This won't be popular to say, but If they want 'average' fans to truly fall in love with the game, they will move the fences back a bit to allow/force other attributes back into the game (bunts, stolen bases, speed in the OF). Don't change the ball, but require a minimum square footage for each outfield. Fence can be short in one area, but much deeper in others etc. The beauty of the game is when all the attributes are utilized. In a lineup, there should be a few guys who hit lots of HR's while others 'set the table' or steal bases.
I like how things like statcast and sabermetrics are giving more players a fair shake. Being unlucky in various ways won’t ruin someone’s career or reduce their salary in the same way it used to. Pitcher wins particularly needs to be completely abandoned.
So SABR started with a couple of guys in a bar that had access to either a teletype, an office assistant or a CB and remembered what he was talking about last night? Love it keep up the good work
I only know amateur baseball in Europe but I do watch MLB in television almost every other day. I think, the way the game currently is, it will not survive on a big scale together with American football, basketball and maybe even hockey. There has to be something changed. Remind that this is from a perspective of someone who has never been to an MLB stadium. First, pace of the game, as addressed in the video. A game is too long, even if you love baseball, you still do have other stuff to do or want to be invested in other hobbies. Three hours is too long for a game of sports, most other sports are barely two hours. Second, content of the game, nowadays you're being slammed with action, something happens, all day, a new video, a funny meme, nothing is slow, and in baseball? Strikeout. Home run. Two minutes of waiting for the next half-inning. To many people this appears mostly boring, and honestly, I also consider strike-outs and home-runs and the two most uninteresting outcomes of a plate appearance. Also note, that those PAs are also pretty long, not pitches-wise, but minutes-wise. Problem is how to adjust to those two problems of baseball (if you want to call it problems in the first place, I do however). After all, we want to attract a new generation of baseball fans, while those people seem to prefer football and the other football over baseball, as the perception is that in both games is more action. A few solutions I'd like would be, open to debate: 1.1 a pitch clock, which will come in 2023. There is waaaay too much dead time between pitches in which literally nothing happens, so it's good a pitch clock is coming. 1.2 get back to actual intentional bases on balls. Yeah, I know, that will waste time instead of the opposite, but seriously, the automatic IBB is so artificial. IBBs are very seldom, so they don't have any impact whatsoever, and sometimes weird stuff happens when the battery tries to attempt an IBB. Get those back, it won't make a game much longer! 1.3 faster inning breaks. This is what sometimes even annoyes me when watching baseball, the consistent periods of breaks between half-innings. Not just half a minute as you might expect, as it wouldn't talk longer to switch places on the field, but a minute, often even two minutes. If you consider a game of three hours, with a minute per break, you amount to 17 minutes of wasted time only for people two switch sides. Yes, of course that takes time, but have it half a minute, maybe a minute for the 7th inning stretch, and you effectively narrowed the game for a quarter of an hour. And yes, commercials-but do MLB want more viewers and a bright future tomorrow, or do MLB want commercial money now? If you do all those I would assume that an average nine-inning MLB game would only last around 2:40 hours instead of 3:00. 2:30 or less would be perfect, but I guess that's not that easily possible. Most fans want to see offense without offense being too dominant. Okay, to phrase it differently, baseball fans want to see a nice balance between offense and defense. And also, fans want to see action, not automatic runs (home run) or outs (strike out) without anything actually happening on-field. We don't have both of it. Defense is extremely dominant and action is seldom. 2.1 have the pitcher's mound go back three feet. I know that seems to be radical, but radical stuff has been done with the baseball rules all the time, contrary to what traditionalists claim. And considering historical rule changes about the pitcher's mound (or pitchers in general) that is not as radical as you think it is. It WOULD make pitchers still be in control (three feet is not all that much) but it would also increase offense as batters have more time to consider swinging. Also, strikeout rates will fade, which is good for baseball: Less strikeouts is more action. And this will eventually get new fans in the ballpark. 2.2 have pitchers go to the plate again. I don't really dislike the DH, but I also don't like it. However, it seems to me it articifially changes the game to more offense which I don't like in itself. A pitcher is a player and the players are supposed to bat. Also, nothing is more exciting than a pitcher suddenly hitting an extra base hit. This doesn't happen anymore, which is sad. Of course, pitchers having to bat again will make the game more defensive, but two things: The mound is back three feet, which should more than compensate for that, and also that makes the game itself go faster as pitchers are less likely to get on base than DH, which results in faster games which is the other major issue in MLB. 2.3 larger outfield, which effectively means larger stadiums. Okay, this is difficult, as you can't simply change a stadium, but think about that: What is interesting? Balls put into play. What is NOT a ball put into play? A home run. A home run is great when you're a fan of that team, but it is not especially thrilling. On the field itself nothing happens, you are either happy or unhappy, but you are not excited. Doubles and especially triples are what's entertaining, and having a situation in which offense has an advantage (mound three feet further away) but the field itself is larger (that adventage doesn't result in more home runs but rather more extra-base hits) would make baseball honestly way more interesting from a neutral point of view than it is today. Also, quirks in the outfield should not be frowned upon, just think about the hill in Astros Field. Get back those stuff! Get back weird fences in outfield that result in bouncers from the outfield wall that can turn a double to a triple or even an inside-the-park HR! 2.4 no infield shift, as that is an advantage for the defense. However, this will be implemented in 2023 anyways. 2.5 base-stealing is especially entertaining for fans, so there should something be done to make players do that. In 2023, bases will be bigger, so let's see if that changes a thing, but maybe it would even make sense to implement a pickoff attempt limit per plate appearance.
"strike-outs and home-runs and the two most uninteresting outcomes of a plate appearance". I think strikeouts and home runs have become less exciting because of their frequency. Like you, I am fond of the running game. I would prefer a version of baseball with 2 steals per game, less than 10 strikeouts total, and a game length under 2.5 hours. More batted balls in play would permit fielders to showcase their incredibe defensive skills.
I agree. I think they should move back the mound and deepen fences. Pitching has become so good that stringing hits together is difficult and batters adjusted by swinging for the fences. Those 2 changes will boost offense and make hitting home runs harder. Bigger outfields also put a premium on fielders' speed. Something needs to be done as strikeouts are off the charts and TTO is boring. Baseball is about incremental gains. The power game is like a cheat code trying to bypass all of that. Strikeouts and homers are part of the game, as long as they don't occur too frequently. Bring back more baserunning, more balls in play, more defense being tested. The automatic intentional walk rule is nonsense and should be reverted. I'm not a fan of limiting pick off attempts. Yes, pace of play is important (I'm in favor of a pitch clock), but you can't turn baseball into basketball or soccer. It's inherently different and takes its time. What makes it interesting and exciting is the depth of strategy, building of situational tension, the quick bursts of action and all of the subtleties and nuances. The kind of action we're getting (TTO) is the bigger problem. MLB cashed in big on home runs in the steroid nineties. They might suit the highlight reels and wow casuals, but what makes a baseball fan is a much deeper understanding of the game. Now, witnessing a deep drive and hearing the crack of the bat live at the ballpark, definitely has something to it. However, the obsession with the long ball strikes me as something uniquely American. Cultural admiration of display of power. I wonder if that has something to do with America's standing in the world as the premier super power. What's also American is constant cut to commercial breaks. They should definitely shorten those, but that's not going to happen. MLB has shown it would rather milk the sport for cash than ensure its long-term well-being. The fact that I rekindled my interest in baseball is due to the condensed games on TrueRGM's channel. Love the format. Has made me look forward to the post season each year. MLB's highlights are unfortunately not the same. Edit: ps. I can also recommend Jomboy's breakdowns. He does too much arguments (between umpires and players/managers), for views I guess, but his breakdowns of game situations are interesting and insightful.
Big data has and prob & stat has taken over the game for now at least. Eventually there will be an event or a team that doesn’t play by the new “rules” and completely rewrites what is possible. What happens to the “shift” when a team re-learns how to spot hit the ball like the phillys used to practice back in the day?
If I could change just one thing about baseball, it would be the baseball itself. The data is telling everyone that Three True Outcomes is the ideal form of baseball under the current rules and conditions of the game, so if we deaden the baseball to where the best power hitters hit somewhere around 30 homers, it will no longer be profitable for most hitters to swing as hard as possible to try and hit it over the fence. Therefore, you'll have more controlled swings, more efforts to simply put the ball in play, and in turn more non-HR hits than is the case now. A nice byproduct of this is that there would be a lot less pulling the ball, and for that less defensive shifting. But that's just one thing. One other thing I would change - limit throws to first to check on the baserunner; let's get more stolen bases in the game. One radical change I could get behind - once the count gets to two strikes, a batter is called out after five foul balls (swings, not bunts).
I think analytics would've continued to play an increasingly important role in baseball decision making without the publication of Moneyball, but the book probably accelerated things a bit and it is a symbol of larger changes underway. I reckon more kids with fancy degrees in statistics and economics wanted to be a part of baseball front offices after Michael Lewis told Billy Beane's story, but I could be wrong. I do love Lewis's writing. He's a master in my opinion. Thanks for the comment!
@@thebaseballprofessor Thanks for the reply. You make a good point. Probably a good bit of both. Lewis is indeed an excellent and compelling writer. And I don't know that I'd have ever heard of analytics without Money Ball.
Oh course. I doubt anybody from era could crack at MLB roster. The guys playing are just vastly superior from a physical perspective and their knowledge of the game is so much stronger.
Spin rate just helps explain why some pitches are good, but I don’t think a team wouldn’t sign someone solely because of spin rate if they’re getting results otherwise
I don't really care what analytics they use, what I care about is the quality of the product on the field, and truth be told the game of baseball has become incredibly tedious and boring to watch. Nothing much happens unless someone hits a home run. To many strikeouts, to many popups, to many walks. Sabremetrics has ruined a great game.
I don't disagree with you. The game is less enjoyable for spectators although the teams and coaches are doing exactly what they should to maximize run creation and run prevention. It will be interesting to see if the 2023 rule changes produce more hits, stolen bases, and runs scored. I'm afraid the high number of strikeouts is here to stay.
This won't be popular to say, but If they want 'average' fans to truly fall in love with the game, they will move the fences back a bit to allow/force other attributes back into the game (bunts, stolen bases, speed in the OF). Don't change the ball, but require a minimum square footage for each outfield. Fence can be short in one area, but much deeper in others etc. The beauty of the game is when all the attributes are utilized. In a lineup, there should be a few guys who hit lots of HR's while others 'set the table' or steal bases.
I would rather see an extra base hit off the wall, rather than an homer over the wall.
I like how things like statcast and sabermetrics are giving more players a fair shake. Being unlucky in various ways won’t ruin someone’s career or reduce their salary in the same way it used to. Pitcher wins particularly needs to be completely abandoned.
So SABR started with a couple of guys in a bar that had access to either a teletype, an office assistant or a CB and remembered what he was talking about last night? Love it keep up the good work
I only know amateur baseball in Europe but I do watch MLB in television almost every other day. I think, the way the game currently is, it will not survive on a big scale together with American football, basketball and maybe even hockey. There has to be something changed.
Remind that this is from a perspective of someone who has never been to an MLB stadium.
First, pace of the game, as addressed in the video. A game is too long, even if you love baseball, you still do have other stuff to do or want to be invested in other hobbies. Three hours is too long for a game of sports, most other sports are barely two hours.
Second, content of the game, nowadays you're being slammed with action, something happens, all day, a new video, a funny meme, nothing is slow, and in baseball? Strikeout. Home run. Two minutes of waiting for the next half-inning. To many people this appears mostly boring, and honestly, I also consider strike-outs and home-runs and the two most uninteresting outcomes of a plate appearance. Also note, that those PAs are also pretty long, not pitches-wise, but minutes-wise.
Problem is how to adjust to those two problems of baseball (if you want to call it problems in the first place, I do however). After all, we want to attract a new generation of baseball fans, while those people seem to prefer football and the other football over baseball, as the perception is that in both games is more action.
A few solutions I'd like would be, open to debate:
1.1 a pitch clock, which will come in 2023. There is waaaay too much dead time between pitches in which literally nothing happens, so it's good a pitch clock is coming.
1.2 get back to actual intentional bases on balls. Yeah, I know, that will waste time instead of the opposite, but seriously, the automatic IBB is so artificial. IBBs are very seldom, so they don't have any impact whatsoever, and sometimes weird stuff happens when the battery tries to attempt an IBB. Get those back, it won't make a game much longer!
1.3 faster inning breaks. This is what sometimes even annoyes me when watching baseball, the consistent periods of breaks between half-innings. Not just half a minute as you might expect, as it wouldn't talk longer to switch places on the field, but a minute, often even two minutes. If you consider a game of three hours, with a minute per break, you amount to 17 minutes of wasted time only for people two switch sides. Yes, of course that takes time, but have it half a minute, maybe a minute for the 7th inning stretch, and you effectively narrowed the game for a quarter of an hour. And yes, commercials-but do MLB want more viewers and a bright future tomorrow, or do MLB want commercial money now?
If you do all those I would assume that an average nine-inning MLB game would only last around 2:40 hours instead of 3:00. 2:30 or less would be perfect, but I guess that's not that easily possible.
Most fans want to see offense without offense being too dominant. Okay, to phrase it differently, baseball fans want to see a nice balance between offense and defense. And also, fans want to see action, not automatic runs (home run) or outs (strike out) without anything actually happening on-field. We don't have both of it. Defense is extremely dominant and action is seldom.
2.1 have the pitcher's mound go back three feet. I know that seems to be radical, but radical stuff has been done with the baseball rules all the time, contrary to what traditionalists claim. And considering historical rule changes about the pitcher's mound (or pitchers in general) that is not as radical as you think it is. It WOULD make pitchers still be in control (three feet is not all that much) but it would also increase offense as batters have more time to consider swinging. Also, strikeout rates will fade, which is good for baseball: Less strikeouts is more action. And this will eventually get new fans in the ballpark.
2.2 have pitchers go to the plate again. I don't really dislike the DH, but I also don't like it. However, it seems to me it articifially changes the game to more offense which I don't like in itself. A pitcher is a player and the players are supposed to bat. Also, nothing is more exciting than a pitcher suddenly hitting an extra base hit. This doesn't happen anymore, which is sad. Of course, pitchers having to bat again will make the game more defensive, but two things: The mound is back three feet, which should more than compensate for that, and also that makes the game itself go faster as pitchers are less likely to get on base than DH, which results in faster games which is the other major issue in MLB.
2.3 larger outfield, which effectively means larger stadiums. Okay, this is difficult, as you can't simply change a stadium, but think about that: What is interesting? Balls put into play. What is NOT a ball put into play? A home run. A home run is great when you're a fan of that team, but it is not especially thrilling. On the field itself nothing happens, you are either happy or unhappy, but you are not excited. Doubles and especially triples are what's entertaining, and having a situation in which offense has an advantage (mound three feet further away) but the field itself is larger (that adventage doesn't result in more home runs but rather more extra-base hits) would make baseball honestly way more interesting from a neutral point of view than it is today. Also, quirks in the outfield should not be frowned upon, just think about the hill in Astros Field. Get back those stuff! Get back weird fences in outfield that result in bouncers from the outfield wall that can turn a double to a triple or even an inside-the-park HR!
2.4 no infield shift, as that is an advantage for the defense. However, this will be implemented in 2023 anyways.
2.5 base-stealing is especially entertaining for fans, so there should something be done to make players do that. In 2023, bases will be bigger, so let's see if that changes a thing, but maybe it would even make sense to implement a pickoff attempt limit per plate appearance.
"strike-outs and home-runs and the two most uninteresting outcomes of a plate appearance". I think strikeouts and home runs have become less exciting because of their frequency. Like you, I am fond of the running game. I would prefer a version of baseball with 2 steals per game, less than 10 strikeouts total, and a game length under 2.5 hours. More batted balls in play would permit fielders to showcase their incredibe defensive skills.
I agree. I think they should move back the mound and deepen fences. Pitching has become so good that stringing hits together is difficult and batters adjusted by swinging for the fences. Those 2 changes will boost offense and make hitting home runs harder. Bigger outfields also put a premium on fielders' speed. Something needs to be done as strikeouts are off the charts and TTO is boring. Baseball is about incremental gains. The power game is like a cheat code trying to bypass all of that. Strikeouts and homers are part of the game, as long as they don't occur too frequently. Bring back more baserunning, more balls in play, more defense being tested.
The automatic intentional walk rule is nonsense and should be reverted. I'm not a fan of limiting pick off attempts. Yes, pace of play is important (I'm in favor of a pitch clock), but you can't turn baseball into basketball or soccer. It's inherently different and takes its time. What makes it interesting and exciting is the depth of strategy, building of situational tension, the quick bursts of action and all of the subtleties and nuances. The kind of action we're getting (TTO) is the bigger problem. MLB cashed in big on home runs in the steroid nineties. They might suit the highlight reels and wow casuals, but what makes a baseball fan is a much deeper understanding of the game.
Now, witnessing a deep drive and hearing the crack of the bat live at the ballpark, definitely has something to it. However, the obsession with the long ball strikes me as something uniquely American. Cultural admiration of display of power. I wonder if that has something to do with America's standing in the world as the premier super power. What's also American is constant cut to commercial breaks. They should definitely shorten those, but that's not going to happen. MLB has shown it would rather milk the sport for cash than ensure its long-term well-being. The fact that I rekindled my interest in baseball is due to the condensed games on TrueRGM's channel. Love the format. Has made me look forward to the post season each year. MLB's highlights are unfortunately not the same.
Edit: ps. I can also recommend Jomboy's breakdowns. He does too much arguments (between umpires and players/managers), for views I guess, but his breakdowns of game situations are interesting and insightful.
22:40 "I'm sorry Dave, I can't do that."
Big data has and prob & stat has taken over the game for now at least. Eventually there will be an event or a team that doesn’t play by the new “rules” and completely rewrites what is possible. What happens to the “shift” when a team re-learns how to spot hit the ball like the phillys used to practice back in the day?
If I could change just one thing about baseball, it would be the baseball itself. The data is telling everyone that Three True Outcomes is the ideal form of baseball under the current rules and conditions of the game, so if we deaden the baseball to where the best power hitters hit somewhere around 30 homers, it will no longer be profitable for most hitters to swing as hard as possible to try and hit it over the fence. Therefore, you'll have more controlled swings, more efforts to simply put the ball in play, and in turn more non-HR hits than is the case now. A nice byproduct of this is that there would be a lot less pulling the ball, and for that less defensive shifting.
But that's just one thing. One other thing I would change - limit throws to first to check on the baserunner; let's get more stolen bases in the game.
One radical change I could get behind - once the count gets to two strikes, a batter is called out after five foul balls (swings, not bunts).
Great video, as always, though I don't quite agree with the role of the money ball book. When in reality it was more likely part of a feedback loop.
I think analytics would've continued to play an increasingly important role in baseball decision making without the publication of Moneyball, but the book probably accelerated things a bit and it is a symbol of larger changes underway. I reckon more kids with fancy degrees in statistics and economics wanted to be a part of baseball front offices after Michael Lewis told Billy Beane's story, but I could be wrong. I do love Lewis's writing. He's a master in my opinion. Thanks for the comment!
@@thebaseballprofessor Thanks for the reply. You make a good point. Probably a good bit of both. Lewis is indeed an excellent and compelling writer. And I don't know that I'd have ever heard of analytics without Money Ball.
Where did you get the number of 17 strikeouts per team per game in 2019?
There were 8.81 strikeouts per team per game in 2019. www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/majors/pitch.shtml
If they remove umpires, just use robots as players. Bad calls, drama, arguments, passion and disagreements are what makes the struggle worth watching
Phil Niekro wouldn't make it in today's game, he had a horrible spin rate.
Oh course. I doubt anybody from era could crack at MLB roster. The guys playing are just vastly superior from a physical perspective and their knowledge of the game is so much stronger.
@@trackmaster152002
Wrong.
Spin rate just helps explain why some pitches are good, but I don’t think a team wouldn’t sign someone solely because of spin rate if they’re getting results otherwise
I don't really care what analytics they use, what I care about is the quality of the product on the field, and truth be told the game of baseball has become incredibly tedious and boring to watch. Nothing much happens unless someone hits a home run. To many strikeouts, to many popups, to many walks. Sabremetrics has ruined a great game.
I don't disagree with you. The game is less enjoyable for spectators although the teams and coaches are doing exactly what they should to maximize run creation and run prevention. It will be interesting to see if the 2023 rule changes produce more hits, stolen bases, and runs scored. I'm afraid the high number of strikeouts is here to stay.