Octopus Overlords

Posted: **Wed May 05, 2021 10:56 am**

I don't really get the reason for the extra innings runner. Is it to shorten the two or three games a year which go past the 11th inning?

Posted: **Wed May 05, 2021 11:03 am**

ImLawBoy wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 9:19 am The outcome of yesterday's double-header between the Cubs and Dodgers was obviously great (although I suspect Lorini might disagree), but despite that I still have some gripes. First, I still don't like the 7 inning double headers. Second, I absolutely loathe the runner on second to start extra innings rule.

I kinda get the 7 inning double headers if a team is playing a straight one. But split DHs that are 7 innings are puppies.

Posted: **Wed May 05, 2021 11:39 am**

El Guapo wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 10:56 am I don't really get the reason for the extra innings runner. Is it to shorten the two or three games a year which go past the 11th inning?

I think it's pretty typical of how MLB handles things these days. It's like the 3-batter minimum rule for relief pitchers. It makes it seem like MLB is doing something about game length when the actual impact is almost non-existent.

Posted: **Wed May 05, 2021 12:12 pm**

El Guapo wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 10:56 am I don't really get the reason for the extra innings runner. Is it to shorten the two or three games a year which go past the 11th inning?

To stop you from staying up til 3AM to watch the Sox lose to the Dodgers?

But agree it doesn't seem like it's making much of a difference, guess there'll be more reliable stats by the All Star game.

Posted: **Wed May 05, 2021 12:13 pm**

ImLawBoy wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 11:39 am
El Guapo wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 10:56 am I don't really get the reason for the extra innings runner. Is it to shorten the two or three games a year which go past the 11th inning?
I think it's pretty typical of how MLB handles things these days. It's like the 3-batter minimum rule for relief pitchers. It makes it seem like MLB is doing something about game length when the actual impact is almost non-existent.

I think that was necessary. Teams like the Dodgers were changing pitchers every friggin' batter, that's just abuse.

Posted: **Wed May 05, 2021 12:18 pm**

Lorini wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 12:13 pm
ImLawBoy wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 11:39 am
El Guapo wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 10:56 am I don't really get the reason for the extra innings runner. Is it to shorten the two or three games a year which go past the 11th inning?
I think it's pretty typical of how MLB handles things these days. It's like the 3-batter minimum rule for relief pitchers. It makes it seem like MLB is doing something about game length when the actual impact is almost non-existent.
I think that was necessary. Teams like the Dodgers were changing pitchers every friggin' batter, that's just abuse.

I know I've linked to it before, but there's been statistical analysis done that shows that its impact is nominal - like less than 5 minutes per game nominal. That means it's essentially a cosmetic fix that isn't really doing a thing about the overall problem of game length.

Posted: **Wed May 05, 2021 12:23 pm**

They should be focusing on getting more balls into play and less about shaving off a minute or two here and there. The strikeout explosion does not make for an exciting game to watch. I don't know what the solution to it is, but if you look at the last decade it's gotten totally out of hand. That and the ridiculous shifts that came about the last decade or so. They certainly work and I don't blame any team for using them, but it makes for a super boring game. Just make it so there has to be two people on each side of the bag and that they have to start in the infield.

2019 42,823 Ks for all of MLB
2009 33,591 Ks for all of MLB

https://www.baseball-almanac.com/hitting/histrk4.shtml

Every year since 2009 it's just been going up and up each year. I love good pitching, but holy crap I don't need to see 15+ strikeouts every game.

Posted: **Wed May 05, 2021 12:27 pm**

The Cubs' announcers last night pointed out that when the Dodgers won the WS in 1988 they had 99 regular season home runs in 162 games. Last year the Dodgers hit 118 home runs in 60 games. It's not just good pitching - it's a change in approach by the hitters, too.

Posted: **Wed May 05, 2021 12:31 pm**

ImLawBoy wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 12:27 pm The Cubs' announcers last night pointed out that when the Dodgers won the WS in 1988 they had 99 regular season home runs in 162 games. Last year the Dodgers hit 118 home runs in 60 games. It's not just good pitching - it's a change in approach by the hitters, too.

Yup the approach is launch angle and trying to mash at all costs. It's ok to strikeout 3 times if you get a HR on the 4th. That's fine if you are some big power hitter, but it seems almost everyone is following that method now.

Posted: **Wed May 05, 2021 12:43 pm**

I don't think the issue for the fans regarding pitching changes is the time, it's the dead time. Watching pitchers warm up in what is already a slow enough game every friggin' batter is boring. There's no interest in that. And that's what I think they are addressing.

Posted: **Wed May 05, 2021 12:50 pm**

Octavious wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 12:31 pm
ImLawBoy wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 12:27 pm The Cubs' announcers last night pointed out that when the Dodgers won the WS in 1988 they had 99 regular season home runs in 162 games. Last year the Dodgers hit 118 home runs in 60 games. It's not just good pitching - it's a change in approach by the hitters, too.
Yup the approach is launch angle and trying to mash at all costs. It's ok to strikeout 3 times if you get a HR on the 4th. That's fine if you are some big power hitter, but it seems almost everyone is following that method now.

Yep, that's a big part of it. As a whole, though, offensive numbers are down even more than last year, while launch angle has actually gone down a tick since 2019 (and flat from last year). The league is on pace for 6,000 fewer singles this year than in 2007 and 2,000 fewer doubles. Meanwhile, there were over 1,000 more strikeouts than hits last month. ONE THOUSAND. MLB as a whole hit .232! The first month ever with more strikeouts than hits was May, 2018, and look at where baseball is now, three years later.

Posted: **Wed May 05, 2021 12:52 pm**

Aren't they trying cures for this including basically outlawing the shift?

Posted: **Wed May 05, 2021 12:54 pm**

It worked for onside kicks.

Posted: **Wed May 05, 2021 12:54 pm**

Lorini wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 12:52 pm Aren't they trying cures for this including basically outlawing the shift?

That'll help offense some, but it's not going to cure the surge in strikeouts.

Posted: **Wed May 05, 2021 12:57 pm**

I think they are testing it in some places, but honestly it's not rocket science and could be added easily. It's less of a change then the 7 innings and runner on 2nd changes imho. I don't have an issue with the 3 batter rule I always hated the calling in a pitcher for 1 dude crap. While it may not add that much time it's just such a flow killer.

Posted: **Wed May 05, 2021 12:59 pm**

Lorini wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 10:39 pm Kershaw didn't make it out of the first inning. Shortest (but not the worst) inning of his career. He kind of sucked, but the defense behind him was not good. If the SS makes the play he should have made, there would have been a double play and Kershaw would have been charged with only 2 runs. As it was, he was charged with four runs and exited stage left.

such a shame.

Giants blew their wad in the first game of the doubleheader. Could have had a 3 game lead over the dodgers

Posted: **Wed May 05, 2021 1:03 pm**

pr0ner wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 12:54 pm
Lorini wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 12:52 pm Aren't they trying cures for this including basically outlawing the shift?
That'll help offense some, but it's not going to cure the surge in strikeouts.

I have read articles that it very well may help at least a little bit. The logic is that since anything hit on the ground is going into the shift they have adjusted by just swinging for the fences. We'll see, but something needs to be done the last game I watched had 29-30 strikeouts. That's not fun to watch..

Posted: **Wed May 05, 2021 1:12 pm**

Lorini wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 12:43 pm I don't think the issue for the fans regarding pitching changes is the time, it's the dead time. Watching pitchers warm up in what is already a slow enough game every friggin' batter is boring. There's no interest in that. And that's what I think they are addressing.

But it's just not happening that much. This is based on the year before the change, and it looks at how often the rule would have come into play that year:

There were only 489 appearances that fit these criteria last season [i.e., those scenarios where the rule would have prevented a pitching change that occurred]. There were 2,190 games in my sample, which means that a now-disallowed short-stint reliever figured into about a quarter of last year’s contests. Budget two minutes for the extra pitching change, and that’s around 30 seconds saved per game. Not exactly getting that millennial audience back, now, are we?

I think regardless of whether the goal was to prevent down time or to reduce overall game length, it was ineffective. I think we as fans tend to overweight those few instances where a problematic pitching change occurred (because they certainly can be annoying). The reality is that very few pitching changes (489 over an entire season) would have actually been impacted by this rule change. I'm OK with MLB trying to find ways to speed up the game. Unfortunately, I think their approach so far has been a bit haphazard and ineffective and it smells a bit of change for change's sake instead of change to actually resolve an issue.

Interestingly,Theo Epstein's new role within MLB is supposed to be to find ways to improve the game, whether by rule changes or otherwise. Given his penchant for analytics, I'm hoping we get something a bit more focused that has real results on the field.

Posted: **Wed May 05, 2021 1:18 pm**

Can we take a second to appreciate how good Trout is, especially in this "year of the pitcher"?

KO 28
AVG .407avg
OBP .514
SLG .779
OPS 1.293
TB 67

Posted: **Wed May 05, 2021 1:29 pm**

He's okay.

. Imagine how much bigger of a name he would be if he was on the Yankees. He's the best player of our lifetime and I certainly wouldn't say he's a household name like other big sports stars.

Posted: **Wed May 05, 2021 2:20 pm**

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 1:18 pm Can we take a second to appreciate how good Trout is, especially in this "year of the pitcher"?

KO 28
AVG .407avg
OBP .514
SLG .779
OPS 1.293
TB 67

Yes, and he is surrounded by Ohtani, Rendon, Upton and Puhols, but they are sub .500. If they only had a couple pitchers.

Posted: **Wed May 05, 2021 2:47 pm**

Octavious wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 1:29 pm He's okay. . Imagine how much bigger of a name he would be if he was on the Yankees. He's the best player of our lifetime and I certainly wouldn't say he's a household name like other big sports stars.

Yankees, Braves, Cubs, LAD, BawSox, even the Mets.

Posted: **Wed May 05, 2021 2:53 pm**

I'm already mad about the alternate universe where the Red Sox had and then traded away Trout.

Posted: **Wed May 05, 2021 2:56 pm**

LawBeefaroni wrote:
Octavious wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 1:29 pm He's okay. . Imagine how much bigger of a name he would be if he was on the Yankees. He's the best player of our lifetime and I certainly wouldn't say he's a household name like other big sports stars.
Yankees, Braves, Cubs, LAD, BawSox, even the Mets.

Yup, Acuna Jr. is no freaking joke though. That guy is a monster. Wish he was on my team.

I wonder what kind of number Trout could put up playing 70ish games a year in NY with hat crappy little stadium they have. Of course I thought that about Stanton and he can't stay on the field.

Posted: **Wed May 05, 2021 3:03 pm**

Jaymann wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 2:20 pm
LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 1:18 pm Can we take a second to appreciate how good Trout is, especially in this "year of the pitcher"?

KO 28
AVG .407avg
OBP .514
SLG .779
OPS 1.293
TB 67
Yes, and he is surrounded by Ohtani, Rendon, Upton and Puhols, but they are sub .500. If they only had a couple pitchers.

Albert Pujols and his -0.3 WAR and Justin Upton and his 0.0 WAR are great lineup protection for Mike Trout.

Posted: **Wed May 05, 2021 3:36 pm**

pr0ner wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 12:54 pm
Lorini wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 12:52 pm Aren't they trying cures for this including basically outlawing the shift?
That'll help offense some, but it's not going to cure the surge in strikeouts.

Outlawing the Shift is stupid. Professional hitters should be capable of going the other way, and we are actually seeing that early this season with some of the huge gaps in batting averages - good hitters who can go the other way are hitting over .300, hitters who don't have been hovering at around .200 most of the year thus far. the same goes for strikeouts - Dave Kingman would be a hall of famer nowadays! KONG! It's not a problem with the game that hitters are swinging for the fences on 2 strike counts rather than protecting the plate.

However, the prevalence of 97mph fastballs post Tommy John surgery for many of these pitchers does have me thinking that I *could* be persuaded to move the mound back a few inches, but I'd want to see it in the minors first.

Posted: **Wed May 05, 2021 3:53 pm**

I used to think that but the way they have stats on players and know exactly where to place people makes just hitting the other way not really the answer. This was a good article on it. I would be surprised if it doesn't get banned in the next couple of years.

https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/why- ... the-shift/

Posted: **Wed May 05, 2021 4:06 pm**

MLB

Our sample of 201 hitters -- the ones who have seen at least 100 pitches against the shift and also not against the shift -- saw 52.9 percent fastballs (four-seam, two-seam, sinker) when the shift was on. When they were facing a non-shift alignment, that jumped to 54.7 percent, which is to say, a few thousand more fastballs.
...
If we look at our 201 players again, we can see that their wOBA (a number just like OBP, except it gives more credit for extra-base hits) against the shift in 2017-18 has been .336. Without the shift, it was ... .335. That's close enough as to be essentially identical. For lefty batters, it hurt them a little -- .326 vs .334 without the shift. (The righties, interestingly, performed better against the shift.)

Of course, even this is incomplete. This is measuring what happened, not what didn't happen -- that is, the value of getting a Gallo or a Davis to change his primary swing in the first place. That's an entirely different conversation, however. The more we learn about the shift, the more we learn there's much more to learn.

Posted: **Wed May 05, 2021 4:18 pm**

I hate artificial rules like no shift. You have 7 defensive players, you should be able to place all 7 of them in left field if you want. It would be like saying no prevent defense in football. Even if it is ineffective, you should not be prevented from using it.

Posted: **Wed May 05, 2021 4:20 pm**

Exceptions made for player safety.

Posted: **Wed May 05, 2021 4:41 pm**

Imlawboy you're not understanding

The Dodgers would change pitchers at least twice during an inning once the pen was activated. This is boring. I really don't care if it takes 5 seconds or five minutes. It's a purely statistical decision, there's no personality in it, there's no real manager choice, it's 'well the hitter is left/right handed so get me a left/right handed pitcher'. What is interesting about that decision? Particularly when they keep making it hitter after hitter? I think you should watch some Dodger games from 2019 and see how boring this can be.

Posted: **Wed May 05, 2021 5:04 pm**

I think I'm understanding you. I think you're not understanding me.

Maybe I'm just not explaining myself very well.

It may seem like this rule change had a big impact on what the Dodgers were doing with their pitching staff, but in practice it didn't have much of an impact. For the year prior to the rule being implemented, the article I linked showed that the Dodgers had only 25 pitching changes that would have been impacted by the rule. All of the other pitching changes they did throughout the year still would have been permitted. That means that once every 6.5 games or so (about once a week), the Dodgers wouldn't have been able to make a pitching change they wanted to.

Posted: **Wed May 05, 2021 5:12 pm**

ImLawBoy wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 5:04 pm I think I'm understanding you. I think you're not understanding me. Maybe I'm just not explaining myself very well.

It may seem like this rule change had a big impact on what the Dodgers were doing with their pitching staff, but in practice it didn't have much of an impact. For the year prior to the rule being implemented, the article I linked showed that the Dodgers had only 25 pitching changes that would have been impacted by the rule. All of the other pitching changes they did throughout the year still would have been permitted. That means that once every 6.5 games or so (about once a week), the Dodgers wouldn't have been able to make a pitching change they wanted to.

If only they only did it every 6.5 weeks we'd be in agreement. But that's not what happens as you can imagine

Once they are in a close game, they will do it nearly every batter If they are way behind or way ahead then they will 'save the pen'. Right?

Posted: **Wed May 05, 2021 5:21 pm**

Jaymann wrote:I hate artificial rules like no shift. You have 7 defensive players, you should be able to place all 7 of them in left field if you want. It would be like saying no prevent defense in football. Even if it is ineffective, you should not be prevented from using it.

Any rule is artificial no? It's kind of like how in football you can't do certain crazy ass formations because it breaks the game.

Posted: **Wed May 05, 2021 5:31 pm**

Lorini wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 5:12 pm
ImLawBoy wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 5:04 pm I think I'm understanding you. I think you're not understanding me. Maybe I'm just not explaining myself very well.

It may seem like this rule change had a big impact on what the Dodgers were doing with their pitching staff, but in practice it didn't have much of an impact. For the year prior to the rule being implemented, the article I linked showed that the Dodgers had only 25 pitching changes that would have been impacted by the rule. All of the other pitching changes they did throughout the year still would have been permitted. That means that once every 6.5 games or so (about once a week), the Dodgers wouldn't have been able to make a pitching change they wanted to.
If only they only did it every 6.5 weeks we'd be in agreement. But that's not what happens as you can imagine Once they are in a close game, they will do it nearly every batter If they are way behind or way ahead then they will 'save the pen'. Right?

But this is actual game data and not just conjecture. When these games were played, they could have done what you said - but they didn't. Only 25 times over the course of the entire season did they make a substitution that would have been banned by the rule, despite the rule not yet being in place. Now, I suppose it's possible that they put all of those 25 changes in a handful of games making those particular games longer and frustrating (the article doesn't go into that level of detail), but even then the impact over the course of the season would be minimal.

Posted: **Wed May 05, 2021 6:01 pm**

Octavious wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 5:21 pm
Jaymann wrote:I hate artificial rules like no shift. You have 7 defensive players, you should be able to place all 7 of them in left field if you want. It would be like saying no prevent defense in football. Even if it is ineffective, you should not be prevented from using it.
Any rule is artificial no? It's kind of like how in football you can't do certain crazy ass formations because it breaks the game.

Same thought I had. All rules are artificial and they add structure to the game right? If MLB says the infielders have to be in a certain area then that's the rule and they have to do that. In football the linemen have to line up in a certain way, receivers have to be in a certain place on the line, I see no difference.

Prevent defense is a drawn up play, not a rule, there's really no comparison.

Posted: **Wed May 05, 2021 6:02 pm**

ImLawBoy wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 5:31 pm
Lorini wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 5:12 pm
ImLawBoy wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 5:04 pm I think I'm understanding you. I think you're not understanding me. Maybe I'm just not explaining myself very well.

It may seem like this rule change had a big impact on what the Dodgers were doing with their pitching staff, but in practice it didn't have much of an impact. For the year prior to the rule being implemented, the article I linked showed that the Dodgers had only 25 pitching changes that would have been impacted by the rule. All of the other pitching changes they did throughout the year still would have been permitted. That means that once every 6.5 games or so (about once a week), the Dodgers wouldn't have been able to make a pitching change they wanted to.
If only they only did it every 6.5 weeks we'd be in agreement. But that's not what happens as you can imagine Once they are in a close game, they will do it nearly every batter If they are way behind or way ahead then they will 'save the pen'. Right?
But this is actual game data and not just conjecture. When these games were played, they could have done what you said - but they didn't. Only 25 times over the course of the entire season did they make a substitution that would have been banned by the rule, despite the rule not yet being in place. Now, I suppose it's possible that they put all of those 25 changes in a handful of games making those particular games longer and frustrating (the article doesn't go into that level of detail), but even then the impact over the course of the season would be minimal.

I will say that if you dug into the data you'd see that those 25 changes were in fact in less than 25 games.

Posted: **Wed May 05, 2021 6:18 pm**

Octavious wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 5:21 pm
Jaymann wrote:I hate artificial rules like no shift. You have 7 defensive players, you should be able to place all 7 of them in left field if you want. It would be like saying no prevent defense in football. Even if it is ineffective, you should not be prevented from using it.
Any rule is artificial no? It's kind of like how in football you can't do certain crazy ass formations because it breaks the game.

Only artificial in the sense that the game has been functioning for over a hundred years where shifting was never considered a major problem. It is self-limiting in that if you overdo it, you will likely suffer as a result, because smart teams will figure out how to counter it. I love when a nominally strong hitter plunks down a bunt to third, because no one is covering. They are trying to "artificially" increase hitting stats.

Posted: **Wed May 05, 2021 6:48 pm**

A 100 years ago they didn't have access to the metrics that they have now. I'd love for players to just adjust but it's not happening.

Posted: **Wed May 05, 2021 6:49 pm**

Baltimore Orioles' John Means pitches no-hitter vs. Seattle Mariners, misses perfect game with wild pitch on strikeout

He's believed to be the first pitcher in major league history to lose a perfect game on a third-strike wild pitch.

Octopus Overlords

MLB 2021 Post Season

Re: MLB 2021 Regular Season

Re: MLB 2021 Regular Season

Re: MLB 2021 Regular Season

Re: MLB 2021 Regular Season

Re: MLB 2021 Regular Season

Re: MLB 2021 Regular Season

Re: MLB 2021 Regular Season

Re: MLB 2021 Regular Season

Re: MLB 2021 Regular Season

Re: MLB 2021 Regular Season

Re: MLB 2021 Regular Season

Re: MLB 2021 Regular Season

Re: MLB 2021 Regular Season

Re: MLB 2021 Regular Season

Re: MLB 2021 Regular Season

Re: MLB 2021 Regular Season

Re: MLB 2021 Regular Season

Re: MLB 2021 Regular Season

Re: MLB 2021 Regular Season

Re: MLB 2021 Regular Season

Re: MLB 2021 Regular Season

Re: MLB 2021 Regular Season

Re: MLB 2021 Regular Season

Re: MLB 2021 Regular Season

Re: MLB 2021 Regular Season

Re: MLB 2021 Regular Season

Re: MLB 2021 Regular Season

Re: MLB 2021 Regular Season

Re: MLB 2021 Regular Season

Re: MLB 2021 Regular Season

Re: MLB 2021 Regular Season

Re: MLB 2021 Regular Season

Re: MLB 2021 Regular Season

Re: MLB 2021 Regular Season

Re: MLB 2021 Regular Season

Re: MLB 2021 Regular Season

Re: MLB 2021 Regular Season

Re: MLB 2021 Regular Season

Re: MLB 2021 Regular Season

Re: MLB 2021 Regular Season