2015 MLB Season Thread

[AustinIllini]

The wishful thinking part of me says another WS Crown. Reality me, says they are going to be building and are probably a year or two out if not more.

A-Rod! Ha........ Almost choked on my coffee with that one.

That's what the Cubs look like. Which is why I don't understand the Lester signing, personally. I doubt he's the same pitcher when Kris Bryant et al are in big league form.

As far as A-Rod is concerned, the Yankees should pay him the "go away" money and put his waste of a career out of its misery.

 

[larrylaffer]

You can always bunt against it. Barry Bonds did that a few times, and Brandon Belt did it in the 2014 World Series.

Exactly. If you don't like the shift, play against it. Just like Adrian Gonzalez did.

 

[MacNut]

This is a rule change I don't want to see.

Major League Baseball is considering altering the textbook definition of the strike zone for the first time in nearly two decades, fearful that the proliferation of the low strike has sapped too much offense from the game, league sources told Yahoo Sports.

Concern around baseball about the strike zone filtered down to the MLB’s Playing Rules Committee, which must formally adopt a rules change before it’s implemented. The committee will pay close attention to the size of the strike zone in 2015 with an eye on change as early as 2016 after studies showed it has expanded significantly since 2009, coinciding with a precipitous dip in run scoring. Of particular concern, sources said, is the low strike, a scourge not only because it has stretched beyond the zone’s boundaries but is considered a significantly more difficult pitch to hit.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/source...-response-to-declining-offense-232940947.html

The problem, sources said, stems from technological leaps that caused unintended consequences. In 1996, when the league last changed the strike zone to extend it from the top of the knees to the bottom, beneath the hollow of the kneecap, it did so to encourage umpires to call knee-level strikes. The lower end of the zone, in practice, was about three-quarters of the way down the thigh, so the idea was that by adjusting the eye levels of umpires to look lower, the result would be a more traditional strike zone.

Then along came Questec, the computerized pitch-tracking system, followed by Zone Evaluation, the current version tied in to MLB’s PITCHf/x system. With a tremendous degree of accuracy – especially in recent years – the systems tracked textbook balls and strikes, and the home-plate umpires’ performances were graded on a nightly basis. Over time, not only did umpires’ strike zones move down to the knees, they went to the hollow and even a smidge below.

“I don’t think the Playing Rules Committee at the time of the last change ever expected that the umpires would call strikes at the hollow of the knee,” said Mets general manager Sandy Alderson, the current chairman of the committee. “To their credit, the umpires now are.”

 

[Moyank24]

This is a rule change I don't want to see.
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/source...-response-to-declining-offense-232940947.html

Would changing the rule book have a drastic effect on the game, though? All of the umpires seem to have their own zones anyway. Some are known for having tight zones and some are known for calling everything close - up, down, inside, outside.

 

[MacNut]

Would changing the rule book have a drastic effect on the game, though? All of the umpires seem to have their own zones anyway. Some are known for having tight zones and some are known for calling everything close - up, down, inside, outside.

They want more runs, runs equals ratings.

The zone never expanded umps are just calling it properly now.

 

[AustinIllini]

They want more runs, runs equals ratings.

The zone never expanded umps are just calling it properly now.

I believe the consensus is the opposite. The Zone is too big.

 

[Moyank24]

I believe the consensus is the opposite. The Zone is too big.

I think you're saying the same thing.

A bigger zone is more likely to help the pitchers. A smaller zone would mean more offense. Theoretically.

 

[AustinIllini]

I think you're saying the same thing.

A bigger zone is more likely to help the pitchers. A smaller zone would mean more offense. Theoretically.

okay yeah.

I think it might make sense to use a computer to audit umpires on their strike zone. The game is called as the game, but then umpires get an analysis of how many of their strikes were probably not strikes.

 

[Moyank24]

okay yeah.

I think it might make sense to use a computer to audit umpires on their strike zone. The game is called as the game, but then umpires get an analysis of how many of their strikes were probably not strikes.

That's was Questec does. Though I'm not sure if it's in every ballpark yet.

 

[AustinIllini]

Wrigley rooftop owners file motion to halt scoreboard, sign installation

The renovation renders look amazing, but the rooftops are getting quite fumed.

As far as I'm concerned, they can get over it.

 

[hallux]

How about doing something about check-swing strikes also? The last few years it seems like if the batter makes any kind of move that's CLOSE to offering at the pitch it's being called a swing, even if it historically hasn't been considered one.

Keith Hernandez and company have made it a habit of calling every check-swing "almost automatic" as being called a strike.

 

[MacNut]

How about doing something about check-swing strikes also? The last few years it seems like if the batter makes any kind of move that's CLOSE to offering at the pitch it's being called a swing, even if it historically hasn't been considered one.

Keith Hernandez and company have made it a habit of calling every check-swing "almost automatic" as being called a strike.

What is the "intent to swing". My definition is movement of the bat means you are thinking about it. Either reword the rule to be the front corner of the plate, or more than 50% of a swing.

 

[AustinIllini]

What is the "intent to swing". My definition is movement of the bat means you are thinking about it. Either reword the rule to be the front corner of the plate, or more than 50% of a swing.

Computers, if employed delicately, could fix a number of these problems.

 

[hallux]

What is the "intent to swing". My definition is movement of the bat means you are thinking about it. Either reword the rule to be the front corner of the plate, or more than 50% of a swing.

I guess I should have worded it differently, they interpret the rule as it being a swing if the batter's wrist "breaks". I agree, make it a specific point, the bat passing the front of the plate or the foul line is a good spot.

----------

Computers, if employed delicately, could fix a number of these problems.

Unfortunately, that removes an aspect of the game that makes it what it is, the human element. I don't like the replay rules, much less using a computer to tell an ump when the ball is in the strike zone or when the batter swings.

 

[AustinIllini]

Unfortunately, that removes an aspect of the game that makes it what it is, the human element. I don't like the replay rules, much less using a computer to tell an ump when the ball is in the strike zone or when the batter swings.

This is a fallacy. It can be done delicately (not balls and strikes). All you need is a camera operator saying "he swung", "he didn't swing", "runner at first was safe".

No silly coaches challenges or anything like that. Just simple, limited replay where definitive plays are reversed automatically. This way, we get the play right the first time.

After the game, institute an umpire audit where the umpire gets a readout of his average strike location and any outliers in his pitch calling.

Fact of the matter is, baseball needs to evolve a bit faster than it is now.

 

[hallux]

Fact of the matter is, baseball needs to evolve a bit faster than it is now.

Why? Just because we CAN now use technology to change something doesn't mean we NEED to. Sure, without technology we'd have controversial calls that could taint a win but what did we do before? Baseball games take long enough to play compared to the way it used to be, I'd MUCH rather see them work on rules limiting mound visits by catchers and the step-outs for 100 batting glove adjustments PER AT BAT. OK, 100 may be an exaggeration but look at what Nomar used to do, it's ridiculous.

 

[MacNut]

This is a fallacy. It can be done delicately (not balls and strikes). All you need is a camera operator saying "he swung", "he didn't swing", "runner at first was safe".

No silly coaches challenges or anything like that. Just simple, limited replay where definitive plays are reversed automatically. This way, we get the play right the first time.

After the game, institute an umpire audit where the umpire gets a readout of his average strike location and any outliers in his pitch calling.

Fact of the matter is, baseball needs to evolve a bit faster than it is now.

Rather than cameras just put sensors on the bases. You would know who's foot touched when.

I don't want to see the game turned into a robotic sport. Part of the fun is watching managers and players argue a call.

 

[AustinIllini]

Why? Just because we CAN now use technology to change something doesn't mean we NEED to. Sure, without technology we'd have controversial calls that could taint a win but what did we do before? Baseball games take long enough to play compared to the way it used to be, I'd MUCH rather see them work on rules limiting mound visits by catchers and the step-outs for 100 batting glove adjustments PER AT BAT. OK, 100 may be an exaggeration but look at what Nomar used to do, it's ridiculous.

We had terrible, horrible calls decide important games.

And sadly, yes. Baseball needs to evolve. Baseball games are simply too long and ratings are going down. The game is too long and there are too many strikeouts/outs and not enough people on base. Replay would be faster

Rather than cameras just put sensors on the bases. You would know who's foot touched when.

I don't want to see the game turned into a robotic sport. Part of the fun is watching managers and players argue a call.

This is also a better option. Put a earphone in the umpire's ear which indicates whether or not the right call was made and MAKE the right call.

 

[AustinIllini]

Yankees to retire numbers of Bernie Williams, Jorge Posada, report says

How do the Yankee fans here feel about this?

I'm kind of over retiring numbers. I feel like it's fair to retire "jerseys" and keep numbers rotating.

Like, if I'm the Yankees, I retire the number 2 for Jeter, but then honor Bernie Williams and Jorge Posada.

 

[Moyank24]

Yankees to retire numbers of Bernie Williams, Jorge Posada, report says

How do the Yankee fans here feel about this?

I'm kind of over retiring numbers. I feel like it's fair to retire "jerseys" and keep numbers rotating.

Like, if I'm the Yankees, I retire the number 2 for Jeter, but then honor Bernie Williams and Jorge Posada.

I think it's ridiculous. I love the core guys from those championships, but Jorge Posada shouldn't be mentioned in the same sentence as Gehrig, Ruth, DiMaggio, etc...

Giving them a plaque is one thing, but retiring their numbers is entirely another. The Steinbrenner's have some sort of weird fascination with retirement ceremonies I think.

They should allow the fans to vote. Retiring these numbers has just cheapened the whole thing.

 

[AustinIllini]

I think it's ridiculous. I love the core guys from those championships, but Jorge Posada shouldn't be mentioned in the same sentence as Gehrig, Ruth, DiMaggio, etc...

Giving them a plaque is one thing, but retiring their numbers is entirely another. The Steinbrenner's have some sort of weird fascination with retirement ceremonies I think.

They should allow the fans to vote. Retiring these numbers has just cheapened the whole thing.

I think Jeter is a no brainer, but I agree the rest are really silly.

White Sox are pulling the same garbage, too. I agree with Frank Thomas getting retired (Greatest White Sox player ever), but the Paul Konerko number retirement is kind of meh to me.

Cubs retired numbers are pretty much perfect. No one since Maddux deserves a retired number on the Cubs.

 

[MacNut]

I think it's ridiculous. I love the core guys from those championships, but Jorge Posada shouldn't be mentioned in the same sentence as Gehrig, Ruth, DiMaggio, etc...

Giving them a plaque is one thing, but retiring their numbers is entirely another. The Steinbrenner's have some sort of weird fascination with retirement ceremonies I think.

They should allow the fans to vote. Retiring these numbers has just cheapened the whole thing.

I get why they are doing it, but I don't know if Posada had that great career on any other team. Pettitte I can see, he was a horse in the playoffs. Bernie probably not. I want to know where Gene Michaels plaque is.

 

[AustinIllini]

Baseball Prospectus 2015 Minor League Organizational Rankings

1. Chicago Cubs
Farm System Ranking in 2014: 2
2015 Top Ten Prospects: Link
Top Prospect: Addison Russell (2)
Prospects on the BP 101: 7
State of the System: Despite graduating infielders Arismendy Alcantara and Javier Baez, and mildly uninspiring years from former Top 10 prospects like C.J. Edwards and Christian Villanueva, the Cubs are the proud owner of the game’s top system. With the 2014 arrival of shortstop Addison Russell via trade, the explosive emergence of third baseman Kris Bryant, and the selection of a hit-first prospect like Kyle Schwarber, the Cubs remain absolutely loaded with impact talent. The arrival and emergence of those players doesn’t even begin to touch on the continued presence of outfielders Jorge Soler and Albert Almora, as well as quality depth of high ceiling players like Gleyber Torres, Eloy Jimenez, Carson Sands, and Mark Zagunis. The Cubs’ system is loaded to the gills with talent that could help their roster continue to improve internally, or via trade.
Must-See Affiliate: Triple-A Iowa
Prospects to See There: Kris Bryant, Addison Russell, Pierce Johnson

Hopefully some of these pan out for the Cubs.

 

[Moyank24]

I get why they are doing it, but I don't know if Posada had that great career on any other team. Pettitte I can see, he was a horse in the playoffs. Bernie probably not. I want to know where Gene Michaels plaque is.

I totally get why they are doing it as well.

And I'd be totally on board with giving guys not named Jeter or Mariano a plaque (like they are doing for Willie this year) to celebrate the team that won all those championships. But retiring Jorge's number? Bernie's? Nope. As much as I love Paul O'Neill and Tino, I would say the same thing.

Andy Pettitte I can see a bit, as he's probably ranked top 5 in all of the Yanks' pitching stats. But it's going to open up a Pandora's box as they announce this while fighting to not pay any of A-Rod's bonuses because OMG steroids.

 

[hallux]

I think it's ridiculous. I love the core guys from those championships, but Jorge Posada shouldn't be mentioned in the same sentence as Gehrig, Ruth, DiMaggio, etc...

Giving them a plaque is one thing, but retiring their numbers is entirely another. The Steinbrenner's have some sort of weird fascination with retirement ceremonies I think.

They should allow the fans to vote. Retiring these numbers has just cheapened the whole thing.

And yet across town the Mets haven't retired a number since they retired Seaver's number. A VERY strong case can be made to have 8 and 31 retired as well as possibly 17.