What reasonable rule changes would you propose to increase offense in MLB?

[Lose Remerswaal]

As we've seen in the MLB Batting Averages, WTF thread, and with our own eyes, offense is down in Major League Baseball.  We've had some good discussions here about rule changes to speed games up, but what about rule changes to increase offense, just enough to make the game a bit more interesting?
 
Sprowl suggested earlier today that the Rules Committee will be busy this offseason coming up with ways to increase offense.  Let's help them here with our suggestions.
 
In the past, they've lowered the pitching mound (1969), and the American League added the DH in 1973.
 
Other than making it 3 balls for a walk (or 4 strikes for a K), and also keeping in mind the goal of not increasing the lengths of games, what do ye propose, SoSH?

 

[ScubaSteveAvery]

I'm not a huge fan of the pitch clock, like Werner is.  I just don't see how its implemented without disrupting the natural flow of the game. 
 
I would limit the amount of pitching changes in the middle of an inning to one max, with two exceptions: 1) an injury to a pitcher and 2) a pitcher has thrown more than 30 pitches in the inning.  This would eliminate the Joe Madden bringing-in-different-pitchers-every-batter-to-create-ideal-pitcher-match ups nightmares that easily add 5-10 minutes to a game.  This helps speed up the game and is beneficial to idea of more offense because batters will regain an even playing field against bullpens. 

 

[Spacemans Bong]

I'm OK with a pitch clock, provided we're talking about a small timing device held by the umpire and monitored from NYC rather than a big play clock behind the plate like in the NFL. It doesn't need to be obvious. This might help bring fastball velocity down a bit, since recovery time between pitches is limited.
 
I whole-heartedly agree with limiting bullpen changes for all the reasons Scuba mentions.
 
I would be interested in maybe trimming the strike zone a bit, and getting pitches where the top 1/16th of an inch brushes against an imaginary line at the very bottom of the knee cap (or the edge of the plate) called balls more often.
 
Other than that, I don't think there's a lot of problems. The offensive lag is basically driven by strikeouts, and part of that is 95 mph bullpen OOGYs, and the other part being that MLB coaches have been teaching take and rake for 15-20 years now, and the offensive environment has swung around to contact hitting. The Adam Dunns and Mark Reynolds of the world are seeing the game move beyond them while the Nori Aokis of the world are seeing an uptick in value.

 

[HomeRunBaker]

How many visits a game to the mound does a pitching coach make? I'm not worried about this at all nor am I concerned about a replay or two each night.

What truly slows the game down is the pitcher circling the rubber between pitches, glaring up at the sky, tugging his cap, then finally leaning in only to shake off signs.......as the batter calls for time. Shoot me now. There are only two things that need to happen to keep this game moving and the wheel does not need to be recreated.

1. Batters must remain in the box between pitches.

2. Pitchers have a discreet "shot clock."


Problem solved.
Game on.

 

[Mighty Joe Young]

If you limited the number of pitching changes you would probably see the ancillary effect of MLB staffs shrinking back down to 11 pitchers - which means more platoon players available on the bench - which means more offense as well. Of course, OOGYs will be driven out of the game.

 

[Saints Rest]

Perhaps some sort of defensive positioning rules.

Maybe a team must have a minimum of three players, excluding P & C, on each side of the centerline of the field. If a team wants to shift their infielders, then the CF must shade the opposite way.

Or maybe that all infielders must be within a set distance (5'?) of the infield dirt. This would preclude the second baseman from playing short right.

 

[Mighty Joe Young]

As practical suggestions - ones that are easy to implement :
 
1) Limit the pitching changes - and get rid of coaching visits. This has the added bonus of speeding up the game
 
2) Move the lower limit of the strike zone back to the old de facto zone. One could argue that , as the zone has expanded (due to umps being pitch-fx trained - or at least heavily influenced) , batters haven't adjusted at the same rate. Which seems pretty plausible. However, that doesn't mean they wont eventually adjust - or the old take-and-rake players will simply fade away.  But controlling the strike zone is the absolute core skill of every player. It should be obvious that successfully hitting a pitch at the knees  (which is now a strike) is harder than hitting one mid-thigh. So even if hitters do adjust they will still be less successful. Bigger strike zone = smaller offense. I don't think anyone would argue this.
 
IIRC, there used to be a similar argument  concerning the difference in offenses between the leagues back when they had distinct umpires - and more importantly the AL umps still used the old balloon chest protector. This resulted in them standing directly behind the catcher - resulting in a higher strike zone. The NL umps, on the other hand, had the small protector and positioned themselves in a line between the catcher and the batter - resulting in a better view of the low strike. 

 

[Spacemans Bong]

Perhaps some sort of defensive positioning rules.

Maybe a team must have a minimum of three players, excluding P & C, on each side of the centerline of the field. If a team wants to shift their infielders, then the CF must shade the opposite way.

Or maybe that all infielders must be within a set distance (5'?) of the infield dirt. This would preclude the second baseman from playing short right.

 
This is sort of arguing out of both sides of my mouth but...shifts don't actually make much difference on balls in play. The overall effect is quite small. Plus shifts are easily beaten, it's called rolling a bunt down the third base line.
 
Also, why are we penalizing innovation? It would be like if the slider was banned in the 50s because breaking pitches shouldn't be allowed to move that fast.

 

[ivanvamp]

I wouldn't make any rule changes.  I'm fine with a lower run-scoring environment.  I would like to see the game speeded up so I'd limit batters stepping out of the box, and I'd enforce a pitch clock.  But otherwise, I don't see a need for changing the game in order to artificially enhance the run-scoring environment.  Call strikes strikes and balls balls and make the players get on with the game.

 

[YTF]

Scoring and most offensive stats have dropped some in the past few seasons, but I'm not sure I'm ready to call for changes in the game for the sake of increases offense. Though no real way of showing, I think most would agree that there is a decreased use of PEDs and that (among other things) is likely be a big contributor to the decrease in offense. The ability to focus, stay healthy, feel somewhat more energized as the season wears and perhaps hit the ball a few extra feet will certainly affect hitters. The strike zone appears bigger as the umps seem to be calling more in accordance to the little box that's superimposed in the lower right of our TV screens. Also I have no numbers to back it up, but does it seem as though more players have been hitting the DL these past two seasons? Is that a byproduct to a reduction in PED usage? Injuries DO swing the other way as well with more pitchers than ever having Tommy John surgery, but a lot those guys often seem to come back better than before.  It wasn't that long ago that some folks suggested that offensive numbers were inflated and becoming a bit of a joke. It's calmed down some. Is that a terrible thing? If it leveled off a bit, I could live with that. I enjoy well pitched games and great defense as well and there is still plenty of offense around the league to satisfy me. I'm sure the league looks at it this off season, but I'm not sure they jump at "fixing" it. Also, some teams have the ability to alter their parks to suit the team they field. Perhaps we see a bit of that over the next couple of years.

 

[Comfortably Lomb]

No rule changes. What is wrong with less offense?

 

[Number45forever]

Throughout history, levels of offensive production have fluctuated up and down through eras.  It's cyclical.  I don't see how the current environment is close to something like 1968 necessitating huge changes like lowering the mound.  I'd vote in favor of waiting five or even 10 years and then see what's happening.

 

[grimshaw]

Edit:  I wanted to stress that while I don't condone making artificial rule changes, this may be more of a health of the game going forward.  It's going to be a fine balance before quickening pace of games and increasing offense.  More offense = lengthier games and results in more of those 2003 Sox/Yankees slugfests.
 
-Allow a player to re-enter a game, a la softball rules.  He has to bat in the same spot though.  I hate wasting pinch hitters if that is their sole purpose.  This would pick up offense in the NL as well so terrible back up catchers barely ever hit.  Give bench players who can just hit or run more value.  More Matt Stairs types dammit!
-Expand rosters 3 spots year round.  Keep them flex spots.
-Don't fuck with the strike zone.  No one wants to see more walks.
-Don't mess with the mound like they did after 1968
-If they ever expand to 32 teams that will dilute pitching significantly.  See Rockies, Colorado.
You almost need to with all these talented international pitchers joining the fray.  Though, I think the more Puig, Abreu types that come over, the better.  Abreu currently leads MLB in slugging.
-Go back to 154 games.  Start a few weeks later in April.  Add 5-6 scheduled double headers (7 innings apiece) a year on Sundays before Monday off days, unless they are long travel days.

 

[Saints Rest]

1) Limit the pitching changes - and get rid of coaching visits. This has the added bonus of speeding up the game
 
 
 

In today's game, what actual role do coaching visits play?  Why does a manager have to stroll out to the mound to make the pitching change?  He doesn't stroll out to the batter's box for a PH and take the bat from the first batter so why does he need to do that for a pitcher?
 
I can see the value, on occasion, as it hardly happens anymore except for starters, of a pitching coach going out to straighten out a pitcher who has just lost his mechanics, but let's make these visits like challenges -- each team gets 2 per game total, for the pitching coach only.  All other pitching changes should simply be signaled to the umpire the way that a PH or PR happens.

 

[LeoCarrillo]

1. Batters must remain in the box between pitches.
2. Pitchers have a discreet "shot clock."

Problem solved.

 
Agreed. I wouldn't change anything that affects strategy, such as aforementioned limits on pitching changes or shifts. This seems contrary to the spirit of baseball as chess match.
 
How would the "pitch clock" be accomplished? I think clearly it can't be displayed, as that would lead to excess heckling. Could MLB take the most egregious offenders (sorry, Papi) and come in with a number like 12 seconds. And then every pitcher and hitter would get one or even two warnings per game, after which a ball or strike would be assessed. That's gonna be annoying for a while, and at its worst a run will get walked in or a hitter will get rung up and end a bases-loaded inning. Which sucks. But at that point, that player will have gotten two warnings. And as concerned as someone like Papi or any good hitter or pitcher is at working counts into his favor, if he's got a 2-1 count he ought not screw off and run the risk of getting whistled and a go to 2-2, as he loses that advantage. 
 
Also, not for nothing, but they could probably just do this in the regular season with a kinda "wink-wink" among the league and umps to let it slide come September and into the playoffs. (Kinda like the 10 second free-throw rule. I'm sure NBAers blow that routinely and it's never called. But they're not going 15 seconds, they're going 11, 12.)
 
Side note: Is this speed-up-the-game idea principally driven by ticket sales and the fan experience inside the ballpark. Because as more ways become available to watch multiple games, TV plus streaming on iPad, laptop and even phone simultaneously, I find myself multi-viewing at least 2 or 3 games at all times, plus my roto numbers. At times my living room looks like Norad or the audio-visual section of Best Buy. And then you don't notice slow games at all. 

 

[Lose Remerswaal]

 

No rule changes. What is wrong with less offense?

 
 

Throughout history, levels of offensive production have fluctuated up and down through eras.  It's cyclical.  I don't see how the current environment is close to something like 1968 necessitating huge changes like lowering the mound.  I'd vote in favor of waiting five or even 10 years and then see what's happening.

 
Look at the NFL, NBA, and NHL.  All of them have made rule changes to increase offense.  It's an "appeal to the fan" thing.  You may like things the way they are and I may like things the way they are, but if the game is to thrive you need offenses to put up more hits and runs than we've been seeing recently.

 

[YTF]

I think the NFL is a bit of a different animal here. So much of the league's appeal is now linked to Fantasy Football which is solely driven by offense. It's a huge hand in hand situation that sees both benefitting from teams routinely scoring 30 and 40 points per game. I wonder to some extent if there is a sense of needing to keep up with the Joneses that's caused other leagues to make offense friendly rule changes.

 

[Curll]

Clayton Kershaw is the biggest story in the MLB this year. No need to "increase offense".
 
Still, I'd support a pitch clock. Not that I think it'd have a tangible difference on Runs Scored.

 

[glennhoffmania]

Add the DH to the NL.  Not only would it eliminate the ridiculous inconsistency in the rules between the leagues, but obviously NL lineups would be better and AL pitchers, who half the time can't even sacrifice successfully, wouldn't be literally automatic outs.

 

[rembrat]

I'm not a huge fan of the pitch clock, like Werner is.  I just don't see how its implemented without disrupting the natural flow of the game. 
 
I would limit the amount of pitching changes in the middle of an inning to one max, with two exceptions: 1) an injury to a pitcher and 2) a pitcher has thrown more than 30 pitches in the inning.  This would eliminate the Joe Madden bringing-in-different-pitchers-every-batter-to-create-ideal-pitcher-match ups nightmares that easily add 5-10 minutes to a game.  This helps speed up the game and is beneficial to idea of more offense because batters will regain an even playing field against bullpens. 

 
I like this.
 
Watching the World Cup this year I was initially baffled at 3 subs per match for a side but grew to embrace it. It makes the game tactically more interesting and prevents teams from running amok ala Joe Madden. An added benefit might see a decrease in bullpen size and more specialized position players who can be used to manufacture offense.

 

[Just a bit outside]

I would also like to see a limit on the number a times a catcher can go talk to a pitcher.  I love Varitek but he was one of the worst going out to talk to the pitcher multiple times in an inning.

 

[SLC Sox]

-If they ever expand to 32 teams that will dilute pitching significantly.  See Rockies, Colorado.
You almost need to with all these talented international pitchers joining the fray.  Though, I think the more Puig, Abreu types that come over, the better.  Abreu currently leads MLB in slugging.

 
I think this would do wonders.  We have the highest population per MLB team in decades and, as noted, more and more international players are joining the league every year.  It is time to expand, which will not only bring new markets into the game but will also dilute the pitching a little and increase offense, which has historically happened upon expansion.  The added bonus is we could also get rid of the daily interleague games like the Pirates playing the Red Sox in late September as they are chasing an NL playoff spot.
 
Edit: clarity

 

[Moonlight Graham]

I would love any rule change that discourages walks.  Call me a baseball infidel, but the walk is the least exciting positive play for offense in sports, with the possible exceptions of the extra point in football and free throws in basketball.  I would love to see incentives for batters to swing at more pitches.  So, ironically, my suggestion is to make a walk occur after only 3 balls.  That would certainly favor offense and cause more walks at first, but it may also provide an incentive for pitchers to throw more strikes.  At the very least, it would shave the number of pitches per at-bat, speeding up the pace of the game.  If there is a balancing measure needed, consider allowing strikeouts on foul balls.  Both of these changes would speed up the game.  I realize this will never happen, so I guess it's not really a "reasonable" rule change, but it would make me watch games more consistently. 

 

[Dan to Theo to Ben]

Lower warm-up pitches on the mound (for RP's) from 8 to 3. They're already warming up in the BP, why do they need 8?
 
Would institute a DH in the NL to keep the rules the same across leagues. (I'd probably prefer to post-Ortiz eliminate the DH, and actually reduce offense, but the MLBPA would not eliminate 15 jobs)
 
Would limit pickoff throws to 2 per batter.
 
 
Would be more liberal with the run scoring from 1st on a ground rule double.
 
Give an automatic/minimum triple on home team OF fan interference.

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

No rule changes. What is wrong with less offense?

 
Yep. This is where I'm at. If you are intent on changing something to speed up the game, enforce the time between pitches rule and keep the batters in the box. If you are intent on driving a rise in offense, find a way to improve the accuracy of the strike zone. Those two things might contradict a bit in their intent, but I think you could both speed up the game and tip the balance back toward offense again by doing both.

 

[Yaz4Ever]

If you limited the number of pitching changes you would probably see the ancillary effect of MLB staffs shrinking back down to 11 pitchers - which means more platoon players available on the bench - which means more offense as well. Of course, OOGYs will be driven out of the game.

I agree with this as being one of the reasons games are longer than they used to be - prior generations had SP throw who knows how many pitches, there weren't closers let alone specialized one out guys.  Not saying I'd want to revert back to those days, just that I think it's an often under looked reason for longer game times.
 

Add the DH to the NL.  Not only would it eliminate the ridiculous inconsistency in the rules between the leagues, but obviously NL lineups would be better and AL pitchers, who half the time can't even sacrifice successfully, wouldn't be literally automatic outs.

I agree that we should get rid of the inconsistency.  I'd rather we go rid of the DH in both leagues, though.
 

Lower warm-up pitches on the mound (for RP's) from 8 to 3. They're already warming up in the BP, why do they need 8?
 
Would institute a DH in the NL to keep the rules the same across leagues. (I'd probably prefer to post-Ortiz eliminate the DH, and actually reduce offense, but the MLBPA would not eliminate 15 jobs)
 
Would limit pickoff throws to 2 per batter.
 
 
Would be more liberal with the run scoring from 1st on a ground rule double.
 
Give an automatic/minimum triple on home team OF fan interference.

I agree with the bolded parts (the second solely as a way of increasing scoring).
 
Also, speed up the game by enforcing the strike zone the way it was written.  This doesn't improve run production as more pitches would be called strikes, but it irks me.
 
That said, I'm fine with pitching duels.  I don't want more offense just for the sake of more offense.  If the pink hat crowd is bored because there aren't enough home runs, maybe I can get better seats at games.

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

Also, speed up the game by enforcing the strike zone the way it was written.  This doesn't improve run production as more pitches would be called strikes, but it irks me.

 
I would think a more accurate strike zone would be one with which patient hitters with good eyes would be more successful at avoiding outs with. When the zone is consistent and correct it's easier to know when to lay off or swing at a close pitch. That should benefit hitters more than pitchers.
 
A lot of teams have built around the idea of high OBP hitters, so I imagine that if a change like this happened this winter, before most teams shifted toward contact hitters, we'd see an immediate uptick in runs scored. It makes sense to me, intuitively, at least.

 

[Lose Remerswaal]

Bullpen mounds and field mounds are often constructed differently.  The 8 pitches allows a reliever to familiarize himself with this mound.  The difference in 5 pitches is about a minute, times what?  3 or 4 in inning pitching changes/game?

Meanwhile this is the "Increase offense" discussion.  If you would, please put the "speed up games" comments (which I love) in that thread.

 

[Infield Infidel]

Also, speed up the game by enforcing the strike zone the way it was written.  This doesn't improve run production as more pitches would be called strikes, but it irks me.
 
That said, I'm fine with pitching duels.  I don't want more offense just for the sake of more offense.  If the pink hat crowd is bored because there aren't enough home runs, maybe I can get better seats at games.

 
I'd say fewer strikes would be called. The calls on the edges, if called more narrowly, would probably induce fewer strike called. 
 
This is from another thread. 
 

 
Farrell has said that the strike zone is larger this year, and blames that for the lower offense.
 
This article in The Atlantic, "The Simple Technology That Accidentally Ruined Baseball", argues that the strike zone is getting larger because of Pitch F/x, and especially has expanded at the bottom of the zone. It illustrates its case with images like this:

Spoiler

 
 

 

[Harry Hooper]

Restore the balloon chest protectors to the umps to raise the bottom of the strike zone a tad. As a bonus the umps are better protected.
 
A visit to the mound by anyone should count as a visit. The pitcher and the catcher need to decide before the inning starts what rotating signals to use with a man on 2b. You can give each team 2-3 "freebie" visits per game that don't count, but the visitor to the mound (player/pitching coach/manager) needs to inform the ump BEFORE the visit that they're cashing in a freebie (as they do already for injury visits).
 
As suggested above, one mid-inning pitching change per inning. You include the injury exception, but to stop gamesmanship the "injured" pitcher must either go on the DL after the game or stays on the active roster but can't pitch in the next 2 or 3 games. 
 
Modify the existing rule on time between pitches to 15 seconds but remove the men on base exception. Back up enforcement with escalating fines, and that problem will go away fast. If you want to go high-tech, connect the catcher's gear via bluetooth or similar {endorsement opportunity for MLB = $} to the ump's stopwatch. At 10 seconds, LEDs on the gear start glowing.
 
Another idea related to eliminating beanbrawl incidents would be increasing the bases awarded for HBP. After you hit one batter, if any of your team's pitchers hits another batter that same game, the batter is placed on 2B. Runs can score if forced in (a la automatic double).
 
 
Edit: As mentioned above, any rule changes that encourage smaller pitching staffs will help offense. You'll get more favorable batter-pitcher matchups for the hitters (both starters and pinch-hitters) and having more position players on the 25-man roster will cut down on guys who are dinged up playing (badly) through an injury.

 

[GRPhilipp]

It seems like the prevailing opinion in the Offense in MLB--What has happened? thread is that the decline has been caused by the following, in order of significance:
1. PED's
2. PED's
3. PED's
4. Strike-zone growth
5. Specialist relievers everywhere
6. Lesser and/or uncertain factors like pitch selection and shifts.
 
If that's basically right, then it seems like tweaking the strike zone or reliever usage won't really move the needle.  
 
Assuming MLB isn't going to legalize (or go back to ignoring) PED's, won't it take something drastic like moving all the fences in?  Juicing the ball or allowing aluminum bats would also work, but no one wants to see the inevitable increase in horrific injuries to pitchers, fans, etc. that would result.

 

[Harry Hooper]

It would be no surprise to anyone if the balls in the most recent seasons have been deadened to help Bud take his swan song bow for victory over PEDs. I'm surprised we haven't seen an article comparing the liveliness of current balls to previous seasons. Maybe after Bud departs the balls get more lively again.

 

[Rasputin]

The DH should be added to the NL because pitchers batting is just horrendous.
 
Other than that, instead of artificially limiting the number of pitching changes, the rule could be that a pitcher has to face two batters instead of just one.
 
Also, something that could eliminate or drastically reduce the number of intentional walks would be good, either by giving the batter two bases, or pushing other runners along even if first is open.

 

[nvalvo]

It would be no surprise to anyone if the balls in the most recent seasons have been deadened to help Bud take his swan song bow for victory over PEDs. I'm surprised we haven't seen an article comparing the liveliness of current balls to previous seasons. Maybe after Bud departs the balls get more lively again.

 
I just heard (SOSH member) Alan Nathan give a talk at the college where I teach. He says the lab at UMass Lowell that tests the balls has not found that to be the case. 

 

[grimshaw]

Apologies for lack of tables and formatting, as I'm on a crippled laptop.
I did some studying of slugging percentage over the years on Fangraphs.  And well here -
 
The first fraction is number of players who slugged over .500 out of qualified hitters since 1960.  The second fraction is .600 or higher, followed by overall percentage.  No one slugged .700 until 1994. Jeff Bagwell slugged .750 while playing half his games in the Astrodome which is. . . very admirable.
A couple of obvious notes.  1977 was an expansion year after some really lean hitting years and that at least temporarily ''solved'' some of the problems. 1987 is still an outlier since it came 7 years prior to what seems pretty clearly defined as the steroid era of 1994-2009.  In 1999 38 percent of the league was slugging over 500 (30 players slugged higher than Ortiz average over the past two seasons).  Coors opened in 1993 which certainly ushered in a huge boost.  This year's 9.4 is close to matching the lowest level of slugging since 1992.  I really think expansion would boost offense the most, short of reintroducing PED's.
            
1960 - 13/62, 0/62 = 20.9
1961-  24/85, 7/62 = 28.2
1962 - 16/101, 3/101 = 16
1963 - 12/101, 0 = 12
1964 - 15/94, 2/94 = 15.9
1965 - 13/96 1/96 = 13.5
1966 - 17/96 2/96 = 17.6
1967 - 12/99 1/99 = 12
1968 - 6/89 0 = 6.7
1969 - 19/120 3/120 = 15.8
1970 - 22/114 1/114 = 19.2
1971 - 12/114 2/114 = 10.5
1972 - 12/111 2/111 = 10.8
1973 - 7/115 1/115 = 6
1974 - 8/131 = 6.1
1975 - 13/128 = 10.1
1976 - 7/119 = 5.9
1977 - 31/141 1/141 = 27
1978 - 15/140 1/140 = 10.7
1979 - 22/140 2/140 = 15.7
1980 - 13/125 2/125 = 10.4
1981 - 7/139 1/139 = 5
1982-  21/140 = 15
1983 - 16/131 = 12.2
1984 - 16/120 = 13.3
1985 - 16/137 = 11.6
1986-  10/127 = 7.8
1987 - 31/134 2/134 = 23.1
1988 - 15/130 = 11.5
1989 - 9/126 1/126  = 7.1
1990 - 16/128 = 12.5
1991 - 16/123 = 13
1992 - 12/120 1/120 = 10
1993-  25/150 5/150 = 16.6
1994 - 40/157, 6/150, 3/150 = 25.4
1995 - 35/139, 6/139 = 25.1
1996-  47/147,12/147, 1/147 = 31.9
1997-  39/144, 4/144. 1/144 = 27
1998 - 51/159, 6/159, 1/159 = 32
1999 - 60/157, 9/157, 1/157 = 38.2
2000 - 55/163, 15/163 = 33.7
2001 - 48/156, 10/156,1/156,1/156 = 30.5
2002 - 43/151, 5/156, 1/156 = 28.4
2003 - 48/165, 5/165, 1/165 = 29
2004 - 43/161, 6/161,0, 1/161 = 26.7
2005 - 41/148, 4/148 = 27.7
2006 - 47/160, 7/160 = 29.3
2007 - 38/162, 6/162 = 23.4
2008 - 44/147, 2/147 = 29.9
2009 - 42/154, 2/154 = 27.2
2010 - 27/149, 4/149 = 18.1
2011 - 29/145, 1/145 = 19.4
2012 - 29/143, 1/143 = 20.2
2013 - 16/140, 2/140 = 11.4
2014 - 14/148 = 9.4

 

[Harry Hooper]

 
I just heard (SOSH member) Alan Nathan give a talk at the college where I teach. He says the lab at UMass Lowell that tests the balls has not found that to be the case. 

 
Thanks, do you recall the approximate timefrme of the comparisons?
 
 
Another move to boost offense would be to go back to enforcing the existing rule against pitchers putting substances on the ball. Better grip means more movement on the pitches. Yes, some guys will still do it, but make them work to cheat at least.

 

[YTF]

 
Thanks, do you recall the approximate timefrme of the comparisons?
 
 
Another move to boost offense would be to go back to enforcing the existing rule against pitchers putting substances on the ball. Better grip means more movement on the pitches. Yes, some guys will still do it, but make them work to cheat at least.

 
There's also the issue (real or perceived) that this better grip protects hitters from getting beaned.

 

[Harry Hooper]

Put it down under perceived. I think laxity in enforcing this rule grew out of the steroid era offenses generating some sympathy for the pitchers to cope. Of course, now that PED use has been reined in at least somewhat, it's time to stop rampant loading up of the balls by the hurlers.

 

[CaptainLaddie]

Edit:  I wanted to stress that while I don't condone making artificial rule changes, this may be more of a health of the game going forward.  It's going to be a fine balance before quickening pace of games and increasing offense.  More offense = lengthier games and results in more of those 2003 Sox/Yankees slugfests.
 
-Allow a player to re-enter a game, a la softball rules.  He has to bat in the same spot though.  I hate wasting pinch hitters if that is their sole purpose.  This would pick up offense in the NL as well so terrible back up catchers barely ever hit.  Give bench players who can just hit or run more value.  More Matt Stairs types dammit!
-Expand rosters 3 spots year round.  Keep them flex spots.
-Don't fuck with the strike zone.  No one wants to see more walks.
-Don't mess with the mound like they did after 1968
-If they ever expand to 32 teams that will dilute pitching significantly.  See Rockies, Colorado.
You almost need to with all these talented international pitchers joining the fray.  Though, I think the more Puig, Abreu types that come over, the better.  Abreu currently leads MLB in slugging.
-Go back to 154 games.  Start a few weeks later in April.  Add 5-6 scheduled double headers (7 innings apiece) a year on Sundays before Monday off days, unless they are long travel days.

So many bad ideas.
 
Edit:
 
I'll expand.
 
You're talking wholesale changes to the game.  7-inning games?  Allowing players to re-enter?  Expanding rosters to 28 will literally just allow for MORE specialization and longer games.

 

[reggiecleveland]

1977 was a year with new Rawlings baseball's with more jump. Despite claims there has been no proof of any changes in 87 or other years

 

[YTF]

 
-Go back to 154 games.  Start a few weeks later in April.  Add 5-6 scheduled double headers (7 innings apiece) a year on Sundays before Monday off days, unless they are long travel days.

 Just curious how anything in this statement helps increase offense.  You're shaving 8 games off the schedule, but starting a few weeks later?  I'll assume the season will still end the end of September, so what does that do? Seven inning games gives the offense two less innings to score and typically all starters don't play both end of a double header. That assumes of course that for most teams their starting unit is their best offensive option. Seven inning double headers also seem as though they would be less taxing on the bullpen. Advantage pitchers, yes?
 
I said above that I was Ok with the current offensive state of the game, but if anything at all were to be done to change it I would hope that perhaps it would be an additional roster spot. I think every team would be happy to have an extra position player/bat on the bench and most would use that spot in that way.

 

[grimshaw]

 Just curious how anything in this statement helps increase offense.  You're shaving 8 games off the schedule, but starting a few weeks later?  I'll assume the season will still end the end of September, so what does that do? Seven inning games gives the offense two less innings to score and typically all starters don't play both end of a double header. That assumes of course that for most teams their starting unit is their best offensive option. Seven inning double headers also seem as though they would be less taxing on the bullpen. Advantage pitchers, yes?
 
I said above that I was Ok with the current offensive state of the game, but if anything at all were to be done to change it I would hope that perhaps it would be an additional roster spot. I think every team would be happy to have an extra position player/bat on the bench and most would use that spot in that way.

 
Starting later means warmer weather and avoiding those occasional snow/40 degree debacles.  Double headers would be less taxing on positional players as well.  Maybe you don't start the 4th or 5th OF and back up catcher in game 2 if you only have 14 innings to play.  I'm just overthinking basically

 

[grimshaw]

So many bad ideas.
 
Edit:
 
I'll expand.
 
You're talking wholesale changes to the game.  7-inning games?  Allowing players to re-enter?  Expanding rosters to 28 will literally just allow for MORE specialization and longer games.

These aren't OMG Do These!  Just brainstorming.  7 innings for double headers, only.  It's done across the minor leagues and is hardly a wholesale change. 
 
The season is long.  Players break down, managers let banged up players play and it hurts the offense.  The flex roster could help that out a bit and help avoid playing with a shortened bench.  It's either maaaybe slightly longer or specialized games throughout the season (still 25 men on the roster on any given game) with no roster size changes, or 25-40 man rosters for one month.  Which one makes more sense?
 
Never mind the re-entering rule.  I hate that idea aleady.

 

[Fuzzypants]

I would explore the feasibility of moving the mound back (away from home plate) three feet. 
 
One would assume that doing so would help hitters since they would have a fraction of a second longer to see the ball.  It would also have the added benefit of giving the pitcher more time to react to a ball hit toward him.  

 

[John DiFool]

Throughout history, levels of offensive production have fluctuated up and down through eras.  It's cyclical.  I don't see how the current environment is close to something like 1968 necessitating huge changes like lowering the mound.  I'd vote in favor of waiting five or even 10 years and then see what's happening.

 
Except that the main driver behind the recent offensive decline, strikeouts, are most certainly NOT cyclical.  That trend is one stretching back over the course of nearly a century now.
 
Strikeout rates going back in 5 year intervals:
 
 
2014: 20.3%
2009: 18.0%
2004: 16.9%
1999: 16.4%
1994: 15.9%
1989: 14.8%
 
 
Yes, the decline of PED use might be part of the reason for offense going down (if you want to go there), but we most certainly are not in the process of returning to a pre-1993 world.  I fear that we will hit one of those chaos-theory type inflection points which will catapult us into another 1960's style dead-ball era-all it would take would be another key offensive component taking a hit-BABIP or HR/Flyball being my two main worries.  BABIP has actually gone up a bit this year, and may be the only thing preventing such a decline.  If it can't hold down the fort in the long run, I shudder at the possible consequences.  [Pre-1920 ball would actually be infinitely preferable to such a high K low BIP world, IMNSHO...]
 
The issue is that K's are very desireable for pitchers-and a worthwhile gamble for hitters, if it leads to a higher ISO (and BABIP) without a significant decline in OBP, and this is why K's have been going up and up for a long time now.  But at some point that equation might very well change, and that tradeoff for hitters as a whole might no longer exist.  I'd prefer to be proactive and not wait for it to happen.
 
But there might not be a rule change that would reverse the trend.  It might take a new philosophical approach on the part of the hitters to pull it off (put the ball in play early, don't work the count so much)-but as long as they believe (know) that they can afford the K's without losing offensive value overall, I don't see it happening.  A livelier ball would just reinforce that philosophy.
 

 

[Plympton91]

Is the premise universally accepted? Do they need to increase offense? The teams that build around core skills like power and on base percentage instead of highly flawed defensive metrics and 38 year old catchers don't have any problems scoring runs. The Orioles are going to hit 200 home runs this season despite down years from Davis and Hardy, injuries to Weiters and Machado, and breaking in a rookie second baseman. Dan Duquette did a great job finding productive offensive players and Buck Showalter consistently put his role players in the position to succeed.

There also is no rule change required for players to stop being obstinate about bunting or going the other way to beat all the ridiculous shifts. I don't think that Branch Rickey's fundamental assessment of the importance of OBP has changed. If a team is giving you a 45% chance at a single (or whatever the success rate might be when a player bunts with nobody on the left side of the infield) take the shot at the single, regardless of the situation.

One explanation for the drop in offense that I haven't seen mentioned is that it has been a really long time since the last expansion teams were added, even though the flow of players from overseas is accelerating and many of them are ace level pitchers. This allows teams to build pitching depth to such an extent that pitchers coming off great seasons like Lohse a few years ago and Santana last year are shunned because of freakin draft pick ramifications.

So, I'd say baseball should start the process this winter of adding 2 teams by 2018. That will dilute the pitching depth and arrest any downward trend for a bit while we see if it's really a trend.

 

[Dan to Theo to Ben]

Designated runner
 
Who really needs a 5th OF?
 
Each team gets one bench player who can pinch run for the same place in the order multiple times. (Doesn't burn either guy)

 

[LeoCarrillo]

Designated runner
 
Who really needs a 5th OF?
 
Each team gets one bench player who can pinch run for the same place in the order multiple times. (Doesn't burn either guy)

I think this would just add more throws over to first and slow the game. But it's kinda fascinating from a MLBPA perspective. How many teams would keep an aging monster, like a Giambi or (someday) Papi and Pujols and tether the DR to him. So, in this era of low offense you'd get a home run stick who either goes yard, gets out or gets run for by a burner.

Basically call it the designated player. A DH-DR combo. Beasts with good eyes like the aforementioned, or a guy like Napoli, could play till they were like 45.

It'd be exciting as hell. First, some legend swings for the fences and if they pitch around him, the skinny burner version goes to first and creates havoc on the basepaths. They could even wear the same number.

 

[HriniakPosterChild]

Can the runner stand behind the plate and sprint to first on contact? Because we played that way as kids when the hitter had a cast on his leg.

 

[Sampo Gida]

Strike zone has been expanding since the start of the pitch f/x era and before before this.  Shrink it back to where it was.
 
Pitchers are taller and bigger and throw harder, perhaps due to more optimum usage, perhaps other reasons.  Lower the mound and move it back 6 inches.  This will also serve to protect pitchers more from batted balls and TJS.
 
BABIP is still near historically high levels, so defense is not the issue, I don't see a need for defensive rules.
 
Its all about reducing the K rates which are at historical highs