ashbury

The idea is to raise his batting average when he puts the ball in play. He's generally around .250 and the league is closer to .300. If he can trade some of the useless balls in play into base hits, at some cost in strikeouts, then it's a net improvement. Also, home runs don't count as being "in play" for defensive purposes, so getting the HR back up would be a good thing even if the BABIP stays .250.

And the pitcher they traded for him, Kolby Allard, is on the 60-day IL. The proverbial trade that helped neither team?

We say we like players who speak from the heart and don't give us Bull Durham style corporate PR. Then we throw Sonny Gray's words back at him when he guts out a decent performance without his best stuff. I'd like to see the season play out further than this, before singling him out. (I realize that wasn't the thrust of this article.)

Presenting your MLB-leading ERA, the Minnesota Twins! As expected.

Viable shortstops make great trade bait if you ever genuinely have too many of them.

Which kind of IPA is Hanson not a fan of? The kind that tastes the way Pine-Sol smells? Or the kind that is basically grapefruit juice?

Or a drinking game.

High praise, indeed. LOL. To paraphrase another responder, I could be on something. There's every chance this variant could turn out to be stupid.

The inning changes are a good point. Of course if the innings go quicker, the opposing pitcher won't have as long to sit and cool down, so the current number of warmup pitches could be reduced to maybe just one or even dispensed with. But since I'm framing this whole idea in terms of it being a spectator sport, there does come an important question of when the broadcaster can fit in the revenue-producing ads. During the inning, batters can have a time-limit on their walkups (walkup music would be limited to four notes ), but I wouldn't want to rush them quite as much as I think you're suggesting - the new pitch clock enforcement seems pretty balanced to me, but rushing the batter while the pitcher stands comfortably on the mound between batters in this faster version of the game seems like a tilt favoring the pitcher too much. Nine outs per inning? Whew, that will be a lot of runs, unless the one-pitch rule suppresses offense a lot more than I anticipate. (As I said in another response, there's at least some evidence to think that offense might go up a little.) It's some interesting outside-the-box thinking though. Back in the early days of the game, there were so many errors that in effect you did have nine outs to a side. Instead of nine outs, though, what about every batter in the lineup comes up during each inning, and you naturally place your "clean up" hitter ninth, and on that plate appearance it's like Little League where he keeps going until you can put him out?

The Brian Dozier dead-pull approach was somewhere in the mix for my speculation. Cutting out the dead parts of the game, from a general fan's perspective, was the first motivation, but the dreary sameness of BB/K/HR and especially the nibbling by pitchers was in there too - if you're going to walk, get it over with quick, if you're going to strike out, ditto, let's see some action on the bases okay? Larger park dimensions or a deadened ball are in line with my ambivalence about maybe balls hit out of play should just be foul, even the moonshots. But a moonshot every game or two is entertaining. Just as inside the park HRs are. I'd like more balance. Maybe a one-pitch AB would be unbalanced in worse ways, who knows? I'm skeptical about legislating away the current unlimited relief pitching. Fake injuries will arise to defeat that. And if a starter stays in though struggling, we'll see an increase in lopsided games that you just want to get over with - even 2 hours will seem long. I'm kind of with you on finding a way to reduce all the max-effort pitching, though - nothing legislated the strategy to save your best stuff for when in a jam, back 100 years ago, they just did it, and I don't know how to bring it back.

Scott Baker's a fun example, and pitchers like him who kind of lack a deadly out-pitch might be the real beneficiaries. The current stats I cited are highly biased by the current rule on unlimited foul balls, so maybe the net effect would tilt toward the pitcher more than I thought; that would be dull. I can't think of an equivalent batter who thrives on fouling off the tough pitches in order to finally get a mistake he can hit. Arraez? Hit BA might go down a lot. (A quick google search for batters who hit lots of fouls turned up only Ross Barnes and Luke Appling from decades ago, Brandon Belt had that 21 pitch epic a few years back so I'll go with him as a possible posterboy.)

I think Kelly's quote was more cautionary than hopeful, and he wasn't advocating giving every prospect 1000 AB. He was talking about sophomore slumps after a good rookie year. Highly touted outfielder Joe Benson never got his 1000, for example.

Two runs when facing Alcantara? Must be nice!

Deceptive speed, as they would say of me in my slo-pitch days - "slower than he looks".

Box score can be found here: https://www.milb.com/gameday/cubs-vs-saints/2023/04/06/722874#game_state=final,lock_state=final,game_tab=box,game=722874 (And in general if fans want to follow a day's minor league game for the Twins affiliates, bookmark this: https://www.milb.com/scores/all/all/twins )

Looking forward to getting to know our team better with how these games go.

Don't know why you think the 27-year old is on his way up yet the guy who's still 25 can't improve. Personally I think both "are what they are" pretty much, and we might have seen Gordon's career-year in 2022. Admittedly I've been slow to embrace Nick as a fixture on a major league squad, and every little bump on the road has me diving off of the bandwagon for safety.

I'd try to spread the opportunities around at SS, but mostly I don't think this will be Dinkelman's strategic decision at all The front office will lay out the playing time they want, and the manager will implement that plan.

Aw, what's the point of a nice straw man argument if you go and knock it down right away?

Baseball didn't start out as a spectator sport, merely a pastime for children, farm boys, or city folk with enough open park space to play in. Three strikes were the rule and fastballs weren't permitted, to allow rank novices to have a chance at putting the ball in play for some healthful fun and a little light competition. In early variants the pitcher was required to suit the batter's preference as to low or high pitches. What if we were devising rules made for spectators and played by experienced professionals, though? How about, One Strike And You're Out? If you put the ball in play, you take your chances on the bases, as now. If the pitcher doesn't throw you a strike, you take first base. If you swing and miss, or otherwise fail to put the ball in play, that's an out. Yes, foul balls are outs - next batter please. Home runs? For the moment I think we can allow them as they are now (fan favorites when not to excess) - but I'm open to every ball out of the field of play being a foul ball and thus an out, if this variant turns out to raise the number of homers versus now by too much. Same basic design to the game - still 3 bases to run, still 3 outs to retire the side. For the spectator, it goes beyond what the current pitch-clock does to reduce the time between pitches, and eliminates the pitches that don't decide anything - we diehard fans may enjoy the pitcher-batter chess match but the casual fan is usually oblivious and is texting on their phone. Unsure what constitutes a full game in this fast-paced variant - 9 innings would be over with in under an hour. In early baseball the teams would play to a run total, but I don't think that's wise now. So, 27 innings? (I like powers of 3.) If the games are short enough, complete games come back into the realm of everyday occurrences - is that desirable or not? (One ace pitcher could dominate the league outcome to a greater extent than now.) There wouldn't be stolen bases (or its variants like hit and run), perforce - are there new and entertaining strategies that could emerge? The pitcher-batter dynamic would be different, with every pitch essentially a 3-2 offering - no nibbling, no waste pitches or defensive swings. You can still walk a dangerous hitter if that seems strategic, and go after the weaker hitters. Does this version favor the present-day batter, or the pitcher - I mean would batting average and OPS go up or down? What say you? Better? Worse? Simply "different"? "Too different"?

Possible. I'm thinking it goes the other direction, though, and it might even be too many slugfests. I think for instance the 1-ball-1-strike rule would increase the number of fastballs. Off-speed pitches in general are harder to control They are devastating in part because the pitcher doesn't have to come in with a strike. As for situational hitting, take a look at the splits from last year's season, arranged by the balls-strikes count: https://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/split.cgi?t=b&lg=MLB&year=2022#all_count Keep in mind that the overall OPS for batters last year was .707. I'm not sure which line in the above chart is more relevant, the PA where matters are decided on the first pitch, i.e. the batter saw a pitch he liked and put it in play, to the tune of a .909 OPS (and that number doesn't even have walks since they are impossible). Or when the PA reaches a full count, at which point the aggregate OPS is .777. Either way is higher than with the current rules. The change I sketched out would be more far-reaching than that, of course. Built into the present-day stats are the strategies that have built up over time - currently an all-or-nothing approach by the batter until two strikes (and often even with two strikes), and a keep-away strategy (AKA nibbling) by pitchers until three balls; sometimes pitchers get their outs without even throwing a strike because batters are over-eager. New strategies would be devised and I don't know with any certainty how it would play out. The pitcher has to come in with something to hit, or else walk batter after batter. The batter needs to swing a little more defensively, in part because fouls are no longer protected. But who knows, if the games do wind up low-scoring, then maybe home runs are what wins games, and the all-or-nothing approach continues, and pitchers will respond by risking walks against the power threats - much as now. Heh, if you are concerned offense will be squashed, maybe my idea of starting every plate appearance at 3-and-2 needs to be tweaked. Make it 2 strikes for a strikeout and only 1 ball for a walk. That's in essence a 3-1 pitch on every batter. Now you'll get some hitting! Shrug. I don't claim to know.

Is it still the case that if they fail to sign a player they draft, the money assigned to the slot where that player was taken is lost? If they plan to overpay for some other guy, this detail becomes crucial.

40-man roster considerations make even St Paul as far away as the moon for those players not on it. Besides that, for me the need is neither an infielder nor an outfielder, but a bat, plus Buxton in CF and Taylor in a backup role.

IMO the reason comes back to Buxton not playing in the outfield. If he's the fulltime DH, and Taylor's playing every day, there's no room for a bat-first guy like Wallner. But put Buxton in CF and Taylor on the bench, where they respectively belong, and then Castro's the one with no real role and Wallner can be up. (Or Garlick the Lefty Killer, for a game like today, if that's the preference a week ago when the decision was made and there was the 40-man spot open.) Just to be clear, I bow to the team's and Buxton's collective decision about this. But this is the cost.

baseball-reference.com provides a daily summary to subscribers, and today's shows both Alcantara and Maeda among the top 4 pitching performances of the day. Miami's guy was #1 of course.