Duren, Duren

Nice to see a well informed historical discussion. Baseball is such a great game with so much history that I think we all want to be assured the integrity of the game is solid and the quality of play is the best it can be.

I hate this trend in baseball. No doubt somewhere in the MLB offices this was strategized as part of a way to increase the marketing of the sport. Especially to young kids. And whatever changes to the baseball, strike zone and anything else play into this. Look how the homerun derby has been glorified and promoted as a main event unto itself. No other all star week event gets even a fraction of the attention. The connection to video gaming is part of the mindset. No doubt kids watch the homerun derby consciously or subconsciously imagining they are manipulating a player through a game controller. Then they watch games, expecting home runs. And the instant measure of 'launch angles', distance and exit velocity turn the sport into a personal competition. Not only who hits more, but who hits it further and who is stronger. Focus devolves from the team to the individual slugger. And not how good he is, but how strong Unless you have years of experience watching the changes in the game you don't realize what has been lost. Of course changes and evolution are inevitable, but I think the balance of all around skills that have made the sport great is becoming lopsided. And it ties into strategy. Which then ties into scouting and analytics. It's more complex, but I don't have the time now to get deeper into this stuff. Suffice it to say that I think 1968 scared the shit out of the baseball powers. That 'year of the pitcher' was the polar opposite of what we see now. And things were tweaked accordingly the next year to restore the balance. With that recognition that rule changes and physical changes to ball, bat, mound, etc. refigured the game. And baseball has tweaked more and more over the years. And let's not forget the steroid era was essentially a prelude to what we have now. Bodies were manipulated rather than rules or objects. But that period showed that the public had an appetite for massive displays of power. Babe Ruth was the first transformative figure to reveal the appeal for home runs. And he single handedly led the change to the game in radical ways. Was it 1930 that we saw an insane increase in power and scoring? More drastic even than now? Lust for homeruns always is the emotion that the powers in baseball periodically stimulate. But if the players are now naturally stronger, bigger, better trained and prepared, maybe baseball should tweak things in ways to restore the symmetry of the game. Bring back a 1968 mindset that gives pitchers, spray hitters and speedsters more importance. And also revisits classic baseball managerial strategies. Honestly, who gives a rat"s ass counting homers or gasping at exit velocity?

Trout is human, not superhuman. The consistency of his numbers year after year leads many to assume he can't/won't deviate to a notable degree. At least during his remaining prime years. Which should be the next five or so. But this is pro sports. Athletic performance is never, ever something that can be automatically taken for granted. It's the human mind/body involved, not a machine. Even tiny things can escalate into bigger issues. A slight loss of reflex/reaction timing. Issues with vision. A tiny drop in bat speed. A small variation in hitting mechanics. And so on. Not saying that he is showing any significant problem, because he still seems to mostly have the same approach and elite numbers. Just not mind blowing. Power wise he is great. It's just that he isn't as automatically consistent overall. Some of that could be about how he feels about the team this season. Often falling well behind in the early innings, he must think all the pressure is in his shoulders every at bat. Knowing the pitching will almost always give up chunks of runs he may be forcing things to a certain degree, swinging at pitches he would lay off, or trying for power rather than just good contact. Nothing in his numbers indicates alarm for the near future. Just a realistic reminder that he is human, the body doesn't remain in peak shape forever, and the team around him does factor into anyone's mindset and subsequent approach to each at bat. Unfortunately, his MVP chances depend entirely on his numbers, and expectations are always that he will constantly have career best seasons.

Dealing with the pitching has really been Eppler's 2019 disaster. Just referencing this year, not getting into longer term thinking now. Harvey, Cahill and Allen were all signed relatively late and close to each other if my memory is accurate. Obviously last resort semi desperate gambles. And not cheap either coming off injuries, unwanted elsewhere. Even if one year deals. Basically throwing away money with low odds that any of them would even be decent. Obviously he was unable to make better acquisitions via trade or free agency. Finances must have been a factor, but those three failures essentially were a lot of dead money for one year. Maybe going after a proven pitcher for more term and money would have been a better use instead of diluting the capital on very high risk, unwanted damaged goods. The Skaggs tragedy obviously could not be anticipated, but no one has been good enough to fill his role consistently. I wonder about criteria in choosing pitchers. And coaching. I always have thought that location and sequencing are as important, if not more so, than speed. I was cringing last night at all the juicy fat pitches the Pirates teed off on. And that seems to be so prevalent with this set of starters. No wonder they often get behind in the early innings. Just for a change I flipped over to the Rays/Padres game. Tampa brought in a reliever, Chaz Roe. In the one inning I watched he threw about twenty four pitches. Only two were ninety. The fastest was ninety one. Every other pitch was between the mid seventies to mid eighties. Sliders and curves mostly. But the guy knew what he was doing. Very deft at altering location pitch by pitch, and sequencing his pitches without throwing any over the heart of the plate. Upper right corner with a slider. Lower left with a curve, inside slider, curve in the dirt, etc. He had a well planned strategy for each batter and didn't give in. He struck out the side and issued one walk. Now clearly he isn't an exact role model, but he has made the most of his limited arsenal by being smart, hitting location and mixing up his pitches. Not giving in to the count is also a good lesson. Too often Angel pitchers seem to lack confidence and are afraid of a walk. With better control the odds improve that the hitter will swing at a close pitch even if not a fat strike. That"s what the edge of the strike zone is for. Especially if you can confuse the batter by your sequencing. I am so tired of watching Angel starters getting roughed up early, grooving their pitches and generally acting confused when the count gets close.

This may be politically incorrect and go against the narrative of sports writers who created the myths. The black baseball players/teams of the pre-integration era weren't uniformally superior to the white major leagues. And the "white' leagues weren't exclusively white. There always was a scattering of 'Latin players' who managed to filter through. Sure, the 'gentleman"s agreement' to stay white was explicitly racist. Unfortunately it was a mindset that prevailed in almost every sphere of life. Myths are created by the media. In the sixties and seventies it became fashionable to romanticize the 'Negro Leagues' as a way to pay homage to the injustice of the past. Much of the rationale came from anecdotes of old former players and observers. Often at least thirty years after the fact. It's the way human nature works that memories become fuzzy and exaggerated over long periods of time. Especially when being interviewed by a sympathetic media person with a preset narrative already in mind. Without getting deeper into sociology and psychology, I would conclude that there were indeed great black players who were unjustly deprived of opportunities. But these were a smaller percentage than what has been implied in many stories. And most of those elite, great black players were roughly of equal talent/skill/potential than the same small elite of the major leagues. The sketchy stats we have were achieved mostly in less than major league conditions. Minor league or worse stadiums, a smaller talent pool, terrible travel/accommodation conditions and so on and on. And remember, they were also racially limited (by default) , unable to compete against the talent in the major leagues. Again, some Hispanic players slipped in too, but the standard of play seems to have been less than ideal. The great blacks would have been great in the majors and vice versa. The average and poor players likewise. Selectively picking Cool Papa Bell, Satchel Paige, Jackie/Frank Robinson, Aaron, Campenella, Newcombe, and postulating that they represented the average standard is unverified speculation. Thankfully we have a universal talent pool now that is based on pure ability. Unfortunately that wasn't the case for a long time, but that shouldn't lead to exaggeration and embellishment.

I love all these hypothetical comparisons of different eras in all sports. Great debating stuff! Short opinion: Babe Ruth was potentially a combination of Ohtani and Trout. If he pitched every fourth or fifth game he would have had high double digit wins. Based on his exclusive pitching record. As a hitter at the same time he would have somewhat reduced offensive numbers because of fewer plate appearances. But still about forty or so homers and a similar percentage in the other categories. Long meandering musings: Years ago I created some tabletop dice/charts games trying to factor in that 'normalization' issue. But it's all hypothetical, with dozens of factors. In the end one of the best way to compare is to see how much better a team or player was to their contemporaries. I called it 'degree of domination.' The argument about transposing players to different eras is usually a one way street. Taking an old player as he was, dropping him into today's game and pointing out the limitations. Reverse it. Take a modern player, put him in 1920, give him the type of body his genetics would have provided back then. Take away his knowledge of training, advanced stats, video and so on. And upgrade old players with the modern advantages. Either way the best would find a way to maximize their potential under whatever circumstances. Average players would remain average, lesser players the same. Just with different roles and stats as determined by team philosophy and style of play. Sluggers would slug, but focussing on homers wouldn't be prioritized. Speedster would steal more if the style dictated that approach. Starters would go deeper in the past, but old pitchers transposed to today would be yanked earlier, based on philosophy rather than necessity. Of course the statistical core average of any era only refers to the components of that time. Physical averages of size, speed, strength and so on vary considerably over time and the gap becomes bigger in a linear direction. But one thing never factored in is the subjective side. Heart, will, motivation, hunger to win and succeed. How do you quantify that? Up until the late sixties/seventies players had little control of their careers in terms of contracts and salary. The very best could make demands or hold out, but the average player had no leverage. Salaries were so so low even within the framework of their financial era that many had to have off season jobs to make a decent living. Even when a great player was honored he was given practical gifts. Refrigerators, cars, furniture, kitchen.ware etc. Necessity. Competition was ferocious back then. A major league salary, limited as it was, still was critical for families. All pro sports were rough, rugged and dirty in those days. The players on different teams never socialized and were viewed as enemies potentially taking bread off their table. There were no 'band of brothers' with solidarity across team boundaries. At least during the season. The superstars of the era like Williams/DiMaggio, Mantle/Mays respected each other and shared a bond but after the photo ops and multi player baseball card poses it was pride and intensity. World series bonuses were huge incentives, and insured a war like competitiveness. I really feel that if say the 1930s Yankees played the Yankees of the end of the 1990s it would really be close. The old school teams had their superstars, but the hunger to win might have elevated the entire roster to play with a cruel edge. Head hunting, spikes up, taunting (racial and otherwise) and so on. The old team probably would be roughly equal on skill, but would play more intently, focussed on the winning bonus. The more recent team probably had much more athletic skill top to bottom, and their own superstars. Also more talented depth. Especially in the bullpen. But would they have the mental endurance to survive? I'd bet on the 90s team in a series, but it would be a war, and bring in psychology as well as athletics.

Watching the way LeMahieu was mentioned during the Yankee,/Red Sox game on Sunday, they feel his is the runaway MVP this year. It really cute to the old argument. Most valuable overall, or most valuable to his team. Trout wins by a country mile on the latter definition. The Yankees still coast to first place without LeMahieu. But stats wise it's close. Batting average or power prioritized? And of course, the perennial east coast,big market prejudice versus the west coast player who they can't stay awake long enough to watch. And first place juggernaut versus mid pack team. Trout is such a well known commodity that he's taken for granted. but LeMahieu is the never novelty flavor of the season. Trout will have to really pound out big numbers the rest of the way and LeMahieu fade to make a decisive case. And other players may also enter the mix as spoilers.

First you build, then you try and sustain a playoff quality team. The building process can be shorter or longer, depending on what the organization was like when the new GM arrived. Eppler obviously inherited a mess of a farm system. That really is the key to the second part of the equation. Sustaining a quality team over time. Eppler has done an A-/B+ level of rebuilding the system, so that is a positive in his favor. He also inherited some key players who still are putting up decent numbers. With Trout the franchise crown jewel. Overall, the roster is producing runs and solid on defense. Catcher is still a weakness, right field an unknown next year, and the infield still being shuffled, but pretty good depth in general. He really has been forced to keep Pujols because of the contract signed years before. Pujols hadn't been terrible during his Angels career, but the value for the financial obligation has been one of the crippling factors preventing better use of the budget. Upton is somewhat in that category too. At the time of the trade and extension he looked like a dependable fixture, but now value for the dollar is also factoring in as a negative. Pitching is the key to creating a balanced, contending team. Some good, some bad from Eppler, but tragedy and injuries seriously qualify the results as we see them now. By default I think next year will be a better gauge of the Pitching situation. There is some quality depth in the bullpen, but with Ohtani back, one or two higher quality additions they should be at least decent next year. Perhaps the greatest acquisition move Eppler made was snatching Ohtani out of the international pool. He was aggressive, bold, confident and willing to gamble on his two way skills without restrictions. His other trades and signings are about average for a GM. Some good, some duds. But other than Upton, none with longer term handicap potential And getting Trout signed long term is the best thing he 's done of everything. It did require a delicate personal touch and communication skills not all GMs have. Even when Eppler is gone that will be his biggest legacy. Time wise I think two more years starting next year are fair to expect better results. At least high 80s wins and legitimate playoff contention. The team isn't that bad. But is missing some key pieces. He shouldn't need longer to address those issues.

20 wins may/has become as rare as .400 hitters. And not because of lack of skill or physical endurance. Simply not something really prioritized or even desired in current baseball philosophy. It's more mindset than actual capacity to do it. In fact, players are bigger, stronger, healthier, better coached than ever before. Yet in The past you had scrawny bean poles and overweight thirty plus year olds consistently winning in the high teens and beyond. Even in 154 game seasons. And careers lasted as long if not longer for many of those workhorses. Despite primitive medical options. When expectations are set and the psyche conditioned to conform that way no one is allowed to challenge current conventional wisdom. The shrinking few who have the most starts and innings are seen as freaks rather than just strong willed and motivated. It helps greatly to be on a very good team to potentially win 20, but many pitchers won in that range even on lesser teams. They also lost in double digits but that goes with the territory and team. The longer you've been around, the more you realize that trends come and go. But everything is relative to the specific era. However the body of a starting pitcher today should be more than capable of pitching 200 plus innings. And be in position for high win totals consistently. Walter Johnson, Bob Feller, Nolan Ryan, and dozens more threw as fast as anyone today. They played for many years without being micro managed and slaves to a pitch count. They knew how to pitch, pace themselves, understand situational strategy. Teach resiliency and self reliance along with other technical things. The robotic mechanization of bullpen use destroys a real interesting dimension of a ball game. Focus on how the starters finesse themselves to go deep in a game. Today five innings is considered a moral victory.

The Harvey, Cahill, Allen fiasco really has the appearance of making Eppler look bad. Because they all were treated similarly with one year contracts and all had injury issues there was no secret it was a sign of desperation. Understandable, but also an indictment of not being able to succeed with other options. Promoting from within, trades, better signings. . Had even one of them done what Eppler had hoped then you can say the gamble was partially successful. But with all of them failing big time right from the start it made the moves look even worse. The one year contracts were the 'out' for the signings. But at best it still cost a lot of money collectively and delayed finding better longer term solutions. Not that it was easy of course, but those signings were a sign of failing to execute in other ways. Overall I think Eppler is ok, but the jury is still out about whether he has the team on track to be what he hopes they become. He has to be given a pass for what happened overall during this season because so many freakish and tragic events created unmanageable chaos. The same with Asmus. But next year is a chance for a do over and to be more accountable.

These multiple injury streaks in one season do happen to teams in all sports. But factoring in the Skaggs tragedy, this has to be one of the worst devastating runs of bad luck. Also remember Allen and Harvey were damaged goods coming in and prone to breakdowns. Ohtani's pitching arm rehab should also be included with injury related issues for this season. If he didn't hit he'd have missed this season. Surprising that Pujols has remained healthy. More and more, people will think that Trout's career resembles Ernie Banks. The lasting characterization about Banks is a sad shake of the head, remembering that he was a great multiple MVP player on a poor team that never made a World Series. Even at the end of his two decade career the Cubs got good, but choked away a pennant to the Mets.

The problem with looking at veteran free agents is trying to weigh their current status with their past career. So often a mediocre or injury affected recent season is shrugged off, and people hope it was an exception. Just because someone did good things in the past always tweaks optimism, thinking they can revert back to their best again. That has to be the reason Eppler signed those half dozen free agents who all failed big time. Amazingly, only one is still on the team but probably the least trusted. Just because they were one year deals doesn't justify this dumpster diving. Individually you can make a case here and there, but the collective pattern was pure desperation. Ironically, if any had turned in a great season much more money and term would have to be offered or the player would walk and fans would be given mixed signals. The loss would again have to be filled or the team would have to commit and mess up their long term budget. Either way it solves no problem. And it really makes you question management's player evaluation methods.

Whatever the Dodgers are doing, copy it. Unbelievable how productive their farm system is. Unending rookies of the year, depth at every position, unexpected phenoms who seem to need no learning curve. Year after year. Steal from their braintrust. Determine which scouts, talent assessors, coaches in their minor league pipeline are most responsible. And their analytics masterminds. Obviously the Dodgers prioritize the entire acquisition and development process. Money never seems to be an issue keeping them at the cutting edge. The Giants lured one of their recent executives to their team. There must be others who are important parts of their system. There are no salary cap type restrictions, so spend some serious money upgrading this crucial dimension. Not necessarily just from The Dodgers, but identify and poach the best at their job.

It would be so much easier if the service terms weren't so severe. From a team and fan perspective, it would be great to see a month or so of Adell on the roster. A tiny sample, but getting acclimated to the big leagues, seeing major league pitching, understanding the challenges first hand are important progressive steps. It would also turn all the hype down a notch. Doubtful he will be great or terrible immediately, and even a negative debut will provide insight and show specific areas to work on. Countless great players were lousy in their first tour of duty, but advance on their learning curve quickly. A positive debut will reinforce confidence all around. But the realities dictate a careful attention to the service restrictions. But instead of worrying about hypothetical contract scenarios years down the road maybe pushing the envelope now will have more immediate benefit.

Being conservative at this specific time isn't bad. With apparently no deals that would make a short or long term impact, best thing is to try and use the rest of the season as an extended audition period. Obviously while still in mathematical WC contention they have to try their best to win every game. But the debacle against Baltimore/Detroit effectively took the wind out of any optimistic sails. If they drop to .500 or below in the next few weeks then it's time to experiment. Move players around to get a clue about playing unfamiliar positions.Calhoun, Goodwin or Upton at first, mix and match the infielders differently, spot start some of the bullpen, call up a few from the minors. Etc. I would even consider sitting Trout later in the season. No need to risk injury in meaningless games. But his MVP push might be the main appeal for many watching the team, so I doubt they will intentionally restrict his opportunities to build his numbers even higher. This is the reality. All priorities should shift to next year and beyond very soon. A lot to sort out before the off season trading and signing begins, so accept the facts and act accordingly.

When a team like Houston identifies a pair of mid value prospects on your team you got to think they know what they're doing. Low risk for them, doesn't affect their present roster. But they have the luxury of depth and patience. They seem to win every trade and keep replenishing their talent pool. Stassi can be of some value now, but has basically not much upside. But a good defensive catcher shouldn't be under estimated. Seems like a situational starter against certain teams/pitchers and likely a specialist battery mate for whoever right now. But if he can get in sync soon with any starters he will be worth the value lost.

The best thing for the Angels is if Cole has a terrible finish to the year and/or sucks in the playoffs. Lowers his value, puts doubt in buyers, opens questions about whether he is clutch down the stretch. The last image or memory often over rides the more comprehensive analysis. Emotion over reason. At the asking price we assume he will demand, some fear may enter the equation. From the Angels point of view, they aren't looking for an immediate savior. They aren't one of the few elite teams who expect to win next year. The Angels need a consistent very good starter to anchor the rotation (along with Ohtani, ideally in the next year or two). They can have more patience integrating Cole into a lineup that is slowly, but methodically building for elite status in a couple of years. Pay him good money, give him term, sit back and let the rotation come together over the next couple of years. In the current Baseball Digest they have a long interview with Trout. He constantly mentions being happy living in SoCal, lasting friendships, and trust the organization is moving forward to elite status. Sell Cole on that premise, since he already has a comfort zone with location. Let Trout be a team ambassador/recruiter as much as possible within the rules. He's the best promo man in the organization.

Assets. You need assets to make deals. A strong minor league system, depth on the major league team. And a boldness to give up some talent or potential for pressing needs. And damned good scouts and talent evaluators to sift through the talent and find the right fits. Angels just not elite in these areas now.

Angels linked to Sanchez https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/27059188/2019-mlb-trade-deadline-rumors-news-analysis-trade-tracker

Now who, if anyone, has played their last game for the Angels? Goodwin looks more and more useful. Thaiss is showing positive growth. Catching has kind of leveled off. Pitching is what it is. Very encouraging watching Canning maintain his poise.Good stuff, confident, looking strong. Now consistency is the next challenge. Not sure Robles was necessary with a day game tomorrow. Cole could have gone one more or until allowing a base runner. Or someone else might have needed that inning more. Nice to see runs produced without dependence on Trout. Or Pujols. Or Calhoun. A little sloppy Tiger defense, but they took advantage of opportunities. Back into the Twilight Zone till after the deadline.

If a bargain comes along or a team gets desperate as the deadline closes, make a low cost move. Otherwise, hang on till the off season. More time to evaluate internally and externally. The team has little chance of passing all the other WC contenders in the fifty something games remaining. Hope that maybe a couple of starters settle down and turn the corner heading into next year. The rest of the season should be an extended audition in various positions. I also would rest Simmons a lot more. He is pretty much a known quantity, and his future doesn't depend on the finish of this season. But if he will potentially be on the block it would be a good time to experiment with the other possible replacements. Especially Fletcher. Is his range, reliability, pivot dexterity and arm good enough for everyday play at the major league level? He has looked fairly good in a limited sample, but shortstop is a critical defensive position. If you want to improve the pitching you need a good defensive infield as well. Potentially Fletcher may provide good enough offensive numbers, but don't overlook defense. Depending on what happens at third, and maybe second I would endorse an excellent defensive shortstop even if a poor hitter. But the jury is still out on Rengifo. One of the second base or shortstop position players needs to contribute at least basic average offensive production. Lots of intrigue about two long term positive contributors, Calhoun and Simmons. Either or both may be gone in a day or stay for years.

Agreed. The no hitter felt supernatural in some ways. Purely baseball wise, the series against Baltimore and last night combine into one extended period of misery. A big letdown after the Dodger momentum. Recognizing two terrible teams were coming in for this home stand and pretty much embarrassing themselves multiple times. The Thaiss homer was one tiny bit of relief and it couldn't even spark the next game. In retrospect I think we'll see that this season will be hard to judge because of that Skaggs lingering intangible.

The Stroman trade exemplifies the unpredictable nature of the business. Doubtful many, if any had him headed to the Mets. All the weeks of speculation (ultra intense for Jays media and fans) still were caught by surprise. Each GM has his own vision and organizational input. And internal pressure and priorities. And often it comes down to some esoteric intangible that is over valued by whoever has the best poker hand. Sit back, watch and wait. What the Angels do or don't do will probably beunexpected.

Thaiss looks a little more relaxed at the plate. Not committing to the pitch too soon, trusting in his swing. He credits the hitting coaches, so it seems like he is just evolving along a normal learning curve. Also still really raw in major league experience. Still too early to judge but seems to be a decent prospect. Not untouchable either, so a good week boosts his value.

The worst time to trade is when you are desperate. Had the trade deadline been after the Dodger series, the urgency wouldn't be there, even if the pitching needs are still a top priority. But the three embarrassing losses to the Orioles shine a spotlight on this problem. And provoke impatience from fans about Eppler doing something immediately. Probably any move made will be minor, and not dramatically solve the big pitching problem for this season. It will take multiple moves over at least this off season to begin to address it, let alone solve it. You also have to wonder about pitching philosophy. Are the starters so utterly devoid of ability that they rarely last through four innings? Have they been conditioned by the pitching coach to expect the hook early? Is the bullpen over rated and/or already fatigued? Is the almost daily reshuffling of the pitching roster affecting confidence and morale? Stability is needed. Let some of the starters work out their problems by pitching through and not being yanked. Tough innings build character and resilience. Sacrifice a bad start and give the bullpen more rest. Changes are needed, but so is the philosophy.