thxfrthmmrs

I think it's the opposite. But keep moving the goalpost to defend your point when you missed Parkman's original statement.

I find it comical you quote sources you do not read through and pretend that is supports your argument and claim to be correct. The article you posted factually does not prove your point that high fastball are easier to barrel up. "Of course that doesn’t mean higher pitches are better to swing at, high pitches are also known to induce more pop-ups and whiffs on certain types of fastballs (high spin) but for players who have trouble to elevate the ball it can make sense to swing a little less in the lower part of the zone. On the other hand a high whiff or popup rate type of player who has a good launch angle it might make sense to leave the high pitches alone." Focus on that part of the statement, the paradigm shift is hitters are learning to elevate the low fastballs so they do not have to hit the high fastball, which have known (and statistically proven) to lead to worse outcome.

If you take a second to read the articles I provided, it clearly tells you 1) the low fastball/sinker lead to the worst outcome for pitchers. 2) more pitchers are ditching the low fastball and throwing more high fastballs, which led to better results.

This is 2017 data but the 2 seamer/sinker has the highest xwOBA (worst outcome for pitchers) out of all pitches. I assume it was worse in 2018 with the number of hitters refining their swing plane. https://www.mlb.com/news/statcast-best-hitters-by-pitch-type-in-2017-c263978558

I think this was the case until hitters learned to adjust their swing plane to the pitch to get a better launch angle at certain pitches. The sinker is one that's getting hit the hardest during this launch angle revolution, and pitchers are cutting back on the usage and going for rising fastballs instead and combining it with more breaking ball usage.

Another good read here: https://www.baseballprospectus.com/news/article/39080/rubbing-mud-astroification-gerrit-cole/ TL;DR - High fastball and healthy dosage of curveball is Astro's bread and butter. It's no surprise a team like them, Indians, Cubs, Red Sox and Dodgers are at the forefront of this revolution It's also not surprising that Cole increased the spin rate of his fastball significantly (leading to rising action) and usage of his curveball when he got to the Astros and became one of the best pitchers in baseball.

What about batting average dude? Hitters have a hard time catching up to high fastball at premium velocity. Seriously, read this article. It debunks all the outdated philosophies you're throwing out here. https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/as-more-mlb-batters-become-launch-angle-disciples-pitchers-are-quietly-adapting/2018/03/27/ecace82c-2dda-11e8-8688-e053ba58f1e4_story.html?utm_term=.ae5e7f2a9f2e "That shift in pitching theory can be summed up like this: fewer sinkers, fewer low pitches, more breaking balls, more four-seam fastballs, more high pitches. The logic, while an oversimplification, goes like this: If hitters, with their uppercut swings, have figured out how to go down and scoop low fastballs — the pitcher’s bread and butter for generations — over the walls, they would have a much tougher time doing so with high fastballs and well-placed breaking balls." "You could watch the trend play out month-to-month in the data from 2017. Here are the percentage of overall pitches leaguewide that were sinkers, month by month, according to FanGraphs: April, 19.6 percent; May, 19.0; June, 19.2; July, 18.4; August, 18.4; September/October, 16.9. That comes out to a 16 percent decline across just one season, and it continued a four-year decline in the prevalence of sinkers, from 21.5 percent of all pitches in 2014, to 20.4 percent in 2015, to 18.7 in 2016 and down to 18.6 in 2017." "But it wasn’t only pitch selection that was changing, but also pitch placement. Here, using data from Statcast, are the month-to-month averages of pitches characterized as high in 2017: April, 27.1 percent; May, 28.8; June, 32.2; July, 33.1; August, 33.9; September/October, 33.0. (The major league leader, among pitchers who threw at least 300 pitches in 2017, was Nationals closer Sean Doolittle, with 60.8 percent of his pitches considered high.)" “As a kid, you’re taught, ‘Down in the zone, down in the zone,’ ” said San Francisco Giants catcher Buster Posey, who was also a star pitcher as an amateur. “And when I first got up [to the majors], you were still seeing tons of [sinkers] and hard sliders. But now, hitters are geared to handling hard velocity down in the zone and hard sliders, so what you’re seeing is elevated four-seamers and curveballs making more of a comeback. It’s definitely something we’ve talked about this spring.”

The key isn't to focus on win/loss record this season. It's the player development we need to focus on. The core is and will be Eloy/Moncada/Cease/Anderson/Kopech/Rodon/ and one of Lopez/Giolito. If those guys take the next step forward you are much closer in 2020 with addition of key FA pieces. If they do not take the next step (or god more forbids they regressed) in the case of Moncada, Gio/Lopez/Anderson, you may consider replacing them because they've had their opportunities. However, if the core shows promise this year and you do not add key FA pieces to contend and instead wait for Robert/Adolfo/Sheets, etc then you are wasting another year of the service time of the aforementioned player and your window becomes much smaller. Worst case if you signed FA an one of the prospect is pushing the door, you could always trade for help in area of need.

If Ingram is out short term, Cohen and whoever the 3rd stringer is can handle the RB duty in a pinch. If he's out long term, you bring in another FA. No need to spend additional resource on a backup RB if we sign Ingram.

If that's the case, 2019 and 2020 must have gone really wrong. The clock is ticking on the young guys already called up plus Anderson, if they show that they're part of the future core, we need to start acquiring other core pieces externally if we see guys who could help this team. You're always going to have prospects coming up in the pipeline (#3 pick this year, and another likely top 10 next year included), that's the sign of a healthy farm system.

Was a fan of the show outside of the women's match (first time in a while). How long are they gonna sell Becky's injury for? Till Mania? That ending was pretty weak for me.

So let me get this straight, Ron, you want a player to have a better March (how many games are played in March anyways), April, and May, than June, July, August and Sept? But if your gripe is Abreu plays better baseball when the Sox are out of playoff picture, then it's not his fault that the Sox are a shitty team and is out of the race by June.

You would?

Any deal for Verlander will be heavily impacted by his performance this season. Needless to say his decline could happen any time now and might even be as early as this year (his ERA after his first 10 starts were 3.35 last year). Say if he regressed to 4.5 WAR and 3.20 ERA, would you still pay him $37 M AAV? If he somehow comes near the elite production in his age 36 season. I might go for 1/$37 M deal for his age 37 season, but certainly not a 2 year, high dollar value deal unless it's a vesting option in year 2. Probably the max I'd go for JV (and Sox for that matter) for a non-vesting contract is 2/$60M. That's still sound pretty crazy for a pitcher's age 37/38 seasons.

What the Verlander?

LOL wut?

That he does. He does one thing well and that's corner 3's. He's so limited offensively I couldn't believe he actual put the ball on the floor for a change.

Is this the same guy the Bulls drafted?

I am surprised at how much better he's has played the last month or so. He's not forcing a lot of bad shots or settling for 3's like he was doing before. Taking the ball to the hoop, taking good shots, making better passes and evening making plays for Robin in crunch time last night showed a lot of maturity in his game.

You dont have to over explain players putting up big numbers on bad teams, we all know what that means, just as people are completely aware Lavine and Lauri aren't #1 options on a playoff team. Though I see a lot of growth and maturity in Lavine's game during the season as a scorer, he could potentially be a hell of a #2 option. You're trashing on WCJ and his production which is way off base. Despite being the 3rd or 4th option on the team and getting lost in the shuffle which is typical for a 19 year old big, especially one who had a coaching change 20 games into his career. He still had a good rookie season by many standards. It's not hard to see him turning out to be a more athletic version of Al Horford - an efficient scorer with 3 pt range, a good passer and better rebounder and shot blocker. Drafting 7th where the star potential players are gone, getting a strong asset to add to your core isn't the worst move. Sexton OTOH basically had free reign as an "accumulator" most of the year and he didn't look the part of being NBA ready. How much of the "potential" you saw was due to him being a primary scorer/handler on one of the worst offense? The one thing you're completely off is Sexton's potential. Even coming out of the draft he was a Eric Bledsoe comp, hardly a star by any means even if he turned out to be better than Bledsoe. He'd be a bad fit next to Lavine offense and defense wise, the risk and reward is not enough to forgo a quality prototypical modern day center like WCJ who's a great fit next to Lavine and Lauri. I do not want to derail the thread any further and since this is PHT talk, I will leave it as this.

You haven't been here long enough to judge on how people on this board perceive the Bulls and their management. Believe me, I have been very critical of how the team was run under GarPax regime in the past and even now. But your assessment of "WCJ" and how he fits in the modern NBA game is beyond ludicrous even the critical Bulls fans would disagree. I wouldn't go into debate on which advanced stat is a better measurement of player's impact, but whatever ESPN gives you do not do a good job of factoring the non-qualified players. To say WCJ is one of the worst centers in the NBA is a fallacy in itself. If you want to look at production across positions in the NBA, center is far from being the weakest position currently. Anyhow, if you want to look at a stat that looks at all statistical population, take a look at VORP ranking over here: https://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2019_advanced.html Guess who checked in at 148 of all NBA players, and who is at the very bottom, 511 out 511 NBA players who suited up this season?

This post is full of fallacies, false information, and a bunch of opinionated statements. Sorry pal, you may say you analyze basketball for a living, but no one is buying what you're selling.

I do not disagree that Lauri and Lavine aren't #1 option on PO team, I think everyone could see that. But Sexton has been garbage thus far and your reasoning that he'd been a better pick than WCJ because he isn't a modern day big is asinine. Sure a scorer in the mold of Sexton has potential to be an all star, but he'd been a terrible fit next to Lavine regardless, and Sexton has shown jackshit thus far to prove anyone wrong.

An athletic rim protector who could switch to cover smaller players and with range out to the 3 point line does not fit in today's NBA? Wow this guy is drunk. In fact, look at Ray Ray drunk.

If the Sox believe their window is starting next year then a 2nd round pick is small price to pay for a mid rotation veteran with how much uncertainty we have in our rotation. With the price that comp picks have been traded for, we could always acquire one later if we have the need to.