UK1679666180

Good job by Ball St., btw. It's a tough loss but a nice step.

Well, I like eating crow when it's a good thing. I'm happy UK beat a good SEC team on the road and how they played the last 10 minutes, especially defensively. They still can't have the mistakes and turnovers. Once Arkansas gets Monk back, unfort. injury to the #2 guy, they'll be fine. I was impressed by the pass defense, but they got handled by an inexperienced O-line against the run. I hope Arkansas can get back into the top 25 by year's end.

They haven't been able to establish a passing game, haven't been able to hold onto the ball, and too many penalties. Don't take this the wrong way, Arkansas hasn't played well either, which frustrates me even more. I want UK to take the next step, this game even by some comeback proves to me they might not be ready.

This loss ruins any joy the Cubs could've brought by beating a team they should beat. UK pissed their pants.

Unless a miracle happens, congrats on the win Warp. Kentucky deserves to lose for this [expletive] play. On the 3 yd. line and use the 3rd string HB, where's Dixon? Too many penalties, too many turnovers, what a [expletive] loss.

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ap-pirates-gm&prov=ap&type=lgns

I rarely get 1 question answered, let alone 2! Burgess sure looks good (now), but I can't complain about Donaldson in the sandwich round. Burgess looked good then. This isn't case of wait and see. They had a nice early run with their 1st 5 picks.

1 of the 2 will hopefully fall flat, I hope.

Yeah, I knew nothing about him. Thanks.

Agreed. TB will be fine, their offense is about about to become one of the best, hopefully Brignac can bounce back, Longoria will be close, and the younger hitters will be progressing. Navarro has had a good 2nd half as well. As far as the pitching, they have a decent 1-2 with some second tier young arms trying to fit into the rotation (Sonnanstine, Howell, Hammel, etc.). Of course, their strength in pitching will depend on Price, Neimann, Davis, McGee, and Hellickson. If they can fill 3 spots with 3 of those guys and like you saidm get some arms for the pen, it'll be a very talented yet inexperienced squad.

And a question about Ced gets answered.

A PC has to be able to spot when a pitcher is throwing fatigued to be the point where it's impacting his mechanics (overthrowing or dropping the arm, etc). Each pitcher is diff. each time thru the rotation, a pitcher's body will react differently thru the recovery time between starts to the actual pitching. I'd rather be too cautious rather than too careless. Unless the game has already been decided and the starter is till out there or it's past 120 consistently, I don't pay attention to pitch counts.

Yeah, %wise it definitely favors '50 and the 18 that did went well over 200IP compared to it in '06. Salary commitments are a big reason as well that no one talks about. When you sign players to one year deals you can run them into the ground to get a better short-term return with no long-term commitments. Now, we have contracts like Zambrano, Zito, Hampton, K. Brown, etc.

http://www.beernuts.com.au/beernuts_crop.jpg Beer nuts?

I'm sure they have done that already with all the biomechanical work that's already been done. As far as poss. causes, better understanding of the long-term value of the pitcher, batters are more concerned with working deep into the count than they were in the 60s raising pitch counts, and they're putting more stress on their arm than it once was. What was the typical pitch count in the 30's, 40's, 50's, 60s, and 70s? I understand that the mound was higher and that helped relieve the stress but I'm curious on the difference on amount of pitches. I looked at the NL in 1950 when runs were most similar to they are today in the NL. It was probably similar, the big thing to look at is their careers. The elite pitchers always stuck around which is why they were elite. Back then, they had 10 pitchers in the NL that made it to 2000+ career innings. Right now, there are 10 with 2000 IP and likely 10-15 more when all is said and done. Sure they're throwing less but if you can double the amount of pitchers staying healthy enough that will give you more of 10 years worth of +200IP, it's worth it trying to conserve the better arms. Wouldn't the 5 man rotation have something to do with that though? In the 50's, didn't some teams even have a 3 man rotation thus meaning they would have less 200IP guys? Also, there are a lot more pitchers then there are now as there are almost twice as many teams as the 50's. In the NL in '50, they had 18 200IP pitchers for 8 teams. In the NL in '06, they had 22 200IP pitchers for 16 teams.

I'm sure they have done that already with all the biomechanical work that's already been done. As far as poss. causes, better understanding of the long-term value of the pitcher, batters are more concerned with working deep into the count than they were in the 60s raising pitch counts, and they're putting more stress on their arm than it once was. What was the typical pitch count in the 30's, 40's, 50's, 60s, and 70s? I understand that the mound was higher and that helped relieve the stress but I'm curious on the difference on amount of pitches. I looked at the NL in 1950 when runs were most similar to they are today in the NL. It was probably similar, the big thing to look at is their careers. The elite pitchers always stuck around which is why they were elite. Back then, they had 10 pitchers in the NL that made it to 2000+ career innings. Right now, there are 10 with 2000 IP and likely 10-15 more when all is said and done. Sure they're throwing less but if you can double the amount of pitchers staying healthy enough that will give you more of 10 years worth of +200IP, it's worth it trying to conserve the better arms.

I'm sure they have done that already with all the biomechanical work that's already been done. As far as poss. causes, better understanding of the long-term value of the pitcher, batters are more concerned with working deep into the count than they were in the 60s raising pitch counts, and they're putting more stress on their arm than it once was.

Well done.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-09/tu-bma091907.php

http://www.baseballamerica.com/online/prospects/features/264874.html

Sir Charles?! He's closer to 6'3" and well above 276. I was thinking David Wells. :D

I don't care about who did what, what's more important is who will do what and getting the testing in place to prevent it.

Gracias Carlos

He's been hot lately, hopefully he has a few more strong starts in him. I'd feel comfortable with him at this point.

Should've stuck with the change.