MLB Off-Topic

[countryboy]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

I havent been able to watch him^ yet... Does he throw that hard or just that filthy that NOBODY can hit him?

Little League umpires don't check pitchers for foreign substance

[The Kid 24]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

Little League umpires don't check pitchers for foreign substance

Haha makes sense.

[Master Live 013]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

That's what they'd be restricted to if they do it. Keep them on the dirt and their side of 2B.

I'm fine with shifts, but there would have to be trade-offs for what happens when you pull somebody over or put somebody in the outfield. I won't post my video again, but essentially many extreme shifts can still be what they are.

But that already happens. If the SS, 2B and 1B play on the right side of 2nd base with the 3B at short then the area normally covered by the 3B is open. That's the tradeoff. Same with an infielder moving to the outfield, some zone gets open that wasn't available before.

I would like for the position to be established in relation to the positions around them though, and that the position can't change for essentially the duration of the at-bat. So if a 3B slides over to become the "SS" or whatever, then they are the SS of record for that at-bat and can't move back as a relative 3B after that.

It just would be nice if shifting came more at a cost is all. That's a me thing.

But why? That's my problem with you and the shift, I still don't understand why there should be a change to it to accommodate your preferences aside from the "tradeoffs" argument which doesn't make sense since there are already tradeoffs.

"Costlier tradeoffs!".

Like, if you said: "well, I want two infielders on each side of 2B so the hitters have a better chance of getting a hit if they put the ball in play because offense sucks nowadays". That's seems logical to me, I don't agree with it, but at least I can understand it.

But the underlying problem seems to be an OCD problem (no hating, I'm OCD too) in which you can't deal with some asymmetrical positioning of players (which I can understand too, it looks "better" symmetrically) so we have to change the rules for you. So no :P




******** src="moz-extension://a8462fe0-d9b6-4eb4-9021-b8c5a4f16443/js/app.js" type="text/javascript">******** src="moz-extension://a8462fe0-d9b6-4eb4-9021-b8c5a4f16443/js/app.js" type="text/javascript"></script>

[Majingir]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

On the weather channel they were going over the Atlantic storm names for 2021.

Coming up could be Pete Rose.

Technically it's Peter, but that would be weird seeing possible back to back storms named Pete(r) & Rose.

[KSUowls]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

To preface, I'm not really a fan of legislating behavior in baseball. I would much rather see hitters use the wide open left side of the field to take advantage of the "trade-off" defenses are making by shifting because it is a big hole that the defense is giving them. Unfortunately though we have an ever growing sample size which shows that it really isn't a trade-off for the defense because hitters are still just trying to pull the ball. It's a player behavior problem, but the current rules and/or analytics encourage that behavior. So, if you want to change it then it might take something that will force that behavioral change.

I actually think that a defense-defense comparison from baseball to football (or any sport) makes little sense, and that, except for the ability to score, baseball's defense has more in common with football offense. The reason being that if you look at which side of the ball dictates the action and the pace of play it's the QB & play call on offense and it's the Pitcher in baseball. So, from that perspective you actually can draw some comparisons to why you might have a rule in football that states you need 7 men on the line of scrimmage and to a potential rule of defenders on either side of 2nd base.

[dubcity]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

I get people thinking it's dumb to regulate the shifts, but I also find the shifts themselves to be super annoying for some reason. I also dislike the constant need to turn every single aspect of baseball into a dice roll % and acting on it, but I guess that is analytics.

[kehlis]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

Okay, then on that front... what is the point of positions by name, except for pitcher and catcher? I mean this for scorebook/statistics purposes, and the infield fly rule/hitting baserunner rule. If they can literally stand anywhere and they arrange to do the most bizarre of configurations for certain batters in certain counts that represent nothing regarding their actual position they are being tracked for, what is the point of having that considered in the first place? What is a third baseman if they are standing in shallow right-center field?

Keep in mind my proposition doesn't eliminate this in its entirety, but it does acknowledge positions by relative location and keeps them there.

Is there actually a team sport where players don't spend some amount of time outside of their "defined" area?

[TripleCrown9]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

Tonight is the Mariners' 1,755th game at T-Mobile Park.

They played 1,755 games at the Kingdome.

[Blzer]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

Tonight is the Mariners' 1,755th game at T-Mobile Park.

They played 1,755 games at the Kingdome.

That actually feels pretty believable to me.

I just wish it was still called Safeco Field.

[Majingir]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

That actually feels pretty believable to me.



I just wish it was still called Safeco Field.

So many places feel that way too. You'll remember it more for one thing, but it's actually been longer another way.


Jays for instance, I think the Rogers Centre name has been around way longer than Skydome, but obviously Skydome is what people know.

In Seattle, Safeco is obviously the name people will remember. Griffey then Ichiro era and all that.

[Blzer]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

So many places feel that way too. You'll remember it more for one thing, but it's actually been longer another way.


Jays for instance, I think the Rogers Centre name has been around way longer than Skydome, but obviously Skydome is what people know.

In Seattle, Safeco is obviously the name people will remember. Griffey then Ichiro era and all that.

Not to mention the big logo on the lights in left field. Now it's all pink, and I can't deal with it.

By the way, I didn't mean to say that it'll always be known as Safeco Field to me. I just wish it still was, that's all. I'll gladly call it by its current name. I'm not saying that you thought that's what I meant, but I wanted that to be clear for everybody else.

[ubernoob]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

I'll forever call it Safeco. T-Mobile isn't paying me to call it T-Mobile, and everyone knows what I mean when I say Safeco. Just like it's always Miller Park and the Cell (or Comiskey I guess.)

I like the pink though.

[TripleCrown9]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

I'm certainly not going to say American Family Field when the Brewers are at home.

[Jr.]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

I'd be really interested to see the data that justifies companies spending hundreds of millions of dollars on these naming rights deal.

Is T-Mobile really doing that much better because the Mariners home field is sponsored by them?

I'm guessing they get free advertising during games or something, but it just seems like an enormous waste of money for these companies.

[reyes the roof]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

I'd be really interested to see the data that justifies companies spending hundreds of millions of dollars on these naming rights deal.

Is T-Mobile really doing that much better because the Mariners home field is sponsored by them?

I'm guessing they get free advertising during games or something, but it just seems like an enormous waste of money for these companies.

Yeah especially if they’re established companies. I can’t see how Citi makes back the $20 million per year they pay the Mets for naming rights at Citi Field