Nine of twelve

I would ask all players, not just pitchers and catchers. And umpires too.

In the six years of the two-wild-card format the number of wins for the second AL team have been 93, 92, 88, 86, 89, 85. I think 90 could do it because teams from other divisions will play more difficult schedules than Cleveland and Minnesota.

I don't think tanking for the first pick in the baseball draft is really worth it. Basketball, yes. Football and hockey, probably. Baseball, no. You can certainly wind up with a top-flight player like the Nationals did two years in a row with Strasburg and Harper. But as this list will show, it's also very easy to select a journeyman or worse. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_first_overall_Major_League_Baseball_draft_picks

That's funny, even though it's an inaccurate analogy.

I promised (threatened?) to post more about the batter-independent strike zone and I'm following through on that now. I already mentioned that it's unfair to the pitcher to have to adapt to different sized strike zones while the batter has the same strike zone every time. The size of the adjustment may be small, but pitching is a finely-tuned skill as it is. Seemingly small adjustments are not necessarily easy ones. With a uniform strike zone very tall and very short batters would be at a bit of a disadvantage compared to a batter of average height. That's obvious. But the variation in physical characteristics among players is not compensated for in any other aspect of the game. I don't think it would be right to use a large first base for a short first baseman and a smaller one for a tall first baseman to compensate for the height difference. I don't think the pitcher's mound should be higher for a short pitcher and lower for a tall pitcher. I've never heard anyone advocate for either of those rules. The same logic should apply to the strike zone. (IMHO, of course.) So why is the strike zone different under the rules? Here's why. The strike zone needs to have upper and lower boundaries. However, it's not feasible to have a measuring stick protruding from home plate to give the human umpire a reference point. The only thing that was feasible way back when was to use the batter as a surrogate measuring stick. That's how the strike zone came to be defined as it is. We now have the ability to determine the location of the ball as it crosses home plate without interfering with the pitched ball or the batter's bat. Automated pitch calling systems give us the opportunity to correct an anomaly that was only there because mathematically inclined primates had yet to develop the technology to make the strike zone the same for all players, just like ***every*** other aspect of the rules of play, LIKE GOD INTENDED! (OK, so I got a little carried away. Sorry.)

Yes. Having a different strike zone for every batter requires readjustment by the pitcher with every plate appearance, whereas the batter has the same strike zone every time. This is not fair for the pitcher. Having the same zone every time for every batter means no readjustment. I'll talk more about this in another post when I have more time. Gotta go.

Your opinions are not the same as mine. Blown calls are neither fair nor fun. And if you look at the replay of the Gant/Hrbek play you'll clearly see that Gant was out because his foot came off the base as he lost his balance BEFORE Hrbek lifted Gant's leg up.

Who says robots can't do performance art?

We'll have to agree to disagree, I guess. To me it's no fun for wrong calls to be made. It's not fair to the pitcher, it's not fair to the batter, and it's not fair to the fans.

Solving the problem of establishing the top and bottom of the zone is very easy. Use the same strike zone for all players regardless of height and stance.

If you are going to use automated pitch calling systems to train umpires it means that the automated systems are more accurate than the humans. So why do that? Just use the automated systems instead. Don't we all want the best possible umpires? What difference does it make whether they are human or not?

The Chicago Blackhawks were indirectly named for a leader of the Sauk nation, Black Hawk, who was a prominent figure in the history of Illinois.

I identify with this. There are two seasons to every year: baseball season and waiting for baseball season.

Want more action? Make the strike zone larger so that batters will swing at more pitches. Decrease the height of the mound so that pitchers won't be able to strike as many batters out.

This is a bad idea. Managers should not have an artificial constraint like this getting in the way of managing a game. The purpose of minor league baseball is player development. Winning games is of low priority. It's much more like spring training baseball than it is like regular season major league baseball. Pitchers are used based on how much work they need, not based on how they can help win a given game. For that reason, comparing the length of major league relief appearances and the length of minor league relief appearances is worthless data.

Now that we know the whole story about Palmiero we know why he needed Viagra and became a commercial spokesperson for it in the process.

Now we know where Phil Cuzzi got his training.

We could have Bill Klem at every base and down each line for every game.

About baseball, I'll bet.

We'll miss you. For about a week or two. After that one of two things will happen. Either you'll realize that your decision was in error and you'll be back and be happy or you'll realize that your decision was in error but you'll be too stubborn to admit it publicly and you'll stay away and be miserable.

The reason nobody will care 50 years from now is because the logo is properly (and belatedly) being put on the scrap heap of history now. Leave the logo in place and it's a sore that will continue to fester.

And it's still better than what they had before.

Quakers is not a race of people. It would be about like Notre Dame calling themselves the fighting Catholics.

From the link: And if it is just a myth, as many claim, well, it's one hell of a myth, and until someone can prove to me they DIDN'T drink from the skull of a vanquished opponent, then By God, they did. In other words, it's such a great story that you want so badly to be true that it must be true. Yeahright.