Oxtung

Posted in another thread

Posted in another thread

Posted in another thread

Posted in another thread

Posted in another thread

Posted in another thread

Posted in another thread

Posted in another thread

I'm going to copy paste the discussion Kab21 and I had into this thread as it is where it really belongs.

Just did some quick looking analysis. Of the top 20 relievers between 2002-2012 sorted by WAR (yes this isn't perfect): Full time starters before MLB debut: 11 out of top 20 Starter transitioned to reliever before MLB debut: 3 out of 20 Full time reliever before MLB debut: 6 out of 20 So about 50% of the best relievers were full time starters in the minors. Those on the list that were full time relievers in the minors: Rafael Betancourt (ranked 5th) Francisco Cordero (ranked 7th) Huston Street (ranked 9th) BJ Ryan (ranked 12th) Trevor Hoffman (ranked 16th) Jose Valverde (ranked 19th) Given the incredibly SSS I'm not sure what conclusions we can draw but I thought it was interesting to note that not all the best relievers were starters in the minors.

Any studies to back that up? Often times relievers coming up and who make it to MLB are flame throwers who just can't master that 3rd pitch enough to start. You can be very successful as a reliever with just 2 pitches.

Does anyone know of any analysis done on bullpen guys that correlates their stats to if they started out as a reliever or a starter? That seems like an interesting bit of info. I guess I'm mostly asking if pitchers who come up through the ranks as starters are more likely to succeed than pitchers who are designated relievers from day 1.

Yes and yes. As I show in the post just above this there is an interesting split with players acquired before 2001 and after 2001.

I have many times. I am sticking to my original assertion in my original post since no one has been able to come up with any reason to discredit the data (other than by arguing SSS which I don't disagree with but when you're talking elite pitchers you're always going to be talking SSS in which case you work with the data you have): Data Before 2001: 16 Aces 4 were 1st round draft picks 4 were international signings 8 were drafted after 1st round Since 2001: 8 Aces 7 were 1st round draft picks 1 (King Felix) was an international signing 0 were drafted after 1st round 5 of the 7 drafted were taken in the first 12 picks. Since you stopped responding to my posts in the other thread I assumed we had come to some kind of consensus or at the least an understanding. Your 11, of which I would argue several would never be considered aces by most people, ignore the data split that is seen since 2001. Expanding the list to 25 pitchers just to get a larger sample size, that still is too small eliminate small sample size errors, does not make them all aces. However even on your expanded list only 4 pitchers have been acquired since 2001, Haren, Wilson, Lester, Josh Johnson. If you would like to discuss this further I suggest we go back to the previous thread so that the discussion is housed in 1 thread. Or perhaps start a new thread of it's own because it wasn't necessarily well related to the discussion in that thread either. I thought we had found some consensus in our discussion and was just trying to lend some statistics to what I saw as a related discussion in this thread since the work was already done.

I had all 3 mac and cheeses when I went earlier this week. I would not recommend them at all. I was extremely disappointed. The cajun was the best of the bunch and the buffallo chicken was the worst by far. FYI there was nothing spicy about any of the 3 either. They may sound like they'd have a bit of a bite but there was nothing....nada.

I just want to clarify a few things. My goal when I started my original research was to find out where the truly elite pitchers come from and if it is possible to find them outside of the first round. I looked at the yearly ERA top 10 lists. If a person was listed in multiple seasons in the top 10 I called them an elite Ace. There were 8 of those. I didn't just "pick" them arbitrarily. Second, I see no difference from a statistics perspective between 8 pitchers and let's say 16 pitchers. Both are way to small to be anything other than SSS. However, if you do include the fringe "aces" there were still only about 3 of the top 20ish pitchers that were drafted after the first round. I think it's safe to say we both agree that if you want to get an ace, whether that is an elite ace or a fringe ace, you are going to find it in the first round or not at all. I also found it amazing that our lists of "Aces" were almost void of international signings.

Marriage was originally, and I think in people's minds still is, a religious convention. It is a commitment to your partner in front of the eyes of your friends, family, and most importantly God. The fact that the government has since tried to turn the word into a legal definition does not change the fact it is viewed by the public at large as a religious event. I care not a whit about the word Marriage. I do care that the government is founded on an idea of equality in the eyes of the law. In this case that is not true. Same sex couples do not have the same legal standing as mixed sex couples. I'm not sure if you're responding to me or not here. If so I think you're misinterpreting my view point. I think there should be equality in the eyes of the law. I think the best way of doing that, both the neatest and the easiest, is to change all terminology from marriage to civil union. I also believe the government shouldn't be getting involved in religious affairs in either direction. There should be no laws requiring churches to offer same sex ceremonies and there should be no laws forbidding same sex ceremonies. That decision should be made at a local church level based on the congregations wishes. I would hope that if a same sex couple wanted to get married to affirm their relationship in front of God they could find a place to do that. At a personal level I have no problems with anything that happens in a private persons home as long as that does not harm someone else. I have friends who are gay and support them completely. I would definitely encourage and show up to their wedding if that was what they wanted to do.

Your whole premise is incorrect. People don't care about Marriage because of the legal rights it bestows, though those are a nice bonus, they get married because of the religious ceremony and connotations that goes with it. If it was truly about the legal aspects then the crowd would be lining up at the courthouse watching the bride(s) sign their piece of paper. No girl dreams of signing that paper. No it's about the dress, showing your family and friends that you love your partner, and doing it all in front of God. The fact that the government then requires you to sign a piece of paper for their purposes is just so you get the added bonuses that go with Marriage. I do agree with you however that if you go back to the beginning of the term "Civil Union" it was highly controversial. I recently read an interview with the state legislator (from somewhere in the northeast...Maine? Vermont? anyone remember?) that created the original legislation creating the term Civil Union. There certainly were big debates but the fundamental key to passing legislation giving some legal standing to same sex couples was changing from the word Marriage to the word Civil Union. There is a large portion of the anti-gay marriage crowd that disagree with it because of the religious connotations associated with Marriage. If you remove those connotations by changing the word many people don't have as big a deal with resulting legal relationship. As a society we have also come a LONG ways in our viewpoints on same sex marriage. That's not to say it would solve ALL problems. Certainly there is a segment of the population that disagrees with the concept entirely. However by changing the name I think enough anti-gay marriage advocates would allow the legislation to pass resulting in an equal standing in the eyes of the legal system. To me that is the big deal here. Our government is built upon the principle of equality and legally right now same sex couples are not equal to heterogeneous couples. As for DOMA I'm not sure what you're confused by. It has the word Marriage right in it. That puts the legal community and the religious community at odds right away.

That is largely the crux of this problem imo. Marriage is a religious construct that has been around for millennia. Government has recently then tried to usurp the word to fit a legal definition. There are two competing interests trying to use the same word. I think government at all levels, federal, state, local, needs to remove the word "marriage" from all legal documents and replace this with a new word(s). Civil Union certainly seems viable. The separation of church and state should go both ways. Then churches, clergy and congregations can make local decisions on how they will handle marriage. Civil Unions however would legally apply to all couples seeking legal standing. This could include tax breaks, legal guardianship issues, insurance coverage, etc... There is no inalienable right to marriage from a civil rights perspective except that which the government has created by using the term "marriage" within the legal framework. If the term "marriage" is switched out for "Civil Union" there will no longer be two entities trying to use the word for different purposes.

I don't think the books are that good tbh. There are other series in the same genre that are much better. The first season on DVD though was great. Perhaps the aesthetics of the visual medium make this a MUCH more interesting story line

I'd just like to point out Kab21 and I had a great back and forth with a quite a bit of research involved a couple of weeks ago about acquiring Ace pitchers. My conclusion was that if you want that truly elite Ace you have to draft it in the first round (Price, Verlander, Lincecum, Weaver, Kershaw, etc... It is possible to get this in the international signings too but it rare. Only King Felix and Carlos Zambrano fit the bill in the last 15 years). If you want a very good pitcher who can put up Ace like seasons once or twice you can get that pitcher in later rounds or international signings (Haren, Shields, Jaime Garcia, John Lester, etc...). You can read the full interaction starting with my post here: http://twinsdaily.com/twins-minor-league-talk/5559-article-draft-board-v-2-0-3-13-a-4.html#post90489 I wonder how hard it is to find elite hitters outside the first round. If there are certain positions where elite players are unavailable outside the 1st round, like pitching, perhaps BPA isn't the way to go in drafts. Perhaps position needs to play a bigger role in drafts. Interesting thought. Does anybody know of any studies that have looked into this?

Fangraph's says his FB was at 88-89 last year.

Parmelee has a history of struggling the first time he see's a level just like Hicks does. 2007 Beloit .727 OPS 2008 Beloit .881 OPS 2009 Ft Meyers .800 OPS 2010 Ft Meyers .893 OPS 2010 New Britain .731 OPS 2011 New Britain .801 OPS Here's another fun fact: Brian Dozier has 348 MLB PA's while Chris Parmelee has 310. Should Dozier be sent back to AAA as well? How about Trevor Plouffe? He had 364 PA's before his "breakout" 2012 season. He had a .668 OPS versus Parmelee's .760 OPS. Prospects often struggle and need to be given more than half a season's worth of PA's before you determine if they are going to hack it.

I guess let me be the first to say that baseball is no different from other sports. The only reason people enjoy sports is because they have some emotional attachment to the game. At some point in the past good memories were created and now when you turn on the TV or radio or show up at the stadium those memories come flowing back to you and make you feel good. Often times this happens at a subconscious level but it still happens. This is true in the game of baseball and any other sport. All of the other reasons given so far are just smokescreen, a way for your mind to articulate an ethereal experience. Something that is hard to grasp and harder to define. The reasons listed above could all be debunked but what can't be is that at some point in the past you learned to love baseball because you had some good experiences and now when you go to the game you are emotionally invested.

Interesting questions to me here. Is Salcedo healthy? Is Baxendale getting a look at starter? If so who isn't starting between Salcedo, Wheeler, Summers, Baxendale, Boer, Stuifbergen? Assuming Rosario gets the primary reps at 2B does Levi Michaels slide over to SS? How do the reps get split between him and Pettersen? Always fun to see how things work out.