Proposed "three true outcomes" remedy

[Nellie Fox]

You may well not agree with the solution, (a lot of the commenters didn't) but this article clearly explains the problem I have with the game today. Note: despite the title, there's NOTHING political in the article.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/a-conservative-move-to-improve-baseball/

[Mark'sBrokenFoot]

Does it say move the fences back? Because that's the easiest, quickest way to make hitting the damn ball worth it.

[Mark'sBrokenFoot]

Does it say move the fences back? Because that's the easiest, quickest way to make hitting the damn ball worth it.

Yep, sure does. I'm glad to see this idea getting some traction, the game is much more entertaining when the ball is in play.

[Lipman 1]

Orioles are moving left field back 20 feet and raising the left field fence to 12 feet high for this season.

[Dumpjerry]

Orioles are moving left field back 20 feet and raising the left field fence to 12 feet high for this season.

Pfft. What season?

[Dumpjerry]

I think the points are very valid and should be taken seriously. One roadblock I see, however, is the loss of seats in the first few rows in the Outfield in parks that have seats right up to the Wall (not the situation at Comiskey). What happens to season ticker holders who lose their front-row seats (the new front row seats probably already have ST holders, but maybe if everyone is shifted back the number of rows being sacrificed that would work presuming the entire section is not spoken for by ST holders). Also, the owners will howl over the loss of seat revenues. I don't know if any parks are designed in a manner that would allow for new rows to be added at the back end since the concourse behind the last row of seats is level and not graduated.

[whitesox5187]

I think the points are very valid and should be taken seriously. One roadblock I see, however, is the loss of seats in the first few rows in the Outfield in parks that have seats right up to the Wall (not the situation at Comiskey). What happens to season ticker holders who lose their front-row seats (the new front row seats probably already have ST holders, but maybe if everyone is shifted back the number of rows being sacrificed that would work presuming the entire section is not spoken for by ST holders). Also, the owners will howl over the loss of seat revenues. I don't know if any parks are designed in a manner that would allow for new rows to be added at the back end since the concourse behind the last row of seats is level and not graduated.

I feel like so many of the parks that were built during the 1990s and 2000s were designed specifically to ensure more homers, which means it's harder than just moving the fences back. The entire infrastructure of the game is designed to facilitate more homers.

[Frater Perdurabo]

For whatever reason I can’t open the linked article.

I’m fine with teams choosing to change their outfield dimensions or wall heights if they would like. I wouldn’t like any sort of league-wide mandate to do so, however.

To me, what’s more fun than watching groundouts is thinking (with the help of data) and talking about how to construct a team to succeed in a home stadium, and then making adjustments so as not to be at such a great disadvantage when playing in parks with different conditions on the road, and then seeing and debating about what happens when the games take place.

So if Detroit wants to go back to Comerica’s original canyonesque dimensions, fine.

[JazzyCyclist]

I like what the article proposes. As it points out, moving the fences in or out is not a new idea, just an old idea that might be applied to this particular problem. And yes, it is a problem, no matter what advanced metrics proponents say.

[Lipman 1]

Another thing they can do is ban shifts as has happened in some of the minor leagues

[FielderJones]

Another thing they can do is ban shifts as has happened in some of the minor leagues

I don't understand how banning shifts will stop players swinging as hard as they can, still leading to the three outcomes. If they won't take a free base hit to a vacated side of the infield, why would they change with two players on each side of the infield?

[voodoochile]

I don't understand how banning shifts will stop players swinging as hard as they can, still leading to the three outcomes. If they won't take a free base hit to a vacated side of the infield, why would they change with two players on each side of the infield?

It will lead to more hits because there will be less people covering the screaming liners the batters hit when they stay with the "swing from the heels and hope you hit it" approach.

[thomas35forever]

Teams and hitters are going to strategize how they seem fit, and no changes made to the game itself are going to affect that. It won't be long before teams adapt to changes, and we're right back where we were. The article makes good points, but I don't see moving the fences back as more than a short-term fix. And yes, I agree that owners won't agree to loss of revenue by removing outfield seats.