So when the batter steps out and fucks around for no reason, which really wastes time, if that is what anyone cares about (note: it's not) he only has to step back in before the 5 second-mark, according to the article. So the 20 second limit is really 5 seconds, because you've just encouraged batters to step out every pitch.
Also, the Giants dfa'ed nobody and claimed a different nobody off of waivers.
I don't have an issue with the pitch clock. It has been used in the minors and all the reports I hear about it are positive. I'd prefer, as I've said many times, that the umps have more authority to tell batters to stay in the damn box and pitchers to throw the damn ball. But that's not going to happen. The pitch clock is a compromise. I suspect we'll see it pretty soon, maybe even next season. The league has to address pace-of-play, I think. This is at least a start. If they try it and it sucks they can always get rid of it. There's nothing wrong with a little tinkering. Limiting pitching changes and/or requiring pitchers to face a minimum number of batters strike me as more extreme changes, but then again I'm willing to see if they work. Baseball games are too long and this comes from a lifelong, passionate fan.
I'd rather baseball address obvious inequities like international signing rules and the draft, the obsolete arbitration system, minor-league pay, and other more technical matters in the new CBA but I'm not optimistic.
Hanser Alberto is the new infielder and they DFAd a guy they just picked up, RH reliever Jake Barrett.
This is FZ's m.o., apparently. Never be content with the 39th and 40th guys on the roster, keep moving bodies until you get the guys you want or at least guys who are better or better suited to the team's needs. Works for me!
The pace of the game is what I like about baseball. I do not think they should tamper with a game that has its own special pace. The 95+ MPH fastball has picked up the speed of the game enough. If they have less time for commercials and ads, the ticket prices will go up even more. But aside from economics, it would be more important to call balls and strikes correctly than to shorten the game by a couple of minutes.
MLB has the oldest fanbase of all the major sports. Kids are more interested in soccer and basketball and MMA and whatnot. I think MLB wants to change that and is willing to irritate us old guys a little in order to improve the market for the product.
An analysis of game lengths at Beyond the Boxscore is an interesting read. The author (Scott Lindholm) argues that the time between pitches is not an appreciably big factor but also points out there is a rule already in place that is not enforced. We'll see if the pitch clock gets enforced! Nonetheless game times have increased steadily since we were kids, even 1-0 games take longer than before. And he also remarks on the aging audience as well. I'm curious about the international audience--do Japanese or Mexican fans, for example, have the same demographics as fans from the States? The game seems to be growing in other countries while stagnating somewhat here at home. I will say that a long, slow game on the radio is entirely preferable to a long, slow game on TV. And the popularity of mobile apps and compressed games as well as pre-recorded games (a lot of fans I know do that and fast forward through the "boring" parts) is making an impact on the TV audience.
I'm not really concerned by the proposed changes, like I said. Change can be good, too! It's the willingness to change that matters to me. After all we have seen many changes in our lifetime, the biggest of course being the DH and expansion of the playoffs. Certainly post-season tournament baseball is a different animal than regular season play. Also we've see changes in the collision rules on the basepaths, esp. at home and second base, both I think are good things. The replay is the biggest impact, and it is still a bit of a mess from my point of view. I'd like to see it be more limited to clearing up obvious mistakes rather than parsing out whether the guy's fingernail beat the throw or there was two millimeters of air space between the shoe and the base after the slide-and-tag or something equally silly. Mainly it is the TIME it takes to review, that should be limited I think, that dead air really turns off fans.
FZ’s m.o. is, I think, to figure out how to add potentially useful player inventory without losing any: he adds someone and DFAs someone else who’s unlikely to be picked up by another team. He does that by choosing to DFA a player who has just been waived by virtually all the rival teams, I.e., the Giants’ most recent waiver acquisition. It’s not a matter of moving bodies out of the organization, just on and off roster lists, so that he and his staff have the widest range of interesting options. By now he/we have over thirty new players to sort out, none of them costly or with long-term guarantees, to compensate for a perceived shallow pool of upper-level minor leaguers in the system he inherited.
Yeah, I think that is a good description of many of the roster moves. I also think that the Giants might trade some veteran relievers (Watson? Dyson? Smith?) because they now have a bunch of younger, cost-controlled arms. It isn't a whole lost of money, payroll-wise (the three of them cost a little under $13M total) but with $100+M committed for 2020 every little bit of flexibility helps. Then again they might just decide to give Bryce Harper $40M/yr and blow my whole theory out of the water!
Harper is decent and he will make the giants better, but I do not see him, at least so far, as an elite player ala Barry Bonds. I would not mind if the giants had him, but I would mind if he kept us from getting a bunch of good players in the future because of his price tag, and if the price of all things giants, then skyrocket.
Yeah I think his cost is >>>>> than his value, even though he is a great talent. The Giants need youth and depth along with talent and I think a 10-year deal is nuts for any one player.
14 comments:
Rob Manfred's desire to impose his idiotic ideas on MLB to make it "his" continue.
https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2019/02/mlb-announces-implementation-of-pitch-clock-for-spring-training-games.html
So when the batter steps out and fucks around for no reason, which really wastes time, if that is what anyone cares about (note: it's not) he only has to step back in before the 5 second-mark, according to the article. So the 20 second limit is really 5 seconds, because you've just encouraged batters to step out every pitch.
Also, the Giants dfa'ed nobody and claimed a different nobody off of waivers.
I don't have an issue with the pitch clock. It has been used in the minors and all the reports I hear about it are positive. I'd prefer, as I've said many times, that the umps have more authority to tell batters to stay in the damn box and pitchers to throw the damn ball. But that's not going to happen. The pitch clock is a compromise. I suspect we'll see it pretty soon, maybe even next season. The league has to address pace-of-play, I think. This is at least a start. If they try it and it sucks they can always get rid of it. There's nothing wrong with a little tinkering. Limiting pitching changes and/or requiring pitchers to face a minimum number of batters strike me as more extreme changes, but then again I'm willing to see if they work. Baseball games are too long and this comes from a lifelong, passionate fan.
I'd rather baseball address obvious inequities like international signing rules and the draft, the obsolete arbitration system, minor-league pay, and other more technical matters in the new CBA but I'm not optimistic.
Hanser Alberto is the new infielder and they DFAd a guy they just picked up, RH reliever Jake Barrett.
This is FZ's m.o., apparently. Never be content with the 39th and 40th guys on the roster, keep moving bodies until you get the guys you want or at least guys who are better or better suited to the team's needs. Works for me!
The pace of the game is what I like about baseball. I do not think they should tamper with a game that has its own special pace. The 95+ MPH fastball has picked up the speed of the game enough. If they have less time for commercials and ads, the ticket prices will go up even more. But aside from economics, it would be more important to call balls and strikes correctly than to shorten the game by a couple of minutes.
MLB has the oldest fanbase of all the major sports. Kids are more interested in soccer and basketball and MMA and whatnot. I think MLB wants to change that and is willing to irritate us old guys a little in order to improve the market for the product.
There's a Baggs tweet with a Bumgarner quote re the pitch clock.
The kids will come around, they will not always be kids. They may at some time in their lives want to sit back and enjoy a game of baseball.
An analysis of game lengths at Beyond the Boxscore is an interesting read. The author (Scott Lindholm) argues that the time between pitches is not an appreciably big factor but also points out there is a rule already in place that is not enforced. We'll see if the pitch clock gets enforced! Nonetheless game times have increased steadily since we were kids, even 1-0 games take longer than before. And he also remarks on the aging audience as well. I'm curious about the international audience--do Japanese or Mexican fans, for example, have the same demographics as fans from the States? The game seems to be growing in other countries while stagnating somewhat here at home. I will say that a long, slow game on the radio is entirely preferable to a long, slow game on TV. And the popularity of mobile apps and compressed games as well as pre-recorded games (a lot of fans I know do that and fast forward through the "boring" parts) is making an impact on the TV audience.
I'm not really concerned by the proposed changes, like I said. Change can be good, too! It's the willingness to change that matters to me. After all we have seen many changes in our lifetime, the biggest of course being the DH and expansion of the playoffs. Certainly post-season tournament baseball is a different animal than regular season play. Also we've see changes in the collision rules on the basepaths, esp. at home and second base, both I think are good things. The replay is the biggest impact, and it is still a bit of a mess from my point of view. I'd like to see it be more limited to clearing up obvious mistakes rather than parsing out whether the guy's fingernail beat the throw or there was two millimeters of air space between the shoe and the base after the slide-and-tag or something equally silly. Mainly it is the TIME it takes to review, that should be limited I think, that dead air really turns off fans.
FZ’s m.o. is, I think, to figure out how to add potentially useful player inventory without losing any: he adds someone and DFAs someone else who’s unlikely to be picked up by another team. He does that by choosing to DFA a player who has just been waived by virtually all the rival teams, I.e., the Giants’ most recent waiver acquisition. It’s not a matter of moving bodies out of the organization, just on and off roster lists, so that he and his staff have the widest range of interesting options. By now he/we have over thirty new players to sort out, none of them costly or with long-term guarantees, to compensate for a perceived shallow pool of upper-level minor leaguers in the system he inherited.
Yeah, I think that is a good description of many of the roster moves. I also think that the Giants might trade some veteran relievers (Watson? Dyson? Smith?) because they now have a bunch of younger, cost-controlled arms. It isn't a whole lost of money, payroll-wise (the three of them cost a little under $13M total) but with $100+M committed for 2020 every little bit of flexibility helps. Then again they might just decide to give Bryce Harper $40M/yr and blow my whole theory out of the water!
That's "lot" of money not "lost" of money!
Harper is decent and he will make the giants better, but I do not see him, at least so far, as an elite player ala Barry Bonds. I would not mind if the giants had him, but I would mind if he kept us from getting a bunch of good players in the future because of his price tag, and if the price of all things giants, then skyrocket.
Yeah I think his cost is >>>>> than his value, even though he is a great talent. The Giants need youth and depth along with talent and I think a 10-year deal is nuts for any one player.
Well It’s all moot, since Harper is now a Phillie for thirteen years.
Post a Comment