Tweet
Originally posted by Hugg
View Post
-
Awesome -
Braun ruined the sample collectors life. There was death threats against the guy cause he said he sabotaged it. Now he saying the collector was an anti-semite and a Cubs fan. Braun is pure trash. He needs to take his suspension like a man and just own up to it and move on.Originally posted by Namaste View PostComment
-
According to the story, he made those other comments to players a while ago too. If he just made that stuff up, then he's a huuuuuge doucheComment
-
-
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/playe...uate-pitchers/
Interesting read on what stats pitchers themselves believe is the best way to evaluate other pitchers.
My favorite answers were from Brian Bannister:
And Craig Beslow:Brian Bannister, former Kansas City Royals righthander: “The most useful stat when you’re out there on the mound is your zone-contact percentage. I think it’s a huge contributor to your long-term success. The better the pitches are, and the more swings-and-misses in the zone, is what differentiates a pitcher with an ERA in the threes and a pitcher with an ERA over 4.00.
“It’s valuable to be able to throw pitches in the zone, to get swings and misses and a potential strikeout, without feeling you have to pitch around the zone. I think you’ll see a huge relationship between the elite pitchers in the league and their zone-contact percentage. Whether it’s Clayton Kershaw, Johan Santana, Matt Harvey, or R.A. Dickey, statistically they will outperform pitchers who really struggle in that category. Pitchers who can’t get swings and misses in the zone tend to rely more on luck, or tend to go through periods where they under-perform the league because of variance in balls in play.”
“I think I might go with strikeouts-per-nine-innings. Probably the most significant metric of dominance… if you consistently strike out guys at a pretty high rate, you’re usually going to be successful. Or maybe strikeouts-to-walks, because you don’t want a ton base runners. Strikeouts might be a really good predictor of future success. They obviously don’t allow for as much volatility as batting average on balls in play.”Comment
-
Uh yes it is. Read our local papers. Statements from current players.Originally posted by MiamiHomer View PostComment
-
He never explicitly said that. The points he made were that the sample wasn't handled correctly under the rules that were in place at the time. Which is why MLB actually ended up changing them. If the guy followed proper protocol, Braun wouldn't have found a loophole to begin with.Originally posted by AdamRavs View PostComment
-
Braun came out said that the collector tampered with the sample. Same as sabotaged. This is when it all 1st went down. In his statement at spring training he changed his tune a bit. But the collector did follow protocol. If you can't send it out that night you store it in a fridge or what ever and send it out the next morn.Originally posted by MiamiHomer View PostComment
-
Do we have quotes?Comment
-
This does a pretty good job of where I'm getting at.
SBnation: Ryan Braun doesn't owe Dino Laurenzi, Jr. a damn thing
Dino Laurenzi, Jr. had one job -- to make sure that the procedures for the handling of test samples, as established by the agreement between baseball and the players' union, were followed with respect to Braun's sample. The evidence presented in Braun's arbitration case suggested -- to two members of the three-arbitrator panel, at least -- that Laurenzi did not successfully perform that job.
That was all there was to it -- the procedures that must be followed in order to suspend a player under the agreement were not followed, so the player could not be suspended. It was not a declaration that Braun was "innocent" or that Laurenzi was somehow crooked, but only that the appropriate procedures for a "guilty verdict" were not followed. Maybe most importantly: in no way does the fact that Braun appears likely to have in fact been "guilty" mean that Laurenzi somehow did his job better than he actually did. Laurenzi was still put in charge of handling the samples in accordance with policy, and still (according to the panel) failed to do so. There's no reasonable way in which Braun's subsequent suspension, for different violations, serves as any kind of vindication for Laurenzi's failure to do the job that, had he done it, would certainly have gotten Braun suspended a year and a half ago.
Moreover, Braun didn't attack Laurenzi personally. He said:
There were a lot of things that we learned about the collector, about the collection process, about the way that the entire thing worked, that made us very concerned and very suspicious about what could have actually happened.Comment
-
Braun has been handled with kid gloves his whole career. I'm not going to take one puff piece about him as gospel.
Sent from a happy place.This post was brought to you by: Dat SEC SpeedComment
-
How is that a puff piece? I think it was needed to put people in place on what exactly went down in that situation. Braun is guilty of many things but not what AdamRavs was mentioning.Comment
-
I don't have any quotes, but simply by a logic standpoint: If Braun says he'd didn't tamper with the evidence, isn't that admitting he doped?Comment
-
That's the great part about not speaking in certainties. You let others make the assumption for you.Comment
-
Only a sith deals in the absolutes.Need help? Questions? Concerns? Want to chat? PM Hugg!Comment
Comment