2021 MLB Thread

[Biff Tannen 45491]

20 minutes ago, shadow_operative said:

double header that went into extras.

[Tribe171 10]

8 hours ago, Helobious said:

The whole “strikeouts are the same as any other out” logic always bugged me as a former player. When I got to two strikes it was time to choke up and just make contact. Foul off pitches, work the pitch count up, work a walk or put the ball in play. Sure the contact was weaker but I’ll take my chances with the defense maybe making an error or something. Anything but striking out. Always felt like a bitch knowing the pitcher sat you down. /rant

That's because the fielding in Tee-ball is not as good as the major leagues. Putting the ball on the ground in the major leagues is probably an out. Even if it slips through, it's likely only a single.

Edited April 14, 2021 by Tribe171

[Helobious 9480]

7 minutes ago, Tribe171 said:

That's because the fielding in Tee-ball is not as good as the major leagues. Putting the ball on the ground in the major leagues is probably an out. Even if it slips through, it's likely only a single.

Yeah, I’ll take likely an out over 100% an out everytime. My point was there used to be some pride in not striking out. Now that’s gone and one consequence is that the on field product is suffering.

[shadow_operative2.0 15824]

Helo, you heard of this guy yet? 

 

[Beau Vine 53983]

Quote

 

Moving the mound, the ‘Double Hook’ — what MLB and the Atlantic League are trying out next

By Jayson Stark 40m ago 38 

There hasn’t been much you could always count on in baseball these last 128 years. But there is one thing that hasn’t changed. You could always find the pitcher’s mound and pitcher’s rubber sitting right where you left them the day/month/year/decade/century before:

Precisely 60 feet, 6 inches from home plate.

Well, 128 years is one hell of a run. But now even the mound is on the move. Starting this summer, sources tell The Athletic, in eight Atlantic League parks from Kentucky to Long Island, that pitcher’s rubber will creep 12 inches farther from the plate than it has been at any time since 1893 – to an unfamiliar distance of 61 feet, 6 inches.

That’s because, in conjunction with its friends at Major League Baseball, the independent Atlantic League is up to its old experimentation tricks again. And moving that rubber back a foot is only half of this story.

Besides the mound change, the two leagues also announced Wednesday that the Atlantic League will be trying out another new wrinkle – this one a variation on the Universal DH that you actually read about right here in The Athletic.  They’re even using a name that was suggested by, well, me: the “Double Hook.”

Here’s the way the Double Hook works: Every team starts out the game with a designated hitter. But once the starting pitcher leaves the game, that team also loses its DH. Hence the DH 2.0 terminology – Double Hook. Brilliant, right? Wait. Don’t answer yet.

So why should a Dodgers fan or a Cubs fan or a Twins fan pay attention to anything that happens in the Atlantic League? Hey, why do you think? Because what happens in the Atlantic League doesn’t always stay in the Atlantic League.

You know the ever-popular (except with artists once known as situational left-handers) three-batter rule? Don’t forget, it started in the Atlantic League in 2019. It’s now in its second season in the big leagues. And a bunch of other 2019 Atlantic League rule-change experiments have already made their way to various minor leagues for further examination in 2021.

So if MLB is trying these things out in York or High Point now, it’s telling us something. Today, it’s the Gastonia Honey Hunters – but tomorrow … maybe Fenway?

You may snicker, but there has never been more interest among the higher-ups in this industry in using rule changes as a vehicle to create a more action-packed and entertaining sport. So you should know that everything about 61 feet, 6 inches and the Double Hook will be the subject of intensive study this summer. Everything.

What’s interesting about these two real-life baseball lab experiments is that they’re not all they appear to be on the surface. The intent of the Double Hook isn’t really aimed at designated hitters. And the intent of moving the rubber back a foot isn’t really intended to impact pitchers.

So what is the potential impact? And what will MLB be looking for most closely? Let’s examine that now.

Does one foot back equal a big step forward?

WHAT’S HAPPENING: For the first half of the Atlantic League season, which begins May 27, the mound isn’t going anywhere. But for the second half, starting on Aug. 3, the distance between the plate and the rubber will shift to 61 feet, 6 inches.

WHY IT’S HAPPENING: We’re guessing you’ve noticed that pitchers these days throw harder than at any time in recorded history. (Average fastball velocity in 2021: 93.4 mph, the highest ever.) We’re guessing you’ve also noticed that’s produced a whole cyclone’s worth of swinging and missing. (Strikeout rate in 2021: a ridiculous 9.5 per nine innings, the most ever.)

So if this keeps up, it would make 16 years in a row that the strikeout rate has increased. And you know what that means? Forget the Three True Outcomes. It’s really just that One True Outcome that is swallowing up this sport. So how can baseball counteract the effects of all that velocity? Moving back the mound, even by a foot, might be an answer. Or not.

FIRST, A HISTORY LESSON: Two years ago, the Atlantic League announced it was planning to move the pitcher’s rubber back two feet, to 62′ 6″. Remember that? Of course you don’t. For good reason. It never happened.

So many pitchers expressed so much worry about the potential effects on their health that they threatened to bolt for other independent leagues or not sign at all. The league then decided this was one experiment that wasn’t worth the aggravation.

But two years later, here we are again. Except this time, with the mound moving back just one foot instead of two, and for only a couple of months, there appears to be much less fear of a mass pitcher defection for the Pioneer League.

NEXT, A SCIENCE LESSON: So why would there be less concern about health now than then? Because this time around, baseball is armed (literally) with the results of a 2019 study conducted by Dr. James Andrews, Glenn Fleisig and the American Sports Medicine Institute.

In that study, 26 college pitchers threw fastballs from three mound distances: 60 feet, 6 inches; 62 feet, 6 inches, and 63 feet, 8 inches (half the distance between home and second base). The study’s conclusion? “It is unlikely that moving the mound backwards (by any of those distances) would significantly affect pitching biomechanics and injury risk.”

So as this shift to 61 feet, 6 inches grows nearer, it’s a shrewd bet that you’ll hear many baseball officials citing this study to calm nervous Atlantic League pitchers across the East Coast. Wish them luck!

BONUS HIDDEN WRINKLE: MLB also conducted a study of where big-league catchers set up in the box — and found the difference can be as great as three feet. In other words, pitchers are already throwing the baseball farther than 60 feet, 6 inches. And some of them have been found to be throwing it as much as 65 feet, 6 inches.

Have any of those pitchers even noticed or complained about how catcher set-up is altering their mechanics? Not that we’ve heard. Good chance you’ll be hearing more about that study, too.

IF IT’S SO SAFE, WHY MOVE IT “ONLY” ONE FOOT? How many American sports fans think that “60 feet, 6 inches” is a sacred number, handed down by the baseball gods on a stone tablet in 1893 (since all the laser printers were definitely out of order back then)? Well, however many that is, every single one of those fans will no doubt look at this experiment as an outrageous sacrilege that dramatically alters the foundation of the game.

Maybe they’re right. But if you think 12 inches will rock the fabric of the sport beyond recognition, then imagine moving the mound back two feet, or three feet, or five feet. If you’re trying to help the hitters and produce more contact, you would get way more impact at 65′-6″ than at 61′-6″ – but you would also produce way more pitchers sprinting for the hills and a fundamentally different sport.

So the thinking appears to be: Let’s try one foot and see if it helps. If not, you just might see the Atlantic League tinkering with 62 feet, 6 inches next year.

HOW MUCH WILL ONE FOOT HELP THE HITTERS:  We’ll let you know in six months, OK? But in the meantime, MLB has run some projections that indicate that even a one-foot move should give hitters just enough increased reaction time to make a difference.

According to MLB’s data, that extra foot means that a 93.3 mph fastball (i.e, the average velocity in 2020) will look to the hitter like a 91.6 mph fastball (average velocity in 2010). For the record, there were 8,500 fewer strikeouts in 2010 than there were in the last full season, in 2019. That’s not a coincidence.

MLB’s study also estimated that the extra foot would give hitters an additional 1/100th of a second of reaction time. That’s an undetectable difference to those of us just watching. But that 1/100th of a second is enough to reduce projected swings-and-misses by 2.2 percent.

Again, that seems microscopic, but over the course of a big-league season, it would mean thousands of fewer swings that no longer hit nothing but air. So this move is all about what it means for hitters. Stay tuned.

WHAT BASEBALL WILL BE LOOKING FOR: Never in independent-league history will checking those Atlantic League box scores feel so exhilarating. The big questions those box scores could answer:

• Will the strikeout rate go down?
• Will the walk rate go up, since that extra foot is expected to increase movement on all pitches, which could wreak havoc on command?
• Will we see a contact rate that looks more similar to 2010, since effective velocity will feel more like 2010 to the hitters?
• And above all, will this have any significant negative effect on pitcher health? If it does, that figures to be the last time baseball messes with 60 feet, 6 inches.

QUOTE OF THE DAY: You know who is heavily involved in all of these rules experiments? A fellow named Theo Epstein, currently working as an MLB consultant. Here’s what he told me and Doug Glanville on our Starkville podcast recently when we asked where he stood on moving back the mound:

“I think it’s impossible to talk about how to restore the right balance between modern pitchers and modern hitters without giving consideration to the dimensions … If you move the mound back a foot, (that) would sort of mean that you’re restoring velocity to where it was maybe eight to 10 years ago, when the contract rate was a little bit better, the strikeout rate was a little bit more under control. So it would certainly be a worthwhile experiment.” 

Time to double down on the Double Hook?

WHAT’S HAPPENING: Unlike the 61-6 experiment, the Double Hook will be in effect all season long in the Atlantic League. So in case this wasn’t clear earlier, here’s the deal with how that will work:

Every team starts the game with a DH. If the starting pitcher goes nine innings, the DH hangs around for all nine innings. If the starting pitcher gets knocked out in the fourth, the DH gets knocked out with him. If the starting pitcher is in trouble in the top of the sixth and the DH is due up in the bottom of the sixth, then the manager has a fun decision to make. Talk-show lines are open.

WHY IT’S HAPPENING: Remember back in the good old days — by which we mean, oh, 2010 — when the first question you asked before you watched a baseball game was: Who’s pitching tonight? That’s because we spent a century thinking of starting pitchers as the biggest names and most significant players in the whole sport. It was fun century while it lasted.

In 2020, the average starting pitcher got a measly 14 outs per start. In 2010, that average was 18 outs. And would you believe that even if we prorate last year’s stats over a full season, fewer than 500 starters would have been permitted to go through a lineup three times in 2020? Ten years ago, that number was more than 2,200.

So the Double Hook isn’t really about the DH at all. (Or at least not much.) It’s really about dangling an incentive in front of managers and data-driven front offices to keep their starting pitchers in the game long enough for your average season-ticket holder to have time to gulp down a hot dog and still watch those starters work their magic.

SO WHO LIKES THIS IDEA ANYWAY? Hey, you’d be surprised at the baseball people I’ve heard from since I first wrote about this idea a couple of months ago. Let me tell you about a few of them.

Adam Wainwright loved this thing at the time and told me this spring he’s still a huge fan. Max Scherzer brought it up unsolicited to the Washington Post in February  — and even casually referred to it as the Double Hook.

I heard from one All-Star position player on a perennial NL contender (also unsolicited) who told me his team was “all in” on the Double Hook, hitters and pitchers alike. And Rockies manager Bud Black started talking it up over the winter at the virtual Winter Meetings, saying: “It’s not a bad thought.” When I asked him later where he’d first heard the idea, he replied: “It might have been from you.”

I’m honestly not looking for any credit (unless you like it, that is — in which case, you’re welcome). Other than the name, it wasn’t my own personal brainstorm. It’s an idea that actually has been kicked around behind the scenes in baseball for a couple of years. I just thought it would be fun to write about.

But unlike most of the brilliant ideas I decide to champion, which end up in some exotic solid-waste landfill, this one somehow is about to spring to life, in real games, in a real league. What’s everybody thinking out there anyway?

SO WHO HATES THIS IDEA? Oh, there’s a much longer list of baseball people who think this is the most misguided thing to hit baseball since the White Sox played a major-league game wearing shorts. And what do you say we don’t quote all of them?

But I will quote one AL exec whose unabashed loathing of this idea came through loud and clear when I first ran it by him over the winter.

“I hate this rule so much,” he said then, “because it’s loaded with so many unintended consequences. In fact, it has the largest range of bad, unintended consequences of any rule anyone has thrown out there.”

I’m guessing you’re wondering what those unintended consequences might be, right? Well, there’s this one: His team falls behind, 4-0, in the third inning. Then his starter goes out and walks the leadoff hitter. So out he goes. But wait. Out his DH goes, too.

“Now we have to play the rest of that game — when we’re losing — with a worse lineup, or at least one less hitter,” he said. “So the other team has one additional batter in the lineup, and we have our pitcher hitting, and we’re trying to come from behind? Doesn’t that mean your odds of winning that game are reduced dramatically?”

Yeah, excellent point. Meaning … that’s all from him!

HIDDEN WRINKLE: I’ve never actually gotten into this angle before. But one baseball official who loves this idea told me recently that one of his favorite things about it is that it would bring “that Matt Stairs kind of guy” back into prominence.

So why is that? Because pinch-hitting would be a thing again. If baseball goes to the traditional Universal DH, teams would have no reason to stockpile “that Matt Stairs kind of guy” on the bench anymore because he’d never bat. Like ever. With all 30 teams using the DH last year, teams used just 0.65 pinch hitters per game — the fewest since 1912.

But the Double Hook changes all of that. In those late innings, once the starting pitcher exits, we’re assuming no level-headed managers would want their relief pitchers to hit. So all that fun late-game National League strategic razzle-dazzle would roar to life pretty much every night. And that big old, let-it-fly, Slo-Pitch-softball pinch-hit dude would roar to life every night with it, right? Sign me up for that!

WHAT BASEBALL WILL BE LOOKING FOR: If the Double Hook accomplishes what its proponents dream it will accomplish, it should be obvious. These are the big questions.

• Will it restore the luster of the starting pitcher by motivating managers to keep their starters in the game longer on any sort of semi-regular basis?
• Will it create cool, second-guessable, strategic moments by forcing those managers to think long and hard about every pitching change?
• Will it incentivize managers to gravitate away from one-dimensional DHs in favor of more versatile, multi-talented DHs who can be switched into the field when the starter exits to keep their bats in the lineup?
• Or will fans hate the idea that if a starter is so bad that he gets knocked out in the first inning, they might not get to see the best hitter on their team get a single frigging at-bat, just because the DH got knocked out in the first inning, too?
• But mostly, there is this pivotal question: Will this be the magic formula that allows the DH and the last vestiges of National League baseball to co-exist — or will it just feel like a gimmick that creates more problems than it solves?

QUOTE OF THE DAY: It’s easy to find 1.8 billion opinions of the Double Hook. The truth is, nobody knows what this thing will look like until we see it in action because it has never been trotted out anywhere. So with the Universal DH debate rolling soon toward a labor bargaining table near Rob Manfred and Tony Clark, why not find out? It’s now or literally never.

“Look, it’s something to think about,” said Black. “It’s like a lot of these ideas to make our game more appealing. Off the cuff, you might think they’re crazy. But maybe they’re not.”

 

[Texas Wahoo 3383]

33 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

 

I don't have strong thoughts on moving the mound.  If it lessens the number of strikeouts without more injuries, I say go for it.  It always seemed like the mound should be in the middle of the diamond anyway.

I had never heard of the double hook DH, but I like it better than the universal DH.  As an NL fan, I've always liked the double-switching and strategy later in the games, so if we can use a DH, but keep that aspect, I'm all for it (and longer outings from starting pitchers is a bonus).

[Beau Vine 53983]

Pretty I was taught not to do this my first year in Little League:

 

[Beau Vine 53983]

How does anyone ever hit the ball these days?

 

[Beau Vine 53983]

Quote

MINNEAPOLIS -- Minnesota Twins shortstop Andrelton Simmons has tested positive for the coronavirus and was placed on the COVID-19 injured list Wednesday before the team's doubleheader against the Boston Red Sox.

Simmons has said he doesn't plan to get the COVID-19 vaccine, which was made available in a single-shot dosage to the team at Target Field last Thursday.

Twins president of baseball operations Derek Falvey said Simmons was experiencing "very mild" symptoms and resting at home. The positive test result was received late Tuesday, after the Twins lost 4-2 to the Red Sox.

After the initial phase of contact tracing, the Twins determined no additional players needed to be quarantined.

Simmons was replaced on the roster by infielder JT Riddle, who was summoned from the alternate training site. Third baseman Josh Donaldson, out since the season opener with a strained hamstring, was expected back for the second game of the doubleheader.

The Twins held a meeting to remind players and staff to heed virus protocols, even though a majority of them have been vaccinated. The full immunization period isn't in effect yet.

"We're not out of the woods by any means on that front," Falvey said, adding, "Now is the time to be as vigilant as possible."

Simmons tweeted last month that he would not be getting the vaccine or advocating for it for "personal reasons and past experience," on which he declined to elaborate. He confirmed Sunday that he did not participate in the teamwide vaccination. Asked if he planned to get the shot in the future, Simmons said he didn't know.

 

[Beau Vine 53983]

Astros seem to have a Covid outbreak:

[Beau Vine 53983]

Cool stuff from Sawchick:

https://www.thescore.com/mlb/news/2152818/the-reds-are-conducting-an-experiment-that-may-change-the-game-defensively

 

Quote

Cincinnati Reds ace Luis Castillo was under duress in the opening inning of the season last week. The St. Louis Cardinals had already scored and the bases were loaded with one out. Yadier Molina entered the batter's box.

Hoping to induce the slow-footed catcher to hit into a double play, Castillo executed his next pitch as intended: a breaking ball tracking for the outside corner. Molina pounded the pitch into the turf, bounding toward the left side of the infield. Reds shortstop Eugenio Suarez ranged to his right, briefly collecting the ball before bobbling the transfer to his throwing hand. The ball trickled into shallow left field and two Cardinals scampered home. By the end of the inning, St. Louis had scored six runs.

The most remarkable thing about that play? The Reds chose to place Suarez there. He hadn't played an inning at the position since 2018; he hadn't played more than 11 innings there since 2015 before his move to third base. We think of players sliding down to less demanding positions as they age. We don't often see players at 29 years old move up the defensive ladder.

 

"We wouldn't be doing this if we weren't confident that he could do it," Reds manager David Bell told reporters this spring.

The Reds likely would not be conducting this experiment if shortstops were seeing opportunities like they were in, say, the 1980s. Playing Suarez at a premium position is not as wild as it seems. With fewer balls being put in play in the majors, defensive opportunities have been reduced. Some positions are losing more defensive work than others, including some of the most important positions on the field.

 

The number of fielding chances per nine innings for shortstops decreased 16.7% from 2005 to last season, from 4.67 chances per game to 3.89. Entering Tuesday, chances were down again, to 3.77 per game, or 19.3% off the 2005 mark.

The sum of putouts, assists, and errors at the position are down 28% compared to levels 40 years earlier.

The change is accelerating. The opportunities for shortstops only slightly declined from 1956 (5.16) - the first year such data is available for all positions at FanGraphs.com - to 1986 (4.8), a 7% decline. There was an 8% decline between 2017 and 2020.

 

And it's not that fielders are less able to get to balls, batted balls in shortstop zones are declining even more: early season levels are down 32% from 2005.

Hitters have focused more on trying to beat infield shifts by going over them, and strikeouts - the chief culprit behind fewer balls in play - continue to rise. This season, the strikeout rate sits at 25% - an all-time high.

"Defense is less important than in the past with all the strikeouts," one American League executive said. "Yes, we should be able to put traditionally worse defenders in the infield. How much worse? I don't know."

That is the question. How much can teams get away with? Suarez made his fourth error of the season Monday at Arizona. He owns a .892 fielding percentage. That's a great conversion percentage for a shooter at the free-throw line, but not for a shortstop. Excluding last year's shortened season, there hasn't been a qualified shortstop to post a sub-.900 fielding percentage in more than a century.

East Bay Times / MediaNews Group / Getty Images

While shortstops have lost significant chances, second basemen have lost the most work. Second base is where the Reds had been playing Mike Moustakas before the Suarez move allowed him to shift back to his natural spot at third base.

"None of these decisions are made in a vacuum," said an NL scout. "If you have strength in other areas, I think it's probably easier to make a risky defensive-positioning choice."

Last year, second basemen had 20.3% fewer fielding chances compared to 2003. There were 5.12 chances per game in 2003 compared to 4.08 last year. They're down again this season to 4.02.

Since 1981, second base chances are down 28.6%. That decline, and defensive shifts, are changing the athletic requirements of the position.

"A second baseman now can be a bit less agile as he is already at the bag, or nowhere near the bag, (compared) to past … he might need a stronger arm," the AL executive noted. "Third base experiences more range plays than in the past."

Unlike shortstop, second base, and first base, third base opportunities have held up remarkably well.

Early this season, third basemen are active on 2.71 chances per game, which is in line with the last few seasons and similar to 1990s levels. The third baseman is often the lone defender on the left side of the infield in many shift alignments. Some teams will also swing their third baseman around to be the third defender on the right side of the infield during a defensive shift against a left-handed batter.

The Reds aren't exactly going full Satchel Paige and waving their outfielders in before striking out the side - but they are as well-positioned as any team to continue making bat-for-glove trade-offs.

Entering play Tuesday, Reds pitchers were tied with the Brewers for the major-league lead in strikeouts (712) since the start of the 2020 season. Perhaps that's why Reds GM Nick Krall told reporters the club began kicking around the idea of playing Suarez at shortstop last season. Krall said he was convinced Suarez could get the job done this January after seeing him in better shape.

The Indians are the AL leader in strikeouts since 2020. And like the Reds, who entered the season without a true shortstop, Cleveland departed spring training without a true center fielder. The club experimented with shortstop Amed Rosario there - he made three errors in his first spring game. In recent years, the Indians have also tried Lonnie Chisenhall and Jason Kipnis in center field, awkward fits at the position.

Icon Sportswire / Getty Images

But compared to infield opportunities, the outfield hasn't seen much decline as batters swap grounders for liners and fly balls.

Chances in center field are within the modern era range, which is between 2.9 and 2.4 chances per nine innings. Last year, CFs had 2.46 chances per game. This season it stands at 2.55.

Opportunities in the outfield corners are down early this season at historic lows, less than two per game at each spot. But in 2020 (1.85 left field, 2.06 right field) and 2019 (1.85 left field, 2.06 right field) the opportunities in the corner were near the middle of the pack since 1956.

When it comes to the infield, perhaps we'll see more experiments from more clubs.

Outside of catcher, most positions have become more offense-oriented. For example, two of the top three offensive seasons all time for the shortstop position occurred in 2019 and 2020. Last year's 101 weighted runs created plus mark (wRC+) - a measure that adjusts for ballpark and run environments where 100 represents league-average production - tied the top mark set in 1904. It was just the second time the position has met or exceeded league-average offensive production.

 

This is part of a larger story about the game's march toward three true outcomes and fewer balls in play, and whether or not that needs to be remedied. The commissioner's office is concerned about how warped the game has become. Even as MLB said it's using a less lively ball this year, home runs continue to fly out of parks. Strikeouts continue to rise. And with fewer balls in play, some teams are trying to jam more offense into traditionally glove-first positions.

MLB has even floated the idea of eliminating defensive shifts, which may in part have an eye on increasing defensive demands on positions. But until MLB intervenes, it seems the glove-first player is becoming endangered.

 

[DaysOff 7850]

At this point maybe it'll help.

[Scraps 13539]

What a shitty way to lose a perfect game

[Helobious 9480]

I hadn’t heard Rodon’s name in a while. Dude was almost the #1 overall pick way back I’m pretty sure.

[Beau Vine 53983]

1 hour ago, Helobious said:

I hadn’t heard Rodon’s name in a while. Dude was almost the #1 overall pick way back I’m pretty sure.

Rodon was an absolute stud at NC State.  IIRC, he had some arm issues his (junior) draft year, or else he would have gone down as one of the best college pitchers ever and been drafted #1.

[Beau Vine 53983]

I knew I should have picked Zack McKinstry in the first round of my fantasy draft!

[shadow_operative 15932]

7 hours ago, Beau Vine said:

Rodon was an absolute stud at NC State.  IIRC, he had some arm issues his (junior) draft year, or else he would have gone down as one of the best college pitchers ever and been drafted #1.

as it stands though, Burt Hooton is still the GOAT.

[youdunnf'dup 2147]

Jazz Chisholm with the eurostep on his hr off of Charlie Morton 

I really hope this kid is legit. He’s got some swag.

[Beau Vine 53983]

11 hours ago, Helobious said:

I hadn’t heard Rodon’s name in a while. Dude was almost the #1 overall pick way back I’m pretty sure.

BTW, the two guys drafted ahead of him?

Spoiler

Brady Aiken.  Ouch.

Spoiler

Tyler Kolek.  Double ouch.  https://www.baseball-reference.com/register/player.fcgi?id=kolek-000tyl

 

[Helobious 9480]

1 hour ago, Beau Vine said:

BTW, the two guys drafted ahead of him?

  Hide contents

Brady Aiken.  Ouch.

  Hide contents

Tyler Kolek.  Double ouch.  https://www.baseball-reference.com/register/player.fcgi?id=kolek-000tyl

 

Lulz, forgot Aiken existed. Can’t believe the Astros utterly blew 2/3 #1 overall picks and ended up fine. 

[Scraps 13539]

eurostep sucks in basketball.....really sucks in baseball 

[Beau Vine 53983]

1 hour ago, Scraps said:

eurostep sucks in basketball.....really sucks in baseball 

I forget which SC host was doing highlights of an NBA game and called, "He Eurosteps and scores... or as we called it in the 80s, "travels."

[WBT 20415]

2 hours ago, Helobious said:

Lulz, forgot Aiken existed. Can’t believe the Astros utterly blew 2/3 #1 overall picks and ended up fine. 

They only would have blown it if they signed Aiken.  As it was, they got out of the Aiken pick and got Bregman as the compensation pick the next year.  So much ink was spilled about how they screwed that poor kid and now there's doubt that he ever makes the $5 million that he turned down from the Astros.

[Guadaloopy 10918]

28 minutes ago, WBT said:

They only would have blown it if they signed Aiken.  As it was, they got out of the Aiken pick and got Bregman as the compensation pick the next year.  So much ink was spilled about how they screwed that poor kid and now there's doubt that he ever makes the $5 million that he turned down from the Astros.

This.  Not the Astros fault that physicals are not allowed on potential draft picks.  

Edited April 15, 2021 by Guadaloopy

[shadow_operative 15932]

6 hours ago, Beau Vine said:

I forget which SC host was doing highlights of an NBA game and called, "He Eurosteps and scores... or as we called it in the 80s, "travels."

sounds like Kenny Mayne.

[UTexasFight 9376]

On 4/14/2021 at 10:38 AM, Beau Vine said:

 

I want to get on board with this double hook idea, but nah

on one hand, I like the mash up of having a universal DH while also maintaining some of the late inning strategy you get in the NL. But the execution doesn’t work at all

Problem with game is too many walks, homers, and Ks. So of course MLB is looking at a gimmicky rule that would create more walks and homers (leaving starter in too long) and Ks (shitty pinch hitters)

 

[Beau Vine 53983]

Corbin Burners has a 0.218 WHIP.  

In 18.1 innings, 4 hits, 0 walks, 30 Ks.

 

WTF???!

[Biff Tannen 45491]

1 hour ago, Beau Vine said:

Corbin Burners has a 0.218 WHIP.  

In 18.1 innings, 4 hits, 0 walks, 30 Ks.

 

WTF???!

[shadow_operative 15932]

10 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

Corbin Burners has a 0.218 WHIP.  

In 18.1 innings, 4 hits, 0 walks, 30 Ks.

 

WTF???!

he was so good last year that a lot of people questioned whether or not he could repeat that same level of success. off to a good start i'd say. 

[miguelito 11216]

He was great in LA Law. And Psych, too, not a lot of people know that.

[Beau Vine 53983]

Burners just kind of works better than Burnes.  He should follow my typo and change his name.  

 

Also, this was pretty cool:

Quote

“I truly believe," legendary Dodgers broadcaster Jaime Jarrín once said, "that there is no other player in Major League history who created more new fans than Fernando Valenzuela. Sandy Koufax, Don Drysdale, Joe DiMaggio, even Babe Ruth did not. Fernando turned so many people from Mexico, Central America, South America into fans. He created interest in baseball among people who did not care about baseball.”

That is, of course, impossible to prove or disprove, though trust us, we're about to try.

What's important is to remember now, four decades after Fernandomania took the baseball nation by storm, is just how important it all seemed, the kind of legend that can't be obtained only through on-field greatness -- though Valenzuela surely had that -- but off-field mythmaking, too. There’s a difference between being “famous” and being a “phenomenon,” and hawkers selling a hastily assembled record full of songs about you certainly qualifies as the latter.

 

So yes, he may have been the 20-year-old rookie who was an emergency starter on Opening Day and then allowed only two earned runs in his first seven starts. But he was also the young lefty who looked to the sky before he threw, and had a screwball that no one else did, and dominated with a body type that didn't, then or now, exactly scream "professional athlete."

It was all of that, and it was more. Part of it was also the appeal of a Mexican-born superstar pitcher in Southern California, which Major League Baseball hadn't really had at the time. Through 1980, there had only been two Mexican-born starters in history to collect even 30 career starts. Specific to the Dodgers, they'd had just one Mexican pitcher who had ever pitched for them, a little-remembered reliever named José Peña, who saw action in 55 games from 1970-72.

"I've never seen anything like it," Jarrín said a month into the 1981 season. "[Dodger pitcher Bobby] Castillo is a Mexican-American, a Chicano who was born in Los Angeles, but it's a bigger thing to have someone from Mexico. And Fernando is from the state of Sonora, a main source of immigrants to this area. We Latins are big sports fans. We've always had sports heroes, but they've been boxers. Fernando has the potential to become king of them all."

 

Los Angeles Times, May 15, 1981

While Jarrín said that he thought no one had ever created more new fans than Valenzuela, let's take that to mean "no one had ever sold more tickets," because at least in that sense, we can try to apply some context.

We do have historical attendance numbers, and plenty of contemporary news reports. What we can do is look at that 1981 season and see how many tickets were sold to each of his starts, and how that stacks up not just against the rest of his Dodger pitching teammates -- and remember, this was a good and popular Dodger team, one that had gone to the World Series in 1977 and '78 and would win it all in '81 -- and see how it stacks up, not just within 1981 but historically.

"I've seen people standing in front of Dodger schedules," Dodger Stadium security guard Rico Rivera was quoted as saying in the May 17, 1981, edition of the San Francisco Examiner and Chronicle, "just counting -- uno, dos, tres, quatro -- then saying, 'We'll buy tickets for that game, the fifth game, because that's when he's pitching again."

"I can not recall anything like this, not for one person," said Ruth Gleason in the same article. Gleason was a telephone operator for the Dodgers who had, at the time, been working for the team for 15 years. "They're all about Fernando. Is the game televised? When does he pitch next? Is the game sold out?"

 

It got to the point that merely dropping a different starter from the rotation, one who hadn't lasted past the second inning in either of his two previous starts, created conspiracy theories.

"Valenzuela would have originally pitched his next game Tuesday night against the Phillies, which caused it to sell out," wrote the May 15, 1981, edition of the Los Angeles Times. "Then [manager] Tom Lasorda dropped Rick Sutcliffe from the rotation and decided to go with four starters, which moved Valenzuela to Monday. Monday's game sold out, too, but the Dodgers started receiving complaints that they had switched Valenzuela to sell tickets. The Dodger posture is that the club hadn't announced the rotation that far in advance, that if fans wanted to count ahead, they'd have to take their chances. The Dodgers are nonetheless allowing exchanges for the Tuesday tickets."

If that sounds like fans were more interested in seeing Valenzuela than his teammates ... they were. Let's prove it.

Valenzuela outdrew his 1981 teammates consistently

Valenzuela’s 25 starts came in 25 different series during the 1981 season, 12 at home and 13 on the road. We can’t just look at attendance for his starts against the rest of the National League, because the Dodgers of that era consistently outdrew everyone else anyway. (In 1980, they had 600,000 more home fans than anyone else, and they were first in 1979, and 1978, and 1977 and ... so on. It’s likely they drew more on the road than other clubs, too.)

So instead, let’s keep the team consistent and compare his starts to those of the other Dodger starters, who were primarily Burt Hooton, Jerry Reuss and Bob Welch (68 of the team’s 110 starts), and occasionally Dave Goltz, Sutcliffe, Ted Power and Castillo (17 more). Welch and Reuss had each been All-Stars the previous year, and Reuss had actually finished second to Steve Carlton in National League Cy Young Award voting. Hooton had finished second himself in 1978. They weren’t exactly nobodies.

Of the 25 different series in which Valenzuela appeared, his start sold the most tickets of the series 22 times, and two of the three times he didn’t sell the most came in early April, before it might have been fully clear what was happening. The final time, on Sept. 6 against the Cardinals, his Sunday start was outdrawn by Goltz's Friday night start by only about 1,330 fans.

 

Otherwise? Every single time he pitched in a series, he drew the most fans.

He pumped up road attendance more than anyone in recent NL history

But why stop at 1981? If we can run the numbers for that year, we can do it for any year.

Valenzuela's starts drew an average of 33,273 on the road, while the remaining Dodger games drew an average of 19,456. That's a boost of 71%, and so of course, we wanted to know: Is that good? Is that great? Had anyone ever done that? So we went back to 1969, the start of divisional play, and we looked for all pitchers who made at least 10 starts both home and away during a season. There were, as you'd expect, thousands. No National Leaguer topped him. No one came close.

Of course, we're saying "National Leaguer" for a reason, because there was one American Leaguer who did him one better. In 1971, A's rookie Vida Blue won both the AL Cy Young Award and Most Valuable Player, and he had something of a Fernandomania season himself. ("Blue to Give Yankee Turnstiles A Run for Their Money Today," ran a headline in the New York Times on Aug. 15, 1971.) Blue's A's drew 28,754 on the road when he started, but 13,369 when he didn't, meaning that he more than doubled the rest of his teammates, so far as attendance goes.

In the National League, though, Valenzuela stands alone.

 

So perhaps we ought to be talking more about Blue, because if this is Fernandomania's 40th anniversary, well, then it's the 50th year since Blue's magical first full season. But so far as Valenzuela goes: Just about no one has done what he did.

"It's great for baseball, this Fernandomania thing," future Hall of Fame third baseman Mike Schmidt said in May 1981. We agree, and you can trace the path of how the mania began to swell as the season went on.

APRIL

 

Valenzuela didn't come out of nowhere, not entirely. He entered the 1981 season already on some kind of streak, having thrown 35 consecutive scoreless innings to finish his Double-A career in 1980 and then 17 2/3 more as a Dodger reliever near the end of the year, thanks in large part to the screwball he’d picked up in the winter of 1979-80, taught to him by Castillo. Before the season even began, in late March, he was the subject of a Sports Illustrated profile.

In 1981, he was expected to slot into the middle of the rotation, but was forced into an unexpected Opening Day start -- so unexpected that he'd actually thrown batting practice the day before, which was a thing active pitchers actually used to do sometimes -- after veterans Reuss (calf) and Hooton (toe) were unable to go.

It was his first Major League start, coming on Opening Day, on almost no notice, against a Houston team that had taken the 1980 NL West by a single game over the Dodgers thanks to a 7-1 victory in a one-game tiebreaker. Valenzuela shut out the Astros 2-0 in front of 50,511 fans, though that number wasn’t out of line with the other season-opening games in Los Angeles.

The “mania,” so far as April went, started off slowly, though certainly Valenzuela did not. In his second start, on April 14 in San Francisco, he pitched a one-run complete game on a Tuesday night, mildly drawing the most fans of the series, though still a modest 23,790. It was the same in San Diego on April 18; Valenzuela pitched a shutout, though in front of just 19,776. Ditto a rematch with the Astros on April 22 in Houston; another shutout -- this time, he also drove in the only run in a 1-0 victory -- and another best-of-series ticket sale, but still, only to 22,830 in the Astrodome.

Back home in Los Angeles on April 27, Valenzuela pitched another shutout, his fourth in five tries, lowering his ERA to an unimaginable 0.20, and if you want to draw a line to where the “mania” really began, look here. On a Monday night, 49,478 showed up to watch him face the Giants. The remaining two nights of the series, started by Sutcliffe and Welch, each drew 10,000 fewer fans.

MAY

 

In early May, the Dodgers headed north to Canada for a four-game wraparound weekend set in Montreal against the Expos. Three of the games, the Friday, Saturday and Monday ones, drew similarly, attracting between 21,000 and 28,000 fans. But on Sunday, May 3, the Expos drew 46,405, and we don’t think they were there to see Montreal starter Bill Gullickson.

The May 2, 1981, headline in the Montreal Gazette made clear how big a deal Valenzuela already was.

By this point, Fernandomania was in full swing. On May 4, another Sports Illustrated profile arrived. After Montreal, the Dodgers headed to New York to face the Mets, and on May 8, Valenzuela pitched another shutout, in front of 39,848 on a Friday night. This after the Mets drew all of 16,803 total fans for a three-game set against the Giants in the three days prior. The Dodgers stayed for afternoon games on Saturday and Sunday, which drew 28,878 fans … combined.

On May 14, he came back to Los Angeles and a hero’s welcome. On a Thursday night, the finale of a midweek series against Montreal, the Dodgers sold 53,906 seats, the most they had sold for a game since 1974. Valenzuela pitched a complete game for the win, and even chipped in two hits at the plate.

Four days later, on May 18, he picked up his first loss, allowing four earned runs to the Phillies in Los Angeles in front of 52,439; this game and the May 14 start were the two most highly attended games of the entire 1981 season for the Dodgers. Yet while no one could have known it at the time, this was the end of the great on-field run. Not that he was ineffective later on -- he did throw three more shutouts after May -- but through the May 14 start, he had a 0.50 ERA; from the May 18 start on, it was 3.66.

Still, he was packing them in the seats. On May 23 in Cincinnati (40,928) and May 28 in Atlanta (26,597), the Reds and Braves each set season highs for non-Opening Day ticket sales, though he did allow seven runs in 3 2/3 innings against Atlanta.

The Atlanta Journal (May 24, 1981) made clear that Georgia fans were anticipating Valenzuela's arrival.

JUNE

 

The “mania” remained in full swing here, as a return home on Monday, June 1, against the Braves drew 49,136 -- far more than either of the next two games against Atlanta -- and his first trip to Wrigley Field on June 6 attracted 30,556, a hilarious number considering that the previous day, a celebrated Friday afternoon game in Chicago, drew all of 7,815 for a Reuss start. (It appears to have been a warm, dry day, too.)

In St. Louis on June 11, after only 19,654 had shown up on Tuesday and 17,779 on Wednesday, 39,250 came to watch him pitch. It was the second-largest crowd at Busch Stadium all year. The day before, he'd been in Washington for an engagement at the White House. The headline of that event, lest we think his attendance-drawing powers were limited to baseball fans, tells the story: "Valenzuela draws crowd at White House luncheon."

And then, everything stopped. On June 12, the players went on strike. The season wouldn’t resume for nearly two months.

AUGUST

 

 

Valenzuela started the second game of the restarted season, and the momentum hadn’t subsided. In each of his four August starts, he drew considerably more fans than any other game in the series. It’s not hard to see the effect immediately, really. The first game of the second half was Monday, Aug. 10, against the Reds, started by Reuss, and 35,120 came to see the return of baseball. The third game was Wednesday, Aug. 12, and 36,494 showed up to see Tom Seaver battle Welch. The middle game, on Aug. 11, had Valenzuela. There were 45,817 tickets sold.

On, really, it went. The end of that homestand was a four-game set against the Braves, and attendance went like this: 27,418 (Aug. 13, Hooton); 35,592 (Aug. 14, Goltz); 40,510 (Aug. 15, Reuss), and then, for Valenzuela’s start on Aug. 16: 50,340. They went on the road to Chicago, where he didn’t pitch, and then attracted 38,751 to St. Louis for his start on Saturday, Aug. 22, a day before the same two teams drew only 18,189. In fact, the next four games after his Aug. 22 start (the finale in St. Louis and a three-game set in Pittsburgh) all drew fewer than 20,000 fans.

Back in Los Angeles on Aug. 27, Valenzuela shut out the Cubs in front of 48,191 for a 7:35 p.m. start, once again the highest draw of the series. His next start came in the middle of a midweek series against the Pirates, and it might have been the best example of Fernando-mania all season long.

SEPTEMBER / OCTOBER

 

 

Here’s how that Pirates series looked, and it really tells the story of the entire season.

Monday, Aug. 31: 35,862 (Reuss)
Tuesday, Sept. 1: 50,134 (Valenzuela)
Wednesday, Sept. 2: 32,027 (Welch)

On Sept. 6, Valenzuela shut out the Cardinals in front of 46,780, though for the first time since April, it wasn’t the highest draw of the series; two days earlier, a Goltz start on a Friday night had attracted 48,114. The rest of the season continued apace; his Sept. 12 start in Cincinnati (34,090) sold about 30% more tickets than the days before and after it. His Sept. 17 start back home against the Braves drew 46,168 on a Thursday night, a day after only 19,905 filled Dodger Stadium to see Reuss battle Atlanta. They were rewarded with Valenzuela's final shutout of the year.

One last road trip drew two more large crowds. An audience of 28,046 saw him start on Tuesday, Sept. 22 in San Francisco, which may not sound like a lot until you realize the next two nights combined drew 25,784. In Houston on Sept. 27, there were 41,686, the third-biggest Astros home crowd of the year, and over 9,000 more than had come to see Nolan Ryan pitch the day before.

Finally, back home in Dodger Stadium, Valenzuela started against the Padres on Oct. 1. It was a Thursday, and 38,267 came to see him. It was almost exactly twice as many fans as had filled the park the day before to see Hooton against San Diego.

All told, Fernandomania looked like this:

At home, his starts drew 48,431, while non-Fernando starts drew 40,941.

On the road, his starts drew 33,237, while non-Fernando starts drew 19,456.

It wasn’t about the day of the week, really; somehow, Valenzuela only had two weekend (Friday/Saturday/Sunday) starts at home, and they didn’t draw much differently than his mid-week starts did. It was about the phenomenon, the sense that you had to be there to see it.

Jarrín said he thought no one had ever created more fans, and we’ll never know. But in 1981, Valenzuela absolutely drew more fans by himself than almost anyone else ever had. It’s as close to a baseball "mania" as you’ll ever get.

This was back before cable TV, so no Sportscenter, Baseball Tonight, etc, and only one game on national TV each week, so you only heard about him for a while. I remember my dad waking me up for school and saying very first thing, "Valenzuela threw another shutout last night" several times.  I think channel 21 in Dallas still carried the Astros at that point, so that was about the only way I got to see him that year.   

[InkaUtexas 25496]

Very true.

One of the coolest moments in my life was tossing with Fernando at Spring Training in Vero Beach. 

[shadow_operative2.0 15824]

Tatis Jr already back. 

[dbecks 442]

Yankees fans... very cool, very chill.

[shadow_operative2.0 15824]

Fun game in SD on MLBN. Dodgers up 4-3 in bot 7 after a botched DP. 

[shadow_operative2.0 15824]

My boy Profar ties it in bot 8 with a 2-run double. 

[Beau Vine 53983]

 

[shadow_operative2.0 15824]

JT gives LAD the lead in top 9.

[shadow_operative2.0 15824]

Hosmer scores Manny with 2 outs against Kenley to tie it. Helluva game for April. 

[youdunnf'dup 2147]

Manny steals 2nd, takes 3rd on a wild pitch, and Hosmer drives him in to tie it up in the bottom of the 9th. Great game 

[shadow_operative2.0 15824]

These Padres’ announcers are fired up. 

[Scraps 13539]

I got neck tats i am billy badass!

[shadow_operative2.0 15824]

Junior ‘bout to end it. 

[Scraps 13539]

I was told this is Slam Diego

[shadow_operative2.0 15824]

Well, he ended the inning. 

[Scraps 13539]

That was not very MVP like

[youdunnf'dup 2147]

Hanging breaking ball on a tee and he goes down looking. Ouch. 

[shadow_operative2.0 15824]

Damn, nice fucking pick, Hos. 

[shadow_operative2.0 15824]

Price gonna wear the L. 

[shadow_operative2.0 15824]

10 minutes ago, shadow_operative2.0 said:

Damn, nice fucking pick, Hos. 

That AB was the putrid equivalent.