#394: Calling Balls and Strikes
................................
Baseball's getting ugly. The 2024 season has seen an alarming number of pitchers succumb to arm injuries, most requiring major surgery. And this is a trend that's accelerating along with the desire to throw ever harder. It's now all but assumed that a young pitcher entering professional ball will at some point require remedial surgery—the likely average number of healthy years, according to some experts, is a mere eight, before going under the knife.
A review of this sorry situation appeared in Pitcher List recently, with the title: Baseball’s Pitcher Injury Epidemic Has No Implementable Fix. Another article in The Atlantic magazine, Are Pitchers Pitching Too Hard? presents similar material. The consensus seems to be that either Major League Baseball forces lesser pitch velocities, or that fewer pitchers be allowed per team, which would, it's assumed, result in teams implementing their own preventive measures.
Problems with these approaches are obvious. Forcing pitchers to slow down is inelegant (sport is based on excelling, not holding back) while limiting the number of pitchers per team could cause players to hide injury and ‘take one for the team’. Plus, baseball is the epitome of a backwards-facing, traditional sport. When more games were added to the standard season, a main hesitation involved prior statistics and how one could no longer compare player performances with past, shorter seasons. Mandating slower pitches would be a major sea change.
Rather than forcing the issue, an ideal fix would merely tweak things in an effort to lessen the number of injuries. But would this be possible? Lucas Seehafer, the author of the above Pitcher List article, doesn’t believe so. But what if we start by looking for a change that's at least elegant?
Executing a ban on pitches thrown 100 mph or higher, for example, would likely pull the plug on elegant. If pitchers were afraid of getting too close to 100 (assuming some penalty), would the game be fun anymore? A more nuanced approach could involve an incentive to throw at lesser velocities. Kiri Oler, writing in Fangraphics, makes the case for a ’tax’ that would seek to control the problem (“A High Velocity Usage Tax: A Proposal To Protect Pitchers”.)
Yet we know baseball is likely to soon change anyway. It's now possible to know which pitches are balls, and which strikes, using a camera and strike zone overlay. Anyone who watches baseball on TV is familiar with the umpire who calls a ball a strike and a strike a ball. And though it could be a long time coming, it may be hard to avoid a changeover to automated umpiring.
And when that change occurs (currently being tried out in minor league games), another side-by-side tweak would be to encourage, though not require, lesser pitch velocities: For example, ever-so-slightly expand the strike zone once a pitcher has thrown slower pitches.
As the intention would be to keep baseball the way it is, except for pitch velocity, testing could determine what level of strike zone expansion, relative to velocity, kept the current balance between pitcher and hitter intact.
How exactly would this rule change work? A pitcher’s first pitch would be judged by the automated umpire using existing strike zone dimensions. If the pitch was slower than an agreed upon rate of speed (the aforementioned extensive testing would determine this rate), that pitcher’s next pitch would be judged using a slightly larger strike zone. As the pitcher in question continues pitching, the zone could expand further or contract back to normal, depending on the average speed of the pitches thrown. Strike zone dimensions would be posted in real time for all to see (on the scoreboard, in the pitcher’s line of sight, etc.) perhaps using a scale of 1-to-4.
A sceptic might ask whether a flexible strike zone—no matter how small—could disrupt a batter’s ‘feel’ for the zone. But as it is, the variation from umpire to umpire, and from umpire to actual strike zone (as seen on TV) is probably within the realm of variation that a flexible strike zone would entail. Plus, the batter would know whether the zone was a ‘1’, ‘2’, ‘3’ or ‘4’.
This rule change would keep the pitcher/hitter balance intact while allowing pitching arms to be used conservatively, especially on days when a pitcher would otherwise force himself to over-perform. Arms would still be injured, but there would almost certainly be fewer, perhaps many fewer trips to the Injured List.
Bottom Line:
* Older pitchers. Often fan favorites, older pitchers who currently find they can’t keep pace could gradually develop strategies that involve fooling hitters, rather than blowing the ball by them. A good life lesson: the use of less force and more finesse as we age.
* Rewarding location. At lower velocities, the fringes of the strike zone, where a ball is hard to hit, are where pitchers will aim, if we encourage them. Message sent to beginners: go easy on your arms, relatively speaking. Instead, work on your control.
* Defensive wizardry. Pitchers will likely throw slower to less talented batters in order to enlarge the strike zone on subsequent batters. This gives defensive athletes with below average offense an advantage, relative to players with offense-only orientations, and so, overall, allows more graceful, exciting play on the field.
* Removing much of the acrimony on the diamond. As Daniel Port notes in the 6/23/24 Pitcher’s List newsletter, Who wants to see arguments over umpires’ calls and the angry ejections that result? Automated Umpire calls make for a happier, friendlier game.
Currently, there are pitchers who emphasize control, spin and ‘movement’ over velocity. For example, in a recent article by Travis Sawchik on The Score, “Velo vs. injury: Is there a better way for pitchers?" the San Francisco Giants’ Logan Webb and his slower approach are highlighted.
All told, this would be a simple, easy to understand adjustment that keeps each individual pitcher in the driver’s seat while returning baseball to a sunnier disposition.
No comments:
Post a Comment