Is the difference in the external stitching then affecting the tightness of the ball’s construction then? The hypothesized stitching difference isn’t causing pitchers to complain the ball isn’t breaking like before. Nor is it causing greater drag and slowing pitches. At least, not that I’ve heard.
For Verlander and his HR rate: he’s getting shelled independent of park, right? Because Minute Maid has a ridiculously short left field porch, but I haven’t heard complaints that he was only getting hit hard there.
When did hitting instruction begin to emphasize higher launch angles for players’ swings?
Amen to that. I’m starting to blame the balls. My theory is that the stitches are too low and don’t let curves bite enough and cause balls to carry farther. My solution: use fatter thread on the baseballs. Pitchers will be able to throw sharper breaks and the ball won’t go as far. And when did we start having to take the ball out of play the instant it contacts bat or ground?
It’s a bit of a factor in his 2018 campaign. but it’s a bit weird to suss out.
Home: 19 G, 117.1 IP, 429 AB, .193/.226/.380, with a SO/W ratio of 11.33, and an .835 WHIP. 2.84 ERA. 19 HR.
Away: 15 G, 96.2 IP, 352 AB, .207/.261/.335, with a SO/W of 5.45, and a .983 WHIP. 2.14 ERA. 9 HR.
It looks like he pitched better at home in many ways, but gave up enough extra home runs to screw with his ERA. Either way, an outstanding campaign, but I can see Minute Maid hurting him in 2018.
I have the same question. Growing up watching baseball, if the ball hit the dirt the pitcher would get it back to pitch it again, and it was to the pitcher’s advantage. (Or at least perceived that way). Get a scuff on it and maybe get a better grip or it breaks an extra inch or something. The batter would have to specifically request the ball be inspected, and the ump would look it over and either toss it out of play (if really scuffed), or shake his head and give it back to the catcher to throw back to the pitcher.
Pitchers would tell stories of throwing a breaking ball in the dirt intentionally to get a good scuff for the next couple of pitches.
Nowdays, if the ball even nicks the dirt, it is tossed. And much of this is requested by the pitchers! I’ve seen pitchers point to the ball and make sure it is tossed. Catchers immediately toss it w/o even trying to game the system a bit to give their pitchers an advantage.
So either it’s become a hard and fast rule (no discretion on anyone’s part); OR, what was thought as an advantage all these years has been turned upside down.
I strongly suggest reading the Athletic article. It’s not a suspicion. It’s fact.
Changing the baseball is a dangerous solution, though. Changing the thread might return things to a more balanced kind of baseball, or it might wildly change things.
It’s not just home runs; it’s strikeouts. Strikeouts are incredibly high, high without any sort of precedent. The average pitcher now strikes out 8.6 men per nine innings; BOB GIBSON never once in his entire career had a season when he struck out that many men per nine innings. The aforementioned Mr. Verlander is putting up a season of strikeouts and few hits allowed that no Hall of Fame pitcher before this era has even come close to. If you increase the break on the ball you might cause the likes of Justin Verlander to basically break baseball. Baseball does not need fewer balls hit into play. It needs more.
As Rick notes, home runs and Ks are beyond ridiculous levels. But runs, hits and batting average are not at historic levels. They’re really not that far out of line. So if you mess with the ball to make it pitcher friendly, it stands to reason Ks will go even higher while offensive numbers decrease. MLB does not want that. Most fans probably don’t, either. The fact is, and for a number of reasons, we’re never going back to 1985 baseball.
I’ve read and heard that Sabermetrics advocates slugging as a path to winning games, and I could see an emphasis on that leading to more home runs and more strikeouts. Is that at all a factor in this scenario or is it purely a physical change in the balls they are using? Am I wrong in thinking that slugging is at a premium because of analytics?
I have been reading sabermetric research and articles for longer than that word has existed, and no, the general thrust of sabermetric thought has never been that slugging wins ballgames (well, not any more than traditional thought has held that. People have always seen the value of the long ball, at least since Babe Ruth.)
By a wide, wide margin, the central thrust of sabermetrics about how to score runs has always been about getting on base. And players don’t get on base any more than they used to, because of course analytics works both ways; if getting on base is the most important thing your offense can do, preventing guys from getting on base is the most important thing your pitchers and fielders can do.
My fear would be that you might end up with a situation where teams hit fewer (but still a lot of) home runs - say, 175 a season instead of 230 - but batting averages drop to .220 or something, and runs scored per game drops below 4/team. If you change stitching to make breaking balls break more, that might happen, along with an increase in strikeouts to the point that everyone is Randy Johnson.
That would be an even duller kind of baseball. It would suck so bad.
The incredible strikeout totals also mean that fielding is less important than it used to be, which I also dislike.
Sabermetrics like OBP and slugging. That’s why we have OPS, which is fairly new. OPS wasn’t really widely known until about the early 2000’s. Before that people just cared about batting average.
I watched the video of this the other night and I could see that Marisnick was upset and worried immediately after the collision. He knew he had fucked up, IMO and was instantly contrite.
If I was him, tho, I’d prolly be asking “wouldn’t a 4 game suspension be a better idea? You know, to send a stronger message?”
I think you totally misread Marisnick’s expression, Bo. At least one of the videos I saw several times shows Jake choosing his path and Lucroy stepping into it deliberately, leaving Jake no way to miss him. Of course Jake was upset that someone got hurt, but I’m pretty sure he knew who “fucked up” and it wasn’t him. (BTW he is appealing the suspension.)
The call was ridiculous and the suspension is political and has nothing to do with what really happened. The rules are pretty clear and Jake did not violate them, but the catcher had a bloody nose, so…
you know its funny the juiced ball controversy reminds me of the steroid thing in the 90s and 00s
the casual fans who go to watch a few games year and a few on tv are like "who cares it makes baseball exciting " they dont wanna see pitcher duels with no one on base … they want the live version of MLB hitz (a baseball version of nba jam )
And the hardcore fans who pour over stats replays and watch as many games are possible perdict "the end of baseball as we know it "…
There’s research that a lot of the steroid issue w respect to offense in 94-06 ish, was due to the ball being monkeyed with then as well. Not that steroids weren’t flowing like water.
Yeah, I’m with you there. Marisnick is running pretty much straight down the foul line, takes a step into foul territory, and then veers abruptly and awkwardly into fair territory on a trajectory that takes him directly into Lucroy.
Lucroy in the meantime stays in fair territory throughout, with the exception of one foot that doesn’t cross the foul line.
I suppose you can make the argument that Marisnick really did think that Lucroy was moving into his path and didn’t intend to run over him. But as I read the rule it’s not about intent, so that’s immaterial, and the video doesn’t seem to support that interpretation anyway.
Should be pointed out that the catcher received a concussion and a broken nose, not just a “bloody nose.” Not sure where that came from!