jad

And when your boss tells you you can live comfortably on 20K less per year than you get now, and therefore you can expect that as a pay cut, exactly how do you react?

The math is pretty simple, no? The average career for an MLB player is 5.6 years. Let's just say you have a 25 man roster (even though it's effectively higher than that). Looks to me that you need 4-5 players from the farm even to keep a minimum roster. So just to have an average farm, you need all your first five picks eventually to become part of your roster.

While I agree totally on E-rod, I'm not sure those 'bright spots' are that few. E.g., Devers, Bogaerts, Vasquez, Workman, JDM, Holt, are all having good years. Mookie, ok, but not MVP-like. Benny and JBJ--disappointing, but not shockingly bad. That certainly should have gotten the job done (if, say, the nos. 1-3 starters had managed to win another dozen or so games, that is, even if they had had mediocre to disappointing years, which they did not).

Another factor I heard cited to explain this is eye focus, which essentially switches from "far" to "near" when the ball gets near the plate. (Same, I believe, in tennis). This gives the illusion of sudden movement as the eyes, or brain, adjusts to where the ball is (what used to be called the "hop" in a fastball--a term I don't hear used anymore). Again, a pure illusion. As for groundballs, I think the only way for one to pick up speed would be if it were hit with terrific topspin--again, this certainly 'seems' to happen in tennis. But I'm not sure whether that speed is real or just an illusion as the ball does not bounce as expected. This, of course, could be easily tested. I think we already know the FB does not rise or 'hop'--all we're looking for there is an explanation of why it seems to do so. The first time I saw MLB players throwing from the outfield, I was convinced that the ball rose as it was thrown--obviously, it wasn't. It must be what the brain tells us when confronted with a throw that is much faster than what we're used to.

Yup. We agree on all points. (This being a sports board, however, that should not prevent us from arguing passionately about it!)

This is word-play. Gravity is of course constant, but its 'effects' vary. (Helicopters and frisbees, for example). Also, trying to distinguish 'movement' from 'lack of movement' makes little sense. Again, helicopters and frisbees. In a vacuum, a thrown baseball would move in a parabola. But that is affected by all sorts of things in the real world: atmospheric resistance, itself affected by spin, the gyroscopic effect of spin etc. etc. These change the trajectory of the ball away from the parabola of an ideal vacuum. It hardly matters whether you call the discrepancy in this path 'movement' or 'lack of movement.'

Yeah, I know. I went to a Double-A game a couple of weeks ago, because really, after a day of sailing, tennis, golf, going to the museums, checking out the art museum, a couple of restaurants, an outdoor concert, lobster rolls, hanging out on the beach, I just couldn't find a damn thing to do.

C'mon, Rafy. listen to people who really know the game, and (of course) have played at levels you once day hope to attain.

What? Of COURSE they do! Some of the best minds in sports are on this boards and the RS know it! Do you think it's a coincidence that after 86 years, the RS began to win championships just when sports boards began to be popular? Or that DD was fired just when many here began to demand his head?

It won't matter. Once you show that tangible facts do not fit their narrative, they will begin appealing (and already have) to 'intangibles', e.g., the 'attitude' of the team, etc., which no one can measure or perceive, players' 'readiness to play', also imperceptible.

Blessedly, your lack of self-awareness will prove to be a life-saver.

Well yes. But having thought about golf, now to baseball. Since pitching and defense are so important, do the RS need to get rid of, say, JDM, and maybe toss in Betts and Boggaerts and Devers (even though all are good to excellent defenders) to try to find another Bradley Jr., and David Price? The RS problem this year was not lack of defense. It was, as everyone knows, starting pitching. You already have, what, close to 100million invested in that? Are you proposing to increase that figure? eat much of that money, likely for years (via trade)? or do what you can (including hope) that your SP perform as they are paid to perform? Because those seem to me the real-world choices.

Obviously I let him walk and see if I can find a used-up middle reliever at 20 mil/yr. (OK. I'll stay with guiding principle #1: I keep my best players.)

Trying to improve your team? Well obviously the first thing you should do is get rid of your best players (at least, in the bizarro world of sports boards).

You're right. It is sort of like the Washington football team celebrating the signing of Ernie Davis (and Bobby Mitchell). On the other hand, it serves as a good reminder to some of us that this happened in our lifetimes. Hard to believe that an all-white RS team seemed perfectly ordinary to me as a kid, as did the fact that there were no black players at schools like Alabama.

Or Bobby Valentine! Ass-kicking is just what this team needs.

Sale: 6 wins; Price-- 7; Eovaldi --1 . Former-Cy-Young-winner: 12. How is this the bullpen's fault?

Yeah,, players wanting to get money sucks. Let the owners have it instead.

I don't understand the "move everyone except Devers" hysteria. You have players who are having excellent years and earning every nickel of their salaries: Boggaerts, Vasquez, Holt, Martinez. Mookie is also doing fine, just not MVP level. So is Benintendi. Why would you get rid of them? hoping, say, the depleted farm magically produces young players like ... say: Boggaerts, Vasquez, Mookie, Benintendi, Holt etc. ... and that the salaries of Sale, Price, and Castillo just as magically disappear, as of course will that of Pedroia, who will be happy not to have the millions in his guaranteed contract).

Agreed. He did exactly what he was paid to do. But I don't see how getting rid of him does anything to unload those salaries (and shouldn't Castillo be included here?) You can either pay them to give you mediocre performances and sit multiple games out on rehab, or you can pay them to do that for another team, since no one is likely to take on those salaries in full. Is it worth $20-30mil/year just to open up a roster spot for one of minor-league pitchers the RS have run out this year?

Exactly! But it's hard to fuel the wrath of sports fans with the truth.

Gosh. Every game thread adds another to my 'block' list. (I concede, losing brings out the worst in some posters and there are doubtless 'good people on both sides'.)

Ha! For me, the reason is that I was going to school in NYC and had no radio or tv. I just happened to walk into a lobby where there was a tv (I think it was the NYState theatre, ... but why would they have a tv?). Yaz up, so I watched THE pop-up--the only play of that game I saw. (I fully admit, that this memory sounds suspicious! and may well be manufactured.)

Nonsense You have absolutely no idea what 'the players will take.' If you do, please provide the evidence; for example, quotations from players claiming they would take millions in salary cuts to smoke weed. Nor is there such a monolithic thing as 'the NFL' that thinks in a certain way.

If so, he's doing a bad job. (And how would one do this? Go to Judge and Sanchez and say: 'Listen, dudes. I'm really worried about the RS, who have almost no chance of getting the wild-card, and whom we beat the crap out of much of the year. How about you two take a couple of third strikes for the team. And WHATEVER you do, don't hit it out.")