jacksonianmarch

So. They become a worse offense, yet they won't be worse on the road, even though they flat out sucked on the road last yr and got worse?

Have you noticed how many people have gone away since you started posting with a fury here? I honestly think that some of the best posters on this site have gone into hiding because of your ridiculous act. Your way or the highway and anyone who disagrees gets ridiculed rather than debated. Honestly, you must have made it through law school by the skin of your teeth. Cause your debate skills flat out suck.

Your act is getting tired. Is it time to tuck tail and run again?

Requires subscription. But baseball execs are convinced that Damon is coming back to NY as the Yankees LFer.

The other question is, should the sox hang onto Lowell and platoon him with Ortiz. Ortiz' OPS vs lefties was .716. Lowell's was .866. Ortiz' OPS vs righties was .850.

Example, defense is not as tangible and even with all the metrics we have, it is incredibly difficult to quantify how much a change from Bay to Cameron is on the defensive end. That being said, the defensive change at that position is not as important. Its LF in Fenway. Nobody was screaming about LF D when Manny was around, and he was a miserable OFer. Now it is the center of the media spin job. On that note, how many people on this site thought that offense was the sox biggest problem at the end of 2009? A lot of people were talking about it, but have conveniently forgot about it now that they have taken a pretty significant step back. I made the post a month or so ago when Bay was still an option. But over the last 3 months, the sox had something like 5-6 more games of 7+ runs than the Yankees, who were the bigs best offense. But they had 9 or so more games of 3 or less runs. The sox biggest problem, as the yr winded down, was the fact that the sox couldnt hit good pitching. They would f***ing crush mediocre to bad pitching. But a good pitcher who threw strikes would dominate the sox. And it was born out in the playoffs and on the road. Now take away the sox biggest power threat and add in a mediocre offensive player and you make that worse. This is the point. I also think that the loss of Lowell's bat for Beltre's is overlooked.

The sox were 9th in baseball with a .750OPS from the catcher's position. Victor Martinez caught 82 games last yr between Boston and Cleveland. He caught 55 games in 2008. The last time he caught over 100 games was 2007, when he caught 118 games. He caught 31 of the 53 games he started in the field while in Boston. That means, to me at least, that the sox arent really going to rely on him as a 120 game starting catcher. I'd probably say that he catches 100 games at most with him playing a lot of 1b and DH to give rest to the corner IFs and Papi. Now, lets assume that he catches 2/3 of the games and Tek catches 1/3. If you use Victor's career .832 OPS and Varitek's OPS of .703 from 2009 then you can get a rough estimate of .789 or so, which is an improvement of 39 points at that position. Its significant, but it isnt a 130 point increase that most people are relying on

I have already showed you my counter argument. You refuse to dissect that since it goes against your theory here. Your theory, as usual, being to downplay our pitching acquisition.

No, the loss of Bay will not send them down to 810 runs because the sox still play in Fenway. Last yr, the sox scored 481 runs at home. That's 17 more runs than the closest team and 21 more runs than the Yankees scored at home. Away from home, they scored 391 runs, good for 9th in the MLB, 64 runs behind the Yankees, who led the league in that category. Adding Cameron and Beltre should keep the runs scored in Fenway within maybe 25 of last yr. The big difference is their scoring on the road. Because the sox need to score more than 391 runs on the road. And with this team, I dont see it happening.

Nobody cares what you think. WAAAAAAA. You sound like a 2 yr old. Go back in your hole.

Once again, you dont know what strawman means

Scoring runs is actually correlated MORE with OBP than with SLG, yet SLG makes up the majority of OPS.

DIpre, if you dont want to listen to my retort, that's your prerogative. You are an interesting specimen, I will tell you. You come up with a theory. You blatantly ask others to discount it. When it gets discounted or explained in any other light aside from your own, you throw it out and ask people to try again.

Dipre, I know you are proud of your work, but the only thing you proved is that Vazquez allows more homers. That is it. I know it requires a bit more advanced logic than I should expect from you, but when you look at his HR/IP, they are incredibly high over his career. When you look at his GO/AO ratio, it is incredibly low. Guys with high GO/AO have higher BAAs but lower OPSA's because they give up more hits, but they are usually singles. Vazquez is an extreme flyball pitcher. Therefore, he allows a lot more homeruns and EBHs based upon the types of pitches he throws. That gets magnified in the stretch. Most starters see a significant increase in their BAA when they go to the stretch. For Burnett or for Lackey, that increase in BAA is more likely to be singles since they are even or groundball type pitchers. But for Vazquez, those have a higher likelihood of being extra base hits. My point is, that you are trying to use Vazquez vs Lackey and Burnett as a comparison since they have similar career FIPs. The problem is, you are making assumptions off of the FIP that are incorrect since you are not comparing like players.

Actually, its about Dipre being wrong again. He said that the sox lost their #2 starter last yr. They didnt.

What kind of retort is that? Just another Dipre-ism. I expect to see strawman come out in the wrong context soon in this thread.

And Nava played 62 games last yr. Dude, can you step back for a second and think before you post about prospects? This guy is way older than the league and is being held back for a reason. Maybe, just maybe, they dont think he's any good? There are a lot of older players who can mash at the lower levels. For a guy who claims to know something about prospects, you really dont know all that much.

You know what I mean. Regardless, the point is, you essentially tried to point out that Vazquez is a homerun/flyball pitcher. You could have stated as such and nobody would have denied it.

Wang and Burnett were much closer than Lester and DiceK were. Hence why you could make a strong argument that Wang was our #2 last yr. No chance you could make that argument about DiceK.

It's a very good post Dipre. Thats the problem, you guys are glossing over exactly why the sox lost in the first round and exactly why they finished 2009 as the WC. They dont hit on the road. They absolutely mash at home, but they cannot hit on the road at all. Making your offense worse is not the way to fix that. Also, everyone is saying that 2010 should be great because DiceK should be healthy. Well, he threw all of 160IP in 2008 even though he was healthy AND WENT DOWN WITH A SHOULDER INJURY in 2009. I am sorry, but to consider him anything but a question mark going into this season is blind homerism. After the acquisition of Lackey and the weakening of Detroit and LAA, I think the sox really just need to win 90 games to be the WC. I think that's likely. But home field is so important for Boston that a WC berth for them will likely be a bounce from the playoffs. And I dont think the sox stack up at all to NYY.

You made conclusions based on his 4 AL seasons and tried to say that the minority of his work is a trend for who he is overall.

Oh, and Nava was 26 yrs old and will play the entirety of 2010 as a 27 yr old. Nice try lowering the age for the sake of argument