That's three universities now that have verified the juiced nature of the ball: Washington State University, Kent State, and USC.
Saw that yesterday. Good stuff, scientific confirmation of what the players have been saying for over a year.
Probably depends on the individual MLB exec one is talking about. The higher-ups must have known, hence it can be said they lied. But they probably didn't include everyone in the commissioner's office in the conversations that led to the balls being changed. The lack of transparency is very disconcerting. Because this affects all sorts of scouting decisions, draft picks, DL stints, trade negotiations, etc. I'd be demanding transparency on this issue if I were a club owner or GM.
Most of the time MLB has said that the ball is still in specifications which to them means the same. It has been a while since I've read independent reports, but if I recall correctly the specifications are pretty damn broad. Basically, as long as the ball is round, white, and denser than a tennis ball, it fits their definition. It is not a lie if you believe....
ESPN.com's Future Power Rankings 3. Houston Astros George Springer and Carlos Correa who can make significant adjustments game to game, at-bat to at-bat. The core of the everyday lineup will remain intact for at least a couple more seasons, with Justin Verlander and Gerrit Cole each under contract through 2019. Despite all the players they've drawn out of the farm system for promotion and trades, the Astros' current group is solid. -- Olney The dilemma: The Astros are a legitimately elite franchise, but with a 2018 payroll that looks to be north of $150 million, some decisions are looming on which players to sign long term. And we're not talking about the second-tier contributors; Dallas Keuchel and Charlie Morton hit free agency in 2018 and Jose Altuve and Verlander the following year. Knowing they likely can't keep all of them and also give Carlos Correa a monster extension, it's a tough decision, even if it's baseball's version of a first-world problem. -- Szymborski Law's top Astros prospect: RHP Forrest Whitley (No. 8). Law called him "the best pitching prospect in the minors right now," but Whitley will have to wait to build on that until after serving a 50-game suspension for violating baseball's drug policy. On the mound, he "can flash four above-average pitches, with a plus fastball up to 97 mph." http://www.espn.com/mlb/insider/sto...-dodgers-top-astros-mlb-future-power-rankings
These are "future" power rankings. They take a lot of things into effect. The Dodgers and Yankees financial strength pushes them over the Astros. They rank the Astros with the #1 front office. And considering the Dodgers "just" lost to the Astros (in other words, they barely lost the WS), why is it so unusual for them to be ranked higher than them?
Astros future is as bright as any team and imo should be ranked #1. I know rankings don't mean anything until you get on the field but ESPN bias of certain teams is ridiculous.
If the Astros had the financial resources of the Dodgers or Yankees, they would be #1. Don't you agree there are doubts with the Astros being able to keep all of their young talent together for the FUTURE? There are numerous posts in this BBS doubting the Astros financial ability to keep Springer, Altuve, Correa, Bregman, etc. together in the FUTURE. If the Astros had the seemingly infinite resources of the Dodgers and Yankees, there would be little talk about their ability to keep their core together in the FUTURE. The Astros barely got by both teams so even current talent and ability is close enough that rankings this season are a toss up. Why you can't see that is homerism at its best.
One more note...FUTURE talent gets 45% of the grade in order to determine the rankings while current talent gets 25%. Financial support 20% and Front office 10%. I believe most reputable analysts have both the Dodgers and Yankees farm systems rated about the Astros.
A couple of simple questions: 1. Do you believe the Astros have the financial resources to keep their core players together once they hit free agency? In other words, can they afford to keep Correa, Altuve, Springer and Bregman all together on their NEXT contracts? (I think most everyone will find the answer to that question "doubtful") 2. If the Astros had the financial resources of the Yankees and Dodgers would you have more confidence that they afford to keep Correa, Altuve, Springer and Bregman all together on their NEXT contracts? (I think most everyone will find the answer to that question "yes")
https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-angels-appear-to-have-baseballs-best-defense/ No love from Fangraphs on Houstons projected defense. Are we this bad?
The Astros are weak defensively, but I wouldn’t think they’re the worst in baseball. McCann is old and declining, but Stassi is an above average catcher. Gurriel, Altuve, and Correa are average to below average at their positions, and Marwin is average across the board. Bregman is an elite defensive player at 3B. Reddick and Springer are average to above average. Fisher is a weak defensive player, but having Marisnick provides good insurance there. Gattis is a non factor defensively other than providing insurance as a viable 3rd catcher, where he is a below average player. If they started Stassi (C), Marwin (1B), and Marisnick (CF, with Springer in RF and Reddick in LF) they’d be a pretty good defensive team.
I guess I watch too many highlight reels but I thought Gurriel and McCann were the only guys in below average territory.
I always hope certain milestones might solve longstanding fan issues - like this constant drum-beat of persecution fans cling to for dear life........ The Dodgers went 114-63 last year; the Astros 112-68. The Dodgers were 10-5 in the postseason; the Astros 11-7. You're essentially throwing all that away because of a single game? I'm not arguing the Dodgers are better - there are numbers that give the Astros a decided advantage. What I *am* arguing is that ranking the Dodgers as the best team in baseball is wholly defensible.
