Jack Parkman

Crap I forgot about that. If they changed his delivery, then that explains the stuff taking a step backwards. I'm a big fan of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" with pitchers. I might think that it needs to be fixed, but until they prove it through underperformance, I wouldn't touch a thing and let the guy do what got him drafted/to the big leagues until it has proven that it's not working.

Not to me. That's not to say that Crochet can't take a step back in velocity/stuff when he turns pro. It's the biggest wild card with amateur pitching. A lot of the same concerns that people had about Sale in 2010 they have about Crochet this year. The huge difference is that Crochet has actually had injury issues, where Sale hadn't. It's absolutely a legit difference and concern. The bottom line is if they take either guy I'll hope for the best. If Crochet sticks as a starter though, he's got a much higher ceiling. The only thing that would force him into the bullpen is health.

Bingo. Nice post.

Yeah, but Nola took a jump in FB velocity in the pros that is very rare from a college pitcher. He went from averaging under 92 to averaging over 93. That's a huge difference. Nola wasn't topping out at 96 mph like he is now. He was topping out at 94 on his good days at LSU. Quit pointing to Aaron Nola. He's the exception, not the rule. Fulmer is the counter-argument. Was topping out at 98 mph in NCAA, started working every 5th day and now he averages 93 and tops out at 95. Everything took a step backward for Fulmer as a pro. That's something that you just don't anticipate, and you can't really blame the Sox for it. One of those shit happens type things. Watching Fulmer at Vandy, it was really easy to see why the Sox loved him. Watching him as a pro, it's really easy to see why he sucks.

Says who? I think their floor is exactly the same, but for different reasons. Both have the floor of never making it to MLB. With Crochet if that happens it's due to injury . With Detmers if it happens it's due to just sucking. "Safe" players are not actually that safe, in fact I'd argue that those players are actually the most risky of them all. I view baseball scouting through the lens of ceiling as the most important aspect. You draft the guy with the highest ceiling, period. What I've learned about "high floor" prospects in a baseball, is that the same things that make them look "safe" are the exact things that prevent them from ever making the majors or being successful once they get there. This isn't the case with other sports, but in baseball it's all about the ceiling.

This is fair, however with Detmers you have to look at a couple things. 1. The possibility that his stuff doesn't play as well in pro ball(fastball backing up starting every 5th day, curveball not as effective) 2. As Ptatc said, there are some issues in his delivery. I just think the risk level is similar, and at least with Crochet you'd have a guy who if he stays healthy, will at the very least be a lights out reliever. With Detmers, there's a very real chance he never makes it past AA.

That could be true, but what I saw is that a lot of scouts don't think his curveball is going to be as devastating in pro ball as it is in NCAA. They think that it's "loopy" (meaning lots of break but not sharp break) and they're also concerned about it being a slower pitch. That said, a slow curve worked ok for Kershaw(sarcasm intended), but he threw mid-high 90s at his peak, while in the best case scenario Detmers will average around 92mph. If Detmers is a top 10-15 pick MLB is drafting pitching wrong. My understanding is that if a breaking ball has a lot of movement but it doesn't break sharply, it's a less effective pitch than one with that doesn't move as much but it does break sharply. That's what sets a pitch like Rodon's slider apart. It does both.

https://www.mlb.com/prospects/draft/reid-detmers-672282 MLB pipeline also has Detmers' curveball as a 55. Not impressed. If the curveball was a 70 or something like that I'd get the hype, but everyone with grades has him as a 55. I'd rather miss on Crochet than Detmers.

Keith Law just gave it a 50-55.

Honestly, I might be a bit biased but I'd draft Crochet over Detmers. The only thing that could derail Crochet from being at least a lights out closer is injury. There's a decent amount of risk there but if he hits you have a bonafide ace. Detmers has floor issues. If his curveball is only a 55, if he backs up at all with the fastball he's a flop. I think whomever passes on Crochet will regret it.

We're about 10 days +/- one or two from the point of no return. The clock is ticking. They're too close to getting this done to have it blow up now. 80 games, pro-rated salaries, with deferrals, of which the length is based on speed of revenue recovery.

The fact that you refuse to acknowledge the forces holding them down is what's insane.

I've seen that attitude displayed. It's really a shame. Also almost??? People with that attitude actually do think that people that take government assistance owe them.

You do realize "socioeconomic" is a broad term that includes basically every aspect of human life, right? So yes, all crime is based on sociology or economics. Crimes of passion are sociological. Ponzi schemes are economic. There are socioeconomic reasons why rich people commit crimes too, mostly having to do with entitlement and thinking that they can buy their way out of prison, among other things.

Mostly to discourage things like ponzi schemes and other white collar crime. Serious offenses are already punished severely. Fraud is a tool of the wealthy to rip off the rest of society. And most of the time jail sentences are a joke.

I agree that crime will always exist, but I was answering directly the examples you gave. While it won't completely disappear, if you make the penalties for fraud more severe, and lift up the poor and address systemic discrimination, it will go down substantially. FYI Norway, Sweden and Finland have among the Lowest crime rates in the world. I wonder why?

That's how it started in the early 20th century, yes. Later it was because a person was willing to take the risk of being killed and jailed over being poor or working class. So yeah, it's always been socioeconomically based. Exactly. Crime is not black and white. All crimes have a socioeconomic factor, but I'm not going to pretend that lowering the income gap will completely eliminate crime. It would significantly help. With even the most violent criminals, they're usually a victim of abuse or neglect. There may be some genetic predisposition to sociopathy but it's not usually activated without childhood trauma. Pedophiles and sexual abusers were usually victims of pedophilia or sexual abuse themselves. Domestic abusers are usually children of domestic abusers. Most of those things happen because of poverty. The key is to break the cycle. The bottom line is that poverty affects the brain. Income inequality and crime are proportional. Higher income inequality, higher crime.

People who join gangs do so because they've been rejected by society. They have no means to sustain themselves legally.....When you're so desperate that the choice is to live a life of crime or starve to death, how can you blame them? In a lot of ways, crime is a direct result of socioeconomic abandonment. People have exhausted their means of making a living legally, so the run the risk of incarceration in order to survive. If they go to prison, at least they'll get 3 meals a day and healthcare...at least they'll survive. We've literally created a society where chronic unemployment is worse than prison, and we wonder why people turn into criminals.

Yep. Punishing gang members without addressing the underlying reasons for gangs existing is counterproductive, and perpetuates poverty. Crime is a symptom, not the disease. The disease is the socioeconomic conditions that push people to become criminals because they can't support themselves legally.

I don't have to worry too much about my safety, black folks have to whenever they leave home. That's why people are in the streets protesting. Enough is enough. Everyone affected is tired of being different in any way, whether it's skin color, being a non-Christian, being an immigrant, being disabled, being female, you name it.....being warped into some kind of character flaw. It's not having a victim mentality, it's acknowledging that there are serious societal roadblocks to overcoming poverty. No amount of mindset change, no amount of hard work, no amount of education...can overcome the societal roadblocks that exist for people who are different..... they can all do the best they can...but at some point, you have to stop pointing the finger at them and look in the mirror. What can you do to help create change? It starts by listening, and self reflecting.

Wonderful Post.

Ah, yes....personal responsibility.....AKA turning societal discrimination of people who aren't your stereotypical white male into a character flaw. Using that argument assumes that everyone is on a level playing field, and that's nowhere near the case. To suggest that it is is naive at best, and perpetuating institutional discrimination at worst.

I generally think Boras is good for baseball......but I'll never understand how he didn't attend Jose Fernandez's funeral nor donate funds for his unborn child, who is probably approaching school age by now. Was a real dick move. I lost a decent chunk of respect for him after that.

The owners don't realize that they can't get a salary cap if they don't open their books.....if it truly helps their negotiations they could decide to do it and then basically force the MLBPA to agree to a cap and floor system. They could say...we'll show them if you understand that they'll be no deal without a cap and floor. If the margins are really that razor thin, then why in the hell wouldn't they?

Then why haven't they opened their books in 50 years of negotiations? It may be true...... but then wouldn't it help the owners in their negotiations? Or are they more concerned about the team values going down the shitter? I'd imagine the other 3 sports that have instituted salary caps and percentage of sport related revenue with the players had to open their books to their respective player's unions in order to achieve that goal.