Brownie19

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.

Sorry - I could have used better words. You're right - nobody is trying to lose, but over the past few years I'd say we've had upwards of half the league that certainly isn't trying to win. It did seem a bit better last year, but 2018-2020 wasn't good.

The reality is there's a big difference between what you'd like to see and what the average fan would want - and there's a lot more average fans than guys like you. Teams that are trying to lose on purpose aren't good for any sport and baseball is full of them right now...

I was only 13 in '94, so it's all foggy to me, but I always thought some of the roid use was masked simply by an increased focus on workouts and training and athletes treating their sport (and I think this applies for all sports) as a profession and not a game. Gone were the days of players sitting on the couch all offseason, using spring training/training camp to 'get in shape' and that mentality shift (combined with using technology to improve our understanding of the sports and how to improve) is what created a s*** ton more depth within sports. The fact that players were working out and training year round seemed to somewhat support the increase in power/home runs - along with the increase in velocity. From my perspective, there's a been huge transformations across most sports and it feels like that started in the mid '90's to mid '00's. Hockey is now this incredibly fast paces sport built on skill, the depth of field in golf is grown immensely, basketball eliminated the traditional lumbering center, we stopped running the ball up the middle in football 30 times a game, etc. As the advantages that premium athletes became more apparent in all sports, the focus moved to fitness and training - which inherently lead to PED use in all sports. Not exactly sure where I was going with this - and I think the concerns are fair that baseball may struggle to recover from an extended lockout/strike. I think it already is simply because there are so many options these days. At the youth level I can tell you that lacrosse has stolen a ton of kids from the game of baseball and I don't see that changing anytime soon.

meh - I stand by my comment. I enjoy having you post on the baseball side of things myself.

Why doesn't the floor benefit the players? Because the PA is represented by the older rich players? BTW - you should post here more.

Thanks DP - makes sense. Love how much I learn from this board.

Someone posted that 60% of the PA's last year came from players with 1 to 3 years experience, who they only made 4% of the total salaries in baseball. I think that's a major issue and if I play off your example above, the Owners say this is how much we have in salaries - you guys figure out how to divvy it up. I think in this case, the older players want to improve that distribution, while maintaining the amount the top earners make. There's also the (likely legitimate) argument that the Owners simply keep too much of the pie anyway - I'm a bit shocked that a minimum cap (or CBT) wasn't proposed. If we only have 3-4 teams willing to spend up to the CBT right now - raising it won't add more $ to the players. Adding a minimum could drastically increase the slice of the pie the players get. Perhaps they knew that would be met with great resistance and simply wasn't worth proposing?

So MLB wants 14 playoff teams and the MLBPA only wants 12? I would have thought players wanted more chances to make the playoffs and to win the WS. Is this simply because they don't get paid more for playing playoff games? I just can't imagine they are truly looking at it from a what's best for the game perspective (ie, where they say 14 teams is too many).

why didn't he keep us updated? TL prioritized Reddit over us?

Groshan has really simplified his swing since he was drafted...wow.