Jump to content

2019 MLB Discussion


rico

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Seeking6 said:

My apologies. Wasn't being wise a--....but it is a very real thing. There are certain factions of fans that (IU or Cubs or whatever) that almost can't wait for a downturn or something to go wrong so they can point out being right. See it all the time with Cubs/Maddon and I certainly see it with IU fans...especially on boards.

All good! PS...I don't Schwarber leading off either. 

 

No need to apologize.  I certainly understand that some fans look to nitpick anything a manager or coach does, and i can see where what i posted could be construed as such.

I know it's not sexy in today's game, but I like offenses that can score in multiple ways. I watched a ton of Cardinal games in the early 80s (a slave to where I was stationed and my love of any kind of baseball) and as much as I don't like the Cardinals, i loved watching Whitey Herzog manage. He did some really unconventional things too, but most of them made perfect sense to me. Those teams always had blazing speed at the top (McGhee, Coleman, Lonnie Smith) and a couple of boppers in the middle (Hendrick, Hernandez, and later on, Jack Clark) and could beat you multiple ways. A lost art these days...

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 4.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

For those that would ask why.....mentality (Maddon's specialty). What commonly happens to a power hitter when they hit a slump? They start pressing, trying to jack everything out of the park. Regardless of whether you are a natural leadoff hitter or not, everyone who has ever played the game knows the role of the leadoff hitter: Get on base. Put a pressing power hitter in that role, and maybe it settles him down, gets him focused on hitting first rather than trying to crank everything.

Will it work? Hell if I know. Is it conventional? Of course not, but Maddon isn't the Mad Scientist for nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, IUFLA said:

No need to apologize.  I certainly understand that some fans look to nitpick anything a manager or coach does, and i can see where what i posted could be construed as such.

I know it's not sexy in today's game, but I like offenses that can score in multiple ways. I watched a ton of Cardinal games in the early 80s (a slave to where I was stationed and my love of any kind of baseball) and as much as I don't like the Cardinals, i loved watching Whitey Herzog manage. He did some really unconventional things too, but most of them made perfect sense to me. Those teams always had blazing speed at the top (McGhee, Coleman, Lonnie Smith) and a couple of boppers in the middle (Hendrick, Hernandez, and later on, Jack Clark) and could beat you multiple ways. A lost art these days...

 

 

The "lost art" is having a prototypical lead-off hitter that many of us were used to.  High average/OBP guys with speed.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, IUFLA said:

No need to apologize.  I certainly understand that some fans look to nitpick anything a manager or coach does, and i can see where what i posted could be construed as such.

I know it's not sexy in today's game, but I like offenses that can score in multiple ways. I watched a ton of Cardinal games in the early 80s (a slave to where I was stationed and my love of any kind of baseball) and as much as I don't like the Cardinals, i loved watching Whitey Herzog manage. He did some really unconventional things too, but most of them made perfect sense to me. Those teams always had blazing speed at the top (McGhee, Coleman, Lonnie Smith) and a couple of boppers in the middle (Hendrick, Hernandez, and later on, Jack Clark) and could beat you multiple ways. A lost art these days...

 

 

Whiteyball: Leadoff man gets on however possible, sac bunt to 2nd, steal 3rd, score on a sac fly. Rinse and repeat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Zlinedavid said:

Whiteyball: Leadoff man gets on however possible, sac bunt to 2nd, steal 3rd, score on a sac fly. Rinse and repeat.

That and play great D. That speed, especially in the outfield, wasn't only an offensive adavantage.

Plus, having the greatest defensive shortstop I've ever seen didn't hurt...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, IUFLA said:

No need to apologize.  I certainly understand that some fans look to nitpick anything a manager or coach does, and i can see where what i posted could be construed as such.

I know it's not sexy in today's game, but I like offenses that can score in multiple ways. I watched a ton of Cardinal games in the early 80s (a slave to where I was stationed and my love of any kind of baseball) and as much as I don't like the Cardinals, i loved watching Whitey Herzog manage. He did some really unconventional things too, but most of them made perfect sense to me. Those teams always had blazing speed at the top (McGhee, Coleman, Lonnie Smith) and a couple of boppers in the middle (Hendrick, Hernandez, and later on, Jack Clark) and could beat you multiple ways. A lost art these days...

 

 

Used to love and hate those teams. Coleman, McGee, Herr, Clark, Pendleton, VanSlyke, Porter, Ozzie....they definitely could beat you many ways. Now everything is launch angle on contact so the days teams having multiple .300 hitters is gone. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Seeking6 said:

Used to love and hate those teams. Coleman, McGee, Herr, Clark, Pendleton, VanSlyke, Porter, Ozzie....they definitely could beat you many ways. Now everything is launch angle on contact so the days teams having multiple .300 hitters is gone. 

One year Tommy Herr drove in over a 100 runs and only hit 9 homeruns

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, IU Scott said:

One year Tommy Herr drove in over a 100 runs and only hit 9 homeruns

Probably was 85. At least that would be my guess without looking it up. Definitely a team that was built for their ballpark. Large outfield, deep gaps.....stadium demanded a team built for speed without a ton of power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Seeking6 said:

Probably was 85. At least that would be my guess without looking it up. Definitely a team that was built for their ballpark. Large outfield, deep gaps.....stadium demanded a team built for speed without a ton of power.

and the turf was fast as well

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Seeking6 said:

Probably was 85. At least that would be my guess without looking it up. Definitely a team that was built for their ballpark. Large outfield, deep gaps.....stadium demanded a team built for speed without a ton of power.

One of the more painful years of my life. Had it not been for the Bears, it would have been worse.

With the Cubs coming off their first postseason action since 1945, I thought 1985 was the year. Sucked to live down in southwestern Illinois that year...plus, I had married into a 100% Cardinal fan family, so...

My only consolation (other than the Bears) was being at a game 6 World Series party with all of them when Don Denkinger took center stage. Although I feigned sympathy, I was laughing inside..

 

And Tommy Herr couldn't hold Ryne Sandberg's jock strap...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, IUFLA said:

One of the more painful years of my life. Had it not been for the Bears, it would have been worse.

With the Cubs coming off their first postseason action since 1945, I thought 1985 was the year. Sucked to live down in southwestern Illinois that year...plus, I had married into a 100% Cardinal fan family, so...

My only consolation (other than the Bears) was being at a game 6 World Series party with all of them when Don Denkinger took center stage. Although I feigned sympathy, I was laughing inside..

 

And Tommy Herr couldn't hold Ryne Sandberg's jock strap...

We had a good run. Cubs in 84, Bears 85, IU 87.....who knew it would 35 years and counting that I could celebrate all of my teams winning titles or winning at a very high level all at the same time again. And who knew it would be IU bringing up the rear. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Seeking6 said:

We had a good run. Cubs in 84, Bears 85, IU 87.....who knew it would 35 years and counting that I could celebrate all of my teams winning titles or winning at a very high level all at the same time again. And who knew it would be IU bringing up the rear. 

Ain't that the truth...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Seeking6 said:

Probably was 85. At least that would be my guess without looking it up. Definitely a team that was built for their ballpark. Large outfield, deep gaps.....stadium demanded a team built for speed without a ton of power.

It was '85.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Seeking6 said:

We had a good run. Cubs in 84, Bears 85, IU 87.....who knew it would 35 years and counting that I could celebrate all of my teams winning titles or winning at a very high level all at the same time again. And who knew it would be IU bringing up the rear. 

87 was a very good year for me personally with IU winning the title and my high school won its first sectional title in basketball in 35 years in 87.  Also my nephew was born that year and that was the first time I became an uncle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, IUFLA said:

One of the more painful years of my life. Had it not been for the Bears, it would have been worse.

With the Cubs coming off their first postseason action since 1945, I thought 1985 was the year. Sucked to live down in southwestern Illinois that year...plus, I had married into a 100% Cardinal fan family, so...

My only consolation (other than the Bears) was being at a game 6 World Series party with all of them when Don Denkinger took center stage. Although I feigned sympathy, I was laughing inside..

 

And Tommy Herr couldn't hold Ryne Sandberg's jock strap...

The question is WHY would Tommy Herr want to hold Ryne Sanbergs jock strap?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

I guess I will never understand today's managers because the Dodgers took out Rich Hill after 6 shutout innings while throwing only 81 pitches.  Also the Reds effort tonight was embarrassing and there hitting continues to be downright awful.  Last year they were not a bad hitting team but right now there batting average is the second worst in the NL.  They changed batting coaches who uses way more analytics and it seems like the batters are thinking to much.  They take more 3rd strikes that I have ever seen and it seems like they are guessing instead of jst going up there and seeing the ball./

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

I guess I will never understand today's managers because the Dodgers took out Rich Hill after 6 shutout innings while throwing only 81 pitches.  Also the Reds effort tonight was embarrassing and there hitting continues to be downright awful.  Last year they were not a bad hitting team but right now there batting average is the second worst in the NL.  They changed batting coaches who uses way more analytics and it seems like the batters are thinking to much.  They take more 3rd strikes that I have ever seen and it seems like they are guessing instead of jst going up there and seeing the ball.

They were up 5-0 after 6 against a below average offense, with a 39 year old pitcher on the mound in the middle of May, and nobody from their bullpen besides Alexander (1 batter) Baez, and Jansen had pitched in 5 days.  Their win % after 6 was 98%.  There's no need to leave Hill in any longer than that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Leathernecks said:

They were up 5-0 after 6 against a below average offense, with a 39 year old pitcher on the mound in the middle of May, and nobody from their bullpen besides Alexander (1 batter) Baez, and Jansen had pitched in 5 days.  Their win % after 6 was 98%.  There's no need to leave Hill in any longer than that.

I just disagree with that mindset.  I want my starter to go at the minimum of 7 but would want them to finish the game if they are still pitching well.  Why take out a pitcher that you know is pitching great for a guy who you have no clue how they will pitch on that day.  I hate seeing rosters with 8 or 9 relivers and only having a bench of 4 players which limits what a coach can do.  With so many pitching changes that you need that many relivers hurts your other part of your team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

I just disagree with that mindset.  I want my starter to go at the minimum of 7 but would want them to finish the game if they are still pitching well.  Why take out a pitcher that you know is pitching great for a guy who you have no clue how they will pitch on that day.  I hate seeing rosters with 8 or 9 relivers and only having a bench of 4 players which limits what a coach can do.  With so many pitching changes that you need that many relivers hurts your other part of your team.

It is the bull pen era.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...