Look at Ray Ray Run

It's amazing how someone as analytically inclined as you could still fall for the fallacy of my personal experience means this isn't a problem because I'm fine.

So, why can't you punch your kid in the face? Raise your kids how you want is a wild statement. We abide by plenty of other laws. If you read the studies, this creates a similar response in the brain as sexual assault which I doubt you'd justify as raising your kids how you want.

Huh? No one wanted clevinger which is why he ended up here.

You think it's OK to hit your children? Can someone please show me one piece of evidence or data that viable supports spanking as anything more than a way to teach your child violence? Add in the fact he doesn't have primary custody and the mother clearly is against it, and of course this is child abuse. Hilarious that people think spanking or using a belt on your kid is different than punching them or other forms of physical violence. “The findings are one of the last pieces of evidence to make sense of the research of the last 50 years on spanking,” says researcher Jorge Cuartas, a Ph.D. candidate at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, who coauthored the study with Katie McLaughlin, professor at the Department of Psychology at Harvard University. “We know that spanking is not effective and can be harmful for children’s development and increases the chance of mental health issues. With these new findings, we also know it can have potential impact on brain development, changing biology, and leading to lasting consequences.” The study, “Corporal Punishment and Elevated Neural Response to Threat in Children,” published in Child Development, examined spanked children’s brain functioning in response to perceived environmental threats compared to children who were not spanked. Their findings showed that spanked children exhibited greater brain response, suggesting that spanking can alter children’s brain function in similar ways to severe forms of maltreatment. https://www.gse.harvard.edu/ideas/usable-knowledge/21/04/effect-spanking-brain

No one in the sport would ever do this because it would go against the collusion that exists across all industry. Baseball analytics/leadership has an expected pay-band same as any other profession and those pay bands are the culmination of - in my opinion - illegal salary setting guidance from "survey" data gathered by consulting agencies and etc. I know because I work in this space. There are some legal challenges finally coming forward very recently about pay bands and survey gathering. This does two things - it assures that employees don't ever have the ability to do exactly what you're stating, because no competitor would ever pay 200-300% of a given pay band range because you then don't fit in the range, and it artificially suppresses wages across all industry as it sets your value to a company not based on what you provide, but based on what people that are not you provide in completely different roles in different orgs. So while this is a great idea, the reality is the Sox can offer maybe 25% more than the median salary of that position and Jerry is probably the guy fighting to keep those bands lower.

Most of those things are a joke in the first place. Arm strength is built and maintained through usage. Not gradual builds and sudden stops. The computational analytics used in the pitching space has been hyper focused on spin/pitch shape and velocity at the demise of everything else. The industry needs to be forced to change because they're driving these kids over the edge into unsustainable territories as has been proven over and over again.

They're trying to stop the March towards max effort and velo for as long as you can and then well bring in the next guy. Endurance needs to be considered for SPs, not just max effort. Guys in college football go from playing 12 games to possibly 21 in the NFL.

Why? It's 100 pitches. Starters should be conditioned to throw 100 pitches. If they're college kids they were throwing a lot more than that in certain starts.

I'm fine with roster restrictions to force this too, but I think that has a harder time getting through due to injury risk caused by that. 100 pitches isn't an injury risk but forces you towards endurance more than max knowing you have to get there.

You're not much older than me, and baseball has changed dramatically from my younger years. I don't see age as the issue here. Even in 98, sps avg 6.1 ip per start. That's only .2 ip less than in 1979, 1964, 1955 etc. In 2024, it's 5.1. It was 5.7 in the 2010's. It's 5.0 in the 2020's. The game has changed more in the last 15 years than it had in the 80 prior.

You think the pitch clock hasn't been a good thing for baseball? The NBA has made more rule changes than any sport to change how it is played an accommodate for changes. Soccer and uh...... Baseball! Lol you sure you still watching baseball pal?

Salary relief as a team already in line to have a bottom 5 payroll in the game. What an embarrassing organization this is

Other sports dictate this.

Correct. The game is too analytical. It's too max effort. It's not enough endurance and it's not situational enough anymore. It promotes a game that lacks action. I think there's probably plenty in the baseball and baseball analytics community who agree.

Every other sport has changed rules plenty of times due to technology and change in speed/skill/etc. The idea that baseball should never change rules to accommodate the games changes is short sighted imo.