White Sox Interactive Forums
Talking Baseball

Welcome
Go Back   White Sox Interactive Forums > Baseball Discussions > Talking Baseball
Home Chat Stats Register Blogs FAQ Calendar Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 11-04-2017, 05:58 AM
cub killer cub killer is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,575
Default

Well, the new school IBBs shaved a few seconds off, but I hated it during the playoffs. Real IBBs provide an extra layer of tension that belongs in the postseason. A feared hitter is due up, there are runners on 2nd and 3rd, we all wonder what the pitcher will do... then the catcher stands up and extends his arm, and now we sit thru 4 tension building pitches which show us how feared this hitter is, and it changes the psychology of the game. The team on defense either showed cowardice or smarts. The next hitter will tell. He might feel more confident because of said cowardice, or buckle under the pressure.

But those 4 pitches are so perfect for the drama of playoff baseball. I was sickened when we were deprived of it this year. Please MLB, bring back real IBBs at least for the playoffs. The new way just didn't feel right this year, left a bad aftertaste.
__________________
MRKARNO
04-04-2005, 04:03 PM
I was a doubter, but maybe, just maybe we can win with pitching, defense and fundamentals.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 11-04-2017, 09:47 AM
Grzegorz Grzegorz is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Western Suburbs
Posts: 2,894
Default

As cub killer before me posts the league stops the intentional walk process that's the solution?

MLB will likely splurge on pitch clocks to satiate the visceral fan all the while that same league does not enforce rule 8.04.

Umps do not need a fancy clock to enforce 8.04.

Enforce rule 5.04 (batter's box entry/exit), whatever subsection happens to apply, to keep times in line.


Overhauling the game to meet the needs of those with abbreviated attention spans is not the way to go.
__________________
“There were a few hard rules, but everybody was unique, and he understood that. George’s great strength was he didn’t overcoach. There’s no place for panic on the mound.” - Jim Palmer on George Bamberger “Arms and the man,” Sports Illustrated, April 19, 2004
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 11-04-2017, 11:13 AM
Lip Man 1 Lip Man 1 is offline
WSI Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Chubbuck, Idaho
Posts: 31,504
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grzegorz View Post
Overhauling the game to meet the needs of those with abbreviated attention spans is not the way to go.
Very well said!
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 11-04-2017, 11:18 AM
Marqhead Marqhead is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: In the Shadow of the Sears Tower
Posts: 9,220
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grzegorz View Post
As cub killer before me posts the league stops the intentional walk process that's the solution?

MLB will likely splurge on pitch clocks to satiate the visceral fan all the while that same league does not enforce rule 8.04.

Umps do not need a fancy clock to enforce 8.04.

Enforce rule 5.04 (batter's box entry/exit), whatever subsection happens to apply, to keep times in line.


Overhauling the game to meet the needs of those with abbreviated attention spans is not the way to go.
I agree 100 percent. An overhaul isn’t needed, the rules need to be enforced. Casual fans are important to the game and alienating them is also not the way to go. There needs to by a happy medium.
__________________


Big Frank in the Hall? "No doubt about it."

2009 WSI Roto 1 Keeper League Champ
2009 WSI H2H 1 Keeper League Runner-up (Reg. Season Champ)
2010 WSI H2H 1 Keeper League Champ
2010 WSI H2H 2 Keeper League Champ
2011 WSI H2H 1 Keeper League Runner-up
2012 WSI Roto 2 Keeper League Runner-up
2016 WSI Roto 2 Keeper League Champ
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 11-04-2017, 11:20 AM
EastCoastSoxFan EastCoastSoxFan is offline
WSI Personality
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Syracuse, NY
Posts: 862
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HomeFish View Post
The formative baseball years for me were the late 90's and early 2000's: this was the era where I first followed baseball very closely, followed the division races, watched every playoff game, etc.
At one point in my formative years there were 10 different WS winners in 10 consecutive years:
1978: Yankees
1979: Pirates
1980: Phillies
1981: Dodgers
1982: Cardinals
1983: Orioles
1984: Tigers
1985: Royals
1986: Mets
1987: Twins
If that has ever happened in another major sport I'd love to know when.
I too am glad that there is so much competitive balance these days as opposed to the late '90's when it was pretty much the Yankees, Indians, Braves, and everyone else...
__________________
Cheering in opposing ballparks since 1990
Sox record with me in attendance:
Camden Yards: 4-5 ; Yankee Stadium: 3-2 ; Jacobs Field: 2-0 ; Skydome: 1-0 ; Comerica Park: 1-0 ; Milwaukee County Stadium: 3-0 ; The Vet/Citizens Bank: 2-1 ; PNC Park: 1-0 ; Comiskey/The Cell: Definitely over .500...
===> 2014: Now representing Sox army in the 'Cuse...
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 11-04-2017, 11:34 AM
Andrew C White Andrew C White is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,837
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cub killer View Post
Well, the new school IBBs shaved a few seconds off, but I hated it during the playoffs. Real IBBs provide an extra layer of tension that belongs in the postseason. A feared hitter is due up, there are runners on 2nd and 3rd, we all wonder what the pitcher will do... then the catcher stands up and extends his arm, and now we sit thru 4 tension building pitches which show us how feared this hitter is, and it changes the psychology of the game. The team on defense either showed cowardice or smarts. The next hitter will tell. He might feel more confident because of said cowardice, or buckle under the pressure.

But those 4 pitches are so perfect for the drama of playoff baseball. I was sickened when we were deprived of it this year. Please MLB, bring back real IBBs at least for the playoffs. The new way just didn't feel right this year, left a bad aftertaste.
Yeah, that was just a stupid rule change.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 11-05-2017, 01:34 AM
Nellie_Fox's Avatar
Nellie_Fox Nellie_Fox is offline
Official Professor
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: North Mankato, MN
Posts: 16,690
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew C White View Post
Yeah, that was just a stupid rule change.
It must shave 20, 30 seconds a week off the game times.
__________________

"Nellie Fox, that little son of a gun, was always on base and was a great hit-and-run man. He sprayed hits all over."
Yogi Berra in the New York Sunday News (July 12, 1970)
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 11-05-2017, 03:27 PM
Brian26's Avatar
Brian26 Brian26 is offline
WSI Guru
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Chicago
Posts: 31,404
Blog Entries: 52
Default

Saw this posted somewhere else. This compares Game 5 of the Cubs/Nationals series against Game 7 of the 1960 World Series.

In 1960's Game 7, there were 19 runs, 24 hits, and an error. In Game 5 of the NLDS, there 17 runs, 23 hits, and 2 errors. The 1960 game used 9 pitchers, the NLDS game used 14 pitchers. The time of the 1960 game was 2 hours, 36 minutes. The NLDS game was 4 hours, 37 minutes. What the heck? How can there be that big of a difference? Oh wait...the 1960 game had ZERO strikeouts, and 5 walks. The NLDS game had 21 strikeouts and 15 walks. Think about that...36 PA's where the ball wasn't put in play and a lot of pitches had to be thrown vs. 5.

Not sure if this can all be blamed on Billy Beane, but the small strikezone and added "value" of the walk discovered in the past 15 years has really caused the game to drag.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 11-07-2017, 01:05 AM
cub killer cub killer is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,575
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nellie_Fox View Post
It must shave 20, 30 seconds a week off the game times.
The Empire Strikes Back is too long, it needs to be edited. Cut what happens right after Darth said "Obi Wan never told you what happened to your father".

IBBs aren't as crucially dramatic as the ESB reveal, but they're up there. Horrible decision to cut them from postseason games.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian26 View Post
Saw this posted somewhere else. This compares Game 5 of the Cubs/Nationals series against Game 7 of the 1960 World Series.

In 1960's Game 7, there were 19 runs, 24 hits, and an error. In Game 5 of the NLDS, there 17 runs, 23 hits, and 2 errors. The 1960 game used 9 pitchers, the NLDS game used 14 pitchers. The time of the 1960 game was 2 hours, 36 minutes. The NLDS game was 4 hours, 37 minutes. What the heck? How can there be that big of a difference? Oh wait...the 1960 game had ZERO strikeouts, and 5 walks. The NLDS game had 21 strikeouts and 15 walks. Think about that...36 PA's where the ball wasn't put in play and a lot of pitches had to be thrown vs. 5.

Not sure if this can all be blamed on Billy Beane, but the small strikezone and added "value" of the walk discovered in the past 15 years has really caused the game to drag.
Which shows just how much the Big Hurt was ahead of the curve. Figuratively and literally.

Back to the IBB topic:

Old way we knew and loved...

PBP guy-"Bottom of the 8th, 2nd and 3rd, and due up is Barry Bonds! What will the Dodgers do"

Color guy-"Tense situation here"

*Barry steps up to the plate, catcher motions for IBB*

PBP-"And they're gonna walk him! The most feared bat in baseball"

*shots of concerned fans and concerned managers intertwined with the 4 balls. Tension mounts with each pitch, so much that the announcers are quiet, and so is the crowd*

PBP-"So now Matt Williams with the bases loaded"

*color guy is so tense, he doesn't say anything. Crowd is barely breathing at this point*


New way...

PBP guy-"Bottom of the 8th, 2nd and 3rd, and due up is Barry Bonds! What will the Dodgers do"

*Barry goes straight to first*

PBP-"Well, he gets walked and now here is Matt Williams"

No added tension, no extra emotional step for the crowd, just a strange skipping of a crucial at bat. You don't feel Barry's presence, the ominous shadow his at-bat cast over the game. Just a quick skip to the next scene, like an Mtv video.

Those "Pitch to Barry" shirts would be completely meaningless and devoid of their swag, which they did have in their day. It's a classic shirt.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 11-07-2017, 12:59 PM
russ99 russ99 is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 12,397
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by voodoochile View Post
Can you explain a bit more of what the Astros actually did in terms of the slot bonus manipulation? I'd love to learn more about this stuff. If it's too long to type out perhaps you have a link you can post.
This touches on it briefly:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/15/s...tros-alcs.html

The gist is since they were at the top of the draft, they had the largest bonus pool. Then they made their top pick for a top-3 rated player who'd sign for a lower bonus to be able to use more of the bonus pool to sign lower picks.

Many of these lower picks were signed well over slot and these were higher ceiling players that fell in the draft due to signability issues.

This is how they were able to sign McCullers and Daz Cameron - who was the main prospect sent to Detroit for Justin Verlander.
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 11-07-2017, 01:15 PM
voodoochile's Avatar
voodoochile voodoochile is offline
Soda Jerk/U.P.W./Lester Pooh Bear
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 53,455
Blog Entries: 9
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by russ99 View Post
This touches on it briefly:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/15/s...tros-alcs.html

The gist is since they were at the top of the draft, they had the largest bonus pool. Then they made their top pick for a top-3 rated player who'd sign for a lower bonus to be able to use more of the bonus pool to sign lower picks.

Many of these lower picks were signed well over slot and these were higher ceiling players that fell in the draft due to signability issues.

This is how they were able to sign McCullers and Daz Cameron - who was the main prospect sent to Detroit for Justin Verlander.
Thanks for the explanation. Interesting strategy. Not sure how people would react around here if the Sox signed a player in a top draft slot because they could pay that person less money.
__________________

Riding shotgun on the Sox bandwagon since before there was an Internet...
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 11-07-2017, 03:50 PM
Lip Man 1 Lip Man 1 is offline
WSI Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Chubbuck, Idaho
Posts: 31,504
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by voodoochile View Post
Thanks for the explanation. Interesting strategy. Not sure how people would react around here if the Sox signed a player in a top draft slot because they could pay that person less money.
For years the Sox draft philosophy was based at least in part on who the agent involved was and if they thought they could sign the player (instead of taking the absolute best talent...)

Not much difference in your comment from past reality in my opinion.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 11-07-2017, 04:29 PM
Hitmen77 Hitmen77 is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 11,945
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lip Man 1 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by russ99 View Post
This touches on it briefly:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/15/s...tros-alcs.html

The gist is since they were at the top of the draft, they had the largest bonus pool. Then they made their top pick for a top-3 rated player who'd sign for a lower bonus to be able to use more of the bonus pool to sign lower picks.

Many of these lower picks were signed well over slot and these were higher ceiling players that fell in the draft due to signability issues.

This is how they were able to sign McCullers and Daz Cameron - who was the main prospect sent to Detroit for Justin Verlander.
For years the Sox draft philosophy was based at least in part on who the agent involved was and if they thought they could sign the player (instead of taking the absolute best talent...)

Not much difference in your comment from past reality in my opinion.
I agree, Lip. For years, people have complained about the Sox drafting players based on their willingness to sign for less money. Now, we're criticizing them for not drafting players based on their willingness to sign for less money?

By the way, the Sox drafted Jake Burger at #11 and signed him for under slot which allowed for more money to be spent on later round picks. But, in another thread, his pick was called a "reach".

So, I'm still having trouble connecting the dots on what the Sox are exactly supposed to be doing differently now. And I'm talking about their drafting approach now, not their failed approach prior to the last couple of years. Draft based on signability? Don't draft based on signability? Don't pick "reach" players, but pick players that will sign for less money?
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 11-07-2017, 05:19 PM
Frater Perdurabo Frater Perdurabo is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 19,064
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hitmen77 View Post
I agree, Lip. For years, people have complained about the Sox drafting players based on their willingness to sign for less money. Now, we're criticizing them for not drafting players based on their willingness to sign for less money?

By the way, the Sox drafted Jake Burger at #11 and signed him for under slot which allowed for more money to be spent on later round picks. But, in another thread, his pick was called a "reach".

So, I'm still having trouble connecting the dots on what the Sox are exactly supposed to be doing differently now. And I'm talking about their drafting approach now, not their failed approach prior to the last couple of years. Draft based on signability? Don't draft based on signability? Don't pick "reach" players, but pick players that will sign for less money?

Draft the best player available and make him sign for cheap, of course!
__________________
The universe is the practical joke of the General at the expense of the Particular, quoth Frater Perdurabo, and laughed. The disciples nearest him wept, seeing the Universal Sorrow. Others laughed, seeing the Universal Joke. Others wept. Others laughed. Others wept because they couldn't see the Joke, and others laughed lest they should be thought not to see the Joke. But though FRATER laughed openly, he wept secretly; and really he neither laughed nor wept. Nor did he mean what he said.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 11-07-2017, 08:51 PM
Hitmen77 Hitmen77 is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 11,945
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frater Perdurabo View Post
Draft the best player available and make him sign for cheap, of course!
Yeah, and I'm not trying to be sarcastic in my post. I'm seriously not getting the whole point trying to be made. Obviously the Astros approach to drafting players has been wildly successful. But, it sounds like we're trying to have it both ways with the Sox picks - pick guys who will sign for cheap, which has been a dismal failure for this franchise for 10+ years and pick BPA. As far as recent picks like Collins, Hansen, Burger, Sheets, and Skoug go, I guess we'll all see in few years how those picks pan out of us.

Also, let's not overlook that the Astros had the #1 overall pick three years in a row and then the #2 overall pick in the 4th year - along with the larger bonus pool money that comes along with having a top 2 pick four years in a row. (I'm not sure when the new CBA rules kicked in, though). With the talent we jettisoned and then acquired in the last 12 months, the Sox simply aren't going to be on the same path of losing 100+ games 3 years in a row and getting all the very-top draft picks and bonus money that goes along with that.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Forum Jump




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:28 AM.




Design by: Michelle

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Site-specific editorial/photos Copyright ©2001 - 2008 White Sox Interactive. All rights reserved.