Occasionally an NL team bats a pitcher 8th if their leadoff hitter has a bit of power. The logic being that it makes more sense to hit a guy 9th who has a better chance of getting on base to be moved over by the leadoff guy when the order cycles around. Makes a bit of sense to me.
On the flip side, batting your pitcher 8th just gives him a better chance of killing a rally if the 5-7 hitters are on base.
I will always wave the flag of DH for all because I think it makes for a more enjoyable game. But I understand why people are against it.
I understand why people like the DH. I like how not having the DH is more challenging for managers to figure out.
It comes to down to personal opinion on what you feel works best and puts your team in the position to win.
I believe your best hitter should bat 3rd or 4th, as does many others in the league. I can also see the argument for the same batter going out second. That said, I think with the Marlins current position in the NL, they should give it a shot at switching things around a tad.
Mattingly made the switch in the first place because Stanton was slumping in the #4 spot. It's a crazy idea, but given the fact that Stanton is now hitting homers almost every night, it seems to be working.
That's a good thing about baseball. It's a long season so managers have lots of time to try things to see if they work.
Judge set the single season consecutive game strikeout record by a position player last night with 33. If he strikes out in the next three games he'll own the overall record.
Man, he has cooled down since the first half of the season. I chalk it up to a combination of things. Slumps that happen, pitchers figuring him out, fatigue, and even the HR Derby messing with him.
Why I have said all along, even in May/June time, Cody Bellinger is a better overall player and more hype then Aaron Judge.
Judge will not reach 40 HR in a season (next year and forward), and may not even top 30 next year if he continues his current play.
He has 37 HR right now and you don't think he'll hit 3 more in the next 6 weeks?
I corrected my post. I meant in the future. He will never have a season moving forward like he had in the first half.
Gotcha. I was a little confused by that.
But yes, I could see him struggling to correct his strikeout rate. Definitely a HR or nothing kind of guy. And the more pitchers figure him out, the less he'll be making contact.
You just look at some of the players who are under 25 right now in baseball, coupled in with really young guys like Devers (20), Bellinger (22), Moncada (22), Benintendi (23) and so forth and so on, and Judge is far down my list of players I consider the "future" of baseball.
Just for reference, guys like Harper (24), Correa (22), Arenado (26), Trout (26) and Betts (24) are all right around the prime of their careers.
These are complete players. Judge is a one-trick pony who pitchers now have figured out.
I hate the DH. I can see the pros and cons of having and not having it but personal opinion is that is should go away.
I agree. I definitely prefer the NL way of things with pitchers hitting.
Just wait until Hunter Greene makes his way to the Reds starting lineup. He will be pitching 7 innings of shut out ball while popping off doubles and stealing bases. Can't wait!
Baseball sucks and I never want to speak of it again.
Rumors about the Marlins trading Stanton once the Jeter ownership group takes over have been swirling for a while now. Yanks, Red Sox, Mets, Phillies, Dodgers are all considered the "frontrunners" for this hypothetical trade.
As a Mets fan, I don't want this guy anywhere near a blue and orange uniform if the trade bait will be the Mets picking up the bulk of the contract and the Marlins taking every single prospect the team has.
Boston, New York Mets and Phillies would raid their young talent to get him, and be worse off for it.
Yankees could be a good landing spot.
Keep in mind the haul that Miami got for Miggy/D-Willis was not great. Maybin and Andrew Miller did not become successful until a decade later.
If I was Florida I think I'd wait to see who wins the Bryce Harper sweepstakes and then start calling up the teams who didn't sign him to see if they're interested. I know that's risky because Stanton is having a tremendous year and he might not have the same year next season, but I think the payoff would be better if teams were willing to pick up his whole contract.
That class of free agents next year is stacked.
I'm thinking Harper ends up in Washington or Chicago.
I don't understand why Jeter would want to trade Stanton. They are one or two quality pitchers away from the playoffs.
A preview of this Saturday's big Superfight:
https://streamable.com/ppy4t
It must suck to be a bullpen pitcher and have to sprint all the way to the brawl. That's at least 300 feet. Most of those guys must be pretty winded by the time they get there.
That's what I was thinking. Just once I want to see a bullpen pitcher run past the brawl, into the dugout, locker room and not be seen until the next day's game.
If they wanna stop fights they should just make team forfiet the entire series and fine their pay including coaches. Both teams take a 1-4 games loss based on how far they are into the series.
Or hell, you throw a punch and for each one your pay is reduced 10% for the year.
Stopping fights is very easy. MLB just needs to institute a rule saying any player that leaves the dugout or bullpen will be suspended for three games. If the entire team gets suspended, oh well. See how quickly guys charge the mound knowing it's 9 on 1 and maybe only a couple guys will come to their aid.
Why would they want to stop fights?
seriously?Originally Posted by Fro
Yes that is an honest question.
The NBA enacted its rules about players being suspended for leaving the bench because of the Pacers/Pistons fight that went into the stands. It also was battling the image that its players are thugs or too urban (rightly or wrongly). What is the reason MLB needs to crack down on fights? I honestly don't see why they need to. Fights are entertaining and the game's popularity is waning.
So you think the one or two fights that do happen will increase it's popularity? Fights should never be apart of this game. Players could get hurt when there is 50 people in a pile, potentially throwing fists. Those fights really help Hockey's popularity huh?
You don't think the MLB could do something about fighting if they wanted to?
Let's be real here: baseball has a reputation for being a "boring" sport. Rob Manfred clearly knows this, and he also knows that, when one of these brawls happens, it draws interest (the wrong kind of interest, but it still draws interest) without Manfred having to tweak even a single aspect of gameplay.
At the same time, Manfred also has to acknowledge that fighting is wrong, so the perfect solution is to lay a few soft punishments down, such as benching Miguel Cabrera (whose team is out of the playoff hunt) a week for punching Austin Romine, while only making Gary Sanchez (a key piece of the Yankees' playoff puzzle) sit four games out for punching Cabrera and Nick Castellanos.
If the MLB really was about stopping fighting, both of these suspensions would have been much harsher. With all the recent tie-ins to the Little League World Series, this would have been the perfect opportunity for the MLB to send the message (and to teach the kids) that fighting is wrong, but they didn't take it.
Last edited by darkhorse; August 28th, 2017 at 10:42 AM.
Fights definitely help hockey's popularity - that's why they have become a standardized part of the game with specific fighting rules and announcers who call the fights as if it were a boxing match.
I guess to re-phrase my question: fights have always been a part of baseball (as has plunking batters in retaliation or for breaking certain unwritten rules), and players who throw punches already get suspended. What is it making you say NOW we should make the rules stricter? Is it just that the Miggy fight was a particularly chaotic one and therefore we need to crack down and put an end to this once and for all? Or have you always felt this needed to be eliminated from the game?
The system seems fine to me.
But do they even remotely increase interest in the sport? I mean, how many people are watching the news and see a baseball brawl and say "holy shit that was exciting. I better start watching the game more in case this happens again!" I'd bet a grand total of 0 people will watch more baseball now because the Yankees and Tigers had a game in which benches cleared.
I think it's a lot more likely we'll end up seeing injuries resulting from a brawl (considering that already happened this season) than we will an increase in viewership/popularity resulting from one. Wait until an ace pitcher or other stud player gets hurt and misses a bunch of time.
I don't think fighting has helped hockey's popularity. I don't know many people who watch it because there is fighting. The ones that watch it love the sport and those same people would probably watch either way. I just don't think people are like, "OMG baseball had that fight. i am going to start watching every game in case there is another."
You're acting as if fights haven't been a part of the sport for a hundred years. The risk of players getting hurt from a brawl is not new. Occasionally it happens but not too often.
So again I ask, have you felt this way for the last 20 years or is it the Miggy brawl that's making you say this? Just curious what the impetus is here or if you've been on this stance previously.
It's hard to quantify what the occasional fight does to popularity but yea, earlier this season when the Red Sox and Orioles were beefing and players were getting plunked and whatnot, the bad blood made those games more appealing for me to watch because I wanted to see what would happen next in the feud. So I'd say there's an impact. Also suspending a player such as Miggy for say 20 games would have a negative impact on ratings for Tigers fans.
I think the risk has gotten worse over the past 25 years as players are getting stronger.
While I do enjoy the comedy of a baseball brawl simply because it's 90% guys trying to hold each other back from holding each other back, I don't think they're a good idea and should be stopped as much as possible.
But you're already a Red Sox fan, yes? It's not like you saw them brawling on the news and decided to watch a game for the first time in 20 years because of that bad blood. Maybe there's people out there like that but I can't imagine they're too great in numbers.
Popularity and ratings aren't black and white like that. Similarly, no one is going to say "OMG baseball shortened their games by 2.5 minutes on average so I'm going to start watching again," but quickening games will have a positive effect in keeping people from turning the channel. Little things like that do matter on the grand scale of the millions and millions of people who watch baseball.
There are many hockey fans who were pissed at the idea of banning fights (which was discussed a few years back iirc). While there isn't an exact science to how much it helps ratings, I assure you it increases the entertainment value of the product (which thus helps ratings). The counter point is that fighting is bad for kids and therefore certain corporate entities might not want to advertise with the NHL if fighting is rampant, so it may hurt the league from a dollars and cents aspect. But in terms of pure popularity, fighting moves the needle. Here is an article I quickly found on google about it:
https://www.theatlantic.com/entertai...idence/256130/
Yeah and in hockey they are wearing helmets and 99% of the time it is one on one. In baseball, it's a fucking scrum with almost 50 bodies in there without any protection or padding. That is a huge difference.
You are taking it to an illogical extreme. How many people do you think there are who 5 years ago watched 100 games on average and now watch 40? Those are the fans you want to get back, not the ones who haven't watched a game in 20 years.
I typically never hear about fights until way after the fact. Fights can draw me in to a certain series if it gets promoted that way but they very rarely ever do that. I remember one time where fox, years ago, promoted a Cubs Cardinals game where they talked about how much this particular series had meaning and it's implications on thier division. They talked about how high tensions were with clips of the benches clearing and how anything could happen. It was good enough I was like " fuck me, I gotta watch this game." And yeah, being a Cubs fan I wanted to watch anyways but this promo put it over the top. ESPN did a good hype on the red Sox and Yankees one time as well that made it must see the for me but there wasn't anything regarding fighting that lured me to it. They just put together a great hype package. That is where the mlb falls short but in reality it would be a bitch to constantly be putting promos together for all teams every 3 or 4 days for the entire season. Easy to do when there are pennant chases, play offs and the world series but what for the teams that are so far gone in July? The season is just too long for the common persons attention span these days and they typically don't start caring even then until the cusp of the season. That's if thier team is doing good.
Baseball lost a lot of popularity over the years for numerous things but as things became such a faster pace for people in life the complexities of following 162 games is daunting. This is why they have their thinking now of how to speed up games. ADD everywhere. But yeah, fighting might bring a few more eyes to the game if they promoted it but in turn that would almost be encouraging players to do it. This could be catastrophic to a team if the star gets hurt to the point he is out for the rest of the season. There is no middle ground on this really.
They do promote it, to the extent they can. I mean they put it on their twitter and youtube:
https://twitter.com/MLB/status/900810505211830274
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmxWVnC3RBg
But wouldn't that only work if those fans got bored with baseball? I mean 5 years ago I watched a ton of MLB and NFL games and now struggle to find the time to watch a single game for 3+ hours. But I get what you're saying and yeah, I probably do take it to an illogical extreme.
On the flip side, let's say they promote the next Tigers/Yankees series and run the hell out of the video of the fight. People tune in, and then there's.....nothing. No fight. Just a typical baseball game. Do you think all those fans who saw the promo videos and tuned in would end up disappointed and remember why they stopped watching baseball?
I think I have only seen 10 or 12 games (15 if you count listening on the radio) at best this year. Not because I'm not interested but the Cubs are forced to play a lot of day games so I am typically at work. Even with that seeing a game and dedicating that 3+ hours gets rough.
On a different note, I'm not sure what everybody refers to as the "most exciting play in sports" but ending a 1 run game with a runner being thrown out at the plate via an outfield assist has to be up there.
http://www.espn.com/video/clip?id=20479146
Last edited by BigAle; August 28th, 2017 at 12:43 PM.
Stanton doing Stanton things.
I think keeping him in 2nd in the batting order is what's allowing him to. Can't really pitch around him to face Yelich and Ozuna.
Chris Sale is the fastest player ever to 1500 strikeouts, doing so in 1,290 innings. Kerry Wood, Pedro, Randy Johnson and Nolan Ryan are the next 4 fastest.
This guy's good.
Justin Upton to the Angels. The Tigers get the 9th best prospect from Anaheim of LA.
Angels also trade Maybin to Astros.
Bad timing for my Twins' wild card chances, who will likely be losing Byron Buxton for the season.
Buxton is fine. Was available off bench today and will be in line up again soon.
Verlander's going to the Astros:
https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2017/...verlander.html
That's what I get for following Lavelle E Neal III for injury news...
Also, big news for Tigers/Astros. Angels had a big day getting Upton and Phillips.
Houston needed that, bad. This trade puts them back in the race with Boston and Cleveland.
After reading an article about it, I didn't realize how hurt their staff was, so this is a great shot in the arm.
Yeah, top 2 pitchers out and lost their all-star SS for 10 weeks after the break. They were hurting. If it weren't for the Angels being equally banged up, they probably could have made some head way in the West.
Diamondbacks destroying the Dodgers, in LA haha.
I'm astounded by the Mets' logic regarding Matt Harvey. He just came back from injury, and now he's going to pitch on short rest. Terry Collins must be trying to get fired at this point.
Can anybody sit there any longer and watch an entire regular season baseball game?
I can't do it anymore. The games are just too long.
Football I can do. Even college football. But the pace of play in baseball just isn't suited to have games going 3-4 hours.
Playoff baseball yes, but a full regular season game, no. I don't remember the last time I did.
Even going to a game now can be a drag and seems like an excuse to get you to buy $12 beers and $14 nachos.
Yea I wouldn't watch an entire regular season game anymore. I've been watching more this year than last but still flipping back and forth between something else. Watching a full game is way too much.
So the Red Sox got caught stealing signs I guess. From what I can gather it went:
Someone watching signs on TV
Texts bench coach with an apple watch
Tells player on bench
Player signals runner on second
Runner on second signals batter
Seems very unnecessary and I don't quite see how you could do it all that quickly. I mean once the sign goes down doesn't the pitch come about 2 seconds later? I guess the apple watch is the key, you aren't allowed to use technology to steal signs, and maybe aren't allowed to use smart phones in the dugout at all.
Red Sox meanwhile file a counter complaint that the Yanks steal signs with a YES Network camera.
Obviously I hope this doesn't result in our loss of draft picks but if we FINALLY get another Sox/Yanks playoff series this year, this could make it feel like old. Heating up the rivalry again.
I can but it depends on the game.
If it's an amazing pitchers duel...yes.
If it is a high scoring affair with lots of zingers...yes.
If it's the Cubs running the bases all over their team...yes.
If it's the Cardinals getting their asses handed to them...oh hell yeah.
Oh God yes get these two teams fired up. I wanna see Aaron Judge clock someone. It would have to be a fatality.
I watch at least 20-30 complete Reds games a year.
I'm sorry.
Hottest part of the rivalry now is Dombrowski vs Cashman. Still little evidence that the players dislike each other but the GMs clearly fucking hate each other. Been a passive aggressive war between them all season.
Lol. Me too, sometimes.
It's a shame that baseball was cancelled this season and nothing happened in the MLB. Can't wait for it to start back up next season.
I was watching up until the 13th inning then I went to bed. Would have been a tough loss for us given our slump lately, glad to see we toughed it out. 3.5 game lead over the Yanks with 23 left to play. Let's finish this.
That's how far I made it as well before I remembered, this game doesn't mean shit for the Jays and went to bed.
Does a tenth man have to bat for team to "bat around"? Or did a team still "bat around" if the ninth man made the third out of an inning?
https://www.theringer.com/2017/9/4/1...ag-bats-around (starts at 1:24)
This question never occurred to me in over 30 years of watching baseball. I am firmly in the "9" group and can't believe that some people say "10".
Last edited by _me; September 6th, 2017 at 7:02 PM.
I'm firmly in the "9" camp as well. As long as the first guy up gets up again that's batting around.
So you're actually in the 10 camp. For the first guy to get up again that means 10 batters.
That is how I see it. The batter who led off the inning has to come to the plate again.
*disclaimer, I did not listen to the podcast*
Now that I think about it, I have heard it referenced as both nine and ten batters. An interesting topic though.
"Around" means it goes around the lineup. 10th guy has to come up to the plate. How is this even debatable?
All 9 people have batted. They went "around" the lineup; every eligible man batted. Why does someone have to bat again?
because the circle isn't complete until it hits it's beginning point, which is the 10th batter.
Haha yes, I'm in the 10 camp then. As long as the lead off man gets to the plate again in the same inning that's what I consider batting around.
That is going past the starting point. The starting point has passed if the 1st batter hits again. That is like saying that 24 hours after 100pm is 200pm because you have to complete the first hour again.
EDIT: But this is why the question grabbed me as a fun one. No real answer but people are very certain they are correct both ways.
you need a batter to bat twice to bat around - so the answer is 10 batters. but I can see why it's a bit of a misnomer. if you put your 9 batters in a circle then when the 9th guy bats, you have completed the circle, thus going all the way "around". but the term is used to describe when 1 guy bats more than once in an inning so you need the 10th at-bat.
edit actually I take it back, it's not even a misnomer. if the 9th guy bats then you haven't completed the circle yet, there is still a gap between #9 and #1. Matthew was correct, you don't complete the circle until #1 bats again.
anyone who says it's 9 batters is an IDIOT AND A SAVAGE
I can see why people say 10. It is just not a standard that is held for anything else. Can anyone think of another example of needed to complete (all+1) for a cycle to complete? Everything else that goes it a circle is understood to have completed a cycle at the end of the last sequence/start of the first, not the end of the first.
To put some evidence in the 9 camp, a pitcher's "first time through the lineup" ends with the 9th batter.
You could even say he's gone "around" the lineup…
What if the 10th (or 9th, if you're a heathen) batter comes up but the pitcher picks off a guy on first for the final out before he throws a pitch? Does that count as batting around? I think it counts as a plate appearance, so I would think it's batting around.
I don't think it counts as a plate appearance until the next inning, right?
Maybe? I thought it counted as a plate appearance but not an at-bat. But maybe it's not a plate appearance until the first pitch of the at-bat is thrown.
I think it's a plate appearance when the plate appearance is complete whether it's a hit, walk, out, hbp, error, sac, etc. Basically it won't count as two plate appearances if the runner gets picked off.
Every time the Yankees play a day game during the week my immediate supervisor listens to it. He's old and his hearing is bad so he listens to it real loud. John Sterling's voice is like nails a chalkboard. I can not put into words how much I hate his voice.
Baseball fans are nerds.
Does Suzyn Waldman still announce? I would think listening to her might be even worse.
She was on the game today. Terrible.
She and Sterling are awful. I wish we had the Mets radio team.
First night game on a Friday night for the Cubs ever. Probably the only for a long time if they ever get one again. Wish I could have gone just because I know Wrigley is going nuts for it and the atmosphere in Wrigleyville would have been off the charts.
Dodgers have lost 10 straight, Indians have won 18 straight. Wow.
Dodgers are still fine in terms of the standings but that's not how you want to head toward the postseason. Nationals meanwhile are the first team to clinch the division.
Can't wait for the playoffs. Would really like to see the Astros or the Indians win it all this year.
Beginning of the season my cousins and I put money on the Dodgers and Astros. For so much of the season it was looking glorious. I'm nervous about it now.
Indians now own the longest winning streak in American League history (21). Impressive. MLB record is 26 by the 1916 New York Giants.
But that includes a tie. Which is weird.
This has been an outstanding and entertaining run by the Indians. Just a bad time of year to do it. Statistically speaking most teams that go on runs like this end up hitting a dry spell for a bit too. Dodger finally got it, Cubs in 2015 had a fantastic run right before the play offs and hit the dreaded dry spell.
Speaking of which...NL Central ftw.
Absolutely no room for error and every game is massive for Cubs, Cards and the Brew Crew.
I'm all in on this Cleveland streak.
What an exciting game this was.
Meanwhile the Twins walk off HR for the second straight night. Looking like they will go from 100 losses to playoff team.
Holy fucking shit the end to the Mets/Cubs game
https://twitter.com/_MarcusD2_/statu...477184/video/1
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
