Hey MLB, I Was Wrong… The Rule Changes Are Good?

Growing up, I always thought of myself as being a more “open minded” baseball fan. I bought into analytics and quickly found myself enjoying players who could work the count and take a walk. On base percentage became such an important statistic for me and I always thought that players who could work the count better and take walks could age better over time. My logic behind that being: even if their hand quickness goes or they lose power, a player who can take a walk or work a pitcher is still valuable to an offense. As I got older, I found myself still embracing forward ideas or favoring things that were “outside the box” of the traditional norms in baseball. I enjoyed seeing teams employ the shift and I also enjoyed seeing how teams like Tampa Bay or Pittsburgh embraced the importance of defensive positioning to help with run prevention. However, much like anything else, the success of those smaller market clubs became the norm and it was less of a “quirk” that helped undermanned teams and was adapted by everyone, even “super teams” with far superior players (and payrolls). To take this idea further, it’s like spread offenses in college football. When a smaller and underfunded team is able to compete with an SEC powerhouse due to their high powered and fast offense and the SEC defense is full of large and slow linebackers (to stop the more traditional foes in conference) other people take notice. Suddenly, every team in the conference is running an offense featuring “athletes and tempo” all over the field. The same could be said of the NBA featuring more and more three-point shots and less of the “physical and bruising” inside game of yesteryear. Sports are all just a copycat league. It takes someone to take a risk and when it works, suddenly, everyone shifts to that same mindset.

Via AP Images

Let’s get back to baseball for a minute. With every team employing defensive shifts and pitchers and batters seemingly playing a professional game of cat and mouse, games had become a bit stagnant. I consider myself a diehard baseball fan, but even I found myself only passively watching games while I accomplished other tasks around the house. Growing up, games seemed to be paced much better (maybe due to the fact that I grew up watching Greg Maddux work complete games under 100 pitches). I sometimes wonder if it was just a nostalgia thing, but games just seemed to be more cohesive all around. A starter would pitch deep into games and you’d have the usual relief arms make an appearance etc. As time went on, teams would bring a specialist in for every situation. Need a ground ball? They had a guy. Need a LOOGY (lefty one out guy) to face that tough left handed batter? You had it. Starters began only facing lineups twice due to batters being able to pick up pitch sequences faster than ever, so games were muddled with bullpen trips and pitching changes. Again, I totally support the idea of strategy to win a game, but baseball is a television product. Fans didn’t want to see a manager hobble onto the field and reach for the right or left arm to bring in yet another pitcher. I was hesitant to the bullpen batter requirements due to the strategy involved, but I started thinking about how archaic it was to have a manager always going for that LOOGY match up (mostly ignoring the fact they have a righty with reverse splits) just to look like they were “going by the book!” These types of changes do impact strategy, but more than anything, they show the shortcomings of a manager: some manage to win and others manage to not get fired.

When I first heard that MLB wanted to “ban the shift”, I immediately was angry at the idea of taking actual defensive alignment away in a major sport like baseball. You don’t see NBA teams banning the 3–2 zone or NFL teams eliminating a blitz package on defense because they’re too effective. Even with the shift being eliminated, I don’t think it has changed the winning formula for the top teams in baseball. Baseball is a game that’s still all about taking walks and hitting home runs. The biggest shift (no pun intended) is the time saved due to the fact entire infields aren’t having to move around for one left-handed hitter. Although, some teams are experimenting with playing an outfielder just beyond the infield dirt in shallow LF/CF/RF. At least with this version of the shift, a team is taking a huge gamble on the hitter not actually driving the ball the shift side. While this version of the shift is super risky, it also just looks goofy to see in action and should totally be made fun by everyone when it fails.

Larger bases have helped to increase stolen bases, but the real chaos is due to new rules that limit pitchers from throwing over to a base more than twice during an at-bat. Base runners can now simply run wild after the second toss over and it’s actually fun to witness this unfold in real-time. On opening day, Ronald Acuña Jr. was able to steal second base easily due to Patrick Corbin not being able to pick Acuña off successfully with his second throw over. Acuña smartly took off in a mad dash and easily stole the base. Stolen bases are exciting, but they’re also an easy way to run into outs and end innings. However, the new rules have success rates across the league well over 80%. Stealing bases with such a high success rate has always been the key in the data driven era of baseball. While the game is still reliant on home runs, it’s nice seeing teams run more and putting together scoring beyond “cranking homers!!!!”.

The pitch clock has long been rumored to be on the way in MLB. At first, I was a bit skeptical about baseball having a “shot clock”, but it had worked well in the minor leagues, so it seemed like a natural continuation at the Major League level. The games have become so quick that you almost wonder why the pitchers were given so much time to mess around on the field during games. Was the objective to be “comfortable” on the mound or to simply bore the hitters into submission at the plate? The pitch clock also adds a bit of excitement as crowds have began chanting the time when it drops below ten seconds (think again of a shot clock in basketball). Older pitchers have had a bit of trouble adjusting to the pitch clock, which isn’t a huge shock given that they’ve been playing longer and didn’t experience the pitch clock while playing and developing in the minor leagues. I never thought I’d enjoy a baseball game that took the “freedom” from the players, but it has made for a more fun and interesting experience.

The only downside to this quicker game? Fans who shell out money for tickets and are now getting less game for their money. It almost feels like every change in baseball has been made to improve the television product. When you see the media and television deals that teams are signing, it’s easy to see why it is important to make the game as “viewable” as possible to keep the billions of dollars flowing in. However, more and more teams are doing everything they can to keep fans at the ballpark before, during, and after games. It’s no longer just a “ballpark”, it’s an entire community being built around the stadium. Teams continue to push to move to new ballparks that’ll allow them to own (or at least own a majority share) of everything around the ballpark. Most teams have found themselves either moving, or, exploring ways to move into the suburbs. I can only assume it’s due to the cheaper land and having less political obstacles in the way that may prevent the team from buying and owning all the land around the ballpark.

So, bravo baseball. The games have been fun, fast, and chaotic. Interest seems to be higher and the game is overflowing with young, talented players. It’ll be interesting to see how Major League Baseball continues with this momentum. The next target should be eliminating the archaic blackout policies that lock fans out of watching their local teams via the MLB.tv app. Given the collapse by Bally Sports, that may be happening sooner, rather than later.