SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Recent Posts
|
Post by p23w on Mar 31, 2019 16:31:04 GMT -5
Starters need to cowboy up.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Mar 30, 2019 0:33:39 GMT -5
Worth the wait.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Mar 29, 2019 22:29:54 GMT -5
Just not good.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Mar 10, 2019 10:57:09 GMT -5
Did anyone watch JBJ with a mic for yesterday's game on ESPN? He was out in CF talking to the guys in the booth and he was moving during every pitch, always in a different direction. It's something that you don't get to see very often because the camera isn't on him before the ball is hit to CF, but it sure is something to see even in a spring training game. The dedication he has to defense is kind of crazy. That in nutshell is why viewing live baseball broadcasts are so uninteresting. (That and the mindless chatter from the play by play orators). The technology exist to have fixed cameras on the position players and PIP on your smart TV. When that happens sign ,me up tp subscribe, not before.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Feb 20, 2019 8:57:28 GMT -5
Machado is in the NL..= good. Machado is not a NYY...= good. The Padres are (at best) a .500 team in 2019....(yawn). 2020 and beyond should be interesting.... unless the Dodgers view the Machado signing as a move to defcon 4... and sign Harper, which keeps Bryce in the NL which is a good thing. It's all good for the Red Sox IMO.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Feb 17, 2019 8:14:32 GMT -5
Saw video of pedrioa taking batting practice and it is clear that he is still not 100 percent. Let’s hope things improve over the next 5 weeks. Ditto. I have to wonder if there is an exercise that Pedey could do prior to BP. Seems like a different stress and range of motion when in the batters box as opposed to fielding or base running. Or not. Could be just wishful thinking on my part.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Feb 12, 2019 18:43:35 GMT -5
I;m in FLA and expect to visit camp next week. Hopefully after some of the hype has dissipated. For me biggest question mark and hope is not Sale's weight or ERod's condition, i'll be focused on Pedey. Last year they won it all with Dustin riding the pine. This season we have a full year of Eovaldi, a (please God) healthy Price, and a more patient approach from Devers. If Cora can work his magic we can repeat. How sweet this would be. Life is renewed on opening day.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Feb 12, 2019 18:27:16 GMT -5
Don't want to overplay this, but the analytics guru who came from the Cards to the Astros when Luhnow became GM is now with the Orioles. Jon Meoli has an in depth look at the approach for the Baltimore Sun. Here's more insight into what they're doing at Fangraphs, trying to revive the career of Nate Karns. The days of signing up for a ride on the Chris Davis roller coaster appear to be over. The Orioles are a new ownership away from contending. The hype of stat geeks, new managers, GM's notwithstanding.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Feb 12, 2019 7:36:40 GMT -5
Roniel Raudes: I tweaked my elbow. It still hurts. Can you check it?Med Tech: Sure! Here are your MRI results.Dr. James Andrews, the best orthopedic surgeon in the world: Inconclusive right now: here is a good PT regimen for the next few months. Rehab, and we will re-evaluate in January.
pedrofanforever45, the highest-volume poster on SoxProspects: Bogus! Get surgery now! While you're young! You might even throw harder when it's done!Roniel Raudes: This is a tough choice weighing the conflicting opinions of these two highly-trained experts who gave my medical documents the same thorough review. Kinda' reminds me of the Tanaka scenario. Tough choices.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Feb 10, 2019 10:28:20 GMT -5
Ok I just need to clear up some stuff about the mound height. The mound prior to 1969 was 15". In 1963 MLB increased the top of the strike zone to the top of the shoulders in response to what Maris and Mantle did in 1961. With a 15" high mound and an increased strike zone pitchers ran riot. The 60's was the decade of the pitcher. 1963 coincided with the beginning of Koufax's insane 4 year run to end his career. In 1968 Bob Gibson was 22-9 with a 1.12 ERA. The same year in the AL Denny McLain became the last pitcher to win 30 games, 31-6 with a 1.97 ERA. Yaz was the only AL hitter to break .300 that season. The Year of the Pitcher. MLB responded, realizing they had gone too far in helping the pitchers, in 1969 (not 1966) by lowering the mound to 10" and moving the top of the strike zone back down to the midpoint between the shoulders and the belt. It was not about, somehow, negating home field advantage. It was completely about injecting more offense back in the game that the pitchers had dominated for the previous 6 years. It worked. As I was typing this I was thinking what Pedro in his prime would have done throwing off a 15" high mound with a strike zone that extended to the top of the shoulders. LOL, he probably would have had and ERA below 1.00 and likely would have struck out 400+ batters for at least a couple of the years. The point being I think history shows that lowering the mound helps the hitters. And I think a conclusion can be assumed that higher scoring games lead to longer games. So I think lowering the mound will not help MLB reduce the length of the games and will actually increase it. Koufax, once in Los Angeles, had mounds as high as 22" when he started (not so Drysdale). Sandy's ERA was close to one run less per nine when pitching in Chavez ravine. He took full advantage of his home field grounds crew. This possibly also contributed to his premature arm problems, but we will never know because he quit prior to the mound lowering rules taking affect. Bob Gibson, OTOH, was less concerned about where he towed the rubber. His career splits were within .25 runs per nine home or away. There is no evidence, anecdotal or otherwise to suggest that Gibson had the ground crews tailor the mound to suit his wishes. Pedro probably would have blown out his arm by age 30, a-la Koufax had he had the grounds crew give him an extra 5 inches or so to his mound. Keep in mind that the dimensions of ballparks evolved also. Ebbets field was replaced by Chavez ravine, as an example. There was no DH and there was more emphasis on defense. When serious hitters like Ernie Banks showed up they were moved to positions like 1B almost automatically. (Joe Torre is another example). Pitchers like Ryne Duren suffered from the new strike zone. Walks went up which contributed to offensive production, but not necessarily to the entertainment value for the fan. I have no issues with the length of games, but I do believe if that is a concern that the chief reason has to do with mound visits and pitching changes. Part of me likes this, part of me find it interminable. Since I'm not fond of watching baseball on a screen, I could care less. Once confined to a screen I usually find something else to do when this situation reaches my attention threshold.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Feb 10, 2019 9:14:38 GMT -5
The only free markets are one's that are unregulated. Drug dealing is the best example. Drug dealing is pretty regulated - as in it’s illegal. That’s a black market - hardly a free one. I'm not referencing big pharma. Black markets are not free markets, they infringe on copyrights like rolex The products themselves are not illegal. Free markets have no price controls, no quality assurance, cartels thrive and they don't pay taxes. There are no barriers to entry. Read some Adam Smith.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Feb 10, 2019 8:56:23 GMT -5
Move the pitching rubber back 3 feet and you open up the bunting game, and we all know how this board eschews the bunt. [/quote ]Actually it would more likely put a bit more emphasis on athleticism of pitchers,catchers and corner infielders. And I think the board eschews the sacrifice bunt, not bunting for a hit so there's that also. Well that would take care of about 1/5 of today's starting rotations, C.C. Sabbath comes to mind. Kansas City would be an overnight contender. Omar Vizquell would come out of retirement. Blake Swihart would have a starting job.Raphael Devers would be a DH. The ramifications would go on and on. But the real reason it won't happen is due to the radical change in pitching statistics. SABR would implode.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Feb 9, 2019 19:23:27 GMT -5
The free agent class of 2018 is undergoing market correction. Teams will sign players when it suits there needs. Once the players and their agents figure out that the days of AROD and Stanton are gone (with the possible exception of Trout) signings will occur. Until then I am more than content to spend the hot stove season discussing rosters, prospects, potential draftees and the like. In other words game related discussion and not big media driven agenda. Turns me off big time. You'll want to reconsider your statement, here. There is no free market during what is more often than not the most valuable part of a player's career. So the backend correction needs a frontend correction to address what is really at the heart of the problem: a market inefficiency that allows ownership to take 90% and more of a players value when they are at their best with no competition at all for those services.Okay, I'll bite where is the mention of free market in this thread. The market correction taking place is to a market regulated, mostly by the current CBA. The "frontend" correction is the revenue infusion courtesy of big media complete with advertising revenues. These contracts are negotiated by MLB and individual teams. Congress has given team owners rights (priveleges?) with respect to negotiating with labor (players). The resolution that you seem to be hinting at would be through a new CBA with the players union making revenue sharing demands. I can just envision Aaron Judge in uniform doing a 10 second clip for viagra during a TV time out and just before Chris Sale K's him a-la Manny Machado. Must see TV. The free market jargon is meaningless unless you're willing to address that inefficiency. The only free markets are one's that are unregulated. Drug dealing is the best example.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Feb 9, 2019 15:47:51 GMT -5
Move the pitching rubber back 3 feet and you open up the bunting game, and we all know how this board eschews the bunt.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Feb 9, 2019 8:48:50 GMT -5
THE only time the mound was lowered was after the 1966 season. Prior to that ground crews would follow instructions from the home team (manager, pitching coach, pitcher) as to the height and slope of the mound. Once the mounds were all the same the home field advantage dissipated and the playing field was "leveled" so to speak.
What MLB should do is to have an independent 3rd party test and certify all the balls for bounce/rebound. Softball leagues (mens women and co-ed) have over a dozen standards for core compression and they use one setting with which to certify (ball velocity) bat legality. We do this for the integrated of the game as well as to reduce injuries. Heck, we even have two bags for first base, one for the defender and one for the runner. Revenues and attendance are at an all time high. [/b]I am pretty sure MLB knows how the ball core reacts. My suggestion for lowering the mound is to descrease strikeouts (ie more balls in play). My suggestion for deadening the ball is to decrease home runs (ie more balls in play). If one is done with the other it will favor offense or defense too drastically.[/b] I have seen no evidence of core temperature consistency in MLB balls. Teams have been known to freeze game balls prior to the first pitch. This has a drastic effect on bat velocities. MLB has already paid for at least one study exploring mound height. www.ksdk.com/mobile/article/sports/mlb/will-mlb-lower-the-pitchers-mound/448854491While this studying appears interesting, my take is that it fails to take several bio mechanical issues into account. Specifically any measurement of the individual pitchers physical maturity/ability to reliably or safely utilize his given ability. I make the assumption that a pitcher is best suited to subject his elbow/wrist/shoulder stresses only after his physical growth has reached it's peak (23.9 years is the accepted average). I could be wrong in that assumption, but it does coincide with the preponderance of sub 24 year old reconstructive surgeries in pitchers. Speculating with respect to "norms" also fails to take into account the genetic anomaly outside the bell curve. Walter Johnson, Bob Feller, Bob Gibson, Nolan Ryan and perhaps even Justin Verlander come to mind.If optimum performance from pitchers accepts the miracle of modern medicine (spin rate at all costs), then let it be so. Standardize the mound height according to your study, but for the sake of the games integrity keep the mound distance to home plate, otherwise based on your premise of "more action" change the 19th century rule of 90 feet between bases. (The 19th Century "Boston" distance was 75 feet and quickly gave way to the New Jersey/New York rule of 90 feet, circa 1884. the height of the mound in 1966 was set without really much scientific basis, in an era were velocities don’t match today’s game. The distance from home to the mound was set in the 19th century. This was an arbitrary decision to remove home field advantage. There are legions of stories that account for this. The one that was sold to the fans was offensive production. The real story is that this eliminated the advantage that many home teams exploited to give advantage to their pitchers (perceived or otherwise). Sandy Koufax quit the game, Bob Gibson kept on truckin'. I believe that MLB should explore combining these two changes to reach an optimal result. If we know what velocity and spin rate will be on a lowered mound, and we know what exit velocity will be on a deadened ball, we should be able to get an idea of the amount of balls in play. I'm not sure what "optimal result" entails. My take is that the game is best understood (by players and fans alike) if they focus on adjustments and match ups. Some component to this is psychological for the players (I'm not sure the fan(atic) possess that faculty, but again I could be wrong.) Balls in play mean more
If your metric is balls in play, then we are at loggerheads. I can get as much enjoyment out of the routine play by observing the minute shifts in defensive alignment and the body language of the batter and pitcher (mostly the batter) from pitch to pitch.Of course you have to be there in person to pick up these subtleties because you just don't get them from s screen. But hey that's just one man's opinion. ![](http://mlb.mlb.com/images/0/5/0/193842050/080516_cinpit_j_harrison_play_med_nfh30md6.gif) ![](http://mlb.mlb.com/images/2/1/4/173928214/042216_bos_betts_double_medfix_gg366fi6.gif) ![](https://thumbs.gfycat.com/BoilingContentGoitered-small.gif) [/quote]
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Feb 8, 2019 21:16:03 GMT -5
I am warm to the idea of Buchholz returning, but I'd sooner see Kimbrel on the roster.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Feb 8, 2019 21:11:18 GMT -5
The last time they lowered the mounds batting averages shot up and runs came back. It was after the year of the pitcher. Then it went too much the other way by the 1990s. Now the ERAs are more reasonable but the offense consists of the three true outcomes a lot more. I just think if they lower the mound further or worse move the pitching distance back, the runs/game could really boost and games could go a lot longer than they're going now. I think sometimes you just have to let that kind of thing ebb and flow and not try to create rules to control it. Well, they could lower the mound and deaden the ball. If the goal is to have more hits, less strikeouts and less hone runs, wouldn’t the combination allow all three? MLB appears to want the game to be more of a 1930s style game. In that scenario, the ball stays in the ball park, but there are lots of doubles and hits such that there is more excitement than guys walking and occasionally homering. THE only time the mound was lowered was after the 1966 season. Prior to that ground crews would follow instructions from the home team (manager, pitching coach, pitcher) as to the height and slope of the mound. Once the mounds were all the same the home field advantage dissipated and the playing field was "leveled" so to speak.
What MLB should do is to have an independent 3rd party test and certify all the balls for bounce/rebound. Softball leagues (mens women and co-ed) have over a dozen standards for core compression and they use one setting with which to certify (ball velocity) bat legality. We do this for the integrated of the game as well as to reduce injuries. Heck, we even have two bags for first base, one for the defender and one for the runner. Revenues and attendance are at an all time high.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Feb 8, 2019 20:52:59 GMT -5
Can putting a runner on second base for extra innings be far behind? Please no to that. That's the equivalent of a hockey overtime shootout. No thank you. How about actually playing baseball when it's extra innings? Gimmicks need not apply. Most extra inning games are done within an inning or two. Doesn't make sense to play baseball differently just because something out of the ordinary, like an 18 inning World Series game happens. That's like the overreaction from the tie game in the All-Star game that prompted home field advantage in the World Series because of an exhibition game result. I am cool with the ideas of implementing a NL DH (it's about time) and making a pitcher have to face at least 3 batters and other things like adding an extra roster spot all season and knocking down the roster number in September. We've put a runner on 2B in Senior SB tournaments for years..... It's really helped our attendance and fan interest....(Yawn). Most of us still resist the DH and have the pitchers bat. Keeps the ringers from showing up.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Feb 7, 2019 20:00:02 GMT -5
I think this thread is a red herring. If Machado, Harper, Kimbrel, et al had signed or were in deep negotiations this topic doesn't mentioned. The media pundits need fodder. 1. These would be most significant rule changes for baseball in decades. There's no scenario where they wouldn't be big news. The proposed rule changes are media driven, IF MLB wants to cure the pundits lament over "wasted time", eliminate the 3+ minute commercial breaks between innings. The other "lament" driving this thread is the "loss" of up coming generations to the game. This is where the social scientists play the guilt trip game. What is stupid is that they use media uses click or watch rates to draw these conclusions. Forget cognitive analysis or discussion, show me time stressed action. 2. Why are people operating under the assumption that a Harper/Machado signing would somehow generate enough news to fill an entire offseason? We'd talk about it for a day or two and move on. The free agent class of 2018 is undergoing market correction. Teams will sign players when it suits there needs. Once the players and their agents figure out that the days of AROD and Stanton are gone (with the possible exception of Trout) signings will occur. Until then I am more than content to spend the hot stove season discussing rosters, prospects, potential draftees and the like. In other words game related discussion and not big media driven agenda. Turns me off big time.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Feb 7, 2019 19:34:13 GMT -5
In all seriousness, Frank Robinson is one of those players where you can read about for hours. Two time MVP in both leagues. Player/manager. He only struck out 789 times to 698 walks. Unheard of in today's game. Nearly 600 homeruns. I need to go to baseball HOF to see a plaque like this someday. My memory of Frank Robinson consists mostly of his clutch hitting against the Red Sox. Great player no doubt.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Feb 6, 2019 20:04:44 GMT -5
I think this thread is a red herring. If Machado, Harper, Kimbrel, et al had signed or were in deep negotiations this topic doesn't mentioned. The media pundits need fodder.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Jan 4, 2019 13:38:21 GMT -5
File this under the meaningless take department. One word answer to a question with the word “potential”. 5% chance equals potential. Eh, Keith is often terse like that. He is saying that he likes Feltman and that he's relatively close to being a contributor. He's not the type who would just say "yes" if he thought there was only a 5% of a chance it was going to happen. I've been saying the same thing about Kimbrel for years. He's more reliant on his velocity than just about any pitcher I can think of. That's a scary thought when considering a 4+ year deal with him at age 30. There's a fine line between Kimbrel being dominant and him being out of the majors IMO. Yeah. And the thing is, I can be talked into paying a year at the end for quality in the early end of the contract. But Kimbrel doesn't give the kind of confidence in 2019 that a high-end free agent should. There's a much better chance he totally washes out than most guys in his position. There's also a chance that he's the best reliever in baseball, but it's a tougher risk/reward balance than you see with other free agents, IMO. So I agree that I just don't like him on a four year deal. I'd have no problem with three, because the reward is really high in the short term. But I totally get why Kimbrel sees the Jansen and Chapman deals and doesn't want to settle for three. I don't buy the tipping pitches argument. I think it was attributable to lack of command brought about by an inconsistent arm angle/ release point. Agree with a 3 year deal for Kimbrel
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Dec 13, 2018 17:32:01 GMT -5
Hererra and/or Soria + Barnes, Brasier, Thornburg, Hembree, Lakins, Workman, Brewer, Wright, Johnson, Velasquez is a strong, deep, bullpen combining power and mult-inning arms to start the season. More in the minors. Why worry?!? No offense Gerry but when you talk about our players it's almost like you recite their names as if they're all-stars and HOFers. There are some fungible/question marks in that list of names you rattled off. Herrera is coming off an injury as is Wright and Thornburg. They are all big question marks. Hembree and Workman are ok, but nothing special. Same with Johnson and Velazquez who are more of starting pitching depth. Brasier, you hope is as good as he was last season. Can Barnes be the closer if need be? Is Brewer more than a AAAA pitcher? I see that list and see question marks. I don't see a pen that's necessarily better than other bullpens from other teams. But with pens who knows? The pen had a ton of question marks and suddenly became nails in the post-season.[/b][/b] I would attribute most of the "nails in the post-season" narrative to Alex Cora. Judicious use of available arms was what I saw. Kelly was the only real standout and given his post season track record this should not come as a surprise. Can this team realize the same results in 2019? Will the bullpen playoff success of 2018 be duplicated? Will the hold overs from 2018 build their own post season track record success? This team won while passing on numerous bullpen options (costly) in 2018. I strongly suspect they will attempt to do likewise for 2019.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Dec 13, 2018 14:53:12 GMT -5
Say what you will about Joe Kelly, he was nails in the post season. Not Shilling nails, but for a reliever he delivered in the post season. I would think the Dodgers factored this into their decision.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Dec 7, 2018 23:23:13 GMT -5
I want to know how the RS brain trust projects IP pitched from the starters. From my perspective we don't have a 200 IP starter, with the possible exception of Porcello. The only starter who might make 30+ starts is also Porcello. I'm not complaining mind you, but my optimistic projection is for 895 IP from the top 5 starters and 140 GS. This would translate into about an additional 130 IP by additional starters. The alternative is a blown out bullpen come September. I think this is doable. I also think it would not be an issue if MLB reverted to a 154 game schedule. Already looking forward to 2019 with the strong desire for a repeat. Hope the clubhouse feels the same as I do.
|
|
|