Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 11-20-2018, 10:29 AM
Barkis is Willin' is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,322
Yankees are in win now mode, as they should be. I think they'll still sign one of the top free agent pitchers.

Adrian Beltre has announced his retirement. Hall of Famer? When you hear the name your first thought might be ahh, probably not. But the dude played for 20 years and 10 of them were 5 WAR or better. Racked up a bunch of gold gloves, a handful of top 10 MVP finishes. Yeah, I think he's easily a HOFer.
  #102  
Old 11-20-2018, 11:50 AM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 40,722
Adrian Beltre is absolutely a Hall of Famer, in my opinion.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #103  
Old 11-20-2018, 12:33 PM
What Exit?'s Avatar
What Exit? is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Central NJ (near Bree)
Posts: 28,893
Beltre is a Hall of Famer, by no means an inner circle player, but great enough and long enough to go in easily. In the old days of just 20 years ago in might take 2-4 ballots, so 1-2 now when eligible.

ETA: Just checked, 2166 hits & 636 doubles, 477 HR, I think there is no question he qualifies.

Last edited by What Exit?; 11-20-2018 at 12:35 PM.
  #104  
Old 11-20-2018, 12:57 PM
OldGuy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Very east of Foggybog, WI
Posts: 5,184
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackmannii View Post
Since they felt the controversy should be ended by torpedoing Wahoo, letting others use the image would be counterproductive, adding to the armada of Wahoo-imprinted gear that will be around for decades anyway.
Yes thanks for explaining this better than I did. This is exactly the reason I heard for keeping the image minimally alive. One proposal I heard was only using it on the sale of "retro" jerseys for players like Rocky Colavito, and that these would not be available on line.
  #105  
Old 11-20-2018, 01:00 PM
Barkis is Willin' is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,322
Quote:
Originally Posted by What Exit? View Post
Beltre is a Hall of Famer, by no means an inner circle player, but great enough and long enough to go in easily. In the old days of just 20 years ago in might take 2-4 ballots, so 1-2 now when eligible.

ETA: Just checked, 2166 hits & 636 doubles, 477 HR, I think there is no question he qualifies.
Yeah, he's a guy where the numbers might surprise you. I mean, I never thought of him as the best 3B in the league. Maybe he was for one year (2004) and other that he just churned out a whole bunch of really solid years.
  #106  
Old 11-20-2018, 01:54 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,292
Quote:
Originally Posted by madsircool View Post
I agree with him. There would be new star pitchers and hitters. Are there not stars in any level of organized baseball?
I don't think so. The top third of the MLB is head and shoulder above the top of the AAA division. The pitching is also a lot better at the MLB level.
  #107  
Old 11-20-2018, 01:55 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,292
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blank Slate View Post
Sure thing, sparky.

AAA ball is exactly the same as MLB. So is AA and the Australian League. Same skill level, same everything. Absolutely. Bill James should be enshrined in Cooperstown for this brilliant idea! There is no fucking difference at all! Any pitcher can throw Kershaw's curve or Scherzer's slider. Dial it up to 105 like Aroldis Chapman? No problemo. I think I did that last summer at the county fair.

Do we need to talk about defenders like Andrelton Simmons or hitters like Jose Altuve, or can we all just agree that Bill James is talking out of his ass?
I think you could probably replace the bottom third of the mlb for AAA players and you wouldn't notice the difference in 3 years.
  #108  
Old 11-20-2018, 01:57 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,292
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blank Slate View Post
You know who could vanish instantaneously without harming the game at all? Every single sabermetrician.
The Boston Red Sox might disagree.
  #109  
Old 11-20-2018, 03:32 PM
Blank Slate's Avatar
Blank Slate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 5,067
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
The Boston Red Sox might disagree.
You could say that about every baseball team. Who gives a shit? Has the game been improved in the era of advanced stats? Just the opposite, IMHO.
  #110  
Old 11-20-2018, 03:50 PM
Barkis is Willin' is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,322
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blank Slate View Post
You could say that about every baseball team. Who gives a shit? Has the game been improved in the era of advanced stats? Just the opposite, IMHO.
One could certainly make this argument. Is it the sabermetrics that have turned baseball into a home run/strike out/walk game?
  #111  
Old 11-20-2018, 04:33 PM
Southern Yankee is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: In a country of hope...
Posts: 4,840
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barkis is Willin' View Post
Yankees are in win now mode, as they should be. I think they'll still sign one of the top free agent pitchers.
Other than the fact that they expect to win every year, I'm not sure this is true. They have a good core of young players. I'm surprised they gave up their #1 prospect, and a pitcher to boot, for an injury-prone, pretty good pitcher.
  #112  
Old 11-20-2018, 04:59 PM
kenobi 65's Avatar
kenobi 65 is offline
Corellian Nerfherder
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Brookfield, IL
Posts: 13,999
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barkis is Willin' View Post
Is it the sabermetrics that have turned baseball into a home run/strike out/walk game?
I certainly think it's contributed to it, as it's statistical analysis that's led to the heavy use of defensive shifts (which has discouraged attempts to get ground ball hits, in favor of fly ball hits (homers or doubles)), more frequent pitching changes, the near-death of the stolen base, and the focus on launch angles.

Last edited by kenobi 65; 11-20-2018 at 05:00 PM.
  #113  
Old 11-21-2018, 08:57 AM
Barkis is Willin' is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,322
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenobi 65 View Post
I certainly think it's contributed to it, as it's statistical analysis that's led to the heavy use of defensive shifts (which has discouraged attempts to get ground ball hits, in favor of fly ball hits (homers or doubles)), more frequent pitching changes, the near-death of the stolen base, and the focus on launch angles.
I don't disagree. And it's quite a conundrum. Sabermetrics is nice because it gives us a meaningful way to analyze and understand baseball. However, that analysis has led to applications that are quite frankly making the game less fun. Baseball never was a nonstop action packed sport, half the fun of the game is the build up to some moment of action that could happen at any time. But now there is objectively less action and arguably less build up to it.
  #114  
Old 11-21-2018, 09:37 AM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 40,722
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenobi 65
the near-death of the stolen base
This is not a thing that has happened. Stolen bases are at a level that is, at worst, roughly average, and maybe even a bit above that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Barkis is Willin' View Post
I don't disagree. And it's quite a conundrum. Sabermetrics is nice because it gives us a meaningful way to analyze and understand baseball. However, that analysis has led to applications that are quite frankly making the game less fun. Baseball never was a nonstop action packed sport, half the fun of the game is the build up to some moment of action that could happen at any time. But now there is objectively less action and arguably less build up to it.
This has happened before, though. Baseball for a very long time, between the 1930s and 1960s, was much, much more boring than it is now by any of the measures people say it's boring now. The only plus was that the games didn't take as long to play, but that had nothing to do with analysis.

The baseball of Mickey Mantle's day was basically about drawing walks and hitting home runs and little else. Almost no one stole bases; teams today steal more bases than in any year in the 1930s, 1940s, or 1950s, or 1960s. (Swear to God.) There was very little in game strategy; not a lot of intentional walks, no defensive shifting, not as many sacrifice bunts as you'd think outside of pitchers, and most managers didn't platoon. Batters didn't strike out as much, that's for sure, but they also walked more than they do now.

The baseball of the 1970s and 1980s was quite interesting - a wild mix of small ball, basestealing, platooning, power hitting and relief pitching approaches. In 1982, the World Series featured a team that hit only 67 home runs but stole 200 bases against a team that hit 216 home runs and stole 84 bases. One AL team - no pitchers hitting - made 114 sacrifice bunts, and another only made 22. It was, in my honest opinion, some of the most interesting baseball ever played, and it's what we tend to comapre today to, but the 1970s-80s baseball WASN'T historically normal. It was the outlier. What you are seeing today is, in a lot of ways, actually closer to the game of Joe DiMaggio than was the baseball of 30 years ago.

The thing is, what created the baseball of Rickey Henderson wasn't rule changes, it was a bunch of stuff. Large Astroturf ballparks, for instance, were a big part of encouraging the speed game; it makes way, way more sense to have a team like the 1985 Cardinals in the Busch Stadium of that day than it would in the Busch Stadium of today. No one wants Astroturf back, surely, but it is absolutely not a coincidence that the revitalization of the running game exactly coincided with the widespread adoption of Astroturf.

anyway, sabermetrics is increasing strikeout rates, but you can't blame it for the interminable length of games. That is absolutely on MLB for not keeping pace of play up and selling so many damn commercials.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #115  
Old 11-21-2018, 10:18 AM
Barkis is Willin' is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,322
Sure, so a little bit of action packed into 2.5 hours is more rewarding than the same amount of action over 3+ hours. This miscellaneous list of stats per MLB game is interesting, but tells us a lot of what we already know. Runs per game have stayed pretty constant over the years, bouncing up and down here and there. But the trend of number of pitchers used per game is astounding.
2018: 4.36
2008: 3.92
1998: 3.46
1988: 2.75
1978: 2.40

The question is whether this is something that should be mitigated. I honestly don't know the answer.
  #116  
Old 11-21-2018, 11:04 AM
kenobi 65's Avatar
kenobi 65 is offline
Corellian Nerfherder
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Brookfield, IL
Posts: 13,999
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
This is not a thing that has happened. Stolen bases are at a level that is, at worst, roughly average, and maybe even a bit above that.
What has absolutely happened is that stolen bases (and stolen base attempts) are substantially lower now than they were from the late 1970s through the 1990s, when it was a far more common strategy (and, when you had a number of proficient base stealers, like Henderson, Raines, and Coleman). That said, what happened in the 1980s and 1990s reversed a tendency against the steal during the 1950s into the early 1970s. So, in the very long run, you're probably right, it's at about "average" now.

From Baseball Reference, here's the average steals per game, per team, and the average attempted steals, per game, per team, in five-year increments:

2018: 0.51 / 0.71
2013: 0.55 / 0.76
2008: 0.58 / 0.79
2003: 0.53 / 0.76
1998: 0.68 / 0.97
1993: 0.72 / 1.09
1988: 0.79 / 1.13
1983: 0.79 / 1.17
1978: 0.71 / 1.09
1973: 0.52 / 0.83
1968: 0.47 / 0.76
1963: 0.38 / 0.62
1958: 0.30 / 0.51
1953: 0.27 / 0.48

Here's an article by Buster Olney on ESPN about it; he notes that at least one of the factors is that teams have, in fact, used analytics to determine that trying to steal if your likelihood of success is less than 80% isn't worth it. So, what's happening is fewer overall steal attempts, but a higher success rate. The days of a guy like Henderson just being given a green light to steal when he got on base are likely over.

Last edited by kenobi 65; 11-21-2018 at 11:06 AM.
  #117  
Old 11-21-2018, 11:23 AM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 40,722
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenobi 65 View Post
What has absolutely happened is that stolen bases (and stolen base attempts) are substantially lower now than they were from the late 1970s through the 1990s, when it was a far more common strategy (and, when you had a number of proficient base stealers, like Henderson, Raines, and Coleman). That said, what happened in the 1980s and 1990s reversed a tendency against the steal during the 1950s into the early 1970s. So, in the very long run, you're probably right, it's at about "average" now.
Yes, I went into this in some detail three posts ago.

The stolen base left the game long before the 50s, though. It started falling out of fashion when Babe Ruth was in his prime.

Barkis makes the point that many more pitchers are being used these days, and raises the question as to whether something should be done about that. Honestly, that is one of the last places I'd change anything. It's not that pitcher changes aren't kinda boring - they are - but that it would require a really dramatic rule change, and there are ways pace of play can be improved with more subtle approaches. It's also quite possible this trend will reverse a little on its own.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #118  
Old 11-21-2018, 12:15 PM
Barkis is Willin' is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,322
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
...
Barkis makes the point that many more pitchers are being used these days, and raises the question as to whether something should be done about that. Honestly, that is one of the last places I'd change anything. It's not that pitcher changes aren't kinda boring - they are - but that it would require a really dramatic rule change, and there are ways pace of play can be improved with more subtle approaches. It's also quite possible this trend will reverse a little on its own.
At some point, it has to at least plateau, right? I mean, there are only so many pitchers on a roster. I would agree any rules intended to mitigate the growing number of pitching changes would be murky. You either limit the number of roster spots, the number of pitchers allowed on the roster, the number of pitchers allowed per game, or create a minimum batters faced per pitcher. I don't love any of those and neither would the MLBPA.

I am not in favor of a rule that eliminates defensive shifts, either. Probably the best way to speed up the game is reduce TV commercial breaks. During the playoffs there were a great number of commercials within the game. How much crap did Joe Buck plug between batters? Years ago I'd have hated it, but now I think if it means shorter breaks between innings, go for it.
  #119  
Old 11-21-2018, 01:21 PM
kenobi 65's Avatar
kenobi 65 is offline
Corellian Nerfherder
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Brookfield, IL
Posts: 13,999
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
Yes, I went into this in some detail three posts ago.

The stolen base left the game long before the 50s, though. It started falling out of fashion when Babe Ruth was in his prime.
I stand corrected. Your earlier point is probably relevant, in my brain -- I started really following baseball just as the stolen base explosion of the 1970s started, and my brain probably associates that style of play with what baseball "should be," rather than recognizing that that era was an anomaly.
  #120  
Old 11-21-2018, 07:14 PM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 40,722
Trust me, I'm the same way. I started following baseball in 1980; people stealing immense numbers of bases was normal to me. I suspect that is a common thing; what we grew up with is what we assume is correct. It's true of music, for instance.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #121  
Old 11-21-2018, 11:21 PM
dalej42 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 13,832
Remember that Players weekend with the silly nicknames on the jerseys? Interesting how the Cubs are showing them on Instagram tonight. I’m sure it has nothing to do with the upcoming holiday shopping season.
  #122  
Old 11-22-2018, 08:11 AM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 40,722
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blank Slate View Post
You could say that about every baseball team. Who gives a shit? Has the game been improved in the era of advanced stats? Just the opposite, IMHO.
The pitching is absolutely better. There's just no doubt about it, IMHO. Ludicrously better, and that is, to my mind, clearly (at least in part) the doing of sabermetrics.

The quality of baseball being played today, in terms of skill level, is the highest it's ever been. To my eyes, baseball players today are visibly, obviously better than they were, say, in the 1980s. Whether you like the playstyle - high strikeouts, home runs, a moderate amount of basestealing, excellent relief pitching but less emphasis on starters - is another matter. Personally, I am not a fan of this many strikeouts, but I love defensive shifts. But the talent level is sky high, and the athleticism the best it has ever been. They're just sensational.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!

Last edited by RickJay; 11-22-2018 at 08:11 AM.
  #123  
Old 11-22-2018, 09:43 AM
madsircool is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,456
I'm not sure that the talent rate is any higher but the way pitchers are taught to pitch is different. Pitchers today are required to throw as hard as possible from the get go. Sure there are more strikeours, but there are also more pitcher injuries. Also there are fitness and diet improvements.
  #124  
Old 11-22-2018, 09:49 AM
Ulf the Unwashed is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,264
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
The pitching is absolutely better. There's just no doubt about it, IMHO. Ludicrously better, and that is, to my mind, clearly (at least in part) the doing of sabermetrics.

The quality of baseball being played today, in terms of skill level, is the highest it's ever been. To my eyes, baseball players today are visibly, obviously better than they were, say, in the 1980s. Whether you like the playstyle - high strikeouts, home runs, a moderate amount of basestealing, excellent relief pitching but less emphasis on starters - is another matter. Personally, I am not a fan of this many strikeouts, but I love defensive shifts. But the talent level is sky high, and the athleticism the best it has ever been. They're just sensational.
Bolding mine.

I haven't been participating much in the baseball threads lately, and it's because my interest in baseball is lower than I can remember in...well, since about 1969, when I was eight, the first (full) season I paid attention. It's very weird, because baseball has been such an important part of my life for so much of my life. But it's just not on my radar in the way it used to be.

There are a number of reasons for my waning interest, but one of the big ones is certainly the astonishing number of strikeouts. I don't have any moral objection to strikeouts--I don't go around saying "Well, you know, Player from the Early Seventies only struck out three times in May of 1974"--but damn they're boring. I really miss balls being, you know, put into play.

And when I read the comment above, "athleticism is the best it has ever been"--it kind of clicked. The way the game is structured these days we have less opportunity to see that athleticism at work than we used to. We live in an era when players are capable of amazing feats in the field, feats that just weren't so common back when I was a boy, and yet all those Ks remove hundreds and hundreds of opportunities to showcase these talents. --Obviously Kevin Kiermaier and Andrelton Simmons and the rest still can and do make great plays; but there's no question that tremendous athleticism is most evident on defense, and the style of play limits those opportunities. From where I sit, at least, it's unfortunate.

Last edited by Ulf the Unwashed; 11-22-2018 at 09:50 AM.
  #125  
Old 11-22-2018, 10:23 AM
OldGuy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Very east of Foggybog, WI
Posts: 5,184
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
Barkis makes the point that many more pitchers are being used these days, and raises the question as to whether something should be done about that. Honestly, that is one of the last places I'd change anything. It's not that pitcher changes aren't kinda boring - they are - but that it would require a really dramatic rule change, and there are ways pace of play can be improved with more subtle approaches. It's also quite possible this trend will reverse a little on its own.
I think there is one rule change which would be almost unobservable to most fans that might help. Instead of requiring a pitcher to face one batter (or retire the side or be injured) before being replace, make him face two batters. That would remove those left-handed specialists (I don't recall any right-handed specialists). I find those back-to-back changes most annoying.
  #126  
Old 11-22-2018, 11:25 AM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 40,722
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulf the Unwashed View Post
From where I sit, at least, it's unfortunate.
I'd agree. I would guess that the difference between now and 30-40 years ago is about five plays in the field, between both teams, or roughly one play every two innings between both teams. That's quite a lot, actually.

It also actually reduces the importance of fielding. At least, in theory. Of course guys like Andrelton Simmons are still wildly valuable, and since fielding is much better understood now, I think it might be true (without looking it up) that at least for now fielding is having as much of an impact as it ever did. But if strikeouts keep increasing, it HAS to become less valuable, there's no way around that. If everyone strikes out the shortstop has very little to do - and I don't think that is good for baseball as an entertainment product.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #127  
Old 11-22-2018, 11:50 AM
Blank Slate's Avatar
Blank Slate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 5,067
It's not hard to predict the immediate future. Teams are paying attention to the fact that a lot, if not most, starters get hit hard the third time through the batting order. Combine shorter starts with a strategy like Tampa Bay's "opening" pitcher, and we're looking at even more pitching changes. Pitchers will be expected to get a fewer number of outs so they'll be able to expend their arsenal quicker (higher velocity fastballs, nastier sliders.) That should translate to even more strikeouts. Woo-hoo.
  #128  
Old 11-22-2018, 01:32 PM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 40,722
There is a theoretical upper limit to the number of strikeouts there can be. I am not sure we've reached it.

I think a likely future innovation will be fewer mid-inning pitching changes, and more pre-planned assignments, like Tim will pitch innings 1-2, Miguel will do 3-4, Kevin will do 5-6, etc. Which would slice a few minutes off games, so that would be okay.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #129  
Old 11-22-2018, 02:14 PM
Covfefe's Avatar
Covfefe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 803
Unless the distance between the pitching rubber and home plate is increased, I don't see any way strikeout rates will ever return anywhere near what they were 5+ years ago. The strike zone would have to be expanded a bit to accommodate that without a spike in walks.

I grew up in the '90s and the pitching committee the 2011 Cardinals team often used in the playoffs was foreign to me and drew my ire because I didn't understand it at the time. I still think more pitchers used on average makes the game feel more watered down. It's at a point where bullpen usage of every individual playoff series would be more interesting if there were no off days. Of course, who would want to see more #5 starters and fewer games started by aces in the playoffs..
  #130  
Old 11-22-2018, 03:49 PM
Blank Slate's Avatar
Blank Slate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 5,067
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
There is a theoretical upper limit to the number of strikeouts there can be. I am not sure we've reached it.

I think a likely future innovation will be fewer mid-inning pitching changes, and more pre-planned assignments, like Tim will pitch innings 1-2, Miguel will do 3-4, Kevin will do 5-6, etc. Which would slice a few minutes off games, so that would be okay.
Do you think it would play out that way? Or would it be: Tim gets in a jam in the 2nd, so they bring Miguel. Poor Miguel loads the bases with one out in the 4th, so in comes Kevin. Kevin can't get out of the 5th, so....

I just looked at the MLB totals and it's scary. Strikeouts eclipsed hits for the first time ever, and it's an aggressive trend. Check out 15 years ago compared to today:

2018

Hits: 41,018
SOs: 41,207

2003

Hits: 44.057
SOs: 30,801

That's pretty much a crisis for the game, in my book. Interestingly, walks were about the same, with only 200 more in 2018 than 2003.

That's another thing that slows down the game. Striking out more batters takes more pitches. It seems like a lot of batters just stand there until it's a full count.
  #131  
Old 11-23-2018, 08:46 AM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 40,722
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blank Slate View Post
Do you think it would play out that way? Or would it be: Tim gets in a jam in the 2nd, so they bring Miguel. Poor Miguel loads the bases with one out in the 4th, so in comes Kevin. Kevin can't get out of the 5th, so....
I dunno. For planning purposes, it would make sense to assign a number of pitchers to certain innings and have a couple of guys ready to go if, in fact, Miguel gets the shit kicked out of him and cannot get out of the fourth.

Suppose you carry 12 pitchers; you could assign three men to pitch three innings of each game in a three game rotation, with an additional three pitchers as your stoppers in case someone gets his ass handed to him or you need pitchers in extra innings. It's no more taxing than being a traditional starter and no one would ever pitch three times through the order, except maybe once in a blue moon.

Quote:
I just looked at the MLB totals and it's scary. Strikeouts eclipsed hits for the first time ever, and it's an aggressive trend. Check out 15 years ago compared to today:
The numbers are truly shocking. What would have been a really impressive strikeout rate for a pitcher 30 years ago is now normal. Tom Seaver, who could strike out a man or two, struck out 6.8 men per nine innings. Today that is the ratio put up by a control artist. In 1984, Dwight Gooden set an all time major league record when he struck out 11.4 men per nine innings. That season isn't even in the top twenty anymore, topped by such all time greats as Robbie Ray.

Nolan Ryan struck out 9.5 men per nine innings and when he retired was so far above everyone else in baseball history (except Sandy Koufax, who, of course, never had a decline phase) it was weird. Now he's tenth. Erik Bedard, if you remember him, struck out more men per nine innings than Steve Carlton. Bud Norris has a higher strikeout rate than Goose Gossage.

I don't know how they can fix this.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #132  
Old 11-29-2018, 09:16 AM
Barkis is Willin' is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,322
Buster Olney tweets "informed speculation" that Machado goes to Philly and Harper stays with the Nats. Will be interesting to see what the numbers are. I think if Harper really does stay in Washington, it means he's not getting the 350M or 400M that Scott Boras thought he would.
  #133  
Old 12-02-2018, 10:30 PM
Superdude is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Fortress of Solidude
Posts: 10,292
Edwin Diaz and Robinson Cano traded to the Mets for Jay Bruce and prospects.

http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/2...-new-york-mets
__________________
I can't help being a gorgeous fiend. It's just the card I drew.
  #134  
Old 12-03-2018, 07:06 AM
What Exit?'s Avatar
What Exit? is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Central NJ (near Bree)
Posts: 28,893
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superdude View Post
Edwin Diaz and Robinson Cano traded to the Mets for Jay Bruce and prospects.

http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/2...-new-york-mets
It looks like a pretty solid deal. Diaz is a very good pickup but Cano will be bad salary soon enough, he is winding down. But if they're lucky it will only be 2 bad years and 2 very good years up front.

Mets gave up: Jay Bruce, Anthony Swarzak, 1st round picks Jarred Kelenic & Justin Dunn, and righty pitcher Gerson Bautista. None of the kids are close to ready, so it has the chance to work out well for the Mets.
  #135  
Old 12-03-2018, 07:55 AM
Jackmannii is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: the extreme center
Posts: 31,129
The only way this deal makes sense for the Mets is if they're gearing up for one big push before loaded contracts come due for their top starting pitchers (or injury hits).

Otherwise they'll be handing over $$$ to an ineffective Cano on top of the not-yet-ended Bonilla payments (due to end in 2035).

And I think they'll still be stuck paying David Wright for the next two years of his (non) retirement.

But don't fret Mets fans - Tim Tebow is bound to be called up from Triple A next year to save the day!
  #136  
Old 12-03-2018, 08:12 AM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 40,722
Quote:
Originally Posted by What Exit? View Post
It looks like a pretty solid deal. Diaz is a very good pickup but Cano will be bad salary soon enough, he is winding down. But if they're lucky it will only be 2 bad years and 2 very good years up front.
The odds that Cano will be worth his salary to the Mets over all five years remaining probably aren't one in a hundred. Almost all hitters on huge long term contracts are terrible deals; it's just a fact. Cano in Seattle was a huge exception to the rule, but he's five years older now. This deal will only work for New York if Cano helps them win a championship in 2019, and Robinson Cano and Edwin Diaz do not turn a 77 win team into a champion.

Edwin Diaz was terrific last year. He also pitched just 73 innings. How many trades for relief aces have ever resulted in championships? Ever? I can think of one.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #137  
Old 12-03-2018, 08:33 AM
What Exit?'s Avatar
What Exit? is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Central NJ (near Bree)
Posts: 28,893
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
The odds that Cano will be worth his salary to the Mets over all five years remaining probably aren't one in a hundred. Almost all hitters on huge long term contracts are terrible deals; it's just a fact. Cano in Seattle was a huge exception to the rule, but he's five years older now. This deal will only work for New York if Cano helps them win a championship in 2019, and Robinson Cano and Edwin Diaz do not turn a 77 win team into a champion.

Edwin Diaz was terrific last year. He also pitched just 73 innings. How many trades for relief aces have ever resulted in championships? Ever? I can think of one.
Didn't it just help the Cubs break their small dry spell (2016)? The Chapman trade would appear to have helped them a lot. Especially getting past the Giants to move on.

But yes, I think the Mets will be lucky to get 2 good years from Cano before it really goes south. Knowing the Mets track record, he will lose his skills and ability this year.
  #138  
Old 12-03-2018, 09:04 AM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 40,722
Quote:
Originally Posted by What Exit? View Post
Didn't it just help the Cubs break their small dry spell (2016)? The Chapman trade would appear to have helped them a lot. Especially getting past the Giants to move on.
Maybe. Chapman certainly made no difference in the regular season - he pitched great but they won the division by three weeks - and he was pretty ordinary in the playoffs.

The one I had in mind was Bruce Sutter in 1982, granting the Cardinals traded before him prior to 1981. Andrew Miller was incredible for Cleveland in 2016, and while they just came up short in the World Series, maybe they don't get there without him; he was MVP of the ALCS and brilliant in the ALDS, too.

Giving up a lot for a relief pitcher, either in trade value or a big buck contract, is one of those moves that is so rarely useful it continues to amaze me that teams do it.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #139  
Old 12-03-2018, 09:21 AM
What Exit?'s Avatar
What Exit? is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Central NJ (near Bree)
Posts: 28,893
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
Maybe. Chapman certainly made no difference in the regular season - he pitched great but they won the division by three weeks - and he was pretty ordinary in the playoffs.

The one I had in mind was Bruce Sutter in 1982, granting the Cardinals traded before him prior to 1981. Andrew Miller was incredible for Cleveland in 2016, and while they just came up short in the World Series, maybe they don't get there without him; he was MVP of the ALCS and brilliant in the ALDS, too.

Giving up a lot for a relief pitcher, either in trade value or a big buck contract, is one of those moves that is so rarely useful it continues to amaze me that teams do it.
I tend to agree, I can see it as a late season move if you're a serious contender and your closer has either gone down or stopped being any good. This is not a move to put the Mets over the top, but maybe, just maybe it is one piece of the puzzle before the clock runs out on their starters.
  #140  
Old 12-03-2018, 09:53 AM
Hawkeyeop is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Somerville, MA
Posts: 2,173
As a Met fan I hate this trade and really just about everything about his off-season thus far. There are plenty of 2b and closers on the market that there is no need to trade prospects to acquire them. 2nd basemen do not age well and it isn't clear Cano can really still play 2nd anyway. And this is year one of five. Mets have a decent enough 2nd baseman anyway, so Cano isn't that much of an upgrade even in the short-term. Diaz is great, but counting on long term success of closers is always risky business. Kelenic in particular is a first round pick who has looked great early on and has the highest upside in the system, and the type of guy the Mets can't be trading, at least not for this.

And don't get me started on the Thor rumors..
  #141  
Old 12-03-2018, 02:48 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,292
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barkis is Willin' View Post
Buster Olney tweets "informed speculation" that Machado goes to Philly and Harper stays with the Nats. Will be interesting to see what the numbers are. I think if Harper really does stay in Washington, it means he's not getting the 350M or 400M that Scott Boras thought he would.
After the $300MM/10 years offer from the Nats, we have not seen a better offer pop up. Harper simply is not worth that much to anyone but the Nats and I suspect that the current offer might stand with a teeny tiny sweetener (some performance bonus maybe) so that Boras doesn't look silly for not taking 300 right away.
  #142  
Old 12-04-2018, 08:17 AM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 40,722
Now talk is the Dodgers have interest. He's certainly the ideal Dodger, in that he has power but strikes out a lot.

Honestly, I wouldn't take the contract on. Long term big money contracts just aren't worth the risk, they fail so often. If Harper was A-Rod, Barry Bonds awesome, maybe, but he isn't even close.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #143  
Old 12-04-2018, 09:24 AM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,292
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
Now talk is the Dodgers have interest. He's certainly the ideal Dodger, in that he has power but strikes out a lot.

Honestly, I wouldn't take the contract on. Long term big money contracts just aren't worth the risk, they fail so often. If Harper was A-Rod, Barry Bonds awesome, maybe, but he isn't even close.
Half the fans in the DC metro area are rooting for Harper to leave.
  #144  
Old 12-04-2018, 09:54 AM
Barkis is Willin' is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,322
Somehow I missed that Josh Donaldson signed with Atlanta for one year $23M. Seems a hefty price tag, but the risk is limited to a single year, so I guess the Braves can live with that.

As for Harper, hey, if the Nats could get Michael Brantley and a starting pitcher for around the same cost, are you really worse off? (I have no idea what Brantley expects to get paid or of Washington is interested, just that he's another decent free agent outfielder.)
  #145  
Old 12-04-2018, 04:34 PM
madsircool is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,456
Corbin to the Nats on a 6 year contract. I don't agree with this deal. He has already had one TJ procedure and his brilliance last season was predicated on an increase of the use of his slider. As an Angels fan I'm happy we didn't have a reunion with him. But please sign Keuchel.
  #146  
Old 12-04-2018, 06:01 PM
What Exit?'s Avatar
What Exit? is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Central NJ (near Bree)
Posts: 28,893
Quote:
Originally Posted by madsircool View Post
Corbin to the Nats on a 6 year contract. I don't agree with this deal. He has already had one TJ procedure and his brilliance last season was predicated on an increase of the use of his slider. As an Angels fan I'm happy we didn't have a reunion with him. But please sign Keuchel.
My understanding is the Yanks wouldn't go past 5 years. I'm happy not to sign him to 6.
  #147  
Old 12-04-2018, 06:46 PM
ElvisL1ves is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 49,036
The out years are worth it if it means winning now. Tomorrow never comes, yanno?

And the Yankees didn't get better today.
  #148  
Old 12-04-2018, 06:54 PM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 40,722
Well, they still have time to blow $400 million on Bryce Harper.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #149  
Old 12-04-2018, 07:38 PM
What Exit?'s Avatar
What Exit? is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Central NJ (near Bree)
Posts: 28,893
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
The out years are worth it if it means winning now. Tomorrow never comes, yanno?

And the Yankees didn't get better today.
Yanks are on the rise, watch out Red Sux fans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
Well, they still have time to blow $400 million on Bryce Harper.
I'll bet that one will not happen. No way the $400m
  #150  
Old 12-05-2018, 11:39 AM
ElvisL1ves is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 49,036
Harper isn't going to the Bronx, no, but only because he wouldn't actually improve that outfield. What, he's going to platoon with Stanton?

The Yanks will get better if they improve their pitching. Maybe they will, but not so far. They can catch Boston if the Sox get a mental hangover from last year's joy, which is certainly possible.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:15 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017