Baseball History Comes Alive Now Ranked #2 by Feedspot Among All Internet Baseball History Websites and Blogs!
Guest Submissions from Our Readers Always Welcome!
THE BASEBALL HISTORY COMES ALIVE BLOG
Please note: As we compose new blog entries, we will now send each one out to all our subscribers as we post them. Here’s a link to see the entire Blog Archives -GL
February 22, 2021
WHAT GAME ARE WE WATCHING?
For longtime baseball fans like us, the game has always meant a great deal and we’ve been watching it for as long as we can remember. But what exactly are we watching now? It certainly isn’t baseball as we’ve known it. Sure, everything evolves over time, including sports, but isn’t always for the better. I often equate baseball with basketball. The hoop game has devolved into one of three-point shots and dunks, while on the diamond were seeing a game featuring home runs and/or strikeouts, plus a parade of relief pitchers on both sides. The beauty of both sports has been severely compromised and perhaps even lost.
Commissioner Rob Manfred continues to say that the game must speed up. Unfortunately, he doesn’t mean the style of play but rather the time it takes to complete nine innings. The lords of the game have tried to do that with new rules, like mandating relievers to face at least three batters or complete an inning before being replaced, and talk about implementing a time clock forcing pitchers to deliver the ball within a certain amount of time. All this is window dressing since most games are still taking more than three hours to play. But so what, as long as the product on the field is interesting and exciting. Unfortunately, it isn’t.
From where I sit the advent of analytics must take much of the blame for so many of the former strategies all but disappearing, strategies we all loved to see. A game that’s closer to a chess match is more exciting than a home run derby. But analytics (with alleged computer numbers as proof) says the bunt is useless. It’s just giving up an out. You don’t see the hit-and-run much anymore, or players taking the ball the other way to beat the omnipresent shifts. The computer geeks also tell us that the home run is the best way to score runs, so it’s perfectly all right for a hitter to strike out two, three, or four times in a game because he’s trying to hit the ball out. And if he happens to connect, then the strikeouts are forgivable.
But are they? The strikeout was anathema to players from the old days. Hall of Famer Joe Sewell fanned just 114 times in a 13-year career. The great Joe DiMaggio hit 361 homers in his career while striking out just 369 times, never more than 39 times in a season. In 1941, the year of his great 56-game hit streak, he fanned just 13 times in 622 plate appearances. Would he have set that great
1941 was the year of the Joe DiMaggio 56 game hitting streak
mark if he was told to work on his launch angle and try to hit more home runs? When Ted Williams hit .406 in 1941 he struck out just 27 times in 606 plate appearances. To have a batting average like that you simply have to put the bat on the ball, not swing and miss.
And then there’s the pitching. The complete game masterpiece by a starter is now a rarity and often caused by pitchers not being allowed to go the distance. They’re restricted by pitch counts and that nonsense that says even if he’s dominating, a starter shouldn’t be allowed to go through the lineup a third time. Look what happened with Blake Snell during last year’s World Series. A potentially brilliant performance destroyed by analytics and a vital game lost. The endless parade of relievers doesn’t help either. How exciting is it to watch a manager walk out to the mound five or six times to bring a new pitcher in from the bullpen? And as the Rays found out in the Series, sometimes even a reliable reliever doesn’t have his good stuff. Enough is enough.
I’m not the only one lodging complaints about today’s game. Baseball’s oldest living player, Eddie Robinson, interviewed for his 100th birthday recently, said that when he sees player after player strikeout and calmly walk back to the dugout that “it’s a black mark on baseball.” Even Miami Marlins manager Don Mattingly chipped in. He said that after the Marlins were eliminated from the playoffs he tuned in to some of the games afterward and said what he saw was “hard to watch.” The game on the field simply isn’t exciting anymore.
Can it be fixed? I hate to say this, but I doubt it. Young fans are being conditioned to watching and becoming excited by home runs and the showboating, posing players. Today’s announcers generally scream their lungs out when a home run is hit. Some of last season’s new rules just might stick, like seven-inning doubleheaders and putting a player on second to begin an extra inning. And I have a feeling there will be more. Maybe if a game goes to 15 or 16 innings it can be decided by a home run hitting contest. And it’s a cinch that the young general managers around the league never even saw the game played the old-fashioned way. Or should I say, the right way.
Like I said, I’m beginning to wonder more and more . . .what game are we watching?
Bill Gutman
As always, we enjoy reading your comments
Here’s a link to see the entire Blog Archives
Totally agree with your comments and observations, Bill.
Awhile back, I pulled some stats from Baseball Reference and found that the average game/9 innings increased from 2 hours 19 minutes in 1950 to 3:07 in 2020. The average number of pitchers used by each team in a game increased from 2.12 in 1950 to 4.43 in 2020. I graphed the results but can’t figure out a way to include them in this reply – they are pretty eye-opening.
Keep up the good commentary!
Thanks for the interesting stats, Gary. I’ve been saying for awhile that they do some silly things to shorten the time of the games, but it won’t work when there are eight or ten pitching changes, three or four timeouts for instant replay checking. They try to pick up a minute here and a minute there, but other things in the changing game simply make it longer. And God forbid if they decide to limit some of the between innings commercials.
Mr. Gutman, you must turn these articles out in your sleep! But we’re glad you do. We enjoy all of it. And this one touches a nerve particularly for fans who go back a couple of years.
(1) As kids we went to the park to see a winning team. Whether it was 1-0 or 10-9. Sure, a long ball late to win was enormously exciting. But just winning was more exciting because baseball was home team fan driven, not home run driven.
(2) In 1945, Cub first baseman Phil Cavaretta hit 6 homers and drove in 97 runs, led the league at .355 and struck out 34 times. In 2019, Pete Alonso, Mets first baseman, belted 53 homers, drove in 120, hit .260 and fanned 183 times. Great year, but if he had cut his whiffs to 134 (still 100 more than Phil), I guarantee he would still have clubbed 50 plus and driven in 8-10 more runs. Maybe the difference in a win or two.
(3) The league has addressed the ’19 juiced ball and Rawlings claims the increased drag on the 2021 edition will cut the distance one to two feet. But they’ve got to do better than that! Do fans really want to see cheap home runs?
(4) Perfect point about Blake Snell, Bill. How many times was Jacob deGrom lifted prematurely in 2019, only to see a bullpen mutt come in and immediately blow the game?
(5) I do agree with analytics that the sacrifice is usually a bad idea (not always). You sacrifice 1/3 of your precious outs to move a guy 90 feet. They then walk a key hitter–and you’re often left with inferior batters to try and plate the run. Go for the jugular to win the game!
(6) However, instead of placing a runner at second to start an extra inning (hate it), put him on first base if you must. Then strategy comes into play. You might sacrifice. I’d swing away, maybe go hit and run.
(7) You’re right, fans are conditioned. I despise showboating, batters swinging so hard they lose their balance.
You’re probably on target, it can’t be fixed. I only watch the Mets because I’m a masochist.
Well, now that I’ve put you back to sleep, I’m outta here.
Best, the other Bill
Hello other Bill.
Yes, we obviously think along the same lines when it comes to today’s game. You’re so right about when we watch games as kids. Seeing our team win was the big thing. And, yes, while a game-winning home run is exciting, how about the winning run scoring on a perfectly-executed squeeze play. Won’t happen too often since many players today simply don’t know how to bunt. Changing the ball so that it travels one to two feet less is a total joke. Most of the new ballparks today are smaller anyway because they want more home runs and you know MLB doesn’t want a sudden dirge of homers. I agree the sac bunt isn’t something you use whenever there’s a runner or first and less than two outs. Totally depends on the situation, the hitter, and the guys due up behind him. Know just what you mean with the Cavaretta/Alonso comparison. But since the strikeout is totally accepted now, I don’t think it will change. If a guy hits a home run his third at bat, the two strikeouts before that are totally forgotten. And stuff like the seven-inning doubleheaders and the runner on second to start the tenth make the game something other than the baseball we grew up with and loved. Oh, well, that’s progress, I guess. Heh, some progress.
Bill
Oh, those back and forths, Bill.
Like Columbo, just one more thing…
Cannot stand, “He has a wide strike zone tonight.” “Yes, he’s definitely a pitcher’s umpire.” “Well, that pitch crossed the zone about ankle high, but just so long as he’s consistent.” Give me a break!
Look, the vertical strike zone is the knee to the bottom of the letters. The horizontal is the width of the plate, including the black. When the pitched ball dissects both planes it’s a strike. If it misses one or both it’s a ball. No matter what inning, who’s pitching or who’s in the batter’s box.
So, here’s what I think they should do: Before each season starts, sit the umpires in a room with a giant screen. Run film, close up on where the pitch crosses the plate through the hitting zone.
The umps will see all kinds of pitchers-short,tall-varying deliveries-junk ball artist’s, blazers-great, mediocre, bad. Same thing for the batter’s (stance-slugger or punch and Judy, great and not-so-great) Plus, all shapes and sizes of catcher’s, and how they frame the pitches and try various mitt manipulations to make a ball appear to be a strike. Grade them on how well they call balls and strikes, ACCORDING TO THE REAL STRIKE ZONE.
They must score at least 85% to qualify as a home plate umpire. Those who don’t qualify at first will be given several more chances. Failing to pass will relgate these umps to only work the bases.
Yes, you’ll say the union will never agree. But it would be at least the basis for more intense training in this area. After all, too many games turn on bad ball and strike calls. And accuracy would improve.
The robo idea apparently is quite flawed, from what I’ve read. Plus, I don’t like it.
What do you think?
Hey Bill,
I agree with you. Every game features numerous and obvious bad calls by the plate ump. When I see the ump set up between the catcher and the hitter I wonder how he can see the outside pitchers. I remember umps standing right behind the catcher and looking at the middle of the plate. Now they often move from side to side, depending whether it’s a righthanded or lefthanded hitter. Now sure if the so-called robot umps are the best solution. Might get the calls right if they can refine it, but the game would definitely lose something. Better training seems to be the answer, plus as you said, only letting the best umps for balls and strikes work the plate. Too bad about hurt feelings.
Bill
Interesting article on the game we love! New sources of data/analytics whether in sports, business…whatever, can’t be denied. The information is there, if you don’t respond and find a place for it, your competition most certainly is.
But, one of the two main issues I have with today’s game are – 1.) spray charts used for defensive alignment, 2.) the umpires interpretation of the strike zone.
I don’t care to see the 3B or SS playing Right-Center, and the remaining player aligned behind second base on the outfield grass. If it were up to me, I’d eliminate the shift! You can’t cross over the line from catcher to second base. I’d also mandate all infielders start initially, when a pitcher goes in his wind-up, with both feet in the infield dirt! An awful lot of hits have gone by the wayside because of the shift, which has led to a number of players trying to go deep…over the shift.
One thing technology has done is reveal in our own living rooms, the true strike zone, along with the accuracy and interpretation skills of the home plate umpire. I like to consider myself a purest…but…I’ve had enough watching night after night these men in blue “blow it”, pitch after pitch. I’m all for that responsibility being relieved. I want a fair game, and all too often crucial at bats are taken away by lousy erroneous calls.
Thanks Pat, great to hear from you. I’ve been saying the same thing about the shifts for years. They’ve really hurt the game, and you’ve articulated a few points I hadn’t even thought of. My plan is that the shortstop must be on the shortstop side of second until the ball is pitched (or crosses home plate), and the same goes for the second baseman, on his side of second. And I like your idea of all infielders must have two feet on the infield dirt. And it’s not like there aren’t other mandated rules like this for placement. For instance, the batter must be inside the lines of the batters’ box. The pitcher must start with two feet on the rubber. Base runners must stay within the basepath. Batters must stay inside the white lines when running to first, etc. There are probably others I’m not thinking about. What a joy it would be to see the elimination of the shifts! By the way, if you ever want to write a guest essay on how the shifts have hurt the game, just let me know. Would love to post it. -Gary
Hello Pat,
You make some interesting and valid points. The home plate umps are terrible more often than not. As I said in one of the above comments, I don’t understand why umps often set up between the catcher and the hitter. That seems to eliminate a good view of the outside pitch. They move from side to side depending on whether the hitter is right or lefthanded. I seem to remember years back the plate ump standing directly behind the catcher and looking over the middle of the plate so he had an equal view of inside and outside pitches. As for the shift, I’m not sure if eliminating it completely is the best idea. It has been around since Lou Boudreau created it to try stopping Ted Williams. Seems to me much of the fault lies with the hitters. Most are trying to hit home runs with every at bat, shift or no shift. If they learned to go the other way they could easily defeat the shirt. I’ve also seen lefthanded hitters occasionally drop a bunt down the third base line against the shift and they could practically walk to first. But analytics say the bunt is a waste of an at bat. Some the big swings continue with record breaking strikeout numbers. That seems to be more of a problem with today’s game than the shift. In football, every kind of defensive alignment is allowed and it’s up to the offense to beat it. Why not in baseball? So much of the old strategies are gone today. Do you think the shift would have bothered Stan Musial one bit? I doubt it.
Bill
Here’s one we’ll have to agree to disagree on. No, it wouldn’t hurt guys like Stan Musial, but those guys are few and far between anymore. For just about everyone else, it would improve the current game immensely. You also have to remember, as Pat alluded to, that there’s a ripple effect: Seeing that the shift is on, guys are then trying to blast the ball out of the park all the time because it’s now much harder to get a single. And that “shift’ in approach at the plate is hurting the game big time. And that approach is reinforced by the analytics telling them the home run is the most important thing they can do at the plate. Two changes I’d like to see to help the game are to increase the home run distance by about 10 feet (in parks where it’s feasible) either by moving the fences back or home plate in, and then put some types of limits to the shifts, possibly some of the ideas we’ve mentioned. This overreliance on the shifts is a big part of what has made the present game bordering on unwatchable.
The analytics say the the sacrifice bunt is counter productive most of the time, not a bunt for a base hit against a lopsided shift. If everybody is way over on the right side for a left handed slugger and the lone infielder on the left side is 20 feet off the third base bag, you don’t have to be Stan Musial to tap an outside pitch toward third and cruise into second with a double as the ball dies in short left field. This would stop the crazy over-shift in its tracks, if more batters would wise up.
Moving the fences back is a good idea. Also, increasing the drag on the baseball would reduce the number of cheap home runs. Rawlings has addressed this somewhat, so they say, for the 2021 season. But only for one or two feet in the average “carry” on a batted ball. They need to do more.
I’ll ask the question I posed on a previous email. Do you think most fans really enjoy seeing a ball hit off the end of the bat travel 380 feet to the opposite field for a home run?
Hey Bill,
As I said previously, I’ve seen a few players just push the ball down the third base line with the shift on and they could practically walk to first base. I agree with you in that if more players did that or learned to go the opposite way, they’d have to rethink the constant shifting. Hello baseball geniuses. You can still score runs on a succession of base hits. You don’t always need the three run homer to call it a rally or a big inning. I remember when I did the book with Kevin Kennedy, he told me that during the steroid era something said they were tired of seeing punch-and-judy hitters swing at an outside pitch and suddenly it was going over the wall. It’s the same thing today with the juiced ball and short outfield dimensions. I think they’re building the new parks smaller because they want the home run parade to continue. A one to two feet drag on the baseball won’t mean anything.
Bill