ashbury

The automated strike zone will come, and I agree with the perception that it will aid batters more than it does the pitchers. But the lively ball is already considered a problem, and so reducing its resilience would be a worthy counter to that little "unintended consequence". The further benefit of a less-bouncy ball would be that run-of-the-mill batters will figure out quickly that their exaggerated launch angles are no longer giving them cheap homers, and an increased emphasis on line drives or bunting would be in most hitters' self-interest instead of warning-track shots while adding fan-interest to the game. The strike zone can be adjusted upward or downward, if that isn't enough, likewise the height of the mound. Defensive shifts have always been part of the game and there's no incentive to regulate them, if the batters are no longer swinging from the heels every time; 150+ years ago there was a term "scientific hitting" and it needs to be revived. Daisy-cutters, gentlemen, daisy-cutters! I would like to see bullpens moved closer to the dugout, and establish a zero-warmup-pitch rule once the reliever enters the game. (What was he doing in the dugout all that time, anyway?) Make it a rule that the reliever be in the dugout already, before coming into the game - he won't cool off that quickly. Cutting down this dead-time when the manager decides to play chess with lefty-righty matchups would go a long way toward eliminating the complaints about the game being boring, and perhaps adds a small element of strategy for the manager to contend with. In addition, a short pitch clock (15 seconds) that applies to batter and pitcher alike would be helpful - velcro wrist straps don't come loose each and every pitch. There's a mantra players repeat, of "slow the game down", that is wise so that the game doesn't overwhelm you, but if both sides are required to keep the game moving then the disadvantage is about equal - if not, then adjust the resiliency of the ball, the strike zone size, or the height of the mound, as discussed above. Cutting the game down to 7 innings has so many unintended consequences that I hardly even want to approach that topic. Nine innings of crisply played baseball are not too much, anyway. I don't foresee owners giving away money, so I don't expect larger rosters nor shorter seasons. Regarding expansion, don't overlook a third team in New York. The populace certainly could support one, and the ballpark (currently in partial form) is already there at Coney Island in Brooklyn, where the low-A Cyclones play. I'd do that in preference to Portland, not that I dislike that city, but I don't want to see another Oakland situation where a reasonably sized city is squeezed because a bigger one is too closeby. Expansion is problematic, though, because I don't see a viable 32nd candidate - Montreal could be tried again if and only if its previous financial disadvantage can be corrected. Maybe a Carolinas team could achieve a regional appeal that would let it succeed - Charlotte is about as close to Atlanta as Portland is to Seattle but probably there are larger populations to draw from there.

Not relevant to anything, but the players held him in some esteem, right about that time. Or, at least, one player (SSS). I happened to be sitting next to a player during a game at the back fields at Spring Training a few years ago, and someone launched a homer. I wasn't sure, and asked, "was that Murphy?" "Yeah, he can hit," the unnamed player volunteered in typical understated style. So I made it a point to follow Max after that, and sure enough, he proved again the old saying that you just never know.

I was about to say something similar, but maybe not quite as strongly. And then I thought some more. Defense from a corner outfielder is worth something but isn't really decisive, and to be an actual asset you want a corner outfielder to be above league average on offense. Conversely, if you want to consider his flexibility to cover center field for short periods, his defense is no longer a plus at that position. All in all, his season is just a hair below average. In a season where we needed someone to step forward, he's a contributor, but not more. He's not one of the major disappointments of the season, but I wouldn't call him a triumph either.

Concur. You don't give a QO because you want a draft pick. You give the offer because you want the player for a season at that price, and if he turns you down you get the draft pick as a consolation.

I still haven't internalized the new extra-innings rule. The leadoff IBB prompted me to check the game log. Left out of this recap is that Joe Cronin, the final batter of the prior inning, was at second base to begin with. How long will it be before I stop having to solve this little mystery every time?

“Which Twins player has most underperformed in the first half?” I'm pointing the finger of blame at Tyler Kinley. When he didn't come through, it kind of set the tone for the entire season.

One of my regrets is that I didn't take advantage of the fact one of my sons went to college in San Diego, and to take in a game at Petco. It was 600 miles away, the school year and the baseball season don't overlap well, I was still in parent mode with the other kids... yadda yadda, bottom line is I didn't.

OK, sounds like I got side-tracked with an assumption about what your beef about Magill was. Not sure where it even came from, now that I look again.

Getting the most out of a team, by timing the usage of the mediocre players, so that they only play when they are hot and then sit when they are not, is a magical skill that no one has over the long term. The lucky rabbit's foot seems to disappear at the most inopportune moment. I'll take well-chosen matchups over the hot hand every time.

I'm not sure a strategy like this has ever been tried. The league might fine Molitor for such shenanigans.

Which options do you believe are wasted? An option, once exercised, is good for the whole season. Within certain other rules, you can send a guy up and down indefinitely.

That's the nature of relief pitching. But to counter-balance one inning with a crooked number, a reliever needs to put up quite a few clean innings. Lots of pitchers do. Belisle doesn't, very much. Too many of the zero-run appearances have involved baserunners. And most of his no-hit no-walk outings for us have been of the partial-inning variety. A couple of times this month he's contributed a clean full inning. But now we're back to this. Often what separates successful players from the unsuccessful isn't the quality of their ability, but how frequently they are able to bring their best. It seems to me that too many times Belisle has to scuffle along with less than his best, and the results haven't been good. Doesn't matter if he has what it takes when he's on - if you can't count on him, he's not of much use. I'm sure he's pitched with courage and I don't question his makeup, but it may be that Father Time has robbed him of his resilience.

Sure. Since July 14 he's batting .500 with an 1.100 OPS! OK, cherry-picking just a little farther back: since June 26 his BA is .362, with enough walks to account for a .423 on-base percentage, and with extra-base power for a .594 slugging average.

Completely aside from the topic discussed here, but I wonder if any MLB team's analytics department has ever added an MD with top notch analytical skills and a medical-generalist's mindset, to investigate any number of topics that would pay huge dividends if something was discovered - for instance along the lines of physiological cues that would guide drafting for talent development or for injury avoidance - I don't mean just sifting data on players, but locating studies that tell a team what new data to try to collect, things a non-medical layman might not know how to look for in the literature.

I haven't followed Williams Ramirez much, if at all, but since the middle of May he's suddenly unable to prevent runs. Moving up through the organization he's had nothing but success as far as I can see, and his first several weeks of 2018 were OK. Physical problem?

Yeah, I don't really have a narrative to push about the player. I certainly didn't title this blog entry with that word, and if Lollygagging comes across as too close to that, then it was too strong a word for me to choose. OTOH, if we agree it was a mistake, and if that mistake came from the relative lack of effort in the first instant... well, I'd give a nickel to pick his brain candidly about this one play. And maybe Polanco's. I'd stand a chance of learning a fine point.

This choice perfectly exemplifies the dilemma between floor and ceiling, or potential versus demonstrated performance. Graterol has a very large chance of being "who???, oh yeah, whatever happened to him?" three years from now. But there's no denying the big fastball.

An out to LF, a dribbler to the catcher, and a routine grounder to second. The batters looked so bad in doing this that all three were demoted to AA Trenton before the game was over.

I would have guessed this was pure hyperbole, but actually his splits are just as you suggest. Bases empty he bats .103, but in RISPy situations he's batting .280 with plenty of additional value leading to a .875 OPS. Either of the Ed's or Joe do well with runners on, too, but Bob's surprisingly been no slouch. It's all small sample size, but still. Will The Real Bobby Wilson Please Stand Up! (And I hope it's not One Oh Three Bobby.)

Yes, it was the first few steps, before the ball was caught, that I focus on, not at the end when he eased off. The runner was leaning the wrong way, and it looks to me as if Dozier had a chance if he'd been going full tilt at the start. There was that tell-tale attempt to accelerate partway through. It said, "oops," to me. At first I thought Polanco was trying to stifle a smile because of his own fine play, in the name of maintaining a game face. But later I wondered if he was annoyed that there was no one to throw to when he thought of trying for a DP. I do appreciate the opposite viewpoint, though. I might always be wrong on these little things, and probably the best Dozier could do was make it close.

He's probably headed to the majors faster than if he had gone to college.

I agree. There are one-on-one matchups to be watched in football and basketball, but coaches have the option to switch off or double team at any time. You can't double-team your opponent's ace pitcher with your lefty-righty outfield platoon taking up their spots in the batter's boxes simultaneously - they'd knock each other's heads off on a high fastball down the middle!

I happened upon this nice leaping stab by Polanco from a few days ago: https://mediadownloads.mlb.com/mlbam/mp4/2018/07/03/2224124283/1530583378940/asset_2500K.mp4 Question: on a ball hit to the left side, does Brian Dozier have anything better to do than make a beeline for second base, on the small chance it's caught and they might try to double off the runner? The runner has to change direction, Dozier could have been close to full speed by that point. Seems like he was napping there.

Nine times out of ten, these 50-50 chances never seem to work out.