Ha. Forgot you have to have tenure to be the arbiter of funny.Deleted a couple posts by noobs who aren’t as funny as they think.
Ha. Forgot you have to have tenure to be the arbiter of funny.Deleted a couple posts by noobs who aren’t as funny as they think.
It was only 16 innings, but Phillips Valdez’s sinker had an elite spin rate last year, for what it’s worth. Makes sense to me that a guy who can throw that pitch with above-average velocity and pair it with a change up might be an interesting project.But we're getting a guy who provides 92.4% of the speed of a 100mph reliever at less than 1/10 the cost!
In all seriousness, he seems to be a hard sinkerballer, for which 92 isn't bad but he is not exactly throwing bowling balls either.
To me it looks like Valdez has a Pedro-esque delivery with a very wiry frame. Actually perhaps a little more Ramon than Pedro.
So maybe "filthy" would be more apropos than "hard-throwing".It was only 16 innings, but Phillips Valdez’s sinker had an elite spin rate last year, for what it’s worth. Makes sense to me that a guy who can throw that pitch with above-average velocity and pair it with a change up might be an interesting project.
Maybe we should move beyond the limited phraseology we have and break new ground. Perhaps a high spin-rate, good velocity fastball paired with a solid change-up should be referred to as "funkadelic." Just throwing that out there.So maybe "filthy" would be more apropos than "hard-throwing".
View: https://youtu.be/LMuR6DPy-eQMaybe we should move beyond the limited phraseology we have and break new ground. Perhaps a high spin-rate, good velocity fastball paired with a solid change-up should be referred to as "funkadelic." Just throwing that out there.
He helped his cause ...hit a nice shot yesterday...and knocked Lin in.... I gotta think Jonathan Arauz has first crack at it, since they lose him if he doesn't make the team.
He's been dealing with a residual ankle injury all camp. It's been covered in the media; it doesn't sound too bad.Xander was interviewed on MLB and mentioned that he hurt himself when he was back home and that's why he is not playing. He didn't give details. First I've heard of this. Anyone know what happened?
If the games mattered, he’d be in there.He's been dealing with a residual ankle injury all camp. It's been covered in the media; it doesn't sound too bad.
https://nypost.com/2020/03/02/kris-bryants-tenuous-cubs-future-is-on-the-clock/amp/?__twitter_impression=trueAnd the Cubs begin this season with Javier Baez, Kris Bryant, Willson Contreras and Kyle Schwarber free agents two years away — the same for Jon Lester and Anthony Rizzo should their 2021 options be picked up. Attempts to extend Baez, Bryant, Contreras, Schwarber and Ian Happ have failed. And the Cubs know they will not keep all of them long term and send their payroll to $300 million or more.
To try to diversify how they spend their money and deepen a depleted farm system, the Cubs particularly shopped Bryant and Contreras in the offseason. For now, though, it looks as if the Cubs will begin the season with their core group. But the Cubs know players have much greater value if they are available for two postseason runs rather than one (like Betts), so a July appraisal looms.
“It puts us in a position in which we have to be very objective about what we have,” Epstein said. “In the middle of this season, if we have a legit World Series contender, that is really meaningful. But if we don’t, you can’t be blind to the realities of the following 18 months.”
Translation: If the Cubs think they can win it all, they will keep it together. If not, they could be one of the biggest sellers of July.
So, Dan Butler v. 2.Pereda might get popped in the Rule 5 draft because he’s an okay catcher with an approach. Long term, he projects as a third catcher.
That’s filthy.Wasn't sure where else to share this...
View: https://twitter.com/GrantBrisbee/status/1247307999778967553
So astounding to look at that carefully. A 2.20 ERA for probably the most offense-inflated seven-year stretch in the game's history. Most years in that stretch, the MLB average ERA was more than twice Pedro's.Wasn't sure where else to share this...
View: https://twitter.com/GrantBrisbee/status/1247307999778967553
My favorite Pedro stat: In 2000, he had an ERA of 1.74. Best in the AL. Second best in the AL: Clemens at 3.70. After that: Mussina and Sirotka at 3.79.So astounding to look at that carefully. A 2.20 ERA for probably the most offense-inflated seven-year stretch in the game's history. Most years in that stretch, the MLB average ERA was more than twice Pedro's.
Another way to look at that last point: an ERA+ of 200 means, roughly speaking, that you are twice as good at preventing runs as the average pitcher. 31 pitchers have done that at least once while throwing enough innings to qualify for the ERA title. 25 of the 31 did it only once. That includes people like Bob Gibson, Lefty Grove, and Cy Young.
Three pitchers have done it twice: Christy Mathewson, Greg Maddux, and Zack Greinke.
One pitcher did it three times: Roger Clemens. And one did it four times: Walter Johnson.
Pedro Martinez did it five times.
Another way to express the same amazing stat: Pedro was closer to perfection that year than anyone else was to him.My favorite Pedro stat: In 2000, he had an ERA of 1.74. Best in the AL. Second best in the AL: Clemens at 3.70. After that: Mussina and Sirotka at 3.79.
He won the ERA title by damn near 2 runs/game.
By a healthy margin.My favorite Pedro stat: In 2000, he had an ERA of 1.74. Best in the AL. Second best in the AL: Clemens at 3.70. After that: Mussina and Sirotka at 3.79.
He won the ERA title by damn near 2 runs/game.
(FWIW, Kevin Brown led the NL (in Dodger stadium) at 2.58, followed by Unit at 2.64).
It's sad it didn't last longer, but healthy Pedro was the most dominant pitcher ever.
313:37 is something that I will never forget off the top of my head.It never ceases to be hilarious how this board takes any excuse to pour over Pedro's stats and be amazed at how fucking good he was. Believe me, I am not displeased to see these posts.
It never ceases to amaze me that i need to be reminded how dominant he was. I remember him as by and far the best, but the stats always puts it in context.It never ceases to be hilarious how this board takes any excuse to pour over Pedro's stats and be amazed at how fucking good he was. Believe me, I am not displeased to see these posts.
Imagine his numbers if Enrique Wilson (career wRC+ 62) hadn't gone 11 for 25 against him (H/T Fangraphs https://blogs.fangraphs.com/sunday-notes-keston-hiura-can-hit-but-the-book-hed-write-would-be-boring/)It never ceases to amaze me that i need to be reminded how dominant he was. I remember him as by and far the best, but the stats always puts it in context.
I remember reading about this many years ago, just looked it up and now copying / pasting below:Imagine his numbers if Enrique Wilson (career wRC+ 62) hadn't gone 11 for 25 against him (H/T Fangraphs https://blogs.fangraphs.com/sunday-notes-keston-hiura-can-hit-but-the-book-hed-write-would-be-boring/)
It actually begs the question: What is the most lopsided random matchup (min 20 AB) between batters vs pitchers (versus careeer or season long numbers).
I thought the same thing when I saw a similar blurb elsewhere. The longer quote there (taken from the original Athletic article) almost seems to suggest a moneyball type advantage to be had, and that MLB was substantially behind (for example) the NBA, in using tech/design/fit of uniforms to improve athlete performance. I easily see how modern light, sweat-wicking, and breathable materials are huge improvements over the heavy polyester of the 80s, or the wool of the first half of the century. But I have a hard time seeing what relative changes we might make now that would actually matter. The CBS thing I linked suggests getting rid of belts, but I think they are just guessing. I'm curious if anyone knows more.The headline in the NY Post scared me at first, but Sam Kennedy makes clear the changes would be to the uniforms themselves, not logos or word scripts.
https://nypost.com/2020/05/04/red-sox-are-exploring-changes-to-their-uniform/
I took that as a tongue in cheek tweet, but that would be great.Let’s talk transactions again. Here is some spitballing from SoxScout.
View: https://twitter.com/redsoxstats/status/1276183375032709120?s=21
I thought it was an issue only if the season was canceled. As long as there was/is a season it will reset. At least that's what I've been led to believe.If their is no luxury tax reset this year, do they have to be at all careful with the payroll?
The full schedule has to be played from here, if they're forced to end the season early because of the virus, it does not reset.I thought it was an issue only if the season was canceled. As long as there was/is a season it will reset. At least that's what I've been led to believe.
The only talk of trade with the Padres I recall involved Mookie, with the Sox taking back Wil Myers and prospects. Presumably that died when the trade with the Dodgers was finalized.There was a Padres trade?
I honestly don't remember that
He says he means taking on Myers' contract and getting a couple of prospects in exchange for doing so, with BOS giving up nothing.The only talk of trade with the Padres I recall involved Mookie, with the Sox taking back Wil Myers and prospects. Presumably that died when the trade with the Dodgers was finalized.
I would venture that we'll see several of these sorts of deals for teams that are desperate to shed salary. I would absolutely be on board with the Sox taking on that strategy for a player or two. Win now deals just aren't going to happen around the league with the uncertainty of a cancellation and/or potential work stoppage.edit: I would absolutely do this, FWIW. I'd want to see if by eating all the money, we could get Luis Patino (a very good RHSP prospect in AA) and one of their half dozen interesting infield prospects, like Owen Miller.