MLB 2023

[unclevlad]

Davis probably has one good point:  the stadium lease.  The Coliseum is consistently ranked as one of the worst stadiums in pro sports.  The A's got an extension that substantially did lead to the Raiders' move.

 

So what he's saying is the A's bear responsibility for the Raiders leaving too, at least in part.

 

Might buy it, but this is Al's kid.

[Pariah]

On 4/22/2023 at 1:07 PM, Cygnia said:

Raiders' Mark Davis goes nuclear on A's move: 'All they did was f—k the Bay Area'

 

Well, Davis would certainly know about that. 

 

I suppose the good news here is that with the A's now Vega$-bound, the chances of SLC getting into the MLB go up. I've seen a handful of articles that seem to indicate that the favorites for MLB expansion (whenever it comes) are Nashville and either Salt Lake City or Portland.

 

These articles also suggest that MLB expansion is a non-starter until the Tampa stadium situation is resolved in some fashion. 

[unclevlad]

An interesting point, tho, is that the size of the SF Bay region is so large that 2 teams should be viable, some articles have noted.  If not Oakland, then perhaps Santa Clara/San Jose.  A story in the SF Chronicle pointed out, it's in the Giants' territorial area, but felt that shouldn't be allowed to block things once Oakland's gone.  

 

A factor has to be, how would baseball restructure the divisions?  8 divisions of 4, or 4 divisions of 8?  I don't think I'd like 8 divisions.  Even with 6, there's frequently been 1 very weak division...most often the AL Central.  And at least last year, perhaps last few...both Centrals have been really weak.  Go to 8 divisions, and there's gonna be 2, even 3 soft divisions *most* years.  

 

One thing I want to see for a few years is how well the balanced schedule approach works out...specifically, WRT rainouts.  With the balanced schedule, there are more games where A plays at B once only during the season.  When those games get rained out, they're much harder to make up.

[Pariah]

1 hour ago, unclevlad said:

One thing I want to see for a few years is how well the balanced schedule approach works out...specifically, WRT rainouts.  With the balanced schedule, there are more games where A plays at B once only during the season.  When those games get rained out, they're much harder to make up.

 

You can put me down as a baseball Luddite who despises interleague play, artificial turf, and the designated hitter. The league should also shift back to 154 games.

 

Also, I loathe the idea full-year MLB teams in Florida and Arizona. Move the Marlins to Nashville, the Rays to Montreal, and the Diamondbacks to ... heck, literally just about anyplace else. 

 

Sorry, I'm feeling cranky about baseball today. My Rockies suck, and one of my best friends is an A's fan.

[unclevlad]

There are only 5 turf fields right now...and one of those is at the Trop.  2 of those are in the torrid zone:  Arizona and Arlington.  Arlington needs it for heat and rain;  Phoenix, it's the EXTREME heat.  I think Chase Field had grass at first, but they switched.  I suspect needing to keep the roof closed basically all day, every day from probably mid-May to mid-September, might be a problem.  Another is in Toronto...with Oakland-Alameda, the last of that 70's and 80's multi-purpose phase.  Scary...once the A's leave, Rogers will become the 6th oldest stadium.  Fenway, Wrigley, Dodger Stadium...no surprise.  Next?  Angel Stadium...1966.  That I'd forgotten...the franchise has never moved, once it was built.  Then Kauffman, in Kansas City...built in 73.  Then Rogers.  Turf there...the stadium might not have been built for grass, not in that era, and Toronto winters might be problematic.

 

The last turf field is Miami.  I suspect there, the issue is drainage.

 

So there may be good reasons for most of these...probably except for the Trop, which is a disaster in EVERY way.  No one's gonna spend to replace that field even if it was practical.

 

For the rest?  I bet you want to go back to wool uniforms, too, and gloves the size of driving gloves.

[Pariah]

9 hours ago, unclevlad said:

For the rest?  I bet you want to go back to wool uniforms, too, and gloves the size of driving gloves.

 

Wool is itchy. I'm okay with the polyester ... but I think they should ditch the pajama pants and go high-cuffed with stirrups. 

 

And why have gloves at all? Sissies. 

[unclevlad]

https://www.mlb.com/news/mlb-teams-stealing-the-most-early-in-2023-season

[unclevlad]

How much have games sped up?

 

Yankees at Twins today.  11 AM local timeslot, so first pitch would've been around 10 minutes after the hour.  Game's over at 1:40 local, so about 2 1/2 hours, give or take.

 

Nothing remarkable, you say...to which I say, the final score was 12-6 Yankees.

[slikmar]

Brian Kenney has remarked how he has to retrain himself in watching games, you can't just take large breaks because nothing happens, the games actually move along.

 

I also heard one of their analysts saying if baseball wants more action and less HR, Walk, Strikeout pattern, instead of all these teams bringing fences in, move them back more. Then you need athletic outfielders to go along with athletic middle infielders because of the lack of shift.

 

Problem, of course, is that management of teams reward HRs and not speed/average guys.

[unclevlad]

Yeah, and coming back from innings, you don't have that really leisurely period you used to have.

 

I think the game's going to move away somewhat from the power-dominated game, simply because singles hitters are more useful when there's runners on 2nd more.  Which is the case, with steals being up so much.  You don't need 3 hits to score a run;  you can do it with 2.  The best offensive team I can recall, somewhat recently, was the 1998 Yankees.  DEPTH!!! of hitting.  No one hit 30 HRs, but 8 different players had 17+.  8 players had 20+ doubles.  The team slash line was .288/.364/.460/.825.  Jeter struck out the most...but only 119 times, and he hit .324 even at that.  It might not be possible to do that now;  the common refrain is that pitchers are far ahead of hitters in information use...that was part of the argument for the shift.  Another comment from earlier...during the D'backs game.  Bob Brenly was talking about relatively soft-tossing, lower-velocity pitching sometimes messing up hitters' timing.  Well, he pointed out, some batters back in the day would move up in the box to increase the apparent velocity...but today's hitters are usually so locked into their rhythm that they can't do that. 

 

That point was also cited many times for banning the shift...that hitters won't or *can't* adjust. 

 

We'll see if things change.  It'll be slow, at best, as it's hard to revamp salary structures broadly.  There's too much pushback based on the existing contracts that *do* pay exorbitent premiums for power.  

[slikmar]

I keep hearing from the Analysts, when Kenny says the whole thing with the shift is just hit the ball the other way, that with the velocity being thrown today (saw a stat, avg fastball 20 years ago was between 91-93, now between 94-96) there just isn't time to adjust. Also, that these HR hitters aren't there to hit singles and fans want to see them hit HRs, even if only hitting 220. I disagree, but thats me.

[unclevlad]

Yes, I hear that too, but I disagree with it too.  My factors...take your pick, and more than one is likely...

 

--player ego.  That "I'm not paid to hit singles" was Ortiz most notably, whose ego is bigger than his waistline.

 

--analyst apologia.  While they will criticize individuals, mostly when they're talking in broad terms like this, it's "gosh, all the players are brilliant, they're the best in the world!"  Well if that's the case, then you have to make the pitchers brilliant because their stuff is too hard to adjust to.  Heck, how many hitters cut down their swing with 2 strikes???  Not even suggesting choking up, just not swing for the fences.

 

--overtrained, overgrooved robotic hitters...in part, to that power stroke.  See above WRT not cutting back.  Note that some hitters...Acuna, IIRC, is one...have blown off launch angle, and are overall MUCH more effective.

 

--terrible accountability...IF you can hit a decent number of home runs.  Rob Deer.  Adam Dunn.  Mark Reynolds, to a point...he did get knocked for his strikeouts.  Strikeouts aren't the only factor in bad hitting, but the Deers and Dunns combine high strikeouts with bad batting average.  IIRC, too...some of them were bad defensive players.  

 

--brain-dead attempt to use analytics...which IMO is prevalent in ALL sports.  Individually, a power hitter might be better...but a full lineup of power hitters is NOT necessarily better.  There's second-level impacts for having baserunners.  ANY tactic taken taken to extremes, opens itself to counters because the other side has the right to react.  (Yes, this is a HUGE factor why I still dislike banning the shift.)  If they only have one tactic to consider, their problems are greatly reduced.

 

--hype-making by analysts and talking heads.  Clickbait sells.  "It's too hard for the hitters to adjust" is better clickbait.  And of course, my absolute favorite, moronic example...that the wider bases are making stealing easier.  <sigh>  I STILL hear this.  NOT MEASURABLY.  If a base runner has a 12 foot lead, he's got about 75 feet to travel to reach the front of the bag ahead.  Shortening that by 6 inches is shortening it by about 0.6%.  If it takes 3 seconds before, it's about .02 seconds.  A 90 mph fastball takes about 0.454 seconds to reach the plate...figure the pitcher's extension is largely cancelled by the fact that the ball has to get to the catcher.  A 96 mph fastball takes about 0.426 seconds.  There's variance for a catcher to receive the ball then release it...sometimes it will be smoother than others.  If there's that much variance in time to plate by the pitcher...the catcher's throw is twice as long, so the variance on the ball in flight time is MUCH longer than 0.02 seconds.  But no...analysts get some fixed, simplistic explanation in their heads and stick with it, FAR too often.  I think "the hitters don't have time to adjust" is a HUGE one.

[Grailknight]

I think the pitch clock and the limits on pickoff attempts are much bigger factor in stolen bases being up than the base size. If the trend holds up, we'll see a resurgence of speedy hitters to replace the bottom tier HR or K guys. It just takes some time for roster composition to adjust.

 

And they can still shift, just not to the extreme positions that were prevalent these last few years.  So, you can still play your SS/2B one step to their natural side and the other at the edge of the infield. Nothing stops a team from moving one of its outfielders in also.

[Pariah]

It should be noted that some teams are playing an outfielder close to the infield to achieve the same effect as the shift. Risky? Maybe. 

[unclevlad]

5 hours ago, Grailknight said:

I think the pitch clock and the limits on pickoff attempts are much bigger factor in stolen bases being up than the base size. If the trend holds up, we'll see a resurgence of speedy hitters to replace the bottom tier HR or K guys. It just takes some time for roster composition to adjust.

 

That's my take, too, on both accounts...*with a proviso*.  Base stealing has a high risk for slide-related injuries, like jamming a hand into the bag.  Judge was shaking his hand for the rest of the game the other day...after sliding into 3rd.  And there've been notable injuries during slides.  If this becomes a bigger issue, it might lead some managers to run less.

 

5 hours ago, Pariah said:

It should be noted that some teams are playing an outfielder close to the infield to achieve the same effect as the shift. Risky? Maybe. 

 

Yeah, in the Cards-Giants game, they were talking about that.  I was half-asleep at the time.  It's quite a bit riskier.  A ball beating the infield shift is a single;  a ball beating the outfield shift is typically an EASY double and might be a triple.  We shall see.  I hope they leave things alone for at least this year, and probably longer, and see how it plays out.  

[unclevlad]

Sometimes it's hard to figure out why a team's so bad.

 

Sometimes it's not.

 

Royals at Twins.  3-2 Twins, bottom 4th, 1 out, runner on 3rd.  Royals have all the infielders drawn it, at the cut of the grass, trying to cut the run off.  Batter bunts the ball...safety squeeze.  The runner at third has been waltzing down the line....the ball hasn't bounced a second time before he's about to score.  (The rules about throwing to the bases could be a factor on that.  This might be something to address.)  That's not the problem.

 

ALL the infielders crash.  It's a good bunt, and the first baseman's massively out of position.  The batter can waltz down to first.

 

NOW we get to the worst part.  The batter does the mild right turn, to go into foul ground...but the ball's still live, as he's just done that.  He looks...the second baseman had crashed, the shortstop had crashed, and second base is COMPLETELY uncovered!!!  So, he says Thank You Very Much...and runs down several steps ahead of any fielder.  The ball travels 20 feet from home plate...and the only sensible scoring is a double, since neither mental nor team errors are acknowledged in the scoring.

 

Absolutely terrible defensive play, but hey, the Royals are 6-20.  Only the utterly, disastrously inept A's are worse...and they're only 1 game worse.  (A's staff ERA is 8.  Let me repeat that...8.  That wouldn't be a record if it holds up, but it might be a non-Colorado record.  The 2012 Rockies had a 10.5 team ERA...in a total launching pad at the time.  Were this soccer, 3 teams in the AL...A's, Royals, and White Sox...would be on pace.  All 3 are on pace to lose 110+ games.  That's not likely to last throughout the season;  the D'backs had a similar start and a (near-?) record losing streak, but from, IIRC, mid-June on, played decent ball.  

[slikmar]

When ever anyone argues against some type of robo ump system (i am good with challenge system if keep challenge if right) I point them to the Angel/Brewer game from last night. The umpire was calling pitches that the catcher was receiving in the opposite batters box as strikes, but it gets worse. At one point, he called a strike on (I believe was Drury, but he was calling these on both teams) a pitch about 5 inches outside, so your option is to move closer to the plate, where the next pitch almost hit his knees and was called for strike 3. So now, the plate, for this ump, has grown about 4-5 inches on BOTH sides. Ok, so he must not give high or low strikes, right? Wrong. AFter the Angels put men on 1st and 2nd with no outs, their 9th hitting rookie looked to attempt a bunt but pulled the bat back well before the ball got to home and as the catcher caught the ball bouncing off the ground in front of him, umpire signals strike.  Did he call it on the swing? no, straight called strike. Neto then bunted at a somewhat high pitch since he had no idea what was considered a strike and only had the one more pitch to do so, popping it up to the first baseman for the first out.

If the challenge system had been in play this game, I suspect conservatively between the 2 teams that it would have been used 30+ times that game. This ump should be nowhere near home plate in a game.

[unclevlad]

I don't think it was that game, but I remember another recent game that was similar.  Wasn't paying a lot of attention, but the broadcast team said much the same.  Many, many absurdly bad calls by the home plate ump.  

 

STUPID, LAME blackout rules are shutting down the Giants and Padres broadcast from Mexico City...which was gonna be fun.  The ball park is at 7300 feet....yeah, 2000 feet higher than Denver...so the ball's gonna FLY.  The run total over/under was 15.5 (!!!).  It's the San Diego cable system...WHY?????

 

Utterly lame.  MLB is looking at it, but it'll be a royal mess because there are so many disparate players in the game.  And of course the fans are never represented.

 

BTW, Umpire Scorecards has the umpire stats.  Granted that there aren't many games in the books yet, but....

 

The HP ump in that game was Scott Barry.  He has the lowest accuracy score, the lowest maximum accuracy score (meaning he never has a good game), and the 6th worst average consistency, among all umpires.

https://umpscorecards.com/umpires/

 

 

[slikmar]

thanks for that link.

so, I go back to what one of the writers said, why cant you just have a pool of the 30 best home plate ball and strike callers and pay them a little extra, put 2 in each crew and they alternate.

[unclevlad]

I'd worry about burnout in that scheme.  I'd also say...not a little more.   More like double.  Figure...the home plate ump makes 90+% of the borderline calls, with most of the rest going to the first place ump.  The home plate ump gets hammered with pitches and foul tips a fair bit. 

 

Secondary consideration...in the tennis world, an issue with electronic line calling is that being a linesman is the entry into the world of tennis officiating.  If the pool of home plate umps is kept rigidly under wraps, how do we decide when

a)  an existing HPU needs to be downgraded

b)  a base ump is good enough to be elevated 

 

That said, something like that for the playoffs sounds more practical.  Another option might be that a good base ump with a good sense of the game...but a shaky grasp of the strike zone...never gets put behind the plate.  At the least, the notion of rotating the assigned umps as if they're all equal, is CLEARLY nothing more than inertia at work.  To a point, one can figure that the bad umps don't get in.  For grins, I'm looking up the worst of the worst:  C B Bucknor.  He's done...2 ASGs (including '21), a wild card game, and 5 division series...07-09, 13, and 20.  So he *doesn't get a postseason assignment A LOT.  Nor does that show how many games where he was the home plate ump.  OTOH, the consensus AWFUL umpire is Angel Hernandez...and he's gotten at least division series games, even recently.

 

I suspect some of this is MLB doesn't want its dirty laundry exposed too much.  Umpiring is HARD, too, so too much oversight, or what might be viewed as discriminatory assessment like "he's not a Home Plate Umpire" might make recruiting even harder.  I can also see serious pushback from the umpires' union.

 

That said, the fact that they haven't fired a Bucknor or Hernandez says they're gunshy about it.  Hernandez has sued the league for not making him a crew chief...which gets more pay...and it's *clear* that partitioning the umpire pool into "base umps" versus "home plate umps" would guarantee litigation and hard feelings.

[BNakagawa]

If MLB ever considers putting a team in Mexico City, they had better get some super powerful humidors. Baseball was never intended to be played at 7000+ feet of elevation.

[Pariah]

I watched part of the replay of today's Rockies game against Arizona. I saw that Arizona led 7-0 in the top of the second on 40 pitches from the Rockies starter. I didn't need to see anything else.

[Logan D. Hurricanes]

[Cancer]

Maddux was in the NL, so he never faced Edgar Martinez, who also could do it.

 

The relevant story is about halfway down the page here.

[slikmar]

I once remembered ESPN doing a show on players who started slow, and a lot of the usual suspects. Then they showed Tony, who said that he also tended to start slow, but no one ever felt bad for him because his slow start was hitting 320. Said probably would cost him any chance of hitting 400.