Gom

He could have gone either way..but he didn't. Yet he didn't do that once for the pitcher with the better catcher. Why is that? Again, please reference the graph you so kindly supplied for me. Nothing Teagarden did impacted it? How do you know? You're looking at blips on a graph. How do you know what he did or didn't do. You have absolutely no clue. Yet you strut around like you actually know something. Funny...oh, and by the way...it's five pitches that were below the strike zone. Learn to count.

You know, if the Red Sox don't pick it up soon, I won't make as much money on StubHub selling Yankees/Sox tickets.

Burrell is the man!!!

I don't see why we can't. The Yankees have good pitching. Vazquez will come around. Realize, their two big guns have not produced. I don't expect Cano to keep playing at the level he's playing at, but as he comes to earth, I expect Tex and Arod to heat up. As CC also comes down, I expect Vazquez to pick up. When you think about it, outside of Cano, no one is really killing the ball on offense. Everyone is kind of doing what you expect. That's why I think this team is positioning itself to be a juggernaut.

I personally thought it knicked the corner. However, it's not about one pitch. I don't even know if that was one of the pitches that was missed by the umpire. It's irrelevant. The umpire missed nine pitches for one pitcher, and none for the other. That same catcher had a passed ball. The Yankees sweep the Red Sox most likely if Posada can catch. What about the four pitches to Johnson? Did you think all of them were balls? Didn't think so. None of this changes the fact that he missed nine pitches.

Amen brother. 110 win team if you ask me.

I'll take him. What do you want? Don't say Arod, I'll kill you.

You definitely make my points for me better than I can. Hell, you might be the best in the world at making the point for the person you are arguing against and against yourself. What did he do wrong? Easy. Setup. Outside pitch to a lefty, you set up further outside, angle the body with the left shoulder closer to the pitcher, right shoulder towards the umpire and catch it on the right side of the body with the glove. Umpire sees that, gives you the pitch more often than not. How do I know this? Easy. I was never a catcher. I loved Posada as a player. However, my brother, who did a little catching himself, pointed it out to me. I started looking for it. I started to see it, and it became more and more obvious to me because I was looking for it. However, I didn't really start to see it until we got Molina. The contrast between one of the best in baseball and one of the worst in baseball made it easy. It may be tough to see who the better player is offensively between...say Tex and Gonzalez. However, it's easy to see if you compare Pujols and Eckstein. I'm not against learning. We've hijacked this thread enough. Try this ORS, because I know you're not as stubborn as you come across here. Tonight's game, if Martinez is catching, try as hard as you can to be objective and watch the catcher. Look at the called pitches. Count how many you honestly think were strikes that you guys didn't get. Then go back to your strike chart...but only do it after the game. I am willing to bet that you are going to be pretty much dead on. Maybe then you'll see what I mean.

So he has a strike zone that is skewed to the left. It's consistent for both pitchers. However, not a single pitch in the strike zone thrown by CC was missed. Nine thrown by Wilson were. One team had the better catcher. Framing pitches is not only getting strikes that should be balls, but not losing strikes. For years, I've been watching pitches on the edge getting routinely called balls. Pitches that I thought were strikes were routinely called balls by the umpire because of Posada's lack of framing ability. Now you are starting to see it with Victor after years of an adequate to above average catcher in Varitek. It's foreign to you, but old hat to me. Irrespective of Timmon's strike zone, nine pitches were called balls. Of those nine...there was at least one missed call in EVERY direction. Up, down, left, and right. It's not like he missed only the pitches to the right. He missed in every direction with Wilson, yet didn't miss ONE with CC. Face the facts...it's either a conspiracy, and then we might as well call you JHB-Lite, or I'm right. Choose. Again....thanks for the chart. Made my point better than I ever could. End of story. Jacko...get the vaseline ready.

Well......you're the idiot who has Aceves. Seriously, that does really suck.

Why are you focusing on the Angels?

Touche.

I'd actually like to see Boone Logan. I'd like to see what he can do.

Yeah, basically, if you're not a boot-licking Red Sox fan, Ital won't like you. The beatings will continue until morale improves.

Go back to hyping a D level prospect as a future Hall of Famer. You don't even understand this conversation.

Oh. My. God. Look at your chart ORS. Just look at it. Now..shut up. Look at it again. Seriously. Memorize the damn thing. Let's look at this together. NINE. NINE PITCHES. Just by watching the gamezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz, I claimed that Teagarden cost about 10 strikes last night. Not bad for someone who uses his eyes, huh? Remember, according to baseball rules, any part of the ball that crosses the plate are called strikes. So a ball has to miss completely to be called a ball. According to your chart, when Wilson was pitching, NINE PITCHES IN THE STRIKE ZONE WERE CALLED BALLS. NINE. Let me say it again. NINE. How many pitches of CC's that were in the strike zone were called balls? ZERO. Honestly, thank you for proving two things. 1) My point. You did it better for me than I did. The best part about it is that you probably don't even get it. 2) Further proof that when people use the internet, there is a wealth of information and a lack of knowledge. I quoted about 10 pitches that Teagarden cost Wilson. I was wrong. It was 9. Oh my God...I watched the gamezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. How could I know? You are seriously lost. Completely and utterly. Honestly, I've never seen anyone as lost as you. Seriously. Oh...and thanks again. Anyone who wants to debate this point with me, please look at the chart ORS kindly posted.

Umm...two trade proposals, sent out a week ago, and not a single response. Pretty sad.

You should come and hang with us in the bleachers. I'll find you some room. Either that, or come and chill at the bodega with us. You seem cool enough to hang. Hit me up on Fridays.

Another note.... EVERYONE here knows you lie to try and prove a point. EVERYONE. Casual posters, mods...EVERYONE. Can I be more clear on this? You may not agree with me. A lot of people do, a lot of people don't. However, I'm honest in my posts, and people here appreciate that. I'm getting tired of the biggest liar here accusing me of lying. The next time you do it, I won't be as nice as I've been. Here, for all the people who want to see the video that I watched last night, Mitch Williams breaking down CJ Wilson, here is the link. Unlike you, I don't make s*** up. If you want to skip to the point, go to about the two minute mark. Apparently, Mitch Williams is not as qualified as Dipre is with his Gameday. My bad. http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=7491861&topic_id=7417714 Enjoy.

Try to keep things civil if you want to stay here. Just consider it a fair warning. I should know. Quite simply...it does not work. From a scientific point of you, the error range is too great for it to be a significant statistic. Unlike you, if I look at something, and it is so blatantly wrong, I don't delve into the "logic" of why it's right. Maybe the formula is no good. Maybe the way the balls in play are mapped wrong. It is inconsequential. A metric that has three of the 2009 AL Gold Glove winners as being negative, and two of the 2009 NL Gold Glove winners as negative is a joke; a farce. Anyone here care to debate if any of the following players are WORSE than the average Triple-A call-up? Teixeira, Torii Hunter, Adam Jones, Orlando Hudson, Shane Victorino? Well...did you do what I said? Did you watch the breakdown with Mitch Williams on MLB Network? They showed a graph, with the strikezone superimposed over it, the nine zones, and each hit the strike zone. So..either Gameday is wrong, or MLB Network is wrong. It seems like we've been down this road before. I'm assuming you're not lying, which has been a problem for you in the past, but two things. I watched the game, and I agree that those pitches were strikes. My personal analysis agrees with MLB Network, and not Gameday in this case. Does that make me right or wrong? Neither. However, I will say this. If Teagarten, or whatever his name is, could have "stolen" one strike, it's a one run game. He had about 5 opportunities to do so. Look on the other side. I think CC struck out 6 in a row. Same umpire. A lot of called strike calls. This is honestly beyond your level of comprehension. You are too stubborn to admit that you're wrong..and honestly, I don't care. This is for other people who may want to analyze things and see things differently than they have before. You are a lost cause. Everything. Like every other player, as a player gets older, they "lose" a step. I've never been a full-time catcher, but reaction time has a lot to do with it, I believe. Throwing arm, framing pitches..these I believe deteriorate with age as well. His arm, his ability to frame pitches [from the small sample size I've seen with him] are below average. He's Posada-Lite, or if it offends your sensibilities, Posada is VMart-Lite. What bothers a lot of people is the fear of being found out that they are stupid. They lack the ability to formulate an opinion for themselves, and unless they are spoon-fed information, they find it an affront to them. Because there is no true-defensive metric for a catcher [i would argue that there really isn't one for fielders either, but that's another discussion], and people are unable to do a Google search to quantify it, they get upset. Sadly, Dipre, you are in this boat. You take this personally, with insults and whatnot. I'm trying to point out something I know and see. You don't have to agree with it. If you're ignorant about something...that's your issue, not mine. Watch the games. You might learn something. Seriously. Anyone here want to bet me that even with the addition of Lackey and his supposed sub 4.00 ERA, that the Red Sox team ERA will be higher this year than it was last year? Last night, Cervelli got about five or six pitches, by my count, that were out of the strike zone. Teagarden [sp?] had about 10 borderline pitches go against him. That right there, if you ask me, was the ball game. Gut feeling, projections I've read. Also as a Yankee fan, I feared this team with Manny and Papi. Then you got rid of Manny, and replaced him with Bay, and the fear dissipated a little. Then Ortiz got old/clean/etc., and you lost Bay. You improved your team defense, but you lost a lot of the high OBP players you used to have by bringing in Beltre and Cameron. This offense, in my opinion, is the third best offense in the AL East, behind New York and Tampa. Learn to read. Here is the quote: I was wrong. The grumblings have started in April. I miscalculated how sharp you guys can be. My mistake. Kudos to most of you. However, as all can see..what people write, and what you read Dipre and interpret are often two very different things. How can anyone but you take the fact that I stated that the Red Sox team ERA will suffer greatly and conclude that I said he "may or may not suck"? Really? Noise. That's all you do here Dipre. You just make noise, but with no substance. When you actually think, you can have some decent insight. However, when you're stubborn, you come across as an ignoramus, an elitist, and a fool. Side note...the fearless predictions were there to have fun. Some were serious [burnett ERA going up, Vmart sucking behind the plate], some were funny [Nick Johnson getting injured scooping out Ice Cream] and some were blantantly hopeful homerism [Vazquez outpitching Lackey]. I'm not afraid of putting myself out there for both praise and ridicule..but mainly, it sparked three pages of debate and fun...which is my intent. Stop taking this s*** so seriously, especially when you're wrong. :thumbsup:

Yes