Frayed Knot

"Like I always say about good hitters, ya gotta have the gluteus" -- Kevin Mitchell

I think he'll be so fine that he'll blow my mind.

I almost expect to see Hyman Roth walking in the background of that shot.

Centerfield wrote: Frayed Knot wrote: Meh I wonder if these responses correlate to how much a viewer falls in love with Gal Gadot. Nah, nothing against Gadot. I just continue to be unimpressed with most of these superhero flicks. I don't see many of them, but every once in a while there'll be one -- this one, Black Panther, several of the Batmans, etc -- where I'm told that it's a great movie over and above merely being a geek-fest for fan-boys. And so I make a point of seeing a few of them yet still find myself missing what everyone else apparently sees. So I acknowledge that it's probably me, but I thought it was an OK movie at best.

Rays trade Dickerson to the Pirates in exchange for reliever Daniel Hudson, a minor leaguer, and $1 million.

Meh

Ceetar wrote: I have no problem with them figuring out if a guy came a 1/4" off the bag. rules are rules. As Edgy says, if they see it with their own eyes to the point where they're convinced enough to risk one of their challenges, then, sure, go for it. But if it first requires stalling for the better part of a minute so some team bureaucrat can examine two different feeds and six different angles like it's the Zapruder film before they even commit to asking the umpires to then ask New York, then I'd prefer no replay rule at all.

... Its also about the increased offense from smaller parks, bigger players and juiced balls. The more offense, the longer the game ... [and] offense sells tickets As I mentioned earlier in the thread, 30 years ago (1987) games had slightly higher (0.7) plate appearances per game and again slightly more offense (0.16 R/G) yet were 24 minutes shorter on average, so it's tough to blame juiced balls and shorter fences. Part of the difference is certainly between inning commercial time (it hasn't changed recently but it is longer now than during the Reagan era) and part is likely pitches/AB (not sure accurate data exists for that but I'm betting it's higher now). But the remainder can be mostly blamed on the increase in mid-inning pitches changes, endless 'time-outs' for strategy/replay/etc, and just plain dawdling around, aka: Dead Time. * I'd prefer NOT to see rules or roster changes limiting when/how often you can switch pitchers, although I am disappointed that a no-additional-warmups for in-inning changes was included here. To me that's the easiest and most meaningful change they could make and it would knock at least a full minute off for each and that's nothing but dead time right there. The relievers union seems to be dead-set against it still claiming that bullpen mounds aren't the same as the real one. Well y'know what then? Bring them up to par! It can't be that difficult. And if it's still too frightening for relievers to come in "cold" well then that's one more factor a manager has to consider when he wants to make multiple changes during an inning. * Replay I've certainly harped on enough. No one who was for it envisioned it being employed for when the runner's spikes come off the base by a 1/4 inch for a 1/4 second but they were stupid not to realize that "limited' replay is like trying to stay only slightly pregnant and that it's virtually impossible NOT to include EVERY case where there's so called 'clear visual evidence'. Did they not observe that last four decades of the NFL?!? The shorter (10/15 second) decision limit that would eliminate most if not all of those 'minor' challenges has been mentioned here often and I agree. I think though that MLB is afraid of two things: 1) that the home team would rig up some sort of information system (lights/smoke signals) that would give them the advantage over the visiting squad in decision making 2) that the public is still going to see the bang-bang play which went unchallenged due to uncertainty was called incorrectly which will in turn lead to a backlash of fans and media calling baseball a bunch of dinosaurs for sticking their heads in the sand like the 19th century do-do birds they are (and, let's face it, most talking heads don't need much provocation to go that route anyway). * And finally the general dead time just needs better enforcement. The bottom line needs to be: Get in the box - Stay in the box; Get on the rubber - throw the fucking pitch! Here I suspect MLB is either wary of handing over too much power to the umps ("Hey Blue, no one came here to watch you, you fat shit!!") or the umps themselves are reluctant to play the heavy. Hopefully the clock rules that have now been in place in the minors for the last three(?) seasons are breeding players who now won't come up to the big leagues with nine different tics, four superstitions, plus a yoga routine before they feel comfortable enough to hit/pitch. It'll take a few years but maybe that will eliminate the need for a clock.

Edgy MD wrote: By the way, the more I think of these rule changes, the more I think they're attacking the wrong part of the game. A runner on second: no quick trip to the mound to change the signs? A bunt situation: no meetings at the mound to discuss defensive alignment? Those types of delays should count against the maximum of six, meaning that they'd be disallowed late in the game if a catcher -- maybe one whose name rhymes with Mary Manchez -- felt it necessary to make four separate 1st inning visits in order to 'get on the same page' with his pitcher. Like I said earlier: Favor the prepared! Just say no to increased committee meetings.

Ceetar wrote: feels like a stretch Aw c'mon, it sort of rhymes!

[fimg=300:2xomheni]https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--Rx5BrPBp--/c_scale,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/1482712341109124933.jpg[/fimg:2xomheni]

Centerfield wrote: Maybe he could learn to fake it at 3B. Rumor has it that he first has to learn to fake it at 1st

Really? A speed guy who'll turn 34 during the season (Aug), who's never been a full-timer (<400 PA each year), who carries sub-Duda-esque numbers vs LHPs (63 OPS+), and gets on base at a rate just a hair above Bruce but with about 2% of the power (12 career HRs)?

Bobby V used to talk about being "three deep" at each position. Not that you have three different guys for each but that you have enough overlap that you know going in who the backup is and also the backup's backup if it should come to that. So as long as they're working out Wilmer with the idea that he'd be a '3' for either Right or Left field (I can't imagine him sniffing CF) and not a '1' or '2', there's no harm in trying. Wilmer, in fact, might be the '3' guy at 1B (behind Smith & Gonzalez), at 2B (Cabrera/Reyes), at 3B (Frazier/TJ), and in both corner OF spots (Cespedes/Nimmo & Bruce/Nimmo). I was going to say SS but he's gotta be at least the 4th choice there now (Rosario/Reyes/Cabrera] and maybe 5th also behind TJ Now all he has to do is quit that nasty habit of his where he gets injured immediately after playing time opens up because after the guy in front of him is injured also.

Zvon wrote: I really wish they'd just leave the game alone. So do I. If the game was left alone it wouldn't be taking 20% longer than the version most of us grew up on.

The biggest problem with replays is the 'dry-runs' which wind up eating up as much as 30 seconds at a time but aren't actually considered replays if the manager ultimately opts not to challenge. I'd be all for a 10-second decision cut-off which would eliminate waiting for word from the video guy in the sky but that apparently was never part of the proposal either. And while I've been as critical of the replay system as anyone, aside from the dry runs, replay reviews themselves average under 2/game for both teams combined. Mound visits are the bigger problem IMO because they're much more frequent and often at least as time consuming. That they're going to try to cut back to a six per game per team (not including the exceptions of course) is a sign of how out of hand they've become. Hell, in Yanqui games I think the average is about six per/inning when the pinstripers are on the field and it's only that low because Jorge Posada retired. He alone was often good for 2 or 3 mound visits per batter.

It's a start anyway. I would have liked to see even quicker in-inning pitching changes -- as in ZERO additional warmups on top of your bullpen warmups -- but that didn't even seem to be in the discussion rumors so I didn't have high hopes for that one. From the linked article: There are, of course, exemptions to the mound visit rule. The following does not count against each team's mount visit total: A pitcher-catcher conference between batters. An infielder goes to the mound to clean his spikes during rainy conditions. Any visit involving a potential injury. Any visit after a pinch-hitter is announced. Also, if a team has exhausted their six mound visits, the umpire has the discretion to allow the catcher to visit the pitcher following a cross-up. The MLBPA had concerns about potential injuries resulting from the battery getting their signs mixed up. The pinch-hitter exemption bothers me. It's not like the other team is bringing in someone who you weren't aware was on the roster!! There's plenty of time before games and between innings for strategy. Have the rules favor the prepared team!

In 2017, the five leaders in starts started 66 per cent of regular season games. Here are the numbers: 2017 Jacob deGrom 31 Robert Gsellman 22 Seth Lugo 18 Rafael Montero 18 Matt Harvey 18 Zack Wheeler 17 Steven Matz 13 Chris Flexen 9 Noah Syndergaard 7 Tommy Milone 5 Tyler Pill 3 Adam Wilk 1 And the real killer last season was that the 2nd place guy and two of the three T-3rds in that start-chart weren't supposed to be regular starters at all; they could probably be tabbed as the 6th, 7th, and 8th guys as per the pre-season plan. The 'Big Five' that they were planning on wound up finishing the year 1st, T-3, 6th, 7th, and 9th in starts made (and 3 of Thor's 7 starts were essentially 1-inning outings).

I hope he is pressed and that BOTH have breakout seasons in 2018. Competition is good. And, if nothing else, at least one hits righty and the other lefty and one maybe is more BA vs the other with more power, so having both at the same time won't quite be a Duda/Ike level redundancy.

Well, arriving in the majors in that time frame vs being handed a starting position by ousting the incumbent are two different things. By forecasting the former JS isn't necessarily predicting the latter.

John Sickels: Peter Alonso, 1B, Grade B-/B: Age 23, second round pick in 2016 from University of Florida; hit .289/.359/.524 with 18 homers, 27 walks, 71 strikeouts in 353 at-bats between High-A and Double-A; showed very good power despite feeling the effects of a hand injury much of the season; doesn’t strike out much for a home run bat but can be somewhat aggressive and a few more walks would be nice; or not, right now there’s not much reason to change his approach since it works; bigger concern is defense, with a career .980 fielding percentage at first base, an unacceptable ratio at that position; past defensive rep was positive so glove will hopefully improve; ETA 2019.

41Forever wrote: [Castellanos] seems to imply that other players are pressuring guys not to take deals, thinking they would hurt the next round of free agents. Nothing new there. Tony Gwynn used to get heat from the union for his rather open declarations that he wanted to stay in his home town of SD rather than challenge and possibly raise the market by auctioning himself elsewhere. According to Bobby V (to some at this site personally) Mo Vaughn had to tell the union to 'get out of my business' when he adjusted his contract to facilitate his trade to the Mets. And there are other examples. Some guys have followed the advice of their agents (who are under the same sort of pressure) and wound up with a lesser deal than one they earlier rejected. And while there's nothing specifically wrong with the union wanting to see the pay of their members trending ever upward, not every player or every year is going to do that and you'd hate to think that Martinez is risking his current (and possibly last) contract because union officials and/or agents are urging him to play chicken with maybe the only team offering him that current deal. He's free to take that strategy as far as he wants of course, but that doesn't mean he'll necessarily get the result he (or the others) want.

Well, rumor had it he was holding out for an eight year deal and it looks like he found someone willing to go that route. He's younger than either Pujols & Cano were (28 vs 32 & 31) when they each got [u:133l07t6]ten year deals[/u:133l07t6] so this one isn't quite as insane as those. Of course he's also not the hitter either of them were. Pujols, 3-season OPS+ leading up to his FA deal: 189, 173, 148 -- very nice numbers even though headed in the wrong direction before the deal ever started Cano: 133, 148, 147 -- plus he's a middle infielder ... even if only a middling one Hosmer: 122, 102, 132 -- nice glove (4 GG) but essentially limited to 1B/DH (5 career games/3 starts in the OF)

There was something comforting about having Aaron as the lead man in the BB encyclopedia (even ahead of brother Tommie) AND as the lead man in the HR race. He started the 21st century that way but now he's neither.

Manfred doesn't name any names, but ya think he might have had some specific person in mind when he said this at a presser yesterday concerning teh remaining still-unsigned FAs?: “Drawing lines in the sand based on a perception that your market value is something different than what the market is telling you your value is, that doesn’t make a lot of sense, ... It is a fact that markets dictate value. Values are not dictated by big, thick, three-ring binders and rhetoric about who’s better than whom. They’re dictated by markets. That’s the system we negotiated.”