A friend who just went to a Yankee Stadium game said:
Something I've never seen before: every time a reliever was brought in, four members of the grounds crew went into the outfield and stood facing the stands until the pitcher started his warmup tosses.
Last year two pitchers tied for the most complete games - each had three. The last time a pitcher had more than ten complete games was 2011 and the last time a pitcher had twenty or more complete games was Valenzuela in 1986!
Some teams would go through a lot of relievers even in the old days - I particularly remember Pittsburgh and Cincinnati going through 3 or 4 pitchers in a game pretty often - a lot of middle relievers. There were closers like Clay Carroll, Rollie Fingers, Tug McGraw, Mike Marshall (who won the CYA as a reliever IIRC), but you rarely saw them before the 7th or 8th inning.
Blake Snell just threw a no-hitter. At 32, this was his first pitch in the 9th inning. Ever.
"Webb stellar in tossing shutout against A's"
And by "stellar," we mean "threw the third complete game and second shutout of his career."
What did relievers used to do when complete games were normal?
Last year two pitchers tied for the most complete games - each had three. The last time a pitcher had more than ten complete games was 2011 and the last time a pitcher had twenty or more complete games was Valenzuela in 1986!
Some teams would go through a lot of relievers even in the old days - I particularly remember Pittsburgh and Cincinnati going through 3 or 4 pitchers in a game pretty often - a lot of middle relievers. There were closers like Clay Carroll, Rollie Fingers, Tug McGraw, Mike Marshall (who won the CYA as a reliever IIRC), but you rarely saw them before the 7th or 8th inning.
Given all the interleague play that goes on in baseball, what do the divisions and leagues even mean? I mean, shouldn't the teams play within their division until a winner is established, then those teams within their league, then the two champs go to the World Series? I'm quite certain it's somehow all about money.
Of course its about money, but it was also about expansion & maintaining the popularity of the game. I remember the 10 team leagues; only two teams made it to the postseason. When each league expanded to 12 teams, 2 divisions made sense to have 4 teams make it to the PS, which was also a reaction to the growing competition with thr NFL. Interleague play is more complicated, but basically for all the same reasons; money & popularity.
Given all the interleague play that goes on in baseball, what do the divisions and leagues even mean? I mean, shouldn't the teams play within their division until a winner is established, then those teams within their league, then the two champs go to the World Series? I'm quite certain it's somehow all about money.
Yes. The notion of the World Series determining any sort of champion is long past. It IS all about money but for fans of teams who aren't contenders, or not-really fans, going to one or two games a year, it's nice to be able to see all of the players. When I lived in Oakland/SF, I did have a chance to see all the teams at some point or another. But most people would never see the Yankees or never see the Dodgers. I mean, who would want to? Other than that casual fan who doesn't care about rivalries.
And the endless wild cards are a transparent ploy to keep people engaged longer, but demonstrably reducing the ability of the best teams to advance. Any team can get snakebit by any other team at some point in a run of 3 or 4 short series.
Given all the interleague play that goes on in baseball, what do the divisions and leagues even mean? I mean, shouldn't the teams play within their division until a winner is established, then those teams within their league, then the two champs go to the World Series? I'm quite certain it's somehow all about money.
With runners on, they get more time, and he was over that by a full second. Which seems trivial but eh. I thought they were going to implement an "optional" pitch clock, where the umpires or teams or someone could mutually agree to ignore the pitch clock when it's game-on-the-line situations.
It was a ball anyway so no harm done. But the clock should not be in play where there's a runner on third in the 7th inning. Or something.
Yeah...I get it...he was late. But with so much riding on every pitch... the league should want to find a way to see those pitches... not call them off mid-windup because he was a second late. Most umps would have let it go.
As for clock adjustments...getting 5 extra seconds seems like a lot, but it's the same whether there is 1 on in the second or bases loaded in the 9th. One needs to keep moving...the other taking time is what makes baseball great.
He's why we pay to watch...
I understand that by the letter of the law, the pitcher was late.... but 2 outs, a 3-2 count, the bottom of the 9th... you just don't make that call that quickly.
With runners on, they get more time, and he was over that by a full second. Which seems trivial but eh. I thought they were going to implement an "optional" pitch clock, where the umpires or teams or someone could mutually agree to ignore the pitch clock when it's game-on-the-line situations.
It was a ball anyway so no harm done. But the clock should not be in play where there's a runner on third in the 7th inning. Or something.
He's why we pay to watch...
I understand that by the letter of the law, the pitcher was late.... but 2 outs, a 3-2 count, the bottom of the 9th... you just don't make that call that quickly.
