How do you improve this game of MLB Baseball?
Bud Selig gets a lot of flak for un-improving the game of major league baseball during his reign as growth and revenue have always been the only thing he cares about. This makes sense given he's basically the MLB CEO and his job is to grow profits.
This time he's taking a different tack, yesterday Commissioner Bud Selig announced on Tuesday that he will chair a new 14-man special committee to analyze ways of improving Major League Baseball on the field.
Most of all enjoy this game we follow so closely but we might have some pet peeves.
You might be surprised about what bugs me the most. It is not the DH though I despise it. It is not the pitchers who take forever to throw a pitch though I despise them. It is not the the crazy schedule that has teams playing in Detroit in April. It is not the crazy playoff schedule that has teams playing almost into November.
It is the roster expansion in September. For 132 games out of a 162 game season everyone plays by the same rules. 25 man roster, then all of sudden on Sept 1st all hell breaks loose and the rosters are expanded. Games are decided in Sept that will define the playoff landscape and teams who couldn't use a pinch runner on Aug 31st are all sudden allowed to use three in a game because the rosters have been expanded. Broken bullpens are fixed with the infusion of new arms. Tired catchers can get swapped out more easily because you can always bet that at least one catcher was included in the expansion. From the time I first started following this game I've never understood how you can have one set of rules for 132 games of the season and a whole other set for the rest of the season during the most important time of the season.
I get we want to see the prospects. Sept is usually my favorite part of the year as I finally get to see the kids I've been tracking since they became part of the organization. I get that, I just don't get the fact the roster is allowed to expand to greater then 25 man.
I'd like MLB to stay consistent. Play the game with an active 25 man roster. If you want to bring up 10 guys on Sept 1st, fine but you only get to have 25 active for any game. This still gives teams the advantage in the pitching dept as they swap out the pitchers used the game before but at least the manager can only use the 25 men he deemed active for that game.
Okay, that is my pet peeve and the one rule I'd like to see modified. What is yours?
0 recs |
192 comments
|
Comments
Mine is a bit more broad
but expand to 32 teams, 16 in each league.
4 divisions, no wild card
Keep interleague play, but rotate it so that every team plays an interleague division (home & road) once every four years.
Each team has this schedule:
22 games against each team in own division (3): 66 total games
6 games against each team in own league, out of division (12): 72 games
6 games against each team in designated interleague division (4): 24 games
This way, every team fighting for a playoff spot plays the exact same schedule.
Way to think it out
and I’m glad you didn’t remove interleague play. We may hate the Yankee’s but I’m giddy about seeing them again at Dodger Stadium next year.
Patience is for those who die waiting for something to happen
I like interleague play too
and truth be told, I wrote this as a term paper in 1994 when I was a senior in high school, so it’s been bumping around in my head for years :)
by Eric Stephen on Dec 16, 2009 9:37 AM PST up reply actions
AL East
With no wild card, I’d really feal for the 2 teams in the Yankees/Red Sox division unless you split them up. And MLB would probably never split them up because that would mean dropping them from 22 games a year to 6 games.
by CarolinaDodger on Dec 16, 2009 9:56 AM PST up reply actions
I don’t like the expansion; too many crappy players clogging up rosters with 30 teams. But the rest makes sense.
by KellyStephen on Dec 16, 2009 2:04 PM PST up reply actions
I might go insane playing the Padres more than we already do, but I like the idea
Especially the inter league against the whole league two times and getting rid of the wild card.
With four teams in the division, maybe a shorter season and then longer playoffs?
To compensate the other teams, I like the idea of another baseball tournament for the division loosers.
From Buster Olney
Heard this: Jamey Carroll will choose between the two-year offers of Oak. and LA, probably today. Cleveland has been informed they are out
Interesting
Ned against Billy. If we get Carrol he might be blasted by the same people who fawn at the feet of Billy Beane. Okay that was to broad but I’ll still use it.
Patience is for those who die waiting for something to happen
I like Carroll (.355 OBP last two years, can play just about anywhere IF/OF in short stints), but I’m not sure about the 2-year deal. He will probably be cheap though.
Still, if you squint hard enough you can see Mark Loretta!
by Eric Stephen on Dec 16, 2009 9:38 AM PST up reply actions
Except
that Loretta when he was signed was still torching LHP. Carrol is kind of lousy against both. Solid OB but that is the extent of his offensive contributions. On the plus side he can play defense from what we have been told. On the negative side he’s 35 and the Dodgers have not had luck recently with the over 35 veterans working out. Course Sweeny and Loretta were much older but then again they were also much better before they declined.
Patience is for those who die waiting for something to happen
Yeah
I like Carroll is a utility guy, though. I just fear he would play too much if/when Blake gets hurt and when DeWitt needs to sit against some LHP
by Eric Stephen on Dec 16, 2009 9:43 AM PST up reply actions
I was under the impression that "LA"
meant the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim. Can someone confirm which LA?
I like Carroll but would be very okay with not getting him for two frickin’ years, as Eric says.
There's no need to fear, Underdog is here! / Broncos/Dodgers fan in Niners/Raiders/Giants country, and damned proud of it.
Ok MLBTR
also thinks he meant the ANgels, for what it’s worth.
ESPN’s Buster Olney expects Jamey Carroll to choose between two-year offers from the A’s and Angels, probably today.
Curious and curiouser. Er, wait, Jamey Carroll, not Lewis. Sorry.
There's no need to fear, Underdog is here! / Broncos/Dodgers fan in Niners/Raiders/Giants country, and damned proud of it.
Olney
is probably unaware of which LA it is. He seemly wrote down what someone told him. Not like he’s actually talking to representatives of either team.
By the way TBLA has learned that Belliard is talking with all So Cal teams because he liked the weather here so much. At least that is what the Taxi drove told us.
Patience is for those who die waiting for something to happen
It is the Dodgers
in his column this morning:
As soon as Counsell signs, veteran infielder Jamey Carroll will probably follow soon thereafter; executives say he is looking for a two-year deal. The Dodgers, Indians and Athletics are among the teams that have expressed interest
Also, Olney grew up a Dodger fan (in Vermont!) so to him LA is the Dodgers :)
by Eric Stephen on Dec 16, 2009 9:49 AM PST up reply actions
…and Buster confirmed via Twitter:
Just to be clear: He’s choosing between A’s and Dodgers…
by Eric Stephen on Dec 16, 2009 10:02 AM PST up reply actions
My guess:
Dodgers for 2/$5M
He’s too much of a Ned Guy for this not to happen.
by silverwidow on Dec 16, 2009 10:06 AM PST up reply actions
It was reported last week that Carroll was down to Dodgers, A’s, and Indians
by Eric Stephen on Dec 16, 2009 9:44 AM PST up reply actions
I stand corrected
I guess it could be either LA team
by Eric Stephen on Dec 16, 2009 9:45 AM PST up reply actions
Have to say
I’m rooting for the A’s.
Patience is for those who die waiting for something to happen
by Phil Gurnee on Dec 16, 2009 10:05 AM PST up reply actions
We just need to remind ourselves this
Carroll is better than Alfredo Amezaga, even though I love saying his name.
by Eric Stephen on Dec 16, 2009 10:08 AM PST up reply actions
Andrew likes him
but it confuses me. He doesn’t like DeWitt at all yet I expect DeWitt would easily outhit Carrol. How much can a 35 year old 2nd baseman have an above average glove? Seems unusual.
Patience is for those who die waiting for something to happen
by Phil Gurnee on Dec 16, 2009 10:10 AM PST up reply actions
at @B
Per Bill James, he is pretty good on ground balls but poor on fly balls. Seems to be average or above to his left or right (or straight at him) for most of the last 4 years.
Maybe Andre’s range will improve :)
by Eric Stephen on Dec 16, 2009 10:19 AM PST up reply actions
I think Andre
would have caught plenty of the flyballs that Hudson ballhawked away from him. You are not going to be running hard toward 2nd base with Hudson flying out at you.
Patience is for those who die waiting for something to happen
by Phil Gurnee on Dec 16, 2009 10:35 AM PST up reply actions
My pet peeve is that there are huge monetary differences between teams. You should not have a team like the Yankees that can spend $200M on payroll and a team like the Royals who cannot come close to that figure. I understand that each owner sits at different points along the spectrum of trying to win vs trying to make a profit, but there needs to be a better balance of talent/payroll between all the teams.
I am not sure what the best solution is. That I leave up to the powers that be. A couple of possible starting points are…
1) More revenue sharing (ie – of local tv networks)
2) Harsher luxury tax
3) Payroll floor (min team payroll)
4) Realignment of divisions based on 3 year weighted payroll. Realignment takes place every year. High payroll teams play in the same division. The top division can be the one(s) with the least number of teams.
vr, Xei
That’s funny — I was just about to post this:
The number one issue I have with the game is that the Yankees and Red Sox are playing a different game from the Royals, Rays, and A’s.
That some of these teams refuse to realize this is surely these teams’ own fault — for example, the Royals can’t blame their 2-year deal for Kendall on Boston signing Lackey. But under a different, fairer system, I think we’d see fewer albatross signings.
Some may question if this is really an issue. And that’s a fair point… we have seen 8 World Series champions in the past 10 years. But that, I think, is due mostly to the expanded playoffs. Under the old system — 2 divisions per league — how many diferent champs would we have seen?
In my opinion, this problem isn’t getting better at the moment. It’s getting worse. Low-budget teams can certainly compete with the big boys, but only if they are perfect.
There must be same combination of salary cap, salary floor, and revenue sharing that would result in a better system than we currently have.
The Ultimate Ned's Kind of Guy
by Humma Kavula on Dec 16, 2009 9:50 AM PST up reply actions
Oh, it would probably also require the owners guaranteeing that X% of revenue would go to the players.
The Ultimate Ned's Kind of Guy
by Humma Kavula on Dec 16, 2009 9:51 AM PST up reply actions
That is the key if any kind of cap was put in place
by Eric Stephen on Dec 16, 2009 9:53 AM PST up reply actions
I could go for number four
Or teams with a payroll of > then the Luxory Tax don’t get any number one picks and may only sign one amateur to an amount > then let us say 2.5 Million but the actual amount would be tied to the luxory tax threshold.
Patience is for those who die waiting for something to happen
by Phil Gurnee on Dec 16, 2009 10:04 AM PST up reply actions
This is probably my number one problem.
Usually in the offseason, I am excited for baseball to come back. Especially since the Dodgers have a good young team that has been successful. But I am not excited anymore because even if the Dodgers do win it all next year, the Red Sox and the Yankees will buy up our young guys in a few years, so I would rather not invest my time into baseball that much at this point in my life. It is really boring to watch teams like the Yankees and Red Sox contend every year off of players developed by other teams. Baseball has lost its luster a bit for me.
by Ian Capilouto on Dec 16, 2009 11:49 AM PST up reply actions
I like expanding that idea
and having an upper and lower league. Have so many spots in the top league and realign every year or so.
Still could have some inter league play like we have now so all cities can see all of the players.
Not sure what to do with World Series. Maybe a wild card in upper league plays lower league champion and then have an 8 team tournament.
Hahahahaha
From Bob Elliott, Toronto Sun:
We’re hearing someone involved in the trade flunked their physical
Apparently Aumont passed his physical.
by Eric Stephen on Dec 16, 2009 10:28 AM PST up reply actions
Maybe Brett Wallach
with Billy Beane trying to pull a fast one.
Patience is for those who die waiting for something to happen
by Phil Gurnee on Dec 16, 2009 10:35 AM PST up reply actions
Brett Wallace, not our pitching prospect.
by silverwidow on Dec 16, 2009 10:44 AM PST up reply actions
My pet peeve...
When manager’s bring in pitchers for just one batter, multiple times per inning. Well I guess that isn’t really what irks me, but the constant stoppage of play that goes with it and the manager visits.
My fix would be to put a short time limit on how long before a relief pitcher had to throw his first pitch which starts from the time the manager steps out of the dugout. This would be short enough so there would not be any commercials. If the manager hurried then maybe the relief pitcher could get a warm up pitch or two on the field, otherwise he’d have to skip that.
Or pitcher
must face more then one batter. It would be better for baseball if every pitcher had to get three outs before being replaced.
Patience is for those who die waiting for something to happen
by Phil Gurnee on Dec 16, 2009 10:01 AM PST up reply actions
Not sure I agree
that it would be better if every pitcher had to get three outs before being replaced.
I might agree that it would be better if every pitcher had to get at least ONE out before being replaced.
Here’s a question: we limit* the number of times that a pitcher can throw home. Four balls, three strikes, or a ball in play, and you’re done.
*OK, I know, foul balls. Technically there’s no limit. But you know what I mean.
Would it also be a good idea to limit the number of throws to first base?
The Ultimate Ned's Kind of Guy
by Humma Kavula on Dec 16, 2009 10:08 AM PST up reply actions
It would certainly change the modern game of baseball
but I suspect if you go back in history you will see fewer and fewer partial innings the further you go back.
Patience is for those who die waiting for something to happen
by Phil Gurnee on Dec 16, 2009 10:11 AM PST up reply actions
Sure
And if you go back far enough, you’ll find fewer and fewer relievers in general, won’t you?
I think starting at minimum outs = 1, seeing how that works, and going from there is a good place to start. At least we’d stop seeing innings with four pitching changes — that is ridiculous. Max pitching changes per half-inning would be two. If it works we can then increase the minimum outs from there.
The Ultimate Ned's Kind of Guy
by Humma Kavula on Dec 16, 2009 10:15 AM PST up reply actions
I think modern day pitchers
use it as a crutch. I’d love to see a pitching coach tell his staff that if they are brought in from the bullpen they are expected to finish the inning. If they can’t do that they don’t belong in the major leagues. I"m feeling hard ass today.
Patience is for those who die waiting for something to happen
by Phil Gurnee on Dec 16, 2009 10:20 AM PST up reply actions
Oh...
I like that as a rule. Any pitcher brought in mid-inning has to finish the inning.
by CarolinaDodger on Dec 16, 2009 10:37 AM PST up reply actions
Wow there could be some looooong games then
on the plus side we would see fewer pitchers who really suck.
Sounds like a delectable mix of flavors.
by silverwidow on Dec 16, 2009 10:04 AM PST up reply actions
Holiday Party today at 12:00
hosted by Stonefire grill. Tri – Tip is calling to me.
Patience is for those who die waiting for something to happen
Diamond passed along a not on Jon Ely
potential future Dodger (in Pierre trade). He has the cliche meter jumping:
“I’ve talked to my agent and nothing is set in stone with this trade,” said Ely, who led the Southern League in wins and strikeouts (125). “I might not be traded. But if I am, I’ve got a lot of opportunities with the Dodgers and I’ll make the best of it – just like I will if I’m not traded. Of course, you’d like to stay with the team you grew up rooting for. I’m a diehard White Sox fan. It could take a couple of weeks before something happens. I’m just going to take it one day at a time.”
I have a feeling he’s on the PTNBL list; it’s just a matter of the Dodgers choosing him.
by silverwidow on Dec 16, 2009 10:08 AM PST up reply actions
Ely actually confirmed in the article that he’s on the list.
by silverwidow on Dec 16, 2009 10:18 AM PST up reply actions
There’s a clip on youtube where he’s throwing 85-87 mph fastballs (?). Hopefully they were changeups because he’d get SMASHED with that velocity in the bigs.
Wouldn’t that be too fast for changeups if his fastball supposedly sits in the 88-91 range (according to those scouting reports) ?
Its like John Sickels said, something along the lines of, “scouts don’t like his stuff, but he keeps getting guys out”
Can you post the link to what you were watching?
Thanks
I just saw the one FB at 87 and another pitch at 71. Who knows what he really tops out at. His delivery didn’t look like “max-effort” to me, but then again I’m no scout. Seems like he has a pretty athletic, solid frame for 6’ 1".
My two suggestions for changes would be...
1) CHEERLEADERS! NBA, NFL, why not MLB?
2) I pretty much agree with everything Xeifrank and Humma described above in regards to bridging the gap in monetary differences.
As newly acquired outfielder Juan Pierre was doing his meet-and-greet with the media, discussing the trade that turned him from an extra in Tinseltown to the White Sox’ leading man, Guillen busted into the teleconference with, ‘’He better say he’s cool with me, or he’s not playing.’’
The timing was perfect. Pierre was in the middle of discussing playing for Guillen when Guillen was third-base coach for the Florida Marlins.
‘’Welcome to the real family,’’ Guillen told Pierre.
Pierre’s response: ‘’Three years, we’ve been trying to make this [trade] happen. I’d like to say I’ve been in the witness-protection program the last three years.’’
http://www.suntimes.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/1941759,CST-SPT-sox16.article
3 years? So 2007 wasn’t a good year for you muthafucker?
Ah come on
don’t start that whole thing again. We played it to death yesterday.
Patience is for those who die waiting for something to happen
by Phil Gurnee on Dec 16, 2009 10:17 AM PST up reply actions
3 years was when he signed his contract with the Dodgers. So he hated played for the team since he became a Dodger?
I'm not taking Pierre literally here
it seems the “witness protection program” line is just his go-to cliche here, since he has used it in two different interviews. I don’t think we need to commandeer the press conference video and give it the Zapruder film treatment. :)
by Eric Stephen on Dec 16, 2009 10:21 AM PST up reply actions
Welcome back
Patience is for those who die waiting for something to happen
by Phil Gurnee on Dec 16, 2009 10:22 AM PST up reply actions
If I’m the clear headed one then we are in trouble.
Patience is for those who die waiting for something to happen
by Phil Gurnee on Dec 16, 2009 10:36 AM PST up reply actions
Back... and to the left. Back... and to the left.
The Ultimate Ned's Kind of Guy
by Humma Kavula on Dec 16, 2009 10:22 AM PST up reply actions
I am a traditionalist
So I would go back to no interleague play, two divisions, a balanced schedule and no DH.
And get off my lawn while you are at it.
If I could just get one of these, it would be to go back to a balanced schedule. I hate this play Colorado 19 times and play the Braves 6 times, yet the Dodgers are competing against both for the Wild Card.
I could live with most of that
but baseball would lose gazillions in revenue and I see no reason why fans in Seattle should never get to see Pujols play baseball.
Patience is for those who die waiting for something to happen
by Phil Gurnee on Dec 16, 2009 10:45 AM PST up reply actions
I would copy the NFL format
Add two expansion teams, realign into 8 divisions, play a balanced interleague schedule (your division also plays the same division in the other league).
by silverwidow on Dec 16, 2009 10:48 AM PST up reply actions
I whole heartedly agree!
I liked the rivalries with the Pirates, Reds, etc., before the unbalanced schedule. It would probably also even out seasonal records if the good teams from each division had to play the good teams from other division more often. It is nice for the Yankees that they can feast on the Blue Jays and Orioles every year when the going gets tough.
by Ian Capilouto on Dec 16, 2009 12:17 PM PST up reply actions
My traditions go back farther
Two leagues, no divisions, no DH, no domes, 154 game schedule, and a return to the 15 inch high mound.
The commenter formerly known as El Lay Dave.
by David Young on Dec 16, 2009 12:41 PM PST up reply actions
That would be my favorite option to
and kick some teams out of the leagues.
Not sure how happy the teams playing in the lower leagues would be about that, but Albuquerque and Honolulu would probably be ecstatic with a set-up like that.
My two suggestions would be...
1) CHEERLEADERS!! NFL, NBA, why not MLB?
2) Basically everything Xei and Humma described above in regards to the monetary differences.
Although I can not stand it, but if they are going to do Interleague I say they just have to figure a way to do it right. Throw out the regional “rivalries” they are not fair. Divisions have to have more similar opponents.
SERIOUSLY!!!
I looked at all of the interleague schedules for the teams in our division for next season, and the Dodgers’ is by far the most difficult, and the second most difficult (can’t remember who) is not even close.
For instance, the Giants get six games against A’s (who I think will be the last place team in AL west), and three against Baltimore and Toronto each, while just playing three against the Red Sox. (AND unless the schedule on their website is wrong, that is only 15 interleague games)
On the other hand, the Dodgers get SIX against the Red Sox, plus three against the Yanks, and then SIX with the Angels and three against the Tigers. (18 interleague games)
I don’t see how that is fair.
As an addendum
The Rockies get three with the Orioles and three with Blue Jays, then three with the Twins, three with Red Sox and three with the Angels. (again that is 15 interleague games and very enviable compared to our schedule)
I might be missing something, but why are we the only team scheduled (as of now at least) for 18 interleague games?
But they still have to play the games.
I still have bad dreams from that trip to KC a couple years ago.
They do still have to play them
but if we finished 2nd to the Giants, and part of that was them sweeping the Orioles and Blue Jays, while we lost 2 of 3 to the Yankees or Angels, then I’d be pissed.
at an absolute minimum,
since we know that there’s no way they’re going to get rid of the LDS- and though I’m a traditionalist, there have been some very entertaining games over the years (thank you, Mr. Holliday), but can we at least have 5 teams per division?! I’m surprised NL Central fans don’t bark about this more.
And yes- I know this will mess with Bud’s precious interleague play promotions (“it’s World Series rematch weekend from teams whose current players weren’t even born yet!” etc.), but you can still do Interleague (if you must)- like delias man says, just fix it so it makes sense!
I also hate the DH.
It gives careers to players who should not be on the field. Guys like Vlad, Matsui, Ortiz, etc., should not be playing if they cannot take the field like everyone else. Kind of like Darwinism. Survival of the fittest is how it should be. It dilutes the pool of what athletes and real ball players worth should be.
I have always disliked the DH, especially when they take all-star spots away from 1Bs
but alas, I don’t think it will ever go away.
Those guys would still play if they could hit
they would just be sitting at first base hoping for the best. Guys who can hit always find a spot on the field.
I just hate it because it takes the strategy of managing a bullpen and pinch hitter, etc out of the game.
by Michael White on Dec 16, 2009 11:58 AM PST up reply actions
I dont' agree with the notion that good hitters will always find a place to play.
If David Ortiz was forced to play every day on the field, I think his numbers would go down drastically. He would be fighting injury constantly, with less chance to recover that riding the warm bench an recieving trainer help in between innings.. I think these types of players are given an unfair advantage.
by Ian Capilouto on Dec 16, 2009 12:02 PM PST up reply actions
He would now
because he’s old, but guys like Frank Thomas and David Ortiz in their prime would play first base.
It’s not like a first baseman does much more running or physical exertion then is done at the plate anyway (running out hits or whatever.) Heck, Adam Dunn manages to play first base.
by Michael White on Dec 16, 2009 12:04 PM PST up reply actions
I base my idea on hearing
reports every year about how managers “can’t use Vladdy in the outfield because his knees and they have to conserve him.”
Even if a first baseman doesn’t move as much as other players, they are still moving %100 percent more than a guy who never takes the field. Standing at first base in the cold will wear your knees out….
Guys like Ortiz and Frank Thomas would have shorter careers playing in the big leagues which to me seems more fair. If Adam Dunn can play first base for 15 years, but hit less than Ortiz, I think it is unfair to Adam Dunn that he would not be seen as the better career in the long run. But, hey it is just my opinion. Some people love the DH, so what I say doesn’t matter.
by Ian Capilouto on Dec 16, 2009 12:12 PM PST up reply actions
Ya I see your point
Needless to say I already hate the DH, so I think I’ll start incorporating your argument into my tirades the next time the subject comes up.
by Michael White on Dec 16, 2009 12:48 PM PST up reply actions
I have one other rant about the DH that I want to get off my chest.....
So you are the unwilling participant. Sorry mwhite. I just hate some things about baseball these days and it turns me off to the game to the point where I am becoming less of a follower.
I think having a DH gives an unfair advantage to AL in the offseason as well. Whereas an NL team has to strategically plan how they sign certain players, the AL teams can take two first baseban who can hit a ton knowing that on eof them can DH. The Dodgers must choose between signing a slugger first baseman who is questionable at best for playing first base, or signing the lesser hitting first baseman who they know will likely be able to play the field the whole year. An AL team can go ahead and sign both guys knowing they have an advantage. I would think it affects the free agency period for an AL team in that they can move more pieces around to fit to their liking. There done.
by Ian Capilouto on Dec 16, 2009 12:55 PM PST up reply actions
I use to think the same way until someone pointed out to me that in most cases it’s the AL team that suffers more playing by NL rules than the NL team suffering by playing with AL rules. It really comes down to a team by team basis. Some NL teams match up well with the DH rule and some do not. Last year, the Dodgers would’ve matched up well as they could’ve switched Manny to DH and improved the defense with Pierre in LF. Philadelphia also had a favorable matchup with Ibanez/Francisco.
vr, Xei
Ha, that was another thing I was thinking about.
If the Dodgers were using a DH, they could have kept a player like Juan Pierre while also keeping Manny Ramirez, and either signing another better outfielder than Pierre, or having someone like Paul or Repko to be a fourth outfielder.
I am not sure what you mean by an AL team suffering more playing by NL rules than the NL team suffering playing by AL rules though?
by Ian Capilouto on Dec 16, 2009 2:02 PM PST up reply actions
Most AL teams have a DH they count on as a key offensive contributor in the middle of the order. Under NL rules they are either losing that #4-5-6 hitter, or playing him in the field at a very significant defensive risk. It’s also likely the only positions they can hide in are LF and 1B, which may be already occupied by another middle of the order hitter. Example: you lose a David Ortiz from your offense, or you lose a Kevin Youkilis.
The commenter formerly known as El Lay Dave.
But the AL teams are only playing 9 games in NL parks
Plus 3-4 in the World Series. It would seem to me that strategizing for the DH over 153 games is more advantageous for AL teams building in the offseason.
by Ian Capilouto on Dec 16, 2009 2:46 PM PST up reply actions
Charlie Frye starting on Sunday for the Raiders
The J Russ era has reached a new low. They just signed Losman too, I’m guessing he’s ahead of J Russ on the depth chart now too.
Maybe Al Davis will get a lump of poison in his stocking for Christmas.
by Eric Stephen on Dec 16, 2009 12:11 PM PST up reply actions
There was a near riot
at Stick N Stein El Segundo Sunday afternoon when Jamarcus came in instead of Frye. There were cries for the return of the Tuiasosopo era. I slumped in my booth and said why am I here? That was an all time low in my life. Sitting there in my Janikowski jersey.
When Jon Gruden was talking on MNF this week,
he gave me brief moment of Raider hope when he was saying how the bay area teams need to be get better for the sake of the NFL, and will rise again one day. I was waiting for him to then say, “Even though it is craziness, I am returing to the sidelines for my first love, the Raiders.” Gosh, I loved him coaching the Raiders.
by Ian Capilouto on Dec 16, 2009 2:52 PM PST up reply actions
My goal in life is to win the lottery
screw Al out of the Raiders (although now I may need to buy the Dodgers too), and bring back Chuckie and Bruce Allen.
oshea's first move after buying the Dodgers
trading James Loney for a pair of B prospects.
by Michael White on Dec 16, 2009 3:15 PM PST up reply actions
Not the worst idea
Then we could sign someone as a one year stopgap, and try to sign Carlos Pena next season to provide some legitimate power at that position with The Bear and DeWitt platooning at 3B, and DeJesus playing 2B. Not sure about LF though… Maybe bring back Werth to play right, move Ethier to Left, sign a SP and we are all set!!
Oh also, we could flip the B prospects we got for Loney for Chris Young at the deadline this year (if he bounces back).
Are we talking about SCY?
Because I’d rather have Loney.
And I’m usually more on the oshea side of the ledger when it comes to Loney.
And even in your strategy, why not just wait to trade Loney until after the year thus negating the need to sign a 1 year stop gap?
by Michael White on Dec 16, 2009 3:46 PM PST up reply actions
Who is SCY?
Only reason I thought not to wait a year to trade Loney is that I think his trade value will be lower next year since there are so many good/decent free agents at 1B. Plus we could probably get better prospects right now from teams thinking there is still untapped power (which there may or may not be)
Sorry
Short Chris Young (outfielder) as opposed to Tall Chris Young (pitcher.)
What’s funny is when i was taking my lunch break today, I was trying to come up with a scenario where the Dodgers traded Aaron Miller and Trayovon Robinson for Adrian Gonzales and TCY.
Hence, our A.Miller would be exactly like the Tigers A.Miller with Trayvon filling the role of Cameron Maybin.
by Michael White on Dec 16, 2009 3:54 PM PST up reply actions
That would be awesome
except we’re talking about Dodgers prospects and according to anyone around baseball, Dodgers prospects are worthless. If Robinson and Aaron Miller were on the Phillies or Red Sox it would be almost a done deal.
Ya. Andrew Miller and Cameron Maybin had some pretty serious value at the time of the trade which I don’t expect Robinson and Miller to ever get frankly.
by Michael White on Dec 16, 2009 4:02 PM PST up reply actions
That would be tremendous. Somehow Marcus Allen could
be involved with the team again too I would hope. I am looking forward to Ice Cube’s documentary on the Raiders in LA.
by Ian Capilouto on Dec 16, 2009 3:21 PM PST up reply actions
Interesting interview on WFAN right now
Jose Reyes is in studio with Francesa. For some reason, he’s blaming the Dodger’s medical staff for part of his problems last year. He’s saying that they told him he could play when he was injured, and that they convinced him to try and play at Dodger stadium, which in turn led to him re-injuring himself and missing the season.
That’s what I was thinking, other than the fact that maybe they were on the road and only had a trainer with them?
Both staffs have been fueding about Jose Reyes for awhile now.
by Julio Nievas on Dec 16, 2009 12:47 PM PST up reply actions
IIRC, the story was that the Mets were here to play the Dodgers, Reyes was hurt and looked at by Dodger doctors during that series.
The commenter formerly known as El Lay Dave.
by David Young on Dec 16, 2009 12:48 PM PST up reply actions
It’s likely the Dodgers had a more complete staff at home, or at least had MRI or x-Ray equipment. They were probably the “first responders” awaiting word from the Mets docs if they weren’t there with the team.
by Eric Stephen on Dec 16, 2009 12:48 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
He brays? ;)
The commenter formerly known as El Lay Dave.
by David Young on Dec 16, 2009 12:57 PM PST up reply actions
With his big ass teeth.
I usually don’t make fun of personal attributes, but screw you Jose Reyes. The Dodger doctors didn’t force you to play. As physicians they probably told him what they saw in their tests and said, it’s your call. Medical guys aren’t going to give bogus advice to players in order to give their team an advantage. I doubt the Dodgers doctors are unethical in that regard.
by Ian Capilouto on Dec 16, 2009 1:01 PM PST up reply actions
Guess the Doyers aren't interested in Escobar... then again, I guess he's trying to be a reliever so no need for him.
Zavarce tweets that the Rays, Cubs, Brewers, Giants, Pirates, Tigers, Mariners, and A’s are on hand to watch Escobar throw. Several of those clubs are new additions to the list of suitors.
Re: Expanding Rosters
The expanded rosters never bothered me (mostly because it gave me a chance to see guys like Hu and McDonald who I had been reading about all year) but I do see your point. As you say, it does kind of mess with the integrity of the game for most of the season.
One thing I thought of if I were managing a team during the time rosters had expanded, when you are on the road, why not use your last bench player and list them as the starting pitcher. In all likelihood, you have plenty of guys on your squad at this point, so say Hu is the last man on the bench (basically he’s there for show, he is not playing) call him the starting pitcher. In the unlikely case that the team bats around in the first, then Hu gets to hit instead of the pitcher, if not then Hu is removed and the actual pitcher takes the mound.
There’s another way of gaming the rules for ya….
Wow,
I have never thought of that in my life! There has got to be some kind of rule against that somewhere, right?
by Ian Capilouto on Dec 16, 2009 2:05 PM PST up reply actions
To quote Johnnie Carson, that’s absolutely f’ing brilliant.
I just hope LaRussa doesn’t figure this out because in his world he’d actually have Hu take the mound and go through his warm-up tosses before going out to pull him.
by KellyStephen on Dec 16, 2009 2:11 PM PST up reply actions
Rule 3.05 says no:
(a) The pitcher named in the batting order handed the umpire-inchief, as provided in Rules 4.01 (a) and 4.01 (b), shall pitch to the first batter or any substitute batter until such batter is put out or reaches first base, unless the pitcher sustains injury or illness which, in the judgment of the umpire-in-chief, incapacitates him from pitching
by Eric Stephen on Dec 16, 2009 2:43 PM PST up reply actions
So he has to pitch to at least one batter?
by Ian Capilouto on Dec 16, 2009 2:49 PM PST up reply actions
Unless he is hurt, which I suppose the batter could fake as he is either (a) running out a ground out, or (b) trotting around the bases after a HR.
Although I doubt umpires would allow such a thing anyway, nipping it in the bud as lineup cards are exchanged.
by Eric Stephen on Dec 16, 2009 2:51 PM PST up reply actions
Faking the injury
You’d actually have to come up with a different way to fake the injury, because most likely the pitcher-batter would never reach the plate to begin with. This whole scheme of listing a fake pitcher is in the roughly 10% chance that the visiting team bats around in the top of the first. So most likely, Hu would have to fake the injury when walking from the dugout to the mound. And then do the exact same thing for the next two games in the series.
by Michael White on Dec 16, 2009 3:06 PM PST up reply actions
10% chance?
Is it even that high?
The Ultimate Ned's Kind of Guy
by Humma Kavula on Dec 16, 2009 3:13 PM PST up reply actions
Probably not
I just picked a number.
Figuring out the exact number sounds like a tast for xeifrank….
by Michael White on Dec 16, 2009 3:14 PM PST up reply actions
Easy: Hu keeps a strong emetic handy, a capsule in his mouth if need be. When the third out is made (or after he bats), he downs the dose and by the time he tries to take the mound, he begins ralphing right there on the field Cade McNown style, triggering the illness clause in Rule 3.05.
The commenter formerly known as El Lay Dave.
My pet peeve is all around timing. Specifically, four things:
1. The season is too long. Not in # of games but in the length of time. Gotta include some double headers in there to quit having teams play in crappy weather for the first and last 2 weeks of the season and the playoffs.
2. Cut down the time it takes for the playoffs. This year was a joke.
3. Play some mother f’ing day playoff games, especially in the World Series. Give today’s youth (and all of us at work) a reason to go watch baseball!
4. Cut down the time between innings. Especially on nationally televised games, this is getting ridiculous.
Of course, these will never happen because they’re all the result of TV running MLB.
Selig also said he doesn’t eat the souls of orphan children.
by Eric Stephen on Dec 16, 2009 2:45 PM PST up reply actions
He doesn't.
Their souls belong only to their maker.
However, their earthly bodies are fair game.
The Ultimate Ned's Kind of Guy
by Humma Kavula on Dec 16, 2009 2:47 PM PST up reply actions
He is A solvent.
If you get close to him, you will dissolve.
The Ultimate Ned's Kind of Guy
by Humma Kavula on Dec 16, 2009 3:02 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Remember folks, Selig made his money as a used car salesman! To paraphrase…do you know how to tell if Selig is lying? His lips are moving!
by KellyStephen on Dec 16, 2009 2:59 PM PST up reply actions
What a perfect pairing: a used-car salesman and a parking-lot guy. A little surprised Frank hired Colletti instead of bringing back Kevin Malone.
The commenter formerly known as El Lay Dave.
Apparently any of us who aspire to be anywhere in MLB are in the wrong business
unless you work in something that involves customer service and cars.
Damn! Guess I should have taken that post-college Enterprise rental car management training position afterall!
And Fox and TBS probably got a big chuckle out of that.
Selig: “You know, guys, we really need to shorten the time of the playoffs, and I’d for darn sure like to see a day World Series game.”
Fox Exec: “Um…yeah, we’ll look into that. Hey, two things for you: next time make sure you tell the guy downstairs easy mayo on my sandwich, and be sure you put two coats of wax on my car, not just one. Now get the fuck out of my office.”
by KellyStephen on Dec 16, 2009 3:02 PM PST up reply actions
I would also tell Selig that same thing if he ever strolled into my office. If he was ever waiting for a rental car at Enterprise LAX, and needed to use the phone, and did not have a cell phone…. then he would. About the only way I see that happening. And that does happen.
the “get the fuck out of my office” part?
by KellyStephen on Dec 16, 2009 3:18 PM PST up reply actions
I really disagree about the day playoff games because they've invented this thing called TV
Even if there were not TV, we were all almost rioting if our game we bought tickets for came up a day game.
Orioles seek closer
(According to links collected on MLBTR)
Wonder if they’d be interested in one George Sherrill, for a prospect, say, Josh Bell? :-/
There's no need to fear, Underdog is here! / Broncos/Dodgers fan in Niners/Raiders/Giants country, and damned proud of it.
I have a feeling how the Chris Henry story is playing out on Twitter reveals the good and bad side of information.
what is happening??
whats the story??
last time espnnews came out with a title of ______ is seriously injured in a car accident.. it was tiger woods.. lol now its chris henrys turn
Henry was in a very serious car accident. A Twitter account (believed to be fake) by Gerry Fraley of Detroit Morning News reported that Henry was dead, when other reports conflicted that. Sports by Brooks ran with the death story, no one is confirming.
by Eric Stephen on Dec 16, 2009 3:57 PM PST up reply actions
o shit
i didnt know he was dead or anything..
Carroll is a Dodger
pending physical. Per Buster Olney:
Jamey Carroll is accepting a two-year deal with the Dodgers, pending a physical
As long as we're all chiming in....
1. Stolen bases are stolen bases. Defensive indifference is not the runner’s fault.
2. Teams play basicially every 6 days a week for 6 months. The teams that win the divisions by and large have better depth than wild card winners….Why negate depth by taking ANY off days in the first round? They used to complain that the division winner wasn’t benefited enough in the first round. Make them play every day, 4 of 7 format, and a team can’t just ride two pitchers through that round. This benefits the team with more pitching depth, which will usually be the one that one its division.
3. Inning breaks should NOT be longer in the postseason. This is one cause of playoff games that take forever, and the easiest one to fix.
4. West coast teams, or any teams, should not play playoff games at lousy start times. Very few regular season games start at 3 or 4 pm local time for a reason. It is not a good time for sun or LOCAL media coverage. Hey, they won. Their home games shouldn’t be messed up so someone across the country can more conveniently watch.
Oh yeah...
the DH and interleague play suck.
Completely agree RE: defensive indifference. Do away with it.
by Eric Stephen on Dec 16, 2009 5:06 PM PST up reply actions






















