Dismiss Notice
Guest, I have a big favor to ask you. We've been working very hard to establish ourselves on social media. If you like/follow our pages it would be a HUGE help to us. SoSH on Facebook and Inside the Pylon Thanks! Nip

Baseball Is Broken (on the field, proposed rule changes, attendance, etc.)

Discussion in 'MLB Discussion' started by jon abbey, Apr 10, 2018.

  1. Rice4HOF

    Rice4HOF Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    1,708
    10000/81 is a little over 120. If these people all bought 10 packs, then attendance would increase by 1200 per game.
     
  2. bosox79

    bosox79 Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    8,866
    1200 per game is like a 5% increase in attendance. I'm sure the Sox also get lots of fans from Portland Maine as well. It's not that far of a drive and public transportation isn't much of an issue.
     
  3. bosox79

    bosox79 Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    8,866
    Maybe. The .247 batting average would be the lowest since 1968. From 1963-1968, there were 4 seasons worse than .247. Ignoring those, you have to go back to 1908. You'll also notice offense is down quite a bit from last year, though that could just be randomness instead of all the strikeouts and shifting. We won't really know anything how the huge increase in strikeouts will affect offenses without more years of data. 2016 and 2017 suggests not much, but maybe at some magical number, it does. There is about a half a strikeout more per game now than there was in just 2016, a K per game since 2012, and 2k per game since 2006.

    https://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/MLB/bat.shtml

    edit: Obviously batting average is only part of the picture, but it's also harder to be a productive baseball player hitting .240 than it is .270, and it's really hard to not be at least an average offensive player if you hit .300, Homer Bush not included.
     
  4. singaporesoxfan

    singaporesoxfan Well-Known Member Lifetime Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    7,743
    You can say the same thing for any metro area. There will be outlying parts of any MSA where it's harder and parts where it's easier to get to the ballpark. That means the percentage of attendees at a ballpark that come from close traveling distances to the ballpark is higher, and yes, conversely, attendees are less likely to come from far way (though 1200 is not nothing!).

    However, to say that that means "let's just use the official city of Houston or city of Boston populations as a proxy for the group from which ballpark attendees will come from" is to choose a much, much worse data source. Put it this way: if you could find a way of mapping where attendees in Minute Maid Park and in Fenway Park come from, you would probably get very similar percentages for what proportion come from their respective MSAs, and likely very similar distributions of traveling distance from the ballpark that follow some sort of power law. With your original regression analysis, you could add in MSA population as a potential independent variable to factor in the impact of the population size on attendance.

    Conversely, if you took that same data of where attendees in Minute Maid Park and in Fenway Park come from, you would likely get wildly different percentages for what proportion come from Houston vs Boston, a lot of which has nothing to do with traveling distance from the ballpark, and everything to do with the fact that the Charles River separates out Cambridge, Somerville etc. as separate political entities even though Buffalo Bayou doesn't do the same for equivalently located neighborhoods in Houston.
     
  5. SirPsychoSquints

    SirPsychoSquints Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    3,783
    I looked at the monthly splits for runs per game in 2018, 2017, 2016 and 2015. In April/March, 2018 was the highest scoring year, 0.16 runs higher than the average of the other 3. In May, it was the 3rd highest scoring, 0.07 runs lower than the average (and 0.32 runs lower than 2017). In June, it was the 3rd highest scoring, 0.23 runs lower than the average (and 0.58 runs lower than 2017). In July, it has been 0.29 runs higher than the average (and exactly the same as 2017, tied for highest).

    2017 had more runs in each month than either of the previous two, which I think is what is making 2018 look bad by comparison. Looking at the last 4 years, you would conclude that there is a general upward trend in runs, with 2018 being an aberrant high and 2017 being a small step back.
     
  6. wade boggs chicken dinner

    wade boggs chicken dinner Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    15,253
    Tampa Bay Times with a piece on baseball's problems: https://www.tampabay.com/blogs/rays/2018/08/06/the-problem-with-baseball-lights-camera-inaction/. Here's the first part:

    Baseball is broken. And Sunday night might have been the perfect example of everything that plagues the great game.

    The Red Sox and Yankees were wrapping the last of a big four-game series at Fenway Park.

    This is about as marquee as it gets in baseball. Two really good teams. Legendary ballpark. Sold-out crowd. National broadcast. Two good pitchers. A close, exciting game with a dramatic finish.

    And it took every ounce of energy to get through it.

    First things first. Let me start by saying that I love baseball. Love it. So this isn't a column from someone who thinks baseball is boring or is looking to bash the sport.

    And, I will admit, that we're talking about just one game out of 2,430 in baseball's regular season. Still, what we saw Sunday night is hardly atypical and a big reason why baseball is having issues and needs to worry about its future.

    I agree with this article. There is too much inaction in baseball.
     
  7. The Gray Eagle

    The Gray Eagle Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    12,131
    Here's a line from that article that he puts out there, then ignores: "First pitch was at 8:10 p.m."
    That is ridiculously late start time for a Sunday night. It's become an unquestioned accepted practice, but it's terrible for the fans at the game and bad for the teams. Start the game 2 hours earlier and most of it would still be in prime time for ESPN, and the fans and teams would both be much better off. Of course that will never happen, because ESPN spews money at baseball and gets to start those games whenever they want.

    Maybe MLB could take just a little bit less money from ESPN in return for not starting games after 7PM local time. And make ESPN show more Sunday night games that are played in the Pacific time zone, and fewer east coast games that go so late into the night. Ha ha ha, take less money, right! We know that will never happen. Okay, so then don't make how the late the game ends part of the story about baseball's problems, and then suggest rule changes that won't fix that at all.

    If the late start and end of the games is an issue-- and it is-- maybe use your platform to write about why baseball allows games to start so late and how they should try to change that.

    Then the writer suggests rule changes that would be terrible and not needed at all. First he says it's not the length of games, it's the lack of action. So his first suggestion is to shorten games to 7 innings, which would do absolutely nothing to speed the pace or add more action.

    His other suggestions:
    Start every count at 1-1: This would be a vast, drastic change that isn't needed.

    A strike zone from the top of the ankles to the letters: the writer claims that this would lead to more balls in play. That zone would certainly cut down on walks, but strikeouts would explode and scoring would plummet. Terrible idea.

    Enforce a pitch clock: great. But why would we believe that umps would enforce that when they don't enforce the rules that already exist?

    8.04 When the bases are unoccupied, the pitcher shall deliver the ball to the batter within 12 seconds after he receives the ball. Each time the pitcher delays the game by violating this rule, the umpire shall call “Ball.”
    The 12-second timing starts when the pitcher is in possession of the ball and the batter is in the box, alert to the pitcher. The timing stops when the pitcher releases the ball. The intent of this rule is to avoid unnecessary delays. The umpire shall insist that the catcher return the ball promptly to the pitcher, and that the pitcher take his position on the rubber promptly. Obvious delay by the pitcher should instantly be penalized by the umpire.

    (b) (6.02) The Batter’s Box (1) The batter shall take his position in the batter’s box promptly when it is his time at bat. (2) The batter shall not leave his position in the batter’s box after the pitcher comes to Set Position, or starts his windup. 2017 Official Baseball Rules_2017 Official Baseball Rules 3/27/17 8:58 PM Page 18 Rule 5.04(b) 19 PENALTY: If the pitcher pitches, the umpire shall call “Ball” or “Strike,” as the case may be. Rule 5.04(b)(2) Comment (Rule 6.02(b) Comment): The batter leaves the batter’s box at the risk of having a strike delivered and called, unless he requests the umpire to call “Time.” The batter is not at liberty to step in and out of the batter’s box at will. Once a batter has taken his position in the batter’s box, he shall not be permitted to step out of the batter’s box in order to use the rosin or the pine tar rag, unless there is a delay in the game action or, in the judgment of the umpires, weather conditions warrant an exception. Umpires will not call “Time” at the request of the batter or any member of his team once the pitcher has started his windup or has come to a set position even though the batter claims “dust in his eyes,” “steamed glasses,” “didn’t get the sign” or for any other cause. Umpires may grant a hitter’s request for “Time” once he is in the batter’s box, but the umpire should eliminate hitters walking out of the batter’s box without reason. If umpires are not lenient, batters will understand that they are in the batter’s box and they must remain there until the ball is pitched. See Rule 5.04(b)(4) (Rule 6.02(d)). If pitcher delays once the batter is in his box and the umpire feels that the delay is not justified he may allow the batter to step out of the box momentarily. If after the pitcher starts his windup or comes to a “set position” with a runner on, he does not go through with his pitch because the batter has inadvertently caused the pitcher to interrupt his delivery, it shall not be called a balk. Both the pitcher and batter have violated a rule and the umpire shall call time and both the batter and pitcher start over from “scratch.”

    These rules should be enforced to greatly speed the pace of play, but the umpires don't do it. Enforcement of the current rules is the problem with pace of play. There's very little talk about that. Instead we get article after article proposing potentially damaging rule changes that are not needed.

    I believe that these type of articles are really counterproductive, and there are more of them every year. They bash baseball and emphasize how bad it is, and then push suggestions that would make things worse. They almost never mention that there already rules on the books that would speed the pace of play, but the umpires refuse to enforce them.

    Maybe some public pressure on the umps would help. Maybe these writers could draw some attention to the rules on the books that aren't being enforced, but we never get that, just complaints that bash baseball mixed with stupid suggestions that would make baseball worse.
     
  8. tims4wins

    tims4wins PN23's replacement SoSH Member

    Messages:
    19,524
    I'm not sure how many times I have linked this article, but I am going to again

    https://www.sbnation.com/a/mlb-2017-season-preview/game-length

     
  9. grimshaw

    grimshaw the new rudy SoSH Member

    Messages:
    3,365
    Because there will be a clock visible to everyone at the park - and (hopefully) a graphic on your tv. It's a very easy way to audit umpires who refuse to enforce a rule. It is already being done at the minor league level.

    I actually think MLB has done a good job getting this going in the minors first before bringing it to the majors. It gets new draftees to buy into speeding up the pace before they get set in their habits.
     
  10. wade boggs chicken dinner

    wade boggs chicken dinner Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    15,253
    Well, there is probably a reason why pitchers are taking more time to throw a pitch. One reason might be that they throw harder so they have to gear up for throwing that hard. I don't know if anyone has studied whether teams are calling more pitches from the bench or there are more strategy decisions from the dugout that would require either batter or pitcher to spend more time between pitches. Or, maybe it's just the amount of scouting information available to pitchers that they are thinking about sequencing to each batter more than they used to.

    I doubt very highly that baseball is going to be able to speed up this part of the game. My solution (as I've said before) is to go to 3 balls and 2 strikes (or start the count 1-1). The interesting part of the game is when the ball is in play - why do we need to spend 45 minutes watching the ball being thrown back and forth to the pitcher?
     
  11. SirPsychoSquints

    SirPsychoSquints Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    3,783
    There's probably some selection bias here, but in the AL this year, the overall batting line is .249/.317/.415. All counts that reached 1-1 end at .228/.303/.382. Your walk rate goes from 8% to 9% and your K rate goes from 22% to 27%.

    Edit: You get fewer singles, fewer doubles, fewer triples, fewer homers. Each are between a 7% and 13% reduction.
     
  12. wade boggs chicken dinner

    wade boggs chicken dinner Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    15,253
    Agree that it would favor the pitchers and it would probably be worst than what you state because the better pitchers will be pitching more (fewer pitches to throw per game). Maybe to even things out, they could lower the mound or something like that.

    But IMO it would make the game a lot more watchable. Do people really have 2.5-3.5 hours to on multiple nights over multiple months to follow their team?
     
  13. SirPsychoSquints

    SirPsychoSquints Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    3,783
    It goes back to the article Tims posted - the issue is the time between pitches.
     
  14. tims4wins

    tims4wins PN23's replacement SoSH Member

    Messages:
    19,524
    You can't change the count. It would affect how much pitchers are able to pitch, the amount of pitchers needed, roster spots, etc. It is too drastic of a change.
     
  15. Ale Xander

    Ale Xander Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    18,732
    Starting a count ahead is a really bad idea, maybe slightly less so if you start it at 2-0 instead of 1-1 (i.e. 2 balls = walk)
     
  16. SirPsychoSquints

    SirPsychoSquints Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    3,783
    .284/.496/.504
    29% BB, 12.7% K, 3.4% HR. Way too much offense & walking.
     
  17. grimshaw

    grimshaw the new rudy SoSH Member

    Messages:
    3,365
    Increased walks and strikeouts are not a good thing for those wanting more action.
     
  18. SirPsychoSquints

    SirPsychoSquints Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    3,783
    Right - and reducing how many balls to walk will increase walks, and reducing how many strikes to strikeout will increase strikeouts. As Tims said above, any change to the count will have a dramatic effect.
     
  19. charlieoscar

    charlieoscar Member

    Messages:
    1,110
    Article headline in today's WSJ: How to Save Baseball: Let Fans Pitch

    "Since some big league managers are fine with using position players to burn innings, the WSJ's Jason Gay believes that letting fans pitch in blowouts would help boost Major League attendance." [couldn't read the rest of the article]
     
  20. jon abbey

    jon abbey Shanghai Warrior Dope SoSH Member

    Messages:
    38,916
    And why would you want to?
     
  21. Spacemans Bong

    Spacemans Bong chapeau rose SoSH Member

    Messages:
    17,773
    I'm gonna guess it's sarcastic.
     
  22. charlieoscar

    charlieoscar Member

    Messages:
    1,110
    Maybe because I wanted to know whether someone highlighted a remark that Jason Gray intended to be silly or he actually meant it.

    Of course, if I trampled on your attempt to be humorous, it wasn't meant personally.
     
  23. simplyeric

    simplyeric aggressively nonsensical SoSH Member

    Messages:
    11,034
    Screw that.
    Let only position players pitch.
    The games would take like 6 hours but there’s be a lot of action on the field.

    Theres this thing of ‘well MLB will never take less money’ but if their product is suffering it means their revenue is suffering, or will suffer. They might need to make short term revenue decisions in order to realize long term revenue potential.

    How do soccer teams manage to get and spend so much money without ad breaks? Is it just stadium size?
    Can we trade sponsor logos on jerseys for playing time? (One ad between half innings, but someone pays for logos). Make a rule that there can be only one, needs to be in this or that place, etc.

    (Edit: I know soccer in Europe or elsewhere is a different phenomenon, in terms of competing sports, etc. im not talking popularity, im just asking technical revenue sources)
     
    #173 simplyeric, Aug 11, 2018
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2018
  24. simplyeric

    simplyeric aggressively nonsensical SoSH Member

    Messages:
    11,034
    If there are too many K’s, lower the mound just a touch. Too many HR? Deaden the ball. But incrementally. Just tiny amounts. Balance a tiny bit of pitcher disadvantage with a tiny bit of batter disadvantage. More balls in play.

    Yknow what else? More outfield walls. Not like Green monster types... deaden the ball just a bit, but put a bit of a wall in right. Long fly outs are (mostly) boring. But balls of the wall? That’s balls to the wall fun. The fields don’t need to be ‘all the same) but things like the Yankees short porch is super lame. There should be a slightly more rigorous geometry to it... some parameters to get fields like that to play better.
     
  25. Plympton91

    Plympton91 bubble burster SoSH Member

    Messages:
    11,406
    I’m all for reducing time between pitches, and if we can reduce the number of commercials by putting logos on uniforms that’s fantastic too. But most of these articles seem like solutions in search of a problem.

    Baseball teams and baseball players are fabulously profitable.

    If attendance is low in some places, then they should lower their prices. The tickets for Orioles and Nationals games are comically overpriced, especially for non premium seating. The elasticity of demand for those seats has to be way above 1 and the bonus of getting people in the seats to buy $5 sodas and $9 beers makes it even larger.

    If TV ratings are the problem, then the next contract will sort that out. If TV deals are less lucrative, then the next geration of superstars may have to make due with $25 million a year instead of $30 million a year. Boo boo. And franchise values may go down from $1.5b to $1.2b. Boo f’ing hoo.
     
  26. simplyeric

    simplyeric aggressively nonsensical SoSH Member

    Messages:
    11,034
    Oh I agree. I don’t sit and worry about the profits from or values of baseball teams.
    Just being pragmatic. Hard to get the owners to agree to fewer ads. Easier for them to actually change the game...what do they care? Are most owners actually ‘fans of baseball’ in the sense of caring about what the game is on the field? I doubt it. (Obviously within limits).
    But if a trade could be offered.
    Maybe one logo for the team, one logo for the player, or something.
    And make the fucking Yankees put names on their away jerseys.

    Annnnnythjng that might eliminate the need for me to hear that stupid cable/internet ad with the rapping children. Is it xfinity? Oh god I literally turn the radio off when that comes on, which means I miss the following ad too.
    I didn’t think it was possible to make a more toxic earworm than the Cars for Kids ads.
     
  27. grimshaw

    grimshaw the new rudy SoSH Member

    Messages:
    3,365
    I think they should just ban the fastball. Sort of like how they banned the spitball.

    Or take off the seams, and soak the ball in pitch.
     
  28. charlieoscar

    charlieoscar Member

    Messages:
    1,110
    The NBA has already started ads on uniforms and the top European soccer leagues bring in about $1B a year from jersey advertisements. The cars and uniforms of auto racers are covered with ads. On NESN baseball broadcasts you're already getting the occasional "during inning" ad or "this pitching change brought to you by...". And then there is the virtual advertising that is seen on the fence behind batters during most tv broadcasts.

    MLB has been holding games in other countries. Is MLB really looking to expand the AL/NL East to include London or the West to include Tokyo? Or is MLB really looking to drum up enough interest so TV rights can be sold to local networks? It's all about money and you can be sure that MLB's nose is sniffing the trail.
     
  29. Spacemans Bong

    Spacemans Bong chapeau rose SoSH Member

    Messages:
    17,773
    They already do, via StubHub. Three seats down by the bullpen (so fairly decent seats) for Giants-Rangers, Friday August 24th, $20 on StubHub. $105 on the SF Giants website. You can take your kid to a Nats-Phillies day game on Thursday and get decent upper-deck seats for $10.

    Which begs the question: why is baseball marketing itself outwardly as premium entertainment when you can just go on StubHub and, unless you're a team on pace for 114 wins in a too-small-for-its-market ballpark, find tickets for half or less of the sticker price? I guess someone would argue it's an idiot tax, but I have a feeling offering airline-style pricing on your website that is far more than what the secondary market is saying dampens attendance. Not every baseball fan is on the ball about StubHub, they'll just see on your ticket site that it's $30 for bleacher seats and decide to go to the movies instead, when StubHub is selling bleacher seats for $10.
     
  30. wade boggs chicken dinner

    wade boggs chicken dinner Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    15,253
    I suspect it has something to do with not pissing off season ticket holders who don't want to see the seat next to them selling for 1/2 price, even if they aren't going to the game.
     
  31. Plympton91

    Plympton91 bubble burster SoSH Member

    Messages:
    11,406
    There’s also some stigma of “scalping” with regard to stubhub that may cause people not to go there. To that aim, is $10 the all-in cost for those seats, or is there a &5.00 order fee and a $3.00 per ticket surcharge to go with it. Still a good deal, but offputting to the nonrationalist in me.

    If teams marketed Stubhub as “our official seat reseller” then maybe some of that stigma would go away. However, I bet teams wouldn’t want to be associated with the premiums charged for popular games, offsetting the benefit they’d get from a bump in attendance through the discounts for unpopular games.
     
  32. Joe Sixpack

    Joe Sixpack Well-Known Member Lifetime Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    3,776
    They have already done this.

    https://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Issues/2017/07/13/Franchises/Red-Sox.aspx
     
  33. Ale Xander

    Ale Xander Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    18,732
    Yeah it's not ticket prices that need to be reduced, it's the parking and concessions. Especially in hellholes like Arlington, TX where the whole city was created just to eliminate free street parking for games.

    There's much more monopoly power there (parking/concessions). Tons of choices for entertainment though. But once you're there, no more choice.
     
  34. DanoooME

    DanoooME Well-Known Member Gold Supporter SoSH Member

    Messages:
    14,877
    GET OFF MY LAWN!

    I mean, seriously, the older generation's reaction to changes in the game is just getting ridiculous. Guess what boys? "Your game" is never coming back.
     
  35. Lose Remerswaal

    Lose Remerswaal Leaves after the 8th inning Lifetime Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    32,687
    I read that only one team has used all 6 of their Mound Visits in a game (Angels, early this season). I guess this rule change didn't hurt too much.

    Maybe make it 4 next year?
     
  36. bosox79

    bosox79 Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    8,866
    Bryce Harper is now up to .246/.380/.511. In 2016, he hit .243. His career line is .280/.386/.515. His last 94 PA: .375/.457/.663. He has raised his average 23 points so far in August. His first 3 seasons he hit around .270. If he closes out the season well, he will be right around that .270 mark again with an OPS hovering around .950. Poor guy.

    We have our very own mini version of Bryce Harper in JBJ. The difference being Harper is still productive when he is sucking but even/odd year Harper is apparently a thing.
     
  37. grimshaw

    grimshaw the new rudy SoSH Member

    Messages:
    3,365
    When I saw the headline I would have bet the farm that Goose Gossage would be quoted and he's the first guy mentioned.
     
  38. dirtynine

    dirtynine Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    4,589
    How about this: 4 foul balls per at bat, total. Your 5th foul ball is a strikeout.

    Pitchers throw less pitches and go deeper into games. Batters swing at more questionable pitches throughout the count, meaning more balls in play and in a variety of locations too (when you make contact with a pitch you can't perfectly tee off on, it's going to go somewhere weird). Games speed up. Stats stay comparable across eras. You lose the "15-pitch mega-battle at-bat", but all of these suggestions involve losing something and I could live with that versus, say, chopping off the 9th inning or making players stay on certain parts of the field. You also gain a "certainty" pitch: 3-2 with 4 foul balls. Something is going to happen.

    Foul balls are the most obvious dead time to trim back on to me.
     
  39. SirPsychoSquints

    SirPsychoSquints Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    3,783
    How many times per game do you get 5 foul balls in an AB?

    Edit: I suspect it's far fewer than 1 per game. I looked at Friday's Sox/Rays game and there were none that had 4 foul balls.
     
    #189 SirPsychoSquints, Aug 21, 2018
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2018
  40. dirtynine

    dirtynine Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    4,589
    Ok, so 4 or 3. I’d let the stats bear that out. Point being, I’d be willing to trade foul balls that don’t meaningfully change the game state for ones that do.
     
  41. SirPsychoSquints

    SirPsychoSquints Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    3,783
    It's a pretty weird item to focus on - it has little impact on the length of games. As pointed out repeatedly, it's the time between pitches. Anything else is altering the fabric of the game for very very little time.
     
  42. dirtynine

    dirtynine Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    4,589
    I guess I’d want to see the math. If you could trim a half or a quarter pitch off the average at-bat by messing with foul balls (which are the least interesting pitch outcome imo) I’d think that would be a big win.
     
  43. SirPsychoSquints

    SirPsychoSquints Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    3,783
    You’re the one asserting that you can make a difference - are you suggesting getting rid of ALL foul balls, and turning them into outs or something? I bet the average at bat doesn’t have one foul ball.
     
  44. tims4wins

    tims4wins PN23's replacement SoSH Member

    Messages:
    19,524
    There are 46 foul balls per game according to what I just looked up. Say you could probably eliminate like 20-25% of these (which I am skeptical of). Even getting rid of 10 foul balls per game would only save you like 5 minutes. It’s simply not close to the biggest issue.
     
  45. bosox79

    bosox79 Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    8,866
    If you are only looking for .25 to .50 pitches per PA, it wouldn't need to. There would have to be a foul ball once every 2 or 4 PA. I'm not for that idea at all though.
     
  46. tims4wins

    tims4wins PN23's replacement SoSH Member

    Messages:
    19,524
    That would mean getting rid of all foul balls. As currently played there is a foul ball on average like .55 plate appearances. To get rid of half a pitch a plate appearance you’d be getting rid of all foul balls.
     
  47. bosox79

    bosox79 Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    8,866
    Yeah, I was responding only to what I quoted. Getting rid of all foul balls. Seems like an awful idea.
     
  48. SirPsychoSquints

    SirPsychoSquints Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    3,783
    Seems like we’re in violent agreement, given that I was saying you’d need an absurd change to foul balls in order to make a meaningful difference in time of game.
     
  49. dirtynine

    dirtynine Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    4,589
    Quick research, but looks like there are about 45 fouls per game and 65 at-bats per game, so you’re right about that.

    Let’s say the rule was “after you have 2 strikes, you get one foul and the next one is strike 3.” The “foul strikeout” would probably be realized only a couple times per game, yes, but strategically it would affect every pitch by putting the onus on the batter to put balls in play.

    It basically goes against Moneyball - working the count and OBP-as-a-skill is disincentivized, making contact and putting balls in play is incentivized.

    edit: Sorry, a few responses while I was writing on mobile. You guys pulled the numbers before I did. The point being taking away the unlimited foul ball as a chess piece would change approach and outcome, even if the actual “new” result didn’t often occur.
     
  50. bosox79

    bosox79 Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    8,866
    Oh, we definitely are. And it would make more than a meaningful impact. Imagine games in Oakland? Ugh. Is there a way to look up how many foul balls are hit per game per park?
     

Share This Page