Red Sox 2012 Spring Training Thread.

[SoxSport]

Watching Miller, his key is to get his 94 fastball over the plate. Forget 97. He's out of control at that speed.

He has a nice slider which he seems to control better than his fastball.

[a700hitter]

Yeah' date=' every sport is a fickle sport. I could sit here and list a lot of late-bloomers from a lot of sports, but that's all just not realistic. What's he going to learn that he obviously couldn't in little league, high school and the minors? Miller stinks and he's probably never going to reach his potential.[/quote']Chris Carpenter averaged 27 starts per year from age 23 to 26 and his ERA from age 22 to age 27 was more than a run less than Miller's. There is no comparison.

[Emmz]

Then you have to expect him to have a good pitchers mind to make up for his lack of overpowering stuff. Pick your poison with him, he doesn't have it.

[Elktonnick]

Then you have to expect him to have a good pitchers mind to make up for his lack of overpowering stuff. Pick your poison with him' date=' he doesn't have it.[/quote']

 

Miller's problem is he can't repeat his delivery consistently. That's the key. If he ever learns to do that he may be successful. However, given the length of time he has been pitching it is doubtful. He may have a limited future as a spot reliever but as a starter, I don't see it.

[Emmz]

Yeah, and thats why I say its possible, but so is Joba or Phil Hughes becoming the pitchers everyone thought they would become. It's not a realistic hopeful, it's more realistic to be doubtful.

[a700hitter]

Yeah' date=' and thats why I say its possible, but so is Joba or Phil Hughes becoming the pitchers everyone thought they would become. It's not a realistic hopeful, it's more realistic to be doubtful.[/quote']Hughes problem has been injuries. When fully healthy, he has demonstrated that he can be very effective as a starter or reliever. The Yankees ruined Joba's arm by changing his role IMO.

[Emmz]

Hughes problem has been injuries. When fully healthy' date=' he has demonstrated that he can be very effective as a starter or reliever. The Yankees ruined Joba's arm by changing his role IMO.[/quote']

 

Yeah, but it's about that level of doubtful at this point in Miller's career. Miller has never been effective for any substantial amount of time.

[a700hitter]

Yeah' date=' but it's about that level of doubtful at this point in Miller's career. Miller has never been effective for any substantial amount of time.[/quote']You are right oabout Miller. The Hughes comparison is just not very solid, because Miller is not even close to Hughes. Miller is a long shot project with little hope of sustained success. Hughes just needs to be healthy.

[Emmz]

There's a point where health has to be a severe concern for a player every year. Hughes gets hurt all the time, I doubt he's ever going to become the big shot he was supposed to be. Not to mention, he's sti not as good as advertised. Career ERA+ of 100, pretty average.

[a700hitter]

There's a point where health has to be a severe concern for a player every year. Hughes gets hurt all the time' date=' I doubt he's ever going to become the big shot he was supposed to be. Not to mention, he's sti not as good as advertised. Career ERA+ of 100, pretty average.[/quote']Definitely, but he is light years better than Miller.

[Bellhorn04]

One guy that doesn't get talked about much who could be a good asset for this year's bullpen is Atchison. He pitched well last year. 2.64 ERA and .96 WHIP in Pawtucket, 3.26 ERA and 1.22 WHIP in Boston-30.1 innings.

[User Name]

Chris Carpenter was 26 the first year he made 30 starts. It takes three seconds to look at the link.

 

The point of the comparison was that however unlikely it may be, there's always the possibility of a guy overcoming his problems and finding success. A lot of people thought Carpenter was a bust until he found the right pitching coach.

 

In Miller's case, it isn't necessarily what he can learn that he hasn't learned so far, but rather cleaning up his mechanics, which is always extremely difficult to do.

 

I understand and agree that he's probably a bust, but the possibility (however small it may be)exists that he could improve. That is indisputable.

[Emmz]

No one has, at any point, disputed that. It's also possible that Joe Mauer hits 30 homers again and Francisco Liriano reverts to 2006 form. I don't even have a speck of hope for those things happening, because they're so ridiculously unrealistic. And these are proven talents, who actually have achieved substantial success for a substantial amount of time.

 

Miller has proven that he stinks, and thats about it.

[User Name]

I would be, but he's just going to keep going with the "i'm not expecting anything" route. It's his thing to hide behind those strawmen.

 

My logic is sound, SFF is just letting his fantasy-world optimism get to him. I'm just telling it how it is. Andrew Miller isn't going to be good. Ever. If he was, several teams wouldn't have already given up on him.

 

You disputed the possibility several times earlier in the thread. This is an example of that. Absolutes are never correct.

 

Unlikely as it may be, the possibility exists, which is my point.

 

Also, Joe Mauer's career high in Home runs is 28.

[Elktonnick]

Absolutes are never correct.

 

LOL And of course one can say that with absolute certainty!

[a700hitter]

Absolutes are never correct.

 

LOL And of course one can say that with absolute certainty!

Rosters are built on probabilities, and the probability of Miller becoming a good starter is remote. Can it happen? I guess so, but the odds are stacked against it.

[Elktonnick]

Rosters are built on probabilities' date=' and the probability of Miller becoming a good starter are remote. Can it happen? I guess so, but the odds are stacked against it.[/quote']

 

Seriously, Miller's problem is that he throws across his body. That delivery is difficult to repeat conssitently.

[User Name]

Absolutes are never correct.

 

LOL And of course one can say that with absolute certainty!

 

That's the exception that proves the rule.

[User Name]

Seriously' date=' Miller's problem is that he throws across his body. That delivery is difficult to repeat conssitently.[/quote']

 

I think i read a piece somewhere where Mclure mentions the same thing. They are trying to rebuild his mechanics from scratch, which will likely lower his velocity, but velocity is nothing if you can't throw strikes.

[Emmz]

You disputed the possibility several times earlier in the thread. This is an example of that. Absolutes are never correct.

 

Unlikely as it may be, the possibility exists, which is my point.

 

Also, Joe Mauer's career high in Home runs is 28.

 

Don't be petty and technical, I've made my POV clear several times over, if you're too lazy to go back and read other posts that clearly promote the idea of possibility (including my previous post), then you shouldn't cherrypick the snippets that actually suit your needs. "He stinks and he's not going to be good" in this scenario are simply opinions.

[seabeachfred]

Koufax was retired by age 31. He turned the corner much prior to age 27-- Miller's age. I hold out little hope that he can be anything more than a mopup guy and spot starter.

 

If you think I'm going to argue that point with you Ted you're off your rocker. No way in my opinion do I see Miller any more than an occasional starter and back ender in the bullpen. I brought up Koufax's name for no other reason than give some inspiration and hope to our friend Forsyth who got hit pretty hard by a lot of his fellow posters yesterday. In Koufax's case his first real big reason was 1961 when he won 18 games and set a new ML record for strikeouts in a season with 269. He was 25 that year. Miller is too far gone to even dream that he could suddenly become a Dandy Sandy, not even in his dreams.

 

Hell, though, this is Spring Training. No harm engaging is some fantasy this time of year, is there?

[Emmz]

That's the exception that proves the rule.

 

The exception that proves the rule doesn't exist. It's a phrase some guy invented when he got busted on being hypocritical.

[seabeachfred]

One guy that doesn't get talked about much who could be a good asset for this year's bullpen is Atchison. He pitched well last year. 2.64 ERA and .96 WHIP in Pawtucket' date=' 3.26 ERA and 1.22 WHIP in Boston-30.1 innings.[/quote']

 

I don't think Atchison is a standout top notch reliever but I think he is a lot better that what the Red Sox have thought of him judging by how he has been played like a violin. He seems to overachieve a good deal of the time, and at Pawtucket last summer did a pretty damn good job. He even has pitched some decent ball for the Red Sox from time to time.

 

They ought to give him a look like they're doing with the rest of the bunch of hanger-ons we signed this off season. The more we have out there pitching the better odds there are that maybe one or two find lightning in a bottle.

[User Name]

Don't be petty and technical' date=' I've made my POV clear several times over, if you're too lazy to go back and read other posts that clearly promote the idea of possibility (including my previous post), then you shouldn't cherrypick the snippets that actually suit your needs. "He stinks and he's not going to be good" in this scenario are simply opinions.[/quote']

 

Isn't it your opinion i'm debating here? Anyways, we can agree that it's unlikely, but possible.

[User Name]

The exception that proves the rule doesn't exist. It's a phrase some guy invented when he got busted on being hypocritical.

 

Or a staple of logical thinking. Whichever you like better.

[Emmz]

Or a staple of logical thinking. Whichever you like better.

 

Apparently you flunked out of logic 101. Isn't that funny how you make an incorrect statement about absolutes never being correct, in effect an absolute, and being incorrect? Thats one complex, logically-incorrect, hypocritical moment you had.

 

Logical thinking indeed LOL.

[Emmz]

Isn't it your opinion i'm debating here? Anyways' date=' we can agree that it's unlikely, but possible.[/quote']

 

No, you're debating petty semantics that have no effect on the current discussion.

 

So we can agree to agree?

[The Boomer]

Apparently you flunked out of logic 101. Isn't that funny how you make an incorrect statement about absolutes never being correct, in effect an absolute, and being incorrect? Thats one complex, logically-incorrect, hypocritical moment you had.

 

Logical thinking indeed LOL.

 

LOL, as always, Cecil Adams has the skinny:

 

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/731/whats-the-meaning-of-the-expression-thats-the-exception-that-proves-the-rule

[Emmz]

LOL, as always, Cecil Adams has the skinny:

 

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/731/whats-the-meaning-of-the-expression-thats-the-exception-that-proves-the-rule

 

Bingo!

[User Name]

Apparently a lot of people flunked "Logic 101" here, because Cecil Adams (whoever that is) forgets the precept: "There are no absolute truths or fallacies" given the non-existence of "true objectivity", aka theory of relativism. I understand and admit that the general usage in the English language has its extent of rhetoric and is to an extent, "misused", but the general application, in this case, (as it pertains to absolutism) holds water.

 

But hey, the scholars here on Talksox must be right, so i rescind my argument.

 

Oh, wait: \o/ and :)