Tyler Cowen points to an article in the WSJ about the causes of the slowdown in baseball games.
What I would most like to see in baseball is a reversal of the trend toward Scheblerization. As a hitter, Scott Schebler does not put the ball in play very often. In a typical season, he would come to bat just over 500 times, strike out 132 times, and hit 28 home runs. In fact, there are more extreme examples. In 2017, Joey Gallo came to the plate 532 times. He drew 75 walks, struck out 196 times, and hit 41 home runs. Almost 60 percent of the time, he gave the fielders nothing to do.
Regardless of how long a game takes, Scheblerization makes the game seem much slower. There is action when players sprint to get to a base while fielders scramble to retrieve and throw the ball. There is the excitement of an uncertain outcome. Not so much with players walking back to the dugout after a strikeout or jogging around the bases after hitting a home run. In my view, the frequency of strikeouts and home runs also reduces the distinction and drama associated with being a strikeout pitcher or home run hitter.
The rule change that I would propose would be to increase the size of the baseball. Perhaps it would be sufficient to make the diameter of the baseball larger by half an inch.
The secondary effect of a change of this sort is hard to predict. But I think that the primary effects would be:
1. Make the baseball harder to grip.
2. Increase the wind resistance of the baseball.
This in turn would make it harder for pitchers to throw over 90 miles an hour, so that there would be fewer strikeouts. It also would make it harder to hit fly balls over the fence, so that there would be fewer home runs. With those primary effects, I would expect to see more balls in play. I hope that the secondary effect would be to decrease the comparative advantage of the Scheblers and Gallos and instead increase the comparative advantage of batters who make regular, solid contact with the baseball.
If making contact becomes “in” again, then perhaps there will be fewer pitches per at-bat, and games will not stretch out as long. Regardless, games will not seem so long if there are more balls put in play.
My $.02
You may have just invented slow-pitch softball. Kidding aside, the contrast between fast pitch softball — “Scheblerization on steriods” — and slow pitch softball could not be sharper. I find slow pitch softball much more interesting to watch than fast pitch softball; and neither more interesting than baseball.
By the way, what ever happened to the “Hitchcokian” notion that audiences prefer suspense — nothing happens, as we wait, until it does?
Right on the Hitchcock angle… one of the joys of baseball is that the excitement creeps up on you. Five minutes ago the game might have been a snoozefest, but suddenly the situation has changed and it is intensely interesting. This makes baseball the ideal sport for the current era: we can spend most of the game looking at our devices, and still capture a lot of the excitement of the game.
One reason I can’t get into baseball is it doesn’t strike me as a team sport. It’s a pitcher vs batter sport. Even the fielding is largely a question of whether a particular fielder is within X distance of where the ball is hit and can get there in Y time given their individual athleticism.
By contrast, Basketball, Football, or Hockey involve several players moving and interacting at the same time. “Plays” are possible. Strategy is almost infinite.
Baseball strategy boils down to solving a hitter vs batter spreadsheet problem. Even the fielding changes like the shift are all about the starting positions of the fielders and don’t really change the above equation.
Moneyball was a fun read but ultimately its just a one time boost to the first adopter willing to question old biases. It’s not like the ideas behind it are that hard to grasp. You just need to value winning over style, but once everyone does that the advantage goes away.
Well, that is exactly the beauty of baseball: it is both a team sport *and* a one-on-one sport. You have to be good at both the team element (fielding) and the individual element (hitting). Except of course in the American League, where some players are special snowflakes and get to shirk half their duties.
Forget trying to fix baseball, cricket is wholly superior.
It’s okay to enjoy both!
The Finnish answer to Scheblerization sounds interesting but I yet to see a match: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pesäpallo
I think you’d see more home runs with a larger ball — pitches would be slower and it would be easier to make contact. I play slow-pitch softball, and see guys in their 40s hitting limited flight (partially deadened) softballs over 300′ fences pretty routinely. There IS a rule from our league that would solve the problem though — a limit on home runs. Every one after the team’s 3rd in a game is an out.
How about making a true strikezone of the past. That would modify a number decrease in home run/strikeout players and return to more Brett Butler/Kenny Lofton/Willie Wilson types. (Although Wilson did strikeout a lot but he was fast.)
I think the biggest problem in the game is close to what you are saying about the strike zone, but with one huge change over the last couple of decades, the catcher’s box.
The rules state the catcher must be in the box until the pitcher delivers the ball, that means until he releases the ball. What we see now is the catcher out of the box on most pitches, shading to either side of the plate. And the umpire follows him.
What this leads to is a bigger strike zone and a huge incentive to constantly try to hit the corners as the umpire’s position behind the catcher who is not behind the plate expands the strike zone. Put that catcher where he belongs and there will be an increase in action, as the strike zone will be reduced.
The king of this is Yadier Molina. Without him Cardinal pitchers would be in huge trouble.
In ancient times, Cuban Winter League baseball had some rules that greatly speeded the game.
1. If the next batter was not in the batter’s box by the completion of the prior hitter’s at bat, he was declared out.
2. If the pitcher failed to deliver his pitch in a prescribed time, the umpire declared a ball.
3. Foul balls with two strikes were declared a strike and the batter was out.
There were probably more rules that I forget but just those three kept things moving.
They increased the size of the table tennis ball. The idea was to slow things down a bit and promote longer, more interesting rallies. I’m not sure that it worked.
I hate watching MLB baseball games, but was surprised that I found a minor league baseball game much less yawn inducing.
Part of it could have been the lack of TV timeouts. But I think a bigger factor was that the pitchers were not as good as MLB pitchers. This lead to more hits and action on the field.
There are no “tv timeouts” in baseball.
Really?
You think that these pitching changes and the end of innings take that long?
Go to a minor league game some time and see how it moves. That was the way bb used to be.
Baseball doesn’t need to be “fixed,” it’s fine the way it is.