2017-18 Offseason Non-Phillies News/Notes/Discussion

[zambonir]

Yeah, let's hope he's the comeback player of the year. Then we can trade him.

[andyb]

Not sure I buy it, but this article takes the tact that the new inefficiency in baseball might be how players in their early 30s are valued.

While MLB goes young, here's why the Giants are doubling down on players in...

The logic is that the acquisition cost of these players is plummeting. Thus the number of dollars per WAR is dropping while at the same time the price (in prospects) of acquiring the 27-year-olds is increasing.

As I said, I am not sure I buy it as a general strategy. The Giants as an older team may be destined to fail. But that fact might be independent of another fact that it could be very cost-effective in terms of dollars and prospect cost to acquire players in the early 30s (not mid to late 30s).

[Austinfan]

Players in their 30s are fine on short-term deals, decline rates tend to be constant at any age (that is, once past 25-26 the same 5-10% applies whatever the player's age), but the odds of "falling off the cliff" increase.
The problem comes from either giving players in their 30s long-term deals or having to constantly replace them.

[Squire]

The Players Association just filed a labor grievance against the Marlins, the Rays, the Pirates and the Athletics based on their failure to spend revenue sharing money on player personnel (or something like that I haven't read the complaint).

[andyb]

A little more evidence that the major league baseball is "juiced". Whether it was intentional or simply higher quality manufacturing standards is unclear, but it seems pretty clear it happened.

We X-Rayed Some MLB Baseballs. Here’s What We Found.

[zambonir]

It seems like it would be impossible to maintain a consistent manufacturing standard over a period of many years, that the baseball has been just another normal historic variable, like park sizes and strike zones. The thing is, do we want it to be unjuiced? The feast-or-famine game has its definite flaws but without the power surge it would just be famine, all these relievers piling up strikeouts. I guess in theory if guys couldn't try to hit 40 HRs they'd strike out less, but that trend's been going on a lot longer than the increase in power/runs.

[andyb]

I would argue we do want it unjuiced. There was a historic balance to the game has changed and while more runs do theoretically attract fans, it also leads to a slower game and potentially more injuries (if pitchers need to strike out more hitters because balls in play are so dangerous.

It is not unlike golf where better equipment changed the game and arguably took strategy out of older, shorter courses. Which then need tricked-up greens to make par harder to achieve.

So whatever lead to it, I think baseball should impose standards that approximate reasonable home run rates. Make defense more important again. Restore a little more of the balance we used to have.

[zambonir]

I agree they should fix it if they've found something (we'll see if they finally cop to it) but HRs were at an all-time low as recently as 2014, the high-strikeout game has been going on a lot longer than that, and the increase also correlates with the uppercut swing approach and the new starter/bullpen trends. As the article says, HRs were up 46% from 2014; the ball may or may not account for half of that.

I just don't know if it would really bring defense back into the game in any meaningful way, just a few more dramatic warning track catches (and a lot of undramatic ones). Probably lower-strikeout approaches will come back if a team succeeds with it and maybe the Phillies are going to be one of those teams?

[andyb]

I just don't know if it would really bring defense back into the game in any meaningful way, just a few more dramatic warning track catches (and a lot of undramatic ones). Probably lower-strikeout approaches will come back if a team succeeds with it and maybe the Phillies are going to be one of those teams?

I do think defense comes back if the all-or-nothing approach at the plate is less effective. Thus fewer players will try it. The uppercut swing is only helpful for a power hitter. Maybe a player like Galvis hits fewer HRs with a less lively ball and goes to a more ground ball approach to use his speed and lower Ks. Pitchers might throw more strikes if the strike zone is less dangerous. Clearly there are certain trends that will still occur. Strikeouts likely remain high to some degree because hitters are also trying to draw walks. And we know pitchers are more effective in shorter stints (both starters and relievers) so that will continue and those shorter stints probably have more Ks in them.

So saying that the ball is not the entire problem is kind of a cop out (like saying we can't predict climate change with 100% certainty). We have pretty good evidence the ball has changed. That can be reversed. Solving part of the problem is a positive even if you can't solve 100% of the problem.

[zambonir]

Cole going old-school (this is obviously a legit problem, there are certain pitchers, especially star pitchers, who just aren't gonna want to change their routines)

Hamels on Rangers' six-man rotation: 'You might as well be in college'

[andyb]

Cole going old-school (this is obviously a legit problem, there are certain pitchers, especially star pitchers, who just aren't gonna want to change their routines)

Well to be fair to him, he has been pretty successful starting every 5th day, staying healthy doing that, and pitching 200 innings every year. In a 6-man rotation pitchers like him are theoretically worth less. And of course the issue of intentionally giving your 6th best starter 25 starts could make some teams worse.

Baseball has not really shown they can keep starters healthy and more effective in a 6-man rotation as opposed to a 5-man rotation. I am still hoping somebody tries the 4-man double rotation at some point - 2 pitchers going 3-4 innings never facing a lineup more than twice.

[California_Dreamin]

The six man rotation is doomed to failure and I agree with Hamels completely. Baseball is a game of muscle memory and repetition and to believe that it is better for a pitchers arm to only start once a week is counter intuitive in my mind. You get better by pitching, not sitting. My prediction....even if teams go to 6 man rotations, there will be no less arm injuries, and probably more. I fail to see how it makes sense to believe a muscle will become stronger with less use.

[phillychuck]

Pitchers' injuries are not usually muscle injuries and, counter-intuitively, are not less common in "stronger" pitchers. Strength doesn't prevent a rotator cuff strain or a medial collateral ligament blow-out.

And on six-day rotations pitchers throw differently in between starts, keeping the tone in their muscles without the muscle fibers fraying under pressure.

For Cole, let him throw every 5 days if he wants to and work your other starters around him.

[flyers19rw]

Teams are ruining starters by emphasizing velocity over location and movement- have them go all out for +++mph for six innings every start until their arms blow out (ex.-NYM). They wreck RPs the same way-throw crazy hard for one IP, 70+ times a season. Its a formula to end up in Dr. Andrews office.

[zambonir]

Cole was a reliable 200 IP starter. We don't yet know if he is anymore. I'm sure he's not ever gonna want to come out before facing hitters a third time either, but if he's still pitching great, he won't have to (and Nola won't either on the Phillies).

I don't think this trend, if it really is one, is necessarily about protecting starters' arms (possibly just the opposite as Flyers notes). More about roster construction and how pitchers are being used. I can't imagine many teams who try it will actually stick with it once they have an injury either, because than that sixth starter won't be good enough.

[BostonRoss]

Taking 25 games from your top five starters and giving them to your sixth best makes no sense to me.

[zambonir]

Of course there's no trade market for Tommy Joseph when anyone could have had a LH .300 hitter for nothing (and Mark Reynolds is still out there too).

Adam Lind perplexed 'no one values' his solid 2017 production

[allentown]

Yeah, Lind put up a big +0. 8 WAR this past season after -0.3 WAR in 2016, for an average of +0.3 WAR his last two seasons. And this coming season he is 34 years old. This shouldn't be some great big shock to him. Last year he earned $1 million, the year prior he earned $8 million. This isn't the winter his value cratered. MLB has learned that offense-only, old 1B-only guys, for whom the offense is just good really don't have much value. His offense blipped up last year, compared to his 2016 drop. This year is anyone's guess. Why pay more than replacement value for that? But to your larger point, yes Joseph effectively has zero value. He's young enough that his value could increase in future seasons, but for now, he just doesn't have any value.

[zambonir]

For sure when you are a 1B and nothing special offensively people recognize that now. But I do think that if analytics finally means that teams start paying over-30 players what they are really worth, 20-25 year-old players should also be paid what they are worth. Not that Lind didn't make a nice living for six years.

But yeah, I was mostly highlighting TJ. DHs and part-time 1B are fungible now.

[David_Criss]

Joseph going to AAA as an emergency catcher, 1B and learning to play a little 3B and DH makes the most sense in my book.