MLB Making Changes to the Baseball

[Simba2020]

Per an MLB memo acquired by The Athletic, baseball is seeking to deaden the baseball this year. Additionally, five more teams are going to use a humidor making it 10 teams that use one.

 

Hopefully baseball will be able to manufacture baseballs more consistently as they seem to vary considerably from year to year.

 

https://theathletic.com/2375121/2021/02/08/mlb-changes-baseball-deadening/

[SomewhereInTime]

Wonder how much value that could add to a contact hitter (like say Kolten Wong)

[trwi7]

Wonder how much value that could add to a contact hitter (like say Kolten Wong)

 

Not sure making the ball more difficult to hit hard is going to help a hitter who already has trouble hitting the ball hard.

[TURBO]

According to Eno Sarris and Ken Rosenthal of The Athletic, MLB is making changes to the baseball for the 2021 season which will reduce offense.

 

Big news. In addition, five unidentified teams are adding humidors for storage of baseballs, bringing the total to 10 (the Rockies, Red Sox, Diamondbacks, Mets, and Mariners already use them) across the league. The Athletic obtained a memo which was sent to teams last Friday detailing the minor changes. The ball produced by Rawlings will be slightly less bouncy, but the overarching goal of these changes seem to be one of consistency. While this is being pitched as slight alterations, there will surely be some unintended consequences we can't possibly account for right now. Player evaluation was already going to be tough after the shortened 2020 campaign, but this makes it even more difficult.

 

SOURCE: The Athletic

Feb 8, 2021, 2:04 PM ET

[Thurston Fluff]

Wonder how much value that could add to a contact hitter (like say Kolten Wong)

 

Not sure making the ball more difficult to hit hard is going to help a hitter who already has trouble hitting the ball hard.

 

I think his ability to take walks is more helpful than his ability to make contact. It'll be interesting to see if a team built on pitching and defense like the Brewers are looking to be is hurt or helped by this.

[Madhawk23]

Why does MLB continue to try to take offense out of the game? Wouldn't more offense attract more interest from the average fan? Personally, I found last year's lower offensive output pretty boring - and I'm a huge baseball fan. Just not sure if this is the right move for MLB to make?

[markedman5]

I think they are trying to change the swing for the fences/ strike out culture.

 

It has made the game boring to many fans. If you make hitting home runs harder then players and front offices might value contact and speed more then they do now.

 

I think that is the basic idea.

[Madhawk23]

I think they are trying to change the swing for the fences/ strike out culture.

 

It has made the game boring to many fans. If you make hitting home runs harder then players and front offices might value contact and speed more then they do now.

 

I think that is the basic idea.

 

I guess that makes some sense, as I too hate the way the game has evolved in recent years where it seems like it is home run or bust. Unfortunately though, a change like this not going to happen overnight. It might take several years for the game to change back to valuing contact/speed again, which means that we may have to live through many years of a really BAD product on the field - where you have a bunch of power hitters that can no longer hit the long ball at the rates that they used to. You'll still get the high K numbers, but you won't get the equally as high HR numbers, which will make for a really boring game.

[PeaveyFury]

I think they are trying to change the swing for the fences/ strike out culture.

 

It has made the game boring to many fans. If you make hitting home runs harder then players and front offices might value contact and speed more then they do now.

 

I think that is the basic idea.

 

I think the opposite, actually. If the goal is to make the product more 'watchable' as we've heard basically since Manfred took over as commish, why would to encourage more boring 3-1 games? Pitcher duels are great for hardcore fans. Not for expanding the game to a new generation and expanding TV revenue.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

Personally I think way too much has been made of scoring making a difference as it relates to watching or growing the game. I love baseball, but 10-8 and 3-1 are both really "boring" using most people's definition of boring. "Baseball is boring, and then it's not," as they say.

 

I've just never quite believed that more or fewer home runs/runs makes it more appealing to anybody who isn't already "in." The pace of play means much more to me. If the game could could somehow consistently be 2-2.5 hours, that would help more than anything. As well as making it easily accessible on TV, and expanding the postseason. If you want more fans, give more teams a reason to play for something all year. I know lots of people are against those things, but IMO they do more than trying to control how many runs are scored.

[MrTPlush]

Often times offense = game taking longer.

 

But it’s a no win situation. More offense may be more enjoyable to casual fans, but then you also are lengthening the game too. Something not so good.

 

Any other sport can add offense to make it more fun without really changing the length of the actual game. Baseball can’t really do that.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

The solution to me, which I know is wild and years away but I feel is inevitable...is reducing the innings.

[PeaveyFury]

Often times offense = game taking longer.

 

But it’s a no win situation. More offense may be more enjoyable to casual fans, but then you also are lengthening the game too. Something not so good.

 

Any other sport can add offense to make it more fun without really changing the length of the actual game. Baseball can’t really do that.

 

I'm really not sure that's true, though. NFL games now routinely stretch to the 3 1/2 hour mark, and the NFL has clearly not cared, since it has proven that they make more money with 35-27 games than they did when games were 17-13. Heck, college football games now stretch closer to 3:45....

[OldSchoolSnapper]

The NFL can get away with it because it owns Sunday and they play once a week. The fans would probably be happy if they made the quarters 20 minutes. The sport that really has nailed the pacing down is the NBA. There are nights you're out in 2h15m.

 

A 187-minute appointment-viewed game nearly every night from April to September is just not sustainable in the streaming age.

 

I don't think we're even close to it yet, but I think innings reduction is at some point happening.

[wallus]

There are LOTS of things MLB could do to make the game more interesting but there are too many "purists" that aren't open to such ideas.

[Fear The Chorizo]

I think they are trying to change the swing for the fences/ strike out culture.

 

It has made the game boring to many fans. If you make hitting home runs harder then players and front offices might value contact and speed more then they do now.

 

I think that is the basic idea.

 

I think the opposite, actually. If the goal is to make the product more 'watchable' as we've heard basically since Manfred took over as commish, why would to encourage more boring 3-1 games? Pitcher duels are great for hardcore fans. Not for expanding the game to a new generation and expanding TV revenue.

 

There's plenty of 3-1 games already, when teams' offense is essentially a solo HR and one 2-run blast against the other team's lone solo HR....then mix in 25-35 strikeouts across a 54-out game with no stolen bases, no hit and runs, and around 10 pitching changes.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

I think they are trying to change the swing for the fences/ strike out culture.

 

It has made the game boring to many fans. If you make hitting home runs harder then players and front offices might value contact and speed more then they do now.

 

I think that is the basic idea.

 

I think the opposite, actually. If the goal is to make the product more 'watchable' as we've heard basically since Manfred took over as commish, why would to encourage more boring 3-1 games? Pitcher duels are great for hardcore fans. Not for expanding the game to a new generation and expanding TV revenue.

 

There's plenty of 3-1 games already, when teams' offense is essentially a solo HR and one 2-run blast against the other team's lone solo HR....then mix in 25-35 strikeouts across a 54-out game with no stolen bases, no hit and runs, and around 10 pitching changes.

 

Yep, agreed. To me, watching a team like the Brewers strike out 17 times in a game, even if they win it 3-1, is boring. Getting guys on base is exciting. Seeing players like Christian Yelich come up in clutch situations with men on base is infinitely more exciting than watching him swing out of his shoes trying to hit a solo HR.

[Baldkin]

MLB doesn't want to speed up games. If they did there would be a pitch clock. They'd actually enforce the "No stepping out of the box" rule.

 

The inordinate amount of time between a pitch where nothing happened (called ball or strike) and the next pitch is what is destroying the game. Watch a game where Suter pitches and see how much more enjoyable it is, then go watch a game where any other pitcher is pitching (let alone some of the worst offenders like Darvish or Greinke)

 

The lack of balls-in-play is way, way, way down the list of things that are causing problems.

[MadThinker88]

Can anyone come up with a good reason why MLB doesn't require all clubs to have a working humidor for baseball storage at all major league parks & sites for specialty games??

[TURBO]

NFL games now routinely stretch to the 3 1/2 hour mark...

 

The commercial breaks have become unbarerable.

[nate82]

The solution to me, which I know is wild and years away but I feel is inevitable...is reducing the innings.

 

This is kind of the way baseball is going right now. I wouldn't be against going down to a 7-inning format. Right now teams and pitchers barely make it out of the 5th inning as it is I think the average starters only go about 6 innings and there are only a few who average more than 6 innings compare that to 10 years ago and if you are only going 6 innings you are probably a #4 or #5 starter or more than likely going to the bullpen or staying in the minors for forever.

 

I actually liked the 7-inning double header games last year and found them more fun and refreshing. The game didn't drag on as long as normal and it felt quicker and I think there is more strategy involved in a 7-inning format than in a 9-inning format with the way the game is heading for pitchers. I think you could even tie the DH to the starter and then shorten the game to 7-innings. Once the starter leaves the game the DH goes away unless it is by an injury then the DH gets 2 PA's before they are removed from the game. This would bring in some more strategy to the game where a manager will have to pick and choose when they take a starter out. If they are down a run and the DH is coming up the next inning do they stay with the starter or do they make the change?

 

This would also increase the value of starting pitchers especially ones that can go more than 5-innings. Players like Kershaw, Scherzer and others now become more valuable as they will keep your DH in the game longer. Also going to a 7-inning format should shave off about an hour on the total time for a game so you are looking at about 2-hours for a 7-inning game compared to about 3-hours for a 9-inning game. You could add in another 10-20 minutes for commercials and other breaks and still be well below the average game time now.

 

I believe things like this will need to be changed in order to keep the sport viable with younger audiences otherwise baseball is going to die.

[brewmann04]

I wished they would drop the man on second rule.

[JosephC]

There are LOTS of things MLB could do to make the game more interesting but there are too many "purists" that aren't open to such ideas.

 

That's because the "purist" know that baseball is "boring" by today's standards and will continue to be so and would rather not have a flunky lawyer stick his fingers in there and screw up what they love about the game.

 

Baseball is "boring" and will continue to be "boring" because before each play there are 10 guys on a huge field just standing there and when the "play" is over, the majority of the time 8 of those guys did nothing and the other 2 are in the same spot as when the play started. Maybe one out of every 4 "plays" a ball is put in play and a couple more guys move around a bit. Compare that to football where during a play a fan can see 22 guys all moving around and generally on each play there are bodies slamming into one another. Basketball has 10 guys always moving around. This is why baseball is "boring" to young fans. Hitting 4 home runs instead of 2 home runs per game isn't going to change this because the extra two home runs only last 10 seconds of a 3-hour time-frame. 14 year old's will not start tuning in because games only last 2 hours and 52 minutes when they previously went 2 hours and 58 minutes.

 

As long as baseball is primarily 10 guys standing on a field with 80% of them doing nothing, it's quite pointless to try and tweak the game to appeal to people who get bored watching 10 guys standing on a field with 80% of them doing nothing.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

There are LOTS of things MLB could do to make the game more interesting but there are too many "purists" that aren't open to such ideas.

 

That's because the "purist" know that baseball is "boring" by today's standards and will continue to be so and would rather not have a flunky lawyer stick his fingers in there and screw up what they love about the game.

 

Baseball is "boring" and will continue to be "boring" because before each play there are 10 guys on a huge field just standing there and when the "play" is over, the majority of the time 8 of those guys did nothing and the other 2 are in the same spot as when the play started. Maybe one out of every 4 "plays" a ball is put in play and a couple more guys move around a bit. Compare that to football where during a play a fan can see 22 guys all moving around and generally on each play there are bodies slamming into one another. Basketball has 10 guys always moving around. This is why baseball is "boring" to young fans. Hitting 4 home runs instead of 2 home runs per game isn't going to change this because the extra two home runs only last 10 seconds of a 3-hour time-frame. 14 year old's will not start tuning in because games only last 2 hours and 52 minutes when they previously went 2 hours and 58 minutes.

 

As long as baseball is primarily 10 guys standing on a field with 80% of them doing nothing, it's quite pointless to try and tweak the game to appeal to people who get bored watching 10 guys standing on a field with 80% of them doing nothing.

 

I agree with you, but I love baseball and find the game simply too long. A game is a 5-hour commitment to attend. It's hard to take my kids to one and sit through 3.5 hours of what you describe. I own a 20-pack and usually end up using 10-12 games. I also don't want to tune in from 7-1030. 7-9 is just a lot more doable. Watching an NBA game is just so much easier to do on a semi-nightly basis than MLB.

 

I'm also much more likely to watch non-Bucks games than non-Brewers for that reason. I watch exactly 0 out of market baseball games, despite the fact baseball is my strongly preferred sport between the two.

[jerichoholicninja]

There are LOTS of things MLB could do to make the game more interesting but there are too many "purists" that aren't open to such ideas.

 

That's because the "purist" know that baseball is "boring" by today's standards and will continue to be so and would rather not have a flunky lawyer stick his fingers in there and screw up what they love about the game.

 

Baseball is "boring" and will continue to be "boring" because before each play there are 10 guys on a huge field just standing there and when the "play" is over, the majority of the time 8 of those guys did nothing and the other 2 are in the same spot as when the play started. Maybe one out of every 4 "plays" a ball is put in play and a couple more guys move around a bit. Compare that to football where during a play a fan can see 22 guys all moving around and generally on each play there are bodies slamming into one another. Basketball has 10 guys always moving around. This is why baseball is "boring" to young fans. Hitting 4 home runs instead of 2 home runs per game isn't going to change this because the extra two home runs only last 10 seconds of a 3-hour time-frame. 14 year old's will not start tuning in because games only last 2 hours and 52 minutes when they previously went 2 hours and 58 minutes.

 

As long as baseball is primarily 10 guys standing on a field with 80% of them doing nothing, it's quite pointless to try and tweak the game to appeal to people who get bored watching 10 guys standing on a field with 80% of them doing nothing.

 

Exactly this. There is nothing you can do to make the game more "interesting" to the younger generation without fundamentally changing the structure of the game itself. After coaching high school kids for 10 years I think I've deduced that the reason kids don't like baseball is because the skills are hard to master and the game is hard to learn beyond the very basics. I shake my head at the number of very talented kids that I've coached over the years that go right to playing beer league softball after their high school careers. And of course, it's easy to hit a lobbed softball - not to mention you can hang out with girls and drink beer.