ptatc

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 13, 2017 -> 11:51 AM) 1 605 Professor Must not be at a state school because they don't pay us squat.

Did you know that Theo Epstein's grandfather and granduncle wrote Casablanca? Went and saw it at the theater tonight for the 75th anniversary and there was some "little known facts" before and after.

1) 32 2) 792 3) Sports Clinical Specialist (physical therapist)

QUOTE (Quin @ Nov 10, 2017 -> 10:57 AM) Jeter Gold Glove syndrome Rapheal Palmeiro. He won the gold Glove one year when he played 130 (or close) games at DH.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Nov 8, 2017 -> 10:25 PM) I think the place to start is getting guns off the streets and out of public places. Once we do that we can then reassess guns at home. That being said, I think guns in the home are risky. I dont think there is anyway to argue against that. Now maybe you can limit the risk to almost negligible, but anything dangerous provides risk. A knife is a risk, alcohol is a risk. But in your home, I think that some deference should be given to you to make your own risky decisions. Does this include outlawing hunting and target shooting? If you're including that then there is no way I would agree. There is absolutely nothing wrong with having firearms for these purposes.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Nov 8, 2017 -> 06:21 PM) The reason we cant have gun control is the NRA, period. A HUGE majority of Americans are in support of better gun control. What's funny is the majority of NRA members support gun control. But like most organization, not the people at the top.

QUOTE (bmags @ Nov 8, 2017 -> 10:52 AM) Holy crap what a disaster. Shoulders are bad in every sport. Only if you need to throw overhand.

QUOTE (OmarComing25 @ Nov 8, 2017 -> 04:49 PM) No there isn't but there is proof that strikeouts are more effective than pitching to contact in preventing runs. I already addressed this, yes at bats that lead to a ball in play do have fewer pitches on average but they also lead to pitchers facing more batters because many of those at bats will end in a hit rather than an out. Strikeouts average 4.8 pitches while balls in play average 3.4 pitches. However a third of balls in play end up going for hits so a pitcher only pitching to contact will need to face on average 27 batters to get 18 outs at ~92 pitches while a pitcher getting only strikeouts would need ~86 pitches to get the same amount of outs. Of course this ignores walks and double plays and so the end result is basically a wash in terms of pitch count. I don't really disagree with you here and that's why a balance should be struck but there’s a reason teams aren't trying to pitch to contact. Also, with the juiced ball making contact has become even more valuable so it’s not something I’d want my pitchers to generate more of in the current offensive environment. True. Which is why I was discussing injuries and shorter starts by pitchers that are also caused by this. I wonder if runs are really saved though. Because the starter leaves the game earlier, a lesser talented pitcher comes into the game and may give up more runs. I'm too lazy to look it up have there been more runs scored in recent years? Another thought, is the ball juiced or are more lesser talented pitchers getting into the game while new metrics have taught the hitters to all use an upper cut swing to increase the "launch angle?"

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Nov 8, 2017 -> 03:31 PM) The problem is for some reason 100 pitches is a magic number. But the max effort to get every MPH out of yourself as possible, while maybe productive in the short run, I wonder how sustainable it is. I get the pitch count, although don't agree with 100 number. It's the effort for too long and not pacing themselves that leads to injuries.

QUOTE (OmarComing25 @ Nov 8, 2017 -> 03:18 PM) http://www.twinkietown.com/2011/5/10/21633...hing-to-contact There's no evidence that pitching to contact actually leads to lower pitch counts or longer outings though. At bats that end in a ball in play do have fewer pitches on average than those that end in a strikeout, but while the latter is a guaranteed out (except for rare dropped 3rd strikes), many balls in play fall in for hits and will prolong the inning, so pitching to contact often actually leads to higher pitch counts, especially if you don't have a good defense behind you, which the Sox have rarely had. As you said there is no proof that pitching to contact leads to lower pitch counts. However there is no proof that pitching for K's do either. In other words like most things it cannot be boiled down to it's always one or the other as many people try to make it. Although you do says that at bats that lead to a ball in play do have fewer pitches on averages so the data would suggest that attempting to pitch to contact will likely lead to a lower pitch count more often than pitching to k's However, the underlying point is that trying to pitch to K's leads to overthrowing more which will lead to fatigue earlier in games and I think more frequent injuries.

QUOTE (BlackSox13 @ Nov 8, 2017 -> 12:48 PM) I believe part of the thinking is getting these pitchers to pitch to contact for quicker outs. Lowering the pitches per at bat will allow them to pitch longer in each game. 200IP is a target to shoot for but that's about it. This unfortunately is the opposite of the current trend in pitching with most of the advanced metrics teaching pitchers that K's are a thing they control and the the defense is something they cannot. Thus, they overthrow too much and try to K everyone. This in turn leads to higher pitch counts, shorter outings and more injuries.

QUOTE (Tony @ Nov 8, 2017 -> 12:38 PM) I love that they are getting them ready for it, but as was noted in this thread, only pitchers went above 200 IP last year. I expect that number to slowly shrink the next few years as well. With all that said, if they get to 200, that’s fantastic. Yes, the trend lately is to burn the starters early in the game. I really dislike the trend as it leads to injuries so I hope the Sox do not follow the trend and teach the young pitch to pace themselves and go deeper into games.

QUOTE (Jenksy Cat @ Oct 12, 2017 -> 01:26 PM) How long is the recovery time from the surgery? If he's going to end up missing most of next season why not just wait it out at that point? It's easy recovery. He had a posterior impingement, likely either scar tissue or a bone chip. He'll be ready for Spring Training. This is a "clean up" type surgery.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Nov 7, 2017 -> 01:46 PM) I don’t think anyone on Soxtalk believe there is a zero percent chance of failure. They are just excited to try something that has recently shown success with patience as opposed to trying the same thing over and over and getting the same middling result Only the Astros have really shown success without spending a great deal of money on at least one or two players. The Cubs paid Lester around 150 million because they didn't draft pitching.

In other news, water is wet.

QUOTE (bmags @ Nov 3, 2017 -> 03:27 PM) That it is an investment vehicle doesn't mean the motivation for purchase is an investment vehicle. People buy sports teams because owning sports teams is awesome. That it is awesome is by and large why they can sell it for gobs more (since there are finite amounts of teams and competition is exempt). edit: actually your whole point is my point. You don't buy a distribution company to impress your friends. You...do do that with baseball teams. And if it was expected to be a profit making enterprise instead of operate largely where the profits get sunk back in the team then its favorable regulatory deals would evaporate. It's not a comparable business. Comparable to what? It's still a business. They are there to make a profit. Even if the profit gets sunk back into the team to win. Because as a long term investment sport franchises are like printing money. The owners will make money even it's a bad franchise.

QUOTE (bmags @ Nov 3, 2017 -> 02:55 PM) Please, baseball is not any other business deal and owning sports franchises aren't an investment. Never said it was any other business but it is a business. I don't think any sport franchise owner is in it for an altruistic reason. They want to make money and win. the better the business the better the competitiveness. Talk to the players of any given franchise. I doubt they would think the owners are altruistic in their dealings.

QUOTE (bmags @ Nov 3, 2017 -> 02:31 PM) Uh, yeah, holding the team hostage in order to get taxpayers to pay for his location and then give him a sweetheart lease isn't an altruistic move. I guess I don't really consider altruism in any business deal. Baseball is a business. He really helped the team with that deal. They needed a new park and if the team was going to stay, this was a good deal. They deal in the long run allows the team to be more competitive. I don't blame him in the least. If you want to blame somebody blame the legislators who gave in. He did his job.

QUOTE (bmags @ Nov 3, 2017 -> 02:08 PM) I think we are lucky all that stadium stuff happened 30 years ago. I would be unbelievably bitter if we were swallowing that stuff today. Why would you be bitter? He kept the team in town on a team friendly deal. I would have been bitter if he moved the team. I remember listening to the sessions on the radio with many of the legislators singing Na Na Hey Hey Goodbye to the Sox.

QUOTE (bmags @ Nov 3, 2017 -> 09:36 AM) People have heard the expression, the correct one. But, they also correctly identify how disrespectful it is, especially the way it was butchered. I've heard that applied many times in families to the children, who are not capable of making reasonable decisions! But if my boss were to say that of us, when there are so many better ways of indicating we can't always be making democratic decisions, I'd think "f*** you" too. I agree. But those weren't the comments from the players. The players were going to walk out because he called them inmates. They took it literally.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 3, 2017 -> 09:07 AM) McNair might have painted himself into a deep enough corner with his prisoners statement that it takes something like signing Kap to save him from his own players. Am I just old or have people not heard that expression before? Granted he butchered it but the expression is "not letting the inmates run the asylum." It just means that you don't let the employees run the business. That's the employers job. He wasn't really calling them prisoners.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 3, 2017 -> 09:14 AM) The quote from Hahn at the time of the surgery was 12 to 18 months. That's being really conservative unless it was something more than just a reconstruction. But, they did seem to be very conservative with most injuries last year.

QUOTE (Dam8610 @ Nov 2, 2017 -> 02:53 PM) Would you agree with what Hahn said in the article, specifically that there is no increased risk of reinjury? The specific injury to the bursa? That's probably right. However, my concern would be the structures in the subacromial space that the bursa is there to protect such as the bicep tendon, labrum and supraspinatus tendon, in no particular order. The degree of the debridement would be the key. I have no doubt he'll come back strong. It's no the long term that is the concern.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 2, 2017 -> 04:06 PM) Mildly surprised that Putnam is back after TJS. He underwent surgery at the end of June, so I would imagine he is going to miss a significant portion of the season. UCL reconstruction is usually around a 9 month rehab. So he should be ready for the beginning of the season.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 2, 2017 -> 12:19 PM) http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseb...0928-story.html The interesting part about his long term health will be the structural integrity of the should without a portion of the bursa.