MLB Needs To Take a Sledgehammer To Its Strikeout Crisis: Here’s A Few Ways They Could Do It

For the majority of American history, baseball was the most popular sport in the country. And, not coincidentally, for the majority of American history, baseball was a game where the ball frequently went in play. Sadly, neither of those things are true anymore.

Somewhere over the last few decades, we unconsciously discovered a problematic reality in our attempt to better understand this perplexing game: The most productive way to play an MLB game is decoupled from the most entertaining way to play an MLB game. This simple fact has been an anchor on the sport we love ever since!

Instead of a game where the ball is constantly in play, putting an emphasis on contact, defense, base running, strategy, speed, athleticism, and of course, beautiful, wonderful chaos, we’ve instead been sucked into a world where the three true outcomes are devouring far too many plate appearances every single night. This has made for a less entertaining version of the sport. A sport I believe, even after all these years and all the changes to our fast-paced society, is still far and away the greatest one humans have ever invented. But it’s only true when the ball is frequently going in play!

Photo by Maddie Malhotra/Boston Red Sox/Getty Images

For well over a century, batting average was king, and while we’ve long since learned that it’s a pretty terrible barometer in identifying the best players, it’s also kind of nostalgic to look back and realize that it’s a pretty good barometer in identifying the most entertaining players. In other words, when teams valued batting average for decades and decades, they thought they were valuing the best hitters. However, in reality, they were actually valuing a pretty accurate list of the most entertaining hitters. With all the emphasis on the guys creating action, it turned into a pretty happy accident for the sport.

But we no longer live in that world. As far back as 2013, High Heat stats was commenting on the declining balls in play, and in the years since, the issue has only gotten worse, with many outlets chiming in on the subject. Even long before the pitch clock and shift rules went into play in 2023, Fangraphs explored those ideas of how the rules that have since come to pass might increase balls in play as far back as 2017.

Well, the verdict is out, and while the new rules have done an excellent job of drastically reducing the amount of time fans have to wait for a ball to go in play (down a full 45 seconds from 2021, when we had to wait 3 minutes and 52 seconds between balls in play; it’s now now 3 minutes and 7 seconds), they’ve failed to increase the rate of balls in play.

So far in 2024, a third (or 33.4 percent) of all plate appearances end in a strike out, a walk, or a home run, up drastically from the 25 percent figure that metric occupied from about the mid 1950s all the way until the early 1990s. So while the time of games now resembles the product of the era, the rate of balls in play certainly does not.

So now the questions become:

1) Can MLB do anything about it?

2) Should MLB do anything about?

3) And, if so, what should MLB do?

As someone who believes the answers to those first two questions are a resounding yes, I’d like to explore a few scenarios that don’t involve either moving back / lowering the mound or changing the strike zone. While those are possible solutions, they’re drastic measures that all risk changing the fabric of the game. Ultimately, while they’re options, they should be options of last resort.

So, what else can we do?

Well, first of all, I think we need to break this down. There the three sources contributing to the problem.

1) Pitchers are better than ever, and therefore, they’re better at striking guys out than ever. This leaves little wiggle room because that’s exactly what they’re supposed to be doing.

2) Hitters are specifically trying to hit home runs more than they have during any other era of baseball. And this isn’t just the power hitters who you pay to see hit 500 foot home runs. This is your utility middle infielder who somehow has 12 dingers on the year in just 300 plate appearances even though he’s primarily on the roster for positional versatility.

With strikeouts no longer taboo, hitters have realized they can calibrate their swings to an all or nothing approach that’s both more productive, and ultimately, more lucrative as power gets paid in this league. It is here that we begin to see possible solutions to our problem. Strikeouts are no longer considered as embarrassing or as hurtful to your team as they once were. We probably need to change that!

3) Owners, general managers, and everybody else who builds baseball teams also know exactly what the hitters know. Strikeouts just aren’t as poisonous of an outcome for hitters as we thought they were for the entire 20th century (as long as they’re being traded in an approach to hit more home runs). Naturally, those who build MLB teams now populate the bottom third of the rosters with more low batting average, but high slugging percentage / relatively high on base percentage guys. This is their job. They get paid to find value and put the most cost-effective competitive product on the field.

This also opens up possible solutions to the strikeout crisis. MLB needs to find ways to make hitters who strikeout often less valuable, and hitters who strikeout infrequently more valuable when it comes to team building. Change this, and you start to change the behavior of every front office in the sport.

So with that in mind, let’s jump into the first of five possible changes MLB could implement to assist in solving our problem:

1) Reprogram the draft order to incentivize the behavior you want.

There is nothing billion dollar corporations love more than cheap, productive labor! And in MLB, the relatively cheap labor comes from young players who emerge from the farm system ready to pop, but are still years away from getting paid a free agent contract.

The easiest pipeline to make that talent flow is via the draft, and right now, the draft is set up so that the teams with the worst record each year get the highest picks. This is how it is because this is how it’s always been done in all of North American sports. We need to change that.

In a world where high end prospects are more valued than ever, you are incentivizing (intentionally or unintentionally) whatever behavior helps land these players, and right now, that behavior is losing. End this practice!

My suggestion is to reprogram the draft order so that the teams with lineups that strikeout the least pick first. In this world, guys who strikeout 30 percent of the time but manage to keep their wRC+ close to 100 are now significantly less valuable because they’re dragging down the team’s draft position. In reverse, guys who strikeout less suddenly become more valuable because they’re helping the team move up the draft board.

How does this impact our three strikeout sources?

Pitchers = Nothing changes

Hitters = More incentivize to put the ball in play. Some careers may depend on it!

Front offices = Huge incentive to fill out the bottom of the roster differently. Will cut fringe guys who can’t get their strikeout rate down. Will possibly acquire different fringe players who can get the ball in play to improve draft pick position.

This is simply what I would do, but changing the draft order is both your biggest weapon and a blank canvas. You could even have two lists and average them together. Maybe have the other list be whatever team has their starting pitchers complete the most innings over the course of the season to discourage clubs from going to the bullpen as quickly. The possibilities here are endless, but whatever they are, they need to be incentivizing fewer strikeouts in the game overall instead of losing records.

(This change will also come with the added bonus of discouraging tanking across the league.)

2) Any time the side is struck out in one half of an inning, that team then has to play the next half inning with only eight defenders.

If you can’t or don’t value getting the ball in play, the other team will get rewarded by having an even greater incentive to put the ball in play. The team losing the defender can pick which player they take off the field for the defensive half inning, but it would have to be one of the three outfielders given you can’t take the pitcher or catcher off and the shift rule demands two infielders on each side of second base.

This is perfect as it not only penalizes hitters for striking out in groups, but it also increases the possibility for extra base hits and inside the park home runs when the other team comes up. All you have to do is get the ball beyond the infield and the odds it falls in are significantly higher than normal.

In addition, this scenario would open up the possibility for insane, long run, diving catches. With only the two best defensive outfielders left in the game, they would get the opportunity to show off their athleticism covering so much ground.

This rule also gives the home team a slight advantage in a sport where the home field advantage isn’t big enough since it’s possible for the home team to bat with only eight defenders on the field during all nine inning while it’s only possible for the road team during eight of them.

How does this impact our three strike out sources?

Pitchers = Little changes. They’re already trying to strike everybody out, but if they get the first two guys, they might unload the tank a bit more to help their team and the chance of some run support.

Hitters = More incentivized to put the ball in play, and especially more incentivized to put the ball in play if the first two guys have struck out. Two out and nobody on at bats when the first two hitters have struck out go from one of the least consequential of the game to incredibly exciting because the possibility of a team having to play with just two outfielders the following inning is on the line.

Front offices = Little change, but would have to be aware to try and not create a roster that generally puts three high strikeout guys together in a lineup.

3) If a pitcher walks a guy on four balls without throwing a strike, it’s a two-base walk instead of one.

This discourages teams from having arms on the roster who are all velocity and have little clue how to locate the ball. These types of pitchers are a big part of the HR / strikeout culture that has engulfed MLB. It would also make 3-0 pitches within each game much more interesting!

As an added bonus, teams would think twice about intentionally walking the best hitter on the other team in a big spot because now it’s two bases unless they throw a strike first somewhere in the at bat. This would put more big hitters in more big moments instead of being passed by, which is good for the sport. Don’t we want the best guys featured in the biggest moments?

Lastly, if those hitters are naturally better at not striking out, this rule would reduce the number of strike outs in high leverage situations. A win all the way around!

How does this impact our three strike out sources?

Pitchers = Places an emphasis on not walking guys on four pitches, which takes some emphases off velocity and increases the emphasis on location.

Hitters = Hard to tell. It’s possible some are more selective until they get a strike, but with the other rules going in play, it’s also possible they would just prioritize swinging early.

Front offices = Pitchers (particularly relief pitchers) with extremely high K and BB rates become less valuable. Now that the BBs that come attached with a high K rate could be penalized with two base walks, pitchers with less velocity and more control become a little less valuable. Alleluia!

4) Limit each roster to 12 pitchers

This is an easy one! MLB already lowered the number to 13 in 2022, but it doesn’t go far enough. More pitchers on the roster means more guys throwing shorter stints at higher velocity rates. MLB needs teams to have more guys programed to get more outs instead of the increasing number of bullpen arms who are there to throw it out of their underwear on every pitch and exit the game after about 15 offerings. Maybe the best of the best should be wired that way, but it shouldn’t be commonplace in the sport.

How does this impact our three strike out sources?

Pitchers = More bullpen guys will be called on to get more outs. Some guys will focus on this role if they don’t have the highest velocity. With limited resources, there’s more likely to be a place for this type of pitcher on the roster of every team. Mop-up man isn’t glorious, but it has a place on an MLB roster if somebody has to eat the innings in a world with only seven relievers.

Hitters = No real changes (Maybe some chance to boost offensive numbers in blowout games with mop-up relievers being slightly more common.)

Front offices = They will have to prioritize their bullpen differently. It becomes a much more selective and delicate balance. They may also need to get starters that go longer into the game to cover the outs.

Now, the drawback to this rule is that it doesn’t jive with MLB expanding the roster to 26 men a few years ago and also getting rid of pitchers hitting with the universal DH, and therefore lessoning the need for constant pinch hitters late in games. But teams are going to need these large benches if the next and final idea here is implemented.

5) If a batter strikes out three times in a game, they’re out of the game!

Three strikes you’re out. How about three strike outs you’re out of the game completely? If you can foul out of an NBA game, why can’t you strike out of an MLB game?

This will encourage hitters to get the ball in play early and often or otherwise risk being up against the edge of getting booted from the contest altogether in the late innings. Ideally, this rule wouldn’t go in place until they have the strike appeal system in play as umpires could make some really awful calls the get guys rung, but boy would this bring the humiliation back to striking out that the game so sorely needs.

Imagine a close game where a good defensive player on a team comes up with a one run lead has two strike outs already. All of a sudden, that becomes a huge at bat, and the most important thing is that he just gets the ball in play. It completely changes the mindset of the all or nothing approach almost every bases empty at bat is dominated by in today’s game.

How does this impact our three strike out sources?

Pitchers = Probably very little. Pitchers are already trying to strike everybody out, so their approach probably doesn’t change much throughout most of the game.

Hitters = Big emphasis on getting the ball in play early and often! Perhaps the best power hitters will still be encouraged to have the same approach, but for guys who play key defensive positions, there will be extra incentive to get the bat on ball so their glove is not lost late in the game.

Front offices = Makes high strikeout guys a little less valuable.

---

The bottom line: MLB needs to figure out a way to get more balls on play. Baseball is nothing less than the greatest game in the world when the ball is frequently going in play. Start exploring some creative options!