The intentional walk rule is long overdue, albeit not that big of a deal. I'm on the fence about the strike zone. I'm not sold that making the strike zone smaller will result in more balls in play.
This is an interesting piece about the impact of sabermetrics on guys like Chris Carter. We always knew that guys like Kingman and Deer were overrated because all they contributed was HRs. Now the stats make this glaringly obvious. The shift to the modern paradigm, with power hitters up and down the lineup, also makes a guy who hits 35 HRs less special.
Joined: 10 Dec 2006 Posts: 52657 Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2017 5:17 pm Post subject:
Basketball Fan wrote:
Please don't let it be a team I dislike.
I'm convinced the Cubs gave their curse to the rest of the world when they won the WS.
Here's hoping. _________________ You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames
The intentional walk rule is long overdue, albeit not that big of a deal. I'm on the fence about the strike zone. I'm not sold that making the strike zone smaller will result in more balls in play.
I remember a Dodgers game may years ago where the opposing team decided to intentionally walk I believe Eric Karros. On the very first pitch, the guy threw it so weird that it actually ended up as a strike. It was interesting to see a catcher standing upright with his arm out and ending up having to crouch down to catch the pitch, and it was a strike. The Dodger eventually struck out at the plate. I guess those unique occurrences will be a thing of the past with that rule change.
Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2017 9:15 pm Post subject: Re: 2017 MLB Thread
LAkers 4 Life wrote:
I remember a Dodgers game may years ago where the opposing team decided to intentionally walk I believe Eric Karros. On the very first pitch, the guy threw it so weird that it actually ended up as a strike. It was interesting to see a catcher standing upright with his arm out and ending up having to crouch down to catch the pitch, and it was a strike. The Dodger eventually struck out at the plate. I guess those unique occurrences will be a thing of the past with that rule change.
If you're old enough to remember the '72 Series, there was a famous play in which Rollie Fingers struck out Johnny Bench on a fake intentional ball four. I remember Bench kept insisting afterwards that he wasn't really fooled. I can remember hearing stories as a kid about people trying to steal home on intentional walks. I never saw that with my own eyes, though.
Actually, it occurred to me that the play from the '72 Series must be on YouTube. Sure enough. It sounds like Johnny Bench finally developed a sense of humor about it.
Joined: 25 Apr 2015 Posts: 31924 Location: Anaheim, CA
Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2017 10:24 pm Post subject:
I don't like an automatic walk AT ALL. You should have to actually throw the pitches. It's like in football if you were just allowed to not have to snap the ball at the end, in the victory formation...like if they just gave you a free down and the clock keeps running. I think it's ridiculous. Anything can happen. You should have to still actually complete the act.
I don't like an automatic walk AT ALL. You should have to actually throw the pitches. It's like in football if you were just allowed to not have to snap the ball at the end, in the victory formation...like if they just gave you a free down and the clock keeps running. I think it's ridiculous. Anything can happen. You should have to still actually complete the act.
Yeah...the motivation behind is equally silly. Speed up the game? Really? Those 4 pitches in the midst of 3-5 hour affair is going to move the needle one way? _________________ KOBE
Yahoo! Sports, citing sources, reported Wednesday that MLB will test a rule change in the rookie-level Gulf Coast League and the Arizona League this summer that will automatically place a runner on second base at the start of extra innings.
A similar rule has been used internationally and will be in place for next month's World Baseball Classic.
Loria makes out like a bandit treating the Marlins franchise the way he has. Just like Frank McCourt, they make a lot of money mismanaging their franchise on purpose. Even worse is that he's got 2 World Series titles during his tenure, which is more than anything the McCourts ever did.
The first World Series title was during the Huizenga era, and the second came right after he bought the team. Loria went from owning the Expos to getting $1.6B for the Marlins. This begs the question: Why is someone paying $1.6B for the freaking Marlins? It's not a question of the team being poor for a long time -- that can be fixed. But it is still a team in a weak sports market. How in the world can you justify that sort of price tag?
Loria makes out like a bandit treating the Marlins franchise the way he has. Just like Frank McCourt, they make a lot of money mismanaging their franchise on purpose. Even worse is that he's got 2 World Series titles during his tenure, which is more than anything the McCourts ever did.
5 championships in 20 years for that city is the biggest travesty in sports. _________________ KOBE
Joined: 25 Apr 2015 Posts: 31924 Location: Anaheim, CA
Posted: Fri Feb 10, 2017 4:18 pm Post subject:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
The first World Series title was during the Huizenga era, and the second came right after he bought the team. Loria went from owning the Expos to getting $1.6B for the Marlins. This begs the question: Why is someone paying $1.6B for the freaking Marlins? It's not a question of the team being poor for a long time -- that can be fixed. But it is still a team in a weak sports market. How in the world can you justify that sort of price tag?
The baseball industry is just so healthy right now, and it's awash in cash. If the new owner doesn't run the franchise into the ground, in 20 years it will be worth double that.
The first World Series title was during the Huizenga era, and the second came right after he bought the team.
Ah... that's right. Loria was just part of the Expos ownership that eventually became the Washington Nationals. A lot of backroom dealing going on with the franchises at the time. It still amazes me how the good ol' boys network in MLB can let in sham owners over the years, all the way back to Marge Schott to the McCourts.
The baseball industry is just so healthy right now, and it's awash in cash. If the new owner doesn't run the franchise into the ground, in 20 years it will be worth double that.
Pro sports in general are experiencing a bubble due to TV money. Bubbles burst.
As for the Marlins, here's the Forbes analysis. We should take their opinion about the value of the Marlins with a grain of salt, of course. But look at the other numbers and see if you can make sense of paying $1.6B for this team.
Joined: 14 Apr 2001 Posts: 144474 Location: The Gold Coast
Posted: Sun Feb 12, 2017 2:55 pm Post subject:
ChickenStu wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
The first World Series title was during the Huizenga era, and the second came right after he bought the team. Loria went from owning the Expos to getting $1.6B for the Marlins. This begs the question: Why is someone paying $1.6B for the freaking Marlins? It's not a question of the team being poor for a long time -- that can be fixed. But it is still a team in a weak sports market. How in the world can you justify that sort of price tag?
The baseball industry is just so healthy right now, and it's awash in cash. If the new owner doesn't run the franchise into the ground, in 20 years it will be worth double that.
Plus if they are losing money it can be a nice tax write off. _________________ RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023.
Joined: 14 Apr 2001 Posts: 144474 Location: The Gold Coast
Posted: Sun Feb 12, 2017 2:56 pm Post subject:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
ChickenStu wrote:
The baseball industry is just so healthy right now, and it's awash in cash. If the new owner doesn't run the franchise into the ground, in 20 years it will be worth double that.
Pro sports in general are experiencing a bubble due to TV money. Bubbles burst.
As for the Marlins, here's the Forbes analysis. We should take their opinion about the value of the Marlins with a grain of salt, of course. But look at the other numbers and see if you can make sense of paying $1.6B for this team.
Or a new bubble is created, and for some sports I think that bubble will be pay per view team telecast subscriptions. _________________ RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023.
As part of Black History Month, here is a retrospective on Bob Watson, the first black GM. He was a better player than a GM (his career numbers are depressed due to playing in the Astrodome), but he did okay.
Apparently, the union did not agree to the rule changes, so MLB will unilaterally impose the changes for next season. There are other reports that the intentional walk change did get approved for this season.
I hadn't heard about the rule change involving putting marks on the field. The Dodgers were using GPS to position their outfielders? I'm a fan of modern analytics, but that's a bit much.
The baseball industry is just so healthy right now, and it's awash in cash. If the new owner doesn't run the franchise into the ground, in 20 years it will be worth double that.
Pro sports in general are experiencing a bubble due to TV money. Bubbles burst.
As for the Marlins, here's the Forbes analysis. We should take their opinion about the value of the Marlins with a grain of salt, of course. But look at the other numbers and see if you can make sense of paying $1.6B for this team.
Or a new bubble is created, and for some sports I think that bubble will be pay per view team telecast subscriptions.
Problem is millennials don't watch as much sports, or TV in general as much as the previous generation.....this will be evident when a lot of TV contracts get renewed in the future and networks balk at higher costs when they can't a return on their investments because too many people ended up cutting the cord.
Saw an article on msn ranking the managers. Surprised to see Dave Roberts ranked only 19. He did a much better job than that ranking. It'll be interesting to see what changes Dave Roberts makes in his coaching decisions this season.
All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Next
Page 1 of 5
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum