ptatc

I said that's what they are saying by their research. This is a new one for me. But it makes sense physiologically. Bannister said looking at pitchers with that extension profile most are better suited to relief and can't handle a starter load. He didn't say that it was an exhaustive list. He gave examples.

Possible. Bit let's look at how crochet did it. He had a year off rehabbing to turn into a starter. Taylor will not have that. Taylor also has pitches even less than crochet. I would prefer they continue to allow him to start. But we dont know how his arm was responding after even just 3 inning starts. I understand thier reasons and plan.

There are always outliers. Look at the stats as a whole. It's not sayingbit cant happened but what are the odds. Taylor has had 75 innings pitched since high school. Hiw long will it take to build up to 180 inning work load. 3 years?

One thing they all have in common is they are all in the bullpen. One is on the 60 day IL.

This is not about 100% correlation. This is about looking at the trends and what the probability is. Just like with variables with UCL injuries, we know they are certain things that are risk factors for certain injuries. For example elbow angle and ball distance from the pitchers head have a high correlation to UCL injuries. The medical system is built on Clinical prediction rules and models that show us probabilities and likelihood. This is a new one on me but as I stated in a previous post it makes physiologic sense. I dont blame them from being conservative with it. Just like with all of the other discussion it not an all or nothing discussion. This isn't saying this one thing will 100% cause another. It's about the probability and likelihood of something happening.

And where was the biommechics facilty to test the data? Theory is one thing, practical apocation is another.

Picking only 2 out of the list is more of the cherry picking. Look at all the others. The 2 you picked are the outliers. There's no guarantee they are right but the numbers are in their favor, especially considering the injuries Grant has already suffered. Maybe those two can handle it. Grant has already struggled with it. I dont blame them for being conservative. Everyone would prefer that he would be a starter. They even tried earlier this year.

Doesn't sound like he had much control of players then. He has been acquiring a very different type of player. Either that or he learned what wasn't working.

Don't forget Adams, I think he has a chance as well.

That's the interview. I heard part if it in a podcast.

I would go with when he started acquiring players and reshaping the organization.

Brian Bannister had an interesting interview discussion about him. One thing that caught my attention was that one of the things that makes him so good is hie elite extension. Very few pitchers have that. In fact anyone who has it profiles as a reliever because starters with it are always injured. He used the example of Glasnow. Physiologically it makes sense. Muscles have a very small range where they can generate enough force to be useful. Its called the length-tension relationship. If the muscle tries to work at a length that is too short or too long they cant generate enough force so cramps and injuries are more common. If he is working at a longer muscle length with the tremendous extension, it could cause more injuries. Thus why pitchers with elite extension have difficulty with a starters load.

With the lack of monetary resources that JR provides the only way to have a consistent competitive team is through the draft an development. This takes time. They could try to shortcut it like Hahn did. He did field a competitive team that made the playoffs. However once those players either got hurt or became ineffective there were no other players behind them.

Listening to a podcast about Vaughn and discussing his poor performance at 1B, got the thinking, I know dangerous. I wonder if the OF experiment was less about the Sox needing an OF and more about them knowing he was a bad 1B and seeing if he could handle OF.

It's not having it both ways. I'm not projecting my bias on to what other ARE thinking like stated people are popping champagne because they say there is progress. I'm saying I cant understand why people don't understand the concept of progress from one year to the next. I'm not saying what they are thinking. I'm cant understand what they are thinking. It's process vs. knowing. Because its a fact that this team is better than last year. Very small amount, they are still bad but they are better. A better discussion would be, "they are showing progress but I'm not happy with the speed of the progress."

To each his own.

Everyone shows bias. The problem is you project someone saying. They are showing progress to Everyone pop the champagne, this team is going somewhere. I have a bias as well and mine is to give people chances to prove themselves and be more optimistic. I try lie heck not to project what I think someone means onto them. Agreeing and understanding are 2 different things. You have to agree with something but you can understand thebprocess. And still you can come up with something better than that.

Not irony research. We spent a great deal of time teaching health care professional about biases, where they come from and how to minimize them. Intelligence is not one of the primary influences on biases.

Again the dichotomy of opinion. Not a single person has stating that it's time for champagne and time to celebrate or even that its a great team. Just being happy that they are showing prpgress.

Now if I finally understand your position.

Who has done any of things you mentioned? Certainly not me. I agree they are bad. I've made good money betting against them everyday. There isn't any chest thumping as you were asking about. There is just progress from last year. As long as they continue to show progress they'll get there.

Never said anyone was dumb. You are making stuff up. I just said people cant seem to understand it for some reason. Usually its bias which has nothing to do with intelligence.

Eat crow about what? That the team this year has shown progress from last year? This concept of progress goes right over the head of many people.

Or that people have no concept of what progress means.

Who is chest pumping. I believe the sentiment is, they are showing improvement. This goes back to all of the discussions. As soon as someone utters anything not negative, people start saying why do people think this team is good or why is anyone proud of this record. Everyone realizes this team is bad. However, very few teams go from bad to playoffs in one season. It can happen but not often. Stating that they are showing progress does not mean someone thinks they are going to the playoffs or even good. As I've stated many times, it is not dichotomous. They don't have to be world series champions or worst team of all time only. They can show improvement on the continuum.