Is it time to prioritize 2010?

[jacksonianmarch]

For a doctor, you have a serious problem with logic.

 

Again, we're creating a completely neutral scenario.

 

This is, after all, a hypothetical question.

 

That too hard for you, champ?

 

I already answered your question many posts ago. Seriously, should I start translating everything to spanish for you?

[Dipre]

of course' date=' why would you put up with s*** from a complimentary player. But typically, complimentary players arent divas because they will end up out of a job. The guys I put in my previous post were the core of your title run. Damon, Pedro, Schilling, Ortiz, Manny... Their personality and sometimes their requirement of respect made them aloof or really s***** to be around. But put on the uniform and their production made people not care.[/quote']

 

But that's the whole point.

 

A team is not made up only of superstars.

 

There're 25 guys on a roster and you need to avoid as much s*** from those 25 guys as you can.

 

So i ask again:

 

If you're a GM, and you're assembling a team from scratch, do you or do you not avoid going after troublesome characters as much as possible?

[jacksonianmarch]

Meh. Once again, you go back to your original question which is once again frought with multiple confounders. Dipre. Seriously. Think.

 

Being a diva is a negative characteristic. It is. And if you could get the same production from a diva as you would from a workman like player, then you take the non-diva. But if I was assembling a team from scratch, I would take the best players available regardless of personality.

[Dipre]

Meh. Once again, you go back to your original question which is once again frought with multiple confounders. Dipre. Seriously. Think.

 

Being a diva is a negative characteristic. It is. And if you could get the same production from a diva as you would from a workman like player, then you take the non-diva. But if I was assembling a team from scratch, I would take the best players available regardless of personality.

 

There are no confounders.

 

Do you or do you not try to avoid these players? Yes you would.

 

You are making up ramifications to avoid the original question. The answer simply being yes you avoid them unless completely necessary.

[jacksonianmarch]

I wouldnt avoid the players if they were the best players out there. f*** you are dense.

[Dipre]

I wouldnt avoid the players if they were the best players out there. f*** you are dense.

 

You're a f***ing idiot.

 

That's all i can say.

[rhet]

Here we go again. Are personal attacks really necessary here?

[Dipre]

Here we go again. Are personal attacks really necessary here?

 

I shall refrain from war with Jacko.

 

But frustration builds up, you know?

 

You ask a simple question expecting a specific answer.

 

He acknowledges the answer, but then puts some sort of twist into it, making it as though that wasn't actually the answer.

 

It gets old.

 

Quick.

[CrespoBlows]

We are still in 1st place in the WC? Wait until we fall four, or five back.

[das11209]

You're a f***ing idiot.

 

That's all i can say.

 

Do not take it in a wrong sense - but don't you work? I see you here all the time.

 

I do not get much chance to post - luckily I am working from home today.

[Dipre]

Do not take it in a wrong sense - but don't you work? I see you here all the time.

 

I do not get much chance to post - luckily I am working from home today.

 

Actually, that's exactly the problem.

 

I got laid off a couple months ago, and lost my car a couple weeks ago.

 

I'm basically trapped at home until a get a new job.

[example1]

If the FO gives the fan base even an inkling that it is concentrating on 2010 whild hoping for the best in 2009' date='well then the fans should just stop going to Fenway. If the organization is giving up, well ... what's the point of attending a farce of a finish.[/quote']

 

I agree with you, but

 

1: most people watch the games on TV and actually like watching baseball games (it is an activity I certainly like doing whether they win or lose)

 

2: most other teams are out of serious contention pretty early on. Should their fans just stop going to games and supporting their team? Just curious.

[msubulldogs21]

I'm basically trapped at home until a get a new job.

 

Can we go ahead and set up 24 hour cameras in your home, invite Jack-O, diony, and Dojji and just call it "Big Brother: DR Edition"? I feel like this could get much better ratings than the real show.

[Dipre]

Can we go ahead and set up 24 hour cameras in your home' date=' invite Jack-O, diony, and Dojji and just call it "Big Brother: DR Edition"? I feel like this could get much better ratings than the real show.[/quote']

 

I'd murder Jacko in less than 20 minutes.

[Jacoby_Ellsbury]

Can we go ahead and set up 24 hour cameras in your home' date=' invite Jack-O, diony, and Dojji and just call it "Big Brother: DR Edition"? I feel like this could get much better ratings than the real show.[/quote']

I'd watch.

[BoSox21]

Can we go ahead and set up 24 hour cameras in your home' date=' invite Jack-O, diony, and Dojji and just call it "Big Brother: DR Edition"? I feel like this could get much better ratings than the real show.[/quote']

 

it would turn into a circle-jerk after 20 minutes of arguing

[Dipre]

it would turn into a circle-jerk after 20 minutes of arguing

 

Your personal experience:

 

It is not needed here.

[jacksonianmarch]

Actually, that's exactly the problem.

 

I got laid off a couple months ago, and lost my car a couple weeks ago.

 

I'm basically trapped at home until a get a new job.

 

Are you really a lawyer? I'd assume that most lawyers wouldnt have trouble finding work in the US. That being said, I do not know if the DR has the same issues.

[example1]

Since this is a dumb-ish thread that people aren't really sticking on topic with, I'm going to ask a question and hope it gets answered.

 

 

Why do the Red Sox not bunt men over when they have 1st and 2nd with nobody out? I understand generally not bunting, and overall I really like the philosophy (I cringe when I see NL teams doing it with guys on first). But with guys on 1st and 2nd and a pitcher like Joba on the mound it seems like a good time. Fly ball scores a run, passed ball, balk, etc., it eliminates the chance for a double play, may draw the infield in and allow a run to score on a grounder through a hole, or if they play back then a ball to the right side scores a run. I believe they had that situation twice in the first two innings last night and both times they didn't score.

 

This seems especially true when the situation is such that the leadoff hitter gets a double and the second hitter draws a walk. With a patient team like the Sox I could easily forsee a walk or a meatball in the next AB.

 

Just curious if others wonder about this as well. They NEVEr do it, I'm just curious why? Is the liklihood of scoring at least one run really higher? Can someone find me the leverage chart or the run probability chart based on situations?

 

**EDIT: I am, of course, assuming we're talking about the bottom of the order coming up.

[Dipre]

Are you really a lawyer? I'd assume that most lawyers wouldnt have trouble finding work in the US. That being said' date=' I do not know if the DR has the same issues.[/quote']

 

It's troublesome finding work for a simple reason:

 

I'm just graduated.

 

Most law firms want work experience.

 

I have none on litigation.

 

I basically have to wait for a law firm to "Take a flier" on me.

[jacksonianmarch]

The Yankees hardly do it either and it drives me crazy. That being said, last night I was clamoring for the bunt with Melky up and runners on 1st and 2nd. Then he cracked a homer and made me happy.

[Jacoby_Ellsbury]

Since this is a dumb-ish thread that people aren't really sticking on topic with, I'm going to ask a question and hope it gets answered.

 

 

Why do the Red Sox not bunt men over when they have 1st and 2nd with nobody out? I understand generally not bunting, and overall I really like the philosophy (I cringe when I see NL teams doing it with guys on first). But with guys on 1st and 2nd and a pitcher like Joba on the mound it seems like a good time. Fly ball scores a run, passed ball, balk, etc., it eliminates the chance for a double play, may draw the infield in and allow a run to score on a grounder through a hole, or if they play back then a ball to the right side scores a run. I believe they had that situation twice in the first two innings last night and both times they didn't score.

 

This seems especially true when the situation is such that the leadoff hitter gets a double and the second hitter draws a walk. With a patient team like the Sox I could easily forsee a walk or a meatball in the next AB.

 

Just curious if others wonder about this as well. They NEVEr do it, I'm just curious why? Is the liklihood of scoring at least one run really higher? Can someone find me the leverage chart or the run probability chart based on situations?

They probably value the outs. You move the runner up, yes, but you also get one less chance (out) to drive that run home, unless the fielders completely botch it.

[Dojji]

Since this is a dumb-ish thread that people aren't really sticking on topic with, I'm going to ask a question and hope it gets answered.

 

 

Why do the Red Sox not bunt men over when they have 1st and 2nd with nobody out? I understand generally not bunting, and overall I really like the philosophy (I cringe when I see NL teams doing it with guys on first). But with guys on 1st and 2nd and a pitcher like Joba on the mound it seems like a good time. Fly ball scores a run, passed ball, balk, etc., it eliminates the chance for a double play, may draw the infield in and allow a run to score on a grounder through a hole, or if they play back then a ball to the right side scores a run. I believe they had that situation twice in the first two innings last night and both times they didn't score.

 

This seems especially true when the situation is such that the leadoff hitter gets a double and the second hitter draws a walk. With a patient team like the Sox I could easily forsee a walk or a meatball in the next AB.

 

Just curious if others wonder about this as well. They NEVEr do it, I'm just curious why? Is the liklihood of scoring at least one run really higher? Can someone find me the leverage chart or the run probability chart based on situations?

 

I agree. t hat does seem to be the best time for a sac bunt. I guess it depends on just how much you trust your guys to hit (or how little you trust them to get the bunt down)

[msubulldogs21]

Since this is a dumb-ish thread that people aren't really sticking on topic with, I'm going to ask a question and hope it gets answered.

 

 

Why do the Red Sox not bunt men over when they have 1st and 2nd with nobody out? I understand generally not bunting, and overall I really like the philosophy (I cringe when I see NL teams doing it with guys on first). But with guys on 1st and 2nd and a pitcher like Joba on the mound it seems like a good time. Fly ball scores a run, passed ball, balk, etc., it eliminates the chance for a double play, may draw the infield in and allow a run to score on a grounder through a hole, or if they play back then a ball to the right side scores a run. I believe they had that situation twice in the first two innings last night and both times they didn't score.

 

This seems especially true when the situation is such that the leadoff hitter gets a double and the second hitter draws a walk. With a patient team like the Sox I could easily forsee a walk or a meatball in the next AB.

 

Just curious if others wonder about this as well. They NEVEr do it, I'm just curious why? Is the liklihood of scoring at least one run really higher? Can someone find me the leverage chart or the run probability chart based on situations?

 

I agree and find myself wondering that at times as well. I'm generally not for the sac-bunt, but there are occasionally situations that call for it although Tito very rarely ever sees the need.

 

I wish Tek would sac bunt every time he comes to the plate. Even if no one is on base. At least the fielder might throw 1 or 2 of every 100 balls away.

[jacksonianmarch]

It's troublesome finding work for a simple reason:

 

I'm just graduated.

 

Most law firms want work experience.

 

I have none on litigation.

 

I basically have to wait for a law firm to "Take a flier" on me.

 

that blows dude. Any "internships" open, that's how it works over here. Its kinda like a residency for us medical folk, except it is mostly a trial period where they get to see if you are worth anything.

[Dipre]

that blows dude. Any "internships" open' date=' that's how it works over here. Its kinda like a residency for us medical folk, except it is mostly a trial period where they get to see if you are worth anything.[/quote']

 

I had my internship at the state department of immobiliary justice, i guess it would be called in English.

 

Still, with the job deficit we have over here, now it's just a matter of luck and relations.

[Jacoby_Ellsbury]

Jacko and Dipre discussing internships? This is new.

[Cocos Disciples]

Can we go ahead and set up 24 hour cameras in your home' date=' invite Jack-O, diony, and Dojji and just call it "Big Brother: DR Edition"? I feel like this could get much better ratings than the real show.[/quote']

 

This is a phenomenal idea.

 

Anyone remember this?

[jacksonianmarch]

I had my internship at the state department of immobiliary justice, i guess it would be called in English.

 

Still, with the job deficit we have over here, now it's just a matter of luck and relations.

 

come to the states man. Lawyers make serious bank in the US. Granted, if you went med-mal I would have to slap you.

[msubulldogs21]

Jacko and Dipre discussing internships? This is new.

 

I'm telling you, Big Brother: DR could work.