2021-2022 Off Season Thread

[HelloNewman]

I suspect this lockout will last longer than any of us will want. I'm not expecting baseball for a long while. It's like they try to do whatever they can to kill interest in the sport.

I'm expecting an abbreviated season next year as well. Not 2020 Covid 60-game abbreviated, but just to pick a number out of my butt, 120 games wouldn't shock me.

[twsalso]

Nothing will happen until after new years. If they meet in January, they are serious about a solution. If spring training is late four weeks of the season is gone. If it is later than that, no baseball until June.

[hhill]

Who is better?


The Yankees hope he’ll be part of the rivalry with the Red Soxfor years to come. And he may already have met the Nomar Garciaparra to his Derek Jeter. Enter: Marcelo Mayer.

MLB Pipeline prospects guru Jim Callis wrote Wednesday that for right now, he would take Mayer over Volpe longterm.

From Callis:

Mayer and Volpe should become similar offensive players. I give Mayer the overall edge because he was more advanced at the plate at the same stage of their careers and he projects as a better defender with a stronger arm at shortstop.

Boston picked Mayer at No. 4 overall in the 2021 draft and gave him a $6.664-million signing bonus. The 18-year-old then hit .275 with three homers, 17 RBI and a .817 OPS in 26 games at in the Florida Complex League.

Still, Volpe has the longer professional track record, and appears closer to the majors.

Volpe hit .294 with an eye-popping 27 home runs, 86 RBI and a 1.027 OPS in 109 games between High-A Hudson Valley and Low-A Tampa. The Yankees drafted him at No. 30 overall and gave him a $2.74-million signing bonus in 2019. Volpe seems likely to start next season at Double-A Somerset.

[ThePinStripes]

The approach to hitting is just different now. And pitching. Now they keep sending out upper and mid 90s pitchers. So getting into the bullpen now, I'm not sure that's a good thing. I'm not going to talk about extreme shifting. I still watch baseball but I don't enjoy the game as much. Honestly, if I was kid now I probably wouldn't be interested in watching games. 3 outcome baseball sucks.

Baseball is a game of anxiety, lol. Waiting on a runner on first to steal or having a fast runner on 2nd with a .350 average hitter at the plate is where the "excitement" is. There's a good chance there's contact, and if there is contact there is a good chance it will be a hit.

I dont care about high K rates for hitters over contact outs as far as performance goes. But, yeah, high K rates absolutely kill the excitement of the game.

[JDPNYY]

I suspect this lockout will last longer than any of us will want. I'm not expecting baseball for a long while. It's like they try to do whatever they can to kill interest in the sport.

But, but, but, you can intentionally walk a batter without throwing a pitch. It's much better under Manfred.

[fredgmuggs]

But, but, but, you can intentionally walk a batter without throwing a pitch. It's much better under Manfred.

I don't know about you but I can happily live without seeing another pitched intentional base on balls

[sjb23]

There were 703 IBBs in 4858 MLB games in 2021, or 7 IBBs for approx. every 50 games (lol if my math is correct).

753 IBBs in MLB in 2019.

Just sayin', it seems like there are more important issues to critique.

[Bauer]

I agree... people want to change the game, when it really needs a rebirth..

One thing that I think would make the game a lot better is to make parks bigger and the ball deader. Yeah I said it..
With smaller parks and a lively ball, there is the thought process that homers are the way to go in many cases. Strikeouts are acceptable as long as walks and homers are also there. That leads to the three outcome situation, and with the advent of shifts, even many of the hitters trying to pull the ball find outs where there used to be hits..

With homers being less of a weapon (and I realize I am sabotaging my own Yankees here) then the game will return to a put the ball in play and go the other way sort of game. Stolen bases will come back, hit and runs will be more frequent. A homer should be a cleanup hitter getting all of the ball and sending it into orbit, not the 8 hitter slightly mis-hitting a high fly ball over a wall barely 300 feet away short porch affect.

In combination, lower the mound a bit, not to promote homers, but in combo with the above, to promote contact. Baseball was meant to be played by guys hitting the ball and guys trying to catch the batted ball and turn those into outs. It was not meant to be a homerun and strikeout derby. I love baseball more than life, so Ill watch until I need adult diapers and cannot remember my own name, but for new fans, it is boring. There is no action.

I'd have no issue banning shifts, but I do think with the above, you may not even need to. There was a day not long ago even mashers would hit the ball the other way if you gave it to them. I think we can go back there. Reduce the frequency of homers and strikeouts. That should be the goal.

D.H. Lawrence once wrote something to the effect of: "the soul wants always to issue to itself its own ticket of death." It may not succeed, but the wish may be its heart's desire. With its lust for the hr, its indifference to the psychological effect of 25% k-rates, its shifts that make the game seem to be parodying itself, its indifference to attracting young kids (late o'clock start times for the WS, ASG, etc.), the tendency toward "tanking," and, under Manfred, its silly, rule changes, baseball increasingly seems to resemble a kind of social "soul" determined to kill itself in its own way. A lock-out under these circumstances is, perhaps, further confirmation. Stupid.

[Bub]

I agree... people want to change the game, when it really needs a rebirth..

One thing that I think would make the game a lot better is to make parks bigger and the ball deader. Yeah I said it..
With smaller parks and a lively ball, there is the thought process that homers are the way to go in many cases. Strikeouts are acceptable as long as walks and homers are also there. That leads to the three outcome situation, and with the advent of shifts, even many of the hitters trying to pull the ball find outs where there used to be hits..

With homers being less of a weapon (and I realize I am sabotaging my own Yankees here) then the game will return to a put the ball in play and go the other way sort of game. Stolen bases will come back, hit and runs will be more frequent. A homer should be a cleanup hitter getting all of the ball and sending it into orbit, not the 8 hitter slightly mis-hitting a high fly ball over a wall barely 300 feet away short porch affect.

In combination, lower the mound a bit, not to promote homers, but in combo with the above, to promote contact. Baseball was meant to be played by guys hitting the ball and guys trying to catch the batted ball and turn those into outs. It was not meant to be a homerun and strikeout derby. I love baseball more than life, so Ill watch until I need adult diapers and cannot remember my own name, but for new fans, it is boring. There is no action.

I'd have no issue banning shifts, but I do think with the above, you may not even need to. There was a day not long ago even mashers would hit the ball the other way if you gave it to them. I think we can go back there. Reduce the frequency of homers and strikeouts. That should be the goal.

Interesting post. Doing something to dramatically increase balls put into play seems most important. Lowering the mound would probably increase that the most. Sacrificing homers might not be well accepted by the youngest fans so that’s going to require a lot of research before changes are made there.

I would take a hard look at the NBA for ideas. I don’t watch a lot of basketball but they seem to have done a great job evolving the game and making it enjoyable for an ever-growing, world-wide fan base.

[sjb23]

In search of a number two starter, the Yankees could pursue Sean Manaea - Pinstripe Alley


"Some reports indicate that the Athletics will prioritize moving players with only one year of team control remaining — including Manaea and Bassitt — before shopping players with multiple years of control — notably Olson and Chapman. They can likely induce a bidding war for a guy like Olson, while it may be more difficult to find suitors for a player with less team control and a projected eight-figure salary in 2022. Therefore, a team like the Yankees, with their relative lack of attractive trade chips, may have an easier time landing a Manaea than an Olson.

It’s looking more and more like the Yankees and Athletics are ideal trade partners. New York needs starting pitching and Oakland wants to shed payroll. And while there are more enticing trade targets on the A’s’ roster, it may make better sense to pursue one of the starters entering their final year of arbitration eligibility. Manaea’s reduced team control and inflated salary lower the prospect cost of the package heading the other direction, which may be enough to get Brian Cashman to bite."


This is what I want as a belated Christmas gift from this organization - Find a way to bring Manaea and Olson aboard. Lose the trade if need be.

Any combination of these guys could be involved, IMO:

Gleyber Torres
Luke Voit
Miguel Andujar
Domingo German
Michael King
Luis Medina
Luis Gill
Clarke Schmidt

and

Anthony Volpe

[ymike673]

But, but, but, you can intentionally walk a batter without throwing a pitch. It's much better under Manfred.

But that really speeds up the game.

[False1]

No need to ban the shift, I think you're right that restoring some value to contact baseball would render the shift largely obsolete anyway. I'm thinking the shift must have been fun to look at when it was an oddity, used only to combat hitters like the anomalous Ted Williams, who defied the conventions of his time by refusing to hit the other way and was tolerated to do so because he was so much better than everyone else. I'd hate to take that tool out of the manager's box if an extreme situation like that calls for it. Besides, if we ban the shift, shouldn't we disallow the 5-infielder, 2-outfielder alignment managers sometimes use with the winning run on third? Where do you stop? Except for requiring the pitcher to throw from the rubber, and requiring the catcher to line up behind home plate until the pitch is released, I don't like anchoring players in designated spots.

I've been on the ban-the-shift train for years. Perhaps a compromise would be to do something similar to mound visits where there is a limit on instances per game? Maybe each team gets one or two exemptions per game, so to your point they can try to get creative defensively in a key situation, versus shifting every single at bat?

[dannyyankou]

Serious question, is there anything stopping a team from signing Correa to a big minor league contract, and just promoting him when the lockout is over?

[yank4life2005]

Yankees bring back Brantly on a minor league deal.

[Bauer]

It's NOT behind a paywall, and thanks for posting it. Good read, though pretty depressing for a baseball fan.

One thing the article didn't cover is the societal change regarding youth sports. As a kid, baseball was a significant part of my summer. Little League. Sandlot games. One o' Cat. Hit the Bat. You didn't leave the house without a baseball glove. The back porch had a little basket holding balls, gloves, and bats. In the Fall, you rushed home from school in October to catch the World Series. Today, all that's changed. Little League has largely been replaced with Youth Soccer (it's a lot cheaper to field a soccer team than a baseball team). Kids can't watch the World Series any more due to the lateness of the games, and they don't even OWN a mitt or a bat.

It's one of many things that make me glad I was a kid in the 60s, and not today.

---

I remember the same things, but from the glorious 1950s. However, I was depressed to learn about the rise of "Youth Soccer." I take your point about "societal change." I think I once attempted, somewhat poorly, to outline other changes as well--e.g., the difficulty posed for contemporary mothers and fathers by the longishness of baseball (as opposed to some by-the-clock game). There are other changes as well. Baseball demands a kind of lengthy attentiveness that--to my sense--seems to be disappearing from the culture. Someone posted today a point about the importance of suspense in the game. I agree and connect this to "lengthy attentiveness." Then there is a change in what people take the word "action" to mean. I'm a devoted Notre Dame fan and watch all their games. Ya know, there's a lot of standing around in football. I just don't see the edge it is alleged to have over baseball in action.

I once sat next to a guy in Toronto, at a Yankees-Jays game. He complained about the lack of action. His example was the pitcher's long stare into the plate (it made me remember Sal--the Barber--Maglie's long stares). I suggested it might mean not just getting the sign he wanted but also a kind of intimidation factor, as if the game were a drama, a conflict of stares--who would win? As when, on a K, the pitcher turns his back to the hitter, as if in dismissal of him: Go, loser, to the bench. Indeed, it does often seem to me that of all the games in American sports baseball is the closest to drama, including the silences, the apparent lack of action (often exactly part of the action!). Well, I got nowhere with him. "No action" was his mantra. He was also pissed off that the Yankees got to bat first, since they were playing "in our city." If I had ever to write about baseball as drama, in its golden age(s), my examples would be from videos (if they exist) of the 4 world series battles in the 1950s between the Yankees and Dodgers. My father would have cited the A's (his team) and the 1929-31 Yankees.