Moving back the pitchers mound.

[rockondlouie]

Nope

Been 60'6" and will always be 60'6"

They've raised and lowered it but 60'6" and 90' between bases are absolutely perfect.

[sikeston bulldog2]

No. Today’s “power pitchers” have enough trouble throwing strikes, commanding the zone. Moving it back would make that worse.

This is a common misconception that since there's been a rise in strike outs (and HRs) that there has also been a rise in walks. We just think of it more since Moneyball came out and OBP became a more widely used stat.

Pitchers (as a collective group) are actually incredibly consistent and adaptive to strike zone changes. They consistently walk between 8-9% of batters they face.

MLB BB%:
1945 - 9.1%
1955 - 9.5%
1965 - 8.2%
1975 - 9.0%
1985 - 8.6%
1995 - 9.1%
2005 - 8.2%
2015 - 7.7%
2025 - 8.4%

In the last 20 years "power pitchers" are walking batters less than at any time since the dead ball era. Strike outs are the problem. Pitchers throw harder than ever and produce more spin than ever. As a result it's harder to put a ball in play than ever, thus harder to get a hit than ever, and thus harder to string together hits to get a run than ever. So hitters swing for the fences because it takes one swing to generate a run (or multiple runs).

How do you counteract these pitchers? Lower the mound? Move the mound back? Shrink the strike zone? Change the ball to make it harder to spin? I don't know, I think shrinking the zone would be the easiest, especially if we go to a ABS system, or at least a logical first step.

Nice write. Your last paragraph greatly sums up my intent. Good job.

[The Nard]

Leave it as is.

No need to tweak it. Batters will learn or not get paid.

Hey Scotty, your reply inadvertently nailed it. Players,unfortunately, have learned that hitting the long ball is where you get paid. Case in point. Willy Adames got to free agency with Brewers. The guy didn’t have good batting average , always had high strike out rates, but could Jack homers.
That final year with Brewers he hit 34 homeruns.
Giants paid him what $28M AAV in his deal with them.
Look at Brendan Donovan , very good bat to ball skills, hit .287 ? , and strikes out at low rate but doesn’t hit many HR’s
In two years when he gets to free agency, no way would a team pay (using 2025 Adames $$$) $28M for him .
That’s the sad thing .players see the homeruns get the big bucks.
Even players admit that .

Most effective way of scoring runs...the long ball. Deal with it...gotta be multi dimensional as a team. Hurdy gets on base, has no true position. Doesn't even steal bases. Adames generates way more offense and scoring runs is important.

Now tell us about Guerrero Jr., or Jose Ramirez? Hell, tell us about Winn

Takes all types on a team, but producers get paid. As they should

Effective, maybe, but not necessarily efficient. A 40-hr player with maybe 60-80 rbis and a .220 average will have his moments, but not necessarily many.

[zuck698]

There are many women fans that I know, that have been advocating for the additional 6 inches for quite a while. I think most guys could care less either way. Leave baseball alone.

[Banner29]

Most hitters would rather strike out swinging for the fences than they would getting a well placed single.


The second hitters start appreciating the game again and learning that there’s more to baseball than being able to stare at your long ball for 15 minutes and doing a whole bunch of odd hand signals and dances to your own dugout before finally taking your cocky jog around the bases 30 times a season is the day we can put to rest how to make the game easier for hitters and more entertaining for the fans

[dugoutrex]

Good morning.

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.

while it might sound good ... can you imagine the injuries ?

[mattmitchl44]

Good morning.

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.

Yes, they need to move it back about three feet to the center of the diamond. That 5% increase in distance would help offset increases in pitch velocity.

I've worked out the geometry before and, in terms of angles that pitchers would have to adjust to, moving the mound back three feet would be less of a change than that which was imposed by lowering the mound after 1968. So pitchers already adjusted to a bigger change without any rash in injuries (that I know of) in 1969, 1970, etc.

In addition, I think they need to deaden the ball a bit, working on increasing the moment of inertia of the ball (to reduce the ability to spin it without negatively affecting grip and control), and then optimize the strike zone.

You want to encourage pitchers to aggressively attack the strike zone, but you want those strikes to be more "hittable" (less speed, less spin, more optimal location) for batters to put into play, but making it somewhat harder for them to do XBH damage by deadening it.

[peterman'srealitytour]

Yes, long overdue. Anything to reduce the 3 outcomes
Need more balls in play: period.

Home runs, walks and strikeouts involve 3 guys. 8 dudes standing in the field watching 3 dudes play. Not entertaining.

[MrPostman01]

Enforce ten pitchers only and make them think the price overexertion may have for themselves and teams.

[peterman'srealitytour]

Enforce ten pitchers only and make them think the price overexertion may have for themselves and teams.

+1 on the 10 pitches only. I might even go 9.

Nothing more boring than watching a hitter foul off 6 or more pitches to work a walk.

“Great at bat!” Maybe for his team…. not so much for entertainment value.

[scoutyjones2]

Leave it as is.

No need to tweak it. Batters will learn or not get paid.

Hey Scotty, your reply inadvertently nailed it. Players,unfortunately, have learned that hitting the long ball is where you get paid. Case in point. Willy Adames got to free agency with Brewers. The guy didn’t have good batting average , always had high strike out rates, but could Jack homers.
That final year with Brewers he hit 34 homeruns.
Giants paid him what $28M AAV in his deal with them.
Look at Brendan Donovan , very good bat to ball skills, hit .287 ? , and strikes out at low rate but doesn’t hit many HR’s
In two years when he gets to free agency, no way would a team pay (using 2025 Adames $$$) $28M for him .
That’s the sad thing .players see the homeruns get the big bucks.
Even players admit that .

Most effective way of scoring runs...the long ball. Deal with it...gotta be multi dimensional as a team. Hurdy gets on base, has no true position. Doesn't even steal bases. Adames generates way more offense and scoring runs is important.

Now tell us about Guerrero Jr., or Jose Ramirez? Hell, tell us about Winn

Takes all types on a team, but producers get paid. As they should

Effective, maybe, but not necessarily efficient. A 40-hr player with maybe 60-80 rbis and a .220 average will have his moments, but not necessarily many.

What player last year would fit that scenario? None had 40 or more HR's with less than 102 RBI's

Top 6 HR hitting teams all were in the playoffs. 8 of top 10...

If you aren't slugging, you aren't making the playoffs for the most part

[mattmitchl44]

To put it in perspective:

When the mound hight was lowered in 1969, it changed the nominal downward angle that pitchers had to throw from about 5.6 degrees to 5.2 degrees.

Moving the mound back 3 feet would change the nominal downward angle from about 5.2 degrees to 4.9 degrees.

If pitchers quickly adjusted to the lower mound in 1969, they should equally adjust to moving the mound back even three feet.

[rbirules]

Good morning.

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.

Yes, they need to move it back about three feet to the center of the diamond. That 5% increase in distance would help offset increases in pitch velocity.

I've worked out the geometry before and, in terms of angles that pitchers would have to adjust to, moving the mound back three feet would be less of a change than that which was imposed by lowering the mound after 1968. So pitchers already adjusted to a bigger change without any rash in injuries (that I know of) in 1969, 1970, etc.

In addition, I think they need to deaden the ball a bit, working on increasing the moment of inertia of the ball (to reduce the ability to spin it without negatively affecting grip and control), and then optimize the strike zone.

You want to encourage pitchers to aggressively attack the strike zone, but you want those strikes to be more "hittable" (less speed, less spin, more optimal location) for batters to put into play, but making it somewhat harder for them to do XBH damage by deadening it.

Yep, all of this. Or at least as many of these ideas as it takes to get the game back to the spot where, it seems like, everybody wants it to be. More balls in play, more action in the field of play, fewer Ks and HRs.

[rbirules]

To put it in perspective:

When the mound hight was lowered in 1969, it changed the nominal downward angle that pitchers had to throw from about 5.6 degrees to 5.2 degrees.

Moving the mound back 3 feet would change the nominal downward angle from about 5.2 degrees to 4.9 degrees.

If pitchers quickly adjusted to the lower mound in 1969, they should equally adjust to moving the mound back even three feet.

As I posted earlier historic walk rates are in the mid 8% to 9% range. Starting in 1963 walk rates dropped to the mid 7% to 8% range, bottoming out in 1968 at 7.6%. It "jumped" in 1969 and 1970 to 9.1% and 9.2% which is about a 20% increase, but in a wider context it returned to historical norms. Lowering the mound fixed the problem. Then the DH was adopted in the AL and it had a slight bump before again settling back in at historical norms.

[C-Unit]

Good morning.

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.

[mattmitchl44]

Good morning.

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.

Yes, they need to move it back about three feet to the center of the diamond. That 5% increase in distance would help offset increases in pitch velocity.

I've worked out the geometry before and, in terms of angles that pitchers would have to adjust to, moving the mound back three feet would be less of a change than that which was imposed by lowering the mound after 1968. So pitchers already adjusted to a bigger change without any rash in injuries (that I know of) in 1969, 1970, etc.

In addition, I think they need to deaden the ball a bit, working on increasing the moment of inertia of the ball (to reduce the ability to spin it without negatively affecting grip and control), and then optimize the strike zone.

You want to encourage pitchers to aggressively attack the strike zone, but you want those strikes to be more "hittable" (less speed, less spin, more optimal location) for batters to put into play, but making it somewhat harder for them to do XBH damage by deadening it.

Yep, all of this. Or at least as many of these ideas as it takes to get the game back to the spot where, it seems like, everybody wants it to be. More balls in play, more action in the field of play, fewer Ks and HRs.

Yes - and there is a very simple metric by wish to measure success, pitches per plate appearance.

The more you can reduce P/PA the more action you are going to have, less dead time, and a better product.