I first want to thank you for your continued support of the great game of baseball. This past season, we were reminded of how the national pastime can bring us together and restore our hope despite the difficult challenges of a global pandemic. As we began to emerge from one of the darkest periods in our history, our ballparks were filled with fans; the games were filled with excitement; and millions of families felt the joy of watching baseball together.
That is why I am so disappointed about the situation in which our game finds itself today. Despite the league’s best efforts to make a deal with the Players Association, we were unable to extend our 26 year-long history of labor peace and come to an agreement with the MLBPA before the current CBA expired. Therefore, we have been forced to commence a lockout of Major League players, effective at 12:01am ET on December 2.
I want to explain to you how we got here and why we have to take this action today. Simply put, we believe that an offseason lockout is the best mechanism to protect the 2022 season. We hope that the lockout will jumpstart the negotiations and get us to an agreement that will allow the season to start on time. This defensive lockout was necessary because the Players Association’s vision for Major League Baseball would threaten the ability of most teams to be competitive. It’s simply not a viable option. From the beginning, the MLBPA has been unwilling to move from their starting position, compromise, or collaborate on solutions.
When we began negotiations over a new agreement, the Players Association already had a contract that they wouldn’t trade for any other in sports. Baseball’s players have no salary cap and are not subjected to a maximum length or dollar amount on contracts. In fact, only MLB has guaranteed contracts that run 10 or more years, and in excess of $300 million. We have not proposed anything that would change these fundamentals. While we have heard repeatedly that free agency is “broken” – in the month of November $1.7 billion was committed to free agents, smashing the prior record by nearly 4x. By the end of the offseason, Clubs will have committed more money to players than in any offseason in MLB history.
We worked hard to find compromise while making the system even better for players, by addressing concerns raised by the Players Association. We offered to establish a minimum payroll for all clubs to meet for the first time in baseball history; to allow the majority of players to reach free agency earlier through an age-based system that would eliminate any claims of service time manipulation; and to increase compensation for all young players, including increases in the minimum salary. When negotiations lacked momentum, we tried to create some by offering to accept the universal Designated Hitter, to create a new draft system using a lottery similar to other leagues, and to increase the Competitive Balance Tax threshold that affects only a small number of teams.
We have had challenges before with respect to making labor agreements and have overcome those challenges every single time during my tenure. Regrettably, it appears the Players Association came to the bargaining table with a strategy of confrontation over compromise. They never wavered from collectively the most extreme set of proposals in their history, including significant cuts to the revenue-sharing system, a weakening of the competitive balance tax, and shortening the period of time that players play for their teams. All of these changes would make our game less competitive, not more.
To be clear: this hard but important step does not necessarily mean games will be cancelled. In fact, we are taking this step now because it accelerates the urgency for an agreement with as much runway as possible to avoid doing damage to the 2022 season. Delaying this process further would only put Spring Training, Opening Day, and the rest of the season further at risk – and we cannot allow an expired agreement to again cause an in-season strike and a missed World Series, like we experienced in 1994. We all owe you, our fans, better than that.
Today is a difficult day for baseball, but as I have said all year, there is a path to a fair agreement, and we will find it. I do not doubt the League and the Players share a fundamental appreciation for this game and a commitment to its fans. I remain optimistic that both sides will seize the opportunity to work together to grow, protect, and strengthen the game we love. MLB is ready to work around the clock to meet that goal. I urge the Players Association to join us at the table.
Manfred
Originally Posted by suzzer99:
And the national baseball writers are basically the equivalent of Russian state media these days, in lockstep with the players, always sticking to the script, refusing to even mention cap/floor. I’m really really sick of those guys. They’re doing as much to destroy the game they love as anyone else.
While I think the writers are despicable for their obvious biases, the salary cap is a waste of time. It's not even a practical solution.
Just like five-year free agency is a non-starter for the owners, the salary cap is never being considered by the MLBPA unless attitudes change over generations.
The owners would have shut down the season over five-year free agency and the players did the same in 1994-95 over the salary cap. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Jerm:
I’m curious as to what your ideas are and I’m not even trolling because I 100% agree with you…
I go back and watch random 90s highlights/games on YouTube and that’s the baseball I miss….not even talking about the roid era. Pitchers that could actually PITCH and work a count, zone, and had more than a fastball and slider. Basesteali g, defense, guys hitting for average, strategy, all along with your power guys, etc.
Not to mention how many teams, lineups, superstars, and even managers were recognizable and known…
I said it earlier in this thread but so much about the game would be corrected overnight if we moved the fences back even 10 feet and eliminated cheap power. I went over the various impacts it would have; I can provide the link to the post if you're interested. Bottom line is that bigger OFs require faster OFers and hitters have to really 'earn' their homers so they'll do more to take advantage of those big power alleys. And with faster players on the field, you'll see more baserunning.
I absolutely love the idea of allowing the DH only when the starting pitcher is in the game. This will encourage organizations to teach their SPs to get deeper into the games and maybe encourage leaving them out there to face the order a 3rd time through. If pitchers aren't taught to just fire fastballs past guys and instead try to work on pitch efficiency, suddenly you have more active IFs and OFers as well.
Curtail the shift at least to where IFers have to stay on the IF. If hitters are rewarded more for putting the ball in play, they'll make a more concerted effort to do so. Additionally, eliminating the shift takes more sub-standard fielders off the field because you can't hide them through shifting them. Now you have even more athletically gifted players on the infield to go with having more athletic OFers.
I like the idea of making the bases a little bit bigger, again to encourage more baserunning and more contact so that more guys can steal and/or beat out IF squibbers. Think of how many bang/bang plays there are on SBs. Now make the bases 4 inches wider. That gives the runner 8 inches to work with and that's a HUGE difference.
I need to see more data on moving the mound. The math checks out but the results over a mere month haven't given us enough information. But barring moving the mound, start enforcing the top of the strike zone or maybe even bring it down a tick (even half a baseball would make a big difference; but a full ball wouldn't bother me any). Guys throw so damn hard that expecting hitters to just be able to catch up to 98 at the letters when you can just start throwing a half dozen fresh relievers at them each game is nuts. Bring the zone down a little so that high fastballs aren't a death sentence.
Additionally, you'll now make curveballs that much more effective because they typically work well when they encourage hitters to swing before they dive down in the zone. If hitters are seeing more 'hittable' pitches up, they'll start offering at them more and be fooled by that curve more as well. So that will bring back that big overhand curve that is just damn nice when done well. The problem is that it's really a feel pitch whereas you can just grip and rip a slider. And with the slider tunneling off the fastball, there's just very little utility in trying to learn a good curve when the slider's equally effective and a hell of a lot easier. Suddenly if the high fastball isn't quite as effective, the curve may be a necessary weapon to keep guys honest. You'll also, due to the changes made w/ the DH above, encourage the return of the good ol' fashion sinkerballer that works down the zone and looks for soft contact.
So now you have more athletes on the field, more action on the bases, a broader variety of pitchers that can succeed. You'll see fewer injuries because these pitchers aren't going max-effort on every delivery anymore. I think changing the options and service time rules to that teams aren't encouraged to bring up middle-tier arms from the minors and just churn and burn them until they blow up will be good for the sport and the players. Again, just taking one more area where guys are just throwing as goddamn hard as they can and limiting it a tick.
If you have fields that are geographically incapable of moving the fences back for some reason, deaden the ball there. I think Fenway is the primary example I can think of, but there may be a couple others. And even Fenway could do it if they'd get rid of the Monster seats. They won't do it voluntarily, but it could be foisted onto them.
And then again - just put in a hard revenue split with ceilings and floors for team spending. And robust revenue sharing. Baseball has 'parity' in its champions because it's a random ass sport, not because teams are truly on any sort of level playing field. Fix that. A sport cannot thrive with this kind of have/have not setup. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
I said it earlier in this thread but so much about the game would be corrected overnight if we moved the fences back even 10 feet and eliminated cheap power. I went over the various impacts it would have; I can provide the link to the post if you're interested. Bottom line is that bigger OFs require faster OFers and hitters have to really 'earn' their homers so they'll do more to take advantage of those big power alleys. And with faster players on the field, you'll see more baserunning.
I'm all for this idea but I just don't see it being implemented.
Even the so called newer pitcher's parks -- AT&T Park, Petco Park, Citi Field -- have moved their fences in. AT&T and Petco both had these extreme triples alleys and the Giants and Padres reduced their effect by bringing in the fences.
The worst part is I think today's hitters are so spoiled. They think they're entitled to a certain amount of home runs. Any story about a tough HR ballpark is usually written about in the press by a hitter complaining about the dimensions. I remember when the Padres moved into Petco and Phil Nevin complained all the time about the atmospheric conditions not playing favorably to power hitters.
The players today don't know the precedent of the game, when old Yankee Stadium was 399 to left-center, old Tiger Stadium was 440 feet to center, Polo Grounds was 483 feet to center, Forbes Field was 360 to LF, 462 to the deepest corner, 442 to CF and 376 to RF.
It would be great if baseball went back to its roots with more expansive outfields of grass but this generation of player hasn't been conditioned to accept a 15-home run season even though the metrics we have will still rate them favorably with park effects. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
I said it earlier in this thread but so much about the game would be corrected overnight if we moved the fences back even 10 feet and eliminated cheap power. I went over the various impacts it would have; I can provide the link to the post if you're interested. Bottom line is that bigger OFs require faster OFers and hitters have to really 'earn' their homers so they'll do more to take advantage of those big power alleys. And with faster players on the field, you'll see more baserunning.
I absolutely love the idea of allowing the DH only when the starting pitcher is in the game. This will encourage organizations to teach their SPs to get deeper into the games and maybe encourage leaving them out there to face the order a 3rd time through. If pitchers aren't taught to just fire fastballs past guys and instead try to work on pitch efficiency, suddenly you have more active IFs and OFers as well.
Curtail the shift at least to where IFers have to stay on the IF. If hitters are rewarded more for putting the ball in play, they'll make a more concerted effort to do so. Additionally, eliminating the shift takes more sub-standard fielders off the field because you can't hide them through shifting them. Now you have even more athletically gifted players on the infield to go with having more athletic OFers.
I like the idea of making the bases a little bit bigger, again to encourage more baserunning and more contact so that more guys can steal and/or beat out IF squibbers. Think of how many bang/bang plays there are on SBs. Now make the bases 4 inches wider. That gives the runner 8 inches to work with and that's a HUGE difference.
I need to see more data on moving the mound. The math checks out but the results over a mere month haven't given us enough information. But barring moving the mound, start enforcing the top of the strike zone or maybe even bring it down a tick (even half a baseball would make a big difference; but a full ball wouldn't bother me any). Guys throw so damn hard that expecting hitters to just be able to catch up to 98 at the letters when you can just start throwing a half dozen fresh relievers at them each game is nuts. Bring the zone down a little so that high fastballs aren't a death sentence.
Additionally, you'll now make curveballs that much more effective because they typically work well when they encourage hitters to swing before they dive down in the zone. If hitters are seeing more 'hittable' pitches up, they'll start offering at them more and be fooled by that curve more as well. So that will bring back that big overhand curve that is just damn nice when done well. The problem is that it's really a feel pitch whereas you can just grip and rip a slider. And with the slider tunneling off the fastball, there's just very little utility in trying to learn a good curve when the slider's equally effective and a hell of a lot easier. Suddenly if the high fastball isn't quite as effective, the curve may be a necessary weapon to keep guys honest. You'll also, due to the changes made w/ the DH above, encourage the return of the good ol' fashion sinkerballer that works down the zone and looks for soft contact.
So now you have more athletes on the field, more action on the bases, a broader variety of pitchers that can succeed. You'll see fewer injuries because these pitchers aren't going max-effort on every delivery anymore. I think changing the options and service time rules to that teams aren't encouraged to bring up middle-tier arms from the minors and just churn and burn them until they blow up will be good for the sport and the players. Again, just taking one more area where guys are just throwing as goddamn hard as they can and limiting it a tick.
If you have fields that are geographically incapable of moving the fences back for some reason, deaden the ball there. I think Fenway is the primary example I can think of, but there may be a couple others. And even Fenway could do it if they'd get rid of the Monster seats. They won't do it voluntarily, but it could be foisted onto them.
And then again - just put in a hard revenue split with ceilings and floors for team spending. And robust revenue sharing. Baseball has 'parity' in its champions because it's a random ass sport, not because teams are truly on any sort of level playing field. Fix that. A sport cannot thrive with this kind of have/have not setup.
Originally Posted by Ocotillo:
I'm all for this idea but I just don't see it being implemented.
Even the so called newer pitcher's parks -- AT&T Park, Petco Park, Citi Field -- have moved their fences in. AT&T and Petco both had these extreme triples alleys and the Giants and Padres reduced their effect by bringing in the fences.
The worst part is I think today's hitters are so spoiled. They think they're entitled to a certain amount of home runs. Any story about a tough HR ballpark is usually written about in the press by a hitter complaining about the dimensions. I remember when the Padres moved into Petco and Phil Nevin complained all the time about the atmospheric conditions not playing favorably to power hitters.
The players today don't know the precedent of the game, when old Yankee Stadium was 399 to left-center, old Tiger Stadium was 440 feet to center, Polo Grounds was 483 feet to center, Forbes Field was 360 to LF, 462 to the deepest corner, 442 to CF and 376 to RF.
It would be great if baseball went back to its roots with more expansive outfields of grass but this generation of player hasn't been conditioned to accept a 15-home run season even though the metrics we have will still rate them favorably with park effects.
And this is why an MLB competition committee doesn't ask them - it tells them they will do so.
I don't care if this means mandating field sizes. How does it make one damn bit of sense that every team plays on a different sized field? Name a sport that does that other than baseball.
A guy like Joey Gallo is the poster child for the "allow the shift, learn to go oppo, idiot!" crowd. But here's the thing, Joey Gallo is an elite defensive player. And has genuine light tower power. That's the sort of player you should WANT in this game. If you move the fences back, you get rid of a bunch of wall-scrapers from guys like Marcus Semien and his average HR distance of 365 ft, but you get rid of the shift and start making rules to create more contact and you trade those Semien wall-scrapers for big damn majestic bombs from Joey Gallo.
I'm not anti-power. I'm anti-cheap power. I want baseball to have room for a guy like Joey Gallo who hits friggen blasts and plays outstanding defense. I don't want to trade the Jay Bruce's of the world for more Nick Castellanos with his shitty defense and half of his homers being a result of generous dimensions.
There are good, fun players being squeezed out by the easy power in this game and sooner or later, when the homerun is just commonplace, MLB isn't going to have anywhere else to turn because the 'high' of the homer will have faded. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
And this is why an MLB competition committee doesn't ask them - it tells them they will do so.
I don't care if this means mandating field sizes. How does it make one damn bit of sense that every team plays on a different sized field? Name a sport that does that other than baseball.
A guy like Joey Gallo is the poster child for the "allow the shift, learn to go oppo, idiot!" crowd. But here's the thing, Joey Gallo is an elite defensive player. And has genuine light tower power. That's the sort of player you should WANT in this game. If you move the fences back, you get rid of a bunch of wall-scrapers from guys like Marcus Semien and his average HR distance of 365 ft, but you get rid of the shift and start making rules to create more contact and you trade those Semien wall-scrapers for big damn majestic bombs from Joey Gallo.
I'm not anti-power. I'm anti-cheap power. I want baseball to have room for a guy like Joey Gallo who hits friggen blasts and plays outstanding defense. I don't want to trade the Jay Bruce's of the world for more Nick Castellanos with his shitty defense and half of his homers being a result of generous dimensions.
There are good, fun players being squeezed out by the easy power in this game and sooner or later, when the homerun is just commonplace, MLB isn't going to have anywhere else to turn because the 'high' of the homer will have faded.
Originally Posted by Ocotillo:
While I think the writers are despicable for their obvious biases, the salary cap is a waste of time. It's not even a practical solution.
Just like five-year free agency is a non-starter for the owners, the salary cap is never being considered by the MLBPA unless attitudes change over generations.
The owners would have shut down the season over five-year free agency and the players did the same in 1994-95 over the salary cap.
If the owners can't find a way to share revenue so small market teams don't have to tank for windows, and can keep their homegrown stars, they're going to keep bleeding fans like me. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
And this is why an MLB competition committee doesn't ask them - it tells them they will do so.
I don't care if this means mandating field sizes. How does it make one damn bit of sense that every team plays on a different sized field? Name a sport that does that other than baseball.
A guy like Joey Gallo is the poster child for the "allow the shift, learn to go oppo, idiot!" crowd. But here's the thing, Joey Gallo is an elite defensive player. And has genuine light tower power. That's the sort of player you should WANT in this game. If you move the fences back, you get rid of a bunch of wall-scrapers from guys like Marcus Semien and his average HR distance of 365 ft, but you get rid of the shift and start making rules to create more contact and you trade those Semien wall-scrapers for big damn majestic bombs from Joey Gallo.
I'm not anti-power. I'm anti-cheap power. I want baseball to have room for a guy like Joey Gallo who hits friggen blasts and plays outstanding defense. I don't want to trade the Jay Bruce's of the world for more Nick Castellanos with his shitty defense and half of his homers being a result of generous dimensions.
There are good, fun players being squeezed out by the easy power in this game and sooner or later, when the homerun is just commonplace, MLB isn't going to have anywhere else to turn because the 'high' of the homer will have faded.
I agree with you about Joey Gallo getting short changed on his perception vs. what he is actually is. He's a fun player to watch. He was arguably as good as anyone in baseball in 2019 during a two-month stretch.
Who are some of the fun players you see getting squeezed out? I think in the early days of Moneyball, we had some non-athletes holding down some more premium positions like 2B or corner OF spots they shouldn't have been because OBP and SLG took precedence, but I think now with the Statcast, teams are very cognizant of measuring foot speed, range and outfield routes to the baseball.
It seems like there's a premium being placed on athleticism and defense, too. There are still some defense-oriented players like Harrison Bader, Michael A. Taylor, Isiah Kiner-Falefa, Nicky Lopez and J.P. Crawford.
I think what the sport is lacking are contact hitters that are stars (Ichiro Suzuki, Tony Gwynn, Rod Carew). Most of them are supporting cast players like David Fletcher, Luis Arraez or fringe players like Willans Astudillo.
And the other thing the sport is lacking are dynamic base stealers. There's not that true rabbit anymore. Actually, it's amazing that a 30s aged player in Whit Merrifield led the majors with 40 steals last year but he's an outlier because most decent base runners curtail their running by the time they get to age 28, 29. Even with the larger bags, I just don't see it making a huge impact toward more steals. The teams don't want to risk outs. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Ocotillo:
I agree with you about Joey Gallo getting short changed on his perception vs. what he is actually is. He's a fun player to watch. He was arguably as good as anyone in baseball in 2019 during a two-month stretch.
Who are some of the fun players you see getting squeezed out? I think in the early days of Moneyball, we had some non-athletes holding down some more premium positions like 2B or corner OF spots they shouldn't have been because OBP and SLG took precedence, but I think now with the Statcast, teams are very cognizant of measuring foot speed, range and outfield routes to the baseball.
It seems like there's a premium being placed on athleticism and defense, too. There are still some defense-oriented players like Harrison Bader, Michael A. Taylor, Isiah Kiner-Falefa, Nicky Lopez and J.P. Crawford.
I think what the sport is lacking are contact hitters that are stars (Ichiro Suzuki, Tony Gwynn, Rod Carew). Most of them are supporting cast players like David Fletcher, Luis Arraez or fringe players like Willans Astudillo.
And the other thing the sport is lacking are dynamic base stealers. There's not that true rabbit anymore. Actually, it's amazing that a 30s aged player in Whit Merrifield led the majors with 40 steals last year but he's an outlier because most decent base runners curtail their running by the time they get to age 28, 29. Even with the larger bags, I just don't see it making a huge impact toward more steals. The teams don't want to risk outs.
I think baseball should have room for guys like both Joey Gallo AND Jarrod Dyson to thrive. Michael A. Taylor was on his way out of the league until the Royals, who have the park that allows him to showcase his skills, gave him a shot.
And no, I don't want a league full of guys like either of them. But I want a league where both types of players, as equally flawed players, are equally valuable players.
And if that means putting your thumb on the scale - so be it. I get that stealing 100 bases while getting thrown out 50 times isn't efficient - but what can we do to change that? Because man, seeing some dude who's a threat to take off every single time he's on 1b is just awesome. Royals fans know how much fun it was every time they sent Terrance Gore out there to pinch run.
I'm just so tired of everything in baseball being viewed through the lens of raw data. And this is someone who, I honestly believe, 20 years ago was further along on stats/data than many MLB teams. I actually did my methodology class project on what leads to run scoring in baseball back in 2002. I'm a huge stats/numbers guy.
But fucking hell it's taken a lot of joy out of the sport. Baseball needed to modernize and realize that many of the things they valued weren't actually all that important. That was a huge step forward. Now it's important that they look at the game, find what's fun and see what they can do to MAKE it important. Make those aspects more valuable.
Or they'll just die a slow death. This sport absolutely cannot afford to lose fans like me. And it's happening. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Jerm:
Oh and analytics have killed what’s great about the game too….
Analytics isn't the problem - but it DOES tell you the problem. Analytics have effectively told us that bad/boring baseball is what wins games.
You can only change what you have control over. And so...while DJ'sLN is generally doing good work in this thread, I'd like to disagree on the point about the fences. To me, the more controllable thing is the ball. Find the most standard, least juiced ball from the last 30 years...bring the seams back up to size and watch the cheap home runs go away.
When you take cheap home runs away, the hitter can then work towards the obvious advantage the pitchers have with the non-juiced ball and start learning other techniques for hitting besides bombs-away. Maybe even a revival of the Walt Hriniak approach to putting the ball in play. Over all, I also love the shorter base path made by the larger bases, shift-banning and finally, the institution of robo-ump behind the plate so that we can stop making the game about the pathetic low-life umps that enter god-mode and squeeze the pitchers, just because they can. Give pitchers their corners and edges and guys will start learning new ways to get the ball into play. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
I said it earlier in this thread but so much about the game would be corrected overnight if we moved the fences back even 10 feet and eliminated cheap power. I went over the various impacts it would have; I can provide the link to the post if you're interested. Bottom line is that bigger OFs require faster OFers and hitters have to really 'earn' their homers so they'll do more to take advantage of those big power alleys. And with faster players on the field, you'll see more baserunning.
I absolutely love the idea of allowing the DH only when the starting pitcher is in the game. This will encourage organizations to teach their SPs to get deeper into the games and maybe encourage leaving them out there to face the order a 3rd time through. If pitchers aren't taught to just fire fastballs past guys and instead try to work on pitch efficiency, suddenly you have more active IFs and OFers as well.
Curtail the shift at least to where IFers have to stay on the IF. If hitters are rewarded more for putting the ball in play, they'll make a more concerted effort to do so. Additionally, eliminating the shift takes more sub-standard fielders off the field because you can't hide them through shifting them. Now you have even more athletically gifted players on the infield to go with having more athletic OFers.
I like the idea of making the bases a little bit bigger, again to encourage more baserunning and more contact so that more guys can steal and/or beat out IF squibbers. Think of how many bang/bang plays there are on SBs. Now make the bases 4 inches wider. That gives the runner 8 inches to work with and that's a HUGE difference.
I need to see more data on moving the mound. The math checks out but the results over a mere month haven't given us enough information. But barring moving the mound, start enforcing the top of the strike zone or maybe even bring it down a tick (even half a baseball would make a big difference; but a full ball wouldn't bother me any). Guys throw so damn hard that expecting hitters to just be able to catch up to 98 at the letters when you can just start throwing a half dozen fresh relievers at them each game is nuts. Bring the zone down a little so that high fastballs aren't a death sentence.
Additionally, you'll now make curveballs that much more effective because they typically work well when they encourage hitters to swing before they dive down in the zone. If hitters are seeing more 'hittable' pitches up, they'll start offering at them more and be fooled by that curve more as well. So that will bring back that big overhand curve that is just damn nice when done well. The problem is that it's really a feel pitch whereas you can just grip and rip a slider. And with the slider tunneling off the fastball, there's just very little utility in trying to learn a good curve when the slider's equally effective and a hell of a lot easier. Suddenly if the high fastball isn't quite as effective, the curve may be a necessary weapon to keep guys honest. You'll also, due to the changes made w/ the DH above, encourage the return of the good ol' fashion sinkerballer that works down the zone and looks for soft contact.
So now you have more athletes on the field, more action on the bases, a broader variety of pitchers that can succeed. You'll see fewer injuries because these pitchers aren't going max-effort on every delivery anymore. I think changing the options and service time rules to that teams aren't encouraged to bring up middle-tier arms from the minors and just churn and burn them until they blow up will be good for the sport and the players. Again, just taking one more area where guys are just throwing as goddamn hard as they can and limiting it a tick.
If you have fields that are geographically incapable of moving the fences back for some reason, deaden the ball there. I think Fenway is the primary example I can think of, but there may be a couple others. And even Fenway could do it if they'd get rid of the Monster seats. They won't do it voluntarily, but it could be foisted onto them.
And then again - just put in a hard revenue split with ceilings and floors for team spending. And robust revenue sharing. Baseball has 'parity' in its champions because it's a random ass sport, not because teams are truly on any sort of level playing field. Fix that. A sport cannot thrive with this kind of have/have not setup.
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
I think baseball should have room for guys like both Joey Gallo AND Jarrod Dyson to thrive. Michael A. Taylor was on his way out of the league until the Royals, who have the park that allows him to showcase his skills, gave him a shot.
And no, I don't want a league full of guys like either of them. But I want a league where both types of players, as equally flawed players, are equally valuable players.
And if that means putting your thumb on the scale - so be it. I get that stealing 100 bases while getting thrown out 50 times isn't efficient - but what can we do to change that? Because man, seeing some dude who's a threat to take off every single time he's on 1b is just awesome. Royals fans know how much fun it was every time they sent Terrance Gore out there to pinch run.
I'm just so tired of everything in baseball being viewed through the lens of raw data. And this is someone who, I honestly believe, 20 years ago was further along on stats/data than many MLB teams. I actually did my methodology class project on what leads to run scoring in baseball back in 2002. I'm a huge stats/numbers guy.
But ****ing hell it's taken a lot of joy out of the sport. Baseball needed to modernize and realize that many of the things they valued weren't actually all that important. That was a huge step forward. Now it's important that they look at the game, find what's fun and see what they can do to MAKE it important. Make those aspects more valuable.
Or they'll just die a slow death. This sport absolutely cannot afford to lose fans like me. And it's happening.
This sounds like a version of Whitey ball. There weren't a lot of home runs but it was way more exciting baseball than the current version. Let the millennial see this type of baseball and see if MLB can stop its slow decline with the public. [Reply]
Originally Posted by dallaschiefsfan:
Analytics isn't the problem - but it DOES tell you the problem. Analytics have effectively told us that bad/boring baseball is what wins games.
You can only change what you have control over. And so...while DJ'sLN is generally doing good work in this thread, I'd like to disagree on the point about the fences. To me, the more controllable thing is the ball. Find the most standard, least juiced ball from the last 30 years...bring the seams back up to size and watch the cheap home runs go away.
When you take cheap home runs away, the hitter can then work towards the obvious advantage the pitchers have with the non-juiced ball and start learning other techniques for hitting besides bombs-away. Maybe even a revival of the Walt Hriniak approach to putting the ball in play. Over all, I also love the shorter base path made by the larger bases, shift-banning and finally, the institution of robo-ump behind the plate so that we can stop making the game about the pathetic low-life umps that enter god-mode and squeeze the pitchers, just because they can. Give pitchers their corners and edges and guys will start learning new ways to get the ball into play.
Again, I don't disagree that a deadened ball is an easier alternative.
But remember - I'm a benevolent God Emperor here.
The problem with just deadening the ball is that it also slows balls hit in play and on smaller fields, those still become outs. And frankly, I don't want to 'rob' hitters on hard contact. Nor do I want to do anything to make it easier for fielders - I want those guys to be badass to do the job.
So a deadened ball doesn't just stop homers, it makes hard ground balls less hard so it gives IFers another step. It takes balls that may have hit and run into a gap slow down so fielders can cut them off. It's the easy way to kill cheap power, but it's not the best way because it doesn't come with the ancillary benefits of creating more grass. More grass means wider gaps and more baserunning. It means OFers have to decide if they're going to play in on balls and risk having liners hit over them off the fence or if they're going to play back and cede those line drives that they may have had a play on.
It's just a better way of doing it. And ballparks don't sell out anymore anyway until the post-season. Nor are those premium seats anywhere but Fenway. So the owners shouldn't have a problem with it (invariably they will).
I'm not saying that un-juicing the balls doesn't have some merit. I'm just saying that it's an artificial way to get a watered-down version of the results I'm looking for. [Reply]