Jump to content

Number5

Plus Member
  • Content Count

    6,377
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    10

Posts posted by Number5


  1. 30 minutes ago, Philip said:

    You’re not gonna believe this, but I actually considered using “whom,” but I wasn’t quite sure whether it was correct, and when one wishes to appear pompous, one must be accurate as well, plus, I didn’t wish to appear pompous, Hah Hah Hah

    Actually, I believe you were correct using "who."  I believe that "whom" is used as the object of a preposition.  "To whom."  "For whom."  "Of whom."

    • Upvote 1

  2. 3 minutes ago, Screaming Crab said:

    Can anyone explain the ramifications of Servideo not signing? With no news as to whether or not he is inking a deal, just wondering if the Orioles face any penalties at this point if a deal is not agreed upon.

    No, they wouldn't face any penalty if Servideo doesn't sign.  The amount under-slot that Kjerstad signed for more than makes up for the total overage of the two over-slot signings.  Our total slot allowance would be decreased by the slot amount of the Servideo pick, and we are presently under that adjusted slot allowance with all of our draftee signings.

    • Upvote 2

  3. 9 minutes ago, LA2 said:

    Very dismayed to read this. Average age out there must be older, relatively speaking, and so quite concerning. Since I will be in Miami, I am encouraged to see that its mayor is reclosing to a certain extent and that the mortality rate (deaths / total confirmed infected) has actually been decreasing https://corona.help/country/united-states/state/florida/miami-dade.

    This is certainly not my field, but it stands to reason that a sudden sharp increase in confirmed cases will naturally accompany a reduction in mortality rate for a time.  An increase in the number of deaths would occur later, as there is logically some time that passes between initial infection and death.  It seems to me that a more informative ratio to determine mortality rate would be the number of deaths divided by all concluded cases (number of deaths plus number of recoveries.)  The ratio of deaths divided by total confirmed cases that you mentioned results in a distorted rate, as it treats all of those that are currently infected by the virus as if they have recovered.  The number of deaths has risen, but the death rate, as you have calculated it, seems to have gone down because of the sudden dramatic increase in new cases that are currently battling the virus.  I'm not trying to be alarmist, but rather believe that we need to be sure of what the statistics we are looking at mean.  Hopefully, the day will come where there will be no new cases.  When that day comes, however, it seems likely to me that there will continue to be victims that succumb to the disease for a period of time until everyone that's been infected recovers.


  4. 6 minutes ago, OrioleDog said:

    During the '70 WS re-broadcast, I learned also Brooks Robinson somewhat - at least the announcers related an anecdote he wrote and ate left-handed when talking about how masterful his glove hand was.  

    Of course he threw R, so outside that extremely rare Rickard box, of whom I think of Rickey Henderson first and foremost.

    Dave McNally.

    Well, to start with, there are many more right-handed people than left-handed people.  So right off the bat, one would certainly expect to have fewer left-handed players who bat right-handed than right-handed players who bat left-handed.  Add to that the game advantage to throwing right-handed at certain positions; and the advantage of batting left-handed (since there are more right-handed pitchers) and we end up with even fewer players who learn from an early age to bat right-handed and throw left.


  5. 52 minutes ago, backwardsk said:

    Did Aaron do it twice?  I’m pretty sure he led the NL in the 60s and 70s, but am not sure if he led the majors both times.

    I seriously doubt if Aaron led the NL in HR in the 1970's, since he didn't play the whole decade.  I would guess someone like Stargell, Bench, or Schmidt would be the guy.  I'm guessing all 3 of those guys had more HR in the 1970's than Aaron.


  6. 19 minutes ago, Frobby said:

    Here’s a nice database of what players have signed for and what their slot value was:  https://www.spotrac.com/mlb/draft/

    Here’s the top ten guys (slot/actual)

    Torkelson $8.4/$8.4

    Kjerstad $7.8/$5.2

    Meyer $7.2/$7.2

    Lacy $6.7/$6.7

    Martin $6.2/—

    Hancock $5.7/$5.7

    Gonzalez $5.4/$5.4

    Hassell $5.2/$4.3

    Veen $4.9/$5.0

    Detmers $4.7/$4.7

    Basically, everyone signed for slot except Kjerstad (-$2.6 mm) and Hassell (-$900 k), and Martin is the only unsigned player in the top 10.     I think it’s possible that his agent overplayed his hand.   

    Per MLBTR, Meyer signed for 6.7.

    https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2020/06/marlins-first-rounder-max-meyer-agree-to-deal.html


  7. 41 minutes ago, Hit Man said:
    I confess to needing additional telemedicine.
     
    My eyes are ok.  The sting they felt upon seeing the name "Brabender" has abated.
     
    But the rest of my morning since then has, unfortunately, found me distracted by a swelling in my tongue and tinnitis in my inner ear.  That arises, I suspect, from the last few hours' almost ceaseless repetition of that name, in a so far futile effort to understand how it was pronounced.
     
    It looks to me like a Dutch name, which makes me want to think the accent is on the first syllable.  BRA - ben - der.  But is it BRAW - ben - der, sounding like a nickname for somebody who works in a ladies' lingerie shop ... or for a dame with a really big rack?   Or is it BRA - ben - der rhymes with lavender?  Or maybe the accent is on the second syllable... Bra - BEN - der rhymes with Sg. Mel PEN - der?  Or, hell, maybe he was of French extraction and wanted to be called Eugène Brabender?
     
    I need to find a philologist.  Fast.  Somebody who either knows or can reconstruct the pronunciation of "Brabender" based on proto-Indo-European glottology.  Of, it not, need to send some contact tracers out among wizened MLB fandom.  Maybe somebody there remembers hearing the name spoken, on radio or TV, back in the day.

    That's the way he pronounced it.  Although there is no "W" sound in there.  Just say the 2 words "bra" and "bender".


  8. 40 minutes ago, Roll Tide said:

    So if Martin is looking for #2 money from the Jays how would’ve that been overslot here? 

    There were reports that Boras told the Orioles that they wanted #1 money from the Orioles, which would have been over-slot for the second pick.

    • Upvote 2

  9. 9 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

    The O's have spent their full pool before.  They have not exceeded it to my knowlege.  I don't think the 5% overage is in play.

    Are you saying the rule has changed and it is no longer allowed?  I understand that you don't think that ownership will authorize the overage.  That is not my question.


  10. Just now, Can_of_corn said:

    I don't think ownership has authorized it.

    OK.  I wouldn't know about that issue.  I'm just saying that my understanding is the amount that the rules allow the Orioles to pay Kjerstad without incurring a penalty (if Servideo signs for slot) is $6,218,865.  If the Angelos family restricts Elias further than the rules do, I guess Kjerstad would have to sign for a lesser amount if he wants to play for Baltimore.


  11. 14 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

    I feel confident in saying the O's have never gone over their pool allotment under the current version of the draft.

     

    Are you saying they aren't allowed to go up to 105% of allotment without penalty?  Or are you saying that they are allowed to, but haven't in the past.


  12. 2 hours ago, bobmc said:

     

    My understanding is that they can exceed the allotment by 5% without penalty.  If Weams' numbers are right in the OP, I believe that means the orioles can go up to $6,218,865 for Kjerstad if Servideo signs for slot.


  13. 1 minute ago, Roll Tide said:

    Thanks ....I was unclear about the money vanishing. 
     

    So saving in their 1 and perhaps their A comp pick are the only ways to come up with 2~3 million needed to overpay the 4th and 5th rounders.

    Or you could draft a senior with no leverage in another round and sign him for a small amount like $20K.


  14. 2 minutes ago, Roll Tide said:

    This is simply flawed logic! The Orioles and Marlins both went cheaper with Kjerstad and Meyer. The Orioles strategy has been discussed here At great length....To further prove it they gave 1 to 1.5 million Over slot to the 4 & 5 th round high schoolers to get them to pass on college scholarships. So based on there allotment the easiest way to have that much extra money is to underpay your 1st rounder or not sign a draftee. KC went with the best pitcher on the draft who also could’ve went first had the Tigers decided to go pitching.

    Not signing a draftee doesn't help at all.  The slot allocation for the pick is lost if the draftee is unsigned.  It cannot be used to sign another draftee over-slot.

    • Upvote 1
    • Thanks 1

  15. 2 hours ago, WillyM said:

    The 60-game schedule hasn't come out yet, but I understand that AL East teams are each supposed to play 40 games against AL East opponents and 20 games against NL East opponents.  No games against any teams in the Central or West divisions.  Similarly, Central division teams will play only Central division opponents and West division teams will play only West division opponents.

    I guess that could work, but then I read that MLB is still determined to have the Yankees play the White Sox in a game at or near the site used in the "Field of Dreams" movie.

    When is MLB going to figure out that the Yankees and White Sox are not in the same division?

    Seems like Reds and White Sox would make more sense.  They were the teams involved in the 1919 WS, and they are both in Central Divisions.


  16. 57 minutes ago, Philip said:

    You’ve already listed some of the things with which I strenuously disagree, and the fact that you don’t see any problem with them indicates that we are approaching the subject from different perspectives. And that’s OK, reasonable people can disagree.

    In addition to what you mention, the cheating situation was badly handled, The juiced baseball made games less interesting instead of more interesting, and Manfred was apparently blatantly lying when he insisted that the ball had not been modified, when every independent test confirmed otherwise. 

    Finally the idea that a shorter game is a better game is fundamentally wrong, and ignores the goal of improving the game. What you said in the other thread about the extra games is an incredibly important point. Everybody at the game has already paid for their ticket. When the baseball announcers talk about “free baseball” they are literally correct. MLB Already has their money. Every inning after nine costs them money without bringing any in. They can’t sell beer at the stadium after seventh inning, so there’s no more concession income, so they get nothing except whatever reduced rate they have negotiated with advertisers.( I don’t know how they deal with advertising so I can’t comment on that) So limiting length of game is actually a way to save money. But the entire goal of striving for a shorter game is flawed.

    There are rule changes that could help, by increasing activity on the base paths, which is where the interest is, but we haven’t heard a word of anything productive.

    Do the Orioles receive the advertising dollars?  I thought it was the broadcasting companies.  Why else would they pay the Orioles to air the games?


  17. 45 minutes ago, DanS said:

     

    Here's my Chuck Thompson straddle the fence on this topic:

    Prospect evaluation is difficult.  It is more difficult with players who have played zero games of pro ball, and even tougher this year due to the small sample size.  I wouldn't put too much weight on these rankings, but objectively, this says that the evaluators believe that we picked the 8th best prospect with the 2nd pick.

    I was encouraged by the Vandy coach Corbin talking up Kjerstad on MLB network before we chose him.  He is clearly one of the top coaches in college baseball, and he saw him several times in conference play.

    Yes, I saw that, and when we did make the pick, he said it was a great pick and that the Orioles will have to replace a lot of windows in the warehouse with Kjerstad hitting!


  18. 5 minutes ago, SteveA said:

    Wow.  Are he and Hoiles the only Orioles to do this?  (Or maybe Gentile too??)

    Gentile in 1961.  The first NL player to do so, believe it or not, was a pitcher, Tony Cloninger, of the Braves.

    • Upvote 1

  19. 1 minute ago, DrungoHazewood said:

    Which is fine.  If this is very unpopular then don't do it.

    But baseball needs to be careful about selection bias in their market research.  Of course many people who really like baseball the way it (which is probably a reasonable description of the folks going to MLBTR.com) is are going to vote against major rules changes.  The problem is how to stabilize or even grow the fanbase.  They should be asking people who are somewhat interested in baseball but are turned off by some things.

    I'm not sure that angering your existing fanbase in the hopes that they will be replaced by more people that will suddenly fall in love with the game because of the new way they handle games in which the score is tied after nine innings would be a good idea.  Seems somewhat similar to the decision to change the formula of Coca-Cola.

×
×
  • Create New...