MLB has an issue regarding pitching dominance

[Thurston Fluff]

I think part of the testing problem is showing a particular pitcher used a particular substance. For example how do you test for thing like pine tar when pine tar is used on bats by virtually everybody? A baseball hits the pat where the pine tar is on it, gets some on it then the pitcher gets suspended for using pine tar makes no sense. Ditto for gloves. Even if there was a substance on the ball that wasn't commonly used on bats how do you know who used it when the same ball might be used by multiple pitchers. Sometimes by pitchers from both teams.

I'm going to guess that a pine tar mark from a bat is significantly different than a mark from a finger, or fingers. I don't know who will blink first in this, because I believe that every team's pitchers are using the substances. But it is really the best and easiest fix to the game. Better than moving the mound. Take a couple hundred RPM and 2-3 MPH off of a pitch, hitters might have a chance.

 

No, but a catcher and/or umpire then touches the pine tarred ball and gets it on other balls or on another area of the same ball. Unless only one player touches the ball it's hard to pin it on one person.

I agree with you it's the best easiest fix. I think baseball already identified that since they have upped the testing. I just don't think we can do much about it until we have enough data to address it properly.

[Fear The Chorizo]

For the substances some are approved by MLB as there has always been this unwritten rule that pitchers can use some substances to be able to grip the ball better. This is good for the batter in terms of the pitcher is able to accurately throw the pitch you don't really want a pitcher who could possibly hit you in the head at some point as they are not able to control where they are throwing the pitch.

 

Perhaps if they made sure MLB pitchers didn't have foreign substances available to use, velo would decrease in order to improve command of pitches and the concern about pitches just flying everywhere would vanish on its own. I don't hear about a dramatic number of collegiate or high school players getting hit in the head by pitchers that still throw pretty darn hard to hitters that typically aren't nearly as used to seeing velocity in the batters box, and I'm fairly certain there isn't pervasive pine tar/foreign substance use at those levels.

 

Overall, the foreign substances probably helps more with controlling offspeed/breaking pitches while allowing pitchers to maximize velocity on those pitches where high RPMs make a difference in "stuff". It could easily explain how pitchers are suddenly throwing low 90s sliders and mid 90s "cutters" on top of mid 90s four seamers - that collection of high velo stuff is essentially unhittable if all those pitches can be commanded at an elite level. Without unnaturally high RPM rates, those offspeed offerings are a bit slower in order to be commanded for strikes/location, and suddenly hitters have a chance.

[nate82]

 

Perhaps if they made sure MLB pitchers didn't have foreign substances available to use, velo would decrease in order to improve command of pitches and the concern about pitches just flying everywhere would vanish on its own. I don't hear about a dramatic number of collegiate or high school players getting hit in the head by pitchers that still throw pretty darn hard to hitters that typically aren't nearly as used to seeing velocity in the batters box, and I'm fairly certain there isn't pervasive pine tar/foreign substance use at those levels.

 

Overall, the foreign substances probably helps more with controlling offspeed/breaking pitches while allowing pitchers to maximize velocity on those pitches where high RPMs make a difference in "stuff". It could easily explain how pitchers are suddenly throwing low 90s sliders and mid 90s "cutters" on top of mid 90s four seamers - that collection of high velo stuff is essentially unhittable if all those pitches can be commanded at an elite level. Without unnaturally high RPM rates, those offspeed offerings are a bit slower in order to be commanded for strikes/location, and suddenly hitters have a chance.

 

I believe the baseballs that MLB uses is completely different than what is used in college and high school. The way that they are prepared is completely different than what you see in high school and college. This is what makes the balls slicker in MLB compared to what is used in high school and college. I believe the ball is also prepared differently in the independent leagues though I think MLB has been giving them some of their balls as these leagues have become testing grounds for MLB to implement some rule changes (pitch clock, moving the mound back, etc.).

 

If you watch pitchers especially ones that don't use the current substances they will rub the ball to remove some of the substances that MLB puts on the balls to get a better grip on the ball. MLB just needs to figure out which substances to approve and which ones to remove from the game and it should help both the pitchers and batters. The sunscreen substance is probably the hardest one to regulate as all players are more than likely wearing sunscreen so you can't really tell someone to not wear sunscreen. If MLB told players they can't wear sunscreen the MLBPA would just sue and they would win as it is a health issue. That rule wouldn't last for more than a day if they did that.

[Oxy]

How about this?

 

The first "taken" pitch is worth TWICE it's value. The first pitch taken that is fully within the strike zone both vertically and horizontally would be 2 strikes. First pitch taken "balls" would be worth 2 balls. If the first pitch taken is a borderline pitch, i.e. a pitch that straddles the strike zone in any way with part of the pitch outside the strike zone then both 1 ball and 1 strike shall be awarded. After the first "taken" pitch of the AB, then the AB resumes normally the way it does now.

[MrTPlush]

I got to be honest, some of the ideas brought up in this thread are straight out of deep LF...and they don't even make sense for the title of the thread. How is a two strike first pitch going to do anything beneficial to curbing pitching dominance?

[Oxy]

I got to be honest, some of the ideas brought up in this thread are straight out of deep LF...and they don't even make sense for the title of the thread. How is a two strike first pitch going to do anything beneficial to curbing pitching dominance?

 

I don't really buy the "pitching dominance" narrative as I don't think runs per game are that different from the past. I DO buy the slow, boring game style of there not being enough balls in play. Just trying to speed up ABs and speed up the action. Incentivize swinging the bat and putting the ball in play. A batter DOESN'T want to take a clear strike and be down 0-2, and a pitcher DOESN'T want to throw a ball and start off 2-0...so the pitcher is incentivized to throw the ball over the plate and the hitter is incentivized to swing at it! That's baseball. Or used to be.

 

However, adding a called ball to a borderline pitch in addition to a strike is a pretty significant tilt toward hitters, even if it is just a one time thing per AB.

[djoctagone]

the upcoming arizona fall league will have rules limiting infield shifts.

[TheAnalytics]

MLB is overthinking all of this. Keep everything the same except make the ball 5-10% bigger in terms of circumference and weight. This will directly influence the game by:

 

1. Reduce pitching velocity

2. Increase contact rates

3. Decrease home run rates

 

And I believe it would also have indirect positive effects on pitcher elbow injuries as well as realigning hitting incentives to a more contact-oriented approach.

[TURBO]

MLB is overthinking all of this. Keep everything the same except make the ball 5-10% bigger in terms of circumference and weight. This will directly influence the game by:

 

1. Reduce pitching velocity

2. Increase contact rates

3. Decrease home run rates

 

And I believe it would also have indirect positive effects on pitcher elbow injuries as well as realigning hitting incentives to a more contact-oriented approach.

 

 

WAY to radical. I'd be completely against this.

[TheAnalytics]

MLB is overthinking all of this. Keep everything the same except make the ball 5-10% bigger in terms of circumference and weight. This will directly influence the game by:

 

1. Reduce pitching velocity

2. Increase contact rates

3. Decrease home run rates

 

And I believe it would also have indirect positive effects on pitcher elbow injuries as well as realigning hitting incentives to a more contact-oriented approach.

 

 

WAY to radical. I'd be completely against this.

 

Really? Changing the ball 5% would probably decrease the MLB average velo by like 2 mph.

 

The average fan wouldn’t even notice.

[owbc]

MLB is overthinking all of this. Keep everything the same except make the ball 5-10% bigger in terms of circumference and weight. This will directly influence the game by:

 

1. Reduce pitching velocity

2. Increase contact rates

3. Decrease home run rates

 

And I believe it would also have indirect positive effects on pitcher elbow injuries as well as realigning hitting incentives to a more contact-oriented approach.

 

Very interesting. Would be fun to see how it would play out in practice. I have a feeling that pitching grips would be affected.

 

I do think a pitch clock is the simplest way to do all of the above...it's not a coincidence that the pitchers who throw the hardest and the batters who swing the hardest tend to take the longest. Plus it improves the watchability of the game.

 

At least the strikeout rate finally dropped in 2021 relative to 2019. That's a minor victory. At least anecdotally it also seemed that bunting against the shift has increased. I've seen several rookies put down nice bunts which suggests that batters are starting to learn how to respond to the absurd shifting.

[DuWayne Steurer]

the upcoming arizona fall league will have rules limiting infield shifts.

 

 

this is dumb.

[MrTPlush]

Changing the size of the ball would likely be a ball control nightmare.

 

I support fixing shifts. Really all I want to see is two infielders on each side of the field. Putting one near second on the left side and then having your SS near you RFer took shifting to a stupid level. I would be okay with an infielder slightly into the OF, but again, some are halfway to the RF wall. It is just ridiculous and it is incredibly annoying/frustrating for people to watch. Watching guys destroy a ball only for the 2B to catch it back by the RFer is dumb.

 

I get it...the guys should learn how to hit it the other way or too bad for them. I love that idea if guys would actually change their ways (and it isn't that simple to just start doing). Unfortunately, that isn't going to happen and they have to do something about it.

[monty57]

To me, outlawing shifts would be like the NFL outlawing nickel packages. Imagine how much the scoring would go up if the defenses would just stop trying to do their best to stop the other team from scoring.

[TheAnalytics]

Changing the size of the ball would likely be a ball control nightmare.

 

I think y’all are overestimating the difference in ball size I am suggesting. The circumference would go from 9.15 in to 9.6 in and the weight would go from 5.15 oz to 5.4 oz. Sure, pitchers would be able to tell the difference and would need slight adjustments to their grips and deliveries, but they throw weighted and oversized baseballs to train velocity and command all the time without issue.

 

Driveline offers a set of weighted balls with way more variation: https://www.drivelinebaseball.com/product/driveline-leather-weighted-baseballs/?attribute_size=Red%2C+7oz+Baseball&gbraid=0AAAAADc6CMHet4Os8HqfkPsoylAJDZawu&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI0c-JqMm28wIVDmpvBB1JZgI_EAQYAyABEgL4evD_BwE

[owbc]

I’m generally pro-reform but I hate the idea of restricting shifting. It’s the kind of idea that gets suggested by suits who don’t understand baseball. The shift punishes pull-hitting sluggers, particularly lefties. Does anyone look at MLB today and think—“the problem with MLB is that we don’t have enough Joey Gallos”? or “we should reward guys who swing recklessly with the occasional ground ball single”? Guys like Smoak or LoMo became useless the second they stopped driving the ball. Great.

 

Hitters can and will adjust to shifts if you give them the opportunity and the incentives. It won’t take much Reward singles and speed by making it easier to steal bases. Reward bunting by making a two-strike bunt a foul ball. Etc etc

[Fear The Chorizo]

Even if there was minimal violations identified once MLB started trying to inspect/crack down on foreign substances, I think that had an impact overall to improve offensive output of teams. The yearlong MLB average for runs scored per team per game was 4.53, which is right in the middle of where runs scored has been for the past 40+ years aside from the late 1990s-early 2000s stretch that is now the outlier (i.e. blatant steroid era).

 

The bigger problem MLB still has from a gameplay standpoint is pace of play and overall length of games - I believe this year still set the overall record of average time of game (3:11), so whatever MLB has tried up to this point in terms of # of batters a reliever needs to face or batters stepping in/out of the box, mound visits, etc. just isn't working. The quick and easy answer to this is implementing a pitch clock - and I think it's time something along those lines is seriously considered. The amount of dead time that goes between each pitch and frankly each at bat of a game has gotten completely out of hand - particularly once runners get on base.

 

As for the shifting - I think we are already seeing some slight changes to hitting approaches for younger players that over time its benefit is going to be reduced naturally without having to make rules specific to how teams line up defenders. That should remain part of the natural evolution of the game and not forced out of it by unneccessary rules.

[MrTPlush]

There is no way to make baseball games faster. Baseball is boring to watch and 'feels' slow. That is flat out the reality. I love baseball, but I cannot deny it is kind of boring to watch on a regular basis.

NFL games are just as long and no one really complains about needing to fix speed of games. It just doesn't seem like length is the problem...it is just the fact it is slow paced and certain things in the game make it feel like the game is paused for ten minutes.

[owbc]

There is no way to make baseball games faster. Baseball is boring to watch and 'feels' slow. That is flat out the reality. I love baseball, but I cannot deny it is kind of boring to watch on a regular basis.

NFL games are just as long and no one really complains about needing to fix speed of games. It just doesn't seem like length is the problem...it is just the fact it is slow paced and certain things in the game make it feel like the game is paused for ten minutes.

 

If you decrease the time between pitches, you make baseball faster. End of story. If it's still boring, that's fine, not everyone appreciates baseball and every sport is boring at times.

 

I know pitch clocks are not the be-all end-all but they did knock 21 minutes off the game time in low-A this year. So it does work. Although I think some tests in other minor league levels have shown that the effectiveness slips with time.

[TURBO]

I find it hard to believe the average time of a MLB game was only 3:11.

 

It seems like the average time for a Brewers game was 3:30.

 

Anyone have a stat as to what the actual average game time for the Brewers was?

[tmwiese55]

I'd guess you might be forgetting that most games start at like 7:10 so when it end it at 10:25 you think 3:25 but it's actually less, just a guess though

 

I'd generally agree the issue isn't that it's 3ish hours. It's that the 3TO has increased the nothingness that happens compared to years ago. So things to emphasize balls in play will work two fold in that it will make it more active/action paced than now while likely also quickening the game a bit. Basically it's not all about cutting time, but priority should be on having something happen more often.

 

Another thing to add is that's its not purely how slow pitches are now due to pitcher or hitter taking their sweet old time between pitches. A big thing now vs 40 years ago has to simply be everyone figured out walking is very good, therefore they're taking so many more pitches (plus of course swing/miss much more now). Assuming they do lollygag a bit more now vs back in the day combine that with that you're seeing way more pitches taken increases that problem even more.

 

I just looked it up and apparently they trimmed 20 seconds of commercial between innings a few years ago. Looks like it's 2:05 for local and 2:25 for national now. Would it be feasible to do another 15-30 seconds? I doubt it but even that still only trims 5-10 mins a game. If its feasible for gameplay you can make up the ad revenue on split screen ads in game.

[owbc]

I find it hard to believe the average time of a MLB game was only 3:11.

 

It seems like the average time for a Brewers game was 3:30.

 

Anyone have a stat as to what the actual average game time for the Brewers was?

 

It's a little tricky for me to compute the average but from baseball reference the median was 3:12. So I would imagine the Brewers are in the 3:15-3:18 range given they played 18 games 2:45 and under vs. 22 games 3:45 and over.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

I find it hard to believe the average time of a MLB game was only 3:11.

 

It seems like the average time for a Brewers game was 3:30.

 

Anyone have a stat as to what the actual average game time for the Brewers was?

 

The median may be more useful, not sure if it is significantly different. The average is 3:11, but I've been to plenty of 3:45 games.

 

I think for me, the time feels longer because the only games I watch all 9 innings are games I'm attending. And with all the travel time it is basically an all-day event when coming from an hour away.

[owbc]

I'd guess you might be forgetting that most games start at like 7:10 so when it end it at 10:25 you think 3:25 but it's actually less, just a guess though

 

I'd generally agree the issue isn't that it's 3ish hours. It's that the 3TO has increased the nothingness that happens compared to years ago. So things to emphasize balls in play will work two fold in that it will make it more active/action paced than now while likely also quickening the game a bit. Basically it's not all about cutting time, but priority should be on having something happen more often.

 

Another thing to add is that's its not purely how slow pitches are now due to pitcher or hitter taking their sweet old time between pitches. A big thing now vs 40 years ago has to simply be everyone figured out walking is very good, therefore they're taking so many more pitches (plus of course swing/miss much more now). Assuming they do lollygag a bit more now vs back in the day combine that with that you're seeing way more pitches taken increases that problem even more.

 

I just looked it up and apparently they trimmed 20 seconds of commercial between innings a few years ago. Looks like it's 2:05 for local and 2:25 for national now. Would it be feasible to do another 15-30 seconds? I doubt it but even that still only trims 5-10 mins a game. If its feasible for gameplay you can make up the ad revenue on split screen ads in game.

 

This has all been quantified and the answer is that time between pitches is overwhelmingly the #1 cause of the increased game time. There are approximately 300 pitches per MLB game so each added second between pitches added 5 minutes to the game time. 80% of all pitchers take between 18 and 23 seconds to throw the ball but a few take as long as 26-28 seconds.

 

The number of pitches per game has increased by about 10-15 so it is adding about 3-5 minutes per game. Similar to commercial breaks, mound visits, etc, it matters, but not enough to get us back to the 2:50 per game range from the early 2000s. Time between pitches is the ONLY way to get baseball games back under 3 hours.

[tmwiese55]

Makes sense. Yes just another thing to add in.

 

Interesting article on topic: https://www.si.com/mlb/2021/03/17/baseball-preview-pace-of-play-crisis