This One Change Could FIX Major League Baseball
Vložit
- čas přidán 11. 09. 2024
- TWITTER - @BaseballHSTRN
_____________________________
Major League Baseball has a problem. Over the past few years, the league has made a number of rule changes to address the pace of play. However, I can't help but feel that these changes will have little effect, for one simple reason: they're trying to solve the wrong problem.
In this video, I identify the real problem with Major League Baseball, as it exists today, and propose a single rule change that could solve it once and for all.
_____________________________
NOTE - In this video, I incorrectly pronounce Kyle Boddy's name similar to "body". For the correct pronunciation, watch this video: • Driveline's Kyle Boddy...
_____________________________
SOURCES
pastebin.com/m...
_____________________________
MUSIC
"Eine Kleine Nachtmusik" - Mozart
Brandenburg Concerto No4-1 BWV1049 - Classical Whimsical by Kevin MacLeod is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license. creativecommon...
Source: incompetech.com...
Artist: incompetech.com/
Local CZcamsr discovers ONE WEIRD TRICK that fixes baseball, pitchers HATE him
LOL
I subscribed to you after this first video I watched and glance at your other videos. Good content!
I can see that as a Jomboy title lol
And the cameraman kept filming...
I like moving the mound back.
If however this does not work,
possibly we could remove the bump
or make the mound below grade
which keeps the same distance
but changes the perception.
You had me at “Geometric center.”
More action please! I can't stand all these strikeouts there needs to be more in play.
Agreed 👍 That sealed it for me. Let's move the mound
I had a weird scientific satisfaction when he said it, 3 feet sounds like a lot, but balance seems like perfection...
I wonder though if pitchers would be at greater risk of being hit by balls if they moved back to directly between first and third for trying to get double plays.
@@krameryoung379 After the pitch, the pitcher would be at the bottom of the mound and out of the line of fire. They'd be safe so long as the throw isn't wildly offline or they stupidly (in this instance of changing the rule and it being well known) return to the mound and get into the line of fire.
I think the symmetry argument is the best I’ve heard for moving the mound back. It makes total sense to have the pitchers mound be in the geometric center of the diamond, I honestly thought it was until now!
If the best argument for a change is that it just feels right, it’s probably not a great change
@@dr.savage687 Hey “Dr. SaVAge”, did you watch the video bro? That point was just the cherry on top.
@@sniklenave6557 Which is why i didn't comment that on the video, but on a comment which claims that the symmetry is "the best argument I've heard for moving the mound back."
While I don't think it is the best argument for moving the mound, it is a good argument for moving the mound to a specific spot.
Part of me is against changing the game in such a fundamental way but then it mentions that the mound is not in the exact center of the diamond and my OCD kicked in and all i can think about the change is "YES, DO IT NOW!"
I love this idea for many of the reasons you cited, particularly a) pitching from the centre of the diamond makes sense; I always thought 60’6” seemed very arbitrary, which it is. b) giving hitters more time to put more balls in play makes sense c) giving the pitcher more time to react to a comebacker is a safety issue long over due to be addressed
It worked for the NHL by moving the net closer
I've always enjoyed baseball most from a defensive point of view. More balls in play, to me, means more acrobatic dives from shortstops, more poetic double plays, more hard charging outfielders. I'm all for anything that makes the game fun again. It really isn't anymore.
Agree completely. Too many HRS have cheapened the game. Too many players striking out waiting for the hr pitch.
@Hayfield Draw It's still fun b/c it's baseball, crazy person, but it could be a lot MORE fun if you got rid of unnecessarily long breaks during all 18 half-innings due to ads, got rid of the shift, and included a pitch clock. Oh, and reduce the height of the thread / seams in the baseballs themselves, while moving the fences back 10-15' over time and softening the ball juuuust a little.
@@johnstrawb3521 I agree with most of what you say, but don't get rid of the shift. If hitters would learn to hit the other way instead of just gunning for the fences, there would be alot more action. Instead we're stuck with the Joey Gallo's of MLB; striking out, walking or occasionally hitting a home run, all of which are boring.
I had absolutely no interest in this proposal until the symmetry of moving the mound back to 63 3/4 feet would make the diamond all symmetrical. Now, I am 100% on board with this idea.
@Mike G its just a funny counter to the traditionalist reason for not moving it back (i.e. don't change 60.6) as a way of mocking.
@Mike G you're unwise.
You know very little about the human mind
You know even LESS about the brotherhood of the diamond
@Mike G: You might want to bone up a little on the history of the game. Perhaps then you’ll understand why outfield dimensions beyond the diamond are not uniform, yet symmetry is one of the beauties of the game.
Giving hitters another 3 feet to swing would double hits and runs scored. Unless of course the umps returned to the traditional letters to knees strike zone. But that ship has sailed.
@Mike G u got me bro! Omg ! You're such a smart guy, your king of the geniuses ! Your just so smart , you tore my whole argument down with your grammar! Wow! So smart
Wait, you're telling me the rubber is not exactly in the centre of the diamond??? Move it now!!!
I think of all his arguments this would legitimately get the most amount of people on board
@@kevinsousa3370 "amount" = "number"
@@stevecooper6473 ok?
@@stevecooper6473 also yes
@@stevecooper6473 ?=question
Tweaking the mound position seems the least disruptive of the many rule changes proposed, so I'm for trying it out.
Agreed. I'm thinking about the physics and I'm thinking there's got to be a ratio by which the mound could be moved back and the height altered to essentially keep the pitch angle the same when it reaches the plate, thus basically making the pitcher's "target" about the same.
And if people say this will cause too many homers you know if clubs can pay what they do, they can move the fence back to make that fair.
Am I the ONLY one who sees a problem with moving mound back? (and probably WHY it is where it is!) - the pitcher would be directly in the path of throws from 3rd to 1st or 1st to 3rd! The mound is positioned intentionally UNsymmetrical so as to create a clean throwing lane across the infield. Whatever danger balls hit back at the pitcher are.. having the mound positioned directly in the throwing lane between 3rd and 1st bases would be far more dangerous and probably why the mound is where it is!
@@LiveFreeOrDie2A the pitcher isn’t forced to stay on the mound in the middle of a throw
I like this idea MUCH more than banning the shift. Defenses should be allowed to try whatever strategy works best for their personnel and against their opponents. Moving the pitcher's release point - and that is really what we are talking about here - has been done many times in the past, either by moving the mound back, or down... or by the pitchers just getting a lot bigger.
If walls and fields can be made to help fight against homeruns, a mound can be moved a foot or 3 to help batters hit and to help pitchers react to comebacks. Makes sense to me.
I completely agree with your proposal. I think it sounds like the least gimmicky way I've heard to increase pace of play.
not only that it would improve the quality of each pitch since more action would come from higher rate of contact. more efficient usage of time
I agree that this is the least gimmicky option. The fact of the matter is that pitchers will adapt. It may take a decade or two, but no matter what you do to change the geometry of the game, the pitcher will always maintain a massive advantage over the hitter. For me as a lifetime fan, nothing beats watching a major league pitcher be on fire. I know it’s slow, and I know it can be boring. Tough. Go watch an NFL game in person and then tell me baseball is boring. Leave the game the way it is. The difference between hitting .250 and .300 is 1-2 hits per week when you play everyday. Message from a former pitcher to hitters: TRY AN ASH BAT! Learn to hit the ball the other way and stop swinging for the fences.
Also lower the mound from 10” to 6”. The ball will come in at a lesser angle, making it easier for the hitters to track it.
but it wouldn't increase the pace of the game.. sides switch at 3 outs per team per inning. moving the mound back wouldn't increase the pace of the game but decrease it. Move the mound toward the plate. quicker strike outs.
I don't really get all these pace of play arguments. This isn't Football. The battle that is waged between the pitcher and batter is what is so great about Baseball. Why do we want to speed that up or otherwise mess with it? TV ratings? If someone is interested in Baseball then that battle on the mound and home plate is why they are there. What they really want is hitters to hit more. I think that will happen naturally, just like the pitchers have gotten better over time (and the steroid era forced them to).
I have NEVER commented on a CZcams video before. I love baseball! I hate the product currently on the field. This idea makes too much sense. This idea is so much better than starting a runner on 2B in extra innings, DH in both leagues, banning shifts, and even pitch clocks. I hope someone who has some clout in baseball sees this video!
While the lack of a DH in the NL certainly reduces overall offense, I think it _adds_ a significantly interesting strategic layer surrounding pinch hitting and offensive/defensive tradeoffs that come with substitution - is it more valuable to keep your tiring-but-not-gassed ace on the mound another inning, or to substitute slightly early to get an extra at bat out of a better hitter? Is it worth having a pitcher attempt a "small ball" contribution (e.g., sac bunt, other situational hitting, etc.) so he can stay in on defense? In the AL, there much less to it - basically keep your best pitcher in until he's tired (or you need to run a specific match up) and a decision purely based on only "one half of the ball" (defense).
Maybe not a majority opinion, but I really hope they don't move to universal DH - besides the strategic element described above, it's also just unfair to any pitcher with any batting skill or batting IQ. Why should a team with slugging pitchers like Madison Bumgarner (or even just pitchers that make a point of developing above average bunting or situational hitting skills for their position) lose their edge over teams that neglect to develop at least some productivity out of each spot on a well-rounded roster? Some won't want to play that game, and I think it's good that the AL exists for this reason, but a player with something to offer on both sides of the ball should have a forum to do so, even if their defensive contribution is pitching. Ironically, Bumgarner _has_ actually served as the DH in at least one AL-hosted game (I think in a game he wasn't pitching!), but his exceptional-for-a-pitcher batting skill doesn't have as exceptional an impact here, where he can be matched by an opposing DH from any spot on the roster. For the many NL rotation spots that would necessarily be filled by not-so-eager batters, I still don't see a reason we shouldn't at least expect a _smart_ situational at-bat out of them and incentivize marginal improvements in pitcher batting - I'd much rather see a pitcher be thrown out on a bunt put into play than a slugging DH whiff on another would-be homerun for strike 3.
Starting the runner at 2nd in extra innings is the International Tie Breaker... I don't mind seeing it in the amateur circuit, or even if we did end up with a truly international post season. But I agree, leave MLB alone on those occasions.. I would love to see that back-up shortstop coming in to pitch due to the staff being full of only 4 inning starters and the pen full of 1 inning specialists. Remind GM's why they are supposed to keep a few long relievers on the squad.
@@lincolnwesterlund6187 I wonder what the numbers say. Does starting a runner on second make an etra inning game end faster or does it actually make extra innings longer?
@@chrislukes9037 Couldn't have put it better myself! Very well said!
I am total agented the DH !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11
I went into this video thinking "here we go". This is actually legit. A truly great idea. So great, that MLB will never do it... I hope they do though.
Waste of time video🖕
I have played baseball my whole life. I have always said to keep things the same and hitters just need to adapt but after watching this detailed explanation. It only makes sense to give batters a chance to hit the ball. At what point does it become near impossible for your eyes to see something and react properly. Make the diamond a complete symmetrical shape. equal distance from each base. 100% on board with this change. Unless a pitcher has 20-27 K's in a perfect game pitched. Watching batters strikeout is boring and slowing down the game. The stat that they should be watching is pitches per at bat. If they can get it to 3-5 range would help speed up the game. I also think that if they make this change. They should go back to playing full 9 inning games for double headers and remove the auto runner at 2nd base for extra innings.
They also built the new parks too small
Extra Innings: Runner at 2nd needs to go.
This is one new rule that is inept.
And get rid of the DH while you are at it. At least in the National league.
I aint reading all that
@@connordalton9302 Go Orioles
I definitely like the idea of moving the mound back, even to the geometric center. It would definitely make pitchers adapt and give the batter more time to make crucial decisions.
Kyle boddy blocked me on twitter cause I said he looks like Kelso from that 70s show when he ate eggs and had an allergic reaction to it
😂😂😂😂😂😂
Bruhhhhh 😂 well done
I like how I've seen so many youtubers propose ways to increase balls in play but only foolish proposed the most obvious
Removing the sticky stuff
Look, I'm a huge fan of pitching. I like nasty breaking balls, I love watching a guy strike out on a high fastball. That said, move the mound back a couple feet, it'll be better for the game and I'm all for anything that keeps guys from getting hit in the head.
As a really old guy, who grew up watching the Cardinal's with Gibson, I think it's spot on and simple. Pitchers will pretty quickly change their physical aiming point, release angle and be back where they need to be. Giving hitters that slight bit of time to react and pull the trigger will certainly increase their production, and our enjoyment
This is absolutely brilliant. The moment you mentioned the 1880s, I thought to myself, 'Move the mound. It worked then, it'll work now.' I didn't realize this was exactly what you planned!
Or, to paraphrase a term also used in the 1800s, 'Sixty-three seventy-five or fight!'
I remember one time in middle school trying to calculate the distance to the mound under the assumption that it was in the center of the diamond. I was really confused and thought I messed up my math when I found out it wasn't.
This seems like an actual productive rule change. None of the other ones get to the heart of the issue
Perfection will only be found at 63.75 ft away
It's certainly worth discussion, especially now that one month after this video was released, MLB has had a total of 6 no-hitters in the first 42 days of the 2021 season. As you note, the mound was lowered after the 1968 season, so it's not like moving the mound back would be totally unprecedented.
45 year baseball fan here. You make a compelling argument. I was surprised with the poll stating doubles, triples, and stolen bases are the most exciting plays. Watching ESPN or other media sources you’d think it was the home run. Btw, I agree 100% with the poll. In the past 30 years baseball has built smaller ballparks that has all but eliminated that style of play also. Moving home plate back or raising a fence would be a good solution to that. I was against moving the mound back, but for me it was more tradition than anything else. If it would decrease the strikeout/walk/home run way the game is played today I would love it. I grew up watching Rickey Henderson, Steve Carlton, Rod Carew, and Tony Gwynn. We need that sort of balanced game back.
Home runs would top the list for excitement if they were normally inside-the-park, which they should be.
6:11 "The best player in baseball" (David Fletcher)
He does make contact with the pitches he swings at more than about anyone else, so in the scheme of the video, he does what fans want.
I thought that was Mike Trout, But I am blind i my left eye. So what do I know?
I mean he is my favorite player right now that no one outside Anaheim talks about.
I was sure he was gonna say, "see you didn't even have time to tell that it wasn't like trout
I noticed that as well. Fletcher attended my high school alma mater, not that anyone cares.
Dude, you picked up a sub. This is a logical proposal and much more profound than whatever gimmicks MLB and Manfred have implemented.
Pro Mens fastpitch softball was huge in america until the late 80's. It died off becuase pitching was just way too good.
There's another option - make the ball bigger! =D
@@bossfan49 absolutely not. The one thing about baseball that cannot change is the baseball. They’re already juicing the ball and making the properties different we can keep the size and profile
@@funkgremlin2765 I know, i was kidding since he was talking about fastpitch softball.
I absolutely love this idea. I attend around 25 games in person each season, love baseball and believe this would be one of the least disruptive changes from a fan viewing perspective. This also likely reduces the number of pitches required per inning as more balls are put in play which also helps the pitchers and # of pitchers required per game and likely pitching injuries. Great idea!
One interesting side effect would be on base running, more specifically runners on first stealing second. Placing the mound even with the imaginary line from 1st to 3rd not only places first base more in the pitchers peripheral view (instead of having to look slightly backward), but it also changes they way (right handed) pitchers move to throw to first. I predict a lot more picked off runners at first.
As a baseball purist it is hard to wrap my head around, but the point is valid and I think that the issue most definitely needs to be addressed. Moving the mound would take some getting used to, but I think it would be effective without fundamentally changing the game and that is all we can really ask for
Casual viewers wouldn't even notice the difference. Drop the purist nonsense and let the game get with the times.
As a baseball purist, I think we should get rid of the fielders wearing gloves... hmmm, too pure?
4:18 “Hey vsauce, michael here to talk about the problems of major league pitching. You see....”
One of the best YT meme is the random Michael from V Sauce.
@@route2070 …or is it? 😎
Honestly was anti before but am more excited about the outcome of the minor league study now
Totally agree. I've always thought it was weird that the diamond is completely symmetrical and then the mound is off the line between third and first. But I might tweak your suggestion by adding a slightly deader ball to the mix. So it would be more hitter friendly for contact and base hits, but not for home runs. Ultimately, even more balls in play.
I think MLB should move the mound back, it has been talked about for years and it would be nice to see more hitting and less strikeouts in the game. As a fan you go to a game to see action not a pitchers' duel with no hit or runs.
Love the idea, my dad and I have saying this for at least 10 years. It also wouldn't hurt if the batters would hurry up themselves, tired of seeing them constantly stepping out of the box and adjusting something.
It's the batters that need the help they can get against overpowered pitchers. This video's whole point that it's not really the speed of the games but the rate of balls in play that has really impacted the quality of the viewing experience. I appreciate the flavor and personal flair that some of the quirkier preparatory batter's box rituals bring to the game (all a part of "The Show"), and if any part of this mentally prepares the batter for a more likely ball in play, then I'm all for it.
This made me sad, knowing there are fans of the MLB who bear more intelligence than those who are in charge of decisions (Rob Manfred lol)
You got that right. The commissioner is not too bright.
Dump Rob Manfred immediately and you'll see a guaranteed gain in viewership and fanbase. From there we'll go with this
I bet you could take a poll of fans at baseball games, and maybe 5% could tell you the name of the commissioner of baseball. The person in the office isn't the problem.
Get rid of the "woke" pandering.
@@gil4321 judging by MLB's rapid decline in popularity that just means the people that do know his name just quit following
@@DieselDog1982 both are horrible. MLB is on life support however due to it's rapidly declining fan base. The ones still watching would watch paint dry in the name of loyalty & obedience
@@DieselDog1982 considering they doctor the ball every season then they might as well.
I like the idea more than any of the other proposals for speeding up the game.
Even if moving the mound back doesn’t speed up the game, it’s not such a big deal to have a 3 hour game if the game is more exciting.
The reason games are boring is because there are so many half innings during which there is no action.
Great video, and great idea. My only gripe with the whole thing would probably be the precedent of stats, and would be similar to what has just happened with addition of an extra game in the NFL. But I think this is a necessary and useful step in baseball’s future
I feel the same way about the stats, but in the end sports stats are truly only meaningful by era, moving the mound back would just usher in a new era of stats.
I feel dumb. I always thought 60' 6" was the exact geometric center of the infield. Now that I know that it isn't, I'm all in favor of moving it to 63' 9".
One question, how is the diamond and pitcher's mound laid out in Japan and So. Korea? Are they having issues with overly long games, too?
Japanese pro baseball games are on a timer. If the game is tied when regulation time ends, it's officially a tie.
This is better than anything manfred is attempting.
Manfred is attempting this. 9:10
Lowering the mound has also been floated by Manfred, which would slow down pitches.
Great! An even better idea would be to not inject his dumbass political ideals into baseball.
As of today, the highest team OPS in the NL is .762 (the Braves), which is no bueno. Like you said, pitchers may just be too good.
Curious what The Atlantic League’s numbers will show after their experimental season.
I’ve thought this for years... thanks for making a video and doing the research to support my intuition. Well done.
I literally suggested this 40 years ago. I got an earful
We hear ya Jack. Hmmm, true innovator
And that was before the internet...you were ahead of your time. Great ideas usually are. I have been pushing for banning metal bats for kids older than 8. Since I started coaching 20 years ago. $$$ though...
Yea, I agree.. I suggested 41 years ago in fact.
@@squigglyline2813 I strung up the idea 42 years ago
I thought the solution was to have the players stand for the National Anthem! Haven’t watched a pro game of any sport where the players didn’t respect their country. (However, I have rediscovered high school baseball and how much fun it is to watch and it is all the reasons stated in the video.)
"While these changes (pitch clock, runner on 2nd, mandatory walls, etc.) are admirable..."
No they aren't. They're the literal opposite of what you need. PITCHING is not slowing the game down. If a pitcher dominates? The game flies by! Randy Johnson's perfect game was 1 hr 45 mins. The Yankees blew out the Tigers the other day and it was over 3 hours. If the batters keep rounding the bases? The game keeps going and going. Does nobody seriously realize this? Or are they just making excuses for ONCE AGAIN passing more rules to screw with pitchers?
The point I was getting at was that the length of game isn’t as much a problem as the content of the games. Personally, I’d rather watch 3 hours of lead changes and balls in play than 2 hours of strikeouts and walks, with the occasional home run sprinkled in.
And while pitching in and of itself may not be slowing the game down, constant bullpen moves are. If disincentivizing high velocity pitching leads to pitchers conserving more energy over the course of the game, then it’s possible teams won’t have to lean on a stable full of guys who pump 98mph+ for an inning at a time to get through the back half of games.
Of course, people are free to disagree, and there has been lots of interesting debate on the pros/cons of the idea in the comments.
It's not. It's more high pitch count at bats which slows down the game. If more balls are hittable, not all will be hits. More balls in play will still be more outs QUICKER than long pitch count innings.
You obviously haven’t played The Show
If games were 3 hours long because of *too much* action, I would prefer to fix that problem.
I quite like the idea. I think that, in addition to limiting extreme defensive shifting, could help improve offensive performance.
Sports should evolve with the times. People are clever, and they can figure out how to game the system pretty quickly.
What do you think about also limiting defensive shifting?
I think 1st and 2nd baseman should stay at the right of the dining and SS and 3rd baseman at the left side. It could be as close to the base as you wish but to your side of the field
@@saundz8791 You mean the diamond, right? That actually sounds about how I’d set up that rule. I guess you could call it baseball’s version of zone defense? Seeing a baseman or shortstop basically become a shallow outfielder in the pull side of the field just seems ridiculous to me. Then the infielders have to depend on their abilities to field balls put into play rather than statistics and spray charts.
@@crystalp7242 yes my point exactly. And as you mention they should stay outside of the outfield grass but could play as close to the edge as posible. BTW being a fielder rightnow Is a boring job in MLB lol
Personally, I think 63 feet, 9 inches has a nice ring to it.
I also really love the idea of raising the mound up to it's 1968 height at the same time. Definitely could be tricky for the pitchers in the transition time. But, in the long run, I actually think it'll improve pitcher health since the shortened mound has been so terrible for pitcher's arms and backs. Pitchers would be able to throw downhill using their whole bodies again, which could unlock all kinds of ways to maximize spin, introduces a kind of physical dominance/centrality to the pitcher that could be really enjoyable. And, ultimately, pitchers who embrace new mechanics for the longer throw from an increased height are likely to experience fewer injuries and could have longer careers.
This change has so many good arguments in its favor, some of which were not even mentioned in this vid.
1) Would make the game safer for pitchers
2) Would make the game safer for batters and catchers
3) Less strikeouts
4) More good-contact balls in play
5) Would help bring back the bunt!
6) Would help bring back the stolen base!
6) Potentially makes pitchers focus on good movement and location rather than overpowering velocity
7) Precious SYMMETRY... (or at least closer to perfect symmetry)
Basically this change would actually help return baseball to what it once was and is supposed to be - a *dynamic* game, not a static game where every at bat reliably results in only a strikeout, flyout, or occasional home run.
Before I even finished the video I knew what your solution was. I completely agree with backing the mound up! I've been telling everyone that for months now! Great minds 🧠
It's time. Move the mound back and address the problem. Speed up walks: fine, pitch clock: fine, 3 batter minimum: meh, keep one foot in the batter box: fine but these don't have much of any effect, if any on the pace of the game.
Perfect Symmetry sounds good to me😂
s y m m e t r i c a l
I agree. I don't know if 63' is too much, but I've been saying it needs to move back atleast a foot or two for several years now. I'm very happy that it's finally building up some steam. Great vid Historian!
You will never achieve perfect symmetry. Because the distance at which perfect symmetry would be achieved (1/2 of the square root of 16200, or 63.639610306789277.......) is what we call an irrational number. But, even putting it close (say 63 feet and 7 2/3rds inches) would destroy the balance of the game. Homeruns and walks would explode. Doesn't matter if you deaden the ball. When you have hitters routinely producing triple digit exit velocities and ideal launch angles, modern stadiums won't hold the ball. Additionally, it would kill the running game. Moving the ball farther from home moves it closer to first and second. There would be a couple of weeks of base-runners being picked off first and second are record levels before everyone stopped taking more than minimal leads and stealing became a relic of yesteryear.
@@v2micca I don't agree with the argument that lengthening the mound/home plate distance would decentivize base-stealing for a couple of reasons. First, I'm not sure why moving the mound farther towards the center would lessen the distance to first and not just second base (stealing from second is rare anyway). Second, if the mound is further from the plate, wouldn't that give the baserunner MORE time to get to second on a pitch? So actually it could have the opposite effect you claim and INCREASE base stealing.
@@v2micca simple logic would say that stealing would be easier as you have a pitch take longer to get to the catcher.
Very good idea. I remember the effect of lowering the mound and the results were what was expected and better for the game. I also remember when complete games were common, even for the losing pitcher. Does anyone remember Harvey Haddix, or Roy Face? Robin Roberts Warren Spahn? I was lucky enough to see all of them pitch. Ah the good old days.
100% agree with this! Moving the mound back and adding a pitch clock would fix A LOT of issues in baseball. Hope they consider this idea further.
I’ll be honest, when I first heard this proposal I thought it was a bad idea. But I think you sold me.
Last change involving the mound was lowering the height, yet that was negated due teams drafting taller pitchers such as Randy Johnson.
I love it. I'm 100% in. And I'm not surprised. This channel always does the research. I'm impressed.
Here's what's wrong with baseball. Up until somewhere around the mid to late 80s, teams, for the most part, brought back the SAME players year in and year out. This meant that fans actually got to KNOW and grow attached to the players on their TEAM, and got to know and dislike the players on other teams/rivals. Today, with team-jumping, however, fans no longer root for or against "teams," but rather a uniform and a logo. And they wonder why we've lost the passion...
That HBP at 10:39 was like watching a mugging on the street.
as a quick aside, the woman you se at 8:25 in the texas uniform is actually still an active softball player and is on the 2021 US olympic team. They're playing some warm up games rights now and if you want to watch female randy johnson sit down kids for 5 innings I IMPLORE you to watch Team USA v Florida on Wheels' channel. I promise you will not regret it.
I'm definitely open minded about the idea. I would love to see some of the final numbers after the Atlantic season is over since they moved the moud back a foot and then go from there. It was a good video and for baseball fans like myself it gives us something to think about and water-cooler chat.
Ironically they are trying this exact proposal in single-A levels this year. They are moving it back 2 feet.
Source?
Not single A. The Atlantic League. It's an Independent league. The MLB has a deal with them to use it as it's experimental grounds. They are moving the mound back for half the season to measure how it affects play.
It's mentioned in the video.
I like the idea and the presentation. I do think part of the problem you only slightly addressed was the hitters. Everything is now launch angles, exit velocity, essentially trying to do as much damage at the plate as they can. I am not sure that if Tony Gwynn were playing today that he would ever make it to the major leagues. Pitchers have adapted to throw harder, hitters have adapted to swing harder. Great video!
Bravo. Nicely argued. I was a starting shortstop through college and I agree with you. The bit at the end starring Bob Gibson was most convincing.
I recently watched a game where I saw 3 different pitchers in one game throwing 100mph. In the past it felt like there were only one or two pitchers in all of baseball who were throwing that hard. It used to be something rare and special.
I'm a year late to this comment, but watching this world series right now there was a picture who threw 94 I can't remember if it was a Philly or Houston picture, and they were saying that he was one of the softer throwing pictures on the team.... Blew my mind lol ( haven't watched baseball much since 2014 ) I remember Ryan madson was beginning to throw 95 96 mi in the 08playoff run and people were going crazy at the time, it's crazy how much baseball has changed
More guys in the past were hitting 100 than you think. Radar guns have gotten more accurate over the years. There has usually been a difference of a mph or 2 between each new model gun and the old ones, and mlb has upgraded guns several times since the 1970's. Plus the location of the ball when the measurement is taken has changed. The first guns measured the speed right in front of home plate, now they measure right after the ball leaves the pitcher's hand. The speed of a fastball can drop off by up to 10% over that distance.
I don't know about that man. I know there were guys throwing heat in the older days but it was few and far between. It's not just the radar gun, you can see and hear the difference between now and even when I played ( i retired in 2012). When I played high school kids throwing 82 to 84 were flame throwers, in college 85 to 88 was good heat, in the pros most guys were 86 to 92. There wasn't a lot of 96+ guys who were any good when I played. Now I'm a high school coach and two kids on the team are bringing mid to upper 80 now. My last few years in the pros guys were starting to bring a lot of heat and it's gotten crazier ever since.
“It would make the game more entertaining.”
Baseball fan: “not interested.”
“It would put the mound directly in the center of the Diamond.”
Baseball fan: “OMG I IOVE IT! YOU’RE A GENIUS!”
“So you can understand how fast 200 milliseconds is I am going to show you the best player in baseball for that amount of time.”
“Shows David Fletcher” 😂😂😂
Here's my take on how to save baseball: make it a rule that the third baseman and shortstop must be positioned to the left of second base and the first and second basemen to the right when the ball is pitched. It's the over shifts that have turned the game into a series of groundouts.
I think that's exactly what they're doing
The symmetry argument is compelling.
I would support this on the condition that after it's implemented, we place a complete moratorium on any more rule changes for 5 seasons.
Alternately, do this and repeal the NL DH, with future rule changes on the table.
These are my terms.
Did I miss something? How would this shorten game times? I like the idea because it would introduce more action to the game, but don’t see how it would shorten things.
Pitcher’s mound being moved back -> pitchers doing worse -> batters doing better -> more runs being scored -> less likely for 2 teams to finish 9 innings with the same score -> less games go to extra innings -> less time
The idea is less swings without contact would reduce game time, but even if it doesn't reduce game TIME significantly, it would increase game ACTION considerably!!!
wouldn't increasing offensive production make games even longer? personally love pitcher's duels as they make the game go faster. great vid, btw
I think I'm generally open to ideas of changing baseball. Maybe also shortening the game to seven innings would keep the game around the same length, but more overall offense and exciting plays.
There would be fewer deep counts, leading to more quick outs. The step up in production would probably easily be offset by this.
It’d also make the game more enjoyable though meaning that less people would care about how long it takes. Also less strike outs for sure which take the longest
I don't think that increasing the distance would make .250 hitters into .300 hitters. I think it would just put more balls in play. The effects would be a little more subtle than you imagine, IMHO.
@@argerm57 Yeah they had a graphic on mlb network today that basically said it would revert the average perceived fastball velo back to like 2010 by moving the mound 1 foot back. So your hypothesis that the results will be more subtle seems correct.
Edit: that point may have been made in the vid, it’s been too long since I’ve watched to recall the exact points he made.
I'm glad MLB will give it a shot at the Atlantic League. Hope they get a good increase in game pace and action and take it to The Show.
As a former high school pitching coach, I am totally on board with this idea for the pros. There are other precedents of different rules for pros vs amateurs. The 3-point line in the NBA vs NCAA or High School, for example. Strikeouts take far more time than a 2 pitch at bat that results in an out or a hit. And more balls in play, mean possibly more scoring but also the possibility of more defensive gems. I had a pitcher once through a 3 pitch inning. If 3 strikeouts on 9 pitches is an "immaculate" inning, what is a 3 pitch inning?
There are many ways to fix the games to make them more exciting. Agree with your proposal 100%. You can also lower the mound.
Next, you find a good hitter school to counteract the pitching gurus.
THe worst solutions are the ones the clueless Manfred puts into effect: Pitching non-change, man on 2nd in OT, etc. Put somebody in his seat with a brain.
I believe we are reaching the limits of how fast a human can throw a ball, so moving the pitching rubber 1-2 feet back will equalize things permanently.
Great point. Not much more we can learn about increasing velocity.
People have been saying this since the dawn of time and yet hear we are, hitting it farther than ever, running faster than ever, throwing faster and farther than ever. And for the rest of human history it will all keep getting faster and faster.
Humans keep gaining size and strength and the " supplement " industry
never sleeps in their quest to improve our game .
@@chrismess135 but as you approach the peak, the gains will be smaller to almost negligible. There could be an extraordinary human that can blow by Usain Bolt or shatter a Marathon record, but as far as average, it won't move much as it used to, unless you modify the human body to stretch the limits.
that’s what we said 60 years ago...
I'd like to see a 6" change per season until the desired effect is reached.
i've been telling people 6 inches is enough for years
Ive heard 5 is enough
I love it, definitely would make a difference vs all the arbitrary Manfred changes
Great idea, moving the mound isn’t that drastic a change to the fundamentals of the game but definitely has the potential to change the level of offense activity.
While we’re at it let’s raise the goal in basketball to 12 feet....that out to shake up the game a little.
Basketball is headed to a similar problem shooters will be too good , what Curry does now will no longer be special because every team will have one or more players who can soot like that.
Moving the pitcher's mound to the geometric center is the best idea I've heard, A pitch clock would be fair if, like the deadball days, the batter didn't leave the box until he did something- hit, strikeout, walk or to avoid HBP. There should be a universal strike zone called by machine so everyone know what's a strike no matter who was behind or at the plate. Even Ricky Henderson. I think the shift is silly. Teach guys to half swing bunt other way for a guaranteed single. The DH was the beginning of the end. It took away small ball, and that was the best game.
I think the single biggest problem is replay review, cameras killing the spontaneity of calls on close plays. But I do like this idea for putting the ball in play more often.
I wouldn't have a problem with replay if they could just get the call right. If the NFL had this rate of poor calls, they would have chucked replay ages ago.
@@TeganX7 Yours is the dominant view, and this "getting the call right" at the expense of the real-time experience is carrying the day. But I find it horrifying in all sports. It's like when you laugh at a joke, it's not the same if someone has to explain it to you, "Safe" or "Out" declared after stoppage and analysis ruins the experience. It should be played and officiated by people on the grass in the moment.
@@TeganX7 And besides, it's empirically obvious that the cameras have NOT dispelled controversy, but they have changed the game itself in unintended ways, in baseball, hockey and football.
As in every sport. The mere presence of replay review must subconsciously relax refs/umps enough so they aren't as focused as they would be if they knew call is king. It's too easy to go back and review plays. As if the immediate assumption is, "we're going to review this anyway, what I call doesn't really matter". It's especially bad in basketball.
I'm all for 63.75".
"60 feet 6 inches is one of the most iconic numbers in sport"
Me not knowing until this video that the mound is 60 feet 6 inches away from the plate
Mlb has fixed the issue of dead time with the pitch clock for the most part, but there’s still the increasing issue of three-true-outcome baseball. To fix that baseball would need a more dramatic fundamental change like this. Right now, baseball has seen an increase of fans and attention since the introduction of the pitch clock, so I don’t think the MLB feels the need to make a change like this just yet.
Action is an important aspect, and it would definitely help the game be more interesting, but Im not sure it will help the length of the game any. For that you need probably need the players association to get serious and get on-board. Nothing will speed up until the batter stands in the box and the pitcher throws without each needing 30+ seconds to adjust themselves after every pitch.
YES!
I was sort of skeptic when I first heard the idea of moving the mound back. But after watching this video I have a better understanding of why the Mlb had thought about it in the first place. I mostly agree with what you presented in the video. The only thing I would say is that I think the way that MLB is trying to promote baseball is somewhat manipulative and false. I think they try to show that baseball is action packed in ads or commercials, but once those people actually watch baseball I would say that it can be very slow at times and not very action packed. So honestly I’m totally for making extreme changes like moving the mound, because maybe we will see a change.
I have always thought that home runs were actually kind of boring, but I thought that I was basically alone in that opinion. Its cool to see this argument made to decrease home runs and increase action.
I agree with you. I'd rather see more baserunning than home runs.
Home runs were more fun when there were fewer of them, and you didn't have to rely on them. Nowadays, every decent hitter hits at least 20 homers, and many times that's the only way to score, because stringing singles and doubles together is too hard
You’ve convinced me I’m on board. Also, universal DH. We don’t wanna watch pitchers hit if it’s not Bartolo
First, I want to congratulate you on the excellence of your background music. Second, I want to thank you for keeping it IN the background. Third, and most importantly, I want to thank you for an excellent, thought-provoking suggestion. That there is historical precedent for changing the distance is somewhat important and it was news to me.
Like you, I find the idea of placing the rubber at the center of the diamond has a strong appeal to my geometric aesthetic. That, however, should be a very minor consideration. Much more important is the existing data from trials in the "lab" and in the field. I am looking forward to seeing how the move works out in the Atlantic League.
I think most pitchers and batters will be able to adjust, but it will take some time to properly assess the difference it makes. And once such a change is in effect, the changed distance will be normal for players who came up with it in place. I'd rather see them start with a larger move, though. I know that the increased reaction time will help to reduce the frequency and intensity of injury to hitters and pitchers alike, which is definitely a major positive factor.
So, on the whole, died-in-the-wool, "baseball don't need no fixing" purist that I am, I find myself leaning in favor of such a change.
Interesting change you suggested. Perhaps hitters can make some adjustments. If the pitcher has a advantage in the count (1-2 or 0-2 ), why not choke up on the bat and concentrate on putting the ball in play (not necessarily swinging for the "fences"). If a shift is put on, why not try hitting to the opposite field and not pulling the ball. Not everyone on the team is capable to be , or should be, a homerun hitter. Trying to hit homeruns usually results in a lot of strikeouts (the "feast or famine" stat) . You also need players with a high OBP (on base percentage), in some situations you need baserunners before a homerun. Hitting a ninth inning solo homerun being down 5-1 doesn't do your team much good. (my subjective comments)
I'm all for whatever it takes to make baseball interesting again.
Totally agree. Went to a game last weekend and my kids tried to poison my beer to get out early.
Counterpoint: clone Adam Dunn and make every team run 3 of them at all times
But then he would never get a hit. He'd walk, strikeout, or homer. Which would be boring.
@@gho5trun3r68 Top scientists have proven the more meme players on a team the more fun the game.
The intro graphic is amazing!
To tilt the balance of power in the hitters' favor, make 3 balls a walk instead of 4. Three balls and three strikes has a nice symmetry to it. That would shorten at bats too and speed up the game, which moving the mound wouldn't do.
Then when we inevitably discover the 3 balls is more fun than 4, we'll drop it to 2 and then 1, to go with one strike and yer out, not counting foul ball do-overs.
@@monstrousbytommywalker3700 I watched a softball league game that played that way, except foul balls were also outs. Best action-packed game I ever watched!
Well done video. I would still prefer something far less drastic, such as moving back the fences. That one very minor move would force hitters to start hitting again and stop slugging, as OFers would catch more balls on the track.
I love the idea of the mound in the direct center, I've always wished that's where it was. I think the biggest downside would be an increase in walks
It's that the approach to the 3 true outcomes in batting had been focused on, not only that pitchers are getting better.
Great video. Some good points and I am excited to see the date from the Atlantic league to see if it is something that should be done. Btw, here is a video idea for you that I saw a second of in this video. You had some Pecos League throughout the video (which itself would be a good video about), but one of those teams in the video was the Salina Stockade. Their history in just the last 5 years is nothing but insane and I think it would make a great video!
That sounds interesting, I’ll have to look into that!
@@BaseballHistorian There is a great story written about them (sadly it was written only halfway through their crazy history). I forget the name of it but I am sure it comes up when searching the Salina Stockade. If you want a quote from someone who went to one of the only stockade games to be played in Saline (and the same one from that article!) then I am your guy! Lol
I like the idea but I would also move the homerun wall a little further back giving the outfielders more room to cover hence running more and leading to more balls being hit in the gap instead of caught by the outfielder which I think could encourage singles and doubles hitters and not just homerun hitters.
I’m for any change that keeps the battle between the hitter and the pitcher closer to the middle. Length of game is not the issue, but the content during that time is. Balls in play, defense, base running is what the league should be known for. The occasional pitchers duel/dominance is fun too, just not all the time.
If the mound moves the wall should too. Higher or further so it doesn’t become an AL home run derby game.