User Name

This is a typical example of flawed SoxSports logic. The reason Verlander lost his first game (the one in which he allowed 4 ER) was because the manager let him start the 9th after he was clearly gassed, he gave up a run and loaded the bases with one out, and then the closer came in, set up to fail, and gave up the tying run. I was watching that game because i have Verlander on two fantasy teams. Stop making s*** up.

Aces.

God i hate myself so much for having CC on my fantasy team.

SoxSport is a broken record. He makes the same post with different words every time he logs in. It's like nails on a chalkboard.

All you're doing is reinforcing the notion that teams pay big money for mediocre pitchers based on a s***** statistic. How much money teams paid doesn't factor into how good or effective they are. Valverde is the perfect example. If you can't dispute my claim that he is A) Lucky, B ) Statistically not that good, then your claims hold little water. Honestly, would you want Valverde closing games for the Red Sox on a big money contract? If you would, then you really don't like the Sox very much.

Stop your back-patting brah. Several others saw Sweeney's potential for improvement and mentioned his OBP skills the moment the Sox got him. Some of us even got mocked for saying the guy could be good. Some of the posters doing the mocking are now riding in the bandwagon.

He sucks and he's lucky. You're falling into your typical logical fallacy of attempting to A ) discount stats with your opinion, and B ) Assigning your own opinion to my interpretation of the stats. The numbers show that while he had a great year last year, he was very lucky. The one who's fooling himself is you. It's not about me liking BB/9, it's about the numbers, which are out there for all to see, proving that he's not an upper tier closer.

Not it hasn't. K rate since 2006: 12.59 10.91 10.38 9.33 9.00 8.59 5.59 (Small sample) That constitutes a trend. What's disingenuous is not looking at the entire picture. For six years running? No small sample. That's the problem. Valverde is not an elite closer. If the BABIP normalizes (and it probably will if his LD% keeps increasing like last year) he's going to get hammered. The point is that Cordero had a similar history of light decline, followed by his K rate falling off a cliff as you say. While Cordero's situation was a bit more extreme, not only was it similar, but he didn't have the added problematic of a 4 + BB/9. Or he's just not that good, and with a declining K rate and massive BB/9, he's going to walk the park and get hammered.

Facts are backed by reliable statistics, not opinions: Valverde has had a BB/9 over 4 the last two years and over six this year. Fact. Valverde has had a declining K rate since 2007. Fact. Valverde's success has been BABIP (.247 last year) fueled. Fact. In fact, a statistical decline was predicted by most projection systems, including ZIPS and Bill James. But hey, 70 saves (the only stat worse than saves are RBIs) over the last two seasons. You know who else had back-to-back seasons of sub 3.30 ERA and 70 saves? Francisco Cordero. Guess what? He sucks too, and now he's an afterthought. The law of averages catches up to these pitchers who are a heart attack in the 9th inning eventually. And by the way, both Valverde and Cordero (as well as Carlos Marmol, Kevin Gregg and the pitcher formerly known as Leo Nunez) are good examples of why closers are so overrated. Because of the sample, and the situations in which they pitch, otherwise ineffective relievers can be seen as "mid-tier" or even "near-elite" closers. And those are actual facts, backed up statistically, not by opinion, unreliable samples, and bias.

He deserves credit....for being lucky and keeping up the charade this long. He stinks.

Oh the 9th is different, but it's not a mythical inning only conquered by the Papelbons of the world. "Like it or not". Also, Valverde was extremely lucky last year, which is why St13 keeps talking about how much he sucks, because, well.....he sucks. .247 BABIP and 82 LOB%? Bound for regression, which is exactly what's happening.

This. No proof that the 9th is "something else". Valverde just sucks ass.

blablabla Aceves can't close.....blablabla starting pitching sucks.....blablabla third place......

Exactly the problem. Why would a rebuilding franchise trade for an expensive player which they would only control for two seasons, who is fairly expensive, and for whom they have cheap in-house replacements with very high long-term potential? It doesn't make any sense. I'm sorry, but Youk to Seattle is a pipe dream.

Except he wouldn't be. They have Justin Smoak at first, who has massive potential and will be given every opportunity to develop. And at third, Youkilis is not very good defensively and would be going to a park that completely neutralizes righty power, and they have great organizational depth at third. Youkilis has very little value for the Mariners.

Oooooh buuuuuuurn!

He sustained it over half a season last year. A one-time occurrence, not a recurring theme.

Easy on the hyperbole. Half a season doesn't erase a career of mediocrity.

The team is better served with Bard as a starter. I don't understand how people can be certain Cook will succeed as a starter in the ALE.

Now no one bitches about the Red Sox or "hates the current team". Interesting.

Lol Macdonald. Lol Macdonald. Lol Macdonald

Gonzalez takes exactly the same approach as Ortiz at the plate. Swing at early strikes, become more selective as the count becomes deeper. I've been following the guys since San Diego, and he's been successful with that approach. I don 't understand how anyone here can think they have an "approach that works better" for Gonzalez. Seriously.