go to the game to see us put the ball in play, throw the ball away, and fall down,” Giants starter Jeff Samardzija told me the other day. “They want to see people doing things,” said Indians slugger Jay Bruce. I couldn’t disagree. The problem, if this is true, is that baseball is trending in the opposite direction. There are fewer balls in play now than at any other point in the history of the sport. There’s less of people doing things, to use Bruce’s words.
Define balls in play as anything other than a walk, hit by pitch, strikeout, or home run, and you can see the trend back to the very beginning of baseball.

Ask a player why this has happened, and a common theme emerges. “Analytics is so far ahead for pitchers than hitters,” said Royals slugger Brandon Moss. “It doesn’t matter if we know what you’re about to throw, we still have to be able to hit it. Just because I know that you throw a curveball 70% [of the time] in a 2-1 count, that doesn’t help me. I don’t want to hit a curveball. I’m still going to look for my pitch.”
He’s not alone. Oakland infielder Jed Lowrie answered my question with one of his own: “Can you name an analytic breakthrough that helps the hitter?” When I suggested that a greater understanding of exit velocity and launch angles might help a hitter adjust — as it’s helped Mark Trumbo adjust recently — the two hitters disagreed. “Not one single time have I wondered what my exit velocity was,” said Moss, who sees the game from an analytical perch but doesn’t feel the new Statcast data helps hitters that much. “The only thing that matters is if it’s a hit or out.”
The idea that the shift has killed the ground ball is pervasive and contributes to the idea that analytics favor run prevention. “I’m trying to swing at a pitch that I can do some damage with, not just put it in play,” pointed out Moss. “You know why? Because if I put it in play over here, you’ve got fucking eight people over there on the right side, so if I put that curveball in play, I’m out. ‘Hey, everyone move to the right side, we’ll just pound him with balls that he puts on the ground!'”
The effect of the shift on league-wide results isn’t as obvious as Moss might suggest — not when you zoom out, at least. The hit percentage on a ground ball has remained steady while shifts have gone through the roof.

If the prospect of the shift has compelled hitters to adopt a more all-or-nothing approach, though, is there a way to fix it? Is there tweak we could make to the rules that would lead to more balls in play? “You don’t have to take away the shift,” said Moss. “But make those infielders stay on the infield grass. And they can’t stand in the outfield. So… when I do hit a ground ball through the right side, and it’s through, it’s through. Now I’m not as worried about the ground ball to the right side, so I’m more likely to put a ball in play.”
Given that every stadium has a regulation infield, this feels like a small measure that would be easy to enforce. We’d see fewer of these plays at least, plays that would’ve made us scratch our collective heads five years ago.
If the shift isn’t to blame, though, what might be responsible for the constant push towards fewer balls in play? Trevor Bauer put it succinctly: “Pitchers optimize for the strikeout and hitters optimize for the home run. It gives them the best return, so they’ll always trend in that direction in the power game.”
Part of that optimization process is velocity. “I can’t remember seeing so many guys throwing this hard,” Pirate John Jaso told our David Laurila. Since we’ve tracked this sort of thing, we’ve never seen fastballs thrown as hard as the ones we are seeing now, so he’s right to point it out.
And though velocity itself has been shown to have value, it also spreads to other pitches. “A lot of times, people strike out because they’re scared a fastball is going to get blown by them,” Jaso pointed out to Laurila. “They feel they have to get ready sooner — get the bat head out there — so they end up chasing stuff in the dirt because all their momentum is going forward.”
“I think it’s velocity,” agreed Bruce. And the numbers bear that out: with every addition mile per hour, the probability of a swing and miss increases. The speed of the pitch does contribute to the exit velocity of the ball in play, but only one-fifth of that exit velocity comes from the speed of the pitch; the other four-fifths are bat speed. And velocity contributes to ground balls, too — though, as Bruce said, “people are trying to hit the ball in the air” and the average launch angle around baseball has increased. About a degree in the last two years.
In any case, there’s little we can do about ever increasing velocity. It’s one of the most sought after tools, from Perfect Game showcases to the major leagues. So it keeps climbing.
Speaking with a fellow writer in the press box the other day, we wondered what would happen across baseball, professional and amateur, radar guns were to be banned. Given that the most recent data suggests more velocity means more stress — with the added nuance that pitchers who pitch closer to their personal max stress themselves the most, as Glenn Fleisig noted recently during his presentation at Saber Seminar — we might do double duty of increasing balls in play and limiting injuries. It’ll never happen, though.
Moss thought that hitters and pitchers together were working hand in hand to increase strikeouts. “They pitch to limit contact, and to get weak contact. And once they get ahead, they pitch for a strikeout,” Moss pointed out. “How do we combat that? We don’t give in. They don’t give in, we don’t give in.”
That effect has been documented by Russell Carleton: players are eschewing the two-strike approach in order to swing for the fences and look fastball no matter the count. And maybe that’s a decent approach, because hitters aren’t even seeing fastballs on 2-0 and 3-0 counts like they used to. “3-0 changeups and curveballs,” Moss muttered. “How about an automatic heater down the middle on 2-0. That would get us more balls in play!”
| Season | FB% |
|---|---|
| 2008 | 60.9% |
| 2009 | 60.9% |
| 2010 | 62.0% |
| 2011 | 59.6% |
| 2012 | 60.7% |
| 2013 | 61.0% |
| 2014 | 60.3% |
| 2015 | 60.7% |
| 2016 | 60.2% |
| 2017 | 58.2% |
As you can see, fastball percentage in 2-0 counts has actually been pretty consistent over the past decade, with the exception of a two-point decrease between this year and last. Perhaps that’s the effect that Moss has identified. We’ll have to see. Moss’s enthusiasm aside, there’s nothing that can be done about this structurally.
There is another element that’s relevant to this discussion. The strike zone. It’s bigger than it’s ever been. That leads to strikeouts, obviously, which also leads to a suppression of ball-in-play totals.
Lowrie has noticed and thinks that we could improve the pace of the game and put more balls in play with one easy solution. “If you look in the last 10 years, the called strike zone has gotten three square inches bigger, mostly to the bottom of the zone. Runs per game are down almost a full run…, the average game time has gone up 25 minutes, and pitches per at-bat have gone up one full pitch,” he pointed out. “If you make the strike zone smaller, you force the pitchers to throw the ball in the zone, and guys will swing earlier in the count… One fewer pitch per at-bat, at 30 seconds: that’s a lot of time.”

While Lowrie has correctly identified the existence — if not necessarily the magnitude — of the trends he cites, correlation doesn’t always mean causation. Players could be getting more patient because baseball more greatly values walks on the open market. Maybe players have noticed the link between seeing more pitches and better outcomes.
And if you make the strike zone smaller, that could create a lot of unintended consequences. For one, couldn’t it just lead to more walks? Seems obvious. And modeling what swing rates will do with smaller strike zones is near impossible. It might work… and it might just exacerbate the problem.
If nothing else, hitters certainly have general ideas about adding balls in play. But I also hear them expressing some frustration about how they’re supposed to address the problem as individuals. “Everything is way harder than just saying it,” Bruce pointed out. “I don’t know if there is much hitters can do about it, hitting is so hard, anyway,” Jaso pointed out. “So much is out of your control. I feel that if you get it into your head that you’re not going to strike out, chances are that you’re going to strike out. It’s like a golfer approaching a shot and there’s a sand trap there. If he tells himself, ‘Don’t hit it in the sand trap,’ he’s probably going to end up hitting it in the sand trap, because that’s what his brain is thinking about.”
And others expressed doubt that this was even a relevant train of thought. We were talking about pace of game changes this spring — a similar effort in terms of changing rules to improve fan interaction with the game — but Nationals closer Sean Doolittle thought we were veering off course. “We’re talking about pretty drastic changes to shave five minutes from a game. Are you seeing a bunch of 20-year-olds lining up for season tickets?”
The lefty thought we should consider how the game is packaged and how people could better interact with the game. “Marketing? We’re not that good at it. Let’s see if we can use some of our personalities to drive traffic and energize the game. Blackout rules. Millennials don’t pay for cable. Allow more gifs and videos on social media. Statcast could help if you use it right — showcasing how athletic some of these guys are.”
Rule changes seem like monkeying with the game, anyway. “I believe, just like anything, there’s evolution,” said Bruce. “The game is always going to demand that you, as a player, make the necessary changes to be successful. Baseball is changing. Guys used to leave the glove on the field for the other guy to use it; it used to be as big as their heads.”
When Bruce summed it up, he hit a note that could sum up the effort to undo what has happened to baseball recently: “Everything always changes, everything gets better.”
With a phone full of pictures of pitchers' fingers, strange beers, and his two toddler sons, Eno Sarris can be found at the ballpark or a brewery most days. Read him here, writing about the A's or Giants at The Athletic, or about beer at October. Follow him on Twitter @enosarris if you can handle the sandwiches and inanity.
Move the outfield fences out. Triples for everyone!
God I love triples
Is this in reference to beer or to baseball?
Both
¿Por qué no los dos?
Thank you Sean Doolittle, for pointing out everything that is wrong with using the rule changes as a marketing device in about five sentences.
It often seems that, when considering all these rule changes to speed up the game and make the game more popular, no one actually bothers asking casual fans or young people what would appeal to them.
Homers and swinging K’s seem pretty damn exciting to me. Why would we want to reduce them?
But baseball has one of the same problems as golf: many young people either can’t or won’t dedicated 3-4 hours to the sport. That’s why golf is now really pushing 9-hole courses and par 3’s. Baseball is right to consider the speed, though I think overall time is more important than pace of play (which Manfred thinks is more important).
Chocolate and bourbon are exciting, too … when part of a balanced diet. When they move from 15% of your intake to 35%, outcomes may be suboptimal.
I often think about what would happen if we made 3 balls a walk. At first walks would go up as pitchers adjust but ultimately I think more balls would be put in play because pitchers wouldn’t be able to nibble. Also game length would go down because there would be less pitches thrown overall.
We could also introduce the foulout 4th strike. That would really move things along AND likely revive the quickly antiquating notion of 9 inning starting pitchers.
Well if we’re gonna think outside the box, let’s go with a corollary to this: if the batter is ahead by two or more balls (2-0, 3-0, and 3-1 counts), the existence of foul territory is at the batter’s discretion. He can put the ball in play in any direction he likes, and if he runs it’s live but if he stays in the box it’s a normal foul ball. Things will get wacky in a hurry.
It wouldn’t just be wacky, it’d be a move towards cricket rules. Standard rules are there are no fouls, offensive players always get to choose to run, “homers” in all directions (which is part of why that game is played in the middle of an oval rather than point of a diamond).
It would probably significantly change our expected offense.
Do we get glass-covered stands like Super Baseball 2020?
Change the dynamics of relief pitching. Except in case of injury, the new relief pitcher gets 2 warm-up pitches for every batter faced by the previous, to a maximum of 8. Or, again except in case of injury, relievers must face at least two batters rather than one.
Fewer pitching changes lead to faster games, and as a bonus, put a premium on starting pitcher efficiency (more Halladays please).
I don’t want to rule out pitching changes just disincentives them.For example if a team changes pitchers the opposing team can change its line up. So you have more strategy and more great hitters in high leverage situations or fewer pitching changes.
I agree about the disincentives but my preference is to disincentivize the mid-inning switches. Baseball is a team sport not an accumulation of unconnected self-contained individual performances. But the only half-inning that point can be made is if the players who go out to get their three outs in the field sink or swim together.
So my change is – (barring an injury) managers can only freely submit roster changes between innings. Any mid-inning changes have a cost – the player can’t appear again in that series (ie the substitution itself has to kind of presume/pretend an injury of some small sort.)
As a side effect – my idea would also tend to turn loogies/roogies into two-way players – ie as long as the player is in the field, they can switch positions without cost/penalty.
The rule already exists that a new pitcher must face at least one batter except in case of injury: one mitigation effort might be to increase that minimum to 2.
Similarly, at the start of the inning I’ve seen the previous pitcher warm-up, a pinch-hitter come in, and then a new pitcher come in, requiring another warm-up. To prevent this, pinch-hitters should be banned after a returning pitcher has started his warm-up to start the inning. If the manager wants to put in a pinch-hitter to start the inning, they need to make the change immediately rather than waste everyone’s time by letting the pitcher warm-up first.
I think it ought to be 3 batters faced instead of 2, but that’s a good start.
Lower the mound and deaden the ball. Do both in balance so we keep generally the same level of offense in the game. This will increase incentive to put the ball in play (since it’s harder to hit it out) and at the same time, make it harder to strike guys out.
^ yeppers.
To a regular fan, a home run is a ball in play. And to almost all fans, home runs are awesome. More home runs, please!
More doubles please!
Honestly, I’m getting somewhat tired of them. I’d rather see more doubles, singles, stolen bases, hit and runs, so on so forth…putting pressure on the defense to make a play. Home runs are great, but they’re exciting for a few seconds, not the entire half inning.
If you want to increase the number of inside-the-park home runs, then we’re in agreement. Let’s see them work for it!
To paraphrase Crash Davis: Home runs are, increasingly, boring. Besides that, they’re fascist. Doubles and triples are more democratic.
Move the mound back a foot. 61’6″
This could have the unintended consequence of increased pitcher injuries though.
Limiting pitching changes would decrease velocity or at least lower the quality of overall pitching –> more hitting.
Raising the seams on the ball (again), going back to the relatively ‘dead’ ball
Raising the mound
Do those and limit the degree of shifts, and keep the strike zone low as the odds of a GB on low pitches is much higher
Not sure — if you limit pitching *changes* you’ll limit roster spots needed for *pitchers* so the marginal pitcher is better than today. Could be a higher K environment than now! Batters would be pinch hit for more often to gain the advantage. (++ offense)
The strike zone is bigger than it’s ever been? Really? Bigger than the early 60s when it was up to the armpits?
If you want to counteract the trends to higher velocity and thus strikeouts and HRs then limit pitching staff sizes to 10. Teams used to get along fine with this scheme (5 starters and 5 relievers). The bloated bullpens are the reason why starting pitchers just air it out for 5-6 innings and then a parade of one-dimensional mutts who can throw 97-100 mph come in for an inning or a batter to finish the game.
I personally find this kind of thing to be bordering on unwatchable. Limiting the size of pitching staffs would force starters to go deeper into games by actually pitching instead of just throwing and relievers would have to dial it back because they would need to face more batters and pitch more frequently. You would also create more room on the roster for bench players and swing the weight of the match up game more to the position players who are infinitely more interesting to watch than relief pitchers.
like it. truth of the strike zone for one. and the idea of limits on pitching staff size excellent.
only wonder then about position players players… does that leave us with 15 or do they trim that # too? maybe rosters could be trimmed to 22? would the balance swing too much to hitter in this scenario?
I would like this, except there is not yet a legal definition of a pitcher, and what definition would you use?
Home runs, walks, and strikeouts are purity. The rest is just noise.
I would be looking for ways to add flexibility to the offense not limit the choices of the defense. For example If you walk a batter a designated run takes his place until he scores, makes an out or the inning ends, the batter is not removed from the game. You walk anyone and there is outstanding speed at first more action.
I like where you’re going with this. But don’t stop so short! Let’s just use school yard ghost runners and get rid of baserunning altogether. Could even throttle the speed of the runners based on creative metrics like crowd noise, beer sales, or –
for us geeks – win probability.
Move the mound to the middle of the diamond where it belongs. The one flaw in the beautiful geometry of baseball. 63 feet 7 2/3 inches. More reaction time for hitters. More balls in play. Maybe deaden the ball as you move the mound back if too much offense.
An unintended but likely side-effect: fewer steals.
Pitchers would now be closer and have a better angle to hold and pick off runners.
Edit: Then again it’d take longer for the ball to get to the plate so maybe not!
Probably it would save a reasonable fraction of pitchers getting hit by line drives as well.
Or at least they would get hit in the arm, hand, etc. instead of the head. There are only a few of those per year, but it seems like it would be a good side effect.
How about we don’t need to do anything, as the trends are extremely minor over any of our lifetimes.
I suspect this comment was intended to be directed at Al Gore somehow.
If so, it wasn’t accurate.
lol at the silly little hysterical leftist
It wasn’t, but I’m sick of three-true-outcomes hysteria, especially using ridiculous graphs like this one that start in the 1920s instead of focusing on modern baseball, where the trend is literally 1-2 balls in play per game.
Every time one of these posts is made I am reminded of the comment from the official MLB historian that, somehow, each person’s idea of how baseball is supposed to be played coincides with exactly how it was played when they were 9 years old.
Between Eno and a couple BP writers who have it stuck in their craw, its impossible to go more than a couple weeks without an article about the three true outcomes as a serious threat, as though they were going to kill baseball by 2020 or something.
Maybe I have just been around the sabermetric community long enough to recognize that all 3 of the trends at hand used to be things we actively advocated for and that teams that didn’t value them properly were ridiculed in advanced stats circles. Back then teams like the Yankees with outstanding plate discipline and correspondingly higher BB and K rates were praised for understanding the walks were worth the strikeouts, and teams that anathemetized the strikeout and prioritized shitty contact hitting and stolen bases were frustrating for using sub-optimal tactics.
There’s just no team stupid enough to use sub-optimal tactics anymore, because statistical analysis has won out and is in every front office.
But now some portion of our community is filled with regret for what they created. And make no mistake, we advocated for it.
Here’s the problem: baseball has the oldest fans of any of the 3 major sports at 53 years old.
And almost half as many kids play baseball as they did in 2002.
Whatever you think about ways to address this, it’s clearly a long-term problem. How do you ensure the sport doesn’t die off?
I’m open to lots of solutions, but “just pray that it fixes itself” ain’t one of them.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/5-ways-mlb-is-trying-to-get-younger-fans-interested-in-baseball-2017-02-22
prayer is not required for it to fix itself. Who are we to fix it for them anyway?
regarding ‘the problem’ as you write… what is wrong with a sport that appeals to the more experienced and thoughtful of folks? We have a sense of history too, that informs us from the various minor changes to the game*.
* it will out last a game that panders to some violent notion of competition that excites those less mature souls.
… I’ve written about this before and am part of some hysteria?
Speak for yourself, whippersnapper.
Make the strike zone smaller and at the same time deaden the ball (just a little so that homers stay consistent and walks don’t go up because pitchers can’t throw down the pipe)
Increase the diameter of bats.
Cricket bats!
Requiring thicker bat handles would help. Bill James advocated this in the BJHBA at least 15 years ago.
“a greater understanding of exit velocity and launch angles might help a hitter adjust”
I think I would agree with Lowrie and Moss that this isn’t particularly helpful, increasing exit velocity basically equates to ‘hit the ball harder’ which hitters have always been trying to do. And hitting more fly balls has helped some hitters but I think we’re learning that this particular approach isn’t necessarily a one size fits all approach.
The most straightforward change would be bigger parks and/or a deader ball. More radical — a batter strikes out after three strikes OR two called strikes. Maybe couple that one with a smaller zone, especially at the lower end.
Why are home runs included on the graph? Fans probably love seeing home runs live more than anything
As already noted in the article, simply shrinking the strike zone may not have the intended effect as we may simply be trading strike-outs for walks and home-runs. I think a more effective approach would be to automate the strike-zone, making it 100% consistent for the batter.
In fact I would possibly go even one further for major league and minor league parks. (This is where I go crazy sci-fi on you) Build a holographic camera into the home plate. The camera would then project a translucent image of the strike-zone above home plate. (We would first have to agree if the strike-zone is a two-dimensional plane or a three-dimensional shape) Having the actual visible frame of reference in real time would likely significantly reduce O-swing% and increase Z-swing%. This would likely result in a decrease both strike-outs and walks.
You think the hitters are watching the plate? Man, have you played baseball?
I appear to have failed in properly conveying my meaning. The projector is in the plate. The holographic image would be super-imposed over the hitter’s strike-zone.
The batter has to start his swing when the ball is about 20 feet away from home so the holographic image wouldn’t help much.
Hitters with a bad eye dont actually have a bad eye, they have a bad brain since they are not as good in extrapolating the second half of the ball flight. Every
Pro hitter “sees the ball”, the hard part is that you can’t really make adjustments once the swing starts. You still try to watch the ball as long as possible but basically it is as if somebody switches the light of when the ball is 20 feet away. The rest is calculation by your brain.
This is one of many reasons why people who can hit major league pitching are freaks of nature. It is beyond my comprehension that anyone can hit a ball thrown at 94 miles per hour.
Mike Zunino endorses this comment
So use computer projections to predict the flight path of the ball and color the ball green if it’s going to be a strike and red if it isn’t.
Thus you also need to deaden the ball. Just making the K zone smaller would mean more homers and more walks. But if you make throwing down the pipe less dangerous the walks might go down too while the contact goes up.
The other alternative would be leaving the zone the way it is and moving the mound back and again deaden the ball.
Velocity certainly seems to be the culprit, and that seems to stem from how pitchers are used. The combination of improved conditioning and lighter workloads could be why pitchers throw harder, and I am not sure how you legislate that away. The only way to reign in velocity would be to alter the mound (either lowering it or pushing it back), but that’s a drastic change and unlikely to happen any time soon.
Like length of game, I wonder if balls in play is a problem in the first place? I enjoy home runs and strike outs. I also enjoy great defense, but how many balls in play lead to exciting plays. If increasing balls in play simply leads to more routine fly balls and grounders, I am not sure if anything would be accomplished.
Finally, I can’t agree with Doolittle regrading MLB’s marketing prowess. Regional TV ratings and attendance are strong across the league, and the league’s social media presence is as well. Things can always be done better, but there’s nothing about the current state of the game that seems to demand a drastic fix. If I was commissioner, my focus would be on increasing youth participation at all levels and in all regions. That is an area in which MLB can have an impact, and one that could pay dividends down the line.
Yeah, I’d honestly rather see a strikeout than a routine groundout, or a home run than a can of corn. We want more fun, not more routine plays, right?
Did you link the wrong Alan Nathan article? Because I don’t think that one says what you’re saying
Fixed it! thanks!
I keep coming back to the ball.
A significant portion of the HR/FB spike is due to a lower drag coefficient on fly balls, due to a change in the ball’s seems, it appears. Not much has been written about how the ball might also be responsible for faster fastball speeds.
Is it possible that restoring seem height on baseballs to pre-2015 levels would have the compound effect of lowering the avearge fastball speed (leading to fewer strikeouts) and lowering the HR/FB rate (leading to a lower HR/FB rate)?
Move the mound to the exact center of the diamond and deaden the ball a bit.
If there is a general feeling that there are too many Ks, BBs and HRs, there are many possible ways to alter that, the key being to make hitting singles and doubles more attractive to batters.
Step one, legislate that bats have to be much heavier and thicker, say a minimum of 36 ounces-or whatever weight and thickness would foster slower bat speeds and more contact.
Then, and I am not sure about this, but I think if the bases were 88 ft apart there would be a lot more singles on ground balls and probably more base stealing. In fact, baseball could enact a Bill James suggestion from years ago that pitchers would get two free throws to bases with runners on; after that, each failure to catch the runner would be penalized (with a ball on the batter or a base). I would also radically simplify the balk rule to give pitchers more opportunity to catch (fool) runners as a balance to help pitchers.
Disallow any conferences at the mound. None at all by anyone. The pitcher has plenty of time to prepare for the game and can bone up between innings. You don’t have the hitting coaches come to the plate to remind batters what to do. Part of the skill of pitching is figuring out how best to retire batters. If you can’t, you are less of a pitcher.
A reliever has to stay in until he gives up a run he himself is responsible for or he gets out of the inning.
Related but perhaps a different issue, there is a 5th umpire in the booth with a TV replay device. Any egregious error on calls he corrects immediately, but without slow motion to assist him. If it can’t be seen in real time, it should not be a factor in the call. Different angles are ok, but no overturning calls because the sliding runner loses contact with the bag for a microsecond or a micro inch. The game is played in real time and space, so decisions should only be made in real time and space. No challenges; the 5th umpire decides immediately and on his own.
Actually, though it is pie in the sky, we could look to a distant future where stadiums are 450-500 feet down the lines and 600 feet into center. Perhaps have small foul grounds to get stands closer to the ball, but also to encourage contact. Lots of fouls may not be fun, but there has to be something to balance the absence of big power into the seats.
The end result should be to create more value for contact and speed, a return to Ty Cobb and repudiation of Babe Ruth. Action, strategy and speed would be prized.
I really like almost all of these. I’d advocate for only changing one per year (or every two years) so as to give time to isolate each variable to see its effects instead of changing 10 things at once and never knowing what worked (or didn’t).
I’d change the reliever issue just to “each reliever must face 3 batters or go on the 10-day DL” (or possibly end the inning).
Absolutely 100% agree on the 5th umpire. That bullshit “loses contact” rule is ridiculous and totally against the spirit of the rule and of replay.
Fixing the parade of 1-batter relievers, conferences on the mound, replay challenge time, and batters needing to see a new sign from the coach on every single pitch would go a long way to both speeding up the game and making it more interesting to watch on TV. In person isn’t really the problem.
Am I the only one that laughed out loud at Brandon Moss’s comment?! His attitude and recent play suggest he’s finally ready for my beer league softball team!
“You know why? Because if I put it in play over here, you’ve got fucking eight people over there on the right side, so if I put that curveball in play, I’m out. ‘Hey, everyone move to the right side, we’ll just pound him with balls that he puts on the ground!’”
Although it’s certainly true that fans go to see people “doing things,” I don’t think there are very many fans that would consider hitting home runs to be outside the set of “doing things.”
It’s interesting to see strong perceptions like the one Moss has about fastball rate, versus the lack of overall change. Nobody can perceive a change from 60% to 58% without keeping count. Is he making a perceptual error or is he seeing some subtrend?
“Can you name an analytic breakthrough that helps the hitter?”
Yes, but unfortunately the help consisted of “more homeruns are worth some whiffs.” As the rest of the article went into, I just thought it was an interesting question from Lowrie.
So, looking at the historical trends represented in the first graph, it would appear the the two instances of the trend reversing occurred following the lowering of the mound and the height of the steroid era.
So, the fist question we need to answer is do we find baseball significantly less appealing at 65% balls in play than we did at 75% to 80%. If the answer is no, then that renders this entire discussion a solution in search of a problem.
If the answer is yes, then it would appear that lowering the pitching mound would be almost academic as an answer, based on the data.
Doing nothing because it’s not quite enough of a problem, yet, seems a poor way of looking at it. Why not work to reverse trends that aren’t fun for the game? I’d be happy if batters got a little more help against increasing velocity / increasing reliever usage.
– Forcing defenders to stand in suboptimal positions sounds terribly foolish.
– I think Bauer is exactly right: almost counterintuitively, Ks positively correlate with events that are good for the pitcher (lower xFIP, eg) and that are good for the batter (BB%, ISO). So you’re bound to get more.
– I’m sort of fascinated by the shift/GB hits chart. If the shift isn’t reducing ground ball hits, is it reducing offense at all? And if it’s not, why do it at all? (It strikes me as unlikely that the massive amounts of data that inform current positioning provide zero run-prevention value over where fielders had been standing for the last century – but it would be amusing if it were true!)
Make a walk worth 2 bases. Make a strikeout worth 2 outs. Make a walk on 3 balls & a strike-out on 2 strikes.
OR – just leave the best game alone. It needs no fixing.
At least a HBP on ball 4 could stand to be worth 2 bases.
“Blackout rules. Millennials don’t pay for cable.”
Exactly. I live in Texas and feel no connection to the Astros because I can’t watch them regularly to engrain affection. I don’t know their quirks.
The idea that “if we blackout the game they have to buy tickets to see it” is backwards. More likely I don’t build interest and won’t go (as a casual fan).
Get rid of blackouts, have broadcasters who aren’t 80 years old,use graphics/statcast to speed up the presentation.
Football is 8 seconds of action followed by 25 seconds of nothing. However, when presented on TV, you see the play, a replay (with graphics and analysis), then another play. It doesn’t feel as slow on TV as it is in person.
Do the same with baseball.
Your comment about “feel[ing] no connection” is right on. Millenials and Gen Xers have also had to move around the country much more than previous generations ever did.
I’m in my 30s and have lived in four states for at least 2 years each just since age 18 because of jobs. I’ve got no real “local” team that I root for. I’ll sometimes watch whatever the local team is where I live, but I don’t have a strong connection at all. I mostly just watch games that are likely to have my fantasy players playing (which is another problem altogether).
I see No Problem in watching based on fantasy interest. In this world it is the one fantasy that won’t get me in trouble!
Just enforce the correct strike zone, and censure umps who don’t do it. Is their union so powerful that baseball can’t suggest their willingness to call more strikes is making the game less fun?
In spite of higher levels of pitchers, the strike zone has been bigger?
I agree that it should be smaller.
http://www.nytimes.com/1964/05/22/about-baseball-veeck-says-dead-ball-would-enliven-game-fear-of-home-runs-makes-pitchers-work-mach-too-slowly-he-suggests.html
nytimes article from 1964:
“BILL VEECK, the only man who was able to build teams good enough to finish ahead of the Yankees in the last 18 years, has put forth another of his provocative and unorthodox ideas. He wants to deaden the baseball.”
“Years ago, teams were scoring just about as many runs as they do now, but with less than half as many homers. The few big sluggers hit them; the rest of the hitters didn’t.”
“That meant more action, in two ways. The plays that actually produced runs were more numerous and more interesting, and the nitchers weren’t afraid that ally pipsqueak hitter might hit one 400 feet over a wall.”
“That’s why the games drag today. That’s why pitchers stand out there so long between pitches. That’s why you have so many 3-2 counts, so many fouls, so many walks, so much time devoted to inaction. All the hitters swing from the heels, all the pitchers are afraid.”
“The point is, this doesn’t produce more scoring, which is what the lively ball advocates think the crowd likes. It just produces more home runs with less action in a longer game.”
I’m not sure aboue the run enviroment changes but people did notice changes to the pace of play back in the day.
Veeck. Genius.
The thing not discussed that stood out to me was that spike on balls in play in the 70’s amid the overall downward trend. What happened? The mound was lowered because pitchers had too great an advantage. With everyone throwing 95+, maybe it’s time to lower the mound again. If you read your Ted Williams, the upward swing is to match the downward trajectory of the pitch. If the tragectory of the pitch is flatter, so then is the line drive or fly ball, then more balls hit the wall and stay in play. Why not use the one thing that temporarily worked in the past? It’s been 50 years. Pitchers are throwing faster. Maybe it’s time.
I think lowering the mound would help put more balls in play without drastically changing the game. Guys wouldn’t throw as hard. Another benefit would be decreased pitcher injury.
Did anyone else wonder what Jeff Sam..ja was refering to? “… fall down.”
I’m thinking about the balls in play issue only when I suggest that the third strike rule when attempting a bunt be nixed. Heck, let’s see more speed beat out that roller to third, or between the mound and first! A small rule change for ‘small ball’.
Shark meant that literally…slides into bases, outfielders laying out for catches, smashing into Mike Morse while trying to smash into Bryce Harper, etc etc.
Start tinkering with the following variables: mound height, mound distance, ball mass, and strike zone boundaries (with robot umps), until the game is perfected. Make small change the standard, and the game will actually improve. It’s called continuous delivery. See any industry for examples.
FG please replace this slow old wordpress site with something static built with Hugo or Gatsby.. move comments to discourse, disqus, or firebase. Your writers are smart enough for git, and Netlify has a sweet CMS. Thanks and you’re welcome…
robot umps… go to playing games on computers too. baseball is an industry of entertainment, and we are fascinated with the human skills demonstrated. So, to suggest that the game can be perfected is non-sense as long as people play it. I for one will not take any interest in cheering on a game that is controled by some computerized umpire.
That’s the point. The game WOULDN’T be controlled by a robotic umpire. It would be controlled by the pitcher and the batter and their respective abilities to execute and lay off pitches.
No one has ever been fascinated by an umpire’s skills after a day at the ballpark.
I’m guessing by “Balls in Play” you mean “Non HR rallies”. The 2014-15 Royals did win 2 pennants and 1 WS ranking 30th and 24th in regular season HR. The Red Sox and Rockies!!!! are in the bottom half in HR in 2017 and likely playoff bound, while only the Astros and maybe Brewers will make it among the Top 5 teams. HR are up but maximizing them isn’t necessarily the key to winning.
If you want more balls in play you can deaden the ball, expand the strike zone, and then allow just 8 players on defense to compensate – and give more incentive to putting the ball in play.
Or, you can go all out and make balls hit over the fence count as a foul ball, and have the pitcher just lob the ball straight up to the hitter:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8ksgs8gqCM
Fiddling with the ball just seems wrong to me, takes the human element out of the equation like an equation rather than a sport
Its not rocket science. Shrink the strike zone, lower the mound and move it back 6 inches. The latter two to adjust for bigger pitchers whose release point is higher and closer to the plate than 30-50 years ago.
Eric, above, thought mentioned deadening the ball/lowering the mound. I thought my reply had too much blather, so I made it a separate post.
I agree with Eric’s thinking except I think the ball should be heavier. As a side note, I read some time ago that mound height may actually contribute to arm injuries; so a lower mound may actually help that.
I think the real problem is modern players exceed former normal limits of the game that push the game to one of power and true outcomes. Therefore, perhaps a balance can be struck altering certain elements basic to the game. A dead ball as Eric suggested will only further help the pitcher. A heavier ball should reduce overall pitcher velocity and batter exit velocity.
Also, let’s not forget the powerful effect of economics. If you want more balls in play, pay for balls in play and speed. At the present, teams pay for on base and slugging for obvious reasons. Back in the early 80’s, an era that some consider the best baseball, the big hitters did not go up looking to take a walk. They were focused on putting the ball in play to move baserunners along. I’m thinking of guys like Brett, Murray, pre-injury Mattingly, Keith Hernandez, Robin Yount.
It seems right now baseball is evolving into a much slower paced version of top level men’s fastpitch softball. Few hits, lot’s of K’s and BB’s, and slugging means everything.
Para quién está teniendo una mal temporada, como Moss, es preocupante el shift y los ponches.
You gotta include HRs for the case you’re making about what people want to see. We want to see those dongers!