Master Index of Archived Threads


Tattoo You, and Other Labor Deal Stuff

Edgy MD Dec 14 2011 08:40 AM

Funky stuff in the new MLB labor deal. [list][*]No tatts with corporate logos --- I assume that means other pro sports teams, too, and maybe colleges and universities. [/*:m] [*]Teams from the same division can now meet in the playoffs before the league championship series. [/*:m] [*]The possibility of players wearing microphones during games. [/*:m] [*]MbtN News! No swapping numbers willy-nilly. Any big leaguer who wants to change uniform numbers without switching teams has to give notice by July 31 of the previous season. If he decides to make a sudden switch without so giving notice, he's fined for something resembling the cost of the useless merchandise with his number on it. [/*:m] [*]Replay to include fair/foul calls, trapped/caught calls, but I guess we knew that. [/*:m] [*]Four-day All-Star break. [/*:m] [*]If you're on the 40-Man, congratulations. You get a private room during spring training. [/*:m] [*]No lobbying official scorers to reconsider their decisions. MLB, however, will field appeals directly. [/*:m] [*]No betting with illegal bookies on any sport. (That's new?) [/*:m] [*]No offensive nicknames written on equipment. COME ON! Is this still America?![/*:m][/list:u] It's funny a lot of stuff in there includes things that the commissioner would already fine you and suspend you for, even though it wasn't explicitly forbidden, because the commissioner is king, but now they feel they have to explicilty tell you not to throw bats at fans. I would think it behooves them to stay unspecific in a lot of these things.

Benjamin Grimm Dec 14 2011 08:49 AM Re: Tattoo You, and Other Labor Deal Stuff

So what's the penalty if a player gets the Keebler Elf tattooed on his neck? Will he be forced to have it removed? Or will he have to wear a turtleneck, even in August? Or will he just have to pay a fine, which might very well be paid off by Keebler? Here's what I'm wondering about the new setup: If two teams finish in a tie for first place, previously there was little practical difference between being the division champ and the wild card, so they had the various off-field tiebreakers (head-to-head, common opponents, etc.) But now there's going to be a significant difference, the exemption from that one do-or-die game. I would think that ties for division leads should now be broken by a playoff game, to be played before the do-or-die game, but I haven't heard anything about whether that will be the case.

TransMonk Dec 14 2011 09:58 AM Re: Tattoo You, and Other Labor Deal Stuff

• The possibility of players wearing microphones during games. Boo!!! • No offensive nicknames written on equipment.

metirish Dec 14 2011 10:03 AM Re: Tattoo You, and Other Labor Deal Stuff

TransMonk wrote: • The possibility of players wearing microphones during games. Boo!!! • No offensive nicknames written on equipment. hate the mic idea, nothing, absolutely nothing interesting ever gets said when the players are wearing a mic, despite what FOX thinks.

Ceetar Dec 14 2011 10:14 AM Re: Tattoo You, and Other Labor Deal Stuff

Here's what I'm wondering about the new setup: If two teams finish in a tie for first place, previously there was little practical difference between being the division champ and the wild card, so they had the various off-field tiebreakers (head-to-head, common opponents, etc.) But now there's going to be a significant difference, the exemption from that one do-or-die game. I would think that ties for division leads should now be broken by a playoff game, to be played before the do-or-die game, but I haven't heard anything about whether that will be the case. yeah, was curious about that myself. Not sure I've got a preference though. If the Phillies go 6-12 against the Mets but they tie for the division lead, why should they play one more game, full of randomness, to try to determine what those 18 games already suggests. Also like to know if home field goes to the team with the best record (exempting WS) or does the division winner get precedence?

A Boy Named Seo Dec 14 2011 10:35 AM Re: Tattoo You, and Other Labor Deal Stuff

AJ Burnett: "Joke's on you, MLB. Mine'll be covered up by muh jersey."

Frayed Knot Dec 14 2011 10:39 AM Re: Tattoo You, and Other Labor Deal Stuff

I don't believe the new plan calls for a tie-breaking game between teams that are both already in the post-season. It's true that the tie-breaking procedure (reg season head-to-head) will now mean a lot more than before but I don't have a problem with that. Want to avoid play-ins? ... then beat your rival. I also assume that ties among the 2nd and 3rd WC team (or a three-way tie) is the only thing that would require a play-in game to get to the play-in game. Ties between 1st & 2nd WCs only needs to settle who gets to host that play-in game and that could be done via head-to-head or even a coin flip if the h-t-h is even.

Frayed Knot Dec 14 2011 10:44 AM Re: Tattoo You, and Other Labor Deal Stuff

Replay to include fair/foul calls, trapped/caught calls, but I guess we knew that. This one still needs ironing out with the umps union before it's officially official - and I really, really hope that before getting the go-ahead they think about all the possible outcomes from when an overturned call turns a dead ball into a live one or vice-versa ... although I don't expect that they will.

Benjamin Grimm Dec 14 2011 10:51 AM Re: Tattoo You, and Other Labor Deal Stuff

I guess that even if a ball is called foul by the umpire, you have to play it like it's fair, just in case. There's already that possibility with the home run calls. If something gets originally called a home run and then that's overturned on appeal if the ball is fair the umpire has to make a judgement call about where to place the baserunners.

Diamond Dad Dec 14 2011 11:33 AM Re: Tattoo You, and Other Labor Deal Stuff

I just hope they go to an NHL model where the instant replays are centralized and a crew of full-time replay officials are looking at this stuff and making the calls rather than sending the umpire crew off the field and into the tunnel to look at the replay, which takes time and asks guys who are not typically doing it to make those calls based on video review.

Frayed Knot Dec 14 2011 01:10 PM Re: Tattoo You, and Other Labor Deal Stuff

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I guess that even if a ball is called foul by the umpire, you have to play it like it's fair, just in case. That's not going to happen. I don't see any way to keep players on both sides from reacting to the call as it's made, at which point it's left to the umps with the task of pretending to know how things would have occurred had the correct call been made initially. There's already that possibility with the home run calls. If something gets originally called a home run and then that's overturned on appeal if the ball is fair the umpire has to make a judgement call about where to place the baserunners. Yes, although that rarely happens. Almost all HR disputes are ruled as Not before being corrected to yes, and at that point everyone gets a free pass home anyway. The handful that aren't HRs but were call Yes probably became a dead ball anyway due to it winding up in the stands via a bounce or a fan touching it so existing ground rules cover it. Fair/foul calls and especially trapped/caught calls are going to involve a much larger set of possibilities and potentially open a big Em-Effin' can of worms - not to mention being potentially much more numerous than the relative handful (2-3 dozen/yr league wide?) of disputed HR calls.

Ceetar Dec 14 2011 01:33 PM Re: Tattoo You, and Other Labor Deal Stuff

Frayed Knot wrote: Benjamin Grimm wrote: I guess that even if a ball is called foul by the umpire, you have to play it like it's fair, just in case. That's not going to happen. I don't see any way to keep players on both sides from reacting to the call as it's made, at which point it's left to the umps with the task of pretending to know how things would have occurred had the correct call been made initially. Can't. Say the RF dives for the ball and it's ruled a catch. David Wright turned second has to retreat to first, he can't go to third pretending it's fair, because if the rulings upheld he's thrown out at first. The RF dove to his right, so if it's a fair/trapped ball, he easily jogs into third and should probably be awarded it on the replay, but he can't go to third on the hopes it's fair. conversely, he can't pretend it's foul/caught either. That would mean retreating to first, where presumably Davis behind him is standing, because he's certainly not going to stand at home waiting to see the ruling. Now you've got guys crossing each other on the base paths. And you certainly can't stop play at the time of the ruling. So you're going to have to come up with very specific cases and what happens for each, and drill it into the umpires. Understanding that the players response is often a result of the umpires call. In my example above, just about every player is going to third. But say Ike Davis shouldn't be penalized for being on the first base side of second base when the call is make because he's slower and allows himself less space in case he needs to get back. Similarly on tag-up plays.

Nymr83 Dec 14 2011 01:51 PM Re: Tattoo You, and Other Labor Deal Stuff

turning a "catch" call into a "no catch" call seems easy enough... you advance everyone one base.... sure you might have scored/advanced farther, but at least the team that suffered from the wrong call is aways getting a better result than the out would have been. the problem seems to be the reverse, if you suddenly rule a "non-catch" to be a "catch", how do you determine who would have advanced without prejudicing the team that made the catch? i'd hate to see a game-winning run sent home from 3rd y the umpire's discretion that he would have tagged up and scored.

Edgy MD Dec 14 2011 02:08 PM Re: Tattoo You, and Other Labor Deal Stuff

TransMonk wrote: • The possibility of players wearing microphones during games. Boo!!! • No offensive nicknames written on equipment. That's the funny part. Why are they putting a rule in the collective bargaining agreement in 2011 seemingly in response to a 1989 baseball card. A Fleer 1989 baseball card.

Ceetar Dec 14 2011 02:10 PM Re: Tattoo You, and Other Labor Deal Stuff

It's going to be inevitable. Runner on second 1 out, bottom nine, tie game. fly ball to center field that's called an out. runner retreats from near third back to second. replay indicates it was a fair ball. You could give the guy one base, but chances are the game should've been over. But then, it's one of those things to argue about.

Frayed Knot Dec 14 2011 02:47 PM Re: Tattoo You, and Other Labor Deal Stuff

Ceetar wrote: It's going to be inevitable. Runner on second 1 out, bottom nine, tie game. fly ball to center field that's called an out. runner retreats from near third back to second. replay indicates it was a fair ball. You could give the guy one base, but chances are the game should've been over. But then, it's one of those things to argue about. I assume you meant to say trapped where you wrote fair, but, yeah, that situation would result in there being at least as many arguments after the play is corrected as there might have been before the wrong call was righted and that'll be true no matter how it's corrected. Personally I'd rather argue about the call itself than about how and if the chessmen were artificially moved around after the fact. I really think Selig is caving into pr pressure from outside the sport on this one by listening to those talking heads who mostly don't watch/like baseball anyway but will take the opportunity of a high-profile blown call to yap about how baseball's refusal to be progressive and adopt replay for everything short of ball/strike calls shows it to be a dark ages 19th century sport. And I bet he's thinking; y'know, if I get this expanded replay rule passed they'd all write and say really, really nice things about me. No Bud, they still won't.

batmagadanleadoff Dec 14 2011 07:17 PM Re: Tattoo You, and Other Labor Deal Stuff

Funky stuff in the new MLB labor deal. [list] [*]MbtN News! No swapping numbers willy-nilly. Any big leaguer who wants to change uniform numbers without switching teams has to give notice by July 31 of the previous season. If he decides to make a sudden switch without so giving notice, he's fined for something resembling the cost of the useless merchandise with his number on it. [/*:m][/list:u] So much for a newly acquired superstar getting his former # from his new teammate.

Benjamin Grimm Dec 14 2011 08:31 PM Re: Tattoo You, and Other Labor Deal Stuff

There's an exclusion in that paragraph for team-switchers.

Mets – Willets Point Dec 14 2011 08:37 PM Re: Tattoo You, and Other Labor Deal Stuff

I remember a game when Bobby Valentine was miked and we got to listen to him as he went out to argue with the umpires. After the first couple of f-bombs, Bobby's mic faded out.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 14 2011 09:10 PM Re: Tattoo You, and Other Labor Deal Stuff

Funky stuff in the new MLB labor deal. [list] [*]MbtN News! No swapping numbers willy-nilly. Any big leaguer who wants to change uniform numbers without switching teams has to give notice by July 31 of the previous season. If he decides to make a sudden switch without so giving notice, he's fined for something resembling the cost of the useless merchandise with his number on it.[/*:m][/list:u] So much for a newly acquired superstar getting his former # from his new teammate. I also can't imagine it would apply to young guys coming up and back. It's got to be a way to allow MLB to profit from the equity an established guy brings to his number. What I wondering about is the real-life situation that prompted this. There had to have been one.

themetfairy Dec 14 2011 09:29 PM Re: Tattoo You, and Other Labor Deal Stuff

Edgy DC wrote: Funky stuff in the new MLB labor deal. [list][*]No tatts with corporate logos That puts an end to my MLB career....

Nymr83 Dec 15 2011 09:10 AM Re: Tattoo You, and Other Labor Deal Stuff

Frayed Knot wrote: Ceetar wrote: It's going to be inevitable. Runner on second 1 out, bottom nine, tie game. fly ball to center field that's called an out. runner retreats from near third back to second. replay indicates it was a fair ball. You could give the guy one base, but chances are the game should've been over. But then, it's one of those things to argue about. I assume you meant to say trapped where you wrote fair, but, yeah, that situation would result in there being at least as many arguments after the play is corrected as there might have been before the wrong call was righted and that'll be true no matter how it's corrected. Personally I'd rather argue about the call itself than about how and if the chessmen were artificially moved around after the fact. I'm not really worried about this situation, because although the run doesnt score, the outcome post-replay is still better than pre-replay (1st and 3rd with 1 out instead of runner on 2nd [3rd if he tagged] and 2 out.) If thats the rule post-replay (everyone gets one base) then its still strictly better than the botched call every time even if its not as good as the right call getting made in the first place. Its the opposite situation that concerns me. the ball is initially called trapped, so the runner scores... on replay they call it back and say it was a catch... then what? if you leave the runner at 2nd you are precluding the possibility that he would have been thrown out either retreating to 2nd or advancing to 3rd and the possibility that he would have safely advanced to 3rd anyway.

Ceetar Dec 15 2011 09:22 AM Re: Tattoo You, and Other Labor Deal Stuff

What about if replay was unavailable for game-ending plays? I guess that's kind of silly though. But yeah, a lot's gonna get written about the first game where a team has a win called back via replay and they go on to lose.

Edgy MD Dec 15 2011 09:25 AM Re: Tattoo You, and Other Labor Deal Stuff

I think the only conclusions they'll be able to draw from most trap/catch super-slow replays is that the outfielder had a homophobic slur on his glove and a Bristol Myers Squibb tatt on his forearm.

Edgy MD Jan 26 2012 12:58 PM Re: Tattoo You, and Other Labor Deal Stuff

Dallas Braden shows off his new tattoo. No corporate logo there. It's a dolphin. Swimming under a rainbow. With Rollie Fingers on his back. Forever.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 26 2012 01:08 PM Re: Tattoo You, and Other Labor Deal Stuff

People are retarded.

metirish Jan 26 2012 01:10 PM Re: Tattoo You, and Other Labor Deal Stuff

Is that like a gay pride tattoo?

Edgy MD Jan 26 2012 01:51 PM Re: Tattoo You, and Other Labor Deal Stuff

I'm wondering if maybe it's a temp.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jan 26 2012 03:01 PM Re: Tattoo You, and Other Labor Deal Stuff

That's not your arm. That's his arm. GET OFF HIS ARM!