notin

Technically, that is where we are now. But maybe it is time to get away from the mud, as maybe it is not providing enough grip. Since many teams have been using chemists to develop newer and better gripping substances, maybe these teams should stop being so secretive with their proprietary discoveries, and the league can settle one or two of the best ones...

It all starts with a pre-tacked ball, but next thing you know MLB teams will be using pre-roided players, raising them from infancy on special farms and feeding them nothing but a steady diet of Stanozolol and HGH. Too subtle?

Shouldn't that be the Cardinals, as they were the team that did actual hacking? The Astros were the team that got hacked in that particular case...

JD posted a .867 OPS and a 126OPS+. I don't really care if he hits .300 anymore, but he did hit 286 last year, which for his at-bats means he was a whopping 8 hits away from hitting .300. 2020 was a ridiculous season that can be ignored for a lot of reasons...

You're still tying to mislead. Even if you use your old numbers, 37 saves and 18 blown saves is closer to 30%. But a lot of his blown saves were really "blown holds," but no stat sites differentiate between the two. As Barnes spent most of 2018 pitching in situations where he was not going to get a save but was able to get a blown save, the overall statement is misleading. Iglesias did do better than Barnes, blowing 14% of all save/hold opportunities. But Barnes actually rate was 24% of all save/hold chances blown. Less than the 32% if you only look at saves, and certainly less than the 50% which is just flat out wrong no matter how you look at it. Of course, there are other aspects that are incorrect, too. 1) How many blown saves did the Sox still win? Blown saves are not all losses, after all. And how many were blown saves where Barnes did nothing wrong? Coming in with the tying run on third and no one out and giving up a sac fly is a blown save, but is it really the fault of the pitcher getting the blown save?

If he really wants to return to Boston, he can simply exercise his player half of his mutual option rather than making statements about it to the press…

A little misleading. And by “a little” I mean “very”. In the last 3 seasons, Rasiel Iglesias has 13 blown saves per Fangraphs. He also has 76 saves. Were you looking at AL only? Iglesias’ 34 saves / 5 blown saves represent his totals from 2021 alone. Also worth noting, unlike everyone else in this post, Barnes was not a full time closer for the last 3 seasons. You can only get a save if you pitch the last inning; you can get a blown save in any inning after the 5th. Barnes has 30 holds in that stretch and Iglesias has 5. So really, Barnes has 67 saves plus holds to 18 blown saves. Iglesias has 81 saves plus holds to 13 blown saves. That certainly narrows the gap between the two..

He just signed a multimillion dollar deal. One would think he could afford freakin’ Door Dash!!

Three games into the season, it looked like we’d be battling for fifth in the AL East. Right before the last 3 games of the postseason, it looked like we might take the AL pennant. And I can’t knock any season where we eliminate the Yankees…

Here is an older article on the subject. https://grantland.com/the-triangle/postseason-umpires-mlb-accurate-joe-west/

Except a slight minority who think it’s paving the way for robot players…

Apparently. As bad as he was, that doesn’t mean there was anyone better…

They’ve been doing that for decades. And here we are…

All of these points have been refuted multiple times…

Target … locked…

I think Max likes to sled on the same slippery slope as Elktonnick. Are there any anti “automated calling of balls and strikes” arguments that don’t devolve into fans secretly fearing MLB will turn into Westworld, with the robot umps turning on their creator(s)?

Calling automated balls and strikes doesn’t get rid of umpires; it just takes one task away. There is still going to be an umpire behind the plate. He just won’t have to call balls and strikes. But foul tips, check swings, plays at the plate,etc. still need an umpire to make a call. Heck, tennis has automated in/out calls but they still use line judges. And baseball has always done what it had to to get calls right. Foul poles, for example, didn’t exist until 1931, because they were better than running ropes up through the stands as extensions of the foul line. (It probably helped that someone realized it was silly to take away a home run because the ball drifted foul after leaving the field of play.). And of course, instant replay is another technological means of ensuring proper officiating.

90% of your objections rest on your belief that the rectangle on ESPN is the limits of the technology…

It’s imaginary to human umpires. Software can make it a definitive yes/no situation…

Correct. It's not that MLB does nothing about it. They're actually very active in the umpiring. They've just arrived at or close to the limits of what they can do, and saying "it's not very good and they simply need to do better" is as impractical as coaching a sprinter by saying "run faster!"

Or because the first two trips through the order also include the weaker 8th and 9th place hitters? Answer - all three. No question about it…

My thoughts: 1. Duran will be dealt for a SP. Probably someone from Oakland. BTV values him roughly equal to Sean Manaea and Chris Bassitt, but I believe both have one year of control left. Frankie Montas would be preferable. 2. Lou Trivino is a good target for the bullpen for the same reason. 3. I do like the idea of signing Chris Taylor for 2b. Presumably he would come closer to an Enrique Hernandez type deal than the SS Crowd, many of whom will be benchmarking Francisco Lindor’s contract. 4. JD returns. Schwarber moves on. Dalbec and eventually Casas handle 1b…

It’s a very big concern for MLB and they have numerous protocols in place to evaluate the umpires. The problem is and always will be the inability of a human being to determine if a baseball traveling 90-100 mph touches any part of an invisible box of varying size. It’s just something that is not only remarkably difficult and, as pitchers continue to throw harder, will never get any easier and no amount of evaluation and training will change this. I have zero issues with ball/strike calls being electronic, and this includes the inevitable bugs that will be in the system upon implementation. MLB has made numerous far more tangible rule changes throughout its history that have had a bigger impact on game play than determining the accuracy of the officiating. Instant replay was implemented for the same reason, and while flawed, has yet to destroy the game, or even make it less watchable…

I get this but here is the problem. Those numbers first two times encompass the entire opposing lineup - all 9 hitters including the weakest ones. Now for the third time through, it’s probably mostly the top of the lineup, where the better hitters reside. So yes, he gets easier to hit. He’s undoubtedly tired, but the comparisons are not so straightforward…

And he’ll probably still lose MOY to Cash…