Baseball is ninety percent mental, and the other half is physical.
-Yogi Berra

New SCP involvingDjoric's Roget's Oneiroi Initiative. For more works in this continuity, seeDixieland Nightmare Magic.

I get the impression that I might enjoy this more if I were an afficianado of Minor League Baseball.

Since I'm not an afficianado of Minor League Baseball, or baseball in general, I'm just not feeling it.

Neat as usual.
I love the FT analysis of the images as a safe way to deal with infohazards while having the information on the table in its original form. The fact that the entire audience had their eyes closed is just delightfully creepy.

I wonder though, what would happen if the Foundation sent an autonomous robot to interact with the players and/or audience through one of those matches, the bot recording what happens for later viewing?

Yay, your first Euclid.

Unlike Smapti, Iam a baseball aficionado, but baseball is really kind of secondary to the skip.

I had commented on a previous installment of this series that my initial inclination in registering a since-reconsidered downvote was that the peripherals appeared to be obscuring what appeared at the time to be a weak story. This one, unlike that one, is definitely on the wrong end of the peripherals-to-story balance.

Firstly, the story doesn't even really make sense. When this phenomenon was considered to be an actual, living baseball player, why was the Foundation even involved? As far as I can tell, before they found out he didn't exist, to the Foundation this was just another AA-level prospect working on his pitch selection. So why the initial attempts at containment that involved orchestrating a trade to the Foundation Fightin' 682s?

You've also gone a couple of bridges too far in terms of borrowing elements from other articles. I found the pretexts for the appropriation of theSCP-592 photoanalysis conceit to be flimsy, to the point that it comes across as a form of coattail-riding. And the Oneiroi reference seems to be an attempt to farm out, wholesale, any sort of reasoning behind this object, without any real work in the article itself to make that connection.

I'm disappointed in this article. There's not really anything here except borrowed elements from previous articles and a couple of items of mild visual interest. Considered against some of the other pieces of writing in which this is supposed to be contextualized, the comparative lack of narrative quality is glaring.

Maybe I missed something, but how did they even find out about this? As far as anyone could tell, it was just an ordinary baseball player, and apparently it took some advanced methods to find any indication otherwise. So why did they even start looking at this 'guy' in the first place?

There are good things about this, but I'm going to downvote.

I really like the failed containment procedures - they're the most refreshing and interesting procedures I've seen in a long time, and the best I've seen from an author who's pretty good at making off-the-wall procedures. I like the fate of the unfortunate Mr. Potsdam. I like the peripheral footnotes, and I like the images. I don't really understand how the Foundation is supposed to have found out about this, but I suppose there's actually tangible evidence that something odd is going on here, even if it doesn't seem sensible for the Foundation to bust out the sonar when faced with a possible typo.

But I have to agree with Kalinin - there's just not that much here when you get down to it. The idea of a nonexistent baseball player is fine, I guess, but you shoot yourself in the foot by telling us pretty much everything there is to know about the meat of the article in the caption to the first image. I mean, "Ellis Canastota, who does not exist" is a sufficient summary of this article except the aforementioned containment stuff. The image analysis is pretty much cribbed from SCP-592, the backstory is cribbed from Oneiroi, and neither of them really add anything. I was thinking there was going to be some kind of progression here, but it didn't really happen.

"Phenomena" is plural.

Double-blind analysis of aerial sonar readings

If you just mean that the people doing the analysis weren't told anything about what they were analyzing, that would be single blinding, in which case the adjective be "blinded" rather than "double-blind". Of course, that would lead to the problem that readers might think that the analyzers were blind.

I was kind of not feeling this because it just seemed like "baseball baseball baseball", but the final addendum did a lot to endear it to me. I will say that the description of the first image is pretty long and convoluted, though.