ORS

Speaking of economics, should we consider this? The Red Sox currently outright own Fenway park. A new park would undoubtedly add expense to the running of the team via capital improvement financing. I'm curious to know how the "new park" crowd feels about the potential for the on field product to suffer due to budget constraints vs. maintaining the current budget and competitiveness with Fenway as the lower cost option. Personally, I think the arguments for a new park are compelling. The average size of a person is much larger in 2012 than it was in 1912. Those seats are not comfortable for people even a little bit above the current average size of a person. I've always thought the reasonable compromise between making things more accomodating for contemporary fans and tradition is to add more super structure and expand the seating area while upgrading the quality of the seating (more room for fans), with a minimal net gain of total seats while making the seating sections more comfortable. I realize this plan would have to be phased over time, as the construction schedule would be limited to the offseason, but I think it would be a happy compromise that would appeal to both sides of the argument. Of course, I'd also have those new, roomier seats, face the infield and not the triangle.

I think the stirring of the pot is exactly what his motivation is. "Look at me, look at me, I'm stirring the pot!" Shaughnessy in a nutshell.

Earlier, I think Dojji said something about pushing 350 on the scale. At the risk of sounding insensitive, he does have another option......how's about not pushing 350 on the scale. I have very little sympathy for people who allow themselves to get that out of shape when they complain about how standardized ergonomics don't accommodate their size.

His douchebaggery makes the Jersey shore look like a farm town in North Dakota.

Ross isn't a treat. The problem is that Lin is turd. Replacement level looks like a pipe dream given his MiLB performance.

No, you suggested Ross's offensive impact would be diminished because the quality of the rest of the lineup. This sounds a lot like diminishing returns. When I questioned this, you took a hard line stating that diminishing returns absolutely applies here. Now you are back pedaling at high speed as I ask for elaboration on something you appeared to have strong conviction about. Which is it? Anyway, my point remains. Diminishing returns does not apply. Lin and Ross's net contribution (offensive and defensive) will have their impact on team run differential regardless of the quality of the other players.

Explain to me the diminishing returns of offensive value on run differential.

If there's plenty of room, then show me something other than your opinion. What do you project for Lin offensively? For Ross? How much value do you think they gain in RF with Ellsbury's defense?

Read it again. I'm talking about RF. These discussions are more worthwhile when you actually read what the other person is saying rather than prattle on with your assumptions. The strength of the rest of the lineup has no bearing on Ross's offensive value. His value is what it is. There are no diminishing returns when considering run differential.

Assuming a net zero impact in CF, which I don't necessarily think should be automatically conceded because Ellsbury is quite good out there, the question becomes is the run differential between Ellsbury vs Ross in RF greater than the run differential between Ross vs Lin at the plate? I don't think it is. I think Ross is taylor made to be a good offensive contributor in Fenway, and I think Lin doesn't stick as a big leaguer because of how weak he will be offensively.

I think his quote is taken out of context, a little. He's essentially saying that the NL fan knows baseball better than the AL fan because the NL game plays by the traditional, non-DH, rules. It just so happens that he's in Philly and came from Boston, so it comes out as Philly fans are smarter than Boston fans, but that's not really what he's saying.

Your answer is Padilla, then, since Bard was clearly intended to be part of the 4 that will definitely be in the rotation, regardless of what number you assign to them.

Do the math, $14.99 up front, or $17.94 if you pay monthly.

However you purchase it, the password crosses over to work with any device (mobile phone via app, tablet with app, computer).

At Bat is for the whole season, and the password works on MLB.com.

You can use your MLB.com password on your mobile apps. I listened to many games on my android phone last season.

End tangent.

http://espn.go.com/new-york/mlb/story/_/id/7633938/new-york-yankees-hal-steinbrenner-plans-lower-team-payroll and.....GO!

Accuracy is a skill just like reaction/timing is. Both, depending on the degree of magnitude required for success, are difficult, but for different reasons. You can't eliminate where you hit the ball in golf from the difficulty of golf. That's the whole point of golf, to hit the ball exactly where you want on command. You are simplifying the activities that require accuracy too much and trying to make this an argument about which activity is the most difficult to make contact in. Of course the answer to that is baseball. That doesn't mean the other activities don't have significant, but different, difficulties. Like was said earlier, it's an apples to oranges comparison.

I wonder how much of Bobby V's stuff isn't strategic? It's plausible to think he's attempting to relieve pressure (ie attention) from the players in the wake of the embarassing end to last season by putting the pressure on himself.

Not only that, but following his reasoning about the 90 degree arc where the player is trying to hit the ball, the arc of the target in golf is maybe 20 yards wide in your 250 yard example. That's a 4.6 degree arc. And, I think the introduction of defense into the discussion is bogus. For one, players have very little control over where the ball goes on a hard hit ball. Two, the discussion about the difficulty of hitting a moving target hard/square was never about the result of where it landed in the field, but simply about the act of accomplishing that hard contact. Stating that there are no defenders in golf is a red herring.

You are way off on your interpretation of my post. No meds needed, I'm not upset. I couldn't care less about this thread as is, with Martin being the centerpoint of discussion, as you intended it. I just noticed your tactic to turn some piece of news into Yankees discussion and made a joke about it.