• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Astros to Al West in 2013

Say Hey Deac said:
I have never heard of a team drafting a pitcher because he can hit or passing on a pitcher because he can't hit, so I don't think that is an issue.
Click to expand...

NL teams absolutley factor hitting into the equation. I played baseball with a couple of guys who now scout for the Marlins and Brewers. They have mentioned it before. That is why I am wondering if this will mess with their farm teams pitching staffs at all.
 
york1313 said:
NL teams absolutley factor hitting into the equation. I played baseball with a couple of guys who now scout for the Marlins and Brewers. They have mentioned it before. That is why I am wondering if this will mess with their farm teams pitching staffs at all.
Click to expand...

I kinda doubt this. If NL teams were concerned with producing pitchers who can hit, then they would probably let their pitchers hit in the minor leagues, and they don't.
 
ChrisPaul3 said:
I kinda doubt this. If NL teams were concerned with producing pitchers who can hit, then they would probably let their pitchers hit in the minor leagues, and they don't.
Click to expand...

You doubt what I was told? Ok.......
 
I actually believe NL teams should make their pitchers focus on hitting more. Just seems like common sense. Its one of the reasons I hate the NL. NL fans say real baseball means the pitchers have to hit. But at the same time they dont expect them to ever actually hit the ball. So we have to watch 1/9 of the lineup struggle through atrocious ABs. Its stupid.
 
DeacMan said:
I like it because it forces managers to make tough decisions about when to yank pitchers for a PH.
Click to expand...

I mean I get that. There is another layer of strategy. But why not expect a little more out of your starting pitchers. They hit all the time, especially the good SPs.
 
york1313 said:
NL teams absolutley factor hitting into the equation. I played baseball with a couple of guys who now scout for the Marlins and Brewers. They have mentioned it before. That is why I am wondering if this will mess with their farm teams pitching staffs at all.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you were told, but I'm guessing what they're looking for is athleticism. A high school or college pitcher who can hit is probably more of a natural athlete than a pitcher who can't (note that in high school and sometimes even in college, the same player is probably pitching one day a week and playing a position when he's not pitching). And I can imagine a scout generally preferring an athletic pitcher to a non-athletic pitcher.

But to the idea that an organization would scout a high school pitcher to evaluate his future ability to hit in MLB, again, I've never heard anything like that and find it highly unlikely. I suspect if you asked Keith Law or one of the Baseball America guys in one of their online chats, they would confirm my suspicion.

Pitching in MLB is really hard. Hitting in MLB is really hard. I think people don't realize how difficult it is to do both things well. For example, Tim Hudson was an absolute hitting beast in college. His senior year at Auburn he hit .396 with 18 HRs. Today, as far as pitchers go in MLB, he is considered a pretty good hitter. Which means he has 2 HRs and a career .166 BA. That's how hard it is to hit in MLB.

To me, one of the most amazing stats in MLB is that Tim Lincecum has 37 career hits. The fact that he has any is pretty crazy. Dude didn't bat after his freshman year of high school.
 
KLaw would absolutely field that question just to provide a smart ass response.
 
Say Hey Deac said:
I'm not sure what you were told, but I'm guessing what they're looking for is athleticism. A high school or college pitcher who can hit is probably more of a natural athlete than a pitcher who can't (note that in high school and sometimes even in college, the same player is probably pitching one day a week and playing a position when he's not pitching). And I can imagine a scout generally preferring an athletic pitcher to a non-athletic pitcher.

But to the idea that an organization would scout a high school pitcher to evaluate his future ability to hit in MLB, again, I've never heard anything like that and find it highly unlikely. I suspect if you asked Keith Law or one of the Baseball America guys in one of their online chats, they would confirm my suspicion.

Pitching in MLB is really hard. Hitting in MLB is really hard. I think people don't realize how difficult it is to do both things well. For example, Tim Hudson was an absolute hitting beast in college. His senior year at Auburn he hit .396 with 18 HRs. Today, as far as pitchers go in MLB, he is considered a pretty good hitter. Which means he has 2 HRs and a career .166 BA. That's how hard it is to hit in MLB.

To me, one of the most amazing stats in MLB is that Tim Lincecum has 37 career hits. The fact that he has any is pretty crazy. Dude didn't bat after his freshman year of high school.
Click to expand...

This is why having the pitcher hit in the big leagues is soo stupid. Every level of baseball from high school up, except the National League, has the DH. Most pitchers start to specialize late in high school or in college, and they don't hit at any level until the highest level, that makes no sense. To stick with the Lincecum example, he stopped getting in game at bats at 15 and then 8 years later when he reached the big leagues at 23 you expect him to hit against the best pitchers on the planet. He's lucky he didnt get hurt.
 
TexasDeac10 said:
Regular basis? It wasn't long ago that we owned you.


Dallas fan being a Dallas fan.
Click to expand...

Haha. Chill bro. I was just messing around. Guess I'll use more emoticons next time.

Anyway, I too, don't really like this move at all. Takes away the interstate rivalry.
 
I barely watched any Astros games this year (mostly because it was too depressing), but playing tons of west coast games, I probably will watch even less now.
 
I've said in many other threads that the current format was unfair. Why should the AL West teams have a 25% chance of making the playoffs while the AL Central teams only have a 16.66% chance?

Anyone know the details on the increase to playoff teams. I read something about 2 new wildcard teams but wasn't sure if it was 2 per league (12 playoff teams total) or 1 each per league, 2 total (so 10 playoff teams). And i'm also wondering if that means 3 teams from the same division could make the playoffs. If 5 teams made the playoffs (3 division winner plus next best 2 records) the Red Sox would've made the playoffs in 2011, 2010, and 2002.
 
Brendan207 said:
I've said in many other threads that the current format was unfair. Why should the AL West teams have a 25% chance of making the playoffs while the AL Central teams only have a 16.66% chance?

Anyone know the details on the increase to playoff teams. I read something about 2 new wildcard teams but wasn't sure if it was 2 per league (12 playoff teams total) or 1 each per league, 2 total (so 10 playoff teams). And i'm also wondering if that means 3 teams from the same division could make the playoffs. If 5 teams made the playoffs (3 division winner plus next best 2 records) the Red Sox would've made the playoffs in 2011, 2010, and 2002.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure they are just adding one wild card team in each league. The two teams that earn the wild-card births will then have a 1 game playoff in order to play (im assuming) the top team in the league. Really puts an emphasis on winning your division as anything can happen in one game of baseball.
 
Brendan207 said:
I've said in many other threads that the current format was unfair. Why should the AL West teams have a 25% chance of making the playoffs while the AL Central teams only have a 16.66% chance?

Anyone know the details on the increase to playoff teams. I read something about 2 new wildcard teams but wasn't sure if it was 2 per league (12 playoff teams total) or 1 each per league, 2 total (so 10 playoff teams). And i'm also wondering if that means 3 teams from the same division could make the playoffs. If 5 teams made the playoffs (3 division winner plus next best 2 records) the Red Sox would've made the playoffs in 2011, 2010, and 2002.
Click to expand...

Under these rules, I think the Red Sox would've been in a one game wild card playoff in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011.
 
Wakelaw2006 said:
I barely watched any Astros games this year (mostly because it was too depressing), but playing tons of west coast games, I probably will watch even less now.
Click to expand...

You'll have 82 games in Houston, Plus another 10ish against the Rangers? In addition you play 3 away games against all the AL teams in the AL central and East.

Guessing at least a 100 in your time zone or EST. Don't really get the whining about the west coast. In addition, they will come on at 9, and the game will be over (for the Astros) by 10:00. That gets you plenty of sleep.

You said you barely watched. You'll have 100 or so chances at a reasonable time "barely watch" your Astros.
 
SDeacz said:
You'll have 82 games in Houston, Plus another 10ish against the Rangers? In addition you play 3 away games against all the AL teams in the AL central and East.

Guessing at least a 100 in your time zone or EST. Don't really get the whining about the west coast. In addition, they will come on at 9, and the game will be over (for the Astros) by 10:00. That gets you plenty of sleep.

You said you barely watched. You'll have 100 or so chances at a reasonable time "barely watch" your Astros.
Click to expand...

1) I live in Atlanta, so West Coast games will start at 10 and not be over until almost 1.
2) I have a job, so all weekday day games are already out.
3) I don't plan my life around Astros games. All I said is that the move to the AL West means that I will likely watch less games. On any given day, playing in the AL west means there is less of a chance that the game will start and end at a time that I will be able watch it.
4) There are plenty of other reasons I don't like this move, I was simply agreeing with others who said it also sucks for TV purposes.
 
Last edited:
Wakelaw2006 said:
1) I live in Atlanta, so West Coast games will start at 10 and not be over until almost 1.
2) I have a job, so all weekday day games are already out.
3) I don't plan my life around Astros games. All I said is that the move to the AL West means that I will likely watch less games. On any given day, playing in the AL west means there is less of a chance that the game will start and end at a time that I will be able watch it.
4) There are plenty of other reasons I don't like this move, I was simply agreeing with others who said it also sucks for TV purposes.
Click to expand...

It definitely sucks. Having both the Rangers and the Stars in the West sucks, and I live in central time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top