User Name
-
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
-
Jorge Posada retired.
-
It depends on Madson's price. But Garza would cost a lot of high-tier talent, which hamstrings you for the future either way. Besides, he's honestly not that good. At least not as good as what his acquisition cost is going to be.
-
-
For the record, he likely won't. It has been pointed out several times by Palodios, but he refuses to acknowledge that arb doesn't work like that. He won't jump from 2-3 mill to 12.5 mill like Papelbon is making next year, so no matter how he pitches, substantial savings in relation to Papelbon will be had.
-
I still don't understand why people blame the Lackey and Crawford signing on Theo only when Lucchino himself has been quoted as saying that he had "some" influence in those signings.
-
Of course it's faulty for you, because you always see the absolutely worse possible scenario. You are consistent, i'll give you that.
-
-
In most, not all situations. There are a lot of aspects in which you need to run a baseball team like, well, a baseball team. It's a hybrid, not only a business, smart ass. Try applying some of your "Business management" techniques to scouting, conditioning and on-field management of a baseball team. I'll wait here.
-
Did you see what i quoted? The "asinine" part refers to the whining about the team being cheap for the owner to make a few bucks because they refuse to spend 500 million dollars for the second straight offseason. The team has budgetary limits. Be realistic.
-
-
It's like a black hole for logic.
-
I'm not talking about luck. Conditioning problems are something everyone have mentioned. It's beating a dead horse. The reason why we're comparing both teams is because some posters here are seriously underestimating the talent of the 2011 team. The point of the comparison is showing how good the 2011 Red Sox really were, and how they could have "succeeded" with better conditioning and a couple of breaks going their way. Statistically (which is how you compare teams and players) the 2011 Sox were a lot better than people give them credit for, character problems or no. The 2012 team will be very good as well. It is good as currently constructed. One starting pitcher and a couple of bullpen arms, and the Sox are as good as any team in the MLB. The conclusion of all this being that the 2012 will contend, because it is loaded with talent, and because the correct steps were taken to correct the attitude problems for the team. At least that's how i see my half-full glass.
-
It's not inconsistent. What we're attempting to do here is find an objective answer. What is not black and white is the process. You are (as usual) interpreting what you want. Also, the age argument is invalid. It balances out because as some players get past their peak, some reach it. So that isn't so easy to identify in a black and white manner either. Baseball, as a sport, is not a business, so while sometimes it is pertinent to apply business precepts to baseball analysis, it is not pertinent to apply it in this discussion. The results of a baseball season have too many confounders to be painted as black and white, which was my point. Again, the 2006 Cardinals won it all, and they were not the best team in the playoffs. This is not even debatable. So can you say they were the best because of the results? That's why you need to eliminate the noise when making an analysis like this. Same for the 2003 Marlins, the 2008 Phillies and several other teams.
-
The 2004 team had zero injuries to her rotation and bullpen. Did the same happen to the 2011 team? It's not so black and white. That's an incorrect analysis, plain and simple. You have to compare the teams on a neutral environment. Eliminating the subjective noise is what the "ultra advanced stats" are for.
-
Excellent logic. Rate the team by results. That 2006 Cards sure was better than the 2001 Yanks and Mariners, because they won it all.
-
That's exactly why stats like OPS+ and ERA+ was created. The current shift towards pitching has left the MLB looking nothing like the Mid-00's roid rage years. Saying that the 2021 team won't stay healthy makes no sense to me. We have no way of knowing that. Isn't that why they brought a new manager, replaced part of the coaching staff and brought in a new conditioning team?
-
-
Such eloquent discourse. Always a pleasure arguing with baseball luminaires such as yourself.
-
Hey i'm just throwing it out there for DISCUSSION. Besides, you didn't set any parameters for the COMPARISON.
-
wut?
-
If you want to compare teams against each other, it's a good idea to compare them against the league to ascertain their standing relative to said league each year. OPS+ and ERA+ help clear some of the noise of the 2004-2011 comparison. The 2004 Red Sox had a 110 OPS+ and 117 ERA +, but the 2011 Red Sox had a 117 OPS+ and 102 ERA+. The 2011 version also had way better defense but its pitching staff was ravaged by injuries. You can make the argument that a healthy 2011 pitching staff could have been better relative to league average numbers than the 2004 staff. Make of that what you will.
-
Give me number four and i'm set.
-
Whatever you say Doomsday Device.
-
Slide-step pitching usually makes the pitcher lose some velocity, bite and location on his pitches too. You can control the running game without having to slide-step.
-
I wasn't arguing the fact that they're #7. I'm arguing the fact that the team is not good. If they can improve the conditioning of the recurring cast you mentioned, some of the problems from the last two years could be alleviated. But injury problems or no injury problems, the Red Sox are a good team.
