Laika

Hahaha

Can you clarify the rule but in actual, understandable English? Or have someone assist you in the process. Thanks.

It's objectively light but you never know. Guy might love Adames, who is pretty solid.

sounds like he might be better than Bo believe it or not

what happened to him oh no

They exist, Jim

bieber but i like them all

So f***ing weird to cheer for the Astros.

I think that every year and then they seem to somehow slide into the playoffs in like 8th place

It was an unhittable pitch, lmao You would have a valid point if he got called out on a pitch an inch or two outside the zone, but that's not the case

probably A my dude

He also had a .395 OBP in his second the last season, so it's not like he was useless for multiple straight years at the end.

It is too bad the timelines didn't intersect enough to give us this Papa Bichette and Papa Stroman moment:

This is fine, right? He's quite good IIRC.

I think you're misinterpreting what wRC+ is representing there. Most players are dogshit with 2 strikes. Fangraphs isn't like, recalculating wRC+ for only those ball-strike events, so it's not like a player with a 100 wRC+ in 0-2 counts is just average in 0-2 counts; they would actually be significantly above average in 0-2 counts and perhaps the best hitter ever in 0-2 counts. Frig, Vlad had a 36 wRC+ in 0-2 counts, I bet that is like 99th percentile. George Springer had a -1 wRC+ in 1-2 counts and a 4 wRC+ in 0-2 counts

You are making the wrong point. If anything Passan's tweet was bad because of placing the "what a great story Atlanta is" before the Ozuna DV reference. People hate it when a team or player is framed as persevering past stuff like that.

"Why should they be treated differently? If the only answer is "because one hit the grass" that's just circular logic because you are defining the rule and then using it as your argument."

Here is the point with examples: Situation A - a flyball going 390 feet bounces off Jose Canseco's head and goes out. Rulebook says homer. Situation B - a flyball going 390 feet hits the ground then goes off Hunter Renfroe's titties and goes out. Rulebook says GRD. Why should they be treated differently? If the only answer is "because one hit the grass" that's just circular logic because you are defining the rule and then using it as your argument. I think they should be treated the the same, because they are fundamentally the same thing: a deep flyball misplayed by a fielder who puts the ball over the fair outfield fence by accident. And when I say "arguably the spirit and intent of all the rules" I mean when you read all of these relevant pages of the book and ask yourself "did the writer really intend examples A and B to be treated differently or did they just fail to think of all the possibilities? would they have wanted A and B to be treated the same?"

You missed the point.

I am saying the rules are wrong are could have been interpreted differently. Here are the operative rules: (6) A fair ball, after touching the ground, bounds into the stands, or passes through, over or under a fence, or through or under a scoreboard, or through or under shrubbery, or vines on the fence, in which case the batter and the runners shall be entitled to advance two bases; (8) Any bounding fair ball is deflected by the fielder into the stands, or over or under a fence on fair or foul territory, in which case the batter and all runners shall be entitled to advance two bases; (9) Any fair fly ball is deflected by the fielder into the stands, or over the fence into foul territory, in which case the batter shall be entitled to advance to second base; but if deflected into the stands or over the fence in fair territory, the batter shall be entitled to a home run. However, should such a fair fly be deflected at a point less than 250 feet from home plate, the batter shall be entitled to two bases only. Arguably (9) could or should have been applied. By this I mean you could argue that the spirit/intent of all of these rules was and is that such balls should be homers. Or there should be a new rule that makes it a rule book double but allows the umpire to place other baserunners with discretion. I don't think the interpretation of the rules made any sense in light of what happened. Like, the rules are poorly written.

How the f*** is that the correct application of all of the rules? No sense

yeah

How can anyone NOT love and respect the Rays? Succeed on a peanuts payroll Always innovating Very fun team, packed with talent Bringing baseball back to Montreal

Aging Jim though. Who knows if you have enough grey matter left to pull off a five year plan.

Everything you are saying about him on the field is true, but he's not just "vocal". He's arrogant, likely to the point of being a clubhouse cancer. I mean he has had multiple run-ins or negative interactions with teammates or other players at this point.