Jump to content
chasfh

2021 REGULAR SEASON DISCUSSION THREAD

Recommended Posts

51 minutes ago, Casimir said:

Oh, don’t misunderstand.  I’m only saying Realmuto will have a 12.0 WAR run over his current 4 year contract.  It has nothing to do with the Tigers.

You’re on the hook for a title in 2023 with the roster you provided above.

Aah gotcha.

But wait a second...

I think you're intentions towards Realmuto are...

That he played on the Tigers. You would have signed him for the team. To me... it will be interesting to see what he does over the next 4 years, and surmise what would have meant to the team.

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

17 minutes ago, 84 Lives!!! said:

Aah gotcha.

But wait a second...

I think you're intentions towards Realmuto are...

That he played on the Tigers. You would have signed him for the team. To me... it will be interesting to see what he does over the next 4 years, and surmise what would have meant to the team.

Oh, I wanted the Tigers to sign him.  But now that I see the projected 2023 roster, why would they need him?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Casimir said:

Oh, I wanted the Tigers to sign him.  But now that I see the projected 2023 roster, why would they need him?

EXACTLY!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don’t like either. Totally don’t understand the correlation regarding #2. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 1776 said:

Don’t like either. Totally don’t understand the correlation regarding #2. 

sounds like the MLB brain trust is at the level of throwing pasta on the wall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not just limit the number of pitchers (4) that one can dress for a game if they're that set against pitching changes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup. I'll want to see the results of #1 before deciding but 2 is just dumb. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Buddha said:

dont like 1, ok with 2.

I agree.  Moving the mound back a foot is drastic.  I do like that they are trying to address some real problem with the game, but that doesn't sound like a good solution.  

(2) is OK, but I don't think it will have that much of an effect.  Teams aren't going to stop using so many relievers because of it.  

Deaden the ball and use a pitch clock.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“We are pleased to play a critical role in Major League Baseball’s tests and evaluation of experimental rules,” Atlantic League president Rick White said. “The ALPB is a forward-thinking league, and it is satisfying to our teams and players to be leaders determining the future of our sport.”

Whitey Herzog always had the perfect response to this kind of fluff, “Horsesh!t”

Share this post


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

Deaden the ball and use a pitch clock.  

Yes, start here.

Share this post


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

I agree.  Moving the mound back a foot is drastic.  I do like that they are trying to address some real problem with the game, but that doesn't sound like a good solution.  

(2) is OK, but I don't think it will have that much of an effect.  Teams aren't going to stop using so many relievers because of it.  

Deaden the ball and use a pitch clock.  

Yeah I don't think they need to move the mound back. They could just heighten it a bit again .. maybe split the difference between 1968 & now.  Agree completely with the pitch clock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, djhutch said:

Yeah I don't think they need to move the mound back. They could just heighten it a bit again .. maybe split the difference between 1968 & now.  Agree completely with the pitch clock.

But moving the mound back and raising are going in opposite directions. Raising the mound helps pitchers, moving it back helps hitters.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just threw these pics in the 04/14 game thread, but probably belong in a general discussion as well.  Times of game from 1984 & 2019 (the last full season).  The game time has gotten longer (no question) and the actual game flow and action has stagnated (could be debated, I suppose).

image.png.104aa455c8203ed73288fc10c487baf6.png

image.png.d4dbc433f69d7ad1cf2f299c863735b8.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, 1776 said:

Don’t like either. Totally don’t understand the correlation regarding #2. 

Eliminates the opener. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Gehringer_2 said:

But moving the mound back and raising are going in opposite directions. Raising the mound helps pitchers, moving it back helps hitters.

What is interesting is that I think they need to help pitchers and hitters at the same time as there are too many homeruns and strikeouts.  I think the ultimate solution is to deaden the ball, but I don't think they agree with me on too many home runs.  Thus, they may focus on ways to cut down on strikeouts.  If they move the mound back far enough, we might arrive at 1920s era batting averages and current era home runs. I wouldn't like that, but it would probably sell well.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Keepleyland2 said:

Eliminates the opener. 

Obviously...

(2) Team loses DH when they bring in a reliever.  

What’s the correlation between the two? I’m looking for a logic here or a cause & effect reasoning. How can the game improve or benefit from this move? Doesn’t add up to me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, 1776 said:

Obviously...

(2) Team loses DH when they bring in a reliever.  

What’s the correlation between the two? I’m looking for a logic here or a cause & effect reasoning. How can the game improve or benefit from this move? Doesn’t add up to me. 

The idea is to stop the early hooks which lead to a parade of relievers every game.  I don't know if it would work though.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moving the mound back a foot is worth testing, I think. Increased velocity has been an increased problem that doesn't seem to be in danger of going away on its own, so something that theoretically gives the batter a beat longer to time and hit the ball and put it in play would seem to be a net positive in the quest for more action. A lot of people who think and write about baseball have been banging the drum for this.

I say "theoretically", though, because I can envision a couple of unintended consequences. For one thing, batters are finely-tuned machines who have trained for 60 feet 6 inches since Babe Ruth League. They're going to notice the extra foot and probably have trouble timing the ball for who knows how long, but it'll be either months or years before they can recalibrate themselves optimally to the new distance. Changing the mound distance mid-season is going to highlight this problem even more, since this retraining will take place during games rather than during the offseason and spring training.

For another, an extra foot in mound distance will give the pitch an extra foot to break, which is an issue because, since the ball in use is still a live ball, pitchers are still going to be putting max effort into velocity and movement to induce swing and miss to avoid giving up jacks to literally everyone in the batting order. That part of the equation won't change with this rule, and that's the part they really have to address when they implement rule changes intended to get more balls into play.

I know they want a control-test group situation to properly analyze the results, but I think these issues would pollute the analysis beyond usability, so I would not be surprised if they recognized that and tabled this change until a future season, so players can properly prepare for it.

As for eliminating the DH with taking out the starting pitcher, that's a solution in search of a problem. No manager changes pitchers based on batting considerations, except to take out pitchers who are dealing late in the game but the game is tied so they need to pinch-hit for him. And again, pitchers aren't going to go longer into games simply for DH considerations if they are still putting max effort and strain into every pitch to avoid contact the way they do now. This one feels like little more than a political concession to retrograde fans and officials who still want pitchers batting, because that's the game they fell in love with when they were eleven years old.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thing is they may be a little hesitant to go to a universal DH because National League fans don't want it.  So, this rule change might be a compromise, but it's probably one that neither side likes.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 1776 said:

Obviously...

(2) Team loses DH when they bring in a reliever.  

What’s the correlation between the two? I’m looking for a logic here or a cause & effect reasoning. How can the game improve or benefit from this move? Doesn’t add up to me. 

Again it elimintaes the opener. 

No team is gonna use a reliever for one inning at the start of the game then have their pitchers/pinch hitters bat the rest of the game. 

Returns starters to starts who throw 5+ innings. Makes that position more valuable, speed up game by eliminating some pitching changes, reduces the need for like 15 man staffs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tiger337 said:

The idea is to stop the early hooks which lead to a parade of relievers every game.  I don't know if it would work though.  

I appreciate the feedback. On the surface this sounds like an extreme approach. A solution looking for a problem would be one way to express it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the union opposed to a pitch clock? It would seem to me that this would be the simplest solution to the long game times if that’s the core concern. There was also talk of not allowing a batter to step out of the box during an AB. Or at least the batter had to maintain one foot in the box through an AB.Where does/would the union stand on this?

These changes wouldn’t fundamentally change the game. I’m afraid some ideas being proposed would.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Keepleyland2 said:

Again it elimintaes the opener. 

No team is gonna use a reliever for one inning at the start of the game then have their pitchers/pinch hitters bat the rest of the game. 

Returns starters to starts who throw 5+ innings. Makes that position more valuable, speed up game by eliminating some pitching changes, reduces the need for like 15 man staffs.

Here's another potential problem with this one: suppose a starting pitcher has absolutely nothing, gets shelled, gives up five runs in the first inning, and gets taken out. So now his team is down five runs, and they have to try to come back with eight hitters and a pitcher/succession of pinch-hitters in their batting order, against a team who gets to keep their nine best hitters in. How is that fair?

Or even worse: pitcher gets injured during the first inning and has to come out, costing his team their DH as well. How is that fair?

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

   


×
×
  • Create New...