I heard a suggestion a few weeks ago to make the ball a little heavier. I wonder if that would do the trick. MLB was found to have used two different balls last year, and I’m surprised it hasn’t gotten more attention (they sent livelier balls to games they wanted more action in). A heavier ball would likely be a bit deader, wouldn’t be able to be thrown as hard, and likely couldn’t have as much torque applied. I think it’s a better idea than moving the rubber back, like they did in some of the minor leagues.
Well, nobody is required to use a DH; they can still send up their pitchers to bat if they want to.
Sad. I knew it was probably coming, but I can’t stand the DH. It’s not even so much from a purity point of view as that it seems to me that the DH really slows down the game because it combines with each team having way too many pitchers on staff that managers feel free to replace willy-nilly. I’m probably actually wrong about that, but overall I swear that AL games drag on longer and are less fun to watch.
Well you’re in luck, because they agreed to do that - although those rules won’t start until 2023 (which makes sense, it’s a little bit too soon to try to create and implement new rules now while everyone is rushing to do as much Spring Training as they can for the season to start in less than a month).
Some DH history.
The AL implementing it starting in 1973. The idea was to generate more offense. It has worked, a no-brainer really. The AL scored more runs per game than the NL every single year since. Of course, it was later used as an excuse to “save” pitchers from getting hurt while batting, as if that was a major problem.
In 1980, the NL actually had an owner’s meeting about the DH. It wasn’t passed because the Phillies GM was on a fishing trip and couldn’t be reached. Read the full story: The Time the NL Almost Adopted the DH – Fan Interference
It was basically inevitable the NL would eventually use the DH. I’m just surprised it took this long. I believe the NL was the last pro league to still let pitchers hit although there were variations I know of such as the International League when two NL-affiliated teams were playing. This was as late as 2007 and I don’t know if that rule still existed last year.
Letting the pitcher hit did make the NL game different. Somewhat different strategy which I like, despite creating confusion at times when double-switching. As I said, it was inevitable and I’m fine with it now but we’ll never experience the thrill of Bartolo Colon hit a home run again.
I’m glad I’m old enough to remember Orel Hirschiser batting 1000 in a world series or Fernando Valenzuela trotting around the bases after knocking one into the outfield stands.
It’s just sad that the DH came along too late for Dick Stuart, a.k.a. Dr. Strangeglove.
Little-known fact: Stuart hit 66 home runs and drove in 158 runs for the Lincoln Chiefs (Class A) in 1956.
But honestly, they can’t be any more exciting than watching Ozzie Smith, who never hit a home run as a left-handed hitter hit one for a walk-off victory in Game 5 of the 1985 NLCS, or Kirk Gibson’s desperation “hit a home run or have your leg fall off - or maybe both!” in Game 1 of the 1988 World Series.
I’m guessing that, on average, this will lead to pitchers staying in the game longer so they aren’t pulled when their at-bat comes up and they are still pitching well and could come back in the next inning. Hopefully, it will make some improvement in pace of play.
Are there any statistics on time of game for AL vs. NL that might bear this out?
I don’t think you’ll see longer starts. The current manager hive mentality is no more than two times around the batting order. Then if your starter is lights out, pull him anyway and let the bullpen blow the game. In the Yankees’ case, let the middlemen hang on and let Chapman blow it.
Probably not much of one, honestly. As I noted upthread, the trend in MLB over the past decade or so has been to pull the starting pitcher earlier and earlier. The reasoning is that, when a batter has several at-bats against the same pitcher in a game, he’s more likely to be able to figure out the pitcher’s stuff, and statistics have shown that the batting average against a pitcher goes up with every successive time he goes through the batting order.
Even without having to potentially pull a pitcher for a pinch-hitter, it’s not uncommon at all to now see starters pulled in the 4th or 5th inning, even if the starter is doing reasonably well.
This article notes that, in 2021, starting pitchers lasted an average of 5.01 innings, and this is down almost one full inning from 20 years ago.
A friend of mine is a huge baseball fan, he has season tickets for the Dodgers. Every season he also attends 10 or so Angels games just for the express purpose of watching some the of the best hitters in baseball, American League designated hitters. Now he won’t have to drive to Anaheim anymore.
Not good, says I, since it means less chances to say “that guy swings like a rusty gate.”
Basically no difference in time of game. That, along with lots of other good information, can be found in this article from 2019:
I’ve long been supportive of the idea that a team has to declare a limited number of pitchers as “eligible” for each game. Maybe 4 relievers and 2 starters (last one as a backup). Only those pitchers can pitch during the game. Maybe you get one more for each extra inning. That will have a much larger impact on pace of play than the DH.
What the game is missing is action. Longer games aren’t a fundamental issue - it’s long games in which NOTHING HAPPENS. A pitch clock, or even enforcement of the current time between pitches rules, would go a long way. Incentive stolen bases by limiting throws to first, maybe. Move fences back so home runs don’t happen as much (or deaden the ball a bit if you want).
I think banning defensive switches isn’t much of a solution. If anything it might increase the number of pull-happy strikeout-prone power hitters since they will occasionally get weak hits that are now normally caught by a shifted infielder (think Joey Gallo types).
But isn’t that more action? Instead of an easy out, now they have hit a single and have to run the bases. And now instead of basically only having the option of hitting a HR (and thus swinging for the fences leading to more strike outs), they now have a greater ability to hit a single or double.
Pitch clock was included in the CBA and a larger base should incentivize stolen bases by making it easier to do so.
Another approach to speed things up without changing much is making 3 fouls on a X-2 count an out. That gets rid of the the boring-ass at bats where the hitter fouls off 19 pitches until the pitcher finally tires enough to either miss the plate or leave one hanging.
Well, yes, for Joey Gallo there is a little more action (some of his outs are now hits). But he’s not changing his approach (trying to hit singles) - he still will swing for HRs every time. It’s just that in addition to his HRs and Ks he’ll have a few more singles to RF.
But, if his success means a team replaces a line-drive hitter with another Joey Gallo clone, then the overall amount of action actually goes down across the league (by replacing a more “action-oriented” player with a “three true outcomes” guy).
I don’t think the game needs more Joey Gallos, even ones who get a few more weak singles due to slightly missing with their uppercut swings.
I guess there is the argument that the defensive shift also hurts slap-and-run hitters, but (a) most of the data I’ve seen doesn’t really support that and (b) those guys don’t even really exist anymore.
Honestly if the defensive shifts got so good that it became smarter to hit the other way or lay down some bunts I’d be all for it. Way more fun than another jacked slugger swinging for the fences. But, YMMV.
I haven’t seen much detail on the shift rules - what exactly are they banning? 3 IF on one side of second base? IF behind the dirt of the infield? Both?
I think, though I am not positive, that nothing has been agreed to / decided upon yet. It sounds like the new CBA includes a 45-day window for MLB to implement additional rule changes for 2023, including banning the shift, base size, pitch clock, etc.
Maybe that’s who Gallo is, but is it possible that Gallo has adjusted his hitting style because of the shift? Of course it’s not necessarily easy to go back to a less extreme swing.
Of course a shift affects line drive hitters as well… as there are more infielders in the way of said player’s line drives.
They haven’t done it yet, but most seem to believe it’ll end up being 2 IF on each side of 2B and on the dirt.
Yeah, it’s a complex and multi-leveled issue. Most of the analysis I’ve seen show that the gains are largely aesthetic (long-time fans hate when “humpback liners” are caught by a roving 2B), with minimal impacts to outcomes or pace-of-play.
One recent article:
This is the other one I was remembering from The Athletic (subscription required):
Basically it’s just the guy in the OF against lefties that this change will effect. Having the SS/2B one step on the “right” side of the bag v. the “wrong” side won’t make a huge difference - they will still shift as far as they are allowed to and continue to suck up those grounders up the middle.
So as long as they require the IF to be on the dirt, it might have the desired effect of creating a few more line drive hits. Which I’m cool with. I’m not sure the “2IF on each side part” even matters (other than aesthetics), just the “all on the dirt” part.
Anways, we are pretty far afield of the DH rule, which I think all of us NL fans saw coming for years now and have come to terms with. Now I have to see who my Cardinals are going to try to sign to fill that role…