Nine of twelve

Everyone knows that if (actually when) this change is made it will take time for everyone involved, especially pitchers and batters, to adjust. That doesn't make the change a bad thing. In fact, IMHO a consistent strike zone, no matter how it is defined, would be a good and much-needed change. And I don't see any way to be consistent unless the strike zone is precisely defined. The current definition of the strike zone, with it being different for each batter, was put in place only because at the time the rule was written there was no technology available to determine the position of the ball as a pitch passed over home plate. The only landmarks an umpire could use were home plate and the batter's body. That is far from ideal because each batter varies in size and stance, because a knee is several inches in height, and because armpits are difficult to see precisely, but it was all we had. Moreover, the human visual system is simply not capable of knowing precisely the position of a pitched ball, but again it's all we had. Today's technology allows us to know very precisely the distance from the ground to the pitched ball, as well as whether any part of the ball passes directly above any part of home plate. I would be interested to read how, in precise terms, people here think the strike zone should be defined. As for me, I would advocate for defining the strike zone in numerical terms. The width of home plate is fine, and I would also specify the top and bottom of the zone in terms of inches above home plate. I see no good (IMHO) reason that the zone should be different from one batter to another. In no other major team sport does the size and shape of the playing area vary from one player to another and again, I think it would improve accuracy, precision, and consistency of pitch calls.

What does it matter whether it's been done wrong for 150 years or 150 seconds? It's wrong either way.

Another way of putting it is that humans tend to go against the rules with their pitch calling. Why would we want that to continue if it can be eliminated? If your hypothesis regarding rounding the corners is verified your conclusion should be phrased differently. It's not that robo umps would be giving pitchers an advantage, it's that human umps are currently giving batters an advantage.

It's my understanding that contracts such as this are almost always insured. That means the insurance company would be assuming the financial risk in the event of a health-related problem affecting the player's performance. As such, it would seem to me that the underwriter would want to assess the risk before such a policy is put into effect. That's why I was wondering if insurance companies hire doctors to give independent opinions in such cases. Maybe Heezy is aware of whether this is done?

These two sentences from your opening post seem more than a bit contradictory to me. Also, you briefly mentioned his 2015 season, but you didn't include that he finished third in AL Rookie of the Year voting despite playing only half a season. Both of these examples are what was hoped for, his "billing" as you termed it, at those stages in his career. While he certainly has regressed since 2019, saying that he never lived up to his billing is simply not a true statement.

I'm not clear about this: exactly who engaged the services of the MD or MD's who provided the opinion used by the Giants and the Mets? Was it the teams themselves or was it the insurance company or companies who would be providing coverage for the contracts?

I think this is the primary reason the Twins were on Correa's short list. And notice that the Red Sox, who have the resources to offer a contract the size of Correa's deal with the Twins and who badly need a good shortstop, were obviously not on his list. I strongly suspect that Correa wanted nothing to do with playing for Alex Cora. Kudos to the FO and Baldelli; doing things the right way makes it more likely that you will be rewarded in the end.

And MLB will also figure that out and make corrections.

This. One of the arguments against implementing ABS has been that the systems aren't perfect yet. Well, guess what--they will never be perfect. However, they are significantly better at calling pitches than humans are and have been for many years. Moreover, continued improvement in ABS performance is not only possible but expected. By contrast, improvement in human performance is not possible and will never occur. The whole idea is to get calls correct as often as possible, not just balls and strikes but all calls. That way the outcome of the game is decided by the performance of the players, not by the performance of the umpires.

I don't think this is the case. If he truly didn't want to stay here he would not have signed a long-term contract.

Celestino is too young to give up on. Ideally a good team needs only 4 outfielders plus a utility player who can play the outfield (Gordon, in our case). Two should bat left, one of whom can play center field. Two should bat right, one of whom can play center field. I have hope that Celestino can be Buxton's RH batter counterpart in the next couple years.

I'm optimistic--we'll trade a doomed prospect for one at the deadline.

I think that one of the reasons Correa accepted the Twins' offer is that the players, the front office, and the on-field staff all were consistent in establishing good will with him. Not all teams work that way, for example the Vikings under Zimmer.

This is not a major deal. Keep in mind they are getting the 2023 Johnny Cueto, not the 2014 Johnny Cueto.

I'd say this is essentially true but an overstatement. There have been millions of times in the world where someone has a job that they like but want to see if something else is available. So they shop around a little bit, maybe get an interview or two, maybe get an offer that later falls through. So they go back to the original job, maybe getting a pay raise from that employer who is glad for them to stay. I don't think Correa and Boras are dense enough to think that people don't know the situation here, so I hope and expect them to be straightforward about it. And my guess is that Correa genuinely did and will continue to enjoy playing here. If he didn't want to come here, even if it's not his first choice, he wouldn't have agreed to terms.

FWIW, Phil Miller of the Strib reports that the talks between the Twins and Correa have become serious. https://www.startribune.com/minnesota-twins-carlos-correa-new-york-mets-contract-scott-boras/600242137/

I am not a lawyer, but my understanding of the law in this regard is that the medical facility where care was provided owns the medical record. This is protected information and may be shared only with the patient, with anyone explicitly authorized by the patient to receive that information, or with anyone associated with the medical facility as needed to provide further care or for related purposes such as billing.

I posted this on the other thread and I'm going to post it here as well. Maybe that's true. Maybe not, I don't know. But thousands of people sign contracts every day proscribing conduct that is not illegal. Several U of M football players were expelled several years ago because their conduct, while not illegal, fell outside the terms that all students agree to abide by when they enroll. I don't know the detailed ins and outs of the MLB CBA, but I expect that Bauer's conduct fell outside the terms he agreed to when he signed his contract. And I don't care about any other concerns. I don't care if he's the second coming of Nolan Ryan on the mound. If I were running an MLB front office I would never sign him to play on my team.

2-5 all bat left handed. (So do Kepler and Gallo.) We need a decent-hitting RH bat for the outfield. I think Celestino will be that player within the next year or two.

This would move the Twins up to second place behind Boras. Boras always wins. The only question is how much he rakes in.

Weirder things have happened. Ever since the Mets started getting cold feet I started to entertain that glimmer in my mind. If the Twins do sign him (still a BIG BIG if) I expect all the people who bashed the front office for apparently letting him get away to apologize. It may turn out that Falvine were timid like a fox all along.

Exactly what I said: few to no players. Anyone can name a very small cohort of outliers, but I won't go through the bother of listing the thousands of players for whom what I said applies.

The idea is to get the most out of a player over the course of a season. Few to no players will be optimally productive in September after playing 150 games. It's a difficult balancing act to know exactly how much to rest a player in order to get optimal production.

Easy to understand that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Georgia

Obviously better, arguably better, and about as good according to who?