Orioles on pace to shatter MLB team strikeout record

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, OsFanSinceThe80s said:

Baseball was more fun to watch pre-steroids era.  The all or nothing approach to offense has taken a lot of fun out of the game.  

I'm confused, your handle is O's fan since the 80's and yet you are talking about watching baseball before steroids.

You do know that they had steroids in the '80's right?

 

I don't believe that the all or nothing approach has much to do with steroids.  I think it is a natural evolution in the game.  Pitchers want strikeouts, hitters want to hit homeruns, in both cases it is the best result for an at bat so they have tailored their games to reach that result as frequently as possible.

[OsFanSinceThe80s]

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

I'm confused, your handle is O's fan since the 80's and yet you are talking about watching baseball before steroids.

You do know that they had steroids in the '80's right?

 

I don't believe that the all or nothing approach has much to do with steroids.  I think it is a natural evolution in the game.  Pitchers want strikeouts, hitters want to hit homeruns, in both cases it is the best result for an at bat so they have tailored their games to reach that result as frequently as possible.

Steroids didn’t peak until the mid 90’s and strikeouts have been on an upward trend ever since then.  

Steroids were around in the 80’s, but not nearly as prevalent.  Greenies were more of an issue.

Watching the Orioles strike out 11 times a game and not scoring runs is less fun than a dentist appointment. 

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, OsFanSinceThe80s said:

Steroids didn’t peak until the mid 90’s and strikeouts have been on an upward trend ever since then.  

Steroids were around in the 80’s, but not nearly as prevalent.  Greenies were more of an issue.

Watching the Orioles strike out 11 times a game and not scoring runs is less fun than a dentist appointment. 

I've seen no evidence that steroids use has much to do with the current emphasis on strike outs and home runs.  I think it's a red herring.

I will agree that watching your own team strike out is not enjoyable.  At least the dentist gives you drugs to knock you out for the most painful bits.

[DrungoHazewood]

1 hour ago, Frobby said:

As an aside, strikeouts are way up around MLB so far this year.  The K rate was 21.6% last year, 23.0% so far this year.    Not a good sign for the game.    

So far baseball has shown no inclination to do anything at all about strikeouts.  I wonder if that goes on forever?  Baseball's default position on rules is that the game evolves as the game evolves.  God handed down the rules on stone tablets in 19-and-aught-four when the NL adopted the foul strike rule and no amount of anything is going to change that.  Except the DH rule, which the purists still self-immolate about almost half a century later.

Since I became a fan in 1979 the strikeout rate has gone from 4.77/team/game to 8.87.  In Ruth's time the rate was a low as 2.67.  Not tinkering with the rules has resulted in a game where there are 2.6 homers per game and 17.5 strikeouts, up from a low of 0.2 and 5.3.  Used to be a bit over five non-ball-in-play events a game (not counting walks, HBP, etc), now it's 20.

Although it's not that different in events per hour, since the game is twice as long.

[OsFanSinceThe80s]

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

I've seen no evidence that steroids use has much to do with the current emphasis on strike outs and home runs.  I think it's a red herring.

I will agree that watching your own team strike out is not enjoyable.  At least the dentist gives you drugs to knock you out for the most painful bits.

I only mentioned the steroid era as when I started to notice strikeouts increasing.

Agree with you steroids or not, the current emphasis on strikeouts and home runs would be the same.

 

[Can_of_corn]

6 minutes ago, OsFanSinceThe80s said:

I only mentioned the steroid era as when I started to notice strikeouts increasing.

Agree with you steroids or not, the current emphasis on strikeouts and home runs would be the same.

 

I think it had a lot more to do with the rise of analytics.  The stigma associated with striking out was removed.

[DrungoHazewood]

On ‎4‎/‎15‎/‎2018 at 5:54 PM, Can_of_corn said:

Yea and eight teams are on pace to win 100+ games.

Bit early to worry about breaking records.

Strikeout rates stabilize as quickly as anything in baseball.  I assume a record for K/9 will be set this year.  It'll be the 13th straight year that happens. The last down-tick in K rate was '04 to '05.

[OsFanSinceThe80s]

4 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I think it had a lot more to do with the rise of analytics.  The stigma associated with striking out was removed.

That too and the increased specialization of relief pitchers.  Strikeouts are going rise when you put in a relief pitcher in the 7th inning who can throw 98 MPH.  

[DrungoHazewood]

8 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I think it had a lot more to do with the rise of analytics.  The stigma associated with striking out was removed.

How can that be fixed?  There used to be a strikeout stigma for two main reasons: 1) Its embarrassing.  2) Fielding sucked.  When league fielding percentages were .870 or whatever and slugging percentages were .330 striking out had a big cost and little gain in terms of power.

Why not phase in smaller and smaller gloves?  Eventually getting to something that's maybe 8" -10" maximum heel-to-fingertip. More protection from injury than giant scoop.  Maybe no pocket, or minimal pockets.  You'd have to catch flyballs with two hands.  BABIP would go up, maybe a lot.  Also (would have helped to do this before everyone got a new park) make hard limits on minimum fence distances.  All new parks have to be at least 350' down the lines, 400' in the gaps, and 440' to center, and at no point in between can they be shorter than those measurements.

Bring back the stigma for analytical reasons.

[DrungoHazewood]

10 minutes ago, OsFanSinceThe80s said:

That too and the increased specialization of relief pitchers.  Strikeouts are going rise when you put in a relief pitcher in the 7th inning who can throw 98 MPH.  

If I were sketching out a new baseball league on a blank piece of paper I'd incorporate my rules from the last post about gloves and fences, but also divide the 25-man roster into position players and pitchers.  You get 16 position players and nine pitchers.  You're free to use six relievers a game, but see how long that can last with five-man rotations and max effort.  Something has to give.  Pitchers will have to pitch more, and with less effort.

And, yea, I'd deaden the ball to compensate.  At least in the short-term.

[OsFanSinceThe80s]

1 minute ago, DrungoHazewood said:

How can that be fixed?  There used to be a strikeout stigma for two main reasons: 1) Its embarrassing.  2) Fielding sucked.  When league fielding percentages were .870 or whatever and slugging percentages were .330 striking out had a big cost and little gain in terms of power.

Why not phase in smaller and smaller gloves?  Eventually getting to something that's maybe 8" -10" maximum heel-to-fingertip. More protection from injury than giant scoop.  Maybe no pocket, or minimal pockets.  You'd have to catch flyballs with two hands.  BABIP would go up, maybe a lot.  Also (would have helped to do this before everyone got a new park) make hard limits on minimum fence distances.  All new parks have to be at least 350' down the lines, 400' in the gaps, and 440' to center, and at no point in between can they be shorter than those measurements.

Bring back the stigma for analytical reasons.

Unfortunately MLB is more likely to go with putting a runner on second base to start an inning in games tied after the ninth before considering any of your ideas.  

[Can_of_corn]

3 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

If I were sketching out a new baseball league on a blank piece of paper I'd incorporate my rules from the last post about gloves and fences, but also divide the 25-man roster into position players and pitchers.  You get 16 position players and nine pitchers.  You're free to use six relievers a game, but see how long that can last with five-man rotations and max effort.  Something has to give.  Pitchers will have to pitch more, and with less effort.

And, yea, I'd deaden the ball to compensate.  At least in the short-term.

So no Ohtani under your rules?

What if a game goes 18+ innings?  The last guy in the pen just has to suck it up and pitch until his arm falls off?

[Moose Milligan]

3 minutes ago, OsFanSinceThe80s said:

Unfortunately MLB is more likely to go with putting a runner on second base to start an inning in games tied after the ninth before considering any of your ideas.  

F Rob Manfred, right in the neck.

Never thought I'd miss Bud Selig, but Manfred's obsession with shortening a game by 3 minutes is weird.  

Starting an inning with a runner in scoring position is such a stupid gimmick.  If MLB had an XFL counterpart, that would be something they'd do.

[OsFanSinceThe80s]

1 minute ago, Moose Milligan said:

F Rob Manfred, right in the neck.

Never thought I'd miss Bud Selig, but Manfred's obsession with shortening a game by 3 minutes is weird.  

Starting an inning with a runner in scoring position is such a stupid gimmick.  If MLB had an XFL counterpart, that would be something they'd do.

Unless pitchers start going deep into games and complete games become a thing again, I don’t see how game times can be shortened in any meaningful way.

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, OsFanSinceThe80s said:

Unless pitchers start going deep into games and complete games become a thing again, I don’t see how game times can be shortened in any meaningful way.

The main thing I want is to keep the batters in the box.  You don't need to call time, step out, adjust your gloves and cup yourself after ball one.