MLB Regular Season 22: The Thread

[tBBP]

On 3/15/2022 at 12:29 PM, gosioux76 said:

 

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. 

 

Which makes the fact that the Marlins somehow managed to *accidentally* do that twice in seven seasons all that much more amazing and frustrating at the same time. (Of course naturally I was a fan back then, being a Florida team and all, but still...)

 

On 3/15/2022 at 1:57 PM, speedy said:

 

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.

 

So, question: what'd be your recommendations for best sections to sit at Fenway and Coors? I'm going to try my darndest to get to both sometime this year.

[Digby]

8 minutes ago, tBBP said:

So, question: what'd be your recommendations for best sections to sit at Fenway and Coors? I'm going to try my darndest to get to both sometime this year.

 

You didn't ask me, but I'm a third-base/left-field guy through and through. If you don't mind the charm of grandstand, a.k.a. the narrow, wooden seats that may have a pole away and 15 people to climb over to exit your row, sections 28-30 are perfect. Loge 157-160 are the same view but in the lower, plastic, non-pole seats (also more money and no roof). Or if you like the wide-angle view of Boston and don't mind heights, the left-field pavilion and the Coca-Cola Deck (I think it's called?) are that side's seats but on the 2nd level and they're great, with the added benefit of being fewer in rows so the concourse is always nice and uncrowded.

 

The right-field side doesn't have that "jog" back in toward the field, the way left-field and modern ballparks all do, so many of those sections just look directly at the setting sun and the scoreboard. Only exception there is the tables in the Sam Adams Roof Deck bar, which are pretty cool but expensive and hard to get. The bleachers are too far away for my taste but I'd go if I got a $10 ticket and stood at that new bar in the back maybe. Green Monster seats are cool but usually not worth the premium, plus those get a brutal cold wind early and late in the season.

[McCall]

I know some may say that the shift is no different than the double-team in basketball (I don't know if I've seen that comparison around here), but double-teaming has been around for much of the game's existence and hasn't caused a deterioration in quality of the game. Shifting has, one can argue. I admit, that's a subjective-based analysis, but it has caused a change in the game like there hasn't been in the past. As Sport mentioned, it's killing left-handed hitting. To me, that brings a negative effect to the game. Sometimes, you have to look at the issue and make a judgement call. 

[McCall]

1 hour ago, Digby said:

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.

They've said the games will be taken only from the divisional schedule. Based on that, I could see this:

 

DIVISION: 13 games vs 4 teams (52 games)

LEAGUE: 6 games vs 8 teams & 7 games vs 2 teams as it is now (62 games)

INTERLEAGUE: 3 games vs 14 teams (42 games)

INTERLEAGUE RIVAL: 6 games (home and away every season)

[DoctorWhom]

Because the Dodgers are determined to add every MVP possible to the team. 

Seriously, that's 4 MVP players on a single team!

[Sport]

 

The Atlantic League is testing a rule again that I'm very excited about - you can advance to first base on a passed ball or any dropped pitch, even if it's not strike 3. There's never been any consequence to throwing a passed ball or wild pitch with nobody on base. Never made sense to me that the only time you could "steal" first was if the catcher dropped strike 3. 

 

[McCall]

2 minutes ago, Sport said:

 

The Atlantic League is testing a rule again that I'm very excited about - you can advance to first base on a passed ball or any dropped pitch, even if it's not strike 3. There's never been any consequence to throwing a passed ball or wild pitch with nobody on base. Never made sense to me that the only time you could "steal" first was if the catcher dropped strike 3. 

 

I don't like the modification to the double hook DH rule. I've always been in favor of just a straight DH for the starting pitcher only. Don't know how I feel about the dropped pitch rule. Almost seems gimicky in a way.

[BBTV]

10 minutes ago, Sport said:

 

The Atlantic League is testing a rule again that I'm very excited about - you can advance to first base on a passed ball or any dropped pitch, even if it's not strike 3. There's never been any consequence to throwing a passed ball or wild pitch with nobody on base. Never made sense to me that the only time you could "steal" first was if the catcher dropped strike 3. 

 

 

I don't understand the double-hook rule - can't you replace pitchers at will and keep the DH in there?  I thought that was normal.

 

As for the second part, I don't know about it because the third strike is the "out", and is really most analogous to someone dropping a fly ball or a first basemen dropping a putout.  On the other hand, since any pitch can result in an out, it does kinda make sense.  Would have to see it in action and see how often it actually comes into play.

 

34 minutes ago, McCall said:

I know some may say that the shift is no different than the double-team in basketball (I don't know if I've seen that comparison around here), but double-teaming has been around for much of the game's existence and hasn't caused a deterioration in quality of the game. Shifting has, one can argue. I admit, that's a subjective-based analysis, but it has caused a change in the game like there hasn't been in the past. As Sport mentioned, it's killing left-handed hitting. To me, that brings a negative effect to the game. Sometimes, you have to look at the issue and make a judgement call. 

 

Do the official rules of baseball prescribe positions?  Like first baseman, 2nd baseman, etc?  Or do they simply say that the defense has 9 players, one of whom is a pitcher and one of whom is a catcher?  Just curious.  It blows my mind that the game was around for 100 years before some genius figured out that shifting was an effective defensive strategy.

[tBBP]

2 hours ago, BBTV said:

It blows my mind that the game was around for 100 years before some genius figured out that shifting was an effective defensive strategy.

 

If it helps you feel any better, it took until 2003 for the US military (or at least the Army) to adjust its warfighting strategies and techniques; prior to that, they were still advancing troops in columns and flanks, and even as late as 2002 were still training that way in BCT . Afghanistan started the "shift", but the Iraq campaign forced their hand. Now the circular urban warfare TTPs are as commonplace as if they had been there beyond 20 years.

 

All of which is to say: sometimes the top brasshats don't see the issues until something smacks them dead in the grill and then forces their hand to make a change.

[Kramerica Industries]

2 hours ago, BBTV said:

It blows my mind that the game was around for 100 years before some genius figured out that shifting was an effective defensive strategy.

 

That's not entirely true. Lou Boudreau was calling shifts against Ted Williams when the Red Sox would play the Indians back in the 1940s. 

 

Quote

First time he saw the Boudreau shift, Ted Williams literally began to laugh. He promptly hit right into the teeth of it, as if playing along, and he was thrown out by Boudreau himself, who as shortstop was standing between the first and second baseman. The whole thing seemed a joke. "If teams start doing that against me, I'll start hitting right-handed," Williams said after the game. Well, everyone laughed. I've spent the last day or two reading sportswriters initial reactions to the shift; nobody seemed to take it seriously at all. Nobody seemed to buy it as a viable defense against a hitter as great as Williams

 

(source)

 

It wasn't a new creation, it just wasn't thought of to be used as a standard defensive alignment against left handed batters with pull tendencies (which is most of them).

 

[OnWis97]

I didn't know the Atlantic League had that double-hook rule. And I love it. I definitely lean "traditionalist" and would honestly prefer no DH ever. But I really like the idea of using the DH to incentivize keeping starters in the game. Even the modified "at least five inning" rule would at least kill "the opener." I also like that dropped ball rule, as a small way to combat the way pitchers are overpowering hitters.

 

I haven't decided where I am on the shift. I guess I'll say I like it, as maybe it'll lead to better results on grounders and line drives.

As I said, I lean "traditional" but the game is just boring  right now. I don't personally think the DH helps that but I do think the sport needs to find ways to adapt, even if those things would have mortified me 20 years ago. The problem is that almost everything making the game boring right now is the result of people getting smarter about how to win games. Alternating righties and lefties in the batting order leads to more pitching changes; pitching complete games is stupid for several reasons; not letting balls be put in play is smart; feast-or-famine hitting is smart. I really want to see baseball games with more balls put into play, more running, etc. but these are the things the analytics are preventing. I legitimately wonder if the ball can somehow be deadened to making swinging for the fences a bad idea so  players are trying to get on base. A triple, even a double, is more exciting than a home run.

I remember the day it hit me. We traveled to LA in 2017 and caught a game at Dodger Stadium (which I loved). The Dodgers lost to the Rockies 6-5 (in 9). That 's a nice score: close game, some scoring but not over the top. There was one really nice defensive play and probably four home runs. And the game was absolutely dreadful. Foul ball after foul ball. And if a runner got on second the catcher and/or manager would come out on about every other pitch (the year before mound visits were limited). Seemingly about a million mid-inning pitching changes. I think it was about a four-hour game. From that point on, I knew something had to change (Oddly enough, a few days later we saw Justin Verlander give up 1 hit in 8 innings to beat the Angels 1-0 in Anaheim and that was a WAY better game).

 

Maybe they need input from casual fans who like to sit at games, eat a hot dog and enjoy the ambiance, like my wife.

 

My wife: Games should be 7 innings.
Me: Stop it.
Now: Maybe she was right...since relievers do everything, anyway, why not just cut to the chase?

My wife: They need to be able to foul out.
Me: You don't understand how hard it is to hit a baseball.
Now: I don't think I can cross that line.

My wife: Do they have to go to the mound so often?

Me: That really should stop.
Now: Still feel that way; glad there is a limit.

 

Ideally, what I want is a game that has some pace (I want to find a way to limit mid-inning pitching changes), where runs are somewhat at a premium, where the ball is put into play, and where games over three hours are unusual. Not sure if it's possible, but I know I might have to eschew some "tradition" to get there.

[speedy]

5 hours ago, tBBP said:

So, question: what'd be your recommendations for best sections to sit at Fenway and Coors? I'm going to try my darndest to get to both sometime this year.

 

Fenway: For a first timer, RF Roof Box (21-43) have been my favorite since they were introduced - great view of the monster. Avoid upper grandstands (under the roof) and anywhere down the RF line at field level because you have to keep your head at a 90 degree angle to see home plate. As Digby said, the 3rd base/left field Coke deck is also good. I've sat in the bleachers more often than not - far away and awful view of just about everything, but they're the cheapest and easiest to grab on game day. If you're really feeling jazzy, obviously spring for the Monster seats, but also as Digby mentioned they're expensive. If you have time and can actually get in, definitely check out Bleacher Bar on Landsdowne. It's nothing to write home about but it is in the park and you get a pretty cool view from inside the outfield wall.

Coors: For a great view of the mountains, wildfire dependent, sit down the 1st baseline in the 300's. It's high up but still a great view. I usually decide to go about an hour or so before a game and grab the Rock Pile (that weird half-oval thing above the batters-eye) for $5 - not the greatest seats but I'd recommend taking a jog up there anyway. If it's a day game, avoid everywhere but the 3rd baseline field level because you will melt. Keep in mind the entire outfield is bleachers, and not by name only, they're metal bleachers.

[waltere]

As much as it pains this Mets fan to say it, one of my favorite teams of recent years has been the 2015 Royals, precisely because they went against the prevailing trend by being such a small ball, contact hitting, baserunning focused type team, in a way that felt like a serious throwback (especially for a team from the AL!)

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

22 hours ago, DoctorWhom said:

Because the Dodgers are determined to add every MVP possible to the team. 

Seriously, that's 4 MVP players on a single team!

 

The 1982 Angels had Reggie Jackson, Fred Lynn, Rod Carew, and Don Baylor.

 

 

22 hours ago, BBTV said:

It blows my mind that the game was around for 100 years before some genius figured out that shifting was an effective defensive strategy.

 

This is not remotely true. The use of the shift against Ted Williams has already been mentioned. The shift was also used routinely against Willie McCovey, and often against Mickey Mantle when he batted lefty.

 

 

A ban on the shift is lamentable. A manager should be able to deploy his players wherever he likes.

 

Every defensive alignment has its risks as well as its benefits. When you play the infield in so as to cut off a run, then, as the saying goes, you turn a .200 hitter into a .300 hitter, and a .300 hitter into a .400 hitter.  When you guard the lines to take away the extra-base hit, you leave a hole on each side of the infield. When you play the outfield deep, you concede the sacrifice fly.

 

If the opposition cannot exploit the flaws in any given defensive alignment, that's on them. 

 

(I'm glad I retired after the 1996 season.)

 

 

Finally, when I was following current baseball, I liked the DH a lot. The allegation that the DH removes strategy from the game is an empty canard. What it actually does is to encourage managers to pinch-hit for players other than the pitcher (the Yankees used to pinch-hit for Bucky Dent just about every game, which is what made his division-winning 1978 home run so surprising), to pinch-run, and to make extensive use of platoons at various positions (as Earl Weaver did).

 

Still, I do not like to see the DH coming to the National League. I liked the DH; but what I liked just as much was having both varieties of the game.

 

It was interesting that the very fact that most pitchers were incompetent hitters created a perverse form of pressure for the pitcher on the mound. A pitcher was expected to retire his opposite number every time;  so, if the pitcher should somehow manage to walk the opposing pitcher, this was considered a major mistake that sometimes resulted in the pitcher on the mound completely losing his composure (and in the announcers saying that this is what gives managers grey hair). 

 

So, even as a fan of the DH, I always said "vive la différence". Malheureusement, la différence est maintenant morte.

[gosioux76]

19 hours ago, OnWis97 said:

My wife: Do they have to go to the mound so often?

Me: That really should stop.
Now: Still feel that way; glad there is a limit.

 

I doubt this is an original idea, because it's way too obvious and probably flawed in ways I don't realize as I type this, but ... what about taking a cue from soccer and put a limit on pitching substitutions?  Like, limit them to three pitching changes per game. It would require managers to be much more judicious about when they give pitchers the hook. They can still avoid overworking starters, but you'd see far fewer moments where a pitcher is brought in to face one batter. 

 

I'm sure this is something the players' association would hate because it would effectively legislate limited playing time for relief pitchers. But still, I think it's a good idea.

 

This would also fall into the same sort of category @Ferdinand Cesaranowas lamenting. It limits managers from deploying players as they see fit.  But if the way they're doing it now is dragging the game down, then I think the league has no choice but to regulate it. 

 

I'd still would've liked to see the shift given more time, though. I know someone earlier said something about pitchers today being a lot faster and better than during the Ted Williams era, making it harder for batters to adjust. But I'd have hoped more of them would have carried the ethos of Ted Williams. I mean, he Williams laughed at the shift and essentially said, "screw you, I'll find a way around it." 

 

It really seems like the only bonafide strategy of working around the shift today was to swing harder, as if it's a battle of cavemen against the pitching intellectuals who keep outsmarting them. 

 

 

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

1 hour ago, gosioux76 said:

what about taking a cue from soccer...

 

One thing that I'd like to see borrowed from soccer is that draws should be allowed during the regular season.  In the Japanese leagues a game that is tied after 12 innings ends in a draw. I say make it 9 innings. There's no need to play extra innings at all during the regular season.  Have extra innings only in the postseason, just as in soccer a league game ends after 90 minutes (plus stoppage time), and the only games that go to extra time and penalties are tournament games.

(I will note that the Japanese leagues have draws in the postseason after 15 innings. I definitely don't go for that.  Every postseason game must have a winner; not so every regular-season game.)

Limiting regular-season games to 9 innings would reduce the occasions of position players having to come in to pitch.  (This could still happen in a blowout; but it wouldn't happen on account of a team running out of available pitchers in a marathon game.)  The 9-inning limit would also allow a manager to use his best relievers in the 8th and 9th, without worring about saving them for later. And it would make for some exciting and daring play in the bottom of the 9th by a team that knew that the worst it could do is draw.

[B-Rich]

21 hours ago, speedy said:

Coors: For a great view of the mountains, wildfire dependent, sit down the 1st baseline in the 300's. It's high up but still a great view. I usually decide to go about an hour or so before a game and grab the Rock Pile (that weird half-oval thing above the batters-eye) for $5 - not the greatest seats but I'd recommend taking a jog up there anyway. If it's a day game, avoid everywhere but the 3rd baseline field level because you will melt. Keep in mind the entire outfield is bleachers, and not by name only, they're metal bleachers.

That's what we did last year, Father's Day weekend. 

 

I enjoyed the view but my selfie generation, lovin' all things bougie/Gucci college student daughters lamented  that we weren't down lower (like we usually are).

[BBTV]

2 hours ago, gosioux76 said:

what about taking a cue from soccer and put a limit on pitching substitutions?  Like, limit them to three pitching changes per game.

 

No way.  Bryce Harper was drilled in the face by a pitcher that was wild and all over the place but couldn't be removed because he hadn't met the stupid 3-batter minimum.  The Cardinals manager even said that was the only reason he was in the game.  Limiting pitching changes will lead to injuries - not only to the pitchers, but potentially the batters too.

 

I agree that pitching changes suck, but they're necessary and there shouldn't be restrictions.

 

That being said, they could make them go faster by reducing the warmups from the mound and by racing them to the mound on a motocross bike.  And if a manager knows that a guy is only in for one batter, just bring the next guy into the dugout while the first guy goes from the bullpen to the mound.  I'm sure sitting there for a minute while the lefty-specialist faces his one batter isn't going to make his arm get cold.

[gosioux76]

2 hours ago, BBTV said:

 

No way.  Bryce Harper was drilled in the face by a pitcher that was wild and all over the place but couldn't be removed because he hadn't met the stupid 3-batter minimum.  The Cardinals manager even said that was the only reason he was in the game.  Limiting pitching changes will lead to injuries - not only to the pitchers, but potentially the batters too.

 

I agree that pitching changes suck, but they're necessary and there shouldn't be restrictions.

 

That being said, they could make them go faster by reducing the warmups from the mound and by racing them to the mound on a motocross bike.  And if a manager knows that a guy is only in for one batter, just bring the next guy into the dugout while the first guy goes from the bullpen to the mound.  I'm sure sitting there for a minute while the lefty-specialist faces his one batter isn't going to make his arm get cold.

 

I can see your point. But if you adopted a minimum level of pitching substitutions in a game, I'd argue there would no longer be a need for the three-batter minimum. Say a team gets to make four (or pick your reasonable preferred number) pitching changes across nine innings: In that scenario, the only thing stopping the Cardinals from pulling that pitcher would be if they'd already used their allotment of changes.  If the manager is doing his job, he'd be managing his staff in a way that accounts for that scenario. I don't think that's unreasonable. If anything, it brings a new dimension to managing your bullpen. 

 

One question about your proposed scenarios for speeding up pitching changes. Wouldn't it mean putting pitchers on the mound without adequately warming up? Or is this working under the assumption that those guys have been working in the bullpen for many innings before this switch happens? 

[BBTV]

7 hours ago, gosioux76 said:

One question about your proposed scenarios for speeding up pitching changes. Wouldn't it mean putting pitchers on the mound without adequately warming up? Or is this working under the assumption that those guys have been working in the bullpen for many innings before this switch happens? 

 

Yes the pitchers would have warmed up in the bullpen.  Warm them up, and then when you know you're going to use them, bring them in to the bench so you can swap them in with minimal down time.  Relief pitchers are treated with absurd levels of kid gloves - if they were that good and that worthy of being coddled then they'd be starters.  Shut up and throw the ball.