Here you say the goal is a WS. In another thread you say perennial contender like the 60-70's. Those goals cause tension in how a smaller mid-market team runs the org that get painted over trivially in our fanhood.
No disagreement here.
Signing a Pivetta or whoever from a non-Burnesian tier doesn't mean Elias is 'risk averse' (other than the incomplete common usage).
So much has been made of Burnes’ K/9 decreasing since 2021. However, in 2021 that’s when Burnes starting throwing his cutter more than 50% of the time. So being as the cutter is such a dominant pitch, and induces weak contact, he started throwing it more, and now gets less Ks, but weaker contact.
Why should we penalize Burnes for inducing weak contact instead of trying to strike everyone out?
I’d say the increased cutter usage has a lot of pros. Less breaking balls equals less strain on his arm. He’s more pitch efficient. We have a strong defense behind him with the WALL. To me, if we were ever going to give a pitcher a big deal, he’s the guy.
For a risk adverse Front Office, Burnes is about as risk adverse as it gets. But… stuff still happens.
See Screenshots below from Baseball Savant and BBref.
I've always believed that one way to address the payroll disparity would be to put another team in the NY market and another in the LA market. I know that the owners would vigorously fight it, but the dollars would eventually spread over the extra team and make it more fair for the other markets. Move the A's to LA and the Rays to Brooklyn.
I know it's just as unlikely as a salary cap
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.