There was certainly a time when looking at W-L records could be a lot of fun.
Wilbur Wood had the following W-L records from 1971 to 1975:
22-13
24-17
24-20 😁
20-19
16-20
Sam has now been tasked with subtly walking back that comment while at the same time chastising us all a bit more for doubting their tireless, well-meaning efforts.
Let's not be cursing out other posters, please. Red isn't literally telling anyone what they can talk about or not. He's basically saying it's a waste of time talking about some things because the team just isn't doing them. I get that he does it in a needling way, but he's not crossing any lines. Telling others to eff off does cross the line.
It may be just as simple as Henry setting the payroll at $10 million below the first tax threshold or whatever, and leaving it up to baseball operations to figure out the rest. And then within operations there may be a lot of disagreement about pricing and roster strategy.
That's the way it looks, anyway.
'We were really interested in keeping Garrett (Crochet) with us for a long time. We just didn't quite line up in terms of a contract extension that made sense for everyone. We wish him the best."
And now it's my turn to utter this gem: hope is not a strategy.
But seriously, these guys have shown an inordinate capacity to fall short on their bids the last several years.
I don't think anyone would be stunned if it happens again.
Like I keep saying, somethin' just ain't right in that Red Sox Front Office. If there's an intelligent decision-making process going on, I have no idea what it is.
And I'd feel okay about this except I'm not really bursting with optimism about that extension for Crochet. I don't doubt they make him an offer but I do doubt their ability to get it done.
I don't disagree. But man, they just made a blockbuster trade of prospect capital to get Crochet, and they only have him for 2 years guaranteed.
They're still not making a lot of sense.
For a few years MLB was actually tracking "game-winning RBIs" using the same principles as the "winning pitcher" rules (the RBI that puts you ahead to stay) before abandoning it.
Craig says a lot of stuff. He questioned why anyone would be talking about trading Casas, and then tried to do just that.
I like him, but when it comes to leveling with us, these guys are all the same!
Very reasonable take.
And I do get why wins still mean something to starting pitchers. It's one of those things that's just kind of wired into them. It's what these guys do for a living, after all. And you will see managers sometimes trying to get the pitcher the win by getting him through the 5th inning. OTOH you see managers throw that right out the window sometimes too.
I think Bregman might be this year's Jordan Montgomery for Sox fans - a guy we talk and talk about mainly just because he hasn't signed with someone else yet, then find out there was really very little interest in them.
Yeah, the fact that a reliever can get charged with a blown save but also credited with a win is another thing that should put this to bed. The guy gets a win for not doing his job and basically takes the win from the guy who deserved it. Makes no sense whatsoever.
Nolie Ryan's 1987 season should put this argument to bed forever. 8-16 with a 2.76 ERA. It's a thing of beauty in its own way.
Nolie is one of the poster boys for misleading W-L records. A measly .526 winning pct. with a 3.19 ERA and 5,714 K's.
Winning is the most important thing for the team, no question. But why should any one player be credited with the win? That's kind of a dumb idea in itself. Pitchers have rarely contributed any run scoring to their teams, and run scoring is half the game.