Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Junkballer

  1. Exactly, that is my prediction, that they get someone in that range AND Cobb. I don't see them going high AAV or term. They just drafted/signed 20 pitchers. With Sandoval/Suarez looking promising, they just want to get over the hump and ride Ohtani and another solid starter until then. And you don't think that a more attractive team (to Scherzer) wont beat that? The Dodgers are just one team of several that will surely top that. Between Stroman and Gray, I go Gray and the shorter term but would be happy if they got Stroman. Who wouldn't? Pass on Ray & Gausman.
  2. I feel strongly that Scherzer is a non-starter for the front office considering his age, price (the article predicts "eclipsing JVs 33m AAV), budget, other needs and because they may want to resign Iglesias. He will have competitive offers from more plausible contenders so I'm just moving on from him, not that the Angels won't make the appropriate noise to placate fans that "they tried". I would like to see Stroman or Gray, with Cobb (under reasonable terms. While I still think Stroman is still too rich (AAV & term) for the Angels blood, he would give the Angels a legit 1a/1b punch. WIth Stroman or Gray, Cobb is not necessary but it would be fantastic if Sandoval and Suarez were fighting it out for 4/5. My guess is that the Angels go with someone who can be had in the 4/75 range and re-sign Cobb.
  3. You're actually bolstering the point I was trying to make in response to TG's reply to you in that they were using data from the season, (as you pointed to the splits) to make the decision on who to start instead of a "here's where we are at now" type of decision.
  4. Buehler could have pitched with his normal rest last night but for some reason they started Max anyway. Why would you not start your young, rested 1B ace in favor of a 37 y.o. 1A who is showing signs of fatigue, and pitched, not a bullpen, but a live inning 3 days prior? They could still start him games 3 & 6 or 7. There had to be some over-analyzing going on to make that decision.
  5. It may be the reason why Arte wasn't able to hire the people higher up on the list and went with a first-timer, albeit up and comer with tutelage by a respected GM
  6. That's some Halo 'Roops material right there. Get that man a wrestling belt.
  7. I voted Good Player for Marsh but I wouldn't necessarily be disappointed if he was a Solid Player in his sophomore season. I'd be very happy with Adell being a Solid Player next year if that includes a good jump in defense and consistency. His power will fully develop with another 1-2 years under his belt. Still just 23 at the end of spring training.
  8. Oh for sure it's not either/or. If the premise that TTO has become prevalent to the point of making the game less interesting is true, and that is not a universal opinion, then it is in MLB's best interest to improve their product. They don't dislike big HR numbers but they should be concerned with the reduction in on-base action in between those HRs. My thought is that TTO is, among other things, safer for GM's to build a team around and fans would benefit from them being encouraged through MLB action to seeing the advantages of a more balanced approach.
  9. Perhaps the law of unintended consequences? MLB thinking that established power hitters would take advantage of the changes and not predicting the 3 true outcome mindset being established in all but the David Fletchers of the world?
  10. True that it would be a far lower priority topic, but recognition that 3 true outcome baseball is less captivating would still be discussed. It is recognized by MLB as such and they've been doing experiments in MiLB to address it, not to mention this year's ball "deadening".
  11. Maddon's "play like it's 1985" has been thrown into discussions here and there, but how can it be achieved across MLB in an realistic, innocuous way? First, the term may mean other things but I think at its core it refers to the onset of the 3 true outcomes mindset and the subsequent reduction of action on the basepaths, which some find less exciting than the station-to-station, putting the ball in play, manufacturing runs, dare I say smallball approach. While that is subjective, its probably safe to say that there is more protracted tension generated when teams get runners in scoring position and put pressure on the defense than the raw instantaneous excitement of a 2-run blast, as well as being more readily implemented on an at-bat basis by a manager. On the flip side, outs are extremely precious and it appears obvious that analytics has largely determined that smallball, while providing tension and excitement, doesn't generate runs as compared to the 3 true outcomes mindset. Also, I don't believe MLB is interested in reducing scoring but they should be concerned with how current and potential (attention deprived) fans perceive the game in terms of how it compares to other sports re: continuity of interest. Whatever MLB did to deaden the ball or increase consistency still netted something like 5,944 HRs this year, more than any year besides 2017 (6105) & 2019 (6778) So, what are ways that MLB can encourage in-game action with the least impact to runs scored? In the context of this discussion that could mean things like deadening the ball, mound changes, park dimensions, rule changes, strike zone changes, etc. Personally I am in favor of a further slight deadening of the ball and mandating some form of expanding park dimensions by moving fences back and/or raising their height. Also, to offset the runs lost by fewer HRs, a way to increase OBP and putting the ball in play is to shrink and further standardize the strike zone. Fewer HRs and higher OBP should effect more steals and situational hitting. What say you?
  12. Because the ghetto board was like taking massive amounts of LSD in a room full of conspiracy theorists.
  13. He'll be in in the 3rd after they pinch for Graterol. Scherzer might be their setup man.
  • Create New...