Jump to content
RatkoVarda

2020-21 Off season

Recommended Posts

I don't have an account, but the idea that there are hard decisions or a roster crunch is silly. They are at 37 now.

They can "risk" losing any or all of Hill, Stokes, Dixon, Demeritte, Alcantara, A Castro, Schreiber, Greiner

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BetMGM Michigan $600 Risk-Free bet

BetMGM Michigan Sports Betting
Michigan online sports betting is now available! Start betting at BetMGM Michigan now and get a $600 risk-free bet bonus at their online sportsbook & casino.

Claim $600 risk-free bet at BetMGM Michigan Now

Are Manning, Faedo and Wentz the only three than need to be added?

They will also eventually need space for free agent signings.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, tiger337 said:

Are Manning, Faedo and Wentz the only three than need to be added?

They will also eventually need space for free agent signings.  

A few other names from my list...

Nolan Blackwood, Angel De Jesus, Jason Foley, Zac Houston, Alex Lange, Wencel Perez, Wladimir Pinto, Jake Robson, Danny Woodrow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Foley, Vest, DeJesus are hard throwing relievers that one might keep as a 26th man. Maybe Blackwood, Lange and Shore as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Foley is somebody that I think I would add.  IIRC there were glowing reports about him at the training site this season.   So I'd protect Manning, Wentz, Faedo and him for sure.   There's probably a half dozen or more guys on the 40 that I would have no problem DFA'ing to create room if there are any others that they would want to protect as well.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No reason not to keep Boyd.   At the very least he should provide us innings next year which is something we desperately need.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, tiger337 said:

Are Manning, Faedo and Wentz the only three than need to be added?

They will also eventually need space for free agent signings.  

Foley is the only other one I believe worth protecting. Schreiber, Dixon, Demeritte are likely to be off at some point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Yoda said:

 

This is the best thing an MLB exec has said in a long time.  In my opinion, lack of balls in play and lack of action on the field is what should be addressed most of all if they want to make the game better.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 minute ago, tiger337 said:

This is the best thing an MLB exec has said in a long time.  In my opinion, lack of balls in play and lack of action on the field is what should be addressed most of all if they want to make the game better.

But wanting more balls in play and understanding what will produce more balls in play without damaging the game even more are two different things. I want to hear what he thinks the answers are before I jump on his train.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Gehringer_2 said:

 

But wanting more balls in play and understanding what will produce more balls in play without damaging the game even more are two different things. I want to hear what he thinks the answers are before I jump on his train.

True, But I am happy that it looks like they might prioritize the problem.  I wasn't confident they cared to do anything about it.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, tiger337 said:

This is the best thing an MLB exec has said in a long time.  In my opinion, lack of balls in play and lack of action on the field is what should be addressed most of all if they want to make the game better.

some of us have been arguing that analytics made baseball less fun for a while.  nice to see one of their own admit it too.

lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Buddha said:

some of us have been arguing that analytics made baseball less fun for a while.  nice to see one of their own admit it too.

lol.

I actually don't disagree.  I love that analytics allows us evaluate players and project future performance better, but I think we have created a monster.  Using analytics to change the way the game is played was inevitable and I don't blame teams for doing it (they had to to stay competitive) but it doesn't make the game more enjoyable to watch.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Buddha said:

some of us have been arguing that analytics made baseball less fun for a while.  nice to see one of their own admit it too.

lol.

Fun is subjective. I think for the more average fan it makes it less fun. Which is for sure what they need to start appealing to. I like it better but I know I'm the minority. I think speeding up the pitches should be the first step. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, tiger337 said:

I actually don't disagree.  I love that analytics allows us evaluate players and project future performance better, but I think we have created a monster.  Using analytics to change the way the game is played was inevitable and I don't blame teams for doing it (they had to to stay competitive) but it doesn't make the game more enjoyable to watch.   

It was for sure going to happen eventually. The thing is, how do you go backwards? Hitters won't willingly take a less-productive approach just to make the game more exciting for the average fan. 

You almost have to do something drastic like giving them 4 strikes or something. Or lowering the mound. I don't know. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Yoda said:

It was for sure going to happen eventually. The thing is, how do you go backwards? Hitters won't willingly take a less-productive approach just to make the game more exciting for the average fan. 

You almost have to do something drastic like giving them 4 strikes or something. Or lowering the mound. I don't know. 

I think deadening the ball would go a long way.  It would be harder to hit home runs, so not everyone would be swinging for the fences.  This would cut down on strikeouts.  The problem is a lot of fans like the large number of home runs being hit.  I think they would also like to see more action on the field.  There would need to be a balance.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, tiger337 said:

I think deadening the ball would go a long way.  It would be harder to hit home runs, so not everyone would be swinging for the fences.  This would cut down on strikeouts.  The problem is a lot of fans like the large number of home runs being hit.  I think they would also like to see more action on the field.  There would need to be a balance.  

You just killed your own solution. I don't really care for deadening the ball. That's boring as well. And I think it'll make some players swing even harder. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Yoda said:

You just killed your own solution. I don't really care for deadening the ball. That's boring as well. And I think it'll make some players swing even harder. 

A dead ball would mean more balls in play which I don't think is boring.  That is the game I fell in love with.  Some players might swing harder and get bad results.  What I want to see is a game with a variety of players - guys that get on base, slap hitters that use the whole field, guys that get a lot of doubles and triples, home run hitters and even defensive specialists that don't hit that much but you need their gloves.  I think the game is boring when every player tries to be a slugger.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pitchers just have too good of stuff these days. When they all are either throwing 95+ with high spin rates and/or have a devastating selection of off speed pitches there just isn't much a hitter can do. 

Couple that with increase batted ball scouting which makes it even harder for them to find a hole and they basically have no choice but to swing hard and hope they run into one. 

You could be Tony Gwynn up there but with the stuff guys are featuring today and how precise the fielding and positioning is and you're going to have trouble getting hits by "handling the bat and putting the ball in play" with any sorta regularity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bet some fans thought the pitchers were too good in 1968 and that nothing could be done to stop them,  Small changes in the ball and also height/location of mound can make a big difference.  I think there are ways to alter the ball to cut down spin rates.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, RandyMarsh said:

Pitchers just have too good of stuff these days. When they all are either throwing 95+ with high spin rates and/or have a devastating selection of off speed pitches there just isn't much a hitter can do. 

Couple that with increase batted ball scouting which makes it even harder for them to find a hole and they basically have no choice but to swing hard and hope they run into one. 

You could be Tony Gwynn up there but with the stuff guys are featuring today and how precise the fielding and positioning is and you're going to have trouble getting hits by "handling the bat and putting the ball in play" with any sorta regularity.

deaden the ball and make the K zone a smaller. That improves the batters chance of putting the ball in play without putting any more runs on the board. Also, most umpires give pitchers a lot leeway outside which could also be curtailed to the advantage of the hitter. The original theory of the game was that the strike was supposed to be where the hitter could hit the ball. The corners low and away and up and in in today's zone are virtually unhittable and I don't think that was the intent. But it goes back to the rabbit ball - if you didn't give the pitcher part of the zone that is unreachable today, everything would go yard.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


Michigan Sports Betting Offer

Michigan launched online sports betting and casino apps on Friday, January 22, 2021. We have selected the top Michigan sportsbooks and casinos that offer excellent bonus offers. Terms and conditions apply.

BetRivers Michigan - Get a 100% up to $250 deposit bonus at their online sportsbook & casino.

Click Here to claim $250 deposit bonus at BetRivers Michigan For Signing Up Now

FanDuel Michigan - Get a $1,000 risk-free bet at FanDuel Michigan on your first bet.

Click Here to claim $1,000 Risk-Free Bet at FanDuel Michigan

BetMGM Michigan - Get a $600 risk-free bet at the BetMGM online casino & sportsbook

Click Here to claim $600 risk-free bet at BetMGM Michigan

   


  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      96,925
    • Total Posts
      3,049,949
  • Who's Online (See full list)

  • Upcoming Events

    No upcoming events found
×
×
  • Create New...