General Baseball Chit-Chat Thread

[UMFan83]

The AL Central race should be interesting between the White Sox and Guardians. As it sits now, the White Sox are 3 games behind with 21 to play. However, since there are no longer 1 game tiebreakers in place and neither team is likely to be in a wild card position, the winner of that tiebreaker is pretty important. Right now the White Sox are 6-9 against the Guardians with 4 head to head games left. If the Guardians win 1 of those 4 games, they win the tiebreaker.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

The AL Central race should be interesting between the White Sox and Guardians. As it sits now, the White Sox are 3 games behind with 21 to play. However, since there are no longer 1 game tiebreakers in place and neither team is likely to be in a wild card position, the winner of that tiebreaker is pretty important. Right now the White Sox are 6-9 against the Guardians with 4 head to head games left. If the Guardians win 1 of those 4 games, they win the tiebreaker.

 

The Twins aren't completely cooked either. They're 5 back and have 5 left with the Guardians, 6 left with the White Sox, and the other 12 games are all against non-playoff teams(KC x2, Detroit, Angels).

[Derwood]

It's incredibly impressive that a team with Trout and Ohtani is 20 games under .500

[PackLandVA]

Don’t know where to put this, so I’ll drop it here.

 

I searched “battered” and “bastards” and couldn’t find this mentioned, but if you haven’t seen it, “The Battered Bastards of Baseball” is a really good, really fun documentary. It’s on Netflix, and apparently it’s from 2014. I highly recommend it. It’s about Kurt Russell’s dad, Bing, creating an independent A ball team in Portland, OR in the ‘70s. The first indy minor league team. Talk about pushing back against the MLB machine.

[champaignchris]

It's incredibly impressive that a team with Trout and Ohtani is 20 games under .500

 

The pitching staff isn’t bad with some decent young starters. Herget has been good since switching him to closer.

 

But that offense…. Whoof! How is it even possible to have Ohtani and Trout take roughly 1/5 of your team’s plate appearances and still be in the bottom 3 in the AL in practically every offensive category? Ward and Rengifo look like OK players, but after that there just isn’t any other help there.

[PackLandVA]

Anthony Rendon can’t stay on the field, or in the lineup. And when he has, he’s not been anywhere near what they thought they were getting. Jo Adell hasn’t (yet) met the fanfare of a highly touted prospect.

[17 Seconds]

https://twitter.com/barry/status/1570136687094935553

[UMFan83]

Every time I turn on a White Sox game, Len Kasper is the TV PBP guy. It is just a complete coincidence that I happen to turn on games that he’s calling or is he doing a lot of TV? What happened to Benetti? What happened to Len’s dream of becoming a radio guy?

 

Edit: I just realized Benetti has a variety of other jobs including college football but this has been going on longer than just the last couple of weeks

[Bertz]

 

The bread eating guy IIRC

[soccer10k]

Since June 1, Edwin Diaz has thrown 37 1/3

 

Edwin Diaz since June 1: 37 1/3 IP, 17 H, 3 R, 3 ER, 8 BB, 72 K, 0.72 ERA, .349 OPS (with a .309 BABIP) and a 0.06 FIP.

[d_money]

Since June 1, Edwin Diaz has thrown 37 1/3

 

Edwin Diaz since June 1: 37 1/3 IP, 17 H, 3 R, 3 ER, 8 BB, 72 K, 0.72 ERA, .349 OPS (with a .309 BABIP) and a 0.06 FIP.

He’s a FA too entering 2023 at 29

[UMFan83]

On Tuesday, the White Sox were 4 GB Cleveland, starting a 3 game series at home against the Guardians where a sweep would put them 1 GB with 12 to play.

 

Instead, the White Sox have gone 0-6 with the Guardians going 6-0, and Cleveland has now clinched the division with 1.5 weeks to play and now hold the 3rd largest lead of any division leader.

[Bertz]

[CubinNY]

 

"If MLB ever went to a fully automated ball-strike system, it would eliminate a skill MLB umpires have spent years (decades in some cases) perfecting. And the first month of the transition would assuredly be rocky, with plenty of discussion of how the strike zone has changed, highlights of the strangest ball and strike calls and plenty of disruption."

 

Who cares?

[JudasIscariotTheBird]

 

"If MLB ever went to a fully automated ball-strike system, it would eliminate a skill MLB umpires have spent years (decades in some cases) perfecting. And the first month of the transition would assuredly be rocky, with plenty of discussion of how the strike zone has changed, highlights of the strangest ball and strike calls and plenty of disruption."

 

Who cares?

The sharps that have been betting over-unders based on ump assignments for decades?

[Bertz]

I actually think the challenge system is the right call assuming 3 things:

 

1. Reviews are fast

2. Managers keep successful challenges

3. This is step one on the journey, not the final destination

 

We've seen with minor manufacturing changes to the baseball how delicate MLB's ecosystem is, and there's some legitimate concerns with the implementation of robo-umps. Let's maybe make incremental changes rather than seismic ones.

[CubinNY]

Don’t know if this is true

 

[soccer10k]

Don’t know if this is true

 

[tweet]

[/tweet]

 

B-R lists them as having 0 sacrifice bunts this year. Dodgers are second with only 3. Arizona leads with 28. Cubs have the 4th most with 19.

[PosterToBeNamedLater]

I actually think the challenge system is the right call assuming 3 things:

 

1. Reviews are fast

2. Managers keep successful challenges

3. This is step one on the journey, not the final destination

 

We've seen with minor manufacturing changes to the baseball how delicate MLB's ecosystem is, and there's some legitimate concerns with the implementation of robo-umps. Let's maybe make incremental changes rather than seismic ones.

I don't really get having challenges instead of just going full-automated. In all sports, I am generally in favor of being able to challenge bad calls, but the actual review process sucks. Having the game pause for the review isn't fun. There are even times when I have wondered if I would rather just go back to no reviews (especially in basketball, or when football first started reviewing every touchdown). But with balls and strikes, I feel like it is the one situation where you can just immediately have the call be correct and we won't have the need for challenges.

[WrigleyField 22]

I actually think the challenge system is the right call assuming 3 things:

 

1. Reviews are fast

2. Managers keep successful challenges

3. This is step one on the journey, not the final destination

 

We've seen with minor manufacturing changes to the baseball how delicate MLB's ecosystem is, and there's some legitimate concerns with the implementation of robo-umps. Let's maybe make incremental changes rather than seismic ones.

I don't really get having challenges instead of just going full-automated. In all sports, I am generally in favor of being able to challenge bad calls, but the actual review process sucks. Having the game pause for the review isn't fun. There are even times when I have wondered if I would rather just go back to no reviews (especially in basketball, or when football first started reviewing every touchdown). But with balls and strikes, I feel like it is the one situation where you can just immediately have the call be correct and we won't have the need for challenges.

100%. If some sort of challenge system is gonna exist it should be rarely enough used where gameplan is rarely interrupted. Part of that is a very narrow focus of what can be challenged and making it painful to challenge a call that doesn't get overturned. Any automated review system a sport can implement that more or less works within the game flow, fine. Otherwise let it go, IMO.

 

Football wise, the rebooted XFL looked like it had the right idea.

[Bertz]

I actually think the challenge system is the right call assuming 3 things:

 

1. Reviews are fast

2. Managers keep successful challenges

3. This is step one on the journey, not the final destination

 

We've seen with minor manufacturing changes to the baseball how delicate MLB's ecosystem is, and there's some legitimate concerns with the implementation of robo-umps. Let's maybe make incremental changes rather than seismic ones.

I don't really get having challenges instead of just going full-automated. In all sports, I am generally in favor of being able to challenge bad calls, but the actual review process sucks. Having the game pause for the review isn't fun. There are even times when I have wondered if I would rather just go back to no reviews (especially in basketball, or when football first started reviewing every touchdown). But with balls and strikes, I feel like it is the one situation where you can just immediately have the call be correct and we won't have the need for challenges.

 

The thing I'm worried about is the unintended consequences of robo-umps. I'm absolutely deaf ears on "the human element" but some pretty smart people have voiced some valid trepidations about jumping over to the automated strike zone in one fell swoop.

 

- The super-imposed zones on TV aren't actually totally accurate, getting the actual calls takes a little bit of computer processing time

- Umps don't actually call the rulebook zone. It's more oval than square, if we jump straight to the rulebook zone what does that do? Or do we want to codify a more practical zone?

- Relatedly, the zone expands/contracts based on the count and the score. Does eliminating that all at once break anything?

- Does completely eliminating framing do weird/undesirable horsefeathers to the catcher position?

 

We definitely need to move towards automation. But I think an intermediate step is a good idea. Though I 1000% agree it needs to be fast. No sauntering over, putting a headset on, waiting 90 seconds, disseminating the info, etc. Just like flash something on the scoreboard or give the 2B an earpiece and appeal to him a la check swings or something. I don't watch tennis but my understanding is it's pretty quick and painless there?

[Cubswin11]

It just seems so weird that they are saying they have the tech to call balls and strikes through challenges, which means they’re admitting umpires can’t always make the right call on strikes and it is a black and white ruling. But they’re just gonna keep letting the umpires make mistakes through a challenge(s) system to fix it. Just implement the automated zone already if you feel that’s the ultimate ruling on such calls.

 

Just seems like a bandaid on an admitted problem they know they have a solution for but half assing the real fix/solution in front of their face.

[CubinNY]

I actually think the challenge system is the right call assuming 3 things:

 

1. Reviews are fast

2. Managers keep successful challenges

3. This is step one on the journey, not the final destination

 

We've seen with minor manufacturing changes to the baseball how delicate MLB's ecosystem is, and there's some legitimate concerns with the implementation of robo-umps. Let's maybe make incremental changes rather than seismic ones.

I don't really get having challenges instead of just going full-automated. In all sports, I am generally in favor of being able to challenge bad calls, but the actual review process sucks. Having the game pause for the review isn't fun. There are even times when I have wondered if I would rather just go back to no reviews (especially in basketball, or when football first started reviewing every touchdown). But with balls and strikes, I feel like it is the one situation where you can just immediately have the call be correct and we won't have the need for challenges.

 

The thing I'm worried about is the unintended consequences of robo-umps. I'm absolutely deaf ears on "the human element" but some pretty smart people have voiced some valid trepidations about jumping over to the automated strike zone in one fell swoop.

 

- The super-imposed zones on TV aren't actually totally accurate, getting the actual calls takes a little bit of computer processing time

- Umps don't actually call the rulebook zone. It's more oval than square, if we jump straight to the rulebook zone what does that do? Or do we want to codify a more practical zone?

- Relatedly, the zone expands/contracts based on the count and the score. Does eliminating that all at once break anything?

- Does completely eliminating framing do weird/undesirable horsefeathers to the catcher position?

 

We definitely need to move towards automation. But I think an intermediate step is a good idea. Though I 1000% agree it needs to be fast. No sauntering over, putting a headset on, waiting 90 seconds, disseminating the info, etc. Just like flash something on the scoreboard or give the 2B an earpiece and appeal to him a la check swings or something. I don't watch tennis but my understanding is it's pretty quick and painless there?

 

 

It will undoubtedly take some adjustment but look at tennis. It's not even a thing anymore.

 

All the stuff you mentioned is not relevant.

[soccer10k]

I don't really get having challenges instead of just going full-automated. In all sports, I am generally in favor of being able to challenge bad calls, but the actual review process sucks. Having the game pause for the review isn't fun. There are even times when I have wondered if I would rather just go back to no reviews (especially in basketball, or when football first started reviewing every touchdown). But with balls and strikes, I feel like it is the one situation where you can just immediately have the call be correct and we won't have the need for challenges.

 

The thing I'm worried about is the unintended consequences of robo-umps. I'm absolutely deaf ears on "the human element" but some pretty smart people have voiced some valid trepidations about jumping over to the automated strike zone in one fell swoop.

 

- The super-imposed zones on TV aren't actually totally accurate, getting the actual calls takes a little bit of computer processing time

- Umps don't actually call the rulebook zone. It's more oval than square, if we jump straight to the rulebook zone what does that do? Or do we want to codify a more practical zone?

- Relatedly, the zone expands/contracts based on the count and the score. Does eliminating that all at once break anything?

- Does completely eliminating framing do weird/undesirable horsefeathers to the catcher position?

 

We definitely need to move towards automation. But I think an intermediate step is a good idea. Though I 1000% agree it needs to be fast. No sauntering over, putting a headset on, waiting 90 seconds, disseminating the info, etc. Just like flash something on the scoreboard or give the 2B an earpiece and appeal to him a la check swings or something. I don't watch tennis but my understanding is it's pretty quick and painless there?

 

 

It will undoubtedly take some adjustment but look at tennis. It's not even a thing anymore.

 

All the stuff you mentioned is not relevant.

 

Tennis is also a stationary, two dimensional zone with clear in/out lines that you can see. It doesn’t adjust based on who is playing. The width of the zone in baseball is the same but the height is different for every batter.

 

I’m firmly pro robo-umps but it is more complicated than tennis.

[CubinNY]

 

The thing I'm worried about is the unintended consequences of robo-umps. I'm absolutely deaf ears on "the human element" but some pretty smart people have voiced some valid trepidations about jumping over to the automated strike zone in one fell swoop.

 

- The super-imposed zones on TV aren't actually totally accurate, getting the actual calls takes a little bit of computer processing time

- Umps don't actually call the rulebook zone. It's more oval than square, if we jump straight to the rulebook zone what does that do? Or do we want to codify a more practical zone?

- Relatedly, the zone expands/contracts based on the count and the score. Does eliminating that all at once break anything?

- Does completely eliminating framing do weird/undesirable horsefeathers to the catcher position?

 

We definitely need to move towards automation. But I think an intermediate step is a good idea. Though I 1000% agree it needs to be fast. No sauntering over, putting a headset on, waiting 90 seconds, disseminating the info, etc. Just like flash something on the scoreboard or give the 2B an earpiece and appeal to him a la check swings or something. I don't watch tennis but my understanding is it's pretty quick and painless there?

 

 

It will undoubtedly take some adjustment but look at tennis. It's not even a thing anymore.

 

All the stuff you mentioned is not relevant.

 

Tennis is also a stationary, two dimensional zone with clear in/out lines that you can see. It doesn’t adjust based on who is playing. The width of the zone in baseball is the same but the height is different for every batter.

 

I’m firmly pro robo-umps but it is more complicated than tennis.

 

It is more complicated, but the point is that people will adjust. As long as the technology is up to the task, they should do it tomorrow.