2018-19 Hot Stove League

[JSngry]

That in and of itself is no big deal...

[Matthew]

 

On 1/15/2019 at 4:38 PM, JSngry said:

I wonder if we'll ever see someone pitch over 300 innings in a season again, it used to be common.

[T.D.]

 

29 minutes ago, Matthew said:

 

I wonder if we'll ever see someone pitch over 300 innings in a season again, it used to be common.

Maybe a knuckleballer. But I can't think of many, and recently the closest would be R. A. Dickey in 2012 (Cy Young winner), 5 complete games and 233 IP.

[Dave James]

35 minutes ago, Matthew said:

 

I wonder if we'll ever see someone pitch over 300 innings in a season again, it used to be common.

I've thought about this for years.  instead of starters, middle relief, set up guys and closers, you just have pitchers.  You rotate starters among all the pitchers on your roster.  Each pitcher goes just long enough to go through the other team's line-up one time.  Then you bring in the next pitcher and he does the same thing. If you've ever read statistics on how an opposing team's batting average increases significantly the second or even third time it faces the same pitcher, you eliminate that advantage.  You also rotate the kind of pitchers you use.  Think about facing a flamethrower, followed by a junk ball pitcher followed by, if you have one, a knuckleballer.  The hitters would be pulling their hair out.  Needless to say, if someone gets lit up, you have to adjust more quickly, but that scenario is equally manageable.

And while we're at it, can someone explain to me why runners on first base never tag up on long fly balls to to the power alleys?

Edited January 18, 2019 by Dave James

[paul secor]

29 minutes ago, Dave James said:

I've thought about this for years.  instead of starters, middle relief, set up guys and closers, you just have pitchers.  You rotate starters among all the pitchers on your roster.  Each pitcher goes just long enough to go through the other team's line-up one time.  Then you bring in the next pitcher and he does the same thing. If you've ever read statistics on how an opposing team's batting average increases significantly the second or even third time it faces the same pitcher, you eliminate that advantage.  You also rotate the kind of pitchers you use.  Think about facing a flamethrower, followed by a junk ball pitcher followed by, if you have one, a knuckleballer.  The hitters would be pulling their hair out.  Needless to say, if someone gets lit up, you have to adjust more quickly, but that scenario is equally manageable.

 

This article presents a different perspective: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/04/sports/baseball/pitching-counts.html
Not saying that it's gospel, but everyone jumps on the stats/sabermetrics bandwagon and that's it. Maybe it's not always it.

 

32 minutes ago, Dave James said:

 

And while we're at it, can someone explain to me why runners on first base never tag up on long fly balls to to the power alleys?

Probably because everyone is waiting for the next batter to hit one out. The home run or nothing thing has taken a lot out of the game. Eventually some team (or teams) will wake up and that will change.

[Brad]

3 minutes ago, paul secor said:

This article presents a different perspective: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/04/sports/baseball/pitching-counts.html
Not saying that it's gospel, but everyone jumps on the stats/sabermetrics bandwagon and that's it. Maybe it's not always it.

 

Chuck Tanner, I believe, at one point espoused the idea of bringing in a new pitcher every inning but he never tried it, probably because no one wanted to do it. I’ve heard Mazzone discuss this on several occasions and although I’m not a pitcher, what he says seems logical to me. Did human anatomy change in 30 or 40 years that pitchers can’t more anymore.  People in the game and fans now seem indoctrinated that when a SP hits 100 pitches, you have to take him out. 

[T.D.]

29 minutes ago, Brad said:

.... Did human anatomy change in 30 or 40 years that pitchers can’t more anymore.  People in the game and fans now seem indoctrinated that when a SP hits 100 pitches, you have to take him out. 

Dunno, but in recent years there have been concomitant explosions of pitchers throwing 95+ mph and pitchers requiring elbow reconstruction surgery.

I recall seeing articles (unfortunately forget citations) arguing that throwing 100 mph stresses the arm right to the brink of falling apart. Putting these things together with the gearheads' findings that opponents' batting averages increase on the third trip through the lineup, I expect pitch limits to continue. Or maybe "2 tours of the lineup" limits.

Edited January 18, 2019 by T.D.

[Brad]

13 minutes ago, T.D. said:

Dunno, but in recent years there have been concomitant explosions of pitchers throwing 95+ mph and pitchers requiring elbow reconstruction surgeries.

I recall seeing articles (unfortunately forget citations) arguing that throwing 100 mph stresses the arm right to the brink of falling apart. Putting these things together with the gearheads' findings that opponents' batting averages increase on the third trip through the lineup, I expect pitch limits to continue. Or maybe "2 tours of the lineup" limits.

The question is why we see pitchers arms falling apart. Not being a professional and just a fan, I have no answer. 

[paul secor]

Pitchers (and more especially teams, since players aren't always the brightest) might do well to think about what Greg Maddox (who wasn't a 95+ mph overpowering pitcher) had to say:

Greg Maddux had a 3.23 E.R.A. in his first three innings and a 2.86 from the seventh inning through the ninth. And while he possessed a good fastball, it was not a three-digit express train. One spring training in the mid-1990s, Maddux, who in a 23-year career piled up 355 fairly meaningful wins, asked to speak with the team’s young pitchers.

Mazzone nodded. Sure thing, Mad Dog, whatever you want. The coach lined up the young guys and Maddux walked over.

“You know why I am a millionaire? Because I can put my fastball wherever I want to,” Maddux told them. “Do you know why I own beachfront property in L.A.? Because I can change speeds. O.K., questions?”

[T.D.]

I once worked with a guy who pitched in the minor leagues (Seattle Mariners system) until his elbow blew out. He had seen Greg Maddux pitch up close and had some interesting comments. He said that Maddux threw a  "live" ball with a lot of motion and that his pitches moved exceptionally late, when the ball was right on top of the hitter. He thought those factors (in addition to control and changing speeds) made Maddux so hard to hit.

Edited January 18, 2019 by T.D.

[Dave James]

54 minutes ago, T.D. said:

I once worked with a guy who pitched in the minor leagues (Seattle Mariners system) until his elbow blew out. He had seen Greg Maddux pitch up close and had some interesting comments. He said that Maddux threw a  "live" ball with a lot of motion and that his pitches moved exceptionally late, when the ball was right on top of the hitter. He thought those factors (in addition to control and changing speeds) made Maddux so hard to hit.

Speaking of Maddux, most of you have probably seen the Kris Bryant prank, but if you haven't, I think you'll enjoy it.  

 

Edited January 18, 2019 by Dave James

[soulpope]

1 hour ago, Dave James said:

Speaking of Maddux, most of you have probably seen the Kris Bryant prank, but if you haven't, I think you'll enjoy it.  

 

😀 ....

[Dan Gould]

14 hours ago, Brad said:

Wasn't he the one who said he could have struck out Babe Ruth? 

All I know is that the Yankees took the last alternative to a Kimbrel reunion off the board, leaving the Red Sox with two possibilities:

A reunion, which will aggravate the hell out of me and  probably mean that even though I plan to purchase Extra Innings this season, I will go to bed before Kimbrel enters, to avoid the headache and stress; or

The Phillies, losing out on one of their offensive targets will throw money at Kimbrel and the Red Sox with the highest or second highest payroll in the sport, will be left with a journeyman who was actually demoted to the Japanese minors last season, or Matt Barnes and his two career saves.

Fuckin disaster either way.

10 hours ago, Dave James said:

 

And while we're at it, can someone explain to me why runners on first base never tag up on long fly balls to to the power alleys?

Isn't "never" a bit of an exaggeration?  You see it all the time if the player has a bit of speed and its critical that he get to second base late in the game. Otherwise how do you know its an automatic out?  You want your guy to get thrown out at 3b on a double?  Or fail to score from first on the same?

[paul secor]

8 hours ago, Dave James said:

Speaking of Maddux, most of you have probably seen the Kris Bryant prank, but if you haven't, I think you'll enjoy it.  

 

I recall reading a story years ago where a newspaper writer was talking with the Atlanta Braves catcher while he was warming up Greg Maddox in spring training. Thee catcher was looking at the writer to the side of the plate, not looking at Maddox, and Maddox consistently hit the catcher's glove. I know, just a story, but one I tend to believe.

[ghost of miles]

15 hours ago, Dave James said:

I've thought about this for years.  instead of starters, middle relief, set up guys and closers, you just have pitchers.  You rotate starters among all the pitchers on your roster.  Each pitcher goes just long enough to go through the other team's line-up one time.  Then you bring in the next pitcher and he does the same thing. If you've ever read statistics on how an opposing team's batting average increases significantly the second or even third time it faces the same pitcher, you eliminate that advantage.  You also rotate the kind of pitchers you use.  Think about facing a flamethrower, followed by a junk ball pitcher followed by, if you have one, a knuckleballer.  The hitters would be pulling their hair out.  Needless to say, if someone gets lit up, you have to adjust more quickly, but that scenario is equally manageable.

This is somewhat—or even more than somewhat—akin to the “opener” strategy that the Rays frequently employed last year.

[Dan Gould]

I am yet to be convinced that having a bunch of "pitchers" is better than having several dominant starters who can pitch at least six extremely effective innings and turn it over to a few dominant arms in the bullpen.  Guess I am just an old fogey.

Something to consider if teams really adopted that approach - it will completely change the measurement of pitching success because wins will be a random attribution by the official scorer and the end result will be a lot of pitchers making the baseball version of a "middle class" income and far fewer pulling down big bucks, for being, er, big bucks on the mound.

[JSngry]

14 hours ago, paul secor said:

“You know why I am a millionaire? Because I can put my fastball wherever I want to,” Maddux told them. “Do you know why I own beachfront property in L.A.? Because I can change speeds. O.K., questions?”

Skills, FTW!

I mean, for real, everybody's all jumpy about how hitters today go for the wall or not at all and nobody knows how to bunt or go the other way, all all that, etc. and that's totally legit, but you know, look at our culture in general - bling power all that, is it any wonder? Well ok, pitching, same thing. Finesse is too much work even if you DO think about it, but in a world wherethose things are hardly even though on, much less engaged in, hey, bionic bullshit is what you ask for, bionic bullshit is what you gonna get. Money talks, bullshit listens.

Greg Maddux - not a lot of mystery there, motherfucker had a skill set and worked on it until he mastered it. You want effortless mastery, don't go to Kenny Werner, you, you go to Gregg Maddux.

And ok, lets talk about using a different pitcher every inning. Am I the only one who looks at the simple math of that, says what can possibly go wrong, and then realize that they haven't made that big enough of a number yet? In a perfect world, I'm going to need nine pitchers on my staff to go 162 inning a year and to what real end? Sounds like stunt porn to me.

 

[Matthew]

A lot of baseball people over the years talk about how the way Billy Martin handled the 1981 Oakland A's staff, scared everyone off of the old-time, pitchers do complete games mentality. Just three years afterwards, and the pitchers were mostly done. Ever since, that staff has been held up as a prime example of the need to be careful. Billy Martin was a crazy genius, or maybe just a nut-case.

Edited January 18, 2019 by Matthew

[T.D.]

52 minutes ago, Matthew said:

A lot of baseball people over the years talk about how the way Billy Martin handled the 1981 Oakland A's staff, scared everyone off of the old-time, pitchers do complete games mentality. Just three years afterwards, and the pitchers were mostly done. Ever since, that staff has been held up as a prime example of the need to be careful. Billy Martin was a crazy genius, or maybe just a nut-case.

Another old-school manager, Dallas Green, is often blamed for blowing out the arms of 3 talented young Met starters (Wilson, Pulsipher, Isringhausen) back in the '90s...

[ghost of miles]

3 hours ago, Dan Gould said:

I am yet to be convinced that having a bunch of "pitchers" is better than having several dominant starters who can pitch at least six extremely effective innings and turn it over to a few dominant arms in the bullpen.  Guess I am just an old fogey.

Something to consider if teams really adopted that approach - it will completely change the measurement of pitching success because wins will be a random attribution by the official scorer and the end result will be a lot of pitchers making the baseball version of a "middle class" income and far fewer pulling down big bucks, for being, er, big bucks on the mound.

Yankee announcer Michael Kay made the very same point several times across the course of the 2018 season (the Yankees and other AL East teams faced the "opener" strategy even more often, since they inhabit the same division as the Rays).  Not exactly related, but younger analytics folk already seem to be discounting wins as a measure of a pitcher's success.  Being of the same generation as you, Dan, and close to Jsngry's as well, I still prefer the several dominant starters and a good conventional bullpen approach as well.  (Heck, I first started following the sport when I was 8 in 1974, just several years after the Orioles' surely-to-never-be-replicated season rotation that featured four 20-game winners.)  But some teams are already leaning towards carrying 13 pitchers total on the roster, which would have seemed crazy in the past.  

[JSngry]

8 minutes ago, ghost of miles said:

 But some teams are already leaning towards carrying 13 pitchers total on the roster, which would have seemed crazy in the past.  

And it seems crazy now, if you're still playing the game as throw the ball/hit the ball/catch the ball/run the bases zen-ish simplicity that it actually is. But you know, crazy people in crazy times gonna do crazy shoot and be hailed as "transformational", and yeah, hello suckers.

[Dan Gould]

9 minutes ago, JSngry said:

And it seems crazy now, if you're still playing the game as throw the ball/hit the ball/catch the ball/run the bases zen-ish simplicity that it actually is. But you know, crazy people in crazy times gonna do crazy shoot and be hailed as "transformational", and yeah, hello suckers.

Don't forget, sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, and some times, it rains.

[JSngry]

Yeah, and if all we get out of legal weed is this kind of video game-ish thinking about baseball, never mind!

[Dave James]

FWIW, Manny Machado's father said the Yankees, Phillies, White Sox and the Dodgers are still in the mix. 

[ghost of miles]

Sounds as if MLB could see a work stoppage in a couple of years—and I wouldn’t blame the players one bit:

Is MLB headed for a labor strike?

”Revenue has grown while player wages have stayed stagnant and ticket prices have gone up. The league is making billions in TV and streaming revenue, but an average working-class family can’t afford season tickets anymore, and that money isn’t going to the players who fans love; it’s going right back into the wallets of anonymous billionaires.”

I get no longer wanting to hand out 10-year contracts to age 30+ players. But just in the past two years the pendelum’s swung way too far in the owners’ favor, IMO, and the players’ union better be a lot smarter and more hard-nosed come the next CBA. One significant issue to  be addressed is the manipulation of service time. This might sound crazy, but if I were the union I might suggest simply saying that everybody hits free agency at 26 or 27, no matter how much MLB time they’ve logged; that way players are assured of getting into the market while they still have 4-5 years of their prime left. (And teams would no longer have any reason to keep Vlad Guerrero Jr or other high-caliber players down on the farm “to improve their defense,” to cite an oft-used rationale.) 

 

Edited January 20, 2019 by ghost of miles