MLB Off-Topic

[redsox4evur]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

Would you rather the ball be juiced or the players?

To be 100%, completely honest, both.

[WaitTilNextYear]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

To be 100%, completely honest, both.

Boooooooooooooooooooooooooo. Go watch some arena football or wrestling or something...

[DamnYanks2]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

If MLB was so concerned about homeruns. They wouldn't accept teams constantly moving in the fences. You don't want homeruns. You do want home runs. I mean which is it.

That's why I'll always find the steroid witch hunts to be laughable.

Sent from my SM-J327VPP using Tapatalk

[Sportsforever]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

If MLB was so concerned about homeruns. They wouldn't accept teams constantly moving in the fences. You dont want homeruns. You do want home runs. I mean which is it.

That's why I'll always find the steroid witc hunts to be laughable.

Sent from my SM-J327VPP using Tapatalk

This is one reason I've always chuckled when someone says they ignore the stats/records from the steroid era. From the beginning of time the powers that be for MLB have manipulated the game, from livening/deadening the ball, to changing the strike zone, raising the mound, moving fences, etc, the game has changed and eras have been different. At the end of the day it's all baseball and it all makes up the history of this great game; to pick and choose what is "real" and what's not is a fool's game, IMO.

[TripleCrown9]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

Speaking of too many home runs, on this day 98 years ago Babe Ruth hit his first home run as a Yankee and 67 years ago Mantle hit his first home run as a Yankee.

EDIT: On the same day Ruth hit his first as a Yankee, the Boston Braves and Brooklyn Robins played their MLB record 26-inning game. A game in which both pitchers threw complete games. A game which ended in a 1-1 tie. Both pitchers only had 7 strikeouts.

[ShowTyme15]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

Trevor Bauer and the Astros throwing shade at each other.

http://mlb.nbcsports.com/2018/05/01/trevor-bauer-astros-throw-shade-at-each-other/

[WaitTilNextYear]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

Trevor Bauer and the Astros throwing shade at each other.

http://mlb.nbcsports.com/2018/05/01/...at-each-other/

The thing with the Astros pitching so far is, yeah, it looks fishy with basically everyone in their rotation pitching like 1968 Bob Gibson, but if you dig a little bit you can see it won't last.

Verlander is putting up pretty similar numbers to his 2016 season in Detroit. He's also running a microscopic .198 BABIP (won't last) and stranding 95% of baserunners (won't last). His FIP before tonight was 2.84, merely great compared to an otherworldly 1.36 ERA.

Morton is rocking a 1.72 ERA, but with a 3.39 FIP. Once again, .235 BABIP against and stranding 93% of baserunners. Not sustainable. Otherwise Morton's numbers are really similar to his 2017 stats.

Gerrit Cole, on the other hand, might actually be the best pitcher in the world now. I can't explain him. He's just sick.

[Blzer]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

Watching Quick Pitch and I see Rizzo lead-off the Cubs' half of the first inning with a home run.

I don't get the love that is shown when managers put a power-hitting lead-off hitter at lead-off, watch him homer, and say that was a good move for them.

I don't get it... if he was batting third and that happened, you could be up by the same amount after the first inning, or possibly more. Not only that, men in front will force the pitcher to throw from the stretch, and in foresight you get to see more pitches from him before your turn at-bat.

Now, if you look in hindsight and say something like: "He got a fifth at-bat because of that lead-off spot and homered to win the game," then I see a fair point. But a powerful hitter leading off the game with a home run? If a "prototypical 90s lead-off hitter" homered to start the game, that's cool because you tell yourself: "Hey, there's a nice freebie run, and we have power behind him in the 3-4 spots to possibly do more of the same!"

I'm not seeing the managerial genius here, even if the person homers to lead off all 162 games. The only two things I can think of are: 1) as I said before, trying to get the person a fifth at-bat later in the game; 2) maybe the player isn't feeling the three-hitter role and is slumping, and this is giving them a new look and challenge to embark where they are more successful (or maybe you get "better pitches" without something like an open base or the imposing threat of being an actual #3 hitter).

Outside of that, homering in the first inning when batting third gives you more run-scoring possibilities than you do in the lead-off position. I didn't want to dive into strategy too much here, but rather the kudos that the manager is given for making the move provided that he homers.

EDIT: Welp, apparently I spoke too soon. Just saw that Harper was also moved up, homered, and Harold Reynolds broke down the fact that they were trying to get him better pitches and more fastballs.

[CMH]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

Watching Quick Pitch and I see Rizzo lead-off the Cubs' half of the first inning with a home run.

I don't get the love that is shown when managers put a power-hitting lead-off hitter at lead-off, watch him homer, and say that was a good move for them.

I don't get it... if he was batting third and that happened, you could be up by the same amount after the first inning, or possibly more. Not only that, men in front will force the pitcher to throw from the stretch, and in foresight you get to see more pitches from him before your turn at-bat.

Now, if you look in hindsight and say something like: "He got a fifth at-bat because of that lead-off spot and homered to win the game," then I see a fair point. But a powerful hitter leading off the game with a home run? If a "prototypical 90s lead-off hitter" homered to start the game, that's cool because you tell yourself: "Hey, there's a nice freebie run, and we have power behind him in the 3-4 spots to possibly do more of the same!"

I'm not seeing the managerial genius here, even if the person homers to lead off all 162 games. The only two things I can think of are: 1) as I said before, trying to get the person a fifth at-bat later in the game; 2) maybe the player isn't feeling the three-hitter role and is slumping, and this is giving them a new look and challenge to embark where they are more successful (or maybe you get "better pitches" without something like an open base or the imposing threat of being an actual #3 hitter).

Outside of that, homering in the first inning when batting third gives you more run-scoring possibilities than you do in the lead-off position. I didn't want to dive into strategy too much here, but rather the kudos that the manager is given for making the move provided that he homers.

EDIT: Welp, apparently I spoke too soon. Just saw that Harper was also moved up, homered, and Harold Reynolds broke down the fact that they were trying to get him better pitches and more fastballs.

Isn't this the fallacy of predetermined outcome?

We don't know the approach to and from Rizzo if he's up third with a runner on.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[Blzer]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

Isn't this the fallacy of predetermined outcome?

We don't know the approach to and from Rizzo if he's up third with a runner on.

Good point.

I think I also fell under a terrible assumption that Rizzo was doing well this year. I had no idea he was batting .149 with one home run going into this game.

This goes beyond Rizzo and Harper, though. We started to see it with George Springer and Carlos Santana, where Springer makes enough sense with his tools and both of them have power protection behind them, but their OPS batting leadoff versus in the heart of the order is not like this incredulous difference (in 2015-2017 Springer has a higher OPS at #3 vs. #1 though with a small sample size, and Santana is pretty evenly matched at #5 though a bit lower at #4). I shouldn't speak too much because both of their teams had made the WS in the last two years, but if it was working in those spots in the order then I guess I just don't see the leap.

I'm already a bit iffy on the #2 spot in the order being the most optimal place for your best hitter regardless of what the numbers show, and I'm saying this independently of tradition, so these lead-off hitter ones are a bit weird to me (though I have retracted my Harper/Rizzo one for the reason the managers are going for). I remember in MLB 2000 I did some funky shake-ups putting Jeff Kent at lead-off, my pitcher batting second, Bonds at cleanup (he didn't start doing this until around '04 or so), a "second lead-off" at the bottom of the order even before I knew that was a term (or before I even used that term), etc. All told, it also worked out in the video game world lol.

In spite of all of this, the last camp that I'll ever be in is that "the lineup order doesn't matter." That's many times more asinine to me than somebody claiming that a tracklist order in a music album doesn't matter, and to me that matters a tremendous deal.

[BigOscar]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

The thing with the Astros pitching so far is, yeah, it looks fishy with basically everyone in their rotation pitching like 1968 Bob Gibson, but if you dig a little bit you can see it won't last.

Verlander is putting up pretty similar numbers to his 2016 season in Detroit. He's also running a microscopic .198 BABIP (won't last) and stranding 95% of baserunners (won't last). His FIP before tonight was 2.84, merely great compared to an otherworldly 1.36 ERA.

Morton is rocking a 1.72 ERA, but with a 3.39 FIP. Once again, .235 BABIP against and stranding 93% of baserunners. Not sustainable. Otherwise Morton's numbers are really similar to his 2017 stats.

Gerrit Cole, on the other hand, might actually be the best pitcher in the world now. I can't explain him. He's just sick.

I do find the Astro's pitching shady as hell tbh, something fishy is going on there the past couple of years. Literally every pitcher they have seems to have instantly massively improve, it doesn't feel like a coincidence or something that can be put down to just analytics. Pretty much as soon as someone moves there, their K/BB ratio doubles, that doesn't right. We're not talking about kids either, people like Verlander and Morton don't just all of a sudden massively improve.

[ShowTyme15]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

Pretty good read about the Tom Ricketts/Sammy Sosa saga.

http://mlb.nbcsports.com/2018/05/02/sammy-sosa-does-not-owe-the-cubs-owners-an-apology/

[DieHardYankee26]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

“I was playing for a company many years ago, it was the Tribune Company, so after I retire I formed my own company, so I’m not looking for a job.”

Love it. Apologize? Sorry for making the game so exciting and giving you something to root for for years.

[ShowTyme15]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

“I was playing for a company many years ago, it was the Tribune Company, so after I retire I formed my own company, so I’m not looking for a job.”

Love it. Apologize? Sorry for making the game so exciting and giving you something to root for for years.

I side with him. He doesn't need to apologize for anything.

[WaitTilNextYear]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

Pretty good read about the Tom Ricketts/Sammy Sosa saga.


http://mlb.nbcsports.com/2018/05/02/...rs-an-apology/

I'm gonna guess at what this article talks about just from the URL. Basically Sammy Sosa was the only good thing the Cubs had going for them for about 5-10 years and he single-handedly kept the turnstyles turning at Wrigley...ergo, he doesn't owe an apology to anyone.

Did I guess right?