ORS

What defines "supposed to"? If UZR defines it ("supposed to" being average), then he doesn't. If it's some arbitrary definition, like your opinion, I'm not interested in the statement that he does what he's "supposed to" do. This demonstrates a strong misunderstanding of how UZR rates players. The +/- Runs of contribution is relative to league average. He's consitently below that mark. Let that sink in....below.....average. How he gets there, whether it be with strong range and awful fielding ability, or with weak range and good hands, is immaterial. Below average is below average.

He doesn't need a sign from the dugout. Continually getting away with his balk is enough of a deterent to slow down the running game against him.

It's not an insult. You based your argument on your opinion, an incorrect opinion. This is fact. If you don't like this fact and feel insulted by it, then a modification of your analytical methods is probably a good idea.

I looked it up when I was at work, and I didn't save the link. The information is out there if you are willing to look for it rather than making your case on your opinion alone.

Weren't you apply this same tag to the Mets a couple of days ago, or something similar? You are talking out of both sides of your mouth.

Was there some ambiguity to what I posted?

Simple question: Does the resurgence win you the division, nevermind winning it all, but the division, without the 3 pickups? According to you, that was the bigger factor in their improvement, and they improved by 14 games from 2008 to 2009 (89 wins to 103 wins). According to the numbers, your answer should be "yes", because even a 50/50 split for the two factors gets them to 96 wins, one more than the Sox. You'd have a hard time convincing me that you would win the division without those 3 players, though. I agree with you about the importance of having your pitchers go deep into games, but you conveniently don't consider that 2/3 of those pitchers were part of the 3 big additions. Yeah, having current roster players perform better helped, but the big, dynamic change was the 3 additions, and it isn't particularly close, IMO.

This particular messenger has eroded any benefit of the doubt when it comes to his intent here. If people are short with him, that's the bed he's made here.

Yeah, but he cautioned against any true projection prophylactically, ie he tried to quell any excitement before any was displayed. It's his compulsive syndrom, Sox fans must not have any good thoughts about anything to do with their team. If there's a chance they might, Jacko will show up toot sweet to put things in check.

Beckett and Lowell? One was the clear post-season MVP (Beckett), the other the actual WS MVP. You really suck at asking for examples because it invariably seems there's an obvious one you were incapable of recalling. Once the core showed up and the dynasty started, there was a paradigm shift to keep the train rolling. The lack of success by the Yankees in developing their own talent for about a decade is more about how they went about it than it is about how the tap runs dry. If you were one of the people who thought your team would keep churning out talent, then you weren't paying attention to what was going on. The importance of the draft disappeared, prospects were traded as soon as they showed value for flash in the pan "established" talent, etc. When I see signs of similar devaluation of the player development machine from the Sox, then my expectations will change. Given their advantages, it should have already been the 1950's all over again. Only the hubris of the owner, the inefficiency of having two factions vie for control of the team, and the ineptitude of the GM have prevented them from turning the league into a complete joke.

Not really. Roy Halladay doesn't make other teams better against the Yankees.

Clay Buchholz went 6-3 with a 4.34 ERA in 13 games pitched, which is not garbage, and the team went 10-3 from the deadline to the finish. Since Halladay would have replaced Buchholz, even if he went 13-0 in those games for the Sox, with all 3 extra wins coming against the Yankees, they are still 2 games back in the final standings. The Sox would have still faced the Angels, and they would still have lost when the offense decided to no-show. Don't give me that crap about a different race if they win 3 more games. Roy Halladay doesn't make Paul Byrd any less awful.

Having Roy Halladay would have helped the team score runs against the Angels?

No, I'm not blaming, but that is the reality of why players sign with NY. They aren't to blame, as I've said before the system allows it, but that doesn't change the cause/effect relationship of why players go there. Nor does it account for "...all their problems" as you erroneously put it. Here's your problem, you are incapable of dispassionate analysis of your team. Oh yeah, you do a good job avoiding the pom pom waving, but your denial of the obvious implications of what an advantage means in regards to the legitimacy of a true outcome says a lot about your inability to disconnect your heart from your brain. I can't help you there, but that's not my issue. I can tell you this, I do think the Sox victories are not legitimate "true" outcomes because of the advantages they had over the majority of the field. I don't have a problem with this, and I appreciate their victories, but I do so with recognition that something outside the field of play set them up to be in a better position to do so.

I'm not blaming anyone. I'm stating the realities that you are agreeing to, but for some reason when someone else states them, you get butthurt. I suggest preparation H.