MLB 2023

[unclevlad]

Since the calendar's changed...time to start the new thread.

 

The biggest off-season news to me has been the number of HUGE, long-term deals, despite the fact that they don't pan out that well, when they run deep into a player's 30s.  But there've been a lot of em....

 

On the flip side, the Dodgers designated Trevor Bauer for assignment.  It'd be surprising if anyone picks him up before he becomes an unrestricted free agent, in about a week.  He's still going to be docked pay for the first 50 games he plays.  Figure, then:  he may well sign a 1 year contract for the league min...use the year to show he's still got it, and try to position for another big contract in 24.

 

Not saying I want to see that, but were I his agent, that's how I'd be thinking.  It seems unlikely there'll be that many suitors offering big deals;  there's the terrible PR (but we know that won't be a universal deterrent), but there's also the serious rust.  He hasn't pitched since his suspension in mid 2021.  

 

[unclevlad]

Hall of Fame balloting announced.

 

Fred McGriff had been elected back in December by the contemporary committee...players and execs active in the period, mostly.  Solid career;  almost 2500 hits, 500 homers, and over 1300 runs and 1500 RBI.  

 

The writers elected only Scott Rolen...and that, just barely.  Need 75%, he got 76.3%.  Todd Helton just missed at 72%...Rockies tie-in holds him down.  Both because offensive numbers are so inflated, and because, I suspect, it's largely a media dead zone other than the Broncos.  Billy Wagner was next at 68%.  ARod and Manny Ramirez trended up some, but not much.  

 

The best-known players eligible for next year would probably be Adrian Beltre and Carlos Beltran, and neither one feels like a slam-dunk, so it seems likely the votes later on, will also be fairly scattered.  (Well, OK, MLB.com thinks Beltre's considered a near-lock.  Oh...3100+ hits.  Yeah, ok that'll probably do it.  

[Pariah]

Even if you think Todd Hilton's offensive numbers were inflated by playing in Denver — and I read an article recently explaining why this isn't necessarily the case, I'll try and find it — he's still one of the best defensive first baseman of his era. I'm not a betting man, but if I were, I'd bet on him getting into the Hall next time around

[Cancer]

Never underestimate the drag put on a player in a small market, though.

[slikmar]

I think Beltre will get in. He is the best 3rd baseman of his generation defensively and was a force offensively. He has the 3000 hits older voters like to see too.

[unclevlad]

The Athletic's morning newsletter talked about the HoF voting, and the arduous, tedious nature.  2 players voted in by the writers in the last 3 years.  They also point out:  Fred McGriff never got more than 55% of the writers' vote...but the Contemporary Era Committee voted him in *unanimously*.  On that committee:  Greg Maddux, Lee Smith, and Jack Morris.  

 

They also commented that the fractious debate with regard to the steroids era has been a separate drag.

 

Rolen's election was attributed to defensive brilliance with solid offensive contributions.  Perhaps that's the issue:  defensive contributions aren't flashy enough.  They'll get you votes...but it's really tough for them to get you in.  Look at the top 5 after Rolen this year:

 

Helton:  played in Denver

Billy Wagner:  reliever.  FEW ever get in.  He's 6th on the all time saves list.  

Andruw Jones:  odd case.  Considered the best defensive center fielder for a good part of his career, but inconsistent hitter.  Yeah, hyped because he was with the Braves in their run, but I always thought he was a mistake hitter.

Gary Sheffield:  .292 lifetime, 509 HRs, 1676 RBI.  In the top 10 MVP voting 6 times.  An issue here is, he was a defensive liability.

Carlos Beltran:  first year on the ballot.  40%.  

 

I think the writers are looking for reasons NOT to vote for someone...and possibly, many feel it's their job to keep HoF membership pristine.  There's about 400 eligible voters...Helton was named on 281 ballots, 72.2%.  Each voter's allowed to cast a vote for up to 10 players.  Total number of votes cast?  Around 2200...far under the potential max.  Plus:  almost 270 were for ARod or Manny...but you know they'll never get in due to the steroids issues.  The writers all know that too.  So call those symbolic only...and you've got less than 5 meaningful votes per.  It's like "well I can't vote for everyone I think might be worth it, I'm only voting for the top few out of this crop."  And of course that's gonna be all over the place when almost everyone either has perceived flaws, or whose contributions are less obvious.

[slikmar]

3 hours ago, unclevlad said:

The Athletic's morning newsletter talked about the HoF voting, and the arduous, tedious nature.  2 players voted in by the writers in the last 3 years.  They also point out:  Fred McGriff never got more than 55% of the writers' vote...but the Contemporary Era Committee voted him in *unanimously*.  On that committee:  Greg Maddux, Lee Smith, and Jack Morris.  

 

They also commented that the fractious debate with regard to the steroids era has been a separate drag.

 

Rolen's election was attributed to defensive brilliance with solid offensive contributions.  Perhaps that's the issue:  defensive contributions aren't flashy enough.  They'll get you votes...but it's really tough for them to get you in.  Look at the top 5 after Rolen this year:

 

Helton:  played in Denver

Billy Wagner:  reliever.  FEW ever get in.  He's 6th on the all time saves list.  

Andruw Jones:  odd case.  Considered the best defensive center fielder for a good part of his career, but inconsistent hitter.  Yeah, hyped because he was with the Braves in their run, but I always thought he was a mistake hitter.

Gary Sheffield:  .292 lifetime, 509 HRs, 1676 RBI.  In the top 10 MVP voting 6 times.  An issue here is, he was a defensive liability.

Carlos Beltran:  first year on the ballot.  40%.  

 

I think the writers are looking for reasons NOT to vote for someone...and possibly, many feel it's their job to keep HoF membership pristine.  There's about 400 eligible voters...Helton was named on 281 ballots, 72.2%.  Each voter's allowed to cast a vote for up to 10 players.  Total number of votes cast?  Around 2200...far under the potential max.  Plus:  almost 270 were for ARod or Manny...but you know they'll never get in due to the steroids issues.  The writers all know that too.  So call those symbolic only...and you've got less than 5 meaningful votes per.  It's like "well I can't vote for everyone I think might be worth it, I'm only voting for the top few out of this crop."  And of course that's gonna be all over the place when almost everyone either has perceived flaws, or whose contributions are less obvious.

Other problem is what Matt Vasgersian calls Christmas and Easter Mass voters (people who only go to Mass at Christmas and Easter and never go to church at any other time), reporters who only come out to cover championship and world series games, but somehow still have a vote for the HOF because they have baseball credentials. They don't actually pay attention to the sport usually, but cover the end of season. Other part of this, if you send in a card with no one on it, it takes 3 other voters to offset your blank card. If you just don't vote, then it doesn't, the 75% is based on ballots submitted. I would also point out, 3 guys were above 75% going into the last week, but all the anonymous voters came in and one barely made it. This is another of those things where once submitted, should become a public thing. It was the guy who held up there ever being a 100% forever because he just didnt believe anyone should be. No real justification.

[unclevlad]

Hmm.  In support of that...last year there were about 2800 votes, also with right around 400 voters.  

 

I don't necessarily think making the votes public would be a positive move...but there's no simple fix.  Have to vote for 1 player?  5 first-timers (Huston Street, Bronson Arroyo, Mike Napoli, John Lackey, and RA Dickey) got 1 vote.  Last year, 7 players got less than 10 votes.  But it's this year...those single votes really feel like homer-itis, because none of them are anywhere CLOSE to HoF level, IMO.  (Street could've made it, but injuries took him out too soon.  And as a relief pitcher, you really have to Stand Out.  He was very good, over 300 saves, but I'm not sure he rose to that level.)

 

And you can't compel someone to be interested.  Do you really want to impute why a ballot gets returned with no, or a very few meaningless, names on it?  CAN you get the BBWA to police itself and strip the deadbeats?  That'd be hard.

 

Might be needed, tho.  Looking at the last few years' votes...the '22 vote was the last year on the ballot for Bonds, Schilling, and Clemens.  Bonds, and Clemens each received 60%+ in 20, 21, and 22;  Schilling had 70%+ in 20 and 21, but dipped under 60% in 22.  Voting in each of those years was somewhat more active than this year...so one has to ask whether some of the writers have decided they don't like the process, so they're taking it out by sending back a No Votes ballot.  (The number of ballots has changed only slightly.)  

 

It is definitely not a good look for the BBWA.

[Pariah]

For further consideration:

 

Jeff Kent calls Baseball Hall of Fame voting an 'embarrassment' after falling off the ballot

 

In other news, we're less than three weeks away from pitchers and catchers reporting.

[slikmar]

I am annoyed at the Schilling stuff because unlike Bonds, Clemens, A-Rod etc, his is not a "cheated in the game of baseball" issue, but more an outside baseball stance on political views - which are VERY right wing. But, again, almost all of this is after his playing days when he was no longer in baseball. They turned writers off so they don't vote for him, despite the fact that if you asked most about his career without saying it was him, they would agree he should be in.

 

I accept the PED guys not being voted in, sort of, because it is guys like that who made the committee have to vote McGriff in unanimously because too many looked at his stats and said they weren't enough. 493 HRs, mostly prior to the PED scandals, but because of the PED guys, 500+ became a new norm for HR hitters. As an Angel fan, I talk about Tim Salmon, who did not do steroids. He averaged right around 30 hrs every year, and yet, because of the era he played in, that seems pathetic for a middle bat power guy when the leaders were all 50+ every year. I am not saying Salmon is a HOFer, but he seems pedestrian compared to league leaders.

 

I also find it funny, when you look at Rolen who made it, how defense seems to be ignored until they can use it as an excuse. Truthfully, Kent should be a HOFer, he is the best HR hitting second baseman ever. His defense was average, not bad, but it is used as the excuse for not putting him in.

[Starlord]

Schilling is a scuzzy human, but definitely a HoF player IMO.  If he doesn't get in he is another solid reason that HoF voting sucks.

[Pariah]

Based on his on-field work, Schilling should be in the Hall of Fame. 

 

But then, so should Pete Rose and Shoeless Joe Jackson.

[unclevlad]

But Schilling did nothing detrimental to the game, per se.  His actions don't reflect on, or injure, the sport.  Betting on baseball while you're still associated with the game, can't be accepted.  It's very similar to insider trading.

 

But by the same token...?  His comments got him fired from ESPN.  It's possible they'd have gotten him kicked out of baseball.  So:

 

1.  If a person's actions or words would have gotten him fired or suspended long-term (a la Trevor Bauer), should those words be considered grounds for exclusion from the Hall?

2.  Do Schilling's words rise to the level of being fired?  

 

Don't try to answer them here please.  This is NOT the right thread for that.  Just think about it.

[Cancer]

If you view MLB as just a branch of the entertainment industry, then ... maybe, considering what else happens in that industry.

 

I dunno.  I was surprised and gratified when Edgar Martinez was voted in on his 10th and last chance of voting, and that's about as much thinking as I've done about these things.

[unclevlad]

That goes back, tho, to Kent's comments.  The BBWA voting feels helter-skelter at best.  Here's a story about Martinez' HoF ballot history:

 

https://www.seattletimes.com/sports/mariners/track-edgar-martinezs-2018-hall-of-fame-vote-count/

 

Why is it that it stayed largely flat for 6 years, then spiked for 3, before clearing the hurdle in his 10th season?  The numbers didn't change, obviously;  the voters probably didn't change that much.  One plausible conclusion is, lots of voters don't pay much attention to their job.  They grab the snazziest or trendiest.  Martinez had a sizable upswing in '16, conceivably separating him from the herd, and thus drawing in more votes.  

 

Of course, it could be worse.....  It could be done like the Rock n Roll Hall of Fame choices........

 

Anyway...time for our Cracked Crystal Ball Fearless Forecasting!  Pick your division winners!!!!

AL:  Blue Jays, Indians, Astros 

NL:  Mets (only to choke in the playoffs), Cards, Dodgers

 

Pretty boring, to be sure, but who's gonna challenge in either Central division?  And the Dodgers are still the freakin' Dodgers with more money to burn than Musk.  111 wins?  Probably not, but the Padres were 22 back.  Same with the Astros.  Sure, you hate em, and that's fine, but they're just too bloody good to pick against.

[Pariah]

Insert gratuitous dig at the League, Nike, and/or corporate culture in general here.

 

Mariners ditching gray road jerseys because of new MLB rules

[unclevlad]

Yeah, Nike's driving it and MLB is apparently ready to enforce it.

 

I dunno, tho...4 separate uniform color combos, plus the City Connect, already seems like a lot.  

 

Stories not paywalled:

 

https://news.sportslogos.net/2023/01/27/seattle-mariners-drop-grey-unis-for-2023-will-wear-navy-blue-for-road-games/baseball/

 

https://news.sportslogos.net/2023/01/16/nikes-four-one-plan-for-mlb-uniforms-cards-city-connect-coming-in-2024/baseball/

[unclevlad]

https://www.bakersfield.com/ap/news/mlb-prepared-to-take-over-local-tv-broadcasts-from-sinclair/article_2a474ae1-02c7-510a-8ec8-b489e53395cc.html

 

This appears to be playing into the larger background of cord-cutting, the media companies reconsidering their positions and existing contracts, and whether/how to move to the fee-based, streaming-focused models.  It also suggests that the regional sports network concept may not be viable moving forward...which is a rather dramatic shift, as those exploded onto the scene not all that long ago.  Or...it might be more accurate to say that the small-market RSNs aren't viable.  Diamond has the Bally-branded RSNs, which cover Phoenix, Atlanta, Cincy, Cleveland, Detroit, KC, LA Angels, Miami, Milwaukee, the Twin Cities, St. Louis, San Diego, Tampa Bay, and the Rangers.  Atlanta's a large market and the Braves are the dominant franchise, but their games are also often grabbed by the nationals.  Angels aren't the LA market, really;  they're the Orange County market.  The Rangers are Arlington, therefore reasonably connected to both Dallas and Fort Worth...but Texas is a football state, first and foremost.  Lots of em, tho, are secondary, if not tertiary, media markets.  

[unclevlad]

As pitchers and catchers report, so does the Competition Committee pronounce.....

 

 

Expected, mostly:  the baserunner rule in extra innings has been made permanent.  I know purists hate it, I love it.  

 

In the "We Are the Rulemakers, Therefore We Must Make Rules" department...new rules for when a position player can be used.

 

• Game is in extra innings

• Team trailing by at least eight runs at any point

• Team winning by at least 10 runs in ninth inning

 

These are in addition to the ones already announced:

https://www.mlb.com/rule-changes-2023

 

Love the pitch timer, but we KNOW it's gonna cause havoc at key times, and thereby draw criticism.  HATE!!!! the shift rule.  Personally feel it simply surrenders to bad hitting.  I get that the problem there likely isn't at the major league level, but it means there'll never be an effort to fix the problem.  Bigger bases will be the most over-analyzed, over-interpreted rule of all.  4.5 INCHES, people!!!  No, it's not going to have a material impact on the running game!  Several analysts brought this up last season, as the rule was discussed, but IMO they simply showed math illiteracy.  Base stealing times run about 3.5 seconds.  The runner covers something less than 90 feet;  he's got a lead in there.  For convenience, and probably as a slightly low number, we can then say the running speed is 20 feet per second.  So we're talking around 1/50th of a second...0.02 seconds...quicker.  That's it.

[Grailknight]

The limit of two pick off moves will have a much greater effect on base running.

 

The shift rule just stops the extreme shifts because the shortstop or second baseman can be one or two steps on their designated sides while the other is deep in the hole. 

[unclevlad]

Yeah, I forgot the throws to first.  Found this:
https://www.southsidesox.com/2022/9/10/23345661/mlb-baseball-new-rules-stolen-bases-picking-apart-the-limited-pickoffs-rule

 

Some interesting numbers about steals in the minors, as a result of this.  The stats argue the writer's overreacting, but hey, if it's as bad as he fears, it can be tweaked.  

 

And, hey, baseball NEEDS action.  MLB for the last 5 years has been EXCRUCIATINGLY BORING to watch.  I'd not crazy about limiting pickoff attempts;  there's some relation, to me, with banning shifts.  I dislike limiting tactical choices.  (I think I'd prefer a limit of 3, rather than 2, pickoffs, but we'll see.)  The game of even 50 years ago operated in a completely different universe, effectively.  No free agency.  Sandy Koufax held out for a raise to $125,000 a year in, IIRC, '65 or '66.  After plausibly the best 4 years of pitching in history.  $125K.  That'd be all of about $1.2M today.  TIGHT control of farm systems.  Nothing like guaranteed money.  Different athletes, too...different expectations.  Cut back with 2 strikes.  Hit the other way.  Play SMART ball, not just physical ball.  Pitchers that weren't throwing max effort ALL the time...and when they go down, as they do now, they're throwing all that guaranteed money straight down the drain, in terms of contributing to the team.  It would be tedious but possible to compute the total such amount for the 2022 season, and I suspect the total would be *astounding.*

 

It also isn't MLB.  It's the entire system.  One could argue that the youth sports camps are the root of all evil, in all US major sports.  It's where the whole max-effort mentality gets its major push, for example.  Or the notion of only playing for, and training for, one sport...which is suspected of being part of the injury problem, especially with pitchers.  The narrow approach to hitting...because it's how you draw attention in those camps, and the camps are how you get scholarships and scouts drawn to you.  But we can't fix that.  Like it or not, we have to accept certain things...like the extreme shifts.  Like the ghost runner.

[Logan D. Hurricanes]

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/35727945/padres-manny-machado-commits-first-pitch-clock-violation

[Cancer]

It's getting so I'm not sure I'd recognize the game if I went to one.

[slikmar]

So you prefer the Nomar Garciaparra 5 minutes per pitch at bats?

[Cancer]

Or (in my case) Mike Hargrove ... no, not really.  The game has been boring to watch, but the changes they're making ... setting things up so all you have is a nine-inning timed home run derby ... is the wrong way to go about it.  I'd rather see a return to the dead ball, where players had to do a variety of things, not just swing for the fence; when runs were manufactured, defense mattered, crafty left-handers were valuable.  I *liked* the 1968 season, though I only saw part of it.