I have thought about this issue from different perspectives. You answered negatively regarding a related - if modern players are better than their older counterparts. It seems to me that the modern metrics are misplaced in that pitchers are examined by chase rate, barrel rate, hard hit rate, and the like. Pitching to contact, that is, inducing contact over swings and misses, is a key ingredient. In theory, pitch counts are reduced and it rewards good defense. Pitchers eschew this approach because it isn't sexy and , to my mind, there is still systemic inconsistency with the strike zone. Perhaps ABS will help using the traditional definition of the individualized strike zone, which is now possible, according to an article I read about MiLB testing. ABS also supposedly works with the other critical strike zone component - any part of the ball touching any part of the zone. Are these two machine-generated standardizations enough to allow the return to a pitch-to-contact strategy, which also addresses some of the physically taxing problems you mentioned? Since MLB average batting hasn't improved much since the DH, it's certainly possible, even to though pitchers aren't Greg Maddux-caliber. The stats over the last fifty years do not appear to support a significant offensive improvement no matter what rule changes are made, no? But, the combination of ABS and a pitching to contact philosophy could mitigate injuries by changing the success standard away from the risky spin/K/velocity template.
I have thought about this issue from different perspectives. You answered negatively regarding a related - if modern players are better than their older counterparts. It seems to me that the modern metrics are misplaced in that pitchers are examined by chase rate, barrel rate, hard hit rate, and the like. Pitching to contact, that is, inducing contact over swings and misses, is a key ingredient. In theory, pitch counts are reduced and it rewards good defense. Pitchers eschew this approach because it isn't sexy and , to my mind, there is still systemic inconsistency with the strike zone. Perhaps ABS will help using the traditional definition of the individualized strike zone, which is now possible, according to an article I read about MiLB testing. ABS also supposedly works with the other critical strike zone component - any part of the ball touching any part of the zone. Are these two machine-generated standardizations enough to allow the return to a pitch-to-contact strategy, which also addresses some of the physically taxing problems you mentioned? Since MLB average batting hasn't improved much since the DH, it's certainly possible, even to though pitchers aren't Greg Maddux-caliber. The stats over the last fifty years do not appear to support a significant offensive improvement no matter what rule changes are made, no? But, the combination of ABS and a pitching to contact philosophy could mitigate injuries by changing the success standard away from the risky spin/K/velocity template.