LOCKOUT '22: When will we see baseball again?

[buddha]

5 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

Are there enough good pitchers where you can keep having them throw fewer and fewer innings?  In theory, you'd get max results if each pitcher pitched all out for an inning, but the number of major league quality pitchers is limited.  There are already a lot of crappy relievers in the game.  

i dont think there are enough great pitchers but plenty of average to slightly above average ones.  and you maximize the value of those guys by only having them go through the lineup once or maybe twice.

[Tiger337]

26 minutes ago, buddha said:

i dont think there are enough great pitchers but plenty of average to slightly above average ones.  and you maximize the value of those guys by only having them go through the lineup once or maybe twice.

The last few years relievers haven't been much better than starters. 

2019 Starters 4.54 FIP Relievers 4.51

2020 4.46, 4.45

2021 4.34, 4.22

It seems as if they go any further into the bullpens than they already have, they won't be gaining anything.  

[gehringer_2]

13 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

The last few years relievers haven't been much better than starters. 

2019 Starters 4.54 FIP Relievers 4.51

2020 4.46, 4.45

2021 4.34, 4.22

It seems as if they go any further into the bullpens than they already have, they won't be gaining anything.  

so this is one of the things I can't figure: A young J Verlander would start games and not throw a breaking ball at all for 3 innings. That's one of the reasons he could actually finish a game now and then early in his career; he didn't have to show everything he had the 1st time through. And my recollection at least is that 15-20 yrs ago that approach was not uncommon. Maybe not as extreme as JV, but pitchers holding the arsenal in reserve much more than today. The big push now you hear from every young pitcher is "I want to use all my pitches" meaning throw everything right from get go. That's great, but then what do you have left they haven't seen the third time through? 

So it's not like guys don't throw the FB as hard as ever, so what is it? Are the hitters that much better against FBs that no-one even gets through the order once without going 50% off speed, or in all the excitement about slider spin rates and sinkers are they forgetting the value of throwing a really good live 4 seam fastball? Or is it that the high fly balls you give up on the 4 seamer just go out of the ballpark too often now?

...maybe answered my own question....._

Edited March 4, 2022 by gehringer_2

[chasfh]

I'm sympathetic to the potential problem of dramatically reducing offense if they deaden the ball. I do think it would have that immediate effect as long as players do not going to change their approach in response to the ball right away afterwards, which they wouldn't. That's basically 2014.

If Baseball were going to seriously undertake deadening the ball to reduce homers/strikeouts and get more batted balls into the field of play—I don't think they would ever, but let's pretend—I was wondering about the idea of announcing a year in advance that this was going to happen.

 

For example, announce on Opening Day 2023 that the new ball is going into effect for 2024. Give players an entire season to talk about it and get used to the idea. Then, after the season, send batches of the new ball to every player on every team's 40-man roster and encourage them to work with it during the winter. (Maybe even pay them a stipend for doing work in the offseason.) A lot of these guys have hitting and pitching cages in their neighborhoods or even at their McMansions. They can work with the new ball there.

Then, during Spring Training, everyone would have six weeks of working and playing with the new ball exclusively, working out approaches to succeed with the it such as pitching to contact more, hitters spraying the ball more around the field, etc., so that by the time Opening Day comes around, they will be far more comfortable working with the new ball than if it were just sprung on them unannounced, as Baseball typically has done with changes to the ball.

They could also put the ball in play in the minors immediately (and adjust the MLEs for analysis), so all the rookies coming in would have experience with it.

Not everyone would come through such a change OK. Some players would lose their careers over it. But, then they would be replaced by players who do work well with the ball, some of whom would never make the majors under today's conditions. IOW, the game would adjust. It always does.

I don't think there's any way to introduce a deadened ball without creating any friction at all, but this might be a way to do so with as little friction as possible.

[gehringer_2]

8 minutes ago, chasfh said:

I'm sympathetic to the potential problem...

I like all of this.

But c'mon, rationality? Long-term planning? Who are we kidding? We are talking about the Gang that Couldn't shoot straight on one side and the Dead End Kids on the other.

[chasfh]

2 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

I like all of this.

But c'mon, rationality? Long-term planning? Who are we kidding? We are talking about the Gang that Couldn't shoot straight on one side and the Dead End Kids on the other.

Well, I did say “let’s pretend”! 😝

[Motor City Sonics]

Just sell the team, Chris.   You'll make a fortune and won't have to worry about it anymore.   Then you can focus on the next lie you'll sell the citizens to get some shit built.  

[KL2]

15 hours ago, Edman85 said:

Chris Illitch can fuck off.

I just don't see the benefit of why chris would vote to raise it. It's pretty clear he's not going to go over it. So why should he vote to make it easier for teams he's competiting against to go over? 

I know everybody is pointing it a Chris is cheap argument. But, nobody has adressed the issue of why he should have voted for it. What's the benefit to the Tigers

It also ignroes the fact he and the other three might have voted it against it to make some position on this or something else known. Have you ever done that? Voted for something that you know will lose just to make sure it goes in the record as not unamious. I have. 

Not to mention all the people calling him cheap, he spent what like $200 million two months ago. 

Edited March 5, 2022 by KL2

[gehringer_2]

36 minutes ago, KL2 said:

I just don't see the benefit of why chris would vote to raise it. It's pretty clear he's not going to go over it. So why should he vote to make it easier for teams he's competiting against to go over? 

I know everybody is pointing it a Chris is cheap argument. But, nobody has adressed the issue of why he should have voted for it. What's the benefit to the Tigers

It also ignroes the fact he and the other three might have voted it against it to make some position on this or something else known. Have you ever done that? Voted for something that you know will lose just to make sure it goes in the record as not unamious. I have. 

Not to mention all the people calling him cheap, he spent what like $200 million two months ago. 

Plus it was superfluous, the proposal is DOA with the players anyway. There is no deal there with or without those four owners.  Their action hasn’t kept a single game from being played. 

Edited March 5, 2022 by gehringer_2

[lordstanley]

Allow the hitter only one foul ball after strike two. After that a foul ball counts as a strikeout. Batter can’t call time during an at bat, has to be back in the box five or so seconds after the previous pitch. No conferences between pitchers and infielders or even the catcher when they’re in the field - talk strategy in the dugout during the half inning you’re at bat. 

[Longgone]

6 hours ago, KL2 said:

I just don't see the benefit of why chris would vote to raise it. It's pretty clear he's not going to go over it. So why should he vote to make it easier for teams he's competiting against to go over? 

I know everybody is pointing it a Chris is cheap argument. But, nobody has adressed the issue of why he should have voted for it. What's the benefit to the Tigers

It also ignroes the fact he and the other three might have voted it against it to make some position on this or something else known. Have you ever done that? Voted for something that you know will lose just to make sure it goes in the record as not unamious. I have. 

Not to mention all the people calling him cheap, he spent what like $200 million two months ago. 

Yes, and keeping the ceiling low has little to do with spending. It's a soft cap that the richer clubs can easily exceed, paying a tax that goes to the smaller markets, enhancing their competitiveness, and improving overall parity. Greater parity helps the smaller markets avoid the constant tear down and rebuild caused by having the deck stacked against you year after year.

[casimir]

7 hours ago, KL2 said:

I just don't see the benefit of why chris would vote to raise it. It's pretty clear he's not going to go over it. So why should he vote to make it easier for teams he's competiting against to go over? 

I know everybody is pointing it a Chris is cheap argument. But, nobody has adressed the issue of why he should have voted for it. What's the benefit to the Tigers

It also ignroes the fact he and the other three might have voted it against it to make some position on this or something else known. Have you ever done that? Voted for something that you know will lose just to make sure it goes in the record as not unamious. I have. 

Not to mention all the people calling him cheap, he spent what like $200 million two months ago. 

Good points.

[casimir]

5 hours ago, lordstanley said:

Allow the hitter only one foul ball after strike two. After that a foul ball counts as a strikeout. Batter can’t call time during an at bat, has to be back in the box five or so seconds after the previous pitch. No conferences between pitchers and infielders or even the catcher when they’re in the field - talk strategy in the dugout during the half inning you’re at bat. 

I don't like the one foul ball after strike two idea.  I think a hitter's ability to foul away borderline strikes to stay in the box for another pitch is a skill to not be punitive.  I think it goes along with the idea that you don't abolish the shift, you expect the hitters to deal with it and hit away from it.  We are probably biased, but we wouldn't have the Dave Bergman at bat in our memories if this rule were in place.  An at bat that gets extended in time by foul balls also gets a shot of adrenaline with each pitch.  I think that adrenaline is what people find enjoyable while watching a game (the actual foul ball, not the 30 seconds of unnecessary wandering around the mound and batting glove adjustments that might come along with it).

As far as calling time outs and being back in the box, etc, if a batter doesn't move their feet on a pitch, there shouldn't be much of a delay in between pitches.  Heck, even if they swing and stay in the box and maintain balance, there shouldn't be much delay.  A pitch up and in that pushes a batter back and out of the box, you have to be reasonable.  A batter gets a bug in his eye or a contact comes loose or something like that, you've got to acknowledge those issues come up.  I think umpires probably have a decent idea as to who is milking it in those situations.  You have to give the umpires the power to keep things moving along.  (And, yes, I realize I am lumping Angel Hernandez into this using good judgement scenario, but I didn't claim my idea to be fool proof.)

As for the in field non pitching mound visit conferences, put a limit on those like mound visits?

[chasfh]

15 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

i think there is something to the idea that hitters at not able to see pitchers enough. I noted somewhere a few days ago that in the pre-expansion era you saw each other team 22 times! With the good starters going every 4th day that means you saw each hard to hit starter for 20 AB every year. That's a huge advantage for hitters in terms of being able to stay in an AB and put a ball in play.

This is, in part, what made Mariano Riviera, and really any other modern closer who could throw one devastating pitch even for a little while, so effective. Riviera was famous for throwing one and only pitch, basically, but no one could hit it because no one could ever dig in and get comfortable against it. No one ever faced Riviera more than six times in a single season, not even David Ortiz, and never twice in the same game. No wonder no one could hit him. Contrast that to Joe DiMaggio, who faced Bob Feller as many as 34 times in a single season, sometimes four or more times in a single game, and you can understand how he could figure out how to slash .342/.415/.643 against even Rapid Robert.

 

[Tigeraholic1]

6 hours ago, lordstanley said:

Allow the hitter only one foul ball after strike two. After that a foul ball counts as a strikeout. 

No way. This is what makes baseball great! Hitter knows he cant put the pitchers putaway pitch in play but can get enough bat on it to foul it off in hope he makes a mistake on the next pitch.

[chasfh]

14 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

so this is one of the things I can't figure: A young J Verlander would start games and not throw a breaking ball at all for 3 innings. That's one of the reasons he could actually finish a game now and then early in his career; he didn't have to show everything he had the 1st time through. And my recollection at least is that 15-20 yrs ago that approach was not uncommon. Maybe not as extreme as JV, but pitchers holding the arsenal in reserve much more than today. The big push now you hear from every young pitcher is "I want to use all my pitches" meaning throw everything right from get go. That's great, but then what do you have left they haven't seen the third time through? 

So it's not like guys don't throw the FB as hard as ever, so what is it? Are the hitters that much better against FBs that no-one even gets through the order once without going 50% off speed, or in all the excitement about slider spin rates and sinkers are they forgetting the value of throwing a really good live 4 seam fastball? Or is it that the high fly balls you give up on the 4 seamer just go out of the ballpark too often now?

...maybe answered my own question....._

I believe you did answer your own question.

Fear of the home run is why pitchers put 100% into every pitch from pitch one of the ballgame, because every single batter in 2022 can take them out of the ballpark. So instead of trying to throw heat past most hitters on the regular, they twist their shoulders and elbows into ungodly contortions trying to get swing and miss. No wonder pitchers are wiped out by the time the 19th batter of the game steps to the plate, and also why they seem to be getting hurt in historically record numbers. How can this very necessary pitching approach not take a toll?

Deaden the ball and pitchers won’t have to do that, except to the heart of the order. They can just serve up their four-seamers (and two-seamers, if those exist anymore) to down-the-order hitters and say here you go, hit it and get yourself out. Allow for this, and pitchers can go deeper into games, deeper into seasons, and even deeper into their careers.

I can’t believe no one at Baseball hasn’t figured this out. I gotta believe they know this, but they prefer the current state of affairs because of (a) the desirability of the video highlight homer for their state media’s nightly marketing vid … er, recap show; and (2) the attractiveness of will-he-or-won’t-he-homer, which I wouldn’t doubt is the #1 prop bet being made at the books. 

I also wonder whether Baseball also prefers the parade of AAAA pitchers on rosters, since that increases the chances for home runs on mistake pitches, and also because fewer of them will get far enough in their careers to force owners to pay them good and proper before they retire.

Edited March 5, 2022 by chasfh

[Longgone]

1 hour ago, chasfh said:

I believe you did answer your own question.

Fear of the home run is why pitchers put 100% into every pitch from pitch one of the ballgame, because every single batter in 2022 can take them out of the ballpark. So instead of trying to throw heat past most hitters on the regular, they twist their shoulders and elbows into ungodly contortions trying to get swing and miss. No wonder pitchers are wiped out by the time the 19th batter of the game steps to the plate, and also why they seem to be getting hurt in historically record numbers. How can this very necessary pitching approach not take a toll?

Deaden the ball and pitchers won’t have to do that, except to the heart of the order. They can just serve up their four-seamers (and two-seamers, if those exist anymore) to down-the-order hitters and say here you go, hit it and get yourself out. Allow for this, and pitchers can go deeper into games, deeper into seasons, and even deeper into their careers.

I can’t believe no one at Baseball hasn’t figured this out. I gotta believe they know this, but they prefer the current state of affairs because of (a) the desirability of the video highlight homer for their state media’s nightly marketing vid … er, recap show; and (2) the attractiveness of will-he-or-won’t-he-homer, which I wouldn’t doubt is the #1 prop bet being made at the books. 

I also wonder whether Baseball also prefers the parade of AAAA pitchers on rosters, since that increases the chances for home runs on mistake pitches, and also because fewer of them will get far enough in their careers to force owners to pay them good and proper before they retire.

Yes, they need to deaden the ball. Nothing extreme to severely hinder offense, just go back to the balls they were using a few years ago.

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, Longgone said:

Yes, they need to deaden the ball. Nothing extreme to severely hinder offense, just go back to the balls they were using a few years ago.

and the truth is they probably don't even have to deaden the ball very much specification wise, just tighten the distribution to remove those most above the current average COR. Of you could just take all the balls and fire them at a wall from an air cannon a dozen times to soften them up a bit before packing them. 

Edited March 5, 2022 by gehringer_2

[Tigeraholic1]

3 hours ago, Tigeraholic1 said:

No way. This is what makes baseball great! Hitter knows he cant put the pitchers putaway pitch in play but can get enough bat on it to foul it off in hope he makes a mistake on the next pitch.

Exhibit A:

 

 

[KL2]

4 hours ago, Longgone said:

Yes, and keeping the ceiling low has little to do with spending. It's a soft cap that the richer clubs can easily exceed, paying a tax that goes to the smaller markets, enhancing their competitiveness, and improving overall parity. Greater parity helps the smaller markets avoid the constant tear down and rebuild caused by having the deck stacked against you year after year.

Sorry don't buy this, what are they getting in tax share a couple million each? 

How is $5 million gonna stop a team from the rebuilding? That doesn't even get you a middle reliever anymore

[Longgone]

14 minutes ago, KL2 said:

Sorry don't buy this, what are they getting in tax share a couple million each? 

How is $5 million gonna stop a team from the rebuilding? That doesn't even get you a middle reliever anymore

Hence the desire for a lower ceiling and stiffer penalties. Having the richest clubs not dominate the free agency market also opens opportunities for smaller markets to spend.

[gehringer_2]

just to do some spitballing here....(feel free to offer other estimates....)

there is some nationalization of TV money now ($60million)  - as per the article below. Supposedly no team has less than a $40M local deal so  each team is now guaranteed a floor revenue of $100 million from TV sources alone going forward. In addition total revenue sharing is given at $110 million - assuming not more than 10 teams share in this that would be another $10million, so the very 'poorest' teams should be looking at $110 million *before* ticket sales. If you draw a millions fans (and none of the 6 teams that didn't should exist where they are!) that's probably at least another $60million. Throw in $20M for radio, merchandise, parking and you have $190M on the revenue side for the *poorest* teams.

Now, take a SWAG that non-MLB salary expenses for a team might be something like 100 employees at $100K, ($10M), Exec salaries including manager $20M, Stadium maint 5%/yr of a $500million struture = $25M, and say $20M in prospect salaries. That's $85M, so if we assume most owners don't really care how much they take out of their team, the poorest teams would have something like $105M for MLB salaries. Even if this is all off by 100% to the low side, you are still just barely approaching the luxury tax number.

https://dodgerblue.com/mlb-teams-receive-at-least-100-million-annually-from-tv-rights-contracts/2022/02/12/

Edited March 5, 2022 by gehringer_2

[chasfh]

4 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

and the truth is they probably don't even have to deaden the ball very much specification wise, just tighten the distribution to remove those most above the current average COR. Of you could just take all the balls and fire them at a wall from an air cannon a dozen times to soften them up a bit before packing them. 

I presented a poster on this in Pittsburgh a few years ago where I showed that deadening the ball by just 1% to 2% could result in double digit percent decrease in homers.  

[Sports_Freak]

On 3/4/2022 at 11:34 AM, buddha said:

they already cut that from 2 45 to 2 15.

and that's not the real delay.  the real delay is the delay in between pitches.

It's much more of a delay from the days of 2 and a half hour games. But yes, keep hitters in the box, no more constantly adjusting their batting gloves and other equipment.

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, Sports_Freak said:

It's much more of a delay from the days of 2 and a half hour games. But yes, keep hitters in the box, no more constantly adjusting their batting gloves and other equipment.

I say this all the time and people think I'm joking but I'm not: but ban velco closures on batting gloves and you take 30 min off a baseball game. (snaps, buttons or zippers only!)

Edited March 6, 2022 by gehringer_2