MLB 2019

[Hot Pepsi]

I wish the ball’s cover could be synthetic. Doubt that will happen soon.

[Janik]

There are a range of ideas being discussed, including changing the strike zone, moving the mound back (or lowering it again) and changing the ball (again).

One significant problem is that it is quite likely that measures to address the "strikeout problem" would exacerbate the "home run problem" and vice versa.

There also is significant reticence on the part of MLB itself to even admit that "problems" exist (see also the rise in the number of serious injuries caused by foul balls).

A massive increase in drug testing, and the imposition of WADA compliant bans (2/4 years depending on substance) for those caught?

Is anyone even talking about that, or are we like Rugby where players are getting bigger and fitter all the time, and that is simply down to modern training methods.

[ursus arctos]

Hoo boy

If we start going into the history of the sport and PEDs over the last century plus we will be here for a while.

That said, it is widely accepted that they are less of an issue now than they have been in the past. The difference in outcomes is more due to changes in methods (think high jump records after Fosbury) and usage (consider what might happen to average sprint times if the number of sprints over any given period of measurement was halved).

[Hot Pepsi]

I don’t think there’s evidence that steroids are behind the increase in pitching velocity.

[Ginger Yellow]

2 hits for Hamels. WTF.

[caja-dglh]

As per HP - pitching velocity seems to have been a bunch of guys working out how to get to the mechanical max the body can execute. I am sure I read an article suggesting the absolute limit should be around 103mph.

I am not sure how PEDs can really help with something like pitching speed. the shapes and forms of some who can max show no sense of interference by drugs.

[ursus arctos]

Ask Roger Clemens

[Ginger Yellow]

And he's on base again.

[ursus arctos]

It's one way to keep warm when they are scoring this many runs.

[Hot Pepsi]

Clemens was able to pitch effectively longer than he would have without PEDs, but I don’t think it added much to his velocity.

I think if PEDs were the cause behind the increase in guys throwing 95+, we’d have seen some kind of drop off in velocity in the early 2000s when the first drug-testing began.

Or maybe not. Perhaps there are other drugs that aren’t well-known yet that are helping pitchers.

But I suspect it’s just improvement in mechanics, more really tall guys learning to pitch, and more kids trying to throw that hard even though they’ll probably need surgery by 16.

Throwing that hard wasn’t unprecedented in the presteroids era. It’s just now, lots more people can do it.

Sometimes these things just come in bunches. For millennia, a four minute mile was thought impossible. After he did it, a bunch of other guys did too. Now there are high school kids who can do it.

As Caja mentions and I mentioned, I think, earlier in the thread, human tendons can’t withstand much more force. 105ish is probably the limit.

[ursus arctos]

Another major factor (which I mentioned earlier) is changes in usage patterns that have allowed every pitch to be delivered with "Max Effort".

That simply wasn't possible when guys were throwing 125+ pitches a game or 250+ innings.

I imagine that a similarly baseball-obsessed five year old today would be just as gobsmacked by the likes of Steve Carlton throwing 346 innings a season (1972) as I was by Jack Chesbro's 41 wins (1904). Even Clemens had seasons over 275; Max Scherzer is the only pitcher to have more than 220 in the last two full seasons (and he had 220 2/3).

[Hot Pepsi]

More on the way pitchers are getting used up.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...last/99813546/


This is encouraging.
https://www.baseballamerica.com/stor...eases-in-2018/

Maybe somebody could invent an elbow brace thing that would protect the ligaments but slow down the pitches a bit. It could become mandatory in high school. Maybe it would force pitchers to learn more control.

Just a thought.

I don’t like adding more rules, but I think the three-batter minimum might help or limit the number of substitutions, including pitching changes. That might be too radical, though.

Or just reduce the number of pitchers on the roster. The union won’t go for that, though.

[ursus arctos]

Serendipitously, David Schonfeld just did this piece on the history of how changes in the baseball produced material changes in offensive production

[URL="https://twitter.com/thorn_john/status/1139298172696760320?s=21"]https://twitter.com/thorn_john/status/1139298172696760320[/URL]

[Incandenza]

Oh hi Dodgers comeback win

[Flynnie]

Just scored a ticket £30 below face for Sunday's Yankees-Red Sox London game. £60 is a bit more than I'd like, but given the seat isn't *that* bad by London Stadium standards, I am willing to pull the trigger.

I feel incredibly vindicated given my complaining about ticket prices - either MLB or the touts have massively fucked up here and are looking to cut losses.

[Hot Pepsi]

That's still a very expensive ticket for a baseball game. They should do fine.

[Flynnie]

There’s still scores and scores available on stubhub. I’m not sure it’ll be a full house.

[Hot Pepsi]

Yeah. To make baseball work overseas, they need to follow the model of street drug dealers (at least how it was explained to me in PSAs and health class in the 80s). Start cheap to bring in the casual and curious and then gradually raise prices once they are hooked.

[San Bernardhinault]

I suspect that at the moment they're banking on an NFL At Wembley effect, where people are so excited that it exists at all that it creates the rarity factor and this demand. I have my doubts that it'll work. Baseball is a sport best experienced in the flesh and you only know that by going to games. I don't think there's the same back story of many Brits watching baseball on TV through the 80s and 90s and absolutely thrilled at the chance to go to a match. Americans in London (of which there are many) will probably be lured in, but it won't be the same draw as the NFL games.

That said, 30 quid for a baseball game seems fairly reasonable value, given what anything costs in London.

[Hot Pepsi]

Flynnie said it was £30 below face value at £30. £30 would be ok, all things considered, but £60, which is about $90, I think, is a stretch, unless they're exceptionally good seats. Then again, tickets at Fenway and Yankee Stadium are very expensive these days.

[ursus arctos]

75 USD

Brexit continues to hit sterling.

[San Bernardhinault]

Yeah, 60 quid seems too high for regular seats.

[Flynnie]

I’m pretty sure I posted the ticket prices here pages back. Here it is again: https://batflipsandnerds.com/2018/11...unced-opinion/

They’re WAY more expensive than the NFL at Wembley, where at least the NFL has a real, extant UK fanbase.

I looked at the NFL at Wembley and the Sydney games from 2014 to get an idea for tickets, and they blew past my expectations. £60 for a semi-decent seat is at least closer to it, close enough that I’m going to pull the trigger and see my first ever Red Sox-Yankees game. We always visited Boston in July or August and the Yankees almost never visit then.

[Hot Pepsi]

I’m pretty sure I posted the ticket prices here pages back. Here it is again: https://batflipsandnerds.com/2018/11...unced-opinion/

They’re WAY more expensive than the NFL at Wembley, where at least the NFL has a real, extant UK fanbase.

I looked at the NFL at Wembley and the Sydney games from 2014 to get an idea for tickets, and they blew past my expectations. £60 for a semi-decent seat is at least closer to it, close enough that I’m going to pull the trigger and see my first ever Red Sox-Yankees game. We always visited Boston in July or August and the Yankees almost never visit then.

Even with the Brexit exchange rate (which I hadn’t looked at in a while, obviously, that’s outrageous).

No doubt, the number of NFL games and the promise of more to come has increased supply such that they can’t demand such high prices. Baseball is still rare.

The British people I know are more interested in baseball than the NFL (that can’t really be said of most Americans I know, incidentally), but that’s apparently not a representative sample. The NFL has been working harder on the European market than baseball has until relatively recently.

I think the people I know are more inclined to like baseball because it just feels more welcoming. Like my English colleague who is in the US right now went to a Red Sox game and chatted with the fans sitting around her and really enjoyed the whole thing. Gridiron games are a lot louder and more intense. There’s not much opportunity for chit-chat.

I suppose it would be easier to explain gridiron to a rugby fan than it is to explain baseball to a cricket fan, but the general pace and rhythm of baseball isn’t too much different than cricket, whereas the stop-start-endless-commercials of football probably tests the patience of most rugby fans. It even tests the patience of most committed gridiron fans.

[ursus arctos]

I don't think that MLB is anywhere as interested in building an audience as the NFL is.

There is a real chance that London will host a NFL franchise in the next 20 years. That simply will not happen in MLB. As a result, MLB is more interested in creating buzz among the London "event" crowd and maximising the take.