After the Arizona Diamondbacks win tonight, everything but the World Series will has been settled in the 2023 MLB season. (The Texas Rangers had already defeated the cheatin’ Houston Astros for the American League pennant, thus proving that the Baseball Gods read Ethics Alarms.) The season will be most noted in history notable for the fact that several game-changing new rules were introduced, all designed to cut down on dead time and speed up the games, which had gradually stretched out to an average of more than three hours.
MLB had tinkered around the edges of the rules in recent years in an effort to fix the dragging games problem. It (finally) banned one-batter mid-inning pitching changes, a curse visited on baseball by a combination of statistics-obsessed managers and the rise of left-handed pitching specialists, by requiring relief pitchers to face a minimum of three batters. It also made intentional walks automatic, with batters being sent to first with pitchers actually having to throw four balls outside the strike zone (that one shaved about 3 seconds off the average game time, maybe).
These new rules had little measurable effect, however, so for 2023, baseball dropped The Big One by instituting a pitch clock that limited the time pitchers had to throw a pitch to 15 seconds with the bases empty and 20 seconds with runners on base. Rules were attached limiting the number of time-outs a batter could call during his at-bats to one and requiring batters to step up to the plate when a pitcher was ready to throw the ball, thus ending psychological stalling tactics. Baseball had always taken pride in the fact that it was the one major sport without time limits, but that virtue had become a liability as players increasingly abused the privilege. Another rule stopped more tactical abuse: pitchers had begun throwing alleged pick-off throws to first base sometimes for no apparent reason, again, stalling to compose themselves are to unsettle the batter. Starting in 2023, a pitcher got three shots at trying to pick-off a baserunner, and if the third failed, the runner advanced to the next base anyway.
Finally, baseball banned extreme shifts, defensive alignments that stacked up fielders where computer spray charts showed that a batter hit most of his ground balls and liners. This measure was designed to make swinging for the fences (to get the ball over the infield) less attractive, leading to fewer strikeouts and more balls put into play.
The results were so spectacularly successful that it justifiably made some analysts angry that it took so long to fix a problem that had been draining interest and attendance from baseball for decades. Games averaged more than 30 minutes less in 2023 than 2022, bringing the game close to its traditional and intended duration. Attendance spiked to 2017 levels; TV viewership also increased significantly, by 7%. MLB took a victory lap, announcing,
- MLB’s 2023 regular season attendance ended at a season-best +9.6% over the 2022 total. MLB had its highest year-over-year increase in average attendance in 30 years, since the 1993 expansion. 24 of MLB’s 30 Clubs were up over 2022.
- MLB eclipsed the 70 million mark for the first time since 2017.
- 17 Clubs topped the 2.5 million mark, marched an all-time high (2000)
- 8 Clubs eclipsed 3 million, the most since 2013.
- The 2023 season featured 11 weekends of more than 1.5 million fans; the previous four full seasons (2018-19, 2021-22) combined for five such weekends.
What took it so long? Critics and fans had been complaining about pitchers taking too long to throw the damn ball since the 1960’s. Charlie Finley, the horrible (but creative!) owner of the Athletics, had pushed for a pitch clock to speed up the game 50 years ago, and in a classic example of the cognitive dissonance scale at work, he was ignored by the other owners, who detested him. Good message, wrong messenger.
In a brilliant essay for the Bill James 2020 Baseball handbook, James, who led the statistics revolution in baseball and who is a natural ethicist, explained that players and managers were making the game worse because of perverse incentives. Since they were paid to be successful and not to make the game entertaining for fans, they had gradually gravitated to practices, conduct and tactics that has competitive advantages but that made baseball worse. In some ways the situation he described is like cheating, or the current store-robbing epidemic: human beings will tend to do what they see as advancing their own interests rather than society’s as a whole. It would be nice if we could rely on ethics-motivated conduct, but in most areas we can’t. In baseball, managers will change pitchers to gain tiny statistical advantages, and employ ugly defensive alignments that require players to look at paper notes they keep in their hats and trot to strange places on the field before every pitch, because such machinations will squeeze out an extra win or two in a 162 game season. Pitchers will try to rest between pitches to throw with maximum effort; batters will step in and out of the batters box to disrupt a pitcher’s rhythm. Etc. James emphasized that baseball, as form of entertainment, should place the fan’s enjoyment as the highest objective, but because of human nature, the players and managers would not unless they were forced to. Ethics had failed; the law, or rules, had to take over.
The very first sentence in James’ essay (written at the end of 2019, before everything went to metaphorical Hell in 2020, including baseball) was this:
Baseball absolutely cannot address its pace-of-play issues without doing three things:
- Stop batters stepping out of the box between pitches
- Limit mid-inning pitching changes
- Limit throws to first base
MLB did all of these. He did not advocate a pitch clock, I assume because despite his role as a baseball iconoclast, James is a traditionalist about the form of the game, but I have to believe that he now admits that it was a good idea after all.
Seldom do we see new laws or rules have such an immediate and significant positive effects on a serious problem. If only this worked so well in real life….
Ethics Alarms 
“[H]uman beings will tend to do what they see as advancing their own interests rather than society’s as a whole.”
Which is why insofar as self-interest is the only constant in human motivation capitalism is the only viable economic system. Communism doesn’t work because people don’t care for others or “the community” more than themselves. Communism always devolves into a shakedown of the proletariat by the party bosses. See, eg., BLM or Cuba or Venezuela or the Soviet Union.
And Yay Diamondbacks! The little team that could.
And electronic balls and strikes would take another ten or fifteen minutes off of games. Bad calls lead to extra pitches. As expensive as pitchers are these days, you’d think owners would not want to wear out their valuable arms unnecessarily.
Yup. And roboumps are inevitable.
The umpires union will not be happy. (Which reminds me of Joe Garagiola, Jr.’s response when told the always scowling Randy Johnson “would not be happy with what Joe and the Diamondbacks were offering Randy: “How would I be able to tell?”) The plate umpires will have to be content with simply announcing the calls the machines pipe into an earpiece. Will get rid of arguing balls and strikes as well, which is already supposed to be illegal.
They’ll still have plenty to do: deciding on check swings, hit batters, catcher’s interference, calling pitch clock violations, foul tips and more. I’ve got a post about recent developments of this front, but I’ll wait a bits, since so many readers skip the baseball posts, the fools.
I agree they’ll still have plenty to do. You’d think they’d be glad to be rid of the duty that causes them the most grief.
I listened to a podcast about Robo-umps for balls and strikes, as they were tested in lower tiers of baseball to work out the kinks. The home plate umps were still in place, and they got the call from an earpiece. Yet early tests still resulted in angry players and coaches – though the anger was not directed at the coaches. Defining the strike zone exactly as laid out in the rules resulted in a disproportionate number of called balls compared to human umpires (though fewer miscalled strikes). Real people dynamically shifted the strike zone to match the batter’s ever changing pose better. The software had to be updated with a slightly “fuzzier” strike zone, with each adjustment requiring careful statistical analysis to ensure the results were consistent with expectations.
Forgive my stupidity, I get how width of the plate is easily controlled electronically, but what about the vertical aspect? Though I’m sure there’s an easy method to measure that in the modern age.
To familiarize myself with where the strike zone was I looked up the rules again, and see that it periodically changed. I noticed that from 69 to 87 (also from 50 to 62), which is when I grew up, I see it was arm pits to top of the knees, a bit bigger than it is now. Games were definitely faster during that time.
I think that’s the right zone, and I’d love to see game times from that time, or maybe 5 year increments for like sample sizes, from 63-68, 81-87 (account for the players strike), and 88-93, to see if bigger zones encourage pace of play – seems to me more swings of the bat equals more balls in play, more strike outs (and presumably fewer base on balls). I don’t know that it per se affects pace of play, but for pitchers, might be more encouraging to throw the ball since a strike is easier to get? Batters might step out of the box more, but if you limit that like they have, maybe? Or perhaps (and likely) it’s statistically insignificant to game times.
I think mid 90s is when primadonna’s and multiple pitching changes and umpires having their own strike zones (as opposed to the rule book) etc changed the game, and is when I stopped watching much major league baseball. I still try to go to minor league games, but even that’s hit or miss last couple years.
In any case, it’s nice to see a large organization actually get something right.
I might actually watch the series because of this post, so, thanks Jack.
The computer strike zone is based on historical data compiled from that batter’s previous at bats. Which I just learned watching a game in this year’s play offs. I always wondered about that. Seems to make sense. Not sure how an umpire determines height of pitches. The computer can doubtless do a better job.
I agree. At some point in the last forty years, particularly in the National League I believe, the strike zone, which as I understood it, shrunk from the letters (mid chest) to the knees, down to the belt to the knees. For a while there, in the National League, I’d say the strike zone ran from the mid-thigh to the knees. It was weird. Bringing back high strikes would be a good thing.
Oh, its much worse than that. Players and commentators talk openly about how every umpire has his own personal strike zone, and as long as it’s consistent, they accept it. Which is crap. Umpires don’t get to make up their own strike zone: they all are supposed to be calling pitches based on the rule book’s zone. Similarly, we are told that a wild pitcher will have a ball called on a pitch in the same place as what will be called a strike if thrown by a control pitcher, and a batter known for good plate discipline will get the benefit of the doubt when he lets a borderline pitch go by. This could once be excused as “the human factor” when there were no alternatives. Now there are.
I won’t watch the Series – nor any of the playoffs – because I’m angry about the playoff format. And I’m not saying that because my Braves were eliminated this year. I didn’t watch the Series in 2021 (when the Braves won), either.
In my opinion, the playoff system is set up to, as much as is possible, make sure the best teams don’t reach the finals. I don’t like that at all. I don’t know if it’s a “people want to root for an underdog” mentality or something else, but there’s no reason to have any teams in the playoffs other than the division winners and one wildcard from each league to make the numbers even. The division winners with the best records should play each other immediately. The division winner with the worst record and the wildcard team play each other.
This idea of four or six or (eventually) ten additional “wildcard” teams waters down the exclusivity of the playoffs and to some degree denigrates the regular-season accomplishments of the teams that won. It rewards teams that didn’t win during the regular season with far more that just a “participation” ribbon…they get a second chance in a short-season format to win everything. That tarnishes the playoff experience.
I am more convinced than ever that the best team in both leagues should begin every round of the play-offs with one game lead. The best record over 162 games should win something that helps in the play-offs, and a “bye” may even hurt.
I completely agree with that, and the one-game-lead idea (which you mentioned in another recent baseball thread) has some merit.
As it is, the playoffs were dominated by a bunch of bridesmaids that – based on their lack of regular-season success – should not be fighting for the rings.
Two things. Texas was a division winner in all but name. If you went back to a four team playoff structure, there would have been a playoff to determine the AL West division winner. So you’re having an ultra short playoff to determine who got in.
Second, we can bemoan the playoff structure all we want. But, if that’s the hill you choose to die on — that is definitely the hill you _will_ die on. They are not going back.
Given that MLB decided they had to go to three wild cards, I think this format is as good as they could come up with.
The pluses and minuses of time off for baseball clubs is a debate that’s been going on at least since 1969.
Houston-Texas was an example of the play-offs working reasonably well (but they should have has a one game play-off: tie breakers suck). Of course MLB can’t eliminate play-offs, but they can make winning 100 games or smoking the league win something that increases the chances of making the Series.
I think the byes and extra time between games to stretch the season out longer DO hurt.
Hitting a baseball that moves around is difficult at best, and when you get that groove, it helps. All the sudden you’re not seeing a baseball and swinging a bat for a week, poof, there it goes.
Game speed and practice speed are two different things, too, so practice will only help so much.
Unfortunately, playoff format is probably not changing.
“James emphasized that baseball, as form of entertainment, should place the fan’s enjoyment as the highest objective, but because of human nature, the players and managers would not unless they were forced to. Ethics had failed; the law, or rules, had to take over.”
I disagree. Baseball, as a form of entertainment is entertaining because it is a competition. The goal is to win. So, a GAME may be entertaining even if your team loses, but nobody wants a season of entertaining losses; for the SEASON, fans want their team to win. So, there is nothing wrong with coaches and players wanting to take whatever strategic advantages they may have to win because that is what fans want: to win.
On the pitch-clock, as a doubter, I have to admit that it has made games better. However, there are some concerns out there that increased injuries to pitchers’ arms will be the trade-off. Increased injuries could result in fewer starts, shorter starts, or a shorter pitching career.
If that turns out to be a trade-off (the faster pace resulting in increased injuries on throwing arms), is it an acceptable one?
-Jut
Pitchers are pushed to throw at inhuman velocities. They rip up their arm? No problem. Tommy John surgery for you buddy. “We can build the arm faster and stronger!” I don’t know what the solution is to pitchers’ arms being destroyed. It’s an unnatural move. Sandy Koufax’s arm grew to be literally bowed. Maybe if pitchers could be taught better location and changing speeds and more movement, things wouldn’t be so dangerous for them.
Ethics quiz: Is Tommy John surgery ethical?
Last point first: if it results in that, it’s the pitchers’ fault. It’s not like pitchers have to throw 98 mph and have superhuman spin rate. They can go back to pitching at the stress levels of the 50s through the 90’s—the game’s balance was pretty good then. Save that 99 mph pitch for the crucial points in the game. Learn to through knuckleballs.
As for the first point: winning or losing is the objective for the participants, but once it becomes a spectator sport, it has to be entertaining. Real baseball fans enjoy games their teams lose: the ’78 play-off game the Sox lost may have been the best game I’ve ever seen, next to Game 6 of the world Series. Tanking is a good example of something that increases wins (eventually) but makes the games itself crummy while a team is still losing. So is “the opener,”—it makes sense with certain kinds of pitching staffs, but baseball thrives on the big name pitcher showdowns: Nolan Ryan vs Luis Tiant. The fans lose out. Strike outs are the best possible outs to get, but baseball is fun to watch when the players are running and making plays. Chess is a great, I’d say perfect game, but it’s not fun to watch. Neither is Bridge (and I would argue, soccer). Teams will still win or lose whatever the rules, but people will pay to watch only if a game meets the requirements of drama and entertainment.
“Teams will still win or lose whatever the rules, but people will pay to watch only if a game meets the requirements of drama and entertainment.”
But, things like the shift and using a pitcher for one batter are parts of that drama, just as much as putting in a pinch runner or pinch hitter. It is part of the mental part of the game. In other words, it adds a bit of chess to the game.
I think banning the shift is stupid and making a reliever pitch to three batters has a silly artificiality that is probably not justified by the savings in time.
-Jut
Agree on the shift. Pitching changes require the manager or coach to walk out, take the ball, signal to the bullpen. Then the pitcher has to walk or be driven from there. Then he has to throw warm-up pitches. James suggested such restrictions as limiting each team to one one-batter pitcher per game, or limiting the numbers of pitchers total a team could use in a game absent an injury. I agree that there was drama in the single pitcher brought in to get Casey at the Bat, like in “The Natural.” But managers like Tony LaRussa abused the tactic. It definitely slowed down the game.
I was easily the loudest opponent of the recent rule changes in my circle of baseball fans, but I will admit that I was wrong. While I’m still against the limit of three pickoff attempts and the banning of the infield shift, those aren’t hills on which I’ll die. Other than that?…baseball mostly got these right and it has turned out well. Games flow way more smoothly.
But I will never agree with the DH in the National League. I will go to my grave with that.
I agree 100% on the NL DH (another Charlie Finley brainstorm). The pickoff rule led to more stolen bases and fewer annoying endless throw to first—it was one of Bill James’ 30 proposed rules to fix the game, and I think it worked. I also object to banning the shift, but I can’t say it made much difference in how the game looked and felt.
I agree with your basic premise here — the rule changes have overall made the sport more interesting from a fan perspective and more fun to watch.
I do find it interesting that pitchers have adapted so successfully to the pitch clock, where batters never did adapt to the opportunities provided by the shifts.
One of my questions is whether these changes — or indeed, any changes — can lead to a long term reduction in the strikeout ratio. While fans may enjoy watching home runs, I cannot believe they enjoy watching strikeouts — and hasn’t that been the tradeoff?
Joey Gallo was always an extreme outcome kind of player when he was with Texas. He had more home runs than singles, he had an extreme strikeout rate, and he also drew a huge number of walks. He was generally fun to watch, as I recall, but that was also in an era when Texas had a losing team. I really wonder if this is the archetype that baseball is aiming towards?
One other thing that I always thought baseball had going for it, and I think has been eroding, is that fans were able to take a longer view of things. They accepted that managerial decisions only worked some of the time — the idea was that the probability of success was increased — but that it was a sport where the superstars only got a hit one time out of three.
At any rate, despite their civic failings, yes it would seem that MLB mostly got the rule changes right this time.
I do also wonder, though, if the pickoff limits have led to much of an increase in stolen bases. Anecdotally I don’t think I’ve seen it, and that’s certainly an exciting part of the game.
Stolen-base attempts increased only to 1.8 per game in 2023, up from 1.4 in 2022.The attempt rate went from 5% in 2022 to 6%, and the increase in successful stolen bases percentage. jumped from 75% in 2022 to 80% in 2023. Some of this was because teams had de-emphasized throwing arms for catchers because so few attempts were being made.
It’s a significant increase, but not one that seemed out of hand.Also there were more catcher pick-offs: no rule limits them.
Good that it’s going up. I hope that is a trend that continues.
Another thing that has been deemphasized in recent years is the sacrifice bunt, and especially with the universal DH.
There was a discussion of that a few games ago when the Rangers had runner on first and second with no outs in the 9th. In that instance, having Semien — one of your best hitters — bunt would not only take the bat out of his hands but then they’d walk Seager, also one of your best hitters.
In that case, you move the runners but leave the hitting to Carter (rookie) and Jankowski (a bench player) instead of Semien and Seager — for whom you spent half a billion $. So not much of a decision.
But in general, it seems that baseball has concluded that giving up an out to move runners reduces your overall chances to score. Sooooo, until they do away with the DH (fat chance), I’m going to say that sacrifice bunts have been relegated to the ashheap of history.
—————-
And I should add that modern players aren’t taught how to bunt — witness the generally pathetic attempts when they do try it.
Well, ok, MLB nails it again, eh?
https://babylonbee.com/news/inclusivity-win-angel-hernandez-makes-history-as-first-ever-blind-umpire?utm_source=The%20Babylon%20Bee%20Newsletter&utm_medium=email
Oh, there have been plenty of blind umpires before Angel (who is certainly terrible)! Larry Burnett (1975 Series, Game 3). Don Denkinger (1985 Series, Game 6)…and many others.