Jack Parkman

They've been really bipolar this season. Either they look like a playoff team or among the worst teams in NHL history. The latter usually occurs during a Ward start, though he wasn't the problem Sunday.

I think it is more of a problem with those about college age and younger. Baseball was an absolutely huge deal culturally when I was in grade school in the early-mid 90s. I grew up playing pickup baseball, basketball, and football. Little league was a huge deal. Everyone played. I don't see nearly as many kids playing baseball at the park than when I was a kid. I do wonder if baseball is going to become a niche sport like hockey. I think the thing that hurts baseball and hockey the most is that they are much more expensive to play. Football would be an issue too if parents had to buy all of their kids gear. Kids realize they can't afford to play, so they gravitate toward basketball, football, and soccer which are much more reasonable for their parents. Baseball, like hockey, has become a rich white kid's sport in America. There is no getting by that fact. I know people in their mid 20s that really like baseball, but younger than that is a problem.

I'm not worried about our fanbase being dead now, I'm worried about 10-15 years down the line when they could leave. I think this rebuild is incredibly critical for the long-term viability of the Sox in Chicago. If they fail, the majority of the fanbase in 15 years could be 50-75 years old. Hell, I'm in my early 30s and I'd be pushing 50 myself by then.

You're probably right, but that isn't a good thing. I ask you this question: Have you seen a random kid wearing Sox gear in the past 5 years? I haven't, and it isn't good.

Twitter follows. if you do that, 30% is generous. It is closer to 25% than 30%. If you combine the total number of twitter follows for the Cubs and Sox, and then divide the Sox share it is roughly 27% I rounded up to 30 just to make it easier.

They should, but MLB won't give it to them for some strange reason. The Sox are NOT the Mets or Angels. The size of the NY and LA metro areas larger enough than the Chicago metro area to get a significant boost. NY Metro: 20.5 M LA Metro 13.5M Chicago Metro 9.5 M, but when you take into account that the Cubs hold 70% of the market it gets a lot smaller. 9.5* 0.3= 2.85M. That is the potential market. Twin Cities metro area is 3.5M. When you take into account market share, the Sox have a smaller market than the Twins. If you were to rank market size in just the ALC, it would be the following: 1. Tigers 2. Twins 3. Sox 4. Indians 5. Royals. If the Indians and Royals get Competitive Balance Picks, the Sox should too.

They rarely got blown out last year too. They still won 5 games. So? Whether is is 1 point, 3 points, 7 points, or 24 points it is still an L.

Roster construction sucks. They have too many players who need the ball.

Yes, exactly.

If all else was equal, even if they were 5-1 I wouldn't feel that great about making the playoffs. I'd feel like they'd have a shot for 10 wins at that point. If they win the games they are supposed to, and win a couple they aren't supposed to, that is 9. I don't think anyone should be disappointed if they win 9 games this year.

Not true. They're pretty much a lock for at least 6 wins right now. They have 2 more that are winnable after that. I don't think they're overrated, so to speak but I do think the defense has been disappointing, to say the least. Offense has been surprisingly good. Mitch looks like a keeper, we'll see if he keeps playing decently. They're a season or two away from being really good, but I think expectations for this season in particular are out of whack. You have a rookie head coach, a 2nd year QB in his 1st season in a new offense, that had played 25 games since graduating high school coming into the season. There are going to be peaks and valleys. I wasn't happy with the game vs. Arizona, because they are really bad and the Bears barely squeaked by in that game. I also wasn't happy with allowing Osweiler, who is a bad QB and a known commodity as such. They absolutely earned the wins vs. Seattle and TB. the AZ game was a red flag. It isn't a shock to me they lost the 2/3 of the games after that one. There are plenty of positives, I don't deny that. I think the most likely outcome for the Bears is that they win 7 or 8 games. That is still a massive step forward from 3 and 5 games the last two seasons. I don't think you're ever going to respect me as a poster again so just put me on ignore if you don't want to read my posts. Leave me alone and quit attacking me. If you can't because you're a mod, then just don't respond unless you want to have a constructive conversation. Explain yourself. I have. I admit I jump guns every now and then. w/e. Not afraid to admit I'm wrong. Nobody is infallible. If I jump the gun and look stupid, that is nobody's problem but my own. I can look back at it and say, "That was really fucking stupid" and move on.

I must have missed them then. They weren't on the midseason lists, I haven't really checked since they updated it. I'll go do so.

It's early, and this is the only game I watched. 2 baskets is 2 baskets. He might be better, but they're not letting him show what he can do. Granted he didn't have the ball a lot, but guy isnt going to develop offensively if they don't give him the ball. The Bulls have a ball distribution problem that is only going to get worse when Markkanen returns from injury. Sometimes I don't get stuff straight, and what I actually meant is that if he doesn't get the ball because there are better players around, then people should be happy if he maxes out at Noah levels. I kept hearing during the leadup to the draft that he was going to be a 20-10 player right off the bat with great defense. If he's got that, let him show it. Fred surely didn't do that tonight. Maybe he will as he goes up against worse big men. Not enough ball to go around.

Lavine looks really good. I know he had tough matchups, but Wendell Carter Jr. looks awful. He seems to have less offensive game than Noah did during the Rose/Thibs years. Very underwhelming so far for a top 10 pick.

Disclaimer: I am a fan of analytics, and read fangraphs pretty religiously. However, Greg is right when he says that pitchers getting hurt is because of analytics. Pitchers aren't throwing harder because they're better athletes, they're throwing harder because if you can't miss enough bats, you can't make it to the big leagues anymore. Strikeouts are king for pitchers, and to chase strikeouts the pitching mechanics being used these days are pushing the human body to the limit. That is why you see more instances of thoracic outlet syndrome and a lot of Tommy John surgeries. They have found that altering the timing of the arm in the delivery makes a pitcher throw harder. It also puts a ton of stress on the arm, by breaking the kinetic chain. Instead of chasing health and clean mechanics, pitchers now chase velocity, because you're more likely to strike guys out. The decline of the ground ball specialist and pitching to weak contact at lower velocities, is killing careers, and it is a rare pitcher that makes it to FA without losing velo or being completely healthy. There was a reason why it used to be freaky if a pitcher threw mid-upper 90s, and 100 mph was special. It was even more rare that those guys didn't get hurt. Now they're all over the place. Why? Because emphasis has been put on max velocity vs. pitcher health. Pitchers use timing tricks to achieve high velocity, and more tricks to correct their timing. Eventually it breaks down, and the pitcher breaks, as we're seeing with Kershaw. Analytics are a huge part of that, as they have rendered the 130 K/220 IP contact specialist obsolete. Sabermetricians have said those pitchers aren't valuable. This is the market inefficiency that needs to be exploited. Baseball needs more pitchers like Mark Buehrle. This coming from a guy who absolutely loves watching the hard throwing ace, and 15 strikeout games. They are the best part about baseball, in my opinion. I love hard-throwing pitchers being dominant. Verlander is one of those freaks of nature. Strasburg isn't. Verlander hasn't had an arm injury in his career, and is still throwing 97 mph at age 36. Enjoy him as a fan of the game, because he may be the last of a rare breed.

I think most people jumped the gun on the team after the Mack trade. The offense is much better than most anticipated, but the defense is much worse. A lot of the defense being average has to do with Mack being injured. He makes everyone better. I thought 6-8 wins after the trade, while I thought 4-6 without it. 9 wins would be a hell of a good season, with the arrow clearly pointing up. At this point, they'd have to win a game they aren't supposed to in order to get that 9th win. Anyone heard the update on Xavier Rhodes? That could have a huge impact on the NFCN race, as it would make the Vikings significantly worse.

They have zero T100 guys as of right now that are not pitchers. I forgot about Swanson but he's not exactly lighting the world on fire

100% agreed. Nice post.

I'd like them to try to do something like the Padres did with Tatis Jr. from the Sox. Target a player a ways away and try to poach them.

I know it is so ridiculous. I'm fine with signing retreads if they aren't blocking anyone though, with the intent of flipping them at the deadline to gain more young talent at the deadline if they have a good year. I have an issue with the Sox FO thinking that the talent acquisition phase is over. It shouldn't be over until you break the 85 win mark. You always need more talent in the farm until then. Prospects are gold currently, and you can use them to get a player like Yelich. 2018 was a huge missed opportunity on that regard. I hope they don't make the same mistake in 2019.

yup, nice post.

I said 6 on the low end and 9 on the high. I stand by that. Mitch has progressed a lot more quickly than I had anticipated. He's still pretty green, but it is easy to see why he was picked 2nd in the draft. He's on pace to become the 1st QB in franchise history to throw 30 TDs in a season. I think it is pretty likely that he does that. He already has 13 on the season, and they still have 10 games to play.

No doubt the arrow is pointing up, I'm just not sure about the defense being as good as people say it is. They're a season or two away from being really good. Going from 5 wins to 8-9 is a huge step in the right direction. I really like what I've seen from Mitch, and I know he's young. They have too much youth at the most important positions(QB, HC) for me to get overly excited. When I'm saying that they're mediocre, I mean this season. I believe they will take a couple big steps forward in 2019 and 2020. I'm more responding to people that think this team should be making the playoffs this year, while playing in the most competitive division in football. They're on the right track, I don't doubt that. My posts saying they suck, etc. have been to point out that other's expectations are unreasonably high. Too many people drank the kool aid after the Mack trade.

I don't, which is why I think 9 is a good season. They will almost certainly beat 2/3, if not all 3 of San Francisco, Buffalo and the Giants, and they have the ability to win a game against the Lions and next week vs. the Jets. There's 8 wins. if they win all of those games, and then one they're not supposed to, they have 9 games. Xavier Rhodes might have suffered a season ender for the Vikings, and Mike Hughes already has. They're down both starting corners in that case for the remainder of the season. With Rhodes/Hughes out for the season, the game at home vs. Minne just became winnable.

The majority of the Braves top talent is in starting pitching. They have very little in terms of position players down on the farm. Acuna and Albies are pretty much it at the MLB level in terms of cost controlled position players.