How to realistically encourage a return to "play like it's 1985"

[Junkballer]

Maddon's "play like it's 1985" has been thrown into discussions here and there, but how can it be achieved across MLB in an realistic, innocuous way?  First, the term may mean other things but I think at its core it refers to the onset of the 3 true outcomes mindset and the subsequent reduction of action on the basepaths, which some find less exciting than the station-to-station, putting the ball in play, manufacturing runs, dare I say smallball approach.  While that is subjective, its probably safe to say that there is more protracted tension generated when teams get runners in scoring position and put pressure on the defense than the raw instantaneous excitement of a 2-run blast, as well as being more readily implemented on an at-bat basis by a manager. 

On the flip side, outs are extremely precious and it appears obvious that analytics has largely determined that smallball, while providing tension and excitement, doesn't generate runs as compared to the 3 true outcomes mindset.  Also, I don't believe MLB is interested in reducing scoring but they should be concerned with how current and potential (attention deprived) fans perceive the game in terms of how it compares to other sports re: continuity of interest.

Whatever MLB did to deaden the ball or increase consistency still netted something like 5,944 HRs this year, more than any year besides 2017 (6105) & 2019 (6778)

So, what are ways that MLB can encourage in-game action with the least impact to runs scored?  In the context of this discussion that could mean things like deadening the ball, mound changes, park dimensions, rule changes, strike zone changes, etc.  Personally I am in favor of a further slight deadening of the ball and mandating some form of expanding park dimensions by moving fences back and/or raising their height.  Also, to offset the runs lost by fewer HRs, a way to increase OBP and putting the ball in play is to shrink and further standardize the strike zone.  Fewer HRs and higher OBP should effect more steals and situational hitting.

What say you?

 

[Blarg]

The Angels did not play anything recognizable as 1985 baseball last season. That was Maddon flapping his gums so he could ignore analytics and manage from the seat of his pants. 

[Taylor]

The Angels played more like 19-85.

[WicketMaiden]

About the only thing that was 1985 about this team was Marsh's big hair.

Re: how do we change it? Cricket had a similar problem a couple of decades ago, big hitters were dominating the game, so they changed the rules to make the maximum bat weight lower, and the bat surface smaller. It worked. Fewer balls were clearing the fences and more wickets (outs) were falling. Attendances recovered and currently the game is in excellent health.

Take an ounce or two out of the bat weight and a few of the current HR's won't clear the warning track.

[eligrba]

25 minutes ago, Junkballer said:

What say you?

One word....

Flux Capaciter

Edited October 16, 2021 by eligrba

[Jeff Fletcher]

I would like to see MLB deaden the ball more and put further limits on the number of pitchers you can have on your roster. 
 

These have to happen together.

If a team needed to get through a game with 2-3 pitchers instead of 4-5, the pitchers would have to be more efficient and pitch to contact. They could pitch to contact more easily if they weren’t worried so much about homers. 
 

The biggest problem in MLB, IMO, is there are too many pitches where nothing happens. Walks and strikeouts both stink.

Throw the ball over the plate and let them put it in play. 

I don’t think this would happen overnight, but I’d like to see the game move in that direction. 

[Stradling]

3 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

I would like to see MLB deaden the ball more and put further limits on the number of pitchers you can have on your roster. 
 

These have to happen together.

If a team needed to get through a game with 2-3 pitchers instead of 4-5, the pitchers would have to be more efficient and pitch to contact. They could pitch to contact more easily if they weren’t worried so much about homers. 
 

The biggest problem in MLB, IMO, is there are too many pitches where nothing happens. Walks and strikeouts both stink.

Throw the ball over the plate and let them put it in play. 

I don’t think this would happen overnight, but I’d like to see the game move in that direction. 

I think this would also limit the amount of shifts and the extreme shifts.  If it is harder to put the ball in play and you are being encouraged to put the ball in play, then you’d have to imagine the return of using the entire field would be just around the corner.  

I’m all for banning the infield shift.  Every player has to start on the dirt and two players on each side.  

I also like the idea of the larger bases to increase offsense (small ball)  and what it would do stolen bases.  

[Angelsjunky]

51 minutes ago, Junkballer said:

Maddon's "play like it's 1985" has been thrown into discussions here and there, but how can it be achieved in an realistic, innocuous way?  First, the term may mean other things but I think at its core it refers to the onset of the 3 true outcomes mindset and the subsequent reduction of action on the basepaths, which some find less exciting than the station-to-station, putting the ball in play, manufacturing runs, dare I say smallball approach.  While that is subjective, its probably safe to say that there is more protracted tension generated when teams get runners in scoring position and put pressure on the defense than the raw instantaneous excitement of a 2-run blast, as well as being more readily implemented on an at-bat basis by a manager. 

On the flip side, outs are extremely precious and it appears obvious that analytics has largely determined that smallball, while providing tension and excitement, doesn't generate runs as compared to the 3 true outcomes mindset.  Also, I don't believe MLB is interested in reducing scoring but they should be concerned with how current and potential (attention deprived) fans perceive the game in terms of how it compares to other sports in terms of continuity of interest.

Whatever MLB did to deaden the ball or increase consistency still netted something like 5,944 HRs this year, more than any year besides 2017 (6105) & 2019 (6778)

So, what are ways that MLB can encourage in-game action with the least impact to runs scored?  In the context of this discussion that could mean things like deadening the ball, mound changes, park dimensions, rule changes, strike zone changes, etc.  Personally I am in favor of a further slight deadening of the ball and mandating some form of expanding park dimensions by moving fences back and/or raising their height.  Also, to offset the runs lost by fewer HRs, a way to increase OBP and putting the ball in play is to shrink and further standardize the strike zone.  Fewer HRs and higher OBP should effect more steals and situational hitting.

What say you?

 

Nice post.

I think there's a fallacy here, though, that it is either TTO or smallball. And perhaps a second one, that smallball can't compete (if done well).

For the latter, the case in point is the 2014-15 Royals, which lost a seven game World Series and then won the next, with a very smallball/80s approach, and they didn't have a big base-stealer, just a bunch of guys who could play hit-and-run, and of course their secret weapon, Jarrod Dyson. I'll never forget how they won a WS game by getting a single, pinch-running Dyson, and then him stealing his way to a run. Kendrys Morales led the 2015 team with 22 HR and a .485 SLG. But they knew how to manufacture runs, and had very good pitching, especially their bullpen. 

Yes, TTO is what has proven to score more runs over the course of a season, but I think teams have become overly reliant on it, as if there is only one way to succeed. But more to the point, a team can be based in TTO, but still learn a bit of smallball. Or any variation, really, as long as it is done well.

Meaning, I don't think TTO is the problem as much as teams thinking it is the only way, that there aren't other paths to building a good ball team, including hybrid approaches. 

For instance, I'd love to see an offense built on OBP and speed. It would score a ton of runs and be a lot of fun to watch.

[Jeff Fletcher]

26 minutes ago, Stradling said:

I think this would also limit the amount of shifts and the extreme shifts.  If it is harder to put the ball in play and you are being encouraged to put the ball in play, then you’d have to imagine the return of using the entire field would be just around the corner.  

I’m all for banning the infield shift.  Every player has to start on the dirt and two players on each side.  

I also like the idea of the larger bases to increase offsense (small ball)  and what it would do stolen bases.  

I think it would be easier to put the ball in play. The pitchers would want you to put it in play. 
 

For the life of me I don’t understand why people don’t like the shift. It doesn’t bother me at all. Let them stand where they want. They give up one thing and allow something else, and the net result is minuscule. 
 

As I said in another thread, the plummeting batting averages aren’t because of the shift. It’s because of strikeouts. 

[yk9001]

The shift is one of the few things that can lead to something interesting.

I am also in the camp of the last thing i want is to ban the shift.  Its cool.

[yk9001]

All this talk of crappy 2021-style baseball is happening here because we continue to suck.  If we won 106 games and were appearing in World Series, this talk would be non-existent on angelswin.com.

[Stradling]

34 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

I think it would be easier to put the ball in play. The pitchers would want you to put it in play. 
 

For the life of me I don’t understand why people don’t like the shift. It doesn’t bother me at all. Let them stand where they want. They give up one thing and allow something else, and the net result is minuscule. 
 

As I said in another thread, the plummeting batting averages aren’t because of the shift. It’s because of strikeouts. 

Yea I misspoke in my post.  I meant if it’s harder to drive it out of the park, then it would encourage the use of the entire field.  
As for the shift, I think it turns more batted balls into outs. We see clear singles to right turned into routine outs. 

[AngelsLakersFan]

Move the fences back, especially in power allies. Come up with an average minimum height / distance for fences and evaluate each park for ways they could be modified.

Increase the size of the bases. An extra three inches all around would reduce the distance between bases by half a foot and make it easier for base runners to stay on the bag.

Speaking of 1985, there was a lot of Astro turf back then which kept the ball from slowing down as it went through the infield on the ground. Maybe they could mandate a reduction in the height of grass.

Reduce the number of pitchers allowed on the roster. Make it more difficult to shuttle guys back and forth between AAA and the big club.

Eliminate the DH but allow teams to return their pitchers to the mound in exchange for burning through their pinch hitters.

[yk9001]

2 minutes ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

Move the fences back,

How many stadiums is this really feasible?

 

I did think it sucked when the Angels moved the right field line down the scoreboard 10 (?) years ago.  It 'cheapened' the home run, and aesthetically its just so much less satisfying to see a home run bounce off the scoreboard, a moment of confusion, then the umpire has to wave his finger.  Yuck.

[AngelsLakersFan]

3 minutes ago, yk9001 said:

How many stadiums is this really feasible?

 

I did think it sucked when the Angels moved the right field line down the scoreboard 10 (?) years ago.  It 'cheapened' the home run, and aesthetically its just so much less satisfying to see a home run bounce off the scoreboard, a moment of confusion, then the umpire has to wave his finger.  Yuck.

I would guess almost all all of them. The trend over the last 20 or so years has been finding ways to bring the fences in.

[ukyah]

i'm with stradling on the shift, i think it clearly takes away more than it gives. i think before the pitch, SS starts on SS side of the bag and 2b starts on 2b side of the bag.

i think any talk of altering park dimensions is totally moot. instead they should focus on standardizing the strike zone and eliminating shifts as a good starting point. 

[AngelsLakersFan]

2 minutes ago, ukyah said:

i'm with stradling on the shift, i think it clearly takes away more than it gives. i think before the pitch, SS starts on SS side of the bag and 2b starts on 2b side of the bag.

So how does this work in a practical manner? You're the shortstop and you position yourself directly at the bag, then the moment the pitcher starts his windup you run over to your desired shift spot to try and make a play hit toward the traditional second basemen. The opposing manager then throws a flag on the field and challenges that the fielder was on the wrong side of the bag. We go to replay to determine what side of the bag he was on, find out he left too early, so the batter is awarded a hit and placed on first?

[AngelStew43]

1 hour ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

I would like to see MLB deaden the ball more and put further limits on the number of pitchers you can have on your roster. 
 

These have to happen together.

If a team needed to get through a game with 2-3 pitchers instead of 4-5, the pitchers would have to be more efficient and pitch to contact. They could pitch to contact more easily if they weren’t worried so much about homers. 
 

The biggest problem in MLB, IMO, is there are too many pitches where nothing happens. Walks and strikeouts both stink.

Throw the ball over the plate and let them put it in play. 

I don’t think this would happen overnight, but I’d like to see the game move in that direction. 

This.  Every hitter is trying for the long ball.  Traditionally, only the 3-6 hitters were the big power guys.  Deaden the ball, and most players would return to improving their on-base percentages.  Look at what happened with Adell.  When he shortened his stroke, he put more balls in play, got more hits, and was much more valuable to the team. 

[AngelsLakersFan]

1 minute ago, AngelStew43 said:

This.  Every hitter is trying for the long ball.  Traditionally, only the 3-6 hitters were the big power guys.  Deaden the ball, and most players would return to improving their on-base percentages.  Look at what happened with Adell.  When he shortened his stroke, he put more balls in play, got more hits, and was much more valuable to the team. 

I don't really like the idea of deadening the ball because it is also reducing the value of contact in the infield. If you keep the ball the same and move the fences back you still encourage contact in the batter, encourage speed in the outfield and base running ability in the hitter to take advantage of deeper power allies.

[AngelStew43]

If the ball is deadened, power hitters will still be power hitters.  Balls will just not fly 475 feet, only about 450-460 feet.  Baseball needs more balls in play, more seasons like Erstad's 240 hit season.  If players are taught to beat shifts to get on base, shifts will stop.  On base percentages need to go up, especially on the Angels.  

The three true outcomes need to change.  By deadening the ball, home runs will decrease, but very little from the guys who you expect to hit them.  Trout and Ohtani will still hit them, but by a change in philosophy, maybe some of our other players will be on base ahead of those home runs. 

[Junkballer]

True that it would be a far lower priority topic, but recognition that 3 true outcome baseball is less captivating would still be discussed.  It is recognized by MLB as such and they've been doing experiments in MiLB to address it, not to mention this year's ball "deadening".

[UndertheHalo]

Did Maddon say this ? If so then the whole thing with the Angels actually is hopeless until he’s gone.  Holy shit. 

[AngelsLakersFan]

6 minutes ago, AngelStew43 said:

If the ball is deadened, power hitters will still be power hitters.  Balls will just not fly 475 feet, only about 450-460 feet.  Baseball needs more balls in play, more seasons like Erstad's 240 hit season.  If players are taught to beat shifts to get on base, shifts will stop.  On base percentages need to go up, especially on the Angels.  

The three true outcomes need to change.  By deadening the ball, home runs will decrease, but very little from the guys who you expect to hit them.  Trout and Ohtani will still hit them, but by a change in philosophy, maybe some of our other players will be on base ahead of those home runs. 

Are you trying to reduce homeruns or are you trying to reduce exit velocities and travel distances? The real problem is that for the majority of players the expected value of a flyable is considerably higher than the expected value of a ground ball.  They need to find a way to reduce the value of fly balls while increasing the value of ground balls. Messing with the ball can help but you are still moving the two hit types together in the same direction.

[AngelsLakersFan]

4 minutes ago, Junkballer said:

True that it would be a far lower priority topic, but recognition that 3 true outcome baseball is less captivating would still be discussed because it is recognized by MLB as such and they've been doing experiments in MiLB to address it.

Well, MLB has been encouraging homeruns since the 90's at least. People like to blame analytics but at the same time the league has encouraged changes that increased homeruns. The analytics guys just noticed the changes and realized they'd be more successful if they just tried to hit homeruns every time.

[Junkballer]

8 minutes ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

Well, MLB has been encouraging homeruns since the 90's at least. People like to blame analytics but at the same time the league has encouraged changes that increased homeruns. The analytics guys just noticed the changes and realized they'd be more successful if they just tried to hit homeruns every time.

Perhaps the law of unintended consequences?  MLB thinking that established power hitters would take advantage of the changes and not predicting the 3 true outcome mindset being established in all but the David Fletchers of the world?