Jump to content

Matt

Limited Posting Member
  • Content Count

    100
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Matt last won the day on January 14 2005

Matt had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

14 Rookie +

About Matt

  • Rank
    Plus Member Since 4/08
  • Birthday 12/9/1980

Personal Information

  • Location
    Timonium
  • Occupation
    social worker
  • Favorite Current Oriole
    Erik Bedard (when I created this profile in '03). Now? I don't even know.
  • Favorite All Time Oriole
    Andy Van Slyke
  1. This is a fair point, but it is not a large adjustment between 1B and RF for offense, and his defense at 1B would be less of a liability.
  2. Mancini currently has a 1.3 oWAR. Tops on the team. That would be 3rd place on the Yankees, for instance. I think he has at least some value. More than what Atomic thinks, but probably less than what some might imagine.
  3. This is great. Thank you!
  4. Matt

    .189/.318/.432

    Why are we talking about batting average in 2019? Some of these opinions in this thread seem like blasts from the past. If Davis is on base over 30% of the time and slugs over .420, he at least won’t be completely worthless. If the guy can be penciled in for a .750 OPS, that’s a win. And the lower his BA, the more interesting the stats become—and the more HRs he’d need to hit to have a decent SLG. He’d probably have to hit over 40 HR.
  5. That’s an extra 2.25 million in each owner’s pocket. I doubt they’re giving it to charity.
  6. Seems like a reasonable compromise. Count me in for this idea.
  7. If that’s “to say the least,” could you say more? I am dubious about your wild pitch theory. I imagine they want to keep it as is because the commercial breaks give them $$$. I think your idea about increases in wild pitches is pretty far-fetched.
  8. I’d see it as a way of making frequent, mid-inning pitcher substitutions somewhat less appealing for managers, in addition to speeding up the game in and of itself. Basically, it might go a significant way toward doing what the proposed three-batter-minimum would accomplish.
  9. Decrease in effectiveness would be a feature of this rule change, not a bug, in my opinion.
  10. I don't doubt for a second that the various analytics/marketing departments have a bunch of cool information, which the CEOs/decision-makers end up not really using -- which would explain why the Orioles have been behind the curve in various areas for years. Hard to say what MLB knows or has been doing, but if they were at an all-time-high, say, 10 years ago in attendance and are at a current all-time-high in revenue, my guess is they're going to be pretty conservative with their changes, rather than wondering "how do we get back to how it was in 1979." Much to our chagrin. But anyway, maybe there really is something about the modern game, or, say, the game as it was in 2009 (e.g.) that really spoke to people.
  11. I have to imagine market research these days is pretty next-level. Rather than rely on surveys or answers to questions, they may have people watch specific portions of a game, and then measure biomarkers that correspond to interest level to gauge what was appealing. I'm kinda just spitballing here here, but there are really innovative ways of conducting this type of research. And it's what I'd be funding I had bazillions of dollars and a vested interest in the continued health of the game. So my guess is they're doing research like this or, quite likely, better. Whether they're do anything (or anything we'd notice) with it is another question.
  12. I'm totally with you. I think there has to be a way of combining that era with the more analytically-inclined era, such that smart, innovative GMs will find new ways of constructing teams around particular concepts. It will take rules changes to make various strategies more viable. I guess in the end, I'm in favor of things that make new strategies enticing.
  13. It's not that I disagree with you on this, it's that I think it's an unproven assumption that the current meta game is a problem for viewers. Maybe young folks believe strikeouts and home runs are exciting athletic performances, more exciting and impressive than the small ball tactics that most of us on this board would like to see. It'd probably be pretty interesting to dive into whatever market research stats MLB has on this stuff. I truly don't know what younger viewers really want. I don't even know what I want, beyond the Orioles being competitive again and winning a World Series. I'm not even sure I like baseball for baseball's sake, as much as I like that it connects me to my childhood.
  14. Correct me if I'm wrong, Drungo, but you grew up in the 70s/80s, no? I wonder if most people don't want baseball to be like it was when they were a kid. Not that you're wrong about that era. Then again, I became a fan in '87. That's what I meant about base stealing--incentivizing it such that (smart) teams decide to (drastically) increase the frequency of stolen base attempts. So, that means it has to be easier to steal bases/harder to throw out baserunners. Lots of potentially interesting ways of doing that! Imagine having three speedsters in your outfield, each stealing 90 bases and getting caught 4 times! EXCITEMENT.
×
×
  • Create New...