Emmz
-
Posts
11,403 -
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 Emmz
-
-
The Rangers aren't the ones down 1-0 man, js.
-
-
Were the results of his fastball effective or not? That's all I want to know. Pitches themselves CAN be ineffective, and whether or not the result was "as intended", it's beside the point. The point was made that the Rangers have had CC's number, the word effective somehow got in there, which is beside the point. So like I said, do you believe that his fastball was effective, or not?
-
Like I said, his end-result isn't the point of what was being discussed.
-
-
That's fair, if you're speaking specifically of the results. I don't think his pitching itself was very effective, though.
-
I just feel effective is too generous for how poorly he pitched.
-
You're subjecting the word effective to what's convenient. He had an almost 2 WHIP, that's not effective pitching. The game as a whole, he was lucky. I don't consider that effective pitching, and you shouldn't either. Tell me, would you consider your pitching staff effective if it's WHIP was 2? I can promise you, your ERA wouldn't be 3, because you don't play 162+ games with as much luck as CC had. Regardless of what you think is effective, you're being very generous to how poorly CC pitched, with words like "shaky". He was very fortunate the Rangers didn't drop 6 or more runs on 11 hits.
-
That's called being lucky. He was not effective.
-
He pitched like s***. That's not effective. Simple as that. 6 innings, 11 hits. He put a horseshit effort. I guess if some guy were to have a 6.5 ERA and went 20-0, you'd consider him effective, right? Do you realize how asinine that sounds?
-
Oh please. 11 hits over 6 innings yet qualifying under your terms of "effective" is LUCKY. Are you serious?
-
So lucky is effective? Come on y228, you know better than that. 6 innings, 11 hits. That's not only ineffective, it's awful pitching.
-
You are extremely delusional dude. That's all I have to say.
-
11 hits, but he was effective? lmfao
-
That's what you've been saying all series. I thought this was gonna be a 4-1 romp by your Yankees. Last I checked, the Yankees are very, very fortunate that they weren't swept. Don't count your chickens.
-
It's significant, but not "massive" as was earlier said. Half a run isn't "worlds better", which is the point. Massive, or worlds difference is like if the Red Sox had a 3.5 ERA vs the Yanks' 5+ ERA, or something like that. Half a run is not that huge a gap.
-
Someone said there was a massive difference. There simply wasn't a massive difference. It was significant, but surely not massive by any stretch of the word.
-
You do realize in terms of ERA+, that that's relatively small, right? I could see you calling the Red Sox "world better" in pitching if the Yanks' ERA+ was like 80 or something, but that's 28. For example, in 2001, Curt Schilling's ERA+ was 157, while his teammate Randy Johnson's was 188. Johnson's ERA was 2.48 to Schilling's 2.98, a half run difference only. So how is that "world's better"?
-
I think you're just using that for convenience. He pitched well enough to get the win had the Sox held on, so I don't buy that.
-
You're still acting like I said the Red Sox didn't have as good a rotation. I've admitted they had a better front of the rotation to win the short series. I just wish people would stop saying the Yanks were outmatched in pitching so much. The difference wasn't that huge, especially in the first 3 games of that series.
-
Except they didn't use Vazquez or Loaiza vs. the Red Sox, they used El Duque, who had a 137 ERA+.
-
lol Leiber, Brown, Mussina and Hernandez were their playoff pitchers. Vs. Schilling, Pedro, Lowe and Wakefield.
-
Not significantly, no. I think that the '04 Red Sox had two aces, which gives them a short series advantage, but I already said that.
-
No one is denying it. But Wakefield and Lowe significantly worse than what the Yanks put out there.
