MLB 2019 thread

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Sure it does....why would the call to action to save the fans from this damaging menace not be complete when we are talking about only a few feet difference?  Would you advocate only putting a seat belt for the drivers and not the passengers?   The pull down bar on a roller coaster only for those in the front of the coaster and not the back?

You're breaking out all the logical fallacies on this one.

Not having nets in the field doesn't have any impact, negative or positive on having nets in foul territory. You are attempting to use a slippery slope argument which is a logical fallacy. It's kind of whatabouism too. You may have invented the slippery whataboutism. Or does whataboutthatslipperyslopsim work better?

So far in this conversation you have only given two actual reasons against having the nets:

1. They would cost money to install and maintain (though I think most would agree it the cost is highly manageable for major league clubs)
2. They may impact the game by preventing fielders from catching foul balls in the seats. Your second argument is the much stronger of the two. Personally, it's not compelling enough evidence for me. As I said before, I would trade hundreds of missed outs on foul balls for one less injured fan. If it is compelling enough for you. That's fine, reasonable people can disagree.

[TallTitan34]

Sox fans, do you think they will trade Colome?  He's under control for another year and would be great to have on a contending team next season but they could get a decent haul for him this year with many teams looking for relievers.

I'd love to have him on the North side but I don't know what the Cubs have to offer in a trade.

[Dish]

Sox fans, do you think they will trade Colome?  He's under control for another year and would be great to have on a contending team next season but they could get a decent haul for him this year with many teams looking for relievers.

I'd love to have him on the North side but I don't know what the Cubs have to offer in a trade.

I think they should deal him, because I think his market value will be high, and I think there will be some eventual regression with Colome. I'm thrilled the Sox are showing signs of life, but I'm realistic enough to know they're not going to win the pennant this year.

I'd think the Dodgers, Red Sox, Cubs, Phillies would all be in on Colome. If I was the Sox and talking to the Cubs, I'd probably have to have Hoerner coming back. It's most likely a steep cost if I'm the Cubs, but if I'm Hahn, I really have nothing to lose in keeping the price high.

[#UnleashSean]

You're breaking out all the logical fallacies on this one.

Not having nets in the field doesn't have any impact, negative or positive on having nets in foul territory. You are attempting to use a slippery slope argument which is a logical fallacy. It's kind of whatabouism too. You may have invented the slippery whataboutism. Or does whataboutthatslipperyslopsim work better?

So far in this conversation you have only given two actual reasons against having the nets:

1. They would cost money to install and maintain (though I think most would agree it the cost is highly manageable for major league clubs)
2. They may impact the game by preventing fielders from catching foul balls in the seats. Your second argument is the much stronger of the two. Personally, it's not compelling enough evidence for me. As I said before, I would trade hundreds of missed outs on foul balls for one less injured fan. If it is compelling enough for you. That's fine, reasonable people can disagree.

His best argument, and only reasonable one is not wanting a net to interrupt his view of a game.

[Cheeks]

His best argument, and only reasonable one is not wanting a net to interrupt his view of a game.

Show me where I made that argument. 

[The Sultan]

Show me where I made that argument. 

If you didn't, then you have no good arguments.  Congrats.

[Cheeks]

Ok Chicos, where would you end the nets?  End of the dugout? Beginning of dugout? 25 feet from beginning of dugout? No nets at all? 

I will tell you right now whatever you say I'm going to ask what's the difference between three seats one way and three seats the other way of the location you pick.

Not that hard, use a heat map of where foul balls go and velocity of those balls.  The further away from home plate the less velocity.  I think using that you will find your answer.  If I had to guess it is probably about where they are now or maybe another 50 feet past the dugout.  Point is, instead of the knee jerk ban all______ (fill in blank for whatever aggrieved issue) or build net / wall /  system extreme, how about a little science behind it.

[jesmu84]

Not that hard, use a heat map of wher foul balls go and velocity of those balls.  The further away from home plate the less velocity.  I think using that you will find your answer.  If I had to guess it is probably about where they are now or maybe another 50 feet past the dugout.  Point is, instead of the knee jerk ban all______ (fill in blank for whatever aggrieved issue) or build net / wall /  system extreme, how about a little science behind it.

We don't believe in science in this country anymore

[Cheeks]

If you didn't, then you have no good arguments.  Congrats.

I'm glad the commissioner of baseball is more aligned with my view and not the knee jerkers,  Surprised to see so much support for building the net wall here.   

[Cheeks]

We don't believe in science in this country anymore

Sure we do, but the methodology has to be right...eh Forgetful?

[The Sultan]

Not that hard, use a heat map of where foul balls go and velocity of those balls.  The further away from home plate the less velocity.  I think using that you will find your answer.  If I had to guess it is probably about where they are now or maybe another 50 feet past the dugout.  Point is, instead of the knee jerk ban all______ (fill in blank for whatever aggrieved issue) or build net / wall /  system extreme, how about a little science behind it.

If 50' is what works, then fine.  I guess I just don't see much of a difference between that and to the foul pole.  It's just a net.

[copious1218]

Ok Chicos, where would you end the nets?  End of the dugout? Beginning of dugout? 25 feet from beginning of dugout? No nets at all? 

I will tell you right now whatever you say I'm going to ask what's the difference between three seats one way and three seats the other way of the location you pick.

Agree with this in the sense that unless the nets extend across the entire outfield (which no one here is advocating for) there will always be seats covered by nets and those not covered, which will lead to the inevitable discussion of "what's the difference one seat either way".  But, why does that make the foul pole the "no-brainer" solution.  MU82 already gave his opinion which is fair.  I'm just not convinced the nets need to extend that far and am advocating for some research to be done to determine the appropriate point to end the nets (which admittedly is likely further down the line than they currently extend, but perhaps not the entire foul territory). 

[#UnleashSean]

Show me where I made that argument.

If that one wasnt you, then you royally messed up by stating that. But im pretty sure it was you. In the thread dedicated to netting in baseball.

[#UnleashSean]

Sure we do, but the methodology has to be right...eh Forgetful?

So global warming and healthcare? Ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh... forgetaboutit

[copious1218]

If that one wasnt you, then you royally messed up by stating that. But im pretty sure it was you. In the thread dedicated to netting in baseball.

That may have been me.  I do not like watching through the netting.  My eyes never seem to adjust and its like watching baseball through a screen window.  I know the risks and given the option I have selected seats without netting and will continue to do so (if I don't have kids with).  However, if research determines the best place for netting to extend is to the foul poles then, so be it, I'll probably sit in the outfield seats then. 

[TallTitan34]

Not that hard, use a heat map of where foul balls go and velocity of those balls.  The further away from home plate the less velocity.  I think using that you will find your answer.  If I had to guess it is probably about where they are now or maybe another 50 feet past the dugout.  Point is, instead of the knee jerk ban all______ (fill in blank for whatever aggrieved issue) or build net / wall /  system extreme, how about a little science behind it.

Ok in this scenario what exit velocity do you deem needs to be netted?  100 mph?  90 mph?  What percentage of balls in that area has to come in at that velocity?  90%?  75%?

What's the difference between sitting three seats closer to the 100mph barrier and three seats away?

Your solution has way too many variables and results in the same question you keep asking.

[Dish]

So, uhh, baseball?

[TallTitan34]

I think they should deal him, because I think his market value will be high, and I think there will be some eventual regression with Colome. I'm thrilled the Sox are showing signs of life, but I'm realistic enough to know they're not going to win the pennant this year.

I'd think the Dodgers, Red Sox, Cubs, Phillies would all be in on Colome. If I was the Sox and talking to the Cubs, I'd probably have to have Hoerner coming back. It's most likely a steep cost if I'm the Cubs, but if I'm Hahn, I really have nothing to lose in keeping the price high.

Yeah I don't think I'd trade Nico for him, but like you said, the Sox have nothing to lose in asking for a lot. 

[Pakuni]

I think they should deal him, because I think his market value will be high, and I think there will be some eventual regression with Colome. I'm thrilled the Sox are showing signs of life, but I'm realistic enough to know they're not going to win the pennant this year.

I'd think the Dodgers, Red Sox, Cubs, Phillies would all be in on Colome. If I was the Sox and talking to the Cubs, I'd probably have to have Hoerner coming back. It's most likely a steep cost if I'm the Cubs, but if I'm Hahn, I really have nothing to lose in keeping the price high.

I'd trade Colome only in an "offer you can't refuse" situation. As in, a package headlined by a top 30ish prospect.
For comparison's sake, the Cubs gave up a package topped by Gleyber Torres (then the #26 prospect) and Billy McKinney (then the #88 prospect) for Aroldis Chapman.
Colome, of course, doesn't have Chapman's stuff or track record, but he's not terribly far off. And unlike Chapman was in 2016, he's under control for another season at what should be a reasonable price.

Not sure I'd want Hoerner as a return. Not sure where he fits, given that his future may be at second base.

[TallTitan34]

Sounds like the Cubs may use Zobrist's money to take a shot at Kimbrel.

[Dish]

I'd trade Colome only in an "offer you can't refuse" situation. As in, a package headlined by a top 30ish prospect.
For comparison's sake, the Cubs gave up a package topped by Gleyber Torres (then the #26 prospect) and Billy McKinney (then the #88 prospect) for Aroldis Chapman.
Colome, of course, doesn't have Chapman's stuff or track record, but he's not terribly far off. And unlike Chapman was in 2016, he's under control for another season at what should be a reasonable price.

Not sure I'd want Hoerner as a return. Not sure where he fits, given that his future may be at second base.

If I were Hahn and talking to the Cubs, I'd want Hoerner as the return, because he's their best prospect, and you really can't have enough good middle infield prospects. I'm still wishy washy on Madrigal (I know he just got promoted to AA). If I were the Cubs, I'd probably not make that deal.

The Dodgers are probably the best fit, if I could get a package with any of Ruiz or Lux (who I really like), or May, I'd take it.

I'd 100% trade Colome though if it gets me a top 40 and a 70-150 type guy. There'd be a lot of meatball Sox fans saying otherwise, but I think that's a trade you'd have to make. If an offer of that type doesn't come to fruition, just keep him. Sox are in a position where either scenario is perfectly fine.

[LAZER]

I'd trade Colome only in an "offer you can't refuse" situation. As in, a package headlined by a top 30ish prospect.
For comparison's sake, the Cubs gave up a package topped by Gleyber Torres (then the #26 prospect) and Billy McKinney (then the #88 prospect) for Aroldis Chapman.
Colome, of course, doesn't have Chapman's stuff or track record, but he's not terribly far off. And unlike Chapman was in 2016, he's under control for another season at what should be a reasonable price.

Not sure I'd want Hoerner as a return. Not sure where he fits, given that his future may be at second base.

I'm not sure if the Sox can expect anybody to give up as much as the Cubs did in the Chapman trade. But yeah, might as well use it as a starting point.

[Pakuni]

I'm not sure if the Sox can expect anybody to give up as much as the Cubs did in the Chapman trade. But yeah, might as well use it as a starting point.

Perhaps not. Definitely not the same pitcher as Chapman.
But that extra year of control ain't nothing, either. And the Sox really have no reason to be rid of Colome. Heck, they're only 2 games out a wild card spot. I don't expect them to be contenders come August and September, but they could contend in 2020 and Colome would be valuable then.
So, there's no need to move him unless they're blown away by the offer. The days of selling off the bullpen in July should be over.

[4everwarriors]

I can't say I'm pleased with this decision, especially since I'm stuck with Hiura in my weekly fantasy league, but its probably the right one.

Most of the pitchers have options remaining, but the only position players with options are Gamel (too valuable as the fourth OF), Arcia (swinging a hot bat and the key to the defense), and Hiura.  Shaw has options too.

I think Stearns sees this playing out in one of a few ways:

• Shaw comes back to form, hits 15 dingers and bats .270 for the rest of the season.  Hiura comes back in September.
• Someone gets hurt (perhaps "conveniently") from the group of Shaw, Moose, Aguilar, Thames, Perez.  Hiura comes back up.
• Shaw is terrible again for two weeks.  Shaw gets optioned to AAA, Hiura comes back and continues to rake.

Ideally, all of those "Hiura comes back" happen after whenever the Super 2 date is.

Brewers are probably hoping Shaw starts hitting and then they can peddle his heine and bring Hiura back up, hey?

[MUBurrow]

I'm not sure if the Sox can expect anybody to give up as much as the Cubs did in the Chapman trade. But yeah, might as well use it as a starting point.

Yeah there's no way Alex Colome is fetching a prospect in any organization's top three.  If the Sox can get anything in a club's top five, they should pull the trigger immediately.  Colome will get an arb raise to between $8.5 - $9 next year which aint cheap. And his numbers right now are completely unsustainable. His groundball percentage is down more than 10% and yet his BABIP against is .130! That's like, unbelievably, hysterically low - for comparison, among qualified pitchers (starters, so not a perfect comp but good luck sorting nonqualified pitching stats) Verlander leads at .163 and only 14 other guys are below .250.  And the flyball percentage suggests Colome's low babip isn't necessarily on the back of soft groundball contact. His ERA is 1.52 and his xFIP is 4.20.  His K/9 are also down significantly. His strand rate is at 90%.  The second half is not going to be kind to old Alex Colome.