The Mainboard MLB Lockout Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,276
MLB official: "We thought that there was a path to a deal last night and that both sides were closing on in on the major issues. They couldn’t make us a CBT proposal last night so we agreed to extend the deadline to exhaust every option." 1/2
MLB official: "The MLBPA has a decidedly different tone today and made proposals inconsistent with the prior discussions. We will be making our best offer before the 5 p.m. deadline for the MLBPA that’s a fair deal for players and clubs.” 2/2
View: https://twitter.com/EvanDrellich/status/1498748814445924355
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,376
Hitters absolutely COULD learn to hit to all fields, thus defeating the shift. The shift works because players don't want to - or can't presently given their commitment to pulling the ball for power - hit to all fields. It's the launch angle revolution, the fact that "chicks dig the long ball" - whatever euphemism you want to use to talk about how pulling the ball for power is where the most production is and thus where the most money is. Even if it makes for a less fun overall baseball experience.

One of the issues corresponding to all this is the rise in strikeouts. We have so many more pitchers throwing at such high velocity that it's made hitting - already the hardest thing to do in sports - even harder. But players are still swinging for the fences anyway, maybe figuring they won't hit the ball very often but if they do, they might as well try to send it a mile. However, they'd likely make more contact if they chose to, you know, hit for contact and spray it to all fields.

And if they make contact that way, hitting it where defenders aren't ought to lead to more men on base. More men on base means more base running action - which means more exciting fielding plays, more chances for steals, and more runners going from first to third, etc.

People want to see runs and action. Home runs obviously are fun and people like seeing those. But they also like seeing their team score by dynamic base running and exciting action in the field. Here are some charts, showing data from 1969-2021.

Runs per game by year

49791

OBP by year

49792

OPS by year

49793

HR per game by year

49794

Ks per game by year

49795

Ks have gone up. HRs have gone up. OPS has gone up. This is all because guys are swinging for the fences. Hitting for more power, and also striking out more. But also, OBP has gone down. Guys are actually getting on base a lot less. And runs scored hasn't gone up THAT much. There was the steroid-era offense in the 90 and early 2000s that are seen in that big peak, but in 1970, teams averaged 4.34 runs per game. In 2021, teams averaged 4.53 runs per game. Not a huge difference. And a lot less action in 2021 than 1970.

1970 (individual team averages)
- 4.34 runs per game
- 0.88 home runs per game
- 0.49 stolen bases per game
- .254/.326/.385/.711
- 13.10 total bases per game

2021 (individual team averages)
- 4.53 runs per game
- 1.22 home runs per game
- 0.46 stolen bases per game
- .244/.317/.411/.728
- 13.69 total bases per game

There is, in other words, more than one way to skin a cat. If the goal is to produce offense, you can get there by putting the ball in play, striking out less, running the bases well, and putting pressure on the defense. You don't just have to stand there trying to jack everything.


TL;DR - I don't think the "solution" to the "problem" is to ban the shift. It's to get hitters to put the ball in play more and to use all fields. You don't change the game to accommodate their unwillingness to do so.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
So you're proposing a regular season that would be roughly 100-110 games? Lop off about 1/3 of the season? I'm not sure that's enough games to create separation. IMO, if you increase playoff teams and cut that many games out of the season you're more likely to have multiple teams clustered with identical records. You might wind up with 8-10 teams in a division with the top six W-L records.
The counter to that is if 162 games is enough games to create separation, then add adding playoff teams shouldn't be necessary. A team that wins 85 games has already demonstrated they're not as good as the team with 98 wins. They don't need an extra 3 (or 5 or 7) games to re-inforce (or negate) that conclusion.
 

ehaz

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2007
4,948
Sounds like last night was just a PR play by the League. Make it look like you're making progress by leaking broad agreements on more ancillary issues like playoff expansion, DH, the shift, etc., continue to not engage on the major economic issues like CBT thresholds. Then blame the union.
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
The counter to that is if 162 games is enough games to create separation, then add adding playoff teams shouldn't be necessary. A team that wins 85 games has already demonstrated they're not as good as the team with 98 wins. They don't need an extra 3 (or 5 or 7) games to re-inforce (or negate) that conclusion.
I'm not necessarily arguing for 162 or more playoff teams, but rather against 100-110 if you're going to add teams. I think it has great potential to create a log jam at the end of the season that may call for multiple playoff games just to get into the playoffs.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
I'm not necessarily arguing for 162 or more playoff teams, but rather against 100-110 if you're going to add teams. I think it has great potential to create a log jam at the end of the season that may call for multiple playoff games just to get into the playoffs.
I suppose, but if you're cutting out nearly two months worth of games, you've got time for those tiebreakers. :)
 

johnnywayback

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 8, 2004
1,421
I'd be thrilled to be proven wrong, but I don't think MLB is really negotiating a deal anymore, if they ever were. Instead, this is about finding a way to make the players look responsible for what MLB intends to be a very long stretch without baseball. I really hope popular players are willing to stand up in front of microphones and explain to fans what's going on, because the owners are clearly the villains here and should be cast as such.
 

PrometheusWakefield

Member
SoSH Member
May 25, 2009
10,441
Boston, MA

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,276
I'd be thrilled to be proven wrong, but I don't think MLB is really negotiating a deal anymore, if they ever were. Instead, this is about finding a way to make the players look responsible for what MLB intends to be a very long stretch without baseball. I really hope popular players are willing to stand up in front of microphones and explain to fans what's going on, because the owners are clearly the villains here and should be cast as such.
And it's an absurd demand of the owners. Players are expected to receive no salary increases - which is to say declining real wages - for the next three years?
View: https://twitter.com/JeffPassan/status/1498759338567024651

Passan pretty much in agreement

And we may see this go in front of the NLRB. Which will pretty much kill baseball as we know it.
View: https://twitter.com/BillShaikin/status/1498753636746162181
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
70,716
And it's an absurd demand of the owners. Players are expected to receive no salary increases - which is to say declining real wages - for the next three years?
After playing through a horrendous CBA (that they admittedly voluntarily, but stupidly, agreed to) for the previous five years.
 

Captaincoop

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
13,487
Santa Monica, CA
I'd be thrilled to be proven wrong, but I don't think MLB is really negotiating a deal anymore, if they ever were. Instead, this is about finding a way to make the players look responsible for what MLB intends to be a very long stretch without baseball. I really hope popular players are willing to stand up in front of microphones and explain to fans what's going on, because the owners are clearly the villains here and should be cast as such.
Unfortunately no one in America knows who any current baseball players are. Which is kind of the problem underlying this whole labor situation.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,376
Can't wait for our first semi "normal" summer since the start of the pandemic, only to have no baseball.

:mad:
 

jezza1918

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
2,607
South Dartmouth, MA
Hitters absolutely COULD learn to hit to all fields, thus defeating the shift. The shift works because players don't want to - or can't presently given their commitment to pulling the ball for power - hit to all fields. It's the launch angle revolution, the fact that "chicks dig the long ball" - whatever euphemism you want to use to talk about how pulling the ball for power is where the most production is and thus where the most money is. Even if it makes for a less fun overall baseball experience.

One of the issues corresponding to all this is the rise in strikeouts. We have so many more pitchers throwing at such high velocity that it's made hitting - already the hardest thing to do in sports - even harder. But players are still swinging for the fences anyway, maybe figuring they won't hit the ball very often but if they do, they might as well try to send it a mile. However, they'd likely make more contact if they chose to, you know, hit for contact and spray it to all fields.

And if they make contact that way, hitting it where defenders aren't ought to lead to more men on base. More men on base means more base running action - which means more exciting fielding plays, more chances for steals, and more runners going from first to third, etc.

People want to see runs and action. Home runs obviously are fun and people like seeing those. But they also like seeing their team score by dynamic base running and exciting action in the field. Here are some charts, showing data from 1969-2021.

Runs per game by year

View attachment 49791

OBP by year

View attachment 49792

OPS by year

View attachment 49793

HR per game by year

View attachment 49794

Ks per game by year

View attachment 49795

Ks have gone up. HRs have gone up. OPS has gone up. This is all because guys are swinging for the fences. Hitting for more power, and also striking out more. But also, OBP has gone down. Guys are actually getting on base a lot less. And runs scored hasn't gone up THAT much. There was the steroid-era offense in the 90 and early 2000s that are seen in that big peak, but in 1970, teams averaged 4.34 runs per game. In 2021, teams averaged 4.53 runs per game. Not a huge difference. And a lot less action in 2021 than 1970.

1970 (individual team averages)
- 4.34 runs per game
- 0.88 home runs per game
- 0.49 stolen bases per game
- .254/.326/.385/.711
- 13.10 total bases per game

2021 (individual team averages)
- 4.53 runs per game
- 1.22 home runs per game
- 0.46 stolen bases per game
- .244/.317/.411/.728
- 13.69 total bases per game

There is, in other words, more than one way to skin a cat. If the goal is to produce offense, you can get there by putting the ball in play, striking out less, running the bases well, and putting pressure on the defense. You don't just have to stand there trying to jack everything.


TL;DR - I don't think the "solution" to the "problem" is to ban the shift. It's to get hitters to put the ball in play more and to use all fields. You don't change the game to accommodate their unwillingness to do so.
The shift is only part of the equation though. Theo Epstein was on a Simmons pod at some point last year where he talked about not only the shift being an issue, but how the scientific advances behind pitching far outweigh those behind hitting. One of his major points iirc was that even without the shift hitters face a much tougher battle in this era than ever before, so they'd still be prone to trying for too much power since it's too difficult to string together enough hits to make small ball effective. Would be interested to know how much involvement (if any) Theo has behind the scenes here.
 

Yelling At Clouds

Post-darwinian
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
3,405
So you're proposing a regular season that would be roughly 100-110 games? Lop off about 1/3 of the season? I'm not sure that's enough games to create separation. IMO, if you increase playoff teams and cut that many games out of the season you're more likely to have multiple teams clustered with identical records. You might wind up with 8-10 teams in a division with the top six W-L records.
Recent history doesn’t bear this out. What is it about 162 games that would prevent this? Also, what does being the best over the course of a 162-game season even get you in today’s MLB?

I don’t know, it’s very weird to watch this conversation where some people in this thread are arguing that baseball is losing fans left and right and others are then arguing that nothing about the game should change. I don’t know that expanded playoffs would bring young fans in and casual fans back, but it’s an idea.
 

Marceline

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2002
6,441
Canton, MA
Recent history doesn’t bear this out. What is it about 162 games that would prevent this? Also, what does being the best over the course of a 162-game season even get you in today’s MLB?

I don’t know, it’s very weird to watch this conversation where some people in this thread are arguing that baseball is losing fans left and right and others are then arguing that nothing about the game should change. I don’t know that expanded playoffs would bring young fans in and casual fans back, but it’s an idea.
Expanded playoffs aren't going to bring fans back because diminishing the regular season isn't going to get more fans to watch the regular season, it's going to get more people to tune out and just wait until the playoffs to pay attention.

What is needed to bring in young fans is a pitch clock to speed up the incredibly slow pace of games.
 

Max Power

thai good. you like shirt?
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
7,878
Boston, MA
The last week was an incredible charade. Hope the players step up their PR game.
I don't really have my fingers on the pulse of the entire fanbase of baseball, but I really haven't heard of anyone on the owners' side. Most of the press have come down pretty clearly on the side of laying the blame on ownership greed. It's more likely that fans react with apathy rather than taking the side of management.
 

DeadlySplitter

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 20, 2015
33,251
I don't think owners can get away with blame shifting with this age of social media coming down their throats. But who cares really

EDIT: Or basically my post reflects Max Power's view of the "pulse of the fanbase" exactly
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,376
The shift is only part of the equation though. Theo Epstein was on a Simmons pod at some point last year where he talked about not only the shift being an issue, but how the scientific advances behind pitching far outweigh those behind hitting. One of his major points iirc was that even without the shift hitters face a much tougher battle in this era than ever before, so they'd still be prone to trying for too much power since it's too difficult to string together enough hits to make small ball effective. Would be interested to know how much involvement (if any) Theo has behind the scenes here.
Well one of the scientific advances was the spider tack. If baseball outlawed all that for good and said rosin is all you can use, then that would likely bring crazy spin rates and such down and give the hitters a little chance.

MLB runs scored by month:
- April: 4.26
- May: 4.41
- June: 4.66
- July: 4.62
- Aug: 4.54
- Sep: 4.66

April is explained by pitchers usually exiting spring training in better shape than hitters. Cold weather dampens hitting too. Summer is when the bats usually heat up, but spider tack was "banned" late June. And in July and August, the runs scored per game declined. I can't explain September though. Maybe pitchers got used to it? Maybe teams were using more minor league call-ups as pitchers (even though the rosters no longer expand like they used to)? I don't know. Maybe it's just random statistical noise.
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
11,405
around the way
We couldn't have picked a better time in the jimbo house to cut cable and move to YouTube TV. I was just researching how to get NESN and no longer have to.

*FISTPUMP*
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,276
I don't really have my fingers on the pulse of the entire fanbase of baseball, but I really haven't heard of anyone on the owners' side. Most of the press have come down pretty clearly on the side of laying the blame on ownership greed. It's more likely that fans react with apathy rather than taking the side of management.
Yah. The fact that they think they can use misinformation to try and win the PR battle is insane.

i honestly hope this goes in front of the NLRB so that they can rip the owners a new one. It’s been clear as day that the owners never had any Intention of negotiating in good faith. And that all they wanted to do was break the union
View: https://twitter.com/sean_forman/status/1498763965698088965



sean is the president of sports reference
 

ehaz

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2007
4,948
I don't really have my fingers on the pulse of the entire fanbase of baseball, but I really haven't heard of anyone on the owners' side. Most of the press have come down pretty clearly on the side of laying the blame on ownership greed. It's more likely that fans react with apathy rather than taking the side of management.
I dunno, I'm hearing a lot of "both sides are at fault" and "why don't the players meet in the middle?" or "millionaires vs billionaires" narratives out there. I think there are certainly more fans on the players side compared to owners, but the majority don't pay attention and are angry at "both sides."
 

Murderer's Crow

Dragon Wangler 216
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
23,479
Garden City
Yah. The fact that they think they can use misinformation to try and win the PR battle is insane.

i honestly hope this goes in front of the NLRB so that they can rip the owners a new one. It’s been clear as day that the owners never had any Intention of negotiating in good faith. And that all they wanted to do was break the union
View: https://twitter.com/sean_forman/status/1498763965698088965



sean is the president of sports reference
Minimum salary seems to be the easiest thing to solve since we're talking a few thousand bucks per team per year.

I'm surprised they haven't solved that.
 

StuckOnYouk

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 26, 2006
3,538
CT
The owners should have bumped the min wage up even more, hell up to 900K. Knowing that the majority of players would be getting a nice raise thru this and would maybe cause some strong infighting over the next week or two. And the expense wouldn't be impactful for the owners.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
70,716
The people this is the worst for is the prospects already on 40 man rosters (guys like Duran and Downs for BOS), who cannot participate in the minor league season if this is not settled.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,376
The people this is the worst for is the prospects already on 40 man rosters (guys like Duran and Downs for BOS), who cannot participate in the minor league season if this is not settled.
Honest question: WHY NOT? I mean, if there's no present collective bargaining agreement, what's to stop those players from playing? Is there a rule within the minor league teams? Or is it a MLB rule? If it's a MLB rule, just break it. I mean, right now there ARE no MLB rules since they have no CBA, right?
 

SoxinSeattle

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 6, 2003
2,368
Here
We need a Lockout game thread so we can spit and cuss. Baseball = Summer and not having it will be devastating to so many.
 

BringBackMo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,316
Just repeating that MLB games have never been lost because of an owner lockout. That streak seems to be in real jeopardy here. I get that big-market teams have wanted to show solidarity in the negotiations to this point, but it will be borderline shocking to me if ownership of Sox, Dodgers, Yankees, etc. go along with this for the long haul. John Henry will definitely feel heat from city and the sportswriters at his own paper. None of this seems to be his style.
 

ehaz

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2007
4,948
I don't understand why owners like Bob Nutting care about CBT thresholds. It's not like the Pirates are making a serious attempt to win baseball games.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
55,298
deep inside Guido territory
Honest question: WHY NOT? I mean, if there's no present collective bargaining agreement, what's to stop those players from playing? Is there a rule within the minor league teams? Or is it a MLB rule? If it's a MLB rule, just break it. I mean, right now there ARE no MLB rules since they have no CBA, right?
They can go to Korea or Japan to play. Any player can do this.
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,276
I don't understand why owners like Bob Nutting care about CBT thresholds. It's not like the Pirates are making a serious attempt to win baseball games.
Because they want to pocket the money. They don’t care about winning. They care about their bottom line.
See this when it’s compared to other sports

View: https://twitter.com/jjcoop36/status/1498775341502017536

which should be exhibit A when the players file with the NLRB.

Someone (owners) who claim they are negotiating in good faith would not do anything listed there
 

Gdiguy

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
6,231
San Diego, CA
Hitters absolutely COULD learn to hit to all fields, thus defeating the shift. The shift works because players don't want to - or can't presently given their commitment to pulling the ball for power - hit to all fields. It's the launch angle revolution, the fact that "chicks dig the long ball" - whatever euphemism you want to use to talk about how pulling the ball for power is where the most production is and thus where the most money is. Even if it makes for a less fun overall baseball experience.

One of the issues corresponding to all this is the rise in strikeouts. We have so many more pitchers throwing at such high velocity that it's made hitting - already the hardest thing to do in sports - even harder. But players are still swinging for the fences anyway, maybe figuring they won't hit the ball very often but if they do, they might as well try to send it a mile. However, they'd likely make more contact if they chose to, you know, hit for contact and spray it to all fields.

And if they make contact that way, hitting it where defenders aren't ought to lead to more men on base. More men on base means more base running action - which means more exciting fielding plays, more chances for steals, and more runners going from first to third, etc.

People want to see runs and action. Home runs obviously are fun and people like seeing those. But they also like seeing their team score by dynamic base running and exciting action in the field. Here are some charts, showing data from 1969-2021.

Runs per game by year

View attachment 49791

OBP by year

View attachment 49792

OPS by year

View attachment 49793

HR per game by year

View attachment 49794

Ks per game by year

View attachment 49795

Ks have gone up. HRs have gone up. OPS has gone up. This is all because guys are swinging for the fences. Hitting for more power, and also striking out more. But also, OBP has gone down. Guys are actually getting on base a lot less. And runs scored hasn't gone up THAT much. There was the steroid-era offense in the 90 and early 2000s that are seen in that big peak, but in 1970, teams averaged 4.34 runs per game. In 2021, teams averaged 4.53 runs per game. Not a huge difference. And a lot less action in 2021 than 1970.

1970 (individual team averages)
- 4.34 runs per game
- 0.88 home runs per game
- 0.49 stolen bases per game
- .254/.326/.385/.711
- 13.10 total bases per game

2021 (individual team averages)
- 4.53 runs per game
- 1.22 home runs per game
- 0.46 stolen bases per game
- .244/.317/.411/.728
- 13.69 total bases per game

There is, in other words, more than one way to skin a cat. If the goal is to produce offense, you can get there by putting the ball in play, striking out less, running the bases well, and putting pressure on the defense. You don't just have to stand there trying to jack everything.


TL;DR - I don't think the "solution" to the "problem" is to ban the shift. It's to get hitters to put the ball in play more and to use all fields. You don't change the game to accommodate their unwillingness to do so.
See I don't think the data necessarily supports your theory - I could just as easily make the opposing argument:

One of your first lines is "One of the issues corresponding to all this is the rise in strikeouts. We have so many more pitchers throwing at such high velocity that it's made hitting - already the hardest thing to do in sports - even harder." - and yet, despite this, the # of runs scored isn't way down, it's essentially flat. So either (a) hitters have also gotten significantly better in recent years, or (b) hitters modified their approach in a way that has managed to increase run scoring enough to offset the improvement in pitching. I'd argue that the easiest explanation is (b) - that this was always the optimal hitting strategy, but it's just that it took the combination of better analytics and pitchers getting so much better for offenses to start shifting to that optimized (but boring) offensive strategy.

I agree with what was posted earlier: framing it as 'hitters would be better off hitting the other way' is a bad idea, because it has two problems: first, it may not be correct - i think it's very unclear whether someone who really focused on doing that would actually be a more productive hitter (we've had this discussion before about Ichiro, who was probably the best in history at doing that - and yet despite that, was rarely actually among the leaders in offensive value because slap hitting singles even at a 40% clip isn't super valuable), and second it misses the point that it doesn't matter if it's a good or bad offensive strategy - the point is that it's BORING, and so it's bad for the sport as a whole. It's the same discussion with the NBA about chucking 3 pointers - there's no question it's an optimal strategy, the question is whether it alters the game enough to make it not enjoyable to watch - which is a bad thing for what's ultimately an entertainment product
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
70,716
I don't understand why owners like Bob Nutting care about CBT thresholds. It's not like the Pirates are making a serious attempt to win baseball games.
And again, the question no one is asking: if this is essentially about the owners trying to put restraints on the few mega-spenders, why was Steve Cohen approved 25-4 when it was crystal clear what he’d do if approved?
 

Ale Xander

Hamilton
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
72,442
We need a Lockout game thread so we can spit and cuss. Baseball = Summer and not having it will be devastating to so many.
We got Red Sox teams in Worcester, Portland Me, Greenville SC and Salem VA. We have other teams in Hartford, Norwich, and Somerset NJ.
 

Ale Xander

Hamilton
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
72,442
I don't understand why owners like Bob Nutting care about CBT thresholds. It's not like the Pirates are making a serious attempt to win baseball games.
They did for like 3 months in 2019 (iirc) and plan on repeating the strategy once every 10 years
 
Status
Not open for further replies.