Tiger337

A lot of the types of people we need to get voted for Haley over Trump, so I do think it's possible a woman could win. I don't think Clinton and Harris lost because they were women. I do think a woman would be at a disadvantage though, so it needs to be the right one.

I have not read the book, but I think Weaver was a very different kind of manager han Anderson. Weaver was a brilliant stategist/analyst ahead of his time whereas Anderson was more of a people person who knew how to deal with egos and motivate players (supposedly).

It's no less valid than the Clinton death list.

If he did everything the same way as he did when he played, then may he would have batted .200. However, I don't think that argument holds, because if he was playing today he would have learned the game differently and would not have played the game the same way.

Trump probably thinks he's going to select the next pope.

I think gifted talents like Mantle and Hornsby would adjust instinctively. They wouldn't analyze anything and might have trouble if they were instucted to do so, but would probably be fine if left alone. I agree that Williams would thrive in today's game because he would benefit from all the additional information.

It is a disease and it should be treated, but ramming your car into a tree is not more excusable because you are drunk versus being distracted or whatever other reason you slammed your car into the tree.

I totally agree that there should not be separate rules for the "lovable" drunk (not that anyone involved is lovable in this case!) I have never liked the popular idea that people should be excused for bad behavior while drunk. They should face the consequences the same as anyone else.

It's easy to frame things to make your party's candidate look good, but I don't think was anything particularly difficult about Clinton's candidacy. She was up against a relatively unknow clown and was expected to win easily. There was way more access to mail in voting in both 2020 and 2024 than any previous election, so the vote totals mean nothing historically.

Harris was in a tough situation, but Clinton's situation was no more difficult than you average candidate. I get tired of hearing about numbers of votes in the last two elections. You can't compare the last two elections to past elections because there is much easier access to voting now.

I think, at a young age, a lot of improvement can come from reps. At higher levels versus better competition, instruction in the finer points of hitting becomes more necessary.

There's the famous story about Hornsby when he was a manager and a young player asked him to teach him how to hit. Instead of giving instructions, Hornsby grabbed a bat and started hitting line drive after line drive. After he was done, he said: "That's how you hit". The story may not be true, but he had a reputation of being a terrible manager.

I'm hoping for the 1980s again - a bunch of well rounded players who were allstar level some years, but not superstars. It would be nice to have a superstar too, but I wouldn't build a roster around one or two players.

Who said anything abut lumbering sluggers? I think his strategy is to have players like Greene, Torkelson, Carpenter, McGonigle, Clark, etc actually being good hitters and not relying on McKinstry, Kreidler and Ibanez to be working the strike zone and being versatile for 400 at bats. I don't think what they did last year is a big part of the strategy at all. That is unlikely to happen again. Some of the elements they employed during that period might be used as fillers, but it's not a strategy for sustained success. Talent is still whats going to win the most games.

Those things can help a team get the most out a roster which lacks offense, but I doubt it's a replacement. I disagree that it worked great the last two months of last year. They didn't win because of offense, They won because of pitching for which you can credit Hinch's remarkable bullpen management, another thing which I doubt can last for 162 games. But again, if your roster lacks offense, it's good to have ways to get the most out of the roster even if it's not a replacement for good hitting.

He did hit for power in the minors and FanGraphs rates his power as 70 grade. 70 grade seems to be aggressive but he apparently does have plus power in there some place. I'm still waiting to see it.

Yeah, I think Keith is a good prospect, but he hasn't done anything to make me assume that he is going to be a good hitter and given his defensive limitatons he's going to need to be an above average hitter

This is interesting. It will be more interesting to see how they adderss the situation. It could be a matter of some players needing a lot of data and others needing to be more natural. It seems that they are now allowing Torkelson to do it his way with positive results.

Do they even have an A team? It will be the line-up which puts them in the best position to win like most days.

Hinch does so much shuffling on a daily basis that I don't think there is any need for a "Sunday line-up"

Bad ones don't either for the most part.

No, it's all Avila's prospects!😄

I think they would like to do that, but good fielders who can hit acceptably are getting more difficult to acquire. You can't just have a bunch of Kreidlers. I think Harris and company are actively seeking to develop more well rounded players in their system, but most of their recent prospects havenot been plus fielders.

Isn't that true of almost every pitcher?

"Administrative error"