MLB Off-Topic

[Jolly Roger]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

I don't know how an MLB bullpen mound differs from actually being out there, but growing up I can definitely say that I needed to get my pitches done again one more time out on the actual mound. Everything feels different once you're out there, at least for me. Don't forget the catcher wouldn't mind seeing what your ball moves like again, just for old time's sake.

I know what you mean, though. Maybe if they replace more than one pitcher in an inning, then they restrict it from happening as a consequence. Not sure.

Oh, you pitched? That is cool. I never played organized baseball, which I regret. I'm a lefty, so I feel it would've been like being 6'4" in basketball (i.e., a minor advantage, but nothing major if you're not good at the sport anyway).

[Master Live 013]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

Well, baseball has an intractable problem. Runs and the likelihood a game is short seem inversely proportional. The more runs you score the longer the game is (unless, maybe, if the game is a blowout, but you get the point). I personally wouldn't mind if games were shorter with less scoring, I enjoy 2-1 games, but that isn't what Manfred et al. want. They want both a nice amount of scoring and the game to be 2 hours and 20 minutes. I just don't see how that's possible.

[Speedy]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

Well, baseball has an intractable problem. Runs and the likelihood a game is short seem inversely proportional. The more runs you score the longer the game is (unless, maybe, if the game is a blowout, but you get the point). I personally wouldn't mind if games were shorter with less scoring, I enjoy 2-1 games, but that isn't what Manfred et al. want. They want both a nice amount of scoring and the game to be 2 hours and 20 minutes. I just don't see how that's possible.

It wouldn't be as bad if the batter didn't need to adjust his gloves, check his bat, do 2 warm up swings and finally get back in the box.

It's why I love LL. Kids just go, man. They play ball.

[Majingir]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

Well, baseball has an intractable problem. Runs and the likelihood a game is short seem inversely proportional. The more runs you score the longer the game is (unless, maybe, if the game is a blowout, but you get the point). I personally wouldn't mind if games were shorter with less scoring, I enjoy 2-1 games, but that isn't what Manfred et al. want. They want both a nice amount of scoring and the game to be 2 hours and 20 minutes. I just don't see how that's possible.

That's not the issue either though.

Let's even take this past year. 9.29 runs between both teams per game and games lasted about 3 hours and 7 minutes per 9 inning games.

The early 80s had over 10 runs per game and game times of 2 hours and 35 minutes.

[dubcity]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

Ball in play % and contact % numbers are way down from 30 years ago. The chance of any one pitch being hit into play is way down. Total pitches thrown way up. Basically it's nothing that can be fixed artificially. Unless you are going to tell pitcher that he needs to pitch for the double play with a runner on first, as opposed to him grinding away pitch after pitch for a strikeout.

Total pitches thrown
1990: 534,319
2019: 732, 511

With runs per game up by only a half a run.

[Majingir]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

Ball in play % and contact % numbers are way down from 30 years ago. The chance of any one pitch being hit into play is way down. Total pitches thrown way up. Basically it's nothing that can be fixed artificially. Unless you are going to tell pitcher that he needs to pitch for the double play with a runner on first, as opposed to him grinding away pitch after pitch for a strikeout.

Total pitches thrown
1990: 534,319
2019: 732, 511

With runs per game up by only a half a run.

Total pitches has gone up as well because we have more teams. Pitches per game is the better number to use.

[dubcity]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

Total pitches has gone up as well because we have more teams. Pitches per game is the better number to use.

That's a good point. Or pitches per plate appearance.

[reyes the roof]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

Total pitches has gone up as well because we have more teams. Pitches per game is the better number to use.

I broke it down to an average of 252 pitches per game in 1990 and 300 per game in 2019. That’s assuming there have been four expansion teams since 1990 and I didn’t miss anyone

[Jolly Roger]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

I'm conflicted, because I love the advanced statistics that have been developing over the past few decades, but I also appreciate the more "intuition" based ways of old ("good face" and "high butt" very much excluded).

I think the symbolic heart of this conflict between the new way and the old is strikeouts. Striking out used to seen as a failure for the batter. We know that being out 7 of 10 times is success, but if you don't at least put the ball in play, that is a fail. We even say someone "struck out" when they really flub something.

I don't know about you guys, but some of these sluggers who hit 40 home runs but strike out 30% of the time, that does not impress me. Sticking with a home run approach on two strikes may make sense from an analytical net value standpoint for a lot of players, but I just can't let go of the sense that poking the ball in play for a weak out with 2 strikes is still so much more dignified than striking out.

Alas, someday the game might swing back the other way.

[Majingir]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

I'm conflicted, because I love the advanced statistics that have been developing over the past few decades, but I also appreciate the more "intuition" based ways of old ("good face" and "high butt" very much excluded).

I think the symbolic heart of this conflict between the new way and the old is strikeouts. Striking out used to seen as a failure for the batter. We know that being out 7 of 10 times is success, but if you don't at least put the ball in play, that is a fail. We even say someone "struck out" when they really flub something.

I don't know about you guys, but some of these sluggers who hit 40 home runs but strike out 30% of the time, that does not impress me. Sticking with a home run approach on two strikes may make sense from an analytical net value standpoint for a lot of players, but I just can't let go of the sense that poking the ball in play for a weak out with 2 strikes is still so much more dignified than striking out.

Alas, someday the game might swing back the other way.

Don't worry, MLB will hear fans complaints about guys striking out too much and will change things to 4 strikes instead, but will counterattack pace of play by making it possible to strike out on any foul ball, not just bunts.

[Blzer]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

I'm conflicted, because I love the advanced statistics that have been developing over the past few decades, but I also appreciate the more "intuition" based ways of old ("good face" and "high butt" very much excluded).

I think the symbolic heart of this conflict between the new way and the old is strikeouts. Striking out used to seen as a failure for the batter. We know that being out 7 of 10 times is success, but if you don't at least put the ball in play, that is a fail. We even say someone "struck out" when they really flub something.

I don't know about you guys, but some of these sluggers who hit 40 home runs but strike out 30% of the time, that does not impress me. Sticking with a home run approach on two strikes may make sense from an analytical net value standpoint for a lot of players, but I just can't let go of the sense that poking the ball in play for a weak out with 2 strikes is still so much more dignified than striking out.

Alas, someday the game might swing back the other way.

The real problem on top of this is that people have this mindset that a strikeout and a ball-in-play putout are essentially the same thing, but they're playing under the heavily false assumption that when you put that ball in play then you're going to get out, whereas BABIP tells us you're only going to get out 70% of the time.

We're not advocating for players to choke up and pepper the ball with two strikes; we're just stating that a 2-0 approach and an 0-2 approach cannot be the same for every player. Not everyone is as gifted to do it this way as was, say, Moises Alou. The only thing the strikeout is better than is a double play, and double plays are probably most easily initiated when a ball is hit hard in the first place, so... I don't know where I'm going with this, but the point remains that you might be okay with one power hitter in your lineup sacrificing the strikeout for a home run, but not six guys.

In this juiced ball era, maybe. Let's return to normal, though. Start by cutting off the Manfrhead.

[reyes the roof]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

I'm conflicted, because I love the advanced statistics that have been developing over the past few decades, but I also appreciate the more "intuition" based ways of old ("good face" and "high butt" very much excluded).

I think the symbolic heart of this conflict between the new way and the old is strikeouts. Striking out used to seen as a failure for the batter. We know that being out 7 of 10 times is success, but if you don't at least put the ball in play, that is a fail. We even say someone "struck out" when they really flub something.

I don't know about you guys, but some of these sluggers who hit 40 home runs but strike out 30% of the time, that does not impress me. Sticking with a home run approach on two strikes may make sense from an analytical net value standpoint for a lot of players, but I just can't let go of the sense that poking the ball in play for a weak out with 2 strikes is still so much more dignified than striking out.

Alas, someday the game might swing back the other way.

I’m not a fan of analytics at all. I shake with rage whenever I see the scene in Moneyball where Billy Beane says no more bunting

[TripleCrown9]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

Cubs prospect Jesus Camargo, who has been in their organization for 6 years, was arrested after police found 21 pounds of meth in his bag.

[Majingir]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

Interesting comments from Shapiro recently.

He mentioned how MLB teams could be vaccinated within the next month or so, 2 weeks for the earliest.

As it related to where the Jays play, they're for sure playing in Dunedin to start as we all know.

From May onwards I'd guess they're going to Buffalo (only reason being that Dunedin is too hot). However, could having fully vaccinated players for what would have been 2 or 3 months might be enough data for the government to possibly allow players across the border?

If so, my guess is post ASG being when Jays could return to Toronto (no fans in attendance for now, maybe come playoff time?)

[dubcity]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

I’m not a fan of analytics at all. I shake with rage whenever I see the scene in Moneyball where Billy Beane says no more bunting

To be fair, the no-bunting thing was key to them winning the World Ser... i mean making it to the World S... i mean them winning a game in the ALC... well, it mattered damnit.