Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2020 MLB Rules - The Changes

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    I'm not going to pay The Atlantic for content (just don't feel the need for more sports). Do you have a summary of Murphy's thoughts?
    After reading the responses of Dale Murphy's article of which there were only 4; advocated for a 15 sec. pitch clock, opposed the 3 batter minimum and eliminated the DH.

    He gets my vote!

    Of course, the MLBPA would never allow that.
    As Thomasam replied "such a simple solution", but one that would never fly. $$$ is embedded in the MLBPA DNA, Eight Players
    on the batting order would provide those players with more PA, but would reduce the formerly 9th place hitter in the AL to the bench and a salary contingent with a PT player. Would it make the game a better product, I believe so. That defensive SS/2B/CF with the Little League bat could take the field, but not hamper the team with his .210/.300/.320 slash line.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by yogi8 View Post

      After reading the responses of Dale Murphy's article of which there were only 4; advocated for a 15 sec. pitch clock, opposed the 3 batter minimum and eliminated the DH.

      He gets my vote!

      As Thomasam replied "such a simple solution", but one that would never fly. $$$ is embedded in the MLBPA DNA, Eight Players
      on the batting order would provide those players with more PA, but would reduce the formerly 9th place hitter in the AL to the bench and a salary contingent with a PT player. Would it make the game a better product, I believe so. That defensive SS/2B/CF with the Little League bat could take the field, but not hamper the team with his .210/.300/.320 slash line.
      I think the idea though would be to just have no P or DH batting, so that SS/2B/OF player would still be batting. You just wouldn't have a hitting-only player batting.

      Comment


      • #33
        that was my interpretation, and so you're eliminating a paid position... IE: agreed that despite it being the best solution for the game, the MLBPA would never allow it.

        For the record, I never heard/thought of that either, and it's such an elegant solution. If you don't like the pitcher batting, why invent a new position, just don't make them bat. It's so simple it's genius!
        Last edited by NY FANG; 13-Feb-2019, 07:33 PM. Reason: "For The Record"

        Comment


        • jeffmetsfan
          jeffmetsfan commented
          Editing a comment
          Wow I never thought of myself as a genius. I'm almost certain it must've been discussed before the American League adopted the DH, and then the MLBPA decided a better solution would be to add a hitter spot in lieu of the pitcher batting bc obviously it benefited the players, gave them an opportunity to rest from the field, etc.

      • #34
        I would guess that the DH was less of a push of the MLBPA - which likely didn't have the clout it does today - and more a push by baseball, following the low-scoring 60s. I believe the mound was slightly lowered as well at a similar time... all in an effort to score more runs and draw crowds with offense.

        The idea was likely floated, but I for one was not alive then, so I can't know for sure. I do know that the idea has never occurred to me or come up in any conversation I've had of DH vs no DH.

        Comment


        • #35
          I believe the mound was slightly lowered as well at a similar time... all in an effort to score more runs and draw crowds with offense.
          We could start with 1967 and Yastrzemski winning the triple crown with a .326/.418/.622/1.040. He was one of only 2 players with 100+ R or 100 RBI and he had Killebrew had both. Cesar Tovar with a .267/.325/.365/.691 slash and 6 Hrs and 47 RBI got the only other of the 1st place MVP vote. Cepeda received all 20 votes in the NL although 3 others had a higher BA, 5- more HRs. He edged Clemente by one RBI, but both Clemente and Aaron had the stats, but Cepeda and the Cards won the NL Pennant and the WS, while the Pirates and Braves were well back.

          The 1967 AL avg. team slash line was .236/.303/.351/.654 and the team ERA 3.23 with a 1.22 whip.
          The NL .249/.310/.363/.673 with a 3.38 ERA - 1.26

          The mound was lowered after the 'Year of the Pitcher' 1968. Denny McClain and Bob Gibson both won the MVP and CYA of the 80 votes cast in both elections they gathered 74 and 6 went to Pete Rose. The NL avg. team slash line was .230/.297/.339/.637 with 110 Hrs. The ERA was .298 - 1.19, the NL .243/.300/.341.641 with 89 Hrs and an ERA of 2.99 - 1.20.

          3 years later the AL team Presidents voted for a trial period for a DH to debut in 1973.

          Comment


          • #36
            next rule that should be added:

            If a player is offered a Qualifying offer & rejects it, he must be signed by the "pitchers and catchers report" day for the earliest team:
            otherwise, the player either re-accepts the Qualifying offer or must sit out until the All Star Break

            this rule only applies to players offered a Qualifying Offer;
            it's to encourage players to not dangle all of the off season (which may impede other lesser players from signing; and also discourage teams from offering Qualifying Offers to players that they only make the offer because they suspect that the player will reject it...
            Last edited by saxon; 18-Feb-2019, 06:16 PM.

            Comment


            • #37
              The off season paradigm changed in 2016 with power, as a result of launch angle and exit velo, not valued as highly as in years prior. Players having spent the 6 + prior years to gain control over their future shouldn't be penalized for rejecting a one year QO. MLB and the MLBPA addressed this in the last CBA.

              The QO is still an albatross, but the albatross isn't as imposing for the good ML starter as it was prior but is still an obstacle, imo the QO was never an issue for the long term high value contract type player. Their obstacle has become the reality of the backend value of the high dollar long term contract.

              2018 3 good 3Bs became eligible for FA Cozart coming off an excellent season (.933 OPS), Frazier years of constant results (.772 OPS) and Moustakas breakout season and the QO (.835 OPS). Cozart-31 signed mid Dec. 3 yrs. 38 M, Frazier-31, early Feb 2yrs 17 M and Moose-29 early Mar. 1 yr 6.5 M.

              FYI, Cozart missed 100 games and a .658 OPS, Frazier missed 40 with an OPS of 693. Moustakes played 150+ with a .774 OPS. This season Donaldson signed at Thanksgiving for 23 M and 1 year, Moose got 1 yr. and 10 M yesterday.

              Even with an easing of the QO penalty, it is not free agency for those players who reject the offer. Conceptually the QO is good for competition in the rich versus 'poor' teams balance. To strengthen that intent the cost to a signing team should be based upon the weight of the contract.

              Comment


              • #38
                agreed with Yogi here:
                Players having spent the 6 + prior years to gain control over their future shouldn't be penalized for rejecting a one year QO
                The player has every right to ask for whatever money they want and not sign for lesser. Owners have every right to move onto other players leaving the overpriced request unsigned. Also, IMO an unintended consequence of the above rule is that owners will leave the majority of QOs unsigned until the end of the signing period to force players hands into taking undervalued contracts out of desperation to avoid this penalty.

                I'm sure we are all familiar with financial markets here, right? All we're witnessing is a correction period in the player purchase values. The last 10 years was a run on Player Stock creating a Bull Market. The price of players went up up up. a decade ago, Holliday, the star of his FA class, was giving a 7x120 million deal. Werth was considered an overpay at 7x126 the following year as the highest paid offensive player. Cliff Lee, 1 year removed from his Cy Young received 5x120. These were considered normal.

                Since that time, the top performers of each class have escalated to asking for 2-3 more years per deal and 80-100% raise on the per year asking price. The result is an overpriced market. Yes, there is more money in baseball. TV money alone is flooding in at absurd levels, but does that really mean that the market value has really increased by 80% more money and 50% more risk in years?

                My thoughts are no, that the cost outstripped the market, and we're now experiencing the correction of that. Players are being pushed back to the old 7-8 year mega contracts rather than 10+ years and dollars are only 50% above a decade ago rather than 80%.

                So to come back full circle, I don't think a new rule is in order, just an acceptance that the 10 year/400M dream that looked possible 2 years ago is going to be only 8 years, 250M. Based on the 7/8 year offers I've seen, teams seem willing to share the TV money, but not take on the extra years of risk. Players can decide if they keep skipping spring training, or they can accept that the fantasy world they were sold by the media and their agents had no place in reality.

                Comment


                • #39
                  https://twitter.com/Joelsherman1/status/

                  Drew's Sig

                  Comment


                  • #40
                    of course on the heels of writing that "market correction" piece, Manny signed for 10 years... once again proving... What Do I Know?

                    Comment


                    • West Coast Mets Fan
                      Editing a comment
                      I think it is more like; "What do the owners know?" It seems A-Rod's long term deal (possibly a steroid aided one) signed with Texas is the only one that hasn't ended up being an albatross around there necks and yet they stick there necks out there for yet another one.

                  • #41
                    Every team is now invested in sabremetrics where a different set of stats define players. In the day of pitching wins, Hrs. and BA has handed the baton to value. With WAR valued at 8M per a 10 M player needs 1.2 WAR to justify the investment....a 550 K home grown player's value equalizer is a 0.? WAR and that is without financial risk.

                    I believe that is the root cause behind the slow market for those players without the resume of the perpetual AS.

                    Add to that the number of teams that close the wallet for years at a time while rebuilding. Teams that have no realistic expectation of playing Oct. ball just don't fill holes with significant upgrades. Ask a Mets fan...they have lived that for the last eight seasons. Jason Bay and then nothing until the unfortunate FA signing of Cespedes and then nothing else until now.

                    In the past few days 18 players signed contracts. Aaron Nola- super 2, had his 4 years of arbit bought out for 45 M and the Phillies also hold an option of 1 yr. 16 M as well. The Twins bought out 5 years of control of both Kepler - (BAmer top 30 prospect)- 35M and J Polanco (top 100) for 25.8 M. The other 15 players got 1 yr deals and 9 of them were minor league contracts.

                    The front offices and ownership were slow to put the breaks on the runaway train, but now we are seeing, as FANG suggested the 'market correction'.

                    Comment


                    • #42
                      Originally posted by yogi8 View Post

                      We could start with 1967 and Yastrzemski winning the triple crown with a .326/.418/.622/1.040. He was one of only 2 players with 100+ R or 100 RBI and he had Killebrew had both. Cesar Tovar with a .267/.325/.365/.691 slash and 6 Hrs and 47 RBI got the only other of the 1st place MVP vote. Cepeda received all 20 votes in the NL although 3 others had a higher BA, 5- more HRs. He edged Clemente by one RBI, but both Clemente and Aaron had the stats, but Cepeda and the Cards won the NL Pennant and the WS, while the Pirates and Braves were well back.

                      We often see the retro sabermetrics for great players of yore, but I wonder how the MVP, All-Star and HOF voting would go if stats other than the basics (HR, RBI, avg, W, ERA, K) were used by voters or on the top of mind of fans (for the AS game). Obviously Yastrzemski would win in any year with the triple crown and Bob Gibson would win in 1968 no matter what criteria are used, but other situations would be interesting to look at with the benefit of advanced metrics.

                      Comment


                      • #43
                        but other situations would be interesting to look at with the benefit of advanced metrics.
                        Bert Blyleven has bothered me with his campaigning for the HOF. Blyleven was an accumulator with 22 seasons in the ML, to his credit he was durable 685 GS-242 CG, 17 seasons with 200+ IP and almost 5000 career IP. His career ERA was 3.31 - 1.20 whip....good but not elite or dominate. 4 CYA rankings 3rd to 7th with an avg. share of 10.1% and 2 ASG with 1 batter faced. He was elected in 2011, his 14th appearance on the ballot.

                        Whether it is olde school or Ivy league analysis it is still in the hands of emotional voters with grudges and bias. Ted Williams is, imo, the poster boy for that. Teddy Ballgame won two MVPs and finished 2nd 4 times and again, imo, was jobbed each of those 4 seasons; '41, '42,'47 and '57. I could make a case for 1948 when he finished 3rd as well.

                        https://www.baseball-reference.com/p...illite01.shtml

                        Comment


                        • #44
                          They should change the Super 2 (is that it?) Rule so that rookies can start the season with their major league squads without it impacting their service time. Is there a reason 2 week delay gives teams an additional year of control? Sounds pretty dumb

                          Comment


                          • #45
                            Little fun reading for you
                            http://m.mlb.com/glossary/transactions/service-time

                            A player is deemed to have reached "one year" of Major League service upon accruing 172 days in a given year. Upon reaching six years of Major League service, a player becomes eligible for free agency at the end of that season (unless he has already signed a contract extension that covers one or more of his free-agent seasons).

                            All players with at least three (but less than six) years of Major League service time become eligible for salary arbitration, through which they can earn substantial raises relative to the Major League minimum salary. Additionally, Major League Baseball each year identifies the group of players that ended the prior season with between two and three years of Major League service and at least 86 days of Major League service in that season and designates the top 22 percent -- in terms of service time -- as arbitration eligible. Those in the top 22 percent -- "Super Two" players -- are also eligible for salary arbitration despite having less than three years of Major League service.
                            I assume it mostly has to do with players who don't come up to start a year, how do you account for their service time in overlapping years?

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X