Minutiae, Oddities, and Random Baseball Queries

[Playing Catch]

Are foul balls good or bad? For whom, the pitcher or the batter? I found a couple of short columns on the topic that did some research that examined it within the frame of a single plate appearance, but foul balls are so contextually relevant. Number of outs, baserunners, pitch location, pitch counts within the at-bat, pitch counts within the inning, pitch counts within the game...

With how pitchers are handled these days, it seems like being able to extend at-bats, even if the outcome favors the pitcher, can have significant effects throughout a game or series, when considering bullpen usage. So, is being able to foul pitches off a skill teams would want to promote? Or does the inherent passivity in such a skill too detrimental to slug to have value?

Anyway, I've had a number of these thoughts lately without anywhere to put them. Feel free to ignore my initial post if you have your own questions that have been rattling around your brain.

[LouisEly]

This relates to one of the things I've wondered about.  With pitchers throwing harder than they ever have, and much harder than they did pre-1990 (remember when Goose Gossage was "throwing gas" at 90 mph?), are batters fouling off more pitches, and as such, more pitches are being thrown than pre-1990?  Did batters put more balls in play pre-1990 and hit less foul balls?  

If so, is this more pitches per game/inning also contributing to more pitcher injuries in addition to throwing harder?  Is this a/the reason that pitchers don't go as deep into games and complete games are rarities these days, because batters are fouling off more pitches causing pitchers to throw more pitches per inning?  I haven't been able to find any statistics about pitches per game/inning by decade, but I haven't put a ton of effort into it either.

[sveumrules]

Found this blurb on foul balls / pitches thrown in a Travis Sawchik article…

“There were 129,954 foul balls hit last season in total, trailing only 2019 (which had the most total pitches thrown on record because of the elevated run-scoring environment).

For context, there were more than 15,000 additional foul balls last season than in 1998, the first year there were 30 MLB teams. That's a 14% rise in foul balls even though total pitches thrown has only grown by 1.6%.“

[Underachiever]

I would guess that hitters have to commit to swinging earlier and fighting off a pitch is better than having the bat on your shoulder as you watch strike 3 go by. I bet it's easier to take a pitch at 85 than it is at 95. Hitters are in protect mode even before two strikes. 

[Frisbee Slider]

1 hour ago, Playing Catch said:

Are foul balls good or bad? For whom, the pitcher or the batter?

In what way would foul balls benefit the pitcher? It would seem the more pitches thrown helps the batter, generally. 

I love these topics, though!

[sveumrules]

4 minutes ago, Frisbee Slider said:

In what way would foul balls benefit the pitcher? It would seem the more pitches thrown helps the batter, generally. 

I love these topics, though!

From the pitchers perspective a foul ball is worse than a swing and miss, but depending on the outcome could be better than a batted ball in fair territory.

Accidentally groove a meatball and it gets fouled back instead of smoked for an XBH? Phew.

Throw a wicked breaker for strike three and the batter somehow clips it to stay alive? (expletive deleted)

I’d guess an ancillary benefit for the pitcher could come from reading the swing. Sometimes how the batter fouls off a pitch can offer clues to get him out with the next one.

[nate82]

39 minutes ago, sveumrules said:

I’d guess an ancillary benefit for the pitcher could come from reading the swing. Sometimes how the batter fouls off a pitch can offer clues to get him out with the next one.

Basically this.  Late or early timing can tell you if the batter is looking for a fastball (early timing) or an off speed pitch (late timing).  Also how the ball is hit did the batter get on top of the ball or under the ball?  If under the ball you could go up a bit higher and get the batter to completely miss the pitch.  If they are over the ball go a bit further down and watch the batter swing over it.  Did the ball hit the end of the bat or closer to the handle?  If closer to the handle go in closer and induce a weak pop up or a ground ball.  If at the end of the bat go a bit further out and watch the batter miss the pitch.  Foul balls can tell a pitcher a lot about the batter and what they are trying to do.  

[Roderick]

5 hours ago, Frisbee Slider said:

In what way would foul balls benefit the pitcher? It would seem the more pitches thrown helps the batter, generally. 

I love these topics, though!

I assume we aren't strictly talking about 2 strike pitches.  So I would think the main way it helps the pitcher is that he gets ahead in the count.  All those batting stats that move way down when the batter is 0-1 / 1-2 versus an even count.  

 

[liveforoctober]

Just for clarities' sake... are we talking about a foul ball vs a swing and a miss? So if the count is 0-0 would the pitcher rather a batter swing and miss or foul it off?

[Playing Catch]

On 5/29/2025 at 9:17 AM, sveumrules said:

Found this blurb on foul balls / pitches thrown in a Travis Sawchik article…

“There were 129,954 foul balls hit last season in total, trailing only 2019 (which had the most total pitches thrown on record because of the elevated run-scoring environment).

For context, there were more than 15,000 additional foul balls last season than in 1998, the first year there were 30 MLB teams. That's a 14% rise in foul balls even though total pitches thrown has only grown by 1.6%.“

That's a really good article, thank you for sharing it.

I think the dramatic increase in foul balls has more to do with the tiny parks that taxpayers have built since 1998. There's so much less foul ground these days. Very few dramatic awkward catches outside the lines. The nets, too, contribute to that. But the whiff-rate numbers, which include fouled off pitches look undeniable.

[Oxy]

Fun topic.  I would guess that the OBP revolution of the early 2000s plays a much bigger role in increasing p/PA than foul balls...but the two are related.

This would never happen, but I've often thought that there should be another foul line at the front of the plate extending into perpetuity such that if a batter hits a "foul" ball but it goes forward it isn't counted as a strike--it's just a "no-pitch".  Obviously this only matters when there are less than 2 strikes.  Mainly I just find it odd that if a guy crushes the first pitch 450 ft right down the foul line but it is just foul the count goes to 0-1.

[Oxy]

nt

[dlk9s]

 

[Playing Catch]

This may have been talked about in other threads, but this statistic caught my eye...

https://www.fangraphs.com/leaders/major-league?pos=all&stats=bat&lg=all&qual=y&type=5&season=2025&month=0&season1=2025&ind=0&sortcol=2&sortdir=desc&pagenum=1

Could PCA be on the verge of collapse? Chourio also high on the list. What could that mean?

[Frisbee Slider]

50 minutes ago, Playing Catch said:

Could PCA be on the verge of collapse?

Morale is low on PCA based on Northside Baseball forum. 
.279 OPS over past week

.673 OPS over past 47 AB

Still a 6 WAR player 😞

[TURBO]

Players slump, it happens to every single one of them.

If they want to get rid of him, we'd take him!!

[SRB]

The PCA hype was way too high for a while there. He's still a fantastic player because of his defense, but it's hard to consistently play like an MVP with his terrible approach at the plate. See also: Javier Baez.

[SeaBass]

That's kind of the thing I noticed about PCA when I looked at his stats earlier this season, maybe a month or so ago. He seems very slugging percent dependent. He's doing amazing but for as amazing as he was his OPS wasn't really that high, it was still sub .900. Good on him for making a ton of hard contact but I kinda just felt like if he got into a funk most of that effectiveness would go away.

He brings so much more to the table than his slugging so it's not like he'd be useless with a more pedestrian SLG.

[Turning2]

Don't have any solid thoughts on the topic, but I'll say I'm amazed at the bat control skill some guys have to intentionally foul off pitches to get a pitch they want to try and square up. Back in my playing days, I was never thinking like that at the plate, just wanted to make solid contact. Obviously that low level pitching is apples to oranges compared to the velo and movement the pros see. All the movement probably makes it a little easier to foul off balls intentionally. 

[formerlybis]

14 minutes ago, Turning2 said:

Don't have any solid thoughts on the topic, but I'll say I'm amazed at the bat control skill some guys have to intentionally foul off pitches to get a pitch they want to try and square up. Back in my playing days, I was never thinking like that at the plate, just wanted to make solid contact. Obviously that low level pitching is apples to oranges compared to the velo and movement the pros see. All the movement probably makes it a little easier to foul off balls intentionally. 

I was pretty good at making contact, no matter what. I had also predetermined that I was swinging at just about anything, so not a great approach - didn't walk much. I wonder whether some big leaguers might be doing something similar against the 100+ MPH guys, though.

[LouisEly]

One of the things I have been thinking about for a while is the long-term viability of wood bats.

A number of times this season and in recent seasons I have seen bats splinter with parts just missing players.  I recall one earlier this year where a Brewers player (Yelich I think) splintered a bat and missed the pitcher by about a foot.  I think it's only a matter of time before a catcher/hitter/umpire gets a splinter in the eye/face or part of a bat into exposed skin.

You didn't see this 30-40 years ago - bats just mostly cracked.  Some of that is due to pitchers throwing harder than ever, but 30-40 years ago batters swung hard enough to hit 40-50 HRs per year despite lower velocity from pitchers.

I know from other wood products that the quality of wood is going down.  There just isn't enough "old lumber" to meet demand, so trees are rapid-grown and the wood just doesn't get the time to solidify.  Then there's the sustainability element.  Louisville Slugger goes through 40,000 trees per year making bats.  I don't think that is sustainable.

I think that composite bats are in the near future.  I'm NOT talking about aluminum, we know that isn't viable.  I'm talking about composite materials, think more plastic-like.  They use composite materials to make commercial airline fuselages, so they won't splinter.  I don't doubt that they could make a composite material with close to the weight/density of wood if they wanted to.  Bonus if they could utilize recycled materials.

Obviously rigorous testing would need to show the distance/exit velocity to be within 5% of a wood bat.  They can make adjustments to the ball to get closer to the current distance/exit velocity if they want/need to.  Obviously they'll need to use them in the lower levels of the minors for a few years first to test in real conditions.

But I think that composite bats, at least in the minors, are within the next 10 years.  Unfortunately, I think that something bad is going to need to happen first to accelerate the development.

[wntrtxn21]

1 hour ago, LouisEly said:

One of the things I have been thinking about for a while is the long-term viability of wood bats.

A number of times this season and in recent seasons I have seen bats splinter with parts just missing players.  I recall one earlier this year where a Brewers player (Yelich I think) splintered a bat and missed the pitcher by about a foot.  I think it's only a matter of time before a catcher/hitter/umpire gets a splinter in the eye/face or part of a bat into exposed skin.

You didn't see this 30-40 years ago - bats just mostly cracked.  Some of that is due to pitchers throwing harder than ever, but 30-40 years ago batters swung hard enough to hit 40-50 HRs per year despite lower velocity from pitchers.

I know from other wood products that the quality of wood is going down.  There just isn't enough "old lumber" to meet demand, so trees are rapid-grown and the wood just doesn't get the time to solidify.  Then there's the sustainability element.  Louisville Slugger goes through 40,000 trees per year making bats.  I don't think that is sustainable.

I think that composite bats are in the near future.  I'm NOT talking about aluminum, we know that isn't viable.  I'm talking about composite materials, think more plastic-like.  They use composite materials to make commercial airline fuselages, so they won't splinter.  I don't doubt that they could make a composite material with close to the weight/density of wood if they wanted to.  Bonus if they could utilize recycled materials.

Obviously rigorous testing would need to show the distance/exit velocity to be within 5% of a wood bat.  They can make adjustments to the ball to get closer to the current distance/exit velocity if they want/need to.  Obviously they'll need to use them in the lower levels of the minors for a few years first to test in real conditions.

But I think that composite bats, at least in the minors, are within the next 10 years.  Unfortunately, I think that something bad is going to need to happen first to accelerate the development.

The popularity of maple bats hs a lot to do with the problem. Maple tends to splinter a lot more than the Ash bats that were used almost exclusively years ago. Ash bats would crack, but rarely splinter the way maple bats do. I think you're right about composite bats in the near future. 

[nate82]

1 hour ago, LouisEly said:

One of the things I have been thinking about for a while is the long-term viability of wood bats.

A number of times this season and in recent seasons I have seen bats splinter with parts just missing players.  I recall one earlier this year where a Brewers player (Yelich I think) splintered a bat and missed the pitcher by about a foot.  I think it's only a matter of time before a catcher/hitter/umpire gets a splinter in the eye/face or part of a bat into exposed skin.

You didn't see this 30-40 years ago - bats just mostly cracked.  Some of that is due to pitchers throwing harder than ever, but 30-40 years ago batters swung hard enough to hit 40-50 HRs per year despite lower velocity from pitchers.

I know from other wood products that the quality of wood is going down.  There just isn't enough "old lumber" to meet demand, so trees are rapid-grown and the wood just doesn't get the time to solidify.  Then there's the sustainability element.  Louisville Slugger goes through 40,000 trees per year making bats.  I don't think that is sustainable.

I think that composite bats are in the near future.  I'm NOT talking about aluminum, we know that isn't viable.  I'm talking about composite materials, think more plastic-like.  They use composite materials to make commercial airline fuselages, so they won't splinter.  I don't doubt that they could make a composite material with close to the weight/density of wood if they wanted to.  Bonus if they could utilize recycled materials.

Obviously rigorous testing would need to show the distance/exit velocity to be within 5% of a wood bat.  They can make adjustments to the ball to get closer to the current distance/exit velocity if they want/need to.  Obviously they'll need to use them in the lower levels of the minors for a few years first to test in real conditions.

But I think that composite bats, at least in the minors, are within the next 10 years.  Unfortunately, I think that something bad is going to need to happen first to accelerate the development.

There are already composite bats.  They do have a downside at least for cold weather where they perform worse and are prone to cracking in colder weather.  I believe some composite wood bats are allowed in MiLB but I think that is only in short season rookie ball.  

One problem with a composite bat is that the sweet spot is far larger than it is on a wood bat.  For MLB to agree to this it would require the manufacturers of these bats to get a MLB approved bat.  That would be another thing on the list for umpires to check which do we really trust an umpire to get this right?

[nate82]

On June 1st the Cubs had 341 runs scored and the Brewers 274 which is a 67 difference in runs scored between the two teams.  Flash forward to today and the Cubs have 588 runs scored (+247) and the Brewers are at 573 runs scored (+299).  The Brewers offense while being a less formidable offense power wise has outscored the Cubs in that time span by 52 runs.  That is a crazy turn around for a team that doesn't hit that many HR's.  

[LouisEly]

On 8/7/2025 at 8:15 PM, nate82 said:

There are already composite bats.  They do have a downside at least for cold weather where they perform worse and are prone to cracking in colder weather.  I believe some composite wood bats are allowed in MiLB but I think that is only in short season rookie ball.  

I'm not talking about composite wood.  I'm talking about composite plastic/synthetic material.   Commercial airliners have composite material and fly at 38,000 feet where it is -45F.

All manufacturers would need to be approved by MLB, just like all wood bat manufacturers need to be approved by MLB.  The umpires don't inspect any wood bats before plate appearances.