Nine of twelve

I am totally on board with Baldelli's pitcher management last night. Keep in mind that a manager's job is to get his team to advance as far as possible over the course of the regular season (and the postseason, we hope). Regarding last night, most importantly, it was a 1-run game. The manager has to decide who is more likely to keep the other team down, a fresh set of bullpen arms or a starter who has thrown 84 pitches in his first start of the season. The manager also has to take into account what would be best for the pitcher and the team in the pitcher's future starts. The fact that the starter happened to be no-hitting the opponent was a factor, but it was low on the list of factors to consider.

With all due respect, losing a 5-game postseason series is not a reason to blow up the organization. It's unadvisable to put too much emphasis on succeeding only in one year. The goal, as Falvey has said, is to build and maintain an organization that produces a major league team that contends for the postseason every year. If a team is in the postseason nearly every year success there will follow.

Would a company with a good name pony up $$$ to have their name on the Marlins' home venue?

This is bold, but only because of the typeface. The Tighty Whities are overrated and the Twins are under-respected. If it's less than 10 games it will be due only to the Twins clinching fairly early and setting up the roster for the postseason. In the last week or so of the season there will be some meaningless losses for the Twins and some meaningless wins for the team favored by these fans: https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/coronavirus/white-sox-fans-drink-the-most-of-any-mlb-fan-base-study-shows/2453770/#:~:text=Approximately%2067%25%20of%20White%20Sox,1%20spot%20once%20again.

I don't think that is obvious. There have been many times where a team appears to be emerging and then doesn't. Two examples: The 2004 Royals and the 2016 Twins. I'm not saying that the Sox will lose over 100 games like those two teams but I think they are being overrated by just about everyone.

Here's another potential scenario that works in the team's favor. Let's be optimistic and say that our prospects pan out and we have 7 or so good starters in 3 years. This contract makes Dobnak very tradeable, and for a good return.

I have to say I'm surprised. I know it's not a huge number based on the number of years but I don't think he's consistently proven himself. Obviously the Twins see something worthwhile there so I hope he makes Falvine look like geniuses.

The short answer: mostly AAA with occasional very short stints in the majors.

Nor this one. Formally.

I will say that I have heard and/or read that bunting a major-league pitch is not as easy as many of us assume. Nevertheless it is a learnable skill and this is definitely an underused play.

It's all important. I'll also add one other parameter that has to be accounted for, that being spin axis. I haven't read enough of these analyses to know whether that is factored in, but it is highly significant. Spin will be maximally effective when its axis is perpendicular to the direction of travel. If the spin axis is parallel to the direction in which the ball is traveling no amount of spin will cause the ball to break.

When you consider that baseball players typically reach top form between the ages of 25 and 30 and that players are drafted at age 18-22 with international signees being even younger I figure that it should take at least 3 years for Falvine's players to begin to have some impact and up to 12 years for them to dominate the roster. Also keep in mind it takes some time to assemble a strong scouting and player development staff. Being a baseball fan is not for the impatient.

IIRC, the same concerns were raised about Joe Nathan in 2004. Turned out he was able to produce at a satisfactory level in the regular season.

IMHO this is a flawed premise. Expected runs is not the benchmark to use. Win probability is the benchmark to use.

I'm not worried about people who are worried. I'm worried about people who are not worried.

I always wear one when I leave the house.

I agree. It has been shown that there are far too many people who have no regard for the safety of themselves and others when it comes to the pandemic, yet even though we have not achieved control of the situation the State is apparently relenting and allowing those people to attend games. I just hope the State's kindness and generosity don't backfire. Even though I have been vaccinated I'm staying away until the vaccination rate is much higher and the incidence of infection is much lower.

I think the decision about how this role should be filled should be made in the same way any other bullpen decision is made. Take into account the opposing lineup, how many batters the pitcher would be facing, who in the bullpen is fresh, who in the bullpen has or has not been pitching well recently, the game situation, the projected needs for the rest of that game and upcoming games, who is ready and available to be called up from St. Paul, etc. etc. etc.

Betting lines are not reliable indicators of the strength of teams. Betting lines are set based on how the entity setting the lines evaluates the bets placed on a team and the lines change with the ongoing placement of bets. The entity will set an O/U for internal use but that's not the same as the public betting line. If bets on a given team start to come in strongly on one side or the other this internal O/U the public betting line will shift because the entity will decide they are more likely to make more money if they move the line. For example, if a team is assigned an internal O/U of 80.5 but the entity can get a lot of people to bet on the over at 85.5 that's where the public betting line will be set. In the case of the White Sox, they have been one of the most active teams in trades and free agent signings. That has made their fan base more optimistic, and in such a situation the optimism is usually stronger than is realistic. That in turn makes it more likely that their fan base will place bets for them to have a higher level of success than is truly indicated. That in turn causes the O/U betting line to shift upward. So the high number on the White Sox O/U is based in large part on how likely it is for White Sox fans to make intelligent, realistic analyses of their team's chances. I won't comment on whether this is related: https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/coronavirus/white-sox-fans-drink-the-most-of-any-mlb-fan-base-study-shows/2453770/#:~:text=Chicago%20White%20Sox%20fans%20were,%22Booziest%20Baseball%20Fans%22%20list.

The Marx brothers were all supremely talented, but none more so than Arthur.

This had better be Cruz' last year with the Twins. Now that he's on the roster I hope he has a great season but it's time to move forward with the young'uns.

While I hope for the best this year for Happ it would certainly be great to see Thorpe blossom into a legitimate MLB starter. Very few teams win a world championship without at least one lefty in the rotation.

I agree with this post, but I'll nitpick and say that Boras isn't the one who moves a player. His client, the player, makes the final decision about whether to stay or go. However, Boras has deservedly acquired the reputation of being more aggressive about negotiating for his clients than most agents, presumably because a larger contract for his client gets him a larger cut. Also, I suspect that a player who puts the dollar amount of his contract as his highest priority is one who is more likely to choose Boras as his agent, which in turn makes it more likely Boras will be involved in these situations. It's kind of like a feedback loop. That said, in these situations Boras and the player are not being unethical. They are simply playing by the rules, exploiting the (inequitable) system. I think more extensive revenue sharing would benefit not only the majority of fans but also the majority of players. When only a few teams have much greater power to pay large contracts it means the few players getting those contracts benefit at the expense of other players. Giving all teams similar financial wherewithal would mean that player salaries will be more equitable, not just within a given team but within MLB as a whole. It also would mean players in one team's system have similar chances of succeeding as a player in another team's system, both in terms of on-field performance and in terms of salary. Think of it this way--compare a utility player for Kansas City to a utility player for the Dodgers. The two probably have similar performance profiles and so forth but which player will be more likely to have a higher salary and chance of postseason success? Which borderline minor league player will have a greater chance to be promoted to the majors, one in the KC system or one in the Dodger system?

Shouldn't there be a separate thread for how your contributors are ranked?

This is the name that must never be spoken. (Or written.)