Remember me
Forgot your username/password?
 
Print
Home>Articles

Burying Gorman Thomas

By Bill James
November 19, 2009

            Baseball games are being swallowed up in a vortex of strikeouts and home runs.    The subtler elements of the game, fielding and hitting behind the runner, are gradually disappearing.   This article is about how to stop this from continuing unabated, and this article is a sort of continuation of the article “Whiff 7”, which was published here yesterday.

            I hope you all know that I greatly admire Royals broadcaster Denny Matthews.   I always have.   But Mr. Matthews, at the moment, is selling a book which advocates expanding the strike zone.    Expanding the strike zone is exactly what baseball does not need.   Strikeouts are rising and rising and rising.   Expanding the strike zone would cause them to explode.   You expand the strike zone by one inch, you’re going to have ten strikeouts per team per game.   

            Look, this is what I never understood, until about three years ago.   Until the K zones started on TV, the pitchfx and the Questec, I had no idea how good major league pitchers were at hitting the corners of the strike zone.   You sum up the pitches made by any good major league pitcher in a typical game, you’ve got 40 pitches on the edge of the strike zone, 40 pitches just off the edge of the strike zone, 15 pitches WAY out of the strike zone, and 5 pitches that are somewhere near the heart of the zone.   At most 5.  And a high percentage of those get crushed.

            Maybe you always knew that—but I didn’t.   I remember Jim Bouton, in Ball Four, talking about pitching coaches telling him to hit the black.  He thought it was impossible.   What I always thought is this:  that pitchers tried to hit the edges of the plate, but that, throwing 90+ miles an hour and spinning the ball, it was impossible to do this consistently.   Pitchers would get behind, and they’d have to throw the pitch over the center of the plate.

            Whenever a home run is hit, the announcer will usually say that it was a bad pitch, it was right out over the middle of the plate.   I always thought that was BS; there’s lots of pitches out over the middle of the plate, he just happened to hit that one.

            What I understand now, and did not understand until we had the K zones, is that it is not BS.   Good pitchers can and do trace the outlines of the strike zone—and pitches that go over the heart of the plate DO get crushed.   Even bad pitchers with bad control throw many more pitches on the edges of the strike zone than they do in the heart of the zone.  

            The key fact is not that pitchers have fantastic control.   The key fact is that major league hitters DO crush baseballs in the heart of the zone.   Pitchers know that batters do crush balls in the heart of the zone, so they are very careful not to throw the ball there.   They aim pitches—70% of the pitches—to be just outside the zone.     Sometimes they miss, but usually they miss by a few inches.   If you aim two inches off the strike zone and miss by four inches, you’re two inches into the zone.    If you aim a pitch two inches inside the strike zone and miss by four inches, you’re in the heart of the zone.   Therefore, most pitchers aim most pitches just outside the zone. 

            Well, if pitchers can trace the outlines of the strike zone with their pitches, and you expand the strike zone, what happens?   They trace the outlines of the expanded strike zone, of course.   All you’ve done, by expanding the strike zone, is reduce further the number of hittable pitches.

            The problem with baseball now is that the batter/pitcher confrontations drag on, and the batter/pitcher confrontations drag on because the hitter is trying to force the pitcher to throw him something he can hit, and the pitcher is very good at avoiding doing that.  If you expand the strike zone, you make the problem worse. You’re going to have no hittable pitches at all, and you’re going to have batter/pitcher confrontations that drag on forever and wind up with ten strikeouts a game.   This is NOT a solution to our problems.

            What you need to do is, shrink the strike zone.   Take the edges of the plate away from the pitcher, and force him to throw the ball where the hitter can put some wood on it.

            Of course, if you do that, then you also have to do some other things to help the pitcher, or the league ERA will go to 6.14.  You have to do other things to help the pitcher—but that’s easy.

            Here’s what you can do.

            First, deaden the baseball a little bit. Major league baseball tests the resiliency of the baseballs, and has for many years. The problem is, they never do anything about it.   The only reason they test them is so that, whenever some nitwit complains about the balls being too lively and too many home runs being hit, they can say that they test the baseballs, and they’re no more lively than they ever were.

            That’s true; the liveliness of the baseballs is not the reason for the high number of home runs.   But if you need to help the pitchers out, it’s easy:  Just reduce the resiliency of the baseballs.

            Second, put the batters back in the batters’ box, and move the batter’s box back about three inches.    If a hitter wipes out a line of the batters’ box, call time out, call out the grounds crew, re-draw the line, and tell him not to do it again.   If he does it again, you throw him out of the game.

            If you keep the batter in the batter’s box and back the batter’s box up just a few inches, it becomes harder to get to the outside pitch, and it becomes easier for the pitcher to pitch inside.    It will make a huge difference.

            Third, get rid of the thin-handled bats and the multiple coats of shellac on the bats.    We don’t want to drive anybody out of the game, any hitter.   Just set a minimum thickness for the handle of a bat—I’d suggest 0.90 inches to start with—and then increase that by .05 inches every other year until the bat handles have a minimum thickness of 1.60 inches.   It will take about 30 years to get there, and hitters will adjust gradually and barely notice the differences.  

            At the same time, this will a) eliminate 95% of the broken bats, b) reduce the risk of someone being killed by a flying bat shard, and c) reduce the cost of using wooden bats, thus making it more practical to use wooden bats in college or other amateur venues.

            The whip-handled bats have taken over for a reason:  they’re better for the hitter.   They have a larger hitting surface, and the thin handle with the large head enables the hitter to generate more bat speed.   It’s good for the individual hitter—but it’s bad for the game.  It is one of the factors driving the game toward more home runs and more strikeouts.   If you gradually go back to bats more like the bats that were used 30 years ago, you can then restore the resiliency of the baseballs, without having another 70-homer season.

            Fourth, move a few fences back about ten feet.

            My general point is, if you want to help the pitcher, it is really, really easy to do that, and to do that in ways that are all but invisible to the fan.    You could keep the strike zone where it is now, keep the parks the same, and reduce the league ERA to 1.80 by just deadening the baseballs and moving the hitters off the plate.    There is no reason to do anything radical and stupid like expanding the strike zone or, God forbid, raising the mound.   Just deaden the balls a tiny bit, back the batters off the mound, and regulate the bats a little bit, the pitchers will be fine.

 
 

COMMENTS (15 Comments, most recent shown first)

evanecurb
Bill:

Responding to your most recent post - Under those conditions, I am on board and in agreement. Strikeouts, more pitches per batter, and increased reliance on home runs are trends that would best be reversed. More balls in play = more excitement. If that can be done without reducing scoring, then I am all for it.
12:25 PM Nov 30th
 
bjames
Responding again to Evan, you (Evan) described this as "altering the game profoundly", but it is nothing of the sort. First, the "changes" are not profound, at all; they are so subtle as to be essentially invisible to the fan. These changes don't REDUCE offense; that wasn't the point, and that wouldn't be the effect. These changes, properly and carefully implemented, would reduce STRIKEOUTS but also reduce home runs, keeping offense at essentially its current level,which is toward the top end of historic norms.

On a larger point, this isn't ALTERING the game; we're not CHANGING the game here. What we're actually doing is RESISTING change. The game has changed, on its own, without anyone intending to do this. Our intent here is to resist these changes and reverse them to a certain extent.
9:22 PM Nov 24th
 
evanecurb
If these changes were to result in a reduction in the number of runs scored, the frequency of lead changes within a game would decline. If it's more difficult for the team that is behind in the game to draw even, the game loses an aspect of excitement that is difficult to offset.
1:28 PM Nov 23rd
 
stevebogus
Replying to Brian Kennedy

I keep hearing about how much bigger and stronger athletes are today and how they hit the ball farther and throw the ball faster and run faster. While athletes today do tend to be a little bigger I don't believe that necessarily enables them to throw faster and run faster. If players today are faster why are no stolen base records being threatened? Why are batters more likely to get a hit on a ball in play today compared to 20 years ago if the faster fielders are running down all those baseballs? Why aren't pitchers regularly exceeding 100 MPH?

There is no good evidence that pitchers throw harder. Radar gun readings have only been widely available for about 25 years or so. Before that the technology was too expensive or bulky. But what evidence does exist indicates today's pitchers are no faster than Nolan Ryan or J.R. Richard were 30+ years ago. Bob Feller and Walter Johnson were measured in the 98-99 MPH range way back when, and they both had rivals as the fastest pitchers of their time. Those speeds are essentially the same as the fastest pitchers today. There is a limit to how fast the human arm can throw a baseball and the fastest pitchers of each generation have consistently approached the same velocity.

There is no good evidence that players today run faster. Is Jacoby Ellsbury or Carl Crawford faster than Vince Coleman or Willie Wilson were? Are there more speedy players in the game today or fewer than, say the 1970s or 1980s? Isn't it obvious that the game has moved away from speed and toward power?

If you want to argue that the average player is a little bit bigger and stronger I can agree with that. But being bigger doesn't make you faster. If you want to argue that the average pitcher today throws a little bit faster than the average pitcher 20 years ago, I can believe that. The proliferation of radar guns has made it easier to select the fastest pitchers, even if speed doesn't necessarily indicate quality. I think that over the last 20 years we have seen a phasing out of the crafty junkball type pitchers who could barely throw 85 and hung in there by changing speeds and hitting the corners. They have largely been replaced by pitchers with better "stuff" but less command. But I think while this makes the game a little bit different it doesn't mean the game is improved.

It wouldn't take much to roll back HR rates to 1980s levels. A shade less than 10 ft should do it (based on research by Tangotiger using Hittracker data). In fact, if MLB's own commissioned study (circa 2000) is correct all you need to do is use minor league baseballs, which have a different core than the major league baseballs. But if MLB is convinced that more HRs equals more fans that isn't going to happen.


6:08 PM Nov 22nd
 
evanecurb
Bill:

Your response to my question about "why do any of this?" is on point, of course. But before making any changes that would alter the game so profoundly, research needs to be conducted to determine what aspects of the game are most in need of improvement.
I think that each of your suggestions would have an impact. It seems to me that the two that are both most impactful and easiest to implement are deadening the ball and thickening the bats. At the same time, MLB should implement changes (including some of those you have proposed) to reduce the length of games (assuming the research bears out that's what paying customers want - I believe it is, but still needs to be studied).
9:21 AM Nov 22nd
 
Marinerfan1986
This is one of the most sensible arguments I have herd about evening up the batter- pitcher confruntation I hve read in a long time
7:26 PM Nov 21st
 
bjames
Replying to Evan.. . no business in the history of the world, other than baseball, ever used the logic that as long as the business was succeeding the product must be perfect. That's not "business" logic, at all; it's fan sentiment masquerading as business logic. Can you imagine Toyota saying "We had a good year, sold 42 million cars worldwide, so obviously we don't need to make any changes to our cars for 2011." Can you imagine a pharmaceutical company saying "We made $170 billion profits last year, so obviously our products are perfect; we can shut down the R & D department." The fact that the game is thriving and profitable in no way suggests that the game has no flaws.

And as to "aesthetics". . .baseball is ESSENTIALLY an aesthetic experience, isn't it? That's not marginalia; that's the essence of the product. Nobody NEEDS baseball. We like it.
1:41 PM Nov 21st
 
chuck
Bill,
I’m completely with you that deadening the ball a bit would be a good thing for baseball. But we differ on the lively ball issue. You write “that’s true; the liveliness of the baseballs is not the reason for the high number of home runs.” But I asked you some time ago in Hey Bill what you thought about the issue, saying I hadn’t seen you write on it, and you replied that you hadn’t written on it because you hadn’t studied it.

If my favorite living writer says I'm a nitwit for believing it likely a lively ball was introduced in 1993-94, then I’ll take it and say “Thank-you-sir-may-I-have-another”.

But the issue has been studied, by more than just MLB. You may know MLB’s testing procedure now better than I do, but what I read was that in the late 90’s it involved shooting a ball at a wooden backdrop at about 60 mph and testing the bounceback. This would hardly be different than testing the resilience of balls by having Jamie Moyer throw his soft change to Luis Castillo, who holds his bat out and bunts it. In the Lowell study commissioned by MLB, they used a BAUM machine, which spins a bat to hit the incoming ball. Better. But they weren’t testing pre-1994 balls with it. All they found was that the speed ratio was consistent from 1998 to 2000.

In contrast, the Rhode Island and Universal Medical Systems studies used balls from different eras and showed dramatic changes in the ball’s construction and behavior. The Rhode Island study found the 90’s ball more resilient in bounce tests; they then cut them open to show the differences in balls from the 1990’s to those from earlier decades, both in the winding materials and the core. The Universal study used CT scans that confirmed this- showing a much denser, more resilient core in the balls from the Bonds era than in those from Aaron’s era.
The scans show a core in the 1990’s ball that is around 1300 grams per cubic centimeter. In the Aaron ball it’s closer to 900 gm/cc. Around this core is a ring. In the 1990’s ball this ring was well over 2000 gm/cc in density; in the Aaron-era ball it’s around 1700 gm/cc and much thinner-looking.

The home run rate per batted ball jumped dramatically in 1993-94. In both leagues. Since Rawlings started making the ball for Spalding in the mid-50’s, there have three significant sudden jumps in both leagues’ home run rates: 1969, 1977 (when Rawlings got the contract to produce the baseballs) and 1993-94.
The change in the rate of home runs per line drive from 1992 to 1994:
NL +68%.
AL +67%.

The change in the rate of homers per fly ball from 1992 to 1994:
NL +37%
AL +46%

Ground balls per batted ball as well as the strikeout rate rose over these 2 years, helping to mask how huge the change was in home run rates. If a lively ball was introduced in the 90’s, it was likely at this time.

How likely is it that the jump in 1993-94 was caused by multiple factors- changes in bat handle or type, conditioning, PED’s, body armor allowing more closeness to the plate- happening all at once? I don’t know that the physical changes to the ball seen in the studies explain the explosion of the home run rate, but I do think it LIKELY that it is a major contributing factor, especially since the rate jumped as noted above.

If this is true and exposed, admitting this would give a huge black eye to baseball, whether the change was unintended or not. But it might be an effective way to get to the result of deadening the ball in use now.
3:48 PM Nov 20th
 
pob14
Another advantage of moving the batter's box back is, you could make the batters take off all of that damned body armor.
3:17 PM Nov 20th
 
rtallia
I really liked the "speeding up the game" ideas Bill presented in the New Historical Abstract. I also noticed, for the first time this postseason, the same thing Bill is talking about, that there are very few balls right over the heard of the plate. However, I guess I just don't see a problem with the number of strikeouts or the number of home runs. My question is: so what? To my mind, the only thing "wrong" with the game (and it's not that bad) at all at this moment is the friggin' batter STEPPING OUT OF THE BOX AFTER EVERY PITCH. If the average baseball game was 2:40 or 2:30, life would be grand. Strike zone? Fine. Home run rates? Fine. Distance of the fences? Fine. Height of the mound? Fine. The only other thing that is so obviously NOT fine are the damned bats breaking. I'll certainly agree with Bill here again on that one. But there's much more RIGHT with baseball than is wrong. Or maybe I'm just in a good mood since I'm a Yankee fan.
2:10 PM Nov 20th
 
Brian
Batters are bigger and stronger, pitchers are bigger and throw harder, and fielders run faster. The idea that the game is played in no larger and sometimes smaller dimensions for the last 100 years is as silly as playing 6 year old t-ball and high school ball with the same dimensions. Each time a new park is built, there should be no fence closer than 400 feet and center field should be 475. That change alone would start a retreat fom the homers-only offense, and place much more of a premium on speed and contact hitting.

By the way, even if there were no rule, clubs should be doing this anyway. You have done a good job in the past of showing that generally organizations playing in pitcher's parks are more successful.

Also, by the way, football should deepen its end zone to at least 15 yards for the same reasons. Not only will it help make the red zone more reasonable, but it will make field goals and extra points less automatic. And the size of the court and the height of the hoop in the NBA is ridiculous. We're not in Naismith Kansas any more....
1:42 PM Nov 20th
 
bokonin
First of all, I completely endorse Bill's and Ventboys's ideas.

Second, to answer Evan's question: for the last 30 years, income inequality in the United States has been skyrocketing. While the median real income hasn't increased above inflation (yes, there's serious problems with those measurements, but there's a lot of truth as well), the number of rich people -- able to easily afford expensive tickets, parking, and drinks -- has gone up, up, up, up. As have ticket prices, to accommodate them. Major sports of all kinds are flush in money these days ... but baseball's share of the market is smaller, not larger. Maybe, if it were a more exciting game, that would change.
10:48 AM Nov 20th
 
evanecurb
Yes, the games drag on and on. Yes, strikeouts and pitches per batter are rising. But this is a business. Attendance keeps going up. During the 1950s and 1960s, attendance fell.

What is the reasoning behind these changes? Aesthetics? This is a business.
10:22 AM Nov 20th
 
ventboys
Oh, and those 4 inches at the top of the zone are where a ton of strikeouts live. Take that zone out and most hitters will be harder to get out with the slider in the dirt down and away, since they won't have to speed up their bats to foul off the high cheese. It takes away that "up the ladder" type of strikeout for all but the very best power pitchers, and lessens the effect of the series of 97 mile an hour short relievers that come intot the game and slow it down to a crawl. It forces pitchers to be able to PITCH, instead of just cheesing it up there 3 times a week for 2 or 3 batters. Teams will have to find pitchers that can set hitters up, and get them to hit their pitch. Staffs will decrease in size to a more normal number, because there simply won't be enough back of the staff pitchers that can be as effective as the guy that they just took out after throwing 6 pitches. I think that I am raving now...
2:25 AM Nov 20th
 
ventboys
I watch the questec type zones as well, and I mostly agree with you. I do notice that the good command pitchers will toss the ball in there, up in the zone, on strike one if they believe that the hitter isn't looking dead red, or toss his offspeed pitch in there to a fastball hitter, etc. They do use the middle of the zone, but sparingly and carefully, and only if they believe that they have the hitter set up to be looking elsewhere.

I have one more thing that I would strongly advocate, a change in the strikezone. I wouldn't expand it, but I would lower it. 4 inches is about the distance between the top and the bottom of the knees. They could lower the top of the zone the same amount by several simple methods. They could lower the letters, or just make them larger, or just leave all of it alone and instruct the umpires to take 4 inches off of the top. The zone has been adjusted plenty of times, I am sure that the umpires could easily adjust.

The zone was raised on the top in 1988, I believe, to what they call halfway between the belt and the shoulders. Basically, to the letters. The initial effects washed out in a few years, but coupled with other factors I think that it increased everyone's expectation of the longball by raising their zones above the waist.

I wouldn't want them to take it back down to the waist, but if they were to get the bottom end down to the bottom of the knees it would make it:

- easier for the 2 seam fastball types to be effective in getting ground balls

- easier for all pitchers to get some downforce on their meat and potatoes pitches

- harder for hitters to get lift on the ball consistently

- Balance the scales between the guys with hopping fastballs and the guys that rely more on command and changing speeds

- Increase the need for defense in the infield, and in particular at first base, where the number of ground ball would increase enough to make it impossible to play immobile sluggers there every day

- This might sound weird, but it might also increase the value of selected lefhanded hitters, and decrease the value of all the dammed lefty specialist relievers. Lefthanded hitters tend to be low ball hitters. I lower zone might go some in mitigating the platoon differentials that the lefty specialists have over them.

Anyway, just some thoughts. Is there any chance that your ideas can get listened to?
2:10 AM Nov 20th
 
 
©2024 Be Jolly, Inc. All Rights Reserved.|Powered by Sports Info Solutions|Terms & Conditions|Privacy Policy