Weird stat of the day:
Twins are 11-8 in 9 inning games, 0-4 in 7 inning games, and 0-7 in extra inning games.
Other teams’ fans making the Astros cry into their garbage cans:
The 7 inning thing bugs me more than I think it should and I think I finally figured out why. Sounds weird, but I think my mind is mentally paced for a game that goes to the 9th inning (or past). I think I’d like it better if, instead of ending at inning 7, it started at inning 3 and went to the 9th.
1 Like
You are qualified to be the White Sox Manager.
Just reading this tripe from ESPN.com
Some of the tripe that sticks out:
The pitchers are too good, too overpowering these days.
Well, some are “too good.” The rest are somewhat mediocre. That’s why there are 14-12 games as well as 1-0 games. I should not have to point out that “the hard is what makes it great.”
It is not the hitter’s fault. This is what the game has urged them to do: get the ball up in the air – do damage. The players get paid a lot of money to hit that way. But it’s time for our young GMs and hitting coaches to acknowledge that this way isn’t working. The pitchers made an adjustment after getting their brains beat out 20 years ago. Now it’s the hitters’ turn to make a change, otherwise we’ll have more and more six-hit, 30-punchout games. – Tim Kurkjian
Well, it is, and has always been, the most effective way to win baseball. It’s just that it has been discovered only recently (last 20-30 years) via technology looking at the physics. Imagine in the 1920’s someone saying that baseball is boring because Babe Ruth hits too many homers, that he’s just too good. So, fix the whole game, because of The Babe and a few others.
Of course, no solution is made. What Timmy wants is more hits, but fewer homers and strikeouts. So, whiffle ball?
Ban the shift, and you’ll bring back hits as well as swings that create action beyond an occasional long ball. – Jesse Rogers
Another great thinker. So, how much shifting are you banning, good sir? Instead of the third baseman moving to short right field, just move everyone so that they are still relatively in their correct positions, according to the official rulebook which defines each defensive position. Right? Oh, yeah, the rule book does not define exactly where the defensive positions must play. Those “traditional” positions are where they are due to tweaks in the first decades. They (managers) started shifting players. Will a “double-play depth” or “play-at-home depth” be banned from this guy’s “ban the shift” proposal? I mean, banning those would lead to more runs and harder plays leading to more runners on base, so, exciting, which is what they (these writers) want, right?
There’s more, some of it was reasonably thought out, like making sure kids play the game. I believe one’s playing a sport makes one appreciate it. No, not everyone (nit-pickers), but a large majority.
And, getting rid of “unwritten rules” that are written somewhere but in English (American) only. I mean, Mookie Betts gets to holler about getting the final out in a game with a running and diving catch (which he did a few weeks ago, his being genuinely happy for himself and his team), but a batter can’t flip his bat after a game-winning homer?
And getting the game on the TV for people to watch, instead of arcane black-out rules.
Henderson was great. I will always remember him for his 9th inning distraction of Mitch William in the 1993 WS. Ricky was not modest: he took credit for the walk-off series-winning home run that Joe Carter hit with him on base.
I think the prohibition of 3 infielders on the same side of 2nd base is enough.
I don’t like the shift, but see no reason to outlaw it.
I wish more players knew how to hit to the opposite field, especially when a single means as much as a HR
Which fielders are designated as “infielders”?
How about: “move the left fielder to short right, third baseman plays very deep”?
What about when the winning run is on 3rd base with less than 2 outs and the team goes with a 5 infielder, 2 outfielder alignment?
Personally I have no problem with the shift at all. It’s the prevalence of the strikeout I’d like to see drop. I mean they talk about the old days when dudes didn’t strike out but neglected to mention that pitchers who throw 95+ on their FB and have a secondary movement pitch to go with it we’re pretty uncommon back in the day but today ever staff in MLB has multiple guys who fit that Bill.
In 67? 68? Pitchers were dominating so much they lowered the mound. Maybe now it’s time to move the mound back some.
College Softball was at a point in the late 80s early 90s that pitchers were dominating so much they moved the mound from 40’ to 43’ to improve offense.
If the shifted player is back on the grass, he is not technically an infielder
I see your point, and I get it, and I don’t want to argue it just to argue it out.
Clearly, to ban shifts then the league must figure out and define positions in terms of personnel and in terms of spatial areas on the field.
I just have loved baseball since I was a kid, and I am saddened by its dwindling popularity. I like the nostalgia of how relatively little has changed in the game over the last many decades. But as a fan I am willing to welcome small, incremental changes that improve the popularity of the game. And we could argue on and on about what constitutes “small and incremental.”
I like the idea of banning the shift to get more singles back in the game. I kinda like the idea of automating/computerizing the strike zone. Over the last 10 years, the improved graphics showing the path the balls take thru the strike zones on broadcasts have demonstrated just how often the umpires make suspect calls.
I think there should be a hard salary cap instead of a luxury tax to prevent Dodger and Yankee dynasties.
Strikeouts are fascist. Hits per AB are too low. HRs per hit is too high. Base on balls is boring baseball.
Actually, I couldn’t care less if baseball is popular or not with other people. I like it fine enough. If it stops being popular enough to justify salaries, and billionaires start losing money, so be it. The real problem is that the game has been solved. Once a game is solved, like Chess or Tic-Tac-Toe or Baseball, it ceases being interesting.
So, to prevent balls from leaving the field as home runs, some combination of the following has to occur:
- The ball has to be changed;
- The bats have to be changed;
- The field has to be changed.
I like the idea of hitters being able to hit the ball where the fielders are not. So I blame the players and their coaches. And if fielders are playing all to one side, there are places where fielders are not. As Brad Pitt as Billy Beane said in Moneyball, “I pay you to get on base.”
And, the shift occurs only on select players who cannot, according to their past plate appearances, hit the opposite way.
However, two years ago 538 discovered that the BABIP has been steady through the rise of the shift. K’s/PA have gone up a lot, though. As have HRs, batters are deciding to try to hit over the shift, which is also how to beat the shift.
And, from someone who is trying to win games, which is the actual objective (not “making the game exciting”):
“The beauty of the game is all the strategies that we can employ,” Milwaukee Brewers manager Craig Counsell said at the winter meetings. So “attacking strategies to win baseball games, man, I just don’t see that as improving the game.”
I was looking at Baseball-Reference the other day and came up with some observations onbatting average cycles in baseball. Thought about downloading the data and doing some analysis but too lazy for that. So here were my break points.
Years : (Low - Hi)
1900 - 1919 (.239 - .266)
1920 - 1939 (.270 - .296)
1940 - 1962 (.253 - .266)
1963 - 1972 : (.237 - .250)
1973 - 1993 : (.254 - .265)
1994 - 2009 : (.261 - .270)
2010 - 2019 : (.248 - .257)
2020 : .245
2021 : .236 (If it holds it would be the lowest EVER surpassing the .239 in 1968)
I know 1920 - 1939 was considered the live ball ERA or at least part of it was. MLB averages were never higher than during that period.
Then BA stabilized in a pretty narrow corridor from 40-62
There was a big dip in the period 63-72 in the middle of which the mound was lowered.
Then from 73-93 it seemed to normalize back to the 40-62 range.
Umm…then some chemical enhancement came a long
Was the dip after 2009 just better catching the chemical enhancement, was it the shift, did pitching change, was it a combo of factors?
Another interesting observation is that prior to to 1993 the MLB had only 3 seasons (1950, 1977 and 1987) in its history where the league slugging average was greater than .400. Then from 1993 - 2010 the league slugging percentage was greater than .400 every year. Since then the slugging percentage has been between .386 - .426 each year.
Meanwhile, in the out-of-retirement home, LaRussa is upset at a rookie on his own team hitting a home run. Because, his team was already up 11 runs in the ninth, the Twins had an infielder pitching, etc. For the good of the game, this rookie was just supposed to take a pitch instead of swinging.
And the next day, LaRussa was ok with a pitch sailing behind the rookie. His own player. For the good of the game.
I was surprised LaRussa didn’t have his own batting practice pitchers throw at the rookie as punishment.
“If you’re going to tell me that sportsmanship and the respect for the game of baseball and respect for your opponent is not an important priority, I can’t disagree with you more,” La Russa said. “… You think you need more [runs] to win, you keep pushing. If you think you have enough, respect the game and opposition. Sportsmanship.”
That’s not “respect”; that is condescension. Perhaps the MLB should allow a team that is losing simply to cry uncle and end the game.
“Sportsmanship” is about not rubbing it in with taunts and shit like that.
He also seems concerned that someone in the clubhouse disagrees with him.
Q: when was the last time a team in first place fired its manager?
Latest is mostly caused by high strikeout rates, which people say is caused, in part, by the shift. I say pitchers are that much better, and batters are going four bags or zero bags, for more money on their next contract.
And, while not “the shift,” players do move slightly left or right of their general spot based on a card that tells them where to play. And damn if the ground balls don’t get hit right at those spots.
As long as players are paid based on performance, they should be allowed to perform. The guy was in a slump so management wants him to stay in that slump? Makes no sense to me.
I’ve been seriously considering why managers don’t do that instead of straining their bullpens and having position players pitch. You avoid the whole thing with a forfeit. Is there a rule against just forfeiting to save your pitching staff?
You already declared me qualified. 
I’ll take the job.
I’ve always enjoyed station to station more than HRs. I personally wouldn’t mind a rule change to make anything that goes over the outfield wall an out. Or maybe a single to be less radical. Remove the incentive for swinging for the fence and you’ll remove the boring 3-outcome at-bat and will likely reduce the benefit of the shift, as well.