Jump to content
Talk Sox
  • Create Account

User Name

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    18,192

  • 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 User Name

  1. User Name
    No, it's as annoying as a bulging hemorrhoid while in an off-road cross-country race. I hadn't seen someone make so much s*** up in such a short period of time since Trump announced his presidential candidacy.
  2. User Name
    So does Swihart. The best overall player will play. It's a good problem to have.
  3. User Name
    Also, the Marlins traded for Gary Sheffield, moved him to the OF, and then gave him a 4-year extension. It's not unheard of to move an IF to the OF to hide his glove or protect his health.
  4. User Name
    It's a problem of prospect redundancy. Too deep at certain positions will force position changes to guarantee playing time for the better hitting prospects. It is what it is.
  5. User Name
    They signed a SS, and moved him to LF for a season, so fundamentally it is. The Sox grabbed a SS and intended to put him in LF for two, as we all know he was going to DH once Ortiz retired. Let's be reasonable.
  6. User Name
    Except that it is, and he just proved it. You could prove that point with teams like Oakland and Cleveland as well, who find consistent closers on a near-yearly basis. Numbers are reality, your opinion is not. You're just flat out wrong in this instance.
  7. User Name
    That is fundamentally wrong. The actual problem with the WAR formula and relievers is that it is very innings-dependent. Even the explanation in the fangraphs website specifies that WAR for SP is naturally higher than the WAR for relievers, and that's how it should be. Relief pitchers (even closers) cannot impact a season the same way that an SP or a position do, because they just don't play as much. As I've said many times before, the CL position is important, but overrated.
  8. User Name
    The median closer hovered aroundd 1 WAR. Only 8 closers overall doubled that output. Carson Smith was one of them (although he was promoted into the CL role later in the season) Craig Kimbrel and Jonathan Papelbon were not. Although Kimbrel had hit the mark in every prior year the last three years.
  9. User Name
    But he's not that Papelbon anymore, which is the point. We're talking Kimbrel, Chapman et al versus the guy who's spent the last three whining, choking his teammates and being just "good".
  10. User Name
    A lot of teams are suppossed to attend his showcase, meaning there's a lot of interest. He's probably going to get a guaranteed deal somewhere.
  11. User Name
    It would be more worrisome if it was actually true (the trend I mean).
  12. User Name
    Also, to further the point that Porcello's problem was mostly sequencing, he generated the lowest GB% of his career, gave up the most homers by both numbers and rate of his career, but also generated the most strikeouts while providing negative value on all three of his secondary pitches. None of that had ever happened in Porcello's career. A quick glance at his pitch locations for the last couple years also shows no huge differences in the place he located his GB-inducing pitches.
  13. User Name
    Rick Porcello sinker usage by season: 2009: 77% 2010: 70% 2011: 65% 2012: 67% 2013: 61% 2014: 57% 2015: 66% In 2014, his best year in MLB, he threw the least sinkers of his entire MLB career. Last year he was actually more sinker-reliant than any year in the last three seasons. Also, Porcello's main problem last year was a change in pitching philosophy and sequencing (why change what worked?). Last but not least, per pitch value, Porcello's sinker has been a plus pitch for the last three years (with 2015 being the worst of course). But yet again, this is another instance where jung doesn't take the thirty seconds needed to actually check numbers, and spouts a bunch of made-up crap. Par for the course.
  14. User Name
    He doesn't actually know how regression works either, because statistically, regression can also work positively.
  15. User Name
    In what basket would Pablo fit though? It'd be more like a crate.
  16. User Name
    True, I apologize. Then again, come on.....
  17. User Name
    jung is ridiculous.
  18. User Name
    Or all of them at the same time.
  19. User Name
    Self-correction: The info on AFB is not fully up-to date, but the point stands.
  20. User Name
    You do know AFB is almost a full two MPH lower for lefties than it is for righties right? Owens has above-average fastball velocity for a lefty starter. That said, the rest of your post is also not really correct. Contact is a problem, but command and control are issues also.
  21. User Name
    Could you please stop making s*** up? He's not a soft-tosser.
  22. User Name
    Oh, jung is making stuff up. What are the odds?
  23. User Name
    But we can't count him out either until he proves he's absolutely not an MLB talent. Goes both ways. Same for JBJ (offensively) honestly.
  24. User Name
    That is, of course, provided Rusney really sucks.
  25. User Name
    You said it yourself: One, not both, with Pablo being the most likely of the two. The one aspect we're overlooking is health, and Hanley isn't exactly Ripken out there.
×
×
  • Create New...