Jump to content

2018 MLB Thread

Netzer

By Netzer
in Baseball

 Share

Recommended Posts

Pato del Muerto

Pato del Muerto 52498

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, huge said:

Yeah, here is the original as told by Kurkjian

 

In spring training 1999, Rickey Henderson of the Mets was reunited with first baseman John Olerud, who had been his teammate with the Blue Jays six years earlier. As most people know, Olerud had an aneurysm in college, which required brain surgery. So to protect his head, he was allowed to wear a helmet in the field. As the story goes, Henderson was talking to Olerud one day, noticed the helmet and said “You know, when I played in Toronto, we had a guy who wore a helmet.”

“Rickey,” said Olerud, “that was me.”

Since John olerud in college was mentioned, I hope everyone knows what his college stats look like. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 4.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Player
Player

If only statcast had the technology to measure the launch angle and exit velocity of yankee balls that have been hit off of your chin.

Goo Punch
Goo Punch
Hank Chinaski
Hank Chinaski

Good fucking riddance. 

huge

huge 3793

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Since John olerud in college was mentioned, I hope everyone knows what his college stats look like. 

Olerud earned Pac-12 Player of the Year honors after re-writing the WSU record books as both a pitcher and first baseman. In 1988, he became the only pitcher in NCAA history to win 15 games and hit 20 home runs as he was 15-0 and hit 23 that year. He was named College Athlete of the Year by Baseball America. He still holds numerous WSU records, including career batting average at .434 and single season batting average at .464. On the mound, Olerud was 26-4 and posted a 3.17 ERA while throwing 241.1 innings over his three seasons. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
spystud13

spystud13 2371

Posted
Posted

I'm thinking this guy isn't Bryce's biggest fan. 

 

Quote

Text one: “He’s simply overrated. The good ain’t worth the bad. He’s a losing player. Cares about himself more than the team. If I was in charge and had money, my team would not pursue him. We would use that money to sign 2-3 winning players.”

Text two: “He’s a losing player. I would not sign him. I would use that money to sign 2-3 winning players.”

Text three: “If he gets more than 10-years, $300 million, I’d be surprised. I would not give him 10 years period and certainly not at that AAV. He’s just not worth it. He’s a selfish, losing player.”

https://sports.yahoo.com/nl-exec-rips-bryce-harper-hes-losing-player-005834928.html

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Baboontyme

Baboontyme 2812

Posted
Posted

It's not under appreciated here....

But I think it seems like his career is pretty much over at 33 unless he rededicates himself to working hard and actually getting into shape. I don't really see that happening. I'd like to see him go the Pujols route and continue to mash into his late 30s but I don't think Miggy has ever had to work very hard at his craft or his physique to stay on top of the game. I think he's at the end of the road unless that changes. It's kind of sad - a few years ago he was talked about as if he would go down as one of the best RHH in the history of the game. Now I have a hard time even seeing him get to 500 HR, or at least much past there. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Beau Vine

Beau Vine 54228

Posted
Posted

Stark on possible expansion:

Quote

“I want to be clear about expansion. … We’ve made clear we have two big issues — Tampa Bay and Oakland — that need to be resolved before we think about it. But the fact of the matter is, we’re blessed. We’ve got cities out there that want to have Major League Baseball. And I think Major League Baseball has to show some receptivity to that because down the road, we are interested in it.”

-Commissioner Rob Manfred, to the Athletic’s Ken Rosenthal last month

Close your eyes and imagine baseball in the year 2025. Close your eyes and imagine baseball after Rob Manfred’s expansion dreams come true.

Imagine a sport that could look dramatically different with 32 teams instead of 30.

Imagine a realignment, based almost solely on geography, that could blow up the structure of the leagues and divisions as we’ve always known them.

Imagine a postseason that could also expand, to 12 or even 16 teams.

Imagine a totally overhauled schedule, with fewer games and saner travel.

Imagine a sport where every team would use the designated hitter, possibly because there could be no such thing anymore as a National and American league.

Yes, it’s a funny thing. When the commissioner utters that magic word, expansion, the first question most people tend to ask is: “Where?” But in some ways, that’s the least interesting question revolving around expansion these days.

When people inside the game discuss where expansion is heading, they’re gazing far beyond the geography. What they see is expansion as a powerful vehicle that could open doors to untold possibilities, whenever the stars line up to make it all possible.

“The benefits of having 32 teams are so clear,” says one baseball official, “that at some point, we’ve got to get to 32 – whether it’s in two years or 20.”

That question – when? – is probably the hardest to answer. But those other questions? Let’s take a look at them, informed by extensive conversations with people around the sport.

WHICH CITIES HAVE THE BEST SHOT?

Let’s just assume that one of these decades, the stadium situations in Oakland and Tampa Bay actually get resolved. Crazy idea, we know. But let’s go with that – and assume that neither the A’s nor the Rays wind up relocating.

That opens the expansion field to every major city in North America that currently lacks a big-league baseball team. We’ve explored all the cities that have been connected with MLB at any point. Here is how we would rank those cities, based on our own reportorial instinct:

1)    PORTLAND, ORE. – It’s the 22nd largest media market in America, with a metropolitan area that is home to nearly 3.2 million people. One baseball official described Portland as the most organized of all the cities bidding for a team. So it has that going for it. Its biggest drawback is that it’s less than 200 miles away from Seattle, so a team in Portland would face many of the same travel challenges that the Mariners face. But … if baseball is headed toward realignment (and a schedule) based around geography, having two teams in the Pacific Northwest would actually ease the travel burden in both Seattle and Portland. And that could be a major selling point, assuming a new ballpark and TV rights deal fall into place.

2)    CHARLOTTE, N.C. – One of the fastest-growing cities in America, Charlotte ranks No. 17 among all American cities in population (over 850,000) and ranks as the 23rd largest media market. Charlotte actually has a larger population, within its city limits, than Atlanta, Miami, Tampa or Nashville. It’s a hotbed of pro and college sports passion. And another team in the Southeast would fit perfectly into baseball’s geographic profile. Naturally, it always comes down to money – and building a ballpark. So there’s still that. But by any other measure, Charlotte appears well-positioned to be one of the 32.

3)    NASHVILLE – Very similar profile to Charlotte, though in a slightly smaller media market (No. 27). Nashville has showered love on the Titans and Predators, has a long and successful minor-league history, and fits the geographical allure of adding a team in the South. It would also need a ballpark and TV deal. But as one longtime official put it, “I’ve always been surprised that Nashville wasn’t higher on this list.”

4)    MONTREAL – It’s the largest city in North America without a baseball team, with an estimated 1.7 million people living in the city and approximately 4 million in its metropolitan area. Plus, it feels as though baseball owes Montreal a second chance, after everything the labor wars of the ’90s did to doom the Expos to failure. But there are numerous issues behind the scenes. The prospects for a new stadium and big TV deal are shaky. There are the same tax and currency-conversion challenges the Blue Jays face. And the political enthusiasm for doing what it takes to attract a team doesn’t seem to match the energy in Stade Olympique every March, when the Blue Jays stop by for their annual exhibition games. A lot more would have to happen to bring baseball back to Montreal than it might appear from afar.

5)    SAN ANTONIO/AUSTIN – The Rangers and Astros wouldn’t be big fans of any attempt to install a team in San Antonio or Austin, two of the fastest-growing cities in America. But we found it interesting that they were the first two areas mentioned by one official we surveyed – if only because Austin is the largest city in the United States that has no team in any of the four major professional sports, and San Antonio is the largest with just one team (the Spurs). But MLB would have to make significant concessions to the other Texas franchises to make this happen.

6)    LAS VEGAS – In hockey, the Golden Knights just wrote themselves the greatest expansion script ever. The Raiders will arrive in 2020 if all goes according to plan. And when the Supreme Court signed off on the legalization of sports gambling from coast to coast, it removed much of the weight that had always hung over the idea of baseball in Vegas. But Las Vegas would be the smallest media market in baseball (No. 40), even smaller than Milwaukee and Cincinnati. So there would be built-in revenue challenges from Day One. And let’s face it: Vegas is one scorching place in the summer, with an average temperature over 100 in June, July and August. So “even with a dome or a retractable-roof stadium,” says an official of one team, “I just don’t think you have the same energy or commerce in Vegas in the summer as you do during the winter.”

7)    MEXICO CITY – The commissioner has mentioned Mexico City (population: nearly 9 million) as a potential expansion site numerous times. But there are so many obstacles to putting a team in Mexico, on almost every front, that one source we surveyed went so far as to say: “I think you’d see a team in London before you see a team in Mexico.”

Are there possibilities other than these? Of course. Indianapolis? Oklahoma City? New Orleans? A third team in New York (or North Jersey)? A third team in the Los Angeles/Orange County metroplex? A team in Connecticut? None would be completely impossible. But none would be even remotely close to likely, either. Get back to us in five years.

HOW WOULD REALIGNMENT WORK?

Close your eyes and imagine baseball in the year 2025. Yeah, we know we’ve used that line before. But here is where that flight of imagination begins to carry you to places you never expected to travel.

Imagine the Yankees and Mets, Giants and A’s, Dodgers and Angels, Cubs and White Sox – all in the same division.

Imagine the Astros playing the Red Sox in October – in the World Series.

Imagine if baseball divided its landscape along the geography-based lines of the NBA – as opposed to the artificial, league-based lines drawn up in 1901.

Is that really where baseball is headed?

To be honest, it’s way too premature to tell. What we can tell you, though, is that baseball’s Strategic Planning Committee has looked at that realignment-by-geography scenario long and hard.

A bunch of different ideas remain in play. But a geographic realignment easily could look like this:

MLB EAST

BAMBINO DIVISION
NY Yankees
NY Mets
Baltimore Orioles
Washington Nationals

SPLINTER DIVISION
Red Sox
Blue Jays
Phillies
Pirates

AARON DIVISION
Braves
Marlins
Rays
Charlotte*

MUSIAL DIVISION
Cardinals
Tigers
Reds
Indians

MLB WEST

JACKIE DIVISION
Dodgers
Angels
Diamondbacks
Padres

MAYS DIVISION
Giants
A’s
Mariners
Portland*

BRETT DIVISION
Royals
Astros
Rangers
Rockies

ERNIE DIVISION
Cubs
White Sox
Brewers
Twins

(*-expansion team)

Now, there are obviously many, many variations on that alignment. It wouldn’t be hard to redraw the map to keep Yankees/Red Sox, Cubs/Cardinals, Dodgers/Giants, etc., in the same division, for instance. But you get the idea.

“When we talked about this, it just felt like a very futuristic conversation,” says one source who was present for these discussions. “It might seem so radical. But it has so many advantages from a scheduling, fan and attendance standpoint.”

And it isn’t just him talking. When Rob Manfred sat down with Ken Rosenthal, the first advantage he cited when he began ruminating on expansion was getting to “a more geographically based alignment.”

There are other ways to get there, though. Baseball could opt for two eight-team divisions in each league over four four-team divisions. But among the folks we surveyed, there was clearly more support for more, smaller divisions – because of the geography advantages and because it would allow eight teams to tell their fans, “Hey, we won our division.”

The most dramatic question of all, however, would be this:

Does baseball really want to blow up the National and American leagues?

It’s neat. It’s clean. It’s efficient – geographically speaking. But doing that means offending the traditionalists – and there are still plenty of them, sitting in owners’ boxes and in the bleachers.

Doing that also means bringing the DH to all 32 teams, because there would be no such thing anymore as an “American League.” On the other hand, a universal DH could happen with or without any sort of realignment. They’re not necessarily linked.

So could baseball realign by geography without waving goodbye to the National and American leagues? Well, not as cleanly. But it could go to something like this:

NATIONAL LEAGUE

NL NORTHEAST
Nationals
Mets
Phillies
Pirates

NL MIDEAST
Cubs
Cardinals
Reds
Brewers

NL SOUTH
Braves
Marlins
Rays**
Charlotte*

NL WEST
Dodgers
Giants
Padres
Diamondbacks

AMERICAN LEAGUE

AL EAST
Yankees
Red Sox
Orioles
Blue Jays

AL MIDEAST
Indians
Twins
White Sox
Tigers

AL SOUTH
Astros
Rangers
Royals
Rockies**

AL WEST
Mariners
Portland*
A’s
Angels
(*- expansion team)
(**- changed league)

There are several variations on that idea, too, naturally. And something like that might eventually be how this turns out. But whether realignment turns out to be radical or not-so-radical, the ripple effects would be dramatic. Which leads us to ask …

HOW WOULD THIS AFFECT THE SCHEDULE AND POSTSEASON?

We should make clear that baseball is still years away from having to answer those questions. But all of this will be on the table:

FEWER GAMES, MORE PLAYOFFS – We found nobody who didn’t see expansion as a trigger for both of the above. The postseason field could expand to either six teams per league or as many as eight. The regular season then would shrink – likely to 154 games – so the postseason could begin sooner and the World Series could end before Thanksgiving.

WHY A 154-GAME SCHEDULE – Lopping eight games off the schedule also cuts about 10 days off the regular season. So an extra postseason round could fit comfortably into that time frame. And the schedule-makers would be eternally grateful for finally having the opportunity to make out a schedule with A) an even number of teams in each league, B) an even number of teams in each division and C) more wiggle room. As one official put it, “What everyone involved with the schedule tells me is that 32 teams and 154 games is the single easiest schedule to make.”

BALANCED OR UNBALANCED – This debate has been going on for two decades. It won’t be going away no matter how baseball realigns. There is so much emphasis now on the importance of winning your division that an unbalanced schedule makes sense – unless you’re ensconced in the wild-card race. Then an unbalanced schedule punishes teams in the best divisions, and that has never seemed very fair. In his interview with The Athletic, Manfred suggested that a more balanced schedule “probably” makes sense. But if the biggest selling point of geographical realignment is to make travel less crazy, that swings the scale back toward unbalanced, right? This is a tough one!

HOW GEOGRAPHICAL REALIGNMENT COULD HELP OCTOBER – In his conversation with Ken Rosenthal, Manfred raised a typical postseason scheduling nightmare that he would love to avoid – when a team like the Red Sox plays a team like the Angels in a best-of-five Division Series. Besides the grueling coast-to-coast travel, he said, there’s another problem: “You’re either playing too early for the people in Anaheim or too late for the people in Boston.” But if MLB divided its leagues by geography, NBA-style, it would never face one of those matchups before a best-of-seven round, because the early rounds would be either all-East or all-West matchups. Is it possible to make that happen without blowing up the leagues? Sure doesn’t seem like it. And that could factor heavily into the realignment strategy down the line.

A NEW ROUND OF PLAYOFFS – Does baseball really want to follow the NBA and NHL toward a 16-team postseason field? That would likely mean starting the postseason with eight best-of-three-game series. And in a sport that plays every day, that would mean overlapping games – and would probably work only if baseball goes to total geographical realignment. So adding a sixth playoff team seems more likely, leading to an NFL-type format in which the Nos. 3 and 4 seeds among the division winners would host the two wild cards in each league. Would that be a one-and-done game or a best-of-three? Too early to say. Just bear in mind that baseball’s national TV deals with Fox, Turner and ESPN run through 2021. And you know what drives those deals? October.

It’s fascinating to take a step back and see how all these pieces fit together once expansion opens the box to this puzzle. But with 30 teams, doing any of this turns into a sport-wide migraine.

So you can close your eyes and try to picture all of this. But this is no Rob Manfred pipe dream. This is going to happen. This isn’t a matter of if. It’s a matter of filling in the year – and then filling in all the brave-new-world details that are guaranteed to follow.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WBT

WBT 20571

Posted
Posted (edited)

Fuck all that realignment bullshit other than if there is expansion the Astros damn sure better go back to the NL.

Quote

Imagine the Astros playing the Red Sox in October – in the World Series.

You mean a matchup that was possible for 90% of the franchise's existence?  That's just crazy.

Edited by WBT
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheFlagship

TheFlagship 432

Posted
Posted

My biggest issue with realignment is where are they going to find 50 extra MLB caliber players? There’s already a dearth of talent to begin with. Especially on the pitching side - I think this accelerates the bullpen game trend as there won’t be nearly enough good/healthy starters.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Beau Vine

Beau Vine 54228

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, TheFlagship said:

My biggest issue with realignment is where are they going to find 50 extra MLB caliber players? There’s already a dearth of talent to begin with. Especially on the pitching side

What?!?!?!?

We're in a basically 1970's level hitting environment right now.

Basically everyone throws hard.  I just watched Tennessee fucking Tech trot out multiple pitchers who threw 93-94 mph consistently.  There is a lot of pitching talent in the MLB, and it's only going to get better in the next few years. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheFlagship

TheFlagship 432

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Beau Vine said:

What?!?!?!?

We're in a basically 1970's level hitting environment right now.

Basically everyone throws hard.  I just watched Tennessee fucking Tech trot out multiple pitchers who threw 93-94 mph consistently.  There is a lot of pitching talent in the MLB, and it's only going to get better in the next few years. 

I mean I hope so. Maybe it’s not talent that’s in question but health. Seems like every top pitching prospect gets hurt these days. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Beau Vine

Beau Vine 54228

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, TheFlagship said:

I mean I hope so. Maybe it’s not talent that’s in question but health. Seems like every top pitching prospect gets hurt these days. 

They've always gotten hurt. 

1.  We are waaaaaaaaaay more cognizant now of who the top pitching prospects are. 

2.  Injuries used to just be diagnosed as "sore arm" and they'd get sent out to pitch like shit for years in pain with torn labrums and UCLs.  A rare few would reinvent themselves as soft-tossers and have success (Frank Tanana) but most of them were forgotten soon because of ineffectiveness (Mark Fidrych).

3.  I will admit that I think higher velocity creates more injuries, but I don't think that negates 1 & 2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
henrygandorf

henrygandorf 29191

Posted
Posted

“When we talked about this, it just felt like a very futuristic conversation,” says one source who was present for these discussions. “It might seem so radical. But it has so many advantages from a scheduling, fan and attendance standpoint.”

there was a lot to unpack there, but this sentence stood out.  ok, i understand how realigning the divisions and changing up the schedules can make travel (somewhat) easier, and possibly make the scheduling easier.  that's fine.  but how does 8 divisions of 4 provide advantages from a fan or attendance standpoint?  first of all, those seem like the same thing.  second, you're trimming 8 games from the schedule, so overall attendance would seem lower, and i seriously doubt the remaining 77 home games would see any kind of uptick.

do these people think astros fans (as an example) are going to be all stoked that the royals and rockies now appear more often at mmp?  maybe the fans of the 6th playoff team would be excited?  please don't tell me 8 per league is a realistic option, because then you're the nba.

i hate these types of conversations, because you have these unnamed sources that make blanket statements with zero evidence to back it up.  "oh, it's gonna be great for fans."  doesn't make it so.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
henrygandorf

henrygandorf 29191

Posted
Posted

when i hear about stuff like that, i always think of the parks and rec episode with the city council debate.  after the opening statements, joan (the moderator) is like, "i'm being told our next question is from 'twitter' because apparently that's something that is happening now."

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Helobious

Helobious 9453

Posted
Posted

Take any 8-10 players at the midway point of the year, and some of them will have a decline in the second half of the season. HR derby participants are no different, they just get amplified more because people want to push the baseless and stupid "HR derby ruins people" theory. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goo Punch

Goo Punch 4275

Posted
Posted
34 minutes ago, Helobious said:

Take any 8-10 players at the midway point of the year, and some of them will have a decline in the second half of the season. HR derby participants are no different, they just get amplified more because people want to push the baseless and stupid "HR derby ruins people" theory. 

How many players go from the All-Star game to A-ball in less than a year?

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.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...