MLB Off-Topic

[areobee401]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

That was a problem in last night's game, but it wasn't the problem.

I was listening to parts of the game on the radio while driving, and this number was thrown out there: in the top of the 8th inning between 8:23 and 8:41 PM (PST), Pedro Baez threw a total of 20 pitches.

How in the hell does this happen? I understand the different replays and such, but he was just far too deliberate going to the plate in this inning.

There are other big pace-of-play issues (especially surrounding replay), and the IBB is not one of them.

The FS1 telecast had Baez on a timer at one point. He was taking roughly thirty seconds between pitches. Twenty total pitches thrown between 8:23 and 8:41 sounds about right.

[Money99]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

If the MLB ever starts to micro manage the managers it would lose me as a fan.

There is nothing wrong with a four game if that's how a game plays out.

IMO, the problem is it's the managers who are micro-managing too much.
I'd love to see boxscores from 1900>2000 to see if 8 pitchers in a game was the norm over the past century.

I think sometimes these managers realize they're not as in control of a game as they'd like to be.
The last two Dodger losses, the games were close(ish), then Roberts starts pouring pitchers out of the pen and suddenly both games end in romps.

I'm not sure who's quote this is, but I heard a player once say that all managers can do is lose you games.
He forgot to include, "and add 2 hours to a game".

[Blzer]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

At the same time though, the closer role has become a massive gear-grinder for me. I love legitimate closers, but I don't think that role should be designated specifically for the ninth inning. It should be designed to get the necessary consecutive outs late in the game that you can consistently rely on. If the 8th inning features the 3-4-5 hitters and the ninth potentially features the 6-7-8 hitters, put your damn closer in the eighth inning.

So, why don't they? Only three reasons I can think of:

1) If the 3-4-5 matchup fares better for the alternate reliever you put in its place (say the other reliever is a lefty and all three hitters are left-handed, whereas 6-7-8 are right-handed).

2a) If you do enough damage in the bottom half of the inning that you feel using your closer is not necessary, saving him for future games if possible.

2b) If it's a save situation.

1 and 2a are very legitimate, but 2b is an extension of 2a because they might not consider using them the moment it doesn't become a "save" situation, which is most illegitimate IMO. That situation seems rather arbitrary, and for me looks like nothing more than a stat-padding decision. Saves might be slightly more valuable than holds, but holds are so undervalued that it causes managers to misuse their bullpen, or at least use them for the wrong reasons.

What was my point of all of this? I enjoy the bullpen-by-committee at times because it means a manager is thinking more than the dolt-like attitude of: "Hey, ninth inning. Are we within a three-run lead? Okay, bring in the CP!" (and I realize there are other qualifying situations for a save, by the way)

But Bruce Bochy is a perfect example of how not to over-manage due to costly consequences. Let's take the NLDS Game 4 ninth inning against Chicago:

Long-winded rant:

Spoiler

When up by three runs, Bochy begins by inserting his strongest right-handed reliever (Derek Law) to face Kris Bryant with Anthony Rizzo on-deck, a switch-hitter in the hole, and a lefty in the six-spot (likely switching to Contreras later because of the match-ups). Bryant punches a single through the shift. So okay, he got his ground ball even though they didn't get the out, and now Bochy goes to our lefty Lopez against a struggling Rizzo. The second he motioned to the bullpen, I'm thinking "bad idea!" for a number of reasons, but the main two were: 1) you just lost Law; 2) he nibbles and is prone to walking players, and in this particular scenario he is not the tying run.

So, what happens? He walks him. Not to my surprise at all. Now Zobrist is coming up, and Bochy goes to Romo so Zobrist switches to the left side, and he is nearly a dead-even slugger from both sides. The problem with this is with the first baseman holding the runner close and Romo with not much speed, pulling the ball means a big hole on that right side! Line drive near the corner, as it was.

This whole thing continued (as he put in five pitchers only to get one out), and I'm not saying his match-ups were bad for those batters provided what he was left with, not at all. But they were awful for the situations provided, and it made him lose pitchers that could have been better served for the batter after the match-up that he was looking for.

What were Bochy's other options?

1) Although it appears as me going against my better judgement (based on earlier in this post), ride a hot pitcher in the ninth for as long as you can, until the point that you can't. Derek Law or Will Smith, take your pick. He lost his hottest hands far too quickly. Get your greatest shutdown threat, and don't lose them because of a single insignificant batter... and by insignificant I don't mean an easy out, I mean a batter where their threat is diminished to a walk being almost equally as valuable as a big fly. At the very least, Keep Law in against Rizzo, and if you want a righty to face Zobrist he can keep him in for that match-up and the Coghlan/Contreras match-up (this way even if Contreras does pinch-hit, it's not against a lefty in Smith or Lopez and Bochy, once again, gets his match-up). At that point, if you want to remove Law and go in for the lefty against Heyward, that sounds about right to me. But he mismanaged this. I'm not saying this after thinking about it for weeks on end, I was saying it as it happened. It was not difficult to render. He overthought the match-ups in the short-term and underthought the situations.

2) Everyone's favorite one: keep in Matt Moore. Though the guy has thrown 120 pitches already and is about to face Bryant and Rizzo for the fourth time in a row, I still see this as possibly acceptable. A small counterargument is just that we should be able to trust our bullpen to protect three-run leads, though. And the biggest thing outside of that: people don't really seem to remember, but his spot was due up in the bottom of the eighth inning, and Eduardo Nuñez was warming up on deck in his place only for Blanco to ground into a double-play. The question you ask yourself is: "In what situation would have Bochy left Moore in to hit, provided that he would consider him for the ninth inning?" You could have had as routine as a strikeout or a single, meaning 1st w/ two out or 1st & 2nd w/ one out, and either-or you might see him keep him in. A double? Maybe not anymore. It just depends. But if Bochy pinch-hits for him for a qualified hitter, there is nothing illogical about that move, and that means he must pull him out. So his spot didn't come up in the ninth and that's a big deal, you say. I don't know... it only took a double play for his spot to not come up. We should play this out like the pinch-hitter comes up here and they fail to score, because that was probably the most likely scenario of them all. Bottom line, a bullpen needs to protect that lead.

Sorry this went from time of games to something I haven't gotten off my chest yet. The point is that I love the art of managing and don't want rules to restrict them, but coaches shouldn't just do things simply "because." They really have to consider what they're putting in place when they do.

[Speedy]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

IMO, the problem is it's the managers who are micro-managing too much.
I'd love to see boxscores from 1900>2000 to see if 8 pitchers in a game was the norm over the past century.

Yeah...I mean...it will be...but the game has changed, you know? There is also a disproportionate amount of pitchers throwing 95+ than 2 decades ago as well. I am all for speeding up the game but until there is some type of penalty that affects the outcome of the game, it won't do anything.

I'm still upset how many strikeouts there in the game - but sadly, nothing in MLB is being done about that because it's just the all/nothing mindset of players now. It was refreshing to watch that 8th inning in the Cubs/Dodgers game because THAT is baseball => put the ball in play and make the defense MAKE a play...a groundout and a strikeout are NOT the same thing.

[kehlis]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

Yeah...I mean...it will be...but the game has changed, you know? There is also a disproportionate amount of pitchers throwing 95+ than 2 decades ago as well. I am all for speeding up the game but until there is some type of penalty that affects the outcome of the game, it won't do anything.

I'm still upset how many strikeouts there in the game - but sadly, nothing in MLB is being done about that because it's just the all/nothing mindset of players now. It was refreshing to watch that 8th inning because THAT is baseball => put the ball in play and make the defense MAKE a play...a groundout and a strikeout are NOT the same thing.

Wait, what?

What can the MLB do to prevent strikeouts? The strike zone is already smaller than it's ever been.

[Money99]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

Wait, what?

What can the MLB do to prevent strikeouts? The strike zone is already smaller than it's ever been.

That could be argued. There are still lots of pitches outside the zone called for strikes. Especially against lefties.

It was refreshing to watch that 8th inning in the Cubs/Dodgers game because THAT is baseball => put the ball in play and make the defense MAKE a play...a groundout and a strikeout are NOT the same thing.

Would have loved to see that play, but I was fast asleep. The game should have been over at 11, at the most. If it had been, I would have seen that play.
So I guess that's the penalty for long games. Viewership may drop off due to the fact that most people on the East Coast can't stay up till midnight to watch a 9-inning game that started at 8.

[Speedy]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

Wait, what?

What can the MLB do to prevent strikeouts? The strike zone is already smaller than it's ever been.

The zone was lowered from the top of the knees to the bottom of the knees in 1996 and probably should revert back...although with how umps today call balls/strikes, probably won't make a difference.

More to your question, my point was that it's a mindset of the players and not necessarily an issue with MLB rules. Below is a table of the top 500, top 25 and top 50 single season records for strikeouts by a hitter...it's just astounding to me to see how crazy it's gotten this decade.

[kehlis]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

The zone was lowered from the top of the knees to the bottom of the knees in 1996 and probably should revert back...although with how umps today call balls/strikes, probably won't make a difference.

More to your question, my point was that it's a mindset of the players and not necessarily an issue with MLB rules. Below is a table of the top 500, top 25 and top 50 single season records for strikeouts by a hitter...it's just astounding to me to see how crazy it's gotten this decade.

Strikeouts are the only 100% guaranteed out. You aren't going to see it as something that's discouraged.

[kehlis]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

That could be argued. There are still lots of pitches outside the zone called for strikes. Especially against lefties.

You won't get me to disagree that the enforcement of the strike zone has been nothing but sub par but until I see a strike called at the letters as it's supposed to be (per the rulebook) I can't say the strikezone is called as it should be.

Bad calls are one thing but I can't remember the last time I saw a high strike called as it should per the rule book.

[Blzer]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

Strikeouts are the only 100% guaranteed out. You aren't going to see it as something that's discouraged.

Nah, batter interference is. Strikeouts can have drop-thirds on them.

[Speedy]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

Strikeouts are the only 100% guaranteed out. You aren't going to see it as something that's discouraged.

For who...hitters? I don't see why strikeouts would not be discouraged for a hitter.

EDIT: Think you're referring to any type of corrective action by MLB.

I would presume that MLB holds the stance that the more balls in play, the better the product on the field is as it increase entertainment for its paying fans. I recall when pitchers had these substantially low ERAs a couple of years ago that there was talk of possibly lowering the mound again or updating the strike zone...the recent spike in HRs since then has subsided those conversations though.

[Jr.]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

You won't get me to disagree that the enforcement of the strike zone has been nothing but sub par but until I see a strike called at the letters as it's supposed to be (per the rulebook) I can't say the strikezone is called as it should be.

Bad calls are one thing but I can't remember the last time I saw a high strike called as it should per the rule book.

It's doesn't state the letters explicitly, but I agree the top of the zone isn't called as it should.

The STRIKE ZONE is that area over home plate the upper limit of which is a horizontal line at the midpoint between the top of the shoulders and the top of the uniform pants, and the lower level is a line at the hollow beneath the kneecap. The Strike Zone shall be determined from the batter's stance as the batter is prepared to swing at a pitched ball.

The wording on the top of the zone is kind of weird, though.

[Blzer]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

For who...hitters? I don't see why strikeouts would not be discouraged for a hitter.

I think he's saying "Strikeouts will not fall under the 'discouraged' column for the sport of baseball," as in the sport is not trying to reduce the number of strikeouts if it means outs are created as a result.

[kehlis]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

For who...hitters? I don't see why strikeouts would not be discouraged for a hitter.

You're really going to ask me who I'm talking about when I say strikeouts won't be discouraged?

[Speedy]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

You're really going to ask me who I'm talking about when I say strikeouts won't be discouraged?

I wasn't sure what you were implying.