MLB Off-Topic

[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.

[Blzer]

Quote: 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.

[Master Live 013]

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.

[Blzer]

Quote: 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?

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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?

[Master Live 013]

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

********

[TheMatrix31]

No surprise it's union stuff that prevented actual consequences.

[dubcity]

Nate Silver makes a good point. Should have put the heat on the PA. Instead it's open season on Manfred.

[DieHardYankee26]

Would’ve been a new level of incompetence to blame the lack of punishment on the Union doing their job.

Side note, we may need to clone SF a bunch of times and dispatch them to different sections of the internet. I keep seeing people say this is the worse thing to happen to baseball in 100 years and I’m just like “if they only knew”.