Jump to content
weams

For crying out loud, can MLB please implement an electronic strike zone already?

Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, OFFNY said:

o

 

(vs. MARLINS, 8/05) )))))) [GAME ONE]

 

There were some very questionable Strike-Ball calls in this very close game.

That said, the Oriole offense has been nowhere to be found in 2 consecutive games against the Marlins.

 

o

o

 

Make that 3 consecutive games, now ........ 3 consecutive games of a virtually non-existent Oriole offense.

 

(A) lIn the 3-game series against the Rays, the 100-Plus loss 2018 and 2019 Orioles were nowhere to be found.

(B) lIn the first 3 games against the Marlins, the Oriole offense was nowhere to be found.

(C) lI am tempted to ask, "Will the real 2020 Baltimore Orioles please stand up ???" ........ but the answer to that question won't be answered until they are AT LEAST 30 or 35 games into this 60-game season, perhaps even longer.

 

o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I suppose.  Baseball rarely goes and tackles a problem head-on.  The issue is pace of play and lack of action.  So they focus on time of game instead.  7 inning doubleheaders, the runner on second in extras, possibly expanding the strike zone. 

I guess they can't get consensus on how to cure the actual problems, so they try to make the patient comfortable by treating some symptoms.

It does appear they've deadened the ball a bit, HRs are off.  But they need to deaden it more, make bats bigger and heavier, and parks bigger.  And continue to pare down the number of pitchers you can have on the roster. And move the mound back to 63' or 64'.

Start with making the parks bigger and the ball less juiced. All else might fall into place if its not so (relatively) easy to hit a home run. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

They could go back to making them pitch underhanded.

I would assume submariners and low sidearmers allow fewer homers than the general population of MLB pitchers, as well as more balls in play, but I don't know for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I wouldn't be surprised if MLB told the umps that this is the year where nothing really matters, let's see what happens when we expand the zone.

K rate is almost identical to last year at about 8.8.  But the batting average so far is the lowest (.230) in 149 years of organized pro baseball history.  Seven points behind 1968, when Yaz won the batting title at .301.

Interesting. I haven't looked it up, but I wonder what's the HR rate compare to last year? I also would like to know the average game time (minus the 7-inning games) vs last year. BTW, I'm not asking you look it up, just wondering aloud.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, joelala said:

Start with making the parks bigger and the ball less juiced. All else might fall into place if its not so (relatively) easy to hit a home run. 

Making the bats bigger is pretty key.  If only the largest, strongest players can play the max bat speed all the time game then contact will almost have to become a bigger part of the game.  75 or 100 years ago there was a class of player who was typically 5' 10", 175 pounds, swung a 40 ounce bat, and mostly just worked the count for walks and flaring singles, trying to put the ball in play. Bat speed was more of a concept than a reality for them.  Imagine a bunch of Tony Gwynns, just not necessarily hitting .350.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Tony-OH said:

Interesting. I haven't looked it up, but I wonder what's the HR rate compare to last year? I also would like to know the average game time (minus the 7-inning games) vs last year. BTW, I'm not asking you look it up, just wondering aloud.

 

Homers are down from 1.39 to 1.19 per game (still super high, third highest ever).  It would be a bit of work to separate out the short games on game time, but the overall average is only three minutes off last year.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Making the bats bigger is pretty key.  If only the largest, strongest players can play the max bat speed all the time game then contact will almost have to become a bigger part of the game.  75 or 100 years ago there was a class of player who was typically 5' 10", 175 pounds, swung a 40 ounce bat, and mostly just worked the count for walks and flaring singles, trying to put the ball in play. Bat speed was more of a concept than a reality for them.  Imagine a bunch of Tony Gwynns, just not necessarily hitting .350.

Interesting. I like it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another idea that I don't know that I've heard brought up would be shrinking gloves.  The whole "striking out is horrible, putting the ball in play at all costs" theme was grounded in the era when players wore stubby little gloves.  You got a huge advantage putting the ball in play because fielding percentages were .930 and 8" or 10" gloves effectively reduced fielding range.  I would be open to reducing the max size of fielder's gloves by half an inch a year for a while and studying the effects.

Part of the ball in play thing in 1910 was the crappy state of groundskeeping.  But I doubt anyone would buy into making the playing surface at OPACY look more like your local Little League field.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Another idea that I don't know that I've heard brought up would be shrinking gloves.  The whole "striking out is horrible, putting the ball in play at all costs" theme was grounded in the era when players wore stubby little gloves.  You got a huge advantage putting the ball in play because fielding percentages were .930 and 8" or 10" gloves effectively reduced fielding range.  I would be open to reducing the max size of fielder's gloves by half an inch a year for a while and studying the effects.

Part of the ball in play thing in 1910 was the crappy state of groundskeeping.  But I doubt anyone would buy into making the playing surface at OPACY look more like your local Little League field.

Yes, if there is one thing I enjoy about baseball it is watching fielders screw up plays on defense.  More of that please.

  • Upvote 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I haven't watch a lot of the games, but the ones I've seen it was so obvious I thought maybe they'd stopped using the tracking systems.  Many pitches 6" out of the zone being called strikes.

Oh well, just add yet another to the long list of asterisks to this barely even virtual season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Yes, if there is one thing I enjoy about baseball it is watching fielders screw up plays on defense.  More of that please.

It's hard to screw up on defense when you stand in right field daydreaming while balls fly over the fence, or are never made contact with at all.

Strikeout rate has almost doubled since '81.  If the rate of increase stays constant then by 2060 there will be only about 10 outs in play per team per game.  At that point does fielding even matter?  Just put nine Giambis in the field and you're good to go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/8/2020 at 1:10 PM, Can_of_corn said:

Embarrasingly bad and then the quick toss after that major screw up? They need a system that allows a manager to challenge a terrible call through the electronic strikezone. These umpires just can't keep up anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


Orioles Information


Orioles News and Information

Daily Organizational Boxscores
News

Tony's Takes

Orioles Roster Resource

Orioles Prospect Information

2020 Top 30 Prospects List

Prospect Scouting Reports

Statistics

2020 Orioles Stats

2019 Orioles Minor League Stats

Baseball Savant Stats






  • Posts

    • While Lamar did play better than RG3, keep in mind the league context.  He had a 121 Rating+ (basically OPS+ for passer rating, adjusted for that season's averages. Over 100 is good, less is bad.)  Lamar's 2019 was 128.  So Lamar is still better, but that was RG3 as a rookie.  Who knows how he would have done if he didn't get hurt/if he was drafted by an org not owned by Dan Snyder.   That said, I don't think it's reasonable to use RG3's injury problems as a reason not to sign Lamar long term.  I think that they were specific to RG3 and the team he played for. (I think the Football Team horribly mismanaged him.)   In general running QBs havent had high injury risk, any more than regular QBs.  Look at Steve Young, Randall Cunningham, Russell Wilson, Newton, Culpeper, VIck.  All have been fairly durable, certainly no bigger an injury risk than any other QB.  There is some risk that some injuries are going to be more damaging to Lamar's career because of his reliance on his athleticism, but given that many running QBs have stayed productive into their 30s I think this risk is relatively low. I don't think Vick is a great comp because he didn't really figure out how to be a passer until after he came back from his jail sentence.  Vick's best Rating+ pre-jail/suspension is 104, which is worse than Lamar's 2020.  And that's taking 6 Vick seasons compared to 3 Lamar seasons. I think Deshaun Watson checks off more boxes as a good comp, because of the recency of his contract, his performance, his playoff (lack of) success, and his playing style. If we're being realistic, Lamar has no real comparables.  There isn't a QB in NFL history that generates as much true dual-threat value as Lamar.  I think this actually is a problem when trying to figure out how much to pay him.  He's got the intangibles, sure (at least when it comes to regular season play) but with no real comps, it's kind of impossible to project his development/future performance. We know that the Ravens don't really throw the ball much, but in 2019 they were pretty damn efficient at it, and in 2020 they were middle-of-the-pack.  But when you can run the ball for 6-10 yards a carry, it kind of eliminates the need to throw the ball.  Imagine how good you'd have to be throwing the ball to make it a better proposition than running in most game situations.  And we also don't know how much his running ability affects his passing game.  And there's no way to know that until he can't run anymore.  Which isn't happening for 4-5 years barring injury. Even if it's risky, I think you really have no choice but to pay him, especially if you can get a contract with an out after his age-28 or 29 season.  It's easy to point to our mistake with thinking Flacco was worth an extension, but that's no reason to deny Lamar his extension, especially given that he's already shown the ability to singlehandedly carry us into the playoffs, even if he has struggled once there.  Flacco never carried this team in the regular season the way Lamar does.  In fact it was our multiple HOFers on the other side of the ball that carried Flacco into the postseason so he could be the hero for a couple games.  Credit to him for stepping up in January, but someone has to get us there, and we don't have anyone else who can do that.  The chance that we find someone in the draft that can do that is not that great.  Certainly lower than the chance that Jackson is going to take us to the SB.  I guess we could talk swapping him for someone like Deshaun Watson, but I just don't know how plausible that really is.
    • Lol, you gotta wait until spring training for those gems.
    • Well, now we know why Jim Hunter became redundant.
    • Brob was one of those let go.  I will miss him!  But he  remains as an "ambassador" as does Demper.  
    • I must have missed it, but I haven't seen anyone mention B-rob. Is he gone? I thought I heard him on some broadcasts last summer.
    • Mike Vick, six years into his career (going into the dogfighting arrest) had a 71/52 TD/INT ratio, for a 75.7 QB rating. RG3, three years in, had a 40/23 TD/INT ratio, for a 90.6 QB rating. He then got hurt and was never the same again. Lamar, three years in, has a 68/18 TD/INT ratio, for a 102.6 QB rating. Lamar is head and shoulders above both of those players.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...