MLB Off-Topic

Collapse

Recommended Videos

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Caulfield
    Hall Of Fame
    • Apr 2011
    • 10986

    #15046
    Re: MLB Off-Topic

    mlb should have a vote every 4 years for who should be commissioner, he shouldn't just be picked by owners, but each owner, coach, mgr., GM, and player gets a vote. I nominate Cal Ripken Jr. for 2020 lol
    OSFM23 - Building Better Baseball - OSFM23

    A Work in Progress

    Comment

    • Majingir
      Moderator
      • Apr 2005
      • 47439

      #15047
      Re: MLB Off-Topic

      Originally posted by Caulfield
      mlb should have a vote every 4 years for who should be commissioner, he shouldn't just be picked by owners, but each owner, coach, mgr., GM, and player gets a vote. I nominate Cal Ripken Jr. for 2020 lol
      If NHL and NFL have taught us anything, it's that most GMs/Owners have no issue with commissioners that fans hate.

      NHL views Bettman as one of the best leaders ever despite fans booing him very loudly every chance they get. And in NFL, Goodell had been extended for 5 years recently.


      I'm in minority who likes some changes Manfred wants to make, but obviously there'll be some which are ridiculous.

      Comment

      • Sportsforever
        NL MVP
        • Mar 2005
        • 20368

        #15048
        Re: MLB Off-Topic

        Originally posted by Majingir
        I'm in minority who likes some changes Manfred wants to make, but obviously there'll be some which are ridiculous.
        "People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring." - Rogers Hornsby

        Comment

        • Master Live 013
          Hall Of Fame
          • Oct 2013
          • 12327

          #15049
          Re: MLB Off-Topic

          Point being that appointing someone who "loves baseball" may mean a lot of things. For some :loving baseball" means loving it "as it is" and not changing one thing about it. For others loving baseball means changing some things about it while preserving others.

          I'm on the changing some things group. The problem is not everyone agrees on what to change.
          OSHA Inspector for the NBA.

          Comment

          • Sportsforever
            NL MVP
            • Mar 2005
            • 20368

            #15050
            Re: MLB Off-Topic

            Originally posted by Master Live 013
            Point being that appointing someone who "loves baseball" may mean a lot of things. For some :loving baseball" means loving it "as it is" and not changing one thing about it. For others loving baseball means changing some things about it while preserving others.

            I'm on the changing some things group. The problem is not everyone agrees on what to change.
            Sure...and I'm not against "change", but if you start with a "love of baseball" I think you will approach changes in a way that respects the past while looking to the future. Instead, Manfred from day 1 has been trumpeting the "baseball sucks" we need to fix it...to me, someone who really loves baseball would say, "it's a great game, it's been a great game for a long time, and we'll always be looking to keep it a great game".
            "People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring." - Rogers Hornsby

            Comment

            • Blzer
              Resident film pundit
              • Mar 2004
              • 42509

              #15051
              Re: MLB Off-Topic

              Originally posted by Master Live 013
              I love how you say that you are for improvements and then cite "banning extreme defensive shifts" as an example. I strongly disagree, I think the increase in using the shift is one of my favorites changes in favors in the last 20 years.

              The thing I dislike the most about sports, in general, is changing the rules. 4 pointer, pushing the 3 point line farther, automatic walk, 3 minimum batters faced, extra point moved back. And I also understand that when I say changing the rules I mostly mean the rules that were in place when I started paying attention (I have no doubt I would have hated the introduction of the 3 point line, or the DH).

              The, at least to me, unbelievable thing about the shift is that it came about inside the context of the current existing game (I know the shift wasn't invented 20 years ago, just the reliance of it). Here is a 140 year game, and still, in this day an age, with the tool available to it with a little imagination and data analysis a groundbreaking scheme was devices to gain a clean competitive advantage. Frankly, I see the defensive shift and I see a ****ing miracle. You and I couldn't be further apart on this subject.
              Before I say what I'm going to say, I want to let you know that I take advantage of what is allowed in shifts. I do when I coach, I do when I play, I do all of the time. I'm not saying I'm stubborn to not use it, I'm just saying that it's a "loophole" for today's modern hitter that should have some normalization (and remember, I've been not wanting it for a long time before that, back when Bonds, Giambi, and L. Gonzalez were being shifted on).


              - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


              I don't like rules (or lack thereof) which seem to destroy the inherent nature of the positions in the sport. Much like football, you can't just line up however the hell you want. This includes legal actions, such as the automatic walk taking away the requirement to throw those pitches.

              Anyway, my ban of extreme defensive shifts has consistently been the same: a minimum of three position players in fair territory on either side of the dividing center line, and no more than two players in the outfield grass on either side of the field. Lastly, a minimum of two players on the outfield grass at any time, but I don't think I've ever seen that broken before so it's cool (any time they bring in a fifth infielder, it's just one and not several). Note that these are all pre-pitch shifts.

              I like to keep the idea of positions as largely intact as possible without over-requiring certain rules sets, like saying a shortstop simply cannot be on the other side of the field. It just has to come with a little sacrifice is all. For example, the way they shift Brandon Belt these days would still fly in the two still legal scenarios I'll show below:


              What is allowed:

              Spoiler



              What is not allowed: (only one element is broken in each of these)

              Spoiler



              What is really not allowed and I'm trying to avoid having happen: (such as "Gallo shifts" and other extremely close in shifts)

              Spoiler



              This next sentence has a lot of hyperbole in it. I'm personally waiting for a Bryce Harper or somebody to bunt 50 times in a row until one of two things happen: (1) players stop shifting on him; (2) Manfred says enough is enough and can't let star players bunt because of the mockery that is shifting, thus banning them.

              I'd rather that teams make a decision on these pull hitters, and ask themselves whether they'd prefer pulling the shortstop to the other side of the field or bring the center fielder over into the power alley. Note that if one is on that side, the other can be hanging out just on the other side of the center divide. It's still a shift (and in some cases can be extreme), but it's not extreme in both the infield and the outfield. There is a trade-off to be had.

              So no, I'm not handicapping every position to a certain region of the field because I allow a rover of sorts, so long as there is some semblance of balance provided.
              Last edited by Blzer; 02-17-2020, 10:41 PM.
              Samsung PN60F8500 PDP / Anthem MRX 720 / Klipsch RC-62 II / Klipsch RF-82 II (x2) / Insignia NS-B2111 (x2) / SVS PC13-Ultra / SVS SB-2000 / Sony MDR-7506 Professional / Audio-Technica ATH-R70x / Sony PS3 & PS4 / DirecTV HR44-500 / DarbeeVision DVP-5000 / Panamax M5400-PM / Elgato HD60

              Comment

              • kehlis
                Moderator
                • Jul 2008
                • 27738

                #15052
                Re: MLB Off-Topic

                Sorry, not matter how much your write out, you can't be against the automatic walk but be all for restrictions on shifts. Doesn't make sense.

                Comment

                • Blzer
                  Resident film pundit
                  • Mar 2004
                  • 42509

                  #15053
                  Re: MLB Off-Topic

                  Originally posted by kehlis
                  Sorry, not matter how much your write out, you can't be against the automatic walk but be all for restrictions on shifts. Doesn't make sense.
                  Those are apples and oranges. One doesn't have to do with the other. Automatic walks involve removing a legal action that is required in every other aspect of the sport (like touching bases on a home run), was put in for pace of play purposes, and the strategy within has not been altered one iota. It was changed simply because they wanted to change it.

                  Ever since I saw these shifts employed, I knew something had to happen with them. It's not like I waited fifteen years on it and said: "Yeah, let's do this too!" Frankly, I used to think there were restrictions on where you could position yourself, until I found out that you couldn't.

                  In fact, I think they're tied in the same. Automatic walks look embarrassing. Shifts look embarrassing, too. Not for the defense (they do to me, but that part doesn't matter), for that offensive player. Yes, I too agree that the player should learn to hit opposite field or bunt, but we want our stars to be the stars that they are, not that they're molded to be. What I'm trying to prevent is the outlandish mindset of a player literally bunting 50 times in a row.

                  That being said, you'd have to agree that what I'm restricting isn't extremely limited, it just doesn't allow extremeness everywhere on the field. I'm not saying that the shortstop can't be on the right side of the field, for example. He just can't if the center fielder is also on that side. That's a trade-off the defense would have to feel out.
                  Last edited by Blzer; 02-17-2020, 10:49 PM.
                  Samsung PN60F8500 PDP / Anthem MRX 720 / Klipsch RC-62 II / Klipsch RF-82 II (x2) / Insignia NS-B2111 (x2) / SVS PC13-Ultra / SVS SB-2000 / Sony MDR-7506 Professional / Audio-Technica ATH-R70x / Sony PS3 & PS4 / DirecTV HR44-500 / DarbeeVision DVP-5000 / Panamax M5400-PM / Elgato HD60

                  Comment

                  • kehlis
                    Moderator
                    • Jul 2008
                    • 27738

                    #15054
                    Re: MLB Off-Topic

                    Originally posted by Blzer
                    Those are apples and oranges. One doesn't have to do with the other. Automatic walks involve removing a legal action that is required in every other aspect of the sport (like touching bases on a home run), was put in for pace of play purposes, and the strategy within has not been altered one iota. It was changed simply because they wanted to change it.

                    Ever since I saw these shifts employed, I knew something had to happen with them. It's not like I waited fifteen years on it and said: "Yeah, let's do this too!" Frankly, I used to think there were restrictions on where you could position yourself, until I found out that you couldn't.

                    In fact, I think they're tied in the same. Automatic walks look embarrassing. Shifts look embarrassing, too. Not for the defense (they do to me, but that part doesn't matter), for that offensive player. Yes, I too agree that the player should learn to hit opposite field or bunt, but we want our stars to be the stars that they are, not that they're molded to be.
                    Restricting legal shifts is also the literal definition of removing a legal action, no?

                    Comment

                    • Blzer
                      Resident film pundit
                      • Mar 2004
                      • 42509

                      #15055
                      Re: MLB Off-Topic

                      Originally posted by kehlis
                      Restricting legal shifts is also the literal definition of removing a legal action, no?
                      I guess we're arguing semantics, then.

                      They removed a selected legal action in pitching with the automatic walks, but kept everything else intact. You still have to pitch in every other regard that you want, but we decided that a walk can be decided upon by the manager whenever he sees fit. I've made the point before, but if it were up to me I wouldn't have intentional walks of any sort. Every pitch should have to look as if there is some attempt to not deliberately avoid the batter. I don't think there should be any intentional walk statistic. Again, to me it's akin to a QB kneeling to end a game or a basketball player dribbling out to the front court to end a game. We can't call it "just because." I don't agree with the fact that that walk is literally out of that pitcher's hands. Even with the old format of walking, at least if he throws it over the plate in an "ewps" format, that was on him.

                      Otherwise I don't see why a player should have to legally touch all four bases on a home run. And again, this isn't a pace of play thing... I'm saying if a player misses home plate on a home run and the catcher tags him out with a ball, he will be called out. If a base coach physically assists him to home on a home run, he will be called out. That has nothing to do with pace of play, that's just within the spirit of the rule: to score a run you must legally and safely touch all four bases in order, whether the ball is declared live or dead (I don't think that's how it's written, but that's the idea). I don't get how a batter can be issued a base by pointing at the bag. The ball should be to be delivered four times out of the strike zone without swinging, the same way it always would be.

                      I'm waiting for the "automatic sacrifice bunt" to be a thing or the "dinger and dugout" eliminations to come into play. I understand why the sac bunt thing should never be an actual rule put in, but I can't agree that the probability of something else occurring is enough validation for why we can't make it automatic. There has to be more to it than that.

                      Again though, regarding shifts, I always thought there was an implied restriction somewhere. Once I found out there wasn't, I said: "There should be." Now that I've seen it more, I'm finding more and more reasons to dislike the free-will of players standing wherever they want to, and it has nothing to do with pace of play. And keep in mind there is a restriction on players already: only the catcher is allowed to start in foul territory pre-pitch.
                      Samsung PN60F8500 PDP / Anthem MRX 720 / Klipsch RC-62 II / Klipsch RF-82 II (x2) / Insignia NS-B2111 (x2) / SVS PC13-Ultra / SVS SB-2000 / Sony MDR-7506 Professional / Audio-Technica ATH-R70x / Sony PS3 & PS4 / DirecTV HR44-500 / DarbeeVision DVP-5000 / Panamax M5400-PM / Elgato HD60

                      Comment

                      • kehlis
                        Moderator
                        • Jul 2008
                        • 27738

                        #15056
                        Re: MLB Off-Topic

                        I agree with you on the intentional walk and always have.

                        Saying you don't want to allow shifts as a defense per the hitters tenancies is like telling an NFL defense they aren't allowed to blitz a young QB because they want to force him to throw. You'll never get me on board with that at all.

                        Comment

                        • Blzer
                          Resident film pundit
                          • Mar 2004
                          • 42509

                          #15057
                          Re: MLB Off-Topic

                          Originally posted by kehlis
                          I agree with you on the intentional walk and always have.

                          Saying you don't want to allow shifts as a defense per the hitters tenancies is like telling an NFL defense they aren't allowed to blitz a young QB because they want to force him to throw. You'll never get me on board with that at all.
                          Eh, I guess I don't have to. I like to throw out my opinion anyway, as you all well know haha. I'm just saying how shifts can be restricted but still give some looseness. What I'm afraid of is they'll take it so far that each player is affirmed to specific regions on the field. That ain't me. I just don't think it should be all over. It gets too outlandish for me.

                          Though in the football analogy, remember that the AAF restricted defensive rushers. I'm not saying I liked it (and of course I'm speaking about an extinct league), I'm just saying it's been done before. I was speaking more in terms of offensive formations.
                          Samsung PN60F8500 PDP / Anthem MRX 720 / Klipsch RC-62 II / Klipsch RF-82 II (x2) / Insignia NS-B2111 (x2) / SVS PC13-Ultra / SVS SB-2000 / Sony MDR-7506 Professional / Audio-Technica ATH-R70x / Sony PS3 & PS4 / DirecTV HR44-500 / DarbeeVision DVP-5000 / Panamax M5400-PM / Elgato HD60

                          Comment

                          • Master Live 013
                            Hall Of Fame
                            • Oct 2013
                            • 12327

                            #15058
                            Re: MLB Off-Topic

                            Well, there's the fundamental disagreement. I relish the free will of players standing wherever they want to, if the manager wants to have 7 players around 1st base so be it (it wouldn't be aesthetically pleasing). So you thought there was a rule against it and when it turn out that there wasn't you "just knew" that "there should be". Get out of here.

                            And the 50 straight bunts thing, the next time it happens will be the 1st time. We have been hearing about that for years, IT.JUST.NEVER.HAPPENS. They do it once, maybe twice and they don't do it anymore. They can't, their ego won't allow it, they rather try to hit through the shift than to try a puny bunt. For some of them it is as simply as they aren't able to do it, at least not consistently. They don't want to go the other way, they don't to bunt. They want to do their thing. For some if the rhythm of the game and not wanting to mess with their swing.

                            And I don't want them to "be the stars that they are" and if they can't hit the other way, or put down a bunt or hit enough through the shift then maybe they weren't stars in the first place.
                            OSHA Inspector for the NBA.

                            Comment

                            • Blzer
                              Resident film pundit
                              • Mar 2004
                              • 42509

                              #15059
                              Re: MLB Off-Topic

                              Originally posted by Master Live 013
                              So you thought there was a rule against it and when it turn out that there wasn't you "just knew" that "there should be". Get out of here.
                              Huh?

                              And the 50 straight bunts thing, the next time it happens will be the 1st time. We have been hearing about that for years, IT.JUST.NEVER.HAPPENS. They do it once, maybe twice and they don't do it anymore. They can't, their ego won't allow it, they rather try to hit through the shift than to try a puny bunt. For some of them it is as simply as they aren't able to do it, at least not consistently. They don't want to go the other way, they don't to bunt. They want to do their thing. For some if the rhythm of the game and not wanting to mess with their swing.
                              I'm with you on that, though. I think they should bunt or hit the other way, while there is no rule against shifting like that. I also think defenses should keep shifting the way they do, while there is no rule against shifting like that. I just wish there was said rule. Again, I always have. This is one that would be nice for lower leagues to have as well.

                              And I don't want them to "be the stars that they are" and if they can't hit the other way, or put down a bunt or hit enough through the shift then maybe they weren't stars in the first place.
                              That's what's happening to the LOOGY. I think that baseball should continue embracing unique tool sets.

                              Oh, and designated hitters don't fall in that?
                              Samsung PN60F8500 PDP / Anthem MRX 720 / Klipsch RC-62 II / Klipsch RF-82 II (x2) / Insignia NS-B2111 (x2) / SVS PC13-Ultra / SVS SB-2000 / Sony MDR-7506 Professional / Audio-Technica ATH-R70x / Sony PS3 & PS4 / DirecTV HR44-500 / DarbeeVision DVP-5000 / Panamax M5400-PM / Elgato HD60

                              Comment

                              • Master Live 013
                                Hall Of Fame
                                • Oct 2013
                                • 12327

                                #15060
                                Re: MLB Off-Topic
                                Rob Manfred probably could not have successfully disciplined Astros players — even if he never gave them immunity. In a grievance, one source said, MLB would have been “smoked.” Another said the outcome would have been “brutal."https://t.co/W9svll5JKw
                                — Evan Drellich (@EvanDrellich) February 18, 2020
                                ********
                                Seems like attempting to punish the players, knowing you'll probably lose the grievance, could still have been politically wise? At the very least, other players around the league (not wanting to undercut the MLBPA) might have been more reluctant to speak out against the Astros. https://t.co/ndTqGkcbV1
                                — Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) February 18, 2020
                                ********
                                OSHA Inspector for the NBA.

                                Comment

                                Working...