Jake

I mean I agree that it has looked like he might have been having some kind of mental health issue, but what I've been trying to figure out is whether that stopped

I'd like to hear more on what has been going on with him.

FWIW, I think limiting the roster to 12 pitchers would help accomplish many of the same goals the 3-batter rule would without directly outlawing rapid-fire pitching changes. It would also incentivize the development of two-way players, albeit with the risk that it promotes more use of position players on the mound who aren't pitchers at all.

Luis Robert is a good one because I think it's fair to say that thus far he hasn't been judged based on his production. That changes this year. As far as Madrigal is concerned, I'll want to see whether he gets any loft and starts being more selective at the plate. If he puts up decent numbres on the basis of near-MiLB-leading groundball rates, I'll still be down on him — similar to when minor league pitchers do a decent job in terms of ERA but with unsustainably low K rates (Danish and Beck come to mind). Otherwise, I try to put most of my attention on the guys who are close to MLB. That means Collins, Burdi, Dunning, Cease, Basabe, probably some others I'm forgetting.

It doesn't make sense that you would agree on years/dollars and then move on to opt-outs/incentives. The latter have a big impact on the former.

Was a decent game to watch and the Bulls looked good against a >.500 team. Markkanen 3 straight 30 point games. Felicio almost as good as your average high school team manager.

The team with the worst record only has a 52% chance of picking in the top 4. Bulls currently have 48% chance of picking in the top 4. Could go down to 42% chance if they catch up to the Hawks, who have 5 more wins.

I don't deny that basketball is very popular at all or really anything that you're saying. I think this is all true despite the NBA having a very poor competitive climate. If there weren't teams with several superstars on them and every team was trying in earnest to be as good as possible, all that you say would remain true and I suspect even more fans would be drawn to the game.

The bright side is that baseball isn't the living nightmare that the NBA is where nobody is paid what they're worth (many are overpaid, though!) and players are randomly shuffled between teams in complicated cap-related moves as nobody gives a shit about anybody but perhaps 5 teams and everyone else is stupid unless they get the #1 pick.

Here's a good review of what the projection systems did last year: http://www.banishedtothepen.com/evaluating-the-2018-predictions-and-projections/ A couple of insights: the best performer (PECOTA) was, on average, off by 7.5 wins. These systems will basically always underestimate the best teams and overestimate the worst teams. This is why for several seasons now it has been overestimating the Sox — especially when you consider that it doesn't bake in the assumption that the worst teams will dump their veteran performers in trades nor does it factor in the best teams adding good players via trade. The article also gives another useful way to think about these projections, which is the way it orders the teams. So the Sox projection was a ways off in terms of wins but basically correct in that we were widely projected to be one of MLB's worst teams.

Fulmer has/had premium stuff. The Sox botched his development enough that if he never makes it, it will be hard to say whether he would have put things together without being rushed to levels he wasn't ready for.

The portion of the warmup that happens on the mound isn't essential for the literal purpose of warming up. It's to get the pitcher accustomed to the mound, catcher, backdrop, etc.

I think it should be to MLB's credit and proof of their seriousness about reducing game time that they're getting behind moves that will reduce the amount of commercial breaks.

I honestly don't think the faking injury thing is much of a problem at all. There are other situations where faking an injury is advantageous and teams don't do it because any scrutiny from the league will get people in trouble.

http://www.tankathon.com/ to look at Bulls draft position possibilities ^^ I'm partial to Ja Morant as far as players go.

Nothing too bad there. Don't know why they'd look into lowering the mound rather than making the strike zone the same size it was 10 years ago (considerably smaller, especially at the bottom part of the zone). I don't love the 3-batter rule, because it is a pretty direct change to the way the game has long been played. That being said, historically it would long have been extremely unusual to see a case in which managers would make moves that would violate the 3-batter rule. In some sense, it is taking the heavy hand of the rulebook and using it to enforce an older style of play. I suspect that much like the mound visits rule, it would change managers' strategy much more often than the number of fewer than three batter outings would suggest. I should also mention that the reporting on this has made clear that it would be 3 batters or finishing the inning. Many times, you could finish the inning with the guy at a pretty high percentage but managers may be overly afraid of what happens if (for instance) the lefty specialist doesn't get the lefty batter out and then is left dealing with righties. I think the 12 pitcher rule may be redundant with the 3-batter rule. Use one or the other. Defining what a pitcher is could get tricky. Too late in the game to implement DH in the NL this year, but it should happen as soon as possible. I like the idea of punishing tankers, but the only bit of specifics mentioned so far is probably not quite right. I think it makes the most sense to punish only repeat "offenders" and not to make any real allowance for market size.

Based on what the data tells us, I'd put one of my best 3 hitters at leadoff, provided that player isn't really slow, and then my best at 2.

I suspect the park and league adjustments are reducing the correlations in the case of wRC+. wRC+ beats OPS et al. in correlation with future performance without sacrificing the description of what happened in the past too much.

And it's worth remembering that home runs don't contribute to BABIP.

FWIW, PECOTA projects Harper to have over 10 more WAR over the next 10 seasons than Machado. Source: https://www.baseballprospectus.com/news/article/46232/pecota-projects-bryce-harper-and-manny-machado/

So basically Manny went into the offseason thinking he'd get 10 years $350 million and play for the team he's always dreamed of playing for. Now he's looking at 8 years $250 million for a team he's probably never thought much about one way or another and hasn't been to the playoffs in 10 years. You can see why he probably has the inclination to wait and see if his prospects improve.

I think the Padres are interested only insofar that it appears they might be able to get a discount (from initial expectations) and/or a deal structure that there may be a way out for them if things go badly (like a swell opt structure). And since they have big visions for their future, they don't like the idea of anyone else getting some kind of good deal on these guys.

Law is usually your best bet if you want to see someone go against the grain.

The thing I always think about is the fact the agent can always say there is a better offer and you need to match it whether or not there is one. Obviously, an agent who does this and ultimately never produces said higher offer (via a signing with a different team at a higher price) will get sniffed out by GMs who negotiate with that agent. But nobody knows when the GM gets nervous and bids against himself because he took the bait. It would be a slow learning process. I'm glad I don't have to do this negotiating. When we say the Sox may have the high offer but it's just not as high as Machado's camp wants, let's assume it's true. When Lozano shows up and says okay White Sox, we now have an offer that is $3M/year higher, he could be bluffing...or not. If you fall for the bluff, you overpay. If you call the bluff but there really was a higher offer, you lose the player that is supposed to turn your franchise around. The stakes are pretty high here...it's not hard to see why for so long players tended to get big contracts that in retrospect seemed to be big overpays.

It shouldn't be understated how much Harper has been the superior hitter. Harper has a career .900 OPS while Manny has just a single season that high playing his entire career in a hitters park. By wRC+, Harper has been about 17% more productive than Machado over their careers. And the raw hitting talent clearly favors Harper, which shows in his multiple 1.000 OPS seasons. As far as Harper's defense is concerned, he's obviously not generating a ton of value with his glove. But to say unequivocally that he's a bad defensive outfielder is very questionable. His defensive metrics *this past season* were very bad. Prior to this season, quite good! Had consistently been an above average defender in RF. There are some reasons to believe that his poor year defensively may have been driven by something besides his actual talent as some folks have documented a number of plays where he seemingly let up rather than go hard. I don't know if that's injury, an unseemly method of injury prevention, or what, but don't be shocked if Harper goes right back to the average to above average defensive numbers he has long had. My point isn't that Harper is clearly better/going to be better — there's a reason I said it wasn't clear who would be more valuable — but the comparison of these two players isn't "Harper slightly better hitter but Machado is defensive wizard and Harper is basically a DH." Harper has a history of being a solid defensive player and being by far the better hitter. When you start pricing in the risk, you start by acknowledging that any player that you're giving an 8-10 year deal to may lose so much mobility from age or injury that he becomes a 1B or DH. Harper would give much more confidence in terms of providing a bat that's definitely going to play at any position. Both players may get better with the bat, of course, but we've seen just how scary good Harper can be even at younger ages.