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
    Exactly the point. It's not about separating dWar and oWar, but rather the wins as a whole. That year, his overall WAR was 0.9, and Lin's offensive production is unlikely to be much better than that, however, Taveras stole 68 bases last year, a feat Lin would never be able to replicate. And just because he could have an overall WAR that is not negative doesn't make him a viable starting option for this team, specially considering every other option could have a better overall WAR, which is why i say you're not consistent, and i'd like to see you disprove that point.
  2. User Name
    No you haven't. You used Coco's 2007 as a benchmark, which is fine, until you realize he was both a near-league average producer, and that he had an otherworldly defensive season. The little of Lin you've watched doesn't justify equating his defense to either Ellsbury or Crisp himself, and there are no metrics to back this point up, so all you have is wishful thinking and assumption. There's also the point (and it is valid) that his awful offensive production would drag his overall value down, at least per the WAR measurement. You can't say from one side of your mouth that we're overvaluing offense while trying to use WAR to prove your point then disregard the importance WAR itself gives to offense. Be consistent.
  3. User Name
    The ZIPS predictions in this case use AAA data and attempt to turn it to MLB numbers. Without a significant amount of MLB data, they are basically worthless.
  4. User Name
    Nice strawman. The point is that his offense would be so bad that it would negate his defensive contribution, as i pointed out two posts above that.
  5. User Name
    Career .702 OPS and ISOp under .100 during his Minor League career. His BA is also consistently low, meaning it would take a miracle for him to sustain his decent OBP in the Majors. And if he can't get on base, he can't steal either. How is he an upgrade over Ross or Sweeney again?
  6. User Name
    No he wouldn't. Lin's offensive WAR would be so far down in the negatives that any defensive value he brings to the table would be negated. He can't hit for average because of low line drive rates, meaning that both his offensive skills (OBP and speed) would be compromised anyways. He's just not a realistic major league option. Both Sweeney (who can get on base and play D) and Ross (who's average on D but can hit) have more going for them than Lin. As for Soxport's first post of the thread, why does the guy continue with this line of dribble? The Sox' whole philosophy for 2010 was Run Prevention, and it got a ton of publicity, and to a certain extent, media approval, just like Seattle's attempt from the last couple years.
  7. User Name
    I'm not arguing against bringing Damon on board. My point was (and there's no room for interpretation here) that Sweeney is not useless and can get on base at an above average clip.
  8. User Name
    Too much truth in this post.
  9. User Name
    The most important thing an offensive player can do: Getting on base.
  10. User Name
    A lot of people don't think he's ready, but from the way Valentine is pimping him up, it seems he may become the new everyday SS for the Red Sox.
  11. User Name
    Probably the best course of action would be to allow the DH in the entire league.
  12. User Name
    Do you roll your eyes when people are ridiculous? I know i do.
  13. User Name
    The literal interpretation of the phrase exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis or "the exception confirms the rule in cases not excepted" means that the exception strengthens the rule. The popular characterization of "Exception proves the rule" as a misnomer started when people started it out of context. It is meant to be used as a link in the chain of relativism + non-absolutism. Basically, since it is said, "there are no absolutes", the fact that the phrase itself would mean an absolute, meaning it would contradict itself, therefore meaning that the only way the rule would be correct is if it allowed for an exception. In this context, while it absolutely spits in the face of the theory of non-contradiction, because every viewpoint cannot be correct, but the problem with that is every viewpoint cannot be wrong either. As you mention in your post, we cannot prove absolute truth or fallacy to anything. In short: No absolutes.
  14. User Name
    I've done a 180 on the ignore feature. This forum is much more enjoyable because of it. On topic: Valentine, on Bard's outing:
  15. User Name
    Yeah, i don't know why, but the game's blacked out on MLB.TV and i'm at work. Care to recap?
  16. User Name
    Five-pitch first inning for Bard, now struggling with his command in the second.
  17. User Name
  18. User Name
  19. User Name
  20. User Name
    Is it really? If you believe that is the "absolute" definition of what happens when you put two elements together, then there is indeed no need to discuss this further.
  21. User Name
    Desperate about what? Also, the point is that it was a "fact" that the sun spun around earth, until it was disproven.
  22. User Name
    I already mentioned the "1 + 1" case in my response to Elktonnic. As you always say "don't be lazy and go back and read the thread".
  23. User Name
    Then the sun still spins around the earth.
  24. User Name
    Those facts that may not be "facts" a couple years down the line.
  25. User Name
    The literal definition of the phrase that coined the "The exception proves the rule" says, in its literal legal interpretation, that just because there are exceptions to the rule, it does not mean the rule is not important, or effective. As for the changing definitions, if the literal meaning changes, then so does the nature of the fact, discrediting its existence as fact. I also don't understand why you have to make this personal? It's a running gag for you to call anyone who disagrees with your opinion a "troll", or some other sort of witty adejctive. How am i a troll? I am defending my opinion and not insulting anyone in the process. Unless you can prove without a shadow of a doubt that something is an universal truth, and no other argument about it has merits, it's not absolute.
×
×
  • Create New...