Ryan wrote:In 100 years, there have been 84 player-seasons in which a pitcher has had the following line at least 7 times:
8+ IP, 2 or less ER, 6 or less baserunners, 4 or more strikeouts
One of them is Johnny Cueto, who just did that in his last 7 starts. The record is 11. His first 3 starts were pretty awesome too, but he pussied out after 7 IP in each.
He's been nasty this year for sure
One milkshake to bring all the boys to the yard and in the darkness bind them.
And the good news keeps on coming for the Reds /orange - Votto isn't on the Philadelphia trip due to having a MRI on the same knee he's had 2 surgeries on.
Worldwide Frivologist and International Juke Artist
Bensell wrote:And the good news keeps on coming for the Reds /orange - Votto isn't on the Philadelphia trip due to having a MRI on the same knee he's had 2 surgeries on.
I think you're starting at first tuesday, ben. Get loose.
One milkshake to bring all the boys to the yard and in the darkness bind them.
Ryan wrote:Cleveland is now the 34th team in the last 100 years to use at least 9 pitchers in 11 or less innings. TLR is only responsible for 3 of them!
I'm willing to be Francona is responsible for a few of those as well. The Indians will need to make a few roster moves since they're using tomorrow's starter in extra innings today.
Ryan wrote:Cleveland is now the 34th team in the last 100 years to use at least 9 pitchers in 11 or less innings. TLR is only responsible for 3 of them!
I'm willing to be Francona is responsible for a few of those as well. The Indians will need to make a few roster moves since they're using tomorrow's starter in extra innings today.
One other one with Boston, yes. The Astros and the Padres both did it 5 days apart, somehow. In 2010 and 2009, respectively.
he’s a fixbking cyborg or some shit. The
holy fuckbAllZ, what a ducking nightmare. Holy shot. Just, fuck. The
Rex wrote:And the 8th guy was brought on to face one batter?
Yes, but it wasn't a matchup thing. The eighth pitcher was Bryan Shaw, who replaced Kyle Crockett, a rookie who was called up from Double A late last week. Shaw had pitched in the two previous games and Francona intended on giving Shaw the day off, but he had to bring him in in that situation. If Shaw hadn't pitched the two previous games he certainly would've pitched the 11th inning.
Anyone think its plausible that within the next 10 years or so, MLB will mandate or consider mandating each team have two IFs on each side of 2B? Lowest isoP since 1993, OPS since 1992 and OBP/AVG since 1972 and on a mostly downward trend.
A_B wrote: Mon Mar 31, 2025 2:54 pmand henceforth I imagine I’ll be Old …we…t spot AB.
Sadly, I think it is very plausible. Kind of like the prohibition against zone defenses that existed in the NBA.
I like the shifts. Why not reward clever tacticians, as well as punish players who don't have enough bat control to beat shifts?
The obvious solution to the new age of pitching dominance is to tighten up the strike zone. But that would require dealing with the umpires, who appear to be wedded to their custom personalized zones, despite whatever rewards and punishments MLB is handing out after their private evaluations.
I wonder why there is not more talk of MLB moving to using technology to determine balls and strikes? There would be technical difficulties. But they don't seem overwhelming. This could greatly reduce an arbitrary factor that impedes on rewarding skill alone. And you could more easily tweak the strike zone to dial offense up or down in the future, if variations from some norm were deemed to be undesirable.
In my ideal world there would be smaller strike zones, consistently called. And bigger outfields.
DC47 wrote:Why not reward clever tacticians, as well as punish players who don't have enough bat control to beat shifts?
I think this sentence handles both sides of my feelings on it. I love the idea of outsmarting the game with strategy after 100+ years of doing things a certain way, but I hate the idea of a vastly different game pro versus non and of power hitters almost being forced to choose power or average.
A_B wrote: Mon Mar 31, 2025 2:54 pmand henceforth I imagine I’ll be Old …we…t spot AB.
I don't think it's vastly different. But I haven't been following a team that shifts all the time. It seems to me that it's a bit of a surprise when a hitter is defeated by the shift, not the other way around. I'm sure there are stats on this, so perhaps I'm about to be proved wrong.
A technique can provide a marginal advantage without fundamentally changing the game. I seem to recall that Bruce Sutter's success led many to believe that pitchers would dominate by throwing the splitter. That is certainly an effective pitch. But it didn't create a big difference in the competitive balance. So many other things were going on that were equally powerful factors (e.g., PEDs, weight training, wider use of the cutter).
Fangraphs had a write up about bunting against the shift and, basically, bunting is much harder than people think and few players can beat the shift with it consistently enough to make it worthwhile. I imagine placing a hit is the same way. Probably enough dribblers to the 3B playing shortstop combined with complete loss of power to counter the ones that sneak through.
Pack a vest for your james in the city of intercourse
