Right, just heard on the radio even in the minors now they don't let starters go more than 5 innings and 80 pitches or so. The position is evolving and it's just less efficient to have the batters see the same guy 3 times.
Someday, it will be considered revolulationary to have a starting rotation or to have a guy start a game and go 6 innings! The Hall of Fame voters will really need to reevaluate the metrics for determining who gets in. Either that, or the Hall becomes a museum for a certain time period of baseball's past and no one else gets in.
Yes it will be interesting to see how things like the HOF and the All Star game and Cy Young voting evolve with these changes...
But post expansion, the hitting thinned as well, so I don’t really see the thinning of pitchers as being a real factor.
I would guess that we will see a middle reliever win a CY sometime within the next 15 years or so.
I've only been a fan of baseball since the early 90s (well, since 1990) and what used to bother me was the entrenched veteran who didn't perform but still got regular playing time, or a secured roster spot, even when a young player in AAA was outperforming that player. Now? It seems that doesn't happen nearly as much but the rookies still don't get playing time as often as I like (Ramos? Villar? Both stuck in AAA). Instead, the team just churns through one castoff from another org to another castoff from another org. There are so many of them that it becomes harder to not just root for a team but also for individual players. Even the guys with seemingly solid roster spots play less and play all over the diamond. Not all of this is bad, mind you, but when you are used to a different style, sometimes it is hard to transition to a new style of roster building and still be a fan. I don't like doing the same thing for the sake of doing the same thing but neither am I a fan of change for the sake of change.
Exactly.
Yup. The churn is probably the best strategy for roster building. It just isn’t fun. It is like making every day November 1st. After a while, eating Candy for 3 meals a day gets old (and painful). A trade is only exciting when trades are rare. A promotion is only impactful when they actually mean something.
Yep, it's far more of a team concept now, and stars are de-emphasized. It stands to reason. In the NBA and NFL the big names are on the court most of the game (in the NFL it's offense/defense but the stars are on the field every play). In MLB the hitting stars you see only 4 times a game with a bat, otherwise they are standing around in the field or in the dugout. The star pitchers you see once every 5 games.
It's not change for the sake of change, it's change because the numbers show this is how you maximize wins and get an edge.
sports.yahoo.com
Don't even know how to phrase this .... when I was a kid (8 - 12ish) I loved baseball and MOST important to me was the when they released the new baseball series of TOPPs baseball cards. Just couldnt wait to start the series collection. Couldn't wait till I had some NYG cards in the collection (pre SFG). It was a great feeling to collect your team. I knew just about every player and thier stats on the back of the card.
I am 100% in favor of robot umps. I really don’t understand the argument against them (outside of making sure the tech is there to make it fast and accurate).Rob Manfred is continuing his campaign to destroy baseball as we know it.
Rob Manfred says he wants robot umps in MLB by 2024, hints at expansion to 32 teams
Big changes could be on the way to MLB.
In the 80s, they would release “updates” each year to account for trades or surprise rookies.
Interesting ... for the die hard fan ... you have to collect all of the 'churn' if you want your full team.
Oh I agree 100% than Manfred sucks and is not a fan of the game. Larry Baer was on KNBR just after the CBA was signed and he was asked point blank if Manfred was a fan of the GAME of baseball. Baer danced around for a bit, but ended on saying he was a great businessman.
It’s all about sales.
