Wookiee of the Year

I'll go out on a limb and say I think your perspective is totally legitimate. I just land somewhere else. It seems you start from the position of, "Why should we restrict the freedom of grown adults to do an activity [take PEDs] when they are fully aware of the costs and benefits?" I prefer to start from the perspective of, "What are the societal benefits to allowing adults to do this activity [take PEDs], and do they outweigh the costs?" Quick comment on your bike stunts example: I have to plead ignorance when it comes to Motocross, but I'll say that if a lot of kids end up killing or paralyzing themselves trying to mimic certain bike stunts, yes, I think those bike stunts should be made illegal. Figure skating outlaws backflips even at the highest levels of competition because they're considered too dangerous, and I don't find that morally objectionable. I'm less interested in the theoretical implications of what's equivalent and more interested in real-world problems that have resulted from allowing certain behaviors. And ultimately, I care less about protecting the sport and allowing athletes to reach the highest achievements at the professional level, and am more interested in protecting baseball and other sports and worthy activities for youth.

Just for kicks, I'll offer my thoughts on PEDs. Like Mike Sixel, I expect I'm in the minority. As a first principle, I would note that athletes are aware of what the rules are, what they're not allowed to take, and what the penalties are, so if they violate a rule, they deserve the punishment. In terms of what should be allowed, though, we have to acknowledge that what counts as a banned substance and what is allowed can be a pretty gray line. Things that are allowed include Tommy John surgery and Lasik, which are clearly artificial enhancements of ability, as well as cortisone injections, which are a steroid. I've read that several currently-prohibited PEDs could be taken with close medical supervision and administered in a way that would basically eliminate long-term ill health effects. There's no "bright line" that makes it obvious what's in and what's out. So how do we draw that line? Well, who are we worried about being harmed? I agree that a level playing field is important, and I don't want any players to feel that need to take a drug with serious long-term ill health effects in order to keep up with the league. However, at the major league level, these guys all have access to professional trainers that could mitigate many of those long-term effects. It's really not the guys at the major league level I'm most worried about. Who I'm really concerned about is the college and high school athletes who think they need to start taking these drugs at an early age in order to cut it or to have any shot at playing professionally, the ones who can't afford personal trainers to closely monitor their regimens. It ultimately becomes a "please, think of the children" argument for me. So where does that put us? I land with the view that if high school or college athletes have shown a proclivity for taking a substance that could have serious long-term negative health effects, it should be banned from the major league level on down. This presents a moving target--if high school athletes in the next few years start trying to administer Lasik in each other's basements and end up lasering each other blind, then we'd need to ban Lasik. That sounds crazy, but that's where I land. It presents a moving target and lives in that gray zone of "what's the difference between these things?", which I'm sure everyone will hate. But I can't come up with any other consistent position that protects against what I'm most worried about, which is widespread use by amateur athletes of substances or procedures that will help them "get ahead" in the short term, but will have vast negative health consequences down the line.

Thanks for linking to this from the other thread, spycake. I missed it when you first posted. As I said in the other thread, I subscribed to Playstation Vue just a week or two ago and for the first time in my life am watching Twins games at home. (I'm one of those cord-cutters who's never had cable or dish.) The interface is extremely clunky, but since 90% of the reason I got it was for Twins games, I'm not doing that much channel surfing and it's working fine. At $35/month for the basic+sports package, I'm not certain I'll stick with it, but it's certainly affordable enough and requires little enough commitment that I'm happy to try it out. Seeing now that Sling is offering FSN for $20/month, I'll probably look into switching. My only question: Anyone have any idea which of these devices would be the cheapest to obtain? I supposed I could do it through my laptop, but when sitting and watching a game, it would be nice to have the game up on my TV and have my laptop free to tool around on. Just curious what others know.

Minnpost has a recent article on the topic of cord-cutting for sports fans in the Twin Cities. I'll say that based on recommendations in this thread, I looked into Playstation Vue and for the first time in my life am watching Twins games at home. (I'm one of those cord-cutters who's never had cable or dish.) The interface is extremely clunky, but since 90% of the reason I got it was for Twins games, I'm not doing that much channel surfing and it's working fine. It's $35/month for the basic+sports package, which is slightly steeper than I'd like to be paying, but I'm willing to do it because (1) I can drop it as soon as the Twins' season ends, and (2) it's nice to support a cable alternative.

If the line were 82.5, I'd be taking the under, but such as it is, Over.

Under. This one's tough--I'm expecting clear regression, but the line is also projecting clear regression. Still, I'll go under. The absence or presence of 1-2 key injuries could make all the difference.

I'll join the crowd with Over. They're my favorite to win the division.

Willihammer said it best. Under.

Right--and if my goal is to win a razor kit and I think 80.5 is a near-perfect over/under, then my best option is to bet against the crowd.

So many of you are taking the under, that I'll take the Over. (I expect they'll finish right around .500.)

All of Cody's busts are pretty reasonable. So are the suggestions of John Ryan Murphy, Kevin Jepsen, and Eddie Rosario. I'll toss out there Brian Dozier. If his 2016 looks more like his second half numbers last year, that would be a bust, and I don't think that's far-fetched at all.

It's not hard for me to imagine them being the best team in the AL. Over.

I'll go Under. I don't believe in their second-half surge last year.

It's always easier to predict bounceback years for home team players after an off-year, and that career years for home team players will repeat. I'm going to predict we've seen the best of Brian Dozier, though I sure hope I'm wrong. What if the second half Dozier is closer to the Dozier we see going forward? I'll toss out: .230/.295/.370 (.665)

Enough people are going under that I want to go over, but the "Dipoto wants an excuse to blow it all up" line of reasoning is too appealing. Under.

On the strength of Scioscia magic alone, I'll bet the Over.

It looks to me like they're actually rebuilding this year, so: Under.

Probably more because I like them and want them to do well than because I actually believe it, but-- Over.

Under. I'm finding myself making a lot of these decisions on the strength of the pitching staff, and while Price is a heck of an improvement, their rotation isn't that exciting beyond him.

Over. Almost solely on the strength of that bullpen. Though also because they have a couple pitchers who could surprise, and because Aaron Hicks probably reaches All-Star talents now that he's left Minnesota. Such is the way of things.

Under. As others have said, it's an aging roster, and those seem prone to injuries and sudden declines.

Over. Because the Rays often surprise, but mainly because everyone else is taking the Under.

You say unreliability, I say even over 162 games, it's tough to determine a team's true talent level. The lesson to take from Gleeman's stat is both that the projection could easily be off EIGHT WINS in either direction, and that it could be off eight wins IN EITHER DIRECTION. There's two ways a projection can be off: One is by poorly estimating a team's true talent level, the other is by estimating it correctly, but having luck get in the way of the team demonstrating that talent level (whether they overshoot or undershoot). It's true that even with perfect knowledge, the limit to a projection system is plus or minus 6.4 wins. But if the projection system accurately projects a team's true talent, then it's serving a useful purpose. How to know if it's accurately projecting a team's talent? Maybe see how it does over a period of say, 6 years rather than 1 year, and see if its misses even out. Regarding "cluster luck": The thing that makes it luck is that it's not predictive. If it's a skill, you would expect it to be a repeatable skill. However, historically, teams who cluster their hits in June are no more likely to cluster their hits in July than a team that showed league average hit clustering or even league worst hit clustering. Same thing from one year to the next. If there's no rhyme or reason to whether something will continue, then it's random/luck, not a skill. Maybe Molitor's figured out the Cluster Luck Secret Sauce, but he'd be the first.

I actually think the trade itself is a pretty good one--as others have pointed out, Murphy out-hit Hicks each of the past two years, and is one year younger. The disappointment--for me, at least--is that I was hoping the Twins would upgrade catcher in a big way this offseason, and this isn't it. On a micro level, it's a good trade. On a macro level, it's underwhelming.

Instead of moving Mauer to catcher to make room for Sano in the infield while still holding onto Plouffe, perhaps the front office would consider moving Plouffe to catcher? His bat would play there, too.