User Name

Blah blah blah. I said he wasn't the only sabermetrician in existence. But nice try. I understand you were desperately trying to defend your position, which lacked substance. So you proceeded to exploit a mistake on my part and blow it out of proportion. It's okay, it happens when people have a weaksauce argument. You'll get over it. This is proof that you either don't get the whole "reading comprehension" thing or you're making s*** up because, well, what else can you do when your argument is proven wrong? I said his opinion was not the be-all, end-all, and posted some differing opinions. I stand by that by the way.That is not discrediting him. Again with the strawman thing. You're good at that. You're the one who knowingly lied about his position on sacrificing and stealing bases: Nice going, liar! Anyways, let me put it bluntly: Both James and the Rotochamp projections use an algorithm (the roto one derives from the James one actually) that attempts to eliminate bias from the projections. That was the point of the posting. If you're as smart as you say, you know this, or you don't know this, and you're not as smart as you say. Either way the attempt at redirection is weak. Counter this fact (and it is a fact): Your opinion is not fact. I'm waiting. Aren't you ever going to answer my question directly???? What a liar!

This is the funniest thing i have read in this site. Aces.

That's a lie. I made a mistake because the projection systems are similar. That's the reason why they are both listed on Fangraphs, and in fact, appear in your post. This is also not the point of the argument, the point being that you try to pass your opinion off as fact. You haven't countered that argument and instead resort to weaksauce arguments like this one. Congratulations, you have proven nothing. Prove why your opinions are "fact". I'm waiting. Says the guy who intentionally misinterpreted Tango's position on sacrificing and Stolen Bases. Either that or you pulled his name off the internet. What a joke.

I fixed that. I meant NO GM IS MISTAKE FREE. My bad.

Oh i give him credit. But let's not pretend that he's mistake-free. No GM is.

Maybe he could have with that drafting position. We'll never know.

It's actually RotoChamp that has him projected as a starter. They actually use a projections formula similar to the one Bill James uses. I'm sorry that you have to base your entire argument on the fact that i misread the rankings from similar sources. Reeks of desperation. Also, if anyone misinterprets stats here it's you. Lest i point you yet again to the Tango incident.

It will end. Small-market teams have to go through a rebuilding period every so often. When that happens, the "Andrew Friedman is a genius" rhetoric will end.

Did you not read the post? I did the research. I used Bill James' projections. I find it laughable for you to try to discredit his analysis, which is undoubtedly less biased than yours. Bill James uses a projections formula used to arrive at his conclusions. No more, no less. But they are unbiased, unlike the opinions you love to pass off as fact. Then where did i say that Bailey was better than Papelbon? That was a strawman you set up. Sorry, a spade is a spade. Again, this is an opinion you are trying to pass off as fact. The line between the two is not blurry.

We get it. You didn't like Epstein. But this analysis is very hard to take seriously because of it.

I see your point as well though. We do have "some" AA-AAA depth. But it's never a certainty. So you create cheap veteran competition.

Why would they? No matter how the analysis is presented, you would dismiss it with biased analysis.

I was talking specifically about depth brought from Free Agency. However, think about this: Why would Saunders take a "depth" position when he has two-year offers standing to be a member of a starting rotation? You know why that is? Because Free Agent pitchers who are good enough to crack a team's opening Day Starting Rotation will pitch for team's Opening Day Starting Rotations.

Just as there is no data to substantiate the contrary. You have not done (and if you have, not presented) any sort of research data that proves this point. Opinion. Neither is there data to prove a definite regression. "Intuition" does not a fact make. Conjecture. In fact, Bill James predicts Daniel Bard to provide better production than anything we got out of the four or five spots last year. He predicts Aceves to excel in a swingman role as well. There is no bias in his analysis, and it directly contradicts your points. Where is your research on the subject? Strawman, and not relevant to the overall discussion. Where are the numbers that prove this? You mention sabermetrics yet you give me no analysis or predictions that compare the current 2012 Red Sox to the 2011 ones, in other words, there is no analysis here, merely opinion. There is no objectivity here, since your bias is extremely transparent. By denying the possibility of several players' performances going the other way from what you "expect" shows your lack of objectivity.

I would approve if he takes little money on a non-guaranteed contract.

This is the basis of your error. Because you have no way to accurately predict the performance of a lot of these players, the statements you coin as "factual" are splashed with bias and oppinion. Not to mention that all of this is still irrelevant until the roster is completed. Just take your point about depth: How can you be so sure tat Silva and Cook or one of those other guys will not provide a league average performance? The problem is you can't. And any attempt to state otherwise is merely opinion.

New manager, new GM, new conditioning personnel, roster turnover. If the 2012 Red Sox are about something, that something is change.

Very nice post, and interesting observations. My only point of dispute is Ranaudo, who should not sniff the Majors next year. I would replace him with Alex Wilson, who should be ready come next year, either in a BP or starting role.

How do you know the pen will necessarily be weaker? A couple of guys may step up with fluke seasons a la Ramon Ramirez and we could have the best BP in the league. Opinion. How do you know the pitching has not improved? You can't predict what way the question marks will go. That is nothing but opinion. And your "facts" are irrelevant to the 2012 team, given the unpredictability of personnel changes, new manager and conditioning team.

All of those either opinion-based or irrelevant since the roster is not completed. Those behavioral problems, are they "fact" or your "opinion"? The line seems to be pretty blurry for you.

Not other posters. Posters like you who tend to disrespect posters who disagree with your negative ideas then scream "victim". It's a really annoying and tired act. "You seem to have a problem with that". Oh, and with spouting your opinion as fact too.

If he's going to be a starter, he would have to show that his changeup is effective enough to get LHH out. If he can't get batters out consistently in ST, then he won't win a rotation spot. That's probably how it will work itself out.

Sure, as soon as you apologize for berating me over and over for being optimistic about the Red Sox. I wrote it in a previous post: I call a spade a spade. Anyways, some quotes from Theo Epstein regarding the Red Sox: