MLB 2021

[unclevlad]

MLB Network did a showcase game, clubhouse style, Sunday.  Smoltz and Carlos Pena joined by CC Sabathia, talking about the game and the state of the game.  A lot of what they said is, the game is what it is, because it *has* to be.  Pitchers have to pitch to miss bats...pitch to the strikeout...because batting averages on balls in play is too high.  The metrics do routinely show that VERY few pitchers do well third time through the lineup.  EVERYONE throws hard.  The bottom line:  pitching is far, far ahead of hitting right now.

 

You can't bring a player up without putting him into the system is a horrible idea.  If that's a requirement imposed by the system, redefine the system.  This also misses that batting stances are not constant, so the pre-registration notion simply does not work.  And the notion of saying, oh, you can't change your stance?  NO WAY.  That's ridiculous.  And unenforceable.

 

The runner on 2nd is there to address the point that extra inning games too often descended into a home run hunt.  5 innings with, say, 2 base runners for both teams COMBINED...that was too common.  It also stressed bullpens greatly.  That's why.  No, it doesn't per se address the batting average issue...but in a way it also does, because small ball DOES come back into play.  I've seen a fair number of extra inning games already this year, and There's Stuff Going ON!!!! when that runner's put on base.

[slikmar]

I guess they keep stats on umps, like everyone else. My brother was saying in the Ranger/Angel game last night, the umpire gets left handed pitchers right like 99% of the time, but on right handers is less then 90% (calling balls as strikes). It showed. The Ranger pitcher, Foltynewicz - a righty,  was getting his slider called about a baseball and a half outside for a strike, but Quintana, a lefty was only if within the plate. My problem with this type of call, off the plate, is it affects the hitter. You could see guys like Fletcher and Rendon (both great at plate discipline) swinging at pitches off the plate.

I would also add another couple, vs Angels. Greinke threw a squibber by Walsh and hit Walsh in the back, on purpose - you could see him afterward. They called interference on Walsh despite the fact he was running with his feet hitting the CHALK LINE. you can't challenge it. So instead of 1st and 3rd, 1 out and run in, was now 2 outs and men on 2nd and 3rd. Pujols flew to deep left, so that call cost 2 runs.

Then go back to the 2nd base slide that caused Iglesias to get an error (2 on play actually as he apparently missed 2nd with his foot) as the runner slid out and took him out. Same day, Cubs game, in a play where the runner didnt hit the ss, they called runner interference.

[unclevlad]

Oh yes.  It may take a bit of searching but you can find the stats on all umpires...what their strike zone looks like, how often do they call balls as strikes AND call strikes as balls.  

 

The runner's interference on the batter going up the 1st base line is routinely ridiculed by local and national broadcast teams...even by local broadcasters when it works in their favor.  

 

On plays at 2nd that relate to breaking up a double play...the issue most commonly is, did the runner divert from his path to the bag...IOW, is the runner making the baseball play to reach the base, or is he making the non-baseball play to disrupt the fielder?  Runner's interference is almost certain to be called if the runner can't touch the base;  whether he makes contact with the fielder isn't relevant.

 

Looking at the first play you mention:  ruling the runner safe at second because Iglesias missed the bag...that strikes me as bogus and nit-picking, and something that should NOT have been called like that.  Flip side, from what I saw, the runner's left hand looked like it could hook the base.  I'll concede it was borderline but I think, by the rule, it was NOT runner's interference.

 

I will also say that baseball does the worst job by far with replay...but they also have some of the worst, most ambiguous and *exceptionally* hard to adjudicate rules.  Like these base running aspects.  Or, the worst replay ruling I know of....runner on first, let's say.  Soft humpback fly ball to shallow right.  Outfielder dives...catch or trap???  It's very close so I have no problem with the replay.  The PROBLEM arises when the call is overturned.

 

--Ball is ruled a trap.  Runner on first scampers to second.  Ball's thrown back in...then thrown to the first baseman who tags first.  When the call is overturned, the runner on first is OUT because he failed to return to the bag.

 

--Ball is rules a catch.  Complementary situation.  Outifielder throws to 2nd;  that bag is tagged.  Then ball's tossed to 1st...where the batter's stopped running the bases because he's called out.  When the call's overturned to a trap?  Double play.

 

The hitting team is seriously punished for responding *properly* to the umpire's call.

[archer]

51 minutes ago, unclevlad said:

 

The runner's interference on the batter going up the 1st base line is routinely ridiculed by local and national broadcast teams...even by local broadcasters when it works in their favor.  

 

 

Yeah, I don't understand that one at all.

 

Most of the time the ball is being fielded and thrown from behind the runner. How the heck is he supposed to see that when he's running on the baseline like he's supposed to be...much less interfere with it?

 

Is he supposed to run down the baseline backwards then duck anytime someone throws the ball to first base?

[slikmar]

2 hours ago, unclevlad said:

Looking at the first play you mention:  ruling the runner safe at second because Iglesias missed the bag...that strikes me as bogus and nit-picking, and something that should NOT have been called like that.  Flip side, from what I saw, the runner's left hand looked like it could hook the base.  I'll concede it was borderline but I think, by the rule, it was NOT runner's interference.

 

The problem was, on the same day in the Cubs game iirc, exact same thing except runner didnt actually hit the SS, touched the bag and was called for interference. They changed the rule a few years back to say the runner needs to be going straight to the bag, if possible. on the Iglesias one, he did veer slightly out to take him out. As to the phantom swipe of 2nd, that players have done for year, it seems the only time replay is consistent and gets correct (if you want to not have it). Funnily, the rule about going straight to the bag was changed due to the began with a play that the runner did go straight to 2nd, but slid late to intentionally take out the SS behind the play. I think it involved the Dodgers and was in the playoffs a few years back.

 

1 hour ago, archer said:

 

Yeah, I don't understand that one at all.

 

Most of the time the ball is being fielded and thrown from behind the runner. How the heck is he supposed to see that when he's running on the baseline like he's supposed to be...much less interfere with it?

 

Is he supposed to run down the baseline backwards then duck anytime someone throws the ball to first base?

no, but there are clearly defined lanes for running up first, especially the last 30 feet or so, and the inside part of that is the foul line. I have no problem when the runner is running up the grass, about a foot and a half inside that line, and is called for interference (which, while we are mentioning was not called in a game 2 days ago). But Walsh was literally running up the chalkline. Greinke threw it at his back intentionally and then told umpire to call it.

[unclevlad]

The rule as quoted is, he has to get thimself into the throwing lane by the time the lane itself starts...that's the reason for that shorter, second line at the edge of the base path on the first base side.  Well, if your right handed swing takes you forward at all, you're notably into fair territory and would have to do an odd sidestep to do that.  You practically NEVER see that.  Right handed hitters busting it down the line are taking the straight line to the first base bag...which would *seem* to be the natural baseball move.

 

The call from yesterday afternoon, where the pitcher gets called for interfering with the runner when the runner's 20 feet away from the bag, and the 1st baseman's about to catch the ball...one of the ESPN talking heads this afternoon called it a Southwest Airlines "wanna get away?" moment, and I agree that it's the leader in the clubhouse for Worst Call of the Year.

 

 

 

[slikmar]

That was the 2nd one I was talking about, especially as the runner was on the grass and not in the base line. The MLB guys were more annoyed that the umpire in question, after the game, basically said he reviewed the tape and the pitcher interfered with the runner 100%. So he doubled down on a terrible call. Basically, their opinion was the pitcher should have waited until he ran by him and then throw it at his back.

[unclevlad]

Ahh...ok, yes.  The two plays are very different, tho.  I saw that the ump still felt his call was right...and he might *technically be* right.  But it's a BS call.  But much of it is because the rules in both situations are insanely vague, to be sure.  The play at 2nd is perhaps the easier to fix;  it's a force play so the runner could be required to go straight to the bag, and NO deviation would be allowed.  But that's still generally demanding an interpretation, so it wouldn't fix all calls.  But that kind of wild reach could be ruled out.  Purists would scream, tho "the takeout slide is part of the game!!!"  Ehhhhh.........  I'm tired of a lot of this.

Side point:  Pujols' throw was part of the problem on that play.  Too soft, so it took much too long to get there.  Gave the runner at least an extra step, maybe two.  Without em, the relay would've been much cleaner.

[unclevlad]

<sigh>  I assert that baseball players can't adjust to things like the shift because they're overtrained robots.

 

Mets-Phillies, 8th inning, 1 out.  Runner on first.  Batter hits a low screamer that the first baseman can't stab.  OK there, it was a tough play.  Runner on first sees that, goes to second;  continues on to third because the ball gets far enough away.  He makes it standing.

The first baseman has the ball.  Runner on third is watching.  First baseman lollipops it to the second baseman who's in no-man's land.  Runner on third sees it, and breaks for the plate.  The lollipop throw means the second baseman has to eat the ball;  he's got NO shot to throw the guy out at the plate.

Oh, and that tied the game.

 

Idiot first baseman forgot the ball was live.  Conversely the runner on third WAS thinking.  He'd danced off and kept his eyes on the play...and took off as he saw the soft toss.

And this is the Mets;  they and the Tigers are *by a wide margin* the worst scoring teams in baseball.  (3rd worst is the Nats, and they score almost a run a game more.)  So handing them runs is simply a crime.  It also triggers a rally that blows the game open...from 2 down to up 4.

[unclevlad]

For another view on why hitting is so down:
https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2942589-all-the-reasons-why-it-has-never-been-harder-to-be-an-mlb-hitter?utm_source=cnn.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=editorial

 

 

[Pariah]

The Rockies gave up 10 runs in the first inning in the opener to yesterday's doubleheader, ultimately losing 12-4. That means they outscored the Giants 4-2 the rest of the game, so that's something, I guess. The Rocks won the nightcap 8-6 when Charlie Blackmon hit a two-out walk-off home run to get his team the split. It's only Blackmon's second homer of the year.

 

The Rocks now have a winning record at home, at 9-8 ... but they're 2-11 on the road and still have the worst record in the NL.

[unclevlad]

4 no-hitters now, and we haven't even hit Mother's Day.  Yes, I count Bumgarner's...the definition of a no-hitter say it isn't, but he pitched a complete game (by the rules) with no hits.  Ergo....

 

#4 was just now.  Only batter to reach base was on a strikeout on a wild pitch, and they couldn't get the batter at first.  (EDIT:  interesting side note.  First Orioles solo no-hitter in over 40 years.  That goes with Joe Musgrove threw the Padres' first no-hitter ever...and the Padres date back to 1969, which is the same year of the O's prior solo no-no.)

 

And earlier...White Sox, top scoring team in the AL.  Reds, top scoring team in the NL.  Playing at Great American Ballpark in Cincy, the ballpark with the highest average number of runs per game (both teams combined).

 

Reds win in a walk-off, driving in the runner placed at 2nd in the 10th.  Score...1-0.

 

 

[unclevlad]

At first I was shocked, but the numbers ain't there.

 

It's being reported that the Angels have designated Albert Pujols for assignment.  Which is almost certainly a prelude to releasing him.  Yes, the numbers are poor, and they've been poor for several years.  (There is a reason why the Angels were criticized for giving him the deal they did.  But it's still surprising that it ends in this manner, as Pujols is an absolute LOCK for first ballot HoF, and *could* be the second unanimous choice.  667 HRs, over 3200 hits, #2 in career RBIs, 3 time MVP and 6 other times in the top 5 for MVP, 2 Gold Gloves, 2 World Series rings.

[slikmar]

i have heard he was unhappy with not being in lineup yesterday and that came from the gm's office, not joe maddon. I really hope it is not ending on a bad note, as he has always seemed very classy. He was always going in the hall as a cardinal, and rightly so, but i really hope there is no animosity.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Pujols has aged, as have we all but damn he was amazing for a long time.

[unclevlad]

1 hour ago, slikmar said:

i have heard he was unhappy with not being in lineup yesterday and that came from the gm's office, not joe maddon. I really hope it is not ending on a bad note, as he has always seemed very classy. He was always going in the hall as a cardinal, and rightly so, but i really hope there is no animosity.

 

I hadn't heard that, but yeah, that's what I'm wondering.  But the numbers don't support it.  Go to Baseball Reference:  his WAR (wins above replacement player) has been +1.5, -1.8, +0.3, and +0.2 (2016-2019).  It was -0.1 last year, but last year was weird anyway.  It's -0.5 so far this year.  Granted that WAR i a funky number, but that is simply Not Very Good.  Here's a quick summation from FanGraphs.  On this basis:  staying with Pujols isn't a very good move;  if nothing else, he's blocking a younger player from making progress.

 

For position players and starting pitchers, here is a good rule-of-thumb chart:

Scrub	0-1 WAR
Role Player	1-2 WAR
Solid Starter	2-3 WAR
Good Player	3-4 WAR
All-Star	4-5 WAR
Superstar	5-6 WAR
MVP	6+ WAR

[slikmar]

hmm, where does Trout and his 10 avg WAR go. I once heard the announcers from Oakland ask if there was a league he could move up to now so he would stop playing them. He may have to take Ohtani with him, who, mostly healthy now, is much watch baseball, maybe more then anyone else. He is outshining Trout, who may be having his best year ever.

[unclevlad]

2 hours ago, slikmar said:

hmm, where does Trout and his 10 avg WAR go. I once heard the announcers from Oakland ask if there was a league he could move up to now so he would stop playing them. He may have to take Ohtani with him, who, mostly healthy now, is much watch baseball, maybe more then anyone else. He is outshining Trout, who may be having his best year ever.

 

Technically, Trout's WAR average from 2012-2019 is only 9.

Only.

 

That rates First Ballot HoF LOCK.

 

It's insane that the worst he finished in the MVP race during those 8 years was 4th.  Won 3, 2nd 4 times.  On teams that only reached the playoffs once in that period...and lost in the division series.  He's won MVP twice on teams with losing records.  

 

Ohtani is fun to watch.  My lord does he MOSH;  he crushed another tonight.  (Rays-Angels on MLB Network right now.)  He's a big factor for DFAing Pujols, as he's clearly the DH as long as he's healthy, and they've got a kid they like for first base.  Pujols was never gonna be offered another contract, given the numbers of the last several years and his age.  Yes, well, Jared Walsh is the kid at first, and his slash line so far this year is just .333 / .410 / .589, and his OPS is just .979 .......

[Grailknight]

13 hours ago, slikmar said:

hmm, where does Trout and his 10 avg WAR go. I once heard the announcers from Oakland ask if there was a league he could move up to now so he would stop playing them. He may have to take Ohtani with him, who, mostly healthy now, is much watch baseball, maybe more then anyone else. He is outshining Trout, who may be having his best year ever.

 

Trout just needs health to join the G.O.A.T. discussion. He's already an inner circle, first ballot HOFamer and may get the unanimous vote that so far only Rivera has gotten. We take his greatness for granted at this point.

[unclevlad]

A possible knock on Trout in a GOAT discussion may be durability...he only played 114, 140, and 134 games in the 2017-2019 seasons.  He's never played the full 162, but that might be the modern game and "scheduled days off" mentality.  But that's a fair number of games to miss that young.  

 

GOAT discussions have always been breast-beating exercises, as far as I'm concerned;  eras have *rarely* been comparable enough to make any discussion meaningful.  How do you compare Trout's 310 HRs to date, with some of the others...when HRs have been climbing SO much?  The HR per game rate for the 2016-2021 seasons comprise 6 of the top 7.  Conversely, a .300 batting average is a LOT more impressive in these last few years than in, say, the 1930's when the league average was in the .270 to .280 range.

[Grailknight]

That's actually why WAR is such a widely used barometer. It measures each season weighted on the performance of the entire league and each season is counted separately from all others.

 

Ruth is widely considered the GOAT and WAR shows that pretty vividly. He dominated baseball as no other has since. He has the top 3 WAR seasons of all time and 5 of the top 10. 

 

But it's the 4th place season that show how well WAR works across time. That one belong to Carl Yastrzemski for his 1967 Triple Crown. The counting stats he posted that year would be a good season in Ruth's time or today but relative to the rest of the league that year he was worth 12.4 WAR. And two years they lowered the pitching mound to give hitters a chance.

[unclevlad]

The record for no-hitters in a season is 7.

 

If the scoring rules are changed so that Bumgarner's counts, it'd be...#5.  Even without, we still have 4.  With now, right at 20% of the season having been played.

 

Tonight it was Wade Miley...a serviceable starter, but his career W-L is 88-87.  We're not talking a Kershaw or deGrom.  John Means is off to a hot start this year;  his career W-L is actually below .500, but hey, he's an Oriole.  3.60 ERA in 155 innings in 2019 isn't bad at all...but it's not world-beating.  Joe Musgrove's career ERA is over 4.  Rodon's no-hitter is perhaps less of a surprise, but still...3 out of 4 are from, overall, just average pitchers.

[Pariah]

Not MLB, but high school softball:

 

Alabama high school softball teams combine for 91 runs in third-highest scoring game in prep history

 

My favorite bit from the article:

Quote

Latoria Cleare of Park Crossing, scored seven runs without recording an official at-bat. She was walked five times and got hit by three pitches

 

I didn't think there was any team out there with a worse pitching staff than the Rockies. Turns out there are at least two.

 

[unclevlad]

Does that say more about the pitching staff...or the plate umpire?

Well, ok, I suppose with 29 hit batters, it's plausible that the 65 walks was more about lack of control.....

My gosh, that game would've been horrible to watch, or to play in.

[slikmar]

My brother was watching one of LSU's softball games and got annoyed with the substitution rules. Apparently, in the game he watched they were the visiting team, their starting 3 outfielders all batted in the first inning. then all 3were taken out for defensive replacements. 2 innings later, one is put back in to hit, an inning later the other 2 would bat, so take the subs out, put the starters back in. so in a total of 6 innings, those 3 hitters had 11 at bats and played a combined 5 innings of defense (that is combined out of 18 possible) and only 1 inning together (which would count for 3 of those, and the other 2 played together one inning). So really, what you had was 3 DHs for the defensive outfielders, as the 3 girls were all subbed out for the 6th and 7th. If I were the 3 defensive girls, I would be annoyed that you thought so little of my offense you wouldn't let me hit.