|
Kyle, we're seeing the first instance of the pitch clock coming into the deciding factor of a game.
We had a tie baseball game, spring training, of course, but Thai baseball game. Cal Conway stepped into the box, didn't get that automatic strike. Bases loaded end of the game. So there's a lot of people upset about this. Are you ruining the game? This is the worst thing ever. Screw the pitch clock. I don't hate it. How about you? No, no. It's going to be very fun to watch this happen over the next few months where all these people who hate the change are going to be like, This is ridiculous. That's going to be the end of the sport as we know it. You know what else? They said the same thing for when instant replay began in the 2000s. It's going to be the end of the sports world as we know it. It's just it's funny to see everyone element. People make mistakes. So should umpires, right? No. We have a book. Let's get the calls right. We have the technology. We can rebuild this game. Really? For all the hatred of umpires and referees everywhere, this is the time where you're going to say, you know what? Let's give the referee the benefit of the doubt. You know, let's give them. The chance to be wrong. Really, as you all were calling for, the public execution of the referees in the Super Bowl for making a correct call on a hold on juju smith-schuster, all of a sudden you're like, oh my gosh, let's let the refs have the discrepancy to call the game. Do we really want more? What? What's the name? Jim Joyce. Just Galarraga moments too. Is that what we want? The more history ruined by like a clearly incorrect call at first base or home plate or whatever the call happens? Yeah, Galarraga is probably more famous because of the perfect game. That didn't happen. But I'm sorry that I want to see, like our moments in sports unsullied by resistance to technology. And when it comes to the death, the instant replay, that's a whole different discussion when it comes to the pitch clock. In general, people are saying like, oh, man, is that 30 minutes really worth ruining the game? Well, here's the thing. We know what culture we live in now. We know that we live in a little bit of an instant gratification microwave culture. Like if things aren't done, like in the next 30 seconds, Tick tock. Just move on to the next subject. Baseball, they do need a quick and the pace a little bit. I think that we all kind of agree with that. And why do I need to see a guy on the pitching mound readjust his crotch every 30 seconds to feel like the game is at a satisfactory pace? Do I have to see the batter jump out of the batting box every 10 seconds to mess with his wristbands or his batting gloves? Is that really the game or is the game what's happening on the actual diamond? What's happening? As soon as the pitch leaves the pitcher's hands, that's what the game is to me. Not all the weird adjustments happening in the game, you know. So baseball has been saying for years that they want to shorten the games and the addition of a pitch clock will subtract on average based on minor league data between 27 and 31 minutes from a baseball game. And it's not like it's a dramatic change to the game. It's a pitch clock like it's a shot clock in basketball, basically. That is a really easy fix that will achieve a massive change in how long the games are. And so it's a great idea and it's going to take some time to adjust. And just like when they just did the intentional lock thing where you didn't have to throw four balls outside after about six months, everyone's going to forget about it because it's totally normal. Yeah, an honest question here again, like do you need to see the guy messing with his pants? Is that really that important to you or what's important to you is the actual pitch itself, the actual swing of the bat, the diving play, that all this. You know, there's also talk I mean, you know, of course, we're talking about this subject because it did come into play. We have expanded bases ending of the shift. I think all of these are really good changes to the game. First off, you look at some of the stolen base numbers of 30 years ago, and it's just hard to fathom our guys even coming close to them. No one's touching like Rickey Henderson Stolen Base record. It's just impossible because the highest based over the last few years has been somewhere around like 50 stolen bases. With the expanded bases, we might see a guy get like 60, 70, 80 stolen bases in a year because guys are going to be more willing to run, especially to when you the fact that they can't even do the pickoff play more than I want to say twice in an at bat. That's going to be really fun to watch. We're going to see more of that cat and mouse game that we've been yearning for. Catchers are going to be so much more important now that they're going to have to throw out more runners at second base. We're going to see a lot more of those plays factor into games moving forward. You know, I mentioned the ending of the shift. You know, it's weird because I didn't think the white baseball traditionalists were going to be upset about this one because the shift is a fairly new age concept as we move into analytics. But just the fact that we'll have more action on the base path now that they're going to have an opportunity to kind of like get a few more senior ground balls than they used to get with the second baseman playing right field. That's fun to me. The fact that there's going to be. And on the basepaths, the fact that there's going to be stolen base attempts, the fact that we're not going to spend 3 minutes waiting for a guy to throw a routine fastball after shaking off his catcher 20 times, that's all good stuff to me. That one's interesting because the the shift rule and the larger bases are going to be interesting because the reason stolen bases are down so much is not because the athletes are lesser. It's that all the data points to the stolen base just is not worth it. Like stealing a single base for risking a single out all the data shows it's just not worth the risk. What's the line in Moneyball that I pay you to get on first base? I don't pay you to get thrown out at second. Okay, I get that. That's that's true. But there are guys that have the ability still bases that don't that I think they're going to be a lot more inclined to steal bases with the expanded base if we're going to take apart like the rules of the game. That's like a underutilized rule that I think is providing a lot of joy. Again, when Rickey Henderson was stealing like hundreds of bases in his prime, people were like, Oh my God, Rickey Henderson is on base. This is going to be like a treat to watch, to see how he messes with the pitcher or the catcher, whoever it may be. I want some of that. Like I do want a little bit more of that in today's game. And for the next two years, you're going to get more moments of that because what's cool about all these rule changes and these players having larger bases and pitch clocks is that there's data from the minor leagues that we can point to, but for the most part we just don't have a large enough sample size to know how it's going to change the numbers. And so the numbers nerds, as people like to call them, my my me being one of those nerds, the nerds don't have the data yet to be able to evaluate and adapt their strategy accordingly. And so that's going to be interesting to watch. I suspect that we're not going to see a 60 stolen base person because of the new rules, but maybe we'll see multiple fifties or multiple forties. And even that I think is a plus. I just don't know what the data is going to say. It's going to expand the pool. And baseball is in a unique situation where they do have a minor league system to try out these rules, test things out, and because of rule changes in the CBA, I may be wrong about this, but they even have a committee now that if something's not working out, they have the ability to change it within 30 days, which that's something that baseball hasn't had the ability to change the rules whenever an obvious rule change needs to be had. Oh, I didn't say they should call it the spider tack rule, where they're basically like, we can just change anything midseason because of a PR crisis. Something or people were pissed off about it sometimes. Okay, I get the Rob Manfred is not the best commissioner in sport. You know, when you compare Mike Silver and Goodell, you know, obviously it's a very thankless position to be the commissioner of any sports league. Honestly, I never understood the spider tack. People getting pissed off at Rob Manfred for changing the rule mid-season. It's like, Well, yeah, you can make the argument that could have changed in the offseason, sure, But the fact is we all recognize the problem. We all said it was a problem. Then you're getting pissed said. And when he fixes that problem, Come on guys, we have to be a little bit reasonable here. Every sport has traditionalists. Baseball is the only sport that has gatekeepers. And what gatekeepers are is you can't change the rules and you can't change the sport unless we approve of it. It's a uniquely baseball phenomenon where the traditionalists in the sport have gone so far to actively fight against any kind of change, regardless of what the change is. Now, is part of that baseball. Having an older demographic potentially, is baseball a wider sport than, say, basketball or football? Potentially? Is it that baseball leans more conservative? It's also true, but baseball is the only sport that has legitimate gatekeepers that have fought back against the rules. And what I give Manfred and the people in baseball is front office. The immense credit for is they have pushed back against the gatekeepers and have gone forth with changing the rules potentially 15 years too late, like they were 11 years later than other sports to have instant replay, for example. But they have pushed forward and made these changes for the better. I accept that baseball is always going to be a little bit behind the curve of other sports, and that's fine because, listen, it's not all completely bad to keep some traditions. I think some traditions are good. I hate that we had pitchers that only go three innings now. I think that that sucks because I like a good starting pitcher. I like a definitive closer. I like a guy that when you turn to you, you know, the game's over and we're going to see less and less of that. And that pretty much every pitching record that's ever existed is safe to the end of time at this point, given that pitchers just aren't performing at the same levels that they used to. Like I mentioned all the stolen base numbers, those records are pretty much safe, but it's nice to be able to adapt as the game goes. I mean, we see it with all the other sports, you know, football, baseball. They see a problem, they fix the problem. I'm okay with us trying to think outside the box here. I mean, if baseball really want to be for traditionalists, then it would basically be cricket, right? We accept that baseball changed the rules to make the game more enjoyable. To watch and become baseball when it was the game was first game created. So now that we're here in 2023 and how the game is going to look different in 2030, 20, 40, 2050, there's always going to be different ways to improve the pitch clock. It seems like a change that needed to happen to again seems like a change that needed to happen. Like you mentioned, like probably 15 years ago, there's always going to be long games. I like a good extra inning game and I think obviously kept the runner on second base. I think that's just a regular season rule though, which over the course of 162 games. Okay, that's fine. Playoffs. Yeah. I don't want to see a runner on second base in extra innings. I want to see actual play of the game, proper play of the game to make a result happen. I think baseball's going right. I don't think that this situation changes anything because as you mentioned at the very start, two players will adjust, players will adapt. You know, eventually players will know, Oh shit, I only have, what, 20 seconds to get set in the batter's box. Oh, shit. I only have 20 seconds to throw this pitch. And you should more or less know what pitch you're going to throw or where are you going to throw it? Since we know how much homework is done in the locker room these days in baseball, you know, you know, like trends and what what pitches this player lives or doesn't like or what sports they're good at hitting it. If you're a smart pitcher, you're a smart catcher, you're a smart bullpen coach or whatever, you're you're already having those discussions already off the field. So you don't need to be having the deliberation of it on the field. And its batters, too, because remember the end of that Braves and Red Sox game was because the batter didn't get into the box with 8 seconds to go on the pitch clock. And so that was an automatic strike call. So you don't. Have to have that Nomar Garciaparra adjust your batting gloves, you know. And look, it's going to be better in the long run baseball. And because this is the other thing that always gets confused. Fighting against change is not preventing change. It's just distorting what the change looks like. Change is inevitable. Things changing is an inevitable part of this life that we live in, not just baseball. This reflects all of society. And so you get this weird, neutered version of baseball where it's like you're preserving the traditionalism of three hour games and at the same time you have 50 plus home runs that everyone shooting for ops numbers because that's what gets paid. And so it's going to change no matter what. You might as well embrace the change and actually work to do what the data says is is best for your sport, which I think baseball's starting to do. And until we get new data points, people are kind of going in a little bit blind. They don't know exactly how to find value within the margins because you've changed the rules. And the good news is once people figure out how to get certain value in the margins as evaluators and front offices change the rules, again, make it a constant give and take, and that'll make it way more fun for all of us, because then the game won't become predictable because we have all this data that tells us what to do. I think it's going to be super fun. And it's not just because my baseball team might be one of the three best in all of baseball this year. I think it's going to be super fun to watch what happens in the regular season in baseball this year. All right, guys will let us know in the comments section. Are you pro pitchfork? Are you against it? What other changes are you for and against? We'd like to hear your thoughts, like in the video, Subscribe to the channel post on all our social media from Juju and I'll stay safe, happy and healthy. We will see you next time.
0 Comments
Manny Machado has agreed to a contract that will keep him in San Diego until his age 41 season.
Kyle Ledbetter. What is your reaction today? Oh, my goodness. Wow. They didn't even make us sweat this time. Like usually when you have contract negotiations and the first offer is embarrassingly low and there's reports from Bob Knight deal about a potential $40 million a year contract. You know, they make you sweat it out through the season. They didn't even make us sweat. It was like five days contract done. Woke up Sunday morning and Manny Machado was a padre for the next decade, which now puts the core of Zander Bogart's Fernando Tatis jr. Manny Machado. Not quite Yu Darvish, but he's under contract for six more years. It puts that core in San Diego together for a really long time. Don't forget about Juan Soto in there as well. Another guy who signed for a long term contract. Not yet. Not yet. Juan Soto's only under contract for two more seasons. That's right. That's right. But hey, young core, a lot of exciting guys around the diamond. Manny Machado, how is this contract going to age? Do you think it will age gracefully? Is there like a peak window? Is there a championship window? Do you think that Padres have to capitalize on here? I said this when he first signed the contract, and granted I was in high school, so I had not perfected this craft of giving nuanced conversation and debates in sports. But this one aged perfectly well for me, which is as a Padre fan, if he was in a position to opt out of $30 million a year in five years, because if you remember, the terms of his original contract were five years 140 on the front end and then five years 160 had an opt out. If he was in a position to opt out of $160 million, it means things went awesome with his first five years of his contract and we can confirm that they did. He finished second in the MVP last year, third in the MVP in 2020. He's been legitimately one of the five best hitters in baseball and is going to walk into the Hall of Fame most likely as long as he just puts up decent numbers for four seasons, he'll walk into the Hall of Fame once his career is over. So as long as he played well, that contract was going to be fine. And as the contract keeps aging, like from a baseball standpoint, these contracts that age into their thirties have the potential to go really poorly. Obviously, we can point to the Miguel Cabrera's the Chris Davis is the Robinson Cano's like there's ample reasons to be like giving a person a large contract into their late thirties is problematic. And as a San Diego fan, I don't care. Man like Manny Machado is going to be our third baseman for 10 to 15 years. Like, I'm cool with it. Even if he starts to go downhill, he's already delivered statistically the greatest career of any San Diego Padres in the last 25 years. So at that point I'm chill and man, like I'm cool with the contract going south. I'm cool with him just being our third baseman for 15 years. It must be nice. I mean, hell decked out in Giants gear here. It's nice that you have a franchise is willing to actually spend some money to make a championship window develop. The Giants refuse to spend money. The Padres similarly, over the last two years, the highest spending team in the division right now because the Dodgers, they're seemingly content to kind of let their younger guys come out. They're letting higher priced guys watch some high priced veterans walk. Now, stalwarts like Justin Turner no longer with the team and now the bringing like a J.D. Martinez, the Padres. Like you look at what they're building here and you would say that on paper at this moment, they might be better than the Dodgers. So you're not going to hear it come out of my mouth. First and foremost, even though we beat the 111 win Dodgers, which to me felt like winning a championship because that's honestly beating the Dodgers felt just as good as actually winning a championship for San Diego. At the same time, the Dodgers have kind of warped our perception of what spending is now Granted, with the Bogart's contract and the way that a Musgrove deal is super frontloaded, the Padres do have a larger payroll going into opening day than the Dodgers. I don't expect that to continue, but it is the case right now. And the reason the Dodgers have warped our perception is because for about a decade that since the new ownership group took over, the Dodgers have kind of been doing what the Padres have done. And on a smaller scale with the New York Mets are doing, which, by the way, those are the three teams that you want to be a fan of right now is Dodgers, Padres and New York Mets. And the reason that's the case is, one, they're not on revenue sharing. Their you know, their teams are actually in the what we call big markets in terms of spending. And the teams are actually willing to take losses to put a better product on the field. And for fans, that's so much better. I mean, we talked to Bob Knight and Gayle last week. The Padres are losing 50 to $100 million this year on operating costs. They are willing to to bleed money into this. Team in order to try and get over the Dodgers and get a championship team. And if you want to talk about championship Windows, I don't see a better opportunity than right now for San Diego. They've already taken out the best Dodger team of the last decade. Like we talked about, the Dodgers subtracted, Trey Turner subtracted Justin Turner, Cody Bellinger, all these periphery pieces. Walker Buehler is not expected to come back until late in the season, if at all, from Tommy John. So I see no better chance than right now for San Diego. And they're willing to put all the money in the world and money that they don't even have on credit into this baseball team. And that's the best feeling in the world for a fan. Well, you mentioned the Mets and Dodgers and the Padres can proudly say they beat both those teams in last year's playoffs. They're just going to get by the Philadelphia Phillies. And we know the Phillies spent a little bit money, too, this offseason. But anyway, guys, we'll leave it up to you in the comments section now. What do you think of the NL with the Padres locking out Manny Machado for the next 11 years? How do you think this contract is going to age? Like to hear your thoughts in the comments section. We will like in the video, subscribe to the channel and follow us on all our social media. Stay safe, happy and healthy, and we will see you next. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
February 2023
Categories |
RSS Feed