Trov

Part will depend on how the rules of expanded roster and taxi squad will work. I could be wrong, but believe I heard roster will go to 30 players, so an extra 4, and there will be a large taxi squad of 60 players that can be moved onto roster. I am not clear as to how those moves will be affected for time wise. So first, the 60 is well beyond the 40 man roster, so will you first need to move them onto 40 man? Will it be an "option" so limited to only players with them left, or a DL trip required of 15 days? Will there be many liberal moves allowed? This will have great affect on who will be on roster and how it will be used each game. The more liberal pitchers can be moved in and out will lead to more use of them and swapping around, much like they have in past couple years but this could be even more often. Regardless, I think shorter leashes for sure on pitchers due to importance of each game. I would expect much more of the hot hand for hitters taking over. Meaning if any player has a slump I would expect others to replace them quickly and if a player, regardless of experience is hot they will stay in line up. Once they slump they will be back out. Many times we see a guy with a quick start in first month and tail off, but they keep getting time because they were hot before. I do not expect that too much. The reverse is true that a guy used to do well in past seasons so they get extend look early in season to turn it around. We do not have that much time to make that happen now.

The outliers I was more referring to was the more modern guys like Ryan, who had the velocity that is sought now a days and still threw a ton. I was also more referring them to the outliers as they could handle the load that was asked of them, but you do not take too much note of the guys that could not, because they could not. However, in the recent 30 years we tend to try to point to instances were an injury altered a career. Also, prior to tommy john, when someone tore their UCL career over and we never would hear much about work load ect. So working off of a skewed data set will skew it. I agree each team had work horses that would pitch much more than what players now are asked. Back then velocity was much lower too. I remember even as not so long as early 2000's when 95 was considered high velocity and the very very rare would throw much more than that. Now, 95 is close to league average. 90 was the goal and if you could top that great, if not you better have movement. I totally support increasing innings pitched and getting pitchers ready for that. I was never a fan of holding guys to strict pitch and inning counts in minors, only to then expect they can throw 100 plus pitches and many innings in MLB. They never were asked to do that before, so why would they be successful now? I believe many pitchers could throw more per start and more innings per season. Not every pitch is equal wear and tear on arm. So where along the line someone said pitch count is what leads to injuries, maybe they had the data to back it up or not. So teams decided they did not want big injuries to their star pitchers and were willing to let them pitch less per start to increase chance they would start more. They balance the hope of more starts to reduce risk of major injury. You cannot weed out the ones that will have the injuries as well, and you do not get the full possible player either. I am a fan of going back to 9 inning starts and let them throw over 100 pitches. Now though teams look less at pitches but times through order regardless of pitches.

The reason for 5 rounds is MLB is losing a ton of money every day they do not have games. They have 0 money coming in right now, save a few apparel items that are being sold most likely. I read it is expected as a whole, MLB is losing about 74 million a day no games are happening. So dropping the draft to 5 rounds allows teams to save on costs of signing bonuses of players. Also, with no minor leagues happening these guys will have no where to go if they had full draft. Even if you move to 10 that is still paying 10 guys signing bonus to most likely go to FL to work out at team facilities, where they already will have many of lower level prospects doing the same.

I agree with this idea. With the Taxi idea and 30 man rosters you know the Twins will make full use of moving pitchers in and out of roster spots as much as they can. In a normal season under normal rules of optioning or DL use now back to 15 days, it would not be possible. However, in this year using two starters in a normal day would be useful. The biggest issue will be getting the pitchers on board and accepting it. If you can get starter to go 4 innings two trips through order, and use next starter 4 innings 2 trips through order, that gets you into 9th where you should have nearly whole bullpen ready. I would stagger the use of this though. Meaning I would not go berrios and hill back to back but split a duel starter between the two. That should hopefully give rest of pen more of break and less likely the need for other pen guys going back to back days. I would also look to mix up type of pitchers and if possible mix the side thrown from. This will make it harder for teams to set lineup for the pitcher. In the grouping listed, I would swap Thorpe and Pineda most likely. That would change up right lefty combo for two starts and velo versus movement as well. I like the Odo dobnik mix as one is fly ball pitcher other is ground ball pitcher. So two trips looking at more up in zone stuff to then face a heavy sinker next. Could lead to some adjustments.

Just to play devils advocate, it is what I do, these guys were the outliers of the spectrum of pitching. Ryan one of the most, as he had crazy high velocity for his time. So to point to a few guys that manged to not follow the norm of the bell curve is not the most effective way to point to pitch count having a counter to intended. That being said, clearly some can be outside the norm and pitch more, but how do you figure that out without doing it? Then if you are wrong you risk injuries. I believe the increased velocity is what leads to more injuries than anything these days. I am no doctor, have taken some classes on sports injuries, but I strongly believe that throwing as hard as most do now a days will lead to more injuries because of the strain in the elbow. I remember watching Zumia tear the tip of his elbow right off from how hard he threw, never to return again. I strongly believe in the past the great pitchers would pitch well, hitting spots and working around the zone keeping hitters off balanced, changing speeds even with their fastball. This would mean they were not throwing 100% all game long. Now I think pitchers have to throw 100% while out there because if they lose some velo they lose prospect rankings and teams look at that for contract and expected regression. If velo drops then it is assumed their effectiveness will drop so money drops. Players know this so they throw max all the time. I also feel many pitchers growing up are not taught that legs drive velocity more than arms. The arm is just what releases the ball, but the legs and core is what gets you the kinetic energy to run through the arm. It seems to many people, who have not studied it, counter to logic. However, the science is there that building up leg and core strength will help so much more than arm and elbow strength. This needs to get passed down to little league coaches and up to high school coaches. Teach the kids young how to use legs and core better. This will reduce the stress on the arm over all the years.

The portion about pitching was interesting to me, and sparked in my mind the debate on starting pitching these days, and what value they seriously add to a team, versus other players. I have always been pitching and defense guy for winning, and still believe that. However, I also feel the value of a starting pitcher has dropped a ton and they are not worth nearly as much in terms of contracts as they used to. If you go back to the era of 3 man rotations where pitchers would go 9 innings most games they had huge value if you had a top pitcher. As you go to 4 man rotations with still 9 innings each pitcher lost a little value but still have value. Then as you go to 5 man rotations with some 9 inning games and "work horse" pitchers going over 200 innings less value. Now, you have 5 man rotations, some with only a few "starters" and they will go 6 innings, 7 if lucky and the 9 inning game is something to write about. This shifts great value to bullpens from the starters. I am not trying to argue a top starter is not important and when you can get one they have great value as they will take work load from bullpen for other games. However, I think it has greatly skewed the pitching spectrum. I think you have top 10% starters that can go 7 plus innings a start and dominate giving your team a chance to win, but still only impacting a small portion of a team overall season. If no extra inning or rain shorted games, there will be 1,458 innings in a normal season. Last season only 15 pitchers got to 200 innings with top being 223. Texas and Houston had 2 such pitchers which means 17 teams did not even have 1 pitcher to throw 200 innings. 200 innings means 1/7 of a season, about. However, of the top 5 paid players in 2019 4 were pitchers. They impacted about 1/7 of the whole season for their team but got paid much more than their impact would suggest. Unless, you look at impact in playoffs. When you look at how a dominate pitcher can shut down teams and impact a very large amount of the playoffs, specifically when you reduce rotation to 3 or 4 depending on off days. Then they can have a huge impact. So even though, they have lower impact in a full 162 game season, their impact adjusts for playoffs to be much larger impact. Then they earn their money. Also, as stated the top tier starters will have much larger impact. However, the mid-level starters that used to get paid large amounts for basically replacement ball, they should start to see money drop and more investment in either top pitchers, or top pen guys that are eating the innings the starters used to do.

First, following the thought, Nationals would not have made the playoffs and would not have won the WS had the first 82 games record been the deciding factor. However, the flaw in this is knowing a season ends at 82 verses playing another 80 makes teams play games different. One, you would be less likely to try and stick through a prolonged slump of someone. Also, managers will make different in game decisions to win that particular game, as now it has more important roll. Instead saying I can give this game up to give my better players some rest, there would be more we need to win situation. How different were the schedules at the time of the 82 game compared to others. Yes, timing of when you play teams can be a huge thing, based on injuries, hot streaks, ect. But, when in a 162 game season Twins may have played a tougher first half schedule than whoever was ahead of them, but in a 82 game schedule each team will have same schedule. Think about it, some years the Twins have played several non division teams in the first half and will be done with them, while they may not have played others. So for example, say Twins played Yankees, Boston, Oakland, Houston in the first half and finished with them, while Cleveland played Baltimore, Seattle, Rangers, Toronto, and then you stop at 82 games, there are much better chance Cleveland will have easier schedule for first half, but much harder second half, where Twins would have reverse. After a 162 game schedule they will have played each team nearly equal amount of times for much more balanced strength of schedule. So as it is nice to look at how things could have been different, there are many flaws to just look at record at 82 games, when a team knew 80 more were going to be played. If you wanted to take the time to set a strength of schedule modifier to even that out, it would be a little better, but still does not factor in how decisions would have changed in a known shorter season.

I think if there is a deadline, it needs to be at least a month prior to end of season. If you allowed trades and playoff rosters to be set super late, I could see teams like dodgers and Yankees just trading for high priced talent right before playoffs, add little salary to luxury tax, and just throw in "cash" in the trade to the team. If they have to take longer cost that goes to luxury tax they would be less likely to do this. I really do not expect much in terms of trades, except for players teams know they cannot resign. If they have at least 1 year of team control I doubt they get moved and things will happen in off-season. With the short season some teams that start off hot, like Detroit last year will be in it, where teams that started off slow, like Nationals, eventual champs, would be out of it. If they have expiring contracts they would be willing to sell off, but I doubt any team will assume the short season is a sign of what the next year brings. I wonder, how this short season will help Berrios, someone who had faded in September over his career, is it the long season, or the weather?

I think the depth the Twins have, under the current thought of schedule, will lead to good things for Twins. It seems like they will allow teams to swap players a lot with out having to "option" them. Having several potential starters will allow for giving greater rest for starters that need it, like Hill may. I want Hill for playoffs more than regular season, assuming we will make it. He is proven to be a good playoff pitcher, only Dodger to pitch well at Houston during WS, because he was smart enough to change signs every 7th pitch, I heard reported. Dude is the vet that gets it done when he has too. He will even punch a dude out during the off season if he has too.

Exactly true. MLB is a perfect look into an unregulated capitalism, or free market economy. Yes, it is only a small sample size, but shows what a free market can look like. Specifically, when there is a monopoly. MLB has a monopoly on baseball, basically in the whole world. Sure, you can play in other leagues if you are not up to snuff for MLB, but MLB is the top league with the most money, not that Japan is much to sneeze at. However, as the players argue about not having a cap, it also means there is no floor. What keeps the game going is that both sides want to make money, and they both want to make the most they can. Both need to balance the risk of making nothing though by asking for too much. It is almost like a teeter totter, as long as both sides stay in the air they both make money and the game is played, but once one try to get too greedy then the game is not played and no one has fun or makes money. So when a player feels he is underpaid, what is he recourse, hold out, but there are hundreds of players willing to take his place, and the teams have them in their system. Of course the more you separate yourself from the pack, with higher WAR the more money you can command. If you are close to replacement level, why should a team pay you more than the league minimum that a replacement level player may be worth? During the two off-seasons mentioned, prior to the huge signings of last couple seasons. I was expecting the players to start to look at change in CBA. Still think they will, but my guess to get it they will need to give up on salary cap. Gone are the days of 5 plus year deals for 30 plus year old players. Too many teams have learned the hard way there is too much risk in those contracts. If you are in 27 age range at free agency, you are considered possible HOF player and so teams willing to take that 7 to 10 year contract risk, because one you get more years of good play, and assume they regress like normal HOF path players they will still be worth something late in deal. To get better FA deals, players need to get to be a FA before the age of 30 now. Only way to do that is to reduce the amount of years they remain under team control. They can get this, but I bet it will require salary cap. Salary caps are not as bad as players would think, because they also always come with a floor. What that means is no more just loading up on low cost replacement players while you "rebuild" knowing you cannot compete but you keep your stars in the minors while letting players you will one day cut loose when your stars are hitting prime at age 27 and still making third year minimum. The salary floor would help those age 31 to 35 players the most. It would also allow younger players to earn more quickly. For easy math, lets say cap is 200 mil and floor is 100 mil. Only 3 teams over 200 mil, and 8 under 100 mil some as low as 56 mil and a couple right around 100. Without knowing the revenue breakdown that would set up the cap, this cap would greatly increase the amount the players would get paid as a whole. It would maybe reduce what an individual gets paid, but would raise the player pay overall. Of course this is very simple break down, and local tv contracts really drive what local teams can earn, but the luxury tax basically is a salary cap at this point anyways. Why not get the floor? Teams like Oakland and the Rays pay very little for the wins they get, because they spend smarter not bigger. Both under 100 mil payrolls, rays as low as 65 mil. They get revenue sharing from the luxury taxes paid by the likes of LA and New York. Do they reinvest into payroll, doubt they do, because they can win without spending. Imagine if they had to spend 35 mil more, assuming they could afford it.

The title of article suggests the Twins do better than other teams, but upon reading the article, I would argue every team has found success in late rounds over the years. Just as every team has had many flops of first round picks. Baseball is such a hard sport to really know who will do well or fail at the next level. Also, some late round picks were there for different reasons. Sign-ability, low exposure, or bias of region is to name a few. There are many other reasons I am sure. Some players fall because they are expected to go football, or college, but drafting team gets them the magic number that is needed to sign. I read Trout dropped because prior years a player from his area turned into complete flop so teams shyed away thinking good players from there numbers were inflated from low talent level. Back in the day, players from cold weather HS got little exposure and scouts would hardly go there. Many of the guys listed were known for their mental game and work ethic, something that is hard to determine when looking at them play 1 game, or some tape. As Yogi once said baseball is 90% mental. I will not finish the rest of the quote but he is correct it is a mental game and watching tape of the physical aspects is hard to see their mental aspects.

Eddie is not a guy to use normal hitting approach comparisons with. He is not typical hitter. For the people that want him to be and site his chase rate and point out times he looks just ugly, fail to point out the times he crushes HR on pitches no one would swing at. He is who he is. He hits in the middle because he excels when runners are on compared to some. He has power. He wants the spot light. He believes he is the best there is and he can hit anything and make every throw. Sometimes he does, sometimes he does not. He will not change. Most likely his lack of hitting other way is based on how pitchers are pitching him. He has always been and always will be a streaky hitter. I have always liked his personality, although feel he is replaceable. However, when people talk about trading him they point out all the bad things he does and why he should be traded, but why would anyone trade for him if he does so many things bad? I do not expect him around long term, mainly because he is basically replaceable on the field. Not sure how he is in club house though.

Personally, I do not care DH or no DH, but now that interleague play will never go away, we need one rule to play by. As pointed out the DH allows some great hitters to keep playing later in their life as a DH. One thing I would point out, is until Astros came to AL to even leagues at 15 each, there was only 14 AL teams for years so even less teams that did DH. I agree that with the change in way game is played DH will happen I think in both leagues. This does not mean when you get a pitcher that can hit they cannot be allowed to DH on games they do not pitch. Look at Otani. McKay from Rays is being used in duel roles at times. Funny how there is now a rule that position player cannot pitch, unless extra innings or a huge gap late in game, but yet pitchers can play other positions and hit. The DH is not an easy spot to fill, it seems like it would be, but look at many long time greats that would DH and play positions over a year. Many would hit better when they were in the field than when they DH. Not all of course, but many have talked about it is a mind game you need to work through. I know when I play I hate sitting on the bench, even between innings of fielding I will walk around and never sit, could only imagine what it would be like to sit and watch for innings except for the short amount of time you are hitting.

I wrote a comment on this the other day. If interleague play is increased, and under this plan it would be, we would be without one of our best offense weapons for a larger percent of games. In a 162 game schedule you play about 9 games at NL parks, under this plan it would be 82 game scheduled with about 15 to 20 at NL parks. That is huge when you plan to have a DH for 153 games of your 162 games, versus 65 of your 82. This one means you are paying a player to do less, but also you did not plan for this. The NL teams would be at no disadvantage because they just get to have more games with DH, and their pitchers have hit for years, some AL pitchers have not hit for a very long time and spend no time really working on it all.

The fact that the players do not want to be in a city they would need to rent a place. That was one of the major things I read players did not like about the AZ FL plans. They would be away from their homes and family for months with little to no chance to see them. Sure they could try to bring family with them, but that means uprooting their family as well. I know I would not be happy to have to be away from my family for 4-6 months I was not expecting. Also, the additional cost of having to have a second home in the short term home area. Travel is not an issue of safety, as they charter planes anyways so only team and team officials would be on plane, but an issue of time. With having less off days, this would be less travel days, so reducing the distance on the plane helps. I mean you can have 9 game road trip and between the travel sites never get on plane if you do Milwaukee, Chicago, Chicago trip. Fly to one, that takes an hour, then bus between Milwaukee and Chicago takes like an hour to two. Also, I wrote in another comment in the past that the home place is not just about fans, it is about the team set up for the park. Our team is set up to allow fly balls, but we are in a park that tends to be little in favor of that, not like some but much better than others. Imagine if we had to play all our games at Yankee stadium, not that it would be likely, just using as example. HR fly out of right field like none other. There are many other HR friendly parks that would not serve well for our pitchers. May be better for our hitters, but you build your team with fact that 81 games should be played in your park.

Baseball has always had "shifts." Now they just get more note as there is more exaggerated with moving players to areas they traditionally did not play. For decades corner infielders would play in, drop back, play on line, play off line. These are all shifting of defenses to take away certain type of potential hits, depending on situation. Middle infielders would go to "double play" depth, or move deeper in hole or more up the middle, now they just swing even further. Outfield would move closer to gaps or certain sides of field, play more in, play more out. The concept of shifting defenses around depending on hitter, and situation is not a novel one. Now teams are taking a more extreme approach based on percentages. I forget who made the quote, but I remember hearing "hit it where they aint" as a quote for successful hitting. Now the players are just moving to different places, so you can still hit it where they aint. I cannot stand the people that want to input some rule to stop "shifting" I mean will there be a rule that players must stand in a designed circle on the field before the pitch is thrown? Will there be a requirement of all infielders stand on the dirt, or in front of a line drawn on field for astro turf fields? What happens when the old 5 man infield would some times come into play, can you get an exception? What is the outcome of a violation? I remember a story of Satchel Paige once telling his defenders to lay down, would that be allowed? Could a corner infielder come in to take a bunt away? Could a corner infielder guard the line? Does the manger have to ask the umpire if his defenders can move because of where the runners are on base and outs in the game? Do you need a waiver to try and get a sneak pick off? I have racked my brain thinking of a workable rule and nothing comes to mind. So lets just let defenders play where they want when they want. Let the hitters hit the ball, if they want to try and beat the shift great. I mean we never called it beating the standard defense if you got a hit before. Remember when hit and runs happened, players that could hit behind the runner in the vacated infield were regarded. Should the defender not have gone to the base, should he have stayed in his non-shifted place? If teams start to care more about OBP again over slugging, players will start to hit against the shift. I remember when teams started to move the SS much more up the middle and the 3rd bases man off the line against Joe. Then his hits he got early in his career were taken away. Should we ban the defenders from standing in the exact spot that a hitter is most likely to hit the ball? Gone is the lets try to cover the most ground, to lets make sure we cover the ground the ball is most likely to be. If only 10% of the time the ball is hit on the left side of the field, why would you use 2 defenders to guard that area? 90 percent it is up the middle or pulled, so use 75% of your infield defense to guard there, and the other 25% to defend the less likely area. Of course, as those numbers of hit percentage change the defense should too.

Most HS players that would not be drafted in top 5 rounds normally know that and already have a college plan. Even those that are have college plan. If they did not have a college plan, then most likely they would sign the 20K. I was mainly referring to those players that have a college plan already that they are less likely to sign. For some, they choose the pros because they do not want to go to school, they know there is no way they will be making majors for several years, but would rather spend full time on baseball. However, if you are hoping to maximize your earnings going to community college or returning to college for year to hope to fall in top 10 the next time around would be advisable over a 20K bonus if you were thinking you were a round 6 to 10 player.

From the proposal submitted by MLB I do not expect players to agree today. I think they will come to an agreement, but as the players union president stated, the 50/50 split is a salary cap, something that has been sneaking into baseball with luxury tax, but players have been against since FA started. So they will not just say yes. However, if the alternative is no money, that is hard to swallow for players. Sure many would be able to survive for a year without getting paid, if they planned ahead. Not many people expecting to get paid plan to not too though. For the people that just want the owners to pay full prorated contracts and most likely lose millions of upon millions of dollars, because they can afford to, you most likely have never owned a successful business. The owners do not own teams because they are willing to lose money. Sure, some owners make so much money with other business and willing to just break even for wins, but those are also when owned by single owners. Most teams are owned by groups with a main owner. Many of the minority owners will not say, hey it is fine if I lose millions this year. Business do not live long if being operated in red for extended periods. I think both the players and owners should think about the "regular employees" that need the paycheck and what a full no season would like for them. Already, many employees are not working and won't work even if a season does start with no fans. Many teams have agreed to pay these people for now, but for how long? If owners need to pay players more that may make employees get laid off. Overall, the owners always hold all the power. They can just say no season no one gets paid go find a day job, to the non-superstars that have already been paid. It always comes down to the owners on if baseball happens. They do it for money, not charity. They do it get our money to put in their pockets. They need the players to have a product, but this day in age, this is not the owners main source of income, but a side job. Players have grabbed a lot of power for themselves with having no salary cap, but the owners could shut it down completely if they wanted to. I am not saying either side is right or wrong to want what they want. I am just point out who has the real power, but as these two side fight over money, it affects many people that need their paychecks. Owners want to make money, so do the players. For that to happen they need each other.

I expect very few players to sign the 20k. The only players that would are players that do not want to be in college and are not expected to be in top 10 next year, or if they expect a similar draft next year. That really is the issue what will next years drafts look like? If I was advising a player, if they are drafted out of college, sign for sure because no clue what future will look like. If they are not drafted and are out of high school, if they have any interest in college go, at minimum go to community college to start, one of the good baseball ones. If they are in college now and go undrafted if they have graduated college and do not want to return, as NCAA has given all players extra year of eligibility then sign, but only if they do not expect to be a top 10 next year, or if they believe in themselves so much they believe they will rise quickly. So much to think about. 20K is not much money for someone who will be getting paid less than a living wage in the minors. You got to love the game to go that route.

What I mean is if you increase the amount of teams into the playoffs you increase the likelihood of lessor teams advancing in the playoffs. Of course you will not always have the "best" team win the WS, but if you knock out better teams by pure chance by a lessor team, it will make the later rounds potentially less entertaining. That was more the point. Also, if you expand to allow in more teams the regular season becomes more pointless. Some argue, that by expanding playoffs more teams figure they are "in it" later into season and continue to draw interest. However, I feel if you expand too much then you make the regular season a joke and there is little interest in it. Right now the typical bench mark is about 90 wins to make playoffs. If you made an 8 team per league playoff look at last 5 years, you would average 2 teams at or below .500. Only 1 of those would have been at .500 Personally, I do not want teams that were below .500 making playoffs, but to each their own. Additionally, if you expand playoffs you would either need to reduce regular season, which I doubt will happen, or take playoffs into November, which then would either require neutral site games, or having games played in snow, which already is possible but would increase if you play into mid-november.

Since minor league baseball is unlikely to happen, or at least like we expect. I bet teams will seek to have their players come to spring training facilities and work out there with inter team scrimmages to stay sharp and work on things. One thought I just had to get full games in and would test the full depth of a team's system. You play double headers almost every day, but allow for 60 man roster where players can be interchanged regularly, and no 15 day list, only 60 day to get someone on 60 man roster. You pick 22 guys per game to be on active roster, the 4 less is for the starting pitchers that would normally not be available, but if a game goes into extra innings you can bring in 2 additional pitchers. This would allow teams to get the games in, but not overwork the players. If you wanted you could even have an A team and a B team, but would not have too. How do you social distance, you only have those 22 guys at the field any given game, and have the potential extra pitcher near by in club house or hotel room ready to run over should he be needed. Would lead to some interesting resting and subbing decisions for teams. It would really test the depth of a system as well.

For the three changes, the only one I am on board with is the universal DH, or no DH rule. If you are going to have interleague play, you need one set of rules for all teams, not two different ones. This season, you will need to increase interleague play it would seem, so this makes it even more important. Expanded playoffs would be terrible idea. Baseball is a difficult game to always have the best team win, even in a series. To expand playoffs would weaken the regular season and weaken the playoffs as a whole. Right now it is 10 teams, 5 in each league. That is enough. If you expanded to even 12, former NFL layout with top two teams getting a bye, having a three game series for for remaining teams and move on that would weaken the playoffs. We have seen seasons were teams get super hot and fly through playoffs getting to WS then cool off after lay off and get crushed. By giving a bye this would lead to teams risking that. If you went to 14 or 16 it would get even worse with poor teams getting to playoffs and get lucky knocking out good teams in a best of 5 or 7 series. Neutral site WS is even worse idea than expanded playoffs. Teams have constantly built teams to fit their ball park, or ball park to fit their teams. Imgaine a team built on good OF defense with fly ball pitchers in good pitcher park having to now play all their games in a hitter friendly park that routine fly balls in their home park now are HR. You can do neutral site when the dimesions of the playing area are the same, like other major sports. Baseball has always had home field advantage not just by rules, but by design of fields. Also, unlike football where fans will flock to super bowl because it is the super bowl, fans will not flock to neutral site WS games. Maybe in a game 7 only, but not in the rest. Of course this year may be the exception with no fans so you take fans out of it. Also, if WS needs to be in November neutral site may be need for this year alone, but never moving forward when a season can be back to some what normal, even if fans cannot be there, but timing can be.

I would not put Nathan at top, only because he never got it done when it matter in the post season. He would be my number 2. Aggie would be my 1, but remember he did spend 1 year as a starter after he came back to Twins, maybe not full year but part of a year at least. Aggie got it done in playoffs. Nathan sure could dominate at times, but he had some blown saves in post season and that hurts.

I agree the Atlanta in Central and not Pittsburgh makes little sense. Even more so, when Rays are in the East and have to fly past Atlanta to get to most games. Also, Pittsburgh and Cleveland are closer to each other than Pittsburgh and any of the other east teams. However, there will always be some teams that have to travel further. Personally, I think the most viable option is the the Spring training homes would be best for play, but players have biggest push back. The travel is the least, can be done via bus, you can use the minor league fields for the simulated games for minor league players for replacement due to injury and the like. However, players and their families would not want this right now. I am wondering how the DH rules will be. Will they go like normal interleague play where home team rules apply, and of course have significantly more interleague games? This really puts the Twins at a disadvantage when we would be relying on so much from our DH in the offense. Now, half the road games would be played without DH, that is much more than the about 9 road games it was. So then Cruz would be sitting 40 games just because pitchers would have to hit. This would greatly affect his contribution to the team. Additionally, depending on schedule he could have long stints of not playing at all, I bet if there was a 9 plus game NL road trip Mr. Cruz might have a sore ankle that lands him on the DL for 15 days.

Two ways you can answer your question. One, what is his net WAR at SS compared to all other SS options WAR. That is a straight math question, with some speculation of course because unless they play there no way to know their actual WAR. However, it looks like this. In 2019, despite his negative DRS, according to baseball reference he has positive DWAR, kind of odd since many metrics has Polonco as worse starter around defense wise. However his total WAR was 4.8. So, unless we have someone that can put up a bigger WAR, then math says Polonco stays at SS. Of course, much of that WAR is from offense, so you could move him to a different position, which then the math just converts to total team war with plugging in each player at the position. We assume the most likely spot polonco would go would be 2nd base, since throwing is his main issue. So does the replacement at SS have higher WAR than Arrez does? Really, you need to keep dragging this out to so many defense options, but they got people to do this. Option 2, is decide how much the DRS is needed compared to others that could do better. Most of the time, top defenders are not top hitters and vise versa. Much as you stated Jeter by metrics was terrible defense for years, but he was the captain and many believed he was better at defense than he really was. Really, Polonco can stay as long as Twins want him to be there. There is no bar that one must be above to play a position. If the Twins feel him there is best for team they will play him there. Hard to replace his offense. If he drops in production then he will get moved sooner than later. If there is a shift to ground ball hitting again, he may get moved sooner than later. If someone pushes him out because they hit like him but field like Ozzie, he will get moved.