gehringer_2

I had to laugh a little when Powell noted that inflation was high in a lot of places like Europe, it isn't just a US thing. Well of course, they've all been pursuing the same policies in lockstep. Why would the Euro outcomes be any different? Still and all, I do believe a lot of this is transient dislocations and things will crash back to low demand pretty quickly. Old people don't buy a lot of stuff and nothing that has happened has made the country (or EuroZone) any younger. If anything, putting the screws to immigration is making us older as a country even faster. A new virus or the Ukraine war going global are still wildcards of course. If we finally do start spending serious bucks to get off fossil that should heat things up a bit - but I'll believe that when I see more of it.

a simpler way to summarize it would be that the moment to produce the spin of a FB originates from the large muscles in your torso and upper arm. The moment to produce the spin of slider has to be imparted by muscles below the elbow.

Well, I was a heavy industry guy, we never proposed building real estate! But apropos of that, I saw a story about how China has gotten itself into a weird unrighteous feedback loop where they keep financing real estate construction to keep the economy going, then halt work before projects are done and tear them down so real estate prices don't crater and create a mortgage collapse epidemic. Made no sense, but what does in China today?

the large overhand rotation of the arm at the shoulder, the overhand throwing motion itself, creates angular momentum on the rotational axis of the FB (a line from 1st to 3rd) because it's on the same rotational axis as the spin of the fastball. You don't have to add anything to the existing angular momentum inventory at the release point for a FB to have it's normal backspin. The overall overhand motion does not create angular momentum on the spin axis of a slider, which is 90 deg away, i.e, from home to the mound. The statement "hand and fingers change position" is correct and is the key. They don't change position without additional forces being applied.

Funny thing is, I'm beginning to think the whole exercise is based on a fallacy. I've worked on capital project proposals for multiple large corporations, and you learn that high interest rates slow the economy because they kill capital expenditures because ROI must be higher than interest rates to borrow expansion money profitably. Thus as interest rates rise, fewer and fewer potential projects can clear the bar. Except that in all my years of doing those ROI calcs under multiple different corporate calculation guidelines, I yet to have ever been able to include the year by year inflation in the value of the product in the calcs. Maybe somewhere they do it, but if so I haven't seen it. So I'm beginning to wonder if the premise by which raising interest rates slows capital spending may not be mostly be due to a shared culture of poor accounting models. If you capture the projected inflationary increase in the value of your project outputs into the ROI calc, your projects would suddenly be a lot less sensitive to interest rates and they would thus have a lot less impact on capital spending. IMO Society has not given the problem of poor accounting models nearly enough attention. All the vexing social problems around the human cost of capitalism, pollution, climate change, could have come out differently if we simply ever had accounting systems that properly modeled those costs.

and the 'bloodbath' yesterday only took the market 'back' to where it was that same month ago.

yes but maybe no. The rotational energy in the ball still has to come from the arm. A RH pitcher's slider rotates CCW on the axis running from the plate to the mound. Applying that rotational energy to the ball requires the hand/arm to accept a CW moment on that axis. As noted before, in the case of the spin on a fastball, the axis of rotation is 1st to 3rd and the energy that drives that rotation is provided by the gross rotation of the arm at the shoulder in the throwing motion rather any specific need for pronation of the lower arm. That is a difference in physics that is real. The difference it makes injury wise may debated, but not that the forces are different.

And it's such a ridiculous double set of double and triple standards anyway. We are supposed to be outraged that someone is trying to influence Joe Biden by doing favors for Hunter, but just blow off putting the wife of the Senate leader in the Cabinet? COI needs to either apply to everyone in a household, or no-one but the individual themselves. I would strongly prefer the former but if it's going to be the latter, which is what Washington has chosen, than discussion about Hunter is pointless.

But he wouldn't unless he accepted. Isn't that the point?.No-one can be held responsible for what other people may offer - that is wholly out of their control - only what they accept, and isn't that the fundamental question here - whether anything was ever accepted?

LOL. really. But I also think there is a little 'chicken little' effect going on - and maybe on purpose. I listened to it and if I hadn't read how much reaction there had been already, I would have thought what he said was pretty stock stuff. But aside from that, he also made a point of noting the long term expectation polling data. So that gives you a clue that there may also a psyops component to it all. The Fed believes that the more aggressive he can make people believe the Fed will be, the less aggressive the Fed may actually have to be. Bottom line, if I recall he more or less said to look for them to get to 4%. That shouldn't be the end of the world. US economy did pretty well in the post WWII era with interest rates in the 4-5% range. My personal view would be that when all the stress from Ukraine and Covid fade to the back burner, the population will still be getting older and so aggregate demand will still be slack and rates will end up floating back down.

for a rookie, to even not hit a wall and fall off after a couple of hundred AB is probably a good thing.

YES! This is a great point. In mechanics you'd call it 'impulse'. The energy provided to the ball is the integral of the force applied over the time it's applied. You might think of it like having a person pedaling a bike vs a motor turning the pedals. The person only produces force in the middle half of the down stroke of each leg, the motor supplies force continually, thus the cranks on the bike will see roughly twice as big a moment being pedaled by a person as they would being turned by a motor to produce the same energy output to the bicycle because the person supplies the energy in half the time. (This comes into play in a big way also with diesel engines. They produce a hammer blow every time a cylinder fires, so the power train for a diesel has to be rated for much more torque than that of a gasoline engine that produces the same HP more smoothly.) In theory, two guys who are the same size can throw the same velo and have different peak stress on the joints depending on how evenly their arm generates force throughout the pitching motion. It's what people are getting at when they sense from observation that a guy has a 'violent delivery." But as you note, since physiology is so particular to the individual, the actual maximum loads inside the joint, and how much load each person's ligaments can bear, can be hard to pin down based on what you see/measure in the gross motor output. (and Max Scherzer says 'Hi").

a 'torque' is just the moment that a rotating member is capable of generating. They are the same quantity. Some would say the distinction is that moment refers to something static and torque refers to something dynamic (i.e. a beam experiences a 'moment' while an engine produces 'torque'.) so it depends a little on what branch of physics vs mechanics is your thing. In either case it's the vector product of a force times the distance from some available axis of rotation. But as a practical matter, if you have a beam connected as a radius to a shaft, mechanical stresses on that beam are the same whether the shaft is rotating to produce torque 'X' or is at rest with a moment 'X' being applied to it.

He seem to have enough uppercut in his swing plane - at least tonight (!), maybe just has to find more of the bottom half of the ball - i.e. figure out major league sinkers and sliders a little better.

I think he may have a future in this game.

And to Edman's basic point, I wouldn't argue that throwing flat out all the time isn't a bad idea. Our poster boy for longevity, Verlander, has always added and subtracted from his FB through the course of a game, saving his max effort pitches for when the need is greatest. But the key thing there is that in order to do that, your stuff has to be good enough that you can get an out at enough ABs without having to throwing your hardest to take that load off your arm.

the poor AB by Baddoo looks worse in retrospect.

Riley have a night!

At the beginning of the broadcast Dickerson was optimistic about Cabrera because he was hitting the ball hard to left in BP. Another hope goes a'glimmering.

RILEY DITTO!

You could't even make it up.

the other half of the equation is that Norris has already failed repeatedly working in relief. It just seems to me if you are going to bother bringing in a guy who you think might be able to turn it around a little based on starting, then you should start him. Norris' problem has always been repeatability. It seems to me extended outings are far more likely to help a guy maintain body discipline than putting him back into relief. Granted Norris was a low probability play from the get go, but if you make the play, and he has two decent starts, why do you pull the plug on it? It's just more indication to me that the people running this team are just ad hoc'ing everything. I just see no sense of commitment to any kind of planning/strategy.

still irritated they didn't give Norris the opportunity to keep starting and slide Tyler back to the pen. That scheme might have failed, but this one was guaranteed to. Tyler's OPS against 565 as reliever, 791 as starter

At the end of paper they get to an interesting conclusion about velo normalized stress which points up how complex that analysis might be. My other question would be how well the stress measurement sleeve actually models the distribution of the overall stress on the individual components within the joint. If you put one stress on the elbow that is borne by bone and another that creates a riser on the UCL, the question is whether your external measurement is able to capture that difference.

you may have a point there! 🤷‍♂️