Recently, when the news broke that Major League Baseball under new commissioner Rob Manfred may seek to alter the rulebook definition of the strike zone in the service of increasing run-scoring, the reaction in some quarters was one of puzzlement. Why, if game length is a mounting concern, would MLB seek to boost the offense? After all, it would seem that increased scoring yields longer games.
For a couple of reasons, I think MLB is right to consider tweaking the zone. First -- and contrary to what you might think -- a rule change that benefits the offense won’t necessarily yield longer games. Second, and perhaps most important, MLB’s real problem right now is pacing rather than game time, and that pacing problem largely flows from excessive strikeouts.
On the first point, let’s acknowledge the obvious and point out that, yes, average game times are indeed getting longer. The following graph will show the average game times from 1990 through last season. I choose the 1990 endpoint because it captures not only the ebbs and flows of offensive levels throughout recent history, but also the most recent two rounds of expansion, the adoption of interleague play and the ballpark construction boom. Pretty picture, forthcoming …
(Data: Baseball Prospectus)
As you can see, we’ve seen a significant spike in game game time since 2010, leading up to last season’s record longest average time of 3.13 hours. Now let’s have a look at run-scoring averages over that same time span …
(Data: Baseball-Reference)
When offense spiked in the early 2000s, you saw something of a correlational relationship between run-scoring and game length. However, as offense has cratered in recent years, we’ve seen game times soar. The takeaway is that there’s more to the recent upward-creeping game lengths than batters’ keeping the line moving, which is something they haven’t been doing much of lately.
This point merits further explanation and raises a question of its own: What’s behind the increase in game times? There’s no single answer. Part of it is the gradual increase in time between pitches. For instance, since 2007 -- the back end of FanGraphs “pace” data -- an average of 1.5 seconds have been tacked on between every pitch. Lest that not sound like much, that comes to an additional seven-plus minutes per game, on average, relative to 2007 levels.
There are also more pitching changes -- i.e., more relievers being called upon -- in this, the era of hyper-specialized relief usage, and that, obviously, means more in-game delays. As well, we’ve got more time between innings these days in order to make room for more TV spots.
On another level, each plate appearance involves more pitches than was the case in the past. Regard …
(Data: Baseball-Reference)
Know what leads to high pitch counts? Strikeouts and walks. On average, a plate appearance ending in a strikeout spans roughly 4.8 pitches, while a walk takes around 5.5 pitches. In contrast, a PA that culminates in a fair-hit baseball takes about 3.35 pitches, again on average.
Speaking of strikeouts and walks, let’s take a look at recent trends when it comes to strikeouts as a percentage of total plate appearances (K%) and walks as a percentage of total plate appearances (BB%). Yea, verily: Yet another handsome graph is headed your way (K% in blue, BB% in red) …
(Data: FanGraphs)
The balance between strikeouts and walks was pretty much steady through 2005 or so, at which point you saw walks slightly decline while strikeouts hit the trampoline. Why did this happen? Strikeouts have been on the rise since the Deadball Era went away, and these days, given the value of power, hitters swing from the heels more often than not -- think Javier Baez, not Rod Carew -- and that leads to strikeouts. Pitchers throw harder than ever, and that leads to strikeouts. Relievers who pair mid- to high-90s velo with a hammer breaking ball are in abundance these days, and that leads to strikeouts. Same for the growth economy for catchers who are skilled at framing pitches. There’s also, of course, the strike zone. As MLB seems to intuit, that nebulous engine of the game is in need of a tune-up.
In October of last year, Jon Roegele of the Hardball Times penned one of the most important pieces of baseball research in recent memory. What he found is that, since 2009, umpires have added roughly 40 square inches to the called strike zone, most of it coming at the bottom of said zone. Again via the Hardball Times, here’s a visual representation of the called zones to left- and right-handed batters …
The lowered zone has helped up the groundball rate in recent years, but for these purposes what’s important is that it plays a notable role in the excessive K% noted above. No surprise, the called-strike rate is also on the upward march, as Grantland’s Ben Lindbergh recently noted.
All of this leads naturally enough into the pacing problems that I mentioned at the outset. That baseball games average more than three hours isn’t a problem in and of itself. After all, the average NFL game comfortably exceeds three hours in length, and no one’s fretting over its temporal sprawl. For me, the problem with an MLB game -- to the extent that there is one -- is what happens during those three-plus hours. Today, more than a quarter of all plate appearances end in a strikeout or a walk. That is, bat doesn’t meet ball (save for fouls) and fielders are left standing around in more than 25 percent of batter-pitcher encounters. This isn’t the way it should be, and excessive strikeouts are the main offender.
The following is, yes, an opinion and a statement of aesthetics: A strikeout should be a signifier of genuine dominance and not a default setting. Baseball is more compelling when the ball is in play and fielders and base-runners are in motion (the ball going over the fence is cool, too). Look no further than the Royals’ performance in the 2014 postseason as evidence that defense can be one of the most rousing aspects of the sport. No one wins when Lorenzo Cain’s glove is on ice.
Ideally, we’ll one day have ball-strike calls automated, but until then MLB would do well to shoo away the strike below the knees. Sure, it’s possible that would temporarily lead to an increase in walks, but pitchers at the highest level are adaptable sorts who generally have good command. If the low pitch is no longer a strike, then they won’t try to locate there on three-ball counts against disciplined hitters.
A less bottom-heavy zone alone won’t be enough to return contact rates to their optimal levels. (Joe Sheehan in his excellent newsletter has suggested limiting the number of relievers on a roster so as to give teams incentive to develop more pitch-to-contact hurlers who can withstand longer outings, so that’s another idea.) However, getting the zone back in shape is a very fundamental step toward the end goal putting contact hitting and fielding back on a peer level with pitching. It’s also thoroughly precedented, as baseball throughout semi-recent history has done things like change the recipe of the baseball, lowered the mound, added the DH and countenanced use of the humidor -- all to strike the right balance among the game’s moving parts.
Personally, I don’t care whether such changes lead to more runs -- I don’t at all pine for the “silly ball” days of the early 2000s -- but I do care that the game finds its way to more batters hitting more baseballs and more fielders trying to run them down.
That’s, you know, baseball.
