In a league where a hard salary cap is king and players are known to have little to no power, no matter their ability, Antonio Brown pulled an unlikely power move that finally resulted yesterday in the Pittsburgh Steelers trading him to the Oakland Raiders for third round and fifth round draft picks. Oakland then gave Brown a $54 million contract extension, and though the full details of the deal have not been made public yet, it would seem that it means he will probably be in Oakland for the next three seasons.
For Brown, and for the Raiders, it seems like this was an instant win. Oakland has multiple first round picks this year and next year, and they were able to add arguably the best wide receiver in the NFL, while also only having to give up mid-round draft picks. And in reality, I think Oakland did definitely win this trade, at least looking at it right now. However, the NFL is a league where the unexpected happens quite often, so only time will tell how this deal actually works out for Brown, and for both teams.
A year ago, Jon Gruden's first offseason back in Oakland was filled with questionable and controversial moves. Khalil Mack, one of the best defensive players in the game, was dealt to the Chicago Bears in the prime of his career. Oakland received one of those first round picks that they will be able to use this year, but the NFL draft is one of the most unpredictable things in all of sports in terms of whether or not early round choices will succeed or fail.
Sure, first round picks are great, but for Oakland to really end up winning that trade, they have to turn those picks into superstar players. For example, if they drafted someone who were to end up being as good as, say, Khalil Mack, then it would be a success. The problem with that is, Mack was the player they just dealt away. Right now, Mack is the best player on a Bears defense that is an elite unit, and while Chicago was playing in the postseason this past year, the Raiders were sitting at home watching with the rest of us.
In this case though, Oakland is on the other end of the trade. They are the ones getting the superstar player, and the fact that they only had to give up a third and fifth round pick makes this trade look even better. Brown clearly wanted out of Pittsburgh, and he spoke out publicly against anyone and everyone there, eventually getting his wish and ending up with a new team and a new contract in Oakland.
Now, if Brown is seeking warmer weather and a lot of money, then he sure came out looking pretty good as of today. However, if he wants a chance to win a Super Bowl and go down as an all-time great wide receiver, we might look back at this move a decade from now and say that Brown made a big mistake.
Don't get me wrong, if a guy wants to play the game for money, then he is more than welcome to. Go ahead and make as much money as you can, and that is totally fine. However, it is likely that Brown was going to get a big contract no matter where he signed, so this move can't only be about money. If he wants to live in warm weather in Oakland as opposed to suffering through frigid winters in Pittsburgh, then he should be thrilled. If he wants all of those things and to win? Well, that might be a problem.
We have seen NBA players force their way out of places and end up coming out good on the other end, at least somewhat so. Kyrie Irving got out of Cleveland, and is on a good team in Boston right now. Jimmy Butler did the same and is now playing for an up and coming Philadelphia 76ers team. There is a difference between the NBA and the NFL though, and in terms of one player turning around a team, the difference is night and day.
We have seen the success levels of basketball teams change due to only one player multiple times in recent memory, and Kyrie Irving and Jimmy Butler have been able to do that to varying degrees of success. Football is very different though. One wide receiver doesn't change an entire team. Antonio Brown is not going to change the Oakland Raiders from a 4-12 team to a 12-4 team by himself. The nature of the game will not allow that. In order for the Raiders to challenge for the playoffs in 2019, they are going to need to address a whole lot of things, and based on recent history, that may not be as easy as stockpiling a bunch of draft picks and thinking it will guarantee instant success.
Derek Carr is a big question at quarterback right now for the Raiders, and the team really could go a number of ways before Week 1 of next season. They might stick with Carr. They might try to draft a new quarterback. They might go after a veteran quarterback who could be available this offseason like Josh Rosen or Teddy Bridgewater. Only the team knows that, and honestly, the team might not even have made a decision on that yet.
Brown is a great receiver, there is no question about that. But, in order for a great receiver to flourish, he needs a reliable guy throwing him the ball. He had that in Pittsburgh. Looking at the Oakland roster right now, I'm not sure that is the case here.
Randy Moss forced his way out of Minnesota years ago, and actually wound up in Oakland, but that didn't work out too well, as Moss was traded to the Patriots not long after. Terrell Owens ended up in Philadelphia after being deemed a problem in San Francisco and being traded. That worked out far better than Moss, but Owens did eventually run into similar problems with the Eagles, and ended up being traded by them as well. Is Brown going to end up with a brief stint in his new destination like those two? Or is he going to end up being the reason the Raiders win a Super Bowl? Right now, we don't know the answer to that question. One thing I do know is that Oakland has more than a few areas they need to address to end up competing for a playoff spot in the AFC, especially in a division with the Kansas City Chiefs and Los Angeles Chargers, both of whom were playoff teams this past season.
There is very little doubt that adding Brown will instantly upgrade the passing game of the Raiders. However, there is also very much doubt that all of those first round picks they have stockpiled will end up panning out. Only time will tell. Brown began his career as a receiver doing nothing but produce, but in recent years, there have been some problems that have followed him. Sure, they have been minor issues compared to problems other guys around the league have been embroiled in, but they seem to have built up enough for the Steelers to tire of him and get him out of town, even for a greatly reduced price. The change of scenery might do wonders for Brown, but right now he is on a team with a far less talented offense than the one he just left, and in the NFL, you can't just snap your fingers and make the entire team around you better. Brown still can do nothing to help a defense that allowed 140 rushing yards per game and almost 4,000 yards through the air, thanks in part to the preseason trade of Khalil Mack.
The Raiders made some very questionable moves both before and during last year, and acquiring Brown is not going to make up for all of them at once. Yes, it will certainly improve the offense, but Brown can't rush the passer and cover the best receivers in the league, and the Raiders will have to deal with guys like Keenan Allen, Travis Kelce, and Tyreek Hill twice each next season.
We still have a long way to go before Week 1. The offseason is only just getting started, and for the Raiders and Brown, it has gotten off to a great start. Success in March does not equate to success once the games begin though. We have seen many, many examples of that.
Is Antonio Brown going to be a rich man? Yes, he most definitely is. Have the Oakland Raiders instantly become Super Bowl favorites? No, they most definitely have not. And maybe Brown isn't too worried about the Super Bowl chances of the Raiders. If that is the case, then he has already won.
With an impending move to Las Vegas, the Raiders actually still do not have a home stadium to play in next year. That means many fans in Oakland, and in Las Vegas, are most likely already frustrated with the team. If this big move ends up not working out as well as it seemingly could, the Raiders could only be facing bigger and tougher hills to climb, in more ways than one.
This is not the NBA. One player cannot instantly take a team from the basement of the league to championship contention. In the NFL, you need a full roster of players to win a Super Bowl, and while the Raiders surely upgraded one of those roster spots yesterday, it is by no means a guarantee that all of those other spots will follow.
Daily Rangers Update: The Rangers played well in a win against the Devils yesterday, and still have very slim hopes to make the playoffs. They will head out west for a road trip that starts in Calgary against a very good Flames team, and unless they can come up with some big wins over the next week, it is likely that the plans for the offseason will begin early.
Daily Giants Update: With the draft getting only closer and closer, it is still unclear what direction the team will go. It seems like for every good thing that happens this offseason, another equal and opposite bad thing has happened, so the draft is going to play a key role in shaping the roster for Week 1.
Daily NBA Update: The Milwaukee Bucks were the first team to clinch a playoff berth and yesterday became the first team to reach the 50 win mark. The fight for the final few playoff spots in the Eastern Conference is far from over though, so although it is likely the Bucks will win their first round matchup, we still do not know who they will be playing.
Sunday, March 10, 2019
Saturday, March 9, 2019
Experimenting in baseball
For many years now, the criticism of baseball has been that the game moves too slowly. Football has physicality and a lot more action than baseball, and basketball and hockey are played at a much higher speed than baseball. Depending on who you ask, this can be viewed as a good thing or a bad thing. Usually, the older generations will say that part of the beauty of the game of baseball is that it is the only major sport we have without a time limit. However, as pro sports leagues now are trying to appeal to younger generations, this is often times viewed as a major reason that the sport is not nearly as popular with young people as opposed to football and basketball.
Football games this past season lasted, on average, three hours and 12 minutes. Hockey games lasted an average of 2:20, and basketball games lasted an average of 2:15. Baseball games lasted 3:05. So, while the average baseball game does not go on for the length of an average football game, the game of baseball has far more periods of inaction, and is still not based on a game clock. Then, in the postseason, when the games matter most, they drag on even longer because of what seem to be constant pitching changes and mound conferences.
When the Chicago Cubs finally won the World Series for the first time in over a century in 2016, Game Seven went on for four and a half hours thanks to multiple pitching changes and substitutions, as well as rain delays. I remember watching the game and feeling as though I was watching something historic, while at the same time just praying that the game would somehow end because I, like many people around the country, just wanted to go to sleep. When the final game of the season is seen as almost a chore to watch, it is obviously not good for the sport, even though the game was actually very exciting. It just took way too long to play, and I would completely understand why many people would just eventually tune out and lose interest because of the unbelievably slow pace.
Another game in that same postseason that was an instant classic was an American League Divisional Series matchup between the Texas Rangers and Toronto Blue Jays. The most memorable part of that game was the seventh inning, that was highlighted by Jose Bautista's monstrous home run and famous bat flip. To baseball fans everywhere, it was one of the most exciting games in recent memory. However, the entire seventh inning lasted a ridiculous 53 minutes of real time. Almost an entire hour for one inning!
As a Diamondbacks fan, I also remember Game Four of the 2001 World Series that the Yankees ended up winning on a Derek Jeter walk-off home run. The game started in October and actually ended in November. It was the first ever baseball game played in the month of November, and went on past midnight on the east coast.
Those two games were unbelievably enthralling, but you cannot deny the fact that their length was a serious problem for the casual fan, and it is likely that all of the casual fans out there watching tuned out before the games ended. Therefore, there has been talk of trying to quicken the pace of the game in recent years, and it seems as though some measures to try to do that will be at the center of collective bargaining talks that will be upcoming between the league and the players.
It was just announced this past week that the Atlantic League, an independent league not officially affiliated with Major League Baseball, but still a fully recognized minor league, will implement a number of new rules changes that MLB will closely monitor in the hopes of possibly eventually adopting in order to improve its own game. Some of the changes have been installed with the hope of speeding up the pace of the game, while others have not, but they do address some things that many people see as problems with the game of baseball today. I thought this was actually a very interesting subject because the game of baseball has been around for so long and remained very much the same. New analytics and ways of thinking have made the modern game much different than the game of not too long ago, and some of these new Atlantic League rules are being used to "improve" the game, at least based on the viewpoint of some people around the game.
In no particular order, here are those changes, and what I feel about each of them...
Robotic Umpires: Baseball is a sport that relies on its officials to be involved constantly in the game, as they affect literally every pitch. While umpires are supposed to all use the same requirements to call balls and strikes, for many years, it has simply been an accepted fact that different umpires had different zones. Some have zones that are higher or wider than others, while some umpires have smaller zones. Since balls and strikes are based only on the calls of the home plate umpire, there is no way to actually challenge their calls, even if they might be wrong.
Many television broadcasts now have on-screen graphics that show what a "true" strike zone for each batter is. By the letter of the law, the strike zone is defined as the space between the letters on the jersey and the top of the knees, and the width is the size of home plate. With the television graphics and tracking technology, we can now get instant shots of whether or not pitches were actually in that "true" strike zone, and we can see how the calls of the umpire actually compare to what should be called a strike and a ball.
The Atlantic League will use similar technology to call balls and strikes, and not rely on the calls of the home plate umpire, so pitches can be judged by an independent piece of equipment that is not subject to change based on the calls of one individual.
On the surface, this seems like a pretty good idea. Having a standard strike zone for each hitter seems much fairer than a zone that may change now and then, from pitch to pitch. However, this still does not account for things other than balls and strikes. Plays on the base paths are probably impossible to judge solely by robots or technology unless some sort of tracking device were installed into each and every player, as well as each and every base, and I am by no means a scientist, but I would venture to guess that something like that could only come at an extremely high cost that leagues would immediately dismiss.
There is also things like home run calls and fielders catching balls that may or may not have hit the ground. Because ball parks are not all standardized, there will always be questionable calls of whether or not batted balls clear a wall and are a home run. Plus, there always seems to be odd and unforeseen plays every once in a while where a fan may or may not interfere with a player trying to make a catch, and I think that would be impossible for a robotic umpire to decide.
I do like using technology like this for deciding whether or not balls are fair or foul, as tennis and soccer use very similar technology, and the calls are decided correctly and almost instantly. Umpires are usually actually very good at deciphering whether or not balls are fair or foul, but technology like this could be used to make every call correct, and I think doing that can only be good for the game.
Maybe some day we will see a robotic strike zone, but I would think that the end game of using that technology would be to eliminate the need for umpires completely, but I can't see how that could ever be possible because of plays like I mentioned before on the base paths and in the field that I think will always need to be judged by actual people, no matter how advanced technology eventually becomes.
Add what I am sure would be an idea that would not be accepted by the professional association of umpires, and I don't see games called entirely by robotic technology ever happening. Maybe it can be used for some aspects as an independent arbiter, but I think it is impossible for it to be the lone judge.
Banning the shift: Shifting defenders is not an idea that is as new as many people would think, because its use actually dates back many years thanks to all-time great hitters like Ted Williams. The difference now though, is that shifting fielders is much more common, and many shifts are now very exaggerated, with vast parts of the field often left wide open based on the tendencies of some hitters.
The idea really began to become more widespread when Barry Bonds was breaking home run records, but with an advanced reliance on analytics and data, it is not just reserved for the best hitters in the league, it is now used in some form for almost every hitter in the game. While some hitters have much greater tendencies to hit the ball in certain directions, it is not uncommon to see fielders positioned differently from batter to batter now. Many of the shifts now are not extreme, but there are also many cases where there are quite extreme shifts.
The rule that will be implemented by the Atlantic League will state that there have to be two infielders on either side of second base during every pitch of the game. This will take away these extreme shifts that some people hate.
In my opinion, this is a bad idea. There are reasons that teams shift their fielders from hitter to hitter. They don't just do it randomly, they do it based on concrete data that suggests certain hitters are more likely to hit the ball to certain places, and if that means moving an extra fielder to combat that, then I don't see why that should be viewed as a problem.
In some ways, this is the same as the intentional foul in basketball. Often times teams foul certain players in certain situations because they are bad free throw shooters. Does it slow the game down? Yes. But does it make sense? I believe that it certainly does, and the case is the same here. No one is forcing hitters to try to pull the ball and hit it 500 feet for a home run on every swing, but if they continue to try to do that, then why should the defense not be allowed to adjust to try to stop it?
I feel like this is a pretty dumb idea, but I actually think that the idea does have some traction, and it could possibly be installed eventually by Major League Baseball, which I would disagree with.
Three batter minimum for relief pitchers: Mound visits and pitching changes are often viewed as one of the main reasons that baseball games often times seem to take forever. If you are watching on television and you get an inning with multiple pitching changes, it sometimes seems like you are watching commercials more than the actual game, and I totally understand how this drives some people crazy.
I never knew the actual numbers here, but last season there were actually over 2,000 (yes, that is 2,000 and not 200) instances of a pitcher facing two or fewer hitters at any point in a game. When you look at that number, it is actually pretty shocking, and you truly get hit with just how often this happens and how it does in fact do nothing but slow down the pace of the game, even if some fans aren't too worried about that.
Again though, teams don't just do this without reason, they do it with the goal in mind of getting batters out. Some hitters have quite different splits when facing right handed pitchers instead of left handed pitchers, so it is understandable that in order to raise the chance of retiring any given batter, you want to play to their biggest weaknesses.
Installing a minimum number of batters that every pitcher would have to face would definitely lessen the trips to the mound and parade of relievers coming in from the bullpen, but I'm still not a huge fan of doing this. I certainly am not a fan of an ever-growing reliance on bullpens, especially in the postseason now, so installing this rule would definitely somewhat change that. However, I think that these pitching changes are made with a larger goal in mind, and I personally am able to overlook some innings that last much longer than others because of multiple pitching changes.
I do understand how some people view sometimes constant pitching changes as a bore and a burden on the game though, so I think we could eventually see MLB implement a rule similar to this.
Changing the distance between the mound to home plate: This rule will add two feet between home plate and the pitching rubber, changing it from 60 feet, 6 inches to 62 feet, 6 inches.
The distance between the rubber and the plate has been the same since 1893, so this would obviously be quite a drastic change, even if two feet does not seem like much. Also, the height of the mound has actually varied throughout the history of the sport, so maybe this change would not be as groundbreaking as it might seem.
I think the goal here is to allow hitters an extra few instants to adjust to pitches, with the hope of possibly more scoring coming from that. However, because many hitters now are so focused on trying to hit home runs, I would say that mindset would probably still not change. Maybe a few extra instants would cause offense to increase because these are professional hitters, and any extra edge they can get only helps them.
One thing about this though, is I think eventually this distance would have to change on every baseball field throughout the world, whether it is one played on by professionals, or one played on by elementary school kids, because I don't think you could use this distance only in professional ball, while keeping the original distance in college, high school, and youth baseball.
I am not really a fan of this change, and if I had to bet on whether or not it would be instituted by MLB any time soon, I would probably bet that it would not occur.
Those are the changes that really headline what the Atlantic League will be doing in the upcoming season, but there are also a couple other possible changes to the game that I would like to talk about since we are already on the topic.
Pitch clock: A pitch clock of 20 seconds is already being used in some minor leagues, and it has actually been used in some major league spring training games this season.
The time seems to be 20 seconds that would be allowed between pitches, and the onus would not be on only the pitcher to resume play in that time, but on the batter as well, with the penalty being either a ball or strike depending on who causes the delay. Some current major league players have spoken out against a pitch clock, with Max Scherzer being the most recent to do so in a very loud manner.
Baseball players are usually creatures of habit, and we have seen many players in the past like Nomar Garciaparra and Derek Jeter go through what some might view as a maddening routine after each and every pitch, as well as many pitchers go through their own routines. Yet, in the games that the clocks have been used this spring, most players have said that they didn't even notice them, and it played little to no part at all in the action.
A rule was instituted not long ago that required umpires to go out to the mound to shorten mound visits by coaches and managers, and while we do see it occur multiple times each game, the rules are very loosely enforced and penalties are pretty much never levied. I think eventually this would be the case with a pitch clock as well. I can't see any way that a buzzer would go off like a shot clock in basketball, so I think the rule would be more like the serve clock in tennis, where it counts down but really doesn't impact the action at all.
I think eventually these clocks will be installed by Major League Baseball, but I also don't believe they will affect the game at all, and eventually players and fans will get used to it and not even notice the clocks at all.
Universal Designated Hitter: This is something that seems will almost certainly exist in the very near future. Baseball is the only sport where a rule like this only plays a part in half of the games, which is actually pretty odd, but it has been in existence so long that it really isn't thought about much. American League fans are used to the DH, and National League fans are used to pitchers hitting. Supporters of the DH point to the very low batting averages of pitchers, and say that most of the time, their at bats are pretty much just a glorified strikeout, with the best possible outcome being a sacrifice bunt. Sure, there are some pitchers that are somewhat respectable hitters relative to most other pitchers, but the majority of pitchers are pretty much a guaranteed out.
Proponents of the National League style point to strategy as the number one reason they don't like a designated hitter, and I used to be of that mindset, but the more you think about it, the more senseless that point of view actually sounds. When was the last time you saw a crowd get up and cheer for a successful sacrifice bunt and double switch? The answer is probably never.
Sure, older players who are often well past their prime and out of shape do hang on a year or two extra as a DH after they are unable to hold down a position in the field, but is that really hurting anyone? No, it isn't. Like I said, I think it is almost a guarantee that in the very near future every team will be using a designated hitter, and I really don't see any reason to be ardently against that happening.
Like a modern baseball game, I think this post has gone on for more than enough time, but I think that this is an interesting topic, and I am glad to see Major League Baseball at least trying to see how some tweaks to their game might help. Using a small minor league to do that will not impact the game at the highest level, but it will at least be able to be used as a barometer to measure how future changes could be introduced to help improve their product on the field.
Many times, people are resistant to change, especially when it comes to things that they love, and I certainly think I fall into that category when it comes to some sports. However, in the long run, I think these changes would only be made to make the game better and more enjoyable for both players and fans, so I can't fault MLB for at least attempting to enhance its game.
Daily Giants Update: The Giants dealt Olivier Vernon and a draft pick to the Browns yesterday for Kevin Zeitler and a draft pick in a move to strengthen the offensive line and get rid of a player who was being paid a lot that might be leaving soon anyway. I certainly like the move, and it seems like the offensive line, which has been a problem for way too long, might actually be getting close to at least league-average. Vernon had a few productive years with the team, but the upcoming draft class is deep on defensive line talent this year, and hopefully the team can find a replacement for him that will be much cheaper, yet still provide similar production.
Daily Rangers Update: In a season that has been filled with tough and close losses, the Rangers suffered another one in a shootout against Detroit on Thursday night. They will play the New Jersey Devils tonight.
Daily NBA Update: The Warriors are still better than everyone. Aside from that, the soap opera that is the rest of the league continues to be both bafflingly popular with many, yet also unbelievably infuriating for me.
Football games this past season lasted, on average, three hours and 12 minutes. Hockey games lasted an average of 2:20, and basketball games lasted an average of 2:15. Baseball games lasted 3:05. So, while the average baseball game does not go on for the length of an average football game, the game of baseball has far more periods of inaction, and is still not based on a game clock. Then, in the postseason, when the games matter most, they drag on even longer because of what seem to be constant pitching changes and mound conferences.
When the Chicago Cubs finally won the World Series for the first time in over a century in 2016, Game Seven went on for four and a half hours thanks to multiple pitching changes and substitutions, as well as rain delays. I remember watching the game and feeling as though I was watching something historic, while at the same time just praying that the game would somehow end because I, like many people around the country, just wanted to go to sleep. When the final game of the season is seen as almost a chore to watch, it is obviously not good for the sport, even though the game was actually very exciting. It just took way too long to play, and I would completely understand why many people would just eventually tune out and lose interest because of the unbelievably slow pace.
Another game in that same postseason that was an instant classic was an American League Divisional Series matchup between the Texas Rangers and Toronto Blue Jays. The most memorable part of that game was the seventh inning, that was highlighted by Jose Bautista's monstrous home run and famous bat flip. To baseball fans everywhere, it was one of the most exciting games in recent memory. However, the entire seventh inning lasted a ridiculous 53 minutes of real time. Almost an entire hour for one inning!
As a Diamondbacks fan, I also remember Game Four of the 2001 World Series that the Yankees ended up winning on a Derek Jeter walk-off home run. The game started in October and actually ended in November. It was the first ever baseball game played in the month of November, and went on past midnight on the east coast.
Those two games were unbelievably enthralling, but you cannot deny the fact that their length was a serious problem for the casual fan, and it is likely that all of the casual fans out there watching tuned out before the games ended. Therefore, there has been talk of trying to quicken the pace of the game in recent years, and it seems as though some measures to try to do that will be at the center of collective bargaining talks that will be upcoming between the league and the players.
It was just announced this past week that the Atlantic League, an independent league not officially affiliated with Major League Baseball, but still a fully recognized minor league, will implement a number of new rules changes that MLB will closely monitor in the hopes of possibly eventually adopting in order to improve its own game. Some of the changes have been installed with the hope of speeding up the pace of the game, while others have not, but they do address some things that many people see as problems with the game of baseball today. I thought this was actually a very interesting subject because the game of baseball has been around for so long and remained very much the same. New analytics and ways of thinking have made the modern game much different than the game of not too long ago, and some of these new Atlantic League rules are being used to "improve" the game, at least based on the viewpoint of some people around the game.
In no particular order, here are those changes, and what I feel about each of them...
Robotic Umpires: Baseball is a sport that relies on its officials to be involved constantly in the game, as they affect literally every pitch. While umpires are supposed to all use the same requirements to call balls and strikes, for many years, it has simply been an accepted fact that different umpires had different zones. Some have zones that are higher or wider than others, while some umpires have smaller zones. Since balls and strikes are based only on the calls of the home plate umpire, there is no way to actually challenge their calls, even if they might be wrong.
Many television broadcasts now have on-screen graphics that show what a "true" strike zone for each batter is. By the letter of the law, the strike zone is defined as the space between the letters on the jersey and the top of the knees, and the width is the size of home plate. With the television graphics and tracking technology, we can now get instant shots of whether or not pitches were actually in that "true" strike zone, and we can see how the calls of the umpire actually compare to what should be called a strike and a ball.
The Atlantic League will use similar technology to call balls and strikes, and not rely on the calls of the home plate umpire, so pitches can be judged by an independent piece of equipment that is not subject to change based on the calls of one individual.
On the surface, this seems like a pretty good idea. Having a standard strike zone for each hitter seems much fairer than a zone that may change now and then, from pitch to pitch. However, this still does not account for things other than balls and strikes. Plays on the base paths are probably impossible to judge solely by robots or technology unless some sort of tracking device were installed into each and every player, as well as each and every base, and I am by no means a scientist, but I would venture to guess that something like that could only come at an extremely high cost that leagues would immediately dismiss.
There is also things like home run calls and fielders catching balls that may or may not have hit the ground. Because ball parks are not all standardized, there will always be questionable calls of whether or not batted balls clear a wall and are a home run. Plus, there always seems to be odd and unforeseen plays every once in a while where a fan may or may not interfere with a player trying to make a catch, and I think that would be impossible for a robotic umpire to decide.
I do like using technology like this for deciding whether or not balls are fair or foul, as tennis and soccer use very similar technology, and the calls are decided correctly and almost instantly. Umpires are usually actually very good at deciphering whether or not balls are fair or foul, but technology like this could be used to make every call correct, and I think doing that can only be good for the game.
Maybe some day we will see a robotic strike zone, but I would think that the end game of using that technology would be to eliminate the need for umpires completely, but I can't see how that could ever be possible because of plays like I mentioned before on the base paths and in the field that I think will always need to be judged by actual people, no matter how advanced technology eventually becomes.
Add what I am sure would be an idea that would not be accepted by the professional association of umpires, and I don't see games called entirely by robotic technology ever happening. Maybe it can be used for some aspects as an independent arbiter, but I think it is impossible for it to be the lone judge.
Banning the shift: Shifting defenders is not an idea that is as new as many people would think, because its use actually dates back many years thanks to all-time great hitters like Ted Williams. The difference now though, is that shifting fielders is much more common, and many shifts are now very exaggerated, with vast parts of the field often left wide open based on the tendencies of some hitters.
The idea really began to become more widespread when Barry Bonds was breaking home run records, but with an advanced reliance on analytics and data, it is not just reserved for the best hitters in the league, it is now used in some form for almost every hitter in the game. While some hitters have much greater tendencies to hit the ball in certain directions, it is not uncommon to see fielders positioned differently from batter to batter now. Many of the shifts now are not extreme, but there are also many cases where there are quite extreme shifts.
The rule that will be implemented by the Atlantic League will state that there have to be two infielders on either side of second base during every pitch of the game. This will take away these extreme shifts that some people hate.
In my opinion, this is a bad idea. There are reasons that teams shift their fielders from hitter to hitter. They don't just do it randomly, they do it based on concrete data that suggests certain hitters are more likely to hit the ball to certain places, and if that means moving an extra fielder to combat that, then I don't see why that should be viewed as a problem.
In some ways, this is the same as the intentional foul in basketball. Often times teams foul certain players in certain situations because they are bad free throw shooters. Does it slow the game down? Yes. But does it make sense? I believe that it certainly does, and the case is the same here. No one is forcing hitters to try to pull the ball and hit it 500 feet for a home run on every swing, but if they continue to try to do that, then why should the defense not be allowed to adjust to try to stop it?
I feel like this is a pretty dumb idea, but I actually think that the idea does have some traction, and it could possibly be installed eventually by Major League Baseball, which I would disagree with.
Three batter minimum for relief pitchers: Mound visits and pitching changes are often viewed as one of the main reasons that baseball games often times seem to take forever. If you are watching on television and you get an inning with multiple pitching changes, it sometimes seems like you are watching commercials more than the actual game, and I totally understand how this drives some people crazy.
I never knew the actual numbers here, but last season there were actually over 2,000 (yes, that is 2,000 and not 200) instances of a pitcher facing two or fewer hitters at any point in a game. When you look at that number, it is actually pretty shocking, and you truly get hit with just how often this happens and how it does in fact do nothing but slow down the pace of the game, even if some fans aren't too worried about that.
Again though, teams don't just do this without reason, they do it with the goal in mind of getting batters out. Some hitters have quite different splits when facing right handed pitchers instead of left handed pitchers, so it is understandable that in order to raise the chance of retiring any given batter, you want to play to their biggest weaknesses.
Installing a minimum number of batters that every pitcher would have to face would definitely lessen the trips to the mound and parade of relievers coming in from the bullpen, but I'm still not a huge fan of doing this. I certainly am not a fan of an ever-growing reliance on bullpens, especially in the postseason now, so installing this rule would definitely somewhat change that. However, I think that these pitching changes are made with a larger goal in mind, and I personally am able to overlook some innings that last much longer than others because of multiple pitching changes.
I do understand how some people view sometimes constant pitching changes as a bore and a burden on the game though, so I think we could eventually see MLB implement a rule similar to this.
Changing the distance between the mound to home plate: This rule will add two feet between home plate and the pitching rubber, changing it from 60 feet, 6 inches to 62 feet, 6 inches.
The distance between the rubber and the plate has been the same since 1893, so this would obviously be quite a drastic change, even if two feet does not seem like much. Also, the height of the mound has actually varied throughout the history of the sport, so maybe this change would not be as groundbreaking as it might seem.
I think the goal here is to allow hitters an extra few instants to adjust to pitches, with the hope of possibly more scoring coming from that. However, because many hitters now are so focused on trying to hit home runs, I would say that mindset would probably still not change. Maybe a few extra instants would cause offense to increase because these are professional hitters, and any extra edge they can get only helps them.
One thing about this though, is I think eventually this distance would have to change on every baseball field throughout the world, whether it is one played on by professionals, or one played on by elementary school kids, because I don't think you could use this distance only in professional ball, while keeping the original distance in college, high school, and youth baseball.
I am not really a fan of this change, and if I had to bet on whether or not it would be instituted by MLB any time soon, I would probably bet that it would not occur.
Those are the changes that really headline what the Atlantic League will be doing in the upcoming season, but there are also a couple other possible changes to the game that I would like to talk about since we are already on the topic.
Pitch clock: A pitch clock of 20 seconds is already being used in some minor leagues, and it has actually been used in some major league spring training games this season.
The time seems to be 20 seconds that would be allowed between pitches, and the onus would not be on only the pitcher to resume play in that time, but on the batter as well, with the penalty being either a ball or strike depending on who causes the delay. Some current major league players have spoken out against a pitch clock, with Max Scherzer being the most recent to do so in a very loud manner.
Baseball players are usually creatures of habit, and we have seen many players in the past like Nomar Garciaparra and Derek Jeter go through what some might view as a maddening routine after each and every pitch, as well as many pitchers go through their own routines. Yet, in the games that the clocks have been used this spring, most players have said that they didn't even notice them, and it played little to no part at all in the action.
A rule was instituted not long ago that required umpires to go out to the mound to shorten mound visits by coaches and managers, and while we do see it occur multiple times each game, the rules are very loosely enforced and penalties are pretty much never levied. I think eventually this would be the case with a pitch clock as well. I can't see any way that a buzzer would go off like a shot clock in basketball, so I think the rule would be more like the serve clock in tennis, where it counts down but really doesn't impact the action at all.
I think eventually these clocks will be installed by Major League Baseball, but I also don't believe they will affect the game at all, and eventually players and fans will get used to it and not even notice the clocks at all.
Universal Designated Hitter: This is something that seems will almost certainly exist in the very near future. Baseball is the only sport where a rule like this only plays a part in half of the games, which is actually pretty odd, but it has been in existence so long that it really isn't thought about much. American League fans are used to the DH, and National League fans are used to pitchers hitting. Supporters of the DH point to the very low batting averages of pitchers, and say that most of the time, their at bats are pretty much just a glorified strikeout, with the best possible outcome being a sacrifice bunt. Sure, there are some pitchers that are somewhat respectable hitters relative to most other pitchers, but the majority of pitchers are pretty much a guaranteed out.
Proponents of the National League style point to strategy as the number one reason they don't like a designated hitter, and I used to be of that mindset, but the more you think about it, the more senseless that point of view actually sounds. When was the last time you saw a crowd get up and cheer for a successful sacrifice bunt and double switch? The answer is probably never.
Sure, older players who are often well past their prime and out of shape do hang on a year or two extra as a DH after they are unable to hold down a position in the field, but is that really hurting anyone? No, it isn't. Like I said, I think it is almost a guarantee that in the very near future every team will be using a designated hitter, and I really don't see any reason to be ardently against that happening.
Like a modern baseball game, I think this post has gone on for more than enough time, but I think that this is an interesting topic, and I am glad to see Major League Baseball at least trying to see how some tweaks to their game might help. Using a small minor league to do that will not impact the game at the highest level, but it will at least be able to be used as a barometer to measure how future changes could be introduced to help improve their product on the field.
Many times, people are resistant to change, especially when it comes to things that they love, and I certainly think I fall into that category when it comes to some sports. However, in the long run, I think these changes would only be made to make the game better and more enjoyable for both players and fans, so I can't fault MLB for at least attempting to enhance its game.
Daily Giants Update: The Giants dealt Olivier Vernon and a draft pick to the Browns yesterday for Kevin Zeitler and a draft pick in a move to strengthen the offensive line and get rid of a player who was being paid a lot that might be leaving soon anyway. I certainly like the move, and it seems like the offensive line, which has been a problem for way too long, might actually be getting close to at least league-average. Vernon had a few productive years with the team, but the upcoming draft class is deep on defensive line talent this year, and hopefully the team can find a replacement for him that will be much cheaper, yet still provide similar production.
Daily Rangers Update: In a season that has been filled with tough and close losses, the Rangers suffered another one in a shootout against Detroit on Thursday night. They will play the New Jersey Devils tonight.
Daily NBA Update: The Warriors are still better than everyone. Aside from that, the soap opera that is the rest of the league continues to be both bafflingly popular with many, yet also unbelievably infuriating for me.
Monday, March 4, 2019
An issue that really doesn't matter
Now that the calendar officially reads March, it means that the beginning of the baseball season is just getting closer and closer. The biggest talking point of the offseason has been the extremely slow-moving free agent market, as even though Bryce Harper finally has a team, star players Craig Kimbrel and Dallas Keuchel still remain un-signed. Another topic that I have heard discussed to a much lesser degree is the case of top prospects like Eloy Jimenez and Vladimir Guerrero, Jr. Because Guerrero is the son of a Hall of Fame player, he has been the primary example of what some people deem to be an awful problem.
According to anyone familiar with the pipeline of prospects in baseball, Guerrero is clearly ready to play for the Toronto Blue Jays. His hitting talent seems to be undeniable, and he has the chance to be a generational prospect and the face of a Toronto franchise that has lacked a face for quite some time now. However, despite that, general manager Ross Atkins recently stated that Guerrero would begin the season in the minor leagues because the organization felt that he still needed work on his defense.
People close to the game have condemned this move because of Guerrero's talent, and said that the Blue Jays were doing a disservice to both the game and their team by keeping him at Triple-A to start the year. Despite the claims of the organization that he still needs to work on his defense, it is pretty clear that the only reason Guerrero will not be on the Opening Day roster is because if he begins the season in the minor leagues, the team gains an extra year of control over his contract. Instead of being a free agent after six years in the big leagues, Guerrero will have to wait until seven years from now before he becomes a free agent. Does that hurt the Blue Jays in 2019? Yes, it probably does. But does it make sense for the organization (both on the field and off the field) as a whole? Despite what people claim, it unquestionably does, and I don't know why anyone would fault the Blue Jays for doing it.
Last year, the Atlanta Braves were in a similar situation with Ronald Acuna, Jr. He wasn't called up until late April for the very same reason, yet he still won National League Rookie of the Year and the Braves made the playoffs. He was a huge reason why they were so surprisingly good, and no one remembered the few weeks he missed at the beginning of the year.
It isn't just Guerrero who will be in this situation either. Fernando Tatis, Jr. will most likely begin the year in the minor leagues before the Padres call him up, and the White Sox will do the same thing with Eloy Jimenez. Those three are arguably the top three prospects in all of baseball and all three of them seem ready to play right now. Is keeping them in the minor leagues to begin the year really doing them a massive disservice though? If you are looking at the situations from the realistic perspective of their teams, the answer is clearly no.
The Padres just signed Manny Machado to a ten year contract for $300 million. Obviously, that means they are planning on contending sooner rather than later. But that ten year deal doesn't mean they are planning on contending in April of 2019 either. They still need to add some pieces before they can legitimately challenge for a title, so isn't having Tatis for seven years instead of six worth it? Yes, it is. And like Acuna proved last year, even if a top prospect doesn't make their debut until late April, it doesn't mean that they can't greatly impact their team that year.
In the NFL, teams that take a quarterback with their top pick in the draft aren't drafting for immediate returns. They are drafting with their eye on the future. Getting a top level prospect at quarterback is the base for what that team hopes will become a contender year in and year out. The case with these prospects is basically the same.
The Blue Jays likely are not as good as the Red Sox or Yankees with or without Guerrero this season. Could they surprise and end up in the playoffs? Sure, of course they could. But don't they have a better shot at competing with those teams seven years down the road than they do now? Yes. Absolutely.
The White Sox tried to spend big money to lure Machado and Harper to Chicago this offseason, but they weren't able to do so. In the present, that was a disappointment for the team and the fans. However, with an extra year of control of Jimenez, he could certainly help them contend in the long run. The same goes for Tatis and the Padres. They didn't sign Machado to a one-year deal. They signed him to a ten year deal. That means they have their eyes on contention in the long-term as opposed to contention right now.
These teams are still going to sell tickets. They aren't going to be playing in front of empty stadiums for the first two weeks of the season. In fact, the anticipation of the debuts of these prospects will almost certainly boost ticket sales when they do actually get called up, and if things go according to plan, those tickets will continue to sell more and more if the teams get better in the future.
Despite what opponents of this might want you to believe, the problem here isn't with the Blue Jays or the Padres or the White Sox. The problem is with the rules and the system that made those rules. Until rules are implemented that make it so that sixth and seventh year of team control isn't based on the Opening Day roster, I don't know why anyone could find any fault at all with these teams. That is something that can be collectively bargained too, and negotiations for a new collective bargaining agreement between the owners and players will hopefully begin sooner rather than later, because the current CBA will expire in 2021.
Collective bargaining is always about each side agreeing to concede on points they believe are less important and stand strong on points they believe are most important. If the MLBPA feels like this service time is something very important to them, then they can push for it in upcoming negotiations. If they have other things on their list that they deem more important, then maybe the rules on this will remain.
As it stands now though, the teams are not doing anything that violates current rules. Therefore, I will not criticize them at all for simply following the rules, even if those rules might seem unjust in the eyes of some people. And like I said anyway, if Guerrero wins Rookie of the Year and the Blue Jays are able to win a World Series a few years down the road with him as the best player on the team, no one is going to care that he missed two weeks of games in April of his rookie season. His Hall of Fame eligibility isn't going to be impacted by not playing in the big leagues on April 5th of his rookie year.
If these guys live up to the hype and turn into superstars, none of this will matter one bit.
Daily Giants Update: The team just announced that it would not use the franchise tag on Landon Collins, because they believed that the price tag would be too high. At this point, it seems more and more likely that the chances of Collins remaining with the team are getting worse, and that is not a good thing.
Daily Rangers Update: The Rangers suffered a bizarre loss to the Capitals in a shootout yesterday when it was ruled that Alexandar Georgiev threw his stick at Alex Ovechkin as Ovechkin was trying to score. I thought that what Georgiev did wasn't really on purpose, and he was looking to poke the puck off Ovechkin's stick and just lost control of his own stick, but I do understand how it could have been interpreted the way it was. It was another tough loss in a season that has seen more tough losses than tough wins. When Mats Zuccarello and Kevin Hayes were traded, it seemed like the team was waving the white flag on the season, and while they do still technically have a shot at the playoffs, the odds are not in their favor. It isn't over yet, but it is getting pretty close.
Daily NBA Update: Even though this league has become more and more of a soap opera over the past few years, it seems like that is becoming the case to new and unseen levels day by day and game by game now. The Warriors are still the best team in the league, but all I hear about is off the court drama, and I think that is really a bad look for the game. However, I seem to be in the minority, because the league is arguably more popular than it has ever been, so there must be a lot of people who love the drama of another season that, in my eyes, is going to end the same way it has ended the past two years.
Daily MLB Update: We are less than a month away from Opening Day, so I will have to publicly rant about the offseason of the Diamondbacks soon.
According to anyone familiar with the pipeline of prospects in baseball, Guerrero is clearly ready to play for the Toronto Blue Jays. His hitting talent seems to be undeniable, and he has the chance to be a generational prospect and the face of a Toronto franchise that has lacked a face for quite some time now. However, despite that, general manager Ross Atkins recently stated that Guerrero would begin the season in the minor leagues because the organization felt that he still needed work on his defense.
People close to the game have condemned this move because of Guerrero's talent, and said that the Blue Jays were doing a disservice to both the game and their team by keeping him at Triple-A to start the year. Despite the claims of the organization that he still needs to work on his defense, it is pretty clear that the only reason Guerrero will not be on the Opening Day roster is because if he begins the season in the minor leagues, the team gains an extra year of control over his contract. Instead of being a free agent after six years in the big leagues, Guerrero will have to wait until seven years from now before he becomes a free agent. Does that hurt the Blue Jays in 2019? Yes, it probably does. But does it make sense for the organization (both on the field and off the field) as a whole? Despite what people claim, it unquestionably does, and I don't know why anyone would fault the Blue Jays for doing it.
Last year, the Atlanta Braves were in a similar situation with Ronald Acuna, Jr. He wasn't called up until late April for the very same reason, yet he still won National League Rookie of the Year and the Braves made the playoffs. He was a huge reason why they were so surprisingly good, and no one remembered the few weeks he missed at the beginning of the year.
It isn't just Guerrero who will be in this situation either. Fernando Tatis, Jr. will most likely begin the year in the minor leagues before the Padres call him up, and the White Sox will do the same thing with Eloy Jimenez. Those three are arguably the top three prospects in all of baseball and all three of them seem ready to play right now. Is keeping them in the minor leagues to begin the year really doing them a massive disservice though? If you are looking at the situations from the realistic perspective of their teams, the answer is clearly no.
The Padres just signed Manny Machado to a ten year contract for $300 million. Obviously, that means they are planning on contending sooner rather than later. But that ten year deal doesn't mean they are planning on contending in April of 2019 either. They still need to add some pieces before they can legitimately challenge for a title, so isn't having Tatis for seven years instead of six worth it? Yes, it is. And like Acuna proved last year, even if a top prospect doesn't make their debut until late April, it doesn't mean that they can't greatly impact their team that year.
In the NFL, teams that take a quarterback with their top pick in the draft aren't drafting for immediate returns. They are drafting with their eye on the future. Getting a top level prospect at quarterback is the base for what that team hopes will become a contender year in and year out. The case with these prospects is basically the same.
The Blue Jays likely are not as good as the Red Sox or Yankees with or without Guerrero this season. Could they surprise and end up in the playoffs? Sure, of course they could. But don't they have a better shot at competing with those teams seven years down the road than they do now? Yes. Absolutely.
The White Sox tried to spend big money to lure Machado and Harper to Chicago this offseason, but they weren't able to do so. In the present, that was a disappointment for the team and the fans. However, with an extra year of control of Jimenez, he could certainly help them contend in the long run. The same goes for Tatis and the Padres. They didn't sign Machado to a one-year deal. They signed him to a ten year deal. That means they have their eyes on contention in the long-term as opposed to contention right now.
These teams are still going to sell tickets. They aren't going to be playing in front of empty stadiums for the first two weeks of the season. In fact, the anticipation of the debuts of these prospects will almost certainly boost ticket sales when they do actually get called up, and if things go according to plan, those tickets will continue to sell more and more if the teams get better in the future.
Despite what opponents of this might want you to believe, the problem here isn't with the Blue Jays or the Padres or the White Sox. The problem is with the rules and the system that made those rules. Until rules are implemented that make it so that sixth and seventh year of team control isn't based on the Opening Day roster, I don't know why anyone could find any fault at all with these teams. That is something that can be collectively bargained too, and negotiations for a new collective bargaining agreement between the owners and players will hopefully begin sooner rather than later, because the current CBA will expire in 2021.
Collective bargaining is always about each side agreeing to concede on points they believe are less important and stand strong on points they believe are most important. If the MLBPA feels like this service time is something very important to them, then they can push for it in upcoming negotiations. If they have other things on their list that they deem more important, then maybe the rules on this will remain.
As it stands now though, the teams are not doing anything that violates current rules. Therefore, I will not criticize them at all for simply following the rules, even if those rules might seem unjust in the eyes of some people. And like I said anyway, if Guerrero wins Rookie of the Year and the Blue Jays are able to win a World Series a few years down the road with him as the best player on the team, no one is going to care that he missed two weeks of games in April of his rookie season. His Hall of Fame eligibility isn't going to be impacted by not playing in the big leagues on April 5th of his rookie year.
If these guys live up to the hype and turn into superstars, none of this will matter one bit.
Daily Giants Update: The team just announced that it would not use the franchise tag on Landon Collins, because they believed that the price tag would be too high. At this point, it seems more and more likely that the chances of Collins remaining with the team are getting worse, and that is not a good thing.
Daily Rangers Update: The Rangers suffered a bizarre loss to the Capitals in a shootout yesterday when it was ruled that Alexandar Georgiev threw his stick at Alex Ovechkin as Ovechkin was trying to score. I thought that what Georgiev did wasn't really on purpose, and he was looking to poke the puck off Ovechkin's stick and just lost control of his own stick, but I do understand how it could have been interpreted the way it was. It was another tough loss in a season that has seen more tough losses than tough wins. When Mats Zuccarello and Kevin Hayes were traded, it seemed like the team was waving the white flag on the season, and while they do still technically have a shot at the playoffs, the odds are not in their favor. It isn't over yet, but it is getting pretty close.
Daily NBA Update: Even though this league has become more and more of a soap opera over the past few years, it seems like that is becoming the case to new and unseen levels day by day and game by game now. The Warriors are still the best team in the league, but all I hear about is off the court drama, and I think that is really a bad look for the game. However, I seem to be in the minority, because the league is arguably more popular than it has ever been, so there must be a lot of people who love the drama of another season that, in my eyes, is going to end the same way it has ended the past two years.
Daily MLB Update: We are less than a month away from Opening Day, so I will have to publicly rant about the offseason of the Diamondbacks soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)