SeaBass

Grand slam via walk. Wow

Cards got out to a 5-1 lead in the top of the 5th but they're trying to give it all back in the bottom half. 5-4 Cards, 1 runner on and a pitching change.

So I guess the Bucks need to hire a bodyguard to off-set theirs? That's some smelly bull manure that some dude not involved in the game gets to rush the court and almost tackle one of the Bucks players. I get keeping KD safe from crazy fans but interfering with on court players is entirely uncalled for.

I think it's more than fair for the person earlier to criticize trading up for Love and forfeiting the 4th round pick that maybe could have been used to select Deguara, or even to better enable them to use other picks to move up to take him after using their own 3rd on a different player. They'd still presumably still have the 4th or would have used it to move up. The Love pick in general is rightfully a lightning rod for everything that happened in that draft. Nearly everything hinges on what amount of success he has in determining if the 2021 draft was good or bad. Hopefully Dillon and Deguara come through and justify their selections, that would help neutralize picking Love if he disappoints, but the big cost of drafting Love is what happens with Rodgers and it could be a season or two before we really have the context to say if drafting Love worked or was an awful move at an awful time.

I think what you're actually saying is that picking Deguara was redundant and unnecessary because none of the rest of what you said backed up your opening statement that it was a reach.

Oh no

Nets look like they're recovering a bit. Need to keep the pressure on, i.e. keep scoring.

Respectfully, because this is more about how people perceive what a reach is rather than about your personal opinion on how the Packers conducted their draft which I don't think anyone is actually arguing against you or anyone being entitled to. In general, referencing consensus mock drafts seems flawed without a success rate attached to it. Someone mentioned a crowd consensus as being a better gauge and on its own there's logic to that statement, but what if out of 100 sources for mock drafts 25 are from respected and reputable sources that have a history of a certain percentage of accuracy. The other 75 have lesser and varied levels of accuracy. Are the consensus mocks using only the 25 quality sources or are the other 75 mixed in as well? Are there a certain percentage of lesser mocks that just read the top 25 and plagiarize them changing just enough to claim originality to generate clicks and ad revenue? There are just so many variables involved that it almost feels like folly to actually hold mock drafts up to such a standard that they are believed over the scouting capabilities of actual NFL franchises with a staff of professional scouts. Even with the most accurate independent mocks I just can't imagine they have some extraordinary high rate of accuracy in the later rounds that they should be taken as gospel over the opinions of the team's own scouts. I think most people just say, "the mocks say this is where this player should be drafted so it must be true", that just doesn't feel reasonable to me without citing which mock you're using to form your opinion and their accuracy rate for that draft.

Hader is used in this article as an example of difference in recent spin rate. Before anyone gets stressed about it, the article only talks briefly about him and isn't singling him out for incrimination, rather just talking about what spin rate differences look like and how it could be explained. https://www.thescore.com/mlb/news/2181864/is-mlbs-threat-to-police-sticky-stuff-an-effective-deterrent-for-pitchers

Context for Deguara. He was taken with the 94th pick of the 3rd round. There were two remaining 3rd round picks after theirs before the ten 3rd round comp picks were selected. The Packers did not have another draft selection until pick 175, the 5th to last pick in the 5th round, two of the four following picks were comp picks. Is it not reasonable that they just didn't think he'd be there by pick 175? Since it's clear they wanted to select him would it have been better to try to put together a trade to move up or just take him where they did? I'm sure they had to be thinking how soon would they need to make such a trade and what would that cost be to ensure they get him, leading them to decide to just make the sure move with pick 94. So again, there's a lot of context behind their "reach". Maybe some would just say you can't always get what you want but they decided to stick with their plan to draft him rather than try to finagle a trade that wasn't guaranteed to get their guy.

Regarding my deleted/moderated comment about mock drafts, when I said something along the lines of "you're a fantasy football expert" that was aimed at mock draft authors, not board members. Apologies if that was taken as an attack on anyone, I should have made that clearer. I consume mock drafts too so I'm not above anything here, I just tend to be skeptical of projected draft positions or anything else, especially when it comes to rounds after the 1st round. Mock drafts are extremely hit and miss even just in round 1, trusting some mock draft author to have a bead on who should be drafted in the 3rd round or 5th or 6th rounds is a giant leap of faith. Further, I have no doubt there are some mock draft authors/publications that have access to pro level talent scouts whether they are employed by NFL teams or not. Here's the thing, every scout has differing opinions for every player, just because 17 out of 25 scouts think a guy should be drafted in the 5th round doesn't make them right just because there are only 8 that disagree with them. Any NFL team is drafting by their own draft board, not the 31 other team's draft boards and it only takes 1 team to ruin their plan to take a particular player. Draft value is kind of a meaningless concept while at the same time being a meaningful concept. It's all a gamble. How long can I wait to take this player I really like before someone might take him before I can. In the end getting the player you really like and feel fits your system is the important part, not whether there's a group of experts out there, real or imagined, that disagree with you. So that's where I'm coming from when I indicate I'm not a fan of calling draft picks reaches. I understand that it's something that's easy to say when exploring whether a team is making valuable moves but all too often draft position seems to be valued more than whether the player can actually be a positive contributor to a team. That's something that probably shouldn't be judged after one injury shortened season. Or even a season where the player doesn't see the field as much in the first season like with Gary or Dillon.

Counsell is officially broken. I'm predicting that today is the day that Hader pitches multiple innings for the first time in 2021.

I never thought his 18/19 seasons were bad seasons, but they didn't feel elite either. The thing that Rodgers does really well is limit turnovers and especially interceptions so really I don't know that he's actually capable of having a "bad" season, but by his own standards those seasons don't really measure up all that well to his past seasons. More than anything else I question his motivation in those seasons because I think he became jaded by how stale McCarthy's offense had become. I can't really blame him for that, at the end there weren't a whole lot of McCarthy supporters among the fans either. When I say I question his motivation it stems from the fact that I remember after the Love draft pick Rodgers had given an interview, I don't remember where, but he said something along the lines of he had been watching old tape of himself and thought he had spotted something that he thinks he lost along the way. He was really excited about it because he thought it could help him have an improved season. I remember being excited about that myself but I also remember thinking, why hasn't he been studying his old tape before now? I just think he had become a little bit complacent and hadn't really had that kick in the pants to snap out of it. Until the 2020 draft. Or, if not the draft and to give him some credit, maybe it was losing the championship game to the 49ers. Either way something motivated him that hadn't really been there for a couple seasons.

[sarcasm]So now Jake Kumerow can know that it wasn't just the Packers that cut him, it was Rodgers too.[/sarcasm] If that's really all he wants by all means get this fixed. It's ridiculous. And I really hope it's not about Rodgers wanting veto power because that's dumb too, but I could see trying to find a different player to let go instead of Jake at that exact moment in time and both sides being ok with it.

There's not a single player that doesn't understand what the situation is. If you interpreted my statement as suggesting anything to the contrary, you interpreted incorrectly. And still, the Packers can impose a fine to show the other players that when you don't honor the commitments agreed to in your contract, you get fined. Regardless of "what the situation is." I never said the Packers could not, I just don't feel that imposing the fine gains them anything other than being widely seen as sticklers over a lesser issue. It brings them down to Rodgers' petty level. In my opinion they gain more by letting it go. The forthcoming training camp fines are out of their hands so they don't get dirty at all from that. If he holds out into the season the money he loses is also out of their hands. As of now the Packers have 1) paid his $6.8 million roster bonus, 2) have said they want him back and won't trade him, 3) acknowledged they could have handled the Love draft pick better by being more communicative, 4) declined to fine him for missing minicamp (I'm assuming anyway). There's been no retaliation on their part other than not bending to his will by trading him or firing the GM. The media is raking them over the coals but their actions so far aren't exactly antagonistic other than them not being willing to trade him and that's not exactly a crazy stance seeing that he's a reigning MVP and gives them the best chance to win a Super Bowl.

Where was that suggested? Of course they know what's going on. But you'd be showing them that when you have a contract that says you must do 'X', there's consequences for not doing 'X', regardless of whether you're a HOF QB or the 53rd guy. No different really than the Jets making Brett Favre run laps after a fumbled snap, since that was the team's policy (and they did make him). The Packers not fining him is much more productive than fining him, even if it's only mind games. Rodgers has drawn a line in the sand that says, "I'm so serious about this I left half a million bucks on the table and I'm willing to forfeit $100k more." What do the Packers look like if they start demanding their $93k fine? Why, in your mind, are they different? I think it's mandatory to do so. Teams aren't allowed to waive fines for missing training camp. And the fines represent significantly more money, $50k accrued daily. $93k in the grand scheme isn't a huge needle mover and is much easier to disregard. I'm not sure what the length of training camp technically is but isn't the team pretty much together from that point until the beginning of the season? As to your earlier question Peavy, you certainly suggested it. I'm not sure how else to take "Well, the main reason to fine him would be to show the other players that no one is above the rules." My point is that this really isn't about the rules so that reason doesn't really amount to anything. That's how I took it anyway.

Rodgers doesn't care about the fine, clearly. He's already bypassed half a million dollars, he's not going to suddenly start squirming over $93k. Here you have a player threatening to retire, it's a more unique situation than most holdout instances so it really isn't about "the rules". To suggest the other players don't understand what's going on is a big stretch. Waiving these fines is also a pretty common thing even in more typical holdout situations. The Packers not fining him is much more productive than fining him, even if it's only mind games. Rodgers has drawn a line in the sand that says, "I'm so serious about this I left half a million bucks on the table and I'm willing to forfeit $100k more." What do the Packers look like if they start demanding their $93k fine? It's only minicamp, he will 100% be fined when training camp comes around, that's when the big battle of wills really starts. All this stuff that's happened over the last few months is peanuts to him holding out of training camp and regular season games. In the meantime, whether it's mind games or just a small token of goodwill not putting up a stink over $93k makes so much more sense than being obstinate for obstinance sake.

None of this is a secret. Have you googled "Hader closer 9th inning"? Hader has straight out said he prefers this role and thinks it's helpful for him to know what to expect when it comes to how he's going to be used. Obviously the team agrees. I can't understand how anyone thinks this is some grand conspiracy.

There's literally no reason to fine him. It just comes off as childish. If there's even a sliver of a hope for reconciliation you overlook $93k.

With only 12 roster spots for pitchers it would be difficult for Peralta unless he really pitches lights out over the next 17 days which likely gives him 3 starts. I'm going to assume up to 7 starting pitchers get selected and the remaining 5 go to relief pitchers, give or take possibly bringing 1 extra starter and keeping relievers to 4 spots. Voting ends June 24. Also have to assume some pitchers will opt out due to workload/recent outings and just not being available so others have a chance to sneak in as replacements.

Right now the Brewers big 3 are in the top 10 pitchers in MLB in WAR. And top 7 in the NL. If ever there were a case for 3 SP's being named to the All Star game this has to be it. It's still early June so that can change but if they keep it up it would feel like a petty slight in my opinion (if all 3 didn't make it).

Doesn’t appear to have been too many this year. BruisedCrew posted this in yesterday’s IGT: “They have lost 4 when leading after 6, 2 when leading after 7, and none when leading after 8. I don’t know offhand if that is 6 different games or if 1 or 2 of the ones leading after 7 were also ones where they were leading after 6.” They are 5 games from having the best record in the NL so winning all those would make a big difference. Of course they may have given some of those other games back so it is hard to say just how much difference it would really amount to. Optimal usage is to have your best reliever come in earlier in the game in higher leverage situations and to be used flexibly. That isn't how they get paid though. Saves and holds are just terrible stats. If closing games was easy this thread wouldn't exist. Theories and philosophies can be debated but there's a reason that closers in MLB continue to be widely used the way they are in 2021.

They’ve lost 17 in a row on the road. That’s an incredible accomplishment, especially since they seemingly have some decent hitters. Honestly for as bad as the Diamondbacks have been struggling to get wins I felt they played really competitive baseball this series for the most part.

I think Burnes began the 7th inning with 97 pitches, he ended with 106. Great stuff today.

Man, if Taylor can keep hitting the ball hard like that he's going to stick around for awhile.