Tigers sign Prince - 9/214 - Heyman

[Rob]

One of the main reasons I've always loved baseball isn't the action. It's the downtime in between.

 

The breaks in the action give us time to stop and think about what might happen. It's time to sit there and think about defensive alignment and pitch sequencing. But more than anything for me, that downtime (in the late innings at least) is spent thinking "what should the manager be doing?" Should he pinch hit? Should there be a pinch runner? Is he going to send the runner? Is he going to call for a sac bunt?

 

I love the strategy of baseball every bit as much as I love the action on the field. The pitcher coming to bat in the late innings is the holy grail of strategic choices. I guess I'm just not ready to part with that.

 

I would love all that stuff a whole lot more if variance didn't swallow up 99% of it.

 

That only makes me love it more... though that part may be indicative of a mental illness.

[Guest]

I'd personally sacrifice 5 total PA's from a game(and odds are you get a hit or a sacrifice in 1-3 of those anyway) to get increased strategy from the later innings, but I'm not adamant either way. The two leagues need to be the same though, and this is the chief reason. AL teams have so much more flexibility to take on poor defenders or injury prone players, and with increased interleague play potentially on the horizon, it's a gap that needs to be bridged.

 

This is essentially how I feel. I could go either way with the DH...depending on my mood. But the biggest problem is the difference between leagues and how it impacts player movement.

[Tracer Bullet]

I agree with that the leagues should be the same but I want neither to have a DH. Esp in an era with fewer PEDs where you're not going to see as many mashers who can't hold a glove. Are there really that many outstanding hitters that we need 15 more DH spots? Take the 15 crappiest players out of MLB instead and make guys at least pretend to field.

 

Besides seeing guys like Manny try to field a position is fun.

[CubColtPacer]

I understand what Rob is saying and used to completely agree with that line of thinking, but you do have to admit it's pretty ludicrous that the NL exists as this bizarre bastion of "strategy" when pretty much every single other level of professional and amateur baseball has evolved past it (or at least wised up and have the option to use it). I guess they can join arms with the Japanese Central League and proudly march off of a cliff together or something.

 

Plus I think it has a ripple effect and makes it more acceptable/tolerable to have too many [expletive] players out there because they're "just batting down by the pitcher's spot." Too often the 7-8 spots are just black holes of suck because of the damned #9 spot.

 

This part isn't really true. The NL has better #7 and #8 hitters than the AL #8 and #9 hitters. Even when you compare it 7 and 8 to 7 and 8 it's close. The worst hitter besides an NL #9 hitter is an AL #9 hitter, and it's not particularly close. The NL does seem to put poor hitters in the #2 spot though. Here's last year OPS advantages:

 

#1 spot- NL by 11 points

#2-AL by 62

#3-NL by 12

#4-NL by 33

#5-AL by 22

#6-NL by 3

#7-AL by 9

#8-AL by 5

#9-AL by 164

Total: AL by 20

 

I was surprised to see from how much we talk about sluggers going to the AL that the NL led in both the 3 and 4 spot last year, and by a decently large margin in the 4 spot.

[Sammy Sofa]

I understand what Rob is saying and used to completely agree with that line of thinking, but you do have to admit it's pretty ludicrous that the NL exists as this bizarre bastion of "strategy" when pretty much every single other level of professional and amateur baseball has evolved past it (or at least wised up and have the option to use it). I guess they can join arms with the Japanese Central League and proudly march off of a cliff together or something.

 

Plus I think it has a ripple effect and makes it more acceptable/tolerable to have too many [expletive] players out there because they're "just batting down by the pitcher's spot." Too often the 7-8 spots are just black holes of suck because of the damned #9 spot.

 

This part isn't really true. The NL has better #7 and #8 hitters than the AL #8 and #9 hitters. Even when you compare it 7 and 8 to 7 and 8 it's close. The worst hitter besides an NL #9 hitter is an AL #9 hitter, and it's not particularly close. The NL does seem to put poor hitters in the #2 spot though. Here's last year OPS advantages:

 

#1 spot- NL by 11 points

#2-AL by 62

#3-NL by 12

#4-NL by 33

#5-AL by 22

#6-NL by 3

#7-AL by 9

#8-AL by 5

#9-AL by 164

Total: AL by 20

 

I was surprised to see from how much we talk about sluggers going to the AL that the NL led in both the 3 and 4 spot last year, and by a decently large margin in the 4 spot.

 

Oh well. I'd still rather have the DH.

 

And does this track back consistently?

[dfnowak]

I'd personally sacrifice 5 total PA's from a game(and odds are you get a hit or a sacrifice in 1-3 of those anyway) to get increased strategy from the later innings, but I'm not adamant either way. The two leagues need to be the same though, and this is the chief reason. AL teams have so much more flexibility to take on poor defenders or injury prone players, and with increased interleague play potentially on the horizon, it's a gap that needs to be bridged.

 

This is essentially how I feel. I could go either way with the DH...depending on my mood. But the biggest problem is the difference between leagues and how it impacts player movement.

And the DH isn't going away in the AL...no way the MLBPA allows it. They would definitely like the NL to adopt the DH though! I used to have traditional views on this subject, hoping the AL would get rid of the DH and both leagues being the same. But, I've realized there's no way the MLBPA will allow it since it would mean that certain players would lose money. And with both leagues going to an even 15 teams, interleague play occurring every day, and NL teams losing players like Pujols and Fielder to the AL, it's a competitive disadvantage for NL teams and hopefully they will adopt the DH as well.

[XZero771679666304]

It's just a matter of time before the NL adopts the DH. The need for equality between the leagues will become more and more evident and has been said, the MLBPA won't stand for the elimination of the DH. I don't have a strong affinity for the DH or the "strategy" involved in working around the pitcher's spot, but I think one or the other is going to become standard and I don't like the chances of the latter.

[RynoRules]

Having DH in both league could increase prospect value, inasmuch as all the teams will be interested in Vogelbach-type, rather than half worrying he would be a liability in the field.

[davearm2]

If MLB wanted to make the right concessions to the MLBPA, then the union would agree to get rid of the DH. Say they agree to drop the DH, but expand rosters from 25 to 27. Instantly, 60 new bigleague jobs are available, although naturally it would be bad for guys like Jim Thome and David Ortiz. Maybe the union would go for that, I dunno.

 

I don't sense there's much of a movement within MLB to try and enact that change, though.

[Sammy Sofa]

Thank goodness.

[davearm2]

Thank goodness.

???

 

Earlier you said you just wanted consistency, and for both leagues to be on a level playing field (paraphrasing).

[Guest]

He's also clearly been on the side of wanting a DH.

[Sammy Sofa]

No way, expanding the bench would be totally just as good.

[biittner77]

If MLB wanted to make the right concessions to the MLBPA, then the union would agree to get rid of the DH. Say they agree to drop the DH, but expand rosters from 25 to 27. Instantly, 60 new bigleague jobs are available, although naturally it would be bad for guys like Jim Thome and David Ortiz. Maybe the union would go for that, I dunno.

 

I don't sense there's much of a movement within MLB to try and enact that change, though.

 

Which do you think the union would rather have, 30 more MLB jobs at the league minimum or 15 existing jobs making substantially more money?

[davearm2]

He's also clearly been on the side of wanting a DH.

... for the reasons I stated.

 

Getting rid of the DH achieves the same objectives.

[davearm2]

If MLB wanted to make the right concessions to the MLBPA, then the union would agree to get rid of the DH. Say they agree to drop the DH, but expand rosters from 25 to 27. Instantly, 60 new bigleague jobs are available, although naturally it would be bad for guys like Jim Thome and David Ortiz. Maybe the union would go for that, I dunno.

 

I don't sense there's much of a movement within MLB to try and enact that change, though.

 

Which do you think the union would rather have, 30 more MLB jobs at the league minimum or 15 existing jobs making substantially more money?

It's not really the point.

 

The point is, MLB has carrots it can dangle out there, if it truly wants the DH gone.

[Sammy Sofa]

He's also clearly been on the side of wanting a DH.

... for the reasons I stated.

 

Getting rid of the DH achieves the same objectives.

 

No, you flank steak; I want it for consistency AND because I like it more than the pitcher hitting.

[CubColtPacer]

I understand what Rob is saying and used to completely agree with that line of thinking, but you do have to admit it's pretty ludicrous that the NL exists as this bizarre bastion of "strategy" when pretty much every single other level of professional and amateur baseball has evolved past it (or at least wised up and have the option to use it). I guess they can join arms with the Japanese Central League and proudly march off of a cliff together or something.

 

Plus I think it has a ripple effect and makes it more acceptable/tolerable to have too many [expletive] players out there because they're "just batting down by the pitcher's spot." Too often the 7-8 spots are just black holes of suck because of the damned #9 spot.

 

This part isn't really true. The NL has better #7 and #8 hitters than the AL #8 and #9 hitters. Even when you compare it 7 and 8 to 7 and 8 it's close. The worst hitter besides an NL #9 hitter is an AL #9 hitter, and it's not particularly close. The NL does seem to put poor hitters in the #2 spot though. Here's last year OPS advantages:

 

#1 spot- NL by 11 points

#2-AL by 62

#3-NL by 12

#4-NL by 33

#5-AL by 22

#6-NL by 3

#7-AL by 9

#8-AL by 5

#9-AL by 164

Total: AL by 20

 

I was surprised to see from how much we talk about sluggers going to the AL that the NL led in both the 3 and 4 spot last year, and by a decently large margin in the 4 spot.

 

Oh well. I'd still rather have the DH.

 

And does this track back consistently?

 

I looked at the last 3 spots in the lineup for the last 6 years and with some normal statistical variation, yeah (sometimes the AL had a larger advantage in one spot, but for example in at least 2 of those years the NL 8 spot was better than the AL 8 spot).

 

I wonder if the AL advantage is truly to the DH or because AL teams are in better markets/have more money than the NL. If there was the same amount of money available, then the AL spending big money on DH's should be able to be counteracted with the NL having more money for other positions. I don't think adding the DH will help the NL's imbalance much at all.

[Bull]

I understand what Rob is saying and used to completely agree with that line of thinking, but you do have to admit it's pretty ludicrous that the NL exists as this bizarre bastion of "strategy" when pretty much every single other level of professional and amateur baseball has evolved past it (or at least wised up and have the option to use it). I guess they can join arms with the Japanese Central League and proudly march off of a cliff together or something.

 

Plus I think it has a ripple effect and makes it more acceptable/tolerable to have too many [expletive] players out there because they're "just batting down by the pitcher's spot." Too often the 7-8 spots are just black holes of suck because of the damned #9 spot.

 

This part isn't really true. The NL has better #7 and #8 hitters than the AL #8 and #9 hitters. Even when you compare it 7 and 8 to 7 and 8 it's close. The worst hitter besides an NL #9 hitter is an AL #9 hitter, and it's not particularly close. The NL does seem to put poor hitters in the #2 spot though. Here's last year OPS advantages:

 

#1 spot- NL by 11 points

#2-AL by 62

#3-NL by 12

#4-NL by 33

#5-AL by 22

#6-NL by 3

#7-AL by 9

#8-AL by 5

#9-AL by 164

Total: AL by 20

 

I was surprised to see from how much we talk about sluggers going to the AL that the NL led in both the 3 and 4 spot last year, and by a decently large margin in the 4 spot.

 

Oh well. I'd still rather have the DH.

 

And does this track back consistently?

 

I looked at the last 3 spots in the lineup for the last 6 years and with some normal statistical variation, yeah (sometimes the AL had a larger advantage in one spot, but for example in at least 2 of those years the NL 8 spot was better than the AL 8 spot).

 

I wonder if the AL advantage is truly to the DH or because AL teams are in better markets/have more money than the NL. If there was the same amount of money available, then the AL spending big money on DH's should be able to be counteracted with the NL having more money for other positions. I don't think adding the DH will help the NL's imbalance much at all.

 

I wonder how much the bolded will be offset by the Astros moving to the AL.

[erik316wttn]

If MLB wanted to make the right concessions to the MLBPA, then the union would agree to get rid of the DH. Say they agree to drop the DH, but expand rosters from 25 to 27. Instantly, 60 new bigleague jobs are available, although naturally it would be bad for guys like Jim Thome and David Ortiz. Maybe the union would go for that, I dunno.

 

I don't sense there's much of a movement within MLB to try and enact that change, though.

 

Which do you think the union would rather have, 30 more MLB jobs at the league minimum or 15 existing jobs making substantially more money?

It's not really the point.

 

The point is, MLB has carrots it can dangle out there, if it truly wants the DH gone.

 

But will they be willing to pay the likely price? I don't see it being anything less than a salary floor, veterans minimums, etc.

[CubsInNC]

Story here in Michigan is that Miggy is working with his trainer to get in much better shape, and committed to being 255 or less at the start of the season. He was supposedly contacted before the signing, and was eager to get back to 3rd, calling it his "natural" position. There's a strong feeling from some of the connected journalists that they're not done. Whether that's getting Cespedes or trading for a SP, is the debate, but they're generally very, very, positive that something else big is happening before the start of the season.

[jersey cubs fan]

I wonder how much the bolded will be offset by the Astros moving to the AL.

 

Moving a pretty good market from the NL to the AL isn't going to help balance against the AL having more good markets.

[Bull]

I wonder how much the bolded will be offset by the Astros moving to the AL.

 

Moving a pretty good market from the NL to the AL isn't going to help balance against the AL having more good markets.

 

yes, but they're moving the Astros.

[CubsWin]

I wonder how much the bolded will be offset by the Astros moving to the AL.

 

Moving a pretty good market from the NL to the AL isn't going to help balance against the AL having more good markets.

 

yes, but they're moving the Astros.

Yes, and Houston ranks as the 10th best TV market in the nation. They have a loyal fan base, and a recent and still popular stadium. They're just going through a rebuilding phase at the moment.

[Careless]

If MLB wanted to make the right concessions to the MLBPA, then the union would agree to get rid of the DH. Say they agree to drop the DH, but expand rosters from 25 to 27. Instantly, 60 new bigleague jobs are available, although naturally it would be bad for guys like Jim Thome and David Ortiz. Maybe the union would go for that, I dunno.

 

I don't sense there's much of a movement within MLB to try and enact that change, though.

 

Which do you think the union would rather have, 30 more MLB jobs at the league minimum or 15 existing jobs making substantially more money?

The money being spent will be about the same either way, and they seem to favor concentrating the money in a few huge contracts, so I'd say the 30 making less total.