NorthOf49
-
Posts
6,629 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Toronto Blue Jays Videos
2025 Toronto Blue Jays Top Prospects Ranking
Toronto Blue Jays Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits
Guides & Resources
2025 Toronto Blue Jays Draft Pick Tracker
News
Forums
Blogs
Events
Store
Downloads
Gallery
Everything posted by NorthOf49
-
Don't worry Alex has it all under control. We're despairing the Mariners. Eventually they'll have to choice but to hand Franklin over to us!
-
Why don't they ban the ground ball double play then? Letting the defense get two outs on one play is unfair! I think if the infield fly rule was never invented and I was proposing its existence, people would be equally as outraged.
-
Why view it as intentional failure? I think of it as just a strategic decision. The infield fly rule is currently the only situation in baseball where a team gets an out without doing anything at all (they don't have to touch the ball at all!). That's a stranger distinction than a play in which a team lets the ball drop intentionally.
-
I just don't think it would be easy to get the triple play. All three of the runners on base could do something to mess up the defense's coordination. They'd happen, but not often enough to mar the sport. It's worth it.
-
Say you have the guy at third take off for home, and have all the other runners stay put (with the batter running to first). If the fielding team lets the ball drop: - The runner could make it home before the throw, given the ball went reasonably high. - With the batter half-way to first, the defensive team would not have enough time to go around the horn and nab them all. If the fielding team catches the ball: - They'd throw to third for the double play. The runner not being able to score would make this the preferred option. But there'd be lots of strategy involved depending on how high the ball goes, how adept the fielders are, and how fast the runners are. I think we're missing out on something good.
-
Yes! It'd be harder than you think for the defending team too. If the offensive team anticipated a drop, they could send the runners. The guy catching the pop-up would have to know what the runners were up to.
-
Couldn't the offensive team just start one of the runners and keep it to a double play?
-
I don't know about triple plays, but double plays. Is that bad though? They'd be fun to watch!
-
One thing I'd do about in-game rules is remove the infield fly rule. I just don't understand its reason for existence. The ground ball double play is a staple of the game, so why reject its fly ball counterpart? Watching a team turn an infield fly double play would be very exciting. You'd have so many players moving frantically at the same time.
-
So this is hilarious. Carlos Martinez has a crapload of porn favourited on twitter: http://deadspin.com/carlos-martinezs-twitter-favorites-a-big-ol-wall-of-1530062520?utm_campaign=socialflow_deadspin_twitter&utm_source=deadspin_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow https://twitter.com/Tsunamy27/favorites LOL. I bet he thought your favourites were private.
-
Teams shouldn't be punished for succeeding, or rewarded for failure. That's not American and it detracts from the product's aesthetics. The random factor is just a way to distribute the draft picks evenly (if you were to have a draft instead of a capped free for all). I've already admitted that even amateur allocation is not American, but it's a limitation I deem necessary for the overall product to succeed.
-
Yep I'd definitely support that. We have a draft lottery in DDL which works well, but it may work even better if the worst teams aren't emphasized at all. Especially because everyone's market size is the same (or can't be accounted for). Why punish those who are the best at building fantasy baseball teams? That's the goal after all!
-
Yeah your suggestion of randomizing the non-playoff teams could work too. As long as the bonus pools are weighted to reflect potential market size, what makes a draft more field-leveling?
-
Drafts are un-American, yes, but not as much as incentivizing losing is. Every team should strive to win every year. You shouldn't get stuff handed to you for being inept at managing your assets. That's American.
-
My system makes baseball more American, but you're right, it doesn't quite go all the way. I think baseball is better with a cap on amateur talent acquisition and that's why I've included that. With no cap on talent acquisition and no revenue-sharing, you'd be forced to contract many teams or live with half of your league never sniffing the playoffs. And I don't think that's in the best interest of the big-market teams. IMO, they can make more money in a legitimate league of 30 teams even if it involves paying some of the small-market teams' costs.
-
Revenue sharing and other market-size adjustments are okay, incentivizing losing is not. It's a big difference. The Tampa Bay Rays should be allocated enough funds from revenue sharing to re-sign their own players are grab the occasional decent free agent, and should be allowed to spend enough money on amateurs to make them equally as competitive in that market as any other team. That is fair and good for the game.
-
I'd probably take the $1.4M, the bust rate in baseball being what it is. But I see your point. If it was $1.3M - $1M and the top team had a history of great prospect development, I may take less money. However, the team with the string of 90+ loss seasons is likely experiencing front office turnover since there's no excuse for losing. So there's reason to believe that team won't continue to have a poor development record. My argument is that it's better for the game if every team is always in a win mode and no teams are given specific advantages for reasons other than market size. I dislike that half of the teams in baseball are currently in an intentional losing phase. Parity to me doesn't mean a different team wins the World Series every year, it means half the fanbases in the league haven't given up on the season before it starts.
-
I don't think an amateur is going to take more than a ~$100,000 pay cut to sign with a prestigious team. But if that is a problem, then I'd curve the budgets around market size. The bottom markets get a $14M cap and the top ones $10M. I also think that you'd see fewer 100-loss teams with my system in place, and many more teams in the 75-85 win range of decency. It may be harder to become a playoff team after suffering a 100-loss season in my system since you have to work your way to the top gradually, but I doubt you'd have teams stringing together seasons of total ineptitude like you do now.
-
The Astros are what's wrong about baseball. The current system is un-American. A baseball team's quality should reflect the quality of that team's scouting, decision-making process and resource base. Not the number of scorched-earth years that preceded the season in question. The "blow it up and collect top picks for four years" strategy is a disgusting mark on the game and must be removed.
-
My #1 fix is getting rid of the draft. It's a bonus-lowering mechanism, not a parity/'fairness' mechanism. And it rewards losing, which I don't agree with at all. The best system is one that encourages every team to win every year. So you lost 100 games last year... Oops. Instead, give each team a $12M amateur bonus budget and let that have at it. You could even combine it seamlessly with the Latin American market. To prevent the same teams (the prestigous big market ones) from snapping up the top guys every year, say that each team may not allocate a $5M+ bonus in consecutive years.
-
Shhhh... you're not supposed to use the k-word. But yes, it is. I and the rest of us whoppers are very excited for the Blue Jays farm to start producing real world-class Major Leaguers.
-
Olerud, do you know what 'BEST' is an acronym for?
-
It found its way into a DJF post too lol: http://blogs.thescore.com/djf/2014/02/13/are-these-the-jays-terms/
-
I'll add that BP's daily podcast (Effectively Wild) is touring around the MLB right now, talking about a team a day and today was the Blue Jays. I listened to the first half of the episode, which had Sam, Ben and Adam Sobsey talking about the Blue Jays. Will listen to the next half, with Davidi, later today. -- Good post. The BEST existing makes a lot of sense to me and confirms my own thoughts about what AA's "proprietary systems" are. From what I hear they have as many scouts as all other teams have combined and AA has been slipping in comments about an aggregated scouting report approach for a while. He seems to think it's a worthwhile attempt to beat the market. It hasn't worked yet but maybe they're still figuring out how to use the data. But I hope they're not putting all of their analytics bullets into it, or at least are combining it with other inputs. I wonder if Pitch/Hit/Field FX is integrated.
-
Yeah I don't understand why he would have animosity towards the Blue Jays. We offered him a boatload of money. Ultimately, he decided he'd rather go to college. There's no reason to think the negotiating tactics we played with him were anything out of the ordinary.
