a700hitter

You copycat the ones that work and save your money not doing those that don't work.

Every department has a budget for salary and compensation. No team has all the top scouts. If the budget devoted to tech/new fangled corporate business initiatives was redirected to additional scouting budget, they would most certainly be able to upgrade the quality of their scouts.

It also works for every pizzeria and fast food joint in town.

The DHing will extend the life of his knees.

Pieces of Yankee Stadium (1976 ed) started falling a few years before they built the new place.

I like that park, aside from the 50 foot glove. It has great sightlines. The upperdeck seems closer to the field than the lower deck in Oakland. I like Camden Yards too, but my preference is ATT. Of the new parks, the Phillies place is my least favorite. That might be influenced by the fact that Phillie fans are just so unpleasant.

I would be nostalgic for the old park, and someday I will want to take my grandkids to see a ballgame at Fenway, but I would really enjoy a nice new, comfortable ballpark. If anyof you have been to JetBlue park it is the same field inside a new ballpark. Granted that is a much smaller park, but they could do the same thing with a 45,000 seating capacity park.

Eventually most teams have employed some version of moneyball. It really didn't take long. As for scouting evolving, I would disagree. The skillsets to play the game remain unchanged. Scouts have broader reach using technology and there are more readily available stats on more players so they can better utilize their time. The technology and availability of stats I would say have helped scouts be more efficient with their time, but the fundamentals of the job remain unchanged.

The Sox should have had a weight clause in his contract for the kind of money he is being paid. He could hire a top nutritionist, eat tasty food, not be hungry and get to a healthy weight.

Published height and weight is usually fictional. Panda at his fattest is a good 40lbs bigger than Gwynn-- buy my eye test.

They would still have lots of obstacles. Once they move out of Fenway, they would lose the tourist money. A lot of people come to see the venerable old ballpark. That is a factor in their decision. It is why people keep coming to Wrigley. It's not the Cubs that are drawing them in. If you are a baseball fan, even casually, you have to go to Wrigley when you visit Chicago. If the Sox move to the burbs, attendance would drop like a stone if they field garbage like they did in 2014.

Gwynn was pudgy and soft, but Panda has about 40 lbs on Gwynn easily. The pounding on the joints is exponential as the weight increases.

Boston politics is too corrupt for them to get it done in our lifetime.

When you see Big Papi in person, you realize that he is not fat. He is just a big strong man. Even at his heaviest, he never had a gut like Panda. The knees give out prematurely on the overweight players, e.g. CC, Mo Vaughn.

In my experience, these tools, methods etc. are usually pretty costly. Consultants need to be engaged to train personnel etc. IMO, the money expended on these budget items would be better spent to poach other organizations' top scouts. These flavor of the day MBA ideas end up being copycat-ed by the competition so any edge is very, very short-lived. Businesses should invest in their most basic fundamentals. Never mind providing the scout with state of the art software. Get the best scouts. That's the way to go. That is the out of the box thinking. I have heard "out of the box" thinking preached for years, and then everyone does the same thing as the competition. This "neuroscouting' will be new and innovative for a very short period. No one is advocating that teams just go with an "eye test". In today's high tech world, there are people in nursing homes with cell phones and the internet. Technology is part of our world. What I am advocating is that human talent is more of a lasting advantage than any technological or analytical break through. Let the others waste their money on the trial and error of most of that. You can use it after it has been vetted and established. Some people would think that this is not forward-thinking. I disagree. If you get the best possible human talent at all levels of your organization, they will be able to better differentiate which break throughs are game changers and true advancements as opposed to passing fads. Let others invent the light bulb. I'd rather have the best organization for manufacturing it after it is invented. But that's just me... someone who has very successfully survived in business and seen many many of these things come and go.

It's a scouting tool meant to improve the performance of the scouting. Without researching this, I will bet that it came from some elite MBA program. As I said, I have seen these ideas come and go. Some of these fads can last for a long time, but they have little lasting positive impact on business. My personal favorite was when my Company hired a Corporate Ethicist (from Harvard I think) to give affirmation to a group of executives who had made some very poor business decisions. The ethicist (paid around $500k in the mid 1990's for this project) concluded that despite the fact that management's decisions had very negatively impacted the bottom line of the business they had acted in an ethically impeccable manner. Nonsensical rationalization is what the report was.

When your weight provides comedy material for Lettermen, it isn't a good thing for an athlete.

Neuroscouting? -- I.e. The flavor of the day. It is a way for baseball executives to try to differentiate themselves from the pack while playing barely .500 ball and missing the playoffs. In my 30 years of business I have seen many new Wharton/Harvard MBA business analytics and management tools with catchy names and acronyms come and go. They almost never improve performance or efficiency, except on a very temporary basis. The only people who profit from these ideas are the consultants who sell it to the exceutives. The consultants, not coincidently, are the same people that publish books on this stuff, and the books are profitable solely because they have a captive market -- their MBA students. It's mumbo jumbo.

It's nice to see that Panda arrived in Camp in top shape.

MVP = Fenway Hater

From MLB Trade Rumors:

The Yankee fans started "Boston Sucks" thing in 1976. I think it started the night of the brawl involving Bill Lee and that prick Nettles. Some guys from my high school claimed responsibility for starting that trend. Sox fans didn't go straight into the gutter with retaliation. That first year there were some shirts and bumper stickers that was a parody of NY's "I Love NY" travel advertisement. The stickers and shirts said "I love NY. It's the Yankees I hate."

You know all the tricks. On Sundays, I park on the street by one of the Northeastern dorms on Forsyth street. You don't have to feed the meters on Sunday. I have been reading your posts with great interest. You mention going to Shea Stadium and the Polo Grounds. Are you from NY? We must be pretty close in age. I wish that I had seen Ebbets Field.

Another clue, please.

Don't worry about it yet. This post was just me bein g sarcastic.