Ruminator
Well-known member
It wasn't just our imagination. MLB's game of baseball has become less... real.
Jorge Posada: MLB sucks now
- Thread starter Ruminator
- Start date
Grahamhawker
Well-known member
He's not wrong.
Just for giggles, here are the 1976 Cincinnati Reds starting 8 batting averages: 234, 260, 320, 281, 323, 306, 307, 336. Exceptional maybe, but that's a whole different game being played than what we see now.
Just for giggles, here are the 1976 Cincinnati Reds starting 8 batting averages: 234, 260, 320, 281, 323, 306, 307, 336. Exceptional maybe, but that's a whole different game being played than what we see now.
As opposed to all his teammates on Roids and PED's?
I agree with him 100%
Baseball was heaps more fun to watch late 90s early 2000s. And so many players not just the yankees were on the juice.
So now we're sticking up for the Yankees? Got it
F the Yankees
And yes, baseball was may more fun to watch during the Roid era. Everyone knows this.
Then again, nobody cares if Posada watches baseball or not.
F the Yankees
And yes, baseball was may more fun to watch during the Roid era. Everyone knows this.
Then again, nobody cares if Posada watches baseball or not.
Last edited:
Blazenhawks
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2010
- Messages
- 663
- Reaction score
- 259
I will murder on this hill! Baseball was a lot more fun before AI and computers. I didn't even care about roids either, roids didn't make you better its makes you work harder for longer which then makes you better.
Bret Boone would like a word. Roids ABSOLUTELY made him a better player. Esp. his power numbers.
No? I just pointed out most of the yanks and tons of other players were on the juice and that I agree with Posada about today's game. I ain't sticking up for the Stanks.
For sure and I don't feel bad. Goated season for a second baseman in 01.
Who are you kidding? Jorge was definitely on the juice.
Absolutely. Again, F the Yankees.
Baseball was more fun back then. Not even sure it's up for debate. Again, couldn't care less about what a former Yankees player, who was on roids, thinks about the current game.
He's not wrong, game was a blast in the roids era. Doesn't make it right though.
Baseball was more fun back then. Not even sure it's up for debate. Again, couldn't care less about what a former Yankees player, who was on roids, thinks about the current game.
He's not wrong, game was a blast in the roids era. Doesn't make it right though.
Roids aside, old school baseball had elements that made it more fun. Currently, there is too much focus on numbers and metrics. Mariners have been an obvious example. Under Servais, the focus on exit velocity led to too much power swinging, leading to more swing and miss and more strikeouts. The trade off was if you could hit 30-40 HR you could live with a high K rate. Problem was, you can't always control when those happen, especially when you are focused on hitting the ball hard, and not on just hitting the ball. I remember a few years back when we had 3 or 4 guys with 30+ HR, but none of them had more than 80 RBI.
Back in the day, managerial decisions were based on years of baseball experience combined with gut feelings and hunches. Now, it's all about percentages and metrics. One I hate is pulling the infield in when there is a man on 3d base with less than 2 outs. I'm not sure it is warranted in every case. It essentially eliminates the double play.
Same with shifting. It's just automatic, with no allowance for game situation.
I could go on, I guess, but you get my drift. I'm not a "fire Dan" guy, I think he needs more time. But yeah, some of the things he does kind of bug me.
At least he has softened a bit on the lefty/righty stuff. Kind of forced into it with Cole Young as he's it for 2d base. Same with Colt Emerson, he's the future at SS. Can't really platoon that out. Both have seen improved success against southpaw pitchers, which often happens when they get more chances at it.
Back in the day, managerial decisions were based on years of baseball experience combined with gut feelings and hunches. Now, it's all about percentages and metrics. One I hate is pulling the infield in when there is a man on 3d base with less than 2 outs. I'm not sure it is warranted in every case. It essentially eliminates the double play.
Same with shifting. It's just automatic, with no allowance for game situation.
I could go on, I guess, but you get my drift. I'm not a "fire Dan" guy, I think he needs more time. But yeah, some of the things he does kind of bug me.
At least he has softened a bit on the lefty/righty stuff. Kind of forced into it with Cole Young as he's it for 2d base. Same with Colt Emerson, he's the future at SS. Can't really platoon that out. Both have seen improved success against southpaw pitchers, which often happens when they get more chances at it.
No doubt. I miss seeing sac bunts, small ball, etc.
Dan is probably not as bad as I make him out to be, but damn........pretty bad still.
Dan is probably not as bad as I make him out to be, but damn........pretty bad still.
Blazenhawks
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2010
- Messages
- 663
- Reaction score
- 259
I sometimes wonder if the front office is pushing Dan to lean heavily on analytics instead of just coaching off experience and gut feel. Baseball is all about making adjustments in the moment, and I do like seeing how the iPad can help guide those changes, but some of it still feels overthought.
For example, the constant shifting or bringing the infield in just doesn’t always make sense to me. At some point, you might as well just run with two outfielders and add a rover on the edge of the grass—yeah, I’m joking, but that’s kind of what it feels like.
Nah, no excuses. Dan is what he his. An average at best Manager.
