New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

2009 MLB Thread - Page 12

post #331 of 1171
5/25/09 at 9:50pm

Re: 2009 MLB Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkHastings
When Bailey hit the home run, my bother and I cheered and my dad said "Yeah, but too bad he does it when it really doesn't count" and I said "What are you talking about? They were only up by two runs" - and of course that home run ended up being the game winner (thank GOD)! if my mom were commissioner, there'd be no spitting.
Agreed, the HR by Bailey was huge.

I read today that Penny has had 58 runs scored for him in his starts! That's quite impressive. He is impressed with the Red Sox' ability to score runs, coming as he was from not-so-successful NL teams. And I also see that he's 5-2, so I'll not criticize him too much for the time being.
Reply
post #332 of 1171
5/26/09 at 5:34am

Re: 2009 MLB Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Frezon
And ending it wouldn't mean any more (or less) games with the Orioles. It would simply mean more games for the Red Sox against teams in the Western and Central divisions...which makes more sense when working towards an Al pennant winner. Currently, Al teams play different NL teams in interleague play a differing number of games. It's very confusing and "unfair." It's just not a logical system.

I will say this, I would like to see a season of no interleague play entered into the rotation. 3 years with it, then 1 without, and so on. A compromise for both sides.

And if I was commissioner, I would eliminate the pitch count. And reduce the number of teams in MLB, which then, eliminates the need for a salary cap.
Reply
post #333 of 1171
5/26/09 at 5:58am
Thread Starter 

Re: 2009 MLB Thread

How about the Indians (at home) scoring two runs in the 8th and 7 runs in the 9th to beat the Rays 11-10 yesterday?!?

There is video of the 9th inning runs...but nothing of the celebration which ensued. Pretty sparse crowd to see the comeback.

======================

And today is the 50th anniversary of one of the greatest games ever played in baseball: Harvey Haddix' 12 inning perfect game.

Noteable not only for Haddix' unbelievable accomplishment...but for the strange way in which the game ended.
Reply
post #334 of 1171
5/26/09 at 6:58am

Re: 2009 MLB Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Frezon
How about the Indians (at home) scoring two runs in the 8th and 7 runs in the 9th to beat the Rays 11-10 yesterday?!?

There is video of the 9th inning runs...but nothing of the celebration which ensued. Pretty sparse crowd to see the comeback.

======================

And today is the 50th anniversary of one of the greatest games ever played in baseball: Harvey Haddix' 12 inning perfect game.

Noteable not only for Haddix' unbelievable accomplishment...but for the strange way in which the game ended.
Mike,

What a comeback. I saw the highlights about three times. Seven runs in the bottom of the ninth against the Rays? Wonderful. I think the Rays are going to begin to hate the number seven.

BTW, I learned this morning that the Rays loss was the fourteenth in a row at Cleveland, their last victory there coming in September of 2005 (1-0).

And how about them Padres? They must have the quietest ten-game winning streak in baseball history.
Reply
post #335 of 1171
5/26/09 at 7:39am

Re: 2009 MLB Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ockeghem
With Penny in there, I never feel as though almost any lead is safe.
The sad thing is, Penny's probably second on my trust list in the Sox rotation after Wakefield right now. He started off weak, possibly due to a truncated spring training, but he's been averaging a quality start in May. That's not great, but I wish the top three in the rotation were that reliable. He's everything you want in a back-of-the-rotation starter right now.

(Heck, I almost wish he were disappointing, so there'd be a reason to cut him and call up Buchholz or Bowden)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walter C
And if I was commissioner, I would eliminate the pitch count. And reduce the number of teams in MLB, which then, eliminates the need for a salary cap.
How can you eliminate the pitch count? It's a measurement, not a rule. I mean, Hypothetical Commissioner Seaver could say he'd eliminate the save, but the definition of the "save situation" is out there, and it will be used whether I like it or not.

As to reducing the number of teams - really? Which ones? Would you make a concerted effort to destroy any remaining interest in baseball in the area, as MLB did in Montreal? Would this "eliminate the need for a salary cap" by making sure that there are no longer teams in cities that could (supposedly) benefit from the cap?

FWIW, Hypothetical Commissioner Seaver would:

* Eliminate interleague play
* Fund a system for electronic ball/strike calls so that the strike zone doesn't change for a given umpire/pitcher/hitter
* Keep the current DH/P system, and in fact see if there is any other way of differentiating the AL and NL (and encourage good-hitting NL pitchers by tweaking the way the DH is handled in the minors)

... and that's close to being it.
Reply
post #336 of 1171
5/26/09 at 9:30am

Re: 2009 MLB Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Seaver
How can you eliminate the pitch count? It's a measurement, not a rule.

Mitch Williams's idea doesn't sound like a bad idea, which he said on MLB Network - round up all the pitch counters and set them on fire.

But seriously, I think it's ridiculous to take a pitcher out just because it's assumed he is tired after throwing 100 pitches. That would be like a football team taking a quarterback out after throwing the ball 40 times. Next thing you know, a complete game will be treated like a no-hitter.

Fewer teams means more good teams and lesser mediocre or bad teams in the league. Talent would not be so diluted in the league. I miss the days of 2 divisions in each league, and the schedule being more balanced within the division.

As far as which ones, well... I don't know.
Reply
post #337 of 1171
5/26/09 at 9:51am

Re: 2009 MLB Thread

The 100 pitches thing is a rule of thumb that is applied too consistently, but it's going to be hard to get rid of because it's (a) easy to remember and (b) like the save rule, in that it gives managers an easy way to avoid actually thinking.

Even without pitch counts, though, the complete game was going to become an endangered species. 6 IP + pen is pretty good strategy, in terms of not letting hitters get too familiar facing a single pitcher, and those six innings likely take as much effort as a complete game, since many teams work the count more and have credible offense at positions like catcher and shortstop that were strictly defensive in earlier years.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walter C
Fewer teams means more good teams and lesser mediocre or bad teams in the league. Talent would not be so diluted in the league. I miss the days of 2 divisions in each league, and the schedule being more balanced within the division.

As far as which ones, well... I don't know.
Even if contraction was a good idea in theory, the reality of depriving two cities of major league ball and ten of minor league ball makes it a non-starter. Especially since you'd likely wind up doing to those cities what was done to Montreal, killing interest entirely in certain markets for marginal increases in others.

And I'm not sure the idea that fewer teams means fewer mediocre/bad teams. Aren't you just as likely to end up with some Kansas City A's or Washington Senators types. Also, I think there's an argument to be made that talent is actually less diluted now than in the so-called good old days. Depending how far you go back, you lose Japanese, Latin American, and African American players. There may be more teams now, but the pool of available talent has arguably grown at a greater clip.
Reply
post #338 of 1171
5/26/09 at 10:52am

Re: 2009 MLB Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Seaver
The sad thing is, Penny's probably second on my trust list in the Sox rotation after Wakefield right now. He started off weak, possibly due to a truncated spring training, but he's been averaging a quality start in May. That's not great, but I wish the top three in the rotation were that reliable. He's everything you want in a back-of-the-rotation starter right now.
I agree. I can't even fathom how good this Boston team could be if Lester, Beckett, and Matsuzaka were all around (even) .500 after six or seven decisions. Their starting pitching has been very disappointing up to this point. Oddly, though, I feel very comfortable with their middle relief pitchers -- it's almost as if three or four of them have had a 'rebirth' of sorts this year. I'm a bit flummoxed over that, but I'm not complaining. It was just about the opposite for me last year. Whenever Okajima (or Timlin, and to a lesser extent, Masterson) came on to pitch, I got very jittery.
Reply
post #339 of 1171
5/26/09 at 11:36am
Thread Starter 

Re: 2009 MLB Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ockeghem
BTW, I learned this morning that the Rays loss was the fourteenth in a row at Cleveland, their last victory there coming in September of 2005 (1-0).

And how about them Padres? They must have the quietest ten-game winning streak in baseball history.

And those are two things I did not realize until I read them here.

Both are fairly astounding. The former more than the latter.

===============

And, by the way, the 13 inning Haddix game was played in less than three hours! That's another thing Commissioner Frezon would do: shorten the amount of time it takes to play a nine-inning game. Get the ball and throw it!
Reply
post #340 of 1171
5/26/09 at 11:39am

Re: 2009 MLB Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Frezon
And those are two things I did not realize until I read them here.

Both are fairly astounding. The former more than the latter.

===============

And, by the way, the 13 inning Haddix game was played in less than three hours! That's another thing Commissioner Frezon would do: shorten the amount of time it takes to play a nine-inning game. Get the ball and throw it!
Mike,

Yeah, who knew the Indians were that successful against the Rays in Cleveland?

As for the Padres, that streak has got to be one of the best-kept secrets in baseball. I was routinely looking down the 'Last 10' columns of all of the teams yesterday, and almost fell off my chair when I saw that!
Reply
post #341 of 1171
5/26/09 at 12:06pm
Thread Starter 

Re: 2009 MLB Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ockeghem
Yeah, who knew the Indians were that successful against the Rays in Cleveland?

And we must keep in mind, although some would say it's easy-to-forget, that the Rays were AL champs last year!

And, that's one of the reasons Commissioner Frezon would eliminate interleague play. The Rays (and all other AL East/West teams) should have to play in Cleveland more than three games a year!
Reply
post #342 of 1171
5/26/09 at 12:20pm

Re: 2009 MLB Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Seaver
* Fund a system for electronic ball/strike calls so that the strike zone doesn't change for a given umpire/pitcher/hitter
Uh oh! Commissioner Frezon is going to have a hard time swallowing a computerized ump.

But I agree to an extent; I'd like to see a way of correcting bad ump calls, but every way (that I can imagine) just seems like a bad idea:

1) Computerized umps? That just feels wrong. Do we get rid of the ump all together? Or if he stays in, do you want to disrespect him by overturning his calls?

2) Allowing players/managers to "challenge" the call? I have a feeling that would slow the game up, unless you can work out something like 1 challenge per game? or how about like Football where if the challenge is overruled, the team gets penalized so that a player can't challenge every pitch.
Reply
post #343 of 1171
5/26/09 at 12:34pm
Thread Starter 

Re: 2009 MLB Thread

Any part of that would be so ugly to the game I couldn't even begin to imagine it.

I'm already hating all the instant replay rulings on the HR calls.

I hear the crowd who says, "but they're getting the calls right!" But I also hear now those who are calling for stuff like in Mark's post.

=====

EDIT** If Jason's system ever came to pass, I'd field a whole team of Eddie Gaedels and Manute Bols as quickly as I could!
Reply
post #344 of 1171
5/26/09 at 12:58pm

Re: 2009 MLB Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Hastings
1) Computerized umps? That just feels wrong. Do we get rid of the ump all together? Or if he stays in, do you want to disrespect him by overturning his calls?
No calls would be overturned; the robot is the primary source of information for ball/strike calls, with a fifth umpire in the video room checking it, maybe calibrating it on the fly as players change stances (this guy is also handling replay). The home plate umpire is still handling safe/out calls at home, check swings, balks, etc. The ump's job would also include relaying the call to the players on the field and as an emergency backup should the automated system go all skynet on us.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Frezon
If Jason's system ever came to pass, I'd field a whole team of Eddie Gaedels and Manute Bols as quickly as I could!
How would this have a bigger effect on robot umps than the fleshy variety?
Reply
post #345 of 1171
5/26/09 at 1:26pm
Thread Starter 

Re: 2009 MLB Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Seaver
How would this have a bigger effect on robot umps than the fleshy variety?

Then I'll have to go to Plan B: cattle prods. They would work on umpires of batteries and wire as well as those of flesh and blood!
Reply
post #346 of 1171
5/26/09 at 1:52pm

Re: 2009 MLB Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Seaver
the robot is the primary source of information for ball/strike calls
Oh boy, then how do you handle the fans who say the automated system doesn't work right, or what about people 'hacking' into the system or if rain would interfere with it. LOL

But I do get what you're saying and as much as I hate to see the human element stripped from the game, I do like the idea of using technology to get the calls right. I wanted to see something like this put on the hockey rinks and the football fields to help the refs determine whether a puck/ball crossed the goal line when it's virtually impossible to see with the naked eye; whether it be a goal tenders glove over the puck as it JUST crosses the line, or whether it's a quarter back sneak where the ball is under a pile of guys.
Reply
post #347 of 1171
5/26/09 at 1:54pm

Re: 2009 MLB Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Frezon
Then I'll have to go to Plan B: cattle prods. They would work on umpires of batteries and wire as well as those of flesh and blood!
I want to see the umps wearing a helmet with two lights on top. For a strike, the red light flashes...for a ball; green.
Reply
post #348 of 1171
5/26/09 at 2:09pm
Thread Starter 

Re: 2009 MLB Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkHastings
I want to see the umps wearing a helmet with two lights on top. For a strike, the red light flashes...for a ball; green.

It would be much more fun if the umpires wore hats like this:

Reply
post #349 of 1171
5/26/09 at 2:19pm

Re: 2009 MLB Thread

Well, you'll notice I didn't say I'd implement it right away; there would be a lot of R&D put into it, beta testing it for an entire season before going live, comparing it to PitchFX and every other system being used to track the trajectory of pitches currently in use, and working with the umpires to make sure that it worked. Then I'd go completely open-source with the results, if not the actual code - after every game, fans can download all the pitch-tracking data, see if it syncs up with the local broadcast, etc. It would be like PitchFX on steroids.

Let's face it - in a lot of markets, we're already getting this; the NESN broadcast shows the umps up a lot by showing where they've got the ball crossing the front line of the plate. MLB GameDay shows the ball's complete path from the pitcher's hand to the plate. PitchFX data is out there. Obviously, if MLB were to switch to using automated ball-strike calls, they'd have to come up with a system that is better than all of them, but I think we're awfully close to it being practical.

And I think once it is, there's no excuse not to. For instance, Milton Bradley has recently been complaining that he's getting a Buick-sized strike zone because he's vocal with his displeasure at times. We shouldn't have to even entertain the thought that he might be right, or that one team is at a disadvantage because they're starting a rookie against a veteran.
Reply
post #350 of 1171
5/26/09 at 2:53pm

Re: 2009 MLB Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Seaver
For instance, Milton Bradley has recently been complaining that he's getting a Buick-sized strike zone because he's vocal with his displeasure at times.
You could build that into your code where the strike zone gets bigger when it detects displeasure in the batters voice.
Reply
post #351 of 1171
5/26/09 at 5:40pm

Re: 2009 MLB Thread

"When he hits that ball in the middle of the bat there on that sweet spot,
there 's no park in the league that can hold his balls in."

Gary Matthews tonight on Ryan Howard.
Reply
post #352 of 1171
5/26/09 at 8:30pm
Thread Starter 

Re: 2009 MLB Thread

Stengel couldn't have said it better!
Reply
post #353 of 1171
5/26/09 at 10:43pm

Re: 2009 MLB Thread

There aren't many things I would change, but there are a couple:

- No fielder's indifference -- if a runner steals a base, he should get credit regardless of the fielders' inaction.
- Give the team with the best regular season record an automatic win in the first game of the playoffs (in other words, they start the series with a 1-0 advantage). Despite the regular season being 162 games long, the team with the best record is rewarded very little for that accomplishment.
- Change the formula for ERA to more fairly allocate the blame. The pitcher who allows a batter to reach first base (who later scores) would be charged with 1/4 of a run and the relief pitcher who allowed him to go from 1st to home would get hit for 3/4 of the run, and so forth.
- And, of course, eliminate the DH.
Reply
post #354 of 1171
5/27/09 at 5:50am

Re: 2009 MLB Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Perry
- Give the team with the best regular season record an automatic win in the first game of the playoffs (in other words, they start the series with a 1-0 advantage). Despite the regular season being 162 games long, the team with the best record is rewarded very little for that accomplishment.
What do you mean? You don't consider home field advantage enough of a reward??

I mean, the 1st place team already has the advantage of being great. Take the Yankees in the late 90's (and early 2000's); the last thing we needed to do was to give them an extra win. That just leads to a team dominating even more so (i.e. more World Series wins = More money to spend on players).

Then how do the other teams in that division compete? It's lop sided enough without giving the 'better' team more advantages. I say give the worse teams more of an advantage.


EDIT: Brian, I see you're a Cubs fan....now I know why you want to give the division winner more of an advantage. OK, you guys can have it, but keep that rule out of the AL East please!!! LOL
Reply
post #355 of 1171
5/27/09 at 11:47am

Re: 2009 MLB Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkHastings
I mean, the 1st place team already has the advantage of being great. Take the Yankees in the late 90's (and early 2000's); the last thing we needed to do was to give them an extra win. That just leads to a team dominating even more so (i.e. more World Series wins = More money to spend on players).

Or if you're the Marlins, more World Series wins = more fire sales.

Anyway, if I were the commissioner, in addition to eliminating the evil axis of the DH, interleague play and artificial turf, I'd seek a constituional amendment stating that you can assume the double play.
Reply
post #356 of 1171
5/27/09 at 10:08pm

Re: 2009 MLB Thread

A deserved arrest comes through:

Man indicted for death of Angels? Adenhart - Baseball- nbcsports.msnbc.com

Hopefully some justice will be done.

In KC, Greinke continues to be just unbelievable. We're through 10 starts, he has a sub-1 ERA (.84) and the lowest walk ratio in the league. It's freakish what's going on there. In a not-so-good way, while he's 9-1, the rest of the team is sucking it. If it wasn't for his 9-1, the Royals would be 8 games under .500. Think about that
Reply
post #357 of 1171
5/27/09 at 10:46pm

Re: 2009 MLB Thread

Buck Martinez had a good idea for the playoffs; the wildcard team should only get 1 home game in the first round.
Reply
post #358 of 1171
5/28/09 at 10:39am

Re: 2009 MLB Thread

I'll listen to Buck Martinez once he figures out how to pronounce "Ortiz."
Reply
post #359 of 1171
5/28/09 at 11:37am
Thread Starter 

Re: 2009 MLB Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron Silverman
I'll listen to Buck Martinez once he figures out how to pronounce "Ortiz."



Honestly, I don't see any reason to "punish" the wildcard team. If MLB creates a wildcard system, why handicap it?
Reply
post #360 of 1171
5/28/09 at 12:04pm

Re: 2009 MLB Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Frezon
Honestly, I don't see any reason to "punish" the wildcard team. If MLB creates a wildcard system, why handicap it?

Same here. If the idea of a wild card team winning the World Series is so disagreeable, why not just get rid of it?

More often than not, the second place in the strongest division is a better team than the first place team in some other division.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: After Hours Lounge