Harper was nursing an injury most of the 2nd half - a lot of people are suggesting that’s what held his defense back. Interesting number I saw - he’ll be earning less per year than A-Rod did almost 30 years ago. On a per win basis, this contract is bound to be extremely team friendly, certainly in the first 5-7 years (batting injury).
It also sounds like he’s already boosting ticket sales through the roof (though that’s likely a PR-smoke blowing campaign). I don’t doubt there’s a big increase - Philly loves to back a team with momentum and hype.
Semi-relatedly, I remember razzing a friend of mine in a fantasy baseball league back in like 2004 for keeping Adrian Beltre, calling him “Adrian BeltrAAA” because he hadn’t done anything to deserve his hype. He was like 24 at that point - it’s crazy how soon we expect world-beating numbers so soon from these kids. (And then the writers don’t give Mike Yrout all the MVP awards despite dominating the league).
Meh, not much to thank me for, I’m just a picky asshole.
It’s an interesting comparison - but of course Harper isn’t nearly as good a player. Aside from his MVP season he isn’t at all comparable. He was a very unusual free agency case; I find his value really hard to clearly discern. Rodriguez at the time he signed with Texas was a much, much more consistent and elite player. Barry Bonds when he signed his big deal with San Francisco (it was the biggest ever back then) was the best player in baseball. Harper CAN be that good, as we have seen, but usually isn’t, and has had more injury problems that one likes to see.
Sounds like Adam Jones is heading to the D-Backs, not sure if he’d be their regular starting CF. Also, not sure how good the D-Backs will be this year, but I don’t think they can win the NL West. Feels like they’re about a .500 team. Makes me wonder if they are just hoping Jones is worth something at the trade deadline…
This isn’t really hot stove news, but I think it’s wonderful nonetheless, assuming “discussions with broadcast partners” don’t foul it up:
Inning breaks: Subject to discussions with broadcast partners, inning breaks will be reduced from 2:05 to 2:00 in local games and from 2:25 to 2:00 in national games. The Commissioner’s Office retains the right to further reduce the breaks to 1:55 in local and national games for the start of the 2020 season.
It seems to me that’s the best way to reduce the time of the game with little actual effect on the game. It amounts to a 7 minute shortening of game times for nationally televised games.
They’re also increasing roster sizes to 26 and eliminating wavier trades after July 31st. Rosters after Sep 1st will be limited to 28 (not 40). And relief pitchers will be required to face 3 batters or pitch to the end of the inning.
I support all of those except possibly the last about which I’ve not made up my mind.
The All-Star game will use the “start extra innings with a runner on second” rule ---- boooo. I’d prefer to simply call it a tie. Who really cares who wins that game. I wouldn’t be adverse calling regualr season games ties, but I’d want them to do that after 12 innings like in Japan.
They’re working on the time between pitches, but the problem with a rule there is exactly what to enforce. What do you do after a brush-back pitch for example. You do have to give the batter a bit of time to compose himself. So a hard and fast rule is difficult. In any case watching the 20 second clock at the spring training games, I’ve noticed very few violations.
Changing pitchers between innings does not increase game time at all. So adding a pitcher to the roster will not affect play time if the 3 batter rule keeps within inning changes down.
Also I didn’t mention it, but the 10 day disabled list is being pushed back to 15 days because it was abused. Increasing the roster helps to make sure those with minor injuries can be rested.
Absolutely dead-set against the three-batter rule. Any change that could alter the outcome of a postseason series shouldn’t be adopted willy nilly. Manfred is an idiot.
It would seem to me that any change at all could alter the outcome of a postseason game. And who says these have been adopted willy-nilly. They were not handed down from on high by Manfred.
Meh, it’s moronic. Idiots tinkering with a 100+ years of the rules of the game just for the sake of ‘doing something.’
In other news, what’s up with the Blue Jays and the sons of former major league players? The game against the Yankees today featured Kacy Clemens, Bo Bichette and Cavan Biggio. And Vlad Guerrero jr. is lurking somewhere.
I, on the other hand, am absolutely in favor. Nothing’s more exciting than watching a pitching change, a couple pitches, another pitching change, another couple pitches, and yet ANOTHER pitching change. Let’s go watch some paint dry while we’re at it.
My interest level in MLB is lower than I can remember. This news makes me think I might actually watch a few games on TV once it takes effect. Good for Manfred.
I’m not sure how to feel about it either. I do think it has the potential to make managerial decisions more interesting when you can’t just make pitching changes based on probabilities of a single pitcher/batter matchup, and I’m sure it will make post-game discussions about pitching changes, or lack thereof, even more intense. I can’t say I’m excited about watching a pitcher get shelled for three batters in a row, though, if the guy isn’t pitching well.
How does this impact any recent signings of “one-batter” relievers? Not that I have any examples at hand.
Gotta say, I’m opposed to all this monkeying around with the rules. (Still pissed off about the “automatic” IBB). I don’t think true baseball fans are all that upset about the length of the games. I think it’s the sort of borderline onlookers that wish things would move faster.
Trading strategy for something that will save two minutes per game will might gladden the short attention span, twitterbrained idiots who only look up from their phones when someone homers crowd. It won’t improve the game in any way.
I’ll happily support pace-of-play improvements that will actually work. Like forcing the batters and pitchers to stop fucking around between every pitch.
They just let Dwight Smith Jr. go, too. I liked Smith, but they have other guys with higher upside to give at bats to.
If it’s deliberate, it’s actually very wise. If you have two young men the same age and same apparent level of talent, the son of a former big leaguer is MUCH likelier to pan out. It’s like four times higher or something - it’s been awhile since I saw the numbers, but it’s striking.
Vlad Jr. and Bichette are absolute monsters, very exciting prospects. Right now Guerrero is the best hitting prospect in the world and in franchise history; Bichette, who is a better fielder and is in better physical shape (Vlad Jr. is really porky for a kid his age) may be a better long term bet. Biggio less so, but I like him and think he can contribute. Clemens is marginal; he hit OK last year in high A ball, which is good, but was 23 years old, which is bad. The average age in A ball is 21-22.
How does this trade away strategy? I don’t understand that argument at all.
Yes, it removes an option from the manager. Removing options isn’t necessarily a reduction in strategy, though, because it forces other types of planning. Let’s be honest; bringing in a guy to face one batter because it’s the platoon advantage is not exactly a Napoleonic level of tactical genius. A three-batter minimum will require different bullpen management and warmup plans. You have to look ahead now and decide who you’re using and when, basednot only on who’s available but on number of outs and how you think the inning will go. You can bring in Smith with two out in the seventh to get one guy, of course, because a pitcher can be pulled in between innings, but how does the eighth go now? Do you want to continue using Smith in that inning because that gets you closer to using Jones without Jones necessarily having to face three guys? Or are you sure you just want to use Smith for one out in the seventh, and rely on Jones to start the eighth, knowing he can’t get out of it facing only one or two guys? This will open up all new lines of thought and planning. I’m looking forward to it if for no other reason than to see how different managers deal with it.
I agree the stop-fucking-around thing is more important, but it is also more difficult to fix. Sometimes you have to grab some low hanging fruit and start the process.
(I am also 100% behind limiting pickoff attempts but no one wants to do that I guess.)
God, this again?
I am as true a baseball fan as anyone I’ve ever met and am absolutely, positively sick of games being too long. (Well, it’s PACE, not length, but close enough.) When I watch baseball I want to watch baseball, so let’s get on with it. If they can speed up the game that would be awesome. “True baseball fans” are not “fans who see it the way I do.”