Jump to content
Our free agent ranking is up to 100 names, and now you can filter by player position! Click here to check it out! ×
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

Otto von Ballpark

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    20,669

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    74

 Content Type 

Profiles

Minnesota Twins News, Rumors & Analysis

Minnesota Twins Videos

2026 Minnesota Twins Top Prospect Rankings

2022 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

Minnesota Twins Trade & Free Agent Rumors

Minnesota Twins Fan Guides & Resources

2023 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

The Minnesota Twins Players Project

2024 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

2025 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

2026 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by Otto von Ballpark

  1. Otto von Ballpark
    Sure, I wouldn't expect a team to commit to a marginal DH. But I also like encouraging the use of bench players, platoons, etc. and this would help do that too. I'd add an extra position player roster spot if I did this rule. And I'm in a gray area on the DH overall. I hate pitchers hitting, but I'm also not crazy about one-dimensional DHs either, so if this weakens their value, I'm not too upset. But, I'm hardly committed to the rule, it was more just a brainstorm.
  2. Otto von Ballpark
    I'm not sure. Pitcher nibbling isn't a binary ball/strike thing -- they're often just trying to throw borderline pitches. I think they'd still do that with 3-ball walks, but batters would have even more incentive to lay off those pitches. And if the optimal contact is still swinging for the fences, I'm not sure if this would produce more balls in play. It's complicated, for sure! I don't pretend to know all the answers. But it feels like tweaking the ball and automating/modifying the strike zone could help -- and both of those moves seem realistic, with fairly recent historical precedence too.
  3. Otto von Ballpark
    3 ball walk would be a pretty huge change, and I don't think it accomplishes the goal of getting more balls in play. Batters would probably take more pitches trying to work that 3-ball walk? We want batters to swing more, and swing more for contact rather than optimal HR launch angle on every pitch. I think more subtle solutions were offered upthread. Deadening the ball a little bit (with some quality control in production) would probably be a good first step, and be least affected by union interference. Automating the strike zone might help too, and the union would probably endorse that generally. Lowering the mound would probably get a little more union pushback, and sadly so does a pitch clock, but I'd be open to those too.
  4. Otto von Ballpark
    That was definitely a potential downside of my rule proposal too — the hope was that teams would change pitchers less, but some teams might just let pitchers hit more! (Pairing with an extra position player roster spot would hopefully discourage that, but it could be a gamble.)
  5. Otto von Ballpark
    Not sure how much say the players union would have — MLB seems to have some latitude to implement some rules without union. approval. And even if MLB wanted the union’s consent, I am not sure how much the very small number of current full-time DHs like Cruz would outweigh the union’s other concerns: permanently expanding the DH to the NL in some form, adding another extra roster spot, and of course the ever-present revenue/arbitration/free agency concerns. Not that I think this particular rule would get pushed ahead by MLB. But negatively affecting a small subset of players may not be enough to stop a rule change.
  6. Otto von Ballpark
    How about banning spitballs? Changing the slide rules at 2nd and home? How about the shot clock in basketball? The world and the people in it are constantly evolving; our games evolve too. There is nothing inherently wrong with rule changes as part of that evolution. (We can of course have different opinions about the substance of said rule changes. FWIW, I don’t even think I would implement this particular DH rule right now but I thought it was interesting to think about, with no baseball games going on!)
  7. Otto von Ballpark
    I'm aware of those rules, but they were on the books from olden days when players intentionally taking 30 seconds between pitches was a rare aberration. It's naive to think that umpires alone could possibly enforce that rule on every pitch of every game without their relationship with the players devolving into chaos (imagine what Josh Donaldson would do, if the umpire called another strike on him while he was questioning the previous call! ). That's why the pitch clock is necessary, in my opinion. Keep the 15 second rule, but remove it from the umpire's subjective enforcement. Then players won't be able to game the umps for time, or complain to them about punishment (well, I'm sure some will, at first -- that's why the pitch clock should start in spring training). Soon players would just get re-accustomed to playing at the pace they did before they joined MLB, the pace that even MLB was played at for most of its history.
  8. Otto von Ballpark
    Did you say this when the DH was introduced in the early 1970s? Pitchers hitting terribly wasn't just that year's prevailing wind, it was a strong trend line throughout baseball history. Nothing wrong with an attempt to address the issue through the rule book. I'm absolutely opposed to limiting the shift, and I have enjoyed plenty of other baseball trends -- the general rise of relief pitchers, the ebb and flow of the stolen base, etc. But to me, pitchers maximizing velocity and movement with modern science, and causing more boom-or-bust hitting (HR or strikeouts), is more akin to the problem of pitchers hitting -- it's not just a strategy fad, but a new reality that the game is facing. Combined with another trend line of players taking more time between pitches, and we see longer games with fewer balls in play -- to me, a drag on watchability that's probably comparable to pre-shot clock basketball at times. I don't see a problem with taking some measures to counteract that. I don't know that this DH tinkering would do much for it, but it's interesting to think about anyway. Maybe tweaks to the strike zone, the mound, or the ball would be better, as others mentioned above.
  9. Otto von Ballpark
    Well said! For the most part, the "mental preparation" of taking time between pitches should be a zero sum game. Whatever batters feel like they gain from it, they probably lose by giving the pitcher and catcher (and defense?) extra time to prepare too. Actually, batters might benefit more from a pitch clock than anyone, if pitchers velocity/command diminish a little faster with less rest between pitches. I wouldn't even mind if players needed to step out and take extra time in the most tense moments -- it's the routine of doing it for every single pitch of every single plate appearance that is tiresome (and adds up, in terms of game time).
  10. Otto von Ballpark
    TK and Leyland — combined! Okay, maybe that is just an “alternative fact.”
  11. Otto von Ballpark
    Not necessarily. The beauty of it is that it's just an idea -- if there's an circumstance that we want to avoid, we can refine the idea. In this case, we could say the pitcher technically occupies the spot in the batting order at the start of the game -- and the DH effectively pinch-hits for them the first time up. So you could use an opener, or pull a pitcher in the top of the first, or make as many pitching changes as you want before the P/DH spot comes up for the first time. Could be interesting if you don't actually have to put the DH's name in the lineup card, but instead get to insert him as a pinch hitter. So the other team doesn't know who you're starting.
  12. Otto von Ballpark
    I wouldn't say it's "purely to penalize teams for using analytics". I think the origin of the idea may have been trying to get a compromise DH rule with the NL last winter. Although I have noticed that it could also help reduce the parade of hard-throwing short relievers that seem to be helping with the strikeout boom.
  13. Otto von Ballpark
    On further reflection, Thorpe spent quite a bit of time on the MLB roster in 2020 -- 30 days, by my count. Prorated by games, that could equal 81 days MLB service time. If they use that number as the basis for determining a full pro season for 4th option purposes, then you'd think Thorpe would pass 90 days easily: 81 days MLB, plus 37 days on optional assignment. FWIW, my favorite reference for these rules, the Cub Reporter, isn't sure yet either. Here's the note on that site about the Cubs: https://www.thecubreporter.com/book/export/html/3521 I guess Adbert Alzolay of the Cubs is in a similar situation as Thorpe, in 4th option terms...
  14. Otto von Ballpark
    Close! LaRussa is older, but has managed much more recently (2011, and won a WS that year too).
  15. Otto von Ballpark
    Given the complexity of the 4th option year calculation, sites like Fangraphs usually don't reflect it until it has been announced for a particular player. MLB has prorated salary and service time this year, but to my knowledge, they haven't prorated anything in regards to minor league options. Like the 20 day minimum to count as an option year. Littell spent about 11 days on optional assignment in 2020, which would be about 30 prorated, but I don't think he burned an option this year. (Obviously not particularly relevant until we, or someone else, adds him back to a 40-man roster.) And since minor league development was essentially halted for 2020, it seems like teams might want to claim an extra option year for 2021 wherever possible. The players likely wouldn't stand for too many of them being affected -- hence 2020 counts like a normal year towards minor league free agency and the Rule 5 draft -- but there are probably only a handful of guys in special circumstances like Littell or Thorpe. It wouldn't surprise me if MLB didn't even have an agreement on this yet! But I'd expect we would know by the Rule 5 roster protection deadline in a couple weeks.
  16. Otto von Ballpark
    Not all outs are boring! Even when well-positioned, there are regularly exciting outs. Not just from Mookie Betts, but even Ji-Man Choi too. And what kid doesn't love making a sliding catch, leaping grab, or a diving stop? Those don't go away with the shift. But they do go away with strikeouts. See my post above for the numbers (World Series K rate was ~30%).
  17. Otto von Ballpark
    A screaming line drive seems pretty exciting? And the correct positioning of defenders seems like a good strategy to reward (and discuss). I know it is subjective, but what I find boring is a lot of strikeouts -- especially when combined with long game times. Roughly 30% of plate appearances in the 2020 World Series ended in a strikeout. To give you an idea of what that means, Adam Dunn struck out in only 28.6% of his career PA. So basically the entire series was just repeated Adam Dunn style plate appearances... You can further compare that rate to just 16% strikeouts from the 1991 WS. The 2020 WS featured 20% fewer balls in play per 9 innings than the 1991 WS -- but took 20% longer to complete! Not really an ideal combo...
  18. Otto von Ballpark
    I am intrigued! Although some pitchers don't mind taking their sweet time on the mound too, even without batting gloves to distract them. Hence why I'm in favor a pitch clock. Sounds unnatural, but that's the pace of the sport at every other level, as well as the pace of MLB for most of its history -- the pace of modern MLB, with batters stepping out and pitchers circling the mound after every pitch, is really the aberration. I suspect that after a few growing pains in spring training, players would become re-accustomed to it (they've all played at this quicker pace before MLB) and no one would notice the clock.
  19. Otto von Ballpark
    If "pace of play" refers to the frequency of balls in play, then broadening those offensive outcomes would be an improvement in that area too. More "action" in the same time of game.
  20. Otto von Ballpark
    Nelson Cruz is not currently employed by any MLB team, so maybe this is the time to sneak it through! I know a rule like this would hurt guys like Cruz -- but how many guys like Cruz are there? Very few? I'm sure the MLBPA would stick up for his interests to some degree, but hypothetically, if this rule came with an extra roster spot or some other concession that players wanted, I'm not sure the union would hold out too much. (Of course, I don't know that MLB would want it enough to give that concession to players either!)
  21. Otto von Ballpark
    First off, this isn't about shortening the game by 3 minutes, as I explained above. Secondly, baseball is a man-made game, not something handed down on stone tablets from a higher power. By its very nature, it is subjective, and sometimes its "natural evolution" makes for a less interesting game. Like, in its original "natural state", pitchers were more or less just like the other 8 fielders. But quickly they became specialized and their hitting prowess deteriorated. Now they've become even more specialized, to the point where offensive outcomes tilt toward strikeouts more than ever before. Other sports have seen this too -- the shot clock, changing rules when teams realized intentional penalties and fouls could be advantageous, etc. There's nothing wrong with opposing a potential rule change -- we all do -- but I would recommend to keep criticism focused on the rule change itself, and not simply sanctify the existing rule set, whatever it is.
  22. Otto von Ballpark
    I know this proposal -- remove the DH when a pitcher is removed -- seems weird and complicated compared to the current AL rule, but there is some simple elegance to it too! A couple ways to think of it: - The DH is just a PH who gets to stay in the game, only for the current P. (Even the letter abbreviations fit together ) - Instead of being designated for the whole team, the DH is just designated as hitting for the current pitcher.
  23. Otto von Ballpark
    I think I've felt this way at times, but gosh, pitchers are so, so awful at hitting in MLB. There's the occasional sac bunt that seems okay, but the vast majority of plate appearances just aren't competitive in any way, shape, or form. I know that pitchers used to be treated like any other position on the field, but it's impossible to ignore how they developed into a specialized separate category. Plus, the DH isn't some new-fangled gimmick anymore. It's in the minors, colleges, etc. I guess Japan's Central League is still a holdout like the NL, but the genie is out of the bottle. The DH isn't going away. Best case for traditionalists like yourself, if there is room to compromise to get it adopted by the NL, maybe you can get some concessions that lower the impact of the DH, and incentivize teams to use more well-rounded players in that roster spot (and not round like physical shape ). Edit to add: if you want to incentivize teams to have more well-rounded players (hitters who can also play the field), you could even allow teams to shift their DH to the field when the pitcher is removed. So Donaldson could start at DH, then shift to 3B when the starting pitcher is removed in the 6th inning or whenever, with the new pitcher/DH taking the spot of the removed Gonzalez or Adrianza.
  24. Otto von Ballpark
    I'm open to those ideas too! And I think they might be reasonably achievable: 1. As noted by another poster, maybe a fully automated strike zone would effectively be a larger zone. This seems like a realistic goal. 2. There is at least precedent for lowering the mound height, although I am sure pitchers would object. 3. Explicitly changing the baseballs would probably cause a lot of controversy -- but like the strike zone point above, standardizing the quality control around such a ball would probably be welcomed after the ball issues of the past few years, and might achieve the same objective.
  25. Otto von Ballpark
    Sorry, I didn't mean to mislead. I edited the thread title for a little bit of clarity, maybe? As far as I know, there is no ongoing discussion about this. Jayson Stark called it "one possible wrinkle that has been kicked around in behind-the-scene brainstorming sessions" last winter, but that's about the extent of it. https://theathletic.com/1521278/2020/01/10/stark-realignment-robots-and-the-universal-dh-what-baseball-will-be-like-at-the-end-of-this-decade/ FWIW, my proposal is basically the same as the tweeted one, except I add the wrinkle that you can PH for the pitcher and that PH can stay in the lineup as long as that pitcher stays in the game. So you could still do openers, and have long relievers, etc. Although when you have a succession of 1-inning relievers, like at the end of many games today, that wouldn't matter much. (For all we know, this could have been part of the "wrinkle" last winter that simply wasn't relayed to or reported by Stark.)
×
×
  • Create New...