ORS

This is a terrific game for Beckett to pull a Pedro and get in their heads. Buzz the tower a few times. Get their feet antsy. I think that is one of the key components to making Pedro as good as he was. He controlled the psychological part of the game.

On another day, in Hughes home ball park, it's 2-0 right now. C'est la vie. That's baseball.

Hughes had a shamrock enema before the game. It's been the source of his good luck this year.

There are worse ways to start a game.

It's dismissive, which is insulting, and it set the tone.

No, this one... http://xmb.stuffucanuse.com/xmb/image.php?&aid=1431&demotivational-poster.jpeg

That thing needs to hook up with Gothapotamus.

It sucks that they are using a decent reliever in this game (with a 5 run lead), but it sucks even worse that he's sucking.

That's a dig. Think about it.

You don't know what the future holds, stop pretending like you do. He's getting worse right now. He might stop that, he might get better, but it's not been a one month thing. He was worse last year than the year before, and he started this year worse than that. Those are the facts.

Which would be a change of direction for the arrow and in line with what I said. Remember, the arrow is pointing down. If he can get it pointing sideways, that's an improvment.

And they are wrong, and you are one of them. Deal with it.

Last night's thread is locked, and there was some serious knuckle dragging going on that I'd like to respond to.... Re: Save percentage It's funny that my point about Rivera and Hoffman is being brought up as "reaching" when 2 years ago it was used in Papelbon's defense when someone, I think it was ATG13, was trying to say Nathan was better than Papelbon because of....save percentage....and I argued the contrary point using the Rivera/Hoffman example. It's come full circle. Anyway, suffice it to say that.....save percentage sucks. Since the Rivera/Hoffman point didn't sink in as well as it should have (Rivera is hands down better, period), let's take it to extremes. Save percentage sucks for a very specific reason, and it's this. You could, could mind you, literally be the worst pitcher in the league and have the best save percentage. Seriously. You could come into the game with a 3 run lead every time, give up 2 home runs every inning you pitch, strike out nobody, and then walk the bases loaded, get a ground out to home then a GIDP, and you'd have a perfect save percentage. Perfect. Your WHIP would be 5.00, ERA at 18.00, the FIP is a whopping 38.20, and you are perfect in the mind of some. No thanks. I realize that is an extreme, but if anyone can cite one other statistic that they esteem as worthy when it comes to player evaluation that can be so obscenely perverted, please let me know.

With Hoffman deciding to hang on rather than hang them up, I'm not sure if this still holds true, but as of 2 years ago, he had a better save rate than Rivera, with more overall saves. Clearly, he's better than Rivera, right? Or is save rate a little misleading? Let me know what you think.

I too want the ball in Papelbon's hand, but only because it means we have the lead or are tied in the final frame. He scares the crap out of me right now, though. We must see different things when we watch the game. To your question about Rivera and the warning signs. I recall many people saying he was starting to slip. He got better. It remains to be seen if Papelbon can. The biggest thing that scares me about Papelbon, which did not happen with Rivera, is the ballooning of the walk rate. The highest of Rivera's career after he was established was 3.0 per 9 IP. Papelbon was slightly worse last year, and is demonstrably worse this year. Hopefully, he too can get better. What's nice is that they still have all of the remainder of this year and next to find out before making a commitment. If he becomes dominant again, then it's probably a good idea to extend him this offseason. But, if he continues to get worse, I'd wait and see what the market offers him for his services.

Are you going to answer my question?

His season last year was a two part season. It was. He was awful for the first part, and very good for the second. The problem with this post isn't the accuracy of your description, but where you define the dividing line between those two parts. It's not first half vs. second half. He was awful, and looked awful for the first two months of the season, but in early June he started looking different and hitting the ball. This isn't cherry picking, but it's drawing the line where I noticed a change in how he looked at the plate, no longer lost and guessing, but reacting to the ball with good timing. From June 1 through the end of the season: .264/.345/.548, with, like Dipre said, a well below career average BABIP. That's pretty good. I didn't subscribe to mlb.tv this year because I don't have the time to watch as many of the games, so I don't know how he looks now relative to his poor start last year. But, if he can pull out of it again this year, I'll take similar numbers, and if he gets his BABIP back, he will be very good. That's a .900 OPS. Right now the FO is faced with a dilemma and a few choices. The dilemma is they want a productive DH, and .900 is very productive. They can play Lowell, but they are unlikely to get .900. They can make a trade, which will cost money (more than likely) and talent (for certain). Or, they can do nothing, and, potentially, get their .900 bat like they did last season. The fact that he turned it around, and did it at time that made him productive for twice as long as he was unproductive last year, is what's driving their decision to be patient. And, right now, he's starting to look like he's turning it around earlier than he did last year. History suggests this patience is warranted, and every good game he has in the near future will only add to that patience. Who knows, he could be cooked. But it would be rash to assume so now based on everything that has transpired.