MLB says Yankees’ new “torpedo bats” are legal and likely coming

> If home runs happen all the time, they lose their excitement.

TV ratings show otherwise - in every instance so far, HRs put butts in seats, and defense makes people change the channel. TV and ballpark analytics show this to be true. The common thought is that's why the league ignored abuse during the steroid era so much.

edit - This is also the driving force behind multiple 'juiced ball' conspiracy theories.

Title of the url says it all: https://old.reddit.com/r/baseball/comments/1e5mwbs/mlb_home_...

It's not about watching home runs; it's mostly about watching a competitive game.

For sure, that makes a lot of intuitive sense. I was thinking that there's a sweet spot with HRs. If it gets too common then it may be less of a dopamine hit. Kinda like how the randomness of slot machines is fine-tuned to maximize addictive potential.

However, one could argue the same thing about Curry and 3 pointers. My original argument suggests that seeing someone makes loads more 3 pointers would be boring. Yet it was very exciting to see him smash through previously unthinkable records. On the other hand, that was not driven by technological change…

While home runs are exciting, there are limits to that. For several years the MLB has been dealing with "three true outcomes", where a large percentage of at bats end in either a strikeout, walk, or home run.

While this can be exciting for individual at bats, it becomes pretty boring if it's too common. This is because it invalidates every role except the pitcher and batter, and removes a lot of strategy from the game. While this may be fine if you only watch the occasional game, it can get really dull if you watch a lot of games every season.

Home runs are a lot of fun! One of the things that makes baseball exciting is that every pitch has the potential to result in a home run. This adds a lot of tension to the game, and helps keep things engaging. But when home runs become too prevalent, it eliminates other fun aspects of baseball, and makes the game one dimensional and dull.

Yes, because home runs still are not that regular of an occurrence. So they're still "special".

But if they become a lot more commonplace, then the allure will depreciate over time.

I believe the opposite to that era is the "Dead-ball era" over a hundred years ago.

> During the dead-ball era, baseball was much more of a strategy-driven game, using a style of play now known as small ball or inside baseball. It relied much more on plays such as stolen bases and hit-and-run than on home runs.

This was likely caused by reusing baseballs more, so it should be easy to recreate,

> Before 1921, it was common for a baseball to be in play for over 100 pitches. Players used the same ball until it started to unravel. Early baseball leagues were very cost-conscious, so fans had to throw back balls that had been hit into the stands. The longer the ball was in play, the softer it became—and hitting a heavily used, softer ball for distance is much more difficult than hitting a new, harder one. The ball was also softer to begin with, making home runs less likely.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead-ball_era

3 pointers are actually the opposite problem; they turn out to be more efficient but they make the game a lot more boring to watch.

I don't quite get what the difference is between now and when Sosa, Bonds, and McGuire were hitting homers, where apparently homers are monotonous. Are we pretending that wasn’t peak baseball? I mean I find the whole infield outside of maybe a triple play more boring than all or nothing home run, intentional walk, and strikeout. There are no grand slams without base hits true, but without the home runs base hits are boring.

> they make the game a lot more boring to watch.

I disagree. Go watch some of the old games before 3 pointers. Teams would pack the defense into the key and the game would get really boring. It was also brutal--driving to the bucket on a packed defense like that would get you mugged.

3 pointers force defenses to move outward. Illegal defense penalties also helped.

Close plays on the base paths are pretty exciting.

> I mean I find the whole infield outside of maybe a triple play more boring than all or nothing home run, intentional walk, and strikeout.

The problem is that the strikeout or walk is much more common than the home run.

... On reflection, reading this thread, I think this may be yet more of the "baseball is a radio sport" thing, which is also why it dominated before TV, when football started to take over.

Descriptions of close plays are fun. Homers are flashy to watch and easy to understand. The latter may catch more casual-viewer eyeballs.

I disagree, and I've been watching basketball for 40 years. Basketball with positions was more fun to watch and objectively more popular amongst the viewing audience than this current dreck with positionless basketball and basically no travelling rules. Defenders are afraid to play defense and offensive players can just step back without a dribble to create separation. It's a terrible, boring product to watch because it's reduced the best athletes on the planet to standing around waiting for an open look at a 3. They don't need to get rid of 3s, but they need to modify what they are for. They're supposed to be a bonus shot, not the fundamental aspect of offenses. Eliminating the mid range is bad for the sport.

I dig it

Why can’t teams just defend the three better?

It’s effectively illegal based on how they call shooting fouls and ban hand-checking.