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
    Come on iortiz. Just admit you were wrong. It's not that hard.
  2. User Name
    I did. I was wrong. But at least I wasn't hyping him up like he was on the highway to the HOF. Don't make this about me. You're the one who said "He's an ace!"
  3. User Name
    So fitting that this matchup is Shields v Porcello considering how much we've compared them to each other here.
  4. User Name
    But Shields is an ace iortiz!
  5. User Name
    I'd like him better if he was funny like his "cousin".
  6. User Name
    I wanna punch him in his stupid (but admittedly very handsome) face.
  7. User Name
    They have enough time to test/fix whatever they would do, since they can't do anything until 2020.
  8. User Name
    Who's talking about being in a hurry on anything? What are you even talking about? This is all about future improvements, because as has been stated ad nauseum in this thread, the current union contract runs until 2020. They can't do anything until then, but when they can/if they decide to, the technology exists to improve the efficiency of strike calling. That's what's being discussed here.
  9. User Name
    They just tested out a system where they had, A) A person making the strike/ball calls for the umpire using existing technology, Relaying the info of whether it was a ball or strike to the umpire, but he made the actual calls. You need to get out of your cave. Get with the times. This is all existing technology and they just need ways to apply it.
  10. User Name
    Roman has no mic skills. He sucks either way.
  11. User Name
    Ortiz confirmed he failed a test himself. There's no further need to justify anything. It came straight out of the horse's mouth.
  12. User Name
    I'm talking about the pitch f/x technology. How do you think they actually capture the data? Voodoo magic?
  13. User Name
    Ortiz himself confirmed he failed a test in 2003. http://m.mlb.com/news/article/6148200/ "Rumored" right?
  14. User Name
    Shields, who sucks. Vs Porcello. Please win this you *******s.
  15. User Name
    Ambrose is f***ing hilarious and he appears to everyday guys like us just like Daniel Bryan did. I fail to understand why WWE has to have a beast-type guy as champion. Sometimes more is less, and sometimes less is more. Roman "Bland" Reigns and Ambrose being excellent examples.
  16. User Name
    The playing field is already loaded up with cameras. It's just using existing technology. How in the actual f*** is that "wing-nut"?
  17. User Name
    science!
  18. User Name
    I think it's more the walk rate than anything else, as his contact profile and K% are both great.
  19. User Name
    Trading ERod for Pomeranz plugs a hole creating another.
  20. User Name
    But Ortiz actually failed a test yet Clemens didn't. Even if it was just a "leaked" report, there is tangible evidence in Ortiz' case that does not exist in Clemens' case. One is clearly more crooked than the other (Clemens threw his wife under the bus), but the fact is that, even if unknowingly, Ortiz used PED's just like Clemens did. For the purposes of this discussion, and the absolutists who brought it on, then they are both to be measured with the same stick. You are making the point I have been trying to make all along. The whole "If he used PED's, get him off my team or don't sign him!" rhetoric is incorrect, as every case is different.
  21. User Name
    Volatility of knuckeballers and Buchholz' overall health and performance history. After all, the best way to project future performance is past performance right?
  22. User Name
    The problem here is that one is a lot more likely than the other.
  23. User Name
    None of those are directly referenced in the rule book in a way that's meant to be specifically enforced. It's an apples to oranges comparison.
  24. User Name
    We'd have to refer to the actual studies, since not only is there more than one study, and the "soft zone" conclusion is the blog writer's not either study. Then again, there are studies that use "true zone" instead of the one defined by the rulebook, and the error rate difference is not statistically significant. (It's there though)
  25. User Name
    In the meantime, he's hitting like a pitcher against lefties. That's an undeniable fact.
×
×
  • Create New...