Can_of_corn

I think a lot of folks in the industry are familiar with The Book. I'd be shocked to hear that any current GM hasn't read it. I would fully expect any manager to at the very least have easy access to the charts on run expectancy (updated I'm sure). It's been around for a while and it's a pretty important work in the field. It's also not a bad read.

I love that they actually called it The Book. As the kids say, it's a Chad move.

The defense as a whole, to include Adley's framing, has been a step down from what we saw last season.

Hey look! Someone studied this as well! https://sports.sites.yale.edu/effect-baserunners-mlb-pitch-selection

On the bright side, it is unlikely we end up in a tiebreaker situation with the White Sox.

Have you read The Book? I strongly recommend it.

I'm not sure even I agree with you but thanks for the support.

You might want to pick something most folks enjoy, that one is a bit specific for you. I am a total killjoy tho. But at least I own it.

Tradition is wrong. Go read The Book. Adley should be hitting second.

What I am saying is you said they were poor throws and then you go with they shouldn't have to think they need to be perfect. They don't need to be perfect they just need to get up to decent. Are we seeing Mountcastle having balls hit him dead in the middle of the glove and him not come up with it like happened with Davis? Yes, a good first baseman should be able to salvage a decent percentage of poor throws but I don't think expecting mediocrity from the other fielders is out of line.

Let me know if you ever need to talk to someone.

It's OK. We know they won't extend him so he'll walk in a few years, we just need to be patient.

They were poor throws. How does that become have to be perfect? I view it like this. Terrible-----poor----decent----good----perfect. There is the whole decent and good range. I don't want the fielders getting lazy with their form any more than I want my first baseman not making picks.

One thing you learn how to do with 100K posts is how to quote properly.

As opposed to the peep calling a total stranger piss poor at something they could never dream of being able to do? Sure.

You asked if he "sucked" and if he was "piss-poor". You provided no actual evidence of anything. You also said that Reynolds was "amazing at first" which is a statement that has no factual evidence supporting it. That's a rant. You think he had a poor game and you are ranting about it.

Yes I know this isn't the first time you've criticized Mountcastle. But this is a rant and should be in the rant forum.

Hey now, Buck doesn't believe in the save rule!

Wow took all of a couple days for the harpies to start circling Mountcastle again. Does he go around kicking puppies or something? And why isn't this in the RANTS forum?

It's pretty simple. It's also why you don't play for one run in the top of the inning if you know your main guy isn't available.

Told him he had dinner plans and to speed things up.

It wasn't automatic that we'd lose this game if he didn't pitch. It's April, you need to be able to depend on more than one guy.

I'd rather lose this game than Bautista for a month. It's April, one of these other guys is going to have to step up at some point, now is a good time to start screening applicants.

Thank goodness we got the one run.

They are capable of knocking him in from second. I'd rather not give up the out.