Ah dammit. With the Cubs so close to a WS we can taste it.
R.I.P. Mr. Cub
R.I.P. Mr. Cub
MLB Offseason 2014-15: Wait, pitchers and catchers report WHEN?
- Thread starter Timby
- Start date
- Status
Very sad day indeed.
I've told this story before, but Ernie Banks was one of the reasons my hatred of Joe Morgan was solidified.
It was during a Sunday night game on ESPN that Morgan went on a long-winded, utterly insane diatribe about the outfield basket in Wrigley Field, the one intended to keep drunk morons from falling out of the bleachers and onto the field. Anyway, Morgan starts babbling that during his playing days, "everybody" in baseball referred to that basket as Banks Boulevard, because Ernie Banks hit "so many of his homers into that basket."
Follow along, class, and see if you can figure out the problem from these facts:
- Ernie Banks was on the Cubs' roster from 1953 - 1971. He hit 512 home runs during that time.
- Of those 512, Morgan insisted that a lot of them landed in the basket at Wrigley Field.
- Therefore, without the basket, Banks wouldn't have had anywhere near 512 home runs.
However:
- In 1970 and 1971, Ernie only played in 111 games for the Cubs. This is important because:
- The basket wasn’t installed at Wrigley Field until May 1970.
- Banks hit only eight home runs at Wrigley Field in those two seasons, and one of them was in April of 1970, well before the basket went in.
Therefore:
- Of Ernie Banks' 512 career home runs, the most that could have landed in the basket is a grand total of seven. (And Banks' 500th home run, one of the eight hit in Wrigley Field during those final two seasons, didn't land anywhere near the basket, which gives us six.)
- Some quick math tells us that six of 512 indicates that, at the very most, just over one percent of Banks' career home runs could have possibly ended up in the basket.
So, obviously you can see why Morgan insisted on calling it Banks Boulevard, because the facts certainly bear it out.
Short version: Fuck Joe Morgan forever, Ernie Banks owns forever, let's play two.
It was during a Sunday night game on ESPN that Morgan went on a long-winded, utterly insane diatribe about the outfield basket in Wrigley Field, the one intended to keep drunk morons from falling out of the bleachers and onto the field. Anyway, Morgan starts babbling that during his playing days, "everybody" in baseball referred to that basket as Banks Boulevard, because Ernie Banks hit "so many of his homers into that basket."
Follow along, class, and see if you can figure out the problem from these facts:
- Ernie Banks was on the Cubs' roster from 1953 - 1971. He hit 512 home runs during that time.
- Of those 512, Morgan insisted that a lot of them landed in the basket at Wrigley Field.
- Therefore, without the basket, Banks wouldn't have had anywhere near 512 home runs.
However:
- In 1970 and 1971, Ernie only played in 111 games for the Cubs. This is important because:
- The basket wasn’t installed at Wrigley Field until May 1970.
- Banks hit only eight home runs at Wrigley Field in those two seasons, and one of them was in April of 1970, well before the basket went in.
Therefore:
- Of Ernie Banks' 512 career home runs, the most that could have landed in the basket is a grand total of seven. (And Banks' 500th home run, one of the eight hit in Wrigley Field during those final two seasons, didn't land anywhere near the basket, which gives us six.)
- Some quick math tells us that six of 512 indicates that, at the very most, just over one percent of Banks' career home runs could have possibly ended up in the basket.
So, obviously you can see why Morgan insisted on calling it Banks Boulevard, because the facts certainly bear it out.
Short version: Fuck Joe Morgan forever, Ernie Banks owns forever, let's play two.
Great post, Timby! Joe Morgan wishes he could have had an off-year like Banks, who was far better player than he was. I wonder how many championships Morgan's Reds would have won had Banks (who played SS for much his career) played 2B in Morgan's place.
As an aside, I'd never heard those baskets referred as Banks Boulevard; I'd always thought of them as Sandberg baskets.
--Sran
As an aside, I'd never heard those baskets referred as Banks Boulevard; I'd always thought of them as Sandberg baskets.
--Sran
Rob Manfred's first two acts as commissioner:
- Appoints the broke, probably criminally culpable Ponzi scheme "victim" as the chairman of the finance committee.
- Announces plans to consider making defensive shifts illegal.
... goodness....Huh? Know Ortiz will give him a standing ovation if that goes through. That thing kills him...
What's the reasoning there? Slows things down to wander over, but is it really that bad? "hurts" offense, but you can always try to hit around it...
That kills Tex too
The deal is hitters aren't adapting. It is hurting offensive numbers (so they say).
This is as bad as the old rule in the NBA stating you couldn't play zone defense.
^Ryan Howard as well (provided he plays again). He might actually hit above .230 with the shift out of play. In any case, this is an idiotic move if it gets approved. It's the responsibility of the hitter to adapt to the way he's been played (and pitched). If guys like Howard and Ortiz don't want hits taken away by the shift, they should learn to hit the ball the other way on the ground.
--Sran
--Sran
^Probably a way to get more offense into the game. My question is, what does it matter? Hitters had their run of dominance during the 90s. With the new regulations concerning PED use, the pendulum has swing back toward the pitchers. I don't see that as a problem, as it forces the hitters to adjust in order to be successful.
I'd much rather see Buster Posey--one of the game's best players--hit .311 and finish third in the NL batting race than I would some no-name middle-infielder hit .357 and land a contract he would otherwise never have earned. Manfried has been around baseball long enough to understand that the game goes through cycles. His meddling with something that wasn't broken is more likely to cause problems than solve them.
--Sran
I'd much rather see Buster Posey--one of the game's best players--hit .311 and finish third in the NL batting race than I would some no-name middle-infielder hit .357 and land a contract he would otherwise never have earned. Manfried has been around baseball long enough to understand that the game goes through cycles. His meddling with something that wasn't broken is more likely to cause problems than solve them.
--Sran
It is my understanding that baseball struggles with the length of its games. How exactly is increased run production and the resultant increased time consumed each inning going to help that problem?
The thing is, there's been no change in BABIP over the last few seasons when the number of shifts drastically increased -- there's not really any empirical evidence suggesting that they have anything to do with declining offensive numbers.
The other kind of hilarious thing is that Joe Maddon's reputation as a managerial savant is based upon him reviving old discarded shifts from, like, 1955. The Cubs' shiny new prize is going to need to learn something new if his favorite toy gets taken away from him.
Last edited:
God. If you can't hit to adjust to it, you don't deserve to get a hit.
I realize that my team doesn't matter, but, even if Ryan Howard were still in his prime, I'd still have a problem with it. Although I think power hitting baseball is boring baseball. I don't see why they need to encourage this kind of play when they can't do it on their own merits.
I mean, it can go either way. The shift increases time of the game, devalues left-handed pull hitters, it's visually un-stimulating, and has no legitimate great impact on the game overall (outside of the fact that a very small subset of players can't react to them). Beyond that, MLB bans plenty of things without evidence for the reason that they make the game look less pretty or desirable (outfielders can't start in foul territory, for example).
I agree. And for the record, I don't believe defensive shifts are the cause of Howard's problems; age and injury are the reason for his decline. Be that as it may, even a 2008 Ryan Howard couldn't lay off breaking pitches low and out of the strike zone.
I don't believe getting rid of shifts is going to change much of anything. Guys like Howard and Ortiz might get a few more cheap singles to boost their batting averages, but offenses won't improve with slow-footed power hitters clogging the bases. I'm willing to give Manfried the benefit of the doubt because he just took over, but if this is the sort of nonsense we've to look forward to, I'd prefer he let someone else have job, preferably someone who doesn't have his head up his ass.
--Sran
Manfred has led the efforts to break the union in every CBA negotiation beginning with the 1994 strike; there is no reason to give him the benefit of any doubt. For as much as Selig screwed up during his tenure (oh hey there, contraction scheme), he did preside over 20 years of uninterrupted labor peace, which is something that no other professional sport in North America has been able to say -- and he did so by understanding that the league needed to come to the table with the union. Manfred seems more willing to just do everything he can to destroy the union.
I also find it bothersome that baseball's new commissioner feels the game is boring to the point that he feels the need to consider banning something that, in the big scheme of things, doesn't cause substantial delays in the pace of the game. He should think his product is the best; otherwise, he shouldn't be the commissioner. If Manfred wants to make the game prettier, he should try to negotiate the ban of the use of chewing tobacco by players and coaches during the negotiations for the next CBA that should begin late this year.
Hence the second portion of my comment; if Manfred is incapable of seeing the big picture, I'd prefer he let someone else have his job. I don't think eliminating defensive shifts is likely to make that much of a difference one way or the other, and don't understand why he's focusing on it.
I completely agree with your comments about chewing tobacco--and not merely because Tony Gwynn lost his battle with cancer; it's a serious problem in professional baseball and should have been banned many years ago.
I was surprised that Selig never did anything about it, though it did take him nearly ten years to do something about the rampant use of performance enhancing drugs. Rick Helling was quoted as far back as 1995 as saying that he thought something was amiss with the rapid increases in home runs (and the sizes of players' upper-bodies). Manfred would do well to get tobacco out of the sport--and to do something about the stadium situations in both Tampa Bay and Oakland.
I stand by my earlier comments. I'm willing to give Manfred two years to prove he's not a Good Ole' Boy appointee. If he's not fixed any of the above problems by the end of 2016, I'll join you in calling for his head.
--Sran
Well, MLB has brought up the chewing tobacco thing as far back as the 2002 CBA, but the union has fought against it.
PEDs were an issue well before 1995 (hell, Frank Thomas was sending his piss to an independent lab for testing by '95, and I don't recall Helling saying anything until '98); going as far back to the early '80s, people were saying that something was clearly wrong with the way guys were getting huge -- Keith Hernandez was an early example, and of course there was clearly something in the water in Oakland.
My point was that Manfred was a poor choice from the beginning, and I'm expecting him to be even more of a "chief owner acting on behalf of the owners" player than Selig was, and likely to have similar problems to what Roger Goodell is facing in the NFL -- his history in labor negotiations and even his statements since he was elected in August rather clearly indicate his focus is on maximizing profits over everything else and furthering the league's agenda. Again, Manfred is the guy who presided over MLB's investigative unit, which interfered in state and federal investigations during the Alex Rodriguez witch hunt and engaged in some rather unsavory behavior in trying to investigate a game-fixing scandal that turned out to be a hoax.
The fact that he seems to believe the game he presides over is boring is just the icing on the cake.
Joe Morgan is a crappy announcer and analyst but he was one of the better 2B to play, not sure about your 2nd point considering Banks was long retired when the Reds were winning titles in the 70's.
- Status
