ORS

Luke Scott's bitch.

Lin is not in the lineup in Pawtucket. Cue the Dojji.

Cue the angst over McDonald playing, despite Sweeney's career .587 OPS split against LHP.

Stripes? I think it was Francis.

Does it make sense to boo them for wanting to make money when your primary gripe about them is that they are cheap? If they are cheap, then don't they need more money to justify spending money to replace all the players you think need replacing?

50 straight fastballs, is that what happened?

I agree that this is dragging the discussion down, but I have my reasons. I'm trying to establish that I take issue with people who try and prop up their opinions as being supported by people who's complete thoughts are not on the record. State what you have to state and argue your own opinion. If a character of authority is on the record stating the same opinion, then it is acceptable to use that as validation. If not, then you have no validation. That's all. You see this here all too often, IMO. Mazz said so and so. Who cares, who the f*** is Mazz? Carfardo wrote this. Don't care. I can tell the coach wanted this. Did he say it? No, doesn't count. The FO wants to do this. How do you know? I'm not saying this from a position where I claim to be free from participating in this behavior. I just want to see it stop, and I'm trying to edit myself from doing it in the future.

How is it intellectually dishonest? Intellectually, I oppose any attempt to assign an opinion to a character of authority, ie the pitching coach, that aligns with your own in order to validate your opinion on something as flimsy as "body language". Careful.... Pot, kettle....kettle, pot.

No, I didn't watch the game, but I can promise you this, if I had and you asked me what I thought the pitching coach said, I'd say, "I don't know".

What's more incredible, to me, is how often people assign an irrational, or a "worked up", mentality to those that disagree with them. Perhaps they just disagree and wish to share their disagreement.

No, there is what you saw, and then there is what you think happened in what you saw. The conservation you "saw" occurred in your head only.

You are right, you aren't going to win many, hell I'd go so far as to say any, games where the heart of the order goes 0-18. What this thread title should remind you of is that you should only lose your s*** if it is reasonable to expect that the talent you have at those positions will do that regularly.

Lefty on the hill. Sweeney's a pretty strong platoon player. BV made the right call starting the two righties. The whole team isn't hitting today. Sweeney in vs a LHP doesn't turn the tide.

The risk of regression with Youkilis is a valid concern. They need to monitor this and consider alternatives. McDonald is on the bench, and Ross can be used correctly, in a platoon role, when their starter gets back. The description of the pitching staff is hyperbole that reflects frustration over the poor start. Yes, the current BP looks to be mediocre, but I think the starting rotation is going to be a good one.

This is shaping up to be their 5th game, out of 6 total, where they score 4 or less runs. It won't matter what happens with Beckett, Buchholz, Bard as a starter, and the bullpen if the offense can't get uncorked.

How would he know who saw/knew what? I imagine the clubhouse is a pretty intimate place where privacy is scarce.

What law? Unless the source is a provider governed by HIPAA, I don't think there's legal grounds to root out the source. It's very likely that his use of pain medication was observed and inferences were made from there. This whole thing is a mess. Don't take this to mean that I think being on the right side of the law excuses anyone for anything, but I'm skeptical this is a legitimate claim of foul play.

He threw 3 change ups in innings 1-3, according to pitchf/x which categorizes pitches by velocity/spin/movement. He threw 12 all game, 9 in innings 4-6. So, yes, he did mix it up more later on. My question is, how do we know that wasn't by design? You often hear about pitchers not giving hitters a look at everything the first time through the order, and bringing in more variety later in the game. That common pitching tactic is widely accepted and could easily explain why we saw the distribution we did, and, if the types of balls in play he allowed are fielded at the normal rate, he doesn't have a line that suggests this strategy won't work for him. And, for all we know, the "body language" you were reading and subsequent mound visit could just as easily have been about recognizing that the strategy wasn't working due to the poor luck on groundballs, and McClure went out to tell him it was time to adjust the approach and check his mental state to make sure he wasn't freaking out over the results. In the end, until someone comes out and says what was on their mind, we don't know what they were thinking. So let's stop trying to pretend that we do. Fair enough?

Of course, reference my post in other thread about people's pet issues and them shoe-horning it in whenever/wherever they feel like. Nobody knows what that body language was about, except of course, the guy with a pet issue, and wouldn't you know, that body language confirms his pet issue. It's all so very convenient.

Are you guys really counting, or is this just a cliche talking point. Drabek just got praised by you two (Elktonnick) for mixing it up, and Bard is too FB happy. As of this post Bard has thrown 44/84 FB (52%), Drabek 36/72 (50%)..... you guys really noticed those 2 extra fastballs over 5 innings that prevented them from being even-Steven? Sorry, not buying.

Meanwhile, the Sox are 0/5. I don't think it's the rug. Sometimes the ball is headed toward a hole, sometimes it's an at'em ball. Thems the breaks.