MLB 2019 Season

1482483485487488523

Comments

  • JK_LivinJK_Livin South JerseyPosts: 7,153
    JK_Livin said:
    JK_Livin said:

    Major League Baseball and the MLB Players Association are discussing potentially drastic changes to the on-field game and economic landscape of the sport in the middle of a collective bargaining agreement, a significant departure from the past that speaks to the chasm between the parties but represents a thaw in the chill that has divided the sides, sources familiar with the talks told ESPN.

    Dueling proposals from MLB on Jan. 14 and the union on Friday covered a wide range of topics, according to sources. Among them include:

    • A three-batter minimum for pitchers

    • A universal designated hitter

    • A single trade deadline before the All-Star break

    • A 20-second pitch clock

    • The expansion of rosters to 26 men, with a 12-pitcher maximum

    • Draft advantages for winning teams and penalties for losing teams

    • A study to lower the mound

    • A rule that would allow two-sport amateurs to sign major league contracts




    I want the mound raised, not lowered...
    When will they be adding a 5th base? 4 are just too boring.
    You know the mound was originally higher right?
    I apologize, that wasn't directed at you. It was in response to that entire list of changes.
    Cool, I get your comment now, lol.  Maybe have a random 2nd ball thrown at the batter for extra points?!?
    Now you're talking!!
    Alright, alright, alright!
    Tom O.
    "I never had any friends later on like the ones I had when I was twelve. Jesus, does anyone?"
    -The Writer
  • pjhawkspjhawks Posts: 9,600
    If the mound is raised, there will be a no hitter every night and offense is going to go way down, more than it already is.  The ball needs to be put in play more
    Hmmm.  There wasn't a no hitter every other day when the mound was higher so what will change now?  

    If anything the ball would be in play more rather than over the fence.  Small ball is exciting when there are hits and stolen bases and squeeze plays.

    Raise the mound and the batter will be more focused on contact rather than a damn "trajectory".

    Just my thoughts.

    Your counter?
    That the game was different when the mound was higher.

    I don't think players will make any contact if the mound is higher
    If the mound is higher strikeouts will go up even more than they are now.   Before the mound was lowered Bob Gibson had an era in the 1s. no one wants to see that.

    instead of adding the DH to the NL eliminate the DH in the AL.  I know Cliffy loves it but the DH sucks.

  • tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 19,624
    pjhawks said:
    If the mound is raised, there will be a no hitter every night and offense is going to go way down, more than it already is.  The ball needs to be put in play more
    Hmmm.  There wasn't a no hitter every other day when the mound was higher so what will change now?  

    If anything the ball would be in play more rather than over the fence.  Small ball is exciting when there are hits and stolen bases and squeeze plays.

    Raise the mound and the batter will be more focused on contact rather than a damn "trajectory".

    Just my thoughts.

    Your counter?
    That the game was different when the mound was higher.

    I don't think players will make any contact if the mound is higher
    If the mound is higher strikeouts will go up even more than they are now.   Before the mound was lowered Bob Gibson had an era in the 1s. no one wants to see that.

    instead of adding the DH to the NL eliminate the DH in the AL.  I know Cliffy loves it but the DH sucks.

    I like seeing that.  What Snell and DeGrom did this year was awesome.

    I don't agree with the strikeouts though.  The players would have to adjust on contact, not trajectory.

    It is a good healthy debate though.
  • Cliffy6745Cliffy6745 Posts: 28,855
    Strikeouts would sky rocket.  

    DH ain't going anywhere
  • tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 19,624
    Because I like doing analytics I did my own research.

    In 1968 there were 20 teams.  3250 games played that year and 19,000 strikeouts for an average of 11.7 K's per game.

    Do 19,000K/3250 games= 5.846 each game but you need to times it by 2 to technically get a full game so 5.846x2= 11.7 K's a game

    Note this was the last year the mound was at 15".  Next year it went down to 10".

    In 2018 there are 30 teams.  4862 games played this year with 41,000 strikeouts for an average of 16.9 K's per game.

    Do 41,000K/4862 games=8.432 each game.  8.432x2=16.9 K's a game.

    The most egregious offender in 68 were the Metropolitans whom are 1 year away from winning a WS with 1203 K's in 163 games for a whopping 7.38 k's per game.

    This years LEAST egregious offender is the Cleveland Indians with 1189 K's in 162 games for  7.3 k's per game.

    The ChiSox were the worst this year with a 9.8K per game average.

    So even with the mound raised there still weren't as many K's then per game as there are now.
  • Cliffy6745Cliffy6745 Posts: 28,855
    You can't compare 1968 to now.  The game is different.

    Compare 1968 to 1969 (assuming that is the year it was raised) to see the impact
  • Cliffy6745Cliffy6745 Posts: 28,855
    Easy enough, strike outs jumped by a total of 3,100 and never got back to the original numbers besides a few years in the 70s.  So yeah, strike outs would go up from where they already are, which is too high.
  • HesCalledDyerHesCalledDyer MarylandPosts: 14,679
    Conversely, in 1968 there were only 6 batters with an average above .300; Carl Yastrzemski led the AL with a .301 average, its only .300 hitter.  Compare to last season where the top 10 in both leagues batted .297 or better, with 16 total .300 hitters. Heck, in '68 only 8 qualifying batters even hit above .275 in the AL.
  • Cliffy6745Cliffy6745 Posts: 28,855
    So newsflash, baseball players are better today than they were 50 years ago?  I don't see the point.

    The mound was raised and strikeouts increased.  If it were raised again, the same thing would happen.  That is not good for the game.
  • HesCalledDyerHesCalledDyer MarylandPosts: 14,679
    Strikeouts go up, average goes down.  That was my point.  I agree with you Cliffy.
  • F Me In The BrainF Me In The Brain this knows everybody from other commetsPosts: 16,665
    Just like with football, I love close games & am fine with low scores in the playoffs.
    For a random Wednesday night?  Both teams striking out a fuckton is not anything I want a part of unless it happens to be a matchup of 2 aces.  Having that be a regular thing is boring.
    The love he receives is the love that is saved
  • tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 19,624
    So newsflash, baseball players are better today than they were 50 years ago?  I don't see the point.

    The mound was raised and strikeouts increased.  If it were raised again, the same thing would happen.  That is not good for the game.
    Strikeouts go up, average goes down.  That was my point.  I agree with you Cliffy.
    But strikeouts for the most part have increased but I see your points in that they would go up even more and make the game more boring, got it.

    What about strikeouts to HR ratios?  The amount of HRs are increasing along with K's.  Guys are swinging for the fences now.  Triples are almost non existent too.

    What about expanding the ball parks or are we still just wanting HR's and no small ball?

  • igotid88igotid88 Posts: 16,593
    Analytics doesn't like small ball. You're more likely to score from 1st with no outs than 2nd and 1out. They don't like giving up outs unless it's a strikeout
    I miss igotid88
  • Cliffy6745Cliffy6745 Posts: 28,855
    So newsflash, baseball players are better today than they were 50 years ago?  I don't see the point.

    The mound was raised and strikeouts increased.  If it were raised again, the same thing would happen.  That is not good for the game.
    Strikeouts go up, average goes down.  That was my point.  I agree with you Cliffy.
    But strikeouts for the most part have increased but I see your points in that they would go up even more and make the game more boring, got it.

    What about strikeouts to HR ratios?  The amount of HRs are increasing along with K's.  Guys are swinging for the fences now.  Triples are almost non existent too.

    What about expanding the ball parks or are we still just wanting HR's and no small ball?

    Big Hair Monsters don't hit triples! 

    I do think the all or nothing approach is not good.I don't know what you do about that, but raising the mound in my mind will only make it worse.

  • tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 19,624
    So newsflash, baseball players are better today than they were 50 years ago?  I don't see the point.

    The mound was raised and strikeouts increased.  If it were raised again, the same thing would happen.  That is not good for the game.
    Strikeouts go up, average goes down.  That was my point.  I agree with you Cliffy.
    But strikeouts for the most part have increased but I see your points in that they would go up even more and make the game more boring, got it.

    What about strikeouts to HR ratios?  The amount of HRs are increasing along with K's.  Guys are swinging for the fences now.  Triples are almost non existent too.

    What about expanding the ball parks or are we still just wanting HR's and no small ball?

    Big Hair Monsters don't hit triples! 

    I do think the all or nothing approach is not good.I don't know what you do about that, but raising the mound in my mind will only make it worse.

    I'll consider the mound raising as bad but I do think slap hitting would make a comeback with it.

    Bregman and Betts are my ideal type of player.  Plenty of pop, speed and average.  I also loved the play of Ichiro who could reach basec v on a chop to third.

    I also enjoyed McGwire, Bonds and Arod so I'm all over the place.
  • Cliffy6745Cliffy6745 Posts: 28,855
    So newsflash, baseball players are better today than they were 50 years ago?  I don't see the point.

    The mound was raised and strikeouts increased.  If it were raised again, the same thing would happen.  That is not good for the game.
    Strikeouts go up, average goes down.  That was my point.  I agree with you Cliffy.
    But strikeouts for the most part have increased but I see your points in that they would go up even more and make the game more boring, got it.

    What about strikeouts to HR ratios?  The amount of HRs are increasing along with K's.  Guys are swinging for the fences now.  Triples are almost non existent too.

    What about expanding the ball parks or are we still just wanting HR's and no small ball?

    Big Hair Monsters don't hit triples! 

    I do think the all or nothing approach is not good.I don't know what you do about that, but raising the mound in my mind will only make it worse.

    I'll consider the mound raising as bad but I do think slap hitting would make a comeback with it.

    Bregman and Betts are my ideal type of player.  Plenty of pop, speed and average.  I also loved the play of Ichiro who could reach basec v on a chop to third.

    I also enjoyed McGwire, Bonds and Arod so I'm all over the place.
    I agree with all of this. 
  • If it hasn't already been mentioned... pitchers are throwing harder than they used to. Collectively speaking... they're bigger and stronger.

    90mph is not fast in the modern era, yet it used to characterize a 'live' arm. Back in the Ruth era... it might have been 75mph.

    I can't say with any certainty that reaction times have risen in the same proportion as pitch velocity.

    A raised mound would be the shits in my opinion.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • HesCalledDyerHesCalledDyer MarylandPosts: 14,679
    pjhawks said:
    If the mound is raised, there will be a no hitter every night and offense is going to go way down, more than it already is.  The ball needs to be put in play more
    Hmmm.  There wasn't a no hitter every other day when the mound was higher so what will change now?  

    If anything the ball would be in play more rather than over the fence.  Small ball is exciting when there are hits and stolen bases and squeeze plays.

    Raise the mound and the batter will be more focused on contact rather than a damn "trajectory".

    Just my thoughts.

    Your counter?
    That the game was different when the mound was higher.

    I don't think players will make any contact if the mound is higher
    If the mound is higher strikeouts will go up even more than they are now.   Before the mound was lowered Bob Gibson had an era in the 1s. no one wants to see that.

    instead of adding the DH to the NL eliminate the DH in the AL.  I know Cliffy loves it but the DH sucks.

    Our league is safe for at least 3 more seasons!
  • WobbieWobbie Posts: 25,153
    Giants are gonna have patches all over their unis - mccovey, robinson, magowan.

    yay for no DH. more DH’s certainly won’t speed up the game. who was the genius who came up with that, anyway? seems like a selig idea before selig.
    If I had known then what I know now...

    Vegas 93, Vegas 98, Vegas 00 (10 year show), Vegas 03, Vegas 06
    VIC 07
    EV LA1 08
    Seattle1 09, Seattle2 09, Salt Lake 09, LA4 09
    Columbus 10
    EV LA 11
    Vancouver 11
    Missoula 12
    Portland 13, Spokane 13
    St. Paul 14, Denver 14
    Philly I & II, 16
  • tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 19,624
    If it hasn't already been mentioned... pitchers are throwing harder than they used to. Collectively speaking... they're bigger and stronger.

    90mph is not fast in the modern era, yet it used to characterize a 'live' arm. Back in the Ruth era... it might have been 75mph.

    I can't say with any certainty that reaction times have risen in the same proportion as pitch velocity.

    A raised mound would be the shits in my opinion.
    To pitch in the MLB you need at least a 90mph fastball.  Eventually the pitching arch of speed is going to level off as you can only throw so fast. Pitchers can't get any faster than what the human body can do so the batters catch up.

    For what ever reason the powers that be keep pushing for the damn HR as the magic bullet of excitement.  The dunk was that in the NBA and now the once scoffed at 3 pointer is the new star in the league.

    If hits increased rather than HR to K's I would think that baseball would be more entertaining to the average person.

    Thoughts?
  • If it hasn't already been mentioned... pitchers are throwing harder than they used to. Collectively speaking... they're bigger and stronger.

    90mph is not fast in the modern era, yet it used to characterize a 'live' arm. Back in the Ruth era... it might have been 75mph.

    I can't say with any certainty that reaction times have risen in the same proportion as pitch velocity.

    A raised mound would be the shits in my opinion.
    To pitch in the MLB you need at least a 90mph fastball.  Eventually the pitching arch of speed is going to level off as you can only throw so fast. Pitchers can't get any faster than what the human body can do so the batters catch up.

    For what ever reason the powers that be keep pushing for the damn HR as the magic bullet of excitement.  The dunk was that in the NBA and now the once scoffed at 3 pointer is the new star in the league.

    If hits increased rather than HR to K's I would think that baseball would be more entertaining to the average person.

    Thoughts?

    A balance between everything in my mind.

    When I go to games live... I have to say I do want to see HRs from the 'stars' in the game; however, if the pitchers are big time guys... I want to see a no-hitter and strikeouts.

    I enjoy it all, but I guess I like to see the 'stars' star.

    When I was in Boston for my Masters Degree, I went to Fenway and saw the Rangers play. Bengie Molina hit for the cycle lol. He was the slowest guy in the majors!

    I guess I'm saying entertain me!  
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • HesCalledDyerHesCalledDyer MarylandPosts: 14,679
    MadBum told Bochy he’s walking out of the stadium if he uses an opener in his games. I can’t say I disagree with him. What a stupid concept.
  • Cliffy6745Cliffy6745 Posts: 28,855
    MadBum told Bochy he’s walking out of the stadium if he uses an opener in his games. I can’t say I disagree with him. What a stupid concept.
    https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.si.com/mlb/2014/10/30/world-series-game-7-madison-bumgarner-giants-difference-maker
  • HesCalledDyerHesCalledDyer MarylandPosts: 14,679
    If it hasn't already been mentioned... pitchers are throwing harder than they used to. Collectively speaking... they're bigger and stronger.

    90mph is not fast in the modern era, yet it used to characterize a 'live' arm. Back in the Ruth era... it might have been 75mph.

    I can't say with any certainty that reaction times have risen in the same proportion as pitch velocity.

    A raised mound would be the shits in my opinion.
    To pitch in the MLB you need at least a 90mph fastball.  Eventually the pitching arch of speed is going to level off as you can only throw so fast. Pitchers can't get any faster than what the human body can do so the batters catch up.

    For what ever reason the powers that be keep pushing for the damn HR as the magic bullet of excitement.  The dunk was that in the NBA and now the once scoffed at 3 pointer is the new star in the league.

    If hits increased rather than HR to K's I would think that baseball would be more entertaining to the average person.

    Thoughts?
    Kyle Hendricks’ fastball is about 88, but he’s an anomaly. Totally agree with everything else.

    I saw something today that compared MLB to NFL as far as length of games vs ball in play/action. They’re extremely similar, yet “pace of play” is a non-issue in football. Wonder why it’s being so pushed in baseball?
  • tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 19,624
    I'll disagree w the NFL" action time".

    You have men in motion, a time clock that everyone is watching...  It just seems off.
  • tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 19,624
    If it hasn't already been mentioned... pitchers are throwing harder than they used to. Collectively speaking... they're bigger and stronger.

    90mph is not fast in the modern era, yet it used to characterize a 'live' arm. Back in the Ruth era... it might have been 75mph.

    I can't say with any certainty that reaction times have risen in the same proportion as pitch velocity.

    A raised mound would be the shits in my opinion.
    To pitch in the MLB you need at least a 90mph fastball.  Eventually the pitching arch of speed is going to level off as you can only throw so fast. Pitchers can't get any faster than what the human body can do so the batters catch up.

    For what ever reason the powers that be keep pushing for the damn HR as the magic bullet of excitement.  The dunk was that in the NBA and now the once scoffed at 3 pointer is the new star in the league.

    If hits increased rather than HR to K's I would think that baseball would be more entertaining to the average person.

    Thoughts?
    Kyle Hendricks’ fastball is about 88, but he’s an anomaly. Totally agree with everything else.

    I saw something today that compared MLB to NFL as far as length of games vs ball in play/action. They’re extremely similar, yet “pace of play” is a non-issue in football. Wonder why it’s being so pushed in baseball?
    I think Greg Maddux threw 89 mph at best too and he was one of the greatest finesse pitchers I've ever seen play.


  • I have zero issue with pace of play for baseball.

    Efforts to speed up the game are efforts to placate the instant gratification crowd. I can think of way worse things to do than spending three hours at the ball park on a sunny day.

    Let's work on pace of play where it's a real problem: traffic.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
Sign In or Register to comment.