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.
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 22, 2016 12:44:25 GMT -5
It seems like everyone likes the 26 man roster, but I don't get it. Won't this simply move all teams from a 7 man bullpen to an 8 man bullpen? The biggest problem with how the game is played currently is that the games are too long. Adding another bullpen arm will push for more pitcher changes which will increase the game length even further. Aside from employing one more person at an MLB salary and making roster management slightly easier (and less skillful), what is the benefit? It's incredibly useful to have an extra roster spot when a team is in the middle of a 28 game stretch with no days off. This isn't like the 70s and 80s when every team had 3 or 4 Bob Stanley types who threw glorified batting practice for 2-3 innings at a time. Relief pitchers are 100% effort on every pitch now and tire a lot quicker.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Nov 22, 2016 12:50:00 GMT -5
3) Not having to remove pitchers because their spot in the order is coming up will always be a good thing. This is the best thing about the designated hitter. Everything else is generally personal preference, but seeing an effective pitcher taken out in the sixth inning of a game he's losing 1-0 because his team needs someone who can hit makes the game worse.
|
|
gerry
Veteran
Enter your message here...
Posts: 1,660
|
Post by gerry on Nov 22, 2016 12:55:27 GMT -5
If allowing a NL team in interleague play to choose to use a DH in a NL or AL park, and an AL team to use a DH in a NL park isn't a quick fix to a gnarly issue, while maintaining the differences each league chooses to play by, then it seems choice loses to orderliness, which is always unfortunate Any manager given the choice to use a DH who wouldn't take advantage should be fired before turning in the lineup card. 1) The best bench player on any MLB team is a better hitter than the best-hitting pitcher on that team. Substituting that better hitter will literally always improve the team's chance of winning. 2) Allowing your pitcher to focus on pitching rather than always having to hit will always be a good thing. Keeping your pitcher from getting tired running bases, swinging, etc. is always a good thing. 3) Not having to remove pitchers because their spot in the order is coming up will always be a good thing. Teams are always going to take the option that makes the team better. That option will always be to use the DH. The rule isn't "having" or "not having" the DH, but it's really allowing or not allowing teams to use the DH. Personally, I have actually come around a bit on the leagues having two sets of rules. I get the point of view that thinks that's dumb, for sure. But it's a quirk that actually gives meaningful difference to the two leagues, since there isn't, say, a geographical one like the NBA or NHL. I guess there's the historical difference of their origins too (I had no idea that the AL and NL were actually separate legal entities until 2000, which is kind of mind-blowing really), but given that we've had a couple of organizations go back-and-forth at this point and enough expansion, I think that's diluted quite a bit. Yes, thank you. It was the AL that diverged from the century old norm and experimented with the DH and it worked. But the NL has the right to remain "pure" if they choose. In fairness, both leagues should be able to choose whether to use the DH in any interleague game or park, as not doing so favors the an NL in a NL park. Simple solution is to change that one rule to make it a choice, to make it fair.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Nov 22, 2016 14:08:37 GMT -5
Honestly, I don't believe in the "purity" of the pitcher hitting.
This made sense when baseball was in its infancy. Pitchers had to be able to hit some because they weren't that much more important than a pitcher is in beer league softball. In other words they had to justify their spot in the lineup because pitching wasn't a specialty as it would evolve into.
Eventually baseball went from having a primary pitcher and a backup pitcher to having four men and finally five men rotations so the value of the offense for a pitcher has continued to dwindle down to next to nothing. I mean, does anybody care if Clayton Kershaw can't hit as good as a backup catcher? Meanwhile say an awful pitcher with an ERA of 6 can hold his own at the plate (Micah Owens?), does he have immense value? Of course not.
The DH actually began to make sense as time has passed. The irony of it is that the NL was thinking about adopting the DH as far back as the end of the 19th century and again by around 1930 when league BA were crazy and runs scored were at extremely high levels, but it was the AL that didn't want the DH. Eventually Charlie O Finley was able to get support for the DH so that by 1973 it was instituted in the AL. I think the NL was supposed to institute by the late 70s or early 80s but there was an accidental (I think?) non-vote placed by the Phillies that wound up thwarting the NL's adoption of the rule.
It's just a matter of time before the DH happens in the NL and I can certainly imagine that Theo hopes it happens soon as Schwarber is the perfect DH. There's just no reason for the pitcher to hit anymore.
I know that there will be complaints of "strategy" being missing but most of that is so knee-jerk. I remember an article where Bill James talked about the variance of the AL managers using the bunt and pinch-hitters versus their counterparts in the NL who were generally forced to employ those strategies to get around the fact that pitchers cannot hit. It's definitely time for the DH to be adopted in the NL.
|
|
0ap0
Veteran
Posts: 369
Member is Online
|
Post by 0ap0 on Nov 22, 2016 14:41:57 GMT -5
Or we could propose a move to 8-man batting lineups and give the players' assn. a conniption.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Nov 22, 2016 15:16:48 GMT -5
It seems like everyone likes the 26 man roster, but I don't get it. Won't this simply move all teams from a 7 man bullpen to an 8 man bullpen? The biggest problem with how the game is played currently is that the games are too long. Adding another bullpen arm will push for more pitcher changes which will increase the game length even further. Aside from employing one more person at an MLB salary and making roster management slightly easier (and less skillful), what is the benefit? It's incredibly useful to have an extra roster spot when a team is in the middle of a 28 game stretch with no days off. This isn't like the 70s and 80s when every team had 3 or 4 Bob Stanley types who threw glorified batting practice for 2-3 innings at a time. Relief pitchers are 100% effort on every pitch now and tire a lot quicker. Other potential effects (not saying if it's good or bad, necessarily): - Fewer DL trips: teams can afford to wait longer for players to be ready if there's an extra roster spot. If you can get your guy back in 10 days, it might make more sense now to just suck it up. - Fewer players on the AAA-MLB shuttle: You can keep that guy on the roster rather than just stashing him in AAA, whether it's the 8th arm or that fifth bench guy who won't play enough to make it worth losing that 7th bullpen arm. - More platooning: Using a bench spot in order to field a platoon at a position becomes a lot easier. If you want to run two platoons, you can now have two bench spots rather than one beyond the backup catcher. I don't think teams will necessarily all use the extra spot on an arm. The Red Sox certainly will if everyone's healthy, but isn't there a world in which you could see them using it to keep Deven Marrero around to back up shortstop instead of Holt if Bogaerts is dinged up enough that he's not on the DL, but he's sitting every third or fourth day for a few weeks? I'm interested in seeing how NL teams use it too. Could see them wanting five guys on the bench more than another reliever.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Nov 22, 2016 16:36:18 GMT -5
If the NL was smart they would have a special award for pitchers that hit. Base it on OPS+, minimum 50 AB's, $250K cash value, call it the Earl Wilson Award.
|
|
|
Post by borisman on Nov 22, 2016 16:38:32 GMT -5
It seems like everyone likes the 26 man roster, but I don't get it. Won't this simply move all teams from a 7 man bullpen to an 8 man bullpen? The biggest problem with how the game is played currently is that the games are too long. Adding another bullpen arm will push for more pitcher changes which will increase the game length even further. Aside from employing one more person at an MLB salary and making roster management slightly easier (and less skillful), what is the benefit? It's incredibly useful to have an extra roster spot when a team is in the middle of a 28 game stretch with no days off. This isn't like the 70s and 80s when every team had 3 or 4 Bob Stanley types who threw glorified batting practice for 2-3 innings at a time. Relief pitchers are 100% effort on every pitch now and tire a lot quicker. In '83 Stanley pitched 64 games, finishing 53 of them. Had 33 saves. His inning total was 145.1 and he had 18 decisions (8-10). That's 2.1 ip/appearance. His innings plummeted the next couple of years. I think he threw one too many glorified batting practices. And jimed didn't even have to look up those stats.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Nov 22, 2016 17:10:19 GMT -5
It's incredibly useful to have an extra roster spot when a team is in the middle of a 28 game stretch with no days off. This isn't like the 70s and 80s when every team had 3 or 4 Bob Stanley types who threw glorified batting practice for 2-3 innings at a time. Relief pitchers are 100% effort on every pitch now and tire a lot quicker. Other potential effects (not saying if it's good or bad, necessarily): - Fewer DL trips: teams can afford to wait longer for players to be ready if there's an extra roster spot. If you can get your guy back in 10 days, it might make more sense now to just suck it up. - Fewer players on the AAA-MLB shuttle: You can keep that guy on the roster rather than just stashing him in AAA, whether it's the 8th arm or that fifth bench guy who won't play enough to make it worth losing that 7th bullpen arm. - More platooning: Using a bench spot in order to field a platoon at a position becomes a lot easier. If you want to run two platoons, you can now have two bench spots rather than one beyond the backup catcher. I don't think teams will necessarily all use the extra spot on an arm. The Red Sox certainly will if everyone's healthy, but isn't there a world in which you could see them using it to keep Deven Marrero around to back up shortstop instead of Holt if Bogaerts is dinged up enough that he's not on the DL, but he's sitting every third or fourth day for a few weeks? I'm interested in seeing how NL teams use it too. Could see them wanting five guys on the bench more than another reliever. All of that sounds nice, but it's rarely going to happen. Those backing the 26 man roster have the cause-effect relationship of roster use backwards: the reason we have 7man bullpens and short inning/batter relievers is because teams determined that a 4man bench was all that was needed which left the extra spots for relievers as we know them now. At some point teams will determine that it's more beneficial to add a bench spot over another reliever, but as we're trending in the opposite direction, we would need somewhere between 27-30 players for that to occur. At the beginning a few teams will try a 5man bench but in the end they'll all endup with 8 relievers and even shorter reliever stints leading to longer games. (Aside from the occasional injury situation) If the goal is to make it easier to move around players due to injury then they can shorten the 15day DL or make more roster exceptions, but this will only slightly assist in that regard while causing long term damage to the game of baseball. I truly hope everyone reconsiders. (I believe this will create additional jobs among MLB veterans while costing fringe players opportunities at playing - which also makes the game less interesting imo)
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Nov 22, 2016 19:01:19 GMT -5
At some point teams will determine that it's more beneficial to add a bench spot over another reliever, but as we're trending in the opposite direction, we would need somewhere between 27-30 players for that to occur. At the beginning a few teams will try a 5man bench but in the end they'll all endup with 8 relievers and even shorter reliever stints leading to longer games. (Aside from the occasional injury situation) Also, with the rise of the super-bullpen in recent years, I really wonder if baseball should actually be moving to outlaw or discourage the one-inning reliever in some way. Require guys to throw to more than three hitters, or more than 25 pitches, or something, because it seems like bullpens are just too dominant now. It's not fun knowing that the game is effectively over once the starter gets pulled. There's a weird feedback loop here too, because as bullpens have expanded, pinch hitters have become all but non-existant. So not only do you have these guys trained exclusively to throw 15 pitches at 98 miles an hour, they're facing no-hit catchers and shortstops because there's no one to bat for those guys late in games. Like I get that it's fun to watch Chapman throw into the 100s but when he's facing the Freddy Galvis-es of the world, are we even really watching a sport at that point?
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Nov 22, 2016 20:07:35 GMT -5
With the CBA expiring there's a threat of a lockout in baseball in 21 years. I found out that this is the most interesting development since I started this thread- "According to Rosenthal, the owners offered to get rid of any tying of free agents to draft compensation (as currently embodied in the qualifying offer system), but requested an international draft in exchange. The union, it seems, has lined up behind the idea that the draft would be too onerous." It's really interesting that the owners would throw out the QO system altogether for the international draft. The players association doesn't believe in this draft system and they're not even accepting the dropping of the QO to accept it. Sounds to me that the international draft is the main issue for the hold up so far. www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/11/lockout-threat-cba-talks-rumors.html?fv-home=true&post-id=77965
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 22, 2016 20:16:43 GMT -5
www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/11/jeremy-hellickson-to-accept-qualifying-offer.htmlHe declined it because other teams didn't want to part with a pick to sign a non elite guy like Hellickson. If he didn't cost a draft pick he would have got a long term deal and a lot more guaranteed money. The draft pick cost him a long term deal. In this market can you really argue against that? The Phillies didn't think Hellickson was a top tier free agent. They thought some team that really needed pitching wouldn't care about the pick and they were wrong. They gambled and lost. Just because your one of the better starting pitching options in one of the worst free agent classes I've every seen, doesn't make you top tier or elite free agent. You have a totally different way of looking at the QO system, if that's what you think great. It's just not what the players and player assocation thinks. If they thought the system was great they wouldn't be trying to fix it or scrap it all together. I don't disagree with much of what you wrote. But consider: 1) Doesn't making the draft pick a second rounder instead of a first rounder fix a lot of what you describe to be the issue there? Isn't giving up that kind of pick more in line with the type of player we're talking about? If you're, say, the Baltimore Orioles, doesn't giving up the 67th pick sound a lot more palatable than giving up the 23rd? 2) Isn't the fact that the Phillies misread the market for Hellickson their fault rather than the system's? Even back in July, didn't it seem like the return they could've gotten for him would've been better than the pick? Hell, Drew Pomeranz returned Anderson freakin' Espinoza in that trade market - you'd think they could've gotten someone pretty good where Hellickson might've been the next-best starter on the market. 3) Part of my point, probably poorly stated, was that if teams were ACTUALLY going to give Hellickson 4/60, then someone would've given up a first-round pick and given him a deal that was still decent, like your 3/30. Having a first-round pick attached doesn't make a 4/60 pitcher someone that nobody wants to sign for any price. You're telling me none of the other 9 teams with protected picks wouldn't have been interested at all if they'd valued him as a 4/60 pitcher without the pick? Maybe he wasn't valued that highly. Now, maybe if a team valued him at 3/30, then the pick brings it down to like, 3/15. And yeah, at that point... you're taking the 1/17.2. I'm not saying the system is perfect. I'm saying it needs tweaking, not scrapping entirely. I think the system is headed in the right direction, but giving the QO less teeth in terms of penalty for signing that player is probably something that needs to happen, and doing so will address the issues that the PA has with it. 1). It helps, but like I said before it's like a bandaid. It helps, but doesn't fix the actual problem which is non elite free agents having a draft pick assigned to signing them. In the day of draft pools, signing Hellickson still costs a loss of around a million dollars in draft pool money and the loss of getting a player at that spot. I can still see small market teams not willing to give up that pick and pool money for Hellickson. So it limits his market and hurts him. 2). Yea I said that above the Phillies really messed this up. Not only could they have got a good return at deadline, but they hurt Hellickson at the same time. We can all wonder if Red Sox could have given Phillies a good package of prospects and kept Espinoza. Have to think Phillies would rather have someone like Sam Travis or Doubon than paying Hellickson over 17 million next year. 3). Some teams just don't sign guys that cost a pick. I mean over the last 3-5 years we've heard the Yankees and Red Sox say we went after this guy and not that one because he didn't cost a pick. When big market team s won't give up draft picks, you know how much teams currently value pickd. A team like the Marlins would seem like a great fit for Hellickson, but i can see them not wanting to give up a pick for a mid to back end starter in Hellickson. I have no problem with teams giving up a 1st round pick, if they sign elite free agents. I think it helps balance out the game and keep it competitive. What about raising the QO to like 25 million a year? That might stop teams from giving a QO to non elite free agents, because they would know they would accept it.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Nov 22, 2016 20:19:26 GMT -5
With the CBA expiring there's a threat of a lockout in baseball in 21 years. I found out that this is the most interesting development since I started this thread- "According to Rosenthal, the owners offered to get rid of any tying of free agents to draft compensation (as currently embodied in the qualifying offer system), but requested an international draft in exchange. The union, it seems, has lined up behind the idea that the draft would be too onerous." It's really interesting that the owners would throw our the QO system altogether for the international draft. The players association doesn't believe in this draft system and they're not even accepting the dropping of the QO to accept it. Sounds to me that the international draft is the main issue for the hold up so far. www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/11/lockout-threat-cba-talks-rumors.html?fv-home=true&post-id=77965It's interesting that the PA would be so adamant about something that doesn't effect their (current) members. Maybe the latin players are less willing to sell out their younger counterparts than the American players were when the draft cap system was instituted?
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Nov 22, 2016 20:37:41 GMT -5
With the CBA expiring there's a threat of a lockout in baseball in 21 years. I found out that this is the most interesting development since I started this thread- "According to Rosenthal, the owners offered to get rid of any tying of free agents to draft compensation (as currently embodied in the qualifying offer system), but requested an international draft in exchange. The union, it seems, has lined up behind the idea that the draft would be too onerous." It's really interesting that the owners would throw our the QO system altogether for the international draft. The players association doesn't believe in this draft system and they're not even accepting the dropping of the QO to accept it. Sounds to me that the international draft is the main issue for the hold up so far. www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/11/lockout-threat-cba-talks-rumors.html?fv-home=true&post-id=77965It's interesting that the PA would be so adamant about something that doesn't effect their (current) members. Maybe the latin players are less willing to sell out their younger counterparts than the American players were when the draft cap system was instituted? Well American players always have a second choice to go to school instead while Latin players only choice is baseball. I think the players association recognizes this. One thing is for sure, the owners are really pushing for this and will probably get it, if not we may have a lockout on our hands. Especially if they're willing to up one of their best bargaining chips in the QO system to get it.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,915
|
Post by ericmvan on Nov 23, 2016 1:38:21 GMT -5
At some point teams will determine that it's more beneficial to add a bench spot over another reliever, but as we're trending in the opposite direction, we would need somewhere between 27-30 players for that to occur. At the beginning a few teams will try a 5man bench but in the end they'll all endup with 8 relievers and even shorter reliever stints leading to longer games. (Aside from the occasional injury situation) Also, with the rise of the super-bullpen in recent years, I really wonder if baseball should actually be moving to outlaw or discourage the one-inning reliever in some way. Require guys to throw to more than three hitters, or more than 25 pitches, or something, because it seems like bullpens are just too dominant now. It's not fun knowing that the game is effectively over once the starter gets pulled. There's a weird feedback loop here too, because as bullpens have expanded, pinch hitters have become all but non-existant. So not only do you have these guys trained exclusively to throw 15 pitches at 98 miles an hour, they're facing no-hit catchers and shortstops because there's no one to bat for those guys late in games. Like I get that it's fun to watch Chapman throw into the 100s but when he's facing the Freddy Galvis-es of the world, are we even really watching a sport at that point? I'm very much in favor of limiting the one-batter reliever, to one per game (unless he finishes the inning, in which case it doesn't count against the rule. That's practical, because there's a break in the game anyway, so one-out guys used at the end of the inning aren't causing an extra delay. And it also adds some great strategy and tension, because if you bring in your LOOGY with two outs to face an Ortiz and he succeeds, you haven't burned your one allowed one-out specialist, but if he fails, you have). But you're removing too much interesting strategy if you limit things much further. I've been saying for a while that you have to go to 28 man rosters, so I'm very much with wcsoxfan. You need at least six people on a baseball bench. Otherwise, as you point out, you end up with Deven Marrero as your backup 3B. As I said elsewhere, adding a pair of good pinch-hitters to every MLB bench would increase strategy and offense and decrease the number of pitching changes. For the time being, there's no knowing whether the number of good available relief pitchers per team will peak at the current 8. But if teams start going to 9-man bullpens and 5-man benches, because the 9th reliever is better at pitching than the 6th bench guy is at hitting and playing the field, then you increase the roster to 29. And at that point, maybe you do need another rule limiting relief usage, e.g., you get one pitcher per game who can face one hitter, one who can face just two, and everyone else has to face at least three.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Nov 23, 2016 19:12:33 GMT -5
Hypothetically speaking, if there is a major league strike, will the minor leaguers still play?
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Nov 23, 2016 20:02:16 GMT -5
Hypothetically speaking, if there is a major league strike, will the minor leaguers still play? Yes. In fact the winter meetings would still take place for the minor leagues only too. Hopefully all this gets resolved before the winter meetings however.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Nov 23, 2016 22:35:55 GMT -5
Hypothetically speaking, if there is a major league strike, will the minor leaguers still play? Yes. In fact the winter meetings would still take place for the minor leagues only too. Hopefully all this gets resolved before the winter meetings however. Great news, I would hate to have no baseball next season!
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Nov 24, 2016 11:58:28 GMT -5
I don't believe for a second that the players really care about the international draft. But they know how badly the owners want it and they're going to use it as their big bargaining chip.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Nov 24, 2016 12:29:56 GMT -5
I don't believe for a second that the players really care about the international draft. But they know how badly the owners want it and they're going to use it as their big bargaining chip. Seems to me the agents would care the most about an international draft.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 24, 2016 13:49:45 GMT -5
I don't believe for a second that the players really care about the international draft. But they know how badly the owners want it and they're going to use it as their big bargaining chip. The players don't care about the draft, the issue is the money the owners would save. The players want that money to go back to veteran players. That's the issue, they aren't just going to allow the owners to save hundreds of millions a year and get nothing for it. This is just like when the NFL owners wanted to limited Rookie contracts so the top 10 picks weren't being payed like the best players in the league. The Players wanted the rookies to make less, but they weren't just going to allow the owners to pocket the savings.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Nov 24, 2016 13:52:26 GMT -5
I don't believe for a second that the players really care about the international draft. But they know how badly the owners want it and they're going to use it as their big bargaining chip. The players don't care about the draft, the issue is the money the owners would save. The players want that money to go back to veteran players. That's the issue, they aren't just going to allow the owners to save hundreds of millions a year and get nothing for it. This is just like when the NFL owners wanted to limited Rookie contracts so the top 10 picks weren't being payed like the best players in the league. The Players wanted the rookies to make less, but they weren't just going to allow the owners to pocket the savings. Seems like we are headed for a stalemate, which would result in s strike.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 24, 2016 19:35:17 GMT -5
I think the owners will cave because the international draft has to be much more desirable for the small market teams. The large market teams won't be willing to go on strike for that.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 24, 2016 21:10:17 GMT -5
I think the owners will cave because the international draft has to be much more desirable for the small market teams. The large market teams won't be willing to go on strike for that. I think your right that large market teams won't want a strike because of the draft. That being said there are more small and mid market teams that might strike to to get an international draft. Those teams can't like teams like Red Sox buying players like Moncada. In the end I don't think there's a strike, owners will get International draft and will give players something to offset the lost money. Things are going to well right now to let something as small as an international draft start a strike.
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Nov 25, 2016 1:13:52 GMT -5
It's hard for me to see how both sides makes this such a strong sticking point that it leads to a lockout. I think in the end they will compromise maybe not a full blown draft but harder slots or something which curtails spending and MLB gets to claim competitive balance as well.
|
|
|