Jump to content

2018 Baseball Thread (MLB and whatever)


Cancer

Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, Michael Hopcroft said:

There are some other issues in question. Ty Cobb was viciously racist. His attitudes, and those of other players who emulated him, are part of the reason baseball was segregated so long. I refer to the period before 1947 as a different age of baseball, run in a completely different and inferior way. If you have the talent and drive, you deserve an opportunity to play in the major leagues -- regardless of the color of your skin and where you came from.

 

 

 

Well, if you use that as a hindrance to Cobb, then every black, Asian, and most Latin players of today's game, as being not being able to succeed for obvious reasons.  Like it or not when comparing eras that will go both ways. (which is another reason I don't like the comparing era argument)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, slikmar said:

Well, as my brother pointed out when I talked about Gwynn or Boggs in this era, teams wouldn't shift against them. The shift is against players who absolutely will NOT try to hit singles, but try to hit a HR on every pitch. Usually what you see is infield shifts one way and outfield shifts the other, thereby countering the flyballs off the end of the bat. As for Williams, they apparently did shift for him, and he still hit into it, but still got hits, go figure.

 

Nah, I think they'd still try to shift on Gwynn and Boggs.  A couple of years ago, the Orioles had a lefty-hitting Korean outfielder they brought (last name Kim, forgot his first name).  He hit above .300 for a bit, because they kept shifting, and he kept poking groundballs down the 3rd base line.  So they'd probably shift for a couple of weeks until those 2 proved it foolish.  It seems a lot of times, teams assume the lefty is pull hitter until they are shown he isn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Badger said:

I will say, if a manager I'd be doing the shift on these dumb hitters too.  Crazy not to.  But, my favorite thing of baseball is great defense, and I feel cheated every time I see on a shift a routine groundout to the 2nd baseman  Short right fielder.

I don't think the shift is going away anytime soon. I recall reading an article that states that it is no longer accurate or necessary to describe the function of an infielder by the "traditional" place where he stands between pitches. today's shortstop, for example, should expect to sent time on both sides of the second base bag and at varying depths depending on who is hitting. And he and the other infielders (and outfielders) are expected to go wherever the ball is hit, or to whatever base is most likely to have a play. So should we still be calling them shortstops?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Michael Hopcroft said:

I don't think the shift is going away anytime soon. I recall reading an article that states that it is no longer accurate or necessary to describe the function of an infielder by the "traditional" place where he stands between pitches. today's shortstop, for example, should expect to sent time on both sides of the second base bag and at varying depths depending on who is hitting. And he and the other infielders (and outfielders) are expected to go wherever the ball is hit, or to whatever base is most likely to have a play. So should we still be calling them shortstops?

 

Well, some teams, do shift the 3B all the way over there and leave the 2B and SS in relative place, to be fair.  Which I find a better idea, minimize the players out of position.

 

And yes, I don't expect it to go away.  ANd I wouldn't necessarily want it too.  The Law of Evolution and adapting to your surroundings, if a hitter is too stupid to adjust then his career should cease to exist.

 

But, I do have that nostalgia about having baseball played in a "natural" style.  Note: By some accounts, the "Williams Shift" even predates Ted Williams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

I've not seen any evidence at all that the shift is making a difference though.  Batting averages have not dropped, scoring isn't lower.

 

Well, it does seem batting average from lefty power hitters have dropped.  But the launch angle fad has nullified most of the lack of scoring.   (not to mention some rumors of messing with putting more hop in the baseballs.)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

not just rumors. At some point in the last couple months MLB talked about going back to the previous way of making baseballs (not sure where I read it) which is as close as you can get to them admitting balls were "juiced". Also, is it me or has the plate seemed to grow this year with a lot more pitches being called inches off the plate. Might just be that pitch trax shows it more, but I have seen a lot of that. I comment on this because we talk about walks, but truth is, as soon as an ump calls a pitch that isn't a strike a strike, you force the batter to swing at pitches in same zone.

On a side note, great article trying to explain just how good Mike Trout is, from Joe Posnanski - a writer I like a lot of the time: https://www.mlb.com/angels/news/mike-trout-is-great-beyond-description/c-281333256

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which, if thy stop juicing ball (IE go back to the old way of making them) with the level of pitchers today, I would hope that hitters adjust and start thinking small ball again. thanks to ESPN and MLB highlights, they have people conditioned to think HR ball (takes me back to the Maddux/Glavine "homeruns are sexy" commercials). Personally, my favorite games to watch, but I am old, are the ones with guys on base, going first to third, attempted steals and things are moving around. I mean, a homerun is basically everyone standing around watching a guy trot around the bases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, slikmar said:

not just rumors. At some point in the last couple months MLB talked about going back to the previous way of making baseballs (not sure where I read it) which is as close as you can get to them admitting balls were "juiced". Also, is it me or has the plate seemed to grow this year with a lot more pitches being called inches off the plate. Might just be that pitch trax shows it more, but I have seen a lot of that. I comment on this because we talk about walks, but truth is, as soon as an ump calls a pitch that isn't a strike a strike, you force the batter to swing at pitches in same zone.

On a side note, great article trying to explain just how good Mike Trout is, from Joe Posnanski - a writer I like a lot of the time: https://www.mlb.com/angels/news/mike-trout-is-great-beyond-description/c-281333256

 

 

I don't pitch trax, they routinely show pitches at strikes that are about 2-3 inches below the knees.  (course, given in high school my pitching consisted of a slow sinker for a fastball, and an even slower curve-also I slurve/slider but used less often, I would have loved the hell out of pitch trax)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, slikmar said:

Which, if thy stop juicing ball (IE go back to the old way of making them) with the level of pitchers today, I would hope that hitters adjust and start thinking small ball again. thanks to ESPN and MLB highlights, they have people conditioned to think HR ball (takes me back to the Maddux/Glavine "homeruns are sexy" commercials). Personally, my favorite games to watch, but I am old, are the ones with guys on base, going first to third, attempted steals and things are moving around. I mean, a homerun is basically everyone standing around watching a guy trot around the bases.

 

I like 4-3 games, a little scoring, a good battle, but earning your successes.

 

Though the last 100 years have shown, in baseball, pitchers make adjustments, batters just whine till the commissioner juices the ball, or screws up the mound or something. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, my dad and me would be interesting studies.  My dad was in his 20s in the 1960s, age 27 in the so-called year of the pitcher, and he tends to like high scoring games.  Whereas I came of age in the 1990s, while I like an occasional such game, I saw enough games in the 1990s that were 13-12 4 hour, homer and walk boring-fest.  That I don't care for it.

 

Of course, wants the Orioles to lose every game 20-1, but he hates the Orioles.  Between the Yankees being, and the Orioles being bad he has been enjoying this year.

 

Note: I've been an ROyals fan since I was 7, so I got my 3 good years, and am braced for another 30 years of misery and front office incompetence.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Badger said:

Of course, Manfred in his stupefying ineptitude wants 9-8 games that last 58 minutes.  Those things are kind of mutually exclusive.

 

Yeah, there are days when his administration makes me long for the glory days of Bud Selig.

 

I never, ever thought I would say that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pariah said:

 

Yeah, there are days when his administration makes me long for the glory days of Bud Selig.

 

I never, ever thought I would say that.

 

You too, huh?

 

Yeah, ever since he considered reinstating Pete Rose, I knew this was going to be a bumpy ride, through a pasture of cows on laxative.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

At least Bud Selig never implemented the free runner in extra inning games and the abracadabra base on balls.

 

Although the whole "Let's give the league who wins the All-Star Game home field advantage in the World Series" bit was pretty close. :stupid:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So yesterday the Colorado Rockies:

 

* Took an early 5-1 lead
* Gave up five to drop behind 6-5
* Scored five to go up 10-6
* Gave up three to hold a narrow 10-9 lead
* Hit a two-run homer to go up 12-9
* Ultimately lost the game 13-12

 

Ladies and gentlemen, the Rocky Horror Pitching Show.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Almost sounds like the Arson Squad of the Angels, who, if they were league average in converting save opportunities (IE have a lead in a game after the starter leaves), would be near the top of the AL in record. They are currently 38-34 record as of monday the 18th. Their saves are 17 of 32 opportunities, a percentage of 53. If they could just be at 75% (which I consider low), they would have a record of 45-27. Houston is 48-25, Seattle is 46-26, NY is 46-21 and Boston is 49-24. If they had, what I would consider normal for a contender of say 80%, our record would be 47-25. And sadly, it all starts because none of these guys can throw strikes to the first batter they see, it seems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...