Nine of twelve

You don't have to be 270 pounds to play football. You don't have to be 7 feet tall to play basketball.

And by the way, I don't like that we can't delete our own posts.😡

I didn't assert that. I did assert that baseball is the only major sport that I know of that has a field of play that varies depending on the size of the player. I merely used examples from other sports showing that the field of play does not vary depending on the size of the player in those sports. I did exactly this, and in my 3-paragraph post of about 8 hours ago I explained why the strike zone is defined in the way it currently exists. The burden of proof is on you to show that this is true, which I don't think is the case.

That's something that should be very easy to verify.

Oh, well I guess that definitively answers my question.

The height of a basketball hoop is not adjusted depending on the height of the shooter. The size of a soccer goal is not adjusted depending on the height of the keeper. The distance of a footrace is not adjusted depending on the leg length of the runner. The size of a football is not adjusted depending on the size of the quarterback's hand. Etc, etc, etc. Why should the strike zone change depending on the size of the batter? As I said before, the top and bottom of the strike zone were defined as they are for the sole reason that the parts of a batter's body were the only landmarks an umpire could use to determine the top and bottom of the strike zone. It's not 1880 any more.

A point well taken, but the strike zone can be and has been adjusted from time to time over the years anyway. I guess my point is there would be a large improvement in consistency from pitch to pitch and from game to game within the season. And in fact it would not surprise me if the zone is adjusted at some point during the first years after ABS is adopted depending on how this improvement affects the game.

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.

At the risk of going off topic I'll say that the advantage a shift gives to fielding is totally fair and within the rules, at least it was until the end of the 2022 season.

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.

As with all trades, it's necessary to see what kind of career performance the principals have after the transaction. It's still way to soon to know which team, if either, came out ahead. But I think it was a good trade to make given the circumstances at the time it occurred.

He's not an outstanding fielder at any position and he never will be. But he's acceptable playing at second base if he can keep getting on base as well as or better than he did last season. The other point: I don't think his trade value has peaked. I think it's very likely that his performance as a batter will improve between now and when he'll be eligible for free agency. Extending him sooner rather than later makes team-friendly terms much more achievable. Not only would that be good for the Twins if he stays on the team but it would increase his trade value.

Any and every player (except those with no-trade clauses in their contracts) should be traded if the trade makes the organization better.

I hadn't been aware of this. From the little bit of information I found on the internet is appears to me that he had a pterygium removed. This is almost always an uncomplicated procedure and I hope it's successful for him. While I'm commenting I'll say that I would love to have the 2019 Nelson Cruz on my team. The 2023 Nelson Cruz? Not in my plans. I'm a bit surprised that the Padres signed him but I think it's probably more of a depth signing than anything.

One word: Happy.