SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
How would you fix baseball?
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,924
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 28, 2019 10:52:32 GMT -5
By the way, changing the ball to reduce homers (either by somehow reversing the streamlining that has caused the surge, or reducing the liveliness) without doing anything to reduce the number of strikeouts would be a huge disaster.
It's significantly harder now to rally by stringing together a series of hits. The new way you come from three runs down is not to get four hits and a walk in an inning, but one hit and a walk and a three run bomb.
You reduce the number of homers to the old level while keeping strikeouts at the current levels, and scoring goes down and it becomes much harder to rally.
None of this is speculation. I built a model that explains 94% of annual attendance since the end of the steroid era, and the home run frequency is a big positive. It cuts the decline in attendance due to the decrease in contact percentage almost in half.
You think the current game is less interesting than it used to be (which is 100% true), imagine it without the hope that almost anyone in the lineup can get you back into a game by going yard. Epic fail.
You have to cut strikeouts without boosting walks, and the way to do that is to make the ball heavier and harder to spin. It doesn't change the game at all for hitters and for fans -- every pitcher just seems a bit less good than he used to be. Pitchers have only a small adjustment -- since many have trained with heavier balls, I think it's less of a change than lowering the mound was in 1969.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 28, 2019 11:37:04 GMT -5
The one obvious change should be removing luxury tax payments to tanking teams.
|
|
|
Post by taftreign on Sept 28, 2019 12:50:08 GMT -5
The one obvious change should be removing luxury tax payments to tanking teams. How would you best define 'tanking teams' if you were MLB. Is it hard dollars spent on players or a percentage of revenue spent on players. This could be manipulated by paying a big contract to one star or semi star in an "overpay" to reach the threshold and so I don't think it can correlate to dollars spent directly. I agree if the draft pools were not so heavily waited to the top 3 or so picks and less beneficial as a whole I think the desire to tank would be curbed quite a bit. Ultimately tanking is a result based on wins produced or rather not produced. Is it possible instead or in addition to looking at draft pools to build a system with a statistically defined win threshold (based on the schedule and variance of teams there has to be a theoretical number that teams should be able to hit even if they are currently in a low point of a rebuild) or a tier of win thresholds that penalize teams who lose 'X' number of games. For example Detroit is <50 wins. Baltimore is 50 to < 55. Miami and KC are 55 to <60. No-one is 60 to <65. Seattle, Pittsburgh and Colorado are 65 to < 69. This with 2 games to go so Colorado and Pittsburgh can hit 70, KC could reach 60 and Baltimore could reach 55. Clearly Seattle, Pittsburgh and Colorado don't feel or exhibit tanking. But all the other teams do. Maybe the threshold is in the 65 range with the penalty being similar to going over the luxury tax limit as a result dropping your draft pick 10 spots or 5 spots depending on what tier level you fall in. It takes away a total tank, offers incentive to field a competitive team and as a result spend more money to achieve the '65' win level. Yes it probably means teams looking to be bad will bunch together in the 65 to 68 win range but it reduces the odds you get a top 2 or 3 pick and since most players on the field try to win teams will get hot and all of a sudden your a 70 to 75 win team and picking in the teens. This still makes draft order dependent on the on field performance vs. the randomness of a lottery but maybe people love the lottery system and randomness determining the order. Not a fix for on field or attendance but it does help the fanbases of those half dozen teams who have no real incentive to spend money to go to the park and by food or merchandise or even tune in on the tv. There is no worse feeling as a fan than that of no hope.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Sept 28, 2019 13:59:07 GMT -5
By the way, changing the ball to reduce homers (either by somehow reversing the streamlining that has caused the surge, or reducing the liveliness) without doing anything to reduce the number of strikeouts would be a huge disaster.
It's significantly harder now to rally by stringing together a series of hits. The new way you come from three runs down is not to get four hits and a walk in an inning, but one hit and a walk and a three run bomb.
You reduce the number of homers to the old level while keeping strikeouts at the current levels, and scoring goes down and it becomes much harder to rally.
None of this is speculation. I built a model that explains 94% of annual attendance since the end of the steroid era, and the home run frequency is a big positive. It cuts the decline in attendance due to the decrease in contact percentage almost in half.
You think the current game is less interesting than it used to be (which is 100% true), imagine it without the hope that almost anyone in the lineup can get you back into a game by going yard. Epic fail.
You have to cut strikeouts without boosting walks, and the way to do that is to make the ball heavier and harder to spin. It doesn't change the game at all for hitters and for fans -- every pitcher just seems a bit less good than he used to be. Pitchers have only a small adjustment -- since many have trained with heavier balls, I think it's less of a change than lowering the mound was in 1969.
That said.... I would suggest fixing the ball AND moving back fences. If the field is a bit bigger, it would encourage counter adjustments to the launch-angle revolution. People would be rewarded for contact, games would be played at a faster tempo (I mean literally... there would be more running).... more like 80s National League ball.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 28, 2019 14:34:17 GMT -5
By the way, changing the ball to reduce homers (either by somehow reversing the streamlining that has caused the surge, or reducing the liveliness) without doing anything to reduce the number of strikeouts would be a huge disaster.
It's significantly harder now to rally by stringing together a series of hits. The new way you come from three runs down is not to get four hits and a walk in an inning, but one hit and a walk and a three run bomb.
You reduce the number of homers to the old level while keeping strikeouts at the current levels, and scoring goes down and it becomes much harder to rally.
None of this is speculation. I built a model that explains 94% of annual attendance since the end of the steroid era, and the home run frequency is a big positive. It cuts the decline in attendance due to the decrease in contact percentage almost in half.
You think the current game is less interesting than it used to be (which is 100% true), imagine it without the hope that almost anyone in the lineup can get you back into a game by going yard. Epic fail.
You have to cut strikeouts without boosting walks, and the way to do that is to make the ball heavier and harder to spin. It doesn't change the game at all for hitters and for fans -- every pitcher just seems a bit less good than he used to be. Pitchers have only a small adjustment -- since many have trained with heavier balls, I think it's less of a change than lowering the mound was in 1969.
The game is always evolving. Once home runs go down, batters would stop swinging for the fences on every pitch so strikeouts would surely go down. There might be some short term pain, but the players will have to adjust to whatever is done to the ball.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Sept 28, 2019 17:40:52 GMT -5
By the way, changing the ball to reduce homers (either by somehow reversing the streamlining that has caused the surge, or reducing the liveliness) without doing anything to reduce the number of strikeouts would be a huge disaster. It's significantly harder now to rally by stringing together a series of hits. The new way you come from three runs down is not to get four hits and a walk in an inning, but one hit and a walk and a three run bomb. You reduce the number of homers to the old level while keeping strikeouts at the current levels, and scoring goes down and it becomes much harder to rally. None of this is speculation. I built a model that explains 94% of annual attendance since the end of the steroid era, and the home run frequency is a big positive. It cuts the decline in attendance due to the decrease in contact percentage almost in half. You think the current game is less interesting than it used to be (which is 100% true), imagine it without the hope that almost anyone in the lineup can get you back into a game by going yard. Epic fail.
You have to cut strikeouts without boosting walks, and the way to do that is to make the ball heavier and harder to spin. It doesn't change the game at all for hitters and for fans -- every pitcher just seems a bit less good than he used to be. Pitchers have only a small adjustment -- since many have trained with heavier balls, I think it's less of a change than lowering the mound was in 1969.
The game is always evolving. Once home runs go down, batters would stop swinging for the fences on every pitch so strikeouts would surely go down. There might be some short term pain, but the players will have to adjust to whatever is done to the ball. Leaguewide K rates: 1980: 12.5 % 1990: 14.9 % 2000: 16.5 % 2014 20.4% 2019: 22.9% Rising K rates really aren't a juiced ball thing.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Sept 28, 2019 18:57:06 GMT -5
Three points.
1. Would MLB be poorly served with 2019 K rates and HR rates that fall 75% of the difference between 2019 and 2014? With more players focusing on launch angle and more tools available to help them do that, we're likely not falling all the way back to previous levels. It's not going to be 1968 again.
2. The pitch clock is a concrete rules change aimed at limiting strikeouts. The huge jump in Triple-A homers is an example of the mismatch when you mix the juiced ball with a pitch clock.
3. While all players are going to be focused on maximizing homers in a way that they weren't 10 or 20 or especially 30 years ago, players who have a better natural contact skill and less natural power are less valuable than players when players with 320-foot power are hitting the ball 350 feet. It can be reductionist to refer to players as types, but swing mechanics aside, "swing hard in case you hit it" guys are more valuable with a juiced ball because 10 more fly balls carrying out a year changes that balance fundamentally. You almost have to take a design-build approach: fix the biggest problem first, see how other aspects are affected and adjust accordingly. The issue, though, is you have to have competent and activist management within the game to do that effectively. Which...
-----
Another way you could bring balance back and add offense with a less juicy ball would be expansion. For a variety of very positive reasons, notably modern medicine and the internationalization of the game, the 200th best pitcher in baseball is A LOT better than the 200th best pitcher was in 1998, and managers are better at employing them optimally. The point was made earlier that Barry Bonds hit a lot of homers off crummy pitchers, and he also hit many off pretty good pitchers who were allowed to face him too many times. That wouldn't be the case today. Make the ball harder to hit out of the park, but add 25 pitchers at the bottom end of the league.
|
|
|
Post by foreverred9 on Sept 28, 2019 19:00:18 GMT -5
None of this is speculation. I built a model that explains 94% of annual attendance since the end of the steroid era, and the home run frequency is a big positive. It cuts the decline in attendance due to the decrease in contact percentage almost in half. What other variables are in your model? And how much of the 94% are you attributing to the home run decline? The rise in home run rates is significantly correlated to the recent rise in ticket prices so I'm curious how your treating that in your analysis. www.statista.com/statistics/193426/average-ticket-price-in-the-mlb-since-2006/
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 29, 2019 10:27:15 GMT -5
I'd also like to suggest that all new stadiums have minimum dimensions they must be larger than, both for fence distances and total outfield area. There are too many little league parks. I know Fenway has the least fair territory area of any park in baseball, but that is at least countered somewhat by a 37 foot wall which takes away as many home runs as it gives. Other parks have some dimensions like Fenway with 10 foot fences.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Sept 29, 2019 16:41:56 GMT -5
The one obvious change should be removing luxury tax payments to tanking teams. I would remove completely. If Billionaires don't want to pay free agents market dollar and effectively market their teams in their markets, then they should sell their teams to other billionaires who will. Also, MLB should loosen up the ability of teams to move. Who cares if a team moves into another team's market? As long as the teams are in opposite leagues then it should have no bearing. Let the Rays move to Tampa or Charlotte or San Antonio or wherever. Let Oakland move to San Jose or Portland or wherever.
|
|
|