LOCKOUT '22: When will we see baseball again?

[Tigeraholic1]

If this is were we are currently at will there even be a season? WTF..............

 

 

 

[gehringer_2]

5 minutes ago, theroundsquare said:

I do a fair amount of negotiating in my line of work, and we never accomplish anything with in-person sessions.   

interesting. My experiences have not been along those lines but I can see how in many situations it could go that way.  But I was involved more with the kind sales agreements where neither side would have been there if they disliked each other in the first place. You might not reach a deal, but the parties weren't representing different world views either!

[CMRivdogs]

I’ve found the glass blowing “competition” on Netflix quite riveting 

[Tiger337]

28 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

Oh I know, I'm just pulling your chain, but the there is an underlying point that the people managing the game today really don't have any vision for the integrity of the game, they may propose a change that makes sense but it will be by random chance and they will propose as many others that will take the game backward. 

I mean, if I hear one more goofball proposal on pace of play before the game gets its head out of its arse and just tells hitters to get in the box and hit, I may give it up completely and start watching tournament basketweaving.

That was my point too,  While the interchangeability argument makes sense, I don't think that is MLB's reasoning.

[RedRamage]

2 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

or shortstops. If you want to push it out to the end point it's football: 18 players - 9 defenders, nine hitters, an 'O' team and 'D' team.

I would agree and that's definitely not something I want to see.  Honestly I think it would be very interesting in football to go backwards and not have O- and D-teams.

I think catcher is the next most "specialized" position, but I also think that it's isn't that far removed from other positions, like SS and CF for that matter.  If catcher ever gets a DH I wouldn't be surprised to see the rest start falling as well.

So, the question is: Is pitching different enough from catching that we can accept a DH there but still logically refuse a DH for catcher?  I don't think the argument should hinge on pitchers being traditionally bad hitters.  I'd rather argue that a pitcher's skill set (and therefore what he should practice and perfect) is significantly enough different that it warrants special treatment.

[RedRamage]

51 minutes ago, CMRivdogs said:

I’ve found the glass blowing “competition” on Netflix quite riveting 

Do any of the specialists get a designated blower?

[CMRivdogs]

25 minutes ago, RedRamage said:

Do any of the specialists get a designated blower?

Only pinch blowers when they need a break or working on a complicated project

[chasfh]

5 hours ago, casimir said:

Non-zero?  The NBA and NHL are aligned based primarily on geography.  The NFL could somewhat be considered in the same boat if you consider how the TV contracts are doled out for the 1pm and 4pm starts among CBS (AFC) and FOX (NFC).

Yes, non-zero, meaning not zero possibility, meaning yes it's possible. I'm just wondering whether they will take a hack at trying to even out the problem on tremendously unequal miles traveled among teams, or whether they're gonna lump that whole issue so they can have the Yankees, Mets, Red Sox, and Phillies in the same division for the benefit of that corridor.

[chasfh]

5 hours ago, RedRamage said:

I've recently read a couple of books on "old timey" baseball and it's interesting to read about pitchers hitting.  I think it was Auker who argued that a DH was silly because once you start going down that road, where do you stop?  Obviously we haven't moved beyond pitchers yet and it seems like there's a reasonable argument that pitchers are a different animal.  Every play (when their team is on defense) starts with the pitcher.  They have a very specialized skill set they need to hone.  They cost a lot of money and a teams success hinges heavily on how well they play.

The argument would then be that because they have to spend so much time on pitching they don't have time to learn proper hitting. Because they are involved in every play, they have a bigger impact on the game than position players who also bat.  And because they cost so much money and are so important to the success of the team it's reasonable to not want to add extra risk by having them hit.

That seems like a pretty reasonable argument... but couldn't you pretty much say the same thing about Catchers?

The same thing cannot be said about catchers, or shortstops. What can be said is that catchers and shortstops are important enough among position players that teams will give in on the need for great hitting from those positions if they have superior defensive skills to make up for them. The same cannot be said of first basemen or left fielders. This is a key basis for the concept of the defensive spectrum.

Edited February 17, 2022 by chasfh

[RedRamage]

20 minutes ago, chasfh said:

The same thing cannot be said about catchers, or shortstops. What can be said is that catchers and shortstops are important enough among position players that teams will give in on the need for great hitting from those positions if they have superior defensive skills to make up for them. The same cannot be said of first basemen or left fielders. This is a key basis for the concept of the defensive spectrum.

I don't think it's impossible to make the argument that a catcher is a very specialized position.  Now, I'm not trying to argue that catchers should get a DH... I really don't to see that.  But I think the argument can be made to some degree:
 

1. Catchers are involved in the second most number of defensive plays after the pitcher
2. Catchers get significant wear and tear on their bodies so it makes sense that teams would want to limit additional physical strain.
3. Catchers need to focus on knowing hitter's tendencies as well as pitcher's strengths and weaknesses to best aid their pitcher in succeeding.
4. Catchers need to train in specialized areas like pitch framing, and learning signs, both "plain text" and coded signs... these things could eat into time practicing hitting.

Is that enough to warrant a DH? I don't think so... but it is different from other defensive positions.  And I suspect if you ask players in the 30s and 40s and 50s they would say that pitching isn't different enough to warrant a DH.  I hope it never comes to pass, but I wouldn't be shocked if there was a push for a DH for catchers in a few decades.

[chasfh]

2 hours ago, RedRamage said:

So, the question is: Is pitching different enough from catching that we can accept a DH there but still logically refuse a DH for catcher?

Absolutely.

2 hours ago, RedRamage said:

I don't think the argument should hinge on pitchers being traditionally bad hitters.  I'd rather argue that a pitcher's skill set (and therefore what he should practice and perfect) is significantly enough different that it warrants special treatment.

It is because the pitcher's skill set is so intense, unique, and necessary that they never work on hitting, so they evolve into terrible enough hitters that it makes sense to DH for them.

These days, kids who are identified as pitchers gifted enough to seriously consider a professional career stop basically working on their hitting altogether.

[oblong]

I don’t think hitting/swinging a bat impacts a C ability to catch.  Catchers squat. That’s what makes their position unique.  Yes they lob the ball back to the pitcher and throw out runners… but 3B and SS also make more hard throws.   A pitch at the ML is such an explosive force physiologically on the arm that in the NL they are told “just don’t get hurt” when batting.  What other sport has a throwaway feature like that where a player is expected to just mail it in and do no harm when the outcome is still in question?  

[buddha]

athletic article today on how this whole negotiation thing is missing the real problem, which is improving the pace of play.

which is very true as has been discussed here many times.

[Tiger337]

The slower the game, the more time people have to place bets.  

[chasfh]

15 minutes ago, RedRamage said:

I don't think it's impossible to make the argument that a catcher is a very specialized position.  Now, I'm not trying to argue that catchers should get a DH... I really don't to see that.  But I think the argument can be made to some degree:
 

1. Catchers are involved in the second most number of defensive plays after the pitcher
2. Catchers get significant wear and tear on their bodies so it makes sense that teams would want to limit additional physical strain.
3. Catchers need to focus on knowing hitter's tendencies as well as pitcher's strengths and weaknesses to best aid their pitcher in succeeding.
4. Catchers need to train in specialized areas like pitch framing, and learning signs, both "plain text" and coded signs... these things could eat into time practicing hitting.

Is that enough to warrant a DH? I don't think so... but it is different from other defensive positions.  And I suspect if you ask players in the 30s and 40s and 50s they would say that pitching isn't different enough to warrant a DH.  I hope it never comes to pass, but I wouldn't be shocked if there was a push for a DH for catchers in a few decades.

All your points about catchers being a specialized position, versus the seven other positions, are valid. Catcher is a specialized position versus position players, such that the need for good offense from the position is the least of all eight positions. Even so, it's not closer to pitcher than it is to shortstop, or second base, or center field, or any other position.

Here are the average wRC+s by position for 2021:

• 1B: 110
• 2B: 94
• SS: 97
• 3B: 95
• LF: 99
• CF: 95
• RF: 105
• 😄 89

Even though catcher wRC+ is the worst of the eight positions, it is not so much worse than the others that it warrants a special dispensation from hitting.

Contrast thus with the wRC+ for pitchers in the 1972 AL, which was 6. Not, that's not a fat finger typo—it is the number six.

I would be shocked if there were a serious push to use designated hitters for catchers.

Edited February 17, 2022 by chasfh
The website keeps changing my C: to a laughy face!

[casimir]

1 hour ago, chasfh said:

Yes, non-zero, meaning not zero possibility, meaning yes it's possible. I'm just wondering whether they will take a hack at trying to even out the problem on tremendously unequal miles traveled among teams, or whether they're gonna lump that whole issue so they can have the Yankees, Mets, Red Sox, and Phillies in the same division for the benefit of that corridor.

Hey, I’m an idiot.  Shocking, right?  I read “non-zero” as “near zero”.  I apologize.

I think the best way to realign is start with Seattle and work towards the East.  It’s probably reasonable to assume nothing happens until expansion. MLB has plenty of other items to deal with.  But I think if you group Seattle, the Los Angeles teams, San Francisco, Oakland, and San Diego, that’s 7 teams in a division.  That helps the Ms avoid those trips to Texas as a division foe.  Plus, there’s wiggle room for an 8th team, either an expansion team or Arizona.

As far as the Eastern corridor is concerned, there’s probably a way to construct it such that teams still have a bit of travel to deal with to even things out with other divisions.  Obviously they’d put the New York’s and Boston together.  Washington, Baltimore, and Philadelphia probably get grouped together.  From there, it’s a matter of who gets grouped up with teams like Detroit, Toronto, Cleveland, Cincinnati, and Pittsburgh, vs Atlanta, Miami, and Tampa.  Again, expansion teams could affect things, maybe Tampa relocates.

[Tiger337]

8 hours ago, oblong said:

They will do what works best for TV ratings

Yeah, for one thing, I think time zone would be a lot more important than distance.  

[Edman85]

10 hours ago, buddha said:

this is about labor negotiations, not public relations.

this lockout has really flustered some folks.  i swear joe sheehan is going to shoot himself.  

His credibility is going in the shitter right now.

[Edman85]

5 hours ago, Tigeraholic1 said:

If this is were we are currently at will there even be a season? WTF..............

 

 

 

Stuff like this is what drives me nuts.  The owners aren't the only one negotiating in bad faith here.

[Edman85]

2 hours ago, Tiger337 said:

The slower the game, the more time people have to place bets.  

Tangentially related, but with everything moving to streaming, I don't know how that is going to jive with gambling.

On MLB.TV because it lags through my chromecast, I am typically 3-5 minutes behind.

[buddha]

1 hour ago, Edman85 said:

Tangentially related, but with everything moving to streaming, I don't know how that is going to jive with gambling.

On MLB.TV because it lags through my chromecast, I am typically 3-5 minutes behind.

it doesnt.  some are under the belief that mlb is somehow rejiggering the game solely to placate some gambling interest.  even though the ones who are preventing the game from speeding up are the players, not the owners.

baseball has been getting slower and slower and slower for decades, but somehow now that the evil gambling interests are involved its all about mlb catering to their interests (even though theyre trying to speed up the game).

[oblong]

There’s a reason the only commercials on in the morning are for for injury/trial lawyers and gambling sites.   

[Motor City Sonics]

20 minutes ago, oblong said:

There’s a reason the only commercials on in the morning are for for injury/trial lawyers and gambling sites.   

What about the Medicare commercials and that awful Medicare Martha?  

[HeyAbbott]

At the beginning of the lockout, I thought July 1 was a reasonable starting date for the season. Given what has transpired so far, I am convinced there will be no season. Neither side is "negotiating" at this point. There has been too much negotiating in public and both sides are looking for a PR advantage.

I have found the owner's various offers laughable and insulting . When the MLPA increases its demand on the pre- arb pool, goes in the opposite direction with no off setting changes elsewhere in their latest proposal, we are not going to see baseball for a very long time.

[casimir]

Might there be some momentum on the horizon?