YourWhatHurts

IMO Robertson + Frazier for Rutherford + Clarkin + Polo + Clippard's contract was a very fair and even deal in value at the time. Kahnle in there was absurd. I remember when that trade was going through just waiting around for the second big name to come in. It never did. There is one thing about that trade that I like to bring up just because: Bruuuuuuuuuce Levine is the one who broke it. For all of the shit he gets, he was by far the first on that one.

Here's what I do: I DVR the game, get things done, start watching it like an hour and a half or so into the game, and watch the game on fast forward x1 to see the pitches and plays (stopping to play when something good or interesting happens) and then I FFx2 or FFx3 through commercials, Sox math, and other forms of televised bullshit. I get through the game quickly and I still get to see everything that happens. If it's the playoffs or I'm just chillin' I'll watch the whole game. But I don't mind the length. As far as other people go, all you have to do is move the start time up an hour. But they won't do that because they want the best chance possible to put people in the stands. But that's an easy answer. Otherwise, do this to shorten the game: -Raise the mound -Take a little more of the bounce out of the baseball -Let the fielders be positioned anywhere on the field the manager wants, so long as there is a P and a C. -Force a mandatory 20 feet of foul territory on both sides of the line from home plate to the wall -Force a mandatory 6' minimum height wall on all sides of the playing field, which is heavily padded, so that the players can freely chase down flyballs without worrying about hitting brick or concrete, or falling into the stands or dugout, etc. That will encourage P to work more in the zone and keep them healthier. It will also force a lot of balls which are normally going out of play and extending ABs to be kept in play, and it will make it easier for defensive players to catch foul balls. Innings will go much quicker and games will have lower scores. Of course none of these ideas will ever be up for discussion because it's not just about shortening the game, its about shortening the game AND diminishing pitching and defense in favor of more offense.

On paper, I think the 2006 Sox were even more talented. Problem was Freddy getting hurt, Pods getting hurt, slides from Cotts and Politte, Hermanson was done, etc. But adding Thornton, good MacDougal, Riske as a MR, and of course Thome and Javy Vazquez... that's the most stacked I've ever seen the Sox (again on paper). 2003 was very talented as well with Loaiza in his career year plus Bartolo with Buehrle and a still-developing Garland. No 5th starter though, as usual. The 1994 Sox could have won it all. The defense was strong, but the bottom of the order wasn't very good. Frank and Julio back-to-back was nuts though. Add in Robin and they had to have the best 3-4-5 in baseball the way Frank was going.

I'm trying to think the last time I saw a Sox pitcher throw something like that. Probably Gavin Floyd on one of his more dominant days

So that's gotta be an 80 grade slider, right? That has to be as good of a pitch as that pitch gets.

If Engel played in the same parks with the same bats and same baseballs, he would be a mediocre player. And if Adam Engel in high school tried to play at the MLB level he never would have made the cut, and rather than be developed in a very long and detailed process, probably would have gone on to work in a factory or in some mine somewhere. If the Adam Engel of 2021 could get into a time machine, go back to 1917, play in a game the same way as every one else, then at the end of the game get back in the time machine, go home, eat 2021 food, take 2021 supplements, train on 2021 equipment with 2021 trainers, etc., and repeat this process for an entire season, I still don't think he's a great player. You guys are really overestimating Adam's strength and physical capability and underestimating the weight and constitution of the old balls and the size of the old stadiums they used to play in. Go try to hit spitballer or knuckleballer or sinkerballer throwing something that's probably closer to a fishing weight than the balls of today, without these new bats that make everything go father, with all the added challenges of extra OF space and extra foul territory. I mean come on. It's not called "the dead ball era" because players weren't strong. And in terms of physical conditioning, Adam Engel is probably in the top 10% or so of the league as it is, and guess what, he's a still platoon player now. People were strong back then, too. He doesn't have elite HR power or bat speed now, and he still wouldn't then. IMO (to make ron883 happy) I think Yermin could maybe be a star back then, with the time machine scenario I laid out for Engel.

Love this addition. I wish he was on TV. Already this guy with Stone is like 10000000000X better than Stone and Bennetti.

Why? A much harder baseball, much bigger fields with more foul territory to yield flyball putouts, fences much farther back so HRs much more difficult, and still RHPs throwing the ball. Adam Engel is an easy no. He's so far been a platoon player with power but not massive power who can crush diminished stuff inside of a smaller ballpark without much foul grounds, but as a guy with a lot of K and flyballs in his game, I'm not sure why anyone would think he'd be some great bet for success. I mean there are probably a lot of guys in today's game who won't make the HOF in the modern era who maybe could have in an earlier time, but Adam Engel definitely isn't the kind of player that makes that list. Did you put thought into that? Are you trying to make the statement that today's athletes and players are so much better that basically all of the legends of the past should be viewed as something like bench players or AAAA types in comparison?

Unfortunately TLR pulled him after one. But if anyone didn't see, he showed again that he is an MLB pitcher. He's been showing that kind of ability for quite some time now and the only issue has been health. DK has been raving about him also.

No.

Here's a question to think about: if MB pitched in Cy Young's era, how many games would have won? How many CGs? What kind of lifetime ERA? This is a guy who IMO gets into the HOF in a lot of other eras. For the modern era, he's still borderline deserving IMO, and beyond that, I think it's tougher for a guy with Buehrle's talent to pitch his way to FA and accumulate that kind of MLB service time than it is for a player like Frank to get into the Hall. And also, what a deceptively excellent natural athlete Buehrle was as well. Never looked the part, but defensively he showed it several times. And his control was also proof of that exceptional athletic ability.

This guy is pitching now. So what do yall think, do the Fangraphs prospect evaluators know their heads from their asses or what? Hopefully this guy stays healthy this year.

I agree, but there's a point when the season is supposed to start, and if he needs to be in the 92-93 range to get the ball over the plate then he's most definitely not a MLB pitcher and should be left off the team because he does have that option year left. There's no way a shitty Lopez should make this team ahead of Cordero.

Exactly. I wouldn't have complained about either, but I do think this specific lineup needs a hitter like Eaton more than a hitter like Joc, because they do need a couple other hitters capable of working a count, fouling off tough pitches, and maybe poking a pitcher's pitch somewhere for a hit. We have Abreu and TA who can do that, but not many of our other guys can. Eaton can be that guy. Joc isn't.

Baseball seems to evolve in eras. Every change to the game changes the way people approach it and ultimately the way youth instructors also approach it. I can see, over the long haul, maybe the shift results in the development of a different kind of hitter and a different kind of approach. Everyone playing now is in their 20's 30's and 40's. Baseball 20-40 years ago when they were born was a very different game. The reason I love the shift is because it is a natural defensive answer to the offensive challenge which doesn't involve changing the rules of the game. The sport should always be allowed to be played differently in different eras with different datasets so long as the core rules don't have to be adjusted. There's no good argument against the shift IMO that supports such rigid positioning rules. And just from a sports comparison / optics standpoint, baseball has long been chastised for what is really its fixedness, where people watching really have a hard time understanding how talented the athletes can be because they don't seem them moving around enough. People love movement in other sports like basketball and football and that movement is what makes defensive schemes so interesting and makes fans take such a deep interest. The idea of further restricting movement on the field in order to make baseball more "fixed" is a good idea why? It just adds offense, at the further expense of defense. And ultimately it does nothing IMO to make baseball look more interesting or requisite of strategy on defense.

I'm not sure if analytics has much to do with it. Analytics say to shift on defense when playing defense, and (probably) to try not to hit into the shift on offense by BBing, hitting the ball in the air, or going the other way, and maybe with a bunt depending on the type of player. The way I see it, the commissioners office for decades now -- at least-- has had a serious problem with pitching and defense. Nowhere in Manfred's bullshit is anything about raising the mound or increasing foul territory or pushing fences back, etc. It's all anti-anti-defensive nonsense. They want a faster game on clock time with more offense, more home runs, etc. . But a pitching and defense-based game, for me as a fan, is the most appealing form of baseball. I also have an attention span longer than a chihuahua which allows me to still pay attention even if the game exceeds 3 hours in length. I know I am not the only one. It seems, actually, that most hardcore fans -- not necessarily some idiot in a suit in the press box or a kid in front of the tv with a video game controller -- actually prefer pitching and defense-based baseball. With Manfred it's not "missing the forest for the trees" because there is no forest. He lives in the moment, cares only about $$$ now, and short-term objectives as they may be worked or completed now, and doesn't give a shit about the long-term best interests of the game, or the history of the game. He'll pay lip service to topics like minorities and diversity because he's looking for the cash that can come with it. But he's a morally and ethically-empty prick who doesn't know a thing about baseball and doesn't deserve his position in baseball or even being included in baseball any more than any qualified person in baseball history has ever deserved being excluded from baseball. He's a nitwick fuck who can go pound sand / lay face-down under a horny rottweiler and bite MyPillow. But yeah, it's been anti-defense for a long time. Manfred is just making it worse. He's trying to flush the game down the toilet faster than anyone else.

I listened to the interview and he was specifically asking the executive producer to hire him as a pitching analyst for the Sox and Cubs both. So to me that sounds like more technical stuff, and if the Score had any sense (they probably don't), they would hire him for that role, and be very careful to screen callers, select appropriate topics, etc. manage him very well to get the best out of him. I don't think anyone wants to listen to him go star magazine/tmz for half an hour and turn the entire Chicago baseball scene into some soap opera/british royal family bullshit, but if he has the chance to prepare for about a 10-15 minute segment where he discusses recent pitching performances and makes suggestions on things, and gives his opinions on what kind of approach this or that pitcher should take in a certain situation, what pitches are working and not, which guys are out of whack mechanically, etc. then that could be great. But again, knowing the Score, they would probably do no prep work, wouldn't coach him on anything, would never even try to criticize him for anything, would expect nothing of substance out of him, and would just bring him on for a half hour to ramble and complain about various things.

I would love it if we had a better defensive and pitchers catcher than Grandal. I still think the Sox blew it with McCann and also, they blew it not taking a real shot at Realmuto in FA (McCann's deal PERFECTLY set them up for a shot at Realmuto). But because they have Grandal, they need a much better backup regardless. Personally I think Collins has a chance to end up a much better player than he gets credit for being. I remember the way people talked about Tyler Flowers' defense, and yet defense turned into more of a strength than a weakness. I think some other team might get a bargain on Collins in a trade. The Sox have chosen their paths with certain players. There were always other options they could have called up in-house or acquired cheaply to take ABs away from the likes of Nicky Delmonico, Palka, that guy from the Astros who sucked, etc. Collins is one who got the shaft. But now they need to win and they need at least 1 of their C to be good back there. So Lucroy it is. If Hahn ever wants to trade Grandal out of here, I will be first to volunteer to pack his bags and take him to the airport.

Spring Training: the place where players like Pablo Ozuna hit .400 and busted prospects like Brian Anderson set the world on fire. Take all the Mike Wrights and Odrisamer Despaignes and so on out of there and tell the MLB pitchers the games are real and it's very different. Adam Eaton is absolutely a better pure hitter than Joc Pederson. I hope Adam's healthy because if so he is going to make more than half of this board look baaaaad.

Coop's style greatly masks the depth of pitching knowledge he possesses. If he's on the Score analyzing pitching staffs from both sides of town, I predict there would be a lot of great stuff to listen to ... IF the hosts ask him the appropriate questions. If the fans want to know about mechanics and pitch types and sequences, etc., they'll get it IF the Score puts someone on the air with him who will ask him the appropriate questions. I bet they wouldn't do much of that at all though, probably just ask dumb meatball questions looking for the typical emotional Coop response (always in a defensive tone of course).

MLB To Experiment With Rule Changes In Minor Leagues - MLB Trade Rumors So now he's trying to eliminate the shift and stop a pitcher from controlling the running game. There is no way I can state my feelings on this asshat without getting banned, so I won't even bother. Worst commissioner ever.

LOL I can't remember him ever not having baserunners on so I don't know. Probably. If I was Coop he'd only pitch from the stretch anyway given how unlikely it is that he'd ever have a clean inning.

The closer a young player gets to FA (6 years vs 5 years) and the better he performs, the more expensive the back end of the extension becomes, and the less likely there are extra TO years after the arb period. Right now the Sox are certainly looking at 2 years control and maybe trying to bargain for 3 years control after FA. But if he comes up and rakes this year, now maybe it's tough to get 2 extra years control, impossible to get 3, and maybe they'd have to settle for 1. If the Sox put him on an extension early, they won't be paying him as a superstar in arb, but if he isn't extended and does perform like a superstar, then the back end of the arb process is way more expensive and they'll also be forced to pay more money in the FA years. Any time you sign a player for millions of dollars and multiple years, you are betting on a lot. Of all of the kinds of players to bet on being great, Vaughn tops my list. He's a much safer bet than Sale was, safer than Q, safer than Eaton, safer than Moncada, safer than Robert even. You can't make a MLB contract without potentially getting burned by it by at the end of the day the best time to pay players is at the younger ages when they are hitting FA still in their primes. I'd love to see the Sox extend Vaughn and even if it's an "overapy" a bit, because my guess is that an "overpay" in an early extension still will be seen as a substantial "underpayment" in 2-3 years time.

Mechanically he's pretty much always been a mess. My guess is Coop was trying to simplify things. With the Nats he looked every bit of a reliver, no chance in hell of being a SP. Hopefully he responds to some of the newer training methods like the core belts or something like that. If he can keep things under control out of the pen, some team will have enough of a hope in his potential to try to trade for him. IMO his window with the Sox is fully closed. Lambert and Stiever are already better, and that's to say nothing about Kopech and Crochet.

Just a few reasons I immediately think of why sons of former players often seem to be so much better: 1) High level instruction is always available growing up 2) High level of personal confidence in personal ability is developed early on after having watched a family member succeed at the highest levels 3) Access to modern nutritional and medical advice 4) Lots of positive competitive pressure growing up, where a young player's peers play harder against him, etc. knowing that he's the son of so-and-so 5) Access to a higher level of competition via $$$ and family influence, etc. 6) More likely to focus on baseball vs. other sports growing up, or only play baseball growing up I'm sure there are a lot of reasons also, but those reasons right there are enough to put a lot of talented players over the top and take them to far higher levels than their peers.