Off Day Discussion #1: Should Major League Baseball do something about the offense?

[TwistedLogic]

I know the off day is essentially over but the idea of using off days to have constructive discussions or work through thought experiments just occurred to me. I'm assuming most of the conversation in this thread will probably take place tomorrow but I wanted to put this thread up anyway to set a precedent for future off days

 

So... historically bad offense and historically good pitching. It's either a plague or a paradise depending on who you are. This topic came up in the Around Baseball thread today when I posted screenshots of the FanGraphs historical leaderboards that show 2021 as the worst year ever for batting average, as well as the worst year ever for strikeouts.

 

I know this is a contentious topic throughout baseball and throughout baseball fandom so I wanted to pose the question and see what everyone here thought.

 

Do you think pitchers have gotten too good? That the TTO style (three true outcomes) is boring and the game isn't as fun when there's less action and more strikeouts? Or are you a fan of endless pitching duels? If it's the former, what kind of suggestions would you bring to the table if you were part of the action committee for Major League Baseball in charge of remedying the situation?

 

Would you nerf the pitcher? Perhaps by lowering the mound? Pushing back the mound? Changing the ball? Or would you maybe buff hitting somehow? Perhaps by shrinking the strike zone? Eliminating the high fastball? Implementing an automated strike zone to make framing harder? Eliminating shifts?

 

Offer your thoughts below and let's get a discussion going!

 

Note: If people like this idea, I'll make sure to set discussion threads up early in future off days so we can talk through them throughout the day. Feel free to offer suggestions for future discussion topics as well.

[JFD]

Robo Umps would fix it alone. Most pitchers would probably feel like they're being squeezed every game. Mediocre pitchers like Cole Irvin would be in for a rude awakening.

[TwistedLogic]

Personally, and I never thought about this until tonight so I probably haven't considered all the ways in which this is a stupid idea, I'd like to maybe see them make the bat bigger. If there's a way to do that without substantially increasing the weight and significantly reducing bat speed, I'd like to see how that plays out.

 

Feel like increasing the sweet spot even marginally would result in so many more balls in play and create an offensive boom. And that just feels like less drastic of a change than doing something wild with the mound like pushing it back, which I've seen a lot of people suggest. Changing the mound would require pitchers to go through a massive adjustment and I don't think making the bat bigger would be as big of awkward of an adjustment for batters.

 

Obviously I want to see an automated strike zone but that's more so because I f***ing hate umpires. When it comes to offense, the robo zone will help but I don't know if it entirely resolves the balls in play situation. Will probably just mean a lot more walks, which is the most boring of the three true outcomes.

[43211234]

Every time I think about this, I always come back to pushing back the mound.

 

Move it back 8 inches or something.

[G-Snarls]

Every time I think about this, I always come back to pushing back the mound.

 

Move it back 8 inches or something.

 

There was a really interesting interview on MLB Network with Theo Epstein about this. Going to see if I can find a link for it online

[Jimcanuck]

Roboumps will go a long way in fixing the offence and may also reduce pitcher injuries, as command and a pitching arsenal will be more critical to get hitters out. Pitchers throwing maximum effort with limited command will be less effective.

[connorp]

Roboumps will go a long way in fixing the offence and may also reduce pitcher injuries, as command and a pitching arsenal will be more critical to get hitters out. Pitchers throwing maximum effort with limited command will be less effective.

 

I wonder what kind of suspension one would get if they got pissed and kicked over the TrackMan. It’s gotta happen at least once

[The Cats Ass]

I'd shrink the strike zone and bring in robo-umps. In 1996 the bottom of the strike zone was moved from top of the knees to the bottom of the knees. Move it back to the top of the knees.

[Olerud363]

1. Limit of 11 pitchers on roster

 

a) this would force pitchers, both starters and relievers to throw 93 instead of 101, in order to pace themselves and cover all the innings.

 

the extra roster spots would bring back Rance Mullinicks types who can hit .310 with 5 homers and hardly any strike outs in a platoon with a right handed contact hitter.

 

 

2. Every game Robot-umped in the background with very severe embarrassing repercussions for bad calls. Ump gets embarrassed, takes financial losses, then eventually loses job (within months not years)

 

if above does not work Robot umps

 

3. Ball maipulated not by fake 'expert-expert' science, but by data and common man sensible science. Figure out what changes will deaden the ball a bit from 2019 level, but at the same time don't raise seams (which seems to have increased movement and strike outs). Need a ball that is less lively then 2019, but also breaks less.

[TwistedLogic]

I'd shrink the strike zone and bring in robo-umps. In 1996 the bottom of the strike zone was moved from top of the knees to the bottom of the knees. Move it back to the top of the knees.

 

If they're shrinking the strike zone, I think the bigger problem is the top of the zone as opposed to the bottom. Both would obviously help but the high fastball is becoming the most dangerous strikeout pitch in baseball:

 

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/fastballs-keep-pouring-into-the-top-of-the-zone/

[TwistedLogic]

1. Limit of 11 pitchers on roster

 

a) this would force pitchers, both starters and relievers to throw 93 instead of 101, in order to pace themselves and cover all the innings.

 

I don't think this would ever happen. Players nowadays are throwing near-100 after already being out there for 7 innings. I really don't think we'll see an intentional drop in velocity for any reason besides some sort of biomechanical revolution centered around arm health.

 

2. Every game Robot-umped in the background with very severe embarrassing repercussions for bad calls. Ump gets embarrassed, takes financial losses, then eventually loses job (within months not years)

 

Lol, what? Not only would the umpire union not allow anything like this to ever happen, nobody in baseball would even propose it. An automated strike zone is meant to get calls right, it's not some tool of vengeance to extract some sort of weird sociopathic retribution on the umpires.

 

At the end of the day, these are still human beings who are almost always accurate 92-95% of time doing maybe the hardest job in sports. Yes, we want closer to 100% accuracy but you can achieve that simply with an automated strike zone without all the added creepy stuff.

[Deadpool]

I don't think this would ever happen. Players nowadays are throwing near-100 after already being out there for 7 innings. I really don't think we'll see an intentional drop in velocity for any reason besides some sort of biomechanical revolution centered around arm health.

 

 

 

Lol, what? Not only would the umpire union not allow anything like this to ever happen, nobody in baseball would even propose it. An automated strike zone is meant to get calls right, it's not some tool of vengeance to extract some sort of weird sociopathic retribution on the umpires.

 

At the end of the day, these are still human beings who are almost always accurate 92-95% of time doing maybe the hardest job in sports. Yes, we want closer to 100% accuracy but you can achieve that simply with an automated strike zone without all the added creepy stuff.

 

While my ultimate goal is an accurate strike zone, I am not strictly opposed to humiliating Angel Hernandez with the Price Is Right loser horn pumped through the stadium speakers every time he blows a call. I mean, it would get tedious hearing that every time he MAKES a call, but maybe he'd be shamed into retirement.

[Grant77]

It's hard to say how effective it has been in this environment, but I think that the 3 batter rule has been a positive move.

 

I support more offense, but only if done after Minor league research and communicated effectively to the players. They can't just change the ball and see what happens like this past offseason.

 

I agree with the general consensus that umpiring plays a large role in the problem. Whether that means robo jumps or an altered strike zone, I can't really say.

 

The problem to solve in my eyes isn't exactly more runs if they are derived from home runs alone. What we need is more hits, more base runners, more action. I think that is what will drive fan interest.

[M.E.]

Roboumps will go a long way in fixing the offence and may also reduce pitcher injuries, as command and a pitching arsenal will be more critical to get hitters out. Pitchers throwing maximum effort with limited command will be less effective.

 

So the Jays should immediately release Pearson. ;-)

[Brownie19]

I don't think this would ever happen. Players nowadays are throwing near-100 after already being out there for 7 innings. I really don't think we'll see an intentional drop in velocity for any reason besides some sort of biomechanical revolution centered around arm health.

 

The great starters will always be the great starters (and we want that). Gerrit Cole and deGrom are still going to be utterly dominant. However, the middling pitchers who throw upper 90's probably don't have the command to succeed if you implemented a robo-ump. They probably need to tone down their delivers to improve command and consistency, which will make them more hittable.

 

Also - didn't MLB recently change where they measured the pitchers velocity from - which artificially increased the radar gun numbers? Or am I dreaming that up?

[Brownie19]

At the end of the day, these are still human beings who are almost always accurate 92-95% of time doing maybe the hardest job in sports. Yes, we want closer to 100% accuracy but you can achieve that simply with an automated strike zone without all the added creepy stuff.

 

I thought great umpires were wrong 10% of the time and s***** umpires were wrong 15% of the time on ball and strike calls?

[z3r0s]

Roboumps and strike zone modification would be my preferred as they don't really change the fundamental nature of the game.

 

If that just isn't working, look at moving back the mound.

 

I for one have loved the 3 batter rule. Pitching changes wreck the pace of the game.

 

None of that was anything new in the thread, so I'll take a stab at something.

 

What about eliminating warm up pitches when the BP guy comes in? (or greatly reducing) They have been throwing in the pen, why do they need to throw a bunch more from the mound? I've never pitched at any kind of competitive level, so maybe this is extremely important, but maybe not. Obviously not including injury switches.

 

What I like about this is that pitching changes become a very quick affair and don't break the pace or stop an intense moment.

[TwistedLogic]

I thought great umpires were wrong 10% of the time and s***** umpires were wrong 15% of the time on ball and strike calls?

 

Nah, check out the Umpire Scorecards channel that tweets umpire reports after every game. Sub-90% games are rare. Most are above 92-93%.

 

[Brownie19]

If they're shrinking the strike zone, I think the bigger problem is the top of the zone as opposed to the bottom. Both would obviously help but the high fastball is becoming the most dangerous strikeout pitch in baseball:

 

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/fastballs-keep-pouring-into-the-top-of-the-zone/

 

In my mind - this is a cyclical thing. If my memory serves correct, back in the 90's, pitchers were always told to pitch down in the zone because pitching up in the zone resulted in lots of home runs. You were told that a pitcher was tiring when he started to 'leave it up'. That philosophy was drilled in every pitcher and they became good at it. In turn, hitters changed their approach to start handling the low pitches better....but - that's made them more susceptible to the high fastball again. Hitters are now in the process of adjusting their swing path and approaches to handle the high heater again...it's just a matter of when they catch up. I fully expect that by say 2030 - we'll hear pitchers being told to keep it down. Paint the knees again.

 

My only hesitation on this is the added velocity we see across the league. It may mean that it remains very difficult to hit the high fastball - no matter what adjustments the hitters make to their swing path...

 

Love this type of discussion - thanks TL

[Jimcanuck]

In my mind - this is a cyclical thing. If my memory serves correct, back in the 90's, pitchers were always told to pitch down in the zone because pitching up in the zone resulted in lots of home runs. You were told that a pitcher was tiring when he started to 'leave it up'. That philosophy was drilled in every pitcher and they became good at it. In turn, hitters changed their approach to start handling the low pitches better....but - that's made them more susceptible to the high fastball again. Hitters are now in the process of adjusting their swing path and approaches to handle the high heater again...it's just a matter of when they catch up. I fully expect that by say 2030 - we'll hear pitchers being told to keep it down. Paint the knees again.

 

My only hesitation on this is the added velocity we see across the league. It may mean that it remains very difficult to hit the high fastball - no matter what adjustments the hitters make to their swing path...

 

Love this type of discussion - thanks TL

 

That may be part of it, I think the bigger reason for the high fastball effectiveness is the tunnelling/pitch design that's going on.

[Brownie19]

Nah, check out the Umpire Scorecards channel that tweets umpire reports after every game. Sub-90% games are rare. Most are above 92-93%.

 

 

Interesting. I swear we've reviewed umpire stats in the past and they were a lot worse than that. This article says they were wrong over 12% of the time between 2008 and 2018.

 

https://theconversation.com/an-analysis-of-nearly-4-million-pitches-shows-just-how-many-mistakes-umpires-make-114874#:~:text=Using%20this%20available%20technology%2C%20we,and%20strike%20calls%20for%20accuracy.&text=In%20the%202018%20season%2C%20MLB,ended%20with%20an%20incorrect%20call.

 

I wonder if they've been getting better over the last few years?

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/businessweek/graphics/baseballs-worst-call-of-the-day/#/umpires/ranking/2019

 

If you click year by year, it does appears they're getting more accurate? This is such a hot topic that I'm not surprised. Gone are the days of just accepting the home plate umpire is a 'pitchers umpire' with this made up, ******** strike zone that he has a reputation of calling. I wonder as we continue to push those old dogs out of the game and replace them with umps who call the actual strike zone - and with more focus on a consistent strike zone game after game, if human umpires can continue to improve their accuracy to the point robo umpires aren't needed.

 

If there are on average about 300 pitches per game. If the accuracy gets up to 95%, that's only 15 'misses' per game. At that rate, I kind of doubt the changes we're suggesting robo-umps would create (can't throw as hard - need to throw more strikes) would actually happen...

[Spanky99]

In my mind - this is a cyclical thing. If my memory serves correct, back in the 90's, pitchers were always told to pitch down in the zone because pitching up in the zone resulted in lots of home runs. You were told that a pitcher was tiring when he started to 'leave it up'. That philosophy was drilled in every pitcher and they became good at it. In turn, hitters changed their approach to start handling the low pitches better....but - that's made them more susceptible to the high fastball again. Hitters are now in the process of adjusting their swing path and approaches to handle the high heater again...it's just a matter of when they catch up. I fully expect that by say 2030 - we'll hear pitchers being told to keep it down. Paint the knees again.

 

My only hesitation on this is the added velocity we see across the league. It may mean that it remains very difficult to hit the high fastball - no matter what adjustments the hitters make to their swing path...

 

Love this type of discussion - thanks TL

 

This is what I was going to mention, it's cyclical... the best thing for baseball is getting rid of Manfred. He's dropped baseball in this spot, f*** that guy. Never thought I'd miss Selig.

[Grant77]

Interesting. I swear we've reviewed umpire stats in the past and they were a lot worse than that. This article says they were wrong over 12% of the time between 2008 and 2018.

 

https://theconversation.com/an-analysis-of-nearly-4-million-pitches-shows-just-how-many-mistakes-umpires-make-114874#:~:text=Using%20this%20available%20technology%2C%20we,and%20strike%20calls%20for%20accuracy.&text=In%20the%202018%20season%2C%20MLB,ended%20with%20an%20incorrect%20call.

 

I wonder if they've been getting better over the last few years?

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/businessweek/graphics/baseballs-worst-call-of-the-day/#/umpires/ranking/2019

 

If you click year by year, it does appears they're getting more accurate? This is such a hot topic that I'm not surprised. Gone are the days of just accepting the home plate umpire is a 'pitchers umpire' with this made up, ******** strike zone that he has a reputation of calling. I wonder as we continue to push those old dogs out of the game and replace them with umps who call the actual strike zone - and with more focus on a consistent strike zone game after game, if human umpires can continue to improve their accuracy to the point robo umpires aren't needed.

 

If there are on average about 300 pitches per game. If the accuracy gets up to 95%, that's only 15 'misses' per game. At that rate, I kind of doubt the changes we're suggesting robo-umps would create (can't throw as hard - need to throw more strikes) would actually happen...

 

I don't think that robo umps would make a huge impact if we use the existing strike zone as a template. I haven't looked at the data you are discussing, but even if there are ~15 mistakes in a game, it doesn't mean that they are all in favour of pitching. Changing a few missed balls to strikes and a few missed strikes to balls doesn't fundamentally alter the outcome.

 

What needs to be done in addition to robo umps is an alteration of the strike zone and/or a change to the mound. Then you're giving a real advantage to the batters.

 

The other thing that we haven't discussed in depth is the shift. I still struggle with the idea of banning it, but I do understand the problem that MLB is trying to solve by doing so.

 

The shift has led to three outcome baseball by making it less advantageous to put balls in play. That's why we're seeing things like increased launch angles, more strikeouts, and high fastballs. A lot of these problems go away if you ban the shift. I don't know if it's the right move, but how else do you solve the BABIP problem and make the game more exciting?

[Brownie19]

I tried unsuccessfully to find the league wide BABIP stats by year. Does anyone know where to find that? Has BABIP dropped dramatically over the past 10 years?

[glory]

I like practically every rule they are testing out in the minors. Robo umps, moving the mound back, increasing base size, limiting pickoff attempts, pitch clock, etc. The only one I'm not sure of is regulating shifts as I'd actually have to see it implemented first, but the others should add more action to the game. I hope they all get implemented, assuming all goes well in their minor league/Atlantic League trials.

[P2F]

I tried unsuccessfully to find the league wide BABIP stats by year. Does anyone know where to find that? Has BABIP dropped dramatically over the past 10 years?

 

Here you go:

 

https://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/MLB/pitch.shtml

[Grant77]

I tried unsuccessfully to find the league wide BABIP stats by year. Does anyone know where to find that? Has BABIP dropped dramatically over the past 10 years?

 

2020 and 2021 are the two lowest BABIP numbers in a generation. That's with the highest exit velocities that we have ever seen in baseball. The shift is having a massive impact.

 

https://www.baseballprospectus.com/news/article/48425/moonshot-exit-velocity-is-higher-than-ever/

 

In addition to the low BABIP numbers, we're also seeing the highest number of strikeouts ever so there just aren't many hits.

 

Is there any baseball fan who wouldn't just flip a switch and add a couple more singles or doubles to each game? That's what everyone wants. The question is how to do it.

[z3r0s]

I'd ban the shift in a heartbeat. Nothing 'wrong' with it, but it promotes boring outcomes, so why not?

[Abomination]

I'd ban the shift in a heartbeat. Nothing 'wrong' with it, but it promotes boring outcomes, so why not?

 

Or at least partially. Require 2 infielders on each side of 2nd base and no further back than the back edge of the infield dirt when the ball is released. It certainly doesn't solve all the problems, but at least it looks better.

 

One of the things that doesn't seem to get much mention right now is that bats are apparently much denser than they were in the past as well, and that's leading to significantly increased exit velocities in addition to the changes to the ball. Perhaps it's time to move beyond wood bats to some sort of synthetic material with fixed properties.

[Brownie19]

2020 and 2021 are the two lowest BABIP numbers in a generation. That's with the highest exit velocities that we have ever seen in baseball. The shift is having a massive impact.

 

https://www.baseballprospectus.com/news/article/48425/moonshot-exit-velocity-is-higher-than-ever/

 

In addition to the low BABIP numbers, we're also seeing the highest number of strikeouts ever so there just aren't many hits.

 

Is there any baseball fan who wouldn't just flip a switch and add a couple more singles or doubles to each game? That's what everyone wants. The question is how to do it.

 

You provided a link behind a paywall so I can't see it, but what you're suggesting doesn't jive with the stats P2F provided - which show essentially no pattern at all for BABIP. I'm confused.

Edited May 11, 2021 by Brownie19