It’s fascinating seeing the push/pull between optimizing how the sport is played vs making the most watchable/entertaining sport. While the three true outcomes, the shift, flame-throwing pitchers may be the best way to play the game, it’s not the most entertaining (or sustainable as it appears). I’ve read a decent amount about game design in video games and applying those thoughts to a 100+ year old sport is always fun
Absolutely - and thanks for reading. The problem with the current rule set in baseball is that nobody is going to throw slower if it isn’t the optimal strategy - we can’t put that 100mph genie back into the bottle. That’s why making a change to the rules which shifts the optimal strategy to a more entertaining/healthful one is probably the only way out for baseball, and in general for sports.
Fully agree. As much fun as it was watching Ben Joyce throw 105 in Lindsey Nelson while he was at Tennessee (go vols!), I’d rather my favorite pitches actually be able to pitch. Maybe a mound height increase or something similar with the proposed rule change mentioned could maintain the current pitching/batter dynamics
A mound increase isn’t a bad idea - I also think deadening the baseball a touch combined with the qualified start would lead to a bunch more action if the league were alright with losing some home runs for more base hits
Absolutely, especially if a competent manufacturer makes the balls again. Don’t get me wrong, I enjoyed Judge getting some juiced balls last season, but that’s probably not the best policy
I’ve been thinking about this all morning since John Means’ career is now basically over and Tyler Wells will be out for a year. At what point is it a moral imperative to not destroy young kids’ lives?
Spot on. The mlb has gotta act fast with whatever fix they have in mind because the wear and tear going onto elbows at the high school and college level chasing an MLB contract is absolutely a moral/ethical issue.
There is definitely a world where this solution gets us to the same place a qualified start does, although I do think there is a tradeoff in that the limited pitching roster would leave teams more ways too maneuver and potentially miss the benefits of a 90+ pitch starter. At the same time it is also a less invasive change so maybe more likely to actually be passed by the league.
I'll play devil's advocate here. First, while admittedly the entire referenced study did not appear to be available for a full review, the finding of 2% increased UCL risk for each 1% increase in fastballs is less than compelling for me for two principal reasons. First, the study only looked at 83 pitchers who likely have very different histories and pitching patterns - of which, pitch selection is but one. It's a very small sample with a ton of variables.
Second, the study only appeared to look at incremental fastball selection as it related to arm injuries without controlling for the other pitches. Are we to assume that curveballs and sliders do not impact the UCL at all? If we don't believe that, what about those pitches? If we think they also might create arm stress (particularly in an era of higher spin rates) how do we know that there was not also an incremental increase in the selection of one of these secondary pitches that, alone or in conjunction with more fastballs, accounted for the injury delta beyond just presuming it was all due to more fastballs?
For the UCL piece, I need to see a bigger sample size with more controls of the pitch selection variables to be convinced beyond correlation to fastball selection. One element, however, that I don't need more evidence of, is that higher velocity and spin rates make pitchers more effective - way more effective. Therein lies the rub.
Specifically, the proposed incentives will almost surely fail. The false assumption operating here is that the incentives for the individual will somehow magically align with those of the organization such that over time the game will be safer and somehow "better." While a noble hope, unfortunately, the incentives don't appear to align.
We know this to be true, because pitchers have known for well over a decade that max effort and spin rates are likely causes of arm injuries and TJS - yet they keep going upward despite the mounting evidence. Why is this so when the risk is clear?
The reason is that the incentive for the individual remains to make it to "The Show" and get that first guaranteed contract. What might happen in 3-5 years in some unknown surgeon's office just isn't compelling today for the individual, who couldn't care less about possible TJS risk or DH impacts for the club when real dollars are at stake for them. Also, these incentives likely become more misaligned the further upstream the pitcher is from the MLB.
Getting out of AAA - whatever the cost - incentivizes players to take these risks year after year. In some ways, velo and spin rates can be analogized to the use of PEDs where players similarly ignored physical risks to gain an advantage. This includes the similar reality that some proportion of pitchers will continue to reach for more spin and velocity and be rewarded for it. The market will drive pitchers to continue to reach for better pitches.
But what about the team? It would seem that the concept here (if I am understanding it correctly) is to demand that your pitchers be LESS effective (again, we know that velocity and spin rates are highly effective) so that they can be less effective over more innings...but that hopefully the DH can recoup some of it. I'm not sure if I see the logic or upside to that or that many front offices will either.
I also don't see hitters - who don't face an injury risk - changing their launch angle approach to hitting just because pitchers are now doing the right thing by seeking longevity but making it easier for them to go deep. They get contracts too.
I guess I can be convinced, but for now, I just don't see it.
Making pitchers hit isn’t a new idea. Nor is it that punitive with pinch hitters and double-switches. Roster limits for pitchers also incentivizes durability.
Tanner Houck for Cy Young
Skubal big guy
It’s fascinating seeing the push/pull between optimizing how the sport is played vs making the most watchable/entertaining sport. While the three true outcomes, the shift, flame-throwing pitchers may be the best way to play the game, it’s not the most entertaining (or sustainable as it appears). I’ve read a decent amount about game design in video games and applying those thoughts to a 100+ year old sport is always fun
Absolutely - and thanks for reading. The problem with the current rule set in baseball is that nobody is going to throw slower if it isn’t the optimal strategy - we can’t put that 100mph genie back into the bottle. That’s why making a change to the rules which shifts the optimal strategy to a more entertaining/healthful one is probably the only way out for baseball, and in general for sports.
Fully agree. As much fun as it was watching Ben Joyce throw 105 in Lindsey Nelson while he was at Tennessee (go vols!), I’d rather my favorite pitches actually be able to pitch. Maybe a mound height increase or something similar with the proposed rule change mentioned could maintain the current pitching/batter dynamics
A mound increase isn’t a bad idea - I also think deadening the baseball a touch combined with the qualified start would lead to a bunch more action if the league were alright with losing some home runs for more base hits
Absolutely, especially if a competent manufacturer makes the balls again. Don’t get me wrong, I enjoyed Judge getting some juiced balls last season, but that’s probably not the best policy
I’ve been thinking about this all morning since John Means’ career is now basically over and Tyler Wells will be out for a year. At what point is it a moral imperative to not destroy young kids’ lives?
Spot on. The mlb has gotta act fast with whatever fix they have in mind because the wear and tear going onto elbows at the high school and college level chasing an MLB contract is absolutely a moral/ethical issue.
A simpler solution would be to limit the number pitchers a team could carry on its roster to, say, 10
There is definitely a world where this solution gets us to the same place a qualified start does, although I do think there is a tradeoff in that the limited pitching roster would leave teams more ways too maneuver and potentially miss the benefits of a 90+ pitch starter. At the same time it is also a less invasive change so maybe more likely to actually be passed by the league.
I'll play devil's advocate here. First, while admittedly the entire referenced study did not appear to be available for a full review, the finding of 2% increased UCL risk for each 1% increase in fastballs is less than compelling for me for two principal reasons. First, the study only looked at 83 pitchers who likely have very different histories and pitching patterns - of which, pitch selection is but one. It's a very small sample with a ton of variables.
Second, the study only appeared to look at incremental fastball selection as it related to arm injuries without controlling for the other pitches. Are we to assume that curveballs and sliders do not impact the UCL at all? If we don't believe that, what about those pitches? If we think they also might create arm stress (particularly in an era of higher spin rates) how do we know that there was not also an incremental increase in the selection of one of these secondary pitches that, alone or in conjunction with more fastballs, accounted for the injury delta beyond just presuming it was all due to more fastballs?
For the UCL piece, I need to see a bigger sample size with more controls of the pitch selection variables to be convinced beyond correlation to fastball selection. One element, however, that I don't need more evidence of, is that higher velocity and spin rates make pitchers more effective - way more effective. Therein lies the rub.
Specifically, the proposed incentives will almost surely fail. The false assumption operating here is that the incentives for the individual will somehow magically align with those of the organization such that over time the game will be safer and somehow "better." While a noble hope, unfortunately, the incentives don't appear to align.
We know this to be true, because pitchers have known for well over a decade that max effort and spin rates are likely causes of arm injuries and TJS - yet they keep going upward despite the mounting evidence. Why is this so when the risk is clear?
The reason is that the incentive for the individual remains to make it to "The Show" and get that first guaranteed contract. What might happen in 3-5 years in some unknown surgeon's office just isn't compelling today for the individual, who couldn't care less about possible TJS risk or DH impacts for the club when real dollars are at stake for them. Also, these incentives likely become more misaligned the further upstream the pitcher is from the MLB.
Getting out of AAA - whatever the cost - incentivizes players to take these risks year after year. In some ways, velo and spin rates can be analogized to the use of PEDs where players similarly ignored physical risks to gain an advantage. This includes the similar reality that some proportion of pitchers will continue to reach for more spin and velocity and be rewarded for it. The market will drive pitchers to continue to reach for better pitches.
But what about the team? It would seem that the concept here (if I am understanding it correctly) is to demand that your pitchers be LESS effective (again, we know that velocity and spin rates are highly effective) so that they can be less effective over more innings...but that hopefully the DH can recoup some of it. I'm not sure if I see the logic or upside to that or that many front offices will either.
I also don't see hitters - who don't face an injury risk - changing their launch angle approach to hitting just because pitchers are now doing the right thing by seeking longevity but making it easier for them to go deep. They get contracts too.
I guess I can be convinced, but for now, I just don't see it.
This was outstanding.
Making pitchers hit isn’t a new idea. Nor is it that punitive with pinch hitters and double-switches. Roster limits for pitchers also incentivizes durability.