example1

Just like everyone in baseball, if by loaded you mean "perfect on paper before the season starts". That's a useless definition, since it has never (or at the most rarely) been accomlished. What's the point of criticising a team for being not-perfect? Again, I think a better definition of "Loaded" is found by looking at how much better the team is than every other team around it, particularly when compared in overall production (offensive and defensive) and whether other teams would consider getting a sox player an upgrade or downgrade to their current players. A loaded team is a team that is competitive when it doesn't play well, and nearly unstoppable when playing well. Even last year's team was loaded in this definition, which is why it was such a disappointment when they collapsed. That definition of "loaded" is much better, as it allows us to say "the Yankees are a loaded team, as are the Mets, and the Twins and the Tigers" despite their warts.

I argued that the sox were not-not loaded (if that makes sense) in response to someone else saying they were not loaded. You further defined loaded by saying "Loaded teams do not have shaky middle relief, and shaky set-up men. Loaded teams do not start Julian Tavarez as their fifth starter. Loaded teams do not have Jason Varitek, and Coco Crisp in their lineup" as if all of those players had already played a full season and we knew what they were going to do. The Red Sox did not pick up Romero, Pineiro, Okijima and Donnelly to s*** the bed, despite what you might think, and as far as I can see they haven't yet done that. I think by those definitions you would be hard pressed to find an example of ANY loaded teams, thus making the word "loaded" a useless one indeed. You point to the 05 White Sox, but before the 05 season nobody would have called them "loaded". Wasn't Dustin Hermenson their closer? They ran ass-backwards into Bobby Jenks and certainly didn't see him as their shut down closer at this time of year in 05. Overall, your expectations are unrealistic and defeatest in my opinion. You're not letting the season play itself out, but you're declaring that this team isn't "loaded" because there are questions about its bullpen. Have you looked at Scott Podsednik's numbers from 2005 when talking about what Crisp will or will not do? Do you think he can score more than 80 Runs, hit more than .290, have more than a .700 OPS? Do you think he can hit more than 0 HR, drive in more than 25 RBI? So that is the "Loaded" 2005 White Sox starting CF. How about Varitek vs. Pierzynski? Can Varitek potentially (even in his decline) beat these numbers? .257/.308/.420 (.728 OPS), with 18 HR and 56 RBI, scoring 61 Runs? That certainly doesn't blow Varitek out of the water, does it? The White Sox of that year had a .747 team OPS. The Sox of LAST year had a .786 OPS. So are you saying that the White Sox were "loaded" in 05 still? i agree, they might have been by the end of the season, but your definition of "loaded" as being a perfect team, with all bullpen and setup options in place, and without a CF or C who hits poorly just won't do and should be improved if your argument is going to stand.

I'm a former ballplayer too and I like watching the little things as well. I also remember the reactivity of hitting and how much of it is simply routine, hand eye coordination and reactions. As a former pitcher (and I'm sure you have experience with that too) I can remember how much more of a physical routine it is. There are so many things tha tneed to go right with mechanics, and when you're sweating bullets and have 50,000 people screaming at you I think it is easier to crack under the pressure. Especially with things like "walks looming over your head. You could simply throw 4 non-strikes and blow the game. It doesn't seem like A-rod really uses that to his advantage. He always seems to be pressing, in a way that most other hitters don't and I think a big part of that is the media and the fans who expect him to be superhuman somehow.

Show me one "loaded" team in the majors right now then. In fact, show me one "loaded team" in the past 5 years. A team without a single questionmark. Please, I defy you.

Well, we're talking about what shape this team is in for the money it spent, arent we? I think that 140m well spent includes the ability to have that talent carry over into future years. If you look at it on a purely-this-year basis then of course you're going to criticize how the FO spent its money. However, the FO doesn' tlook at its spending that way, and neither does any other FO.

Good post. By the same logic I have the teams as just about equal. Lowe in 04 was horrible inconsistent and unpredictable. Tavarez is the same. Wakefield then and wakefield now are about equal (who knows what you'll get either day?) The real question is each team's top 3. Schilling 04 > Schilling 07 Pedro = Matsuzaka (with a big + for the fact that Matsuzaka is 26 and signed for 6 more years... not something to be forgotten in this discussion). Beckett > Arroyo (which pitcher do you think most teams would want? Who would you want pitching in a big game?) In those terms I see the pitching to be equal with a slight edge to the 07 team given its youth and long-term commitments to the team. Good post though CrespoBlows. EDIT: Yes, I meant 07, not 06

My original response was that it's not really possible to compare lineups (using stats) for a team that played 162 games and a team that has played 4. My second point was that, despite your pleas for intellegent replies, you started the post asking for comparisons with the 06 teams, by accident. If you want intelligent responses start with intelligent questions. You mislabeled the team in the first place, so the so-called 24 posts is misleading, given that a number of them were to identify WHICH TEAM you wanted a comparison to.

I beg to differ. Ask 90% of other teams if they think this team is loaded and they will say "Yes". Do you think the Dodgers liked losing their best hitter to the Red Sox over the offseason? Do you really think that Kevin Millar was some "special" hall-of-fame type player? I certainly do not. They hit a lot of HRs that season and scored a lot of runs. More than any team since the 1927 Yankees. Do you expect that type of production to just come around based on average or even above-average acquisations by the FO? To me that was a once in a lifetime type offense that won't be replicated by anyone for a long time. As such a long-term baseball fan I'm sure you're aware of how rare that was and how, in that light, its not really fair to make a comparison.

So you felt better about a team without a closer and without Schilling than you did with a team that had the same guys minus those two All-Stars? That's weird. To say that you "knew" something based on vibes is really just revisionist history. How much money did you put on it? Did you bet your house and entire income on something you knew? I think it is really bold to make too many claims about teams that haven't really played. Your argument about payroll discrepency between 04 and 06 would have been valid. I would pay ANYTHING to have Matsuzaka on this team instead of the Yankees. Do you not have a certain "feeling" about him too? What's your sense? (seriously, not in the mocking 'spidey sense' kind of way )

It is so weird to watch someone else's emotions swing wildly while watching another team. I'm so used to it myself in Sox games but it is nice to see that others go through it too. I've never been a big fan of the "A-Rod can't hit in the clutch" philosophy. He's a good hitter. He gets a lot of s*** that he wouldn't get if he was playing SS. Derek Jeter is okay if he steals his 30 bags, hits .320 with 25 bombs and 90 RBI. A-Rod is a horrible disappointment if he hits .290 with 35 HR and 110 RBI. If A-Rod played SS his numbers would STILL be better than Jeter's and he would be seen as more valuable. My biggest hope is that the Yankees buy into their fans impatience and let him go. At that point I would advocate for the Sox to get him. Why the hell not? Have him play SS again and remind people that he won multiple MVPs and gold gloves.

It wasn't you, it was crespoblows and he said "terrible".

Dude, are you talking about comparing the 04 team to the 06 team or the '07 team? I thought you said "THIS" above, referring to the current team. But then I noticed you said the '06 team. Obviously the 04 team was better. It is kind of weird to be making claims about the 04 team being better than the 07 team however.

There's no point in talking about comparing payrolls between 04 and 06. If the salary cap (tax) had been higher than the 04 Sox would have spent more. They push the cap but don't like to go over it by much--if they can avoid it. Furthermore, we're 4 games into the season. WHy not wait until mid-season to make a comparison between teams? You don't know what Pedroia is going to do, you don't know what Drew is going to do, Crisp is a question-mark, Youkilis is a question mark, Lugo is a question mark. Varitek is worse, Manny won't be BETTER, Papi will probably be a wash, comparing Lowell and Mueller is about equal (as they both bring solid talents to the field). Papelbon is a better closer than Foulke, AND he is likely going to be around for years and years. Also, the farm system is in better shape than it was in 04 with the two top drafts the past two seasons. To say that the FO had an "awful" off-season is completely absurd. Imagine Matsuzaka on the Yankees. Just think about it for a second. A 26 year old who is likely one of the top 5 pitchers in the world, pitching for the Yankees against the sox. Now the Yankes are reduced to HAVING to TRY to pay Clemens a prorated 25m or so just to bolster their staff. Instead, the Red Sox have a guy who is likely to be their ace for 6 seasons at a good price and according to all reports they are sitll in the Clemens sweepstakes. Nobody in the baseball world--aside from Theo and crew--could envision having paid 51m for a posting fee. People called it crazy. Now, just one start in nobody would argue that. He's the real deal and only ONE team had the balls to get him. 40m for what? How about fielding a team that, by all accounts, should be competitive for this year and next and the next few. I'm sure there is some sense of relief in insulting the FO's ability to spend 40m dollars, but it is a fruitless waste of time. Again, without Dave Roberts' stolen base you wouldn't even have brought up this comparison. The only thing they can do is field a team that may win. Beyond that it's all in the stars--so to speak.

I assume that this is a FOX saturday game?

You should post the link man.

Another good description of the 'gyroball'. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbbUmL80Gio I'm pretty sure this is the consensus on the pitch. If I have to hear Oral Hershiser call it "nothing but a change-up with screwball type action" one more time I'm going to leap through the screen and strangle the Baseball Tonight producers. That's his changeup, just like Pedros (which is supposedly his best pitch--he hardly threw it the other day at all). It is not a change-up with screwball type action. It is a pitch with spin that looks like a slider but which travels perfectly straight. It is only useful when used in unison with an effective sllider, which Matsuzaka clearly has. I imagine the reason he's so sneaky about whether he has it or not is that it is to his advantage for hitters to think that "all pitches with dots on them are sliders". It is amazing how inaccurate some people are about this stuff.

I think the fact is that neither the Red Sox or Yankees are very happy with their performances thus far. The Sox can't hit at all. Beckett, Dice-K and Wakefield all pitched well enough to win but the offense--which is supposed to be the GOOD part of this team--hasn't started clicking yet. The Yankees have had the 'advantage' of playing at home, although anyone who watched those games can see that Yankee stadium in early April isn't much fun for anyone. There has been a lot of ugliness in those games. In short, I don't think that either of these teams is indicitive of what they will be throughout the season.

yes. Yes. Yup. You're right, you don't get it. You don't get it that a black African, a black Dominican, and an African-American are likely to see themselves as having different histories and heritages. Crisp does not identify with the history of Dominicans the same way that Manny and Papi likely do. Ortiz and Manny likely pay a lot of hommage to what Jackie Robinson did (as do you and I), that doesn't make them African American. No, it shows an example of 2 African American baseball players who identify "African-American" as something seperate from "Dominican". It is entirely relevant, if your point is that they are the same. You get so carried away trying to sound smart that you forget what you're arguing. You're arguing that Coco Crisp and David Ortiz are the same culturally because they have the same skin color, that there is no distinction between Dominicans and African-Americans and that such a view would be "discrimination" (your word, not mine). At no point did I say David Ortiz couldn't wear 42 if he wanted to. You put that argument in my mouth. The point was the Coco-Crisp was the only African-American on the team, at which point you countered that David Ortiz and Manny Ramirez also looked "black" and therefore were, in some sense, the same.

I was better off with it two years ago, when Mirabelli looked like he could hit 15 HR if given a full time position, but if Varitek goes down not only do we lose HIS 12 HR (down from 20+) but Mirabelli might as well just use the wrong end of the bat and hit from the left side. I wonder if Josh Bard is available?

Maybe to your sensitive eyes. All I said was that he was limping but hustling nonetheless. It was probably just the combination of watching him struggle to run and the pinstripes that made him look heavier. Wikipedia: A straw man argument is a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw-man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted. Given that I neither presented nor cited an argument, it is clear that you don't know what you're talking about or were asleep during the first 2 weeks of Logic class. EDIT: did you mean "hyperbole"?