Jump to content
Talk Sox
  • Create Account

jad

Verified Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    4,556

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

 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

2026 Boston Red Sox Draft Pick Tracker

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by jad

  1. jad
    Interesting scenario though: since this (that is, my reading of articles XIX and XX until I got a head-ache) looks as if a team could pressure a player into the dreaded 'restructuring' of a contract. i.e., you're not worth 15mil/year to us, but maybe 5-10. How about we waive you, and if you become a FO, we re-sign you at 7, maybe for a few more years. ... Wouldn't other teams and the union object to such deals? And wouldn't the amount of money in the original deal count against the lux. cap?
  2. jad
    Right. But you made another good point earlier. The players' union will not let him leave that money on the table for a chance to play in the bigs. Isn't that how the RS ended up with Manny rather than Arod?-- CBA will not allow players to 'restructure' [nice euphemism!] contracts, i.e., to take less money to improve (in their minds) their situation.
  3. jad
    Hmm. Probably not 'grey' but 'so obscure it might as well be'. Maybe something that should be addressed in the new CBA? A number of provisions seem designed to prevent situations like this: e.g., a rich team should not be able to sign prospects (or veterans for that matter) just to keep another team from getting them, then 'parking' them in the minors. If Castillo has become a legitimate .300 hitter, I want to see him play (either for the RS or for someone else).
  4. jad
    Loved him back when ... way back when. But let's not get carried away. He was a .270 hitter, who often led the league in errors (the announcers ... must have been Curt Gowdy, no? ... explained that this was because he got to so many balls), and had a curious weakness of letting balls hit directly at him go through his legs. For some reason, that image, of him looking over his right shoulder at one of these rolling slowly out to Williams is permanently burned into my mind.
  5. jad
    Oh right. I dimly recall that now. But if that's what they're concentrating on, they may be overlooking the most important factor. Even if he gets his grip 'right' and even if the ball has the same number of rotations (I forget--I think most k-ballers have said one or two--if there are none, it's impossible to control), the ball is not going to act as it does on low humidity days and is likely going to be a lot easier to hit. He and his coaches are spinning their wheels uselessly if they don't factor this in.
  6. jad
    I'm probably missing some esoteric joke here, but I'll play dumb and note that humidity isn't really a 'test' for knuckleballers, it's simply a meteorological fact. The air is less dense, has less resistance, and consequently a knuckleball moves less (curveballs likely have less action as well). Also, contrary to what is generally assumed, hit balls should travel farther. Most commentators claim balls don't travel as well--if they're right (and maybe they are, since I don't know whether it's been tested), it's the result of factors other than air density, which is the one they usually cite (do the balls absorb moisture? does the covering get less resistant?)
  7. jad
    Except that there's no "law of averages" that requires such a hot streak as he had last year, nor does one waste hits by getting them in spring training. You can't keep throwing a .170 hitter out there assuming that there is an MVP-like month in the near future.
  8. jad
    That's what I remember. Are you saying not to worry about his dismal performance this spring?
  9. jad
    Maybe I missed it. But isn't anyone concerned about JBJ's hitting (or lack of it) in ST? Can't remember for sure, but didn't he light it up last spring?
  10. jad
    I notice Castillo is hitting over .400 in ST. Does this mean he may actually show up on the team? (Or does this simply mean they haven't been throwing him any curve balls or fast balls anywhere other than over the plate?)
  11. jad
    I'm sure guys don't like to be moved in the batting order. Wade Boggs ate chicken every day too, and most players won't step on the white lines coming off the field. Whether as a manager you should cater to these silly superstitions--that's a different question.
  12. jad
    So you would be happier if the hundreds of millions of dollars generated by MLB went to the owners and massahs?
  13. jad
    The whole notion of "playing for your country" is absurd. So that all of us, players and fans alike, can show up in pink camo with flag patches and remove our hats when they play God Bless America?
  14. jad
    Maybe the point is that he doesn't give a s*** about the mascot, which then puts him in the same boat as most other humans.
  15. jad
    Doesn't that mean that (at least as far as the use of the word in sports goes) it doesn't exist? My favorite is when sportscasters describe each score as a "change in momentum." I notice they don't use this much in basketball, which would reveal how dumb-ass the word and the idea behind it is. I suppose there are cases where the term might seem to apply: when you're getting your butt whipped in any sport, you often give up--surely we all know what THAT feels like!--but this has nothing to do with "momentum"--it has to do with "getting down because you're getting your butt whipped."
  16. jad
    Exactly. Another one was Posada's 'hit'; if he had actually gotten more of the ball, it would have been a routine fly ball: Martinez would have been called gritty and a beast, and Grady Little would have been hailed a genius.
  17. jad
    If you think performing in an athletic contest is "one of the best feelings in the world," then it is us who should be feeling sorry for YOU, not the other way around!
  18. jad
    I don't think this is quite what the argument is. As I understand it, those of us who don't believe in clutch players (but of course do believe in singular clutch performances) are saying "Go ahead and define it any way you want". You will then obviously find players who, say, perform better than others in those situations (they are more skilled generally), and players who over a year, say, perform better in those situations than they do in normal situations. What statisticians and historians have not found is a player who does that consistently, year after year. No one is saying we are going to give up talking about a 'clutch' hit because we don't agree on a definition.
  19. jad
    I'm not sure I understand. There are lots of terms of "received wisdom" that become repeated so often they begin to be taken as fact. To say they are opinions and "accepted" opinions doesn't validate them at all. For some of these terms, the entire point of critiquing them is to question whether this received wisdom has any basis in fact (in part, the point of Moneyball, no?). And that seems to me a legitimate discussion: can "clutch" be supported statistically? It's quite different from "team-player," which we all know, even when we use it, is so vague as to be virtually meaningless (like the terms "nice guy, a-hole.")
  20. jad
    Since most of us can relate to the "choking at golf" reference, is there anyone here who claims that in golf, their best performance (longest drives, best putts) is consistently when there is the most pressure? That when the chips are down (who knows what that might be?), THAT'S when their drives are suddenly 25-50 yards farther and right in the middle of the fairway, and all those 8ft putts, which they ordinarily miss, are in the hole? (I can't speak to this, since the only shots I even remember are the good ones.)
  21. jad
    Clutch. Team Identity. Heart. Momentum (my personal favorite!) Then Intangibles, "Knows how to win," Grit, Mental toughness, ... Most so abstract as to be utterly meaningless; others statistically proven to be bunk. But you're right. They provide us with a ridiculous language with which we can discuss what is essentially an escape from reality. Some in addition provide us with the illusion that there is really no difference between us and them (whether players, managers, or GMs).
  22. jad
    Wow. I get it! Like "cheat" plus "Patriots"! That is hysterical!!! Because, yeah, you mean, like, the football deflation thing?? Wow! That's awesome, and so timely. That's almost as intricate as the absolutely jaw-dropping witticism: "Bellicheat". Probably you've never heard that one. Get it? I mean like Bill Belichick plus CHEAT? See? (Wait while I catch my breath-- dying here!!) It's really unfair for professional writers and comedians to post on these boards.
  23. jad
    So the RS apparently need more help at 2b than they do at pitching? If this were part of something else, wouldn't that 'something else' come first? You can always waive or 'salary-dump' someone later, no? (or is there some abstruse clause in the CBA making it advantageous to get rid of salary first?)
  24. jad
    "Target" you? I think it's far more likely that your worst paranoid fears are true: "new" posters don't give a crap about you.
  25. jad
    This makes no sense to me. Are the WS betting that Moncada can learn to hit a curve ball in three years? Or are they just content to have a cheaper version of Castillo in their farm system?
×
×
  • Create New...