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
    I still can't make sense of all the homers and K's. He's a f***ing Shields impersonator out there. The surprising part is that he's not leading the league in HR's allowed. Hell, he' not even top 5!
  2. User Name
    Oh God I remember that. I think Nava may have single-handedly been responsible for the Sox' below average 2013 baserunning rating. God that dude sucks on the bases.
  3. User Name
    Well I do live in a place where machete fights are still a thing, so I've got that going for me, which is nice.
  4. User Name
    Because an erroneous decision with a correct outcome is still an erroneous decision. It's not rocket science. Young hasn't been able to hit righties consistently since 2011, and that's the reason why we were able to sign him as a part-time player. Maybe Chili fixed him, but this isn't about "maybes", this is about proven trends. Again, what happens when (not if) Young starts badly struggling against righties (particularly the higher quality ones) again?
  5. User Name
    Porcello was actually decent. QS, not a crazy amount of hits/baserunners. A-Ok.
  6. User Name
    You should doubt yourself more often Ted.
  7. User Name
    I'm not actually interested enough to go check box score by box score either, but it's an issue of sample normalization more than mean deviation. The problem with the lower end is that there is of course a limited number you can obtain in that instance (0) as opposed to the upper end (INF), so there needs to be some accounting for that factor when referring to "outliers". Baseball stats are not a zero-sum game.
  8. User Name
    Obvious. I didn't wanna name names though.
  9. User Name
    2013:-1.0 2014:-3.5 2015:0.2 2-16:-1.7
  10. User Name
    You know, I was going to make an idiot joke here, but I'll pass. Just know that in 2004, being an idiot was en vogue.
  11. User Name
    Good times.
  12. User Name
    Price better not f*** this up.
  13. User Name
    I wonder what seabeachfred thinks about that?
  14. User Name
    Young has hit for an OPS under .650 over his last 700 PA's against righties. Those of us who called for him not to play against righties were right. Just because a move pans out, doesn't mean it's correct. Also, he's been red-hot for a couple weeks, but what happens when he cools down? If he goes all the way down to career norms against righties (a significant possibility) you better be sure you can take as much s*** as you're dishing out. The hilarious part is that I've been a staunch supporter of both Farrell and Chris Young when he signed, but don't you dare criticize anyone or anything, because there's some ******* on this website (plenty of them, without naming names) ready and willing to tell you how terrible you are at life.
  15. User Name
    Jesus, two of them? I know a semi-pro guy who's played for over thirty years and has never gotten one.
  16. User Name
    Where? Most of the opinion pieces are advocating for automating balls and strikes because umpires aren't getting better (they're just weeding out the worst ones) and a bunch of umpires have their very own personal strike zones. Also, the technology exists right now to measure balls and strikes with an efficiency of over 99% with an error margin of an inch, regardless of batter height. As for the "where does the strike zone start or end", that's just a silly argument.
  17. User Name
    Sports are not only about athleticism. Do you even know how goddamned hard it is to be good at golf?
  18. User Name
    The whine is real.
  19. User Name
    What part of don't f*** this up did Porcello not goddamn understand?
  20. User Name
    This is punny.
  21. User Name
    If you say rekt again in such a timely manner, then perhaps......
  22. User Name
    Porcello better not f*** this up.
  23. User Name
    That's not viable statistically. You'd have to take away both the five best and five worst of every team then compare ERAs to have a viable sample size, since what you're doing is eliminating outliers. You can't eliminate the bad but keep the good.
  24. User Name
    Rekt. Sorry, had to steal this.
  25. User Name
    This doesn't even make sense, but it does make you sound pretentious, so....success?
×
×
  • Create New...