2019-2020 MLB Non-Phillies News/Notes Discussion

[mdougherty12]

Mike Zunino re-signs with the Rays:

Zunino returning to Rays on 1-year deal

[zambonir]

I bet there'd be a lot of unintended consequences and would end up making the game worse. Not even sure how you ba or reduce them in any truly effective or enforceable way. I'm also not sure they've actually had that much impact, especially as teams/players adjust at the plate, and also change how shifts get deployed.

They certainly haven't helped the Phillies!

[BostonRoss]

I wonder if shifts seemed to be successful for a while when they first became frequently employed, and a lot of veteran hitters were not able to adjust after years of hitting differently. I would think players are starting to get used to them.

[Patchmk88]

So you think it is a coincidence that batting average as a whole has fallen as shifts have become more unique and popular?

Personally I like watching a game that has hits as opposed to the three outcomes that baseball has become. I mean Bryce Harper hits balls 100 MPH but since they are into the shift they end in outs more times than they would have 15 years ago.

There is no doubt in my mind that limiting shifts would make the game more fun to watch.

[Patchmk88]

Numbers tell a different story.

[mdougherty12]

So you think it is a coincidence that batting average as a whole has fallen as shifts have become more unique and popular?

Personally I like watching a game that has hits as opposed to the three outcomes that baseball has become. I mean Bryce Harper hits balls 100 MPH but since they are into the shift they end in outs more times than they would have 15 years ago.

There is no doubt in my mind that limiting shifts would make the game more fun to watch.

I think that’s strikeouts, not shifts. League-wide BABIP hasn’t changed significantly in the last 20 years (I didn’t look any further back).

[zambonir]

I think it's appealing to imagine a world where ground ball hits are more possible but I think there's a lot more to the offensive approach, and the home run happy games than just trying to hit over or around the shift. Which, at the same time, some teams have also started doing, leading to fewer shifts. We only notice the outs our hitters make into the shift because they stand out. And strikeouts are up because of both the quality of the pitching and the offensive approach analytics favors.

And again, I don't know how you actually legislate it. You can't outright ban the SS from playing across 2B, IMO. You can't ban IFs from playing deep. And most teams would still play for the home run and not value small ball. The odd situational RBI single, sure.

[BostonRoss]

Oh, I am not in favor of changing rules regarding shifts. I am thinking they are becoming less effective than a few years ago when they were new (at least in terms of how frequently they were being used). I am fine with letting the hitters adjust, and letting the shifts evolve.

[zambonir]

Agree, I was replying more to Patch even though it came right after your post.

[jimbomill]

uses the whole field

This players can do now. I saw a recommendation about limiting the number of defensive shifts. You know how you cut down on shifts, is by using the whole field. You don't have to legislate. Hit 'em where they ain't!

If the umpires would call the defined strike zone, I think that would also help.

[andyb]

The problem is that it is harder to use the whole field now than to just try and hit over the shifts (i.e. hit home runs). We need to change the incentives so singles are more valuable. It is just too easy to hit home runs with the baseball being used.

I was surprised to see BABIP has not changed too much. I think this is due to the change in hitter approach also. Hitters take a more aggressive swing at the ball, leading to more strikeouts and fewer balls in play. But when they do hit it, they hit it harder so the BABIP does not change much. If home runs were harder to hit though, then the incentive to swing harder would be less. BABIP would go down UNLESS players changed their approach to use the whole field.

I think this would happen. It is all connected to the incentives and the lively ball. If it is any consolation, Alec Bohm would be in the group of hitters most helped by deadening the ball and incentivizing a more contact oriented approach. Hoskins would be hurt of course, but you win some and lose some.

[Philsmania]

I like the idea of deadening the ball and banning shifts. There must be two infielders on each side of second base, period, plain and simple. Bringing in an outfielder to be a fifth infielder in extreme circumstances (bases loaded with the winning walk-off run on third, less than two out) should still be ok, though.

Also, raise the mound back to what it was in the '60's.

A lot of people seem to like the extra inning rule with the runner on second to start the inning. I didn't. Those long extra inning games, especially the ones that take 15+ innings and go on into the night, are epic in their own unique way.

[andyb]

I don't like banning shifts. It is artificial. There have always been 9 players on the field and the defense decides where they should play.

As I said, decreasing the incentive to swing hard and hit home runs will solve much of this problem, increasing the incentive to use all the field (and the penalty for shifting where a bunt can become a double).

Pitch clocks are another solution to unnecessary shifting. If there is only a 20-second period to pitch the ball, there is less time to run back and forth in the field on shifts.

[zambonir]

It's also the pitching. Modern relief usage and pitching analytics contributes to the three true outcomes. It's not just that players try too hard to hit home runs because a live ball or the shift or launch angle approach incentivizes that, it is that it is genuinely harder to get a hit off the sort of pitchers you're now facing in the 6th and 7th innings (though you wouldn't know it watching the team we do).

Seems like some of these ideas would end up decreasing offense and obviously baseball still wants the opposite.

[andyb]

The lively ball is the big thing to me. We know it carries further than 20 years ago. Part of the reason is better quality manufacturing. Part of the reason is the drag on the seams. Whatever the reason it has changed the game.

Golf has the same problem too. The ball carries further than it used to (and clubs are better). I know golf is beholden to all the equipment manufacturers, but the game has been changed and not necessarily for the better at the top level.

Marketing is not an issue in baseball so they should just fix it. It does not matter how they do it. One can get bogged down into conspiracy arguments about baseball wanting a lively ball. For whatever reason it has changed the game for the worse. A smaller strike zone might fix the pitching quality problems as it is tough to throw 98 mph in a smaller location.

[andyb]

Phillies payroll was only $65 million last year. Hard to believe those claims of $100 million plus losses.

Report: MLB payrolls tumble nearly $2.5B in '20

[Philsmania]

All in all, it has been a very slow offseason so far. Other than the Mets signing McCann, not a lot of big moves.

[zambonir]

It's impossible to really know. They avoided their single biggest expense, player payroll, but they still paid the entire 800-person organization, lost revenue from both national and local TV and sponsorships (since if you're WB Mason, you're paying for 81 games with fans and TV viewers, not 30 with no fans) and of course had no ticket sales or concessions to go towards the prorated player salaries.

Anyway, in the end it really doesn't matter if they are lying or doing clever bookkeeping or not counting auxiliary revenue or not considering franchise value. They (all the MLB owners) don't care. Or rather, they care more about managing expenses and not sharing more revenue with the players than they do about winning or the fans.

When you look at what the Phillies, or even worse, a team like the Reds are doing, part of me has to think, "they surely wouldn't be doing this if they are lying about the $." But in the end it doesn't matter. They're doing it.

Per Passan the Reds are supposedly making both Moustakas and Suarez available, which just further highlights how hard it would be to trade Segura.

[zambonir]

I hadn't really thought about this but in addition to the length-of-season stuff, Stark predicts MLB will not be able to require its players to be vaccinated, and we shouldn't expect all of them to do so. He suggests that different teams may have to follow different protocols depending on the %.

Stark: How many games in the 2021 MLB season? Take the under

In any case when you read the story it seems like a 100-game season seems far more likely than a 140-game season. Owners want to wait until they can have fans in all markets, and there's also some concern, I suppose legit, about the injury impact of going back to a full season with full travel.

[andyb]

In any case when you read the story it seems like a 100-game season seems far more likely than a 140-game season. Owners want to wait until they can have fans in all markets, and there's also some concern, I suppose legit, about the injury impact of going back to a full season with full travel.

The owners really want to maximize profits here. They have no concern about the virus and the data from the Braves shows that they probably would not be losing money if they started the season on time and built up to full fan capacity by July. Not sure how full travel will make much of a difference. A 1-hour flight versus 5 to the West Coast has similar virus exposure. MLB should have the same protocols as last season until things like mask ordinances are not needed any more.

It also really does not matter much if all the players get vaccinated. It matters more for the older employees. Again one cannot require it, but you certainly can have a waiver form that people would need to sign to absolve any liability if they or their family gets the virus if they decline the vaccine.

That article has way too much overreaction in it. In April the country will be in a better place regarding the virus compared to last season with like 30% of the country vaccinated. It will only get better from there. If it doesn't then there are bigger problems, but baseball should be working together to play a full 162 game season and adults can negotiate mitigating procedures (social distancing and mask wearing early, some escrow of salary based on reachable revenue benchmarks, gradual reintroduction of fans over the year, 28-man rosters and covid taxi squads, 7 inning DHs, etc.).

All the posturing in the article is the same bad behavior we saw last year and it is mostly on the owners' side.