A mostly nice start for the retooled team. Looking forward to more good basketball.
26 thoughts on “October 20, 2022: 82-0”
The third quarter was rough, but I chalked that up to the fact that the team has barely had any time together. Gobert was easily the best player on the floor all game.
I got to sit in the seventh row! We were all descending into madness in the third quarter as our large lead evaporated even with our best players on the floor. There were definitely moments you could chalk up to guys not knowing each other’s spacing and whatnot; D-Lo overthrew Gobert twice, expecting him to reach in a different direction for the ball.
Watching the moments that were likely off TV was fascinating. Gobert was a leader all night, getting guys (including KAT) into position and calling the plays. I think this is going to prove to be the massive acquisition we thought it might be. Gobert gave a short speech to the crowd after shootarounds and before the anthem, and it was clear he was already a crowd favorite. His jersey was all over the crowd.
D-Lo had a quietly strong game. He took high-percentage shots much of the night, which was refreshing, and was even nailing some of the tougher shots he took. Ant’s shooting was a disaster, and it’s a testament to the depth of this club that it simply didn’t matter. Thankfully, his defense was fine and he racked up some assists.
I agree that D-Lo was pretty good. Not perfect, but he was by far the best player on the floor between KAT, Ant and him. McDaniels was really good and keeping him was the correct decision.
KAT and Ant just didn't shoot well. They will be better.
Gobert was great. We can't possibly get that every game, but his value was clear. That floater at the end of 3 was almost a three, within a couple of inches. He has zero (0) career three pointers on 11 career attempts.
This was a game that the Wolves should have won by 25. But, they haven't played together much at all and at the end of the season, style points don't count.
Liz Truss lasted 4 Scaramuccis (~0.63 Walker-for-Presidents) as UK PM. Seems like the effects of her favored policies trickled down rather quickly…
I mentioned elsewhere her tenure was 76 days shorter than the now previous shortest PM tenure. I was expecting it to happen soon but not the next day.
And Canning died of tuberculosis. The guy who succeeded him held the record for shortest PM who ended their tenure alive…and he was PM 99 days longer than Truss managed.
And how many of them had the monarch die while they presided, much less within the first week?
Thought experiment:
Over the offseason you are able to increase the size of everything on-field in every MLB park by 10%. Home plate is 10% wider. 99 feet between bases. Pitcher is 66 feet, 6.6 inches from home. Minimum of 440' to the CF fence and 357' to the corners. 10 years later the league has adapted to the changes, how is baseball different now? Is the game just as entertaining to watch?
My initial thoughts:
- With more space in the field, speed and athleticism generally are at more of a premium than ever.
- A wider home plate means that hitters can't be as selective at the plate, they have to get better at putting non-ideal pitches into play, or at least be more willing to look for contact instead of power.
- Also, with more space in the field, putting the ball in play and "making things happen" becomes a more viable strategy again. Fielding plays become harder to complete and there is way more space in the outfield (roughly 20% more area) within which to drop a hit.
- With farther to throw to home plate, pitchers will have a harder time hitting the corners and to stay in pitchers' counts will have to aim a little closer to the middle of the plate at times.
- With farther to throw from catcher to second base, it will be harder to get an accurate throw, so stealing success rates will generally go up. Especially because the extra 10% distance for baserunners means more time running at full speed, but catchers are already throwing as hard as they can (and even if it is fairly negligible, the ball is gradually slowing down as it travels through the air.). And an off-speed pitch has farther to travel, so correctly anticipating an off-speed pitch becomes that much bigger of an advantage. This also means generally speaking that hitters should get more fastballs with runners on base. Holding a runner on first base, or middle infielders cheating toward second base (playing at "double play depth") opens up even bigger holes for hitters to hit the ball through.
- Power hitting would be substantially harder with fences 10% farther back, further pushing hitters toward a contact approach rather than a power approach.
Personally, I think people would love it, but maybe I'm missing something.
Are the bases also 10% larger? They are going to be 20% larger in both dimensions for next year. Another 10% might be noticeable but would help steals by giving players even more space to avoid tags.
But the extra distance between bases more than compensates. I think this eliminates what little is left of the running game.
You don't buy my argument that while the runner is running 10% farther, the marginal distance is covered at full speed, so the runner's average speed is higher, whereas the pitcher and catcher are both throwing 10% farther, with no increased speed, and decreased accuracy?
I did a few rough calculations (feel free to check my work... math is not my strong suit)
Average speed for a stolen base = 3.5 seconds. Over 90 feet that’s 17.53 MPH. Let’s say the extra 9 feet are run at the fastest possible speed for a human: 39.6 f/s. That will add roughly .23 seconds to every SB attempt.
On the other hand, average catcher arm speed looks like approximately 77 mph. Now, over 127 feet = 1.12 seconds of air time for a ball (average "Pop time is 2 seconds, so this checks out). With the proposal, over 140 ft = 1.25 seconds of air time for the ball from the catcher. Which means adding just .13 seconds.
Even if Usain Bolt is running between the bases, the catchers just picked up a 1/10th of a second on getting out under this proposal. Or roughly 5% of their average pop time.
I see that it's a bit of an uphill battle for runners, but there are a couple of additional factors -- the pitcher has to throw 10% farther (will make more of a difference with off-speed pitches than fastballs) and the pitcher also has farther to throw for pick-off moves, so the runner can take a longer lead off of 1st base.
It's also hard to control for how much more difficult it will be for the catcher to throw the same speed with enough accuracy to get the runner -- if the ball gets there 3 feet to the LF side of 2nd base, it doesn't really matter that it got there first.
Agreed, those additional factors might make a difference. But even then, I doubt there's a net increase in stolen bases.
Increasing the area of fair territory in this way seems like making more ballparks play like Coors Field without the effects of altitude. I think the area of fair territory is under-analyzed compared to fence distance and height, so the idea is intriguing. At the same time, I think the longstanding trend of reduction in foul territory is something that is ignored in favor of flashier issues, or taken as inevitable because of the limitations of both architecture/engineering and desire for a certain kind of “fan experience.”
That said, I’m more in favor of solutions that do not alter the longstanding dimensions of the infield. Regulating pitcher effort by shortening the recovery interval between pitches, with clear penalties for violations, is something I strongly prefer to moving the rubber back. Likewise, I favor lowering the mound to further level the playing field if a properly-calibrated pitch clock does not effectively regulate max-effort deliveries. Finally, if these don’t work, a roster limit on pitcher-only players is worth pursing with MLBPA.
As for the running game, I wonder if the incentives are diminished by the rise in the percentage of scoring coming from home runs and, to a lesser extent, doubles. More base hits dropping in would raise the incentive for advancing runners into scoring position, so the question is how to affect this without mandating significant alternations to ballpark dimensions. (Mandatory assertion that the Yankmes’ waiver of the minimum distance to the corners rule should be…yanked.) I don’t favor the limits on the shift, but it seems like players and teams are simply unwilling to force their opponents to shift less drastically/frequently by hitting the ball against the shift. Maybe players don’t feel this is possible with the advantage pitchers currently hold, and lowering the frequency of max effort pitches means they don’t have to sell out for power if they can get a pitch they can hit to keep the defense more honest.
Re: area of fair/foul territory. I totally agree about the shrinking of foul territory -- less foul territory favors fly ball hitters because if you get under the ball and it's not in play, it's also very likely not going to be an out. But unfortunately, I don't see the genie going back in the bottle on that one. I think pushing the fences back would be a bit different than what we see at Coors in that at elevation, you also have the ball flying farther, too. Many of the aspects would be similar, though, in that it's arguably a net positive for the hitters to have so much extra space in which to hit the ball to keep rallies going. Yes, fewer home runs, but potentially more rallies. Which is not to say that it would be good or bad for run-scoring, but run-scoring isn't really an issue in today's game, IMO, I just want more non-TTT action.
The other alternative would be to deaden the ball. I know MLB has a mixed track record when it comes to the consistency & integrity of their official equipment since taking over production, but deadening the ball is certainly asking less than making changes to the physical footprint of the field or to pitchers’ physical conditioning.
Re: pitchers and pitching distance. The main thing I like about increasing the pitching distance is that it makes such a big difference to be a tall pitcher. Having a release point a half-foot closer to the plate can be the difference between the minor leagues and the major leagues. Being tall is always going to be an advantage, but setting the mound back makes that half-foot a smaller percentage difference.
Re: home runs and the shift. I think a big part of hitters not "giving in" to the shift is that it's currently just too easy to hit home runs. I know that seems like a ridiculous thing to say, but I'm sure you remember the pre-Sosa/McGwire/Bonds period where some (even many!) baseball people would argue that you don't want to be too "bulky" or "muscle-bound" because it will hurt your performance on the field. Now, regardless of how they are getting there (a combination of smarter training, nutrition, and some chemistry seems likely to me), players are stronger than ever. This isn't even necessarily that modern of a problem/solution combination -- Ted Williams chose to hit into the shift and he was/is arguably the best hitter of all time. I think you'd need to push the fence back farther to really reduce the reward of hitting into the shift, to entice hitters to go to the opposite part of the field.
I'm also sure that the shift changes how pitchers can attack hitters and which pitches and locations they choose to target, and since teams have been doing more and more shifts, it seems like they don't really see a big downside to this.
But yeah, until you can drive down home run rates, the break-even point on SB% is going to be really high and teams will be really conservative running the bases.
The three true outcomes will plummet. BIPs will skyrocket. Averages will go up. Triples will explode. Home runs will decrease markedly. The game will approximate the dead ball era.
The third quarter was rough, but I chalked that up to the fact that the team has barely had any time together. Gobert was easily the best player on the floor all game.
I got to sit in the seventh row! We were all descending into madness in the third quarter as our large lead evaporated even with our best players on the floor. There were definitely moments you could chalk up to guys not knowing each other’s spacing and whatnot; D-Lo overthrew Gobert twice, expecting him to reach in a different direction for the ball.
Watching the moments that were likely off TV was fascinating. Gobert was a leader all night, getting guys (including KAT) into position and calling the plays. I think this is going to prove to be the massive acquisition we thought it might be. Gobert gave a short speech to the crowd after shootarounds and before the anthem, and it was clear he was already a crowd favorite. His jersey was all over the crowd.
D-Lo had a quietly strong game. He took high-percentage shots much of the night, which was refreshing, and was even nailing some of the tougher shots he took. Ant’s shooting was a disaster, and it’s a testament to the depth of this club that it simply didn’t matter. Thankfully, his defense was fine and he racked up some assists.
I agree that D-Lo was pretty good. Not perfect, but he was by far the best player on the floor between KAT, Ant and him. McDaniels was really good and keeping him was the correct decision.
KAT and Ant just didn't shoot well. They will be better.
Gobert was great. We can't possibly get that every game, but his value was clear. That floater at the end of 3 was almost a three, within a couple of inches. He has zero (0) career three pointers on 11 career attempts.
This was a game that the Wolves should have won by 25. But, they haven't played together much at all and at the end of the season, style points don't count.
Liz Truss lasted 4 Scaramuccis (~0.63 Walker-for-Presidents) as UK PM. Seems like the effects of her favored policies trickled down rather quickly…
I mentioned elsewhere her tenure was 76 days shorter than the now previous shortest PM tenure. I was expecting it to happen soon but not the next day.
And Canning died of tuberculosis. The guy who succeeded him held the record for shortest PM who ended their tenure alive…and he was PM 99 days longer than Truss managed.
And how many of them had the monarch die while they presided, much less within the first week?
Thought experiment:
Over the offseason you are able to increase the size of everything on-field in every MLB park by 10%. Home plate is 10% wider. 99 feet between bases. Pitcher is 66 feet, 6.6 inches from home. Minimum of 440' to the CF fence and 357' to the corners. 10 years later the league has adapted to the changes, how is baseball different now? Is the game just as entertaining to watch?
My initial thoughts:
- With more space in the field, speed and athleticism generally are at more of a premium than ever.
- A wider home plate means that hitters can't be as selective at the plate, they have to get better at putting non-ideal pitches into play, or at least be more willing to look for contact instead of power.
- Also, with more space in the field, putting the ball in play and "making things happen" becomes a more viable strategy again. Fielding plays become harder to complete and there is way more space in the outfield (roughly 20% more area) within which to drop a hit.
- With farther to throw to home plate, pitchers will have a harder time hitting the corners and to stay in pitchers' counts will have to aim a little closer to the middle of the plate at times.
- With farther to throw from catcher to second base, it will be harder to get an accurate throw, so stealing success rates will generally go up. Especially because the extra 10% distance for baserunners means more time running at full speed, but catchers are already throwing as hard as they can (and even if it is fairly negligible, the ball is gradually slowing down as it travels through the air.). And an off-speed pitch has farther to travel, so correctly anticipating an off-speed pitch becomes that much bigger of an advantage. This also means generally speaking that hitters should get more fastballs with runners on base. Holding a runner on first base, or middle infielders cheating toward second base (playing at "double play depth") opens up even bigger holes for hitters to hit the ball through.
- Power hitting would be substantially harder with fences 10% farther back, further pushing hitters toward a contact approach rather than a power approach.
Personally, I think people would love it, but maybe I'm missing something.
Are the bases also 10% larger? They are going to be 20% larger in both dimensions for next year. Another 10% might be noticeable but would help steals by giving players even more space to avoid tags.
But the extra distance between bases more than compensates. I think this eliminates what little is left of the running game.
You don't buy my argument that while the runner is running 10% farther, the marginal distance is covered at full speed, so the runner's average speed is higher, whereas the pitcher and catcher are both throwing 10% farther, with no increased speed, and decreased accuracy?
I did a few rough calculations (feel free to check my work... math is not my strong suit)
Average speed for a stolen base = 3.5 seconds. Over 90 feet that’s 17.53 MPH. Let’s say the extra 9 feet are run at the fastest possible speed for a human: 39.6 f/s. That will add roughly .23 seconds to every SB attempt.
On the other hand, average catcher arm speed looks like approximately 77 mph. Now, over 127 feet = 1.12 seconds of air time for a ball (average "Pop time is 2 seconds, so this checks out). With the proposal, over 140 ft = 1.25 seconds of air time for the ball from the catcher. Which means adding just .13 seconds.
Even if Usain Bolt is running between the bases, the catchers just picked up a 1/10th of a second on getting out under this proposal. Or roughly 5% of their average pop time.
I see that it's a bit of an uphill battle for runners, but there are a couple of additional factors -- the pitcher has to throw 10% farther (will make more of a difference with off-speed pitches than fastballs) and the pitcher also has farther to throw for pick-off moves, so the runner can take a longer lead off of 1st base.
It's also hard to control for how much more difficult it will be for the catcher to throw the same speed with enough accuracy to get the runner -- if the ball gets there 3 feet to the LF side of 2nd base, it doesn't really matter that it got there first.
Agreed, those additional factors might make a difference. But even then, I doubt there's a net increase in stolen bases.
Increasing the area of fair territory in this way seems like making more ballparks play like Coors Field without the effects of altitude. I think the area of fair territory is under-analyzed compared to fence distance and height, so the idea is intriguing. At the same time, I think the longstanding trend of reduction in foul territory is something that is ignored in favor of flashier issues, or taken as inevitable because of the limitations of both architecture/engineering and desire for a certain kind of “fan experience.”
That said, I’m more in favor of solutions that do not alter the longstanding dimensions of the infield. Regulating pitcher effort by shortening the recovery interval between pitches, with clear penalties for violations, is something I strongly prefer to moving the rubber back. Likewise, I favor lowering the mound to further level the playing field if a properly-calibrated pitch clock does not effectively regulate max-effort deliveries. Finally, if these don’t work, a roster limit on pitcher-only players is worth pursing with MLBPA.
As for the running game, I wonder if the incentives are diminished by the rise in the percentage of scoring coming from home runs and, to a lesser extent, doubles. More base hits dropping in would raise the incentive for advancing runners into scoring position, so the question is how to affect this without mandating significant alternations to ballpark dimensions. (Mandatory assertion that the Yankmes’ waiver of the minimum distance to the corners rule should be…yanked.) I don’t favor the limits on the shift, but it seems like players and teams are simply unwilling to force their opponents to shift less drastically/frequently by hitting the ball against the shift. Maybe players don’t feel this is possible with the advantage pitchers currently hold, and lowering the frequency of max effort pitches means they don’t have to sell out for power if they can get a pitch they can hit to keep the defense more honest.
Re: area of fair/foul territory. I totally agree about the shrinking of foul territory -- less foul territory favors fly ball hitters because if you get under the ball and it's not in play, it's also very likely not going to be an out. But unfortunately, I don't see the genie going back in the bottle on that one. I think pushing the fences back would be a bit different than what we see at Coors in that at elevation, you also have the ball flying farther, too. Many of the aspects would be similar, though, in that it's arguably a net positive for the hitters to have so much extra space in which to hit the ball to keep rallies going. Yes, fewer home runs, but potentially more rallies. Which is not to say that it would be good or bad for run-scoring, but run-scoring isn't really an issue in today's game, IMO, I just want more non-TTT action.
The other alternative would be to deaden the ball. I know MLB has a mixed track record when it comes to the consistency & integrity of their official equipment since taking over production, but deadening the ball is certainly asking less than making changes to the physical footprint of the field or to pitchers’ physical conditioning.
Re: pitchers and pitching distance. The main thing I like about increasing the pitching distance is that it makes such a big difference to be a tall pitcher. Having a release point a half-foot closer to the plate can be the difference between the minor leagues and the major leagues. Being tall is always going to be an advantage, but setting the mound back makes that half-foot a smaller percentage difference.
Re: home runs and the shift. I think a big part of hitters not "giving in" to the shift is that it's currently just too easy to hit home runs. I know that seems like a ridiculous thing to say, but I'm sure you remember the pre-Sosa/McGwire/Bonds period where some (even many!) baseball people would argue that you don't want to be too "bulky" or "muscle-bound" because it will hurt your performance on the field. Now, regardless of how they are getting there (a combination of smarter training, nutrition, and some chemistry seems likely to me), players are stronger than ever. This isn't even necessarily that modern of a problem/solution combination -- Ted Williams chose to hit into the shift and he was/is arguably the best hitter of all time. I think you'd need to push the fence back farther to really reduce the reward of hitting into the shift, to entice hitters to go to the opposite part of the field.
I'm also sure that the shift changes how pitchers can attack hitters and which pitches and locations they choose to target, and since teams have been doing more and more shifts, it seems like they don't really see a big downside to this.
But yeah, until you can drive down home run rates, the break-even point on SB% is going to be really high and teams will be really conservative running the bases.
The three true outcomes will plummet. BIPs will skyrocket. Averages will go up. Triples will explode. Home runs will decrease markedly. The game will approximate the dead ball era.
Just putting this here.
This is pretty cool.
Twins in the running for this year's Fielding Grammy: Max (RF), Carlos (SS), and Luis (1B!!)
Batting title proves the quality of his glove.
I'm glad he was considered, and I think his play there was positive, but kinda surprised at the nod
A Twins great hanging up the cleats