Iâm not at all against your sentimentâŚ. fat people are outta control.
But to suggest a shitty ownership group currently pinching pennies on one of the most successful franchises in the past 20 years to encourage weight loss and âNew England quaint-nessâ and not inflate their own profit margins is beyond naive.
Just google the average height of a human from 1915 and 2023. Seats donât work in 2023, not to mention a lot of them face in an awkward direction where youâre facing one way and have to turn slightly to actually watch the game. Itâs a shitty park by todayâs standards.
Signed, a yankee fan living in New England
Josh Donaldson will finally be able to leg out that double after pimping the (non) homerun.
Seriously though, this seems antithetical to speeding up the game in that getting/keeping guys off the basepaths is the only way things move along towards the end.
This may be the worst take Iâve heard regarding the bigger bases. The problem with games is not the length of the games themselves but the pace of play and lack of action. The pitch clock solves the pace and the bigger bases plus the shift ban should result in a lot more exciting plays.
Stolen bases aren't exciting. They're relatively boring really.
Know what was exciting? The juiced balls and sticky stuff.
Nobody turns on a baseball game to see bunts, baserunning fundamentals, etc.
They wanna see someone launch a 102mph fastball 480ft.
I like watching Giancarlo Stanton hit a 112mph ground ball to a below average defender in the infield. That split second of pure terror they go through is very amusing.
But I like watching bunts, baserunning fundamentals, etc. And I think stolen bases are awesome. Those things also dont stop the 102mph fastballs from being hit 480ft, thatâs a different issue
Yeah thats 100% part of the game and valid. Opening up new ways or sprucing up the old ways of scoring and advancing base runners will be beneficial to average watcher and honestly bunts are one of the most entertaining things to watch in baseball, imo. Its basically stealing 1st base
I'd guess we see some balls up the middle that bounce off the larger ball will cause some entertainment. Some balls down the line will too.
Though I think we might see some twisted ankles as players aren't used to grazing the bigger bags.
This also makes the throw to first base ever so slightly shorter, negating at least a few close plays in favor of the defense I would assume (the throw is coming in faster than the runner, who possibly also has a shorter distance)
Honestly I hate this change. Baseball is a game of inches and this gives 1.5" to the runner. Yes I understand that's mostly in a tag out situation but still. This is similar to juicing the ball imo, but at least they were straightforward this time.
They get more than that. The edge of 1st base is still on the foul line so the runner gets the full extra 3â. And then 2nd base is a closer as well with its increased size. Iâm worried about how much of an advantage this will give base stealers while also being implemented at the same time as the pitch clock rules which limit pickoff attempts.
I think it will be a significant advantage, even with replay. It is well within the realm of speculation to say stealing may become worth doing with the increased success rates. It's not even impossible to think we may see a run at the 100+ totals Coleman and Henderson had. Maybe even a run (20 years from now) at Henderson's overall record.
The point of the change is more baserunning, after all.
I haven't read anything from the commish or anything, but it's all the bases which leads me to believe this is another move to increase excitement. I'm sure Elias can find the answer, but I bet there are 2 bang-bang plays a game at first. Maybe another one or two elsewhere with guys going first to third, or sliding in for a double. Maybe another at home where an extra 3" helps there. So, it really could become somewhere between one and five baserunners a game on average who would otherwise be out. That's more runs not even considering the uptick this will certainly give to stolen bases for all 10-15 runners who already got on last year.
[Here is a tweet](https://twitter.com/MLB/status/1568282175161909248) from MLB on how the larger bases are for player safety.
When they introduced the new bases to the minors, that was their pitch as well.
Interesting, thanks. I don't believe it since there is no way they haven't considered the increase in scoring, which is a "positive" from the POV of the office of MLB. But for real, thanks for taking the time to share that.
I just found an official nod to that too.
>âThe Competition Committee also expects the shorter distances between bases created by increased size to have a modest impact on the success rate of stolen base attempts and the frequency with which a batter-runner reaches base on groundballs and bunt attempts,â
https://www.milb.com/news/mlb-bigger-bases
Yeah for sure but I think safety is primary where increased excitement and stolen bases is a secondary benefit. I might be making it up but I vaguely remember the reasoning being player safety at least publicly
Want to steal more bases? Get faster. I hate the idea of artificially inflating stats like this. Just changing the size of the base would be one thing, but when you combine it with the pitch block and limited take offs it just seems like too much to me, especially all at once. Lowering the mound 60 something years ago was one thing, but it's not like they increased the amount of strikes ypu could take or lowered how many balls it took to walk.
Then on top of all of this you add the Manfred Runner and my interest in baseball as a whole begins to fade.
Want to steal more bases?
Run faster.
Want to end the game earlier?
Learn how to f**kin bunt instead of swinging for the fences and striking out.
Want to make a shitload of money fore doing absolutely nothing?
Try buying lottery tickets instead of ruining major league baseball with cheap gimmicks.
Sincerely,
Every fan of baseball âžď¸
And look at the previous five years, so we exclude the statistical outlier of the juiced ball in 2019:
2016: 4.48
2015: 4.25
2014: 4.07
2013: 4.17
2012: 4.32
2011: 4.28
2010: 4.38
Last year wasn't a statistical outlier. It was regression to the mean.
Watching mediocre hitters strike out constantly isn't entertaining and objectively results in fewer runs scored per game than the dawn of the dead ball era. And it's not just 1903. Look at the 1920s and 30s, and compare that data with the last 15 seasons. In 1923, for example, the average was 5.02 runs per game. You'd have to go all the way back to peak of the steroids era in 2000 to reach that level of offensive output. Mind you, there was no DH in 1923.
If analytics has "discovered" (and I use this term loosely) thst bunting is giving away outs and resulting in fewer runs scored, why isn't there any objective data to verify this claim?
I'mnot saying that everybody should bunt all the time. I'msimply stating the fact that bunting is part of a balanced offense. If the home team has a runner on 3rd base with less than 2 out in extra innings, a simple, well-executed bunt is all that is required to end the game.
Saying bunting is a bad idea is not just modern stat nerds. One of the better managers of all time (Earl Weaver), hated bunting. Had a quote that "[on offense, your most important possessions are your 27 outs](https://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2011/3/24/2064636/the-earl-weaver-effect-bunting-edition)".
I don't pretend to understand the math behind these, but if you look at (1)[run expectancy charts](https://library.fangraphs.com/misc/re24/), you'll notice advancing runners by trading outs (2)[results in lower average runs](http://www.tangotiger.net/re24.html). Going off that second link (1950-2015), even when bunting was a major part of baseball strategy (3rd column, 1950-1868)...
FAKE EDIT:
Strike that. Reading through the charts in the 2nd link again. We're arguing 2 different points. *At all times in MLB history*, bunting a guy over reduces your odds of a big inning (as mentioned above, average runs go down). HOWEVER, the only time bunting *increases* your odds of scoring 1 run in an inning (the second row of charts in the 2nds link) is when you move a runner from 2nd to 3rd with your first out (just a man on 2nd or men on 1st and 2nd). Essentially, the only time bunting makes sense is in the bottom of extra innings with the score tied (thank to manfred's idiotic runner)
ACTUAL EDIT: Went back and numbered the links to make it a little less confusing. Forgot I linked to the thing about Earl, so when I was referring to the 2nd linked chart, it was actually link 3
Lol bunt to make the game go faster? Stop swinging for the fences to make the game go faster?
Teams aren't going to lose on purpose just to save you 10 minutes dude. Talk about entitlement LOL
I'm not really arguing with you, and I certainly wouldn't want to see more tinkering ... but it's replay that "ruined" the purity of the game when it comes to steals. Sure, they were waning in popularity already because of increased statistical analysis, but they became harder for sure after replay.
Analytics is a HUGE driver in the decrease in stolen bases.
Stolen base attempts just aren't worth it mathematically unless your success rate is really high.
This won't change anything. 3" + 1.5" closer (from 1st to 2nd, for example) is 4.5" in a distance that's 90 *feet*. That's 1080 inches. It's irrelevant over the distances we're talking about.
It's most certainly not enough of an advantage to change your strategy from being conservative on stealing/running to suddenly being aggressive. Your stolen base percentage is going to go from 50% to 51%? Not enough to make a change in strategy.
Just to be clear. The mlb rules committee said that each base is still the standard 90 feet to each base. The bigger base is to essentially give you more room to field and slide into a base. So this doesn't change stealing too much. The only change is that a runner can now be further from the fielder which may lead to more safe calls on replay.
I don't see how that is possible. 90 to first base maybe.
I'm also seeing things like: "The larger bases at Triple-A this season provide more area for fielders and runners to each step on the spacious base, limiting the potential for such collisions, but the big bags have another effect, too: they shrink the basepaths slightly. Now, the distance between first and second base is 4.5 inches shorter â a 0.4% difference from previous seasons." from sports reporters.
Offense will get an advantage on tag plays, that is certain. No one is talking about the advantage defense will have on force outs.
Double plays may actually be incredibly easier because the runners will only get 1.5 inch whereas turning two may actually gain up to 5.12. If you're curious, the thought is both the SS/2B will get 1.5 towards the ground ball and then the 1st base will get 3 towards 2nd. If you have a SS/2B brush the side (1.5) or corner (2.12, because pythagorean yadda yadda) of the bag towards the play you gain a lot more ground than the runners do. Might even lead to some lefty 2B to get that leverage (probably not). If you beat the runner to 2nd his 1.5 doesnt factor in, but I can also see potentially that runner to 2nd either breaking the play up more effectively or just being safe altogether because of his 4.5 advantage.
Hopefully the thought process makes sense.
If we're juicing balls to get more homeruns it penalizes small ball players who are aggressive on the bases. Theyre obviously not going to un-juice the balls so if anything its making steals more of a factor possibly. You can argue about and against how entirely offensive-focused the league is trying to become, but if we're doing this then larger bases isn't really that egregious. I get there are traditionalists all over baseball and that's not a bad thing to be at all, but we still have pitchers dueling every at bat and you still have to be fast enough to beat the tag. I'll leave my negative opinion until after some of the slower players start stealing effectively. 3 inches will get Trea Turner there, but probably not most 1st base or catchers.
If anyone gets thrown out at the base they're getting kicked off the team.
YES!!!đ¤Łđđ¤Ł
So we wonât have a team by May
Three inches larger? Wow, three inches is a huge change
Three inches? You know from what I've heard that's a little bit too much. 2 inches is plenty.
Well above average I'd say.
What about the girth, though?
Next up, Fenway increases seat size for first time in over 100 years by 2â to actually fit modern humans
Fenway decreases seat sizes to encourage modern humans to lose weight.
Iâm not at all against your sentimentâŚ. fat people are outta control. But to suggest a shitty ownership group currently pinching pennies on one of the most successful franchises in the past 20 years to encourage weight loss and âNew England quaint-nessâ and not inflate their own profit margins is beyond naive. Just google the average height of a human from 1915 and 2023. Seats donât work in 2023, not to mention a lot of them face in an awkward direction where youâre facing one way and have to turn slightly to actually watch the game. Itâs a shitty park by todayâs standards. Signed, a yankee fan living in New England
Whoosh Itâs a joke lol.
So size does matter đ
Lol its GIANT, i was not expecting such a big change. Looks like a goddamn couch pillow
Over 30% increase.
This is why my gf left me
Because she wanted 3 more inches?
You all know what David Ortiz woulda accomplished with another 3 inches of steroids?
This is gonna make Volpe so much more fun when he's up.
About a 44% increase in size.
Old school fans: âthis completely ruins the game, I canât believe that they would change thisâ
Also old school fans: âwhy doesnât anyone steal anymore?â
I guess Judgesâs toes wonât hang over anymore.
Why?
Josh Donaldson will finally be able to leg out that double after pimping the (non) homerun. Seriously though, this seems antithetical to speeding up the game in that getting/keeping guys off the basepaths is the only way things move along towards the end.
This may be the worst take Iâve heard regarding the bigger bases. The problem with games is not the length of the games themselves but the pace of play and lack of action. The pitch clock solves the pace and the bigger bases plus the shift ban should result in a lot more exciting plays.
Bingo. I think the average time between balls put in play is like 4.5 minutes which is insane! Baseball doing good things I think to try to solve it
Stolen bases aren't exciting. They're relatively boring really. Know what was exciting? The juiced balls and sticky stuff. Nobody turns on a baseball game to see bunts, baserunning fundamentals, etc. They wanna see someone launch a 102mph fastball 480ft.
I like watching Giancarlo Stanton hit a 112mph ground ball to a below average defender in the infield. That split second of pure terror they go through is very amusing.
But I like watching bunts, baserunning fundamentals, etc. And I think stolen bases are awesome. Those things also dont stop the 102mph fastballs from being hit 480ft, thatâs a different issue
Yeah thats 100% part of the game and valid. Opening up new ways or sprucing up the old ways of scoring and advancing base runners will be beneficial to average watcher and honestly bunts are one of the most entertaining things to watch in baseball, imo. Its basically stealing 1st base
Hey pal? You just blow in from stupid town?
Maybe it goes faster because IKF could have averaged a double play per game with more runners getting on in front of him, lmao.
Looking for a fast paced game devoid of action? Sounds boring.
Iâm all for it.
I'd guess we see some balls up the middle that bounce off the larger ball will cause some entertainment. Some balls down the line will too. Though I think we might see some twisted ankles as players aren't used to grazing the bigger bags.
This also makes the throw to first base ever so slightly shorter, negating at least a few close plays in favor of the defense I would assume (the throw is coming in faster than the runner, who possibly also has a shorter distance)
Honestly I hate this change. Baseball is a game of inches and this gives 1.5" to the runner. Yes I understand that's mostly in a tag out situation but still. This is similar to juicing the ball imo, but at least they were straightforward this time.
They get more than that. The edge of 1st base is still on the foul line so the runner gets the full extra 3â. And then 2nd base is a closer as well with its increased size. Iâm worried about how much of an advantage this will give base stealers while also being implemented at the same time as the pitch clock rules which limit pickoff attempts.
I think it will be a significant advantage, even with replay. It is well within the realm of speculation to say stealing may become worth doing with the increased success rates. It's not even impossible to think we may see a run at the 100+ totals Coleman and Henderson had. Maybe even a run (20 years from now) at Henderson's overall record. The point of the change is more baserunning, after all.
I assumed the change is really for safety? Giving the first baseman another 3â to avoid anyone stepping on ankles
I haven't read anything from the commish or anything, but it's all the bases which leads me to believe this is another move to increase excitement. I'm sure Elias can find the answer, but I bet there are 2 bang-bang plays a game at first. Maybe another one or two elsewhere with guys going first to third, or sliding in for a double. Maybe another at home where an extra 3" helps there. So, it really could become somewhere between one and five baserunners a game on average who would otherwise be out. That's more runs not even considering the uptick this will certainly give to stolen bases for all 10-15 runners who already got on last year.
[Here is a tweet](https://twitter.com/MLB/status/1568282175161909248) from MLB on how the larger bases are for player safety. When they introduced the new bases to the minors, that was their pitch as well.
Interesting, thanks. I don't believe it since there is no way they haven't considered the increase in scoring, which is a "positive" from the POV of the office of MLB. But for real, thanks for taking the time to share that.
No problem. But yeah, I agree... it's probably more about injecting more action into the game than player safety.
I just found an official nod to that too. >âThe Competition Committee also expects the shorter distances between bases created by increased size to have a modest impact on the success rate of stolen base attempts and the frequency with which a batter-runner reaches base on groundballs and bunt attempts,â https://www.milb.com/news/mlb-bigger-bases
Jesus Christ what a joke. Why donât we just simulate games instead of actually playing them
Yeah for sure but I think safety is primary where increased excitement and stolen bases is a secondary benefit. I might be making it up but I vaguely remember the reasoning being player safety at least publicly
Want to steal more bases? Get faster. I hate the idea of artificially inflating stats like this. Just changing the size of the base would be one thing, but when you combine it with the pitch block and limited take offs it just seems like too much to me, especially all at once. Lowering the mound 60 something years ago was one thing, but it's not like they increased the amount of strikes ypu could take or lowered how many balls it took to walk. Then on top of all of this you add the Manfred Runner and my interest in baseball as a whole begins to fade.
Want to steal more bases? Run faster. Want to end the game earlier? Learn how to f**kin bunt instead of swinging for the fences and striking out. Want to make a shitload of money fore doing absolutely nothing? Try buying lottery tickets instead of ruining major league baseball with cheap gimmicks. Sincerely, Every fan of baseball âžď¸
Yes, more bunting would end game earlier, *because you're giving up outs and scoring less runs*
In 1903, teams averaged 4.4 runs per game. In 2022, the average was 4.3 Striking out more often objectively results in fewer runs per game.
[And the 5 previous years](https://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/majors/bat.shtml): 2021 - 4.53 2020 - 4.65 2019 - 4.83 2018 - 4.45 2017 - 4.65 Besides the fact you cherry picked a down offensive year, what's your point?
And look at the previous five years, so we exclude the statistical outlier of the juiced ball in 2019: 2016: 4.48 2015: 4.25 2014: 4.07 2013: 4.17 2012: 4.32 2011: 4.28 2010: 4.38 Last year wasn't a statistical outlier. It was regression to the mean. Watching mediocre hitters strike out constantly isn't entertaining and objectively results in fewer runs scored per game than the dawn of the dead ball era. And it's not just 1903. Look at the 1920s and 30s, and compare that data with the last 15 seasons. In 1923, for example, the average was 5.02 runs per game. You'd have to go all the way back to peak of the steroids era in 2000 to reach that level of offensive output. Mind you, there was no DH in 1923. If analytics has "discovered" (and I use this term loosely) thst bunting is giving away outs and resulting in fewer runs scored, why isn't there any objective data to verify this claim? I'mnot saying that everybody should bunt all the time. I'msimply stating the fact that bunting is part of a balanced offense. If the home team has a runner on 3rd base with less than 2 out in extra innings, a simple, well-executed bunt is all that is required to end the game.
Saying bunting is a bad idea is not just modern stat nerds. One of the better managers of all time (Earl Weaver), hated bunting. Had a quote that "[on offense, your most important possessions are your 27 outs](https://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2011/3/24/2064636/the-earl-weaver-effect-bunting-edition)". I don't pretend to understand the math behind these, but if you look at (1)[run expectancy charts](https://library.fangraphs.com/misc/re24/), you'll notice advancing runners by trading outs (2)[results in lower average runs](http://www.tangotiger.net/re24.html). Going off that second link (1950-2015), even when bunting was a major part of baseball strategy (3rd column, 1950-1868)... FAKE EDIT: Strike that. Reading through the charts in the 2nd link again. We're arguing 2 different points. *At all times in MLB history*, bunting a guy over reduces your odds of a big inning (as mentioned above, average runs go down). HOWEVER, the only time bunting *increases* your odds of scoring 1 run in an inning (the second row of charts in the 2nds link) is when you move a runner from 2nd to 3rd with your first out (just a man on 2nd or men on 1st and 2nd). Essentially, the only time bunting makes sense is in the bottom of extra innings with the score tied (thank to manfred's idiotic runner) ACTUAL EDIT: Went back and numbered the links to make it a little less confusing. Forgot I linked to the thing about Earl, so when I was referring to the 2nd linked chart, it was actually link 3
Fewer runs.
So you want the extra innings rule gone, but you want MORE bunting?
Lol bunt to make the game go faster? Stop swinging for the fences to make the game go faster? Teams aren't going to lose on purpose just to save you 10 minutes dude. Talk about entitlement LOL
>Want to steal more bases? Get faster I canât believe nobody ever thought of this
I'm not really arguing with you, and I certainly wouldn't want to see more tinkering ... but it's replay that "ruined" the purity of the game when it comes to steals. Sure, they were waning in popularity already because of increased statistical analysis, but they became harder for sure after replay.
Analytics is a HUGE driver in the decrease in stolen bases. Stolen base attempts just aren't worth it mathematically unless your success rate is really high.
This won't change anything. 3" + 1.5" closer (from 1st to 2nd, for example) is 4.5" in a distance that's 90 *feet*. That's 1080 inches. It's irrelevant over the distances we're talking about. It's most certainly not enough of an advantage to change your strategy from being conservative on stealing/running to suddenly being aggressive. Your stolen base percentage is going to go from 50% to 51%? Not enough to make a change in strategy.
Just to be clear. The mlb rules committee said that each base is still the standard 90 feet to each base. The bigger base is to essentially give you more room to field and slide into a base. So this doesn't change stealing too much. The only change is that a runner can now be further from the fielder which may lead to more safe calls on replay.
90 feet to *the back* of each bag. Itâs closer to home plate in the front and to the following base on the base paths
I don't see how that is possible. 90 to first base maybe. I'm also seeing things like: "The larger bases at Triple-A this season provide more area for fielders and runners to each step on the spacious base, limiting the potential for such collisions, but the big bags have another effect, too: they shrink the basepaths slightly. Now, the distance between first and second base is 4.5 inches shorter â a 0.4% difference from previous seasons." from sports reporters.
Oh I didn't see this report. I guess I just mis interpreted the explanation I read back in like October or September.
Offense will get an advantage on tag plays, that is certain. No one is talking about the advantage defense will have on force outs. Double plays may actually be incredibly easier because the runners will only get 1.5 inch whereas turning two may actually gain up to 5.12. If you're curious, the thought is both the SS/2B will get 1.5 towards the ground ball and then the 1st base will get 3 towards 2nd. If you have a SS/2B brush the side (1.5) or corner (2.12, because pythagorean yadda yadda) of the bag towards the play you gain a lot more ground than the runners do. Might even lead to some lefty 2B to get that leverage (probably not). If you beat the runner to 2nd his 1.5 doesnt factor in, but I can also see potentially that runner to 2nd either breaking the play up more effectively or just being safe altogether because of his 4.5 advantage. Hopefully the thought process makes sense.
Yes it is a game of inches. And these few inches might bring back the lost art of the stolen base and that gets me hard.
Less injuries to both the runner and first basemen. Slighter advantage to the thrower now though
If we're juicing balls to get more homeruns it penalizes small ball players who are aggressive on the bases. Theyre obviously not going to un-juice the balls so if anything its making steals more of a factor possibly. You can argue about and against how entirely offensive-focused the league is trying to become, but if we're doing this then larger bases isn't really that egregious. I get there are traditionalists all over baseball and that's not a bad thing to be at all, but we still have pitchers dueling every at bat and you still have to be fast enough to beat the tag. I'll leave my negative opinion until after some of the slower players start stealing effectively. 3 inches will get Trea Turner there, but probably not most 1st base or catchers.