Sessh

Nah, it would have been the right call. It looked pretty clear to me that the tag was applied when his foot popped off the bag and before the trailing leg hit the bag. He clearly lost contact with the base with the tag applied. Several different angles of HD, slow motion footage. It looked pretty clear to me. The interference call was just embarrassing. Replay is pointless if they still get the call wrong. It happens way too often even in April.

They wouldn't help the interference or the tag at third base that should have been overturned to an out to end that inning when Scherzer was still out there. They will call it a strike if you bounce one in the dirt and it happens to pass through the strike zone on the way to the plate, though. That'll be fun.

I don't complain about the umpires very much, but the umpiring in this series has been atrocious both behind the plate and in the replay booth. Both calls these last two games should have been overturned in replay. Just terrible umpiring all around in this series. That last called strike three was nowhere close and the umpire's face was right there. Just embarrassing.

What's also interesting about that is apparently, the baseballs being used in the postseason are not the same ones that were used in the regular season. This is just ridiculous. You're changing baseballs for the postseason? Changing baseballs every year? It's really going to screw with player statistics AND analytics because who can tell what's the player's doing and what's the ball's doing. Pick one and stick with it. This by itself is doing harm to the game. Changing the ball has to stop and I don't really care where it stops. There has to be consistency with this whether it's the ball from 2019, 1999 or whatever.

The composition was never changed at all. The ball is just rounder with less drag, but AFAIK, nothing was changed composition wise. As far as the electronic zone, I tend to agree that it's unlikely to be in the majors in the next few years. Then again, we're talking about Manfred here... anything is possible.

That's exactly my take. My questions would be: What currently existing problem in MLB is being addressed by this official rule? If none, what is the purpose of it's creation? Why is the immediate consequence of significantly lowering your chance to win a winnable game not sufficient enough to deter teams from using position players outside of these parameters? I don't get it.. and I don't expect this will be the last time one of Manfred's silly rules will incite similar (or worse) responses. I am still not convinced he is doing anything except taking wild swings in the dark in his approach to this.

This seems unnecessary and redundant. Do teams use position players as pitchers in any situation outside of the ones listed? Teams only put the center fielder in to pitch when the game is a blowout or they run out of pitchers in extras. What is the point of this rule and how are these "severe limits" in any way? It doesn't seem like this would change anything at all.

Fair enough. Based on Luke's breakdown there, it doesn't seem like he ever gave them much of a chance though. Well, he did the slider, but it was never good enough mostly due to the movement and command being inconsistent at best. Always hung it.

Did he? I thought he was a fastball/splitter guy? If he throws both, then why is he regarded as a two-pitch pitcher? That would be three pitches if he threw both. I don't recall seeing more than one type of change up from him. Only that splitter that broke down and away from lefties.

.. and yes, I realize Gausman used a splitter and so not a true change-up, but it had the same effect as one when he was able to throw it the way he wanted. Personally, I think it's a beautiful thing when a guy throws a straight change up and the batter swings out of his shoes before the ball even gets there. I prefer that to a splitter, I think, but a splitter will certainly do the job as well.

I agree which is why I said I think it's an undervalued pitch, but some pitchers don't seem to pay much attention to developing/incorporating it at all. It's the main reason Gausman had any success at all and I do think it should be used more regardless of the handed-ness of the batter. This is true, but it probably hurt him more that he only had two pitches. If he had a good change up and used it. it would have kept hitters guessing a little more and maybe he gets more swing and misses out of the zone. Couldn't have hurt him, that's for sure.

I don't think so. I think too many pitchers undervalue it in favor of other pitches, but I'm of the opinion that mastering the change-up will take you a long way even if you don't have a power fastball since the change-up will make your FB appear faster than it is. Even a straight change-up is great. It's not as sexy as a curve or slider, though. Soft tossers need a good one and even hard throwers (like Strasburg) have a lot to gain from it. Trevor Hoffman could barely throw 90 after hurting his shoulder in 1994 playing volleyball during the strike and having rotator cuff surgery after the 1995 season. He developed his change-up in the 1994 offseason and had it pretty much mastered going into 1996 with a fastball topping out in the mid-upper 80's. His fastball was in that range or lower for most of his HOF career and it played because he had such a great change-up. If Hoffman can do this with a mid-80's fastball and have a HOF career, imagine what it could do for everyone else? I remember Daniel Cabrera refused to use/develop a change up because, IIRC, he didn't see any value in it. He probably would have had a decent career with one.

I was just about to post that, Frobby. Here's a follow-up article from the very next day with more interesting tidbits. It seems the Mets knew he lied about his age, but didn't investigate and just assumed what his real age was. Doesn't seem like they mentioned this to the Orioles at all. Lots of blunders surrounding Lesli Brea, it seems.

For those curious (I think these are right): Mets get: Mike Bordick (resigned with the Orioles as a FA that offseason) Orioles get: Lesli Brea (RHP, 26yo then thought to be 21yo), Melvin Mora (Util, 28yo), Mike Kinkade (1B/LF, 27yo) and pitching prospect Pat Gorman (RHP, 22yo) Braves get: B.J. Surhoff, Gabe Molina Orioles get: Trent Hubbard (reserve OF, 36yo), minor leaguers Luis Rivera (RHP, 22yo) and Fernando Lunar (C, 23yo) Cardinals get: Will Clark (Orioles paid half his remaining $2M salary) Orioles get: minor league 3B Jose Leon (23yo) Chicago White Sox get: Harold Baines & Charles Johnson Orioles get: Brook Fordyce (C, 30yo), minor leaguers Miguel Felix (LHP, 18yo), Juan Figueroa (RHP, 25yo) & Jason Lakman (RHP, 23yo) Cardinals get: Mike Timlin & cash Orioles get: Mark Nussbeck (RHP, 26yo), Chris Richard (1B/OF, 26yo)

I agree with the sentiment that if we don't bring Villar back next season, our defense and production up the middle is likely to be atrocious. Someone said he's the best 2B on the market, so anything else we do is almost certainly going to be a downgrade and we have no depth at the position he plays really. Maybe he'll be traded, but I don't buy this stuff about how it would be based on one year. As a starter, Villar has put up the following WAR totals: 2016: 3.9 2017: 0.1 2018: 2.7 2019: 4.0 In no way would it be based on one year. He had a very similar year in 2016 and he has managed to replicate that success this year, so he has had two seasons like this one so far in the last four. Only one bad year there. No way this would be based on "one year" nor is it even a career year since he basically just equaled his breakout year if WAR is what we're measuring him with. Anyway, if we do deal him, I know Elias will be getting something he feels is of equal value and I'd be ok with that, but are we going to put Martin at SS full time or put some other similar player in there? He'll be only 29 and could certainly steal 40 bags a few more times before he's done. I'd start worrying about the beginning of decline at 33-34, not 31.

Although I don't have high hopes for Brooks, I tend to agree with this. He has been much better lately. Started out on/off in April with two QS, one decent start and three bad starts. Threw four solid innings in May as a starter, then went to the bullpen where he was mostly good. Came back to the rotation at the end of July and was pretty bad for five starts, but has allowed more than three runs only once in the last six starts to end the season. I think the Orioles staff will be encouraged by his finish and keep him around going into next season because... what reason is there not to especially if we're only going to be making minor league acquisitions over the winter.

BJ Surhoff has left the chat room...

I think the Royals proved that they were not just a "hot" team when they made it back to the WS the next year and won it. They were the best team in the AL two years in a row and it wasn't a fluke or just a hot team. The Orioles had the lead for only 2.5 innings that whole four game series. We scored 10 runs in the first two games and allowed 14 runs. Every time we tied the game, we couldn't get the big hit to take the lead and the pitching gave the lead back. They had us playing catch-up the whole series. They outplayed us.

Also, love the effort from Williams. Hope he's alright. That was some collision with the wall.

As per Frobby: Aggressiveness goes both ways. So long as it helps more than hurts, you take it. I did see the play and it looked like he rounded second base and stopped to make sure the throw home wouldn't be cut off, then broke for third. He should have gone back to second at that point, but his aggressiveness is a plus and not a minus overall.

I see your point, but he had a similarly good season four years ago and a decent one last year. I don't think you can blame it all on this year's increase. lol.. No, Villar is a player who improved and fought his way into a starting role and has not yet relinquished it in four seasons. It took him awhile to get going which also happens to PLENTY of players. I also wouldn't consider this an argument since the only points you can come up with are demonstrably false and sensationalized to fit your "Villar is bad" narrative. I also do not think a 2/12 deal would be a bad one, but at the very least, there is no reason to be in all this hurry to get rid of him. He has put up a 10.4 WAR over the last four seasons as an every day player which may still change before the end of this one. I would not consider that "bad" at all.

Wrong again. He was not an everyday player for the first three years and was for the last four years. It really is getting silly how far you're willing to go to get another backhand in against Villar and it's usually a whiff. As for flopping and crystal balls, you seem to think you have a crystal ball for sure. Of course there's a chance. There's a chance with literally every player in baseball, so what's your point? He's been solid three of the last four years and you're going to place your bets on the one bad year that happened three years ago despite there being two solid years in a row now? I really just don't get why you're so against Villar to this extent. Thank you. People keep repeating the whole "he's bad on the bases" thing over and over again when it's simply not true. Again, I really don't get why Villar is such a target for these kinds of erroneous judgements. I suppose it's pointless to continue refuting the same things over and over again because no one seems to care what the facts are.

Once again, incorrect. Total ABs in the "not good" years: 982. Total ABs in the other years: 1635. He's been good far more than bad when he has been on the field. You also fail to see that he was not an everyday player from 2013-2015 while he was from 2016 to the present which indicates he has improved significantly from those first three years and even improved every year of those three years. It's not really food for thought since the ingredients used to make it are biased. It colors every word you utter with regards to Villar as well as the way you choose to analyze him. So, he flopped in 2017, so that means he will again next year? How do you figure that exactly? Literally any player could flop next year or any year. The fact is Villar has been a solid player for three of the last four years and has been one of the few bright spots this season. I am also not interested in assembling the youngest team in the majors. Good teams have balance between youth and veterans. All I care about is whether or not they are good players in the end. The youth will come from our system and the vets from somewhere else. The good ones, we should seriously look into keeping around. Even if it's just paying him in arbitration, Villar should be here next year.

This team needs some veterans going forward. Buying high? He's been solid in three of the four years he's been an everyday player. That's not buying high, it's pretty clear what you're likely to get; a 3-4 WAR player. All players are flawed. It's not going off of one season, it's going off of four seasons. One was bad, three were not. Besides, everyone knows you have an axe to grind with Villar and take any chance you can to judge him as unfairly and harshly as possible. I don't share your negative bias.

I understand, but I'm not really talking about anything longer than three years. Also, Villar is a bit of a fan favorite at this point along with Alberto. The skill sets they bring give the team some character and bring exciting elements to the game. I would bring him back. I generally agree with your comment, though.