spinowner

big. sixy. (As in his ERA.)

big. squishy.

I want to go all Chris Sale on the Twins' red jerseys.

I used to be a human cannonball for a circus, but one day I came to work loaded and they fired me.

Nobody's perfect again.

Nobody's perfect.

Nobody out modests Mussorgsky.

Not always. He says Rozario instead of Rosario.

Dick said Artic circle. He probably also says asterik.

Well I'm even more modest than you. I'm more modest than everyone.

Sorry to hijack this thread but I thought I'd mention something pertinent to tonight's game. Weather may be an issue. 40% chance of showers, temps in the mid-50's, north winds 10-15 mph with gusts to around 30.

FTFY

It's true. I never mow the same pattern twice in a row. It dawned on me at some point that this is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLkp_Dx6VdI

Where is moderation? I don't think I've ever been there.

I'm not an official scorer but I'm going to guess that in this case the second out of the double play occurred after the run scored and was not a force out. In cases where both outs of a double play are force outs there's no RBI.

You can make the same argument for the pitcher. The pitcher no longer has to make game by game adjustments based on the umpires either. Knowing that a pitch on the edge of the zone will be called a strike makes it easier to fool the batter on a pitch that breaks over the corner at the last minute.

Half of us believe you did it on purpose, half of us don't believe you and the other half of us don't care either way.

I'm saying that conditions should be the same for all players. I don't see how you can get more fair than that.

Is it the ball that's juiced or is it Kurt?

Here's an example of how another rule in baseball could be changed so that it would be consistent with the way that the strike zone rule currently stands. In the same way that a short batter would have more difficulty reaching high pitches than a tall batter, a short first baseman would not be able to stretch as far for throws as a tall first baseman. What isn't "fair," would be setting a uniform first base size where smaller players are forced to cover an area disproportionate to their size. That disadvantages players at certain heights and gives an advantage to those who are larger. To eliminate this disadvantage the size of the base could be made larger when a short first baseman is in the game. That way every first baseman covers the same zone proportionate to the size. As I have already said, the only reason for the current definition of the strike zone is because an umpire needs to have reference points to determine whether a pitch is between the low and high boundaries of the strike zone. There isn't any way to have a yardstick stuck in the ground at home plate and the only feasible physical reference is to use the batter's body as a surrogate yardstick. Now, with the advancement of technology we are at the point where other methods of calling strikes can be used without having to rely on a batter's body. If automated systems are put in use it would probably still be best to use the batter's knees as the low boundary to give the batter and the pitcher a reference point, but the top of the zone can be set at a uniform distance above the bottom of the zone to make it fairer for everyone including the pitcher. I think we're at a point where neither of us will change the other's mind, but I have to say I still don't understand your reasoning. I guess it's one of those agree-to-disagree moments.

I guess I'm having trouble understanding your point. Of course the rule that I'm proposing is based on dimensions. Baseball has dozens of rules based on dimensions. Distance between bases, size of the batter's box, size and weight of the ball, size of the bat, etc. I'm just saying that the rule defining the size of the strike zone should be consistent with every other rule in that it should be the same for every player rather than basing it on the height and stance of a player. The reason I'm focusing on this advantage is that it's the only instance where a rule of the game is based on a specific physical attribute of a player. Of course some players have advantages due to certain physical attributes. I have no problem whatsoever that a player's running speed, bat speed, throwing strength, weight, or whatever may give him an advantage. But the rules of the game are the same for all players regardless of any of those physical attributes. So why should the rules not be the same for all players regardless of height?

Exactly. There are no explicit baseball rules based on running speed or bat speed. Why should there be a rule based on height?

The NFL doesn't have lower goalposts for smaller men. The NBA doesn't have lower baskets for smaller men. The NHL doesn't have smaller nets for smaller men. The PGA doesn't allow smaller men to play a shorter course. Professional tennis doesn't have lower nets or smaller courts for smaller men. Soccer, lacrosse, track and field, etc. etc. etc. Only baseball allows the conditions to be different for different people playing in the same game. Does that seem fair?

It could be the same for everyone or it could be different. As you could tell from reading my previous posts I floated both ideas. And BTW neither description you offer here is anatomically accurate. https://www.google.com/search?q=altuve+judge&safe=active&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiU9veV5bPVAhVG2oMKHUt2DjAQ_AUIDCgD&biw=1440&bih=775#imgrc=Ozt-_qDr2XI9XM:

OK, pal, thanks for the eloquent analysis.