How about monocardian (a heart with only one ventricle)? Or pericardian, accepted as a synonym for pericardial (relating to the pericardium, or sac around the heart).
On a more (or less) serious note, great writing Joe! I love your stories that seem to shift suddenly in different directions, like stream of consciousness!
Great stuff, Joe. I like your ideas about limiting pitching changes. I also despise the shift and would "like" to put that practice on the shelf. Even better solution would be for more hitters to figure how to "hit it where they ain't".
One, on the question you posed about limiting mid-inning pitching changes, maybe you would get more traction with a different question that gets at the same point: Would you be in favor of limiting pitching staffs to 11 pitchers? If I were on Twitter, I'd probably answer your original question the same way as your audience - I'm not in favor of limiting mid-inning pitching changes, just as I'm not in favor of banning the shift, because I don't really like the restrictions on in-game strategy. However, I don't have any issues with putting parameters on roster construction. I'd love to see pitching staff sizes decreased, which, if done properly, could accomplish what you're looking for: better in-game narratives that aren't interrupted by a parade of random pitchers replacing each other. I'd actually love to see a limit to 10 pitchers, but I don't think there's any chance of that.
Forgive me if this thought has been bandied about already, but I’m vehemently against a rule that would bar mid-inning pitching changes because I suspect it would result in starters getting yanked even more quickly - instead of going 3.1 innings, managers would play it safe and yank them after the third. It absolutely kills me that starters don’t even last five innings anymore, and someday we’ll probably wind up with a middle reliever who somehow “wins” 20 games despite only pitching 90 innings. But your idea for a rule won’t make things any better, Joe.
So, you mentioned Miguel Dilone briefly in your article, and his 1980 season is one the weirdest outliers ever. Dilone came out of nowhere to hit .341 and get some down ballot MVP votes. He hit .238 over the rest of his career, before and after. He had only 3 WAR that year (as he didn't walk much and had no power - he went homerless that year) but he he had negative WAR the rest of his career. He had a 120 OPS+ that year and 67 over the rest of his career.
There have been very few such singular successful seasons like it.
I agree with the other post asking if you can tell us in advance which game you will do. I think for the next one of these I need to fix myself a hotdog, buy some bags of peanuts in the shells, and have those with a couple beers while I read the article.
Joe I think it would be a fun project to take high-level prospects in all sports and see if you could have that guy’s unknown future or some good to very good player X, who would you take. But have the comps so they make sense - Wandy Franco vs Edgar Renteria? Trevor Lawrence or Mark Brunell? Mac Jones or Steve Grogan? Etc.
Love this article, feels like we sat together at the game. One thought - any chance you could send out a quick note as to what game you will be writing about? Would love to then watch that one! If that is ever possible I’d for once in my life do my homework and watch the game you were going to tell me stories about! :) Keep up the amazing work.
Joe, a couple people mentioned Frank Howard (who retired in 1973). Certainly Reyes has nothing on him. As for pitchers, Baseball Reference might list the Candy Man at 6'7" 230 lbs and maybe he was in the mid 70s when he came up with the Pirates. I think that weight was well above that by the mid 80s.
And Rick Reuschel's 1974 Topps card lists him at 6'3" 215 lbs. I think we can all agree that his 6'3" frame was carrying a whole lot more than 215 lbs by the time he pitched for the Giants.
Bill Veeck once wrote that there are always 7-8 fans in the bleachers who revel in the details of the game, but most fans are there for the players and the stories. And if you use 7 pitchers a game and the "starter" goes 4 innings, you've lost a lot of the stories, and no one ever gets to know the individual pitchers.
I didn't respond to your survey since I don't do Twitter, but I would agree in spirit if not in the details. I don't know what the answer is, but something needs to be done. Maybe a pitcher has to face a minimum number of batters, or teams have a limit on pitching changes, but SOMETHING to cut down on the pitching changes. To my mind, one of the benefits of making a pitcher face a minimum number of batters is that the pitcher can't just throw 98 mph every pitch until the next guy is brought in. I he knows that he has to throw more pitches, maybe he husbands his resources, and we see a little more variety. And maybe get to know the pitchers a little more.
On the other hand, I think the postseason should be no more than 4 teams, so I'm yelling at clouds even more than Joe.
Since you only spent about 45 seconds compiling your list of greatest pitching prospects, I will forgive the obvious omission of the incomparable Sidd Finch. I think "cardigan" rhymes reasonably well with Guardian but I'm not sure where you go with that. Love your writing Joe.
Base runners are still important. I don't get why they don't bunt against the shift either. It would keep the defense off balance and guessing. Isn't that the point in sports? Some of those shifts are so extreme, you could bunt for a double! And then Jayson Stark would have all kinds of new stats to keep track of...
I've heard players say that hitting the other way against today's pitchers is too hard to be reliable, but it sure seems like a bunt is a free base against the shift. All these guys are happy to take a walk, you think they'd be just as happy with a free bunt base hit.
How about monocardian (a heart with only one ventricle)? Or pericardian, accepted as a synonym for pericardial (relating to the pericardium, or sac around the heart).
On a more (or less) serious note, great writing Joe! I love your stories that seem to shift suddenly in different directions, like stream of consciousness!
I'd probably add Todd van Poppel to that list of prospects?
Great stuff, Joe. I like your ideas about limiting pitching changes. I also despise the shift and would "like" to put that practice on the shelf. Even better solution would be for more hitters to figure how to "hit it where they ain't".
Two things, Joe.
One, on the question you posed about limiting mid-inning pitching changes, maybe you would get more traction with a different question that gets at the same point: Would you be in favor of limiting pitching staffs to 11 pitchers? If I were on Twitter, I'd probably answer your original question the same way as your audience - I'm not in favor of limiting mid-inning pitching changes, just as I'm not in favor of banning the shift, because I don't really like the restrictions on in-game strategy. However, I don't have any issues with putting parameters on roster construction. I'd love to see pitching staff sizes decreased, which, if done properly, could accomplish what you're looking for: better in-game narratives that aren't interrupted by a parade of random pitchers replacing each other. I'd actually love to see a limit to 10 pitchers, but I don't think there's any chance of that.
Two, "hella"? Really? Please no.
Forgive me if this thought has been bandied about already, but I’m vehemently against a rule that would bar mid-inning pitching changes because I suspect it would result in starters getting yanked even more quickly - instead of going 3.1 innings, managers would play it safe and yank them after the third. It absolutely kills me that starters don’t even last five innings anymore, and someday we’ll probably wind up with a middle reliever who somehow “wins” 20 games despite only pitching 90 innings. But your idea for a rule won’t make things any better, Joe.
So, you mentioned Miguel Dilone briefly in your article, and his 1980 season is one the weirdest outliers ever. Dilone came out of nowhere to hit .341 and get some down ballot MVP votes. He hit .238 over the rest of his career, before and after. He had only 3 WAR that year (as he didn't walk much and had no power - he went homerless that year) but he he had negative WAR the rest of his career. He had a 120 OPS+ that year and 67 over the rest of his career.
There have been very few such singular successful seasons like it.
Love it.
I agree with the other post asking if you can tell us in advance which game you will do. I think for the next one of these I need to fix myself a hotdog, buy some bags of peanuts in the shells, and have those with a couple beers while I read the article.
Joe I think it would be a fun project to take high-level prospects in all sports and see if you could have that guy’s unknown future or some good to very good player X, who would you take. But have the comps so they make sense - Wandy Franco vs Edgar Renteria? Trevor Lawrence or Mark Brunell? Mac Jones or Steve Grogan? Etc.
What's the over/under that a clever scribe will pen "Cleave the Guardian Knot" at some point soon?
Love this article, feels like we sat together at the game. One thought - any chance you could send out a quick note as to what game you will be writing about? Would love to then watch that one! If that is ever possible I’d for once in my life do my homework and watch the game you were going to tell me stories about! :) Keep up the amazing work.
Joe, a couple people mentioned Frank Howard (who retired in 1973). Certainly Reyes has nothing on him. As for pitchers, Baseball Reference might list the Candy Man at 6'7" 230 lbs and maybe he was in the mid 70s when he came up with the Pirates. I think that weight was well above that by the mid 80s.
And Rick Reuschel's 1974 Topps card lists him at 6'3" 215 lbs. I think we can all agree that his 6'3" frame was carrying a whole lot more than 215 lbs by the time he pitched for the Giants.
Bill Veeck once wrote that there are always 7-8 fans in the bleachers who revel in the details of the game, but most fans are there for the players and the stories. And if you use 7 pitchers a game and the "starter" goes 4 innings, you've lost a lot of the stories, and no one ever gets to know the individual pitchers.
I didn't respond to your survey since I don't do Twitter, but I would agree in spirit if not in the details. I don't know what the answer is, but something needs to be done. Maybe a pitcher has to face a minimum number of batters, or teams have a limit on pitching changes, but SOMETHING to cut down on the pitching changes. To my mind, one of the benefits of making a pitcher face a minimum number of batters is that the pitcher can't just throw 98 mph every pitch until the next guy is brought in. I he knows that he has to throw more pitches, maybe he husbands his resources, and we see a little more variety. And maybe get to know the pitchers a little more.
On the other hand, I think the postseason should be no more than 4 teams, so I'm yelling at clouds even more than Joe.
An item on my bucket list is to be name-checked by Joe, "My friend, Michael Hessling," one day.
Since you only spent about 45 seconds compiling your list of greatest pitching prospects, I will forgive the obvious omission of the incomparable Sidd Finch. I think "cardigan" rhymes reasonably well with Guardian but I'm not sure where you go with that. Love your writing Joe.
Base runners are still important. I don't get why they don't bunt against the shift either. It would keep the defense off balance and guessing. Isn't that the point in sports? Some of those shifts are so extreme, you could bunt for a double! And then Jayson Stark would have all kinds of new stats to keep track of...
I've heard players say that hitting the other way against today's pitchers is too hard to be reliable, but it sure seems like a bunt is a free base against the shift. All these guys are happy to take a walk, you think they'd be just as happy with a free bunt base hit.
Add Joba Chamberlain to the pitching prospect list. ESPN was nonstop "Joba Rules" talk on how to handle his workload back in 2007.