notin

Garcia is top 100 now. But everyone except Baseball Prospectus has him outside of 60. Luis Gil was less effective in the Sally League this year than Sox prospect Thad Ward. Ward is one year older, but at what point do you rectify the "Yankees have great pitching prospects and the Sox have nothing" commentary vs reality? Same league. Same hitters. Gil wasn't as good. Why is he a better prospect than Ward? Clarke Schmidt is far from a "great" pitching prosect. He is 23 and did throw 19 good innings in AA, but he isn't going to jump to AAA and MLB any time soon. This great pitching prospects AA numbers were similar to the completely unranked and similar-aged Eduard Bazardo in Portland, except Bazardo did it for 32 IP. But Schmidt is "great" despite being 23 with only 19 IP above A ball. I think Bryan Mata is a better prospect than either Schmidt or Gil. While his AA numbers were certainly not impressive, he is only 20.

That's a similar concept. Finite element analysis relates this type of force to springs using the formula f = kx, where x is the distance (amount of deformation here) and k is the spring constant, which is this case would be a function of the modulus of elasticity (a material property) of the bat material. Aluminum has a much higher modulus of elasticity, and therefore a higher k value than wood. The obvious trade off is that the amount of deformation of the wood (or x) is obviously going to be greater than the aluminum. But the force is going to be a constant. So f = kx for aluminum should actually be the same value as f = kx for wood at contact, but this is only true in what science and engineering students call "Physics Land" (Physics Land is a mythical place where those students get to ignore the effects of friction, air resistance, and the Law of Conservation of Energy is kept simple.). The reason the two forces will differ is because we are not in Physics Land, but in the real world. And in the real world, the wood will experience a higher degree of plastic deformation, or permanent deformation, and this will cause a significant drop in kinetic energy, as energy can be lost here, and the Law of Conservation of Energy is not kept so simple. Those newer aluminum bats you mention are operating on the idea of changing the elastic deformation of the bat to a value as close to 0 as possible. No deformation means f =kx = k*0 = 0. Although it probably never quite gets there. If we bring this back to corking a bat, cork is softer than wood and more ready to experience plastic deformation, which reduces the f = kx applied to the ball. If a batter used a bat made entirely out of cork, the bat would dent and probably break on his first swing, which obviously won't help. A player swinging a corked wooden bat would experience more deformation in the wood, but also more plastic deformation due to the hollowing of the barrel, reducing the amount of kinetic energy transferred to the ball. And if the deformation is too much, what can happen is similar to a loosely strung tennis racket, where excessive deformation of the bat becomes detrimental. There is a point where that happens as well..

Actually Sale went a long way to showing he could pitch very well with his lower velocity. Unless W-L and ERA are the only measures you like...

They're Yankee pitching prospects, That alone makes them great. Don't you know how this game is played?

Only if the same situation is bad for the Sox but beneficial when it happens to the Yankees...

Owners/GMs/etc. also work with a lot more and better information than we have here on message boards. If they have a plan - and they probably do - it might have 0 resemblance to anything discussed on these boards. But they definitely have a better idea of the health and condition of those pitchers than we have. We're all just assuming that those pitchers will be ready to go. And a rebuild plan really isn't in order. The Sox might take some steps - like dealing Betts - to get cheaper help. But they are going to have a high payroll and are going to try to stay competitive, and if they reset, will be able to spend big in 2021 (and bring back Betts if they deal him). So any trades will probably be for MLB-ready types to fill gaps. Like many, you are overlooking 2 very big factors. 1) The Sox are not a bad team, just a disappointing one. There is a big difference. And 2) the difference between the top and bottom in MLB isn't that big. Best teams win bout 60% of the time. Worst teams win about 50% of the time. While fans like to look at a team and spot flaws and say "Well this team has no second baseman and no fifth starter, so they going to be a .500 team at best, that kind of assessment simply isn't realistic. There is no winning magic formula that needs to have all the boxes checked. Turning a bad team around can happen quickly if you're lucky. And the Sox aren't even a bad team...

I bought my daughter an aluminum softball bat for about $70 and that was at a Play It Again Sports....

The biggest jumps are from 1976 to 1977 and from 1992 to 1993 (0.48 runs each time). Both were expansion years. Interestingly, the latest expansion year (1998) saw only a 0.02 increase...

Right. And steroids were only taken for the flavor...

By taking players in overslot positions and saving their cash for the Unsignables. The Astros took the cheaper of all the likely #1 over all picks in Correa, and saved the money for Lance McCullers, who was a reported tough sign. The Royals grabbed Hunter Dozier early (I think no one even had him as a first rounder), and saved cash that they used to sign the difficult Sean Manea...

Big time. If you were a billy goat, he'd be trying to get you under his bridge to be his meal...

And smart teams like the Astros and Royals figured out how to game that system...

They shatter and the balls bounce all over the first base line. Anything else, Graig?

Bats are freakin' crazy expensive. $70 for a cheap one? WTF?

The difference is in the deformation. When you strike a pitch with a wood bat, both the bat and ball deform, albeit not equally. But that deformation is lost kinetic energy. An aluminum (or aluminium for the Brits out there) barely deforms, if at all. And that make a huge difference in the amount of energy transferred to the ball. That aluminum bats don't deform as much and the ball still leaves with more kinetic energy is further proof as to why corking bats doesn't work. Unless you like foul tips...

The 2006 Astros were 8.5 games out with 12 to play and managed to get it down to 1/2 game with 3 games left, but just couldn't finish it off. They ended the season 1.5 games behind St. Louis. They did help themselves by sweeping the Cardinals in a 4 game series along the way...

But it's also why I always loved Torii Hunter. During an interview after he signed his contract with the Angels, he was naturally asked why he chose them. He said "My grandma told me I'd be stupid to turn down that much money."

The barrel is bigger, leading to more contact on the fringes. But that contact is typically just foul tips and pop ups (on the upper edge) or little weak grounders (on the lower edge). A player needs to make contact on the point of the surface of the bat radius that is in direct line with the path of the bat in order to make optimum contact. Hitting any other point on the surface of the bat splits the force vector into multiple components and leads to weaker contact. And to make hitting even tougher, that radius on the bat has to be at a point along the bat so that it passes through the center of mass. It is amazing that players can do all this sometimes....

Sort of like how players signing free agent contracts always say "I felt this team had the best chance to win." And they coincidentally offered the most money...

9 games out with 13 to play would be the greatest comeback of all time. The Marlins once came back down 7 1/2 games with 17 to play, but that's the closest I can think of...

I ripped that contract on Day One (and have been vindicated by none other than Bellhorn himself). I don't think Eovaldi's season was a surprise...

Disappointing and frustrating. But it also means a complete teardown isn't necessary...

And already an animated movie. "Robots" starring Ewen MacGregor, Hallie Berry, Robin Williams and Jim Broadbent...

That would be the only positive of it, but the increase is surface area only allows for more weak contact on the expanded edges of the bat barrel. A player has to hit along the radius of the bat to make good contact. A corked bat might help increase pop ups and foul tips. A lighter bat will lead to the same effects on balls hit squarely on the radius and increased exit velocity for those hitting the sweet spot, due to the increase in kinetic energy and moment arm.

If a player does cork a bat, he can get increased bat speed. So if coriking is working, that player should perform the perfectly legal maneuver of switching to a lighter bat. In kinetic energy, speed is paramount. 1/2*mass*velocity squared. Increasing the velocity from 1 to 2 increased the energy by a function of 4. But the corking myth I grew up with is that it makes the bat "springier." This only works in Bugs Bunny cartoons. The function of a spring in this case is to absorb energy, not to create it. (Those things on your wheels are not called "Shock creators" for a reason.) Besides damaging the integrity of the wood, a corked bat also moves the center of mass of the bat (aka the "sweet spot") closer to the hitter, reducing the length of his moment arm. Essentially, by bringing the center of mass towards to hitter, you are making the opposite of a fungo bat, which is designed with a longer handle and more mass further away from the hitter. And is also designed to hit long flyballs. So opposite of long flyballs would be detrimental here. Of course, this all assumes the hitter corks the barrel of the bat. If a hitter were to cork the handle, it would have the desired effect, assuming the bat didn't immediately break upon contact or via torque or both.