Strat-O-Matic Baseball 365

Trying out 61 feet, six inch distance of mound to home plate and that you lose DH once you pull starting pitcher. Interesting ideas.

Once again illustrating how other decisions have created second order effects not considered at the time. If DH was a great improvement, why remove it partially? The game is becoming a patchwork of technical nuances that don't make it more palatable to my kids for instance (I say my 20+ yr old kids because I am a lost cause).

Their chief complaints continue to be what they were when I'd drag them to the ballpark--that the games are too long and there is too much stopping.

Hell at this point why not put a time limit and do away with innings. It isn't as though any part of the game is untouchable to the current leadership and their process for assessing changes.

And as far as the mound changes...more of the same--changes by technocrats created more problems than they solved, and required "fixing" again later. Now is later. Again.
https://bosoxinjection.com/2013/12/13/pitching-mound-history/

In 1968 major changes were made to how high the mound could be and the strike zone. Ever watch a Sandy Koufax game? He threw chest high fastball after chest high fastball. Imagine trying to hit an 100 mph chest high fastball. Mike Trout has trouble hitting high fastball above his waist...

Anyway, there is precedent for adjustimg the rules when the game gets too pitching dominant. Those rule changes had a positive effect on the game. And the losing the DH rule is a clever way to discourage 1 inning starts or pulling starters after 4 or 5 innings. I never understood why people are so concerned about the pitcher hitting or double-switches; it seems relatively minor to me. The pace of the game and lack of action appear to be the significant issues.

The rule experiments are designed to put more balls in play and reduce the number of pitching changes, both areas of major complaints. Why wouldnt we want to see the effect of that in practice?

You're conflating my observation means opposition to all change. My point is there is a shortsightedness that causes MLB to keep executing a strategy of ready...fire...aim.

If the game is to be a generational adaptation every generation, then as I said, I think they should consider getting rid of innings. It would have a direct impact on game speed and length. Baseball is the last major made-for-TV team sport without a clock. Why? What makes a construct of innings more sacrosanct than the dimensions of the field, makeup of teams, etc?

"Anyway, there is precedent for adjustimg the rules when the game gets too pitching dominant."
So, you're saying the game is too pitching dominant, since moving the mound backwards contributes to more offense.
I will grant that batted balls in play have been on an inverse trend compared to strikeouts.
But ask the five why's...it is because contact is not as important--the long ball is how teams are structured due to the lean toward run scoring.

Adding offense makes the game longer, each pitch less consequential, and strategy less important. They have been doing it for quite some time and yet, here they are at it again.

Innings are a fundamental part of the game--you really cant change that unless you want a new game. The point of moving the mound back is not necessarily to produce more offense but to give hitters a better chance of putting more balls in play. Im not sure you can adjust the rules to deal with the fact analytics have caused a focus of power over contact due to the fact power creates more runs. But perhaps, maybe hitters can deal with the velocity a tad better if they move the mound back a little bit. And if the hitter can wait a tad longer maybe they can avoid swinging at breaking balls out of the strike zone , which are a lot of the strike outs. Baseball didnt invent increased velocity or the launch angle revolution, which has vastly reduced small ball. But unless you are happy with how things are, I would think experimentimg with changes in a minor league would be a reasonable step.

I am pragmatic person. I like to see how things work in actual practice. In my politics im for all trying things from different parts of the political spectrum. Like with health care, why dont we have different states try different theories in practice and let's compare notes in 5 years? Things that might look one way in our head, may look entirely different in practice. So to my way of thinking when we got a problem, I think experimenting with different solutions BEFORE adopting any changes is a good thing.

It's obviously good to experiment with stuff in the minors before implementing it in the majors. It'll be interesting to see how moving the mound back plays. It's possible that it just makes breaking stuff nastier - curves will have more time to curve - and thus doesn't suppress strikeouts. But I'm open to the idea that it could be beneficial. Interesting article about the idea: https://www.theringer.com/mlb/2021/3/15 ... e-distance

The change that needs to happen most is automated balls and strikes. Then if you want to suppress strikeouts you can easily shrink the strike zone a smidge. I'd also like to see bigger fields - triples are more exciting than homers IMO. But SF had the biggest field and most triples until last year when they moved their fences in. Seattle, Detroit, and San Diego have also all moved their fences in in recent years. Wish someone would just go full-on Forbes but teams seem to be doing the opposite.

In general I think the balls-in-play and pace-of-play complaints are way overblown. I'm open to tinkering to address them but also just sick of hearing about it. It's a leisurely game. You're never going to satisfy the people who want nonstop action. And it's just terrible marketing for the commissioner to be constantly publicly harping on the game's problems rather than the positive things. Contrast with the NBA: it's pretty fun to watch until what should be the most exciting part of the game, the last couple minutes, when the game comes to a screeching halt and devolves into a horrendously boring and ugly exchange of fouls and free throws. That to me is a way bigger structural problem than anything baseball is currently dealing with. But I never hear anything about that, from the league, the broadcasters, no one. So maybe there wouldn't be so many complaints about balls in play and pace of play if the league wasn't so publicly obsessed with them? Just a thought.

I'm not obsessed with them at least, but my bottom end starts to hurt (or maybe I just tire mentally and blame the bottom end) after the 7th inning and it is 12-10 with half the pitching staffs already seen!

But I would agree to an extent: if the game is good the length and pace is much less important. I never had a problem with game length when there were less bombs-away events and teams were manufacturing runs more often. And yes a triple is more exciting than a HR to me too, but that's clearly subjective, just like smallball vs bombball. But I think the lost cat-and-mouse part of the game was riveting and tense, especially for those that have played the game at any level and practiced those fundamentals. I'd suspect most of us would still not notice time if the game is worth watching--again on the average, not to a die hard. Maybe that's why my kids--both non-players--were less riveted.

Now, at least to my taste, most games are about waiting for a big inning or a few long balls and that doesn't capture my interest for hours.

Sure trying things out is fine, but I don't see a difference with changing the playing field dimensions and rules and changing the clock. It is just as radical in the sense that there is nothing philosophically protected based on any traditional respect for the game,that's all I meant. The changes are not inspired and limited by tradition, but inspired by dollar ROI.

If it is deemed an issue, I think there are other ways to deal with length and pace without changing rules of play--including the automation of balls and strikes. I don't view that as a fundamental change because the intent is consistency under either system, so if the automation works, it is closer to the ideal anyway.

But I don't think it is just about style over substance--they are following dollars.

Oh--as far as the mound distance...if you don't also change the height nor the strike zone, it is simple Newtonian physics. As a physicist, I can say that confidently.

Extending the distance, with the same mound height and strike zone is doubtfully going to suppress offense. I don't think the league has that expectation either.

Here's my recipe for improving the pace of play without fundamentally altering the game itself.

1) Adopt the 20-second pitch clock used in the minor leagues
2) Restrict the number of times a batter can leave the box during an AB
3) Limit the number of times a game a team's batters can ask for time (like they did with mound visits)
4) Drastically scale back the use of replay review, or eliminate it altogether
5) Limit the number of throws to first per a given base runner

Re getting more balls put in play, outlaw the shift. If batters know they can't pull a ball through the infield for a hit anymore, they are going to swing for the fences a lot more often.