Sessh

Fair enough, that's a valid point. One could also use that as a reason to be more aggressive when you get chances even if that means it fails. A stolen base also, at least temporarily, removes the possibility of an easy double play. A DP ball to second after a steal likely leads to one out and a runner on third instead of two outs and the bases empty.

So, it's better to not get on base at all? Well, okay.... if you say so. Maybe you advanced a runner from first to third with your hit before being picked off. Provided there isn't two outs, better to strikeout instead, though? It's just so defeatist to me.. and boring to watch.

..and yet, people are all for more "three true outcomes" baseball, so more strikeouts are ok, but getting thrown out on the bases isn't? Both are terrible outs, right? At least you had guys on base in one of those scenarios. From the rest of your post, it seems it's pointless to advance more than one base at a time because it's probably going to be an effort in vain. Any time you reach second base and there's no runner on first, it's probably all for naught. Why even try then? It's such a defeatist viewpoint to me. Let's not even try since there's a good chance it won't work out. Even hitters fail to get on base 2/3rds of the time or worse and that doesn't seem to be getting much better either. I would take more singles over more strikeouts any day even if some guys get thrown out because at least something is happening. It's no wonder younger people think baseball is boring. Three true outcomes is bad any way you look at it and it's something baseball should be trying to get away from, not do more of. I've been watching a lot of older baseball games on YT from the 70's and 80's and despite fewer home runs, there's also fewer strikeouts and games are more entertaining to watch. Hell, a ground out to shortstop is more entertaining than a strikeout. The HR obsession is not good for the sport and some of the more entertaining aspects of baseball have fallen away to make room for it. It's sad that I enjoy watching games that happened 25-40 years ago more than I do games today. It should be the opposite and not hard to see why younger people think it's boring. It's not the game length, it's that nothing happens most of the time now.

Stealing third with less than two outs makes it possible to score a run without a hit. Ground ball, sac fly, squeeze, wild pitch etc.. or stealing second, maybe he gets to third on a ground ball to second. Is a lead off double also marginal if the next guy walks? You gained nothing from it, right? What about advancing to second on a wild pitch? Is it pointless to try because the batter might walk or hit a triple? You could still be thrown out trying to take that base. It's a gamble, sure, but getting a runner into scoring position is never marginal. If the next guy walks, that doesn't mean it was pointless to create that scoring chance nor should it be a deterrent in the future anymore than striking out should be a deterrent to swinging the bat.

If I had to pick one, I'd rather see the pick off. It's far more entertaining than watching Davis whiff on a pitch down the middle. Both are undesirable since they're outs, but at least the pick-off involved a hit first and a good move to first from the pitcher. Strikeouts are just boring.

Most outs are strikeouts these days. Is that better? Plenty of guys strike out trying to hit home runs. Strikeouts buy you even less because no one reaches base at all. There's risk to everything. Isn't this just a call for more "three true outcomes" baseball? It's boring for one and probably not even good for the sport in general.

I generally disagree with all the "data" about how meaningless stolen bases are because I see that data as being flawed and meaningless itself. Any data that tries to tell me that getting a runner into scoring position is "marginal" or meaningless is data I disregard as flawed immediately. All that data is really doing is isolating one or two aspects of hitting with RISP based on how the runner got in scoring position in the first place which really doesn't matter at all. Once the runner is there, how he got there means nothing and has nothing to do with whether or not he scores afterwards. If it's a lead-off double and he doesn't score, is that a strike against lead-off doubles or is it just a failure of the rest of the team to hit with RISP? Stolen bases create scoring chances. They don't create runs. Hitting with RISP after a stolen base creates runs. Getting a runner into scoring position is never "marginal" or meaningless especially if it can be done without the batter having to do anything. It's a scoring chance, not a guarantee and of course there's the risk of being thrown out, but also the risk of a double play. I'm not against the stolen base at all provided we're not throwing away too many outs. Once the stolen base is successful, the rest is up to the hitters and it is on them if the runner in scoring position doesn't score.

I thought he had said that as well and was more interested in building an "elite talent pipeline" or something like that. The elite talent is going to come from the draft and let's be real here. It is highly unlikely that anyone on this team could fetch even one elite prospect out of someone else's system despite the overvaluations of our players around here at times. I'm not a huge fan of trading for lottery tickets, but I'm somehow ok with it if they are teens that came from the international draft as opposed to guys in their 20's that their previous teams had given up on. It also helps that Elias has plenty of experience scouting in Latin America from his previous jobs and I generally agree with his approach to rebuilding the franchise, so I'm willing to bend a little.

I admit to not knowing a lot about players back then, but why is Lombardi in the hall? Looking at his numbers, surely a well above average hitter, but fewer than 2K hits, less than 200 HR, one MVP and one WS. What is HOF worthy about Lombardi? Guys like Bill Mazeroski and Bobby Wallace look like they shouldn't be in, either. I'm sure there's a lot of guys that are in that shouldn't be in and wouldn't get in today based on their statistics. Am I missing something with Lombardi?

Boston series: Game 1: David Price vs. John Means Game 2: Rick Porcello vs. Tom Eshelman Game 3: Andrew Cashner vs. Wojo

It's pouring where I am. Fast moving storms, but intense.

I would based on the fact that it doesn't make sense. If a pitcher commits an error that allows a runner on base and that runner scores, it should not be an unearned run. Of course, the "benefit" is a lower ERA though I don't think any pitcher is going to throw a ball away with two outs just to freeze his ERA for the rest of the inning. Even still, an error by the pitcher that leads to runs should be credited to that pitcher as earned, not unearned.

A lot of dead air now. Hunter actually ran out of things to say. It's a miracle.

Santander looks ok out there. He hasn't really been tested much, though.

Renato Wolters on deck again. It's extremely annoying and distracting for me to see anyone over there during an AB. It must be annoying for the pitcher too.

Smith is more of an asset to the team we're playing against at this point. He's an automatic out plus they can hit balls to him, run on him and anything else they want because he's W out there. Worst player on the team aside from Davis right now.

He'll get the Hyun-soo Kim treatment for sure. That's another thing that made me dislike Buck when he was here.

He probably just hit Nunez on purpose for that. I would, too.

lol, Renato Wolters on deck.

Sports that primarily require high levels of physical endurance are sports that women will do better with. Sports that primarily require high levels of physical strength will always be outdrawn by the men's version of the sport because the men's version will have the better, more skilled athletes. I don't watch a lot of soccer, but I've seen both men's and women's and did not see a noticeable difference between the two. I liked them both equally. Tennis is another where both men and women do well. Gymnastics and figure skating are two where the women's version are more popular than the men's. Some sports play better into women's strengths than others and the same goes for men. With basketball, again, I don't watch basketball a lot, but there was a time where I was trying to get into it and did watch a few women's games. The women's games were boring compared to the men's. Missed more shots, less skill and lacked something. Certainly, a less physical game. Hockey is the same way. I've watched several women's hockey games even the US vs Canada games which featured the best women's hockey has to offer and it was nowhere close to the level of men's hockey. While certainly skilled, they were not nearly as skilled as the men in several areas. Not as skilled in passing. Weak shots that almost never beat goalies clean and are almost always along the ice instead of elevated. Not good at one-timers or slap shots. Most goals are from rebounds right in front of the net. Last but not least, there is no body checking allowed in the women's game because, you know, someone might get hurt. The women's game is completely devoid of any physical play and is in fact against the rules to do so. They are fast skaters, though. As an athlete, you are the draw. If you're not drawing, you don't get paid and you're certainly not going to get equal pay to the men who are drawing far more money than they are. Women's hockey can't even survive in Canada and if your hockey league can't survive in Canada, that says a lot about their drawing power. It's going down the tubes in the states too. Athletics is unique in that way and the difference in pay is completely fair. If the men aren't drawing billions of dollars a year, they wouldn't get paid millions. Neither should the women. That is completely fair and is not indicative of any unfair pay gap.

This made me go and watch Doc's no hitter on Youtube. Bit of a strange no hitter that was almost foiled in the first inning. Six walks, didn't have command at the beginning or end of the game. Gooden had one hell of a curveball, though. I'd forgotten how good it was. He basically threw a no hitter with two pitches. This M's lineup had Griffey, A-Rod, Martinez and Buhner. ..and for any gluttons of punishment, I am watching Nomo's second no hitter as well which was, of course, against the Orioles. Anderson, Bordick, Ripken, Segui et al and Ponson on the mound. Always liked Nomo and love watching these time capsules. I don't know why, but always paid attention to the unique pitching deliveries and batting stances when I was a kid and I love being able to see all that again as well. For the gluttons:

I think he was saying "Give it about a month (and see how "interesting" you think it is then), but maybe I read it wrong. That said, I don't think Elias will bring Hays up any earlier than September call-ups if then. He seems to have a strict system in place and is not interested in winning games this season. Hays must meet their standards before he is promoted to the majors and he's only had 61 ABs at the AAA level; 15 games. I doubt he is brought up so soon, but anything is possible I guess. If he is brought up, it won't have anything to do with trying to win more games or field a better team. It will be because they have decided he is ready based on their system which is probably not the same as the system many on here are going by. He's been hot since coming off the DL which is great, though. He's certainly helping his cause and I hope he can keep it up.

I think it's because of the high probability that Davis is going nowhere until his contract runs out that makes me not bring him up more. Obviously, he's the one doing the most damage to our progress right now. Smith, to me, doesn't do anything well enough to justify being here. He's not even a bench player IMO. I'd much rather see Stewart. Broxton isn't even on my radar right now just because he's really good in CF (the only one) and is fine as a DR/PR/4th OF guy. I feel the same about Martin at SS, really. Both bring some utility to the team despite not being able to hit. Smith doesn't bring any from what I can see and Davis brings even less than that, but it's not realistic to expect Davis to be gone any time soon despite him being the most obvious choice to be rid of. For me, there is the added displeasure that Davis represents a part of our past that we are trying to move away from and he represents the clusterf- FO that got us in this mess. I can only hope Elias will cut that tether eventually.. if he's allowed to.

I would much rather see Stewart than Smith at this point.

I don't know anything about their guys over there. No clue.