Re: MLB
Posted: Wed April 11, 2018 8:07 pm
how’s altuve looking so far this year?
lennytheweedwhacker wrote:how’s altuve looking so far this year?
Needs a mustache.lennytheweedwhacker wrote:how’s altuve looking so far this year?
Ken Giles rejoices, quietly and to himself.PHATJ wrote:Max Kepler finished off a a two homer day with a walk-off bomb. Party at the moon tower.
Mostly up at things.lennytheweedwhacker wrote:how’s altuve looking so far this year?
Chris_H_2 wrote:If Verlander was 27 or 28 at the time, I would agree with you. But he wasn't. And we're no longer dealing with pitchers from the year 2002. The chances of Verlander or any power pitcher (this is why Price, Sabbathia, and Grienke are not apt comparisons) with that many innings/pitches under their belts sustaining the success at 31, 32, or 33 are slim to none. Him falling off was not difficult to project.@SkitchP wrote:Had Verlander performed in 2013 and 2014 like he did previously, you're probably signing him for 5 years 175 in 2015 (or more/longer).
He’s ok I guess. If you’re into that whole future HOF thing.washing machine wrote:I remember when Skitch texted me about the Verlander deal I was wary. Boy howdy.
washing machine wrote:I remember when Skitch texted me about the Verlander deal I was wary. Boy howdy.
Meh. Verlander DID fall off a cliff at that age, and that's normal. A heavy workload leading to a significant decline in velocity and subsequent decline in performance coupled with an arm injury in his early 30's is pretty common. What's less common is a pitcher suddenly rediscovering his peak velocity at 34-35. It happened, obviously, but it was never the most likely result.@SkitchP wrote:*whistles*Chris_H_2 wrote:If Verlander was 27 or 28 at the time, I would agree with you. But he wasn't. And we're no longer dealing with pitchers from the year 2002. The chances of Verlander or any power pitcher (this is why Price, Sabbathia, and Grienke are not apt comparisons) with that many innings/pitches under their belts sustaining the success at 31, 32, or 33 are slim to none. Him falling off was not difficult to project.@SkitchP wrote:Had Verlander performed in 2013 and 2014 like he did previously, you're probably signing him for 5 years 175 in 2015 (or more/longer).
Given his last couple of seasons, the contract looks really good. But he would have to have a couple pretty amazing seasons to get 3 years/$80 million heading into his age-37 season.@SkitchP wrote:and his contract is actually kind of a deal at this point... and he might get another 3 year 80 million after it.washing machine wrote:I remember when Skitch texted me about the Verlander deal I was wary. Boy howdy.
In yesterdays SD/SF game, it was the first time in MLB history, a team was held to 1 hit, and the 1 hit was a pinch hit, hit, by a pitcher, who did not pitch in the game. Congrats Clayton RichardCopperTom wrote:Cardinals - Brewers game was the first time in history that a game started and ended with back to back home runs. It blows my mind that after 100+ years and 154 / 162 games per year per team, that each and every year, we still have several "first time in MLB history" accomplishments.
Saturday’s game won’t be played. And Sunday looks like a long shot. Everything sucks.PHATJ wrote:Another game snowed out tonight. Doesn’t look good for tomorrow or Sunday either.