Sessh

I miss Santander's cheering section already. Pitching changes increase game time significantly perhaps more than any other factor. I really should write a little opinion piece on that. Watching old games has given me a little perspective into this. I would rather see highlights from other games during pitching changes instead of commercials, but not like that's going to happen. We need to figure out how to keep pitchers healthy and get back to starters being starters who threw 200+ innings routinely and over 100 pitches routinely without an injury epidemic occurring. If we're going to keep reinforcing destructive mechanics and obsessing over velocity, I think there needs to be some kind of maintenance program for pitchers in the offseason. Mandatory PRP injections into the elbow and shoulder to heal any little injuries that may be starting whether there's anything there or not. I would rather GH be used for this, but not as long as it's being persecuted as an enemy. It's such a powerful healing tool that's being squandered based on mostly false impressions and folks thinking HGH = steroids. If not that, I don't like it, but maybe not allowing pitching changes during innings except in the case of injuries. I hate the idea of manipulating the game in that way, but Manfred's going to do it. So, I guess we'll see.

Wilkerson got all of that one. Horrible pitch there by Smith.

They had a point in that AB, but does that K-zone adjust based on the hitter's height? Altuve is short and that high pitch that touched the zone may have been a bit high in that case. Really, I wonder more and more if people will really be happy with an electronic zone. The umpires expanding the zone has made us all think the strike zone is bigger than it actually is. An electronic strike zone might be considered very tight by a lot of folks. The one pitch in Altuve's AB Ben was convinced was a strike actually wasn't according to the E-zone. I don't know why I'm noticing this more now, but it is interesting.

That pitch was a ball. Pitch one of this AB was a strike right at the bottom of the zone on GameDay. So, now they go on talking as if they were both strikes which they weren't.

Ben: That ball was a strike, I'd like to see the K-Zone on that. *shows K-zone and the pitch is low* Jim and Ben: Yep, it's a strike. WTF?

Miley has been outstanding since he left here. Good for him, just wish he would have done that here.

Nice to see those Devo highlights. Also, Trey looks funny with those stirrups on. I'm not sure why exactly....

So, in 3.2 innings, you "know" Scott is nothing? Fringe prospect Mariano Rivera was almost traded to Detroit for David Wells because he was so bad in his rookie season as a starter in 67 innings. Roy Halladay took over 230 innings and a demotion to single-A to reinvent himself after a disastrous 2000 season before he became the pitcher we all remember. The point? Judging a pitcher on 3.2 (or 11.1 innings total) isn't the best approach to evaluating players. Those are extreme examples and the easiest to remember, but sure there's many more. Eshelman has been good at times and bad at times, but you've concluded that he will always be bad after 30 innings and the good is to be ignored. Both of these guys could be something or could be nothing. I just think it's rather silly to say you "know" a pitcher is bad after such a short sample size and, in the case of Eshelman, isn't even all bad. He's been respectable overall aside from that disaster in Boston with room to improve, but certainly there's good things there to build on. Whether or not that happens is not obvious right now, but he has shown the ability to string together 10 pitch 1-2-3 innings and is pretty good when he's in a rhythm. Plenty of good things right now to want to see how he develops. You talk like you expect guys to dominate right away and if they don't, there's nothing good about them and they suck. You do know that Armstrong was put on waivers from the same team that put Scott on waivers, right? I'm not denying Scott has been bad, but do you have such little faith in our coaches to completely dismiss players like that? Maybe a mechanical adjustment is all he needs. Maybe it's something that can be improved. It's real hard to determine any of that if that's all you're willing to give rookies. Puts a lot more pressure on their shoulders than is warranted as well. We're a last place team. There's no help on the farm at this point. We don't have infinite resources down there and Elias is not going to be reckless with the assets we do have. I'm not really arguing your point on Hess though I don't see him going anywhere anytime soon because.. what's the point?

You were not only talking about Hess, though. Tayler Scott hasn't even thrown 12 innings yet and between him and Eshelman, you don't even have 45 innings total. That's not a far cry from "one start" at all, so it's not unreasonable to get the feeling that you were, in fact, suggesting something like that. You seem to imply that you think guys should either show something immediately or be released and we start calling people up from Bowie if necessary. What about when we run out of guys there? Do we dip into Aberdeen and Delmarva? Maybe we start promoting guys to the majors straight from the draft board? These assessments are hasty is the point.

He hasn't even thrown 35 innings yet. He just got up here. Scott has even less ML experience. There is no way to tell right now whether or not we want them. Maybe we can make something out of both, one or maybe both of them can't figure it out. It's too early to tell. I don't think Scott's stuff is terrible, it's his command which can be improved. Eshelman is capable of pitching well, but with his stuff, seems to be making adjustments to try to find ways to make it work at this level. He isn't floundering constantly, he's working on stuff and has shown the ability to make adjustments from start to start. Both are developing right now and there's no pressure and no way that they can hurt our team by struggling to figure things out. I try to look at what guys are doing right and wrong as well as looking for improvements and things to build on going forward. In Eshelman's case, before he even got through his first inning as a major leaguer, we had people here saying he sucks and all this stuff just before he followed it up with four scoreless innings. Every time a pitcher has a bad inning or a bad game, you know there's gonna be talk about DFA'ing him and how much he sucks. Talk about fickle. This is casual fan stuff and not why I started coming here. I just know that if we brought up Akin right now and he had a bad debut, half the board would be calling for his dismissal or demotion and "bring someone else up!" It's ridiculous. Either you come up and dominate or you suck and should be DFA'd immediately. I can't stand this stuff honestly. We're supposed to be taking time to evaluate players and develop them and all anyone wants around here are instant results and instant success out of players and anything less is unacceptable. You'd think we were on a championship run right now or something. This is a rebuild. What's happening now is what is supposed to happen during a rebuild. I'm not exactly sure what people expected coming into this season. We had a better team last year and finished with the worst record in baseball, sooo... why all the untethered emotional reactions around here when our young players struggle and what's with all the short fuses? What did you think was going to happen this season? We're trying to figure out who belongs and who doesn't. It takes TIME to figure that out.

No way to tell that right now. Who's pretending? Not everyone comes up to the majors and crushes it right away. Some guys, hitters and pitchers, need some time to make adjustments and work with coaches before stuff clicks for them. When a guy comes up and throws a minuscule amount of innings and people confidently declare they suck and have terrible stuff, that's extremely hasty and reactionary especially if people are willing to ignore any good things to build on because of some arbitrary personal conclusion that someone is no good because they are struggling initially. If someone comes up and doesn't dominate immediately, they suck and should be DFA'd. That's the general consensus that is proliferating around here lately and it's ridiculous. People are criticized all the time for attempting to draw rock solid conclusions from SSS and yet, that's all anyone seems to do here anymore. Maybe they are bad and don't get better, but you don't figure that out by giving up on guys after a month or less. Give them plenty of rope and if they hang themselves, so be it. It wouldn't be the first time players have surprised critics.. not even the first time this season. This stuff needs time to play out. We hope there will be better options coming soon, but there's certainly nothing in Norfolk which means there probably won't be anything there that's ready next year either. Maybe 2021.

Unfortunately, it seems a lack of "Hangout quality awareness" is rife and growing this year. It seems too many people don't understand what a "rebuild" is or even what the approach is here and are too used to the way things used to be. Just DFA everyone after a week and bring "someone" else up from a system that has no one to bring up. I wasn't sure I would like Hyde early on, but he's growing on me. I appreciate that he is outspoken and won't blow smoke up anyone's ass. For what he has to work with and deal with, I think he has done well in the role and I'm glad to have him. That could change at some point of course, but right now? I think he's the right guy for the job. The real test will come when we see how he manages a good team.

We at least have a full season's worth of innings to go on with Hess and he doesn't seem to be getting any better. Fine. Tayler Scott has pitched a grand total of 11.1 innings at the major league level and folks are already calling for a DFA? Seriously? Eshelman's only thrown 30.1? Chill out already. Where exactly do you think we're going this year? I'll tell you where; the highest draft pick possible. We have all the time in the world to try to work with these guys. Scott struggled in his first 60 innings at AA, then did better in his second 60. He had ups and downs at AAA, but threw 13 scoreless innings at Norfolk when he first got here with 17 strikeouts. Give the kid a chance ffs. It's like people think we have a ton of talent to bring up and throw away. Eshelman has been hot and cold, but he is making adjustments and isn't all bad. We have nothing to bring up here. Relax. This is "casual fan" level panic here. Give these guys a chance. If they do poorly, it HELPS us in the long run because what is our goal? Highest.Draft.Pick.Possible. Finding unexpected nuggets of which we have potentially found several of that many on here didn't even give a chance to and wanted to release them months ago.

I don't fault him for that at all. Players do that all the time especially around the bag at second base when there's not enough time to make the transfer. It's another form of bare-handing a ground ball because there's no time to catch and transfer. I don't fault him for that at all.

That's the point. There's no excuse for him not catching that ball. It was a pathetic effort topped off by walking casually after the ball instead of running to get it.

No, they are doing their jobs. That's what good first basemen do. They don't miss balls thrown right at them very often. Yankee first basemen made those plays all series long for their infielders. It is a negative when your first basemen can't make those plays, but they are throwing errors. That's not even the point. The point is it's a play the first baseman has to make.

I'd rather he be straight as opposed to constantly making excuses and deflecting like Buck used to do.

..and first basemen are supposed to be able to scoop balls out of the dirt or on the bounce. You know, like LeMahieu and Ford did all series for the Yankees. Davis used to scoop balls like that effortlessly. The throw could have been higher, but it wasn't a terrible throw and should have been caught. He then casually walked after the ball instead of hustling to get it.

He's not wrong. We have a long way to go.

It was a low throw right at him. Any competent first baseman makes that play. Davis didn't even get a glove on it. The other play was bad as well. First basemen get low throws they have to scoop all the time. The ball was thrown right at him.

Hess keeps the tradition alive. Every pitcher MUST give up a homer.

Why does McDonald keep saying balls are in the middle of the plate? The pitch to Maybin was on the inside corner at the bottom of the zone and Gardner just hit one that was just barely on the inside corner. They weren't bad pitches.

Definitely not. For a guy in the situation he is in, giving the team any reason at all to void your contract is pretty f'in stupid. Aggressively launching at what is essentially his boss is definitely not a good look from multiple angles.

lol, You're having way too much fun with this, aren't you? ?

That's also a possibility. His body language, what could be seen of it anyway, is not consistent with someone trying to calm a situation down. There were already two guys between Davis and Hyde. It's impossible to know whether they were already standing there or they were there because they sensed something brewing, though.