The story presents several factual claims that appear to be accurate but require further verification. The claim that the Marlins are changing their pitcher preparation method by implementing 'Live Pitch Design Sessions' at various levels, including the majors, is a central point. However, the story relies on unnamed sources for several key pieces of information, such as the participation of ace Sandy Alcántara and the anticipation of criticism from the team. The lack of direct quotes or public statements from team officials like Peter Bendix, who declined to comment, creates a gap in verifiability. The story's accuracy would benefit from data or evidence supporting the claimed benefits of the new method, such as improved pitcher focus and command.

The article provides a one-sided perspective by primarily focusing on the Marlins' internal decision to change their pitcher preparation method. It lacks a range of viewpoints, such as opinions from players, coaches, or analysts outside the organization who might offer critical insights into the potential effectiveness or drawbacks of the new approach. The story mentions anticipated criticism but does not provide specific examples or counterarguments, which would help balance the narrative by presenting possible concerns or alternative strategies.

The article is generally clear and easy to read, with a straightforward structure that outlines the main points effectively. The language is neutral and concise, making the information accessible to readers. However, the lack of detailed explanations or supporting evidence for the claims made could leave readers with unanswered questions about the practical implications of the new training method. Providing more context or examples would enhance understanding.

The story relies heavily on unnamed sources, which weakens the reliability and credibility of the information presented. While it claims to have learned details from 'The Post,' the absence of direct quotes or identifiable sources limits the ability to assess the authority and potential biases of the information providers. The refusal of Peter Bendix to comment publicly is noted, but without corroborating sources or evidence, the story's foundation remains somewhat shaky.

The article lacks transparency in terms of the methodology used to gather information. It does not disclose how the unnamed sources are connected to the Marlins organization or the credibility of 'The Post' as a source. Additionally, there is no explanation of the potential conflicts of interest that might affect the reporting. The story would benefit from greater disclosure of the basis for its claims and the context in which the information was obtained.