Jump to content

2023 MLB (non-Tigers) catch all thread


Tigeraholic1

Recommended Posts

Bergman didn't play against LHP, but Evans actually had 111 PA against them in '84. TBH, Evans didn't do all that much in '84, '85-'87 were his better years for the Tigs. But in '84 his OPS was 10 pts higher against LHP than RHP. Only one HR off a lefty though....

Edited by gehringer_2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dylan Cease to the Padres for three prospects.  It looks like the White Sox got a decent haul, but I am really glad the Tigers are no longer in a position where they are trading established players for prospects.  The team getting the established player wins that trade more often than not.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Tiger337 said:

Dylan Cease to the Padres for three prospects.  It looks like the White Sox got a decent haul, but I am really glad the Tigers are no longer in a position where they are trading established players for prospects.  The team getting the established player wins that trade more often than not.  

I’m glad the Tigers are no longer in a a position where they have to face this guy 3 times a season.   We made him look like a hall of famer.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, oblong said:

 

I don't like the minimization of starting pitchers.  Maybe I'm wrong about it, and, sure, pitching wins can be overrated.  But it doesn't seem like the above should be occurring.

Edited by casimir
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, casimir said:

I don't like the minimization of starting pitchers.  Maybe I'm wrong about it, and, sure, pitching wins can be overrated.  But it doesn't seem like the above should be occurring.

Deaden the ball and great pitchers can routinely achieve 300 career wins once again.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tiger337 said:

But chicks dig the longball.

4-3-23-heat-sources-for-baby-chicks.jpg?

Which is why it will never happen, so get used to four-inning starting pitcher outings, and maybe even one time through the lineup max for each pitcher.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Which is why it will never happen, so get used to four-inning starting pitcher outings, and maybe even one time through the lineup max for each pitcher.

Are there enough MLB caliber pitchers available to take it further than it already has gone?  it may have reached a point where diminishing returns will be the result, especially with plans for expansion.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, casimir said:

I don't like the minimization of starting pitchers.  Maybe I'm wrong about it, and, sure, pitching wins can be overrated.  But it doesn't seem like the above should be occurring.

It amazes me how little pitchers actually pitch anymore.  Last year, there were only 5 pitchers who threw 200+ innings.  10 years ago in 2013, there were 36 pitchers who threw 200+ innings.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They could also change the rule that requires a starter needs to go 5 to get a win.  Make it just whoever is in the game when the team takes the lead for good.  It would be a silly thing to do though b/c you are changing a rule based on the designation of a statistic and right now I can't think of any other situation that would or could have been done. But it's also a silly rule.  I mean if a reliever can come in and give up the lead, get it back, then get the W, why can't a starter who gets staked to a 8-0 lead but is taken out in the 5th after giving up 4 not get the win?

They will never go away from awarding a pitcher a W so at least make it more indicative of how the game is played today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

Are there enough MLB caliber pitchers available to take it further than it already has gone?  it may have reached a point where diminishing returns will be the result, especially with plans for expansion.  

They will have to accept more bad results after a while, such as keeping a pitcher in who's getting shelled because everyone else on the staff is totally gassed from the prior couple days. That may lead to a relaxation of the 13-pitcher rule, or maybe even expansion to 27 guys and allow 15 pitchers.

Or maybe the answer is a situation where teams carry 26 on the active roster and three on a taxi squad, and they have to declare a 26-man active roster at the beginning of each series. That way they can keep 13 active pitchers at all times and have three more pitchers in reserve on the squad, for a total of 16 pitchers in the bigs. Baseball would have to work with the Players on rules for it, so teams can't keep the pitchers on the taxi squad indefinitely. Maybe the rule should be, teams have to rotate out all three taxi squad spots every new series, so that no players spend consecutive series on the taxi squad. Something like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, chasfh said:

They will have to accept more bad results after a while, such as keeping a pitcher in who's getting shelled because everyone else on the staff is totally gassed from the prior couple days. That may lead to a relaxation of the 13-pitcher rule, or maybe even expansion to 27 guys and allow 15 pitchers.

Or maybe the answer is a situation where teams carry 26 on the active roster and three on a taxi squad, and they have to declare a 26-man active roster at the beginning of each series. That way they can keep 13 active pitchers at all times and have three more pitchers in reserve on the squad, for a total of 16 pitchers in the bigs. Baseball would have to work with the Players on rules for it, so teams can't keep the pitchers on the taxi squad indefinitely. Maybe the rule should be, teams have to rotate out all three taxi squad spots every new series, so that no players spend consecutive series on the taxi squad. Something like that.

You are right that there a number of things they could do.  What I am thinking though is whether there is enough talent available to benefit from further starter minimization.  Theoretically, it might be ideal to have unlimited rosters with one fresh strong pitcher pitching each new inning - nine pitchers per game.  But are there enough MLB caliber pitchers to make that work?  There has to be a point of diminishing returns

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Tiger337 said:

You are right that there a number of things they could do.  What I am thinking though is whether there is enough talent available to benefit from further starter minimization.  Theoretically, it might be ideal to have unlimited rosters with one fresh strong pitcher pitching each new inning - nine pitchers per game.  But are there enough MLB caliber pitchers to make that work?  There has to be a point of diminishing returns

Put a full court press on getting players in the pipeline from populous cricket countries like India and Pakistan and that would take care of any pitching quality problem overnight someday.

In the meantime, I do think there is enough pitching quality even today, particularly given how they can break down and rebuild pitchers as the Tigers appear to be doing with Troy Melton. Personally, I don't think depth of pitching quality is as big a potential problem as that of pitchers' development getting way, way ahead of hitters' development and driving down offense. The advances in velocity, movement, and pitch shape threatens to drive offense below 1968 levels at some point. It's getting to the point where the only way hitters can eat is if pitchers make mistakes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, oblong said:

They could also change the rule that requires a starter needs to go 5 to get a win.  Make it just whoever is in the game when the team takes the lead for good.  It would be a silly thing to do though b/c you are changing a rule based on the designation of a statistic and right now I can't think of any other situation that would or could have been done. But it's also a silly rule.  I mean if a reliever can come in and give up the lead, get it back, then get the W, why can't a starter who gets staked to a 8-0 lead but is taken out in the 5th after giving up 4 not get the win?

They will never go away from awarding a pitcher a W so at least make it more indicative of how the game is played today.

I'd say if a starting pitcher goes as least 5 innings, and his team wins, he should get a W. Relievers get holds and saves, wins should be for SPs who pitch at least 5 and their team wins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, chasfh said:

Deaden the ball and great pitchers can routinely achieve 300 career wins once again.

Not sure about routinely.  But I think deadening the ball would keep the ball in the field of play more and offenses would need to relearn how to scratch hits together in order to score runs.  The ball stays in the yard, and there's a bit more of a premium placed on defense and base running.  Things like actual movement of players which keep eyeballs on the action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, lordstanley said:

The winning pitcher should be voted on by fans.  It will be announced right after the game, in reverse order - 3rd, 2nd, 1st. Like the three stars in hockey. 

Same for losing pitcher.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tiger337 said:

Are there enough MLB caliber pitchers available to take it further than it already has gone?  it may have reached a point where diminishing returns will be the result, especially with plans for expansion.  

 

2 hours ago, bobrob2004 said:

It amazes me how little pitchers actually pitch anymore.  Last year, there were only 5 pitchers who threw 200+ innings.  10 years ago in 2013, there were 36 pitchers who threw 200+ innings.  

I think pitching has devolved more into max effort throwing rather than actual pitching.  So I am not surprised to see innings, ie stamina, reduced over the years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, casimir said:

Not sure about routinely.  But I think deadening the ball would keep the ball in the field of play more and offenses would need to relearn how to scratch hits together in order to score runs.  The ball stays in the yard, and there's a bit more of a premium placed on defense and base running.  Things like actual movement of players which keep eyeballs on the action.

I may have been a little loose about "routinely", although of the 24 total pitchers who have won 300+ games, ten of them pitched in our lifetimes. So it's as possible that great pitchers could rack up 300 wins under a new deadened-ball era as it was for pitchers in the 70s, 80s and beyond to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's nice to come here and socialize with people who know what's going on. 

Coming across other places and posts where people are furious that Jackson Jobe isn't starting Opening Day, much less coming North with the team because he struck out 2 guys destined for A-ball in a meaningless game.      Freaking out because he can throw it 102 mph.    I try to explain that Matt Anderson could hit 102 as well and the general answer is "who?".     

Why don't they just send Baez to Toledo?        Don't try bother explaining anything about MLB options.     It's like talking to a flat earther.   

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...