Someone here put a finger on it. The continuous sliding downward the batting stats and the huge increase the last 20 years in strikeouts.
Cant be the hitters. Too many are in this boat, in fact, most of them. Very few who hit well and K fewer. That’s 20 years at 26 players per team each year. Somewhere around 15000 hitters.
Times have changed. Athletes are bigger and stronger.plus now the power arm era. Too big and strong for the distance between the mound and home plate.
Many will tout the EV and LA phenomena as a role player. I agree. But not nearly as much as the mound/ home distance.
So I ask- is this an idea, and what would be appropriate- a foot?
Thanx and enjoy.
Good morning to you too ! A foot seems quite extreme . We have 60 ft. 6 inches now .. I bet even a move an added 6 inches would make a big difference 61 feet However, I am not advocating for that move. What would be interesting is to have veterans like Adam Wainwright, Scherzer, Sonny Gray weigh in on the effect to their arms to go further back . Also get feedback from the veteran top hitters on their thoughts on your subject.
Be a fun presentation to have them all weigh in on your thought .
I imagine most the veteran pitchers would say that most of the recent changes have gone the hitters way already, I doubt they want to move back.
Two thoughts on your comments.
First, numbers don’t lie. Despite whatever recent changes you are referring to, hitting statistics and lack of balls in play show show pitchers have a disproportionate advantage in the game today and change is needed.
Lastly, if as one of the other posters suggested, you deaden the ball, maybe you get the result people really want: more balls in play. Fewer strikeouts but fewer home runs. Pitchers would support fewer home runs.
Last edited by peterman'srealitytour on 05 Feb 2026 11:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
Someone here put a finger on it. The continuous sliding downward the batting stats and the huge increase the last 20 years in strikeouts.
Cant be the hitters. Too many are in this boat, in fact, most of them. Very few who hit well and K fewer. That’s 20 years at 26 players per team each year. Somewhere around 15000 hitters.
Times have changed. Athletes are bigger and stronger.plus now the power arm era. Too big and strong for the distance between the mound and home plate.
Many will tout the EV and LA phenomena as a role player. I agree. But not nearly as much as the mound/ home distance.
So I ask- is this an idea, and what would be appropriate- a foot?
Thanx and enjoy.
Good morning to you too ! A foot seems quite extreme . We have 60 ft. 6 inches now .. I bet even a move an added 6 inches would make a big difference 61 feet However, I am not advocating for that move. What would be interesting is to have veterans like Adam Wainwright, Scherzer, Sonny Gray weigh in on the effect to their arms to go further back . Also get feedback from the veteran top hitters on their thoughts on your subject.
Be a fun presentation to have them all weigh in on your thought .
I imagine most the veteran pitchers would say that most of the recent changes have gone the hitters way already, I doubt they want to move back.
Two thoughts on your comments.
First, numbers don’t lie. Despite whatever recent changes you are referring to, hitting statistics and lack of balls in play show show pitchers have a disproportionate advantage in the game today and change is needed.
Lastly, if as one of the other posters suggested, you deaden the ball, maybe you get the result people really want: more balls in play. Fewer strikeouts but fewer home runs.
I don’t know if it would create fewer K’s, a deadened ball. But I cold see more homeruns in the alleys and gaps.
Someone here put a finger on it. The continuous sliding downward the batting stats and the huge increase the last 20 years in strikeouts.
Cant be the hitters. Too many are in this boat, in fact, most of them. Very few who hit well and K fewer. That’s 20 years at 26 players per team each year. Somewhere around 15000 hitters.
Times have changed. Athletes are bigger and stronger.plus now the power arm era. Too big and strong for the distance between the mound and home plate.
Many will tout the EV and LA phenomena as a role player. I agree. But not nearly as much as the mound/ home distance.
So I ask- is this an idea, and what would be appropriate- a foot?
Thanx and enjoy.
Good morning to you too ! A foot seems quite extreme . We have 60 ft. 6 inches now .. I bet even a move an added 6 inches would make a big difference 61 feet However, I am not advocating for that move. What would be interesting is to have veterans like Adam Wainwright, Scherzer, Sonny Gray weigh in on the effect to their arms to go further back . Also get feedback from the veteran top hitters on their thoughts on your subject.
Be a fun presentation to have them all weigh in on your thought .
I imagine most the veteran pitchers would say that most of the recent changes have gone the hitters way already, I doubt they want to move back.
Two thoughts on your comments.
First, numbers don’t lie. Despite whatever recent changes you are referring to, hitting statistics and lack of balls in play show show pitchers have a disproportionate advantage in the game today and change is needed.
Lastly, if as one of the other posters suggested, you deaden the ball, maybe you get the result people really want: more balls in play. Fewer strikeouts but fewer home runs.
I don’t know if it would create fewer K’s, a deadened ball. But I cold see more homeruns in the alleys and gaps.
Sorry, didn’t mean to suggest the deadened ball alone would create fewer Ks. Combine moving the mound back and deadening the ball would theoretically create more balls in play.
Someone here put a finger on it. The continuous sliding downward the batting stats and the huge increase the last 20 years in strikeouts.
Cant be the hitters. Too many are in this boat, in fact, most of them. Very few who hit well and K fewer. That’s 20 years at 26 players per team each year. Somewhere around 15000 hitters.
Times have changed. Athletes are bigger and stronger.plus now the power arm era. Too big and strong for the distance between the mound and home plate.
Many will tout the EV and LA phenomena as a role player. I agree. But not nearly as much as the mound/ home distance.
So I ask- is this an idea, and what would be appropriate- a foot?
Thanx and enjoy.
Good morning to you too ! A foot seems quite extreme . We have 60 ft. 6 inches now .. I bet even a move an added 6 inches would make a big difference 61 feet However, I am not advocating for that move. What would be interesting is to have veterans like Adam Wainwright, Scherzer, Sonny Gray weigh in on the effect to their arms to go further back . Also get feedback from the veteran top hitters on their thoughts on your subject.
Be a fun presentation to have them all weigh in on your thought .
I imagine most the veteran pitchers would say that most of the recent changes have gone the hitters way already, I doubt they want to move back.
Two thoughts on your comments.
First, numbers don’t lie. Despite whatever recent changes you are referring to, hitting statistics and lack of balls in play show show pitchers have a disproportionate advantage in the game today and change is needed.
Lastly, if as one of the other posters suggested, you deaden the ball, maybe you get the result people really want: more balls in play. Fewer strikeouts but fewer home runs.
I don’t know if it would create fewer K’s, a deadened ball. But I cold see more homeruns in the alleys and gaps.
Sorry, didn’t mean to suggest the deadened ball alone would create fewer Ks. Combine moving the mound back and deadening the ball would theoretically create more balls in play.
My bad for vagueness. Yes I agree. Much more in play. Plus an automated strike zone. Both could energize an offensive surge.
Someone here put a finger on it. The continuous sliding downward the batting stats and the huge increase the last 20 years in strikeouts.
Cant be the hitters. Too many are in this boat, in fact, most of them. Very few who hit well and K fewer. That’s 20 years at 26 players per team each year. Somewhere around 15000 hitters.
Times have changed. Athletes are bigger and stronger.plus now the power arm era. Too big and strong for the distance between the mound and home plate.
Many will tout the EV and LA phenomena as a role player. I agree. But not nearly as much as the mound/ home distance.
So I ask- is this an idea, and what would be appropriate- a foot?
Thanx and enjoy.
Good morning to you too ! A foot seems quite extreme . We have 60 ft. 6 inches now .. I bet even a move an added 6 inches would make a big difference 61 feet However, I am not advocating for that move. What would be interesting is to have veterans like Adam Wainwright, Scherzer, Sonny Gray weigh in on the effect to their arms to go further back . Also get feedback from the veteran top hitters on their thoughts on your subject.
Be a fun presentation to have them all weigh in on your thought .
I imagine most the veteran pitchers would say that most of the recent changes have gone the hitters way already, I doubt they want to move back.
Two thoughts on your comments.
First, numbers don’t lie. Despite whatever recent changes you are referring to, hitting statistics and lack of balls in play show show pitchers have a disproportionate advantage in the game today and change is needed.
Lastly, if as one of the other posters suggested, you deaden the ball, maybe you get the result people really want: more balls in play. Fewer strikeouts but fewer home runs.
I don’t know if it would create fewer K’s, a deadened ball. But I cold see more homeruns in the alleys and gaps.
Sorry, didn’t mean to suggest the deadened ball alone would create fewer Ks. Combine moving the mound back and deadening the ball would theoretically create more balls in play.
Yeah, the deaden the ball is just about giving pitchers the green light to attack the strike zone with every pitch except against maybe the most dangerous opposing batters.
Even if they are throwing with less effective speed (because of the greater distance) and less spin, you want to encourage pitchers to pump strikes and not nibble, and you want batters to know that they are going to pump strikes and they should be ready to swing from the first pitch.
Someone here put a finger on it. The continuous sliding downward the batting stats and the huge increase the last 20 years in strikeouts.
Cant be the hitters. Too many are in this boat, in fact, most of them. Very few who hit well and K fewer. That’s 20 years at 26 players per team each year. Somewhere around 15000 hitters.
Times have changed. Athletes are bigger and stronger.plus now the power arm era. Too big and strong for the distance between the mound and home plate.
Many will tout the EV and LA phenomena as a role player. I agree. But not nearly as much as the mound/ home distance.
So I ask- is this an idea, and what would be appropriate- a foot?
Thanx and enjoy.
Good morning to you too ! A foot seems quite extreme . We have 60 ft. 6 inches now .. I bet even a move an added 6 inches would make a big difference 61 feet However, I am not advocating for that move. What would be interesting is to have veterans like Adam Wainwright, Scherzer, Sonny Gray weigh in on the effect to their arms to go further back . Also get feedback from the veteran top hitters on their thoughts on your subject.
Be a fun presentation to have them all weigh in on your thought .
I imagine most the veteran pitchers would say that most of the recent changes have gone the hitters way already, I doubt they want to move back.
Two thoughts on your comments.
First, numbers don’t lie. Despite whatever recent changes you are referring to, hitting statistics and lack of balls in play show show pitchers have a disproportionate advantage in the game today and change is needed.
Lastly, if as one of the other posters suggested, you deaden the ball, maybe you get the result people really want: more balls in play. Fewer strikeouts but fewer home runs. Pitchers would support fewer home runs.
A deadball would work. I wish they had kept some ballparks with unique dimensions. I'm OK with a short porch but makeup for it with a deep part of the park like in San Fran or what Houston used to have in CF.
Someone here put a finger on it. The continuous sliding downward the batting stats and the huge increase the last 20 years in strikeouts.
Cant be the hitters. Too many are in this boat, in fact, most of them. Very few who hit well and K fewer. That’s 20 years at 26 players per team each year. Somewhere around 15000 hitters.
Times have changed. Athletes are bigger and stronger.plus now the power arm era. Too big and strong for the distance between the mound and home plate.
Many will tout the EV and LA phenomena as a role player. I agree. But not nearly as much as the mound/ home distance.
So I ask- is this an idea, and what would be appropriate- a foot?
Thanx and enjoy.
Well...they did lower the mound in the 60's. But as a purist, I wish they'd leave the game alone. They could make the balls bigger with a hard rubber exterior. But hopefully they won't because that would ruin the record books. They could allow steroids, but then again, seeing roided up hitters isn't really that fun to me.
Board was a hard no but has softened some. Suggestions are 6 inches or three feet. Most agree something needs to assist offense, and that injuries may be an issue.
sikeston bulldog2 wrote: ↑05 Feb 2026 13:45 pm
Board was a hard no but has softened some. Suggestions are 6 inches or three feet. Most agree something needs to assist offense, and that injuries may be an issue.
There should be no injury issues.
A pitch thrown from 60' 6" just above the top of the strike zone (which isn't going to make a pitcher's arm explode) is a pitch just in the top of the strike zone from 63' 6". A pitch thrown from 60' 6" just in the bottom of the strike zone (which isn't going to make a pitcher's arm explode) is a pitch just below the bottom of the strike zone from 63' 6".
It's not like you are asking guys to throw a shot put three feet farther than they ever have before.
I personally don't like the idea of moving the mound back. Maybe I am a "old school", but haven't we changed the game enough in the last 15 years, with more changes coming? WAR is one of the biggest factors to me. Everybody wants to hit the dinger vs. cutting down the swing and putting the ball in play. I miss the old move the runner up a base and sacrifices. I understand why players try and maximize their slug, and I really can't blame them I guess, considering the differences in $ compared to the old "Punch and-Judy hitter."
