Eminor3rd

You seem to think you know a lot more about the business of professional baseball than you actually know.

Yeah, that's true. A lot of it might be that they just aren't willing to go out on a limb for guys like some of the smaller publications do. Like everyone knows three or four guys that Law or Longenhagen or whatever are super high on compared to consensus.

Mayo/Callis are consistently 6-12 months behind the rest of the industry. It's baffling that MLBAM hasn't managed to get better guys to run what should be the most legit source of coverage we have.

Oh, ha. Full spit-take moment stopped us all in our tracks lol

lol Palka CF, Engel DH?

This is a common misunderstanding of the framework, but it's false. While FIP is useful because it tends to be more predictive of its own future than ERA, FIP is NOT a predictive model. It is a descriptive statistic whose purpose is to strip the effects of defense and batted ball luck from measures of run prevention. To go deeper: The "flaw" that exists in FIP is that it is not a complete descriptor of what has happened that has resulted in a run. Essentially, it assumes the pitcher has nothing to do with the quality or nature of contact as long as it isn't a homerun. Literally no one, not even the creators of the statistic, think that it is correct to assume that the pitcher has no effect on the quality or nature of non-homerun contact -- the statistic assumes it because no one has found a way to factor it in and produce useful, stable results. The "flaw" in ERA is that while it's a complete description, it's a purposely inaccurate one. Essentially, it assumes the pitcher takes ALL the credit or blame for what happens to balls in play, except in the case of an official error. Quality of defense, batted ball luck, weather, etc. are all charged to the pitcher. Literally no one, not even the creators of the statistic, that that is correct to assume the pitcher should be credited with everything that happens on the field -- the statistic assumes it because to do otherwise would leave you with an incomplete description of the events. Both approaches are flawed, but in different, mutually exclusive ways. The reason sabermetricians prefer FIP is because it turns out that it's more predictive, and thus a more useful indicator of a pitcher's ability. But both are descriptive statistics, not predictive models.

Which part do you think is subjective?

1.5 years of a 125 wRC+ DH/1B just flat out hasn't been worth a top 25 prospect. There's always the possibility of something unprecedented, but given that Astros have been among the stingiest of teams when trading prospects recently, and they already have a borderline legendary offense, there really isn't any reason to believe they'll suddenly decide to set a new market level.

It won't, unfortunately.

Baseball sucks

It's easy to say totally absurd shit when you don't care at all about being called out for being wrong.

I thought they hated each other for years. I don't think so anymore -- they're both just weird. It's whatever -- I think we are conditioned to ascribe too much importance to play-by-play guys. At the end of they day, my enjoyment of the game comes primarily from the events being described, not the WAY they are being described. Good guys definitely add value, but true difference-makers are few and far between.

You guys. Seriously.

Hell of a play

Come on man

Watching Reynaldo Lope makes me feel like I know less about baseball. He's missing a few spots, but for the life of me I cannot understand how his stuff is so easy to hit. He just touched 98, his fastball is like 9 inches of horizontal movement, and he's keeping an 84 mph slider down. I don't get it.

Well you said 55+ for all of them.

Definitely, but the reason those spot starts happen is because guys get shots to force themselves onto the roster and often don't. It's definitely possible that we end up with too many guys at once, but if so, it probably won't last for long (as someone will likely get hurt, allowing different guys to get looks as part of a shuffle), and if that's still the case going into the offseason, then we can make some trades. It's also possible that we find ourselves with the opportunity to adopt a more progressive approach to the rotation -- sort of like what the Dodgers have done, except with cost-controlled depth instead of a bunch of $12m/yr veterans on short deals. This is, IMO, the best case, because even if everyone is hitting on all cylinders at once for a season, someone is going to get hurt or fall off eventually, and we could easily fall into a more traditional situation at that point. Extra MLB pitching depth is the new truth, it's just incredibly hard to create due to market forces. If we develop our way into it, I think it'll be an asset, even if there's no way we can visualize exactly what the end product looks like until we see it unfold.

A viable MLB defensive C prospect with four plus tools (where the only non-plus is running) is like a generational talent.

There will be PLENTY of opportunities. Team's use an average of like 10-12 starters per year as it is, and some of our dudes are gonna fall off. I guarantee this will not be a problem.

No, not even close. You're looking at all of those guys as reaching their maximum potential. Few will. I mean, look at just those four MLB guys: Rodon has been hurt literally every year. Even when he's looked healthy, he's been inconsistent. Covey has about the same track record as Phil Humber at this point. Giolito looks like garbage. At this point, he's more likely to be a depth bullpen piece now than an effective mid-rotation starter. Lopez looks fancy but the results just aren't there. He's the guy I have the highest hope for, but even with him, there's a good chance he's a 3/4.

No-hitter failed.

Future Hall-of-Famer Carlos Rodon is on the hill to force the White Sox toward playoff contention through sheer force of grit & willpower. Clevinger attempts a no-hitter.

Hello darkness my old friend