Off-day rumination: lower or eliminate the pitcher's mound???

[Nola Beery]

When guys throw 100 mph, they don't need the assistance of a mound.  Just something to talk about!

I'm sure there are longer, more detailed, and more thorough analyses than this little historical blurb, quoted below.  https://bosoxinjection.com/2013/12/13/pitching-mound-history/

"Before the pitcher’s mound was introduced in 1893, there was a 4 foot wide by 5 1/2 foot long box on flat ground;  the pitcher could put his back foot anywhere along the 4 foot back line of the box, which was 55 1/2 feet from home plate, to start his pitch.

In 1893, to create more offense, the box was replaced with a raised mound and a rubber slab 12 inches long and relocated further back to 60 1/2 feet from home plate. Pitches were required to be touching with their back foot and the rubber plate was 60 1/2 feet away from home plate.

The extra five feet was significant, as it cut down on the angle of the pitches and the league batting average spiked up 35 pts. in 1893 and another 29 pts. in 1894.

Until 1950, MLB only required that the height of the mound be no more than 15” above the baseline, but did not address a minimum height.   This lack of interest in the state of the mound by MLB led to attempts to adjust the height from 0-15 inches to suit the style of individual home team pitchers, or work against the style of visiting pitchers. [After 1950, the mound was required to be 15 inches, no more, no less.]

The last time MLB made a major rule change for the Pitchers’ mound was 1969.   In reaction to the complete dominance of pitching over hitting in 1968, MLB attempted to recalibrate the balance to favor the hitters by lowering the mound 5 inches to a height of 10” inches above baseline.

This was one change that was part of a general policy to make the game more exciting for fans by increasing the number of hits and runs scored,"  

Edited July 11, 2022 by Nola Beery
added a line

[Smichaelis9]

This is an interesting question. As a D3 pitching coach who has started learning more and more about the science behind pitching and how the human body works in that regard, I would be extremely hesitant to take the mound away, or even lower it much further than it already is. I think the arm injuries would go up dramatically from where they already are. There's a reason pitchers throw their "flat grounds" from only about 45-50 feet away at about 70-80%. I don't think pitcher's fastballs would be effected too much, but changeups with heavy pronation (see: Devin Williams) or breaking balls would put a lot more strain on the elbow and shoulder without that slope, as pitcher's would have to create a different tilt with their body to make it work.

I absolutely do think that it would improve the offensive outputs around the game to do so though. Probably by a lot. I just think that the cost of losing pitchers to injury is too high.

One other note is that, any time you mess with the mound in general (lowering, moving it back, etc), you're going to have to make a big change to a lot of parks around the world. You can't have high schoolers and colleges pitching on mounds and then once they get to pro ball, the mound is gone or 3 feet further back. They've trained most of their lives in a certain set of parameters. So that would mean everyone around the country/world having to make adjustments to their mound as well, which can be a tough (and somewhat expensive) thing to do.

[Nola Beery]

6 hours ago, Smichaelis9 said:

This is an interesting question. As a D3 pitching coach who has started learning more and more about the science behind pitching and how the human body works in that regard, I would be extremely hesitant to take the mound away, or even lower it much further than it already is. I think the arm injuries would go up dramatically from where they already are. There's a reason pitchers throw their "flat grounds" from only about 45-50 feet away at about 70-80%. I don't think pitcher's fastballs would be effected too much, but changeups with heavy pronation (see: Devin Williams) or breaking balls would put a lot more strain on the elbow and shoulder without that slope, as pitcher's would have to create a different tilt with their body to make it work.

I absolutely do think that it would improve the offensive outputs around the game to do so though. Probably by a lot. I just think that the cost of losing pitchers to injury is too high.

One other note is that, any time you mess with the mound in general (lowering, moving it back, etc), you're going to have to make a big change to a lot of parks around the world. You can't have high schoolers and colleges pitching on mounds and then once they get to pro ball, the mound is gone or 3 feet further back. They've trained most of their lives in a certain set of parameters. So that would mean everyone around the country/world having to make adjustments to their mound as well, which can be a tough (and somewhat expensive) thing to do.

Thanks for a thoughtful reply.  I never would have considered those factors.  Obviously I have no data and am talking off the top of my head, but why not make the change to no-mound universal, from kids on up? 

Side note: I've always thought the mound was an "impurity"-- like the impossibly hard flat rolled cricket pitch/wicket,   But then, my daughters played softball, and it always bugged me that we couldn't play on some of the boys' fields because of those &$%#! mounds.   However, at our park there was one mound built on a big piece of plywood with a rope attached and "buried" in the mound  that could be dragged off by a couple of dads or a riding mower; that was thoughtful. 

[nate82]

I still think going with a heavier and bigger ball is a better idea than messing with the mound.  Changing the ball is also probably the easiest thing to implement from HS to College baseball.  

Wouldn't even need to change the balls weight or shape all that much.  Making it slightly bigger and adding a few more ounces to the ball would all that would be needed.

[Smichaelis9]

1 hour ago, Nola Beery said:

Thanks for a thoughtful reply.  I never would have considered those factors.  Obviously I have no data and am talking off the top of my head, but why not make the change to no-mound universal, from kids on up? 

Side note: I've always thought the mound was an "impurity"-- like the impossibly hard flat rolled cricket pitch/wicket,   But then, my daughters played softball, and it always bugged me that we couldn't play on some of the boys' fields because of those &$%#! mounds.   However, at our park there was one mound built on a big piece of plywood with a rope attached and "buried" in the mound  that could be dragged off by a couple of dads or a riding mower; that was thoughtful. 

I think that’s where the issue with adjusting every field would be tough, and also there’d still be around a 20 year gap of players who’ve been training that way from 13 years on. I just think that’d make it super hard to implement safely and reasonably.