Master Index of Archived Threads


Email From Manfred

MFS62 Jan 25 2015 12:14 PM

This showed up in my email today. I didn't even know that he knew me. Maybe he was one of the people who confused me with ex-Sen. John Mitchell. [code:1359rdjy] On the night of August 14, 2014, I left a Baltimore hotel after being elected Commissioner of Baseball. As I began to reply to the overwhelming number of congratulatory messages coming in, it hit me that I'd just been entrusted to protect the integrity of our National Pastime and to set a course that allows this great game to continue to flourish - now and in the years to come. Needless to say, I was deeply honored by the trust the owners placed in me. Today is my first day as Commissioner, and I am incredibly excited to get to work. I am grateful to Commissioner Selig for his expertise and friendship. His leadership set a direction that led to historic success. The mission before us is clear: To honor the game's history while welcoming new people to our great sport - people who will one day pass their love of baseball down through the generations. That is what our parents and grandparents did for us, and it is what we are doing for our own children. Baseball is a game firmly rooted in childhood experiences, and its vitality and growth rely heavily on giving young people from all backgrounds the opportunity to play and watch baseball. This notion that baseball is the game of children is central to my core goals as Commissioner. Maybe that is because my own Little League experience in upstate Rome, New York was such an important part of my childhood. I will never forget my intense dedication to that club and to my teammates - each of whom I can still name to this day - and being part of a perfect game. My top priority is to bring more people into our game - at all levels and from all communities. Specifically, I plan to make the game more accessible to those in underserved areas, especially in the urban areas where fields and infrastructure are harder to find. Giving more kids the opportunity to play will inspire a new generation to fall in love with baseball just as we did when we were kids. Expanding Little League, RBI and other youth baseball programs will also help sustain a steady and wide talent pool from which our clubs can draw great players and create lifelong fans. As Commissioner, I will draw closer connections between youth baseball and MLB. I want to inspire children's interest in baseball and help parents and coaches foster that passion. In the coming years, MLB will work with college, high school, amateur and youth baseball programs to help grow our game and to ensure that the best players and talent have the opportunity to pursue their dreams. I call it "One Baseball" - a partnership between all professional and amateur groups involved in our game. Our children can look at MLB today and find a wave of new stars worthy of emulating both on and off the field. Players like Andrew McCutchen, Buster Posey, Giancarlo Stanton and Mike Trout and aces Madison Bumgarner, Felix Hernandez and Clayton Kershaw have powerful stories to tell - and MLB will tell them across every platform. We will continue to internationalize our game and to celebrate the fact that we have the most diverse rosters in the world. Our mission is to build upon this recent success by creating opportunities for the next wave of baseball talent. We also must continue to nurture inclusive environments for all the contributors to our game and our loyal fans. Another priority for me is to continue to modernize the game without interfering with its history and traditions. Last season's expanded instant replay improved the game's quality and addressed concerns shared by fans and players. We made a dramatic change without altering the game's fundamentals. I look forward to tapping into the power of technology to consider additional advancements that will continue to heighten the excitement of the game, improve the pace of play and attract more young people to the game. The Major League Clubs have bestowed an extraordinary opportunity upon me. My pledge is to work every single day to honor their faith in me and your love of this game. Robert D. Manfred, Jr. [/code:1359rdjy] I wonder how he got my email address. Later

Gwreck Jan 25 2015 02:31 PM Re: Email From Manfred

Got a return address for him? I've got a few thoughts for him already about how stupid changes that he's in favor of (like pitch clocks or banning defensive shifts) will ruin baseball.

Benjamin Grimm Jan 25 2015 02:41 PM Re: Email From Manfred

Banning defensive shifts? I'm not familiar with that one.

Benjamin Grimm Jan 25 2015 02:44 PM Re: Email From Manfred

I found this: http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/eye-on-bas ... ive-shifts What a stupid idea!

Nymr83 Jan 25 2015 02:49 PM Re: Email From Manfred

Incredibly stupid. Maybe he just wants them to play homerun derby every night? I am glad we are getting away from the steroid fueled offensive era and into a re b aissance for pitching and defense.

Centerfield Jan 25 2015 03:19 PM Re: Email From Manfred

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I found this: http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/eye-on-bas ... ive-shifts What a stupid idea! I'm not sure if I'm missing sarcasm here, but why is this a terrible idea? I've always thought this hurt LH hitters more than RH hitters. I'm not necessarily endorsing the idea, but I don't see any reason for a strong objection.

Zvon Jan 25 2015 03:49 PM Re: Email From Manfred

I got one of these too. I guess that means Im an MLB Insider. I found this: http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/eye-on-bas ... ive-shifts What a stupid idea! I agree Grimm. Shifts are part of the game. Sometimes they help, sometimes they burn ya. Don't players today have the ability to just poke it the other way?

Edgy MD Jan 25 2015 04:47 PM Re: Email From Manfred

I would say it's a terrible idea because, by limiting the liberty which players have had to move around and play where they will, since baseball was born — and the manager's liberty to position them — you're changing the very nature of the game, all for the sake of fixing something that isn't broken. Historically, defense makes an adjustment, offense either plows ahead with the standard strategy, or responds with an adjustment of their own. Offense makes an adjustment, and defense responds. That's part of the intrigue, and that's part of the game. Let Lucas Duda bunt once or twice a month to keep the defense more honest. Kingman did.

Frayed Knot Jan 25 2015 04:51 PM Re: Email From Manfred

This idea was floated by, and endorsed by, several writers last summer. But I entirely disagree with the whole idea. If teams can figure out a way to limit the damage caused by the more one-dimensional, pull-hitting, LH, slow-footed types (Papi and his brethren) then it's either up to those hitters to figure out a way to beat the shift, or it puts a premium on clubs to find more contact-oriented, all-fields hitters (hello Brandon Nimmo?).

Edgy MD Jan 25 2015 04:59 PM Re: Email From Manfred

*Like*

Ashie62 Jan 25 2015 05:54 PM Re: Email From Manfred

It won't happen.

Zvon Jan 25 2015 06:39 PM Re: Email From Manfred

Edgy MD wrote: .. you're changing the very nature of the game, all for the sake of fixing something that isn't broken. This^

d'Kong76 Jan 25 2015 06:42 PM Re: Email From Manfred

No way this will ever happen; all seven fielders can (and will always be able to) stand wherever the hell they want.

Frayed Knot Jan 25 2015 07:16 PM Re: Email From Manfred

And how would you describe and enforce such a rule? - Would a fielder moving ten feet to one side be legal but 20 feet not? - Or are circles going to be drawn on the field where everyone has to stand as the pitch is thrown? - Are outfielders going to be prohibited from moving too or just infielders? - Maybe they'll allow infielders to shift left or right but just not set up on the OF grass? And in fairness, this is not something that Manfred is putting on the top of his to-do list; sounds more like he was just answering a question as to whether he'd be open to it. I think there's probably also a degree of wanting to differentiate himself from Selig so he's using this first day on the job platform to cast himself as the more proactive guy in contrast to Bud's reactive and consensus driven approach.

Centerfield Jan 25 2015 07:43 PM Re: Email From Manfred

By the nature of the way the bases are set up, shifts hurt LH hitters more than they hurt RH hitters. This is obviously not a huge issue facing the game, but does it warrant no action?

Nymr83 Jan 25 2015 08:15 PM Re: Email From Manfred

Centerfield wrote: By the nature of the way the bases are set up, shifts hurt LH hitters more than they hurt RH hitters. This is obviously not a huge issue facing the game, but does it warrant no action? By nature of being born left-handed those left handed bats have a higher chance of making the majors because the percentage of left handed hitters will always be higher than the percentage of lefties in the general population, a result of their increased effectiveness against predominantly right handed pitching, maybe we should have a rule that each righty is entitled to face the same percentage of left handed pitchers that a lefty gets to face of right handers? the whole idea is absurd.

Frayed Knot Jan 25 2015 08:27 PM Re: Email From Manfred Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 26 2015 07:42 AM

Centerfield wrote: By the nature of the way the bases are set up, shifts hurt LH hitters more than they hurt RH hitters. This is obviously not a huge issue facing the game, but does it warrant no action? The way the bases are set up also helps LH batters to the extent that they're closer to 1B. I don't think this warrants action either. A so-called extreme shifts only 'hurts' (if you want to use that word, I'd opt maybe for 'challenges' instead) those LHBs who pull almost exclusively and are slow-footed - a fairly small percentage I'd say. You wouldn't pull that shift on Reyes or Ichiro even if they were dead-pull guys because they'd out-run a grounder hit to a 2B positioning himself in short RF. What those LH hitters can do is pull less, or bunt occasionally like Edgy says, and the shifts would disappear overnight. And even as it is, any manager employing a shift is engaging in a risk/reward that's going to cost him outs on occasion too. It then becomes up to him whether he thinks he's stealing more outs than he's losing.

Ceetar Jan 26 2015 07:38 AM Re: Email From Manfred

Also lefties have the platoon advantage as batters more often.

Edgy MD Jan 26 2015 10:16 AM Re: Email From Manfred

Manfred also mentioned a possible return to Montreal. I hope that's higher on the priority list than corralling the defense.

Benjamin Grimm Jan 26 2015 10:52 AM Re: Email From Manfred

Would that mean expansion? Or relocation? I suppose that right now the teams most likely to relocate are the Rays and the Athletics. I think that if I were in charge of either of those teams there would be at least a few places I'd choose over Montreal.

Frayed Knot Jan 26 2015 10:55 AM Re: Email From Manfred

In the laundry list of topics that he touched on, Manfred listed expansion as NOT something on the near-term agenda.

Benjamin Grimm Jan 26 2015 11:06 AM Re: Email From Manfred

That doesn't surprise me at all.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 26 2015 11:16 AM Re: Email From Manfred

Specifically, I plan to make the game more accessible to those in underserved areas, especially in the urban areas where fields and infrastructure are harder to find. 'Where is my place in this bright future?' I heard him say. [youtube]cj3jn309hAc[/youtube] How did we survive?

Mets Guy in Michigan Jan 26 2015 11:27 AM Re: Email From Manfred

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Would that mean expansion? Or relocation? I suppose that right now the teams most likely to relocate are the Rays and the Athletics. I think that if I were in charge of either of those teams there would be at least a few places I'd choose over Montreal. I think he's obligated to dangle destinations out there so teams demanding new stadiums have leverage -- though the number of teams not having new stadiums is pretty small at this point.

Nymr83 Jan 26 2015 11:35 AM Re: Email From Manfred

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: Would that mean expansion? Or relocation? I suppose that right now the teams most likely to relocate are the Rays and the Athletics. I think that if I were in charge of either of those teams there would be at least a few places I'd choose over Montreal. I think he's obligated to dangle destinations out there so teams demanding new stadiums have leverage -- though the number of teams not having new stadiums is pretty small at this point. The Rogers center in Toronto is 25 years old, only the following are older: Fenway Park (1912 and not going anywhere), Wrigley Field (1914, they are re-modelling the bleachers but the team isnt leaving the park), Dodger Stadium (1962), Angel Stadium (1966), Oakland Coliseum (1966), Kaufman Stadium (1973 - a 250 million renovation was done 5 years ago). Oakland seem like the only conceivable team who could demand a stadium from this group. Tampa is the only other team I could see moving.

Centerfield Jan 26 2015 11:42 AM Re: Email From Manfred

Frayed Knot wrote: Centerfield wrote: By the nature of the way the bases are set up, shifts hurt LH hitters more than they hurt RH hitters. This is obviously not a huge issue facing the game, but does it warrant no action? The way the bases are set up also helps LH batters to the extent that they're closer to 1B. I don't think this warrants action either. A so-called extreme shifts only 'hurts' (if you want to use that word, I'd opt maybe for 'challenges' instead) those LHBs who pull almost exclusively and are slow-footed - a fairly small percentage I'd say. You wouldn't pull that shift on Reyes or Ichiro even if they were dead-pull guys because they'd out-run a grounder hit to a 2B positioning himself in short RF. What those LH hitters can do is pull less, or bunt occasionally like Edgy says, and the shifts would disappear overnight. And even as it is, any manager employing a shift is engaging in a risk/reward that's going to cost him outs on occasion too. It then becomes up to him whether he thinks he's stealing more outs than he's losing. Fair points. Interestingly the ones proposing the rule were also arguing "integrity of the game". Meaning baseball has been played forever with two infielders on each side of second base, and now these new defensive shifts are changing the way the game is played. If I had to make a call, I'd probably vote against banning shifts, but I am surprised to see such uniformity from everyone on this board. We never agree about anything.

seawolf17 Jan 26 2015 11:45 AM Re: Email From Manfred

Banning shifts is idiotic.

d'Kong76 Jan 26 2015 11:46 AM Re: Email From Manfred

Centerfield wrote: We never agree about anything. Well, I'd have to disagree with that.

Mets Guy in Michigan Jan 26 2015 11:52 AM Re: Email From Manfred

Nymr83 wrote: Would that mean expansion? Or relocation? I suppose that right now the teams most likely to relocate are the Rays and the Athletics. I think that if I were in charge of either of those teams there would be at least a few places I'd choose over Montreal. I think he's obligated to dangle destinations out there so teams demanding new stadiums have leverage -- though the number of teams not having new stadiums is pretty small at this point. The Rogers center in Toronto is 25 years old, only the following are older: Fenway Park (1912 and not going anywhere), Wrigley Field (1914, they are re-modelling the bleachers but the team isnt leaving the park), Dodger Stadium (1962), Angel Stadium (1966), Oakland Coliseum (1966), Kaufman Stadium (1973 - a 250 million renovation was done 5 years ago). Oakland seem like the only conceivable team who could demand a stadium from this group. Tampa is the only other team I could see moving. Yup! And I think Tampa has on iron-clad lease for something like the next 30 years. Now, I didn't imagine that the Braves would be abandoning 20-year-old Turner Field, either. But I think throwing Montreal out there as a potential destination gives the Athletics some leverage.

Edgy MD Jan 26 2015 12:08 PM Re: Email From Manfred

Centerfield wrote: Fair points. Interestingly the ones proposing the rule were also arguing "integrity of the game". Meaning baseball has been played forever with two infielders on each side of second base, and now these new defensive shifts are changing the way the game is played. The alignment Ted Williams tended to see: [fimg=600]http://sports.mearsonlineauctions.com/ItemImages/000036/dcaa027c-92ad-400a-acb6-9717355bd97d_lg.jpeg[/fimg] The Bad News Bears also deployed an extreme defensive shift against Carl Paranski.

Nymr83 Jan 26 2015 12:33 PM Re: Email From Manfred

wow the Williams shift is more extreme than anything you see these days

Edgy MD Jan 26 2015 12:45 PM Re: Email From Manfred

I have to be honest. I don't know how typical that alignment really was. Leaving only one guy on the left side instead of one in the infield and one in the outfield is totally EXXXTREME!!11!

Frayed Knot Jan 26 2015 01:04 PM Re: Email From Manfred

I have to be honest. I don't know how typical that alignment really was. Leaving only one guy on the left side instead of one in the infield and one in the outfield is totally EXXXTREME!!11! Cleveland player/manager Lou Boudreau (he might be player #2 in that picture) is the one credited for coming up with that one vs Teddy Ballgame, but it was hardly the first or only time that type of thing was used prior to just the last year or two. Olbermann did a piece on this not long ago which included him reading newspaper accounts from 19th century games which described defenses drastically overloading one side against certain hitters. I guess I just don't understand the big itch to do something about this. There are only a few rules in existence about positioning: the catcher has to be in his box; the pitcher needs to be on the rubber*; and the other seven need only to be in fair territory. If teams want to put all seven of them in a pile on the 2nd base bag, or have them in a circle holding hands in CF then they're free to do so. * unless you're Jordan Walden

Edgy MD Jan 26 2015 01:29 PM Re: Email From Manfred

[youtube:2jsd74fd]YrjJFNDQJbM[/youtube:2jsd74fd]

Frayed Knot Jan 27 2015 12:34 PM Re: Email From Manfred

Various insiders discuss the shifting trend - or the trends in shifting. http://m.mlb.com/news/article/107573504 ... ield-shift

Zvon Jan 27 2015 02:08 PM Re: Email From Manfred

Edgy MD wrote: [fimg=600]http://sports.mearsonlineauctions.com/ItemImages/000036/dcaa027c-92ad-400a-acb6-9717355bd97d_lg.jpeg[/fimg] This is such an awesome photo.

Benjamin Grimm Jan 27 2015 02:19 PM Re: Email From Manfred

At first glance, I thought the numbers represented the fielders' positions, but that would mean that the third baseman was playing against the center field wall and the center fielder was pitching. I doubt that that happened very often! My guess is that it's something like this: 1 - first base 2 - shortstop 3 - third base 4 - left field (not pictured) 5 - center field 6 - right field 7 - second base 8 - pitcher

Mets – Willets Point Jan 27 2015 11:43 PM Re: Email From Manfred

At first glance, I thought the numbers represented the fielders' positions, but that would mean that the third baseman was playing against the center field wall and the center fielder was pitching. I doubt that that happened very often! My guess is that it's something like this: I had that same impression and thought "Damn that Boudreau was extreme!" I can't imagine what those numbers are supposed to signify since they're obviously not the fielding positions, at least not on any scorecard I've ever seen.

Frayed Knot Jan 28 2015 06:35 AM Re: Email From Manfred

I suspect it was just some newspaper editor -- one perhaps not familiar with standard scorecard notation -- trying to illustrate how many of the fielders were on the one side of the infield (Mr. catcher is probably #4 but got cropped). That still doesn't answer the question of why he went in the particular order he did, but it's likely nothing other than just random.

Mets Guy in Michigan Jan 28 2015 06:41 AM Re: Email From Manfred

I don't think the defense shifts are much of a drag on time. There are other things. I do think the batters walking out of the batter's box after every pitch to adjust their gloves and so on does slow things down. I think making three pitching changes in the seventh and eighth innings does slow things down, especially if they are allowed to take warm-up pitches after warming up in the bullpen. And each pitching changes means a break for ads, which leads to: There's the stuff the league won't touch -- nationally televised games are longer because of all the ads between innings. .

Frayed Knot Jan 28 2015 07:01 AM Re: Email From Manfred

I don't think anyone's trying to link shifts and game time. Shifts and reduced offense maybe, but not time of game. And again, I think much of what Manfred is trying to say here -- in response to various 'first day on the job' questions -- is send a signal as to how his approach might differ from Selig's (proactive rather than reactive) by indicating that he's willing to at least look such radical topics such as pace of play (already begun) and the idea of restricting defensive shifts.

Mets Guy in Michigan Jan 28 2015 09:43 AM Re: Email From Manfred

Frayed Knot wrote: I don't think anyone's trying to link shifts and game time. Shifts and reduced offense maybe, but not time of game. And again, I think much of what Manfred is trying to say here -- in response to various 'first day on the job' questions -- is send a signal as to how his approach might differ from Selig's (proactive rather than reactive) by indicating that he's willing to at least look such radical topics such as pace of play (already begun) and the idea of restricting defensive shifts. Ah! Now it makes sense.

Mets – Willets Point Jan 28 2015 01:53 PM Re: Email From Manfred

Gwreck Jan 29 2015 08:18 AM Re: Email From Manfred

Manfred clarifies his comments in an interview with Ken Rosenthal: "Let me go back and put the comment I made in context. I was asked about long term, radical thoughts and what I said was that I was I prepared to have a conversation about shifts. Look, we have a lot of conversations in this building about a lot of things, so I don’t think it would be a good idea to read too much into that comment." Full interview http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/story/rob- ... ans-012815 (Spoiler: he also gives a predictably inane answer suggesting he'll do nothing about the Mets' ownership).

Benjamin Grimm Jan 29 2015 08:32 AM Re: Email From Manfred

Regarding this shift thing: It is, and always has been, the responsibility of the hitter to hit 'em where they ain't. The fielders shouldn't be required to stand in a place where the batter is less likely to hit the ball.

Edgy MD Jan 29 2015 08:36 AM Re: Email From Manfred

Manfred has since walked back his shift comments. I knew I would like this guy the moment I read this fan comment on Adam Rubin's Facebook page: The Comissioner is an idiot or a FREIND THE THE MET OWNERS.

Gwreck Jan 29 2015 09:16 AM Re: Email From Manfred

I'm not clear what the relevance is of a facebook comment of an incoherent idiot.

Edgy MD Jan 29 2015 09:37 AM Re: Email From Manfred

I feel a compulsion to be where the incoherent idiots aren't.

Ceetar Jan 29 2015 11:50 AM Re: Email From Manfred

Edgy MD wrote: I feel a compulsion to be where the incoherent idiots aren't. I tried that. got lonely.

Edgy MD Jan 29 2015 11:56 AM Re: Email From Manfred

Edgy to co-worker/former MLB employee: So, you know Rob Manfred? Co-Worker: Know him? Not really, but I've certainly sat in on a few meetings with him. Edgy: Yeah, I guess marketing and labor relations wouldn't frequently have cause to meet. Co-Worker: No, not really. But I can tell you that he's kind of... he's kind of... a huge dick.

sharpie Jan 29 2015 12:14 PM Re: Email From Manfred

Couldn't find a general rule changes thread so putting it here. Better idea than outlawing defensive shifts. Would make it tougher for LOOGIEs to get jobs http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/ ... wo-batters

batmagadanleadoff Jan 29 2015 12:17 PM Re: Email From Manfred

sharpie wrote: Couldn't find a general rule changes thread so putting it here. Better idea than outlawing defensive shifts. Would make it tougher for LOOGIEs to get jobs http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/ ... wo-batters Whaddya do if a reliever gets injured, or experiences discomfort before the first at bat is resolved? Sounds like a rule that would be better suite to Strat-O-Matic or some other board game.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 29 2015 12:20 PM Re: Email From Manfred

I'd sooner advocate they reduce the size of the rosters by 1 or 2 slots, that'd teach them to make so many pitching changes. Of course the new commish wouldn't want that kind of fight on his hands right away.

Benjamin Grimm Jan 29 2015 12:41 PM Re: Email From Manfred

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Whaddya do if a reliever gets injured, or experiences discomfort before the first at bat is resolved? Sounds like a rule that would be better suite to Strat-O-Matic or some other board game. Obviously there would have to be an exception. Just like there's the exception to the must-face-one-batter rule.

Frayed Knot Jan 29 2015 01:05 PM Re: Email From Manfred

There'd be a significant increase in "injuries" to pitchers following their first batter faced if there was suddenly a two-batter minimum rule. But I predict recovery time for said injuries would be fairly rapid.

sharpie Jan 29 2015 01:16 PM Re: Email From Manfred

That article deals with the injury issue in the last graph: So let's add a rule that a reliever has to face at least two batters (I'd even be in favor of three), unless the inning ends. For those worried about a pitcher faking an injury: Fine, if a pitcher leaves with an injury, he's ineligible for the next three games and you can't replace him on the roster.

Ceetar Jan 29 2015 01:33 PM Re: Email From Manfred

sharpie wrote: That article deals with the injury issue in the last graph: So let's add a rule that a reliever has to face at least two batters (I'd even be in favor of three), unless the inning ends. For those worried about a pitcher faking an injury: Fine, if a pitcher leaves with an injury, he's ineligible for the next three games and you can't replace him on the roster. Exactly why it'll never happen. Because this means pitchers, and perhaps some managers, will be more likely to let the pitcher just 'pitch through it' risking injury if there really is something wrong. "It just felt like soreness, I didn't want to be unavailable for three games." Said Mejia while trainers put his arm in an ice bucket for transportation to the hospital to be reattached.

Frayed Knot Jan 29 2015 01:41 PM Re: Email From Manfred

I'm in favor of trying everything else first with the hope of avoiding things like rule changes, roster restrictions, or pitch clocks. If they can simply enforce the things they've talked about and which seem easy to do (maybe not by Game #1, but soon enough): 1) batter & pitcher both ready to go [u:1a5s5i73]before[/u:1a5s5i73] the half-inning break is complete - so the 2:05 breaks don't morph into 2:30 2) limit stepping-out and stepping-off and then I'll throw in 3) incoming relievers get their warm-ups in the pen that should be 15 minutes right there. Hell, [u:1a5s5i73]two seconds saved per pitch[/u:1a5s5i73] gets you more than halfway there!

Edgy MD Jan 29 2015 02:10 PM Re: Email From Manfred

Yeah, there's a lot of places to go before enforcing multi-batter minimums, which again, really changes the nature of the game. How about limiting warmup pitches for a guy who just left the pen is an easy place to start.