Tiger337

I don't doubt pitchers like K's, but I don't think it makes them look good historically compared to guys that had 20 CG and 20 wins. I don't care about pitcher wins, but they do which is why managers still try to get them through 5 innings.

I think the rule has more to do with preserving pitching staffs than shortening games. So, maybe your suggestion could work. Manfred said the other day, that they are going to try to figure out a way to get staring pitchers to go back to pitching more innings because that's what fans want. I don't think that can be done with a gimmick. It would require some kind of substantial change. Chas has suggested many times that deadening the ball would fix many of the games problems - too many strikeouts, not enough balls in play, starters getting burnt out. The problem is they won't give up the long ball.

I have seen stats showing that is has reduced long inning games. I still hate it and I don't think I'll ever get used to it, but it's just another thing that isn't going to be reversed so I have to deal with it.

Instead of a warning track, have a moat with alligators in it. I bet that would bring in a few more fans,

Sorry, if I've turned into the old guy who hates everything about the modern game! I do like the pitch clock and the increase in stolen bases though.

If they were allowed to play 12 innings at most, then about 1.2% of the games (or 2 games per team would end in ties). They could just count the statistics of those games and leave them as ties. If the 13th best team complains about missing the post-season because of a couple of ties, I will laugh at them. Ties are not ideal, but I prefer them to fundamentally changing the rules of the game in order to get a winner.

There were ties all throughout the early history of baseball. In fact, three World Series games have ended in ties. I don't like ties, but when you have to stop playing baseball in order to end the tie, then it should be a tie because there is no real winner.

They could have two traditional extra innings and if it's still tied after 11, call it a tie. I will never rationalize free runners.

I am not there at all. I still don't watch extra inning games because putting free runners on base is not baseball. It's good that they don't have it in the playoffs, but I will never be OK with them doing it in the regular season. I'd rather see a game end in a tie than see free base runners.

I would say it was too many years, but It would be worth it because of the first 11 years of the deal. I was very confident that Cabrera was going to an elite hitter for a long time. I am less sure about Tatis because he seems kind of flakey. He has some personal problems. As it turned out Cabrera had some problems as well, but it wasn't obvious at the time. With Tatis, it would depend on who had to give up to get him. If it was mostly a salary dump, then I wouldn't mind if the Tigers took the chance. I knd of doubt that would be the case though. San Diego doesn't appear to be especially budget conscious.

This is true, but he'll need the same innings whether he pitches in the majors or minors. If he is ready for the majors, I think they will let him pitch those innings for Detroit.

60% of Americans believe that the Noah's ark story was real.

Mini home run derby instead of extra innings?

I also do not care about ratings at all. If anything, I like to see bad ratings since I don't like how the sport has evolved in order to attract casual fans.

"Trained firearms instructor"

It's very outdated. It's a totally different country today in terms of population size, technology, etc. There is no comparison.

Are you going to tell us we can't get that player? 😀

prospect hounds.

He eats Turkey when he's Hungary.

Relax Echoes. Liston was not dissing your boy.

It seems like some of you guys (maybe only Echoes?) have been raving about Wenceel Perez for the last dozen years, so I am a little surprised that he is still 23 years old.

I went in too early at 4.3%, but I suspect 4.3% will look pretty good in a few years, so I'm not upset about it. I am happy that I don't have such a high percentage in stocks now. It's good for peace of mind.

For the money I need to access within the next year or two, I keep doing one-month CDs (which have better rates than longer term CDs). I've already started going longer-term on some of the money I don't need in the next year or two.

There is an 87.5% chance that he's wrong.

There is always going to be some hyperbolic predictons. The financial analysts are some of the most hyperbolic people on the internet. There is a lot dishonesty too as big investors love to see people panic. Most of the commentary seems to suggest that the rates won't go much higher and will start dropping next year.