Well. . . it would speed up the game!

But yes, too different. 

too different, I think there would be a lot of 1-0 games with very few base runners. Unless the pitcher was limited to only fastballs.

2 hours ago, Ricky Vaughn said:

too different, I think there would be a lot of 1-0 games with very few base runners. Unless the pitcher was limited to only fastballs.

Possible.  I'm thinking it goes the other direction, though, and it might even be too many slugfests. 

I think for instance the 1-ball-1-strike rule would increase the number of fastballs.  Off-speed pitches in general are harder to control They are devastating in part because the pitcher doesn't have to come in with a strike.

As for situational hitting, take a look at the splits from last year's season, arranged by the balls-strikes count:

https://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/split.cgi?t=b&lg=MLB&year=2022#all_count

Keep in mind that the overall OPS for batters last year was .707.  I'm not sure which line in the above chart is more relevant, the PA where matters are decided on the first pitch, i.e. the batter saw a pitch he liked and put it in play, to the tune of a .909 OPS (and that number doesn't even have walks since they are impossible).  Or when the PA reaches a full count, at which point the aggregate OPS is .777.  Either way is higher than with the current rules.

The change I sketched out would be more far-reaching than that, of course.  Built into the present-day stats are the strategies that have built up over time - currently an all-or-nothing approach by the batter until two strikes (and often even with two strikes), and a keep-away strategy (AKA nibbling) by pitchers until three balls; sometimes pitchers get their outs without even throwing a strike because batters are over-eager.  New strategies would be devised and I don't know with any certainty how it would play out.  The pitcher has to come in with something to hit, or else walk batter after batter.  The batter needs to swing a little more defensively, in part because fouls are no longer protected.  But who knows, if the games do wind up low-scoring, then maybe home runs are what wins games, and the all-or-nothing approach continues, and pitchers will respond by risking walks against the power threats - much as now.

Heh, if you are concerned offense will be squashed, maybe my idea of starting every plate appearance at 3-and-2 needs to be tweaked.  Make it 2 strikes for a strikeout and only 1 ball for a walk.  That's in essence a 3-1 pitch on every batter.  Now you'll get some hitting!

Shrug.  I don't claim to know.

Obviously too different, but for the sake of making up a variant game, I'd say this actually actually tacks on a lot of inaction by increasing the frequency of inning changes and batter walk-ups. I say nine innings, nine outs per inning, and if the next batter isn't already in the box by the time the pitcher has the ball back in his hand, the pitcher is free to throw a strike over the plate without him. Tack on more innings if it's still too short.

I think you’re on to something, though. The evolution to pull and launch at all cost results in so many pitches taken. The pitchers trained to avoid anything but the extreme periphery of the strike zone, the batter focusing on a specific narrow area of the strike zone. Frustrating.
 

My idea is less radical, but also stands no chance of actually happening….

Restrict the number of pitchers available to pitch in a game, and institute new, larger minimum dimensions for newly built ballparks (or deaden the ball which would be much faster, if feasible). When starting pitchers’ goal was to finish a game, they didn’t waste pitches. And necessarily that meant not trying to strike out every batter…at least not by nibbling and trying to get the batter to chase. When there were 5-6 guys in the lineup who couldn’t reach the power alleys, those batters tended to try to put the first good pitch they saw into play. The geometry of the game is out of whack, and the continuing reliance on relief and ‘3rd time through the lineup’ strategies needs to turn around somehow. 

19 hours ago, ashbury said:

Possible.  I'm thinking it goes the other direction, though, and it might even be too many slugfests. 

I think for instance the 1-ball-1-strike rule would increase the number of fastballs.  Off-speed pitches in general are harder to control They are devastating in part because the pitcher doesn't have to come in with a strike.

As for situational hitting, take a look at the splits from last year's season, arranged by the balls-strikes count:

https://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/split.cgi?t=b&lg=MLB&year=2022#all_count

Keep in mind that the overall OPS for batters last year was .707.  I'm not sure which line in the above chart is more relevant, the PA where matters are decided on the first pitch, i.e. the batter saw a pitch he liked and put it in play, to the tune of a .909 OPS (and that number doesn't even have walks since they are impossible).  Or when the PA reaches a full count, at which point the aggregate OPS is .777.  Either way is higher than with the current rules.

The change I sketched out would be more far-reaching than that, of course.  Built into the present-day stats are the strategies that have built up over time - currently an all-or-nothing approach by the batter until two strikes (and often even with two strikes), and a keep-away strategy (AKA nibbling) by pitchers until three balls; sometimes pitchers get their outs without even throwing a strike because batters are over-eager.  New strategies would be devised and I don't know with any certainty how it would play out.  The pitcher has to come in with something to hit, or else walk batter after batter.  The batter needs to swing a little more defensively, in part because fouls are no longer protected.  But who knows, if the games do wind up low-scoring, then maybe home runs are what wins games, and the all-or-nothing approach continues, and pitchers will respond by risking walks against the power threats - much as now.

Heh, if you are concerned offense will be squashed, maybe my idea of starting every plate appearance at 3-and-2 needs to be tweaked.  Make it 2 strikes for a strikeout and only 1 ball for a walk.  That's in essence a 3-1 pitch on every batter.  Now you'll get some hitting!

Shrug.  I don't claim to know.

You may be right, IDK. When I read your proposal my first reaction was that pitchers would concentrate on a fastball and an off speed pitch they could throw for strikes but the hitter has trouble doing anything but fouling it off. Remember Scott Baker and how He would get two strikes on the hitter then go to his off speed stuff. It wasn't good enough to strike them out and they would foul off pitch after pitch after pitch. He would have been a star in your league. LOL But you may be right, the hitter just becomes more defensive and concentrates on putting the ball in play.  It would be interesting to see a game played under those rules.

1 hour ago, Ricky Vaughn said:

You may be right, IDK. When I read your proposal my first reaction was that pitchers would concentrate on a fastball and an off speed pitch they could throw for strikes but the hitter has trouble doing anything but fouling it off. Remember Scott Baker and how He would get two strikes on the hitter then go to his off speed stuff. It wasn't good enough to strike them out and they would foul off pitch after pitch after pitch. He would have been a star in your league. LOL But you may be right, the hitter just becomes more defensive and concentrates on putting the ball in play.  It would be interesting to see a game played under those rules.

Scott Baker's a fun example, and pitchers like him who kind of lack a deadly out-pitch might be the real beneficiaries.  The current stats I cited are highly biased by the current rule on unlimited foul balls, so maybe the net effect would tilt toward the pitcher more than I thought; that would be dull.

I can't think of an equivalent batter who thrives on fouling off the tough pitches in order to finally get a mistake he can hit.  Arraez?  Hit BA might go down a lot.  (A quick google search for batters who hit lots of fouls turned up only Ross Barnes and Luke Appling from decades ago,   Brandon Belt had that 21 pitch epic a few years back so I'll go with him as a possible posterboy.)

14 hours ago, jkcarew said:

I think you’re on to something, though. The evolution to pull and launch at all cost results in so many pitches taken. The pitchers trained to avoid anything but the extreme periphery of the strike zone, the batter focusing on a specific narrow area of the strike zone. Frustrating.
 

My idea is less radical, but also stands no chance of actually happening….

Restrict the number of pitchers available to pitch in a game, and institute new, larger minimum dimensions for newly built ballparks (or deaden the ball which would be much faster, if feasible). When starting pitchers’ goal was to finish a game, they didn’t waste pitches. And necessarily that meant not trying to strike out every batter…at least not by nibbling and trying to get the batter to chase. When there were 5-6 guys in the lineup who couldn’t reach the power alleys, those batters tended to try to put the first good pitch they saw into play. The geometry of the game is out of whack, and the continuing reliance on relief and ‘3rd time through the lineup’ strategies needs to turn around somehow. 

The Brian Dozier dead-pull approach was somewhere in the mix for my speculation.  Cutting out the dead parts of the game, from a general fan's perspective, was the first motivation, but the dreary sameness of BB/K/HR and especially the nibbling by pitchers was in there too - if you're going to walk, get it over with quick, if you're going to strike out, ditto, let's see some action on the bases okay?

Larger park dimensions or a deadened ball are in line with my ambivalence about maybe balls hit out of play should just be foul, even the moonshots. But a moonshot every game or two is entertaining.  Just as inside the park HRs are.  I'd like more balance.  Maybe a one-pitch AB would be unbalanced in worse ways, who knows?

I'm skeptical about legislating away the current unlimited relief pitching.  Fake injuries will arise to defeat that. And if a starter stays in though struggling, we'll see an increase in lopsided games that you just want to get over with - even 2 hours will seem long.  I'm kind of with you on finding a way to reduce all the max-effort pitching, though - nothing legislated the strategy to save your best stuff for when in a jam, back 100 years ago, they just did it, and I don't know how to bring it back.

21 hours ago, Unwinder said:

Obviously too different, but for the sake of making up a variant game, I'd say this actually actually tacks on a lot of inaction by increasing the frequency of inning changes and batter walk-ups. I say nine innings, nine outs per inning, and if the next batter isn't already in the box by the time the pitcher has the ball back in his hand, the pitcher is free to throw a strike over the plate without him. Tack on more innings if it's still too short.

The inning changes are a good point.  Of course if the innings go quicker, the opposing pitcher won't have as long to sit and cool down, so the current number of warmup pitches could be reduced to maybe just one or even dispensed with.  But since I'm framing this whole idea in terms of it being a spectator sport, there does come an important question of when the broadcaster can fit in the revenue-producing ads.

During the inning, batters can have a time-limit on their walkups (walkup music would be limited to four notes ), but I wouldn't want to rush them quite as much as I think you're suggesting - the new pitch clock enforcement seems pretty balanced to me, but rushing the batter while the pitcher stands comfortably on the mound between batters in this faster version of the game seems like a tilt favoring the pitcher too much.

Nine outs per inning?  Whew, that will be a lot of runs, unless the one-pitch rule suppresses offense a lot more than I anticipate. (As I said in another response, there's at least some evidence to think that offense might go up a little.) It's some interesting outside-the-box thinking though.  Back in the early days of the game, there were so many errors that in effect you did have nine outs to a side.   Instead of nine outs, though, what about every batter in the lineup comes up during each inning, and you naturally place your "clean up" hitter ninth, and on that plate appearance it's like Little League where he keeps going until you can put him out?

Sounds like Pickleball for baseball. 

9 minutes ago, ashbury said:

Nine outs per inning?  Whew, that will be a lot of runs, unless the one-pitch rule suppresses offense a lot more than I anticipate. (As I said in another response, there's at least some evidence to think that offense might go up a little.) It's some interesting outside-the-box thinking though.  Back in the early days of the game, there were so many errors that in effect you did have nine outs to a side.   Instead of nine outs, though, what about every batter in the lineup comes up during each inning, and you naturally place your "clean up" hitter ninth, and on that plate appearance it's like Little League where he keeps going until you can put him out?

Sounds like a watchable game

2 minutes ago, Reptevia said:

Sounds like Pickleball for baseball. 

High praise, indeed. LOL.  To paraphrase another responder, I could be on something.

There's every chance this variant could turn out to be stupid.

4 minutes ago, Unwinder said:

Sounds like a watchable game

Or a drinking game.

Hmmm.  Sounds just plain stupid to me.  No offense intended to the OP, but as an idea in an MLB forum.  Don't give them any more dumb ideas.  They might just take you up on them.

2 minutes ago, Heiny said:

No offense intended to the OP,

None taken.  It's just a what if scenario.