Cedric en fuego!!

[emmett16]

17 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Unchecked move to max effort, high-spin rate pitches from the biggest, strongest, best conditioned pitchers of all time. They're still throwing from the same 60' 6" distance that Cy Young was throwing from in 1893 when he made 46 starts and threw 422 innings, striking out just 102. Teams have now, finally approached an endpoint of over well over 100 years of transitioning from all complete games all the time to "throw harder than you know is safe, as long as you can until we pull you in the 4th or your UCL snaps. Also, why does your sinker only have 15" of horizontal break, please go to Driveline and make that less embarrassing."

For the TLDR crowd: starters in 2024 are basically a jacked up 1984 Willie Hernandez, and relievers are an entirely different breed of madness.

With bat tracking data available now, the pitchers will continue to excel at a faster pace than the batters.  They will be able to pinpoint when, where, why a hitter has an A,B, or C swing.  Small holes in the swing will get exploited.  The “books” on the batters are going to be much more detailed and fine tuned.  I see the offense dropping off even more moving forward. 

[DrungoHazewood]

27 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I'm still in favor of deadening the ball to encourage more contact and encourage pitchers to selectively pitch to contact.

But I have no idea what I'm talking about so it's probably a terrible idea.

I did think the bit about K rate going down was interesting.

If you only deaden the ball we'll end up with batters hitting .225 with a .350 slugging percentage. And in that context there's no reason to nibble, so walks will go down, too.  Imagine 1965 (.246/.311/.372) but with almost twice as many strikeouts. Every 108 mph exit velocity just becomes 100 or 95 or whatever.

Think peak Felix Bautista pitching with a spherical beanbag.

Maybe deadening the ball would work in conjunction with moving the mound way back. Like 6' or something.

[DrungoHazewood]

25 minutes ago, Il BuonO said:

For years my dad has been saying the balls are juiced. So, they take away PEDs and they'll find another way to tilt the scales for offense. Gotta keep the interest of fans who think baseball is boring. Same goes for most of the new rule changes.   

I don't know that a league batting average quite a bit lower than today with even more strikeouts and fewer homers is necessarily the way to either grow the game or keep current fans engaged. I'm not one to advocate for some kind of 1908 ball, just with fewer errors and way, way more strikeouts. Although if you brought back stubby little gloves and 500' fences maybe you could get me on board...

The 1960s were the last mini-deadball era, and attendance in 1970 was more-or-less the same as 1960 and a little down from the late 40s.

[Il BuonO]

7 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I don't know that a league batting average quite a bit lower than today with even more strikeouts and fewer homers is necessarily the way to either grow the game or keep current fans engaged. I'm not one to advocate for some kind of 1908 ball, just with fewer errors and way, way more strikeouts. Although if you brought back stubby little gloves and 500' fences maybe you could get me on board...

The 1960s were the last mini-deadball era, and attendance in 1970 was more-or-less the same as 1960 and a little down from the late 40s.

I'm almost certain it's not.

[Il BuonO]

15 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

If you only deaden the ball we'll end up with batters hitting .225 with a .350 slugging percentage. And in that context there's no reason to nibble, so walks will go down, too.  Imagine 1965 (.246/.311/.372) but with almost twice as many strikeouts. Every 108 mph exit velocity just becomes 100 or 95 or whatever.

Think peak Felix Bautista pitching with a spherical beanbag.

Maybe deadening the ball would work in conjunction with moving the mound way back. Like 6' or something.

I laughed.

[Il BuonO]

33 minutes ago, emmett16 said:

With bat tracking data available now, the pitchers will continue to excel at a faster pace than the batters.  They will be able to pinpoint when, where, why a hitter has an A,B, or C swing.  Small holes in the swing will get exploited.  The “books” on the batters are going to be much more detailed and fine tuned.  I see the offense dropping off even more moving forward. 

And I don't get the MLB offices fascination with shortening the time of play and trying to tip the scales towards offense. Can anyone tell me they weren't excited watching a possible no-hitter or even a low scoring affair knowing the next play might decide that game??? It's exciting and my favorite type of game.

[DrungoHazewood]

6 minutes ago, Il BuonO said:

I'm almost certain it's not.

Okay, then we agree: let's not deaden the ball unless they do other things to make the effects less dire.

[Il BuonO]

1 minute ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Okay, then we agree: let's not deaden the ball unless they do other things to make the effects less dire.

Oh yeah, me and pops disagree often.

[DrungoHazewood]

1 minute ago, Il BuonO said:

And I don't get the MLB offices fascination with shortening the time of play and trying to tip the scales towards offense. Can anyone tell me they weren't excited watching a possible no-hitter or even a low scoring affair knowing the next play might decide that game??? It's exciting and my favorite type of game.

Because a large majority of fans don't like four-and-a-half hour games that are mostly strikeouts? I've been a baseball fan since the late 70s, and while that kind of game might be a nice change of pace once in a long while, I'd far, far prefer my normal game to be 5-4 in a crisp 2:15.

Before the pitch clock I'd regularly go to bed in the 8th inning, no matter the game situation. Now, combining that with 6:35 first pitches, I can often watch something else after the game's over. It's awesome. The pitch clock is the best rule change of my lifetime.

[Can_of_corn]

21 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

If you only deaden the ball we'll end up with batters hitting .225 with a .350 slugging percentage. And in that context there's no reason to nibble, so walks will go down, too.  Imagine 1965 (.246/.311/.372) but with almost twice as many strikeouts. Every 108 mph exit velocity just becomes 100 or 95 or whatever.

Think peak Felix Bautista pitching with a spherical beanbag.

Maybe deadening the ball would work in conjunction with moving the mound way back. Like 6' or something.

 

I'm not talking 1899 the same ball has been used for three games level of deadening here.  There are degrees.

[DrungoHazewood]

4 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

 

I'm not talking 1899 the same ball has been used for three games level of deadening here.  There are degrees.

Current MLB slash line is .242/.311/.393. I think first degree deadening is probably about .228/.290/.360.

And while part of me says "yea, that'll incentivize little contact hitters who run all over the place. Enrique Bradfield will love it", another part of me says "nah, they'll just double down on Kyle Schwarbers and try to win every game 3-1 on three solo homers since sequential offense is essentially impossible when nobody is on base."

[Il BuonO]

Just now, DrungoHazewood said:

Because a large majority of fans don't like four-and-a-half hour games that are mostly strikeouts? I've been a baseball fan since the late 70s, and while that kind of game might be a nice change of pace once in a long while, I'd far, far prefer my normal game to be 5-4 in a crisp 2:15.

Before the pitch clock I'd regularly go to bed in the 8th inning, no matter the game situation. Now, combining that with 6:35 first pitches, I can often watch something else after the game's over. It's awesome. The pitch clock is the best rule change of my lifetime.

Oh, and I don't disagree with that (the pitch clock is one of my favorite rule changes for hitters and pitchers alike), but the idea that putting a runner at second to shorten the game is what I don't like. Was an extra inning game something that happened often enough to extend the overall average time of play? Maybe, but I don't like that rule. Yes, the 5-4 game in 2:15 is preferable for sure, but burning through bullpens and calling up players from the minors is also part of team management and the inner workings of the game which I enjoy. Who's really a good in game manager and also works with the GM to manage the 40 man? Maybe that part of it is lost on many, but the runner at 2B is one of my least favorite changes despite your bedtime preferences! And while I also like the pitch clock, limiting the pitcher to two throws (disengagements) is ridiculous.

 

[emmett16]

25 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Because a large majority of fans don't like four-and-a-half hour games that are mostly strikeouts? I've been a baseball fan since the late 70s, and while that kind of game might be a nice change of pace once in a long while, I'd far, far prefer my normal game to be 5-4 in a crisp 2:15.

Before the pitch clock I'd regularly go to bed in the 8th inning, no matter the game situation. Now, combining that with 6:35 first pitches, I can often watch something else after the game's over. It's awesome. The pitch clock is the best rule change of my lifetime.

I second this for exactly the same reason.  Pitch clock is easily the best thing that’s happened to the game in my lifetime.  

[DrungoHazewood]

17 minutes ago, Il BuonO said:

Oh, and I don't disagree with that (the pitch clock is one of my favorite rule changes for hitters and pitchers alike), but the idea that putting a runner at second to shorten the game is what I don't like. Was an extra inning game something that happened often enough to extend the overall average time of play? Maybe, but I don't like that rule. Yes, the 5-4 game in 2:15 is preferable for sure, but burning through bullpens and calling up players from the minors is also part of team management and the inner workings of the game which I enjoy. Who's really a good in game manager and also works with the GM to manage the 40 man? Maybe that part of it is lost on many, but the runner at 2B is one of my least favorite changes despite your bedtime preferences! And while I also like the pitch clock, limiting the pitcher to two throws (disengagements) is ridiculous.

 

I'm fine with going back to regular extra innings now that the pitch clock has brought normal games times under control. If there's the occasional 18-inning marathon that only takes 3.5-4 hours that's fine. I probably won't see the end of it, but whatever.

But I think the driving factor here is not so much game time, but the fact modern teams need 11 pitchers to get through 18 innings. Even 12 years ago we ended up with Chris Davis and Darnell McDonald pitching in a game that long. Today the specialization has gone farther.

And to fix that... well, if the pitch clock is minor surgery, and moving the mound back is a lung transplant, somehow getting teams to go back to using starters for seven innings and 1-3 relievers a game is like taking your brain out and getting it to live in a jar on the mantle.

[Can_of_corn]

10 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I'm fine with going back to regular extra innings now that the pitch clock has brought normal games times under control. If there's the occasional 18-inning marathon that only takes 3.5-4 hours that's fine. I probably won't see the end of it, but whatever.

But I think the driving factor here is not so much game time, but the fact modern teams need 11 pitchers to get through 18 innings. Even 12 years ago we ended up with Chris Davis and Darnell McDonald pitching in a game that long. Today the specialization has gone farther.

And to fix that... well, if the pitch clock is minor surgery, and moving the mound back is a lung transplant, somehow getting teams to go back to using starters for seven innings and 1-3 relievers a game is like taking your brain out and getting it to live in a jar on the mantle.

My take is that the "ghost runner" is fine but they should wait until the 11th to implement it.