Fire Bloom .

[Old Red]

Maybe, I'm wrong, but I think this was the best the ALE has ever been, in terms of most wins by all 5 teams. It has slipped a bit from when I first said it- back when we had no losing records in the division, but I still think it is the strongest, top to bottom, ever. (Show me I'm wrong, and I'll gladly admit I was wrong.

 

2 in top 8 (2 in 12 would be the norm)

3 in top 12 (3 in 18 the norm)

4 in top 14 (4 in 24)

5 in top 18 (5 in 25-30)

 

2021

2 in top 7

3 in 8

4 in 9

but BAL was 30th with 110 losses

 

2018

2 in 3

3 in 11

4 in 22

5 in 30 (BAL had 115 losses)

 

2013

2 in 9

3 in 14 BAL w 77 losses)

4 in 15 NYY w 77

5 in 22 (TOR w 88 losses)

 

2007

2 in 4

3 in 15 (TOR w 77 losses)

4 in 27 (BAL w 93)

5 in 30 (TBR w 96)

 

2004

2 in 3

3 in 18 (BAL w 84)

4 in 23 (TBR w 91)

5 in 26 (TOR w 94)

 

 

 

 

And once again, I think you are reading more into one part of adding context to this season's sucky record. Strength of schedule does factor into a team's record, Like it or not.

I’ve never said strength of schedule does not factor in anyones record, but the bottom line is that ALL the other teams in the ALE this ear had a winning record, and the Red Sox did not, so the way I see it is you have two options, which are either get better, or not, and continue to sit at the kiddie table with a losing record attached to you.

[notin]

I’ve never said strength of schedule does not factor in anyones record, but the bottom line is that ALL the other teams in the ALE this ear had a winning record, and the Red Sox did not, so the way I see it is you have two options, which are either get better, or not, and continue to sit at the kiddie table with a losing record attached to you.

 

 

The Sox will certainly try to get better. The main problem is the quickest way is to just spend, spend, spend, which can lead to immediate positive results but then also leads to negative ones just a few seasons down the road, and it’s flat out a lot harder to get out of a bad contract than to bring one on board…

[Old Red]

The truth hurts, huh?

 

Would it help if I switched to a more wordy "Those who feel Bloom is in over his head complainers?" Maybe shorten to the BOHC club?

Resort to the old name calling, which I’m not going to stoop to do. I don’t mind at all being called a Bloom Basher, because there are plenty of reasons to do so. Playoffs? Did someone say playoffs?

[moonslav59]

I’ve never said strength of schedule does not factor in anyones record, but the bottom line is that ALL the other teams in the ALE this ear had a winning record, and the Red Sox did not, so the way I see it is you have two options, which are either get better, or not, and continue to sit at the kiddie table with a losing record attached to you.

 

Not very original, either.

 

We are spinning circles. To me, I'm just saying it's a factor, and yous eem to think I'm saying that excuses a sucky record. It doesn't. I don't believe it. It sucks for all of us, but I do think our team is not as bad as the record indicated for several reasons.

 

Call it excuse-making or deny that's what you say or mean, but I call it adding context and nuance or reality.

 

In no way, does it mean we'll be better next year, as the division will likely be just as strong or even stronger.

In no way does it diminish the injury factors.

In no way does it diminish declines by too many returning vets- many taking up a huge percent of the restricted player payroll budget.

In no way does it diminish the fact that we just had too many damn holes on the roster and poor choices by our GM and manager and maybe players and player team leaders, too.

There is lots of blame to go around, when you suck, this badly, and blaming the guy in charge is natural and not without merit, but I don't think trying to add context is something outlandish or unreasonable.

 

I also don't think just simply saying we should have a better record and Bloom/Cora are in charge and mostly to blame is unreasonable, either. I just don't agree they bear the major portion of blame.

[Old Red]

Not very original, either.

 

We are spinning circles. To me, I'm just saying it's a factor, and yous eem to think I'm saying that excuses a sucky record. It doesn't. I don't believe it. It sucks for all of us, but I do think our team is not as bad as the record indicated for several reasons.

 

Call it excuse-making or deny that's what you say or mean, but I call it adding context and nuance or reality.

 

In no way, does it mean we'll be better next year, as the division will likely be just as strong or even stronger.

In no way does it diminish the injury factors.

In no way does it diminish declines by too many returning vets- many taking up a huge percent of the restricted player payroll budget.

In no way does it diminish the fact that we just had too many damn holes on the roster and poor choices by our GM and manager and maybe players and player team leaders, too.

There is lots of blame to go around, when you suck, this badly, and blaming the guy in charge is natural and not without merit, but I don't think trying to add context is something outlandish or unreasonable.

 

I also don't think just simply saying we should have a better record and Bloom/Cora are in charge and mostly to blame is unreasonable, either. I just don't agree they bear the major portion of blame.

The kiddie table has been used for sometime now. No one has said either that the Red Sox are as bad as their record, but for the 100 time the WL record is what counts. Last year the team probably wasn’t as good as their record indicated, but once again the WL record is what counts, and it works both ways.

[moonslav59]

Resort to the old name calling, which I’m not going to stoop to do. I don’t mind at all being called a Bloom Basher, because there are plenty of reasons to do so. Playoffs? Did someone say playoffs?

 

"Bloom bashers" is name-calling?

 

I thought you guys were proud Bloom-Basher flag flyers.

 

My apologies.

[moonslav59]

The kiddie table has been used for sometime now.

 

I'd say "kiddie table" is worse than Bloom bashers, but just tell me to stop using Bloom bashers, and I will.

 

Is BOHC okay?

[Old Red]

"Bloom bashers" is name-calling?

 

I thought you guys were proud Bloom-Basher flag flyers.

 

My apologies.

Honestly I would rather not have any reasons to not be a basher at all.

[moonslav59]

TNo one has said either that the Red Sox are as bad as their record, but for the 100 time the WL record is what counts.

 

This says it all.

 

First, "nobody is saying it's all that counts", then immediately you follow by saying it is "what counts."

[moonslav59]

Honestly I would rather not have any reasons to not be a basher at all.

 

I could interpret this to mean you admit to being a Bloom basher, so how is it name-calling?.

[Old Red]

I'd say "kiddie table" is worse than Bloom bashers, but just tell me to stop using Bloom bashers, and I will.

 

Is BOHC okay?

Saying the Red Sox are sitting at the kiddie table, because of being in last place is bad? Embarrassing maybe, but so is last place.

[moonslav59]

Saying the Red Sox are sitting at the kiddie table, because of being in last place is bad? Embarrassing maybe, but so is last place.

 

I'm just saying it sounds worse than calling some of you Bloom bashers. I think it's childish to be so narrow minded, but I would not say it's you at the kiddie table.

[Old Red]

I could interpret this to mean you admit to being a Bloom basher, so how is it name-calling?.

 

You are the one calling it bashing, but to me it’s criticizing what I see, and the results, because of it, and that I admit to.

[Old Red]

I'm just saying it sounds worse than calling some of you Bloom bashers. I think it's childish to be so narrow minded, but I would not say it's you at the kiddie table.

 

Childish, bitching, bashing, and narrow minded, and all in one’s nights work.Bloom brings out the best in all of us.

[Old Red]

I'm just saying it sounds worse than calling some of you Bloom bashers. I think it's childish to be so narrow minded, but I would not say it's you at the kiddie table.

 

The funny part is you get flummoxed, and frustrated, by the so called Bashers, and the Bashers get frustrated with Bloom. I feel your pain.

[moonslav59]

The funny part is you get flummoxed, and frustrated, by the so called Bashers, and the Bashers get frustrated with Bloom. I feel your pain.

 

I get no more flummoxed by Bloom Bashers than you do over balanced, level-headed posters.

[Old Red]

Childish, bitching, bashing, and narrow minded, and all in one’s nights work.Bloom brings out the best in all of us.

 

Now we can add unbalanced, and not levelheaded. The hits just keep on coming, and all the while the Sox get record gets further, and further from 500.

[moonslav59]

Now we can add unbalanced, and not levelheaded. The hits just keep on coming, and all the while the Sox get record gets further, and further from 500.

 

There's more, if you are interested.

 

Quick Q, which I doubt you answer: is thinking just W-L record matters narrow or not?

[Old Red]

There's more, if you are interested.

 

Quick Q, which I doubt you answer: is thinking just W-L record matters narrow or not?

 

Not on what counts the most. W-L is what decides who’s in, and who’s out, and the last I looked the Red Sox are out, so narrow, or not W-L counts more than anything.

[moonslav59]

Not on what counts the most. W-L is what decides who’s in, and who’s out, and the last I looked the Red Sox are out, so narrow, or not W-L counts more than anything.

 

Thanks for an actual answer and the clarification.

[Old Red]

3-16-9

 

The Red Sox finished a woeful 3-16 against the Jays

 

9 games now under 500.

[moonslav59]

3-16-9

 

The Red Sox finished a woeful 3-16 against the Jays

 

9 games now under 500.

 

It sucks that the Jays, by themselves, turned us from over .500 to under, although had we gone 10-9, we'd still be 2 under.

[illinoisredsox]

It sucks that the Jays, by themselves, turned us from over .500 to under, although had we gone 10-9, we'd still be 2 under.

 

If we’d gone 10-9 vs the Jays, we’d have the same record as the Orioles, 82-77.

[moonslav59]

If we’d gone 10-9 vs the Jays, we’d have the same record as the Orioles, 82-77.

 

Right. I was assuming we'll lose the rest of our games.

[notin]

3-16-9

 

The Red Sox finished a woeful 3-16 against the Jays

 

9 games now under 500.

 

 

The Sox are now officially played .500 ball since that 10-19 start…

[mvp 78]

The Sox are now officially played .500 ball since that 10-19 start…

 

Yay.

[Old Red]

I think Henry should have given Bloom one of those 1 yr contracts that Bloom likes giving out when he goes dumpster diving.

[moonslav59]

I think Henry should have given Bloom one of those 1 yr contracts that Bloom likes giving out when he goes dumpster diving.

 

He'd be on his 4th one year deal, then.

[notin]

He'd be on his 4th one year deal, then.

 

Not like GMs or executives make player money. Those guys get fired mid-contract all the time…

[moonslav59]

Not like GMs or executives make player money. Those guys get fired mid-contract all the time…

 

What GM, given the parameters Bloom was given from day one could have brought this team to glory by year 3?

 

I don't even think any other GM would have been allowed to trade away much of the farm, even if they wanted to.