Brownie19

https://www.blogto.com/sports_play/2022/03/someone-leaked-photo-new-screen-torontos-rogers-centre-and-its-huge/ Info on the Rogers Centre renos

And the Aaron Rodgers saga is over (for now). 4 years $200M with $153M guaranteed. Adams will be next and then GB will have to cut a ton of talent to get under the cap. I guess they had to hedge their bets a bit, but I sure wish we didn't draft Jordan Love now. Probably can't get more than a 4th or 5th round pick for him (if that).

Well I think that's what baseball wants. They want more hits, more runs, more action. I think most fans want that too. But no - not everyone will benefit from this. There are still hitters out there who's profile doesn't see shifts implemented against them. They'll stay the same (in theory).

You're over simplifying how easy it is to make adjustments at the MLB level. The use of shifts just continues to rise. If cutting down on K's, sacrificing power, bunting and slapping the ball the other way were feasible adjustments - don't you think several players and teams would have done that by now? You can't believe EVERYONE is just stupid and stubborn. You can even take hitting a high fastball as an example. Pitchers adjusted to hitters teeing off on low pitches and now everyone pounds the top of the zone. It's not like batters just think "Verlander's throwing it up in the zone today boys, make the adjustments and tee off on him". This started like 5+ years ago and hitters still are trying to make adjustments because hitting a 97 MPH fastball at the letters is f***ing hard. This isn't football where the defense stacks the box with 8 or 9 defenders and you simply call more pass plays, or they are blitzing a lot, so you run more draws to slow down the pass rush. C'mon Dick. Gallo has made adjustments - leading the league in bunt singles...didn't change much.

I think you're over estimating how often it happens. The only time I can remember the Jays doing it was when Omar Vizquel was on the team. And how many times does that configuration even 'work' or matter in the play. It has to be negligible.

Obviously it's not or the shift would be gone by now.

If players could adapt and suddenly hit .350 because people were shifting them all the time - they would have by now. If players had the ability to bunt and hit the other way, forcing teams to stop shifting on them - they would have by now. Teams, managers, coaches and players aren't stupid. You'd think at least some percentage of players would have adapted by now...maybe that tells us something?

They have been talking about this well before Gallo spoke out. They want more action in baseball. Fewer strikeouts, more hits, etc. I have to think those close to the game believe limiting the shift will create more action. I mean there already is a rule that you can't start a play standing in foul territory. I always thought that was odd...I mean if you want to stand in foul territory, that seems really stupid, so why not let them?

That's not even remotely true. As of August 19th last year, Joey Gallo was tied for the league lead in bunt singles. https://www.pinstripealley.com/2021/8/19/22629372/yankees-joey-gallo-strikeouts-home-runs-three-true-outcomes-bunts-run-values

I argue with a few people about this already. People argue that if they use the shift on you, it shows how poor of a hitter you really are (which is seemingly what Ehjays suggests)....but I mean, they shifted against Ted Williams - arguably the best hitter of all time. So shifts can be used against great hitters and s***** hitters. I don't think Ted sacrificed power to dribble a few extra balls the other way to 'beat' the shift.

Interesting - I like it. Although it might be Shawn Marion with passing skills...which is essentially - Kevin Garnett? I feel dirty even writing that - but that might be his ceiling...

0.033 BABIP - poor guy got f***ed over by bad luck his entire career!

I fully expect there's still too many bugs in the system for both pitchers and batters to fully support this. Instead of being rung up by Joe West because he's brutal, they'll get rung up on a curve ball in the dirt because there are limitations to the accuracy of the computer. Even if humans f*** up more than the computer (which I'm sure they do) - the computer is going to have to be substantially better than humans before it gains support.

I'm not sure I agree with this (not that I - or any of us really have any idea). My gut says that right now, facing high velocity and a shift - players know they can't just "take it the other way" with much success....but also know that if they are going to beat the shift, they have to crush it. If the shift is restricted and more balls put in play go for hits, they may not feel they have to hit a HR or have a 100 MPH+ exit velocity to get a hit. If there are more holes, then contact will be more effective than it's been the past 4-5 years. You may be correct about pitchers wanting to limit contact - but honestly - almost everyone is already trying to limit it - not sure they can try any harder. If limiting the shift puts more emphasis to better defense, then that might help counter the pitchers fear of hitters putting the ball in play. We don't even know what's proposed, so no need to worry about what TB will do, but I have to think fielders won't be able to cross the 'line' until the ball is released from the pitcher (or maybe even until it crosses home plate). Either way, neither give you any time at all to actually move very far....you can't have fielders running when the ball is put in play.

I think there's probably some validity in that. But I also think they realized it was getting increasingly difficult to be a .310 hitter as we saw a huge increase shifting and a year by year increase in velocity. There's definitely some chicken and egg thing happening here. I'd love to hear what Votto says about this, as he's the guy I think of who's changed his approach at the plate several times during his career. He seemingly sacrificed average/contact/K% for power last year and it lead to a resurgence in his career (which might push him into the HOF)

What type of ceiling do you guys think Scottie Barnes has?

I have to think the increased velocity is playing a big role in this change. You hear a lot how when a pitcher is throwing 95+ that hitters physically can't cover both sides of the plate. They have to eliminate zones and pitches if they are going to square one up. It was a lot easier to effectively hit the ball to all fields when starters threw 89-92, you still faced s***** 3rd and 4th starters 3 times a game, bullpen arms generally sucked balls (remember when the strategy was to be really patient to get the starter out of the game early so you could pound the middle relief?) and closers threw 94. I also believe shifts should have been implemented 20-30 years ago, but people were scared of the change and upsetting tradition. I wonder if anyone has gone back to analysis spray charts from the 1995 (maybe those don't even exist) to see what the impact may have been.

I don't think we need to get caught up in something that happens like once or twice a year.

I would never assume the PA is doing something because it's the right thing to do.

Do all MLB Owners have to agree to each bargaining options? Why isn't it majority rules (or maybe something like 70%)? Good god we're never going to get change if every Owner needs to agree are we?

How'd the end of up with hard caps in every other league? I mean certainly there were powerful big market teams in other sports that didn't want it...but it happened - which likely improved the sport overall.

I find that odd. I mean yes, eliminating it might increase the amount of money given to players, but the soft cap only limits spending by like 3-4 teams. Other teams are spending as much as they want to now, whether there's a soft cap or not.

I mean there's already a soft ceiling in place that is generally working right?

Is there anything wrong with this? I know it won't make every team more competitive, but it may make more teams competitive and overall, I think it would put more money in the players hands than the Owners - which is what the PA wants. Now maybe you could argue that if teams are forced to spend $100M every year - even during s***** down years, then they won't spend as much in other years when they are trying to compete? I don't know if that's true though. Other leagues have salary floors - do you have an example of where that is failing?

I guess there's some good arguments as to why a floor doesn't make sense if the goal is to ultimately win the World Series....but this is the PA - their goal is primarily to get more players more money. I still think a floor does that. How else do you get more money in the players hands (instead of owners pocketing it from revenue sharing), how do you get more competitive balance? If Owners wanted to spend more - 90% of them could with no penalties, but they don't...and I simply don't think it can be good if teams decide before the season starts that they have no intension of trying to win that year. Learn me.