(12-03-2021 10:16 AM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(12-01-2021 11:29 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(12-01-2021 11:19 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(12-01-2021 04:26 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(12-01-2021 04:12 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  ...not sure I'd call it "fun".

I prefer this way of free agency than the pulling teeth way of free agency that we see almost all the time.

I prefer it when a bunch of Dodgers don't get signed by other teams as FAs.

you still have Chris Taylor at least :)

Now hearing Jansen not expected to return. Won’t find out for a while of course but the Marlins are trying to spend money and it sounds like he’s had productive talks with them. He’s also from Curaçao so it’d be much closer to home.

Just when I was starting to like him again…

lol.

Marlins quietly did a lot of good stuff- not just the fa signings but also extending Alcantarra. If Sixto Sanchez can return strong in 2022, they're going to be a factor for sure.

Pretty goo article on what thioer career numbers would have likely been without all the drugs and shenanigans. I don't think either belongs in the HOF in their lifetimes. Then, put Rose an Shoeless Joe in forst before considering them when they're gone:

Not as great: Assessing Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens without the PED factor

Quote:Meet baseball stats guru Dan Szymborski, the creator of the ZiPS projection system. In the simplest terms, the system (endorsed by MLB.com and explained here) uses past performance and trends on how performance degrades with age to predict a player's future performance. ESPN asked him to project Bonds' and Clemens' career stats from the season each is believed to have started using PEDs -- 1999 for Bonds and 1998 for Clemens.

Things look startlingly different in the Bonds/Clemens cases when analyzed this way:
...
Instead of hitting 73 home runs in 2001, the ZiPS projection suggests Bonds would have hit only 23 that year, plus or minus a couple. And where he actually hit 209 homers during the four seasons (2001 to 2004) he used the BALCO concoction, he was projected to hit just 66 during those four years.

According to ZiPS, where should Bonds be on the all-time home run list? Rather than the king, with 762, the projection has him at 551 career homers -- placing him at No. 15, below Manny Ramirez (well, that's another discussion) and above Mike Schmidt. It's also worth noting that the projection suggests Bonds would have played one fewer season than he did.
...

As for Clemens, ZiPS has a similarly deflating effect on his numbers if you predict beyond 1998, when it's believed he started using PEDs. The first thing worth noting is that ZiPS projects Clemens would have played three fewer seasons, with his career ending after 2004. That was the year when he turned 42 and went 18-4, with a 2.98 ERA, 214⅓ innings pitched and 218 strikeouts. ZiPS instead projects that final season would have looked far more mundane: 8-5, 3.35 ERA, 113 innings pitched and 105 strikeouts.

While the relevance of wins and losses has become debatable in the era of empirical analysis, Szymborski believes it's useful in dissecting Clemens' numbers. Clemens finished with 354 wins -- 141 of which came after the date when Clemens' former personal trainer, Brian McNamee, testified he first injected the pitcher with PEDs. ZiPS projects Clemens was likely to have won only 85 games during that stretch -- leaving him with a career total of 298, just short of the magic number of 300 that has long been a guaranteed ticket to Cooperstown. That total would drop him from ninth on the career list to 24th, just ahead of Tommy John (288).
...

View the full 2021 Tracker with all individual ballots: 2021 BBHOF Tracker

well, this was kind of a foregone conclusion of late... but shoot, he's a good manager an would rather not have him in NY:

New York Mets hire Buck Showalter as new manager

So Betty White passed away today....

How about these 2 things-
Babe Ruth hit 552 homers after Betty White was born

or
the last MLB game before she was born was game 8 of the 1921 World Series.

So the Athletic did a poll with rules changes.....
Universal DH- 71.8% yes, 28.2% no
Pitch Clock- 73.3% yes, 26.4% no
Robo Umps- 56.6% yes, 43.4% no
how should MLB handle sticky stuff in 2022-
approve substance 44%, tackier ball 25.3%, regular ump checks(like in 21) 20.4%, back to before '21 10.3%

which recent rules changes do folks want to keep-
limiting mound visits 79.6%
3 man minimum for pitchers 50.3%
7 inning dh 34.1%
limiting Sept roster expansion 32.2%
Extra innings runner on 2nd 30.6%
none 1.7%

which would most want to keep
Mound Visits 36%
3 batter minimum 26.4%
Extra innings 13.8%
7 inning DH 12.6%
Sept Expansion 11.3%

which most want to get rid of
Extra innings rule 46.2%
7 inning DH 21.8%
Sept Expansion 18.3%
3 batter minimum 12.1%
Mound visits 1.6%

what would you want to see added-
Pitch clock 64.9%
Robo Umps 52.0%
Restricting Shifts 45.3%
Tackier Baseballs 42.0%
Larger bases 22.9%
Limiting Step-offs and pitch-outs 20.8%
Moving Mound back 14.2%
none 0.7%

which most want to see added-
Pitch Clock 28.6%
Robo Umps 26.0%
Restricting Shifts 26.0%

which least want to see added-
Moving Mound back 37.9%
Restricting Shifts 21.1%
Robo Umps 15.8%

first things first, don't want to see Bonds or Clemens, McGwire, et al in HOF until Pete Rose and Shoeless Joe are in first. But still good chance both be elected by the increasingly out of touch media writers. Schilling is a no-brainer first ballot HOFer and should be in already by a mile. Didn't like Petite when he played 'cause he played for the wrong team, but respect his body of work and he should be in. Liked AJ, but he needs to wait until last ballot. Everyone loves Big Papi, so let him in. Billy Wagner? Yes, sir.

Oh, as to above: Q's:
Robo-umps: no, thanks.
Universal DH: hate that it's coming, but I can grudgingly live with it after seeing it in NL in '20.
Pitch clock: yes, but only along with less network commercial break time in-game and not in any playoff games.
Tackier ball: okay I suppose, but don't approve sticky stuff.
Knuckle ball: bring it back, please. Mandate a roster spot for 1 on every team. Add an extra catcher specialist spot for every team to go along with it. Would be way more fun!
Limiting mound visits: sure, maybe adjust a bit.
3-man pitcher minimum: not a fan, maybe two-man min would be best compromise.
7-inning DH: hate this one a LOT. needs to go bye-bye.
limit Sept. roster expansions: no thanks, it be stupid not to reward players also help take pressure off tired pitching staffs.
Extra Inning runners on base: NO!!! Stupid alteration of game. If must, have it delayed until 12th inning and only start a runner on 1st. 2nd base runner is total BS.
Larger Bases: fine. Bring back the SB and run-game.
Limiting step-offs and pitch-outs: No, never. Not interested in more commie baseball rules.
Moving mound back? No, this is crazy.
Raising mound back up: Yes. Should have been done long ago, esp as trade for NL DH.
edit: Limiting Shifts of Fielders: Yes--Can't move past 2nd base-stay on their own side.

(01-25-2022 10:39 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  first things first, don't want to see Bonds or Clemens, McGwire, et al in HOF until Pete Rose and Shoeless Joe are in first. But still good chance both be elected by the increasingly out of touch media writers. Schilling is a no-brainer first ballot HOFer and should be in already by a mile. Didn't like Petite when he played 'cause he played for the wrong team, but respect his body of work and he should be in. Liked AJ, but he needs to wait until last ballot. Everyone loves Big Papi, so let him in. Billy Wagner? Yes, sir.

Oh, as to above: Q's:
Robo-umps: no, thanks.
Universal DH: hate that it's coming, but I can grudgingly live with it after seeing it in NL in '20.
Pitch clock: yes, but only along with less network commercial break time in-game and not in any playoff games.
Tackier ball: okay I suppose, but don't approve sticky stuff.
Knuckle ball: bring it back, please. Mandate a roster spot for 1 on every team. Add an extra catcher specialist spot for every team to go along with it. Would be way more fun!
Limiting mound visits: sure, maybe adjust a bit.
3-man pitcher minimum: not a fan, maybe two-man min would be best compromise.
7-inning DH: hate this one a LOT. needs to go bye-bye.
limit Sept. roster expansions: no thanks, it be stupid not to reward players also help take pressure off tired pitching staffs.
Extra Inning runners on base: NO!!! Stupid alteration of game. If must, have it delayed until 12th inning and only start a runner on 1st. 2nd base runner is total BS.
Larger Bases: fine. Bring back the SB and run-game.
Limiting step-offs and pitch-outs: No, never. Not interested in more commie baseball rules.
Moving mound back? No, this is crazy.
Raising mound back up: Yes. Should have been done long ago, esp as trade for NL DH.

For me

Robo-umps: Yes please for balls and strikes
Universal DH: hate that it's coming, but I can grudgingly live with it after seeing it in NL in '20 - same. The fact that DH is used at most levels makes pitchers hitting unbearable anymore
Pitch clock: yes
Tackier ball: Better grip - yes. Foreign substance - no
Limiting mound visits: Keep
3-man pitcher minimum: Keep as long as Dave Roberts is managing
7-inning DH: hate this one a LOT. needs to go bye-bye - AGREE
limit Sept. roster expansions: I like the new rule
Extra Inning runners on base: Don't like it, at least for the 10th inning
Larger Bases: No opinion
Limiting step-offs and pitch-outs: No need to make this rule
Moving mound back? No, this is crazy. Agreed
Raising mound back up: Yes

pitch clock I most want in the playoffs. We don't need Pedro Baez like morons taking 30-40 seconds between pitches.

Did think the 3 man limit was interesting that it had so much support.

Do like how much support the limiting the shift had.

(01-25-2022 11:20 AM)stever20 Wrote:  pitch clock I most want in the playoffs. We don't need Pedro Baez like morons taking 30-40 seconds between pitches.

Did think the 3 man limit was interesting that it had so much support.

Do like how much support the limiting the shift had.

Oops! missed that one:

Limiting Shifts of Fielders: Yes--Can't move past 2nd base-stay on their own side.

Banning defensive shifts in baseball is as dumb as if the NFL required each defense to put two defensive backs on each side of the field on every play even if all of the offense's receivers line up on one side and the QB always throws his passes to that side.

If you know a certain batter never hits it to one side of the field, then forcing the defense to put two infielders on that side anyway is the same as making the defense play with fewer infielders. Why not just do that, if you want more offense? Hell, why not take both an infielder and an outfielder off the field and make each team play defense with only 7 players? That would lead to a lot more hits and runs, wouldn't it?

(01-26-2022 01:51 AM)Wedge Wrote:  Banning defensive shifts in baseball is as dumb as if the NFL required each defense to put two defensive backs on each side of the field on every play even if all of the offense's receivers line up on one side and the QB always throws his passes to that side.

If you know a certain batter never hits it to one side of the field, then forcing the defense to put two infielders on that side anyway is the same as making the defense play with fewer infielders. Why not just do that, if you want more offense? Hell, why not take both an infielder and an outfielder off the field and make each team play defense with only 7 players? That would lead to a lot more hits and runs, wouldn't it?

You see it in other sports.
Basketball- in NBA aren't allowed to play zone defense so can't just line up on defense where you want to.
Hockey- goalies can't play the puck outside the trapazoid.

And NFL has done a lot of things to change things. Can't just line up 10 guys on one side of the field for an onside kick now.

The best example for positional restriction is probably volleyball but because they can move around the court once the serve has crossed the net there's plenty of time to adjust position mid-play. Much less practical in baseball.

I hate the shift. What really bums me out is that I hoped it would drive teams to identify and prioritize players who can hit to all fields. But it seems like what's really happening is it's an excuse to drive the sport ever farther to a "three true outcomes" style of baseball. Guys aren't trying to beat the shift by hitting to the opposite field - they're just trying even harder to hit home runs.

But... don't ban it. Hitters ought to be punished for lacking ability or willingness to handle the shift. I'm still hopeful MLB GMs will figure this out within the game.

(01-26-2022 08:48 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-26-2022 01:51 AM)Wedge Wrote:  Banning defensive shifts in baseball is as dumb as if the NFL required each defense to put two defensive backs on each side of the field on every play even if all of the offense's receivers line up on one side and the QB always throws his passes to that side.

If you know a certain batter never hits it to one side of the field, then forcing the defense to put two infielders on that side anyway is the same as making the defense play with fewer infielders. Why not just do that, if you want more offense? Hell, why not take both an infielder and an outfielder off the field and make each team play defense with only 7 players? That would lead to a lot more hits and runs, wouldn't it?

You see it in other sports.
Basketball- in NBA aren't allowed to play zone defense so can't just line up on defense where you want to.
Hockey- goalies can't play the puck outside the trapazoid.

And NFL has done a lot of things to change things. Can't just line up 10 guys on one side of the field for an onside kick now.

No, that's not the NBA rule. The rule is that you can't stand in the lane while not playing defense. If the offense has the ball in the front court and has not yet taken a shot, then a defender who stays in the lane for more than 3 seconds while not within arm's length of an opposing player is called for "defensive 3 seconds", and the offense gets one free throw then retains possession. As long as a defender in the lane is close enough to an offensive player, there's no violation. Effectively, it can't be called unless the offense is "5 out" with all 5 players near or outside of the 3-point line and a defender is standing in the lane alone.

I agree with what Brookes said above. If some batters hit the ball to one side of the infield 95% of the time, they shouldn't be bailed out by a rule change that rewards them for not even trying to hit it the other way.

The issue with the shift, at least for me, is that for a righty, because a first baseman can only go as far from the bag as it is possible for him to return on a play to first, it limits how much the left side can be loaded up. If there is a shift rule, it should be that one infielder has to stay with-in x feet of 3rd. Other than that, if the shortstop and second basemen want to play on the right side of the field, go for it.

It’s only The Onion, but you know Manfred would do this if he could…

Big Papi gets in. Bonds and Clemens shut out. Woke vote hits Schilling.

Quote:With the process still tainted by the steroid era, David Ortiz was the lone player elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame this year, while others like Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens were shut out.

"Big Papi" was the only player to clear the required 75% threshold, according to results of this year's voting by the Baseball Writers' Association of America. Ortiz finished with 77.9% in becoming the 58th player elected in his first year of eligibility. At 46, he will also be the youngest of the 75 living members of the Hall.

The tallies for their last go-arounds were 66% for Bonds and 65.2% for Clemens. The Hall decided against removing Schilling, but nevertheless his support waned. This year, he was named on just 58.6% of the ballots. Schilling commented on the vote, via social media on Tuesday, writing, "Every year the conversation revolves around who didn't get in. Like [All-Star] voting, who got cheated. I say it every year and especially this year, focus on who did get in. [David Ortiz] deserved a 1st ballot induction. Congratulations my friend you earned it!"

The case of Schilling, Ortiz's teammate in Boston, was an outlier in the history of the voting, as most candidates who have reached the 70% mark in the voting have eventually been elected. Schilling's on-field case is strong, with 216 career wins and three World Series titles, and his percentage climbed above 70% in the balloting in both 2020 and 2021.

I don't know which thread this belongs in but as this is sort of an "off season" thread I'll throw it here...

- Trevor Bauer will not be criminally charged. Not a surprise based on what's been written previously. MLB is conducting its own investigation (how do we not have a roll eyes emoji?) and who knows where/when that will end up. IMO there's now a better than good chance MLB suspends him for a relatively minor amount of time and the Dodgers will be on the hook for a huge portion of his huge salary. As stated previously, I'm somewhat conflicted about this: It'll have an impact on their willingness to spend money on free agents but I still strongly believe the Dodgers need to feel pain for the decision to sign this a-hole.
- MLB and MLBPA are meeting this Saturday. Manfred isn't yet willing to say Spring Training will be delayed. In theory, if they agree to terms on the 12th they could be ready to go by the 19th or so. But that's just posturing. The owners aren't nearly desperate enough to give much at all here. I expect very little if any progress this weekend.

Manfred just said there will be NL DH

(02-10-2022 01:51 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  I don't know which thread this belongs in but as this is sort of an "off season" thread I'll throw it here...

- Trevor Bauer will not be criminally charged. Not a surprise based on what's been written previously. MLB is conducting its own investigation (how do we not have a roll eyes emoji?) and who knows where/when that will end up. IMO there's now a better than good chance MLB suspends him for a relatively minor amount of time and the Dodgers will be on the hook for a huge portion of his huge salary. As stated previously, I'm somewhat conflicted about this: It'll have an impact on their willingness to spend money on free agents but I still strongly believe the Dodgers need to feel pain for the decision to sign this a-hole.
- MLB and MLBPA are meeting this Saturday. Manfred isn't yet willing to say Spring Training will be delayed. In theory, if they agree to terms on the 12th they could be ready to go by the 19th or so. But that's just posturing. The owners aren't nearly desperate enough to give much at all here. I expect very little if any progress this weekend.

If 2020 hadn't happened I'd agree with you on the 2nd point. But I think the teams lost a lot of money in there(along with 2021 where attendance was down by a third). I think the big market teams want to get going and I think a lot of the medium market teams are the same way due to the losses of the last few years.