Red Sox Rotation Discussion

[a700hitter]

a700's nightmare continues;)

 

There has been a legitimate change in Jon Lester's changeup this spring. With the left-hander down to one more exhibition start, he can now say for sure that the pitch he has been experimenting with for all of camp will not be left on the cutting-room floor when he makes his first regular-season start April 8 against the Rays. Lester used the pitch, in his estimate, 10 to 15 times on Sunday against the Phillies. This on a day he gave up six hits and one run while walking four and striking out five against one of the best lineups in baseball. Last year, Lester said he would throw the pitch "zero to one time" per start. He quipped that it was his ninth best pitch

 

.

Does he really need a ninth pitch?:dunno:

[BSN07]

Does he really need a ninth pitch?:dunno:

 

You are being sarcastic right?

[a700hitter]

You are being sarcastic right?

I got the joke. I was making a joke too. Wooosh, right over your head.

 

Edit: I would n't have been so sarcastic, but you initially had the "woosh" remark in your post.

[BSN07]

I got the joke. I was making a joke too. Wooosh, right over your head.

 

Edit: I would n't have been so sarcastic, but you initially had the "woosh" remark in your post.

 

Ya I changed it after I re-read it and felt it a bit much LOL

[a700hitter]

Ya I changed it after I re-read it and felt it a bit much LOL

I was too fast for you. Four cups of coffee this morning.

[diony]

 

Wang's injury was freakish but at the same time, it's not like that's the first time he's been hurt either and he's a major statistical fluke who's dependent on a decaying Yankee middle infield for effectiveness.

 

Based on what?

[BSN07]

I was too fast for you. Four cups of coffee this morning.

 

Good Lord man:lol:

 

More of an energy drink person myself, never got into the brew

[Dojji]

Based on what?

 

Based on the fact that most sinkerballers either strike people out or suck, one or the other.

[ORS]

But it is all from my initial post which you have cherry-picked. Haven't we already done this dance? Only a few posts later I gave a more in-depth evaluation that you apparently forgot' date=' which goes to my point that your memory is selective. Congratulations, you have cherry-picked a post to line up with your selective memory. The rest of my posts in that thread and my recollection of my opinion of him at the time mean nothing to you. You will hold onto one post as being my definitive position on the matter even though it still doesn't say what you recollected. As you noted, you made a few extrapolations and assumptions? Well the subsequent posts in the thread proved those assumptions and extrapolations to be wrong.[/quote']

Where have I forgotten your other post? I address it and my opinion of it is unchanged. It's you hedging. There is your original post, which you have attempted to discard through some B.S. agent provocateur nonsense and are now asking be thrown away outright, a warning about how meaningless ST results are, and then you hedging. Despite whatever faults you may have, you are a reasonable man, and a reasonable knows he can't put any stock into a few ST innings, so you do what most reasonable men do, you hedge. At least have the integrity to admit it.

 

Your post that started this argument was not a provocative post to generate lively debate. You didn't throw out a provocative player assessment or anything like that. Your post was just a random attack on me that had nothing to do with a discussion of the Red Sox pitching depth as compared to the Yankees and the Rays. The thread was not a discussion of Schilling, nor was it a discussion of the FO. Your post was out of place and it added nothing to the discussion. It didn't provoke a discussion of any baseball issues, but started a flare up of a you said- I said boring discussion. You should be embarrassed that a man of your intelligence stooped to such a level and is fighting so hard to defend his pettiness

If you hadn't brought up the topic from the other thread, the one about your assessment of Lester where you attack my memory, then I'd say it did generate lively debate. This whole thread is a tangent from a previous thread generated by you when you attack the idea of depth in the rotation. Smoltz and Penny are part of that depth in some minds, yet you dismiss them as something other than depth. My comment gets you to address what I feel are inconsistencies in your view of the Schilling signings vs. the Penny and Smoltz signings. That is pertinent to the debate, as a cornerstone to your argument is that Penny and Smoltz don't count as depth. How do you miss this?

 

That's an admission... that you weren't clear? No, you were clear. You referenced Schilling and only Schilling and it was in the context of being a 41 year old pitcher. Penny is not 41 so why would I assume that you meant to include him. Unlike you, I respond to what a member posts, not what I think he meant. At least have enough dignity to admit that you didn't mention or reference Penny in any way in your snotty post. It had nothing to do with not being clear. There's no evidence in that post of Penny or anyone other than Schilling, except in your own head.

Do you struggle with reading comprehension? I did admit that Penny wasn't in my original point, which is what made it unclear. Have you or have you not lumped those three together frequently in other posts? Did I or did I not state that for the purposes of discussion I too lumped those three together? I don't know what else you want from me on this, but it's pretty clear that I admit I made a mistake there.

[diony]

Based on the fact that most sinkerballers either strike people out or suck' date=' one or the other.[/quote']

 

Except CMW. Unless you can prove otherwise.

 

You can argue he'll become less effective as he ages if he can't develop a strikeout pitch. But right now he's effective.

[jacksonianmarch]

It is stupid to have to continue to defend Wang on here. He has started 97 big league games, has won 54 of them with a winning percentage of 73%. His OPS against over the last 4 yrs sits squarely in the .680 range with no value over .693 and none under .654. His WHIPs over the past 4 yrs are 1.32, 1.29, 1.30, and 1.25. His low ERA was 3.63, his highest was 4.07. He is about as consistent as anybody has been for the yankees in recent memory.

 

Yes, he had his health issues in the early part of his career TJS in the minors and then shoulder inflammation which knocked him out for 8 weeks in his rookie season. Since then, he missed no games in 2006, he missed 3 starts in 2007 with a hammy strain and he missed half the season in 08 with a foot injury. So in terms of worrisome injuries, I would have to say his arms are clean and the foot should be a non issue by now. Assuming he doesnt have another fluke baserunning incident, I expect Wang to give us his usual, this time as the yankees #3 starter. 17-20wins, sub 4ERA, 1.3ish WHIP and he'll be a horse for us again.

[a700hitter]

Where have I forgotten your other post? I address it and my opinion of it is unchanged. It's you hedging. There is your original post' date=' which you have attempted to discard through some B.S. agent provocateur nonsense and are now asking be thrown away outright, a warning about how meaningless ST results are, and then you hedging. Despite whatever faults you may have, you are a reasonable man, and a reasonable knows he can't put any stock into a few ST innings, so you do what most reasonable men do, you hedge. At least have the integrity to admit it.[/quote']Yeah, I'm big on hedging... right! BS meter on tilt.

If you hadn't brought up the topic from the other thread' date=' the one about your assessment of Lester where you attack my memory, then I'd say it did generate lively debate. This whole thread is a tangent from a previous thread generated by you when you attack the idea of depth in the rotation. Smoltz and Penny are part of that depth in some minds, yet you dismiss them as something other than depth. My comment gets you to address what I feel are inconsistencies in your view of the Schilling signings vs. the Penny and Smoltz signings. That is pertinent to the debate, as a cornerstone to your argument is that Penny and Smoltz don't count as depth. How do you miss this?[/quote']Pointless rationalization. Your post speaks for itself. It was merely a personal attack.

 

Do you struggle with reading comprehension? I did admit that Penny wasn't in my original point' date=' which is what made it unclear. Have you or have you not lumped those three together frequently in other posts? Did I or did I not state that for the purposes of discussion I too lumped those three together? I don't know what else you want from me on this, but it's pretty clear that I admit I made a mistake there.[/quote']There finally. Did it feel that bad?

 

I say to you Good day!

[Gom]

I love this thread. ORS and a700...gotta love it.

 

Imagine if both Lester and Joba suck? That would be funny.