Search the Community

This space has been on pause the past few weeks because baseball has done absolutely nothing. This week that changed a bit, but I’m not sure it was for the better. We’re farther away from MLB’s return, and now worse off for it. Earlier this week one of the best reporters in the game, Ken Rosenthal, was let go from MLB Network. This stems from his criticism (and that should be used lightly) of overlord Rob Manfred. Major League Baseball’s commissioner is a steward of the owners, and while he actively seeks to line their pockets, he doesn’t need anyone on his airwaves sowing doubt about his leadership. Rosenthal is still employed by The Athletic (who was just recently acquired by the New York Times) and Fox. Seeing players rally in support of Rosenthal was a great thing as well. On Wednesday a piece was penned by ESPN’s Jeff Passan in relation to the state of baseball’s CBA issues. Some of the highlights, or maybe lowlights, don’t paint a pretty picture at all. We’re closer to Spring Training and yet the sides have not had a single meeting to suggest any sort of progress. A source was frank to Passan in simply stating, “What the (expletive) are we doing?” Passan talks about the decreasing optimism among those in the know that there will be a full season. The last discussion lasted just seven minutes, and we saw these two sides struggle mightily when it came to generating an agreement for 2020. Ultimately Manfred implemented a 60-game season, but that was due to the outlined agreements within the CBA rather than a compromise between both parties. As has been the case from the beginning most within the sport don’t see the sides coming together until later this month. With Spring Training being just weeks away at that point, you can all but guarantee time will be missed there. The problem, as Passan outlines, is that the issues surrounding the CBA are far more contentious than those discussed during the Covid-shortened 2020, and will need a much longer runway. There’s a way to work through them, but if Manfred’s letter to fans after locking out the players was any indication, he doesn’t appear willing to do so in good faith. This excerpt from Passan’s piece couldn’t be more spot on: While the players continue to be frustrated with ownership as spending dips and the Competitive Balance Tax is used as a soft cap, ownership wants no part of granting players free agency sooner or relinquishing control over cost effectiveness. A source told Passan, "The only thing that's gonna move either side is mutual assured destruction." The piece goes into an avenue where a CBA could take both sides, and while each needs to make concessions, the reality is that there’s a ton to work through. A deal not being close by February 1 would almost assuredly cancel Spring Training games. A handful of free agents still need to be signed, and a sport with many foreign players needs runway for Visas and travel arrangements to be made. Should things not be agreed to by May 1, we’re going to see the first substantial work stopped since the 1994-95 calendar. It’s on both sides to fix this, but make no mistake, this will be Rob Manfred’s legacy. Do you think we see Spring Training start on time? How about whether regular season games are missed? MORE FROM TWINS DAILY — Latest Twins coverage from our writers — Recent Twins discussion in our forums — Follow Twins Daily via Twitter, Facebook, or email View full article

It was May 4th and not a reliever was stirring all through the pen, that’s when the news came that this drought would soon end. Former Twins third basemen Trevor Plouffe broke the report that baseball is coming, and sooner rather than later. Using his dates which have now been more widely reported, how does that leave the Twins looking at their 2020 schedule?For some time, I’ve tried to wrap my head around what the 2020 schedule may look like given its fractured state. If teams aren’t going to go through a temporary division realignment, how will there be a level playing field in regard to common foes. Will games be rescheduled or shuffled around, and how do you traverse the logistical nightmare that would present? The most straightforward avenue to all of these questions is to simply suggest, play it out. Beginning July 1st, play the schedule through as it stands. Include an extra team or two in the postseason if you wish but keep the opponents and locations exactly as they are. We have a blueprint for that, and that’s where this discussion begins. On July 1st, the Twins would be slated to take part in Opening Day at Comerica in Detroit. It would be the first of 11 games with the Tigers, and count as one of 46 total games against the AL Central Division. From that day forward there are exactly 76 games scheduled, and a 61% clip against divisional foes would not be an unwelcome reality for Minnesota. Within the division Minnesota has another 13 games scheduled with both Cleveland and Kansas City, while having to face the White Sox just nine times. Only 10 games are scheduled against teams outside of the Central that made the postseason in 2019, and all five of the games against the Dodgers (2) and Astros (3) would be played at Target Field. Traditionally a difficult matchup for the Twins, AL East teams are seen only on three separate occasions. Minnesota would not reap the benefit of facing the Orioles, but they also would avoid the Yankees altogether. Seven games would be split between a Mookie-less Boston (4) and Tampa Bay (3) on the road, while the Blue Jays travel to Target Field for a four-game set. Although it’s not quite a 50/50 split, the Twins are looking at being the road team in 40 of the 76 contests. Last season they owned a strong .568 winning percentage at the home yard, but they generated a ridiculous .679 winning percentage on the road. I think it’s safe to say that given the talent of this team, they’ll likely be in a strong position to compete on a nightly basis. Now, there are two outliers that I think could factor into any 2020 schedule with these established parameters. One, July 4 makes substantially more sense for Opening Day than July 1st does. Capitalize on the patriotism towards our great country and realize there’s nothing more American than baseball and apple pie. Two, stretch the currently laid out schedule to incorporate at least five more games, creating an 81-effort affair. The former seems incredibly doable, and the latter to a certain extent as well. Major League Baseball has noted that teams will likely have expanded rosters this season, and the inclusion of doubleheaders will also become somewhat of a regular occurrence. Needing to add just five games, playing two on that few occasions seems simple. Should baseball push for something closer to a 100-game season, they’d need to add doubleheaders (or remove off days) on roughly 30% of the currently scheduled action. It’s also safe to assume that minor league baseball won’t be what we have traditionally seen. Having guys play in some sort of spring training back-field league makes a good deal of sense. Housing players at the complex, still getting in important development time, and having players ready to be called upon seem like benchmarks worth striving for. We’re still in the infancy of this all coming to fruition, but things appear to be trending in a positive direction. Following Plouffe’s initial report Jeff Passan noted that MLB is finalizing a proposal for MLBPA to review and agree upon. That would act as one of the last obstacles to overcome and should then lead quickly to the announcement of “Play Ball!” Initially feeling apprehensive about one of the best Twins teams in history being wasted on a goofy year, the blueprint laid out for what may be ahead is worth salivating about. The sport returns, the schedule remains soft, and close to 100% health for baseball’s beloved Bomba Squad could foster the most talked about World Series title in the history of the sport. MORE FROM TWINS DAILY — Latest Twins coverage from our writers — Recent Twins discussion in our forums — Follow Twins Daily via Twitter, Facebook or email Click here to view the article

Happy birthday, Moneyball! Yes, as Yahoo’s Jeff Passan alerted us via Twitter over breakfast this morning, Michael Lewis’ seminal baseball book, Moneyball, was released 15 years ago today.I have to admit, I was picturing the entire SABR community simultaneously Skyping and toasting Lewis and his book, each member raising a glass of their favorite obscure local craft beer. It made me chuckle. Moneyball’s birthday seems like a good day to discuss the state of baseball, today, given that Passan argues that the book, “set into motion the most significant changes in baseball since Jackie Robinson integrated the game in 1947.” Wow, right? So, let’s talk about the changes (and potential changes) to the game of baseball that we can could credit (blame?) Moneyball for. Before we do that, though, a few personal recollections of Moneyball, the book. I read it not too long after it came out. I didn’t rush out to buy it the day it was released or anything, but I’m pretty sure I read it within a few months of its release. I enjoyed it. It didn’t cause an immediate seismic shift in my feelings concerning conventional baseball strategy, but I thought the points that A’s General Manager Billy Beane made were worth considering. Sometime later, I remember reading that the film rights to the book had been purchased and I tried to imagine how anyone would be able to make a commercial movie out of a book about the application of statistical analysis to baseball. Yes, bringing Brad Pitt on to star as Beane would get a few fannies in the seats, but still. It turned out my skepticism was well founded as Hollywood had some trouble coming up with a usable script. Then Aaron Sorkin (“The West Wing,” “SportsNight,” “A Few Good Men,” et al) was reported to be taking on the task of doing re-writing the teleplay. At that point, I knew I would have to see the movie, not because I’m much of a Pitt fan, but because I’m a huge Sorkin fan. Sorkin managed to fictionalize the underlying story enough to make it be entertaining without losing the underlying point of the book, in my opinion, but I know some feel otherwise. Regardless, by the time the movie came out to critical acclaim in 2011, most MLB teams were already subscribing to most of Beane's philosophies, anyway. Anyway, let’s get back to talking about changes to baseball that may be directly or indirectly traced to Moneyball and also a bit about what some see as inevitable future changes that we might as well blame Moneyball for also while we’re at it. Passan traces the current focus on “three true outcomes” to Moneyball, as well as defensive shifts, current bullpen usage and the significant spike in pitching velocity. I’ll let you decide for yourselves whether Lewis’ book about Beane’s Oakland A’s is responsible for those and other changes. In truth the Moneyball reference is just something I’m using as a hook to get your attention (how's that for honesty?). I just want to talk about the changes themselves, whether they’re good or bad for the game and what, if anything, should be done about them. I also want to bring in topics that Jayson Stark brought up in his piece at The Athletic last week, specifically, expansion and resulting realignment. Look, I’m kind of old school. I’m one of those “fat old white men” that are responsible for everything wrong with baseball (and the country in general, I suppose) according to… well… seemingly everyone who ISN’T a fat old white man. I’d have probably been perfectly happy if Major League Baseball still had the ten teams in each league that existed during my childhood in the 1960s. But I was fine with putting a team in Kansas City and thought their stadium was really cool the first time my family went to a game there. I still think so. I was OK with the designated hitter rule. Maybe that was because it meant I got to see one of my boyhood heroes, Tony Oliva, extend his career a bit longer than his knees would have allowed had the Twins been required to find a defensive spot for him. Divisional play and pre-World Series postseason games? Sure, no problem. After all, my Twins won the first couple of AL West titles in seasons that they would have otherwise had virtually no chance to prevent Baltimore from winning the pennant without a playoff system. Of course, they couldn’t prevent that outcome, anyway, as it turned out, but the Twins won SOMETHING anyway in 1969 and 1970, I’d have probably appreciated that even more had I known it would be another 17 years before they’d do it again. All of this is by way of pointing out that I have not been universally opposed to changes to the MLB game. In fact, changes for the sake of making the game more competitive and to improve/broaden fan interest (aka “make more money”) is about as woven into the fabric of the game as any of the rules governing the game, so let’s just stop using “tradition” as an excuse for rejecting any and all suggestions concerning potential changes. MLB has tried best-of-9 World Series. They’ve tried having two All-Star Games. Some changes worked better than others. Some changes took far too long to make (desegregation, for example). So, let’s go down the list of changes Passan and Stark have written about and this one fat old white man will tell you what I think of each. Defensive shifts: I’m pro shift. If you’ve got data, it would be stupid not to use it to prevent runs. I’m against adopting a rule requiring two infielders on each side of second base, but if baseball decides that’s what’s needed to bring more offense back into the game, I wouldn’t whine too loudly about it. I’d like to think, though, that hitters could and would make adjustments to beat the shifts, causing teams to shift less and, thus, correcting the trend over time. That said, I’ve had people inside baseball that I respect tell me that making such an adjustment isn’t quite that simple. Maybe Wee Willie Keeler could, “keep my eyes clear and hit ‘em where they ain’t,” but it’s unlikely Keeler saw too many 95-100 mph fastballs in the 1890s. I think if most fans had to step into the batters box to face a 95+ mph fastball, they’d wet themselves. Hell, I wouldn’t want to try to CATCH a ball thrown at me that fast. Which is why I don’t often criticize a catcher who occasionally doesn’t get in position to block one of those throws that a pitcher doesn’t deliver on a straight line to the catcher’s mitt. Pitching: Just a few years ago, I was talking to a couple of Twins pitching prospects who had spent time with the Cedar Rapids Kernels and I mentioned something about the scoreboard pitch speed indicator not working. One of them chuckled a little at the reference to what he somewhat derisively termed the “talent meter.” That conversation took place at a time when pitch “velo” was starting to generate a lot of discussion. Now, as Passan cites, the average fastball velocity in the big leagues has risen from 88.9 mph in 2003, when Moneyball was released, to 92.2 mph today. If the young pitching coming through Cedar Rapids is any indication, that trend is not going to be reversing any time soon. It seems very rare to see any pitcher – starter or bullpen arm – who isn’t hitting at least 92 mph on that “talent meter.” I was a pitcher (well, as long as my high school coach isn’t likely to read this, I’m going to continue claiming that, anyway), so I’ve tended to side with pitchers in just about any pitcher vs. hitter debate. But we are soon going to be watching games where the average fastball is going to be nearing 95 mph. You can’t tell me that pitch velocity alone isn’t largely responsible for less hitting and, thus, the proliferation of the three true outcomes – a strikeout, a walk or a home run (if you DO get your bat on one of those things squarely, it’s likely to travel some distance). That gets us to… Pace of Play: The “three true outcomes” thing is what’s slowing the game down. Not much you can say will change my opinion of that. Two of those three outcomes take a long time to accomplish and can get pretty tedious. That is not good for baseball. Changing the rules to require just three balls for a walk and two strikes for a strikeout would speed things up, but would just get to those two potential boring outcomes faster. Likewise, changing the rules to make the strike zone bigger or smaller would also just get to one of those outcomes sooner. No thanks. No, the increase in velocity has shifted the advantage to the pitcher too far. We need something to bring more doubles and triples into the game. Here’s what I think: Let’s move the rubber back a foot. Maybe it would only take six inches. I dunno. Someone smarter than me could figure out the right distance. But give the hitters just a little more time for their brains to send the communication to their bodies concerning whether or not to swing. Right now, hitters are just guessing. I was taught by my coach-father to read the spin on the ball, identify the pitch, then make the decision concerning whether to swing or not. There is no way a human can take the time to do that on a 95 mph fastball. They have no choice but to guess. But 60 ‘ 6” is what the distance has always been! We can’t change that! Of course we can. Baseball lowered the mound in the 60s. Why? Because the then-current-height gave pitchers too much of an advantage and hardly anyone was able to hit .300. Sound familiar? Personally, I think it’s the one rule change that could get more action back into the game while minimizing all other aspects of the game. Just do it, already. Umpiring: Implement the technology to call balls and strikes electronically. I’ve had it with strike zones that change from umpire to umpire, from pitcher to pitcher and even based on count. (Take a look at the differences between what’s called a strike on 0-2 counts vs. 3-0 counts. It’s absurd and there is NO justifiable reason for it.) We’ve given the umpires and their union long enough to get it right. Maybe it comes back to the velocity thing, again. It’s tough to accurately judge where today’s fastballs are crossing the plate. Fine, but that’s an argument for using technology, not for defending an outmoded system. When the game was invented, the best technology available to determine a strike from a ball might have been to put a guy behind the catcher to make that call. That is no longer the case. Make every pitcher and every hitter use the same strike zone. Expansion and realignment: It’s hard to believe that, in less than two decades, we’ve gone from Bud Selig pushing contraction to Rob Manfred strongly considering expansion. I’m not really convinced there are two more communities in North America that would successfully support a MLB franchise. I’ve looked at Stark’s list of potential cities and I’m not optimistic about any of them. They are: Portland Charlotte Nashville Montreal San Antonio/Austin Las Vegas Mexico City Frankly, I find more reasons why teams might NOT succeed in each of those locations than why they would, but if baseball becomes convinced, I would say, “go for it.” 32 teams are better than 30. It just is. The scheduling issue alone makes this true. I kind of liked inter-league scheduling when it was first introduced. Now, not so much. There’s just no way to make scheduling a handful of inter-league games fair for everyone. It screws up competitive balance and that’s not a good thing. Stark writes that eventually we’ll see an alignment based on geography. Well, maybe most of us fat old white men will be dead by then, but our kids will see it. I’m good with that. Adopt the designated hitter across the board and give us eight four-team divisions (four divisions in each league). Stark throws out a couple of possible scenarios for realignment. There are problems with both, but they’re starting points. One has the Twins with the Cubs, White Sox and Brewers. The other, which tries to largely keep the current AL and NL intact, lumps Minnesota with the Tigers, White Sox and Indians. Not ideal, perhaps, but I understand they can’t build a system with, “what is best for Twins fans?” as it’s starting point, so I wouldn’t get bent out of shape with either alignment. In the end, here’s where I come down: I would love for some of my grandkids and their kids to love baseball as much as I do. Whatever it takes to make that happen, I’ll try to be open to. If some of the changes are hard to swallow, I’ll simply do what I always do – blame someone else. Damn you, Moneyball. (See how easy that is?) (This article was originally published at Knuckleballsblog.com.) Click here to view the article