Tom Verducci on why offense is offensive...

[wsnydes]

I thought this was a good piece with some solid reasons why the bats have struggled league wide.

Do you agree with Tom?  Disagree?  Have other factors to consider?

Let TD know below!

https://www.si.com/mlb/2022/04/28/mets-hbp-baseball-conspiracies-the-opener

[tony&rodney]

I agree with his main point. Numerous times on separate occasions I have argued that pitchers gain when the roster size is increased. The other difference, not stated, are the changes to both IL and option rules. If a team had to go with 12 pitchers, there was a 15 day IL, and players sent down or called up had to stay up down or up for a full 15 days before being recalled or sent back down there would be a resultant increase in workload for the pitchers. Pitchers would adjust to the schedule and rely less on power sliders and the back of bullpens would have fewer max effort pitchers because they might need to pitch in the next day or two. It isn't that pitchers cannot throw more innings or risk injury, it is that max effort for as long as possible requires longer recovery time or arms get exposed to stress. I believe Tampa Bay used 41 pitchers last year. This can be seen as smart considering the rules but it does put every pitcher in constant danger of being sent down and (I believe) results in an increase of max effort pitching, which leads to injuries even as these guys are really tough to hit. 

I am not an advocate for old time complete games but agree with Verducci that a larger pitching staff really limits the hitters and decreases the action in a game. Not too long ago, someone suggested that the modern game needs to see an increase in roster size to 30 players. Another idea was to have 25 active players for each game. These thoughts would further reduce hitting and scores across baseball. A 25 person roster and 12 pitchers on a team would infuse more offense into the game. I also believe there would be a decrease in the number of arm injuries. 

Another idea that would improve offense is to allow the umpire to enforce the rules on batters getting in the box and pitchers getting the sign and delivering the pitch. This is different than a pitch clock and would require a professional training for all of the umpires, players, coaches, and managers so that everyone was on the same page. This may be naive but it could be done. However, the fact that the rule has been ignored completely for so long and often quite blatantly tells me that everyone except the umpires (and maybe fans) are opposed to enforcement. There isn't a single batter or pitcher or manager today that hasn't come up through a system where delays were permitted below the MLB level. 

I would like to see a few simple changes made to return some offense and speed up the game without including clocks.

[wsnydes]

4 minutes ago, tony&rodney said:

I agree with his main point. Numerous times on separate occasions I have argued that pitchers gain when the roster size is increased. The other difference, not stated, are the changes to both IL and option rules. If a team had to go with 12 pitchers, there was a 15 day IL, and players sent down or called up had to stay up down or up for a full 15 days before being recalled or sent back down there would be a resultant increase in workload for the pitchers. Pitchers would adjust to the schedule and rely less on power sliders and the back of bullpens would have fewer max effort pitchers because they might need to pitch in the next day or two. It isn't that pitchers cannot throw more innings or risk injury, it is that max effort for as long as possible requires longer recovery time or arms get exposed to stress. I believe Tampa Bay used 41 pitchers last year. This can be seen as smart considering the rules but it does put every pitcher in constant danger of being sent down and (I believe) results in an increase of max effort pitching, which leads to injuries even as these guys are really tough to hit. 

I am not an advocate for old time complete games but agree with Verducci that a larger pitching staff really limits the hitters and decreases the action in a game. Not too long ago, someone suggested that the modern game needs to see an increase in roster size to 30 players. Another idea was to have 25 active players for each game. These thoughts would further reduce hitting and scores across baseball. A 25 person roster and 12 pitchers on a team would infuse more offense into the game. I also believe there would be a decrease in the number of arm injuries. 

Another idea that would improve offense is to allow the umpire to enforce the rules on batters getting in the box and pitchers getting the sign and delivering the pitch. This is different than a pitch clock and would require a professional training for all of the umpires, players, coaches, and managers so that everyone was on the same page. This may be naive but it could be done. However, the fact that the rule has been ignored completely for so long and often quite blatantly tells me that everyone except the umpires (and maybe fans) are opposed to enforcement. There isn't a single batter or pitcher or manager today that hasn't come up through a system where delays were permitted below the MLB level. 

I would like to see a few simple changes made to return some offense and speed up the game without including clocks.

I think the number of pitchers and their relative workload relationship is key to a lot of this.  While I'm in favor of pitch clock, assuming it's actually enforced, I think that the already in place rules being enforced would also be helpful.  And I wouldn't be opposed to adding a pitch clock even with the actual enforcement of the existing rules.  Anything to speed up a pitchers pace would help reduce the max effort style of pitching, and ultimately improve action on the bases.  And in my view, scoring.

Whether that improves scoring or not, I don't know for sure.  But at the very least it makes for a more interesting game when things are happening on the base paths.

[Vanimal46]

The game is going to continue trending this way and I don’t know how they’re going to reverse course. There are maybe 15 pitchers in all of baseball that a team trusts to pitch through the 3rd time in the order. And half of them are nearing retirement. 

Are there more hits and action in the minors where a pitch clock is already enforced? I thought before moving the mound back would help hitters, but in reality moving it back will make their breaking stuff even more nasty. 

I don’t know… Feels like baseball is getting too smart and efficient for their own good. 

[wsnydes]

1 minute ago, Vanimal46 said:

The game is going to continue trending this way and I don’t know how they’re going to reverse course. There are maybe 15 pitchers in all of baseball that a team trusts to pitch through the 3rd time in the order. And half of them are nearing retirement. 

I don’t know… Feels like baseball is getting too smart and efficient for their own good. 

I think your first point is a good one.  There's definitely a trickle down effect with pitchers not even being allowed to go deeper into games because of the success hitters have the third time around.  It reiterates the mention of the number pitchers Juan Soto has already seen in 86 PAs versus how many Ted Williams saw over the course of an entire 600+ PA season.  

And I'm fully on board with your last statement.

[PDX Twin]

One other possibility: The electronic pitch-calling system. I can't believe that only the Astros had a system for observing the catcher's fingers and somehow communicating this to the batter. They were just the ones who got caught (and maybe used it more effectively). Maybe they haven't hacked the electronic system yet and the batters are truly guessing on pitches that they would have known before.

[Old Twins Cap]

Fewer hits, fewer runners, fewer balls in play -- baseball is being reduced to the pitcher/catcher action.

It's a trendline that is weakening the game and will eventually make it untenable as a major sport.

Hey, at least the salaries will come down.

[tony&rodney]

Perhaps another consideration is that baseball is a few teams behind in the number of franchises. Expansion is a fair idea at this time. There are markets that would support baseball. Many, including Manfred, insist that Tampa Bay and Oakland are settled first. I don't agree. Add two teams, set rosters at 25 and pitching staffs at 12 and enforce the rules on getting in the batter's box and pitching in a timely fashion. Reduce balance to the game.

[wsnydes]

7 hours ago, tony&rodney said:

Perhaps another consideration is that baseball is a few teams behind in the number of franchises. Expansion is a fair idea at this time. There are markets that would support baseball. Many, including Manfred, insist that Tampa Bay and Oakland are settled first. I don't agree. Add two teams, set rosters at 25 and pitching staffs at 12 and enforce the rules on getting in the batter's box and pitching in a timely fashion. Reduce balance to the game.

Settling Oakland and Tampa's ballpark situation is likely a leverage tactic.  If they started filling potential relocation destinations with expansion franchises, that reduces the leverage against Oakland and Tampa.  In that conversation, the more available cities for relocation, the more leverage.  I think you're right that there are viable options for expansion, but from a negotiation standpoint, it makes a lot of sense to get those two situations resolved first.