2016 MLB thread. THE CUBS HAVE BROKEN THE CURSE! Chicago Cubs are your 2016 World Series champions
- Thread in 'Sports & Training' Thread starter Started by proshares,
- Start date
- Status
- 6,463
- 1,844
O's/Cubs trade makes sense now. Theo is making moves for international free agents. Cubs' net international pool money gain today is $963,100, bringing their total pool up to $5,520,300 (barring more moves).They gained $784,700 from the Astros for trading Ronald Torreyes to the Astros and $388,100 from the O's.
Bucs a near playoff lock.
If you've checked the standings at any point in the past few days, you've seen something quite unusual: The Pittsburgh Pirates have the best record in baseball. We're not talking about being 1-0 after Opening Day, either, but the best record at the halfway point of the season.
The Pirates made appearances at the top of the National League Central in July of 2012 and 2011 yet finished below .500 on both occasions. This time around is different -- Pittsburgh fans should start clearing their schedule for at least the first week of October.
The 2013 Pirates have an important difference from the 2011 and 2012 Pirates as they have a sizable cushion in the overall NL standings. If the season ended today, the team with the best record in the National League that would not make the playoffs, the Washington Nationals, would be 9½ games behind Pittsburgh. That gives the Pirates an impressive surplus of breathing room, and it would take a major collapse for one of the wild-card spots to fall out of reach.
Great odds
Using the ZiPS projection system and a Monte Carlo simulator, I simulated the rest of the 2013 season to gauge just how strong Pittsburgh's playoff position is. Based on talent, ZiPS sees the Pirates as a "true" 82- or 83-win team, but they have outplayed their projection to this point and those wins are in the bank, so to speak. As a result, their playoffs odds are much better than that of your typical 82-win club.
Thanks to a 51-30 record, they have a 91 percent chance to make the playoffs and a 38 percent chance to win the NL Central (see table). In other words, Pittsburgh would have to play some terrible ball the rest of the summer to not be playing meaningful baseball in the fall for the first time since 1992.
NL Central projection
ZiPS says both the Cardinals and Pirates have at least a 90 percent chance of making the playoffs.
Team W L GB Div. Playoffs
STL 92 70 -- 43% 92%
PIT 92 70 -- 38% 91%
CIN 90 72 2 19% 81%
CHC 74 88 18
The Pirates made appearances at the top of the National League Central in July of 2012 and 2011 yet finished below .500 on both occasions. This time around is different -- Pittsburgh fans should start clearing their schedule for at least the first week of October.
The 2013 Pirates have an important difference from the 2011 and 2012 Pirates as they have a sizable cushion in the overall NL standings. If the season ended today, the team with the best record in the National League that would not make the playoffs, the Washington Nationals, would be 9½ games behind Pittsburgh. That gives the Pirates an impressive surplus of breathing room, and it would take a major collapse for one of the wild-card spots to fall out of reach.
Great odds
Using the ZiPS projection system and a Monte Carlo simulator, I simulated the rest of the 2013 season to gauge just how strong Pittsburgh's playoff position is. Based on talent, ZiPS sees the Pirates as a "true" 82- or 83-win team, but they have outplayed their projection to this point and those wins are in the bank, so to speak. As a result, their playoffs odds are much better than that of your typical 82-win club.
Thanks to a 51-30 record, they have a 91 percent chance to make the playoffs and a 38 percent chance to win the NL Central (see table). In other words, Pittsburgh would have to play some terrible ball the rest of the summer to not be playing meaningful baseball in the fall for the first time since 1992.
NL Central projection
ZiPS says both the Cardinals and Pirates have at least a 90 percent chance of making the playoffs.
Team W L GB Div. Playoffs
STL 92 70 -- 43% 92%
PIT 92 70 -- 38% 91%
CIN 90 72 2 19% 81%
CHC 74 88 18
lightweight champion
Banned
- 13,481
- 5,271
Dodgers making move, Giants are not 
- 702
- 82
Craig biggio also didn't in hof last year because his power numbers went up in his thirties
Last edited:
- 1,971
- 349
If anything that move benefits SF more than LA.Dodgers making move, Giants are not
jbuch2
Banned
- 803
- 68
If anything that move benefits SF more than LA.
Exactly. Marmol is terrible lol
- 702
- 82
Wouldn't have minded getting garza but Feldman ain't too bad. Guess we won't get that #1 afterall
- 17,626
- 456
Theo doing our work for us 
- 13,656
- 1,083
If anything that move benefits SF more than LA.
Another live arm, might be a change of scenery guy and all we gave up was a guy that needed to be dropped. Cubs picked up most of Marmol's tab and we get additional slot money for international free agency. How does it benefit SF?
Move was beneficial for all parties, glad we didn't pick up much of the tab on Marmol and dumped Guerrier. I was worried Colletti would get fleeced but it worked out wonderfully.
Theo doing our work for us
- 15,049
- 1,854
I find it quite comical how people are making Arod out to be a victim in this steroid case. "Oh he was trying to live up to his huge contract" or "he was trying to help the Yankees win" Stop!
Last edited:
jumpmanfromdabay
Banned
- 25,730
- 2,900
#YankeesWhen
- 15,049
- 1,854
Phew!!!!
- 28,043
- 10,466
I'm tempted to give Crush the nod for AL MVP, as of now.
Wish it happened in Texas though.
Wish it happened in Texas though.
- 10,371
- 653
Billy Ripken made Jason Grilli his Most Valuable Player pick yesterday, so there's that.
Last edited:
- 28,100
- 9,234
Saw that. He didnt make a real compelling case, but I can kinda see where he is coming from. Dude has been unbelievable for the Pirates. Just not ready to say he is the most valuable player on the Pirates, let alone the entire National League.
jewbacca
Banned
- 3,349
- 508
jewbacca
Banned
- 3,349
- 508
For those that argue a starting pitcher shouldn't be considered for the MVP, I don't even know where to begin on making a logical case for a closer lol
- 6,354
- 3,551
If anything that move benefits SF more than LA.
Another live arm, might be a change of scenery guy and all we gave up was a guy that needed to be dropped. Cubs picked up most of Marmol's tab and we get additional slot money for international free agency. How does it benefit SF?
Move was beneficial for all parties, glad we didn't pick up much of the tab on Marmol and dumped Guerrier. I was worried Colletti would get fleeced but it worked out wonderfully.
Theo doing our work for us
All of this
- 58,762
- 30,163
- 33,904
- 29,308
When it comes to the steroid argument, all of you are just regurgitating common knowledge, I've looked into this, extensively, and it's extremely difficult to arrive at any other conclusion besides.
1. The effects of steroids are vastly overstated by the general public.
2. The practically effect of steroid use on your ability to hit a baseball is mostly mysterious and incredibly difficult to discern.
There are various arguments that always repeated when it comes to steroid use and most of them are just flat out wrong, I'll go through most of them in the simplest and most concise way possible.
a) If steroids aren't effective how come we saw a massive spike in offense in the late 90's early to mid 2000's???
Baseball power numbers have been trending upwards at a steady pace since Babe Ruth entered the game, for this claim to be true baseball power numbers would have to increase at rate discontinuous with past seasons.
and while power numbers have increased, another thing people seem to have completely ignored is MLB started juicing the ball in about '94 . if you look at the numbers
there is a massive spike in power that occurs basically in the span of one year and unless every decided to do PED's at the exact same time the suddenness of this jump can't be explained by steroid use.
The juiced ball theory is pretty well research by a number of people,
So how do we apply the juiced ball theory to the power increases in the "steroid era"
If you adjust for the ball juicing power in baseball hasn;t actually increased but decreased in relation to other eras.
If you look at just the "steroid era", you don't even have to adjust for the ball juicing, just remove the one year where power jumped because of the introduction of the rawlings ball, power in the modern era has mostly remained flat.
If players are using steroids and they are so effective, shouldn't we see a gradual increase as more and more players use it?
b) Look at how Big Barry bond was, look at Brady Anderson, Luis Gonzalez??! That HAD to HELP.
I'm not going to pretend that Barry, Brady and maybe Luis didn't do steroids, ultimately this argument doesn't hold up when you actually think about the kinetic chain of a baseball swing, and the piratical application of more muscle mass.
This chart http://webusers.npl.uiuc.edu/~a-nathan/pob/batspeed.pdf basically figures out that by increasing you muscle mass by 10%, it could theoretically result in an increase in power of 10 ft.
Here is the problem: This chart assumes that all muscle mass gained are practically applicable to a baseball swing, ANY scouts will tell you, that power is generated mostly from the lower half and if you look at pretty much ANY study on the effects of steroid use, you will find that they are particularly most useful for increasing Upper body mass.
So lets say a 200 pound ball player uses steroids, gains 20 pounds of raw muscle How much of that will actually how up on the field? How much of that will be lower body mass, vs. upper body mass? 5 pounds maybe? Who knows? point is 20 pounds of pure muscle is A LOT, and its not likely that somebody is going to go from singles hitter to doubles and hr's with that. 2.5% growth in mass, will only get you theoretically about 2 to 4 ft, that is not incredibly effective or significant.
1. The effects of steroids are vastly overstated by the general public.
2. The practically effect of steroid use on your ability to hit a baseball is mostly mysterious and incredibly difficult to discern.
There are various arguments that always repeated when it comes to steroid use and most of them are just flat out wrong, I'll go through most of them in the simplest and most concise way possible.
a) If steroids aren't effective how come we saw a massive spike in offense in the late 90's early to mid 2000's???
Baseball power numbers have been trending upwards at a steady pace since Babe Ruth entered the game, for this claim to be true baseball power numbers would have to increase at rate discontinuous with past seasons.
and while power numbers have increased, another thing people seem to have completely ignored is MLB started juicing the ball in about '94 . if you look at the numbers
there is a massive spike in power that occurs basically in the span of one year and unless every decided to do PED's at the exact same time the suddenness of this jump can't be explained by steroid use.
The juiced ball theory is pretty well research by a number of people,
Mark McGwire's 70th home run ball from his record-breaking 1998 season contains a synthetic rubber ring or spring ("the ring") -- a material not outlined in official Major League Baseball ("the League") specifications. . . . "Examining the CT images of Mark McGwire's 70th home run ball one can clearly see the synthetic ring around the core -- or 'pill' -- of the baseball," states David Zavagno, president of Universal Medical Systems. "While Mark McGwire may or may not have used illegal steroids, the evidence shows his ball -- under the governing body of the League -- was juiced."
So how do we apply the juiced ball theory to the power increases in the "steroid era"
If you adjust for the ball juicing power in baseball hasn;t actually increased but decreased in relation to other eras.
If you look at just the "steroid era", you don't even have to adjust for the ball juicing, just remove the one year where power jumped because of the introduction of the rawlings ball, power in the modern era has mostly remained flat.
If players are using steroids and they are so effective, shouldn't we see a gradual increase as more and more players use it?
b) Look at how Big Barry bond was, look at Brady Anderson, Luis Gonzalez??! That HAD to HELP.
I'm not going to pretend that Barry, Brady and maybe Luis didn't do steroids, ultimately this argument doesn't hold up when you actually think about the kinetic chain of a baseball swing, and the piratical application of more muscle mass.
This chart http://webusers.npl.uiuc.edu/~a-nathan/pob/batspeed.pdf basically figures out that by increasing you muscle mass by 10%, it could theoretically result in an increase in power of 10 ft.
Here is the problem: This chart assumes that all muscle mass gained are practically applicable to a baseball swing, ANY scouts will tell you, that power is generated mostly from the lower half and if you look at pretty much ANY study on the effects of steroid use, you will find that they are particularly most useful for increasing Upper body mass.
So lets say a 200 pound ball player uses steroids, gains 20 pounds of raw muscle How much of that will actually how up on the field? How much of that will be lower body mass, vs. upper body mass? 5 pounds maybe? Who knows? point is 20 pounds of pure muscle is A LOT, and its not likely that somebody is going to go from singles hitter to doubles and hr's with that. 2.5% growth in mass, will only get you theoretically about 2 to 4 ft, that is not incredibly effective or significant.
- 33,904
- 29,308
CLIFF NOTES:
1. Power didn't really rise in the steroid era, if you account for the juiced ball and the gradual increase in power throughout baseballs history.
2. All gained muscle mass doesn't translate to on the field power
Conclusion
The effects of steroids on hitting a baseball are HAZY and ill defined, to assume that giving any player steroids automatically accounts for an increase in offensive performance goes against basically all the information we have about power numbers in the 90's and 00's, and medical information on the effects of increased mass on your ability to hit a baseball.
There is far more information, confirming the negative effects that FATIGUE have on hand high coordinations and eye sight, once again emphasizing my initial point.
AMPHETAMINES>STEROIDS.
Metal alertness> mucle mass.
1. Power didn't really rise in the steroid era, if you account for the juiced ball and the gradual increase in power throughout baseballs history.
2. All gained muscle mass doesn't translate to on the field power
Conclusion
The effects of steroids on hitting a baseball are HAZY and ill defined, to assume that giving any player steroids automatically accounts for an increase in offensive performance goes against basically all the information we have about power numbers in the 90's and 00's, and medical information on the effects of increased mass on your ability to hit a baseball.
There is far more information, confirming the negative effects that FATIGUE have on hand high coordinations and eye sight, once again emphasizing my initial point.
AMPHETAMINES>STEROIDS.
Metal alertness> mucle mass.
Last edited:
- 6,463
- 1,844
Stephen Strasburg's curveball is absolutely filthy tonight :x
- Status
