Hugh2

ADD: I think I'm perhaps underselling the odds of a Thompson sighting in Boston this year. I can see a future scenario where due to health and/or performance someone like Anthony is already in the outfield and Campbell is in the infield and then when Refsnyder goes down Thompson comes up to be the RHH platoon outfielder. That's what he is. The back up platoon corner outfielder.

Thompson is the type of guy who sign to start the year in AAA, maybe you need him maybe you don't and he's likely DFA'd at some point mid to late season. You add guys to the bottom of your roster like that every year. I would not be surprised if he had zero at bats in Boston.

Base case, base. Best case would be Story Colorado shows up, Casas is a middle of the order bat, Bregman and Devers are all stars, Duran does not regress, Rafaela improves, and Campbell and Anthony are absolute studs.

I think base case scenario the lineup is marginally better than last year. Which if the defense and pitching can improve a little should be fine enough to make them a contender. Guys like Story and Casas who only got 94 and 212 at at bats could make the lineup look different if they are healthy this year. And if any of the youngsters step up with Bregman added the lineup could look very different by the end of the year than what we saw last.

I think Duran might regress a little with the bat, but his defense is legit.

No that's exactly what I mean, your 5th starter should be your 5th best starter. Perhaps a better way to say it is, you 5 best starting pitchers should be your #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 starter. We all know there's a spot open and guys are competing for it. I could care less if they actually end up being the 1st or 5th best starter. That's irrelevant. Whoever looks best between Priester/Fitts, assuming one of them looks capable, in a couple weeks from now should get the node.

Whoever looks like they're one of the best 5 starting pitchers on March 26th, that's who should be the 5th starter.

But did they say at what level? they may be looking for depth or even a guy to fill a spot in Worcester if Campbell or Anthony start the year in the bigs. At the very least, I find it hard to believe they're not looking for something lesser than a starting caliber player.

I'm all for defferals, but 25 million a year isn't a budget breaker for an ace. The years is a lot of risk, but if you sign a premium free agent at 30 you're likely paying him into his late 30's, rather than his mid 30's and getting his prime years. Given Crochetts thin track record for starting that may be too much of a risk for some to swallow, but it's the kind I would hope the Sox would make if they really really believed in a guy.

I was going to say an extension might come around the $225 number. That seems high, but if it was for 9 years, you'd be paying him 25 million a year until he's 34. That's a lot of risk. But he, and the Sox are probably looking at a much smaller window that allows him to hit FA again around 30 years old. Still, If they believe in him I'd take that big swing.

#1 Prospect in baseball holds a lot more value than the #4 prospect in your system. Kopech was also very highly regarded at the time, after he was traded after that year he was a top 25 prospect when the next set of rankings went out. This haul might work out better for Chicago, but at the time the Sale deal was a bigger package.

That's the way the game is played. A bird in hand is worth 2 in the bush, but it the open market of MLB baseball a high end talent like crochet is worth 3 birds in the bush. If all the prospects pan out, or even just two hit their ceiling it's going to look like the Sox got fleeced. But for a point of reference in Yoan Moncada, Luis Basabe and Michael Kopech all hit their ceiling that would have looked like an awful trade on our part, but in the end you don't complain if the guy you got does what he's supposed to do. In a fair trade, it hurts both sides, both sides have to feel like they're winning the trade.

This is also the time of year where everything is amplified in the media and teams are overcautious. It's kind of hard to tell at first glance if an injury is bad and concern is warranted or a team is just being cautious. I'd bet there are many times a guy walks into camp feeling a little off, a little sore, where they might play during the regular season but because it's spring training they're just shut down. It's very telling that he's taking BP and plans to play this Saturday, it might just be caution and nothing else. If he ends up not playing this weekend.....I'd start to be a little bit more concerned.

Exactly

shooting a basketball isn't max effort, but jumping 40-48 inches vertically off the ground is. And they do that after running up the court as opposed to at rest (which actually might make jumping with max effort more safe for a short duration of time until one fatigues)

I beg to differ, I think my comparison has been misunderstood. Elbow flexion is elbow flexion, 65% max heart rate is 65% max heart rate, maximum effort is maximum effort. Whether you're sprinting up the court or sprinting towards a line drive if you're going 100% your body is it's ATP-PC & Lactic acid system for that short burst of energy. so on and so forth. Your body doesn't differentiate, it's the function of the movement that determines the risk regardless of what we call the sport. Jumping is jumping, running is running, diving is diving; on a physiological level the body does not discriminate. Obviously the nature of each sport is different, and puts strains on the human body in different ways; in basketball ankle sprains are much more common for example. Now just like in basketball how someone could tired from running up and down the court all day I could buy the possibility that shorter periods of rest could tire an arm out quicker. However, I see many pitching injuries as chronic injuries resulting from years and years of unnatural movement, they're not an acute sports injury like rolling an ankle. I think shorter periods of time between pitches just tires pitchers out quicker, and in turn might actually preserve their arms in the long run if it leads to lower pitch counts. I'd be interesting if any studies actually show this in the future that the pitch clock actually curves the rise in injury. However this is purely a hypothesis on my part. We've clearly seen a dramatic spike in injuries the past couple decades (especially just the last) that correlates and has been corroborated with studies showing it to be a function of throwing harder and an uptick that started well before the pitch clock. I'm open to possibly being wrong, but until there's evidence that's more than just anecdotal that's how I feel.

They've done studies on what people think about studies.

The shot clock resets yes, but it's not like they stand around for 24 seconds and wait to move.

I actually have a math based degree and spent quite a bit of time studying statistics. Now I'd be lying if I said I break down the data of every study that comes out, hardly ever actually. I do whatever everyone else does and read the results. Now, I don't think it's bad advice to tell people to be skeptical at all, but I do check things out from time to time, and when the people compiling data together are people well qualified, things tend to check out. I think the problem comes from being able to tell what is a good study and what is NOT a good study, with considerations of the SOURCE!. And most of us read a summarization of a study in the press and not the actually study itself. Myself included, but when I have dived in things tend to check out when the source is good. People are trying to get things right. Data scientists aren't dumb, and the doctors, surgeons, athletic trainers all want what's best. I don't think there's some secret national cabal of evil doctors, athletic trainers, surgeons, sports trainers etc etc etc. that aren't interested in finding out what is leading to the cause of a rise of injuries among mlb players With a relative level of comfort, I trust those studies. Obviously it's something. they have decades of data now from the onset of all these "sports labs" they put kids in to up performance and to be quiet frank the leading explanation makes complete 100% sense to me. As a former athlete and someone who has been entrenched in the fitness industry their whole life it makes absolute sense to me that throwing harder and pushing your body's limit during a violent un-natural movement is going to increase your risk of injury. That makes sense to me, I'd be very surprised if that was not the case. It will be interesting to see if the pitch clock does add to that. I'd think if anything it would wear pitchers out quicker, and that might actually end up putting a little less stress on the arm. That's literally a hypothesis made while writing this, I don't know but it is interesting.

Yeah, data will change my mind but I'm pretty sure the pitch clock has a marginal affect at best. As you said there's a study, albeit we might need more time to pass to truly know but they have OTHER studies that have definitively tied the rise in pitching injuries to other causes. If people don't like the pitch clock....that's fine.

I think of it like this. Lets say I was doing squats in the gym. I was lifting 125 lbs and giving myself 20-25 seconds rest in-between sets. If I decrease my rest time I'm not going to hurt myself if I'm I decrease my rest to 15 seconds. I might run out of gas quicker, but if I get injured it's because I was in s*** shape and about to get injured anyways.

Yes, but the injury trend has been well established well before the pitch clock. We know it's because guys are throwing harder, it's being taught to them at an earlier age. All these camps emphasizing throwing hard. I don't buy the pitch clock is causing an increase in injury, I'm not sure if any studies have been done on that it would interesting if there were.

And we aren't even talking about just spring training, we are talking early spring training. I get that we are all eager to talk baseball, and spring training games is the only thing we have at the moment. I can respect that.

ADD. I think it's probably too early to anoint Fitts the 5th starter. When these guys get stretched out things could look different. I think Priester still has a good shot at at being the best option.

I think the Sox prefer Criswell in the swingman, long relief role. The 5th spot is Fitts for the taking right now.