Thurston Fluff

That's especially true given many teams don't really seem to look for that skill when drafting nor work to develop it in the minors. I have a feeling that's going to change the longer pitching dominates and shifts are still in play. Teams may start to look less to raw power in favor of hitters with that type of ability. Right now I'd take a guy who can hit to all fields over a pure power hitter who pulls everything.

I'm going to guess that a pine tar mark from a bat is significantly different than a mark from a finger, or fingers. I don't know who will blink first in this, because I believe that every team's pitchers are using the substances. But it is really the best and easiest fix to the game. Better than moving the mound. Take a couple hundred RPM and 2-3 MPH off of a pitch, hitters might have a chance. No, but a catcher and/or umpire then touches the pine tarred ball and gets it on other balls or on another area of the same ball. Unless only one player touches the ball it's hard to pin it on one person. I agree with you it's the best easiest fix. I think baseball already identified that since they have upped the testing. I just don't think we can do much about it until we have enough data to address it properly.

Pine tar is banned for the ball but not the handles. Thus when a ball hits the bat handle it gets pine tar on it. If you then test the ball you find pine tar on it but not because the pitcher was trying to get an unfair advantage. If you test all the balls over a year and certain pitchers have an abnormally high pine tar rate it indicates something other than accidental touching. While I wouldn't be comfortable suspending or fining any single pitcher for any single ball I would be ok with adding more oversight to pitchers who've had higher rates of substances on balls.

I don't think when a pitcher strikes out the last batter in an inning they throw out the ball. In any event unless only one person touches the ball it's hard to pin any one ball on any one person intentionally doctoring the ball. You can test over a period of time to see if individuals have a higher rate of (for lack of a better word) illegal balls. People who have an abnormally high rate could then be subjected to further game day testing. Kind of like they do with PEDs now.

I think part of the testing problem is showing a particular pitcher used a particular substance. For example how do you test for thing like pine tar when pine tar is used on bats by virtually everybody? A baseball hits the pat where the pine tar is on it, gets some on it then the pitcher gets suspended for using pine tar makes no sense. Ditto for gloves. Even if there was a substance on the ball that wasn't commonly used on bats how do you know who used it when the same ball might be used by multiple pitchers. Sometimes by pitchers from both teams. I think it's best to gather information this year to see what level of substances are on balls throughout baseball. Gather data for every team- maybe even individual players, to see if some have a significantly increased amount from the norm over a period of time. Crunch t he data in the offseason and go from there.

I seriously doubt that deal was done in anger over one play.

Yeah, lost in all of this is that in my opinion, Richards and revert to the norm JP are likely to wash for the rest of the year, essentially making the trade Rasmussen for Adames. If that's what it is we traded some upside for an established league average player at his position. I liked Rasmussen but we do better developing pitchers than hitters so it makes sense in this situation to take the safe bet. I can at least see the logic of the trade.

If we get what we thought Arcia was going to be I'm fine with giving up two middle relievers even if one had potential for more. Granted Adames isn't going to fix our offense on his own. Then again Mike Trout would be hard pressed to do that. Settling for upgrading our bench from Reyes and Robertson types to Urias and getting a better starting shortstop in the process is not a bad way to get marginally better for a team that only needed to be marginally better to realistically get to the playoffs.

My guess would be the umpire would have as hard a time as the hitter seeing the pitch and not call very many strikes. Or the pitcher wouldn't be able to hit his spots because people were in his line of sight. Or the batter does see the occasional pitch and hits a 105 mph ball at someone riding piggy back two feet away from home plate preventing future players from trying it. There really isn't anyway they can position players where the pitcher and the umpire can see the pitch, throw it for a strike without the batter seeing it. Play Ball Well played sir.

My guess would be the umpire would have as hard a time as the hitter seeing the pitch and not call very many strikes. Or the pitcher wouldn't be able to hit his spots because people were in his line of sight. Or the batter does see the occasional pitch and hits a 105 mph ball at someone riding piggy back two feet away from home plate preventing future players from trying it. There really isn't anyway they can position players where the pitcher and the umpire can see the pitch and throw it for a strike without the batter seeing it.

Those are the two things we need to keep in mind. Those adjustments cannot be made in one season nor can they ever be made if we keep changing the rules, the field or the ball. If we change every year based on the previous year we won't ever get to the point were players can figure out how to succeed for any length of time. Nor will teams be able to assemble a team based on knowable skillsets. Building a team based on the way the ball is made this year won't help if they change the ball next year. Ditto for the mound or any of the other stuff we're talking about. Basically teams would be rolling the dice every year in how to assemble a team. It would be virtually impossible to draft and develop for the future to boot.

Shouldn't we wait for a year or so to see if this is a trend or an aberration before making major changes? We're a in the second month of the season after a weird year. Pitching may have the upper hand now but what happens when the pitchers start to wear down a bit and the hitters start to get their timing and mechanics down after limited playing time last season.

Great. In ten years when the pendulum swings the other way and nobody can get anyone out we'll move the mound forward again. Or else we just let this cycle of better pitching pass and not have to make major changes to the game every decade or so.

Keep in mind the way we measure pitch velocity today is different than it was a few years ago. Those 90 MPH+ off speed pitches are not really all that different than they used to be. It's just recorded differently. https://www.baseballamerica.com/stories/the-measure-of-a-fastball-has-changed-over-the-years/#:~:text=For%20decades%2C%20comparing%20pitch%20velocities,much%20closer%20to%20the%20plate. I think the lack of offense is a combination of things so there is no single answer to how to fix it. One thing I think factors in is teams started looking for specific types of hitters and trained them to hit a specific way. That makes it much easier to figure out than when there are multiple types of approaches to hitting. The other is there just happen to be more good pitchers vs good hitters right now. That sort of thing is cyclical and there really is little that could, or should, be done about it.

Yesterday I was walking my dog and someone asked if they could pet him. It's the first time I asked them if they had their shots vs them asking if my dog had his.

Since this is the second time he's been released I believe he can refuse the assignment and choose to become a free agent.

I always liked and don't have a problem with any minor league signing but if he get to the majored league roster we have problems. One thing that makes me nervous is the sheer number of these types of signings. It's one thing to need some depth in the upper minors but does the majority of the AAA team need to be 30 something has beens or never was types?

When you have young, cost controlled pitchers who are performing at a high level why would you spend big money in that area? I think it's more about what we have than what his tendencies are. Stearns became GM of the Brewers on Sept 21, 2015. How long have we had young, cost controlled pitchers? The 2016 staff consisted of Matt Garza (32), Zach Davies (23), Jimmy Nelson (27), Chase Anderson (28), Junior Guerra (31), and Wily Peralta (27). Not the worst staff in Brewers history, but I wouldn't say they were "young and performing at a high level." This is Stearns' sixth full season as the Brewers' GM. He's been here long enough that he should get the credit and/or blame for the makeup of the Brewers' system top-to-bottom. I'm glad Stearns has built a team with "young, cost controlled pitchers who are performing at a high level" so that we don't have to spend big money there. Maybe if we keep finding and developing young pitching, we will be able to trade away some good MLB arms when they're nearing FA without taking a big step backwards. You just mentioned three starters in their 20's who were cost controlled and performed quite well. I guess we have a different opinion of young, cost controlled and pitching at a high level. Granted high level is a subjective term so I should have probably worded it better. He also knew his best prospects were on the pitching side pretty early on. Point being his spending habits aren't a pattern of what he wants to spend money on as much as what we have in house dictates what he spends money on. It isn't as much about who found them as it is the reason Stearns hasn't spent much on pitching is because he doesn't need to. I don't know if he'll do a Yelich type of contract to a comparable pitcher looking to extend on a team friendly contract mainly because that hasn't happened yet. Even then it would have to be when the Yelich contract is close to done like Braun's was. Basically all I'm saying it the circumstances are dictating what Stearns does more than any sort of pattern or trait on Stearns part.

When you have young, cost controlled pitchers who are performing at a high level why would you spend big money in that area? I think it's more about what we have than what his tendencies are.

Hard not to pull for him. I'm just curious how one plays baseball without depth perception. https://bleacherreport.com/articles/10002063-drew-robinson-makes-giants-triple-a-roster-after-losing-eye-in-attempted-suicide?utm_source=cnn.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=editorial

Mark Zuckerberg wears a black t shirt and jeans every day (Unless he's in front of congress or something). He says it takes one decision off his plate every morning. Einstein was said to have done the same for the same reason.

Most roster spots are earned. .269/.327/.411 across thousands of minor league at bats tells us Taylor hasn’t forced his way on to the big league roster. It’s great he’s a 2nd round pick that made it to the big leagues and if he develops into a 4th OFer like Ben Gamel that would also be great. There’s nothing about his skills set or number, except the 90 at bats he’s gotten in his thee cups of coffee in the majors that warrants making him part of the future plans going forward Looking at minor league numbers as a whole are completely meaningless, especially across such a large number of seasons. How is it relevant that in 2015 he posted a 640 OPS at AA at age 21? Looking at the last 3 seasons is going to tell you way more than those early years. 2017 he posted 865 OPS, 2018 he posted 825 OPS, 2019 he posted 804 OPS...worth noting in 2019 we had moved to San Antonio, so the whole Colorado Springs thing is no longer a thing that year. All that while being a very good athlete and very solid in the field. Based on your thought process, probably would have been stupid to make Manny Pina a part of the future plans. After all, he posted a 714 career OPS in the minors. Or maybe the Brewers looked at his prior 2 seasons of 850+ OPS combined and saw his very solid defense and realized he could be a solid piece. Your argument for him is a three year stretch where his production dropped off each season? A stretch that ended in an 804 OPS in AAA, which was the only year he didn't play in high altitude. I think your comparison to Manny Pina is about right. Like Manny Pina, he's someone who looks best suited to a backup role. Also like Pena, when he's the starter you should be looking to upgrade.

If that was the plan they'd have done it instead of DFAing him in the first place.

My guess is the cash considerations equals the cost of a waiver claim.

The good part of the players on the IL is this season teams have to manage the workload of all the players more anyway. With them getting plenty of rest now we can use them more later. That we're playing this well without them is the frosting on the cake.