Cedric en fuego!!

[interloper]

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

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

This is the correct opinion. 

[now]

Meanwhile, while offense in general (espec. batting average) is down by historic levels, homers are high at historic levels (at least with some players and some teams). So it's not all bleak for lovers of offense, since the power pitchers are countered by the power hitters. Not necessarily the game we want to see, but there's still lots of pop to keep us entertained.

[Hallas]

1 hour 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 think they should make the ball heavier.  You can compensate the loss in EV by increasing the CoR, or you can leave it as is and make it harder to hit home runs.

 

If my calculation is right then unless pitchers have more in the tank in terms of power, a 1/4 Oz weight increase will take a 99 mph fastball down to around 96.5.  The increased weight will also reduce the effect spin has on movement.

 

One downside is that knuckleballers would be negatively affected.

Edited Friday at 19:17 by Hallas

[DrungoHazewood]

16 minutes ago, Hallas said:

I think they should make the ball heavier.  You can compensate the loss in EV by increasing the CoR, or you can leave it as is and make it harder to hit home runs.

If my calculation is right then unless pitchers have more in the tank in terms of power, a 1/4 Oz weight increase will take a 99 mph fastball down to around 96.5.  The increased weight will also reduce the effect spin has on movement.

One downside is that knuckleballers would be negatively affected.

Possibly. I don't know how easy it is to make it heavier and bouncier at the same time.

And I'm not particularly worried about all zero knuckleballers. Although I suppose this would make it harder for them to stage a comeback.

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, DrungoHazewood said:

Possibly. I don't know how easy it is to make it heavier and bouncier at the same time.

And I'm not particularly worried about all zero knuckleballers. Although I suppose this would make it harder for them to stage a comeback.

No idea if it is workable but it's an interesting idea I had not heard before.

It's possible that a heavier ball in itself would increase the risk of some forms of injury.

It's something to think about.

[Hallas]

9 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Possibly. I don't know how easy it is to make it heavier and bouncier at the same time.

And I'm not particularly worried about all zero knuckleballers. Although I suppose this would make it harder for them to stage a comeback.

You'd probably have to change the core materials - use a rubber coating that's bouncier, use a different yarn, etc.

 

Even if it's not possible to offset the loss in EV, I think it would still be an overall net win for batters if the ball has both less movement and is slower.

[DrungoHazewood]

5 minutes ago, Hallas said:

You'd probably have to change the core materials - use a rubber coating that's bouncier, use a different yarn, etc.

 

Even if it's not possible to offset the loss in EV, I think it would still be an overall net win for batters if the ball has both less movement and is slower.

Exit velocity is directly related to BABIP. You make a heavier ball that's equal/less resilient you will see offense go down, or at best hold serve, even if there's more contact.

My solution is move mound (5' maybe) and fences (OPACY-like) back while keeping the ball about as resilient.

[Hallas]

35 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

No idea if it is workable but it's an interesting idea I had not heard before.

It's possible that a heavier ball in itself would increase the risk of some forms of injury.

It's something to think about.

This is dependent on the idea that the amount of energy delivered is somewhat constant.  In practice I think that while there would be some velocity reductions, the limitations are more on the raw velocity, and pitchers would be able to compensate with stronger arm or leg muscles.   My reasoning here is based on NFL combine numbers; a decent number of QBs are able to hit 60+ MPH, while there are like 2 pitchers in all of MLB that are able to exceed 102 MPH (which is what you would need to match the energy of a 60 mph football.)

 

I do think that it would cause fatigue faster among starters, unless they paced themselves more, so starter velocity would probably go down by theoretical number, while reliver velocity might only go down 1 mph or not at all.

 

A heavier ball will reduce spin-induced movement too, and will (likely) reduce the amount of spin pitchers can impart (though this has the same caveat as above with pitchers adapting with larger muscles.)  So even if velocity only goes down a little bit the reduced movement should make the ball easier to hit.

Edited Friday at 20:11 by Hallas

[Hallas]

12 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Exit velocity is directly related to BABIP. You make a heavier ball that's equal/less resilient you will see offense go down, or at best hold serve, even if there's more contact.

My solution is move mound (5' maybe) and fences (OPACY-like) back while keeping the ball about as resilient.

It's a partially elastic collision, so the EV reduction is going to be a little less than the velocity reduction from a thrown baseball.

 

I also think that hitters would eventually adjust and there would be more hitters in the mold of Luis Arraez, that focus on hitting soft line drives with a 65 mph bat speed.  Either way the BABIP of a whiff is .000 so I think baseball is better served seeing more batted balls even if BABIP is slightly depressed due to a reduction in EV.  Launch angle is also a large component to BABIP and batters can still square the ball up to maximize their chances.  And since a heavier ball will move less, it should be easier to square it up.

Edited Friday at 20:08 by Hallas

[Bemorewins]

10 hours ago, Chelsea_Phil said:

Nobody hits that high in the ‘new MLB’, except for Judge.

You do know that Gunnar is hitting .290? Rustchman .300? O'Hearn .283? Westburg .282? Mountcastle .276?

Watch the games much?

[Il BuonO]

41 minutes ago, Hallas said:

You'd probably have to change the core materials - use a rubber coating that's bouncier, use a different yarn, etc.

 

Even if it's not possible to offset the loss in EV, I think it would still be an overall net win for batters if the ball has both less movement and is slower.

34 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Exit velocity is directly related to BABIP. You make a heavier ball that's equal/less resilient you will see offense go down, or at best hold serve, even if there's more contact.

My solution is move mound (5' maybe) and fences (OPACY-like) back while keeping the ball about as resilient.

And for that reason, they won't do it.

[Il BuonO]

5 hours ago, foxfield said:

Cedric going well is  a very good thing.  

4 hours ago, Jim'sKid26 said:

Credit to the two headed hitting coach?

It is always great to see good players make an adjustment. When these three players hit their value to the team is augmented by their respective defensive prowess. 

So, yes and yes.

All the commentary regarding rule changes was a derail. I'm here to set things straight!

[Fiver6565]

I would like to think that Ced and Tony rebounding as they have will teach posters a lesson about moaning and calling for dumping players while they’re in slumps, but I’m not that foolish. Can’t wait for the ‘does Gunnar need a reset’ post after he goes 0-15 sometime. 

[DrungoHazewood]

2 hours ago, Il BuonO said:

And for that reason, they won't do it.

Right, and that's a good thing. As we talked about earlier, most people like offenses around historical averages, which is basically where we are today. The solution to pitchers becoming more and more overpowering isn't to give them another very powerful weapon.

[DrungoHazewood]

2 hours ago, Hallas said:

It's a partially elastic collision, so the EV reduction is going to be a little less than the velocity reduction from a thrown baseball.

 

I also think that hitters would eventually adjust and there would be more hitters in the mold of Luis Arraez, that focus on hitting soft line drives with a 65 mph bat speed.  Either way the BABIP of a whiff is .000 so I think baseball is better served seeing more batted balls even if BABIP is slightly depressed due to a reduction in EV.  Launch angle is also a large component to BABIP and batters can still square the ball up to maximize their chances.  And since a heavier ball will move less, it should be easier to square it up.

I think it would take a very long time to see any increase in the number of Arraez-like players. Basically teams would have to be convinced this is a lasting change, and then switch their drafting and development priorities pretty significantly. It's not like guys raised on the strategies of today are going to see a lightbulb go off and try to turn into Brett Butler. They'll keep doing exactly what they're doing and accept that they're 5% or 10% less productive because, frankly, almost everyone will be.