Dipre

This line got a chuckle out of me.

But again, you're trying to use a statistic that makes a point of comparing players relative to his peers at the position on a global scale, not to mention that, being a cumulative stat, a couple good players (Youkils, Pedroia, Drew) can carry a team to respectability while the discounting the inadequacies of other players on the team. If anything, you're trying to discount the impact the defensive struggles of four of the eight position players on the Red Sox (C included, which UZR does not account for) had on the team's problems last year. Also, you're comparing apples to oranges, none of the "seven teams" can be compared to the Red Sox as currently constructed. If you're trying to make a point, you're failing miserably at it, by trying to not only use a stat incorrectly, but by trying to use seven obviously inferior teams and compare them to the current Red Sox. I'll post it again: Postion-by-position breakdown: P: 29 out of 30. 1B: 2 out of 30. 2B: 7 out of 30 SS: 12 out of 30 (Thank you Alex Gonzales) 3B: 29 out of 30. RF: 8 out of 30 CF: 30 out of 30 LF: 25 out of 30. That is three positions (excluding catcher) where the Red Sox had among the worse defense in the league. Not average, not slightly below average, but worse. About the "not sharing a conclusion line" well, i'm running by habit, since you're the "I don't like anything the Red Sox do and i don't like JD Drew" line. So i apologize if this actually isn't meant as a way to prove a point.

5:22-5:28 "Like a cat, like a Puma, like a Leopard, watch him leap on this ball!!!" LOL.

I simply don't put stock into team fielding stats regarding UZR, because UZR is a cumulative stat, therefore, some players' excellence can make up for other player's deficiencies on a statistical basis, but this cannot be applied to actual game situations, i'll admit to not even having checked the overall team rankings, because team rankings by measure of UZR simply won't work. Example: Player A had a 8.0 UZR at LF. Player B had a -7.2 UZR at 3B. For "Overall" UZR rankings, they had a 0.8 UZR, which discounts the negative impact player B had on his team defensive-wise. And the very nature of the stat compares players to other players in their position, therefore, that's the way it's supposed to be used for comparative purposes. Also, you're obviously trying to make a point, you used a statistic incorrectly because of lack of knowledge to the nature of the stat, and you're also wrong on your "top seven teams" assessment, because none of those has either a pitching staff or an offense like the Red Sox. Try again.

No. In essence, i admit to actually checking out the stats position-by-position. You're trying to use UZR as a counter-argument, but you obviously don't know why simply using the cumulative numbers doesn't work for the argument, because the Red Sox had top eight players at several key positions (1B, RF, 2B ) and UZR doesn't account for catcher, which was an obvious position of weakness for the Red Sox last season, but i'll assume you already knew this, and know how UZR works: Postion-by-position breakdown: P: 29 out of 30. 1B: 2 out of 30. 2B: 7 out of 30 SS: 12 out of 30 (Thank you Alex Gonzales) 3B: 29 out of 30. RF: 8 out of 30 CF: 30 out of 30 LF: 25 out of 30. If you'll notice, the team consistently had three awful defenders at any given time, excluding the catcher, one of the team's biggest weaknesses, which UZR doesn't address (i'll assume you knew this) but were carried by excellence at 1B, RF and 2B. You need to know the importance of position-by-position breakdown instead of using the cumulative number for a formula you probably know very little about. Oh and about the top seven teams not making the playoffs? Number one, it's a lie, because the Rockies made the playoffs. Number two, the other six were flawed teams that either had no pitching, no hitting, or both (in the Royal's case). You're a smart guy, you can make a better argument than this one.

And that's why i tried to break it down by position. Your hated JD Drew, Kevin Youkilis' time at first , Alex Gonzales and Dustin Pedroia all helped the overall ranking tremendously, but breaking it down by position, (specially the middle line except for Pedroia) the Sox weren't very good even after Alex Gonzales was re-acquired. About the fact that the "top three teams didn't make the playoffs" Seattle could pitch, but not hit, the Reds can't pitch, and the Rays didn't have a bullpen. I'm sorry you don't like this team if the lineup can't bash like the Yankees, but superior pitching and defense make this an overall better squad than 2009.

Honest question, seeing as i'm much younger than you guys: Would you say the same thing about Blyleven had he won 300+ games instead of 287? I didn't see him pitch, so it's simply curiosity.

That paragraph sums up everything there is to say about the subject. Fantastic post.

Yeah, but the whole "this is being sold to the pink hats as a defensive upgrade" line is a bit ignorant. Last year's team was among the worst defensive teams in recent history according to most defensive metrics and "Watching the gamezzzz" also, if you read above you'll notice him saying he's just "playing Imperial's game". The shift in philosophy is not something that is "Being sold to the pink hats" it's a legitimate Modus Operandi that's just as legitimate as scoring runs by the boatload, and in fact, it's a better model once the playoffs come in. It's usually the mark of a championship team.

Instead of hitting Papi 9th, if he sucks against LHP, how about sitting Papi and hitting Varitek and his .805 OPS vs LHP at C while playing Martinez at DH?

Which is why you don't try to use it as evidence for the expected improvement of a player. This was first brought up by bsox0407, who's a Red Sox fan by the way.

You can wait for the improvement. As for me, i think he is what he is. Just like many of the Sox minor leaguers (see Lowrie, Jed) i take the projections of them improving due to the lineup surrounding them or the hitting coach with a grain of salt.

I wasn't responding, to you i was responding to bsox, who claims he will become a better offensive player because of Posada's tutelage, and that makes no sense. You took the statement completely out of context. It means that neither the Yankees nor any other team view him as a starter. They see him as what he is, a backup. In the context of the conversation, my assessment is correct, so keep it in context. And we agree on the player evaluation anyway, so the response really doesn't make much sense.

'Tis done.

Interesting thing to note: You get pissed when i call you a troll, and say i'm playing the "victim" card, however, this post is an admission of trolling.

Clearly an upgrade, but as stated before, he is what he is.

It's a tough decision, i'll tell you that.