This One Change Could FIX Major League Baseball

TWITTER - @BaseballHSTRN
_____________________________
Major League Baseball has a problem. Over the past few years, the league has made a number of rule changes to address the pace of play. However, I can't help but feel that these changes will have little effect, for one simple reason: they're trying to solve the wrong problem.
In this video, I identify the real problem with Major League Baseball, as it exists today, and propose a single rule change that could solve it once and for all.
_____________________________
NOTE - In this video, I incorrectly pronounce Kyle Boddy's name similar to "body". For the correct pronunciation, watch this video: • Driveline's Kyle Boddy...
_____________________________
SOURCES
pastebin.com/meKEpLiV
_____________________________
MUSIC
"Eine Kleine Nachtmusik" - Mozart
Brandenburg Concerto No4-1 BWV1049 - Classical Whimsical by Kevin MacLeod is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license. creativecommons.org/licenses/...
Source: incompetech.com/music/royalty-...
Artist: incompetech.com/

[@soadratmetc]

Local KZbinr discovers ONE WEIRD TRICK that fixes baseball, pitchers HATE him

[@ihatezen]

LOL

[@Keyser___Soze]

I subscribed to you after this first video I watched and glance at your other videos. Good content!

[@Foodymn20]

I can see that as a Jomboy title lol

[@BudSchnelker]

And the cameraman kept filming...

[@jonpark6650]

I like moving the mound back. If however this does not work, possibly we could remove the bump or make the mound below grade which keeps the same distance but changes the perception.

[@stevestolarczyk8972]

You had me at “Geometric center.”

[@ronaldvazquez4373]

More action please! I can't stand all these strikeouts there needs to be more in play.

[@petbull7038]

Agreed 👍 That sealed it for me. Let's move the mound

[@phillefebvre9599]

I had a weird scientific satisfaction when he said it, 3 feet sounds like a lot, but balance seems like perfection...

[@krameryoung379]

I wonder though if pitchers would be at greater risk of being hit by balls if they moved back to directly between first and third for trying to get double plays.

[@aidankeys8534]

@@krameryoung379 After the pitch, the pitcher would be at the bottom of the mound and out of the line of fire. They'd be safe so long as the throw isn't wildly offline or they stupidly (in this instance of changing the rule and it being well known) return to the mound and get into the line of fire.

[@brettvainio1323]

I love this idea for many of the reasons you cited, particularly a) pitching from the centre of the diamond makes sense; I always thought 60’6” seemed very arbitrary, which it is. b) giving hitters more time to put more balls in play makes sense c) giving the pitcher more time to react to a comebacker is a safety issue long over due to be addressed

[@SSNESS]

It worked for the NHL by moving the net closer

[@hayfielddraw4364]

I've always enjoyed baseball most from a defensive point of view. More balls in play, to me, means more acrobatic dives from shortstops, more poetic double plays, more hard charging outfielders. I'm all for anything that makes the game fun again. It really isn't anymore.

[@GuyCybershy]

Agree completely. Too many HRS have cheapened the game. Too many players striking out waiting for the hr pitch.

[@johnstrawb3521]

@Hayfield Draw It's still fun b/c it's baseball, crazy person, but it could be a lot MORE fun if you got rid of unnecessarily long breaks during all 18 half-innings due to ads, got rid of the shift, and included a pitch clock. Oh, and reduce the height of the thread / seams in the baseballs themselves, while moving the fences back 10-15' over time and softening the ball juuuust a little.

[@rl5579]

@@johnstrawb3521 I agree with most of what you say, but don't get rid of the shift. If hitters would learn to hit the other way instead of just gunning for the fences, there would be alot more action. Instead we're stuck with the Joey Gallo's of MLB; striking out, walking or occasionally hitting a home run, all of which are boring.

[@3of7tricom34]

I think the symmetry argument is the best I’ve heard for moving the mound back. It makes total sense to have the pitchers mound be in the geometric center of the diamond, I honestly thought it was until now!

[@dr.savage687]

If the best argument for a change is that it just feels right, it’s probably not a great change

[@sniklenave6557]

@@dr.savage687 Hey “Dr. SaVAge”, did you watch the video bro? That point was just the cherry on top.

[@dr.savage687]

@@sniklenave6557 Which is why i didn't comment that on the video, but on a comment which claims that the symmetry is "the best argument I've heard for moving the mound back."

[@sexagesimalian]

While I don't think it is the best argument for moving the mound, it is a good argument for moving the mound to a specific spot.

[@unkledoda420]

Part of me is against changing the game in such a fundamental way but then it mentions that the mound is not in the exact center of the diamond and my OCD kicked in and all i can think about the change is "YES, DO IT NOW!"

[@nedmerrill5705]

Tweaking the mound position seems the least disruptive of the many rule changes proposed, so I'm for trying it out.

[@AdamRiccinto]

Agreed. I'm thinking about the physics and I'm thinking there's got to be a ratio by which the mound could be moved back and the height altered to essentially keep the pitch angle the same when it reaches the plate, thus basically making the pitcher's "target" about the same.

[@joshuasmith5687]

And if people say this will cause too many homers you know if clubs can pay what they do, they can move the fence back to make that fair.

[@LiveFreeOrDie2A]

Am I the ONLY one who sees a problem with moving mound back? (and probably WHY it is where it is!) - the pitcher would be directly in the path of throws from 3rd to 1st or 1st to 3rd! The mound is positioned intentionally UNsymmetrical so as to create a clean throwing lane across the infield. Whatever danger balls hit back at the pitcher are.. having the mound positioned directly in the throwing lane between 3rd and 1st bases would be far more dangerous and probably why the mound is where it is!

[@smudge9199]

@@LiveFreeOrDie2A the pitcher isn’t forced to stay on the mound in the middle of a throw

[@pyrotron83]

If walls and fields can be made to help fight against homeruns, a mound can be moved a foot or 3 to help batters hit and to help pitchers react to comebacks. Makes sense to me.

[@robertrobinson5800]

I have played baseball my whole life. I have always said to keep things the same and hitters just need to adapt but after watching this detailed explanation. It only makes sense to give batters a chance to hit the ball. At what point does it become near impossible for your eyes to see something and react properly. Make the diamond a complete symmetrical shape. equal distance from each base. 100% on board with this change. Unless a pitcher has 20-27 K's in a perfect game pitched. Watching batters strikeout is boring and slowing down the game. The stat that they should be watching is pitches per at bat. If they can get it to 3-5 range would help speed up the game. I also think that if they make this change. They should go back to playing full 9 inning games for double headers and remove the auto runner at 2nd base for extra innings.

[@SSNESS]

They also built the new parks too small

[@kevinkiss3340]

Extra Innings: Runner at 2nd needs to go. This is one new rule that is inept.

[@lonniemontgomery6867]

And get rid of the DH while you are at it. At least in the National league.

[@connordalton9302]

I aint reading all that

[@kevinkiss3340]

@@connordalton9302 Go Orioles

[@tysonplett3328]

Wait, you're telling me the rubber is not exactly in the centre of the diamond??? Move it now!!!

[@kevinsousa3370]

I think of all his arguments this would legitimately get the most amount of people on board

[@stevecooper6473]

@@kevinsousa3370 "amount" = "number"

[@kevinsousa3370]

@@stevecooper6473 ok?

[@scrappymark]

@@stevecooper6473 also yes

[@MJIZZEL]

@@stevecooper6473 ?=question

[@stephenpansa1974]

I had absolutely no interest in this proposal until the symmetry of moving the mound back to 63 3/4 feet would make the diamond all symmetrical. Now, I am 100% on board with this idea.

[@andrew3448]

@Mike G its just a funny counter to the traditionalist reason for not moving it back (i.e. don't change 60.6) as a way of mocking.

[@OliveMule]

@Mike G you're unwise. You know very little about the human mind You know even LESS about the brotherhood of the diamond

[@Primus54]

@Mike G: You might want to bone up a little on the history of the game. Perhaps then you’ll understand why outfield dimensions beyond the diamond are not uniform, yet symmetry is one of the beauties of the game.

[@ottodetroit]

Giving hitters another 3 feet to swing would double hits and runs scored. Unless of course the umps returned to the traditional letters to knees strike zone. But that ship has sailed.

[@OliveMule]

@Mike G u got me bro! Omg ! You're such a smart guy, your king of the geniuses ! Your just so smart , you tore my whole argument down with your grammar! Wow! So smart

[@timothywilliams1359]

I like this idea MUCH more than banning the shift. Defenses should be allowed to try whatever strategy works best for their personnel and against their opponents. Moving the pitcher's release point - and that is really what we are talking about here - has been done many times in the past, either by moving the mound back, or down... or by the pitchers just getting a lot bigger.

[@kenpachiyugioh1804]

I definitely like the idea of moving the mound back, even to the geometric center. It would definitely make pitchers adapt and give the batter more time to make crucial decisions.

[@GoneGamingBadfish]

I completely agree with your proposal. I think it sounds like the least gimmicky way I've heard to increase pace of play.

[@andrew3448]

not only that it would improve the quality of each pitch since more action would come from higher rate of contact. more efficient usage of time

[@jimbojonesbones]

I agree that this is the least gimmicky option. The fact of the matter is that pitchers will adapt. It may take a decade or two, but no matter what you do to change the geometry of the game, the pitcher will always maintain a massive advantage over the hitter. For me as a lifetime fan, nothing beats watching a major league pitcher be on fire. I know it’s slow, and I know it can be boring. Tough. Go watch an NFL game in person and then tell me baseball is boring. Leave the game the way it is. The difference between hitting .250 and .300 is 1-2 hits per week when you play everyday. Message from a former pitcher to hitters: TRY AN ASH BAT! Learn to hit the ball the other way and stop swinging for the fences.

[@kevinobrien9271]

Also lower the mound from 10” to 6”. The ball will come in at a lesser angle, making it easier for the hitters to track it.

[@markwilson3697]

but it wouldn't increase the pace of the game.. sides switch at 3 outs per team per inning. moving the mound back wouldn't increase the pace of the game but decrease it. Move the mound toward the plate. quicker strike outs.

[@greghaa]

I don't really get all these pace of play arguments. This isn't Football. The battle that is waged between the pitcher and batter is what is so great about Baseball. Why do we want to speed that up or otherwise mess with it? TV ratings? If someone is interested in Baseball then that battle on the mound and home plate is why they are there. What they really want is hitters to hit more. I think that will happen naturally, just like the pitchers have gotten better over time (and the steroid era forced them to).

[@BlackburnFamilyRacing]

I went into this video thinking "here we go". This is actually legit. A truly great idea. So great, that MLB will never do it... I hope they do though.

[@ozzymorrison8628]

Waste of time video🖕

[@stevecrader3479]

As a really old guy, who grew up watching the Cardinal's with Gibson, I think it's spot on and simple. Pitchers will pretty quickly change their physical aiming point, release angle and be back where they need to be. Giving hitters that slight bit of time to react and pull the trigger will certainly increase their production, and our enjoyment

[@adiuntesserande6893]

This is absolutely brilliant. The moment you mentioned the 1880s, I thought to myself, 'Move the mound. It worked then, it'll work now.' I didn't realize this was exactly what you planned! Or, to paraphrase a term also used in the 1800s, 'Sixty-three seventy-five or fight!'

[@peterbecker1529]

I have NEVER commented on a KZbin video before. I love baseball! I hate the product currently on the field. This idea makes too much sense. This idea is so much better than starting a runner on 2B in extra innings, DH in both leagues, banning shifts, and even pitch clocks. I hope someone who has some clout in baseball sees this video!

[@chrislukes9037]

While the lack of a DH in the NL certainly reduces overall offense, I think it _adds_ a significantly interesting strategic layer surrounding pinch hitting and offensive/defensive tradeoffs that come with substitution - is it more valuable to keep your tiring-but-not-gassed ace on the mound another inning, or to substitute slightly early to get an extra at bat out of a better hitter? Is it worth having a pitcher attempt a "small ball" contribution (e.g., sac bunt, other situational hitting, etc.) so he can stay in on defense? In the AL, there much less to it - basically keep your best pitcher in until he's tired (or you need to run a specific match up) and a decision purely based on only "one half of the ball" (defense). Maybe not a majority opinion, but I really hope they don't move to universal DH - besides the strategic element described above, it's also just unfair to any pitcher with any batting skill or batting IQ. Why should a team with slugging pitchers like Madison Bumgarner (or even just pitchers that make a point of developing above average bunting or situational hitting skills for their position) lose their edge over teams that neglect to develop at least some productivity out of each spot on a well-rounded roster? Some won't want to play that game, and I think it's good that the AL exists for this reason, but a player with something to offer on both sides of the ball should have a forum to do so, even if their defensive contribution is pitching. Ironically, Bumgarner _has_ actually served as the DH in at least one AL-hosted game (I think in a game he wasn't pitching!), but his exceptional-for-a-pitcher batting skill doesn't have as exceptional an impact here, where he can be matched by an opposing DH from any spot on the roster. For the many NL rotation spots that would necessarily be filled by not-so-eager batters, I still don't see a reason we shouldn't at least expect a _smart_ situational at-bat out of them and incentivize marginal improvements in pitcher batting - I'd much rather see a pitcher be thrown out on a bunt put into play than a slugging DH whiff on another would-be homerun for strike 3.

[@lincolnwesterlund6187]

Starting the runner at 2nd in extra innings is the International Tie Breaker... I don't mind seeing it in the amateur circuit, or even if we did end up with a truly international post season. But I agree, leave MLB alone on those occasions.. I would love to see that back-up shortstop coming in to pitch due to the staff being full of only 4 inning starters and the pen full of 1 inning specialists. Remind GM's why they are supposed to keep a few long relievers on the squad.

[@artieboy24]

@@lincolnwesterlund6187 I wonder what the numbers say. Does starting a runner on second make an etra inning game end faster or does it actually make extra innings longer?

[@lukew1383]

@@chrislukes9037 Couldn't have put it better myself! Very well said!

[@davenelson9253]

I am total agented the DH !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11

[@Ghricreen]

Kyle boddy blocked me on twitter cause I said he looks like Kelso from that 70s show when he ate eggs and had an allergic reaction to it

[@mikehoochie4042]

😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@BoHorn]

Bruhhhhh 😂 well done

[@JBM425]

It's certainly worth discussion, especially now that one month after this video was released, MLB has had a total of 6 no-hitters in the first 42 days of the 2021 season. As you note, the mound was lowered after the 1968 season, so it's not like moving the mound back would be totally unprecedented.

[@ebiskner]

I’ve thought this for years... thanks for making a video and doing the research to support my intuition. Well done.

[@franciscotejada1736]

I like how I've seen so many youtubers propose ways to increase balls in play but only foolish proposed the most obvious Removing the sticky stuff

[@hailmary7283]

I remember one time in middle school trying to calculate the distance to the mound under the assumption that it was in the center of the diamond. I was really confused and thought I messed up my math when I found out it wasn't.

[@keithneal6787]

I think MLB should move the mound back, it has been talked about for years and it would be nice to see more hitting and less strikeouts in the game. As a fan you go to a game to see action not a pitchers' duel with no hit or runs.

[@lasurflife]

Totally agree. I've always thought it was weird that the diamond is completely symmetrical and then the mound is off the line between third and first. But I might tweak your suggestion by adding a slightly deader ball to the mix. So it would be more hitter friendly for contact and base hits, but not for home runs. Ultimately, even more balls in play.

[@Sandul666]

Perfection will only be found at 63.75 ft away

[@mayonkonijeti7491]

This seems like an actual productive rule change. None of the other ones get to the heart of the issue

[@6lackline445]

Great video, and great idea. My only gripe with the whole thing would probably be the precedent of stats, and would be similar to what has just happened with addition of an extra game in the NFL. But I think this is a necessary and useful step in baseball’s future

[@botsareeverywhere]

I feel the same way about the stats, but in the end sports stats are truly only meaningful by era, moving the mound back would just usher in a new era of stats.

[@kevinneimeyer9514]

One interesting side effect would be on base running, more specifically runners on first stealing second. Placing the mound even with the imaginary line from 1st to 3rd not only places first base more in the pitchers peripheral view (instead of having to look slightly backward), but it also changes they way (right handed) pitchers move to throw to first. I predict a lot more picked off runners at first.

[@The_Directorate]

6:11 "The best player in baseball" (David Fletcher)

[@deathbackwards7850]

He does make contact with the pitches he swings at more than about anyone else, so in the scheme of the video, he does what fans want.

[@edalder2000]

I thought that was Mike Trout, But I am blind i my left eye. So what do I know?

[@bluesdjben]

I mean he is my favorite player right now that no one outside Anaheim talks about.

[@blackfootedferret]

I was sure he was gonna say, "see you didn't even have time to tell that it wasn't like trout

[@scottjohnson5132]

I noticed that as well. Fletcher attended my high school alma mater, not that anyone cares.

[@DustyVita]

Look, I'm a huge fan of pitching. I like nasty breaking balls, I love watching a guy strike out on a high fastball. That said, move the mound back a couple feet, it'll be better for the game and I'm all for anything that keeps guys from getting hit in the head.

[@DZegers13]

I like the idea more than any of the other proposals for speeding up the game. Even if moving the mound back doesn’t speed up the game, it’s not such a big deal to have a 3 hour game if the game is more exciting. The reason games are boring is because there are so many half innings during which there is no action.

[@theworldwariioldtimeradioc8676]

45 year baseball fan here. You make a compelling argument. I was surprised with the poll stating doubles, triples, and stolen bases are the most exciting plays. Watching ESPN or other media sources you’d think it was the home run. Btw, I agree 100% with the poll. In the past 30 years baseball has built smaller ballparks that has all but eliminated that style of play also. Moving home plate back or raising a fence would be a good solution to that. I was against moving the mound back, but for me it was more tradition than anything else. If it would decrease the strikeout/walk/home run way the game is played today I would love it. I grew up watching Rickey Henderson, Steve Carlton, Rod Carew, and Tony Gwynn. We need that sort of balanced game back.

[@monstrousbytommywalker3700]

Home runs would top the list for excitement if they were normally inside-the-park, which they should be.

[@edalder2000]

Dude, you picked up a sub. This is a logical proposal and much more profound than whatever gimmicks MLB and Manfred have implemented.

[@Elguapodelfuego]

Pro Mens fastpitch softball was huge in america until the late 80's. It died off becuase pitching was just way too good.

[@bossfan49]

There's another option - make the ball bigger! =D

[@funkgremlin2765]

@@bossfan49 absolutely not. The one thing about baseball that cannot change is the baseball. They’re already juicing the ball and making the properties different we can keep the size and profile

[@bossfan49]

@@funkgremlin2765 I know, i was kidding since he was talking about fastpitch softball.

[@scottrichardson4086]

I absolutely love this idea. I attend around 25 games in person each season, love baseball and believe this would be one of the least disruptive changes from a fan viewing perspective. This also likely reduces the number of pitches required per inning as more balls are put in play which also helps the pitchers and # of pitchers required per game and likely pitching injuries. Great idea!

[@milquetoast74]

Curious what The Atlantic League’s numbers will show after their experimental season.

[@munchyos]

4:18 “Hey vsauce, michael here to talk about the problems of major league pitching. You see....”

[@route2070]

One of the best YT meme is the random Michael from V Sauce.

[@geoffstrickler]

@@route2070 …or is it? 😎

[@eddieeichenhorn4930]

As a baseball purist it is hard to wrap my head around, but the point is valid and I think that the issue most definitely needs to be addressed. Moving the mound would take some getting used to, but I think it would be effective without fundamentally changing the game and that is all we can really ask for

[@MezzoForte4]

Casual viewers wouldn't even notice the difference. Drop the purist nonsense and let the game get with the times.

[@lincolnwesterlund6187]

As a baseball purist, I think we should get rid of the fielders wearing gloves... hmmm, too pure?

[@lionsfan7500]

I'm definitely open minded about the idea. I would love to see some of the final numbers after the Atlantic season is over since they moved the moud back a foot and then go from there. It was a good video and for baseball fans like myself it gives us something to think about and water-cooler chat.

[@cconnors]

That HBP at 10:39 was like watching a mugging on the street.

[@brendanjackson2037]

Honestly was anti before but am more excited about the outcome of the minor league study now

[@corin164]

I feel dumb. I always thought 60' 6" was the exact geometric center of the infield. Now that I know that it isn't, I'm all in favor of moving it to 63' 9". One question, how is the diamond and pitcher's mound laid out in Japan and So. Korea? Are they having issues with overly long games, too?

[@ordinaryk]

Japanese pro baseball games are on a timer. If the game is tied when regulation time ends, it's officially a tie.

[@pennhudson3268]

Very good idea. I remember the effect of lowering the mound and the results were what was expected and better for the game. I also remember when complete games were common, even for the losing pitcher. Does anyone remember Harvey Haddix, or Roy Face? Robin Roberts Warren Spahn? I was lucky enough to see all of them pitch. Ah the good old days.

[@nathanganti9554]

I love this. As you've said, there have been numerous major changes to the way the game has been played since its inception. Most of the big changes happened in baseball's infancy, but major events like the year of the pitcher necessitated further changes. I think the age of sabermetrics has altered the balance of the game enough to make this change necessary.

[@leopierani4404]

This made me sad, knowing there are fans of the MLB who bear more intelligence than those who are in charge of decisions (Rob Manfred lol)

[@chuckinhouston9952]

You got that right. The commissioner is not too bright.

[@wcg19891]

I literally suggested this 40 years ago. I got an earful

[@blackfootedferret]

We hear ya Jack. Hmmm, true innovator

[@gueman99]

And that was before the internet...you were ahead of your time. Great ideas usually are. I have been pushing for banning metal bats for kids older than 8. Since I started coaching 20 years ago. $$$ though...

[@squigglyline2813]

Yea, I agree.. I suggested 41 years ago in fact.

[@harkriz415]

@@squigglyline2813 I strung up the idea 42 years ago

[@glasshalffull8625]

I thought the solution was to have the players stand for the National Anthem! Haven’t watched a pro game of any sport where the players didn’t respect their country. (However, I have rediscovered high school baseball and how much fun it is to watch and it is all the reasons stated in the video.)

[@wynnsimpson]

Bravo. Nicely argued. I was a starting shortstop through college and I agree with you. The bit at the end starring Bob Gibson was most convincing.

[@micahott1859]

Love the idea, my dad and I have saying this for at least 10 years. It also wouldn't hurt if the batters would hurry up themselves, tired of seeing them constantly stepping out of the box and adjusting something.

[@chrislukes9037]

It's the batters that need the help they can get against overpowered pitchers. This video's whole point that it's not really the speed of the games but the rate of balls in play that has really impacted the quality of the viewing experience. I appreciate the flavor and personal flair that some of the quirkier preparatory batter's box rituals bring to the game (all a part of "The Show"), and if any part of this mentally prepares the batter for a more likely ball in play, then I'm all for it.

[@matthewcollins8602]

Dump Rob Manfred immediately and you'll see a guaranteed gain in viewership and fanbase. From there we'll go with this

[@gil4321]

I bet you could take a poll of fans at baseball games, and maybe 5% could tell you the name of the commissioner of baseball. The person in the office isn't the problem.

[@jerrybajek6281]

Get rid of the "woke" pandering.

[@matthewcollins8602]

@@gil4321 judging by MLB's rapid decline in popularity that just means the people that do know his name just quit following

[@matthewcollins8602]

@@DieselDog1982 both are horrible. MLB is on life support however due to it's rapidly declining fan base. The ones still watching would watch paint dry in the name of loyalty & obedience

[@matthewcollins8602]

@@DieselDog1982 considering they doctor the ball every season then they might as well.

[@znoyce]

Personally, I think 63 feet, 9 inches has a nice ring to it. I also really love the idea of raising the mound up to it's 1968 height at the same time. Definitely could be tricky for the pitchers in the transition time. But, in the long run, I actually think it'll improve pitcher health since the shortened mound has been so terrible for pitcher's arms and backs. Pitchers would be able to throw downhill using their whole bodies again, which could unlock all kinds of ways to maximize spin, introduces a kind of physical dominance/centrality to the pitcher that could be really enjoyable. And, ultimately, pitchers who embrace new mechanics for the longer throw from an increased height are likely to experience fewer injuries and could have longer careers.

[@doctorg.k.spoderminsr.2588]

This change has so many good arguments in its favor, some of which were not even mentioned in this vid. 1) Would make the game safer for pitchers 2) Would make the game safer for batters and catchers 3) Less strikeouts 4) More good-contact balls in play 5) Would help bring back the bunt! 6) Would help bring back the stolen base! 6) Potentially makes pitchers focus on good movement and location rather than overpowering velocity 7) Precious SYMMETRY... (or at least closer to perfect symmetry) Basically this change would actually help return baseball to what it once was and is supposed to be - a *dynamic* game, not a static game where every at bat reliably results in only a strikeout, flyout, or occasional home run.

[@thewalkingbutthole11]

This is better than anything manfred is attempting.

[@Andy-hb3zp]

Manfred is attempting this. 9:10

[@cadet526]

Lowering the mound has also been floated by Manfred, which would slow down pitches.

[@frozenbbfan]

Great! An even better idea would be to not inject his dumbass political ideals into baseball.

[@JollyOlive]

As of today, the highest team OPS in the NL is .762 (the Braves), which is no bueno. Like you said, pitchers may just be too good.

[@domingoknife6280]

I like the idea and the presentation. I do think part of the problem you only slightly addressed was the hitters. Everything is now launch angles, exit velocity, essentially trying to do as much damage at the plate as they can. I am not sure that if Tony Gwynn were playing today that he would ever make it to the major leagues. Pitchers have adapted to throw harder, hitters have adapted to swing harder. Great video!

[@movieguy992]

I recently watched a game where I saw 3 different pitchers in one game throwing 100mph. In the past it felt like there were only one or two pitchers in all of baseball who were throwing that hard. It used to be something rare and special.

[@williefaulker]

I'm a year late to this comment, but watching this world series right now there was a picture who threw 94 I can't remember if it was a Philly or Houston picture, and they were saying that he was one of the softer throwing pictures on the team.... Blew my mind lol ( haven't watched baseball much since 2014 ) I remember Ryan madson was beginning to throw 95 96 mi in the 08playoff run and people were going crazy at the time, it's crazy how much baseball has changed

[@unkledoda420]

More guys in the past were hitting 100 than you think. Radar guns have gotten more accurate over the years. There has usually been a difference of a mph or 2 between each new model gun and the old ones, and mlb has upgraded guns several times since the 1970's. Plus the location of the ball when the measurement is taken has changed. The first guns measured the speed right in front of home plate, now they measure right after the ball leaves the pitcher's hand. The speed of a fastball can drop off by up to 10% over that distance.

[@kurtdavis7588]

I don't know about that man. I know there were guys throwing heat in the older days but it was few and far between. It's not just the radar gun, you can see and hear the difference between now and even when I played ( i retired in 2012). When I played high school kids throwing 82 to 84 were flame throwers, in college 85 to 88 was good heat, in the pros most guys were 86 to 92. There wasn't a lot of 96+ guys who were any good when I played. Now I'm a high school coach and two kids on the team are bringing mid to upper 80 now. My last few years in the pros guys were starting to bring a lot of heat and it's gotten crazier ever since.

[@TheStaticJedi]

Before I even finished the video I knew what your solution was. I completely agree with backing the mound up! I've been telling everyone that for months now! Great minds 🧠

[@rwboa22]

Last change involving the mound was lowering the height, yet that was negated due teams drafting taller pitchers such as Randy Johnson.

[@uncletony6210]

Here's what's wrong with baseball. Up until somewhere around the mid to late 80s, teams, for the most part, brought back the SAME players year in and year out. This meant that fans actually got to KNOW and grow attached to the players on their TEAM, and got to know and dislike the players on other teams/rivals. Today, with team-jumping, however, fans no longer root for or against "teams," but rather a uniform and a logo. And they wonder why we've lost the passion...

[@NevinMillan]

100% agree with this! Moving the mound back and adding a pitch clock would fix A LOT of issues in baseball. Hope they consider this idea further.

[@cole_time]

I cant wait till this channel has a million subs. You're doing great work!

[@giacomocolella6151]

Perfect Symmetry sounds good to me😂

[@BaseballHistorian]

s y m m e t r i c a l

[@-BigMike-]

I agree. I don't know if 63' is too much, but I've been saying it needs to move back atleast a foot or two for several years now. I'm very happy that it's finally building up some steam. Great vid Historian!

[@v2micca]

You will never achieve perfect symmetry. Because the distance at which perfect symmetry would be achieved (1/2 of the square root of 16200, or 63.639610306789277.......) is what we call an irrational number. But, even putting it close (say 63 feet and 7 2/3rds inches) would destroy the balance of the game. Homeruns and walks would explode. Doesn't matter if you deaden the ball. When you have hitters routinely producing triple digit exit velocities and ideal launch angles, modern stadiums won't hold the ball. Additionally, it would kill the running game. Moving the ball farther from home moves it closer to first and second. There would be a couple of weeks of base-runners being picked off first and second are record levels before everyone stopped taking more than minimal leads and stealing became a relic of yesteryear.

[@jrrd4069]

@@v2micca I don't agree with the argument that lengthening the mound/home plate distance would decentivize base-stealing for a couple of reasons. First, I'm not sure why moving the mound farther towards the center would lessen the distance to first and not just second base (stealing from second is rare anyway). Second, if the mound is further from the plate, wouldn't that give the baserunner MORE time to get to second on a pitch? So actually it could have the opposite effect you claim and INCREASE base stealing.

[@scrappymark]

@@v2micca simple logic would say that stealing would be easier as you have a pitch take longer to get to the catcher.

[@dylanhydes8798]

I was against moving the mound back until I watched your video. Nice work. Let’s do it!

[@allwehaveistoday1152]

I will be anticipating a follow up with results from the Atlantic leagues results. A1 content thanks!

[@crystalp7242]

I quite like the idea. I think that, in addition to limiting extreme defensive shifting, could help improve offensive performance. Sports should evolve with the times. People are clever, and they can figure out how to game the system pretty quickly. What do you think about also limiting defensive shifting?

[@saundz8791]

I think 1st and 2nd baseman should stay at the right of the dining and SS and 3rd baseman at the left side. It could be as close to the base as you wish but to your side of the field

[@crystalp7242]

@@saundz8791 You mean the diamond, right? That actually sounds about how I’d set up that rule. I guess you could call it baseball’s version of zone defense? Seeing a baseman or shortstop basically become a shallow outfielder in the pull side of the field just seems ridiculous to me. Then the infielders have to depend on their abilities to field balls put into play rather than statistics and spray charts.

[@saundz8791]

@@crystalp7242 yes my point exactly. And as you mention they should stay outside of the outfield grass but could play as close to the edge as posible. BTW being a fielder rightnow Is a boring job in MLB lol

[@thorinhanson1181]

I love it. I'm 100% in. And I'm not surprised. This channel always does the research. I'm impressed.

[@ajurado800]

The symmetry argument is compelling. I would support this on the condition that after it's implemented, we place a complete moratorium on any more rule changes for 5 seasons. Alternately, do this and repeal the NL DH, with future rule changes on the table. These are my terms.

[@torid5892]

Moving the pitcher's mound to the geometric center is the best idea I've heard, A pitch clock would be fair if, like the deadball days, the batter didn't leave the box until he did something- hit, strikeout, walk or to avoid HBP. There should be a universal strike zone called by machine so everyone know what's a strike no matter who was behind or at the plate. Even Ricky Henderson. I think the shift is silly. Teach guys to half swing bunt other way for a guaranteed single. The DH was the beginning of the end. It took away small ball, and that was the best game.

[@Cc75757]

It's time. Move the mound back and address the problem. Speed up walks: fine, pitch clock: fine, 3 batter minimum: meh, keep one foot in the batter box: fine but these don't have much of any effect, if any on the pace of the game.

[@metsdynastyx]

I’ll be honest, when I first heard this proposal I thought it was a bad idea. But I think you sold me.

[@craigmooring2091]

First, I want to congratulate you on the excellence of your background music. Second, I want to thank you for keeping it IN the background. Third, and most importantly, I want to thank you for an excellent, thought-provoking suggestion. That there is historical precedent for changing the distance is somewhat important and it was news to me. Like you, I find the idea of placing the rubber at the center of the diamond has a strong appeal to my geometric aesthetic. That, however, should be a very minor consideration. Much more important is the existing data from trials in the "lab" and in the field. I am looking forward to seeing how the move works out in the Atlantic League. I think most pitchers and batters will be able to adjust, but it will take some time to properly assess the difference it makes. And once such a change is in effect, the changed distance will be normal for players who came up with it in place. I'd rather see them start with a larger move, though. I know that the increased reaction time will help to reduce the frequency and intensity of injury to hitters and pitchers alike, which is definitely a major positive factor. So, on the whole, died-in-the-wool, "baseball don't need no fixing" purist that I am, I find myself leaning in favor of such a change.

[@lanceheroatlarge]

Great idea, moving the mound isn’t that drastic a change to the fundamentals of the game but definitely has the potential to change the level of offense activity. While we’re at it let’s raise the goal in basketball to 12 feet....that out to shake up the game a little.

[@davidfox9947]

Basketball is headed to a similar problem shooters will be too good , what Curry does now will no longer be special because every team will have one or more players who can soot like that.

[@robertard9748]

Thank you for the interesting video. I think you have another change that you need to make, which is outfield dimensions. Part of the problem is that the outfield fences began to be moved in across the league in the '90's. Oddly enough, this was done to create more excitement with more home runs, which had bottomed out in the late '70's and early '80's. You have to move the fences back to a place where there isn't such a decided advantage for swinging for the fences. The analytics and biomechanics guys have figured out what the optimum swing path is. Until the fences are moved back about 20 to 30 feet, you'll still have the same problem, which is fly balls are much more advantageous than line drives and ground balls. Go back to the '85 World Series between the Cardinals and Royals. It was played in big parks completely on AstroTurf. The turf made ground balls move super fast through the infield and the long fences made for lots of doubles and triples. Baseball has to start using analytics to craft a game in which there aren't huge disparities in game theories and choices. Right now there is only one way to play baseball successfully, and that creates a monochromatic and boring game with fewer types of players and fewer types of game strategy.

[@BigSkyCurmudgeon]

@@Scion_of_light you remember the era of "whitey ball" ala Whitey Herzog, Cardinals manager with enjoyed success by putting the ball in play, making the defense react flawlessly, running wild on the bases, and scrambling for every run possible. that was exciting baseball at its best

[@logansvideos95]

Totally agree! The one thing I worry about is how it will affect guys who already throw slow (greinke, hendricks), or maybe they'll just have to get better at control - very interesting to see how this plays out

[@BaseballHistorian]

I actually think this change would help the Greinkes of the league, since reducing the advantage of high velocity would result in clubs placing higher emphasis on control pitchers.

[@Schaperart]

@@BaseballHistorian It would kill them because it would drop their velocity AND wreak havoc on breaking pitches which they have to rely on more to get outs - these guys have conditioned themselves to pitch from a specific distance and increasing that will cause a lot of problems for a lot of folks -pitching isnt just abouy velocity its about the movement of pitches (check Greg Maddux for reference) the easier solution is to simply enforce the ban on gunking the ball and actually penalize players when they are caught cheating for example a mandatory suspension of 5 starts (or appearances) for a first offense and go from there - also get rid of the 7 inning double header the free intentional walk the idiotic ghost runner rule for extra innings and allow the catcher to block the damn plate -- the issue isn't the pace of play - its the quality of play - the two things that make baseball unique are that the defensive team controls the ball and that there is no clock to run out - you have opportunities not time - thats the beauty of baseball and doing all these foolish rules changes ruins that

[@lincolnwesterlund6187]

@@Schaperart I have to argue with you on the Catcher's rule... the rule doesn't actually affect the catcher.. it affects the runner. Catcher's (by rule) were never allowed to block the plate just the same as all the other position players were, in practice, though, they were being allowed to block the plate illegally. Any fielder is allowed to block any base: If they have the ball in hand OR are making a play on the ball. That includes the Catcher at home. The rule "change", states that a catcher, must give a clear path to the plate UNLESS he has DIRECT possession of the ball (ergo, he can STILL block the plate once has the ball); in addition it states that the Catcher can move into the base runners path to field a throw (ergo, he can still block the plate if making a play on the ball) .. What did get added to the books though, is that the the runner is called OUT if he initiates contact with a Catcher who is NOT blocking the plate... Rule 7.13 .. edit MLB 2021 ruleset moved the rule to 6.01(i)(1) and 6.01(i)(2)

[@patrickjerome9169]

Great video. I agree. Another alternative would be to flatten the mound. I would also deaden the ball a little bit.

[@evanarsenault6213]

I'd like to see a 6" change per season until the desired effect is reached.

[@ARMTOAST]

i've been telling people 6 inches is enough for years

[@threatassessment606]

Ive heard 5 is enough

[@bigb888999]

as a quick aside, the woman you se at 8:25 in the texas uniform is actually still an active softball player and is on the 2021 US olympic team. They're playing some warm up games rights now and if you want to watch female randy johnson sit down kids for 5 innings I IMPLORE you to watch Team USA v Florida on Wheels' channel. I promise you will not regret it.

[@MaxBaseball]

“So you can understand how fast 200 milliseconds is I am going to show you the best player in baseball for that amount of time.” “Shows David Fletcher” 😂😂😂

[@markproulx1472]

Did I miss something? How would this shorten game times? I like the idea because it would introduce more action to the game, but don’t see how it would shorten things.

[@xpr0gidy]

Pitcher’s mound being moved back -> pitchers doing worse -> batters doing better -> more runs being scored -> less likely for 2 teams to finish 9 innings with the same score -> less games go to extra innings -> less time

[@mrwoodcock2881]

The idea is less swings without contact would reduce game time, but even if it doesn't reduce game TIME significantly, it would increase game ACTION considerably!!!

[@waltersjohn6339]

Brilliant proposal. Like many others here, I find the concept of moving the mound closer to the geometric center very appealing. There SHOULD be a pitch clock. BUT, there should also be a clock of sorts on the hitters. Not a real clock, but a rule that eliminates all of the ridiculous maneuvers that batters now almost seem to perform before every pitch. No more batting glove adjustments, no time outs, no more grip adjustments etc. It should be like a rodeo rider who gets on the bull......there is only one way out. Once you step into the batters box for your at bat, that's it. The only way out is the first base line.

[@Alexgoldsmith21]

Ironically they are trying this exact proposal in single-A levels this year. They are moving it back 2 feet.

[@Alex-dl6it]

Source?

[@Jeremy-The-Bullfrog]

Not single A. The Atlantic League. It's an Independent league. The MLB has a deal with them to use it as it's experimental grounds. They are moving the mound back for half the season to measure how it affects play. It's mentioned in the video.

[@racg174]

literally anything to address three true outcomes baseball. i feel like changing the ball is the method that MLB will use since it’s the least obvious to a casual fan

[@tomlehmann306]

Ban the shift too

[@jcz232321]

I think trying the rubber @ geometric center of the diamond, and a next pitch timer (TBD by professional consensus), are both good ideas, and I would like to watch a few "trial" MLB games ASAP. Then depending on result(s), I'd also consider seeing the effects of another lowering of the mound.

[@thomasholland7981]

Here's my take on how to save baseball: make it a rule that the third baseman and shortstop must be positioned to the left of second base and the first and second basemen to the right when the ball is pitched. It's the over shifts that have turned the game into a series of groundouts.

[@billybats4745]

I think that's exactly what they're doing

[@JabroniBaseball]

I love it, definitely would make a difference vs all the arbitrary Manfred changes

[@mjfanatic42]

wouldn't increasing offensive production make games even longer? personally love pitcher's duels as they make the game go faster. great vid, btw

[@stephen9281]

I think I'm generally open to ideas of changing baseball. Maybe also shortening the game to seven innings would keep the game around the same length, but more overall offense and exciting plays.

[@EpsilonUnitGaming]

There would be fewer deep counts, leading to more quick outs. The step up in production would probably easily be offset by this.

[@DBossMC]

It’d also make the game more enjoyable though meaning that less people would care about how long it takes. Also less strike outs for sure which take the longest

[@argerm57]

I don't think that increasing the distance would make .250 hitters into .300 hitters. I think it would just put more balls in play. The effects would be a little more subtle than you imagine, IMHO.

[@EpsilonUnitGaming]

@@argerm57 Yeah they had a graphic on mlb network today that basically said it would revert the average perceived fastball velo back to like 2010 by moving the mound 1 foot back. So your hypothesis that the results will be more subtle seems correct. Edit: that point may have been made in the vid, it’s been too long since I’ve watched to recall the exact points he made.

[@jerrytang3146]

There are many ways to fix the games to make them more exciting. Agree with your proposal 100%. You can also lower the mound. Next, you find a good hitter school to counteract the pitching gurus. THe worst solutions are the ones the clueless Manfred puts into effect: Pitching non-change, man on 2nd in OT, etc. Put somebody in his seat with a brain.

[@rnklv8281]

Interesting change you suggested. Perhaps hitters can make some adjustments. If the pitcher has a advantage in the count (1-2 or 0-2 ), why not choke up on the bat and concentrate on putting the ball in play (not necessarily swinging for the "fences"). If a shift is put on, why not try hitting to the opposite field and not pulling the ball. Not everyone on the team is capable to be , or should be, a homerun hitter. Trying to hit homeruns usually results in a lot of strikeouts (the "feast or famine" stat) . You also need players with a high OBP (on base percentage), in some situations you need baserunners before a homerun. Hitting a ninth inning solo homerun being down 5-1 doesn't do your team much good. (my subjective comments)

[@Bc232klm]

I'm all for 63.75".

[@ricardoguerrero3883]

I believe we are reaching the limits of how fast a human can throw a ball, so moving the pitching rubber 1-2 feet back will equalize things permanently.

[@scrappymark]

Great point. Not much more we can learn about increasing velocity.

[@chrismess135]

People have been saying this since the dawn of time and yet hear we are, hitting it farther than ever, running faster than ever, throwing faster and farther than ever. And for the rest of human history it will all keep getting faster and faster.

[@stevenmortensen1257]

Humans keep gaining size and strength and the " supplement " industry never sleeps in their quest to improve our game .

[@odomisan]

@@chrismess135 but as you approach the peak, the gains will be smaller to almost negligible. There could be an extraordinary human that can blow by Usain Bolt or shatter a Marathon record, but as far as average, it won't move much as it used to, unless you modify the human body to stretch the limits.

[@Fredboy]

that’s what we said 60 years ago...

[@ronlohse1006]

As a former high school pitching coach, I am totally on board with this idea for the pros. There are other precedents of different rules for pros vs amateurs. The 3-point line in the NBA vs NCAA or High School, for example. Strikeouts take far more time than a 2 pitch at bat that results in an out or a hit. And more balls in play, mean possibly more scoring but also the possibility of more defensive gems. I had a pitcher once through a 3 pitch inning. If 3 strikeouts on 9 pitches is an "immaculate" inning, what is a 3 pitch inning?

[@booradley6832]

you did a masterful job on this video. Great work.

[@do_yohomework]

You’ve convinced me I’m on board. Also, universal DH. We don’t wanna watch pitchers hit if it’s not Bartolo

[@agentkayl5127]

I’ve always been a person of habit and routine. I hate change, so I’d be against any rule changes. However, if a rule change was ABSOLUTELY necessary, this is is the one that I would support the most.

[@revanche1431]

I'm sad that you let your hatred, rather than information, to determine your reality. It really undermines anything else you might say on the matter but at least you're honest about it.

[@johnstudent6968]

I definitely agree. The only other fair rule change that I think could work is a heavier ball, but safety could be an issue since pitchers and batters were a lot less power oriented in the dead ball era.

[@WMCheerman]

Wow great idea, I like your part about being the center of the infield. Sounds perfect to me.

[@nickanton7983]

lmfao at the fact that you showed the one time Cole got Ji Man Choi

[@zaph9790]

"60 feet 6 inches is one of the most iconic numbers in sport" Me not knowing until this video that the mound is 60 feet 6 inches away from the plate

[@KG-xt4oq]

Would getting rid of the 'mound' and having the pitcher throw off of the same plane as the rest of the field (like in softball) have any effect?

[@jimwerther]

Well done video. I would still prefer something far less drastic, such as moving back the fences. That one very minor move would force hitters to start hitting again and stop slugging, as OFers would catch more balls on the track.

[@RetroBaseball]

The intro graphic is amazing!