Jayson Stark on The Athletic posted an article today reporting that the minor leagues will be moving 2B this season. 2B will be about 13.5 inches closer to first and third. The goal is to encourage SB and hope for more 1st to 3rd baserunning plays. It probably has a future in the MLB in a couple of years.
https://theathletic.com/3212654/2022/03/28/why-baseball-is-moving-second-base-and-what-this-experiment-could-mean-for-the-game/ - (
New Window )
Harder to throw strikes, gives the hitter more time to see the ball, probably more balls in play — I assume the result would be a game more like what baseball looked like when it became popular, when pitchers were shorter, their release point was farther from the plate, and pitchers didn't routinely throw as hard.
If not, you can always undo the rule change.
Harder to throw strikes, gives the hitter more time to see the ball, probably more balls in play — I assume the result would be a game more like what baseball looked like when it became popular, when pitchers were shorter, their release point was farther from the plate, and pitchers didn't routinely throw as hard.
If not, you can always undo the rule change.
I agree that moving the rubber back is worth a look.
The idea of moving the mound back is even worse. An extra 1.5 feet may seem insignificant to some. It is a major change and is likely to have terrible effects physically.
Harder to throw strikes, gives the hitter more time to see the ball, probably more balls in play — I assume the result would be a game more like what baseball looked like when it became popular, when pitchers were shorter, their release point was farther from the plate, and pitchers didn't routinely throw as hard.
If not, you can always undo the rule change.
THis is highly unlikely to work- and could cause significant injury potential. Pitchers have been trained from High School (or Babe Ruth league) to work from that distance- increasing the distance will lead to a major change in mechanics- which will almost certainly lead to arm injury.
This is in no one's best interests.
A better idea might be to reverse or partially reverse the change made in 1968 where MLB lowered the mound from 15 inches to 10 inches. It was an overreaction to a very bad hitting year- but it wasn't like offense died in the 1960's- just 1968 stood out too much and changes were made.
I also think MLB has it backwards with the pitch clock. They need a hitter clock. Be in the batter's box and ready for the pitch in a set amount of time- no more fiddling with batting gloves, adjusting yourself, taking off the batting helmet, etc. Also, limit the # of times batters can call time.
The big change, IMO, that would REALLY piss off the networks but desperately needs to be done is to eliminate the long breaks between half-innings. There was a time that players would run off the field, while the other team ran on, and once the pitcher got their warm-ups in, it was game on.
Now, with the commericals and other nonsense, it can take 5+ minutes between half-innings. Have a 2 minute rule and you've already shaved almost a half-hour off the game time. of course, since networks are paying big bucks, they would scream bloody murder- but you can do split-screen adverts or something.
The change will simply move it so it's fully inside the imaginary square just like the other bases. I don't think that's a change baseball is desperately in need of, but it's also a very minor change, and there is some logic in aligning the bases similarly to each other.
Quote:
Trying to promote stolen bases won't add much to the game. But I would support moving the mound back. Try 62' from the rubber to the plate, for a start. That would change every pitch.
Harder to throw strikes, gives the hitter more time to see the ball, probably more balls in play — I assume the result would be a game more like what baseball looked like when it became popular, when pitchers were shorter, their release point was farther from the plate, and pitchers didn't routinely throw as hard.
If not, you can always undo the rule change.
THis is highly unlikely to work- and could cause significant injury potential. Pitchers have been trained from High School (or Babe Ruth league) to work from that distance- increasing the distance will lead to a major change in mechanics- which will almost certainly lead to arm injury.
This is in no one's best interests.
A better idea might be to reverse or partially reverse the change made in 1968 where MLB lowered the mound from 15 inches to 10 inches. It was an overreaction to a very bad hitting year- but it wasn't like offense died in the 1960's- just 1968 stood out too much and changes were made.
I also think MLB has it backwards with the pitch clock. They need a hitter clock. Be in the batter's box and ready for the pitch in a set amount of time- no more fiddling with batting gloves, adjusting yourself, taking off the batting helmet, etc. Also, limit the # of times batters can call time.
The big change, IMO, that would REALLY piss off the networks but desperately needs to be done is to eliminate the long breaks between half-innings. There was a time that players would run off the field, while the other team ran on, and once the pitcher got their warm-ups in, it was game on.
Now, with the commericals and other nonsense, it can take 5+ minutes between half-innings. Have a 2 minute rule and you've already shaved almost a half-hour off the game time. of course, since networks are paying big bucks, they would scream bloody murder- but you can do split-screen adverts or something.
I do agree about pitcher and batter clocks. Even when throwing out commercial breaks, other than MLB, games at every level move faster. Batters are expected in the box and can't continuously step out without being granted time. A batter stepping out more than once to fiddle with batting gloves, helmet, etc. would get a warning pretty quickly. If they don't listen an umpire will instruct the pitcher to pitch and that will be called a strike no matter what if the batter is not in the box as instructed.
The change will simply move it so it's fully inside the imaginary square just like the other bases. I don't think that's a change baseball is desperately in need of, but it's also a very minor change, and there is some logic in aligning the bases similarly to each other.
The change will simply move it so it's fully inside the imaginary square just like the other bases. I don't think that's a change baseball is desperately in need of, but it's also a very minor change, and there is some logic in aligning the bases similarly to each other.
Second base was placed like that to help running from 1-3 iirc. There is a specific reason for it not being aligned, even if at first glance it doesn't seem logical.
W/R/T the pitching rubber, it's been moved before, albeit 130 years ago now. More precisely the pitcher had to keep their foot in contact with the rear line of the pitchers box. Prior to 1893 the pitcher could start and end his delivery anywhere inside the box*. This change was made then for the same reason it's discussed now: to lower the speed of the ball at the plate. Of course this was also from flat ground. So since then we've given pitchers a height advantage with the mound and modern SnC, nutrition, etc. 60'6" may be outdated.
*You'll still here announcers call a ball hit back over the mound as "through the box." The pitchers box is the box they're referring to, even though it was replaced prior to 1900.
Why not just go for the trapezoid or rhombus shape.?
Even better, just cut out 2nd base, and kill the 2nd baseman position, saving owners tons of money.
Why not just go for the trapezoid or rhombus shape.?
Even better, just cut out 2nd base, and kill the 2nd baseman position, saving owners tons of money.
That's not what the article says. According to Stark, 1st and 3rd were originally positioned like 2nd, but were later shifted.
Harder to throw strikes, gives the hitter more time to see the ball, probably more balls in play — I assume the result would be a game more like what baseball looked like when it became popular, when pitchers were shorter, their release point was farther from the plate, and pitchers didn't routinely throw as hard.
If not, you can always undo the rule change.
Worth a shot.
Good post.
Quote:
Second base was placed like that to help running from 1-3 iirc. There is a specific reason for it not being aligned, even if at first glance it doesn't seem logical.
That's not what the article says. According to Stark, 1st and 3rd were originally positioned like 2nd, but were later shifted.
I knew 2nd was wonky, but was misremembering the reason.
https://defector.com/wait-second-base-has-been-where-this-whole-time/
Seems they are moving it a few feet closer to the plate, so the angle will be greater than 90 deg.
This sounds dumb as hell.
Seems they are moving it a few feet closer to the plate, so the angle will be greater than 90 deg.
This sounds dumb as hell.
It's not that it's at a right angle, it's the one base that's not fully within the "square." If you draw lines from the outside of 1st and 3rd to 2nd they meet in the middle of 2nd base instead of on the outfield facing point of the bag.