ptatc

Unfortunately the triple digits in the scoreboard and trying to strike everyone out is the way stats show everyone should pitch. Strikeouts are the most effective way to keep runs off the board. This is everyone now and this wouldn't have changed if he spent time in the minors.

The problem with crochet as a starter was that with COVID restrictions and injuries he only pitched around 13 innings his last year if college. They couldn't give him starter innings. He had to do reliever innings. He was only going to go 50-60 innings no matter where he pitched. So he was either a releiver or make 10 starts spread out throughout a season. Or make 10 starts and shut down for the year. No matter how you arranged it or what level, he wasn't going to pitch much.

I don't disagree. This is the way I would do it. However the opposing opinion is that getting MLB hitters out is also a learning curve and may be a steeper learning curve. So to get them there sooner is better for their development. There are pros and cons to each.

This is the big question. If it is a UCL and they do a reconstruction, it may hold up.

I think his injuries were a result of his throwing as well not the way he was handled. Does it really matter where the innings are majors or minors, as far as health is concerned? I think it's more the max effort and mechanics that are the issues. I'm not sold on the fact that he wouldn't have been trying to throw 98 all the time in the minors like he did in the majors. When they drafted him, I said he would end up with shoulder issues. He has that same stand up follow through.

I still think they will try to make him a starter. The advantage now may be that he won't be a starter until near FA and he may be more affordable.

While I agree with all of this in principle, you can't take someone who threw 13 innings one year and expect him to throw 100 the next. You need to ramp up the innings and once he gets there then throw more.

I have no idea what their process is. However his high ceiling talent was tempting. Just because he had a high chance of injury doesn't mean it career ending. Everyone is acting like his career is over. If it is serious and something like a UCL reconstruction, he has an 85% chance if returning.

1. Do we know he needs a UCL reconstruction? 2. Are you just assuming he will never be a starter?

Herm is a great guy. You can't help bit respect the guy. However he wouldn't have much effect on pitching injuries today. With the new ways of throwing and velocity, strikeout centric philosophy, injury risk has skyrocketed. "Stirkeouts are fascist, throw ground balls."

Service time is one the that does matter. But is that really what you want to base their development on?

As I've always said, I don't think it really mattered if he was in the monor or majors. His innings were so limited due his history you can make a case for either way. His chance at injury was also so high maybe being with the MLB medical staff come be an advantage. Hopefully his injury isn't serious and is something readily remedied.

Sorry. I said when they drafted him with his motion, injury history and lack of innings in college his chances of getting injured early on was really high. Lots of talent but a very risky pick.

This may be the first time I've ever seen a player injury blamed on an owner.

This is true. However, I don't think calling up a player should be based on what happens if he needs to go on the IL The question should always be what's is best for his development. They obviously thought he was ready to get MLB hitters out and would learn more pitching to MLB hitters than MiLB hitters. There are pros/cons to having him pitch at either level.

The AT will typically do a couple of tests to see what may be going on. He just talked to him for an extended period of time then left.

They didn't do any tests on the field. Not a good sign.

Sorry didn't see it. Is there video of the pitch?

That question follows the same thought process. It's not meant to be clear. You rarely have all of the information and have to answer with what you have and take your best guess. Questions rarely have one definitive absolute answer. You need to choose the best one. For example your question about abduction, the best answer from the information you gave would be all of the joints for which abduction is one of the motions.

It was posted somewhere that he will run nickel 80% of the time. Could be a safety/CB mix for the nickle.

Not saying it will. The answer from the information may be that they won't based on the 2 answers available. Not what we want but that is a possibility.

The Kopech role is going to Crochet to build up innings.

Than that's your answer if you think that is the best information you have available. Some might use information more recent than the last 100 years but if you think that is the best information, there you go. The best information in medicine isn't always right either. This is why we have malpractice lawyers.

I don't need to provide context to it. You need to determine the best answer given the information you have. Information is intentionally left out so you can think critically and determine the best answer. You need to answer the question as given. For the Sox information that you gave and everything you think you know about the entire team and organization answer the question.

It's not poorly worded. It is a question that makes you think critically and answer it using your best available information as you never have all of the information. What is the best answer? Your mind would explode in the medical field.