Sessh

Givens closing is an experiment. It's not like he has established himself as a viable closer to this point in his career nor has he, in my opinion, earned a whole lot of rope here. He has failed 50% of the time this year to get the job done, so he is getting horribly burned half the time he's going into that building. His body language and the emotion on his face at times did not scream "keep putting me in there coach!" You can't just keep putting people into situations where they're failing over and over again and expect them to figure it out especially in high pressure situations. Some guys respond well to that and some don't. Givens does not appear to be one of the ones that does. It's not just this season and it certainly does not appear that he has what it takes to be a closer. Continuing to put someone into a situation that they are showing you is too much for them is not productive and can be, in fact, destructive. Not everyone reacts the same way to the same stimulus. Part of why a team stays behind a manager is also knowing his players and knowing that they can't all be given the same treatment because they respond differently to different things. Knowing when to push a player and when to back off a little as well as which ones work best on which players. You put guys in a situation where they are most likely to succeed, not fail. Givens has proven nothing as far as being a closer is concerned despite having been given numerous chances; 13-for-28 is not good. Even if you remove the 0-for-7 before last season, he's still 13-for-21. Making players earn their places as opposed to just handing it to them even if their performance doesn't merit them being there is a good way to keep your team behind you, too. If Givens wants to be a closer, he's going to have to do better. He has been awful. How many more times should his confidence have to take the hit of losing the game for his team in the last inning? He's not ready yet and he may never be. We'll see. Let him get some positive outings under his belt and then try to ease him back into the ninth and see what happens.

I was thinking about that, too. I guess my answer is that this year (and probably next year) are more about finding out what we have and where they will slot into the future if at all. If we want to see if Givens can be the closer, then we need to look after him and groom his confidence over the next year or two and see what we can get out of him. I am not concerned with trying to squeak out every little win because.. what's the point? These years are about figuring out who is going to be part of our future and who isn't. For the ones that are, how do we want them to fit and can we make them fit? With Givens, I guess the question is can he be a reliable closer at some point? I don't really think so, but this is the time to find out. Use the other guys in the pen is what he can do. I know there's not much to work with now, but to me, this year and probably the next two at least are about building the future. Maybe one or two of those guys will surprise us.

It's more than two weeks. He went 8-for-10 in saves down the stretch last season which means a 20% failure rate. That is not "perfectly fine" as a closer. and he is 13-for-28 in save chances up to this point in his career. He's failing 50% of the time this year, so I am not as confident as you are in his ability to close. I will agree that he has the best shot among the guys we have now, but that's not saying much. He does have a chance, but ... I don't know. I'm not sure he has the mentality for it, but we'll see.

I am pretty far from calling for Hyde's head, but I don't think he is always reading situations well or his players in the case of Givens. Look, maybe Hyde's way of motivating players is to just keep throwing them in the fire and that certainly works for some guys. Givens is clearly not one of those guys. He has never done well when given the chance to close games. It can take some time to get used to pitching in such a role and seems to take guys a few tries before they get comfortable in that role. Givens has been awful. I don't care that he pitched multiple innings in the past. If you keep sending a guy out there to not only fail, but repeatedly lose games for his team at the last minute is crushing and will destroy confidence, not build it in his case. I don't know why he would send Givens out there for the eighth last night after such a strong seventh. That's the perfect time to take him out on a positive note, but Hyde does the same thing Buck did constantly in leaving guys in for a batter too long. I also don't care how bad the bullpen is. It's irrelevant to Hyde's ability to manage the guys he has effectively. It's not his fault if he brings a guy in and he implodes, but it starts to become his fault if he continues putting that guy into the same situation over and over despite continued failures. It's not like Givens is an established closer and it's not like this team is going anywhere this year except down. I am interested in how he manages his players. He had a great opportunity last night to let Givens end his night on a VERY high note. Instead, he ends it on a low note and the Orioles lose the lead and ultimately the game. Maybe we would have lost anyway, but he still made the wrong decision with Givens.. again. I can agree with the sentiment that next year will say a lot more about Hyde than this year, but I don't think it's unreasonable to point things out along the way and see how they develop as time passes.

He did that stuff all the time when he was here. Palmer routinely lambasted him for not running out ground balls he had a chance of beating out or going into a home run trot when it wasn't a home run and being stuck on first base instead of second or third. It's not viewed the same without the orange glasses, that's all. He ran hard sometimes and sometimes, it was like the video.

Yup, nail on the head.

I don't think he put him in knowing he would fail, but he has failed to understand his player and what he needs. I am shocked that he put Givens in there again tonight and he waited until there were two guys on base to bring him in to get two outs. He brought him in to a situation with more pressure than he would have just starting the inning himself. I just think he is mismanaging Givens right now. He needs some chances to build his confidence back up. I'm not against using him at all, but use him in the seventh for awhile or something and try Kline in the ninth. Givens looked like a broken man tonight after blowing the game. Hyde simply can not keep sending him out to close at this point or he's going to break him. Givens can be good, but he needs to get out of the kitchen for awhile until he feels confident again. Hyde set Givens up to fail tonight by not reading the situation properly. JMO. Hopefully, he can read it better now. Let's see what Kline can do.

You mean he's still here?

So, great defender. Home run power to all fields and uses all fields. Showed the ability to take walks in the minors and was decent in that area in 2016. If 2016-type production is the best he can do plus the glove, we could do worse. Lottta K's though. Just unscientifically estimating if the 2016 production were extended to a full season, he'd have around 25 doubles, 25 home runs, 80 walks, 200+ K's, 45 steals and maybe 3 triples and the 107 OPS+ is fine too. Nothing spectacular, but if he can maintain that, it would be a great addition. Can he? Seems unlikely, but we'll see. It would be nice, though. I hope he gets an extended look in the lineup and he's elite defensively in center. Let's see what happens.

I don't mind giving Broxton a chance. Nothing to lose at all and I like that we are focusing more on speed generally. As for Cobb, not surprised at all. He's been extremely fragile his whole career and has not been the same pitcher since missing all of 2015 and most of 2016 due to injury. He's had good stretches, but has never been able to stay healthy ever. If he was elite, he wouldn't be in Baltimore right now because another team would have signed him long before he fell to us. We're seeing why. It was just another bad decision from the previous regime and I don't expect we'll be getting much if anything for him. We're likely stuck with him for the duration of the contract like we are with Davis.

Though I find it to be unlikely that the team is moved, I don't think I'd be that surprised if Angelos did so much damage relations-wise with MLB that they just want him and his team gone. Manfred is about to do some pretty crazy things to this sport next year, so nothing would surprise me with him. I think he'd do just about anything. Still, I find it to be a highly unlikely scenario that the Orioles are moved. Sold? Maybe. Is the MASN dispute really going to affect whether the Orioles can get another lease on Camden Yards in a couple years? I admit to being a little over my head with this whole situation and the effects it may have down the line if it continues to drag on.

I could easily see your first point leading to more pitcher injuries, though. If not real injuries, faked ones. Indeed or you could take Ohtani out of the lineup unless he's pitching. Wouldn't it be interesting to see Ohtani come in as a long reliever just to get him in the lineup in those situations? There's potential there for some interesting strategic moves. It would make the DH a lot more interesting, that's for sure.

Good point about the IBB's and I would also argue that if it's obvious that a pitcher clearly doesn't have it after one batter and is forced to face another two batters, more runs are given up and a pitching change will happen anyway, just later which means more game time. What if the next pitcher comes in and is equally ineffective? Then, another pitching change after three batters. I can definitely see IBB's being used as a loophole here. I hadn't considered that, but it's definitely a valid and interesting point. I disagree about throwing the DH out. I still think that the right solution is to just make it optional and have the home team decide if there will be a DH or not. This way, fans like yourself who do not like the DH won't feel so put off by it. I think it's easier to accept over time if your team is making those decisions instead of having the league mandate it. Making it optional also makes using or not using the DH more of a strategic decision as opposed to an mandatory enforced one. I definitely think this is the better way to go for the fans who are opposed to it as well as the other factors.

Fair enough. At least you're consistent. I share your frustrations with replay, but I think if it was more efficient, it wouldn't be a big deal. I gotta tell you, though. If we get rid of replay, I want to see managers arguing with umpires on the field. I do miss it, I can't lie.

Do you feel the same about balls and strikes?

Well, I'm not saying that, but I'm saying that any approach to remedy the situation needs to be done with care and not in a reactionary way which is what this feels like. I know I am always in the comfortable minority here on this topic, but I think what we're seeing in part is the unintended consequences of trying to make the game "clean" when the game has never been clean at any time in it's history. This has been a large scale experiment and it has been a failure. It has just taken this long for it to really become obvious. I don't think people cared much about three hour games in the 90's because it was exciting and someone could hit one out of the stadium at any time. You really had to pay attention and not miss a beat. Now, this "cleaner" product is nowhere near as exciting or alluring to people. Then, people complain that the ball is juiced. What people are essentially asking for is another dead ball era where even less happens than now and probably back then as well. The #1 thing people love about baseball are home runs and the longer, the better. A cleaner game is without the fuel that supplies all those home runs and I would argue that this cleaner product is far worse off than it ever was when the league had players like Sosa, McGuire, Bonds and Canseco. It's just a better product with those guys than without them and the game has suffered. No PED's and no juiced ball is an on-field product that has literally never existed before in baseball history. It has never been clean, ever. Trying to make it so has failed and something has been lost that was very important to the survival of the sport. There might also be a case to be made about the decline in other areas like stolen bases because, as has been said on here before, stealing bases also takes a physical toll on the body which may not have been so bad with PEDs. The game people fell in love with was up to it's eyeballs in PEDs including steroids which have been around since the 30's and now, people want the same game without all that stuff and it's just not going to happen. While I don't see that changing any time soon, I don't think wildly flailing around and making changes on the scale that is being suggested is going to improve the situation. I think it's the way further into it. It feels more like the actions of someone who is panicking than anything else.

Thing is, interest in sports seems to be falling across the board in all sports among youth. They just don't seem to be as interested in pro sports generally, so then the question is how much catering should be done to them and how much collateral damage is acceptable? Changes always come with unforeseen problems and some of them can be catastrophic. The potential of alienating everyone is a very real one IMO if the wrong changes are made and too many changes are made at the same time. If young people just have better things to do and aren't interested in sports, I don't think any of these changes is going to reverse that. I think we have to be open to the possibility that pro sports are generally on the way out or at least on the way down. I also think people would rather enjoy sporting events from home than at the park where food is too expensive, the temperature may not be ideal and stadium seats aren't as comfortable as sitting on your couch, recliner or bed wearing whatever you want with the bathroom a few steps away and being able to turn over and sleep immediately after the game ends. It's complicated for sure, but I think these proposed changes have too much of a "knee jerk" quality to them. I am not inherently against change, but I think it's not being considered with the proper care and respect it needs. A strike would make it all moot, though. I really think that's the endgame especially if these changes don't go over well. These next couple years are going to be done on thin ice IMO.

I wouldn't say it's needless if it means getting the call right. Besides, take away replays and you'd just have delays in the form of managers arguing with umpires for a couple minutes. I would prefer to make the replay process better and faster as opposed to throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It's a good idea, but it is not implemented as efficiently as it can be. The problem is the people at home can determine what the right call is five minutes before the replay judges do. The problem isn't replay itself.

My thoughts exactly. It's quite bizarre what is being bandied about these days. The direction things are going right now is not good IMO. Baseball is in trouble especially with Tony Clark being perfectly fine with another strike in 2021 and that such an idea is gaining traction with players from what I've been reading. Another strike will kill baseball, again, JMO. It will certainly be over for me and I'm already hanging on by a thread, it seems. Some of these changes are drastic and I don't think I have the energy to really dig in, but I will say I disagree with forcing the DH with a rule. I think it should be decided by the home team before every game whether or not both teams will use or not use the DH in both leagues. I don't understand why it has to be enforced one way or the other. Give teams the option and see how it shakes out. Many of these other proposed rule changes are just depressing. Prioritizing game time over everything else can't possibly end well for the sport.

So, what all has he done now? He grabbed the leg of the guy turning a double play while sliding into second base twice, didn't hustle on a play that he may have beaten out if he did and intentionally kicked the first baseman's leg when running past him. Sounds pretty dirty to me and the lack of hustle is something we saw plenty of when he was here. He comes out publicly and flat out says he doesn't hustle and isn't going to start hustling more (the new Manny being Manny), so what precedent is that going to set when he (likely) gets the biggest contract of the offseason? Also, Machado saying he was "trying to step over" Aguilar's foot when he kicked him sounds a lot like Roger Clemens not being able to tell the difference between the barrel of a broken bat and a baseball and forgot that he wasn't supposed to throw the ball at the runner after fielding it. Machado dragged his foot on the ground (presumably to slow the momentum of his leg so he didn't kick Aguilar too hard) and deliberately kicked him. It's not throwing a bat, but he intentionally kicked a guy when it could have easily been avoided. How do you try to "step over" him by dragging your foot on the ground right into his ankle? He's lying right to people's faces about something completely obvious to everyone else. It's a classic "don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining" situation IMO. I never cared much for Manny's attitude and he has really let it all out this postseason. Meh, I'm glad he's gone. I only wish we would have dealt him a year or so earlier. BTW, a 10 grand suspension is a joke. MLB might as well have fined him $1. What message is a $10,000 fine supposed to send to a multimillionaire about to break the bank? I am sure Manny being Manny is going to be in the headlines more and more especially after he gets paid.

Not anymore. :)

This is about right. Almost everyone on here overvalued these two especially Gausman. His FIP has been lower than his ERA two years in a row now. He had a 1.50 WHIP last year which wayy below average and downright horrible for a starting pitcher. This year, it's closing in on 1.40. He has been a different pitcher overall these last two years. Maybe he finds it again once he gets out of this mess in Baltimore, but most folks on here were expecting way too much.

Not surprised at all with Ohtani. Throws 100mph and has a full inverted L at footstrike. Personally, I don't think he'll last long as a pitcher especially throwing that hard. Not surprised with Harvey either nor is "instability" a very good word to use. Sounds like big trouble to me. Haven't seen much of the other guys, but looking at Santana's delivery there, pretty obvious where the problems are. Arm injuries will continue to increase as proper mechanics are sacrificed for velocity by "stretching the rubber bands" as VATech put it. It is the biggest reason for the likely continued increase in pitching arm injuries. Increased velocity is killing the arms. Even the strongest rubber bands wear out and break eventually if abused like this for long enough. Since I doubt any of this will change, perhaps maintenance PRP injections (HGH would be better) in pitching elbows/shoulders first thing in the offseason could help keep the rubber bands healthy. Doing nothing will change nothing.

I double checked this and it was actually 1961. The injection was amphetamines and steroids apparently.

Mythbusters did a show about corked bats and determined that balls hit with corked bats did not travel as far or as fast as balls struck with normal bats. Corked bats don't help at all except possibly in a psychological way. It doesn't make the ball go further, though. Therefore, not cheating. Second, Mantle got a bad infection in 1953 from an amphetamines injection, so he most certainly used them. We don't really know when steroids became commonplace in baseball. Only that they were rampant in the 60's. Were they in the 50's? We may never know the answer to that, but there likely was increased use throughout the 50's. Mantle certainly was into amphetamine injections, though. Mays admitted to using "something" and Aaron admitted using them in his book. Amphetamines will improve hand/eye coordination, reaction time, concentration levels and energy levels. Steroids make the ball go further when you make contact, but don't help you to hit a baseball like amphetamines do. I would argue the former is more of a performance enhancer than the latter. They don't cause bulk, but they don't need to either. Second, the quality and effectiveness of the drugs increased substantially in the 80's and especially the 90's. The drugs got a lot better and so did the results. I don't even consider it cheating TBH since the whole league was doing something. For the most part, everyone was on an even playing field. I imagine I would try out some of the PED's myself. If I chose to not use, well that's my choice. I wouldn't expect the whole league to change for me. If I don't want to use, then it'll be harder for me. That's fine. I don't really think it's special, though. It's personal preference to use or not to use. The whole "PEDs in sports" thing is hardly a new development. By not using, you know what you're up against. If Griffey really didn't use anything, there's your shining example of succeeding without help. Of course, not failing a test doesn't really absolve anyone of guilt and I would bet Griffey did use early on. He's my favorite player ever either way. Superhuman feats usually require some help since we're not superhuman. Superhuman feats are part of the allure of sports IMO. It's incredible what athletes can do in any sport. I have to wonder whether or not sports without PEDs would have become as popular as they are now. Professional athletes display superhuman abilities and I would bet most of them are on something to help them achieve it. I really have no problem with it. As far as people denying ever using and playing clean, I don't even necessarily believe them anymore. How many guys have claimed with absolute sincerity and indignation that they never took steroids only to find out they were complete liars. What are they supposed to say? Palmeiro went over the top denying his steroid use while knowing the WHOLE TIME he had failed a test already and that this truth would certainly come out soon? Besides, if all the "cheaters" were exposed, MLB would need to start bringing fans in to play games as replacement players because the real players would all be suspended. Again, this isn't a winnable fight. It's already lost. You can't go back now. I think the only way to really get a handle on this is compromise instead of just banning everything. Look at the PED's individually and determine which are too dangerous to take at any dose and keep them illegal while making others legal to use, but ONLY under the supervision of team doctors who will monitor for side effects and control dosage. Any player found taking PED's outside of that restriction are suspended for a year without pay, no appeal. HGH should be completely legal as well and a mandatory part of any injury recovery program, but only under the supervision of a team doctor. Using it outside of that restriction is a one year suspension without pay, no appeal. This has to be a give and take thing. You can't just take, take, take (prohibition) and expect everyone to be cool with that.