Cup of Coffee

February 8, 2017: That Other Thing I Need

66 Comments

While my faculties are essentially back and I can engage again at work, I lost my voice during a big sale yesterday, so this illness continues to be a ball. On the upside, I closed the sale.

66 thoughts on “February 8, 2017: That Other Thing I Need”

  1. Arrrrrgggggghhhhhhh! I'm so sorry, AMR. I saw your reading material and knew I shouldn't try to take that but wasn't certain whether you had something else for me. And then when I realized you did, I wasn't close enough to you. I tried to figure out if I could turn around and backtrack somehow, but I feared that any further attempts would only add to the awkwardness.

            1. I want it to be subtle, so we can get reactions like that one guy walking behind me on an early exchange, who must have thought something illicit was going on.
              The newest package has a particular look to it, that works with the quick exchange. I didn't even want to take it out of my pocket in the elevator with the same co-worker.

  2. That begs the question: Would you have closed the sale had you been able to continue talking? (I keed, I keed)

    1. He really hasn't had a good year since 2013. I guess you never know with relief pitchers, but it's hard to see that he's going to help much.

      1. Yeah, there will be enough revolving doors in the bullpen that if he doesn't pan out, I doubt anyone's going to get heartburn over it.

        He doesn't really miss bats, though.

    2. Terms are not known at this time, though Breslow suggests he turned down potentially more lucrative offers from other organizations.

      Emphasis mine.

      I thought I remembered a bit of animosity toward the Twins when he departed last time, but I could definitely be conflating him with someone else. Regardless, there must be some understanding in place that he'll be getting some real playing time this season.

      1. If I recall the animosity was with Gardy/TK/BillySmith (I forget who was GM that year) though, wasn't it?

        Also, is there a banner that can be resurrected?

      2. When it's a minor league deal, it's understood you're going to have to earn your spot. My guess is Breslow sees his best opportunity to get high-leverage opportunities with the Twins.

      3. I was getting a bit of a vibe from public statements around when Chuck James didn't even get a September Call-up. (He had signed with the Twins expecting that results = opportunity, and he had the results in AAA.)
        It was hard to tell if James was more ticked with himself or the club about the way it worked out. I don't remember who, but some other players had some grumbly undertones in what they said.

        Breslow was a waiver claim and lost as such about a year later. That was two years before James.

        1. A career 125 ERA+ across 9 organizations and 11 major league seasons certainly has the makings of an interesting pitching coach resume.

          2. Speaking of, listening to LaTroy Hawkins the other day... I think the Twins are lucky to have him in the organization.

        1. Knowing what I know of Kevin's brother (still following him on FB for some reason), I'm guessing Kev could have also been a little too smartass for his own good?

  5. Taking shelter from the mid-day sun for my Scandinavian skin and doing a little work in the empty sports bar while Crotone y someone else play futbol. Relaxing

          1. Right. For that reason, I don't mind doing it in the low minors. I'd be totally against ever doing it in the major leagues.

        3. Nothing prevents them from being equally concerned about both. They aren't resource-limited in addressing both the game pace and game length, and the so-called international tiebreaker rule is dead simple and would cost no one anything.

          I think one way to address game pace which could be pretty cool is to just take a cue from another thinking-man's game and implement a chess clock as a way to keep pitchers going. The shot clock works for the NBA, and the play clock works for the NFL, but I'm not sure it's the best answer for baseball. The fastest pitchers are around 17 seconds per pitch and the slowest are around 25 seconds per pitch. Give teams a minute on their clock to begin the game and then add, say, 21 seconds for each pitch. You could tinker with the exact numbers a bit, but the basic idea is the same. If you are moving quicker for most of the game, you'll get a bit of extra time during a strategically complicated spot of the game, and if you are moving slower, you might get time crunched at the worst possible time. I think it would be nice to allow the game to ebb and flow a bit, even at a faster pace. Part of the drama is savoring the big situations with runners on base.

          In chess, if you run out of time, you lose. That might be a bit extreme for baseball, but it also might be just the right thing to make the rule change meaningful. You could allow pitchers to throw the ball with the batter out of the box under the condition that any such pitch would be an automatic ball. That way, a team could throw a couple of quick intentional balls in order to boost the time on their clock. They'd be giving up a strategic advantage by getting behind in the count, but they wouldn't even necessarily give up runs this way. And any team that actually lost on time would be so humiliated that I doubt it would happen a second time.

          You'd probably also want to put a max amount of time that a team could bank up, just to keep the pace from totally stopping later in games, or maybe reset the clock every inning, but I think the basic idea of a running clock with additional time for each pitch could really work.

      2. In the Australian League, starting with the eleventh inning, they start each half-inning with men on first and second. And yes, the inning usually starts with a sacrifice bunt, sometimes followed by an intentional walk.

      3. By the numbers (at least the older '99-'02 numbers):

        Chances of scoring 0 runs:
        36.8% -- runner on 2nd, no outs
        33.8% -- runner on 3rd, 1 out
        33.0% -- loaded, 1 out

        Chances of scoring 2+ runs:
        28.4% -- runner on 2nd, no outs
        18.4% -- runner on 3rd, 1 out
        41.8% -- loaded, 1 out

        Bunting doesn't give you a whole lot more chance of scoring one more run. I'd guess as the away team you'd be less likely to want to bunt, not knowing how many runs you'll need to win, and as the home team, if you just need one run, you'd be more apt to bunt.

        Loading the bases would probably only make sense if it means you can get to weaker hitters--you wouldn't typically want to intentionally walk the 8th and 9th hitters to let the other team have the bases loaded with the top of the order up (and potentially their best OBP threat.) And even then probably only in situations where you are the away team and you know you have to hold the other team to exactly zero runs (so you don't care about the odds of 2+ runs).

        Of course, those are the averages, and few extra-inning situations will look just like the average. Against a good pitcher, or with the bottom of your order up, your chances of scoring 2+ runs are lower in the first place, so you're giving away less by bunting. Against a weaker pitcher, or with the heart of your order up, the bunt is a bigger sacrifice.

    2. I think they should just do it. Look in the stands after the 11th inning. People leave. At home, people inevitably tune out. It's a shitty experience for someone to go to the game, shell out say $120-$200 in tickets for a family of four, maybe spend another $50 (or more) on concessions, and then have to leave because it's 10:30 and your kids are already way past their bedtime and you can't justify sticking around when the game could take another hour. Yes, part of the draw to going to the game is just being at the park, but to get invested in a close game and not see how it plays out at the end is stupid.

      Sure, for some diehards who don't really value their sleep (like I used to be), you get some interesting strategy coming out of a really long game, but it's not the best strategic decisions that baseball has to offer. You're deciding between two really bad options, not two pretty good options. Watching position players pitch is novel, but it's just as bad as watching pitchers hit--if I wanted to watch semi-pro baseball, I could watch semi-pro baseball.

      I don't see how ERAs would be very impacted by this move. The runner starting the inning on second base should be considered the same as an inherited runner and if he scores, should be considered an unearned run. There could be a pull one way or the other, but I wouldn't think it would be noticeable given how infrequent extra-inning games are.

      1. Part of me would rather see a tie than changing the game. On the other hand, I found ties very unsatisfying in hockey too. At least the international rules would be better than what hockey has, which is basically a skills competition.

        I was at a Twins game in 2015 late in the season when they were in a pennant race. I would've been staying there til whenever, but I was with grandparents who couldn't stay awake until 1 in the morning. We left in the 11th and the game ended in the 13th. That did suck.

        I think people would get used to changes and be fine with it as long as it didn't spill into the playoffs.

        1. I think the international tiebreaker is such a small departure from how the game is played that I'd really rather see it than just calling for tie games. It would challenge some of the best relief pitchers in a way that they aren't often challenged--how often did Mariano Rivera give up a lead-off double?--and I think that actually adds to the case for adopting the rule.

          I agree that in the playoffs, it would be appropriate to switch back to the current extra-inning rules. There are more days off during the playoffs and fans are more willing to stick around late for a playoff game.

          1. I wonder if extra innings wouldn't be so bad if we could speed up the pace of the game so if it went to extra innings it wouldn't already be 10:45 pm.

            1. I think that depends on whether you speed up the game by getting less time per pitch or by adjusting the rules so that fewer pitches are thrown or a combination. Part of the problem with extra innings, in addition to people not sticking around, is blowing through entire bullpens. Which is partly a factor in the 13-man pitching staff, and I will advocate for just about anything that will stop that trend. If you get to extras in fewer pitches, it's less of a strain on the pitchers.

              You could also do a combo, where if you speed up the game, maybe you don't use the international tiebreaker until the 11th or 12th, but I think at some point it makes sense to say, in effect, "we're having a hard time deciding a winner today, let's speed things up even if it's not as elegant as playing with the same rules until the tie is broken."

  8. We'll have to see what this third period has, but I think that, for the second night of a back to back, with travel, and the backup goalie in net, the Wild have looked awfully good tonight.

      1. I can accept this loss, all those above factors listed. Plus Chicago wasn't on a back to back.

        (Also, not seeing the font different... must be you.)

      3. The site uses the Lato font via Google Fonts. If there are issues loading it then everything will look different. The replacement font for me is noticeably larger.

    2. I wanted to watch this game because all of a sudden my fox sports app on my Roku has been giving me the TC FSN (i watched the Winnipeg game tuesday). But even with that, I was blacked out presumably because I live too close to Chicago.

      So I watched the Wolves instead and, despite a not so good first half, saw a really good win against a good team. KAT was a force on the second half. Ricky was his usual dreamy self and I think Bazz is joining the Zach Lavine memorial "sorry, maybe we were wrong about you" club. Still don't like watching Wiggins though.

Comments are closed.