Around Baseball 2014

[Laika]

So apparently the Yankees don't want to have anything to do with A-Rod even going so far as to denying him an opportunity to apologize to them. If they want nothing to do with him, why don't they just give him his release? At this point, he can't realistically be considered anything more than a sunk cost, can he?

 

http://www.thescore.com/mlb/news/687461

 

I think what they're doing is appropriate. He's an entitled twat, best thing to do is humble him right now. An in person apology at this point down the road would just seem like special treatment.

 

I'd put him on the bus in spring training and make him ride to every away game with the kids.

 

I think he's owed significant $ in bonuses for passing Mays in career HR too (needs 660). I'd definitely consider just releasing him outright if he looks like garbage in spring. He probably will look like garbage too.

[KingKat]

I'd definitely consider just releasing him outright if he looks like garbage in spring. He probably will look like garbage too.

 

I feel like there just delaying the inevitable at this point but maybe you're right that they'd rather humble him a bit and let him fail and possibly humiliate him a bit rather than release him now and give him a reason to see himself as a victim and cause a media circus.

[Laika]

I feel like there just delaying the inevitable at this point but maybe you're right that they'd rather humble him a bit and let him fail and possibly humiliate him a bit rather than release him now and give him a reason to see himself as a victim and cause a media circus.

 

It would definitely be easier for the Yankees spin department to simply say, "we had to bring to best 25 man roster back to New York and unfortunately Alex was not a part of that group right now. This was purely a baseball decision. Oh my fhqwhgads, come on fhqwhgads".

[IBTrini]

and a second pitching mound at 75 feet which counts as 3 strikes if you get a strike (foul balls 2)

Apparently Manfred felt he was entrusted to protect the integrity of the game... to honour the game's history... to modernize the game without interfering with its history and traditions yet he is talking about doing stuff like this.

 

 

I am usually interested in minor changes which makes the game fair, not make it longer, yet still maintain a nice experience for the fans but I see these proposed changes negatively. I think this guy wants to be remembered as the person who made an impact on the game of baseball.

 

 

Soooooo, if they are going to persist with making arbitrary changes (eliminating strategy/competitive advantages) then I would like to see all pitching mounds set on hydrolics. In this way, pitching mounds can automatically be adjusted (higher/lower, forward/backward) so that any competitive advantage a tall, long-armed, long-strided pitcher may have, could be equalized - Imagine the fairness to shorter pitchers like Stroman who can have a higher release point and be closer to home plate.

[Sammy225]

I am all for speeding up the game as i don't have 3.5 hours. The only way that i want to see it done is by keeping managers / pitching coaches in the dugout. I don't want to see the manager waste minutes every other inning by going out there after every close play and talking to the umpire wasting time until they get a look at the review. I think that if you limit the amount of times a catcher can go talk to his pitcher to once per inning and limit the number of times a pitching coach can come out and talk to a pitcher to once or twice a game. This is how you speed up the game without really changing it too much.

 

As far as I am concerned there will be enough of an uproar if they were seriously considering banning shifts that it would not happen and just judging by his interview it didn't sound like something that was very imminent just answering a question asked without completely shutting the door on it.

[Deadpool]

It would definitely be easier for the Yankees spin department to simply say, "we had to bring to best 25 man roster back to New York and unfortunately Alex was not a part of that group right now. This was purely a baseball decision. Oh my fhqwhgads, come on fhqwhgads".

 

My "Thanks" are exclusively related to the Strong Bad reference...

[intentional wok]

I am all for speeding up the game as i don't have 3.5 hours. The only way that i want to see it done is by keeping managers / pitching coaches in the dugout. I don't want to see the manager waste minutes every other inning by going out there after every close play and talking to the umpire wasting time until they get a look at the review. I think that if you limit the amount of times a catcher can go talk to his pitcher to once per inning and limit the number of times a pitching coach can come out and talk to a pitcher to once or twice a game. This is how you speed up the game without really changing it too much.

 

Most games don't go past 3 hours, if that. And as far as I've seen managers and coaches spend most of the game in the dugout. Honestly, the pitching changes and mound meetings are small beans in the course of a season. Yes, they are an extended break in the action, but they're rare enough that I don't think they meaningfully slow the game down. It's just that they're so noticeable as a pause that they get heaped on as huge roadblocks to enjoyment - the problem, of course, is that they are necessary too.

 

But I'm willing to bet that keeping the batters in the box and adding a pitch timer will save much more time than any mound meetings. Think of it - that's eliminating, what, about 5 or 6 seconds between each pitch? Watch a Mark Buehrle game and see how swiftly the game goes by on a by-pitch basis. Everyone should have to do that. There should be a timer behind the ump that the pitcher can look, like a playclock in the NFL. He should have to throw a pitch or makes a pick-off move before 0. That will speed up the game without any cost to changing the rules or tying a manager's hands because the audience is bored. I think most fans wouldn't have a problem with the mound meetings if the rest of the game wasn't being slowed to a f***ing crawl because a guy's batting gloves aren't tight enough or Jonny Gomes' helmet fell out of alignment.

 

tl;dr: If 5 or 6 seconds are shaved off between each pitch, suddenly a game that started at 7:07 (with about 15-20 pitches per half inning) is at the top of the sixth inning anywhere from 12-20 minutes earlier than it is now. By the end of the game, a whole half hour could be shaved off. That's usually the rate of a pitchers' duel, I think.

Edited January 26, 2015 by intentional wok

[Sammy225]

Most games don't go past 3 hours, if that. And as far as I've seen managers and coaches spend most of the game in the dugout. Honestly, the pitching changes and mound meetings are small beans in the course of a season. Yes, they are an extended break in the action, but they're rare enough that I don't think they meaningfully slow the game down. It's just that they're so noticeable as a pause that they get heaped on as huge roadblocks to enjoyment - the problem, of course, is that they are necessary.

 

But I'm willing to bet that keeping the batters in the box and adding a pitch timer will save much more time than any mound meetings. Think of it - that's eliminating, what, about 10 seconds between each pitch? Watch a Mark Buehrle game and see how swiftly the game goes by on a by-pitch basis. Everyone should have to do that. There should be a timer behind the ump that the pitcher can look, like a playclock in the NFL. He should have to throw a pitch or makes a pick-off move before 0. That will speed up the game without any cost to changing the rules or tying a manager's hands because the audience is bored.

 

I think then what your going to see is more throws over to first to reset the clock so they can get more time to figure out what they want to do. They will always find ways to get more time. I just don't think it is going to save as much time as people think.

[intentional wok]

I think then what your going to see is more throws over to first to reset the clock so they can get more time to figure out what they want to do. They will always find ways to get more time. I just don't think it is going to save as much time as people think.

 

But most of the time there's no one on base, so a pitch has to be thrown. If there's a guy on base, throwing to first is a legit strategy anyway - so there's really nothing that can be done.

 

I'm not saying there wouldn't be workarounds (there will always be workarounds), but I believe that in general a pitch timer and batter's box boundary will save time on a pitch-by-pitch basis. It's not really intended to change the dynamics of the rest of the game - just the unnecessary pauses. And if a team wants to risk their pitcher throwing the ball into foul territory every time he can't decide on a pitch, well it's their prerogative to be reckless.

[Sammy225]

When you are playing the Jays there is always someone on base

[Brownie19]

Most games don't go past 3 hours, if that. And as far as I've seen managers and coaches spend most of the game in the dugout. Honestly, the pitching changes and mound meetings are small beans in the course of a season. Yes, they are an extended break in the action, but they're rare enough that I don't think they meaningfully slow the game down. It's just that they're so noticeable as a pause that they get heaped on as huge roadblocks to enjoyment - the problem, of course, is that they are necessary too.

 

But I'm willing to bet that keeping the batters in the box and adding a pitch timer will save much more time than any mound meetings. Think of it - that's eliminating, what, about 5 or 6 seconds between each pitch? Watch a Mark Buehrle game and see how swiftly the game goes by on a by-pitch basis. Everyone should have to do that. There should be a timer behind the ump that the pitcher can look, like a playclock in the NFL. He should have to throw a pitch or makes a pick-off move before 0. That will speed up the game without any cost to changing the rules or tying a manager's hands because the audience is bored. I think most fans wouldn't have a problem with the mound meetings if the rest of the game wasn't being slowed to a f***ing crawl because a guy's batting gloves aren't tight enough or Jonny Gomes' helmet fell out of alignment.

 

tl;dr: If 5 or 6 seconds are shaved off between each pitch, suddenly a game that started at 7:07 (with about 15-20 pitches per half inning) is at the top of the sixth inning anywhere from 12-20 minutes earlier than it is now. By the end of the game, a whole half hour could be shaved off. That's usually the rate of a pitchers' duel, I think.

 

Someone must have a stat on the average time of a game....my proverbial gut says it's longer than 3 hours. The average playoff game must be 4+ which drives me insane. We have to start those games past 8:00 for TV ratings and then I have to say up wayyy to late to actually see the end of the bloody game. Insane....drives me insane. Insane in the membrane. I get that playoffs are all about the commercials and that's big revenue, but I hate it to death.

[Spanky__99]

Yeah, you just signal or relay 4 to the umpire and the batter takes his base. The pitch clock is off to side of the on deck circle closer to the plate, looks ridiculous, I saw it on the MLB network. I don't mind the intent walk rule, and the batter having to keep a foot in the box, but this other s*** can be enforced by an umpire (catcher visits, speed between pitches, etc)

 

Most games don't go past 3 hours, if that. And as far as I've seen managers and coaches spend most of the game in the dugout. Honestly, the pitching changes and mound meetings are small beans in the course of a season. Yes, they are an extended break in the action, but they're rare enough that I don't think they meaningfully slow the game down. It's just that they're so noticeable as a pause that they get heaped on as huge roadblocks to enjoyment - the problem, of course, is that they are necessary too.

 

But I'm willing to bet that keeping the batters in the box and adding a pitch timer will save much more time than any mound meetings. Think of it - that's eliminating, what, about 5 or 6 seconds between each pitch? Watch a Mark Buehrle game and see how swiftly the game goes by on a by-pitch basis. Everyone should have to do that. There should be a timer behind the ump that the pitcher can look, like a playclock in the NFL. He should have to throw a pitch or makes a pick-off move before 0. That will speed up the game without any cost to changing the rules or tying a manager's hands because the audience is bored. I think most fans wouldn't have a problem with the mound meetings if the rest of the game wasn't being slowed to a f***ing crawl because a guy's batting gloves aren't tight enough or Jonny Gomes' helmet fell out of alignment.

 

tl;dr: If 5 or 6 seconds are shaved off between each pitch, suddenly a game that started at 7:07 (with about 15-20 pitches per half inning) is at the top of the sixth inning anywhere from 12-20 minutes earlier than it is now. By the end of the game, a whole half hour could be shaved off. That's usually the rate of a pitchers' duel, I think.

 

They're already using the time clock and the one foot in the box in the AFL this off-season. IIRC, it's going to be implemented in the MILB, this season, I guess if it speeds it up, I could get used to it. We'll hear the results soon enough, once everyone gets acclimated to it, the game should pass much quicker, like a Buehrle vs Halladay duel, loved games like that. I certainly don't want them messing with in game strategy. I'd lose my s***, the length of ballgames don't bother me in the first place.

[BlueBirdBro]

Haven't seen this anywhere else yet but Jays reportedly turned down a Hoffman for J. Upton trade as per Jeff Blair? I don't have twitter or anything so I'm not sure how reliable Blair is.

[Spanky__99]

Haven't seen this anywhere else yet but Jays reportedly turned down a Hoffman for J. Upton trade as per Jeff Blair? I don't have twitter or anything so I'm not sure how reliable Blair is.

 

lol...yeah right, you sure it wasn't his brother?

[BlueBirdBro]

The reports are out there now. I guess included in the deal not a straight up trade.

 

http://www.sportsnet.ca/baseball/mlb/baltimore-orioles-not-first-to-ask-toronto-blue-jays-for-jeff-hoffman/

Edited January 26, 2015 by BlueBirdBro
Source

[KingKat]

lol...yeah right, you sure it wasn't his brother?

 

http://www.thescore.com/news/688033

[intentional wok]

Someone must have a stat on the average time of a game....my proverbial gut says it's longer than 3 hours. The average playoff game must be 4+ which drives me insane. We have to start those games past 8:00 for TV ratings and then I have to say up wayyy to late to actually see the end of the bloody game. Insane....drives me insane. Insane in the membrane. I get that playoffs are all about the commercials and that's big revenue, but I hate it to death.

 

You're right, we definitely need a stat on the average game time. Maybe even a stat on time between pitches, too... All of our arguments are pretty much hinging on what we perceive the length of an average baseball game to be (specifically, a Blue Jays game).

 

But I totally agree on the playoff games. They are absolutely ridiculous. The tension is obviously much higher for the pitcher before he throws, but ~4-hour games seem like the norm in the post-season, almost regardless of the score.

 

Here's a suggestion I haven't seen mentioned: Shorten the game to 7 innings? Obviously we have 9 so that each batting slot gets at least 3 plate appearances, but how does everyone feel about a shorter game? The repercussions on bullpen construction would be huge too. Probably put a lot of guys out of work. And probably kill a lot of value for all-glove, little-bat players that hit in the bottom third of any order.

[Spanky__99]

http://www.thescore.com/news/688033

 

It won't load for me, what's going on, lol. I put the score on and it's Leaf Lunch???

[KingKat]

It won't load for me, what's going on, lol. I put the score on and it's Leaf Lunch???

 

Here's a direct link to Blair's piece.

[Spanky__99]

You're right, we definitely need a stat on the average game time. Maybe even a stat on time between pitches, too... All of our arguments are pretty much hinging on what we perceive the length of an average baseball game to be (specifically, a Blue Jays game).

 

But I totally agree on the playoff games. They are absolutely ridiculous. The tension is obviously much higher for the pitcher before he throws, but ~4-hour games seem like the norm in the post-season, almost regardless of the score.

 

Here's a suggestion I haven't seen mentioned: Shorten the game to 7 innings? Obviously we have 9 so that each batting slot gets at least 3 plate appearances, but how does everyone feel about a shorter game? The repercussions on bullpen construction would be huge too. Probably put a lot of guys out of work. And probably kill a lot of value for all-glove, little-bat players that hit in the bottom third of any order.

 

That would never happen too much lost revenue for the owners, and the players union would be up in arms over lost jobs, no way would that be even brought to the table.

[Brownie19]

You're right, we definitely need a stat on the average game time. Maybe even a stat on time between pitches, too... All of our arguments are pretty much hinging on what we perceive the length of an average baseball game to be (specifically, a Blue Jays game).

 

But I totally agree on the playoff games. They are absolutely ridiculous. The tension is obviously much higher for the pitcher before he throws, but ~4-hour games seem like the norm in the post-season, almost regardless of the score.

 

Here's a suggestion I haven't seen mentioned: Shorten the game to 7 innings? Obviously we have 9 so that each batting slot gets at least 3 plate appearances, but how does everyone feel about a shorter game? The repercussions on bullpen construction would be huge too. Probably put a lot of guys out of work. And probably kill a lot of value for all-glove, little-bat players that hit in the bottom third of any order.

 

Good god - no. Don't change the fundamentals. Start playoff games at 7, shorten the commercials and don't let cable money rule the roost (not that I think that will ever happen).

[Spanky__99]

Here ya go, Spanky.

 

Wow...if true, I wonder what the package was?

[Spanky__99]

Good god - no. Don't change the fundamentals. Start playoff games at 7, shorten the commercials and don't let cable money rule the roost (not that I think that will ever happen).

 

They couldn't start games at 7, it's already bad enough the games start so early on the west coast, talking post-season here, obviously.

[Brownie19]

They couldn't start games at 7, it's already bad enough the games start so early on the west coast, talking post-season here, obviously.

 

Screw the west coast. I only care about myself obviously

 

At least people on the west coast are awake when the games end....unlike most on the east coast who are fast asleep - unable to stay up until 12:30 to watch the end of the god damn 4 1/2 hour playoff game.

[KingKat]

Wow...if true, I wonder what the package was?

 

That makes a huge difference. Was Hoffman the main piece? MIGHT have been worth the risk if he was. Certainly not worth it if he wasn't even the biggest piece.

[Brownie19]

I think the commish is going to need to focus his energy on maintaining the pace of the game during video reviews - as I suspect the use of these will continue to expand. IMO, they have a lot of work to do on this, as it really kills the momentum of the games pace/drama.

 

Improvements elsewhere will be needed to speed up the game and offset the video review times...

[Spanky__99]

Screw the west coast. I only care about myself obviously

 

At least people on the west coast are awake when the games end....unlike most on the east coast who are fast asleep - unable to stay up until 12:30 to watch the end of the god damn 4 1/2 hour playoff game.

 

lol

[BlueJayWay]

But no one is screwing around, though - it's the opposite. They're trying to win, and making a rule that ties the manager's hands just wrecks the strategic element currently in the game. Why shouldn't a manager be able to change his pitcher whenever he wants? Outside of a lack of patience from the audience, can you give me a good reason?

I think too many breaks in play when the game should be most exciting IS a good reason. Why should that reason be disallowed? When a manager is allowed to change his pitcher whenever he wants, I find it interrupts the flow of the game. I know the manager is trying to win, but it doesn't make for very compelling viewing imo. The best strategies for winning aren't necessarily the best entertainment.

 

I understand you can't completely stop the mid inning pitching changes, but I'd like to see less micromanaging and more baseball being played.

Letting commercial breaks dictate MLB rules is tampering with what already works. Breaks in play are obnoxious, but I'm willing to bet the disaster of enforced batter limits will drive away more fans when bad bullpen matchups start coughing up leads.

Obnoxious is a good way to put it. But I think it's silly to think it'll drive fans away. Why would that be the case? First, it's a zero-sum game: a blown lead by one team means a comeback by another team. Whereas, stalling in a game is not fun for fans of either side. Second, lead changes make the games interesting to the end. I've never heard of anyone driven away from a sport, whether baseball, hockey, football, whatever, because the game was too much in doubt till the end.

 

 

 

 

 

How is it not turning the rulebook on its head? The rules are being altered on which personnel can be used and at what time. This proposition isn't trying to fix an element in the game - it's trying to change the pace of the game. If the pace needs to go up, there are a lot better ways to do it such as a pitch timer or batters being required to stay ready in the batter's box. Neither of those things change the rules of the game, and both would have a greater effect on the intended impact.

Earlier in this thread I did say that keeping the batter in the box and improving the pace between pitches is definitely the #1 thing to try to fix. I agree with you there. This pitching change thing is side issue that I wouldn't mind if they addressed as well...

 

But not only do I have a fundamental problem with a rule change based entirely on commercialization - it just doesn't hold up to scrutiny either. If a relief pitcher comes in and needs to face a minimum of three hitters then the opposing manager can just pinch hit all his guys to his own advantage. The pitching team is at a huge disadvantage now, and suddenly instead of the game speeding up you're going to see lots of late-inning leads evaporate and small deficits becoming big ones. I'm willing to bet that forcing teams into taking sub-optimal strategies in every non-complete game will result in ridiculous, pointless losses-of-leads for a lot of teams.

Yeah the pitching team would be at a slight disadvantage (compared to what they have now) if they couldn't get every single platoon matchup they wanted...but I don't see what is supposed to be so much the problem. Teams change sides, and when you're hitting, now you have the advantage.

 

I'm willing to bet that forcing teams into taking sub-optimal strategies in every non-complete game will result in ridiculous, pointless losses-of-leads for a lot of teams.

I think you're probably overestimating the effect a little bit here anyway. Games that are 4-3 today won't become 11-9 tomorrow just because teams lose a few platoon matchups. But again, as I said above, I've never heard anyone complain that a game had too many lead changes. Back and forth games are exciting, no?

[burlingtonbandit]

Best part from that Blair piece-

How bad are the New York Knicks? So bad that they have now had their seventh ESPN/ABC appearance of the season taken off the schedule. In a decision the network said was made before Kobe Bryant’s season-ending shoulder injury, the New York Post reported the Knicks game on Super Bowl Sunday against the Los Angeles Lakers will be replaced by a celebrity bowling event, hosted by NBA star Chris Paul.

[KingKat]

the Knicks game on Super Bowl Sunday against the Los Angeles Lakers will be replaced by a celebrity bowling event, hosted by NBA star Chris Paul.

 

Holy f***! A celebrity bowling event! That's low.