Emmz

Want to see the Rangers finally get their title. I like Pujols a lot though, the Cards are another team I like though, so I won't be disappointed. I'm just glad there's no Phillies or Yankees or White Sox or anything like that. Go Rangers though, get that first title.

Idk what your point is, it seems pretty meaningless. 1. I was right. Verlander was pretty effective over 7 innings versus one of the best offenses in baseball. Make excuses all you want. 2. I didn't say anything about Scherzer.

I think he's going to be right around .800 OPS, home runs idc much about. 15, 20 maybe. RBIs I care about, but it's a team stat so it's impossible to predict, or get on someone's ass if they don't produce enough RBIs, their OPS with RISP is a better way to measure their productivity than their RBIs. I'd be surprised, and extremely worried (and depressed) if Crawford didn't have a bounce back to form next season.

From 2008-2010 Youk hit 75 homers and had a 147 OPS+ while being one of the best defensive 1B in the league, I might remind you. Whether or not he plays the field again isn't the issue, his offensive numbers are ridiculous, he's one of the better hitters in the league. He's definitely part of the core of this team. Even in his s***** 2011, he was still producing a 123 OPS+.

Wilson in the last two seasons: 31-15, 427.1 IP, 142 ERA+, 1.215 WHIP. I'm a little concerned that he's in his 30s, and has only produced 2 years worth of this myself, but they are his only two seasons as a SP. This is also in the Texas heat as well. I think there's a good chance he's the real deal, but I understand the concern with only 2 years of this under his belt, rather than a career's worth like most pitchers his age. I think the sample size is enough though, 427 innings, two consecutive seasons of being a very reliable pitcher. I would not give him a monster deal like Lee or anything, but I would definitely give him an offer, and try to reel him in. On top of that, I think this proves he definitely doesn't suck.

I could see that Lowrie collapse from the second he started out hot. Players who are injured for years never match the big preseason hype, because I honestly don't even know where all that hype came from. I just logged into talksox one day and suddenly a group of posters were saying Lowrie could be a reliable SS.

LMFAO.

Great post, I like the idea of trying to get Garza out of the Theo deal. That would give the Sox, IMO, a very formidable front four, though Beckett seems to be very inconsistent in the annual sense (not the game after game sense like AJ Burnett used to be famous for). Otherwise they should give CJ Wilson a good look, but don't overpay. I'm just concerned with adding one good SP, our offense is going to be elite, though I'd like to see how the Ortiz situation is handled. If they let him walk they really need to add a big bat to replace him. I'm not very comfortable with letting the big slugger in the middle of the order going unreplaced. If Lackey has to be the 5th starter, then I'd look to replace him with anyone else, but I could still see him rebounding to last year's form. I just am not counting on it.

Lol, who's butthurt now? Jeez, and you thought I was mad? You get all bent out of shape every time I say anything you deem to be arrogant. Funny how first it was that you took exception to my use of the word irrelevant, then you attempted to actually discuss baseball, then when you couldn't handle a assessment of your logic, and some counterpoints, you resort to trolling. To top it off, you get butthurt (after calling me butthurt LOL) because I'm too arrogant. It's the internet dude, get over it, stop s***ing your pants every time I say anything you don't see eye-to-eye with.

Since I'm anticipating something about how my breakdown of your logic is a "straw man", I figure I'll just go through it more in detail exactly how this is your logic indeed. This says: 2006 playoffs is relevant, 13 innings from 2011 is relevant, sample sizes are unimportant. This says: that 2006 regular season is relevant as to why his 2011 regular season is irrelevant. Being a top pitcher in 2006 is the same as being THE top pitcher now. That's all in perfect context, in clear text. I have good sarcasm detectors, see? Your logic just doesn't really make sense. Verlander was a good pitcher then, one of the best in the AL, but he was not elite. He is now pretty much a dream pitcher, the best in the league. He's got elite stuff, he's got the command, and he's the biggest workhorse in the league. He's improved since 2006, and if the 2011 regular season isn't more relevant to the 2011 playoffs than the 2006 playoffs and a 13 inning bad stretch in the 2011 playoffs where he was rain delayed TWICE, then this is pointless.

every time I'm discussing something, you butt your head in and try to start s***. You use flimsy ******** logic and irrelevant stats, and when others use better stats than you do, you get mad and say how stupid sabermetrics are. Or you take my posts out of context. If that didn't happen, I wouldn't have to say that sort of s*** all the time, and it's sapping my strength that I have to explain this s*** to you every time, but you do it every time I'm involved in a discussion. You're now veering off subject into past arguments and trying to instigate s***. This is the EPITOME of irrelevance LOL. 13 innings is a s*** sample size, 2006, his rookie season, is irrelevant to today. Your logic is this: 2006 playoffs and 2011 playoffs (13 innings of it) are relevant, but 2011 is not.... But somehow his 2006 regular season is relevant to why 2011 isn't relevant? That's just a maze of circular logic dude. 2006 is irrelevant, recent and large sample sizes suggest he's at an advantage whenever he pitches. You resort to tactics like attacking their posting style. How about you, for once, attack the post and not the poster? This is called ad hominem. You're a fountain of logical fallacies, and you're just proving it with this post. Just because I say these words like "irrelevant" or "logical fallacy" or whatever does not mean it doesn't apply. When it does apply, I'm not going to let you keep debating like you're making a sound, rational argument. Why should I just keep arguing like nothing happened when you take what I said out of context to make it easier for you to defeat? Either it means you're intentionally jerking me off about it, or you're not comprehending what I'm typing properly. Don't get mad at logic bro, just take some time, settle down and try to make a better argument that doesn't involve ad hominem, taking my words out of context, or use out-of-date stats that don't apply to the situation. Now, could you discuss the actual point, and not your squabbles over the words I use?

In 2006 he was a rookie, that's completely irrelevant to today, where he's become the best pitcher in the AL, and is in his prime years. Try again, please.

1. Your argument is flawed, all you're saying is that somehow the Tigers are disadvantaged somehow because they'll be down. Your argument is that there is pressure of some sort. For one, you don't know what it's like to be Justin Verlander, you've never pitched in a major league baseball game, so you don't know the difference between a regular season or playoff game. 2. It is convenient for your argument, because you're trying to discount his regular season, and well over 200 innings worth of performance, because it outshines your crappy sample size of 13 innings interrupted by rain. You keep missing this point. Who cares about this postseason. 13 innings worth of sample size isn't substantial. Verlander is advantaged whenever he starts, because he's that good, 13 innings is simply not enough to counter that with any validity. I don't know how this is so difficult to understand, it seems pretty basic to me. LOL @ YOU for saying Halladay or Lee didn't do their thing when it mattered. Lee shut out the Yankees 24/7 in the playoffs, including the WS twice. Just because he's had a few ass performances doesn't mean he's disadvantaged. Had the Phillies advanced to the NLCS, I'd laugh at you for saying the Brewers had some sort of edge over the Phillies vs. Halladay and Lee because they "couldn't get it done" vs. the Cards. Halladay has pitched playoff no-hitters, and only allowed 1 run vs. the Cardinals, who have one of the best offenses in the majors. That's THIS season, not last season.

I'm sure he's got them at home.

You only want to factor out the regular season because it's convenient for you, so that your 13 innings is the only sample size. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. So because Cliff Lee has stunk in his last 3 or 4 postseason performances, does that mean he's at a disadvantage versus, say, the Cardinals, if the Phillies were down 2-0? This isn't rhetorical, I want to know if you factor in the fact that up to that point, he was pretty much unbeatable in the postseason, including in the World Series and in elimination games. I'll actually say that by the time the Tigers do get to Verlander, regardless of what game it's in, will be facing elimination. I will give the Tigers the advantage in that game, whether it's 3-1 or 3-0. Just like I give the Tigers the pitching edge in game 3 easily. I think if Fister wins tonight, and make's sure to a game 5, that Rangers take game 4, Tigers take game 5 with Verlander, then whoever wins game 6 will win the series (obviously, if it's the Rangers). If the Rangers win tonight, I think they sweep unless Verlander pitches game 4 as an emergency, then they put them down in 5. Tonight's huge, but I don't think it changes who has the advantage when Fister or Verlander are pitching.

I could see a Chicago vs. Boston WS that just might be epic. Anyways, sad to see Theo go, I think it would be better if he'd stayed, I'm sure there's a bunch of people like a700 and iortiz who'll drink to this. I just hope they get a good replacement. They should seriously try and get Terry Ryan out of retirement, he built a powerhouse with a 50 million dollar payroll, imagine what he could build with about a hundred more million.... Just dreaming.

That's total BS. When you're down 3-0, you're disadvantaged for the series, not the game. That does not apply. Your entire argument is based off of 13 innings of a poor sample size (the rain was a factor) and that they're disadvantaged in the series. That's pretty obvious, but if the Tigers win with Fister in game 3, how does that effect game 5? Putting Verlander instantly gives the Tigers the advantage no matter who they're facing, his 24 wins and other league-bests testify to this, 13 innings just doesn't cut it dude, sorry.

What's your sample size though? Verlander is the best pitcher in the AL, if not in baseball, a couple games sample size isn't really going to cut it to say they're at a disadvantage. When you put the best pitcher in baseball out there, you've got the advantage every time.

I think Fister will beat Lewis, and if he doesn't, I think the Tigers will pitch Verlander on short rest

Lolz, "unless Verlander can pull out a victory". Yeah, they really have a disadvantage in that one.

No one remembers the LOB s***, they remember the booted groundball. They don't show his LOB, they show the booted groundball. They focus on the one moment, and call him the goat. He f***ed up, but so did the pitcher, and I don't even remember his name, because no one even talks about it. He f***ed up when he could have closed out the series. He had them down to their last out, their last strike even if my memory serves me correctly. Why isn't he a goat? We focus on Buckner's one play, why don't we focus on whoever-the-hell-that-guy's-name-is' wild pitch?

I thought the Rangers looked pretty invincible for the playoffs vs. the rest of the AL, that offense is so deadly, and they've got solid pitching as well. I'm pulling for them or the Brewers, two teams who haven't won it yet, as well as two teams that I've liked to watch for the past couple of years. Those two offenses could really lights each other up too. Then I hope it's like the '91 WS, walkoffs every game pretty much, no blowouts, game-saving catches, 10-inning shutouts to close out the series, everything. Baseball really needs to shine in WS again, the WS hasn't been all that fun to watch since like 2001 in the competitive sense. Obviously I loved watching the 2004 and 2007 WS, and even 2003 to see the Yanks lose to the huge underdogs, but I'd really like to see something memorable happen in a series where I could appreciate it regardless of the results I guess.

He should join the staff, just not the pitching staff. The coaching staff sounds better. He belongs in the organization, but as a pitcher, no way, we can't count on him for anything but a ERA of about 6 or 7.