MLB Regular Season 22: The Thread

[DEAD!]

2 hours ago, Brian in Boston said:

"Cheers is filmed before a live stadium audience."

...and here to throw the first bottle: Sam Malone

[DG_ThenNowForever]

1 minute ago, Sport said:

Baseball is the only one of the North American team sports where every team is not trying to win a championship. In the NFL, NHL, NBA, and MLS there's various levels of competency and some teams take a year or two off to tank, but every team feels like they're doing all they can to pursue this year's or a near future year's championship. Circle the 2025 World Series and ask how many teams right now have a plan to compete for that? It might be fewer than 20. That's really bad for the sport when a whole third of the league simply exists to fill a schedule and act as a shiny tax loophole for some rich dickhead. 

 

I think it's actually closer to 10.

 

MLB has a draft lottery now, plus expanded playoffs? There are going to be teams frustrated they make the postseason now.

[Digby]

36 minutes ago, speedy said:

 

I guess this makes it easier to get concessions rather than walking down 35 flights of steps? Seems like it was inevitable they were going to do something like this once they started building that music venue. I'll reserve judgement, as they have usually done a really good job with additions, but it sure does look out of place.

 

That, and also those seats were so far away that it's probably better value to have fewer butts there but easier access to $13 Bud Lights or whatever. I'd never want to sit up there but I could be convinced to stand up there with a beer maybe if I got a standing-room ticket. And yeah, the music venue construction I'm sure made this free. I will give FSG credit that basically all of the Fenway renovations have looked like they were there all along (although they've overdone it on video screens). 

 

7 minutes ago, Sport said:

I like to think of it as a very weird dinner and improv theater. I love baseball, ballparks, hot dogs, and beer and it's why I will still probably go to 5 Reds games this year even though I'm mad at them. 

 

 

Pretty much, yes. It helps at least in Boston that the park is centrally located and such an institution, which is why they'll always get away with it in a way that, say, the Revolution will not.

 

If that just means the diehards are steadily replaced with casuals, I'm not sure ownership cares too much. Again, at least for the Red Sox, they'll try to win every now and then that they can keep up the kayfabe. I'm not sure that will work in all the other markets, though.

[gosioux76]

1 hour ago, Sport said:

Baseball is the only one of the North American team sports where every team is not trying to win a championship. In the NFL, NHL, NBA, and MLS there's various levels of competency and some teams take a year or two off to tank, but every team feels like they're doing all they can to pursue this year's or a near future year's championship. Circle the 2025 World Series and ask how many teams right now have a plan to compete for that? It might be fewer than 20. That's really bad for the sport when a whole third of the league simply exists to fill a schedule and act as a shiny tax loophole for some rich dickhead. 

 

I think you're right about this, but I also don't think that it's anything new.  It's the same reason why worst-to-first stories are so rare in baseball. It's just not a sport where you can turn a team around easily in a two- to three-year window, especially if you're one of the have-not markets that, in addition to not having bottomless pockets, aren't a first-choice free agent destination.  And it's certainly not like the NFL or NBA where a top 10 draft pick can come aboard and instantly make you better. That talent takes years to develop and they seem to fall short of expectations more often than they don't. 

 

Because of that, the machinations of team building will continue to be centered around these overly complicated decisions that usually involve weighing the value of unproven long-term assets (prospects) to make equally risky short-term deals. In an environment like that, it seems like the only formulas that work for long-term planning are overspending and dumb luck. 

[speedy]

2 hours ago, Digby said:

 

That, and also those seats were so far away that it's probably better value to have fewer butts there but easier access to $13 Bud Lights or whatever. I'd never want to sit up there but I could be convinced to stand up there with a beer maybe if I got a standing-room ticket. And yeah, the music venue construction I'm sure made this free. I will give FSG credit that basically all of the Fenway renovations have looked like they were there all along (although they've overdone it on video screens). 

 

 

Pretty much, yes. It helps at least in Boston that the park is centrally located and such an institution, which is why they'll always get away with it in a way that, say, the Revolution will not.

 

If that just means the diehards are steadily replaced with casuals, I'm not sure ownership cares too much. Again, at least for the Red Sox, they'll try to win every now and then that they can keep up the kayfabe. I'm not sure that will work in all the other markets, though.

 

Can't say I've ever sat up there either. Maybe only sat in that entire portion of the bleachers once. I was always CF or the RF Roof Deck. There are an egregious amount of screens, but I think that's more a product of the times than FSG getting tacky with it.

Since moving to Denver it has been fantastic having Coors right down town and a stones throw from my apartment has further enticed me to go to as many games I as possible - even though they are terrible. $5 gameday tickets don't hurt, either. To me, having a stadium in downtown gives it much more character and appeal than say.. Foxboro. Citizens Bank has always been one of my favorite parks to visit but it's in the middle of GD nowhere, which hurts it's appeal.

[Digby]

The Philly complex model is a bit of a mixed bag, it's still on a subway line at least but also has parking for all the suburbanites and tailgaters, and there's never a question of land when it's time to build a new stadium. I'm surprised they haven't built out more of an outdoor mall thing there, just that utterly bizarre "Xfinity Live" complex. But in a city like Philadelphia it does feel weird to be so apart from the city itself.

[Dilbert]

Former Red Zack Cozart weighed in on the Reds situation and it pretty much confirms what we've known all along.  To the ownership, the Reds isnt a business. Its just a side hobby.

[DEAD!]

14 minutes ago, Digby said:

The Philly complex model is a bit of a mixed bag, it's still on a subway line at least but also has parking for all the suburbanites and tailgaters, and there's never a question of land when it's time to build a new stadium. I'm surprised they haven't built out more of an outdoor mall thing there, just that utterly bizarre "Xfinity Live" complex. But in a city like Philadelphia it does feel weird to be so apart from the city itself.

Not having been to Philadelphia, but by looking at location on the map, is it anything like getting to a Mets game? 

[Sport]

21 hours ago, Dilbert said:

Former Red Zack Cozart weighed in on the Reds situation and it pretty much confirms what we've known all along.  To the ownership, the Reds isnt a business. Its just a side hobby.

 

Jesse Winker said 

 

 

"I’ve always wanted to be a part of an organization and a team that is really going after winning." Forget for a second that he's now on the Mariners who hold the longest active playoff drought in North American sports, it's a pretty strong statement on the Reds. 

 

 

 

[Dilbert]

It continues. The Reds just traded Amir Garrett to the Royals for Mike Minor.  So let me get this straight. The Reds let Wade Miley go because he cost to much. We now trade Garret for a no name veteran who is worse than Garrett but costs the same as Miley. Make it make sense! The Reds roster is starting to look like an Abbott and Costello routine.

 

On another note. I saw that supposedly the schedule for 2023 is changing. Team schedules will be more balanced and will now play at least one series against every team.

[mcj882000]

So I'm not gonna make a big post whining about how much I hate that they banned shifts, how I think that's bad for baseball, etc.. God knows I don't want to start that discourse again considering I'm already tired of it elsewhere; but I do want to ask a question regarding something that I think has been oddly absent from said discourse: how, exactly, are they enforcing said ban? What's the punishment for an illegal defense now?

[BBTV]

1 hour ago, mcj882000 said:

So I'm not gonna make a big post whining about how much I hate that they banned shifts, how I think that's bad for baseball, etc.. God knows I don't want to start that discourse again considering I'm already tired of it elsewhere; but I do want to ask a question regarding something that I think has been oddly absent from said discourse: how, exactly, are they enforcing said ban? What's the punishment for an illegal defense now?

 

Did they formally ban the shift?  I thought they couldn't do that this year.

 

Regardless, every sport has seen rule changes in the spirit of better play.  NBA instituted a shot clock, banned underhand free throws, and widened the lane because Wilt was too good, NHL banned the trap.  This is no different.  If I'm a fan in the stands, I don't want to get excited because Bryce Harper laid down a bunt to beat the shift (which he's done multiple times), I want to see him hit dingers.

 

I used to be against legislating where players could stand, but now, much like the DH, I"m 100% for it.  Every sport has undergone something similar - if baseball doesn't, it'll die.

[Discrim]

6 hours ago, BBTV said:

NBA instituted a shot clock, banned underhand free throws, and widened the lane because Wilt was too good

They needed to ban underhanded free throws?  I get the impression people not named Rick Barry would never consider it because they don't want anybody calling them grannies...IIRC they did ban the ability to dunk for your free throws, which Wilt was doing for a while.

6 hours ago, BBTV said:

NHL banned the trap

Did they?  IIRC they changed several rules, notably cracking down on obstruction and tweaking the 2 line pass rule, which defanged the trap.  Seems teams still use it, it's just not nearly as effective as it was in the 90s.

[BBTV]

4 hours ago, Discrim said:

They needed to ban underhanded free throws?  I get the impression people not named Rick Barry would never consider it because they don't want anybody calling them grannies...IIRC they did ban the ability to dunk for your free throws, which Wilt was doing for a while.

Did they?  IIRC they changed several rules, notably cracking down on obstruction and tweaking the 2 line pass rule, which defanged the trap.  Seems teams still use it, it's just not nearly as effective as it was in the 90s.

 

Huh - you're right.  I guess I was thinking about the dunking from the line.  Not sure about the trap, but either way my point stands, as the 2-line pass was a staple of hockey and they changed it in the name of making the game more exciting.  

 

NHL also instituted those dumb lines behind the goal line because some goalies were too good at maneuvering the puck.  The same arguments people are making for the shift could be made in almost any of these scenarios. But BASEBALL and TRADITION!!!  How would these people have felt in the '40s?

 

Games evolve because they have to.  It's professional sports - it's about entertainment, not competition.

[McCall]

1 hour ago, BBTV said:

 

Huh - you're right.  I guess I was thinking about the dunking from the line.  Not sure about the trap, but either way my point stands, as the 2-line pass was a staple of hockey and they changed it in the name of making the game more exciting.  

 

NHL also instituted those dumb lines behind the goal line because some goalies were too good at maneuvering the puck.  The same arguments people are making for the shift could be made in almost any of these scenarios. But BASEBALL and TRADITION!!!  How would these people have felt in the '40s?

 

Games evolve because they have to.  It's professional sports - it's about entertainment, not competition.

Actually, the competition IS the entertainment.

 

But I do agree about the shift. I've never been a fan of it. And I find it ironic that, typically, the people complaining about it's eventual banning are the same who wanted the DH and more offense. The shift decreases offense. I agree that an MLB hitter should be able to adjust and hit the ball where the defense isn't, but one could also make the argument that an MLB defender should be able to field a ball from his standard position. Basically, one could make an argument for or against just about any rule change.

[TBGKon]

17 hours ago, Dilbert said:

On another note. I saw that supposedly the schedule for 2023 is changing. Team schedules will be more balanced and will now play at least one series against every team.

Yes, I caught this last week as well.  Now that the DH is across both leagues it makes sense to have more crossover and balance.  I get that division teams should play most often, but when approximately half of a teams schedule is within the division it gets a little monotonous. 

 

I am curious how the breakdown will shake out to.

[Digby]

The DH rule is one thing, but the schedule change to just play all the teams is too much. Kills novelty, kills rivalries, and who wants even more bicoastal games with bad start times? Gross! Feels like they just want to push the Yankees/Cubs/Red Sox into more road markets wherever possible.

 

Can't imagine it could even work as a purely balanced schedule with this many teams, but maybe:

 

12 games against your division

6 games against your league (non-division)

3 games against other league

 

(12 * 4) + (6 * 10) + (3 * 15) = 153, so that plus a few scattered 4-game series in there to round out the schedule. And alternating home/away on the interleague series. Keeping a division bias in the schedule but dialing it back a touch is a good idea for me, just not with ALL the interleague play.

[gosioux76]

52 minutes ago, McCall said:

The shift decreases offense. I agree that an MLB hitter should be able to adjust and hit the ball where the defense isn't, but one could also make the argument that an MLB defender should be able to field a ball from his standard position. Basically, one could make an argument for or against just about any rule change.

 

You're right on all of this, of course. But I had hoped that the shift would end organically by forcing players to channel Ted Williams and become better hitters.  I realize the whole "hit'em where they ain't" thing is easier said than done, but it seems like the prevailing strategy of modern day baseball is more Ted Kluszewski than it is Rod Carew. 

[Sport]

I've weirdly become less of a purist the older I've gotten. I was strongly anti-DH in the NL for 20 years until I lived in a city with an AL team and watched a lot more AL baseball. When I went back to watching mostly NL I found myself tired of the pitcher's spot killing rallies, watching the 7, 8, 1 hitters being managed around a hole in the lineup, and watching AL teams with a built-in roster building advantage over the NL teams. I like the AL game better and I welcome the DH in the NL with open arms. I'm open to way more ideas to improve modern baseball because a lot is not working right now, but I'll stop short of realigning the AL and NL into eastern and western conferences. That's where I draw the line. 

 

My thoughts on the shift have changed too. I didn't have a problem with it at first, in fact I kind of liked the extra strategies it brought, but now it's killing left handed hitters and it's encouraging more of the Three True Outcomes style of baseball. You wanna know why no-hitters are happening so much more frequently? It's because of the shift. And pitchers are just better too, but the shift helps. The number of pitchers who throw in the high 90's, if not over 100 right now compared to even twenty years ago is ridiculous and there's only more on the way. Pitching has evolved well past hitting and there needs to be something to SHIFT (LOL!) the balance back to a more level center. 

[BBTV]

42 minutes ago, gosioux76 said:

 

You're right on all of this, of course. But I had hoped that the shift would end organically by forcing players to channel Ted Williams and become better hitters.  I realize the whole "hit'em where they ain't" thing is easier said than done, but it seems like the prevailing strategy of modern day baseball is more Ted Kluszewski than it is Rod Carew. 

pitchers are faster than ever. It used to be rare to hit mid 90s, now it seems like everyone is close to 100. I’m not sure how some of the past hitters would have fared against today’s pitchers.  Rod Carew never faced Ardolis Chapman or DeGrom. He faced some legends for sure, but it’s a different type of challenge now. 
 

also when a guy is getting paid to hit dingers and drive in runs, laying down a bunt or trying to tap a ball against the shift is counter productive to his role, and ultimately affects his salary as a free agent. So they just try to hit homers, which generally results in an out.