2018 Baseball Thread (MLB and whatever)

[Badger]

Actually in one comment section on the subject actually made some sense for it.  Still being able to take out a pitcher before 3 batters, but penalize them a mound visit.  That would actually be an intelligent compromise if needed, so never will happen.

 

Note: Course, I would have been against mound visits in spirit too.  But, Red Sox catchers abused the mound visits so thoroughly, that I actually liked that idea.  (I mean to say the Red Sox before the rule were visiting the mound every other batter, would not have been much of an exaggeration).

 

Edit: I have been trying to think of a football-basketball equivalent, and came upon something.  It'd be like forcing the Lakers when taking LeBron out of a game, to keep him out for a required (say 5 minutes) of game time.  Or when the football coach calls time out just before a play, he is forced to keep the identical personnel that was on the field. (you couldn't try to force the defense offside on 4th down unless, you want to end up with Tom Brady punting)

 

2nd Edit: or even in baseball terms, I remember several times a year, back in the days of deeper benches and shallower bullpens. That managers would often announce a pinch hitter to force a pitching change, then pinch hit for the pinch hitter.  That type of strategy should also be verboten.  The pinch hitter should have to hit for himself, no matter what.

[Badger]

Actually, that also made me think of a conundrum.  What if the team is out of mound visits, and goes out and visits a pitcher before they reach their 3rd batter?  You're supposed to force out a pitcher if you mound visit in that circumstance. 

 

I guess the rule book will just spontaneously combust.

 

 

[Christopher R Taylor]

Swapping out people has its own penalties in baseball, since you can never, ever bring someone back and there is a limited roster to work with.  Particularly these days when idiots have 12 pitchers that means the number of position player replacements is even more limited.

 

But changing pitchers is a 1-2 minute affair plus the time chatting on the mound before the umpire forces them to act, and the commissioner's office is fixated in making games faster even though they're on average much quicker than the average football game.

[slikmar]

Football has the illusion of being faster, due to the clock. Also, I have really enjoyed watching replay of NFL games where they basically take out all the time between end of play and start of next one. feels like an hour and a half.

Makes me wonder, if you took out of baseball on replays any meetings and the time between pitches (ie edit out the time it takes to get the sign, the batter to go through his magic ritual including candles) how fast Baseball would be.

[Badger]

Well, since the real problem with baseball is launch angle and batters who strikeout 200 times a year, I don't know.

 

It's just that 1-batter outing don't happen as much as it is made out to be.  It happens about once every other game on average by both teams combined.  And disproportionately in a situation where you're holding a 5-4 lead in the 8th inning (or similar).  If it is my team, my manager damn well better be micromanaging.  But, through our inclination for selective bias we remember that time where the manager burned 3 relievers to 3 batters in the 6th inning that one time.  Well, your manager was probably an idiot.  All sports have a certain amount of idiot manager/head coaches at any given time.  And that problem will work it out in a year or 2 (apologies to Cincy Bengal fans of course).   And the lefty specialist has been dying off little by little the last few years.  Managers want to squeeze 5 innings out a starter, and then chuck a parade of one-inning guys that throw 98, 1 inning at a time.  Edit: Heck Tampa Bay don't even care about squeezing out those 5 innings.*

 

Mid-inning pitching changes still gonna happen with only an infinitesimally small reduction of it.  If the Christopher 1-2 minute delay is accurate, you've now saved about 30 seconds of your life per game.  You can now use those seconds to decide: Give up the game-winning homer to Kris Bryant or give up the game winning homer to Anthony Rizzo.  Are those 30 seconds worth it?

 

Note: Course, my dad the Yankee fan might never see a 1-batter outing the entire year.  They are 6 deep in elite relievers.  And their lineup has turned into a righty fest.  So, unless the opposing manager acquires an unnatural fear of Bret Gardner.....and well no one has a fear of Bret Gardner natural or no.  (yeah it'll happen sooner or later.  but it isn't something to expect,  Gardner might see that occasional lefty, just because that guy might need to stay sharp for the next series.  Boone might go crazy and decide to use Zach Britton for one lefty batter only.....for some damn reason)

 

*Ryan Stanek is liable to "start" more games this year than anybody in decades.

 

 

 

[Badger]

In any case, my verdict on it, trying to look at the big picture.  The problems solved vs problems created tilts massively to the latter.  (it makes for a good catapult, though)

[slikmar]

Funnily, the two teams MOST responsible for excessive lengths in games are the 2 teams establishment loves the most, Yankees and Red Sox, with their 4 hour snoozefests. too many of their hitters and strategy was about fouling balls off, taking pitches (usually with the help of umpires apparently feeling if a Red Sox or Yankee didn't swing it must be a ball), stepping in and out of the box, going through 12 step routines at the plate (100 if you average in Garciaparra back in the day). So Baseball has to try to fix those 2 teams without apparently making it about them.

[Badger]

Well, the mound visit limit was essentially about them.  While the Yankee were bad doing it.  The Red Sox catchers went above and beyond,  probably doing it every other batter. Though, the Yankee outside of the Red Sox, do seem to tone things down somewhat.  The Red Sox not so much.

 

It would probably help, if the powers that be didn't feel the need to show the Yankee/Red Sox on national telecast everytime they meet.   Probably doesn't help the AL's rep the fact that ESPN seems to forbid the Sunday night to be at an AL stadium not in NY or Bos. For some reason they feel the need to make the NL night.

[slikmar]

I once heard an argument from one of the national radio guys, when asked why they seem to talk about the Yankees/Red Sox so much, that it is because as soon as they talk about someone else they get less calls/attention. I think it is a self feeding process, they "feature" them (Boston basically being ESPN's most local team), people get to hating them, outside of the region, so then more people call in to complain about something they have done or are doing equals higher ratings mean they increasingly feature them. I realize some don't think this, but I think the whole Yankee/Red Sox rivalry being the "best" in baseball is really due to ESPN hyping it up. I have always considered the Dodgers/Giants to be bigger or the Cardinals/Cubs. When your rivalry is really one sided for 80% of the time the 2 teams have played, its not really a rivalry. But, thanks to ESPNs hyping of the Red Sox, they have been able to increase their tv revenues and become a bigger rival. 

[Cancer]

They're doing it to themselves; I don't watch hte big-media darling teams.  Lots of other options for entertainment available.

[Badger]

1 hour ago, slikmar said:

I once heard an argument from one of the national radio guys, when asked why they seem to talk about the Yankees/Red Sox so much, that it is because as soon as they talk about someone else they get less calls/attention. I think it is a self feeding process, they "feature" them (Boston basically being ESPN's most local team), people get to hating them, outside of the region, so then more people call in to complain about something they have done or are doing equals higher ratings mean they increasingly feature them. I realize some don't think this, but I think the whole Yankee/Red Sox rivalry being the "best" in baseball is really due to ESPN hyping it up. I have always considered the Dodgers/Giants to be bigger or the Cardinals/Cubs. When your rivalry is really one sided for 80% of the time the 2 teams have played, its not really a rivalry. But, thanks to ESPNs hyping of the Red Sox, they have been able to increase their tv revenues and become a bigger rival. 

 

Well, the Red Sox have had their share of good teams the past 80 years, they have the misfortune to have their low ebbs in conjunction with the Yankee low ebbs too.  From about mid-60s to mid-80s the Orioles were the true dominant team in the AL more or less (with As/Yanks both having little mini-dynasties inside that).  But, the Red Sox were never really that "underdog" team they were made out to be. They had some awful teams in the 1920s and through the early 30s, but that was a long time ago.  The Cubs and White Sox were more of an underdog story, as they did have a lot of weak teams inside their so called curses.

 

Heck, my Royals in 2014-15 were a good "underdog" story that the sports' media wanted nothing to do with.  They wanted the Mets to win badly in 2015.  

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

Also, I have really enjoyed watching replay of NFL games where they basically take out all the time between end of play and start of next one. feels like an hour and a half.

 

If you cut out everything except the snap to the downed ball, an average football game takes less than a half hour.  Lots and lots of wasted time they distract you from with loud noises bright graphics, and lots of replays.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

 But, the Red Sox were never really that "underdog" team they were made out to be. They had some awful teams in the 1920s and through the early 30s, but that was a long time ago. 

 

They have had some bad teams in between there, but they've generally put out talent and had a decent team.  They made the playoffs a few times every decade, but didn't go far.  A few scattered world series losses, of course.  But yeah KC is a much better underdog team story that was basically ignored until the end of the season when they were still there and winning, baffling the experts.  The problem is 99% of baseball writers live on the coasts and are largely unaware of teams like the Royals.  I loved it when the Blue Jays were winning back to back, because they were never picked and were completely unknown to the "experts"

[Badger]

2 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

They have had some bad teams in between there, but they've generally put out talent and had a decent team.  They made the playoffs a few times every decade, but didn't go far.  A few scattered world series losses, of course.  But yeah KC is a much better underdog team story that was basically ignored until the end of the season when they were still there and winning, baffling the experts.  The problem is 99% of baseball writers live on the coasts and are largely unaware of teams like the Royals.  I loved it when the Blue Jays were winning back to back, because they were never picked and were completely unknown to the "experts"

 

Yeah, the Blue Jays used to be my #2 team, their baffling love of John Gibbons hurt that for awhile.  The Guerrero and bichette children have some exciting potential, so we'll see.

 

Note: Royals, when I was a kid Dan Quisenberry was my favorite player for some reason, that is how that got started. Still get a little depressed about him dying in his mid-40s.  But, yeah, I did get a little aggravated with the Royals making a 2nd straight WS in 2015, and the narrative was "Mets are back".  Maybe they took it with a chip on the shoulder attitude (they won so I don't care.  I knew going into the 2014 playoffs, this was going to last 3 years if that, and I was going to have to wait till my retirement years for it to happen again)

[slikmar]

The sound you hear from the east coast is all the Philly fans becoming, well Philadelphians, and lamenting the loss of the hope for a Harper Trout outfield and all the Yankee fans jaws drops as they KNEW there was no way he wasn't going to come play for them with Judge and Stanton.

Rumor has it that Trout is about to sign an extension equaling Harper's length for basically an additional 100 million (under paid if you compare WAR, which shows that Trout should have got twice as much as Harper) making him effectively an Angel for life, or at least until he is 38. It's funny, I can remember when Puig came up and one or two radio guys were trying to say they would rather have him then Trout. A year after that, they admitted they had been WAY wrong.

[Badger]

Yankee fans would have been only fooling themselves.  The Yankees still spend a lot, but the Steinbrenner-level spending days are over.

 

 

[Christopher R Taylor]

I would have taken less money to play somewhere other than Anaheim, personally.  Its not like he doesn't get at least that much every year from endorsements anyway

[Badger]

Well, I am not sure, I'd pay anyone much over 30 million a year, expect maybe 1884's Old Hoss Radbourn or Guy Hecker.

 

(and just for that year, since their arms fell off afterwards)

[Grailknight]

The other owners should be happy about this deal. It sets a ceiling for any future negotiations. After all, it will be hard for an agent to make a case that his client is as good or better than Trout.

[Badger]

Still, that is a very high ceiling.

[slikmar]

18 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

I would have taken less money to play somewhere other than Anaheim, personally.  Its not like he doesn't get at least that much every year from endorsements anyway

A big part of this is comfort, but also, Trout is as old school a player as is out there amongst the younger guys. He believes in the great players that only played for 1 team and having that as a legacy. I think that weighed more into it then people give credit for.

[Pariah]

Since the 2019 season starts today (in Japan), is it time to start a new thread?

[Badger]

The Blue Jays soon could put up an all famous sons infield with Guerrero Jr, Bo Bichette, Cavan Biggio, and Lourdes Gurriel Jr (son of Cuban league great)