Nine of twelve

No GM rules out anything when it comes to making a trade. It always comes down to whether you feel that what you receive makes it worth giving what you give. So in this case it depends on which prospects and which pitching.

I get the idea of what you are saying about a reduced schedule, but since each division has five teams there would always be 6 teams idle if play was only within a division.

Another noteworthy thing to mention about that game is that all the in-stadium video displays were purple-themed.

I'm surprised nobody ever thought of this before, or at least did the analysis. No single stat is the most important or complete way to judge a player's performance, but this is one more way to look at making the most of opportunities. As an aside, I made an analogy many years ago. A run in baseball is akin to an assist in hockey because it reflects something someone does to set up a score. An RBI is akin to a goal because it reflects finishing the task of scoring.

And whether we get to play is of secondary importance.

You may be onto something here. I've said that there are two seasons to each year, baseball season and waiting for baseball season. This problem has a solution. Let's have a season lasting 44 weeks with 5 weeks for the postseason. Each season would be divided into four 11-week quarters. There would be about 60-64 games in each quarter for a total of 240-256 games a year. Roster size would be 36 players. 9 players would be inactive for each of the four quarters, allowing for a 27-man active roster. Teams would have to designate before each quarter which 9 players would be inactive. No player would be allowed to play in all four quarters. There would be a number of details to work out, like how to handle trades, minor league call-ups, things like that. There's also the pesky winter thing that would have to be dealt with. Maybe the teams could relocate to Argentina or Australia for a few months.

I was a 9-year-old sitting in the sun down the right field line. And in October I was a 9-year-old sitting down the left field line on a wet day for Game 2. I would have seen Allison's catch straight ahead of my seat but everyone around me stood up.

I was at that game. I had such high hopes for Arcia. He could make the baseball go very far.

Veering a bit off topic, the 1965 ASG is mentioned. When the ASG was at Target Field in 2014 Reusse wrote a column about the 1965 game, opining that the NL team may have been the best baseball team ever assembled. To back that up, he pointed out that the NL outfield reserves were Roberto Clemente, Frank Robinson, Billy Williams, and Johnny Callison. Not to take anything away from Callison, but picture telling Clemente, Robinson, and Williams that they have to watch the start of the game from the bench because they're not good enough. (Mays, Aaron and Stargell batted 1-2-3.)

I certainly understand the thinking behind this statement, but as the original post says this is favorite players, not best players. Brant Alyea might be on my list of favorite Twins because he had 2 HR and 7 RBI on opening day in 1970, because he was involved in 7-6-7 play in the field on 4/25/1970, and because he wore number 11.

As most of us are aware, posts can not be edited past a certain point in time after they are posted. To get around this, as bgb did in another thread, we are forced to quote ourselves and edit the quote. I have attempted here to clarify and slightly expand on my previous post.

It's way too soon to attempt to set a date. How our current worldwide predicament will progress is not predictable. We have to wait until epidemiologists and other scientists give the go-ahead to resume the activities that would be needed to get baseball back underway. My guess, and it's just a guess, is that it will be way past April 23 before baseball resumes.

I agree with the OP (and apparently most posters) that the top 5 are the correct top five. I will note that the title of the thread does not require the top 5 to be ranked. And I don't think I could do that.

Here's another proposal. My assumption is that this has already been suggested and discussed somewhere, maybe even on this site. All 30 teams participate in a tournament, with each elimination round being a best-of-seven series in a 2-3-2 format as is typically done. One team from each league would be chosen at random to receive a first-round bye. Five rounds would be required. With one travel day between home stands and between rounds that works out to 10 days per round, requiring 45-49 days to determine a winner. Starting the day after Labor Day results in a finish between Oct. 22 and Oct. 26. One way to create the pairings would be to use existing divisions as a guideline. Arrange the teams in approximate order from east to west by divisions, eliminate the bye team, and adjacent teams play each other, with the bracket continuing with eastern teams in each league in one half and western teams in the other. For example, in the AL you would put the teams in the following order: TB, Bal, NYY, Bos, Tor, Cle, Det, Chi, Min, KC, Tex, Hou, LAA, Oak, Sea. Similarly, in the NL it would be Fla, Atl, Was, Phi, NYM, Pit, Cin, ChC, Mil, StL, Col, Ari, SD, LAD and SF. Under this setup, if the Twins are not the bye team we would play Det, Chi, KC, or Tex in the first round. For the second round the team receiving the bye would be inserted in the bracket between the winners of the series between adjacent pairs of teams. The team opening at home would be chosen randomly before each round. It's not a real season, and I don't know whether it would be legitimate to call the final round the World Series, but at least there would be some baseball.

I looked it up. Not only was it against the Twins but it was at Met Stadium. 9/18/1975 off Eddie Bane in the top of the second. I'm sure Bane gave him a good pitch to hit, at least he damn well better have.

My workplace was reduced to a skeleton crew (with the interim staff made up of volunteers) at the end of business on 3/17. I did not volunteer. I'm in the "older adult" category, I can get by without the paycheck for now, and our benefits continue until I am called back in, which will be 4/6 at the earliest. My youngest is home from college for an extended spring break with online instruction after that, and most of us think in-person instruction will not resume there until September. My oldest is traveling home today to stay here too since his workplace closed. His job term would have ended next month anyway so he doesn't have any reason to stay where he is. My middle child had his job changed to on-call only, but he has a safe haven, more or less happily living alone in his apartment due to his roommate leaving when the U of M cancelled in-person classes. We are sheltering in place for the foreseeable future, leaving only to purchase necessary staples and to walk the dog. One more comment. These are extreme measures, they are a hardship, there is a huge financial and societal cost, but it's far and away the best option. Ignoring or pooh-poohing this situation is foolish in the highest degree. Anyone who says otherwise is either badly misinformed, or in denial, or just plain lying. Stay as safe as possible, everyone, and we'll all see each other at the next TD event!

I don't think it's realistic to realign the leagues and divisions in any way. That means there needs to be at least one interleague series taking place at all points in the schedule. Here's one possibility. 12 games against each team in your division, 3 games against each other team in your league, 3 games against each of 2 opponents from the other league. 84 games in the form of 28 3-game series, 2 each week for 14 weeks. This proposal would contain 30 interleague series so that works. The season would need to start on or before June 22 for the season to end on Sept. 27 as originally planned. If the season were 2 weeks shorter that means going to a 72-game schedule. 2 weeks shorter than that would be 60 games. At some point it's no longer feasible.

I'm trying to figure out how I feel about the social segregation issue brought up by PDX. I truly don't think that those who pay extra for premium seating and/or premium amenities are doing so in order to avoid communing with the unwashed masses. I think they are doing so strictly for the premium seating and/or premium amenities. I myself don't begrudge anyone the choice to spend their money how they see fit, and if it allows ownership to increase payroll so much the better. That said, on a day with sparse attendance I wish that fans would be allowed to move into any unoccupied seat closer to the field. Is there really any harm in that?

This is too hard so I'm not even going to try. bgb, I know you said favorite players rather than best players, but either way I find it hard to understand how anyone frequenting this board could choose anyone for catcher other than 2009 Joe Mauer.

Any and every Slap Shot reference gets a like from me.

This was worded properly. It's not just gender, it's also gender of preference. Based on my gender and gender of preference I freely admit that I am a poor judge of handsomeness and I would never attempt a ranking such as this. That said, this is a worthwhile subject of discussion.

I really doubt that the higher pitch drives anyone away. Besides, if anyone has trouble it's nothing that the volume control on the remote won't fix.

Here's something I just thought of, but something that I'm sure most managers have considered. There's nothing in the new rule about inserting pinch hitters. This to me is an unfair advantage for the batting team. To negate this I think that if the offensive team pinch hits during the first three batters the pitcher should no longer be required to face a minimum of three batters.

Total of 163. Must mean there's some doubling up somewhere, especially if not all 162 games are broadcast.

This is still very subjective and I don't know where I would draw the line. Aiming for the belt and missing a little could easily result in a hand/wrist injury. Or a broken rib. And I know I would not want to be hit in the groan. (Misspelling done purposely.) And what exactly constitutes a satisfactory reason to purposely throw at a batter? Maybe I'm just becoming a wuss in my old age but I'm beginning to come around to the point of view that the rules committee, the umpires, and the people in the MLB front offices in charge of discipline should be the ones to handle any consequences for rule-breaking, not a pitcher. And that includes unsportsmanlike conduct.