Jump to content
Talk Sox
  • Create Account

TedWilliams101

Verified Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    5,829

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Profiles

Boston Red Sox Videos

2026 Boston Red Sox Top Prospects Ranking

Boston Red Sox Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits

Guides & Resources

2025 Boston Red Sox Draft Pick Tracker

News

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by TedWilliams101

  1. TedWilliams101
  2. TedWilliams101
    Just cut Lowell and either get Beltre or Gonzalez.
  3. TedWilliams101
  4. TedWilliams101
    To be honest, if we could have a platoon plan for Granderson (like Cameron) I'd probably trade Ellsbury straight up for him. Granderson vs RHP: .292, .367, .528, .894. His vastly superior power makes up for his lack of speed (compared to Ellsbury. The biggest difference is that Granderson has been much better in CF. He has averaged a 4.9 UZR/150 in CF in his career and he averages a 3-4 WAR (Ellsbury is about a 2 WAR). The obvious downside is that he hasn't look as good in CF the last 2 years and that Fenway is notoriously hard for LH hitters. I'm certainly not disappointed the Sox didn't trade for him, but it certainly would have made some sense.
  5. TedWilliams101
  6. TedWilliams101
    Why would they sign both Cameron and Holliday? If they sign Cameron there is practically no chance they even think about Holliday.
  7. TedWilliams101
    I'm thinking they mention CF because they are thinking of moving Ellsbury over to LF when Cameron plays. Ellsbury in CF: 2009: -18.3 (UZR/150) 2008: 6.9 2007: -10.5 Cameron in CF: 2009: 10.3 2008: 15.6 Ellsbury is a career 21.8 UZR/150 in LF. I'd say Cameron should be in CF over Ellsbury when he plays.
  8. TedWilliams101
    It makes sense to be less active during the offseason when nothing is happening and come back when there is actually something to talk about. These Holliday vs Bay threads can only go so far before everyone is just repeating themselves.
  9. TedWilliams101
    Would you be impressed if the NFL assembled an All-Pro or HOF team, without any cap, that blew through the league to 19-0 and won the Superbowl? No, you would think it was pretty damned unfair.
  10. TedWilliams101
  11. TedWilliams101
    The article REFUTES this view. Sure, a decent amount of teams have a shot at winning the WS because of the playoff structure, but that doesn't mean they have anywhere near an equal chance. In the long run, the Yankees will win more. It might not be this year or next, but in the end, they will win more, as they have. There really isn't a good argument for not having a cap. Having a cap would make the game far more competitive and would help teams financially. There is no downside (unless you are a Yankee fan).
  12. TedWilliams101
    There is a reason why every other major American sport has a salary cap. It would make the game more popular and more competitive (and might save fans money). A lot of young people in this country think baseball is a complete joke because of the lack of a salary cap. People really associate "buying a championship" with the Yankees. Sports shouldn't be about who has the most money.
  13. TedWilliams101
  14. TedWilliams101
    A Beckett, Lester, Felix, Harden, Dice-K rotation... that would be ridiculous. If Theo can find a way to get Felix, I'll call him a genius again.
  15. TedWilliams101
    Most teams (if not all) could hit a $100 million cap. The problem is that a lot of teams simply don't want to spend that much. http://www.forbes.com/lists/2009/33/baseball-values-09_The-Business-Of-Baseball_Income.html
  16. TedWilliams101
    I think Jacksonian should change "best" to "wealthiest". The day they introduce a cap into MLB will be the day the Yankee Empire falls.
  17. TedWilliams101
    If it was for a Felix Hernandez or Gonzalez, absolutely. Good defensive CFs are a lot easier to come by than a young, cheap MVP caliber slugger or power-pitching Ace.
  18. TedWilliams101
    If the Sox FO cares more about winning than money, they will do what is necessary to sign him. If money is more important to them, well, we will continue to see the Yankees win the division and WS.
  19. TedWilliams101
    From a number perspective, yeah. Everything starts with zero, and it's a real number. What was there before 1 AD? You can't jump from -1 AD to 1 AD, there has to be a number (0) in between. It would be like skipping 2000 and going straight from 1999 to 2001. As Jacksonian pointed out, the death of Jesus should have started at zero. When a baby is born, you don't call it 1 year old.
  20. TedWilliams101
    Here's one thing I've never understood, shouldn't the decade start at 0 (ie, 2000) and end at at 9 (2009)? Everything is based on base 10 numbers, which are 0-9, then start over with another place setting, thus 2000 is the next set, along with 2010, etc.
  21. TedWilliams101
    Ahh, I found something. While it didn't list the success rate for all years, it did discuss 2006 and 2007. The success rate for in MLB in 2007 was 86%. Some friends were trying to argue that bunting was more skillful and difficult than hitting and used "Jeter" last night as an example "He failed to move the runner over!". http://www.actasports.com/sow.php?id=163
  22. TedWilliams101
    I've been talking with friends about bunting and it's merits and degree of difficulty and wondering if there are any stats kept on bunting. I'm trying to find some sort of success rate (kind of like a batting average of bunting) of bunting. Does it exist? Have there been any studies done? I'm finding it hard to argue the merits of bunting in a situation over hitting when I have no clue the success rate of bunting (missing the first 2 tries and facing an 0-2 count or failing to move the runners over). I know there are some great stat guru's on this board, any one have any insight?
  23. TedWilliams101
    Looking back at the season, what did we really think would happen when the Yankees went out and got TEX, CC, AND Burnett? We have/had a good team this year, but it was just too inconsistent and the Yankees are just ultimately much better.
  24. TedWilliams101
    I know, I'm just saying, it's typical of American productions/"journalists"/etc. It's always about ratings and $.
  25. TedWilliams101
    Isn't that what ALL American news is?
×
×
  • Create New...