2015 Baseball season/Off Season Discussion

[pilferk]

Bucholz just walked off the mound, hurt. And...his velocity this inning has been nil (80 to 85 on the fast ball). I'm guessing ths does not bode well.....

Edit:They are saying its his elbow......

[pilferk]

The MLB All Star game is the only one of the 4 major sports that I actually watch. It may have its faults, but it's better than it's competitors as far as I'm concerned.

I disagree... at least the other games understand that they are an exhibition only. The MLB all star game tries to be more... and it ruins it.

Plus the charm of the all star game went away with interleague play... it was cool to see Griffey when he was on Seattle go against Maddux and Glavine etc... but now these guys play each other all the time.

I agree that interleague play has made the All Star game less interesting, but I still far prefer it to the others. Was never into the Pro Bowl, obviously. And like pilferk, I haven't really cared about the NHL since the Whalers left Hartford. I used to love the NBA All Star game, but I've hardly watched it since the last time the Celtics were good, so it's been awhile. I don't think I've ever missed a MLB All Star game. Obviously I don't get as excited as I did when I was a young boy, but it's still worth watching to me. And I don't get all worked up over the home field advantage aspect. Unfortunately the year the game ended in a tie was an embarrassment and they felt the need to add an incentive for winning.

See, The tie didnt offend me nearly as much as it did some....just like they dont offend me in spring training.

It was an exhibition game....nobody "needs" to win, imho. Thats not the point of that particular game....there are 162 others that actually matter.

[faldor]

Bucholz just walked off the mound, hurt. And...his velocity this inning has been nil (80 to 85 on the fast ball). I'm guessing ths does not bode well.....

Edit:They are saying its his elbow......

Typical of his career. He gets on a roll and he gets injured. Easy to say now, but they should've traded him while his stock was high. Now they have to wait for him to regain his form, and he's proven to be a real slow healer. Some guys just aren't meant for the long haul, and he fits that bill.

[faldor]

The MLB All Star game is the only one of the 4 major sports that I actually watch. It may have its faults, but it's better than it's competitors as far as I'm concerned.

I disagree... at least the other games understand that they are an exhibition only. The MLB all star game tries to be more... and it ruins it.

Plus the charm of the all star game went away with interleague play... it was cool to see Griffey when he was on Seattle go against Maddux and Glavine etc... but now these guys play each other all the time.

I agree that interleague play has made the All Star game less interesting, but I still far prefer it to the others. Was never into the Pro Bowl, obviously. And like pilferk, I haven't really cared about the NHL since the Whalers left Hartford. I used to love the NBA All Star game, but I've hardly watched it since the last time the Celtics were good, so it's been awhile. I don't think I've ever missed a MLB All Star game. Obviously I don't get as excited as I did when I was a young boy, but it's still worth watching to me. And I don't get all worked up over the home field advantage aspect. Unfortunately the year the game ended in a tie was an embarrassment and they felt the need to add an incentive for winning.

See, The tie didnt offend me nearly as much as it did some....just like they dont offend me in spring training.

It was an exhibition game....nobody "needs" to win, imho. Thats not the point of that particular game....there are 162 others that actually matter.

I think the game actually meant more before interleague play came into play. There was more pride in ones league. But I don't think the current format is damaging, so I don't see the harm. I can't remember a team losing the World Series because they didn't have home advantage.

[JAEBALL]

Home field should just simply be determined by best record ... Not the result of an exhibition game.

Is it the end all be all in determining the winner of the series ? No .. But why even go there ?

[faldor]

Home field should just simply be determined by best record ... Not the result of an exhibition game.

Is it the end all be all in determining the winner of the series ? No .. But why even go there ?

I agree, but I guess they don't like to wait until the end of the season to determine home field so they can make the proper arrangements ahead of time. I'm not exactly sure why that is so important to them, but they used to alternate years, which also didn't make any sense. So the way they do it now makes just as much, or little sense as that.

[Falcon]

Home field should just simply be determined by best record ... Not the result of an exhibition game.

Is it the end all be all in determining the winner of the series ? No .. But why even go there ?

Agreed (again) JAEBALL, why the hell even go there?

Unfortunately baseball can be too (over)reactive to a presumed problem in the game and then totally too slow to recognize their solution to said (or perceived) problems might not be a good solution long term.

Lowering the mound to boost offense in '69 because of a magical year for pitchers in '68 - goofy.

The DH was an overreaction to poor attendance in the AL, 40 odd years later they still haven't realized it's fucking stupid.

Interleague play was a overreaction to waning attendance in 95-96 after the cancellation of the '94 World Series and we still have novelty ball almost 20 years in.

The second wild card was added to stage drama after the lightning in a bottle finish on the last day of the 2011 regular season, now we live in a post season no different than tournament baseball with too many days off between games/series.  Nothing like playing 162 then devaluing it in a one off play-in game.

  over..for now at least.

[tim_m]

Home field should just simply be determined by best record ... Not the result of an exhibition game.

Is it the end all be all in determining the winner of the series ? No .. But why even go there ?

I agree that's how the other leagues do it except for the NFL which i think having an alternate site for is still ridiculous.

[JAEBALL]

Home field should just simply be determined by best record ... Not the result of an exhibition game.

Is it the end all be all in determining the winner of the series ? No .. But why even go there ?

I agree that's how the other leagues do it except for the NFL which i think having an alternate site for is still ridiculous.

Well... You know the NFL loves the bidding and the dog and pony show that the cities go ga ga over to get a Super Bowl.

[JAEBALL]

Home field should just simply be determined by best record ... Not the result of an exhibition game.

Is it the end all be all in determining the winner of the series ? No .. But why even go there ?

Agreed (again) JAEBALL, why the hell even go there?

Unfortunately baseball can be too (over)reactive to a presumed problem in the game and then totally too slow to recognize their solution to said (or perceived) problems might not be a good solution long term.

Lowering the mound to boost offense in '69 because of a magical year for pitchers in '68 - goofy.

The DH was an overreaction to poor attendance in the AL, 40 odd years later they still haven't realized it's fucking stupid.

Interleague play was a overreaction to waning attendance in 95-96 after the cancellation of the '94 World Series and we still have novelty ball almost 20 years in.

The second wild card was added to stage drama after the lightning in a bottle finish on the last day of the 2011 regular season, now we live in a post season no different than tournament baseball with too many days off between games/series.  Nothing like playing 162 then devaluing it in a one off play-in game.

  over..for now at least.

100 percent.

I agree with everything there, except for the DH. I like that the two leagues are "different" and the DH extends the careers of a lot of guys I have enjoyed watching over the years (including Arod at the moment)   , but I'm sure you guys have argued over the DH many times before. Haha

Something as romantic as America's past time. They should generally try to keep as simple as possible, but they only care about the all mighty dollar, its big business.. and that tends to get in the way. 

[pilferk]

Yeah, I'm with JAEBALL on the DH rule.

And, at this point, I think it might be time to stop chalking THAT one up as an MLB over reaction or mistake, even from the purists. And I think the reason MLB haven't realized it's stupid is that MOST fans don't think it is.  And the minority that does...still watch, attend games, and spend money on the league.

There are 2 leagues in the entire world NOT using a DH: The NL and Nippon Pro in Japan. They are the dinosaurs.  It's been 40+ years.  MOST fans, today, have grown up with the DH rule, and, given the fragile nature of pitchers these days.....in this case I'd call the DH rule foresight, not over reaction.

Not to mention...watching most pitchers hit is akin to watching poorly trained monkeys dance.  And watching them run the bases (in the rare cases they get on) is holding your breath waiting for disaster to strike.  For me, that far outweighs the rare (and it IS rare, given the way bullpens work these days) struggle with strategy in later innings, in a close game, where your pitcher is raking.  It amounts to (IMHO), when it comes up, a one batter/one inning decision.

The DH rule SEEMS to work out quite well for everyone (INCLUDING the fans) involved. It protects pitchers.  It extends careers (both hitters and pitchers). It bolsters offense (which most fans find exciting). I'd also argue that it bolsters defense, because it allows teams to carry, in it's regular lineup, a more defensive balanced player (*cough* Stephen Drew *cough*) because you can afford the drop in offensive production out of that spot, given the DH.  Instead of having 2 sub .200 (or .200-ish) hitters...you now only have one (you hope) between those 2 spots in the order. 

But....JAEBALL is right...we've had this argument before.

[faldor]

Being an AL fan, I'm also pro DH. In related news, David Ortiz has recently been asked to play 1B a few times since Mike Napoli has been in a season long slump aside from the one week he was AL player of the week. And Ortiz hasn't been happy about playing the field at his advanced age and hasn't been shy about voicing his opinion. And yesterday he missed the game with an upper respiratory illness. In fact he was sent home by doctors and wasn't in the ballpark at all. All sounds believable enough. But the critical and pessimistic Boston fans are running with the idea that Ortiz was asked to play 1B again and he created this illness and packed up early for the break. I don't buy that story, but some do. I think if Ortiz didn't want to play the field, he would've told Farrell and he would've DH'ed. Ortiz in the lineup is far better than Travis Shaw. It's good banter for the media though until they get back from the break.

[pilferk]

I'm of the opinion, as I was when Jorge Posada was griping about NOT catching, that you shut up and do what your manager asks you to do...what they think is best for the team....as you are under contract and an EMPLOYEE.  Sure, if you want to voice reasonable objections to the boss (I'm old, not bendy, and am afraid I'm going to hurt my "man muscles", for example)...that's one thing. Grousing to the media, your team mates, and anyone else who will listen? So much nope.

Having said that, I totally buy that Ortiz was sick yesterday and was sent home. You can't "fake" an upper respiratory illness that's bad enough for doctors to send you home, given the sheer amount of diagnostic equipment on hand to look at him. If he'd said "I have a cold" and sat on the bench...that's a different animal (again, harkening back to Jorge Posada).

[Falcon]

But....JAEBALL is right...we've had this argument before.

Indeed.

It's mention was just meant to be and example (one of many, even more than already mentioned) of baseball trying to fix something that wasn't really broken.

Don't get me started on replay, talk about something that needs fixing..ugh..

[TheBaconman]

Let's go Donaldson!!!!!   Hit the most home runs

[JAEBALL]

I got trapped in a terrible group text last night about the home run derby...

I'm sorry but if you're over the age of 12 and that interests you.....

I'm sure the hometown fans were happy tho.

[pilferk]

I think the game actually meant more before interleague play came into play. There was more pride in ones league. But I don't think the current format is damaging, so I don't see the harm. I can't remember a team losing the World Series because they didn't have home advantage.

I had seen the stat somewhere, but it took me a bit to find it...:

Since 1985, the team with home field advantage has won 23 of the last 29 World Series.

That's close to an 80% winning %.

Since the advent of the AS game awarding Home Field, the team holding Home Field advantage is 8-4 (2003 - 2014).  That's .667 winning percentage. Since 2009, the home field team is 5-1 (.833 winning %). 

To add, in all but ONE case where the home field team lost....the series were lopsided victories (4-1, 4-2, 4-1). Only the Giants-Royals..LAST YEAR...was close. 

And you wanted a specific instance where home field had a direct and obvious effect? 2011 (Cards/Rangers).  Keep in mind, also, that the HF advantage, given MLBs format to limit travel, puts the last TWO games at home, as WELL as the first 2. Texas went in to St. Louis up 3 games to 2.

You can't deny that, statistically, it's an advantage, and a notable one.  It was before the decision to hinge it on the AS game, and it has been afterwards.

IMHO, that's WAY too big an advantage to grant a team based on an exhibition game. ESPECIALLY given the relative new found parity we're seeing in the game over the last 5+ years or so.

I mean...look at all the controversy this week about who was going to pitch, for how long, etc.  And position players playing, and for how many innings/ABs. And getting everyone into the game, and..... 

[pilferk]

Home field should just simply be determined by best record ... Not the result of an exhibition game.

Is it the end all be all in determining the winner of the series ? No .. But why even go there ?

Agree.

Other leagues do it.  The fact is, you don't know who your participants are going to be, ANYWAY, until just before the series starts.  You can whittle down, but you don't know.

And given the small number of variables you're working with (you have 4 teams, so only 4 records to parse) in the LCS, I can't IMAGINE there's THAT much benefit to knowing which league is going to host.  MLB tells you it's all about the travel arrangements.  I cry (and have cried) bullshit on that argument.  But it's what they say...

If the other leagues manage to do it....especially the NBA and NHL...for their playoffs, I can't imagine MLB can't. 

[faldor]

I think the game actually meant more before interleague play came into play. There was more pride in ones league. But I don't think the current format is damaging, so I don't see the harm. I can't remember a team losing the World Series because they didn't have home advantage.

I had seen the stat somewhere, but it took me a bit to find it...:

Since 1985, the team with home field advantage has won 23 of the last 29 World Series.

That's close to an 80% winning %.

Since the advent of the AS game awarding Home Field, the team holding Home Field advantage is 8-4 (2003 - 2014).  That's .667 winning percentage. Since 2009, the home field team is 5-1 (.833 winning %). 

To add, in all but ONE case where the home field team lost....the series were lopsided victories (4-1, 4-2, 4-1). Only the Giants-Royals..LAST YEAR...was close. 

And you wanted a specific instance where home field had a direct and obvious effect? 2011 (Cards/Rangers).  Keep in mind, also, that the HF advantage, given MLBs format to limit travel, puts the last TWO games at home, as WELL as the first 2. Texas went in to St. Louis up 3 games to 2.

You can't deny that, statistically, it's an advantage, and a notable one.  It was before the decision to hinge it on the AS game, and it has been afterwards.

IMHO, that's WAY too big an advantage to grant a team based on an exhibition game. ESPECIALLY given the relative new found parity we're seeing in the game over the last 5+ years or so.

I mean...look at all the controversy this week about who was going to pitch, for how long, etc.  And position players playing, and for how many innings/ABs. And getting everyone into the game, and..... 

I saw the same stat. Surprising, as I didn't think it'd be that lopsided. Home field advantage helps, no doubt. But did Nelson Cruz misplay the last out that would have won the WS for the Rangers because he wasn't in his home park or because he's just not a good fielder? And San Fran did win game 7 on the road last year, albeit behind otherworldly Bumgarner.

I agree best record should get home field, but that was never the case, was it? Correct me if I'm wrong, but before the ASG decided who gets home field, they alternated years between the leagues. I don't think that makes any more sense.

[TheBaconman]

I got trapped in a terrible group text last night about the home run derby...

I'm sorry but if you're over the age of 12 and that interests you.....

I'm sure the hometown fans were happy tho.

I agree

Group texts should be reserved for people under the age of 12.  They are pretty child like

Hahaha