Changes coming to strike zone, intentional walk

[JHSump]

There is a report at ESPN that MLB is considering raising the bottom of the strike zone from the hollow below the knee to above the knee, and eliminating the need to throw 4 pitches to intentionally walk a batter.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/15633876/mlb-competition-committee-agrees-changes-strike-zone-intentional-walks

Apparently reasons for the strike zone change are to speed up the game ("to produced more balls in play"), and as "a reaction to a trend by umpires to call strikes on an increasing number of pitches below the knees."

[Richvee]

Maybe it's just me, but, raise the strike zone above the knee means LESS strikes > more "hittable" pitches > more offense > longer games

[ricka56]

32 minutes ago, Richvee said:

Maybe it's just me, but, raise the strike zone above the knee means LESS strikes > more "hittable" pitches > more base-on-balls > more offense > much longer games

added a few items. IMO, this is a bad idea. 

[Cav]

MLB competes for entertainment dollars among other action sports.  MLB's 2015 revenues, at $9.5B, lags well behind that of the NFL, at $13B.  MLB's scape goat is it's inherent tempo.  In its attempt to motivate more and more money movement from its main revenue sources (read: TV), MLB launched its Pace-of-Play initiatives.  Actually this began decades ago; some may remember when MLB lowered the hill 5" to facilitate more scoring following '68's lowest scoring year.  MLB's Pace-of-Play executive office (one hand) writes directives which MLB's Get-it-Right executive office (the other hand) totally mitigates, if not exacerbates.

MLB's inherent tempo cannot compete for today's ADHD sports audiance and their entertainment dollars until the offense gets to control the ball (fungo hitting) and the game has a time limit just like most other sports.  Let me add that both ideas may have already been proposed by MLB's CFO under the auspices of Calvin and Hobbs.  

[kstrunk]

Strikes, Strikes, Strikes!!! That's how you enhance the pace of play, call strikes! How bout just calling the WHOLE zone instead of only half of it. 

[basejester]

There's a lot of fidgeting between pitches that could be eliminated.  Maybe limit each team to a finite number of time-outs and otherwise keep batters in the box.  The intentional base on balls things change is stupid.  It's a drop in the bucket.  Significant changes require an effect on the typical time between pitches.

 

 

[Lindsay]

Baseball is a business, lest we forget.

Interest during the steroid-enhanced era, up to and including Bonds' home run chase, was considerably greater per capita than during the modern pitching-dominated era, though baseball never quite regained the popularity held pre-1994 strike. Modern ratings peaked in 2004. Another way is to look at the World Series average viewers per game (though one would surmise this is highly dependent on confounding variables such as teams playing [Yankees haven't been in it for a while now...still Boston in 2013 only provided a nominal spike over the record-low 2012 DET-SF series] or competition with NFL/NHL/NBA schedules at that time of year).

If I had more time, I'd give you a regression analysis on ratings and runs per game. My hypothesis is a positive correlation.

[stkjock]

I thought this was a interesting take on a potential strike zone change:

 

 

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/15772052/what-impact-raising-strike-zone-really-have

[Sut'n Blue]

On May 24, 2016 at 10:52 PM, Richvee said:

Maybe it's just me, but, raise the strike zone above the knee means LESS strikes > more "hittable" pitches > more offense > longer games

In the early days of "town ball" or "base ball" it seems the game was   designed for almost all batters to put the ball in play. The batter would say where he wanted the pitch, high or low, and the game had been around for quite a while before balls and strikes meant much. Batters putting the ball in play makes for a more entertaining game. Whether or not it makes for a longer game is certainly open to discussion - that being said - put me down as one who thinks there are too many dingers in the game nowadays as I would rather see a batter try to beat it out for a double or triple than than take a stroll around the bases.

[Richvee]

1 hour ago, Sut'n Blue said:

In the early days of "town ball" or "base ball" it seems the game was   designed for almost all batters to put the ball in play. The batter would say where he wanted the pitch, high or low, and the game had been around for quite a while before balls and strikes meant much. Batters putting the ball in play makes for a more entertaining game. Whether or not it makes for a longer game is certainly open to discussion - that being said - put me down as one who thinks there are too many dingers in the game nowadays as I would rather see a batter try to beat it out for a double or triple than than take a stroll around the bases.

I don't disagree with anything you say. Point is, the powers that be are using "length of game" as the excuse for changing the zone. That, as you say, is certainly open to debate. I just don't see how not calling the hollow of the knee a strike speeds up the game.

[Richvee]

11 hours ago, stkjock said:

I thought this was a interesting take on a potential strike zone change:

 

 

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/15772052/what-impact-raising-strike-zone-really-have

I don't get Jason Stark sometimes. First I thought he was being sarcastic, and as I read I stated thinking he's all for these changes to make the game "more exciting" and appeal to the ADHD generation. The game's cyclical. Nothing is going to make it fast paced. Knocking a few seconds off the average time between balls in play?? Is that really going to draw the young adults who want instant and constant action?

[Richvee]

On 05/24/2016 at 4:06 PM, Gil said:

Baseball is a business, lest we forget.

Interest during the steroid-enhanced era, up to and including Bonds' home run chase, was considerably greater per capita than during the modern pitching-dominated era, though baseball never quite regained the popularity held pre-1994 strike. Modern ratings peaked in 2004. Another way is to look at the World Series average viewers per game (though one would surmise this is highly dependent on confounding variables such as teams playing [Yankees haven't been in it for a while now...still Boston in 2013 only provided a nominal spike over the record-low 2012 DET-SF series] or competition with NFL/NHL/NBA schedules at that time of year).

If I had more time, I'd give you a regression analysis on ratings and runs per game. My hypothesis is a positive correlation.

I think we need to take into consideration people watching on mobile devices, MLB.TV, people watching condensed games available on line,  Tivo, etc. I know I haven't watched a FOX game this year, yet I watch baseball just about every night.

[Lindsay]

1 hour ago, Richvee said:

I think we need to take into consideration people watching on mobile devices, MLB.TV, people watching condensed games available on line,  Tivo, etc. I know I haven't watched a FOX game this year, yet I watch baseball just about every night.

The reason I included FOX MLB Saturday & World Series as the samples (as opposed to your run-of-the-mill locally broadcast game) is because MLB.TV/mobile devices are blacked out nationally for both events, so the confounding variable of MLB.TV/mobile across the USA should be eliminated entirely, save for a very slim minority that illegally stream the national games online.

[Umpire in Chief]

I like the intentional walk idea, maybe it would lead to less intentional un-intentional walks. But how much time will this save over the course of a season; not much.

I think the best way to speed up the MLB game is to keep batters in the box and minimize the time between innings. Since this will lessen the potential revenue,maybe do like on televised soccer and squeeze in their ads with the score and other in game highlights.

[TheRockawayKid]

First of all, baseball has nothing wrong with it. There are more things to watch, and more people are watching different things. Market share for everything is down (except the Super Bowl, which is just an event at this point), so I don't read much into it. Especially since more and more people are actually going to MLB games.

The problem with the sport isn't the "slowness," I don't think. Nor is it the lack of scoring. After all, what's the fastest-growing sport among youth? Soccer. Not exactly the most up-tempo game there is. 

My two cents is that baseball is too expensive for the average kid to play. When baseball was in its heyday, kids were playing stickball in the street. Heck, in the 90s, I was playing in the street with my friends. Now, that's not really happening anymore. Buying bats, cleats and uniforms is an expensive proposition (There's a travel team whose coach told me that his 14-year-old team has five uniforms. FIVE!). Thousands of dollars a year spent on travel tournaments -- not to mention a serious risk of burnout (I can only imagine how bad things are in the South, where there's baseball year-round). It's something that poorer and inner-city kids (and this isn't a race thing) don't have the ability to experience, thanks to terrible ballfields and park spaces that are being de-baseballed (I mean, a one-sport field is a bit of a money drain, isn't it?).

I think baseball is doing something great by being more pro-active among inner cities with the RBI initiative. The Washington Nationals are also doing great work in the D.C. community. Another factor that needs to be considered is price -- baseball games are incredible expensive factoring everything in. It's not so bad when the market is single 20-somethings, but for people with families, it's not exactly cheap.

[rjt6]

I'll chime in here.

Strike zone: I will echo what some have been saying which is more strikes = more outs = faster game time. If you shrink the strike zone, that completely contradicts what MLB is trying to accomplish with its pace of play rules.

Intentional walks: How much time does it really take for a pitcher to lob in 4 pitches? 30 seconds maybe? Also, there are some instances (even though it happens one or twice a year) where since the pitcher isn't throwing 100% like he's been doing all game and sends one sailing to the backstop or shorthops the catcher which sends the ball to the backstop. If there's a runner at 3rd, he'll try to score and make a play at the plate, which is exciting, and keeps the viewer engaged. I remember that exact thing happening in the 2014 NLDS between the Nats and Giants - whoever the pitcher was sent one sailing to the backstop and the runner tried to score from 3rd and was out on a close play.

So to sum up, IMO the smaller zone will slow the pace of play down, and the IBB doesn't take that long, and there's a potential for excitement if the pitcher sends one to the backstop.

[rjt6]

On 6/1/2016 at 0:58 PM, TheRockawayKid said:

First of all, baseball has nothing wrong with it. There are more things to watch, and more people are watching different things. Market share for everything is down (except the Super Bowl, which is just an event at this point), so I don't read much into it. Especially since more and more people are actually going to MLB games.

The problem with the sport isn't the "slowness," I don't think. Nor is it the lack of scoring. After all, what's the fastest-growing sport among youth? Soccer. Not exactly the most up-tempo game there is. 

My two cents is that baseball is too expensive for the average kid to play. When baseball was in its heyday, kids were playing stickball in the street. Heck, in the 90s, I was playing in the street with my friends. Now, that's not really happening anymore. Buying bats, cleats and uniforms is an expensive proposition (There's a travel team whose coach told me that his 14-year-old team has five uniforms. FIVE!). Thousands of dollars a year spent on travel tournaments -- not to mention a serious risk of burnout (I can only imagine how bad things are in the South, where there's baseball year-round). It's something that poorer and inner-city kids (and this isn't a race thing) don't have the ability to experience, thanks to terrible ballfields and park spaces that are being de-baseballed (I mean, a one-sport field is a bit of a money drain, isn't it?).

I think baseball is doing something great by being more pro-active among inner cities with the RBI initiative. The Washington Nationals are also doing great work in the D.C. community. Another factor that needs to be considered is price -- baseball games are incredible expensive factoring everything in. It's not so bad when the market is single 20-somethings, but for people with families, it's not exactly cheap.

I would also like to add to what you said by saying that travel hockey is also very expensive. I'm not familiar with the travel hockey world that much, but if I'm correct, parents are spending close to $2000 in total fees for their kid to play travel hockey

[rjt6]

On 6/1/2016 at 0:10 AM, Gil said:

The reason I included FOX MLB Saturday & World Series as the samples (as opposed to your run-of-the-mill locally broadcast game) is because MLB.TV/mobile devices are blacked out nationally for both events, so the confounding variable of MLB.TV/mobile across the USA should be eliminated entirely, save for a very slim minority that illegally stream the national games online.

You can watch an out-of-market MLB on Fox game on MLB.tv.  For example, this weekend's Fox games are Pirates-Cubs, Braves-Mets, and Tigers-Royals. If your TV has Pirates-Cubs zoned for your region, you can go onto your MLB At Bat app and watch Braves-Mets or Tigers-Royals, just not Pirates-Cubs b/c you would be blacked out.

You're still unable to watch the postseason and World Series on MLB.tv

[TheRockawayKid]

On 6/18/2016 at 1:49 AM, rjt6 said:

I would also like to add to what you said by saying that travel hockey is also very expensive. I'm not familiar with the travel hockey world that much, but if I'm correct, parents are spending close to $2000 in total fees for their kid to play travel hockey

Yep. For the most part, the kids I see at tournaments around here regularly are from more well-to-do families who have the time and money to go to these things. The poorer teams that I see will go to one tournament a year maybe.