Mark G

Agreed! I know some home town official scorers like to give hits to their guys instead of errors to the other guys for the home team stats, but a fielders choice goes against a batting average just as much as an error does. And it sticks the pitcher with an earned run he doesn't deserve. Maybe they should give one challenge per game on the official scorer, too.

4 runs in 7 innings (as my own official score keeper I refuse to charge him with Sano's brain fart) will keep us in most games. We would be happy with this out of most other starters on this club; I am going to be happy with it in September of a lost season. Funny, isn't it, that when Ryan gives up 3 in 5, we give kudos but when Dobnak gives up 4 in 7 (again, Sano gets the 5th) we hesitate. Both had a bad inning and otherwise did great, but one is judged differently. I suspect there is no right or wrong here, just what each person sees for themselves. I love reading the folks here; keeps things in perspective.

Couldn't agree more. Through last night, in 47.3% of our games our offense has scored 3 runs or less. Used to be anything over 1/3 was considered troublesome; almost half is need to take a long look in the mirrorsome. The wonder kids in the FO and the dugout need to feel a little heat, and soon, because this is as much their doing as anyone's. Just my version of analytics for the day,

Ah, there in lies the debate. I have never been a fan of using August and September as an early and extended spring training, so I would say play your better players but that argument and 7 bucks will get me a cup of coffee at Starbucks. I have always believed winter ball and spring training is where you try players out; that is above and beyond AAA. Major league games should be played by players who have the better chance of succeeding day in and day out, not players we want to "take a look at". But, again, that is not the prevailing view of the modern day folks in charge, so I grudgingly cede to them. I just offer my extremely humble opinion and take the heat.

I know; that is why I have been in favor of Simmons continuing to play, yet I seem to be a minority there, too. But .140? Even I don't like defense that much.

Actually, the pinch hit at bat by Refsnyder didn't make any sense at all, as it made Rocco use 2 players for one pinch hit (Jeffers had to go in and catch). If Austudillo had pinch hit, he could have replaced Rortvedt and still had a pinch hitter with some power available in Jeffers and a higher average pinch hitter in Refsnyder still on the bench. I also happen to believe that Rooker is in the lineup ever because they are using 2021 as a tryout for 2022 with him. Refsnyder is hitting over 60 points higher and can play the field as good or better. And, for some reason, someone (Rocco? the FO?) has decided not to catch Austudillo again; they would rather have a .140ish hitter instead (another player on a tryout?). So, again, we can debate who is better than who, but I tend to go with the batting averages and the two on the bench are simply hitting higher than the two on the field that I was using as examples. Thanks for the discourse.

Refsnyder and Astudillo are both hitting considerably higher than Rooker and Rortvedt, and Astudillo can catch. Should have is a matter of opinion and so is could have, but the batting averages aren't.

I think a lot of our offensive stats are somewhat skewed by games like last night. Lots of offense in one game and not much in another average out alright, but don't tell the whole picture. When they talk about runs given up, here is a stat about the offense: in 45% of our games so far this year we have scored 3 runs or less; not surprising we are 17 games under .500. There have been too many games we pad our offensive stats and too many games where we don't score, so it looks overall like we have a good offense and it can be deceiving. As for pitching, I posted a few days ago exactly the scenario about not one starting pitcher from opening day pitching today, as well as an unsettled bullpen. I am glad Matthew Taylor noticed.

I couldn't agree more, but think about what you just laid out; we are totally unsure about who to keep on the 40 man, because we have no idea who is going to pan out and who is not? And no proven starters signed for next year as of the end of August. And don't forget we don't have a settled bullpen.......or settled SS......or know if we are keeping or trading Buxton.......I feel like I am watching the MN Twaints.

Is there a lack of communication in this organization, or are we just being lied to day in and day out? Players/pitchers injured throughout the entire 40 man roster and then some, and all we hear is either it is just day to day and we are just being cautious, or we didn't know he was playing hurt and was just trying to play through it. Scanning through the current roster I found 9 pitchers on one IL or the other, and that doesn't include Maeda if he is now hurt nor does it include previous trips to the IL by him and others who have since healed. Add to that 3 players currently on the IL and 5 or more (I counted 5 just at a glance) that have spent a bit of time on the IL earlier and you are talking almost half the 40 man roster either currently hurt or recently hurt. And, frankly, I don't remember being leveled with by this FO or manager as to the causes, the severity, or the time frames of these injuries. Maybe that is on a need to know basis, and the fans just don't need to know. But right now if this manager or FO told me the sun rises in the east, I would call my science teacher for confirmation before I believed it. Oh, and the above is in 124 games. And, yeah, I hear about injuries all over the league, and that also makes one wonder what is going on in the game itself. But that is a discussion for another day, I guess. In the meantime, another game, another injury, and another collective shrug and shake of the head. Berrios and Happ gone (traded), Maeda and Pineda hurt, and Shoemaker dumped for making critical remarks. Not one starting pitcher left from opening day after 124 games. And no one will pay a price. What a gig; where does one apply?

I think the 50% chance that dodecahedron was alluding to was the chance Buxton will slip on the wet grass, twist an ankle, and go on the IL (again). The Twins will see that as a sign and trade him in the off season.

I know I am headed right back to where I came in here, but I would respectfully submit that they have chosen their direct employer.......MLB. MLB then assigns them to a franchise, where they can choose to accept this assignment, or move on to another employer outside of MLB. From the day, long before any of us were born, that Congress blessed MLB with an anti trust clause for their operation it ceased to be a free market, so it doesn't really matter if you or I agree if it should be; it is what it is, and the players know it when they sign their first contract. They know they are signing a MLB contract, and are being assigned to a team in MLB. Just as you and i can leave our employer if we don't like our assignment, so can baseball players leave their employer, MLB, if they don't. As long as professional sports are granted these monopoly exemptions each one of can believe what we choose about how it should be, but that debate is moot. I have laid out how I think it should operate, and that opinion and 7 bucks will get me a cup of coffee at Starbucks. Just because I am right, doesn't mean anyone will listen.

Wrong is.......such a strong word. Actually, I have been wrong before, I admit it; as a matter of fact, I can still remember the time I was. Just a couple of things, and I will rest my fingers. In an open market, I couldn't be traded to another market without my knowledge or consent. Or when that trade occurred, my contract with that team ends and a contract with a new team begins. But it doesn't. And a truly open market would have a competitor to MLB. Saying the anti-trust exemption does not play into things, (I hope I am not misunderstanding) is not apropos either, because it is that very anti-trust exemption that allows no competition, hence no open market. So the player is worth what this market, being there is no open market, says they are worth, and that is how arbitration plays out in MLB. When an organization, say MLB, can control the number of franchises, the number of players each franchise can have on the roster, fine players, managers coaches, and even owners, that is as close to one body as business gets in my experience. And arbitration was approved by the players union just as much as it was by the owners, or it wouldn't be there. There must be advantages to the players on some level. I am just raising the level. My nickel in the meter is up, so I wish you all well.

Thanks very much for the discourse; I had a little time on my hands today and it has been fun. I grew up in the '60's and fell in love with the game. In the '70's I went to a dozen or so games a year and checked the box scores literally every day. My son grew up in the 2000's and also loves the game, but he would be the first to tell you that it is far from just being too slow, etc., that is the reason none of his circle follows baseball. The internet, for example, is basically the newspaper on your phone in this area. The articles, the box scores, the writers are all there (and then some), just as the paper was there for me. And when you look at the info, whether it be on line or in print, you want to recognize who you are looking at and reading about. And as much as that generation sits on the net continuously, they don't follow the players movement any more than my friends did in the '70's. I will just agree to disagree on that point, I guess. Now, rising in arbitration and arbitrarily rising through arbitration strikes me as a definition without distinction; either way the salaries are rising. They simply rise through an arbitration system that uses league wide agreed upon variables. When an arbitrator has to decide on which offer to go with, the players or the teams, they base it on the basis of what that player is worth around the league ( I hope I am explaining this the way I want it to come out). With Berrios, for example, he has been in the league what, 6 years? And he is considered to be our borderline #1 or solid #2 starter. What is the going rate for a #2 starter in the league for that length of time? His stats are secondary to that; he gets awarded salary based on length of time in the position and what the rest of the league considers the value of that position (on average). The longer you are in the league, the higher your salary. How that is suppression is for brighter minds than mine to decipher, I guess. The true suppression, and I admit that this part is real, is the long term guaranteed contracts the stars get which rises the "average salaries" of MLB. They go by the wayside and players get paid year to year, not well into the future. If that is bad, then I guess my proposal is bad. And the government analogy would be perfect, if the actual government hadn't given MLB an anti-trust exemption to allow them to set up the system as it is. MLB, in effect, is the board of directors and the commissioner is the CEO. They oversee the entire operation and all of its teams. Anyway, the teams being separate companies goes back to my previous post. Separate companies can do as they wish; teams can't, and we must just see it differently, I guess. The part about society changing and the economics of the game is impossible to argue with, so I tip my hat and wish you well. I love the ability to exchange the ideas, and just because I am right, doesn't mean I don't listen to others.. Please don't take that seriously.

I love your argument, and I am more open to a lot of it than people might think. (I think I opened a real Pandora's box here, haven't I?) But a couple of points I can't nod to: the teams are not separate companies with their own independence; if they were, there would be no anti-trust exemption and no draft. Teams would never have "control" over a player and they could pick the organizations they wanted to apply to anytime in their lifetimes. MLB is an organization with multiple franchises, locations, and management teams. They cannot change the rules of the game anytime they want, which they could if they were truly independent. They could sign international players without league input, negotiate union contracts within their own organization and their own players, independent of the MLBPA, etc., etc., etc. They are totally intertwined, with exact rules about everything; independent organizations are not. So, in effect, though not in a technical sense, the players work for MLB. They all follow the same rules and have the same benefits and limitations. MLB can fine them, separately from their teams; can your employers competitor do that to you? They can be traded without consent, and sent to minor league camps at managements discretion any time. I could go on, but people are already mad at me. I would also submit that arbitration does not suppress salaries, except for the top stars. Arbitration is based pretty much on the concept that if a team has kept you around long enough to qualify for arbitration, you must be of value to them and the arbitrators take that into account far more than mere stats. Guys hitting .212 with limited power are making far more than their worth in pure statistics, and I would propose this system start immediately after their first year in the majors. Salaries naturally rise in arbitration, just not as much as the players want. And when you use the term average fan, you are right; most of the fans are not you and I and the rest of the fantastic people on this site. They are average fans who, most of the time, don't even glance at the box scores or the stat sheets. They want to come to the ballpark a couple of times a year with friends or family and actually recognize the players they are watching from past visits. I get that the owners are in it for the money, and I am sure that they are the only business owners in our part of the world who are. All other business owners are only in it for the customers and the employees, not the profit. Sorry, I couldn't help myself. Of course they want more profit. But the owners are also the only ones actually putting their own money on the line here. The players never put a nickel into the team, they receive. And if the game has proven one thing eternally, the players can be replaced; they are not the game. The fans keep the game alive. They deserve better than the system as it is currently set up. Yes, I am older than the average fan, and yes I remember the days when a team never changed except through trades, retirement, and younger players taking the place of the older guys through sheer talent. And it was better to most average fans than the revolving door they see today by players making far more than the game was ever designed to give them. And, no, I do not think Berrios was worth the 5.6 mil he is making this year, No baseball player is, And borderline players are not worth 570 thousand, but that is what they have to be paid, and it is the system of which we are debating. Baseball was never intended to be a sport where players came and played a few years, then never worked again. They played the game until they couldn't anymore, at least at that level, and they moved on with their lives and got a career they could stay with. Today is not like that, I get it, but please don't try to convince me it is better today, at least for the fans. This game used to be THE game; what is it today? 2nd? 3rd? Depends on where you are, I guess, but it is not 1st, and it could have been. And I have worn out my welcome, so take care.

Not sure what you mean by more like that. Do any of those professions have an anti trust exemption? I would submit no, which is why there are so many choices within the profession. MLB is in a completely different category in that sense. Other employers in the same field would be other leagues than MLB, and that has always been and always will be an option for baseball players. But as long as they are employed by MLB.........well, I have said enough; I am already in doghouse here.

I agree completely it isn't going to happen. But I am old enough to have seen before and after free agency for long enough periods to be able to make a personal comparison, and I would submit that if we were only talking about what is good for the game, not the players OR the owners, it would be the former, not the latter. And that is solely based on what is good for the fans, without whom there is no professional ball, only sandlot. Some teams buying hired guns and the others hoping that "prospects" will pan out.......what a discrepancy in competitiveness. How that is good for the game/fans, I am not intelligent enough to understand, I guess, so that is why I am a minority of one.

I would submit it does not have to be in the same industry. I, for one, have changed industries half a dozen times in my working life. When players are done with their playing careers, how many stay in baseball as a profession, and how many move on to another type of life? If they genuinely can't take playing for a particular organization, they have the freedom to move any time their contract expires. Just as you and I. And, yes, as much as I hate the concept as well, to a business/corporation we are assets, albeit human ones. And all companies look at the investment they make in hiring, training, re-training, and so on as just that - an investment in us. And with very few exceptions, we don't buy our jobs; we are paid from the first minute we start a job, which is why it is an investment. So it is with baseball players, as I described. I am simply pointing out they are employees the same as you and I and an employer has a right to get a return on their investment. Never meant to offend.

The freedom is in the choice of the profession. No one has ever been forced to go onto a baseball diamond since its invention; every player drafted knows the drill and 99% can't wait to turn pro. And, no, it will not suppress salaries, as binding arbitration would be installed from the beginning and run just as it is today. If anything, you won't find players making the minimum or just above 3 or 4 years into their career because of arbitration. It would end, however, the 9 figure contracts, I suppose if that is what you are referring to as suppression. In your profession, whatever it is, do you have the choice to move from plant to plant, store to store, office to office, (you get the point) regardless of where your employer wants to position you? I don't, never have, and have never known anyone who has. At the end of the day, the players are employed by MLB, and are assigned a starting point, just like every employee I have ever known. The freedom players have is the same freedom you and I have; we can change employers. In this case, they would have to go somewhere other than MLB, which is not something the players want to do for the most part. As long as I work for the organization I work for now, I accept their assignment or I find another employer. Not sure why that is such a hard concept. The question I would ask in return is: why is professional sports any different than every other profession? Unless you want to turn players into independent contractors, which would mean they are like any other such folks; no benefits and a fee for service type of income. Not practical, so they stay employees. Of MLB. And so the debate goes on. Hope you take it for what it's worth.

You had me You had me until the team control idea. I know I am in a minority of one here, as I usually am, but the team that drafts a player, pays the signing bonus, grooms him along in the minors for years, and turns this raw talent into a major league player, deserves to reap the rewards for a lot longer than they do. I would propose binding arbitration throughout MLB from a players 2nd season on, but give the team more years, not less, of control over their investment; because, at the end of the day, the organization invests in the players, the players do not invest in the organization. They receive payment from the word go, little as it may seem at first, and it increases each year they prove their worth. And the fans deserve a team they can get to know and feel a part of, not hired guns going from town to town for the highest offer. The players will get their worth through arbitration and the fans will get a team they feel they know. In my extremely humble opinion, that would be the best move for the game, not moving them around even sooner.

As Rocco seems to like bullpen games, why not all 4? Give them all 40-60 pitches and see how they do. If you are going to hold a tryout camp in August, try them all at once, so as not to screw up anyone else in the rotation.

I am firmly convinced it is because it is an organizational philosophy that we baby pitchers in their development. We limit our prospects from the day they enter the organization in pitch counts and innings pitched each year. How many times have we "shut down" prospects for the year to "protect" their arms? We don't believe in stretching out a pitcher to see what he can do, so we have to pick up pitchers to fill in the innings, I guess. It serves a 2nd purpose, I suppose as well, to see if they simply do better in our organization, but first and foremost it is to baby our own pitchers.

The best post on here.

I do not say this with any malice or glee, but you will never get a stable line-up with this manager; he simply doesn't believe in it. Remember the days when the manager would be standing on the top step of the dugout, intensely watching the game as it unfolds and sees the whole field? Me too. Remember the days when the manager would sit in his chair behind the protective screen with all the computer printouts and manage the game from there? Yea, me neither. But that is what we have in our dugout; this is a computer game to him, and he moves the pieces....er, the players around as the computer dictates. Same with the lineup. Same with the RP rotation. It looks more like a youth league game where the coach has to get everyone in the game somewhere. And the diehards might enjoy the action, but the average fan doesn't get the managed chaos and tunes out. Personally, I know a lot of old time baseball fans; I do not know one at this moment who cares anymore. Not a good sign. Let us hope for better days.

Separating the diehards from the casual fan, as he says, may be fun for us, but when the casual fan doesn't have a clue who they are watching they will stop watching. And how that helps the organization is way above my pay grade. The other thing us diehards should be watching is the attendance figures; this is what may determine how much money is available in the off season. Two seasons in a row of huge losses doesn't help the payroll budget a whole lot, especially if the new CBA is more costly. So we may be seeing this crew long past this September. Learn their names.