Beef Supreme

Because they are new front office people who are beginning a rebuild. And because they don't know what they have yet -- that goes for every player in the system. Nobody is blocking anyone in this organization. If the front office really were dismissing him or forgetting him rather than considering him as a potential major-leaguer, then they would cut him and be done with it. That could happen in the future, but that it has not happened yet means they have not given up on him. Finally, in my opinion, Santander's bat still gives him an opportunity to become an MLB player, even if it only as a DH.

Fans can dismiss or forget Santander, if they want. It would be a mistake if the front office were to do so. I highly doubt that they have dismissed or forgotten about him.

TV would have time to cut away for two 30-second spots. Stats could be displayed when they return to live broadcast. PiP commercials can be run more frequently during the rest of the telecast than they are currently; PiP commercials would not only make up for revenue lost by shortening the time of current pitching changes but would likely exceed current levels if sold aggressively. Are not most pitching changes signaled by the time managers reach the foul line? Really, it doesn't matter when the signaling occurs if MLB sets a hard time limit for pitching changes. Occasionally, a pitching change is made despite the decision not yet having been made when the manager or coach left the dugout.

Despite some people (or maybe that is just one person) claiming the contrary -- because, you know, pitchers don't get injured -- there are a group of baseball professionals who, despite not having a vested interest in any one player's health like team management does -- agree with your assessment that injuries are more likely to occur to pitchers if they are denied warmup pitches from the mound. They are the Umpires... I trust the experts rather than the rare naysayer.

You know that I was talking about a certain number of seconds that warmup pitches could occupy under your scenario. Mounds are altered during the course of the game both by usage and intentionally. Even if the bullpens are coiffed almost exactly like the mound pre-game, they are not the same and change further as the game goes on. The pinch running part is intellectual dishonesty as neither I, nor MLB nor anyone else has suggested such a ridiculous proposal that does not in any way compare to relief pitchers warming up from the pitcher's mound. And you know it. I guess you don't know it, but potential pinch hitters duck into the inside cage and take warm up swings vs. live pitching during the game.

You enter the conversation by claiming that wildness would be a good thing (first quote). Then you say wildness would reduce mid-inning pitching changes (second quote). Then you say it would not increase wildness (third quote). Sounds like you want to have it all ways. But if refusing warmup pitches would not increase wildness, why would a "decrease in effectiveness...be a feature?" I can't follow the inconsistencies here. As for wildness, why are pitchers allowed warmup pitches? Are you really going to claim that the sole reason is to air commercials?!? Do you realize that warmup pitchers for relievers predate commercials? Those people who have relieved mid-inning know that every mound is different and that there is an adjustment that pitchers need to make. This is not merely ideological speculation, the human body needs to experience the contours of the unlevel playing surface that is the pitcher's mound in order to adjust.

Denying warmup pitches to mid-inning relievers would not "speed up" the game in a significant, tangible way. It may just as likely slow the game down because of the wildness and increase in balls thrown. I don't know what the 3-batter minimum is intended to accomplish (MLB does not expressly say), but I would not mix these two things up and claim they might accomplish the same thing.

Baseball is real life, not just statistical reflection. A pitcher not being allowed war up pitches from will result in greater wildness. It is possible that adjusting to a new mound could result in such wildness that the batter gets seriously hurt. Denying pitchers warmup tosses won't reduce the length of games played by a significant amount (Shaving off 15 seconds per mid-inning pitching change would be completely lost in the noise.) And this is merely a moot point: MLB will not enact that change. I am not a gambler, but this is something I would put money on.

You are going to spout off and claim that I am "wrong:" but don't have the nerve to say what you think is wrong. I know your way on this forum: you complain about everything and attack others like you are still a teenager (which you probably are). You are a blight on this forum in the eyes of most. But that you have so little integrity that you will claim someone else is wrong and refuse to back it up tells me that you are full of BS. Back up your empty claim with facts or go wag you little thing in somebody else's face. I will agree with the bolded: you are "clearly ignorant of the facts."

And you may as well try to explain your impudence. What exactly do you mistakenly think I am wring about. I made numerous statements of fact.

MLB will never, ever go for pitchers not warming up on the game mound, The league has been working hard to reduce batters being hit by pitches. Even if by a slim margin, hit batsmen and wild pitches will rise, especially during the first few pitches a relief pitcher throws. Prohibiting relief pitchers from throwing warmups for the sole purpose of shortening games is foolhardy, to say the least. Increasing danger to players while lowering the quality of play is not the goal of MLB.

Why would you want that? Why would anyone want that?

The past 4 years of Cruz > Mountcastle > Davis.

Ah, I thought you meant you ranked Bregman lowest in Frobby's list of 20. If I am picking players that I can keep for a full ten years with finances not being considered, I would be picking the younger players on the list as a general rule. And I would avoid players whom I think may not age well/are already rather mature/are biding their time until they inevitably become Designated Hitters. Thus, I would take Bregman before Martinez, Arenado, Harper, Judge, Stanton, Altuve, Yelich and Chapman. At least in this hypothetical exercise I would. ?

Let me know if/when you get to Baltimore and I will hook you up. :-)

btw: The Pesach Coca-Cola is only bottled prior to Passover in the 2-liter size. Usually, I first see them for sale around Mardi Gras (yes, I know that makes no sense, but it is true). Bottles feature a yellow cap.

Definitely. He's my first to cut off of the list. If the NL really does adopt the DH, I think Stanton, Harper and Judge will all be leaving their gloves in their lockers by 2024.

Curious why you think Bregman is one of the first to be removed from the list...

It's almost that time of year when certain local Coca-Cola bottlers will be selling "Pesach" Coca-Cola. This is as close as we can get to domestically produced, cane sugar-based Coca-Cola. Especially if you live near a predominantly Jewish area, Pesach Coca-Cola, i.e. "kosher for Passover," uses "sucrose" as its sweetener rather than the unctious, cloying, goopy HFCS. Whoops, I forgot "far more unhealthy" HFCS. The difference in flavor is shocking! In a blind taste-test, only a tiny fraction of people would not be able to tell a significant difference between the flavor of the two different sodas. But you can tell there is a difference even before tasting Pesach Coca-Cola. Pour a glass of Pesach Coke and you'll witness an explosion of tiny, champagne-like bubbles that maintain a head for an extended period. When pouring a regular Coke, the bubbles are much larger and they dissipate almost immediately. Apparently, the CO2 gets beaten down immediately by the thick, heavy syrup of HFCS, but is really able to bloom like a beer head when sucrose is employed instead of HFCS. As for what "sucrose" means in Coca-Cola's labeling, my hope is that it is cane sugar, but it may instead be beet sugar (I believe that information may be proprietary). Beet sugar is nothing like HFCS. Like cane sugar, manufacturing of beet sugar is a "crush, boil, dry" method. The black magic of making GMO corn into HFCS includes numerous reactions with multiple chemical agents including sulphuric acid and GMO enzymes. Meanwhile there is contradictory information online about exactly which sweetener(s) is/are used in Mexican Coke.

That is much better. I would go 1 minute, instead. 15 seconds for the pitcher to respond to leave the bullpen and jog at a good clip to the mound, 15 seconds to discuss signs with the catcher as well as the upcoming batter, 5 seconds for the catcher to run back behind the plate and crouch...that leaves, hopefully, 25 seconds to deliver 3-4 warmup pitches. That's a quicker change than we normally see plus it still allows time to squeeze in one or two 15-second screen-in-screen commercials -- which will be crucial to expand if baseball is serious about shortening games while maintaining advertising revenue.

The Orioles won the AL East in both 1973 and 1974. They lost to Oakland in the playoffs both years. Maybe 1972? Or 1975, when Jim Palmer threw 10 shutouts?

I'm trying to figure out why you think that pitchers can automatically adjust to pitching off of a new mound without at least three warmup pitches. Maybe it's just something that is not in your personal experience, but warming up on one mound and then pitching from a different mound is a significant adjustment to make. I guarantee that first-pitch balls by mid-inning relievers would explode. If first pitches by mid-inning relievers have been strikes 60% of the time, I would be willing to wager that abolishing warmup pitches would result in more first-pitch balls than strikes.

No, Coca-Cola switched from cane sugar to high-fructose corn syrup in the late 1970s, long before the introduction of "new Coke" in 1985. The U.S. government was subsidizing GMO corn, making HFCS cheaper than cane sugar. Additionally, legislation had been passed in the mid-1970's mandating that domestically grown sweetener comprise @ 50% of total sweetener sold. Coca-Cola was trying to make its product taste more like Pepsi with the change of its formula to "new Coke" in an attempt to steal market share. What they failed to imagine was that many of its customers disliked the taste of Pepsi.

Similar to my idea of an enormous centerfield -- 500' sounds about right -- but with two Monster-esque walls staring @ 300' at the foul poles and jutting out sharply from both foul lines. Balls smashed to RF or LF bang around in a pinball-like fashion while balls to center that find grass keep on rolling. Puts more of a premium on centerfield speed while increasing offensive excitement by keeping more balls in play that would have been homers.