SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
2014 Non-Red Sox MLB thread
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 8, 2014 12:42:46 GMT -5
Is it time to make an adjustment and move the mound back? Offense is trending precipitously downward as it did in the late 1960s. There are so many pitchers now throwing in the vicinity or in excess of 100 mph even as starters that MLB is becoming an adult version of Little League.... pitch and catch....swing and miss. The minors are brimming with the next supersonic arm generation. Growing up the game was truly never over until it was over. Back then when starters routinely went the distance and bullpens were for the guys not good enough to be starters, there was always the hope if not the expectation of a rally. It was much more of a 9 inning game. With the advent of super strong arms, teams with good bullpen arms (most) end the game after 6 or 7 innings...We all know the outrageously one-sided stats of team records in cases where they lead after 7. It is now a 6 or max 7 inning game in reality. Yes, the guy throwing 100 still has to control it but it is obviously a heckuva lot harder to square those pitches up. The old balance between pitching and hitting is being skewed and the game is changing for the worse IMO. I really don't see an issue. It's not like it's 1968 and league ERAs are under 3 and league BAs are at .240. If anything it's closer to the way it was in the 1980s. ERAs average a bit under 4. .250 is about average these days. I don't see a reason to alter it. We just came off the inflated offense era where averages hovered around .270 and ERAs weren't that far removed from 5. Home runs and runs came cheaply and the game resembled slow pitch softball at times. And these were some very long games. I think if anything, baseball is more balanced that it has been for quite some time. Speed and defense matters. You can actually find more than one or two pitchers on a staff who can keep an ERA under 4 and runs are a lot less cheap. But we're also not in the deadball ERA and it doesn't resemble 1968 by any stretch. It's like we're back in the 1980s or early 1990s (not 1980 or 1987 though).
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Oct 8, 2014 14:21:35 GMT -5
Is it time to make an adjustment and move the mound back? Offense is trending precipitously downward as it did in the late 1960s. There are so many pitchers now throwing in the vicinity or in excess of 100 mph even as starters that MLB is becoming an adult version of Little League.... pitch and catch....swing and miss. The minors are brimming with the next supersonic arm generation. Growing up the game was truly never over until it was over. Back then when starters routinely went the distance and bullpens were for the guys not good enough to be starters, there was always the hope if not the expectation of a rally. It was much more of a 9 inning game. With the advent of super strong arms, teams with good bullpen arms (most) end the game after 6 or 7 innings...We all know the outrageously one-sided stats of team records in cases where they lead after 7. It is now a 6 or max 7 inning game in reality. Yes, the guy throwing 100 still has to control it but it is obviously a heckuva lot harder to square those pitches up. The old balance between pitching and hitting is being skewed and the game is changing for the worse IMO. I really don't see an issue. It's not like it's 1968 and league ERAs are under 3 and league BAs are at .240. If anything it's closer to the way it was in the 1980s. ERAs average a bit under 4. .250 is about average these days. I don't see a reason to alter it. We just came off the inflated offense era where averages hovered around .270 and ERAs weren't that far removed from 5. Home runs and runs came cheaply and the game resembled slow pitch softball at times. And these were some very long games. I think if anything, baseball is more balanced that it has been for quite some time. Speed and defense matters. You can actually find more than one or two pitchers on a staff who can keep an ERA under 4 and runs are a lot less cheap. But we're also not in the deadball ERA and it doesn't resemble 1968 by any stretch. It's like we're back in the 1980s or early 1990s (not 1980 or 1987 though). Your comment spurred me to check....According to the cited article, Major League batting averages are at the lowest since 1972.....just before the DH was initiated. That's 42 years and counting. www.foxnews.com/sports/2014/09/29/mlb-batting-average-drops-to-lowest-lower-since-172-before-al-adopted/
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 8, 2014 14:23:47 GMT -5
League-wide non-pitcher hitting is at its lowest point since 1972, per wOBA. There are a few seasons in the 1980s where it was close, though (.315 this year, .317 in 1988 and .318 in 1989). If offense continues to decline (it's fallen five years in a row), the league might have to do something, but I think it's a year or two too early to be too seriously concerned.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Oct 8, 2014 14:50:30 GMT -5
League-wide non-pitcher hitting is at its lowest point since 1972, per wOBA. There are a few seasons in the 1980s where it was close, though (.315 this year, .317 in 1988 and .318 in 1989). If offense continues to decline (it's fallen five years in a row), the league might have to do something, but I think it's a year or two too early to be too seriously concerned. True enough. The market is catching up to the game. Pitchers of all stripes get paid a premium to demonstrate proficiency with a limited skill set. Hitters, OTOH have been overbid and the discrepency in remuneration between a good hitter and a great one needs adjustment. The current situation will cause MLB to adopt the DH for the NL. The market for limited skilled "hitters only" is about to blossom. I don't think the powers that be will adjust the height of the pitching rubber, as was done, during the last lull, when pitching was dominant (followed shortly by the DH in the AL). What worries me, is that MLB may go the route of the NFL and involve the electronic media into the game. We've seen it with instant replay, can an electronic "strike zone" be far behind?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 8, 2014 15:27:07 GMT -5
I can't imagine changing the distance pitchers need to throw is in any way fair to them, after they have spent most of their lives pitching from 60'6". I would think that instead of giving the batter a slightly better chance, it would completely ruin a certain percentage of pitchers.
I'd rather they juice the ball again. Or get rid of the 6 inches off the plate that they call outside strikes to LH batters. I'm sure Papi would like that, along with every single LH hitter of course.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 8, 2014 16:09:51 GMT -5
I really don't see an issue. It's not like it's 1968 and league ERAs are under 3 and league BAs are at .240. If anything it's closer to the way it was in the 1980s. ERAs average a bit under 4. .250 is about average these days. I don't see a reason to alter it. We just came off the inflated offense era where averages hovered around .270 and ERAs weren't that far removed from 5. Home runs and runs came cheaply and the game resembled slow pitch softball at times. And these were some very long games. I think if anything, baseball is more balanced that it has been for quite some time. Speed and defense matters. You can actually find more than one or two pitchers on a staff who can keep an ERA under 4 and runs are a lot less cheap. But we're also not in the deadball ERA and it doesn't resemble 1968 by any stretch. It's like we're back in the 1980s or early 1990s (not 1980 or 1987 though). Your comment spurred me to check....According to the cited article, Major League batting averages are at the lowest since 1972.....just before the DH was initiated. That's 42 years and counting. www.foxnews.com/sports/2014/09/29/mlb-batting-average-drops-to-lowest-lower-since-172-before-al-adopted/But 2014 isn't that comparable to 1972, is it? I mean, without having time to check, I think the league BA was under .250 and the league ERAs were somewhere between 3.25 - 3.5, wasn't it? This season is the lowest since then, but it wasn't as extreme. At least I didn't think so. I though ERAs were around 3.75 and the league BA was around or a little higher than .250. I think it's comparable to several seasons in the 1980s (again excluding 1980 and rabbit ball year 1987) and the early 90s before the expansions and PEDs became very dominant.
|
|
|
Post by kingofthetrill on Oct 8, 2014 16:15:29 GMT -5
I'm not sure if Beckett retiring was mentioned anywhere else. I thought he was going to do it after his injury last year but he came back and appeared to pitch well this season before getting injured again. He may be a jerk, inconsistent, and injury prone, but the dude could pitch. He definitely had some flashes of brilliance.
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Oct 8, 2014 18:46:27 GMT -5
I can't imagine changing the distance pitchers need to throw is in any way fair to them, after they have spent most of their lives pitching from 60'6". I would think that instead of giving the batter a slightly better chance, it would completely ruin a certain percentage of pitchers. I'd rather they juice the ball again. Or get rid of the 6 inches off the plate that they call outside strikes to LH batters. I'm sure Papi would like that, along with every single LH hitter of course. I am for restoring the historical balance b/t pitching and hitting....whatever that is. I don't care so much what is fair to the pitchers or hitters. Currently we are at a 42 year low ebb offensively and trending downward. Certainly there are purists who love a plethora of 1-0, 2-1 games. I suspect though that most fans like to see a good semblance of offense and the chance for his/her team to come back in a game. Currently if your team is down 4-1 in the 7th, do you think the game is likely over and give up watching, or do you think miracles can happen?...because that is what it will take in the large majority of games. Yes, when baseball converted from the deadball era...averages rose dramatically ....as did fan interest. Pitching recovered but then by the late 1960s dominated again. Baseball countered by lowering the mound in 1969 and installing the DH in 1973. Batting averages rose as a result, albeit slowly. But, right now pitchers are bigger, stronger and definitely faster than ever. That has dramatically changed the dynamic. I remember a time when the Sox had NO pitchers in the minor leagues throwing 90. Hell even the historically hitting conscious Sox now have a few 100 mph guys in the wings. Face it! Pitchers in general have advanced faster than batters w/o performance enhancing drugs. I think that it is time to recognize this fact and either lower the mound again or consider the drastic sacrilege of moving the mound back to restore balance.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 8, 2014 19:20:52 GMT -5
Given that much of the offensive decline has been due to umpires calling the strike zone correctly, it's possible that hitters will adjust to that somewhat.
But they wouldn't move the mound back. They've moved the mound up and down plenty of times through the years. That'd probably be the adjustment if this trend continues, to lower it. Would take away some of the advantage pitchers have lower in the zone.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Oct 8, 2014 20:05:25 GMT -5
Given that much of the offensive decline has been due to umpires calling the strike zone correctly, it's possible that hitters will adjust to that somewhat. But they wouldn't move the mound back. They've moved the mound up and down plenty of times through the years. That'd probably be the adjustment if this trend continues, to lower it. Would take away some of the advantage pitchers have lower in the zone. It's not a coincidence that in the late-90's, when pitchers stopped getting the way-outside strike, offense exploded and then when they started getting the high strike back offense fell back to earth. There are are other factors here too (fast expansion in the 90's, international talent influx that was pitcher-heavy in the '00's, steroids, etc) but overall I think you've hit on the biggest point.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Oct 8, 2014 20:19:41 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Oct 8, 2014 20:50:35 GMT -5
Given that much of the offensive decline has been due to umpires calling the strike zone correctly, it's possible that hitters will adjust to that somewhat. But they wouldn't move the mound back. They've moved the mound up and down plenty of times through the years. That'd probably be the adjustment if this trend continues, to lower it. Would take away some of the advantage pitchers have lower in the zone. I'm not so sure the umpires are calling the strike zone correctly. And the fact remains that some umps call the outside strike and others don't call the high strike. I think the batters adjust accordingly, they just want consistency, which is not always apparent. Moving the mound back is sacrilegious. Never happen. Even today mound height is fudged by having the landing point for the pitcher lower than the plate. Don't see this practice in minor league ball, but I have seen it in MLB. "Juicing" the ball is an interesting concept, but it will reek havoc with stat heads. I've been through this with softball, core density, composition of aluminum bats..... I've seen fights break out and teams leave the field during tournaments. In leagues with no age restrictions this is not usually an issue. In leagues with age restrictions (50+ for example) or co-ed leagues this is an ongoing contentious issue. FTR juicing or "softening" the ball definitely works. Fascinating how this is accomplished during production. Consistency of the finished product is often an issue for softballs. I assume MLB has the resources to deliver a consistent product. That said I never bought MLB's position that they did not "juice" the balls after the 1994 strike. PED's were a convenient excuse to account for the record number of 50+ home run hitters. The only other suggestion I would consider would be changes to the bats. If you somehow could remove 2-4 ounces from the bats you would in effect speed up the swing. I've seen "composite" wood bats that achieve the weight loss, but I have no experience with the density or rebound speed of the ball off these bats. I do know some players order bats with different weights. I've spoken to MLB hitters who had bats that varied by as much as 2 ounces. With existing restrictions on bats and the emergence of so many 95mph+ pitchers, making some allowances for bats might be more palpable than "juicing" the balls.
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Oct 8, 2014 21:15:27 GMT -5
Given that much of the offensive decline has been due to umpires calling the strike zone correctly, it's possible that hitters will adjust to that somewhat. But they wouldn't move the mound back. They've moved the mound up and down plenty of times through the years. That'd probably be the adjustment if this trend continues, to lower it. Would take away some of the advantage pitchers have lower in the zone. I'm not so sure the umpires are calling the strike zone correctly. And the fact remains that some umps call the outside strike and others don't call the high strike. I think the batters adjust accordingly, they just want consistency, which is not always apparent. Moving the mound back is sacrilegious. Never happen. Even today mound height is fudged by having the landing point for the pitcher lower than the plate. Don't see this practice in minor league ball, but I have seen it in MLB. "Juicing" the ball is an interesting concept, but it will reek havoc with stat heads. I've been through this with softball, core density, composition of aluminum bats..... I've seen fights break out and teams leave the field during tournaments. In leagues with no age restrictions this is not usually an issue. In leagues with age restrictions (50+ for example) or co-ed leagues this is an ongoing contentious issue. FTR juicing or "softening" the ball definitely works. Fascinating how this is accomplished during production. Consistency of the finished product is often an issue for softballs. I assume MLB has the resources to deliver a consistent product. That said I never bought MLB's position that they did not "juice" the balls after the 1994 strike. PED's were a convenient excuse to account for the record number of 50+ home run hitters. The only other suggestion I would consider would be changes to the bats. If you somehow could remove 2-4 ounces from the bats you would in effect speed up the swing. I've seen "composite" wood bats that achieve the weight loss, but I have no experience with the density or rebound speed of the ball off these bats. I do know some players order bats with different weights. I've spoken to MLB hitters who had bats that varied by as much as 2 ounces. With existing restrictions on bats and the emergence of so many 95mph+ pitchers, making some allowances for bats might be more palpable than "juicing" the balls. I agree that moving the mound back is a drastic change and "sacrilegious"...(was lowering the mound or installing the DH?) but cannot the same be said for artificially juicing the ball or making the bats out of non-wood high rebound materials?...The issue with these latter two suggestions is that now safety concerns come into play as well.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 9, 2014 14:24:23 GMT -5
The Orioles re-sign J.J. Hardy for 3/$40m, which is a steal of a price. He was the guy I thought the Yankees ere going to tab as their Jeter replacement.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Oct 9, 2014 15:07:23 GMT -5
That's a solid re-sign for Baltimore. It'll cover his age 32-34 seasons so some decline is likely, but he's still a very good defensive shortstop with some pop. He's been a 3.0+ bWAR player for four straight years an seems to have also shed the injury questions since he's played 140 or more games three straight.
Whoever doesn't get Hanley Ramirez is going to be down to the Asdrubal Cabrera/Jed Lowrie class. The Cubs might be in a good position to trade Starlin Castro, who kind of quietly had a nice year and still only turns 25 in March.
|
|
|
Post by stevedillard on Oct 9, 2014 15:28:11 GMT -5
Here's the list of potential free agents who I think are even debatable to get the qualifying offer of $15 mill. For most of these the answer is no. I could see only four (Scherzer, Shields, Cruz, Sandoval) getting offers.
First Basemen Victor Martinez
Shortstops Hanley Ramirez
Third Basemen Pablo Sandoval
Catchers Russell Martin
Outfielders Melky Cabrera Nelson Cruz
Starting Pitchers Hisashi Iwakuma Francisco Liriano Ervin Santana Max Scherzer James Shields Ryan Vogelsong Edinson Volquez David Robertson Koji Uehara
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Oct 9, 2014 15:32:56 GMT -5
I'd be a little surprised if Robertson didn't get one. The Yanks would be fine having him back at 1/$15.3M.
Hanley Ramirez probably needs to commit a felony not to get a qualifying offer.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 9, 2014 15:41:32 GMT -5
Yeah, I think a lot more than those guys will get a QO. Victor Martinez, Hanley, Martin, and Robertson almost certainly will.
|
|
|
Post by freddysthefuture2003 on Oct 9, 2014 15:42:32 GMT -5
V-Mart is going to get one as well. It would only be a 3 million dollar raise for him. Detroit will want to retain that bat
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Oct 9, 2014 16:06:17 GMT -5
The Orioles re-sign J.J. Hardy for 3/$40m, which is a steal of a price. He was the guy I thought the Yankees ere going to tab as their Jeter replacement. The issue for the Yankees is the amount of money they already have tied up in all of 9 players: $165 million. That's without factoring in their need to re-sign Robertson, and to re-sign Kuroda or someone to replace him, and without factoring in any of the arbitration money they'll have to have for Nova and Cervelli. I see Rodriguez as a DH at this point, so they also need to shell out for an infield of some sort. I can't imagine they'll bring Drew back, but I'll bet they'd like to sign Headley if they can, and use Prado as an outfielder and a backup. He's one of their best assets at this point. That still leaves the middle infield, with no SS and no second baseman, though Prado has a history there also. Anyway you slice or dice it, I can't imagine they'll be fielding a team for anything south of $200 million, and it could be quite a bit more than that.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Oct 9, 2014 16:30:26 GMT -5
I'm not so sure the umpires are calling the strike zone correctly. And the fact remains that some umps call the outside strike and others don't call the high strike. I think the batters adjust accordingly, they just want consistency, which is not always apparent. Moving the mound back is sacrilegious. Never happen. Even today mound height is fudged by having the landing point for the pitcher lower than the plate. Don't see this practice in minor league ball, but I have seen it in MLB. "Juicing" the ball is an interesting concept, but it will reek havoc with stat heads. I've been through this with softball, core density, composition of aluminum bats..... I've seen fights break out and teams leave the field during tournaments. In leagues with no age restrictions this is not usually an issue. In leagues with age restrictions (50+ for example) or co-ed leagues this is an ongoing contentious issue. FTR juicing or "softening" the ball definitely works. Fascinating how this is accomplished during production. Consistency of the finished product is often an issue for softballs. I assume MLB has the resources to deliver a consistent product. That said I never bought MLB's position that they did not "juice" the balls after the 1994 strike. PED's were a convenient excuse to account for the record number of 50+ home run hitters. The only other suggestion I would consider would be changes to the bats. If you somehow could remove 2-4 ounces from the bats you would in effect speed up the swing. I've seen "composite" wood bats that achieve the weight loss, but I have no experience with the density or rebound speed of the ball off these bats. I do know some players order bats with different weights. I've spoken to MLB hitters who had bats that varied by as much as 2 ounces. With existing restrictions on bats and the emergence of so many 95mph+ pitchers, making some allowances for bats might be more palpable than "juicing" the balls. I agree that moving the mound back is a drastic change and "sacrilegious"...( was lowering the mound or installing the DH?) but cannot the same be said for artificially juicing the ball or making the bats out of non-wood high rebound materials?...The issue with these latter two suggestions is that now safety concerns come into play as well. Mound hieghts varied greatly, prior to the new ruling. Sandy Koufax had, by far, the tallest mound in baseball. The DH was blashemy in 1973. For years NL fans looked down their noses at the AL. Some still do. With respect to safety concerns and bat/ball rebound speeds the safety concerns are very real. I've know of two older SB players who lost their lives from batted balls. In both instances the leagues had let the players choose the core density and bat rebound values. In my County the lawyers have stepped in and advised the Rec department to permit only equipment of their choosing. Since the County supplied the balls, many thought that was the end of that, however SB bat technology made even the slush balls missals. Two players suffered broken orbitals from the hot bats. Now the County has a bat/ball rebound limit speed in place. In MLB the league office controls the balls and to a lesser degree, the bats. If the balls were made to a strict standard, and held their, the stat junkies would be able to have greater reliability with their numbers crunching. If the bat rules were modified, even only slightly, say to permit wood composites, I am sure that bat manufacturers could produce a lighter compound bat with the same rebound qualities as the solid maple or ash bats commonly used. FWIW I once had a long talk with Ted Williams about this. I was amazed at his thinking. But then again, Ted was pretty amazing when it came to all aspects of hitting.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 9, 2014 17:10:14 GMT -5
Heck, given the fact that literally no player has ever accepted the QO, I wonder how that will play in. I could see teams starting to play chicken with the borderline guys. I could see most of the guys on stevedillard's list getting the QO if they don't resign first. That'd barely even be a raise for Santana.
By the way, Iwakuma's got a $7M team option that will absolutely get picked up, so you can remove him. If he were going to be a free agent you'd be hearing about him in the Shields/Lester talk, frankly. I know he's older, but he's been outstanding.
Also, I had no idea that Vogelsong was 37. I knew he was in his 30s but I thought it was more like 33. He's the only guy on that list I'd lean no on.
|
|
|
Post by bentossaurus on Oct 9, 2014 17:17:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Oct 9, 2014 17:27:41 GMT -5
Heck, given the fact that literally no player has ever accepted the QO, I wonder how that will play in. I could see teams starting to play chicken with the borderline guys. I could see most of the guys on stevedillard's list getting the QO if they don't resign first. That'd barely even be a raise for Santana. By the way, Iwakuma's got a $7M team option that will absolutely get picked up, so you can remove him. If he were going to be a free agent you'd be hearing about him in the Shields/Lester talk, frankly. I know he's older, but he's been outstanding. Also, I had no idea that Vogelsong was 37. I knew he was in his 30s but I thought it was more like 33. He's the only guy on that list I'd lean no on. That's when he started pitching for the Giants, four years ago. The reason there were so many stories written about the guy, was because of his willingness to stay with it, even through the injuries, getting flipped from SF to the Pirates, disappearing for four years, then showing up in the Giant's system again. There's a reason his gameface is so serious. I might be that way also if that had been my trajectory.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Oct 9, 2014 20:35:04 GMT -5
Counterpoint 1: Right now the Red Sox are baseball's sitting World Champions. Counterpoint 2: www.fangraphs.com/blogs/building-through-the-draft-best-of-the-best/ Counterpoint 3: The one player that could've been considered "rushed" in 2014 was Mookie Betts, and he played very, very well in the majors. I'm sure the updated numbers on this aren't quite as good as the one posted in point #2 because they wouldn't include Lester, but the idea that the Red Sox a) don't develop players well or b) don't win just doesn't jibe with reality. The Red Sox didn't win in 2014, and the organization should evaluate any mistakes they made for sure. But that article is wrong. EDIT: The more I read the article, the more I disagree with it. Matt Carpenter was a redshirt freshman who they took in the 13th round, and had serious conditioning questions in college. Matt Adams was a 23rd round pick and, to be impolite, a fat kid. The Cardinals have hit big on two big-bodied lottery tickets. Imagine David Chester turning into a plus MLB regular. That's what the Cardinals did with Adams. On the other end of the spectrum. Daniel Descalso has 1.1 bWAR in 529 career games. Pete Kozma lost his job because he played so badly in 2013. How are they examples of what the Cardinals do right? What a bunch of malarkey. EDIT AGAIN: Randal Grichuk counts but Brock Holt doesn't because he came up in the Pittsburgh system? That's not cherry-picking or anything. Now I'm all worked up.
|
|
|