2019 MLB Thread

"Unlucky 13 wrote:

LOL. I'm all for using the sabermetrics as a tool, along with everything else. But you can't just use it as a guidebook that's never wrong like these guys are doing. They're robots, bound to what the numbers tell them. And its boring as Hell, and frankly wrong a lot. An experienced human being can just know when something needs to be done differently. More art than science.

My thoughts exactly. I’m not anti analytics but some stuff just makes no sense. I understand wanting to get your best hitters more ABs but that works only if your lineup is deep enough to sustain it. It works if your 7-8-9 hitters get on base.

That's more along the lines of the old "setting the table" approach thought, fast guys who get on base and then driven home by RBI/HR guys. However, that just doesn't actually work out as often as we think it does - so in lieu of that, you want your best guys hitting early and often. It gives, for instance, Bryant a much better shot at coming up in the 9th during a crucial at-bat than if he was a traditional 3-4 spot hitter. Ideally you may want Bryant and Rizzo in the 2-3 spots with a very good OBS guy in front, but as noted, the Cubs simply lack that. Maybe Hoerner can make an impact later in the season, but just sticking a guy like Almora in the leadoff spot because of a singular trait like speed would be a huge error. After the first inning, you aren't really as concerned about Byrant leading off with bases empty, and even then, if the "worst case" is a 1-0 lead, so be it.

"texanphinatic wrote:

That's more along the lines of the old "setting the table" approach thought, fast guys who get on base and then driven home by RBI/HR guys. However, that just doesn't actually work out as often as we think it does - so in lieu of that, you want your best guys hitting early and often. It gives, for instance, Bryant a much better shot at coming up in the 9th during a crucial at-bat than if he was a traditional 3-4 spot hitter. Ideally you may want Bryant and Rizzo in the 2-3 spots with a very good OBS guy in front, but as noted, the Cubs simply lack that. Maybe Hoerner can make an impact later in the season, but just sticking a guy like Almora in the leadoff spot because of a singular trait like speed would be a huge error. After the first inning, you aren't really as concerned about Byrant leading off with bases empty, and even then, if the "worst case" is a 1-0 lead, so be it.

Yeah, but with Almora/Souza batting 8th, and the pitcher 9th, I really doubt that Bryant is going to be coming up to bat with men on a whole lot. That's why I think that a guy like Heyward, who's inconsistent and generally non-clutch, is the better call to leadoff, given the lack of other choices. He gets on base with singles and walks a hell of a lot better than Almora does. So at this point, who cares if he's not going to drive in runs himself. If he gets on base one out of three times ahead of Bryant and Rizzo, then that gives those two a chance to produce a RBI. I'd rather have Heyward in that role than trying to knock in the guys hitting 6th and 7th in front of him and bouncing into a lot of double plays like he often does.

"Unlucky 13 wrote:

Yeah, but with Almora/Souza batting 8th, and the pitcher 9th, I really doubt that Bryant is going to be coming up to bat with men on a whole lot. That's why I think that a guy like Heyward, who's inconsistent and generally non-clutch, is the better call to leadoff, given the lack of other choices. He gets on base with singles and walks a hell of a lot better than Almora does. So at this point, who cares if he's not going to drive in runs himself. If he gets on base one out of three times ahead of Bryant and Rizzo, then that gives those two a chance to produce a RBI. I'd rather have Heyward in that role than trying to knock in the guys hitting 6th and 7th in front of him and bouncing into a lot of double plays like he often does.

IMO that's a good reason to do Bryant 1st and Heyward 8th - Bote also makes a lot of sense in the bottom third. Again if you are worried about Heyward and double plays, then him batting leadoff only applies once, and he also is likely to be hitting more often with the pitcher on which increases the DP chance yet again. I wouldn't be worried about Bryant hitting homers either - the Cubs have enough homers between him, Rizzo, Schwarber, Contreras and Baez for it to not really matter that Bryant is in the leadoff spot. Baez would - based on physical attributes - be the guy who best profiles, but he's just too aggressive and strikeout prone. Bryant and Rizzo offer the Cubs by far the best ability to work pitchers and counts and make something positive happen.

And I know you will hate, but the NL needs to ditch pitchers at the plate. This would be the perfect time! :couch::up::up:

"texanphinatic wrote:

IMO that's a good reason to do Bryant 1st and Heyward 8th - Bote also makes a lot of sense in the bottom third. Again if you are worried about Heyward and double plays, then him batting leadoff only applies once, and he also is likely to be hitting more often with the pitcher on which increases the DP chance yet again. I wouldn't be worried about Bryant hitting homers either - the Cubs have enough homers between him, Rizzo, Schwarber, Contreras and Baez for it to not really matter that Bryant is in the leadoff spot. Baez would - based on physical attributes - be the guy who best profiles, but he's just too aggressive and strikeout prone. Bryant and Rizzo offer the Cubs by far the best ability to work pitchers and counts and make something positive happen.

And I know you will hate, but the NL needs to ditch pitchers at the plate. This would be the perfect time! :couch::up::up:

It does really seem like we're on borrowed time without the DH in the NL. Ironically for me, the Cubs would have likely benefited greatly from it in years past when they were loaded with talent and couldn't start everyone at the same time. Now by the time it gets here, most of those guys will be gone.

"texanphinatic wrote:

IMO that's a good reason to do Bryant 1st and Heyward 8th - Bote also makes a lot of sense in the bottom third. Again if you are worried about Heyward and double plays, then him batting leadoff only applies once, and he also is likely to be hitting more often with the pitcher on which increases the DP chance yet again. I wouldn't be worried about Bryant hitting homers either - the Cubs have enough homers between him, Rizzo, Schwarber, Contreras and Baez for it to not really matter that Bryant is in the leadoff spot. Baez would - based on physical attributes - be the guy who best profiles, but he's just too aggressive and strikeout prone. Bryant and Rizzo offer the Cubs by far the best ability to work pitchers and counts and make something positive happen.

And I know you will hate, but the NL needs to ditch pitchers at the plate. This would be the perfect time! :couch::up::up:

To me the DH feels like a playground rule from kickball.

There was always that kid who couldnt kick but played awesome on defense so they would call "defense only" and have someone kick for them or play defense for both teams.

To me, if all you do is hit you arent a real baseball player. If your hitting + fielding doesnt get you into the starting 8 position players, you shouldnt be playing. Or if that DH would be playing a position on the team bumping someone else, then you have to put up with potentially subpar fielding. Baseball is at it's best when it is about strategy and low scoring games.

The pitcher should hit. Set pitchers free!

"AGuyNamedAlex wrote:

To me the DH feels like a playground rule from kickball.

There was always that kid who couldnt kick but played awesome on defense so they would call "defense only" and have someone kick for them or play defense for both teams.

To me, if all you do is hit you arent a real baseball player. If your hitting + fielding doesnt get you into the starting 8 position players, you shouldnt be playing. Or if that DH would be playing a position on the team bumping someone else, then you have to put up with potentially subpar fielding. Baseball is at it's best when it is about strategy and low scoring games.

The pitcher should hit. Set pitchers free!

If pitchers could hit and didn't hurt themselves then I would agree, but they suck. I'd rather see someone actually good at it.

As for strategy, there is plenty, and new strategy emerging all the time. Consider field shifts and the use of openers for instance. For the DH, there are still a few traditional guys like Nelson Cruz, but in many cases managers are using it with a rotating cast.

Disagree that baseball is best low scoring. I enjoy a good mix. A pitchers duel is fun, but so is an offensive explosion, with most games inbetween. Last year was too offensively tilted, but then again imo it was better than dead ball era.

As much as I'm not a fan of the DH, at least its born out of logic. The idea of the "opener" as anything more than a desperation gimmick is absurd.

"Unlucky 13 wrote:

As much as I'm not a fan of the DH, at least its born out of logic. The idea of the "opener" as anything more than a desperation gimmick is absurd.

The idea of an opener is born out of the fact that certain teams just can’t afford a decent starting SP. so they figured 1-3 innings of relievers would be better. In a lot of ways I’d rather do that than invest more 2-3 million in a #5 starter. You look at the league and some of these SP are getting 10M plus when they’re really back of the rotation guys. It’s not that crazy if you have the bullpen depth to pull it off.

"Boik14 wrote:

The idea of an opener is born out of the fact that certain teams just can’t afford a decent starting SP. so they figured 1-3 innings of relievers would be better. In a lot of ways I’d rather do that than invest more 2-3 million in a #5 starter. You look at the league and some of these SP are getting 10M plus when they’re really back of the rotation guys. It’s not that crazy if you have the bullpen depth to pull it off.

I'm not into overpaying for mediocrity either, especially with how pitchers get injured. But I do think that teams need to be constantly putting their money and effort into developing the best starters that they can. The opener idea should be, like I said, a desperation move. You do what you have to in order to survive in the short term, but you toss it aside when you're able. Its like the Wildcat in the NFL, it can't be your plan long term.

"Unlucky 13 wrote:

I'm not into overpaying for mediocrity either, especially with how pitchers get injured. But I do think that teams need to be constantly putting their money and effort into developing the best starters that they can. The opener idea should be, like I said, a desperation move. You do what you have to in order to survive in the short term, but you toss it aside when you're able. Its like the Wildcat in the NFL, it can't be your plan long term.

Most strategy is born of desperation though. You are forced to adapt, so you do. Some sticks around long term, others peter out quickly. And let's be honest as well, teams only use it in place of maybe 1-2 starters, not all 5. So once through through the rotation leading off with an opener doesn't seem unsustainable. I wouldn't necessarily say it's a better idea than just having 5 good starting pitchers - I think that's the ideal all teams would like, but prospects just so often don't pan out and some teams just can't (or won't) use the cash to load up.

Btw, anyone else excited for a good baseball talk and debate? :domodance:

It's supposed to snow another half a foot after a week of nice weather here, so I will have dreams of sun and green until it all melts. :tongue2:

"Unlucky 13 wrote:

I'm not into overpaying for mediocrity either, especially with how pitchers get injured. But I do think that teams need to be constantly putting their money and effort into developing the best starters that they can. The opener idea should be, like I said, a desperation move. You do what you have to in order to survive in the short term, but you toss it aside when you're able. Its like the Wildcat in the NFL, it can't be your plan long term.

Ideally lower budget teams have a few prospects in the minors who can jump up and fill those #4/#5 starter roles. But if players aren’t ready for that and you can’t afford to go in the FA market and there’s no suitable trade so what other options are there? If the market presents no other options is that desperation or figuring out alternatives to a real problem dictated by the games economic issues?

This might be a dumb question but why are pitchers so fragile compared to the past?

There used to be a time where you could roll with only a 4 man rotation. Honestly instead of an "opener" given all options, I'd rather run with a 4 man rotation and use the "opener" as a spot starter to give rest where needed.

That said, I feel like pitchers today just cant do a 4 man rotation. Guys in the past still threw hard and threw pitches without the advanced knowledge of what arm angles minimize damage to certain areas and so forth.

"AGuyNamedAlex wrote:

This might be a dumb question but why are pitchers so fragile compared to the past?

There used to be a time where you could roll with only a 4 man rotation. Honestly instead of an "opener" given all options, I'd rather run with a 4 man rotation and use the "opener" as a spot starter to give rest where needed.

That said, I feel like pitchers today just cant do a 4 man rotation. Guys in the past still threw hard and threw pitches without the advanced knowledge of what arm angles minimize damage to certain areas and so forth.

Short answer, they aren't. Yes, there were guys like Nolan Ryan, but they were freaks, exceptions. Because of that, they stand large in our minds, but the reality is they weren't very common and we just glorify them with the passage of time leading us to think they were more prevalent. Pitchers used to burn out earlier, or get injured and just never heard from again in great numbers.

Additionally, back then medicine wasn't what it was today. Guys can get TJ and come back better and stronger and extend their career. Back in the day, you either wrecked your elbow/shoulder or got TJ as a long shot fix.

I would also hazard that batters are much better and more advanced. They will key in on a struggling pitcher up and down the lineup.

It's very much an "old man yells at cloud" situation.

And on that note, apparently Severino needs TJ, yikes.

"AGuyNamedAlex wrote:

This might be a dumb question but why are pitchers so fragile compared to the past?

There used to be a time where you could roll with only a 4 man rotation. Honestly instead of an "opener" given all options, I'd rather run with a 4 man rotation and use the "opener" as a spot starter to give rest where needed.

That said, I feel like pitchers today just cant do a 4 man rotation. Guys in the past still threw hard and threw pitches without the advanced knowledge of what arm angles minimize damage to certain areas and so forth.

Your idea to go back to the 4 man rotation is ideal imo but some teams are using openers two times through the rotation. I’d prefer it personally going back to 4 man rotations

Two reasons regarding why they’re so fragile:

1. One theory says it’s because they’re playing too much from the time they are kids. Another theory says that’s they don’t throw enough (primarily hear that from old school guys like Nolan Ryan). And they’re both true. There’s more regular season games (162 to 154), more postseason games and more going on in the offseason as far as workouts and spring training. They’re also always throwing competitively (I.e. throw days/bullpen sessions) etc which doesn’t mean much except it’s more torque on the arm and elbow. There’s got to be a happy medium in there as far as the schedule and offseason stuff. Some guys find that medium. Most don’t.

2. The other part quite simply is because of how sports have changed from 30-40-50 years ago. The revenues (in all sports) is significantly more. Players are really interested in prolonging their career more then ever because there’s money to be made. Remember a lot of those threw so many innings because they had too. There was no free agency. The players then didn’t have the options they have today. The players union wasn’t as strong and ownership and gms nowadays are more understanding as far as player needs and health. Really you see variations of this in all sports, though more extreme in say basketball (where they do maintenance days...which is utterly ridiculous). Hockey they used to only roll 3 lines out there, now it’s 4 across the league. Football guys used to play two ways...until they realized it wasn’t sustainable. So really this has a lot to do with it imo.

"Boik14 wrote:

Your idea to go back to the 4 man rotation is ideal imo but some teams are using openers two times through the rotation. I’d prefer it personally going back to 4 man rotations

Two reasons regarding why they’re so fragile:

1. One theory says it’s because they’re playing too much from the time they are kids. Another theory says that’s they don’t throw enough (primarily hear that from old school guys like Nolan Ryan). And they’re both true. There’s more regular season games (162 to 154), more postseason games and more going on in the offseason as far as workouts and spring training. They’re also always throwing competitively (I.e. throw days/bullpen sessions) etc which doesn’t mean much except it’s more torque on the arm and elbow. There’s got to be a happy medium in there as far as the schedule and offseason stuff. Some guys find that medium. Some players find that medium. Most don’t.

2. The other part quite simply is because of how sports have changed from 30-40-50 years ago. The revenues (in all sports) is significantly more. Players are really interested in prolonging their career more then ever because there’s money to be made. Remember a lot of those threw so many innings because they had too. There was no free agency. The players then didn’t have the options they have today. The players union wasn’t as strong and ownership and gms nowadays are more understanding as far as player needs and health. Really you see variations of this in all sports, though more extreme in say basketball (where they do maintenance days...which is utterly ridiculous). Hockey they used to only roll 3 lines out there, now it’s 4 across the league. Football guys used to play two ways...until they realized it wasn’t sustainable. So really this has a lot to do with it imo.

It is most likely a mixture of this and what was said before about guys who were injured just weren't heard from again so much.

There is a definite difference in workload now regular season though any way we slice it. Look at the league leaders in innings pitched through history.

I was surprised that up until 1980 it wasnt uncommon for the leaders to pitch between 300 and 340 innings per season.

Since then there has been a steady decline down from the 280s, to the 250s to where we are now that 200-220 innings is a lot. That is only 2/3 of what pitchers from 1920 to 1980 were pitching.

You are right though. With these mega contracts it is in the best interest of the player and team to prolong their ability to pitch at a high level.

I think that you're both right. The reality is that in the really old days, there were a ton of guys who basically pitched until their arm broke and they were then done. A small percentage of them were able to be a machine who thew as many innings as he and the club wanted, and so those are the ones that history remembers.

The only real thing physically that I see as being different is that the guys back then didn't weight lift, and in general didn't take fitness as strongly as players do today. There's a lot of antecdotal evidence that being a big guy who's less fit actually enables some men to have more pitching stamina long term. Think of guys like CC Sabathia, Davd Wells, Bartolo Colon, ect. These guys are closer to what was the norm once upon a time.

"AGuyNamedAlex wrote:

It is most likely a mixture of this and what was said before about guys who were injured just weren't heard from again so much.

There is a definite difference in workload now regular season though any way we slice it. Look at the league leaders in innings pitched through history.

I was surprised that up until 1980 it wasnt uncommon for the leaders to pitch between 300 and 340 innings per season.

Since then there has been a steady decline down from the 280s, to the 250s to where we are now that 200-220 innings is a lot. That is only 2/3 of what pitchers from 1920 to 1980 were pitching.

You are right though. With these mega contracts it is in the best interest of the player and team to prolong their ability to pitch at a high level.

Keep in mind also TJ surgery didn’t exist until the mid 70’s and wasn’t really a mainstream thing until the mid 90’s. So when the arm went, it just went. You couldn’t fix velocity drops or other issues modern medicine could. Thoracic outlet syndrome is still a career killer (see Harvey, Matt) but at least guy stand a chance. But you’re not taking in to account the extra innings in season, playoff expansion from 1 round to 3 plus a WC game, and all the extra shit.

"Unlucky 13 wrote:

I think that you're both right. The reality is that in the really old days, there were a ton of guys who basically pitched until their arm broke and they were then done. A small percentage of them were able to be a machine who thew as many innings as he and the club wanted, and so those are the ones that history remembers.

The only real thing physically that I see as being different is that the guys back then didn't weight lift, and in general didn't take fitness as strongly as players do today. There's a lot of antecdotal evidence that being a big guy who's less fit actually enables some men to have more pitching stamina long term. Think of guys like CC Sabathia, Davd Wells, Bartolo Colon, ect. These guys are closer to what was the norm once upon a time.

I’m. A big believer in this. For every Pedro Martinez or Roy Oswalt type in stature who had HOF or all star numbers, even a decade of dominance like Pedro had there are tons of guys like the ones you mentioned who just last.

The weight lifting part is also crazy to me. Like I look at the way Noah Syndergaard showed up this year and it scares the crap out of me. He could be another Verlander type who has the frame to support it but he’s wound too tightly for my liking. Baseball players need to be flexible and durable, not body builders and football players. I’d rather he be doing yoga then bench pressing and doing bicep curls.

"Boik14 wrote:

Keep in mind also TJ surgery didn’t exist until the mid 70’s and wasn’t really a mainstream thing until the mid 90’s. So when the arm went, it just went. You couldn’t fix velocity drops or other issues modern medicine could. Thoracic outlet syndrome is still a career killer (see Harvey, Matt) but at least guy stand a chance. But you’re not taking in to account the extra innings in season, playoff expansion from 1 round to 3 plus a WC game, and all the extra ****.

The thing is I dont think you can necessarily use extra postseason innings as part of the work load for two reasons.

1) Some teams from day 1 know they will not be in the postseason but their pitcher usage is more or less the same.

2) A lot of pitchers are eliminated before pitching many innings in the postseason. The added innings really only become a factor for the final few teams and none of their guys are pitching 150 extra innings in the postseason to bridge that gap.

I do think side work and offseason work are legitimate things to consider though.

So kind of late but how did you all feel about the response to the Astros scandal?

I personally would have handed down enough punishment to cripple their team which maybe is wrong of me.

I would have given a permanent ban to all coaches, staff members and forced the sale of the team.

I would have handed down a 3 season suspension for ALL Astros players who participated by receiving signals at the plate or gave signals in any form.

A 1 year suspension for everyone who knew but did not report.

I wouldnt care if they had to field a minor league team.

I would also ban them from the playoffs for two seasons.

"AGuyNamedAlex wrote:

So kind of late but how did you all feel about the response to the Astros scandal?

I personally would have handed down enough punishment to cripple their team which maybe is wrong of me.

I would have given a permanent ban to all coaches, staff members and forced the sale of the team.

I would have handed down a 3 season suspension for ALL Astros players who participated by receiving signals at the plate or gave signals in any form.

A 1 year suspension for everyone who knew but did not report.

I wouldnt care if they had to field a minor league team.

I would also ban them from the playoffs for two seasons.

I'm totally with you, but remember, more than ever, the MLB commish is the servant of the owners. Manfred straight up works for the owners even moreso than Seilig, and I really don't think that he was going to cross Crane unless he had to. The whole thing was going to get swept under the rug if it hadn't all been exposed by Fiers.

I'm totally on the bandwagon to take the sledgehammer to anyone cheating, with heavy suspensions. Their whole front office, coaching staff, plus Cora and Beltran should just be done, for good.

"Unlucky 13 wrote:

I'm totally with you, but remember, more than ever, the MLB commish is the servant of the owners. Manfred straight up works for the owners even moreso than Seilig, and I really don't think that he was going to cross Crane unless he had to. The whole thing was going to get swept under the rug if it hadn't all been exposed by Fiers.

I'm totally on the bandwagon to take the sledgehammer to anyone cheating, with heavy suspensions. Their whole front office, coaching staff, plus Cora and Beltran should just be done, for good.

I'm very against cheating in sports because it creates a scenario where everyone has to look for ways to cheat to keep up.

It them becomes a matter of who cheats best instead of a competition if skill.

I totally get why major punishment wasnt handed down, but at least a little more would have been nice.

I've read that in Spring Training Astros batters have been getting beaned quite a bit. I'm not sure how I feel about that. It would be terrible if a pitch meant for the back slipped and caught a helmet/head.