a700hitter

I guess you outsmarted them.

Ya nothing... right?

So do I.

Impressive. Yet, you still don't have a driver's license.

That's right. We've never impressed each other.

and you see enough spreadsheets at work.

They have a sandbox? Those things breed bacteria.

Maybe so, but we couldn't have finished lower than last place, and we would have the #1 overall pick. Even Theo couldn't screw that up.

Who are the other guys in the booth with Remy and Orsillo?

That Todd Benzinger bore is still there.

I guess my aspirations to join Sons of Sam Horn are nothing but delusional fantasy.

On the contrary, you are my entertainment for an otherwise boring day.

Bring the Frisbee for a catch with Salty.

You are so stupid you don't even know what smart is.

Are you the most senior person in the asylum so you get to pick what every watches on TV?

The witty banter comes easy to me-- no strain at all, kind of like the way it is effortless for you to be a douchebag.

Be nice to the Doc. Maybe he can help you get the medication that you need.

I like this forum. It brings me pleasure as does laughing at you. Tick tock on the countdown to your next ban.

He's just a pathetic mess of a human being. I like each of these thinly veiled attempts to troll, because it gives us the opportunity to witness true insanity and to ridicule him.

As I said earlier, I think the biggest accomplishment of the 2004 staff was that all 5 guys took all of their starts, and after July, they almost always went 6+ innings. That was the huge factor in the end of season run. We haven't had 5 starters take all of their starts since 2004. It's a hard thing to do. If this group (2013) makes all of its starts, the team will be successful, even if the overall pitching is mediocre. It is the reason why I wanted the Sox to get one more starter -- a 200 inning guy. No aces were available, so it was my theory to build an inning eating rotation of 5 that would perform in a mediocre fashion. The extended innings would keep the strengthened bull pen fresh, and I believe that it would have been a winning formula. This group may achieve that, but with a post-op Lackey and an out of shape Doubront, we could be dipping into the pen too early during the year. The other difference between this years rotation and the 2004 rotation is that the 2004 rotation had 2 guys that were capable of absolutely shutting down the other offense. Pedro and Schilling were star pitchers with that capability of giving you the dominating game when it was need most. Both of those guys went over 200 innings with more than 200 k's. They were big time horses.

Pal, any rotation with Schilling and Pedro is in pretty good shape. Pedro is a sure fire Hall of Famer and Schilling has a very good chance too. Your arguments based on the 1 year stats is exactly why Vin Scully says that stats should be used the way a drunk uses a lamppost-- for support not for illumination.

Except when he was injured, Pedro was never a mere mortal on the mound.

Yep, when in uniform, they are employees and represent theirr employer's product.

Stats that were smack in the middle of the steroid era.

The biggest plus for the 2004 staff is that they didn't miss any starts and after the trading deadline they went on a long run of 6+ inning starts that kept the bullpen fresh for the post season. The performance of the pen in that post season was remarkable. They were very mortal too, but they were well rested and had more left in the tank than the Yankee pen. Also, the 2004 staff did have two aces that were great stoppers after a few losses.