ORS

I think an experienced baseball fan, predicting without bias, is every bit as accurate as PECOTA, or ZiPS, or the Marcels, or PrOPS. How often do w go into the year saying, so and so is projected to do this and it is way off, in either direction. I'm all about statistical analysis, and I think trends in numbers are important, but the projection systems hold little value to me.

I find it funny that Karstens and Rasner are part of this "depth". Karstens/Rasner is Yankee for Pauley/Gabbard. Those two certainly aren't on my "depth" chart, at least not my ideal one. The season will more than likely be a disappointment for whichever team has to endure more starts from either of these dynamic duos.

Holy crap, is that one convoluted assumption. I mentioned my service in passing because it just happened to be what I was doing when I was 26 years old and training for a deployment. It wasn't part of my argument, and you could replace it with any job requiring physical fitness and my point is unchanged. This is funny.

I guess Thumper found a loop-hole around that whole North American Amateur Draft that occurs every June. A HS kid good enough to close in AAA immediately, yet so unknown he won't get drafted? Sidd Finch lives!!!

Will Carroll is the pre-eminent sportswriter regarding mechanics, physiology, and injuries. From yesterday at BaseballProspectus: link

No, it isn't stating the obvious. It just feels like that to you because it is your opinion. Since you seem to think it a ploy, then connect the dots. What was the motive for that amount of disinformation?

It's not yours either, Gom. No specialists have gone to the media against the original move. Several have gone to the media supporting it. Do the math.

I'm not suggesting Wilt wasn't a special player. But, the smaller relative competition, not to mention the smaller paint area, made his height advantage have a greater impact.

That is complete folly. I'm all about keeping your prospects to see what they can do, but not for that level player. If you can get the best pitcher in baseball who is only 28, you do it without question.

Baylor - 6' 5" Russell - 6' 9" Robertson - 6' 5" Thurmond - 6' 11" Pettit - 6' 9" Bellamy - 6' 11" Reed - 6' 9" Wilt - 7' 1" Only two of those guys are what would be considered big men now.

Wow. I didn't even insult you in that last post and you attack my service to the country. Kind of like your argument, it looks like that "take the moral high ground" stuff was bunch of BS. I've got no problem with the messenger, just the message. The message is wrong because it attempts to establish as fact an opinion. And, I'm not bullying you. It just feels that way because you are getting your hat handed to you.

That's a nice try, but it just doesn't fit the definition of fabrication. I didn't make anything up, I'm going off my recollection which I trust a lot more than yours. I don't need Peter Gammons to back me up. I know what I saw. I saw a kid come in and throw cheese for 5+ innings. He wasn't able to go longer because he was on a strict pitch count, and he was only throwing cheese at the time. 93-95 mph is great, but if it is all you have and you aren't hitting your spots, major league hitters can work the count, which is what happened. Again, I come back to the basic disagreement I have with your opinion based assertion. You are stating unequivically that he cannot be a top-flight starter. You can say that until you are blue in the face, but that doesn't make it true. In the end it is only your opinion. If that is your opinion, fine, I respectfully disagree. But that isn't how you portray it. You state it as if it were fact, and you call anyone who disagrees with you a fanboy. Kind goes against your whole "you can't argue the point so you just insult" logic, doesn't it Julio? Here's some facts, since you claim to be only interested in those. The pitcher that had low scores on his game cards was throwing one good pitch, and he was on a strict pitch count. That limited his innings, which is a compenent of those game scores. He also struggled with command, walking quite a few batters, another component of game scores. That same pitcher today has refined his command at this level and has very good BB/9 rates. He also has another very good pitch in his arsenal, the splitter, and and has shown significant improvement in the curve. The only thing missing is stamina, which again ties back to the fact that he lost of year of development. Given more time to develop it, he would gain it. I don't know where you got the idea that a 26 y/o can't develop stamina, but I can tell you it is patently false. I should know, I did it after 26 in the Marine Corps. Muscles can be trained at just about any age. Given that information, there is no way you can say with certainty that he won't be a good SP. Given the questions about stamina, there's no way I can say for certain he will be, but, that's the thing, I'm not. You are the only one trying to shove the square peg into the round hole.

No, I won't deny Gammon's interview, I'll just ask you to do something relatively simple, well, at least for most people, and that is to apply an appropriate timeline to the situation. I stated Papelbon maintained his velocity in his '05 starts. You said he didn't, and glory be, you have a source. I, however, don't need a source, because I watched those starts. Since you do need a source, logic follows that you didn't watch them, so you were making the part about him losing velocity up. You just introduced a fatal flaw to any argument, fabricated information. Point me. What Gammons wrote is about this spring training. Repeat that. THIS spring training. Of course Papelbon didn't have stamina, he was closing last year. So, when you say you don't think he'd ever be able to build it, you ignore an entire year where he lost time to build it. This just goes to show that you either aren't that aware of what is going on, or that you can't put two and two together. Deny Gammons article? Why, it's much easier rip apart the rabble you post.

Before last year his BB/9 trend was.... 3.74 3.69 3.48 He had a bad year that broke the trend, but he'll improve. There aren't "typical" levels for developing pitchers because, well, they are developing.

I'm in agreement 700. Although, I'm not sure that will even help at this point. He hasn't exactly sucked in the minors, so if he goes down and dominates, it won't really change a thing. At this point, he'll need to show it at the highest level to get serious interest, and if he shows it, why trade him.

In the end, it is the strengthening of the muscle that will keep the house of cards together, so I'm not sure I agree with the assessment that it isn't a muscle issue. Taxing the muscle will create a situation where a future subluxation could occur. I'm aware of the cumulative effect, and I agree that there would be some danger when he got into the upper range of pitches. That is why a move to the rotation would have to be accompanied by a "stretching out" period where he developed muscle stamina. We aren't talking about him going from throwing one inning to throwing 7 overnight. He'd have to start with a limit and work up. This is what he was doing prior to last year and there was never a problem or scare. I think the greater danger is consecutive days of usage. Everything I have learned or read about muscle fatigue has cautioned against repeated intense usage without rest. Remember, he got hurt in game that was his 3rd appearance in 3 days. This is no coincidence. Your workout ratios are all off. First of all, a RP has to warm up before each outing, so there is warmup time to consider. Second, your timing places it at 12 to 1. A typical start is about 100 pitches, and a typical relief appearance is around 15. That's about a 6.5 to 1 ratio. And, it makes no mention of intensity or consecutive day usage. Is it easier on your body to run at a full sprint for 35 minutes every day or to run at a comfortable pace every 4th day? That is much more analogous to the situation. In the end, his shoulder has been cleared to make this move, so I'm not overly concerned about injury going forward. I don't think this team would risk an asset like that. So, while the point may be moot now, I still agree with the original assessment, and I still think that if there were strong contrary opinions from professionals in the field, then we would have seen them. We haven't, and that says a lot to me.

I would like to commend adam for some really insightful analysis. Everyone has speculated that his mechanical inconsistencies are due to Sox coaching, and his mental makeup is being questioned. That stuff is so cliche. Did anyone ever consider the potentially drastic impact of facial hair? Think outside the box people!

A K, then another walk for he who shall not be named. Hansen out. Snyder in. Prompt 2-run single. Hansen's line 0.2 IP, 5 ER, 2 H, 2 BB, 2 HBP, too late to trade him.

From the MLB media page, here is a link to the zip codes that fall under MLB.TV blackout. link Why not dump Dish Network and go Cablevision all the way instead of having both?

Then a walk with the bases loaded. No me gusta Hansen, Craig.

HBP with the sacks full (HBP loaded them too). I hate Craig Hansen.

Hansen in. Promptly loads the bases with one out. Mmm'bop blows goats.

Not in the article. To me the article looks like the reporter is just flinging stuff against the wall in lieu of nothing else to write about.

No s*** you are wrong a lot. The name of this thread is wrong. The article doesn't say they are looking to move him.