Otto von Ballpark

Cutting commercials is hardly the "only way" to speed up the game, and likely not even the most significant way either. The most prominent is likely the pitch clock -- which, to the extent that it would be a change, it would really just be enforcing rules that are already on the books. But in general, I agree that the 3 batter minimum won't do too much to speed up the game, just like the automatic intentional walk and mound visit limits before it. I'd rather see how much the pace / time of game could be improved with a pitch clock before I would have tinkered with this other stuff.

Well, Francona finished a clear 6th in this balloting, and his team finished 6th in the AL. Seems appropriate? And Cleveland probably faced greater injury/patchwork challenges than the Twins.

I don't know if the Twins were really "beset by injuries", at least not relative to other clubs -- and not before many of those 101 wins had already been tallied. And the pitching staff wasn't that patchwork -- after all, we got 146 starts out of our original starting 5 (and most of the remaining 16 starts were again late in the season). By comparison, Cleveland only got 97 starts from their original starting 5 in 2019. He did seem to do well with the pen, which is a big consideration for a modern manager, although some of the pen's "patchwork" nature was by design (i.e. Littell on the Rochester shuttle) and something that most modern managers deal with. But to his credit, he definitely got good, and sometimes unexpected, performance levels out of the group.

If you watch carefully, it's clear that the bongo player is signaling something to the singer -- perhaps about the arrival of the floating motorcycle lady? In any case, this should prevent Marc Bolan from ever getting into the Rock 'n' Roll Hall of Fame.

Alonso was pretty good, but so was Soroka who got the other 1st place vote, and frankly so was Tatis Jr. who finished 3rd: bWAR / fWAR Alonso: 5.0 / 4.8 Soroka: 5.6 / 4.0 Tatis Jr.: 4.2 / 3.6 (in only 84 games)

Again, I'm not "standing my ground" on local TV ratings. Forget I brought up local ratings, if you want. ALL TV ratings are in decline (except the Super Bowl, I guess?). Entertainment consumption is changing so much every day, the Nielsens are irrelevant. What are the new indicators that networks and advertisers look at? Social media engagement? Online ad reinforcement? I'm not exactly sure, but I am sure they are looking at those indicators and they're not too alarmed, judging by their actions. This came up in another thread recently, but you *can't* compare it other sports, at least not in everything. It's a really different game, in structure and season. And while that hinders it on some fronts -- championship ratings, superstar recognition -- it benefits it on others: daily results to follow, ballparks as gathering spaces and not just TV stages, local ratings, summer, etc. That's not to say baseball should be complacent, of course, but I don't really think they are, relative to the other major sports -- it's just different. If we want to continue this discussion, I'd ask: what's football doing, above baseball, that's not just inherently structural (i.e. Super Bowl parties), to better capture the young folks and ensure its future? Basketball? Hockey? I'm sure we'll continue to see tweaks here and there -- ebb and flow of ticket/concession deals, pace-of-play adjustments, juiced-vs-dead-ball, etc. -- and we've all got our favorites among them. But that's mostly just working around the margins, just like the other sports will continue to do. If the economic and entertainment landscape shifts enough to pose serious problems for major league baseball, it's going to post serious problems for the other major pro sports too.

Wasn't trying to pick on you specifically! It's a common sentiment -- tons of posts/articles/headlines about World Series ratings, every year. I just think it tends to exaggerate the problem.

I know, but why tell that to me? Why not tell it to the folks who annually bemoan the low World Series ratings? I was just countering them, that it's not all doom and gloom in the MLB media world like they so often paint. Sure, and "attendance growth" as a general concept isn't sustainable anyway. There's a finite limit to how many people can attend. I was just pointing out that the 2000-2017 league attendance numbers are probably not the gold standard against which to judge present and future attendance figures. It's quite possible the current level, or even a few percent less, is still part of a fully healthy sport.

Yes, those are the big questions. If he's still in reasonable health, I expect there will be no shortage of teams willing to give him a chance to find out next year, and I wouldn't mind the Twins being among them -- as long as our offseason strategy is not overly-reliant on him!

Salazar pitched in NY in the playoffs once, as a reliever in 2017 -- came in with the bases loaded and escaped the jam, and got 5 outs of his own too. Did allow a runner on his own throwing error, which a subsequent reliever allowed to score.

I don't doubt that costs are rising, but as an aside, I wish the Fan Cost Index was different. They still include the cost of two caps at the stadium and two printed programs, for a family of four. But those things are less likely to be purchased at the stadium than ever before, representing a (modest) cost savings for modern fans that's not reflected in the FCI. Probably doesn't shift the numbers too much, but it just annoys me.

Local TV ratings are up -- I read local MLB broadcasts were ranked #1 in prime time in 24 out of 25 markets. I'm not sure national TV ratings are "more critical" for the sport. Also, Twins attendance was up. If you're talking league attendance, you have to factor in the lack of new stadiums recently -- only 1 new stadium in the last 7 seasons, compared to an average of 1 new park per season from 1980-2012. (And even the new stadiums now are probably seen as less of an "upgrade" over the ones they are replacing and providing less of a boost.) That's not to say that MLB shouldn't work to improve/grow/etc., but the numbers don't suggest any critical imperatives right now.

Unless you think he should have never been a starter, I can't see any argument that Cleveland over-used Salazar. His only significant professional IP jump was in MLB debut season, going from 88 to 149. Since then: 170, 191, 140, 121, 0, 24.

FWIW, I've read reports that the delay in calls was much more like 2 seconds than 4 seconds. Which is much, much better -- although could still stand to be improved before it comes to MLB.

I think the Cubs pitching *might* be suspect enough the Reds don't necessarily have to "wait" until 2021/22, though. But I also endorse trading closers, especially with fairly high salaries, if a team can get good value. I just wouldn't necessarily salary dump him / flip him for spare parts, as that probably hurts 2020 without really helping 2021/22. What kind of package did you have in mind?

I was just joking... I hope?

That's fair, although they weren't necessarily "buy low" kind of deals. (Perhaps they should have been, given what Archer and Bauer have done after their trades, or what Gray did in NY!)

I might agree, but it's not clear the Reds would agree. (And to be fair, they're far from hopeless too -- Suarez, Gray, Castillo, Bauer, Senzel, etc.) If someone thinks they are "buying low" on him now, as you say, I'm not sure this matters. A good first half in 2020 could easily maintain or increase his trade value leading up to next year's deadline (or, like I said, help support a Reds return to contention).

Not quite yet -- they may just be negotiating a better rate for his services!

Why do you think the Reds would sell low on him now? They seem to have bought for 2019 and 2020 already (Gray, Bauer). They've got other good, young, cheap pieces, and Iglesias's contract doesn't suggest a problem for the Reds finances. I'd guess they are more than happy to enter 2020 with him and hope he rebounds, either helping fuel a return to contention or restoring some of his former luster for a deadline trade.

Suspicious? Like, collusion? I'm not sure if Odorizzi has enough of a track record to be a bellwether for collusion.

Those were arb buyout extensions, so I don't think the "approach" is really similar to what Nick is proposing for FA contracts. (And FWIW, Torii's 5 years in LA were more better by bWAR than his best 5 years in Minnesota.)

Yes, claims are blind. I didn't mean to suggest otherwise -- I was just pointing out that the Mets may be more likely to waive Gonsalves again (and sneak past 10 teams) in the near future, as compared to an internal waiver candidate (who would have to run the gauntlet of 29 teams). We'll just have to wait and see. But in general, waiver claims don't mean much in terms of estimating trade interest. The Dodgers claimed JT Chargois from us, but it seems doubtful they'd ever have given the Twins value to acquire him. I'd argue it was even more the case for Gonsalves circa July 2019, as he was injured at the time (and perhaps significantly, as he had only thrown 2 innings all season by that point). So no, I don't think he would have brought any meaningful value to a July trade package.

I am sure there are some situations where teams get a chance to match, but I suspect a lot of these bids are solicited "blind" so to speak -- players don't want teams to simply hold back so they can pay X + 1 to beat another offer (they want even higher offers than that), and teams don't want to be sucked into an ever-escalating bidding war -- especially in a league without a cap on individual player salaries. We see a similar effect in trades negotiations too -- generally teams don't get a chance to match an offer. So the Twins could take some control of the situation with aggressive offers, particularly early ones. But it's still no guarantee, and the premium needed to land, say, Strasburg, might be a worse allocation of funds than waiting to land Wheeler plus Bumgarner plus Odorizzi or whatever. (But missing out, or only getting Odorizzi, might be the worst outcome of all, so they should be prepared to make some premium offers too, for the guys they really want.)

I think "interest on a waiver claim" doesn't necessarily imply any meaningful interest in trade. It's still possible the Mets turn around and try to put Gonsalves on waivers themselves this winter -- they already know 19 teams passed on him, so it's just a matter of sneaking him past the remaining 10.