Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Things you miss about the old days?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Herr28
    replied
    6-4-3 Double-play post. . .

    Leave a comment:


  • Herr28
    replied
    The parade of relievers really doesn't bother me. Yeah, it is annoying with all the time that is wasted waiting for Jimbo to stroll to the mound, make his warmup pitches, and the TV guys to be sure we have a steady diet of those blasted commercials. But, teams are out there to win. If that means matching certain pitchers to certain hitters at the end of a game, so be it. Id rather have my team do all it can to ensure that W rather than follow some silly rule all because some people don't want to wait around.

    Win.

    Leave a comment:


  • Death to Crawling Things
    replied
    As much as I hate, I don't know if I'd want to change the pitching change rules all that much. I definitely don't like the 2-batter requirement idea, as much as I hate 1-batter appearances, it seems that idea would take away the way baseball should be to me. What makes the pitching changes really bad is September anyway. I think a limit to the active roster for each game would take some of that away. Though, I might add a requirement that you have to be on the active roster a certain amount of games to be eligible for postseason (barring DL-injuries, though that might be abused too) so managers wouldn't just dump the starting pitchers not going that game off first. (because if you can switch out each game, no reason not to go with a 1-man rotation and all relievers the rest of the way, and switch out that lone spot every game.)

    Leave a comment:


  • Victory Faust
    replied
    I agree with those who don't like the endless parade of relievers, especially in the playoffs. Maybe they could enact a rule that puts a time limit on pitching changes. From the second the manager goes onto the field, the team has 2 minutes before the next pitcher throws his first pitch, or the batter is awarded first base. They could also eliminate all the warmup pitches...pitchers should be warmed up in the bullpen. Allow 3-4 pitches to used to the mound and then play ball.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    Leave a comment:


  • Herr28
    replied
    Originally posted by RuthMayBond View Post
    Didn't the 79 Pirates, 85 Royals, 87 Twins & 88 Dodgers have one All-Star each?
    I think he would like to forget that throughout history there have been teams to win without being loaded with huge names. It helps to fit in with the narrative he is creating for himself. There would likely be a helluva lot more if the postseason was a tournament back in the day like it is now.

    Leave a comment:


  • RuthMayBond
    replied
    Didn't the 79 Pirates, 85 Royals, 87 Twins & 88 Dodgers have one All-Star each?

    Leave a comment:


  • Death to Crawling Things
    replied
    Originally posted by willshad View Post
    They were much bigger stars than Kendrys Morales, Alex Gordon, Lorenzo Cain etc. It kind of makes the whole era seem lower quality...like; 'is THAT the best you've got?'
    Well there is some precedent, the Reds just before WWII didn't really have big stars (except for Lombardi, a a couple of workhorse pitchers) and did pretty well in 39 and 40.

    Leave a comment:


  • Death to Crawling Things
    replied
    Originally posted by Toledo Inquisition View Post
    I don't have the time right now, but some day I'll analyze, say, 7-10 seasons of individual box scores from the White Sox to prove my point (or be proven wrong). Bothrops, pester me on it occasionally so I don't forget.




    Okay, "will, in the majority of time, have an off day." The Mets weren't so great, were they?
    I did kind of feel sorry for Familia (not enough to want to give the ROyals championship back, been waiting for 30 years) getting blamed for 3 blown saves. The 1st being the only true one. The other 2 being rather difficult situations to be sent into (especially the last one, that was almost designed for a blown save, thanks to allowing Harvey to stay in)

    Leave a comment:


  • Bothrops Atrox
    replied
    Originally posted by willshad View Post
    They were much bigger stars than Kendrys Morales, Alex Gordon, Lorenzo Cain etc. It kind of makes the whole era seem lower quality...like; 'is THAT the best you've got?'
    My point was that there are a lot of teams now with a lot bigger stars than the Royals.

    Regardless, there are much better way to determine overall league quality than which era has the most recognizable names at the extreme edge of the bell curve.

    Leave a comment:


  • willshad
    replied
    Originally posted by Bothrops Atrox View Post
    The Royals are certainly not star-studded for a champ...and you will see more and more of that as the 10 team playoffs continue. If we still had 2 or 4 teams in the postseason, you'd see a lot more stars.

    Of course like I said a lot of these guys will seem more like stars when we look back on the era. Nobody was talking about how huge the stars of Kent and McGriff and Mussina and Hoffman were when they were active. Now everybody expresses outrage that they aren't being elected for the HOF.
    They were much bigger stars than Kendrys Morales, Alex Gordon, Lorenzo Cain etc. It kind of makes the whole era seem lower quality...like; 'is THAT the best you've got?'
    Last edited by willshad; 01-07-2016, 10:05 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bothrops Atrox
    replied
    Originally posted by willshad View Post
    I was talking about even before the steroid era..even in the 1970s and 1980s it seemed like the top teams had a bunch of stars on them. I know some of this is because a lot of these guys are still young and have not developed HOF type careers yet....but on the 2015 Royals for instance, I don't even see any of their players making the 'Hall of Very Good' when their career is over(besides their rental guys Cueto and Zobrist).
    The Royals are certainly not star-studded for a champ...and you will see more and more of that as the 10 team playoffs continue. If we still had 2 or 4 teams in the postseason, you'd see a lot more stars.

    Of course like I said a lot of these guys will seem more like stars when we look back on the era. Nobody was talking about how huge the stars of Kent and McGriff and Mussina and Hoffman were when they were active. Now everybody expresses outrage that they aren't being elected for the HOF.

    Leave a comment:


  • Los Bravos
    replied
    Originally posted by Victory Faust View Post
    It's all been drowned out by nonstop blaring of Gary Glitter and The Banana Boat Song.
    That thunderous rhythmic whacking sound at Dodger Stadium between pitches is the worst.
    Last edited by Los Bravos; 01-07-2016, 10:19 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • willshad
    replied
    Originally posted by Bothrops Atrox View Post
    A lot of those guys we thought were great in the 90's because they hit 30 HRs even though they really weren't that good. That is what happens when the era allows for 180 lb. middle infielders to hit 20-25 homeruns per year. I mean look at Jeff Kent. He never hit more than 21 HRs in a season or had an OPS+ over 111 in a season (up to age 29) and then in 1997 became the "Babe Ruth of 2B."

    Anyway, 30 years from now, when tons of these guys are in the HOF - they will look much more star-filled than they do now.
    I was talking about even before the steroid era..even in the 1970s and 1980s it seemed like the top teams had a bunch of stars on them. I know some of this is because a lot of these guys are still young and have not developed HOF type careers yet....but on the 2015 Royals for instance, I don't even see any of their players making the 'Hall of Very Good' when their career is over(besides their rental guys Cueto and Zobrist).

    Leave a comment:


  • Bothrops Atrox
    replied
    Originally posted by Toledo Inquisition View Post
    I'm not expressing my point well enough, I apologize for taking up everyone's time.
    Apologies not needed. We all waste each other's time. if we didn't - we'd be working or doing something important now instead of talking about the times-through-the-order phenomenon.

    Leave a comment:


  • Toledo Inquisition
    replied
    Originally posted by Bothrops Atrox View Post
    That isn't necessary. You were just provided links for the entire MLB for an entire season. Relievers are better in innings 7-9 than starters - even good starters. Even with one or two having off days sometimes.
    I'm not expressing my point well enough, I apologize for taking up everyone's time.

    Leave a comment:

Ad Widget

Collapse
Working...
X