Jump to content

Major League Baseball Thread - 2018 Season


DirtyDeeds

Recommended Posts

At this rate, Maddon is going home early. He is livid at the home plate ump for his horrendously inconsistent inside corner and that bottomless zone. Not favoring either team yet, but hard for either offense to get going with this nonsense.

Oh yeah. Kyle Fucking Schwarber in the hizzle for shizzle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's alright... You Mets and Royals fans enjoy yourselves this year; Cubs and Jays fans will have our moment next year :D

As soon as I saw Hawkings coming into tonight's Jays/Royals game I knew I could turn it off. Without Cecil the Jays just don't have the arms in the pen to compete in games where their starter stalls out.

Hopefully the Jays can win tomorrow and set themselves up for games six and seven. You'd hope that Price could finally piece together a win should he throw for game six and Stroman could out throw Cueto based on what we saw in game three. Stranger things have happened with these teams (i.e. 1985).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LaTroy Hawkins was over the hill 10 years ago when he was the Cubs closer (I remember a series of blown saves - to the Mets, actually! - sparking a massive collapse, I think in '04 or '05). So mostly, I'm just amazed that he's still playing.

Tonight was a quintessential Cubs playoff collapse. Stay tight, then shit the bed on command. That lost 3rd strike was bad, but it felt like they got it together when the Soler ball went into the ivy, and maybe we'd have a shot. That Schwarber ball was this year's Alex Gonzalez kicking the double play ball into centerfield in 2003. It was the signal of the end. The Cubs are a team that has thrived on playing loose, fun baseball, and once that happened, the joy was gone on every face in the dugout. They just. Look. Beat. We may win tomorrow, we might even stretch this back to NYC. But we aren't winning this series.

We overachieved this year. Starlin Castro, age 25, is the longest-tenured member of the team with 7 or 8 years in a Cub uniform. We have 4 kids under 26 on our infield at any moment, and we have nothing but upside from here. Before the season, I wouldn't have believed you if you told me I would be writing a post now about te Cubs being in the NLCS. I'm thrilled to have seen it happen. Still fucking stings though.

And I will say this: the balls and strikes this series have literally been the worst officiating I have ever seen. Ever. I don't think its hurt us more than the Mets (except in that our offense has been so anemic that every strike matters while the Mets could give a shit and hit everything), but the strike zones have been erratic at best, nonsense at worst. MLB needs that fixed now. I don't know how, but they HAVE to tighten that shit up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah it was pretty bad last night for both teams, the strike zone extending to the dirt and to two feet outside at times. Both sides attempted to reframe that and use it to their advantage. deGrom managed to, and the Cubs and Cahill managed to make it worse by trying. I predicted after that first low pitch to Conforto, when Cahil was trying to get him to chase or at least try to get the low ball called a strike, that it would come up and bite them in the ass, that the precise situation that happened would happen. With Granderson on third it was not a good idea. Mets scored two more runs than that, though, so at least you can't pin it on that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also something that I was so glad to see finally was that Wright, Cespedes, and even to some degree Duda brought their bats with them this time. That bodes really well going forward. Up through game 2 of NLCS, those guys had been much more liability than asset overall and the Mets still managed to cruise through. If that turns around, like it looks like it might have last night, then watch out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah it was pretty bad last night for both teams, the strike zone extending to the dirt and to two feet outside at times. Both sides attempted to reframe that and use it to their advantage. deGrom managed to, and the Cubs and Cahill managed to make it worse by trying. I predicted after that first low pitch to Conforto, when Cahil was trying to get him to chase or at least try to get the low ball called a strike, that it would come up and bite them in the ass, that the precise situation that happened would happen. With Granderson on third it was not a good idea. Mets scored two more runs than that, though, so at least you can't pin it on that.

Umpiring can be all over the place depending on the person and the day but I guess I am old fashioned and would hate to see balls and strikes determined by computers. I am o.k. with instant replay challenges as there does not seem to be too many of those but think they should leave balls and strikes to real people. IMHO the human factor is part of the game. :shrugs:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah it was pretty bad last night for both teams, the strike zone extending to the dirt and to two feet outside at times. Both sides attempted to reframe that and use it to their advantage. deGrom managed to, and the Cubs and Cahill managed to make it worse by trying. I predicted after that first low pitch to Conforto, when Cahil was trying to get him to chase or at least try to get the low ball called a strike, that it would come up and bite them in the ass, that the precise situation that happened would happen. With Granderson on third it was not a good idea. Mets scored two more runs than that, though, so at least you can't pin it on that.

Umpiring can be all over the place depending on the person and the day but I guess I am old fashioned and would hate to see balls and strikes determined by computers. I am o.k. with instant replay challenges as there does not seem to be too many of those but think they should leave balls and strikes to real people. IMHO the human factor is part of the game. :shrugs:

I agree. I like baseball because it's baseball and isn't football, if you know what I mean by that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Disagree about human beings calling the strike zone. Why, because it's tradition? Nonsense. Get the calls right, don't cheat the players, and don't cheat the fans because some old fuck who likely should have retired a decade ago or has a chip on his shoulder (or was never really that good to begin with) can't manage a proper strike zone. We've got the technology to get the call right every time. Why allow for the opportunity to let a bad call effect the chances of the game? It makes no sense to me. You could still have an umpire behind the plate announcing balls and strikes and for close calls at the plate, but he could easily wear some sort of shield inside his mask that would indicate whether the ball was a ball or a strike.

The only reason I can think of why you would still want a human being calling balls and strikes at this point is because you enjoy the drama of watching players get cheated on a bad call. For me, that doesn't make any sense, but to each their own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Disagree about human beings calling the strike zone. Why, because it's tradition? Nonsense. Get the calls right, don't cheat the players, and don't cheat the fans because some old fuck who likely should have retired a decade ago or has a chip on his shoulder (or was never really that good to begin with) can't manage a proper strike zone. We've got the technology to get the call right every time. Why allow for the opportunity to let a bad call effect the chances of the game? It makes no sense to me. You could still have an umpire behind the plate announcing balls and strikes and for close calls at the plate, but he could easily wear some sort of shield inside his mask that would indicate whether the ball was a ball or a strike.

The only reason I can think of why you would still want a human being calling balls and strikes at this point is because you enjoy the drama of watching players get cheated on a bad call. For me, that doesn't make any sense, but to each their own.

Don't take it so personal Downzy as there is no right or wrong here just personal preference. DD and I prefer real umpires while you would like to see this done using technology. Too each his own............. :shrugs:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Disagree about human beings calling the strike zone. Why, because it's tradition? Nonsense. Get the calls right, don't cheat the players, and don't cheat the fans because some old fuck who likely should have retired a decade ago or has a chip on his shoulder (or was never really that good to begin with) can't manage a proper strike zone. We've got the technology to get the call right every time. Why allow for the opportunity to let a bad call effect the chances of the game? It makes no sense to me. You could still have an umpire behind the plate announcing balls and strikes and for close calls at the plate, but he could easily wear some sort of shield inside his mask that would indicate whether the ball was a ball or a strike.

The only reason I can think of why you would still want a human being calling balls and strikes at this point is because you enjoy the drama of watching players get cheated on a bad call. For me, that doesn't make any sense, but to each their own.

Don't take it so personal Downzy as there is no right or wrong here just personal preference. DD and I prefer real umpires while you would like to see this done using technology. Too each his own............. :shrugs:

Sorry, I know sometimes I come off as adversarial in my posts; wasn't my intended tone.

Fair to disagree on the matter as I know I'm in the minority on the subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Disagree about human beings calling the strike zone. Why, because it's tradition? Nonsense. Get the calls right, don't cheat the players, and don't cheat the fans because some old fuck who likely should have retired a decade ago or has a chip on his shoulder (or was never really that good to begin with) can't manage a proper strike zone. We've got the technology to get the call right every time. Why allow for the opportunity to let a bad call effect the chances of the game? It makes no sense to me. You could still have an umpire behind the plate announcing balls and strikes and for close calls at the plate, but he could easily wear some sort of shield inside his mask that would indicate whether the ball was a ball or a strike.

The only reason I can think of why you would still want a human being calling balls and strikes at this point is because you enjoy the drama of watching players get cheated on a bad call. For me, that doesn't make any sense, but to each their own.

Don't take it so personal Downzy as there is no right or wrong here just personal preference. DD and I prefer real umpires while you would like to see this done using technology. Too each his own............. :shrugs:

Sorry, I know sometimes I come off as adversarial in my posts; wasn't my intended tone.

Fair to disagree on the matter as I know I'm in the minority on the subject.

No worries as I understand your point of view. Strike zone consistency has always been an issue with baseball. I wonder how the players would feel about it being determined by a computer? I think if they really enforced the actual strike zone that it would benefit the pitchers as they rarely call the high strike these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No worries as I understand your point of view. Strike zone consistency has always been an issue with baseball. I wonder how the players would feel about it being determined by a computer? I think if they really enforced the actual strike zone that it would benefit the pitchers as they rarely call the high strike these days.

I don't mind a smaller strike zone. I think pitchers today dominant the game far more than they should (save for last night's KC-Jays game :P).

I'd like to see the zone go from the knees to a few inches below the bottom of a player's chest. Got some more offence going.

The computer could analyze a player's height as he approaches the plate and determine his own personal strike zone so a 6'6 player isn't playing with the same strike zone as a 5'6 player. It could all be done in real time.

I would think people would be far more accepting of a computer calling balls and strikes than instant replay. At least with computer tracked pitching there's no delay; no standing around delaying the game.

I also feel the same with respect to tennis. They use the computer for close calls anyway, why not let the machine call the whole game and get rid of linesman?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just read a book about Clint Hurdle and the rebuilding of the Pirates. Fascinating read.

You know what stopped years and years of terrible teams? Analytical data.

Pirates were the first real team to start using the deep data. The As get credit for money ball and on base percentage. But it's the Pirates that really have used the information to build a playoff team.

Their first move was using the shift. Data from every at bat over the last 50 years showed that certain types of batters hit to certain spots at a high rate. So while other teams used the shift 30-150 times a season, the Pirates started using it 500 times.

Why did they give Russell Martin a huge contract after he had his worst season in baseball? And after his batting stats had plummeted several years in a row? Because he was one of the best at framing pitches. Which saves a team tons of runs over a season.

Defensive positions. In line with the infield shift, the pirates used past data to move players around for every batter. Outfielders would move over 30 feet, short stop would play five feet away from second. Lots of teams move players - but the Pirates took it to the extreme. Ignoring traditional spots.

AND THE most fascinating one to me. Statistical analysis shows that on balls hit in play the quality of the pitcher doesn't really matter. Meaning that on balls put in play it doesn't matter if the pitcher is Clayton Kershaw or Ricky Bones. Over a hundred year period the batting average on balls put in play has stayed the same. It literally didn't change. Once a ball is hit in play, defensive positioning is more important than who the pitcher is. (Yes, stud pitchers produce softer hits or lazier hits than scrubs. But over a complete season with every team using 15-20 pitchers over 162 games.....batting average on balls hit in play has stayed the same for 100 years). That number has went down - for the first time in history - over the past couple of years. When teams started using the shift and using data to shift individual defensive players.

So the Pirates started going after high strike out pitchers.

Soooo how did this all work?

Stats can now show you how many runs a defensive player saved or cost his team.

Simply by playing the shift and mini shifts on every play the Pirates went from a 70 win team to a 90 win team in spite of having one of the lowest payrolls in baseball.

An example. Their third baseman cost the team 20 runs the season before. By adjusting his placement the next year, that same player saves the team 10 runs. On average 10 runs equals one win.

So changing defensive positioning have the Pirates three additional wins.

Same thing with Martin and his all star level of framing pitchers. The year before their catcher was at the league bottom for framing. Martin was one off the best. Five extra wins.

The year the pirates added Martin their free agent budget was 15 million dollars. Total.

So they improved by following the statistical data for defense. How do you add 20 wins to a team without adding free agents? You get a 2-3 more wins from all eight spots on your defense. You add pitchers that strike out more batters.

That's how you go from 70 to 90 wins without adding all star players and with one of the lowest payrolls in the league.

The problem might be similar to Oakland though in that playing the numbers isn't as effective in a one or five game series. It's only effective over the long term. To win a short series you need some studs to get big hits or a pitcher to be lights out.

Some people are old school and don't believe in all the statistical data. The Pirates are a perfect example of why the numbers absolutely matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No worries as I understand your point of view. Strike zone consistency has always been an issue with baseball. I wonder how the players would feel about it being determined by a computer? I think if they really enforced the actual strike zone that it would benefit the pitchers as they rarely call the high strike these days.

I don't mind a smaller strike zone. I think pitchers today dominant the game far more than they should (save for last night's KC-Jays game :P).

I'd like to see the zone go from the knees to a few inches below the bottom of a player's chest. Got some more offence going.

The computer could analyze a player's height as he approaches the plate and determine his own personal strike zone so a 6'6 player isn't playing with the same strike zone as a 5'6 player. It could all be done in real time.

I would think people would be far more accepting of a computer calling balls and strikes than instant replay. At least with computer tracked pitching there's no delay; no standing around delaying the game.

I also feel the same with respect to tennis. They use the computer for close calls anyway, why not let the machine call the whole game and get rid of linesman?

A larger strike zone would mean even less offense. If you want more runs to be scored, then you would want a smaller strike zone. The bigger the zone the better it is for pitchers and worse it is for batters.

But the strike zone isn't the reason that offensives have been producing less runs.

Read my post above.

Teams are playing smarter defensively.

Teams are training catchers to be better framers.

Teams are trying to get more pitchers who can strike people out. Snydegaard is acts tatted who can hit 100mph. Every team has 2-3 bullpen guys who can hit 99-100 mph. 100 mph use to be a huge deal - now every team has a couple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No worries as I understand your point of view. Strike zone consistency has always been an issue with baseball. I wonder how the players would feel about it being determined by a computer? I think if they really enforced the actual strike zone that it would benefit the pitchers as they rarely call the high strike these days.

I don't mind a smaller strike zone. I think pitchers today dominant the game far more than they should (save for last night's KC-Jays game :P).

I'd like to see the zone go from the knees to a few inches below the bottom of a player's chest. Got some more offence going.

The computer could analyze a player's height as he approaches the plate and determine his own personal strike zone so a 6'6 player isn't playing with the same strike zone as a 5'6 player. It could all be done in real time.

I would think people would be far more accepting of a computer calling balls and strikes than instant replay. At least with computer tracked pitching there's no delay; no standing around delaying the game.

I also feel the same with respect to tennis. They use the computer for close calls anyway, why not let the machine call the whole game and get rid of linesman?

A larger strike zone would mean even less offense. If you want more runs to be scored, then you would want a smaller strike zone. The bigger the zone the better it is for pitchers and worse it is for batters.

But the strike zone isn't the reason that offensives have been producing less runs.

Read my post above.

Teams are playing smarter defensively.

Teams are training catchers to be better framers.

Teams are trying to get more pitchers who can strike people out. Snydegaard is acts tatted who can hit 100mph. Every team has 2-3 bullpen guys who can hit 99-100 mph. 100 mph use to be a huge deal - now every team has a couple.

Yeah, I don't disagree with your conclusions. Hence why I wrote that I'd like to see a smaller strike zone. Eliminate the high strike or perhaps raise it a bit. While I don't want to see games turn into football scores, a 1-0 game is boring as fuck so long as it's not a playoff game. It's not much fun seeing similar scores you see in soccer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the one hand, I want more accurate balls and strikes. On the other, I kind of like the fact that, over time, great pitchers earn a bit more leeway around the corners. I like that, when he was in his prime, Greg Maddux earned some calls that younger pitchers wouldn't get. That's a piece of the game that I like and want to keep there. I don't want to keep tech out of balls and strikes altogether, necessarily, but I do want some of that respect for the pitcher to stay.

Frankly, I could give a shit about offense. I'm a former pitcher, so I'm cool with pitchers' duels. But I know that doesn't put butts in seats like the longball (for more, see steroids), so I can understand the desire to juice that up a bit (pun totally intended).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Disagree about human beings calling the strike zone. Why, because it's tradition? Nonsense. Get the calls right, don't cheat the players, and don't cheat the fans because some old fuck who likely should have retired a decade ago or has a chip on his shoulder (or was never really that good to begin with) can't manage a proper strike zone. We've got the technology to get the call right every time. Why allow for the opportunity to let a bad call effect the chances of the game? It makes no sense to me. You could still have an umpire behind the plate announcing balls and strikes and for close calls at the plate, but he could easily wear some sort of shield inside his mask that would indicate whether the ball was a ball or a strike.

The only reason I can think of why you would still want a human being calling balls and strikes at this point is because you enjoy the drama of watching players get cheated on a bad call. For me, that doesn't make any sense, but to each their own.

You know, the best thing I can say to defend my opinion is that baseball isn't criminal justice. In the courtroom, give the judge and jury every technological tool available to help determine the guilt or innocence of a defendant. But officiating a baseball game? It's entertainment. It only means something exactly because it really doesn't mean anything.

Baseball is entertaining because it's an outlet for my emotions and mirrors life in some ways. Look, I hate the Yankees, sort of. It's more like I love to hate the Yankees. I feel very strongly about them. If the Yankees were suddenly to disappear from baseball, I'd be devastated as a fan. I'd be right there in the Bronx alongside Yankee fans protesting. I love to hate them because they represent to me the SOBs that just keep having things goes right for them, consistently, even though they don't deserve it. They are the douchebag who keeps getting really hot girlfriends. The guy in the workplace who keeps getting promotions even though he has no work ethic. They're that guy. Many of the other teams represent a sort of theme, too, the Cubs certainly among them, which is why earlier in the thread I said it was good for baseball to keep having a lovable, perennial loser, and the best team to ever play that role is the Cubs. Now, there is no other fanbase in baseball that deserves a championship more than the Wrigley faithful, but the Cubs fulfill a part of the baseball story.

Umpires add to emotional entertainment. Typically, they are very good. Much better than we ever give them credit for. Think about it, they are known strictly for their mistakes; otherwise they are invisible. But I love that sometimes they do make mistakes. I'll even use the example from last week with Chase Utley and Ruben Tejada. That play could have been the pivotal point in the whole series. Without that play, the Mets likely sweep. Had game 5 gone a little differently, that play would have meant the Mets lose in 5. As it was, it created a situation where the Mets pitching rotation wasn't where they would have liked it to be going up against Chicago. Luckily for the Mets, they managed to win anyway. I was furious about that play, LIVID. I lost sleep over it for two days; I'm not even exaggerating. I was so mad at the umpires and at MLB. I wouldn't change what happened. I was mad, but I love being mad in baseball. I love being joyous. I love being frustrated. I love it all because I fucking love this game. All the most popular complaints I hear against baseball are some of the precise reasons why I love it so much. I love that it's slow. It's a suspense movie. I love that the season is long. It's a marathon. And I love that the umpires are sometimes wrong. It adds to the story for me. Baseball has a warmth to it that other sports don't have, don't even come close to. It's like listening to a vinyl record. And pitchers adjusting to where the strikes are actually being called, arguing with the umpire, ejections, fans shouting their disapproval, is all part of the music to my ears. I ultimately feel that way whether it helps or hurts my team. It adds to the story. Because all it is is story, all it is is entertainment. It's a pastime. And it's our pastime.

Edited by DirtyDeeds
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anybody on here umpired baseball? I have, not professionally of course, but I did it as a teenager. So I was umpiring kids, and would ump games for 'kids' who were 2 years younger than me. IE: My age was 17, and the players were 15.

It's not as easy as it looks. And the fans(parents) can be real assholes when a call doesn't go their way.

Oh well, just wanted to chime in on the umpire thing. Because I've come across a lot of people over the years who rip on the umpire any chance they get, but have never done it themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's the problem I have with bad calls; usually they have to be overturned by luck. I don't mind if luck plays a role where the ump's err affects the game, but a team slighted by a bad call shouldn't rely on luck for reprieve.

I use to think sports didn't matter, that it was just a game, that it had or should not have any bearing on one's personal life. But as sad as this may sound, the reality is, for many people, sports is the only really great thing in their lives. If it matters, they should do everything to get it right. If you're going to allow for instant reply then there's no basis for not allowing computer called balls and strikes. Otherwise, if it's a matter of letting the human element influence how a sport gets umpired or refereed, then get rid of instant reply or any other form of computer assistance used in the game (scoreboards?).

The focus and the winner of the game should be based on the skill, athleticism and luck put forward on the playing surface. It should never be determined by a non-participant. I go back to Armando Galarrag's no-hitter that was ruined by Joyce's bad call. The excuse I heard over and over again with that situation was that Joyce is human, he's going to make mistakes. Exactly. Why let a terrible mistake take away one of the hardest achievements in all of sports. We have the technology to reward greatness; to allow for such greatness to be stolen because we're beholden to tradition or some romantic notion of sportsmanship is wrong in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...