MLB is deadening the baseball for 2021

[Ruzious]

I still like my old idea of limiting at bats to 10 pitches.  I realize it's a great strategy to harm opposing pitcher's arms by making them throw tons of pitches, but I could get over not seeing that.  If you poopoo the idea because not may at-bats go 10 pitches anyway, I'm willing to change it to 9 pitches.  

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, Ruzious said:

I still like my old idea of limiting at bats to 10 pitches.  I realize it's a great strategy to harm opposing pitcher's arms by making them throw tons of pitches, but I could get over not seeing that.  If you poopoo the idea because not may at-bats go 10 pitches anyway, I'm willing to change it to 9 pitches.  

What percentage of at bats go 10+ at bats?

[Tony-OH]

24 minutes ago, Ruzious said:

I still like my old idea of limiting at bats to 10 pitches.  I realize it's a great strategy to harm opposing pitcher's arms by making them throw tons of pitches, but I could get over not seeing that.  If you poopoo the idea because not may at-bats go 10 pitches anyway, I'm willing to change it to 9 pitches.  

I've suggested the three fouls after two strikes and you're out. This would encouraging more in play at bats and get away from those pesky guys that just keep fouling off good pitches until they get a meatball and will perhaps stop starters from hitting 100 pitches in the 6th inning.

[Frobby]

33 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

What percentage of at bats go 10+ at bats?

Very low.   I did a mini-study one time about this based on one full day’s worth of games and reported it here.   Will see if I can dig it out.   

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Very low.   I did a mini-study one time about this based on one full day’s worth of games and reported it here.   Will see if I can dig it out.   

I'm good with very low.

Thanks anyway.

[Frobby]

12 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I'm good with very low.

Thanks anyway.

Couldn’t find what I wrote, but I did find this:  https://tht.fangraphs.com/tht-live/just-how-rare-is-a-14-pitch-plate-appearance/

Basically, about 0.33% of all plate appearances are 10 pitches or more.  So, one out of every 300 PA.  Teams average 37 plate appearances per game, so 74 per game for the two teams combined.   So you see a 10+ pitch PA about once every four games.   

[VaBird1]

2 hours ago, Ruzious said:

I still like my old idea of limiting at bats to 10 pitches.  I realize it's a great strategy to harm opposing pitcher's arms by making them throw tons of pitches, but I could get over not seeing that.  If you poopoo the idea because not may at-bats go 10 pitches anyway, I'm willing to change it to 9 pitches.  

It punishes a good hitter and rewards a lesser pitcher.  Can’t support that.  Pitch better.

[Can_of_corn]

5 minutes ago, VaBird1 said:

It punishes a good hitter and rewards a lesser pitcher.  Can’t support that.  Pitch better.

I'm fine with undoing what they did a few years ago.

Which appears to be more or less what is happening.

[HowAboutThat]

4 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Deadening the ball without doing anything about contact or outfield dimensions is basically just going to reduce runs by a few percent.  If they're right, what's going to happen is 2020's .245/.322/.418 line is going to become more like .240/.320/.409, with runs scored dropping to 4.4 or 4.5 from 4.65.  While strikeouts continue apace.

Although it could be a little more severe than that.  It's not like long fly balls will be the only thing affected.  There will be slightly lower exit velocities on almost all balls in play. Maybe a little more 2015 than 2018.

There is still almost no increased incentive to pick contact hitters over power hitters.  For that they're going to have to pick several of: move the fences back 30 or 50 feet, deaden the ball more than this, move the mound back or have pitchers pitch from flat ground, or make the bats bigger.

If you want fewer strikeouts, shrink the strike zone. Easy-peasy.

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, Philip said:

If you want fewer strikeouts, shrink the strike zone. Easy-peasy.

Whoohoo!  More walks!

Nothing more exciting than a guy walking to first.

[HowAboutThat]

2 hours ago, Tony-OH said:

I've suggested the three fouls after two strikes and you're out. This would encouraging more in play at bats and get away from those pesky guys that just keep fouling off good pitches until they get a meatball and will perhaps stop starters from hitting 100 pitches in the 6th inning.

See my post re: awarding first after a certain number of fouls. One way results in an out, the other way results in a man on first. I think that’s more exciting.

[Frobby]

1 hour ago, Can_of_corn said:

Whoohoo!  More walks!

Nothing more exciting than a guy walking to first.

I don’t think that would be the sole consequence.   The smaller the strike zone, the more hittable the strikes are.   

[Can_of_corn]

3 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I don’t think that would be the sole consequence.   The smaller the strike zone, the more hittable the strikes are.   

Of course it won't be the sole consequence.  More dongs for instance.

But if you want to name something more boring than a strikeout, a walk would qualify.

Would pretty much guarantee longer games.

[Frobby]

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

Of course it won't be the sole consequence.  More dongs for instance.

But if you want to name something more boring than a strikeout, a walk would qualify.

I’m not sure I agree.    At least with a walk, there’s a runner on base and that makes the game more interesting.   

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, Frobby said:

I’m not sure I agree.    At least with a walk, there’s a runner on base and that makes the game more interesting.   

We can just disagree on that one.

I find walks tedious, especially multiple ones in the same inning.