Master Index of Archived Threads


Frank Deford is nuts

Benjamin Grimm Mar 06 2014 09:25 AM

Frank Deford on NPR wrote: FRANK DEFORD: All right: play ball. Spring training has started, more replay is coming in, Derek Jeter is going out, and it's time to change the size of home plate. Well, what did he say? Yes, time to make home plate smaller. I know, that's heresy, that's sacrilegious. But let's back up and I'll explain. There're simply too many strikeouts in baseball now and that hurts the game, because if the ball isn't in play it's boring. The number of strikeouts goes up every season till the average is now more than 15 per game. Now, there're many reasons to account for this. Batters are taught to work the count, not swing right away. Batters don't choke up when they're down two strikes. They're not embarrassed to go down swinging anymore. The umpires call more strikes. Really, that's been proven. But at the core of the problem, pitchers are faster and better. So many more of them can throw at well over 90 miles an hour. But if human beings can be conditioned to throw harder, especially relievers, only in for an inning or even just one batter, how much quicker is it possible for a human being to swing a bat? A reliever comes in and we say he's a fresh arm. Nobody says a pinch hitter is a fresh bat. He's just a different bat. And the fire-balling reliever strikes him out, so nothing happens and it's boring. All sports tinker with rules and, yes, even with sacred dimensions. Basketball has widened the three-second area. The NFL goalposts used to be on the goal line. As hidebound as baseball can be, it lowered the pitchers' mound by a full third, 15 inches down to 10 in 1969. And the size of home plate was not decreed by God. Back when it was an iron plate - where the name came from - it was, in fact, round. It became rubber and a square, 12 inches to a side. But its present distinctive shape was established in 1900, a full 17 inches across. Now, that's too broad for the pitchers today, especially when so many strikes are on the corners, or even on the black - the small fringe which frames the plate. If you cut, say, an inch and a half off each side of the plate, pitchers would have a 14 inch target instead of 17. And batters would have a more reasonable chance to try and connect. They'd swing more, put more balls in play. It'd be more fun, a better game both to play and to watch. With fewer strikeouts, it would also speed up the game, which takes too long now. Understand, sure, narrowing the plate would help the batter but that's just a by-product. What it would primarily do is make the whole game better. It was a big deal when Mighty Casey struck out in 1888. It's a bore when everybody strikes out in 2014. Make the dinner plate a salad plate and improve the baseball cuisine. This is probably the nuttiest part: With fewer strikeouts, it would also speed up the game, which takes too long now. A smaller home plate would inevitably lead to more walks, which would lengthen the game without adding a whole lot of excitement. I can't see how he figures that outs slow down the game.

Edgy MD Mar 06 2014 09:27 AM Re: Frank Deford is nuts

He's right about there being too many strikeouts. He's wrong about the appropriate response. Way wrong.

Ceetar Mar 06 2014 09:33 AM Re: Frank Deford is nuts

The obvious and simple answer is, and has always been, to enforce the high strike. More pitches in the zone means it's hard to work a walk. If you're really concerned with ball in play stuff anyway, which it doesn't appear that baseball is. We're moving more towards 3 true outcomes. But fine, you want the game to lean more towards defense and ball in play stuff? Clearly that's a push towards more well-rounded players that can field and throw and all that. And that means getting rid of the DH.

RealityChuck Mar 06 2014 09:37 AM Re: Frank Deford is nuts

It's boring when your pitcher strikes out the batter with the bases loaded? And your team up by only a run? When Seaver struck out ten in a row, that was probably the most boring game ever. When Matt Harvey strikes out the side at Citi, I can imagine the fans clamoring for their money back.

seawolf17 Mar 06 2014 09:40 AM Re: Frank Deford is nuts

Edgy MD Mar 06 2014 09:57 AM Re: Frank Deford is nuts

Strikeouts in big situations are certainly exciting, but them being over-common diminishes that excitement. On this, I agree. A Matt Harvey strikeout is less compelling when Kyle Farnsworth is doing it left and right. (Though mostly right.) Just like Mark McGwire hitting 70 homers meant far less when Vinny Castilla was hitting 46. Homers and strikeouts and walks are extreme plays. You can't do better (or, alternatively, worse) than these. It think the game is best when it's not filled with these. They fill the game with more walking and less running. I agree with old man there. I disagree with his corrective. I can think of ten better answers without trying.

batmagadanleadoff Mar 06 2014 10:08 AM Re: Frank Deford is nuts

Career K per 9 innings rates, Mets stats only: Oliver Perez - 8.55 Dwight Gooden - 7.78 John Maine - 7.75

Edgy MD Mar 06 2014 11:38 AM Re: Frank Deford is nuts

Worth noting, the columnist's device of using the column as a dialogue between his allegedly radical self and his notion of the reader stunned to his conservative core by the radical thoughts from the columnist's daring, super-charged mind is a really tired, cheap, self-flattering technique. Very Tony Kornheiser.

Ashie62 Mar 06 2014 11:41 AM Re: Frank Deford is nuts

seawolf17 wrote: This....

TransMonk Mar 06 2014 11:57 AM Re: Frank Deford is nuts

I for one prefer strikeouts on defense to home runs on offense. A 2-0 game is usually more thrilling than an 8-6 game (and takes less time, too). Also, I wasn't aware that basketball had a "three-point area", Grandpa Munster.

MFS62 Mar 06 2014 01:02 PM Re: Frank Deford is nuts

He is an embarassment to us nuts old guys. Later

Ashie62 Mar 06 2014 03:34 PM Re: Frank Deford is nuts

Back in 1968 everybody struck out and we liked it!

Edgy MD Mar 06 2014 04:26 PM Re: Frank Deford is nuts

In the National League of 1968, pitchers averaged 5.8 strikeouts per nine innings. In the National League of 2013, pitchers averaged 7.5 strikeouts per nine innings. TransMonk wrote: Also, I wasn't aware that basketball had a "three-point area", Grandpa Munster. He actually wrote "three-second area" --- what we tend to call the key. Did you invoke Grandpa Al Lewis on purpose? Because that guy was actually something of a basketball savant, traveling around, scouting high school players, and tipping off confidante college coaches where to find a player who would work well in their systems.

TransMonk Mar 06 2014 05:36 PM Re: Frank Deford is nuts

Yeah, I messed the quote up on the B-ball area. My apologies. This were the Munster reference came from:

TheOldMole Mar 07 2014 06:41 AM Re: Frank Deford is nuts

Why does working the count lead to more strikeouts? I would think free swinging would lead to more strikeouts.

Frayed Knot Mar 07 2014 06:57 AM Re: Frank Deford is nuts

Swinging (generally) leads to more contact. Not always good contact and more hits aren't necessarily the result, but more balls in play.

metirish Mar 07 2014 06:59 AM Re: Frank Deford is nuts

He sounds nuts on this but he did write my favorite baseball book ever.

Frayed Knot Mar 07 2014 07:41 AM Re: Frank Deford is nuts

Deford is a great writer and has been for a long time - and doesn't normally come across as the old fogey clinging to the past. I just don't think he's thought this one through very well.

MFS62 Mar 07 2014 07:58 AM Re: Frank Deford is nuts

Deford was the editor of the old National sports weekly newspaper. He started out as a researcher, then went into writing. I liked the idea of the National, but continually got frustrated with the product. The straw that broke the back for me was during the NCAA basketball tournament. There were feature stories about two point guards who could impact the tourney, One was Gary Payton, one was a kid from UCONN(Tate George?). It was a great way for someone who had never seen them play to get to know about them. Maybe, a fan of an NBA team that needed a point guard would like to follow them. Except for one thing. In neither article did the writer tell us how tall they were, so we couldn't think about whether or not they would be a pro prospect. Shoddy writing for a sports paper. How can you fill an entire (tabloid sized) page with information about a basketball player, including a lot of statistics, and not mention his size? Twice? It was something a good editor, especially one who had been a sportswriter, should have caught. I never bought the paper again. Later

Benjamin Grimm Mar 07 2014 08:03 AM Re: Frank Deford is nuts

My problem with The National was that it was really The Local. I was hoping it would be a kind of daily Sporting News, with dispatches from teams around the country. But the New York edition covered New York sports, the Chicago edition covered Chicago sports. There was little "national" about it other than the brand name.

Edgy MD Mar 07 2014 08:05 AM Re: Frank Deford is nuts

Frayed Knot wrote: Deford is a great writer and has been for a long time - and doesn't normally come across as the old fogey clinging to the past. I just don't think he's thought this one through very well. Yes. I think the delight in piling on the guy has led to missing the obvious point that there is an issue here that does deserve attention. My friend Martin was a great early believer in The National. The idea for it first leaked while he was just getting out of school (he was a later graduate) and he he got his resume in early and nailed a job on their editorial staff. It didn't work out as an enterprise and his career moved on. Sometimes, I thought, you get on board a big idea early, and you score big. Sometimes, you walk away with nothing. Or so I thought. Years later, I reconnect with him on Facebook, and I see he's married. And his wife's name is DeFord.

Frayed Knot Mar 07 2014 09:33 AM Re: Frank Deford is nuts

MFS62 wrote: Deford was the editor of the old National sports weekly newspaper. He was also a long-time established writer prior to that. There's a lot to be said about the strengths and weaknesses of the short-lived NATIONAL, but that (or this strike-zone idea) shouldn't be the lone things on which Frank Deford is judged. btw, the NATIONAL was a daily, not a weekly.

TheOldMole Mar 07 2014 10:54 AM Re: Frank Deford is nuts

Another solution, which I'm too traditionalist to love, is the electronic strike zone, which would put guys like Glavine and Franco into trouble, but would ensure that umpires don't have wide strike zones. Another less jarring solution would be to quietly tell umpires to start calling the strike zone a little tighter. Another solution would be make it a slow-pitch league.

Frayed Knot Mar 07 2014 11:46 AM Re: Frank Deford is nuts

MLB has a lot of problems with the time and pacing of the game (and nobody's been a bigger noodge around here about this than me). But I don't think that either the size or enforcement of the strike zone are anywhere near the top of the list of culprits.

batmagadanleadoff Mar 07 2014 11:47 AM Re: Frank Deford is nuts Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Mar 07 2014 11:52 AM

TheOldMole wrote: Another solution, which I'm too traditionalist to love, is the electronic strike zone, which would put guys like Glavine and Franco into trouble, but would ensure that umpires don't have wide strike zones. My hunch is that the electronic strike zone is inevitable, as soon as they can get it to work well enough. Though I suppose you can say that about anything. I mean, if they invented an infallible robot first base umpire whose accuracy is perfect, why wouldn't they use that, too?

Edgy MD Mar 07 2014 11:50 AM Re: Frank Deford is nuts

I think a lot of weird culprits gets thrown into "The games are too long" arguments. If games are good, then there largely is no such thing as too long. If they are filled with empty calories like walking around and adjusting equipment, then yeah. But I think fewer and fewer balls in play is an issue. It leads to lots of empty calories.

Ceetar Mar 07 2014 11:58 AM Re: Frank Deford is nuts

Why does the ball in play make it interesting? Is swinging and missing, or fouling it back, really less interesting than a soft grounder to short?

Edgy MD Mar 07 2014 12:03 PM Re: Frank Deford is nuts

Yes. Equating balls in play with "soft grounders to short" deliberately queers the whole question into a one-man push poll, but yes.

Benjamin Grimm Mar 07 2014 12:16 PM Re: Frank Deford is nuts

Ceetar wrote: Why does the ball in play make it interesting? Is swinging and missing, or fouling it back, really less interesting than a soft grounder to short? Sure it is. A soft grounder to short can advance a runner, can lead to an infield single, can lead to an error. A swing and a miss leads to a guy shaking his head and walking slowly back to the dugout.

Ceetar Mar 07 2014 12:43 PM Re: Frank Deford is nuts

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Ceetar wrote: Why does the ball in play make it interesting? Is swinging and missing, or fouling it back, really less interesting than a soft grounder to short? Sure it is. A soft grounder to short can advance a runner, can lead to an infield single, can lead to an error. A swing and a miss leads to a guy shaking his head and walking slowly back to the dugout. Yeah, but most of the time that doesn't. Especially the second two. How is that any different than 'any swing can lead to a home run' that the three true outcomes approach lends itself to? Put another way, 40 years ago you had more balls in play and less home runs and strikeouts. This means that you could miss the start of the inning and more often not miss any scoring relevance. you might miss some running around, but you can infer 'oh, Agee hit a double'. Even just take how announcers discuss said plays. Strikeouts get more attention sometimes whereas a soft grounder or other 99.9% out play is often described without breaking stride in conversation.