The Qualified Starter

[zenax]

...I'm great with moving the mound back, I'd also like to see a somewhat deadened ball paired with that....

I doubt that Rusie/Young/Meekin were the main reasons why the mound was moved back (as suggested by SirPsychoSquints).
After the pitching distance was extended to 60'6", the league batting average went from .245 to .280 and the strikeout rate dropped from 8.4% to 5.2%. Rusie's walk rate remained about the same but his strikeout rate dropped declined quite a bit.

 

[TomRicardo]

I think we are saying the same thing, or at least hope we are since I tend to agree with you. That's what I meant by pitchers using "burst" methodology and that increasing pitch counts will not fix it.

Yea we are. I just point out why the solution does very little which is people are going to keep trying to squeeze way more out of their arms. I think everyone can agree pitchers are way more violent on their arms than they have been in the past.

 

[Beskedne værker]

Seems like moving the mound further away from the plate would help the batting and base runners (stealing), which could generate more runs and place a premium on fielding. But the change ought be done incrementally, I think, so that effects on pitchers’ health are gauged, and there is time for pitchers to adjust. It’s like an optimization problem that will take awhile to work out.

Changes to the ball are another interesting idea. One potential way to “deaden” it would be to increase its radius, not by much, maybe a millimeter. Assuming no other changes to core components, winding tension, etc., this might allow the ball to absorb more of the impulse of energy when struck by the bat, reducing the momentum of the ball off the bat, all else being equal.

The combined effect of these changes ought to be more “less damaging” contact (from the pitcher’s perspective), more base runners, and more fielding—more action. Anyway my €0.02 worth.

 

[BaseballJones]

But there is nothing that is going to make them throw less hard. Making their job harder isn't going to do that. Making them pitch more once they are tired isn't going to do that, it's just going to cause injury. The cat is out of the bag. I don't know if throwing off a lower mound is better or worse for pitcher durability, but making them throw from farther is probably going to cause more walks, and that's not making things more exciting. Three true outcome hitting might become even more pronounced.

I know they didn't have the technology to measure spin rates and such several decades ago, but why haven't pitchers ALWAYS tried to throw harder, and have sharper breaking balls (i.e., more spin) since that's apparently the better way to get guys out? Why didn't their arms fall off like guys do today?

I'm going to partially answer my own question here: One reason why guys' arms didn't fall off like they do today is because today's MLB pitchers have, generally speaking, been pitching year round since they were kids. Not that long ago, guys took offseasons OFF. They played other sports. They did all kinds of other things besides continuing to pitch. All that extra pitching over all those years, really adds up.

 

[SirPsychoSquints]

I know they didn't have the technology to measure spin rates and such several decades ago, but why haven't pitchers ALWAYS tried to throw harder, and have sharper breaking balls (i.e., more spin) since that's apparently the better way to get guys out? Why didn't their arms fall off like guys do today?

I'm going to partially answer my own question here: One reason why guys' arms didn't fall off like they do today is because today's MLB pitchers have, generally speaking, been pitching year round since they were kids. Not that long ago, guys took offseasons OFF. They played other sports. They did all kinds of other things besides continuing to pitch. All that extra pitching over all those years, really adds up.

Teams and coaches have figured out HOW to get the players to throw harder and with more spin. It's not just about trying, it's specific mechanical changes.

 

[shaggydog2000]

I know they didn't have the technology to measure spin rates and such several decades ago, but why haven't pitchers ALWAYS tried to throw harder, and have sharper breaking balls (i.e., more spin) since that's apparently the better way to get guys out? Why didn't their arms fall off like guys do today?

I'm going to partially answer my own question here: One reason why guys' arms didn't fall off like they do today is because today's MLB pitchers have, generally speaking, been pitching year round since they were kids. Not that long ago, guys took offseasons OFF. They played other sports. They did all kinds of other things besides continuing to pitch. All that extra pitching over all those years, really adds up.

That is probably part of it. But like @SirPsychoSquints says, we have the technology and methods to improve spin rates and throw harder. High speed cameras, more specific training, etc. Before maybe you felt like you threw harder or spun a ball better, but now you have specific training facilities were you can measure this everyday and with every little variation you make. Before you would start getting info from a speed gun when you got to camp. And the spin rate stuff is all very recent.

 

[Sandy Leon Trotsky]

I'm wondering here- and admitting now that I really know very, very little about pitching- but I know that the game wants hitting and HR's but in order to win, the teams themselves are in way fighting against that by getting better and better pitchers. I think the fans like action on the field... yeah, everybody loves the HR, but doubles and steals and a sprint home against a throw from deep RF is way more thrilling. I'm still wondering how a team could figure out how to pitch to contact (but obviously pushing for weak contact)... would that still involve high spin rates? Would throwing way slower, getting great control of the K-zone but still somehow have high spin be the way to get that done? I know swinging up through the zone increases the chances of launching a pitch but that also assumes a fast pitch through that area.
Seriously- I really don't know and am asking- but it seems like a slow-pitch junkball (think of that jackass Ted Lilly) type could possibly thrive while keeping his arm intact. The opposite trend- faster, harder to outrun the hitting obviously can work but it really seems to break too many pitchers.

 

[SirPsychoSquints]

I'm wondering here- and admitting now that I really know very, very little about pitching- but I know that the game wants hitting and HR's but in order to win, the teams themselves are in way fighting against that by getting better and better pitchers. I think the fans like action on the field... yeah, everybody loves the HR, but doubles and steals and a sprint home against a throw from deep RF is way more thrilling. I'm still wondering how a team could figure out how to pitch to contact (but obviously pushing for weak contact)... would that still involve high spin rates? Would throwing way slower, getting great control of the K-zone but still somehow have high spin be the way to get that done? I know swinging up through the zone increases the chances of launching a pitch but that also assumes a fast pitch through that area.
Seriously- I really don't know and am asking- but it seems like a slow-pitch junkball (think of that jackass Ted Lilly) type could possibly thrive while keeping his arm intact. The opposite trend- faster, harder to outrun the hitting obviously can work but it really seems to break too many pitchers.

Even your example Lilly only has slightly better ERA (4.14) than FIP (4.41), and only a little better BABIP (.273) than league average (.298). There's nothing pitchers can do that's better than making the batters miss. There's little evidence of any pitcher's ability (outside of knuckleballers) to induce weaker contact than most.

Quick edit: That's 140 fewer hits than expected over his career, or 10.6 for every 150 IP.

 

[zenax]

The Kinematic and Kinetic Influence of Baseball Spin Rates -- Someone actually has done some looking into the biomechanics of pitchers' deliveries to correlate the spin rate of a pitch to a pitcher's internal rotation angle at pitch release (PR), peak linear wrist speed from stride foot contact (SFC) to PR, front leg extension angle at PR, front leg shin angle at PR, trunk distance traveled from SFC to PR, peak linear trunk speeds from SFC to PR, trunk angle at PR or front leg force production from SFC to PR.

I was going to point out that a pitcher who changed his arm angle when throwing, even with the same spin rate would see a difference in how the ball reacted. The many yeas ago, when I was in high school, I should have been a pitcher but the team coach did not like the way I threw from the mound and he put me in the outfield. My natural throwing was closer to sidearm than overhand and as a result my throws from right field tended to curve a lot because of the orientation of the spin.

 

[TomRicardo]

I think moving the mound back to give hitters more time is better than lowering the mound to give pitchers less leverage, but I'm open to it.

Yea but a lot of hitters would have problems adjusting as well. You are changing the angle of their swings.

 

[Margo McCready]

Can’t we just appreciate that these aren’t your grandpa’s baseball players? Changing the distance from the rubber to home plate to punish guys for being bigger, faster, stronger and better trained just screams of Blernsball to me (as much as that feels like Manfred’s end game). I’d much prefer seeing a number smaller than 13 be the limit of pitchers allowed on a roster and let the trickle down effect of that roll in. Starters will need to go deeper, the majority of them will have to make a choice whether or not to slightly dial back the 100% max effort thing to live up to the increased value on their innings pitched numbers, which will result in hitters putting the ball in play a bit more. We’ll still have Charlton, Dibble and Myers at the end of every bullpen, but that Final Boss aspect of the 8th and 9th was pretty exciting back in the 80s and 90s and not so detrimental to the aesthetic of today’s game like the decline in starting pitching has been.

 

[joe dokes]

Can’t we just appreciate that these aren’t your grandpa’s baseball players? Changing the distance from the rubber to home plate to punish guys for being bigger, faster, stronger and better trained just screams of Blernsball to me (as much as that feels like Manfred’s end game). I’d much prefer seeing a number smaller than 13 be the limit of pitchers allowed on a roster and let the trickle down effect of that roll in. Starters will need to go deeper, the majority of them will have to make a choice whether or not to slightly dial back the 100% max effort thing to live up to the increased value on their innings pitched numbers, which will result in hitters putting the ball in play a bit more. We’ll still have Charlton, Dibble and Myers at the end of every bullpen, but that Final Boss aspect of the 8th and 9th was pretty exciting back in the 80s and 90s and not so detrimental to the aesthetic of today’s game like the decline in starting pitching has been.

I think this may be the most realistic solution. Moving the mound has a ripple effect in thousands of fields across the country (the world?) that seems likely to cause unintended consequences. Lowering it (again), as they did after the offensive disappearance of the late 60s, *might* be a more measured approach that is a bit more practical.