Dinger Whiff Analytics

[frankbmd]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/16/s...trikeouts.html

The New York Times must be eavesdropping on the Dinger Whiff thread.

Total hits vs strikeouts is neck and neck this year in MLB.

Batting Average is the lowest since 1972.

So what's the fix from a rule change point of view.

Increasing balls in play is suggested in the article to generate more appeal in viewing the game and I guess I agree.

So, ......

why not move the mound back a bit to decrease the effectiveness of the 100mph fastball

Or .......

reverse the the ball strike count so that four strikes are required for a strikeout and three balls get you to first base

Or.......

Both of the above.

[drcy]

Beachballs

[celoknob]

I think there are too many strikeouts AND home runs getting to the point of boredom. To me, this means you shouldn’t just disadvantage pitchers because that will increase home runs even more.

I would consider making the ball a little bigger and heavier. Small changes there could make a big difference. That would slow down pitches, put more balls in play but also fewer home runs. The fences are too close in some parks. Unfortunately, I think baseball will only address the strikeout issue without addressing home runs.

[Butch7999]

Much as we long to see most starters again throw 300+ innings and 30+ complete games every year,
the sensitive, finely-tuned mechanisms that are modern pitching arms would collapse and implode
throwing an even minutely larger / heavier ball. Keep the ball the same size and weight but install
a softer, deader center. Part of the reason that strikeouts are up -- aside from control pitchers with
overpowering speed -- is that every hitter, not just guys with killer power, is swinging for the fences.
If a deader ball reduces that tendency, strikeouts will decrease as well.

[brass_rat]

Great thread, guys.

I'd like to see two things --

1) Reduce the mound height.
2) Move back the fences (where possible).

I agree that changing the ball could potentially have similar effects to #2, but if you create more space in the outfield, you'll have more balls dropping when hit on a line. Fewer batters could reach the fences, so people would drop all of the talk about launch angles for #8 hitters...

If you only changed the ball so that it couldn't be hit as hard/far, you might just find that you have more outs. (Fly balls that aren't HR --> outs, and softer grounders --> easy outs.)

Thoughts?

[frankbmd]

Moving the fences back to 600 feet would all but eliminate the over the fence home run, but would be a boon to perhaps the most exciting play in baseball, the inside the park home run. "Shift" analysts could position an infielder or two in the wide open spaces to curb this eventuality.

Teams, however, would be forced to lower the price of those bleacher seats in the next county.

Lowering the mound is certainly a more doable modification, and could also be repeated as needed until the pitchers were literally standing in a hole to pitch.

The ball itself need not be deadened to prewar specs, but could it not be infected with a virus of some sort that made it a bit more mushy in the core. The diameter and weight could remain the same.

And finally how to handle the epidemic of "Tommy John" surgery. One suggestion would be to require rehabbed Tommy Johners to get 4 outs/half inning rather than three, and begin an early education program in elementary school to teach little leaguers sound pitching mechanics and techniques to avoid the strain on their elbows that would predispose them to become a Tommy Johnner later in life in their early twenties.

Rule or equipment changes always have consequences, both intended and unintended. Baseball has been tweaked many times in the past and will continue to be tweaked going forward. The overall balance of the game between pitching and hitting has remained relatively constant, but seems to be heading away from the balance and equilibrium. Some ideas expressed in this thread are more reasonable than others and I doubt if the powers that be on the rules committee are getting their input from Net54. Let's, at least, hope they are not.

[rats60]

You don't even have to go that far. Set minimum dimensions to where the likelihood of an over the fence is low enough that every player doesn't go to the plate swinging for the fence. Say 375 down the lines, 420 power alleys, 450 to center.

Golf courses haven't stayed at the same yardage as equipment has improved. They have been lengthened. It is time for MLB to address this in my opinion. The only other option is to reduce the distance that baseballs will travel when hit.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I could live with a rule where you could only foul off so many pitches before you got called out. The 12 pitch at bats are really boring for the most part.

[brass_rat]

I can't vouch for the site nor the author, but googling "lowering the mound in baseball" picks up this article in one of the top hits:

https://www.ozy.com/opinion/batter-u...he-mound/87182

The American Sports Medicine Institute, founded by the renowned orthopedic surgeon Dr. James Andrews, conducted a study from 2016–17 that looked at the impact on a pitcher’s arm throwing off a mound 6 inches high instead of the current 10-inch MLB mound. Dr. Glenn Fleisig, the director of research at ASMI, directed the study, which took about 18 months. Fleisig says the study, which also included youth pitchers, is being reviewed by a medical journal. MLB is a sponsor of the study.

[brass_rat]

Furthermore, this might be interesting. Quotes below:

http://www.mlb.com/documents/7/9/4/2...all_052418.pdf

Generally, for a specific launch
angle and exit velocity, we see that the distance traveled is generally greatest
for 2017, followed by 2016, and 2015b. The increase in distance from 2016 to
2017 can be as large as five feet for exit velocities near 102 mph and launch
angles near 29 degrees. This increased distance in batted balls is consistent
with the increase in the home runs in the last two seasons

The important takeaway from this analysis is the following: Had the drag
properties of the baseballs in 2015b and 2016 been identical to those in 2017,
the home run rate would have been the same in all three periods. This result
lends further support to the conclusion that the the reason for the increase
in home runs 2015b-2017 is due to reduced drag on the baseballs.

[barrysloate]

I read that Chris Davis has struck out 33 times in his last 66 at bats. That is preposterous for any player, and Davis was once considered a star. Something needs to be done to make baseball a little more compelling.

[ValKehl]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

I read that Chris Davis has struck out 33 times in his last 66 at bats. That is preposterous for any player, and Davis was once considered a star. Something needs to be done to make baseball a little more compelling.

Davis had 4 Ks in 4 ABs last night to "improve" his strike out rate. Unfortunately for the Orioles, Davis has a few more yours remaining on his big contract.

[Peter_Spaeth]

My favorite stat this year so far is that not one pitcher has more than 1 shutout. Can nobody go 9?

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

My favorite stat this year so far is that not one pitcher has more than 1 shutout. Can nobody go 9?

With such a high frequency of strikeouts, keeping pitch counts within "perceived" reason contributes to the disappearing solo shutout.

There may also be a clause in the Bull Pen Union (BPU) manifesto that requires minimum daily work of one inning.