areacodes

That isn’t an accurate description of JBJ or comparison either. Bradley’s career walk % is 9.2 and Baez is 4.6. Now Bradley has been terrible this year (2%) but his next lowest for his career is 7.3%, whereas Baez’s career high is 6.3% (in only 229 AB’s). ML average is 8.2%. It's a reasonable comparison this year, even if their career numbers are very different. Normally I'm very much a small sample size sceptic, but there's a caveat here. Walk/strikeout rates stabilize a lot faster than any batted ball statistics, so I'm not really bothered by his HR rate or BABIP; it's way too small a sample for that. But he's walking less and striking out more than in the past, because his plate discipline is worse than the past; swinging at more balls and fewer strikes, and making less contact (Swinging strike rate this year is up 5%, and is now at Baez career levels). He's still a bit more patient than Baez so no, it's not a perfect comp, but the swing and miss is real. It's also not something that's going to get better just by doing more of the same and counting on the randomness inherent in thet game to do its thing; he needs to drastically improve on his swing/take decisions for there to be any change. Which he might do, but I'd like him to not be in the everyday lineup while he works on that. It may be a reasonable comparison over 92 ABs this year but you called JBJ a player with zero plate discipline (without any indication you were just talking about this year) and that just isn’t accurate based on his career. That is all I was objecting to in your post. Agreed that he needs to make adjustments so he can, hopefully, revert closer to his career norms.

His comments on the Broncos draft were equally cringeworthy. Talking about how it was okay that they didn’t draft a QB because of the Rodgers rumors and that the Broncos have done a good job of building a talented roster around Rodgers. “the Broncos did well to add talent around Rodgers, which is a vast departure from what the Packers have been doing. The Broncos didn't need a receiver from all the talent they obtained at the position in 2019, so they secured a running back, Javonte Williams, to split the workload with Melvin Gordon.”

That isn’t an accurate description of JBJ or comparison either. Bradley’s career walk % is 9.2 and Baez is 4.6. Now Bradley has been terrible this year (2%) but his next lowest for his career is 7.3%, whereas Baez’s career high is 6.3% (in only 229 AB’s). ML average is 8.2%.

Rodgers is the cream of the crop best player of all time talent. He shouldn’t have let it get to this point. That’s a massive failure on his part for not communicating with Rodgers. And in my opinion, even before the draft last year, I was thinking they didn’t need to consider drafting a quarterback replacement for at least 2 more years at the EARLIEST. Rodgers stated numerous times in the past about wanting to play into his 40’s. There really wasn’t signs of him regressing as a player when he was playing with an injured leg and then learning a completely new system while still maintaining a 6/1 TD/INT ratio. Once Rodgers was healthy and had his second year in a non-McCarthy system, he flourished. But I do agree in that I think Gutekunst has done a good job in building a roster both through the draft and in free agency. If I personally had to make the decision, Rodgers would get a new contract guaranteeing him through his age 41 or 42 season and Gutekunst would be shown the door. In my eyes, if you as a franchise piss off the greatest player of all time, refuse to give him a large extension when he’s still dominant, and force him out of town for some rookie when the player himself wants to play another 5+ years, you’re an idiot. (The Favre and Rodgers situations are much different in that Favre wasn’t sure if he would keep playing so they drafted a replacement compared to a guy who wanted to play for basically a minimum of 5 years more. Even if Love is a quality quarterback in the future, his cheap years were riding the bench and will be a $30+ million guy quickly because his team control is used up). You will lose the fan’s trust, the board’s trust, and the player’s trust. The fallout from fans across the state will be massive. Going down this road wouldn’t be good for anybody. This is one of those situations where somebody will likely need to take the fall. And in my eyes, keeping the greatest player of all time for another half decade instead of going down in history as the franchise that didn’t do enough around him in the first place and forced him out of town when he wanted to stay and play for a long time still, that’s a big big scar on the organization that will never go away. I’m just glad you aren’t in charge of this organization. You can’t let a player, no matter who it is, be making decisions about the GM especially when he’s been doing a good job overall. That would give you almost zero ability to hire quality front office personnel going forward, and contrary to what your saying, would lose the players trust/respect in the organization. There are no guarantees that Rodgers will be an effective player into his 40’s and the Packers should be drafting replacement QB’s to look out for the long term health of the franchise. Few players maintain a high level of play into their 40’s, so just because he says he wants to keep playing doesn’t mean it’ll be at this level. On top of that, they have been negotiating a contract extension with him. Also, I’m tired of the “not enough around him” take that people keep throwing around. I get being disappointed by the Love pick when we could have added more but we had the #1 offense last year with arguably the top WR in the game, one of the top RB’s and LT’s in the league, possibly best OL and an up-and-coming big play TE... there is plenty of talent around him.

I also wish they would say something instead of just giving a signal and that’s it.

It was a terrible call... I’m not surprised they didn’t overturn it because Brewers, but it was terrible.

Will that confuse Tom Brady?

This seems like a terrible way for the Packers to operate.

Is there somewhere that shows you expected results from a draft pick, by either round or spot? I.E. first round picks turn into first year starter x percentage of the time, 2nd round pick as contributed, etc. I see people always saying, you can’t draft a RB you don’t plan to use as a starter in the second round (when referring to Dillon) but how realistic is it to actually expect a starter with your 2nd round pick?

Thanks for uploading those... that is exactly what I was talking about. Can you get one that shows his step to the left and back to the right where he gets the interference call?

I'm going off of what you and one or two other defenders have posted and I still don't see anything convincing enough to defend that bureaucratic interpretation of the rule. It's worth noting that outside of Marty Foster and the Miami Marlins, I haven't seen anyone else in the baseball world online trying to defend the call as being correct. Diaz was on the grass, dogging it to first, and was clearly out via force at 1B before Marty decided he wanted the spotlight. A little common sense can go a very long way. If that is the type of call MLB can defend as a correct interpretation of a rule, than maybe this league just deserves to lose fans. Because who is going to think about it that in depth? Even JomBoy, about the only person that breaks down a play intently, was completely wrong in his analysis. He thinks Diaz stepped over towards Godley in the grass to draw the interference. That is just flat out wrong. Diaz started in the grass and was in the grass the entire time. Most people are going to stop before the rule even needs to be mentioned because it was a ridiculously unnecessary call. Right or wrong, the call is still beyond dumb to make. As I have said many times, sometimes you just don't need to make a call...and that was definitely one of those times. I am sure every other umpire in baseball watched that play afterwards and was like, "What an idiot, I would never call that." While Diaz did start in the grass, he had already started to move towards the dirt as I mentioned earlier. You can clearly see the strip of grass from the grounds crew (that is at least a couple feet wide) and where his feet are in relationship to that. - Diaz starts on the grass - About 3 or 4 steps from Godley, Diaz’s right foot is now on the edge of the dirt/grass and left foot in the middle of the strip of grass. - Right by Godley he takes a jab to his left and now his left foot is pretty much on the far left edge of the grass. - When he’s next to Godley, he makes his move to the right and his right foot is now about a foot on the dirt (so he moved about as far to the right as he had moved to the left steps before). ETA: if I wasn’t posting from my phone at work, I’d try and get some screenshots of it.

But Godley didn’t miss the ball.

The silly thing about all this to me is the timing of it. IF Vogelbach had his foot on the base right away and the out was recorded sooner, it wouldn’t have been interference. IF Godley fielded it later and was in the process of getting the ball when Diaz was near, it wouldn’t have been interference. IF Godley bobbled the ball and had to throw it from behind Diaz, it wouldn’t have been interference on Godley but instead would have been on Diaz for being out of the basepath and in the throwing lane (the same if the ball wasn’t hit as far and Godley or the catcher fielded the ball closer to home). IF Godley stopped directly in front of Diaz and tagged him... and so on. Diaz was clearly out with or without where Godley was standing so it seems like IF this is technically correct by the rule, it wasn’t the intention of the rule.

I slightly disagree with this. To me it looks like Diaz started to angle towards first when he’s about 3 to 4 steps from Godley as his right foot is now on the edge of the grass/dirt compared to where he started (both feet totally in the grass). As he got to Godley, he took a quick little jab with his left foot towards Godley and then makes his big adjustment to the right and gets the call. Of course that actually makes the call by the ump worse as Diaz is the one who changed his path to make it look more like interference on Godley.

Did he say anything about the “check swing” on the bunt attempt?

The ump says that Diaz had to jog to the right to get out of Godley’s way but Diaz was so far in the grass that the only way he could of touched first base was to start going to his right. It also ignores the fact that Diaz took a quick step to his left when he got near Godley.

Don’t forget the Rays DFA’d Aguilar at the end of the year.

It’s not like he didn’t go out and talk with the ump, so he got an explanation of something... he looked pretty pissed walking back to the dugout too.

Saying we have a team built around pitching and defense in response to complaints about production from the players who typically derive more value from their defense is not implying that the offense doesn’t matter. ETA: looks like Peavey beat me to it.

Told ya so is lower. Also, since when are we judging Knebel by 4 innings? If it’s 4 innings this year and his entire Brewers career, then, yeah, I agree. I was disappointed that we got rid of him for little and it still bothers me a bit, even with the injury, especially when we threw money at Bradley late. Eh, I didn’t think there was too much “told ya so” in Peavey’s post - if he wanted to go that route he could have after Knebel gave up 2 runs his outing prior to getting hurt. But there was no thread bump by him. His comment seemed more of a reminder, as he pointed out, to BF.net’s history of less hot takes over a small set of data. On the otherhand, there were a handful of posters willing to continue their narrative of this move based on only a few innings. On April 9th, after Knebel had thrown just 3.1 innings this year, we had posters reiterate what a dumb move/bad decision it was and taking shots at the Brewers for being cheap.

I don’t seem to recall any college player ever complaining about a competitive advantage because a D-lineman is wearing single digits (which they can do in college but still can’t in the pros) or that a DB and LB could both be wearing numbers in the teens. I don’t think I’ve ever heard a coach say that a play didn’t work or a QB threw a pick because he got confused over the other players number. It is the NFL, if a team can’t do enough film study to know that the 3rd string LB wears 19 instead of 49, that is on them... they have enough resources to do so. If it is so difficult to keep track of 48 active/53 total numbers, how do college teams keep track of even more and with even more leeway for numbers/positions? Heck, in college you can even have players with them same numbers on the roster and times where a player might need to change jerseys during the game if they’d be on the field at the same time as their number counterpart.

The NBA allows you to subscribe for the whole league or just an individual team. Not sure why MLB is making this so difficult. With or without a local blackout?

That was a crap way to end the game.

Badgers get another transfer: Sophomore guard Jahcobi Neath from Wake Forest. Neath averaged 4.7 points and 2 assists per game in 50 games played at Wake Forest.

Maybe a little. Chris Paul is the one who's the most annoying. I consider flopping more when you start flailing and pretend you caught a big elbow when you really didn't. Not quite so much on charges...that just feels like you're trying to sell it. But I don't know if there's actually a distinction or that's my own arbitrary definition. This is where I’m at for the most part with flopping and why I bristle at players being called floppers for attempting to take legitimate charges. Peavey - I believe what your explaining is how Bo Ryan would teach his players to play defense with their body - especially their lower body - instead of with their hands and grabbing.