mikelink45

Load up the rack with all the arms we can find and let them compete! I am not particularly interested in Gausman, but I do know that the Reds play in a home run heaven so his HR rate is inflated. I do not want to remove Graterol, Dobnak, Smeltzer...from the competition, I want them to win it, but I want them to win it by beating out other good pitchers, not because they are the only arms left.

DocBauer nailed it. First I discount if not throw out all these defensive metrics. They do not measure if a person is positioned right, if the shift is on, and other nuances. Offense is measured quite well even if not perfect, but throw out the defensive WAR and other mind games. Arraez was moved all over last year, often to positions he had not played and he still kept his batting focus. Let him play one position and we will see a rise in his reputation. Polanco's arm is probably an issue that will not go away - is he worth moving? I do not know. I do know that Sano should be at 3B for the foreseeable future. One note in defense - if Cron had a season of statistical whiplash and his injury caused us to let him go, how do we look at the continual injury history and projections for Buxton?

As a biologist who teaches river ecology I love it! Come on mussels! Give my little little clammy friends some love.

Interested in Treinen, not interested in anyone else. Either the potential for a real upgrade or don't waste time and money.

I like pushing Kiriloff - I do not believe that every player has to go through AAA - especially if they are true sensations like we have believed. I also expect Lewis to bust his way to the majors mid season.

611 ABs, 211 Pct, 725 OPS - I am not interested in Bird. He has batted below 200 for three years in a row - I consider him a bust

It happens when I go from my phone - someday I will learn

I would take Chapman and I have not been in favor of moving Sano. I just think that if (BIG IF) Chapman could be had, we should make the move. Buxton is on a sell low curve right now, but teams still see his potential. I move down the prospect list from Kiriloff and Balazovic - Raley, Rooker, and a lower level pitching prospect plus Buxton.

Help me I think I just reposted the same comment multiple times.

I am not surprised about Cron, but I'm also not on the bandwagon that it's such a great idea. I liked him. An injury doesn't mean he wasn't worth what we hoped. Hildenberger ran out of magic. A gimmick pitcher his limited.

Is there any better season for sports fans? Everyone we dream about is willing to sign with our team for the contract about we are willing to give them. Every rookie it's ready to fulfil all promise, a potential we saw last year it's guaranteed 3 fulfilled this year. There are no failures, only successes and we move into the next season with full optimism. I just had my birthday yesterday and I know the next year is bound to be even greater than this year.

Love the speculation and thought provoking article. I just do not know if Wheeler is as good as team offers look, but at 28 his next four years could be his best and if so, sign him up! What are we saving our money for? Grabbing Bumgartner would be my second choice.

Judging the fielders in the age of shifts is a difficult challenge. As I read about Sano – should he move to 1B I am constantly trying to evaluate what the qualities are for those two bases. 3B – quick reflexes (believe me the ball gets to 3B quick) and a strong arm. 1B – reflexes of a different type, not grabbing missiles, but rather erratic throws, short hops, flexibility to stretch and grab, and still a range for fielding the position. 1B have that strange responsibility for “covering the base” when a runner is on, anticipating throws from C and P. It is a very challenging and underestimated fielding position. For generations we have put the big lunking Ted Klusewski or Dick Stuart at the base and just said throw at the body and he will be okay. Keith Hernandez and Joe Mauer were fielding examples at 1B, but Brooks Robinson, Nolen Arenando would not be mistaken for those 1B rolemodels because they are the gold standard for 3B. Sano is not quick but seems to have the reflexes for third and the arm to respond when balls bounce off his body. What now we shift and suddenly he is a SS – does anyone see him as a SS? He moves towards the “hole” and he has more area to cover. Now we need foot speed as well as reflex. The SS and 2B positions have now overlapped and the challenge for the players today is to make the turn at second base coming from so many new angles. Of course, in the launch angle age there is a major decrease in DPs. We used to judge these positions by range and athleticism – thing Ozzie and the 2B/SS was a tandem – Groat and Mazeroski, Fox and Aparicio, Grich and Belanger, Whitaker and Trammell (why is Trammel in the HOF and not Whitaker?), Robinson and Reese, and Morgan and Concepcion are examples. We had Versalles and Bernie Allen… In 2015 Dave Schoenfield wrote – “In 2015, the MLB average was 7.8 strikeouts per nine innings and 2.9 walks; in 1955, it was 4.4 and 3.7. That means more balls in play and more baserunners in 1955, although even with fewer home runs per team in 1955, the overall number of double plays has remained steady: 121 per team in 1955, 125 per team in 2015.” Fascinating stats show that the GDP leader stats do not really change from year to year. Ernie Lombardi (Mr Slow feet) 26 in 1933, Manny Machado 24 - 2019. https://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/GIDP_leagues.shtml What has changed is the fact that 2B now a hybrid SS. Is Polanco a good SS in the old system? How does he and Arraez fit the new paradigm. Do we need to consider changing the names of the positions? Are players really interchangeable at these positions?

Some really nice points - why don't more catchers have Tommy John surgery? I would not want to be a catcher.

The question this raises is - who is now ready to push a top quality player out? Is Lewis a reason to trade Polanco? Is Larnach, Kiriloff, Raley the impetus for trading Rosario - Kepler? Give me the next scenario.

Very nice = thanks

When the Twins Bombas broke the MLB record for HRs there was elation - and rightfully so. It is fun to see records fall and even to have some marks like 56 straight game hitting streaks seem to be impossible to break. When I was young (1950s) I got hooked on baseball and my little transistor radio would sneak under my pillow at night so I could follow the Milwaukee Braves. I loved the way baseball connected me with my dad and Grandpa, the way it related to the old town teams my relatives played on and the symmetry of the game. It just seemed to be one of the constants in a buzzing world of change. BUT........... There is the juiced ball which periodically makes an appearance when baseball seems to need a boost or the juiced players like Sosa and McGwire who also came at a time when baseball needed a boost. Of course they cheated, just like the league itself and I would not put them in the HOF except in an exhibit - the Flawed Savoirs of Baseball. So does the Bombas record mean as much as the HR record because of the ball? Or the record of 131 triples by the 1894 Phillies when the ball was bruised, cut, stained, softened? The record of 191 triples by Paul Waner hasn't been challenged since Musial retired with 177 in 1963 and no one remembers that amazing number by Stan as much as his hits 3630 and Home-runs 475. Doubles are still important, but we seldom talk about - Stan Musial was also third all time with 725 doubles! Why is he so often forgotten in talks about the greats? Tris Speaker had 792 and Pete (tarnished) Rose had the second most - 746. Earl Webb is hardly a name that gets much air time, but he has the single season record of 67. The closest for a modern player is (HOF ballet) Todd Helton with 59 in 2000. I loved the symmetry of 60, but I have no relationship to 73. I guess Mark McGwire caught my fancy with 70 because of the number, not the player. 61 had the same blah position as 73, but the year and the story are so compelling - Maris losing his hair versus Bond growing a bigger head. Then there was the fair-haired boy Mantle who everyone rooted for and the brooding boy from the plains that nobody in NY could understand - and he won. I can hardly get started on pitching. My hero was Warren Spahn - despite missing multiple years in the military he still won 20+ games 13 times (don't even start on the wins don't mean anything) and he won 363 games in the era when Maris went for 60 and Mantle did multiple 50 HRs. He also finished his games - what a concept. The pitchers ahead of him played in the deadball era - Johnson, Matthewson, Young, Gavin or the emerging modern era - Alexander. I know we cannot compare Radbourne's 48 and 59 win back to back seasons. They had 2 man rotations back then, but then we had four man rotations when Spahn pitched, then 5 man rotations and now we have bullpen games! So how do the records compare? Spitballs, batters asking for high or low pitches in 1867 - 1887, scuffed balls, cut balls - of course Perry belongs in the hall, he should be in the spitter wing - it was legal until 1920. The pitchers had to throw underhand until 1883 - and, no this was not softball. So how do we measure our 5 inning starters, or the (yuck) openers? Batters cork their bats - sometimes with hilarious results , and for the seasons from 1885 - 1893 batters were allowed to flatten one side of their bats. In 1887 11 players hit 400! Of course that was the only year that walks counted as hits. With the OPS emphasis maybe we should go back to that. Up to 1864 balls caught on one bounce were outs and until 1883 foul balls caught on one bounce were outs. Want a walk-off, you get a single, or double. It depends on how many bases you needed to score the winning run until 1920. No walk-off home runs. Of course you could make up the difference with a ground rule double that counted as a HR until 1930 - MLB was still chasing HR records. Then Babe Ruth showed them he did not need them, he had no ground rules in his 60. So this long winded rant is because I have now lost faith in baseball records. All the changes that I list pale in comparison to the long history of excluding black players. Take out Brock and Gibson and what were the Cardinals in 1967? Remove Aaron from the Braves, Clemente from the Pirates, Mays from the Giants. We have added teams and diluted the talent, we have added 8 games to the season and not accounted for it in the record book. We think we are so statistically smart that we no longer need SBs, but what would the Dodgers have done with Wills on the bases, of the Yankees and A's without the disruption of Rickey? By the way, the unwritten rules are not part of this discussion, because I find them so stupid. There have been greenies, alcohol, and PEDs and the records go on and on. We have added a short season of playoff games and continue to compare the current records with the past for post season statistics. Imagine what Yogi Berra would have had in his ten World Series years if he could have added at least 7 more games to each seasons end. We lament the loss of a large percentage of young fans and I keep thinking that two things moved many of us - the minor leagues (which are now contracting) and baseball cards with what seemed like simple and biblical numbers. It is also the ability to recognize the player - NFL has an issue because they could swap numbers on the players and from the stands no one will know. It is like watching knights joust - without unique armor they were just riding robots. This is the appeal of soccer - same number of players and you can see their faces! Hockey has the same problem as NFL, compounded with the fact that we cannot see that little puck and they change lines so often no one who is not a fanatic really knows who is in the game. The NBA has stolen the face recognition - fewer players, lots of close ups, an emphasis on personalities. This is what the MLB had, but they missed the connection and let it slip. So I will keep watching and thinking about the game because I am too old to switch now so I will quit - I am sure I tweaked many of your ideas so take a shot at educating a 74 year old fan.