The Ball is Insanely Juiced

[Bull]

Jason Heyward has 10 HR already. I didn't think he'd hit that many for the whole season.

He has benefitted greatly from the pill enhanced ball (PEB). So many warning track fly balls the last couple of years. Going out this year!

[OleMissCub]

Jason Heyward has 10 HR already. I didn't think he'd hit that many for the whole season.

He has benefitted greatly from the pill enhanced ball (PEB). So many warning track fly balls the last couple of years. Going out this year!

 

Yeah he was the golden god of WTP

[Quakers]

Have the players found a way to mask the supplements?

[OleMissCub]

Have the players found a way to mask the supplements?

 

It’s the ball. The commissioner admitted it.

[ChiCubsFan]

I tried finding this but failed. Anyone know what the average HR/FB rate across the majors is this year?

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I tried finding this but failed. Anyone know what the average HR/FB rate across the majors is this year?

 

I don't have it summed, but you can eyeball it here, 15ish%: https://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=bat&lg=all&qual=0&type=2&season=2019&month=0&season1=2019&ind=0&team=0,ts&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=0&startdate=2019-01-01&enddate=2019-12-31

 

In 2015 it was about 11%

[Derwood]

Through June 30, homers are up 19% over last season, and the league is on pace to break the all time record by over 500 HR's

[itisallpartoftheplan]

*The Bell is Insanely Juiced

[We Got The Whole 9]

Twins hit 4 more tonight and are currently on pace to break the MLB record before September begins

 

Lol

[sneakypower]

Danny Santana:

13 HR, .375 SLG in 364 career games ('14-'18)

17 HR, .589 SLG in 84 games ('19)

[soccer10k]

The team with the worst OPS in the International League this year (.753) would be tied for the league lead last year. League OPS is up 85 points. The league is on pace to hit 2515 home runs. Last year they hit 1555.

 

In the PCL they’re on pace for 3330 homers after hitting only 2097 last year.

[CubColtPacer]

Is the potential solution to the strikeouts/walks/home runs era to keep this juiced ball and then slowly build gigantic ballparks? I am open to that being a terrible idea for some reason I'm not thinking of, but my perception is that would create a lot more action both in the field and on the bases (by on the bases, I don't mean old timey stealing/hit and run, but just having more situations where there are runners on base or plays at bases).

[jersey cubs fan]

Is the potential solution to the strikeouts/walks/home runs era to keep this juiced ball and then slowly build gigantic ballparks? I am open to that being a terrible idea for some reason I'm not thinking of, but my perception is that would create a lot more action both in the field and on the bases (by on the bases, I don't mean old timey stealing/hit and run, but just having more situations where there are runners on base or plays at bases).

A situation where municipalities are pressured into subsidizing another round of brand new buildings is not a solution to anything. The Cubs just spent money to make Wrigley viable, there is no space to go bigger. They aren't getting another Yankee Stadium or Fenway or Citi or PNC, etc.

[Sammy Sofa]

It's bad just by how the gigantic scam that is building a new stadium is bad.

[Tim]

Well, you could make Wrigley about 4-5 feet "bigger" by removing the basket. After that you're out of luck.

[CubColtPacer]

Is the potential solution to the strikeouts/walks/home runs era to keep this juiced ball and then slowly build gigantic ballparks? I am open to that being a terrible idea for some reason I'm not thinking of, but my perception is that would create a lot more action both in the field and on the bases (by on the bases, I don't mean old timey stealing/hit and run, but just having more situations where there are runners on base or plays at bases).

A situation where municipalities are pressured into subsidizing another round of brand new buildings is not a solution to anything. The Cubs just spent money to make Wrigley viable, there is no space to go bigger. They aren't getting another Yankee Stadium or Fenway or Citi or PNC, etc.

 

Definitely, I wasn't meaning that. I meant as ballparks naturally get built that it would factor into the process. That is obviously a very long-term solution, but within the next 30 years probably 15-20 ballparks will get replaced (that would actually be fewer than the last 30 years, which I would expect the rate of new ballparks to slow down). If even half the ballparks are huge that will fundamentally change the league, roster decisions, even players and how they try to optimize launch angle.

[Tim]

Is the potential solution to the strikeouts/walks/home runs era to keep this juiced ball and then slowly build gigantic ballparks? I am open to that being a terrible idea for some reason I'm not thinking of, but my perception is that would create a lot more action both in the field and on the bases (by on the bases, I don't mean old timey stealing/hit and run, but just having more situations where there are runners on base or plays at bases).

A situation where municipalities are pressured into subsidizing another round of brand new buildings is not a solution to anything. The Cubs just spent money to make Wrigley viable, there is no space to go bigger. They aren't getting another Yankee Stadium or Fenway or Citi or PNC, etc.

 

Definitely, I wasn't meaning that. I meant as ballparks naturally get built that it would factor into the process. That is obviously a very long-term solution, but within the next 30 years probably 15-20 ballparks will get replaced (that would actually be fewer than the last 30 years, which I would expect the rate of new ballparks to slow down). If even half the ballparks are huge that will fundamentally change the league, roster decisions, even players and how they try to optimize launch angle.

So essentially take the Coors field approach everywhere

[CubColtPacer]

A situation where municipalities are pressured into subsidizing another round of brand new buildings is not a solution to anything. The Cubs just spent money to make Wrigley viable, there is no space to go bigger. They aren't getting another Yankee Stadium or Fenway or Citi or PNC, etc.

 

Definitely, I wasn't meaning that. I meant as ballparks naturally get built that it would factor into the process. That is obviously a very long-term solution, but within the next 30 years probably 15-20 ballparks will get replaced (that would actually be fewer than the last 30 years, which I would expect the rate of new ballparks to slow down). If even half the ballparks are huge that will fundamentally change the league, roster decisions, even players and how they try to optimize launch angle.

So essentially take the Coors field approach everywhere

 

Exactly. I don't necessarily want to increase scoring to the level at Coors Field (I don't hate that idea, but it's not a necessary component) but greatly increasing the number of hits and baserunners would be my goal.

[Bryants Disco Ball]

 

Definitely, I wasn't meaning that. I meant as ballparks naturally get built that it would factor into the process. That is obviously a very long-term solution, but within the next 30 years probably 15-20 ballparks will get replaced (that would actually be fewer than the last 30 years, which I would expect the rate of new ballparks to slow down). If even half the ballparks are huge that will fundamentally change the league, roster decisions, even players and how they try to optimize launch angle.

So essentially take the Coors field approach everywhere

 

Exactly. I don't necessarily want to increase scoring to the level at Coors Field (I don't hate that idea, but it's not a necessary component) but greatly increasing the number of hits and baserunners would be my goal.

 

Just eliminate the shift.

[squally1313]

So essentially take the Coors field approach everywhere

 

Exactly. I don't necessarily want to increase scoring to the level at Coors Field (I don't hate that idea, but it's not a necessary component) but greatly increasing the number of hits and baserunners would be my goal.

 

Just eliminate the shift.

 

The shift isn't doing much to curb baserunners. BABIP has stayed between .295 and .300 since 2010. The walk rate for 2010 and 2019 are also exactly the same (8.5%). The K rate has gone from 18.5% to 22.8%, which I think is a big part of it. And then the fly ball rate has decreased, but HR/FB% is way up (9.4% in 2010, 15.3% now, next highest is 13.7% in 2017).

 

Fix the ball first, and then figure out a way to lower the K rate. Though all of these solutions go against the desire to cut down on game time. Need other solutions for that.

[Bryants Disco Ball]

 

Exactly. I don't necessarily want to increase scoring to the level at Coors Field (I don't hate that idea, but it's not a necessary component) but greatly increasing the number of hits and baserunners would be my goal.

 

Just eliminate the shift.

 

The shift isn't doing much to curb baserunners. BABIP has stayed between .295 and .300 since 2010. The walk rate for 2010 and 2019 are also exactly the same (8.5%). The K rate has gone from 18.5% to 22.8%, which I think is a big part of it. And then the fly ball rate has decreased, but HR/FB% is way up (9.4% in 2010, 15.3% now, next highest is 13.7% in 2017).

 

Fix the ball first, and then figure out a way to lower the K rate. Though all of these solutions go against the desire to cut down on game time. Need other solutions for that.

 

I think this might be a stupid question, so don't make fun of me. With the juiced ball, would we see a higher BABIP than that range of .295 to .300 without shifts? Or nah?

 

I just look at guys like Schwarber and think they'd be getting on base via a hit so much more often.

[squally1313]

 

Just eliminate the shift.

 

The shift isn't doing much to curb baserunners. BABIP has stayed between .295 and .300 since 2010. The walk rate for 2010 and 2019 are also exactly the same (8.5%). The K rate has gone from 18.5% to 22.8%, which I think is a big part of it. And then the fly ball rate has decreased, but HR/FB% is way up (9.4% in 2010, 15.3% now, next highest is 13.7% in 2017).

 

Fix the ball first, and then figure out a way to lower the K rate. Though all of these solutions go against the desire to cut down on game time. Need other solutions for that.

 

I think this might be a stupid question, so don't make fun of me. With the juiced ball, would we see a higher BABIP than that range of .295 to .300 without shifts? Or nah?

 

I just look at guys like Schwarber and think they'd be getting on base via a hit so much more often.

 

That's a fair point, and something I didn't really think about when I was looking through the yearly stats. I saw hard hit% was up and just kinda wrote that off as the juiced ball. However, the juiced ball thing is a 2019 only issue, and BABIP has stayed pretty much entirely flat for 10 years in a row now. I know shifting has continued to increase (although if I recall correctly the Cubs have gotten away from it somewhat)...but it's been pretty prevalent for 4-5 years now without seeing any increase at all.

 

I've seen the argument that the shift decreases offense because it gets into a hitter's head, and makes them try to do things they aren't comfortable with (leading to striking out, or soft contact, etc). But I don't know if I totally buy it, and even if it were true, I don't think you should be making a rule to prevent something like that.

[stitchface]

Well, you could make Wrigley about 4-5 feet "bigger" by removing the basket. After that you're out of luck.

 

 

remove the bleachers - you can just open a few fraternity houses out there.

[minnesotacubsfan]

maybe the balls just don't have enough mud on them this year

 

https://www.si.com/mlb/2019/08/07/baseball-mud-rawlings?utm_source=pocket-newtab

[Cubswin11]

I’m sure the overcorrection by this idiot will be measured and everyone will be keyed in on it and he won’t go rogue again.