Are strikeouts ruining baseball?

[BaseballJones]

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/31454952/how-k-became-most-destructive-letter-major-league-baseball

It is indeed breathtaking to watch the mastery of our pitchers, the preposterous stuff we see from our stars, such as Jacob deGrom, Gerrit Cole and Shane Bieber, and from those relievers who come in firing every night. But the pitching now is too good, and the strikeout craze has become an epidemic that dominates too many games.

This is so fitting of this season: Days after the Phillies became the first team since 1996 to score two runs on a strikeout, the Orioles' John Means became the first pitcher to throw a no-hitter without a walk, hit batter or error. The only baserunner came on a strikeout/wild pitch.

"It's unbelievable," Astros manager Dusty Baker said. "I've talked to Theo [Epstein, who is a consultant for Major League Baseball regarding on-field issues] about it. I've talked to other managers about it. I watched a game the other night, the first three innings, the ball wasn't put in play by either team. Everyone struck out. I've never seen that."

"It's embarrassing," said Reggie Jackson, who struck out more times than anyone in history.

"It's worrisome," said Nolan Ryan, who struck out more batters than any pitcher in history.

"It's alarming," Diamondbacks catcher Stephen Vogt said. "It's weird."

"It's wild," said Jason Ochart, the director of hitting at Driveline and minor league hitting instructor for the Phillies.

"It's crazy," said Scott Bradley, the baseball coach at Princeton who is a former major league catcher. "And it's not just in the big leagues. I saw some minor league statistics and some team in low-A ball struck out like 70 times in a three-game series. It's mind-boggling."

- - -

So my questions are:

(1) What came first: the launch angle revolution or the dominant pitching? In other words, we see a gazillion strikeouts, but is that because pitchers' stuff is too good and since it's so good hitters may as well just swing for the fences? Or are the strikeouts because hitters simply won't try to put the ball in play like they used to and not worry so much about homers? That is, if they just swung to make contact, knowing that good contact will still result in homers (especially when they make good contact on a 99 mph pitch), albeit not as many, would that reduce the number of strikeouts?

(2) Is the strikeout really ruining baseball? It's certainly a *different* game, that's for sure. I mean it wasn't that long ago that dominant strikeout pitchers like Clemens and Gooden didn't even average 9 k/9. For their careers, Clemens averaged 8.6 k/9 and Gooden averaged 7.4. Now, if you average 8.6 or 7.4 k/9, you're not even close to a good strikeout pitcher. Bieber is striking out 13.9 batters per nine. Scherzer 11.9. Cole 13.3. Kershaw is at 10.1.

Talk to me, SOSH.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

It's the hitters.

Yes, pitchers now are throwing harder and making a lot of great pitches, but the culture of hitting has changed over the last 20-30 years. I wouldn't put it down to the "launch angle revolution" either. Launch angle wasn't a thing when Adam Dunn was the quintessential three-outcome guy (five straight years of 40+ HRs, 100+ walks, 160+ Ks) and he was lauded for it.

There was a time in most of our lifetimes where it was the norm for at least six or seven out of the nine hitters in every lineup to choke up and shorten their swing with two strikes in order to put the ball in play anyway they could. Now it's a novelty if one guy does that in one at bat in a game. Everyone is swinging away in the same manner whether the count is 0-0, 3-1, or 0-2. And that's really been the trend since the 90s.

 

[A Bad Man]

I say this having done zero research, but my guess is the problem is the shift.

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

Everyone is swinging away in the same manner whether the count is 0-0, 3-1, or 0-2. And that's really been the trend since the 90s.

And from what I can tell, hitters are swinging as hard as they possibly can on every AB.

If it's the hitters, it's also the organization. Guys aren't getting promoted out of the minors for being contact guys who know how to run the bases. Teams are drafting SLG, they are teaching SLG, and they are promoting SLG. Eventually, prospects get the hint.

This won't change until some team gets a bunch of contact hitters and figures out a formula for winning. I'm not sure what it is.

 

[Leather]

Isn’t this just the pendulum swung in the opposite direction of the OBP Uber Alles mid 2000s?
What’s to prevent a team from exploring the market inefficiency of high OBP / low SLG guys again, provided they exist?

 

[Seels]

league wide k/9 in 5 year increments for last 50 years

1971: 5.4
1976: 4.8
1981: 4.8
1986: 5.9
1991: 5.8
1996: 6.5
2001: 6.7
2006: 6.6 ------------ so, all relatively close at this point, but starting here it escalates every year
2011: 7.1
2016: 8.1
2021: 9.2


Yea I'd say the average pitcher striking out guys at a better rate than Roger Clemens / Sandy Koufax is kind of a problem.

 

[Awesome Fossum]

I guess what I don't totally get is how the pitchers are being told to prioritize swing and misses over everything, but the hitters are being told to swing for the fences, even if it means they strike out a lot. So they're sort of colluding to maximize strikeouts.

Shouldn't the message be the opposite sides of the same coin? If pitchers are aiming to get swing and misses, shouldn't hitters be prioritizing contact? Or if the hitters are prioritizing slugging, the pitchers should be prioritizing ... anti-slugging? Soft contact?

 

[BornToRun]

I don’t think so. It’s another evolution of the game and it will continue to change and adapt in various ways as time moves on. Honestly, I can’t help but roll my eyes a bit when people complain about TTO and the rising tide of strikeouts. Velocity and strikeouts are awesome, power is awesome and I’m fine with where the game is at. Just my two cents.

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

I guess what I don't totally get is how the pitchers are being told to prioritize swing and misses over everything, but the hitters are being told to swing for the fences, even if it means they strike out a lot. So they're sort of colluding to maximize strikeouts.

Shouldn't the message be the opposite sides of the same coin? If pitchers are aiming to get swing and misses, shouldn't hitters be prioritizing contact? Or if the hitters are prioritizing slugging, the pitchers should be prioritizing ... anti-slugging? Soft contact?

You would think but from my understanding, and based on the analytics revolution, both hitters and pitchers are being taught to concentrate on what they can control: which in the pitcher's case, is to avoid contact, and in the hitter's case, is to hit the ball out of the park. Hitters are incentivized for HRs (power) and pitchers are incentivized for K (missing bats). Thus, baseball is where it is at now.

 

[cannonball 1729]

(1) What came first: the launch angle revolution or the dominant pitching? In other words, we see a gazillion strikeouts, but is that because pitchers' stuff is too good and since it's so good hitters may as well just swing for the fences? Or are the strikeouts because hitters simply won't try to put the ball in play like they used to and not worry so much about homers? That is, if they just swung to make contact, knowing that good contact will still result in homers (especially when they make good contact on a 99 mph pitch), albeit not as many, would that reduce the number of strikeouts?

I think both had their genesis around the same time. In 2013ish, writers caught on to the fact that the A's and a couple of other teams were going all-in on flyball hitters - it was the "new Moneyball." Here's the article that basically broke that news to the general public:

https://deadspin.com/a-decade-after-moneyball-have-the-as-found-a-new-mark-1489963694?utm_campaign=socialflow_deadspin_twitter&utm_source=deadspin_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow

This was happening concurrently with the increase in flamethrowers coming out of the bullpen and the increase in shifts; as more pitchers came out throwing 95+ and more defenses started gobbling up hits, the most analytics-oriented teams decided that as hits got rarer, the best strategy was to increase the probability that those rare hits left the yard. Here are two charts that 538 posted in 2014 when they first realized how good relievers had gotten:




Since then, it's been a vicious cycle. I think as speeds have amped up and spin rates have made breaking pitches harder to hit, more teams have copied the A's model. As more teams copied the A's model, pitchers have doubled down on K's because they're easier to get when hitters are selling out for power. Meanwhile, shifts have exacerbated this cycle - shifts leave the batter with a choice between selling out for power or trying to beat the shift the other way; for many hitters, choosing to go the other way to try to beat the shift means completely changing your approach and giving up your power, and that's a tough sell for major league hitters.

 

[pjheff]

You would think but from my understanding, and based on the analytics revolution, both hitters and pitchers are being taught to concentrate on what they can control: which in the pitcher's case, is to avoid contact, and in the hitter's case, is to hit the ball out of the park. Hitters are incentivized for HRs (power) and pitchers are incentivized for K (missing bats). Thus, baseball is where it is at now.

I agree. Much like in the NBA, I think that analytics are driving approaches to outcomes that unintentionally are leading to a different and to some less enjoyable version of the game.

 

[BaseballJones]

I guess what I don't totally get is how the pitchers are being told to prioritize swing and misses over everything, but the hitters are being told to swing for the fences, even if it means they strike out a lot. So they're sort of colluding to maximize strikeouts.

Shouldn't the message be the opposite sides of the same coin? If pitchers are aiming to get swing and misses, shouldn't hitters be prioritizing contact? Or if the hitters are prioritizing slugging, the pitchers should be prioritizing ... anti-slugging? Soft contact?

Right. It’s mixed messaging and confusing. They say to pitchers, strikeouts are the goal. Missing bats at all costs, even if you walk more guys. Then they say to hitters, swing for the fences even if you strike out a ton because strikeouts are no big deal.

I mean... either strikeouts are a problem for hitters (and thus pitchers should try for them and hitters should seek to minimize them) or they’re not a problem for hitters (and thus hitters should swing for the moon and not worry about it and pitchers should seek to co tell the stroke zone and induce weak contact instead of trying to blow everyone away).

But it seems like they all want it both ways.

 

[DJnVa]

"It's unbelievable," Astros manager Dusty Baker said. "I've talked to Theo [Epstein, who is a consultant for Major League Baseball regarding on-field issues] about it. I've talked to other managers about it. I watched a game the other night, the first three innings, the ball wasn't put in play by either team. Everyone struck out. I've never seen that."

I have thoughts on this which I'll get to soon, but did this happen?

I watch a lot of baseball and was there a game where both pitchers had 3 IP, 9 Ks?

 

[DJnVa]

It's the hitters.

Yes, pitchers now are throwing harder and making a lot of great pitches, but the culture of hitting has changed over the last 20-30 years. I wouldn't put it down to the "launch angle revolution" either. Launch angle wasn't a thing when Adam Dunn was the quintessential three-outcome guy (five straight years of 40+ HRs, 100+ walks, 160+ Ks) and he was lauded for it.

There was a time in most of our lifetimes where it was the norm for at least six or seven out of the nine hitters in every lineup to choke up and shorten their swing with two strikes in order to put the ball in play anyway they could. Now it's a novelty if one guy does that in one at bat in a game. Everyone is swinging away in the same manner whether the count is 0-0, 3-1, or 0-2. And that's really been the trend since the 90s.

It is an admittedly imperfect comparison, because the K/W aren't a thing, but I used to play competitive slow-pitch softball and I also played on a team with my buddies in a lower league. The lower league was MUCH more fun because in the competitive higher league, 7 of the dudes in the lineups could just sit back and hit the ball over the fence. Games were 25-20 and the like and it just was no fun.

 

[grimshaw]

GM's and managers know that strikeouts aren't a bad way to go out. At minimum, at bats are at least 3 pitches long and therefore more taxing on a pitcher. Advancing a runner home however, to 3rd with less than two outs, or a runner to second with no outs are the "best" ways to go, but in the pitch count era, strikeouts are fine.

It doesn't really make the games more interesting, and the trend is troubling, but the logic behind letting it rip and trying to get it in the air where you can't ground into a DP and where the BABIP is higher makes a whole lot of sense.

 

[brs3]

I spent way too much time on bref tonight, but over the last thirty years and probably further back, sacrifice hits have plummeted, and GIDPs increased steadily until around 2010, when GIDPs leveled out and started lowering, and strikeouts started going up. As we know SB have plummeted.

It's not just strikeouts, it's s fundamental shift over decades. I'd love to see a data on player's speed around bases vs prior years as far back as possible. The players are slower in every way except maybe bat speed...and I don't think that might be factual either.

 

[TheGazelle]

Bill Simmons had Theo on his podcast a week or two ago to discuss this. (It's also a good listen because the first chunk is all about 04/07, which is great.) Anyway, I agree with the way Theo outlined the issue: the current version of the game is boring. People like seeing action in baseball, not K, BB, K, BB, 3R HR, K. More balls in play leads to players doing fun athletic stuff and not just standing around. Theo talked about how there are a bunch of causes, but one is that pitchers have gotten outrageously good, have all sort of advanced access to training, etc. that leads to increased velocity, and are pitching in an environment where they don't have to hold back because a successful start is 5IP at this point. Combine that with the points above about the philosophy of current hitters and the shift, and you have tons of games where there's a ton of outs or baserunners without any balls in play. That version of baseball isn't fun to watch.

I agree with pjheff that this is similar to the NBA's current problem: analytics probably say this is the right way to play the game, but it comes with lots of problems.

 

[Comfortably Lomb]

Yes, absolutely. I don't think strikeouts are the only problem but they're a major part of why the current on-field product is awful. Strikeouts aren't interesting. The batter stands there, maybe misses the ball once or twice, then heads back to the dugout after a 5 minute AB. When there were only a handful of pitchers capable of striking batters out at high rates it was neat because they were outliers but a league filled with strikeout pitchers isn't fun to watch.

The Theo-Simmons interview is worth watching. I think he gets it. Doubles, triples, stolen bases are action. Strikeouts aren't.

 

[JCizzle]

Bill Simmons had Theo on his podcast a week or two ago to discuss this. (It's also a good listen because the first chunk is all about 04/07, which is great.) Anyway, I agree with the way Theo outlined the issue: the current version of the game is boring. People like seeing action in baseball, not K, BB, K, BB, 3R HR, K. More balls in play leads to players doing fun athletic stuff and not just standing around. Theo talked about how there are a bunch of causes, but one is that pitchers have gotten outrageously good, have all sort of advanced access to training, etc. that leads to increased velocity, and are pitching in an environment where they don't have to hold back because a successful start is 5IP at this point. Combine that with the points above about the philosophy of current hitters and the shift, and you have tons of games where there's a ton of outs or baserunners without any balls in play. That version of baseball isn't fun to watch.

I agree with pjheff that this is similar to the NBA's current problem: analytics probably say this is the right way to play the game, but it comes with lots of problems.

The same interview came to mind reading this topic. It's definitely a must listen and he discussed the strikeout issue in detail, as you mentioned.

To build on one of the points you made, Theo mentioned that training to prepare pitchers has greatly outpaced similar training advances for hitters. Optimizing minute changes to grip, spin rate, etc. in a lab doesn't seem to be something that hitters have an equivalent opportunity to perfect to the same level.

 

[BaseballJones]

Yes, absolutely. I don't think strikeouts are the only problem but they're a major part of why the current on-field product is awful. Strikeouts aren't interesting. The batter stands there, maybe misses the ball once or twice, then heads back to the dugout after a 5 minute AB. When there were only a handful of pitchers capable of striking batters out at high rates it was neat because they were outliers but a league filled with strikeout pitchers isn't fun to watch.

The Theo-Simmons interview is worth watching. I think he gets it. Doubles, triples, stolen bases are action. Strikeouts aren't.

I dunno...watching Pedro whiff players was about as interesting as baseball ever got for me. But then, that was like watching Michaelangelo paint. It's different when average guys are getting 9 Ks a game.

 

[JCizzle]

Yes, absolutely. I don't think strikeouts are the only problem but they're a major part of why the current on-field product is awful. Strikeouts aren't interesting. The batter stands there, maybe misses the ball once or twice, then heads back to the dugout after a 5 minute AB. When there were only a handful of pitchers capable of striking batters out at high rates it was neat because they were outliers but a league filled with strikeout pitchers isn't fun to watch.

The Theo-Simmons interview is worth watching. I think he gets it. Doubles, triples, stolen bases are action. Strikeouts aren't.

Yes. Theo said the league strikeout average this season is Koufax's career average! It's fun when it's one or two freak athletes, not the entire league.

 

[CoffeeNerdness]

What we're seeing in the MLB and NBA is the inevitable march toward hyper-efficiency. The games are molded to today's astonishingly incredible athletes and I'm not sure how much you can do to counter it besides do things like push back the three-point line or move the mound back and even those measures, I believe, would have temporary effects.

I'm not sure I totally agree with Theo and others who say the game is boring. To me, boring baseball is watching some fringy middle reliever get absolutely clobbered to death by the cartoon-sized mashers from the steroid era. Aesthetically that does nothing for me. I enjoy good pitching. I do agree that the downfall of the SB is rather unfortunate. Would there even be space for a Dave Roberts in today's game? I'm not sure.

 

[BaseballJones]

Just to show the evolution of the sport...

Let's look 30 years ago. 1991.

- Teams averaged 4.31 runs per game.
- Teams averaged 0.80 homers per game (130 per season).
- Teams slashed .256/.323/.385/.708
- Teams averaged 0.74 stolen bases per game (120 per season).
- Teams struck out 5.8 times a game.

Now...

- Teams average 4.35 runs per game.
- Teams average 1.14 homers per game (projects to 185 per season).
- Teams are slashing .236/.312/.393/.705
- Teams average 0.48 stolen bases per game (projects to 77 per season).
- Teams strike out 9.1 times a game.

So they're scoring almost the exact same number of runs per game, but man, they're going about it VERY differently now than they did back then. 30 years ago it was a lot of hits, balls in play, exciting base running. Now it's a ton of strikeouts, fewer balls in play, very little action on the bases, and tons of jacks.

 

[CarolinaBeerGuy]

I'm listening to the Theo-Simmons interview now and it's refreshing to know that MLB is looking to figure out how to cut down on the strikeouts and bring back the exciting plays that fans want - triples, doubles and steals. I know, as a fan, my favorite things to watch are battles between an outfielder's arm and a baserunner trying to take an extra base. I just hope Theo figures this out and MLB actually implements whatever he comes up with. I am all for the pitch clock as well. Pace of play and strikeouts are killing baseball.

 

[NYCSox]

I can't believe no one posted this.

 

[Cesar Crespo]

As much as I hate to admit it, analytics is ruining baseball. Shifts, launch angle, spin rates etc.

The game is becoming more about data and research than talent.

 

[Comfortably Lomb]

I dunno...watching Pedro whiff players was about as interesting as baseball ever got for me. But then, that was like watching Michaelangelo paint. It's different when average guys are getting 9 Ks a game.

That's... basically what I said at the end of that very paragraph.

 

[BaseballJones]

Just to show the evolution of the sport...

Let's look 30 years ago. 1991.

- Teams averaged 4.31 runs per game.
- Teams averaged 0.80 homers per game (130 per season).
- Teams slashed .256/.323/.385/.708
- Teams averaged 0.74 stolen bases per game (120 per season).
- Teams struck out 5.8 times a game.

Now...

- Teams average 4.35 runs per game.
- Teams average 1.14 homers per game (projects to 185 per season).
- Teams are slashing .236/.312/.393/.705
- Teams average 0.48 stolen bases per game (projects to 77 per season).
- Teams strike out 9.1 times a game.

So they're scoring almost the exact same number of runs per game, but man, they're going about it VERY differently now than they did back then. 30 years ago it was a lot of hits, balls in play, exciting base running. Now it's a ton of strikeouts, fewer balls in play, very little action on the bases, and tons of jacks.

I forgot to add...

1991: Games averaged 169 minutes in length.
2021: Games average 180 minutes in length.

 

[Mystic Merlin]

As much as I hate to admit it, analytics is ruining baseball. Shifts, launch angle, spin rates etc.

The game is becoming more about data and research than talent.

I don’t know about this final sentence; there is an argument that talent matters as much, or more, as ever. Why? Because the gap between the data analytics capabilities and the weight afforded to them across teams has narrowed considerably from, say, the early to mid-00s. What team isn’t employing advanced, data-reliant defensive positioning, pitching and hitting strategies?

I think the game is suffering from the pan-league scramble to achieve hyper efficiency in personnel management and strategy because three outcomes baseball kind of sucks to watch game in, game out, but I think that problem has gotten so bad precisely because virtually every team is doing it and finding advantages relative to other teams in efficiency of personnel utilization and strategy is as hard as it has ever been.

And I don’t see how individual player talents have been rendered less impactful as a relative measure. If you’re a really good hitter, you’re still going to be really good relative to your peers. You could have a top analytics operation, but if you have a team full of below average to average players your team will be mediocre or downright shitty in this league.

 

[Cesar Crespo]

I don’t know about this final sentence; there is an argument that talent matters as much, or more, as ever. Why? Because the gap between the data analytics capabilities and the weight afforded to them across teams has narrowed considerably from, say, the early to mid-00s. What team isn’t employing advanced, data-reliant defensive positioning, pitching and hitting strategies?

I think the game is suffering from the pan-league scramble to achieve hyper efficiency in personnel management and strategy because three outcomes baseball kind of sucks to watch game in, game out, but I think that problem has gotten so bad precisely because virtually every team is doing it and finding advantages relative to other teams in efficiency of personnel utilization and strategy is as hard as it has ever been.

And I don’t see how individual player talents have been rendered less impactful as a relative measure. If you’re a really good hitter, you’re still going to be really good relative to your peers. You could have a top analytics operation, but if you have a team full of below average to average players your team will be mediocre or downright shitty in this league.

Analytics lead to hyper efficiency and one style of play.

It also apparently favors defense heavily.

 

[Max Power]

I don’t know about this final sentence; there is an argument that talent matters as much, or more, as ever. Why? Because the gap between the data analytics capabilities and the weight afforded to them across teams has narrowed considerably from, say, the early to mid-00s. What team isn’t employing advanced, data-reliant defensive positioning, pitching and hitting strategies?

I think the game is suffering from the pan-league scramble to achieve hyper efficiency in personnel management and strategy because three outcomes baseball kind of sucks to watch game in, game out, but I think that problem has gotten so bad precisely because virtually every team is doing it and finding advantages relative to other teams in efficiency of personnel utilization and strategy is as hard as it has ever been.

And I don’t see how individual player talents have been rendered less impactful as a relative measure. If you’re a really good hitter, you’re still going to be really good relative to your peers. You could have a top analytics operation, but if you have a team full of below average to average players your team will be mediocre or downright shitty in this league.

You're right when it comes to hitting and pitching. But analytics have made defensive talent much less important. There are obviously fewer balls in play, but beyond that, every team has the data to position every fielder exactly where they should be for every hitter. You can get away with having infielders with basically no range because they're always in the right spots.

 

[Cesar Crespo]

You're right when it comes to hitting and pitching. But analytics have made defensive talent much less important. There are obviously fewer balls in play, but beyond that, every team has the data to position every fielder exactly where they should be for every hitter. You can get away with having infielders with basically no range because they're always in the right spots.

Right. Defensive positioning used to be a skill. Now it's determined by a computer.

 

[bankshot1]

There aren't enough crafty junk-ballers anymore, just a steady stream of guys who throw 95-99 for 9 innings.

In a sport where getting a hit 1 in 3 was considered pretty good, that hit was most likely coming the 2nd or 3rd time against the starter or the crafty junk-baller.

But you don't see starters 3 times anymore, they're generally gone after 5, and replaced by a new guy with a live arm and that 1 for 3 is now 3 in 10, or, you get it...

And they've managed to substitute too damn many Ks, for balls in play and action.

As posted too many times, MLB has taken a lot of baseball out of the game.

 

[Buck Showalter]

And from what I can tell, hitters are swinging as hard as they possibly can on every AB.

If it's the hitters, it's also the organization. Guys aren't getting promoted out of the minors for being contact guys who know how to run the bases. Teams are drafting SLG, they are teaching SLG, and they are promoting SLG. Eventually, prospects get the hint.

This won't change until some team gets a bunch of contact hitters and figures out a formula for winning. I'm not sure what it is.

Bingo!

It's a copycat league....

Bunt against the shift...put a premium on advancing runners and putting the ball in play...win with this formula and the sheep will follow.

 

[BaseballJones]

The additional roster spot doesn't help either because it's always an extra pitcher. Compare Boston's 1975 roster with their 2021 roster.

1975 - batters with 100+ AB:



1975 - pitchers with more than 7.0 IP:



So that was 16 position players and 10 pitchers. Basically they had a working roster of 15 position players and 10 pitchers - five starters and five relievers.

Now they have 14 pitchers and 12 position players. It's totally reversed. The starters (plus Moret) took up so many innings. Now if starters go five strong that's a success, and they just keep throwing endless relievers into the game, all of them maxing out.

 

[Fred not Lynn]

Strikeouts aren't interesting. The batter stands there, maybe misses the ball once or twice, then heads back to the dugout after a 5 minute AB….The Theo-Simmons interview is worth watching. I think he gets it. Doubles, triples, stolen bases are action. Strikeouts aren't.

I disagree. A swing-and-miss strikeout after a long at bat is a thing of beauty. It’s only our collective demand for immediate gratification that tells us otherwise. The building of tension on each pitch, only to result in a meaningless foul, makes the actual end outcome that much more satisfying.

Personally, I make baseball more interesting by realizing there’s not really offense and defense. There’s two teams on the field at any given moment - and they’re both trying to score; One side is trying to score runs, and the other side is trying to score outs…that way, EVERY play is a scoring play in one way or another…

 

[jon abbey]

Yeah, to me there is no problem, honestly. These numbers above show me that (I get that I am in the minority here).

1991.

- Teams averaged 4.31 runs per game.

Now...

- Teams average 4.35 runs per game.

If teams were only scoring 2 runs a game, then I'd agree there was a problem, but less balls in play, more Ks, more HRs, I am completely fine with all of that. I love strikeouts, a lot more than routine fielding plays which make up the bulk of balls in play.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

Right. Defensive positioning used to be a skill. Now it's determined by a computer.

Strongly disagree with this. Defensive positioning has never been a skill. Getting a good jump, reading the ball off the bat, taking good routes, etc. Those are skills. Where a player stands before the pitch is made has always been based on analytics. Only difference is that "analytics" used to just be hunches, assumptions, and rote expectation. If there's a lefty up at bat, the outfield usually shifted toward right field. If it's an obvious bunt situation, you play the corners in. Late in the game you crowd the foul lines and the outfield plays deep to try to prevent extra base hits. Maybe once in a while with a guy they've seen before they align the defense based on his tendencies (like Boudreau shifting for Ted Williams). Present day analytics are just that writ large and tailored to each player. Why shouldn't they used technology to their advantage?

 

[BornToRun]

As much as I hate to admit it, analytics is ruining baseball. Shifts, launch angle, spin rates etc.

The game is becoming more about data and research than talent.

Isn’t that data and research helping to better identify who has talent?

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

The additional roster spot doesn't help either because it's always an extra pitcher. Compare Boston's 1975 roster with their 2021 roster.

1975 - batters with 100+ AB:

View attachment 41270

1975 - pitchers with more than 7.0 IP:

View attachment 41271

So that was 16 position players and 10 pitchers. Basically they had a working roster of 15 position players and 10 pitchers - five starters and five relievers.

Now they have 14 pitchers and 12 position players. It's totally reversed. The starters (plus Moret) took up so many innings. Now if starters go five strong that's a success, and they just keep throwing endless relievers into the game, all of them maxing out.

I think all that is a function of the money in the game more than anything else. When teams were paying players shit money, they didn't care if they blew their arms out throw 150 pitches a game every 3-4 days. They had nothing invested in the player's future and plenty of guys to put in their place. Roger Moret was used up and thrown away by age 29.

Teams are way more careful with pitchers when they have hundreds of thousands if not millions invested in them, and it will cost them hundreds of thousands if not millions to replace them should they get hurt. One thing is for certain, we're never going back to the days of 8-9 man pitching staffs where the top starters throw 250+ innings.

 

[Cesar Crespo]

Isn’t that data and research helping to better identify who has talent?

Kinda. It also makes the game less enjoyable to watch.

Maybe the problem is winning baseball is boring baseball. Or rather optimal baseball.

 

[Conigliaro's Potential]

It's a copycat league....

Bunt against the shift...put a premium on advancing runners and putting the ball in play...win with this formula and the sheep will follow.

I really want to believe this is correct. I just wonder who, if anyone, will be brave enough to try and buck the trend.

 

[Cesar Crespo]

Does anyone even really know how to bunt anymore?

 

[bankshot1]

I think the problem is efficient baseball can be boring baseball.

And the interest of a (neutral-indiferent) fan and the manager trying to win a game are not always perfectly aligned.

I'd rather see balls in play where stuff happens (runners going 1st to 3rd, drawing a throw, possible play at 3rd, etc) than an inning where 4 of the 6 outs are made by Ks.

Balls in play and runners on base create the opportunity for things to happen on offense and defense

Ks don't.

 

[Philip Jeff Frye]

The parade of faceless relievers who now pitch innings 6 through 8 (and sometimes earlier) is another issue. Is there a single Red Sox fan on the planet who owns a Matt Andriese jersey?

it used to be part of the fun and the drama to see if a starter who was beginning to lose it in inning 6, 7 or 8 could dig deep and get that last out. He did and he was gutsy, he didn't and there was a big, exciting hit and the manager was a moron for not pulling him. Now, that pitcher was done after five, replaced by Josh Taylor.

This approach might increase the odds of the Bosox winning*, but it doesn't make for interesting baseball.

* except that every game still has one winner and one loser, so if every team is behaving this way, it's still a .500 league.

 

[pokey_reese]

It feels like this should also be a somewhat self-adjusting system, though. Teams that win make more money, because fans want to come to the park, want to watch them on TV, etc.. Therefor, teams have been incentivized to alter their strategy in order to maximize wins, in this case by looking for margins where they can increase/decrease expected runs per game (depending on whether you are looking at pitching or hitting). To all of these people saying they miss the old way, would you really put your money where your mouth is?

If suddenly a team were to embrace the 1980s all over again, playing small ball, emphasizing contact hitters, using fewer relievers, and so on, in order to play this 'more enjoyable' version of the sport, and then lost 100 games every year because the other teams continue to embrace the efficiencies offered by the new style, do you think that their revenue would increase, or decrease? If the Yankees or Orioles went that route, would you start supporting a different team?

Ultimately, until the aesthetic difference is so terrible that it outweighs the average fan's desire to watch a team that is winning games, they have no reason to adjust. If that ever did happen (and I don't think it would), teams would adjust, because to Buck's point, it is a copycat league. But he pointed out the crux:

Bunt against the shift...put a premium on advancing runners and putting the ball in play...win with this formula and the sheep will follow.

...and we have no reason to think that those teams would win, unless the assertion is that all of the analytics are not just warping the game, but fundamentally wrong. The league would have to step in and do things like move the mound back, lower the seams on the ball, push fences back, etc., in order to force all teams to change at the same time, but it won't change the underlying data that has told teams that hitting HRs are the best way to score runs, and missing bats is the best way to pitch to avoid runs, in the current park environment.

 

[bankshot1]

I might consider making the shift (ie two infielders must be on either side of 2nd, maybe some modest limit how deep a 2nd baseman can play,) a limited strategic option, used once in a 9 inning game, and one use in extras.

It used to annoy me to no end watching Ortiz 4-3 on a smash to RF.

 

[BornToRun]

The parade of faceless relievers who now pitch innings 6 through 8 (and sometimes earlier) is another issue. Is there a single Red Sox fan on the planet who owns a Matt Andriese jersey?

it used to be part of the fun and the drama to see if a starter who was beginning to lose it in inning 6, 7 or 8 could dig deep and get that last out. He did and he was gutsy, he didn't and there was a big, exciting hit and the manager was a moron for not pulling him. Now, that pitcher was done after five, replaced by Josh Taylor.

This approach might increase the odds of the Bosox winning*, but it doesn't make for interesting baseball.

* except that every game still has one winner and one loser, so if every team is behaving this way, it's still a .500 league.

I prefer the Sox winning over what some might call more interesting baseball. And I’m not sure that pushing starters harder is a direction we want to go in. I also get this impression, not necessarily from you, that people want players and teams to behave in a way that’s less effective but prettier to watch and I just can’t do anything but reject that totally. If swinging for the downs and missing bats is what works best then that’s what I want to see, at least from my own team.

 

[Philip Jeff Frye]

I prefer the Sox winning over what some might call more interesting baseball. And I’m not sure that pushing starters harder is a direction we want to go in. I also get this impression, not necessarily from you, that people want players and teams to behave in a way that’s less effective but prettier to watch and I just can’t do anything but reject that totally. If swinging for the downs and missing bats is what works best then that’s what I want to see, at least from my own team.

Yeah, I don't disagree with this, but that's also part of the problem. Teams are doing this because they think that striking out a lot of batters, teaching hitters to swing for the fences and not letting pitchers go through the lineup three times helps them win games. They're not part of some conspiracy to turn baseball into a really boring game, but that's still the net effect. I'll still watch the Sox rooting for them to win with Martin Perez pitching five innings a start and Matt Andriese being an important part of the pitching staff, but it sure doesn't make me want to watch the Braves play the Cardinals or whomever.

How does baseball do something to arrest these trends?

 

[BornToRun]

Yeah, I don't disagree with this, but that's also part of the problem. Teams are doing this because they think that striking out a lot of batters, teaching hitters to swing for the fences and not letting pitchers go through the lineup three times helps them win games. They're not part of some conspiracy to turn baseball into a really boring game, but that's still the net effect. I'll still watch the Sox rooting for them to win with Martin Perez pitching five innings a start and Matt Andriese being an important part of the pitching staff, but it sure doesn't make me want to watch the Braves play the Cardinals or whomever.

How does baseball do something to arrest these trends?

Fair enough. I think there’s just a fundamental disconnect between us purely in the sense that I still watch plenty of games not involving the Sox and haven’t found myself wanting for excitement. Others don’t feel the same way and that’s just a matter of opinion which I can respect. I think maybe part of my resistance to these discussions is how some people insist on taking this sky is falling and the game is going to die tact to these sorts of things and it just bothers me. I don’t mind tweaking things here and there but I fear that there’s this growing contingent of baseball fans that want us to go back to the days where slap hitting middle infielders that get on base 30% of the time are seen as good leadoff men. As if they want to pretend we don’t know what we know about what works and what doesn’t.

I also don’t trust Manfred to handle this kind of thing effectively and have always been against too many changes so there’s definitely some bias on my part. Hell, I didn’t even particularly like the idea of pitch clocks at first.