Kyle Drabek may not have an innings limit this season

4 Comments

In an interview with FOXSports.com’s Jon Paul Morosi earlier this week, new Blue Jays manager John Farrell didn’t dismiss the possibility that Kyle Drabek could eclipse 200 innings in his rookie season.

“You can look at the (innings) progression he’s already gone through to this point,” Farrell said of Drabek, whose father, Doug, is the former Cy Young Award winner. “What it’ll come down to now is his efficiency in games. When you look at the competitive nature of the person, and you know that the talent and personal side align, this is a very exciting and bright young prospect.

“You’re talking about someone who loves to compete and doesn’t back away from challenges. That’s his wiring and his makeup.”

Drabek, who was the centerpiece in the Roy Halladay trade, made his major league debut last September after compiling a 2.94 ERA over 162 innings with Double-A New Hampshire. He threw an additional 17 innings with the Blue Jays down the stretch, posting a 4.76 ERA and 12/5 K/BB ratio over three starts. Drabek, who underwent Tommy John surgery in 2007, tossed 158 innings in 2009 and 179 innings last season, so 200 innings isn’t out of the realm of possibility.

Of course, none of this talk will matter if Drabek struggles to adjust at the big league level. While the 23-year-old right-hander was recently ranked as the organization’s No. 1 prospect by Baseball America, his command has been shaky at times in the minors. He’ll also be pitching in what could be the toughest division in baseball, so there will likely be some bumps in the road.

Farrell has called Ricky Romero, Brett Cecil and Brandon Morrow the only locks for his starting rotation, but Drabek will likely beat out Jesse Litsch, Scott Richmond, Marc Rzepczynski and Jo-Jo Reyes for one of the final two spots during spring training.

Tony Clark thinks front offices have too much of an impact on baseball

AP Photo/Richard Drew
19 Comments

Barry Svrluga of the Washington Post spoke to MLBPA executive director Tony Clark, who said he feels that front offices have too much of an impact on the game of baseball. Clark said, “You hear players saying it’s even hard to recognize how the game is being played. If those on the field see it and experience it, then those who are watching it will notice, too. It’s not to suggest I don’t like home runs or strikeouts or walks. I like all those things. But I also like more of the strategy and the dynamics that have always determined the outcomes in our games.”

Clark continued, “The decisions that are being made are changing the game. When you’re in a climate where the decisions about how the game is being played are being made less by the players who are playing and the coaches and managers who are coaching and managing it, we find ourselves in a climate that seems to be focused in on what everybody’s calling the three true outcomes: the home run, the strikeout and the walk. I would argue that there are two true outcomes: whether you win or you lose. … I’m not saying data is a bad thing. I’m saying it’s morphed our game and its focus quite a bit.”

Clark also discussed tanking, saying, “This isn’t a player problem. It’s reflective, I believe, of very deliberate business decisions. Players as a whole compete on every pitch and every at-bat. Our industry is predicated on competition from the top down. … What it appears that we are seeing in that regard is teams withdrawing from that competition for seasons at a time. It becomes challenging when it’s more than a couple of teams that are going that route, whereby you have a considerable chasm between those that are competing at one level and those that are competing at another.”

The current collective bargaining agreement expires on December 1, 2021, so the union and the owners will have three more years of talking about these issues before they are concretely addressed. The tanking issue seems like it will almost certainly be addressed.

Clark’s concern over the impact of front offices may not be misplaced, but it’s difficult to envision any kind of rule making a difference. Limit what data teams can access? Centralize the data? The “scienceification” of baseball, if you will, was an inevitability, an evolution. In order to go in a different direction, the game will need to evolve again. Trying to tamp down data usage in baseball is akin to playing whack-a-mole with various ways with which teams will find advantages over other teams.

Major League Baseball could try to cut into the ever-increasing three true outcomes rate by changing certain things about the game without touching the data. Back in 1969, the pitcher’s mound was lowered to encourage more offense. In a similar vein, to encourage more doubles and triples and fewer home runs, stadiums could be adjusted to have the fences back to a certain distance (e.g. at least 340 feet down the lines, 410 in center). The pitcher’s mound could be moved back a few inches, lessening the impact of higher velocity, which has been a big factor in the ever-increasing strikeout rate. There are surely other ideas that smart people can come up with to bring the game towards a more active, enjoyable experience. We still have three years to go so we’ll certainly be seeing some interesting suggestions.