Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Todd-O

Are we witnessing the death of the Orioles?

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Frobby said:

Well, it’s a bit different when the game itself ends after the clock has run out, something that happens in football, basketball and hockey.   And I’m old enough to remember college basketball with no clock.    In fact, the last basketball game I attended my senior year at Duke, they were leading UNC 7-0 at halftime due to Dean Smith’s four corners tactics (which, happily, failed miserably in that game).    And while in law school, I attended a game where Oregon State beat Stanford 18-16.  

Dean Smith had great players and played 4 corners.  An example of a coach trying to destroy a sport.  All these managers with 10 pitching changes are ruining baseball.  They need to fix it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, spiritof66 said:

There's something odd to me about drinking wine while watching a live sporting event. It might be OK for croquet or bocce, or tennis or even golf. Or an international soccer match between France and Italy.

Beer for a baseball or basketball game. Beer or whiskey (if it's cold) for football. I think the only time I drank whiskey at a baseball game was Game 2 of the 1979 World Series, when it snowed up in the cheap seats. (Back then, you could bring pretty much anything into the ballpark that wasn't alive or ticking.) I needed the whiskey more after the game than during it. Manny Sanguillen, sheesh. Really.

I prefer beer.  But I went to music festival that had bottles of wine that they would pour into a sports bottle.  Red Wine is great warm.  So getting one drink and lasting the day is great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Frobby said:

The NLCS is on FOX (FS1).    FOX gets the World Series and alternates between the ALCS and the NLCS each year, with TBS getting the other championship series.     

I know. I was talking about Fox, not FS1. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, theocean said:

Last night it really hit me, but baseball's biggest problem might be that its biggest playoff games are on TBS. The Yankees and Astros have some of the biggest and most marketable players in the game. It is exactly the type of game that should be use to expand the game.

I wanted to watch it. But as a cord cutting millennial, it was simply too difficult for me to get it on my TV. I ended up watching Joe Flacco throw to empty parts of the field during the lousy Thursday Night Football game.

So, if me, a huge baseball fan isn't even going through the trouble to watch a ALCS game between two big teams - - what are casual fans doing!?

Cut the cord.  But then stagger your free trials of Sling and YouTube tv to watch the playoffs before the World Series.  Or pay one month of sling for $25

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Uli2001 said:

Is this cause or consequence though? Have you asked yourself why networks or even ESPN are not buying these games?

 

10 hours ago, Redskins Rick said:

There isnt a big demand in the viewing public to see these games, which is where Cable makes their revenue, commercial ads.

If the demand was there, companies would be outbidding each other to market it.

ESPN airs 40 million college football games. That is one reason. Also they love the NBA which they air. 

FS1 bought the games because they are trying to grow their channel. They need important games for people to want the channel. That said for a Game 7 at the least it should air on FOX. FOX extended it’s deal awhile ago. It’s through 2028. 

I don’t watch much ESPN anymore,  that said I would really try to get off of TBS and go to ESPN. I don’t think TBS does a bad job but more playoffs being on ESPN would be a  benefit to the sport.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Roll Tide said:

I think a serious injury to Mike Trout would probably dominate the headlines on the day it happened.

Mahomes is not even in the top 5 of biggest stars in the NFL, while Trout is arguably the top one in MLB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/18/2019 at 10:45 AM, spiritof66 said:

Agreed. 

For me, the inordinate amount of time between pitches harms the game not only by making games last longer. Especially with certain pitchers, that down-time disrupts things so much that when I watch a game on TV or on the internet I am increasingly likely to find something to do between pitches -- change channels, read, read (or write) posts on the Game Thread, watch another game on MLB, or otherwise surf the internet -- and sometimes I get distracted and don't return to the game right away. I don't feel that lapse if I'm at a game -- there's plenty to look at and talk about between pitches, and many fewer distractions -- but when I'm watching in a room full of other stuff to do it happens. (I used to react in much the same way watching football on TV when teams took 30 seconds or so huddling between plays.)

I have no proof of this, but I believe the problem is pretty well entrenched at all levels of baseball, at least in the U.S. Guys who come up as pitchers are trained to believe, and it may be true, that they get an advantage from working deliberately so that they have time to focus their minds and their mechanics on each pitch. MBL and MiL managers and coaches then say, again maybe accurately, that if certain of their pitchers are forced to speed up, their chances of success will be adversely affected. So nothing -- or nothing decisive -- happens

Quote

If they are mediocre. I have always heard the great pitchers say that you need to work fast and throw strikes.

On 10/18/2019 at 10:45 AM, spiritof66 said:

Based on the above, I don't think you can flip a switch and enforce a pitch clock immediately. It could be phased in, I guess. But the critical step is to commit to, and announce, the rigid enactment and enforcement of a 15- or 20-second pitch clock in organized baseball in, say, three years, sending an unambiguous to young pitchers and their coaches that if those pitchers aspire to play professionally, they'd better learn to do what pitchers did for almost 100 years: receive the ball, take a sign, wind up or stretch, and throw the damn thing toward the plate right away.

I pulled this video of a 1975 World Series game randomly from YouTube. Again randomly, I looked at about 10-12 pitches. The times from pitchers receipt of the ball to throwing it (excluding one time when the batter stepped out of the box and another when a foul line umpire called time out) ranged from about 11 to 18 seconds. 12-14 seemed typical. 

This can be fixed. I don't know much the fix would help the game. If there's a reason not to try to find out, that reason escapes me.

I think this is related to my previous comment: they don't teach the game properly these days.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/18/2019 at 11:45 AM, spiritof66 said:

Agreed. 

For me, the inordinate amount of time between pitches harms the game not only by making games last longer. Especially with certain pitchers, that down-time disrupts things so much that when I watch a game on TV or on the internet I am increasingly likely to find something to do between pitches -- change channels, read, read (or write) posts on the Game Thread, watch another game on MLB, or otherwise surf the internet -- and sometimes I get distracted and don't return to the game right away. I don't feel that lapse if I'm at a game -- there's plenty to look at and talk about between pitches, and many fewer distractions -- but when I'm watching in a room full of other stuff to do it happens. (I used to react in much the same way watching football on TV when teams took 30 seconds or so huddling between plays.)

I have no proof of this, but I believe the problem is pretty well entrenched at all levels of baseball, at least in the U.S. Guys who come up as pitchers are trained to believe, and it may be true, that they get an advantage from working deliberately so that they have time to focus their minds and their mechanics on each pitch. MBL and MiL managers and coaches then say, again maybe accurately, that if certain of their pitchers are forced to speed up, their chances of success will be adversely affected. So nothing -- or nothing decisive -- happens.

Based on the above, I don't think you can flip a switch and enforce a pitch clock immediately. It could be phased in, I guess. But the critical step is to commit to, and announce, the rigid enactment and enforcement of a 15- or 20-second pitch clock in organized baseball in, say, three years, sending an unambiguous to young pitchers and their coaches that if those pitchers aspire to play professionally, they'd better learn to do what pitchers did for almost 100 years: receive the ball, take a sign, wind up or stretch, and throw the damn thing toward the plate right away.

I pulled this video of a 1975 World Series game randomly from YouTube. Again randomly, I looked at about 10-12 pitches. The times from pitchers receipt of the ball to throwing it (excluding one time when the batter stepped out of the box and another when a foul line umpire called time out) ranged from about 11 to 18 seconds. 12-14 seemed typical. 

This can be fixed. I don't know much the fix would help the game. If there's a reason not to try to find out, that reason escapes me.

I find it amazing that you appear to be putting all of this on the pitcher, and none on the hitters who feel a need to step out between every pitch and adjust everything.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Uli2001 said:

Mahomes is not even in the top 5 of biggest stars in the NFL, while Trout is arguably the top one in MLB.

🧐

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Uli2001 said:

Mahomes is not even in the top 5 of biggest stars in the NFL, while Trout is arguably the top one in MLB.

Mahomes was the top rated player at his position last year. He was well on his way this year for a top 5 finish at least. And QB is arguably the most important position on the field. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Roll Tide said:

Mahomes was the top rated player at his position last year. He was well on his way this year for a top 5 finish at least. And QB is arguably the most important position on the field. 

Tom Brady, Aaron Rodgers, Drew Brees, are all bigger stars at QB. I would put Russell Wilson ahead of Mahomes at this point too. JJ Watt rounds out the top 5.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Uli2001 said:

Tom Brady, Aaron Rodgers, Drew Brees, are all bigger stars at QB. I would put Russell Wilson ahead of Mahomes at this point too. JJ Watt rounds out the top 5.

Brady, Rodgers, and Brees are all aged veterans. And no longer at the peak of their career. Mahomes was has been scorching since last year and is (perhaps was) a rising star.

Wilson is also at the top of his game

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000001007337/article/qb-index-patrick-mahomes-leads-yearend-rankings

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

I find it amazing that you appear to be putting all of this on the pitcher, and none on the hitters who feel a need to step out between every pitch and adjust everything.

I didn't mean to do that. Once a hitter steps in, he stays in and won't be granted time out unless he breaks a bat or a bug flies in  his eye or something. But I think that would be much less of a problem if pitchers were throwing the ball within 15 seconds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

I find it amazing that you appear to be putting all of this on the pitcher, and none on the hitters who feel a need to step out between every pitch and adjust everything.

Didn't Nomar and Ortiz invent this?

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.

Sign in to follow this  

Orioles Information


Orioles News and Information

Daily Organizational Boxscores

News

Tony's Takes

Orioles Roster Resource

Orioles Prospect Information

2018 End of Season Top 30 Prospects List

Prospect Scouting Reports

Statistics

2019 Orioles Stats

2019 Orioles Minor League Stats

Baseball Savant Stats







  • Posts

    • If you think trading Villar for scraps is a good idea (which is the same thing as "cash dumping" Jim Johnson, btw), then non-tendering him really isn't a big leap from there and it likely has the same end result. My point in all of this has been that non-tendering Villar to save money isn't some preposterous outcome. It's very defensible, and it's possible that no other team wants to touch him at his arb-salary while giving up anything of potential future value in return.
    • I think Luke's pretty high on Cumberland.  But other than that I generally agree with your take.
    • Major leagues definitely needs the minor leagues.  Players don't go from college straight to MLB.  Scrimmages are not going to make you major league ready.  It would cost them even more money to have games without fans. Plus how much would it cost to shuttle players back  and forth from Florida to say Detroit?   I think you are truly under estimating the value minor league baseball provides to MLB. I think this is all about the lawsuit from minor league players saying they are being paid below minimum wage.  I guess a simpler solution is lower the amount of bonuses you pay drafted players and increase salaries.  That would make the pay more equitable.  And provide housing for the players.  And cater their food.     
    • I hate to ruin this guy’s narrative, but Kevin Goldstein is hardly one of the “young finance and Wall Street bros.”    I don’t know exactly how old he is, but he’s got a 21-year old son, and so far as I know, he has no background on Wall Street or finance, having previously been a long-standing scouting guru for Baseball Prospectus.   And, he didn’t “immediately” send out his email after getting hired; he’d been working for the Astros for 5 years at that point.   
    • Just based on the eye test, this is the best team in football.  They are a more complete team than anyone else.  You do worry about Jackson getting injured, but I think every player other than Brady (somehow, in spite of his middle age) is susceptible to injury at any given time.  Just looking at the schedule, I think the Ravens will get the 2 seed.  It isn't that they can't win their last 6, because they can.  I just don't think New England is losing any more games.  The Patriots are not the Patriots of old and their final 15-1 record will be more indicative of their fortunate scheduling (having Dallas and KC at home helps a lot, as does 6 games against a pathetic division).  The Chiefs are not beating the Ravens twice, especially if the game is in Baltimore.  And no other AFC team is capable of winning in New England in January.  So I think it comes down to yet another Ravens-Patriots showdown in Mass.  The good news is this may be the only franchise not scared of the Patriots "aura and mystique," but they will have to beat them twice.  Hard to do. 
    • So baseball want in increase their fanbase and tweak the game, and keep current fans, bring back old fans, and attract new fans. So you go and screw with everybody minor league system.  
    • My granddaddy shot a 72 on his 72nd birthday. I shot a 60 back on my 60th, those rotating ducks was no match for me.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...