MLB Season 2024

[monkeyman576]

I'm kind of surprised the white sox are tanking given there is a lottery in place now.

[Cobra Mgr]

This is why Barry Bonds on roids was such a waste. The guy didn't need 'em . Most underrated part of his game was his mind. He should have been cheered & studied, Instead, he became a villain.

[Amazin69]

I mean seriously, I'm so annoyed that Bonds cheated when clearly he never needed to. The man won four consecutive MVP awards, (1990-1993) and nobody had ever won three in a row before! This guy needs to cover his body in armor so he can take his stance on the plate with impunity? This guy needs to roid so hard his neck has its own zip code?

Ridiculous.

(Note: some sites list Terry Pendleton as the 1991 NL MVP winner, but I'm fairly certain that's just a long-running prank.)

[low]

You guys ready to talk about starting pitchers required to go six innings and can only be removed before that if they give up at least four runs, throw 100 pitches, or get injured? Does what I just said sound stupid?

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/...ies-tommy-john

[Westheim]

Originally Posted by low

You guys ready to talk about starting pitchers required to go six innings and can only be removed before that if they give up at least four runs, throw 100 pitches, or get injured? Does what I just said sound stupid?

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/...ies-tommy-john

Yes. That sounds bureaucratic and stupid.

What is with bottom 6th, a 4-3 lead, but your guy just walked the bags full with his 87th pitch. And oh, by the way, the next batter is Judge.

This will also prevent as many injuries as a mandatory chainsaw juggling course in spring training. Guy has nothing, down 6-0 in the fourth, but oh shucks, four of the runs were unearned. Now what? Throw even HARDER to make it through?

Horse manure.

[Cobra Mgr]

I'm not exactly in favor of it. But I have also said, if analytics have indeed "broken the code" in baseball, then the game does need to change. But I would like to see fewer substitutions and platooning. I'm not sure how longer outings would also result in fewer arm surgeries.

[kq76]

Just institute the double-hook DH and the problem will solve itself. I hate these stupid arbitrary rules, "oh he's thrown 100 pitches, he can come out now" or "oh, he's give up 4 runs, we can bring in a reliever now". That's so stupid.

Just make it that if you remove your pitcher then you also have to replace or lose your DH. Teams will instantly want to have their starting pitchers stay in as long as possible.

And if it isn't so much the starting pitcher you want to save, but you want to be able to promote a marquee pitcher (a pitcher that pitches more than just a couple innings after an opener), then just save your DH until they come in to pitch.

[letsgobuccos]

No no no no no

What if you have only one starter, on four days rest, and they have gone 110+ pitches before in pursuit of a no-hitter in their last start? What if they have given up less than four runs and have arm trouble but not enough for the IL (or it wouldn't make sense late in the season)? Do you wave in an intentional run in the sixth inning?

You'd have to like purposely train two or three Jamie Moyer types to have on your roster. They'd take up roster space from upcoming regular starters.

You can't even try it out in MiLB because with inexperienced early 20-somethings it would really lead to injuries.

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

I'm not exactly in favor of it. But I have also said, if analytics have indeed "broken the code" in baseball, then the game does need to change. But I would like to see fewer substitutions and platooning. I'm not sure how longer outings would also result in fewer arm surgeries.

No it doesn't. It's just how things are thought of as best. That has no less inherent value than what people thought was good pitcher usage 60 years ago.

And I'd argue like, nobody was excited about seeing a Carlos Silva type in the 6th and 7th inning 20 years ago over a generic reliever. We're reconstructing things different. And in part because it's easier to look things up and to remember (in some way) things now.

[Westheim]

How long to go until Rob Numbfred has finally accomplished his lifelong mission to kill baseball for good? Another ten years? Fifteen?

[mytreds]

Originally Posted by Amazin69

I mean seriously, I'm so annoyed that Bonds cheated when clearly he never needed to. The man won four consecutive MVP awards, (1990-1993) and nobody had ever won three in a row before! This guy needs to cover his body in armor so he can take his stance on the plate with impunity? This guy needs to roid so hard his neck has its own zip code?

Ridiculous.

(Note: some sites list Terry Pendleton as the 1991 NL MVP winner, but I'm fairly certain that's just a long-running prank.)

He didn’t “cheat” to hit, he “cheated” to keep playing.

Ya know, like another aging star who’s in the NBA at the moment.

[Cobra Mgr]

Yelich done 4 the year.

Currently Milwaukee is 9 games in first w/zero NL Central teams above .500. Can anyone make it a race w/in a month?

[Westheim]

Looking forward to the discussions whether Yelich would have been a Hall of Famer if his back hadn't repeatedly and persistently stabbed itself.

[Westheim]

Originally Posted by Westheim

How long to go until Rob Numbfred has finally accomplished his lifelong mission to kill baseball for good? Another ten years? Fifteen?

That **** again, Rob? Really? What is this, ******* 2019?

[Westheim]

I can't listen to games on the radio.

"This Cubs home run is brought to you by Hefty. Hefty, Hefty, Hefty, the official trash bag of the Chicago Cubs."

I can't.

[low]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

Yelich done 4 the year.

Currently Milwaukee is 9 games in first w/zero NL Central teams above .500. Can anyone make it a race w/in a month?

Please don't get me started. He's cooked and that contract goes for another three years or so. This is Lyin' Ryan Braun part 2. At least Yelich isn't a scumbag, though, so there's that.

[BaseballMan]

Originally Posted by monkeyman576

I'm kind of surprised the white sox are tanking given there is a lottery in place now.

I dont know if they were ever tanking or just very very bad.
I mean they've been losing all year.
I will grant that players may not care as much or give a full effort but
I'm not sure they are tanking.
Unless your defintion of tanking means gving up rather than just losing on purpose.

What would they gain from tanking?
Its not the NBA or NFL where one drafted rookie can make huge difference the next year.
It usually takes more time to develop that hot prospect.
Major League was a good movie but i don't see an owner fielding a bad team on purpose.
If you lose on purpose then seems like you will be losing tickets and merchandise for both cities.
If the team isn't moving then losing on purpose would maker it harder to sign good players with a bad team.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by BaseballMan

I dont know if they were ever tanking or just very very bad.
I mean they've been losing all year.
I will grant that players may not care as much or give a full effort but
I'm not sure they are tanking.
Unless your defintion of tanking means gving up rather than just losing on purpose.

What would they gain from tanking?
Its not the NBA or NFL where one drafted rookie can make huge difference the next year.
It usually takes more time to develop that hot prospect.
Major League was a good movie but i don't see an owner fielding a bad team on purpose.
If you lose on purpose then seems like you will be losing tickets and merchandise for both cities.
If the team isn't moving then losing on purpose would maker it harder to sign good players with a bad team.

I think monkey was kidding.

[BaseballMan]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

I think monkey was kidding.

Yeah but it does bring up the question of whether sports teams actually do tank and what exactly qualifies as tanking.
Yould think James Dolan was tanking the Knicks for years.
However it could be that he was just cheap or greedy or incompetent in basketball.
Depending on how you look at it.

Also if a player is tanking then shouldn't he be banned?
Is he throwing a game on purpose?
I dont mean where a player doesn't give a full effort but to make moves in which you are trying to lose whether by player or management.
How is that different from the 1919 White Sox?
I do agree it might be hard to prove but i wouldn't be surprised if it happens someday.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by BaseballMan

Yeah but it does bring up the question of whether sports teams actually do tank and what exactly qualifies as tanking.
Yould think James Dolan was tanking the Knicks for years.
However it could be that he was just cheap or greedy or incompetent in basketball.
Depending on how you look at it.

Also if a player is tanking then shouldn't he be banned?
Is he throwing a game on purpose?
I dont mean where a player doesn't give a full effort but to make moves in which you are trying to lose whether by player or management.
How is that different from the 1919 White Sox?
I do agree it might be hard to prove but i wouldn't be surprised if it happens someday.

It's a fine line. But I don't have a prob w/tanking if done properly.

Multiple teams that are tanking from opening day, like baseball had a couple seasons ago, I have a problem with. More than 2 or 3 franchises starting the year w/the goal of the 1st pick goes against the integrity of the sport.

Teams letting go of expensive veterans that are leading the team nowhere is fine with me, even if it makes the team worse. If you have no choice but to suck, then embrace the suck. Take "advantage" of it. Give younger players more experience, keep the payroll low so you can have more to spend in the future & xtra cap space.

If you see you're headed nowhere midseason, again, I have no problem shipping off expensive dead weight that is standing in the way of getting younger. Give your self a better chance to observe what is salvagable so you know how to proceed in the off season.

But teams should never take the field w/the intent to lose. They should never set a team/season up so they can lose the most possible. But recognizing the next/current season is a hopeless venture & setting things up for the betterment of the following year is fine w/me & should be done more often. Too many teams operate like they are content w/.500.

[Amazin69]

Well, the Sox are going down fighting. Their victory in Houston on Friday means that they have avoided a sweep in 3 of their last 4 series, and are 3-7 in their past 10. At 30-95, they may have already been eliminated from playoff contention (a 37-game winning streak to close the season only pulls them to 67 wins, and 3 WC contenders already have 69 or more wins), but .300 ball is better than the .240 they've played thus far.

.240 is a lot better than the .235 they were playing before this recent hot streak. If they keep this pace the rest of the way, they will finish 39-123, safely clear of the 1916 Philadelphia Athletics' worst-ever winning percentage (the A's would have gone 38-124 if they had played 162 games).

If the Pale Hose can keep up their recent hot rate and go 11-26 the rest of the way, that brings them to 41-121, where they at least have more wins than the 1962 Mets, albeit another loss as well.

Alas, Chuck Garfein's dreams of recreating last season's 61-101 triumph would require a 31-6 finishing kick, which seems unlikely. Even my prediction of a "moderately terrible" 51-111 mark would require 21-16 henceforth, which also doesn't seem like a good bet.

Still, I have hopes. It only takes 15-22 to climb up to 45-117, so perhaps we can still dream big. You can't start a fire without a spark, to quote Mr Springsteen.