jad
-
Posts
4,610 -
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 Tracker: Picks & Bonuses
Forums
Blogs
Events
Store
Downloads
Gallery
Everything posted by jad
-
Well, true. Ramirez played 15 or so more games than Holt or Nava (which may be worth 1mil. or so per game; not sure). Sandoval was pretty durable (except for that two year stretch around 2011). So yes, as long as they play more games than Holt or Nava, then indeed they play more games. (Doesn't really matter if you miss them due to injury, as did both Ramirez and HOlt, or because you define a player as 'not full time', whatever that means).
-
OK. so they now signed two phenomenally expensive .270-.280 hitters. But given that they already have two phenomenally cheap .270-.280 hitters at these positions in Holt and Nava, I don't see that this is going to turn things around.
-
Humorous Side of Baseball, Especially Red Sox Baseball
jad replied to curiousd's topic in Boston Red Sox Talk
Not sure why there is such wrath directed toward J.D.Drew. He was an ok hitter (.280) signed to a surprising contract by the Dodgers, where he did EXACTLY as he should have been expected to do (rather than magically becoming as good as his contract), then with the RS, where the same thing happened: he continued to be what he always was--around .280. The RS front office and management seems to have the idea that guys they hire will somehow perform to the standard at which they are paid (e.g., Crawford or S. Drew this year); and by the same token, if they are not paid well, why then they couldn't possibly be one of the best hitters on the team (e.g., Nava last year, benched through much of the post-season, and even to some extent this year). I sincerely hope Castillo meets their strange expectations, but it will be amusing to watch, either way. -
But they did replace Drew, with Drew, who was unable to fill the big shoes he left behind.
-
That makes him one of the top hitters on the team.
-
Thank goodness they got rid of all that deadwood pitching to produce the swat for this 5-hit attack.
-
Didn't Clemens get tossed in the first (or second?) inning of a playoff game for cursing at the ump? (Or is that what you were alluding to.)
-
At least the 2012 team had someone they could pretend to blame!
-
Sox vs. ... Like who gives a crap?
jad replied to jad's topic in Mike Grace Memorial Game Thread Forum
It was easier to follow them through horrendous years in the 50s and 60s because the rosters were relatively stable--it was 'our' guys, for better or worse. Ike Delock and Gary Geiger? well, that's who we got. I don't know who these guys are now, or why they're out there--why root for Craig? or WMB? or whoever is on the mound if they aren't likely to be on the team next year and in some cases don't represent it now? (Not asking to return to the exploitative, pre-free-agent days; it's just the way things are. And the FO isn't making things any clearer by dumping 3 of 5 starting pitchers--and destroying the one strength the team apparently had.) -
So the year is so calamitous that no one even bothers to follow or comment on games anymore?
-
Is the idea that since the Sept collapse was inexplicable, as was winning last year, as was this year's debacle, the best policy is just to flail wildly dealing & acquiring players seemingly irrationally, in expectation that the Benign Indifference of the Universe will dump a championship into your lap every few years regardless?
-
Yes. See above.
-
Ticket prices are not directly related to salaries. They are set to produce maximum revenue (duh! not to match salaries) and thus depend solely on what people are willing to pay. They would be exactly the same if players were making half what they are making and would be exactly the same if player salaries tripled.
-
I really hope there is a sound reason for this, because it seems to defy ordinary human reason. If he 'plays average', (and even that is an 'if'), THEN he will be worth 10/year for 7 years. But why commit such a sum even to a proven 'average' player? since by definition, 'average' players will always be available for 'average' salaries? Whatever plan there is seems to be shrouded in mystery, as no two RS fans seem to agree what it is. (And 700--you're right; this is very much what Cherington said earlier this year--the roster was perfectly fine; it was just that they weren't performing up to expectations.)
-
Never meant to imply that Manny didn't have 'heart' or whatever (this is the problem when we argue using abstractions!). He's the best hitter I ever saw--and I'm sure he didn't get what looked like perfect balance and timing by what many call "Manny being Manny".
-
Well, there's no argument that DP is a great player AND has heart. I don't see how that supports the notion of the importance of 'intangibles', since what he does is perfectly measurable (hitting/fielding). There's no way of knowing if he's a great player BECAUSE he has heart, or that heart is "why" he's a great player. Manny, for example, was a great player but (according to some) didn't have heart; and I'm sure there are thousands of professional players languishing in the minors who have much more 'heart' than he does. What makes a great player is how they perform, and how they perform is measurable (although not perfectly). We fans like displays of energy or heart; statistics don't care about that. But what matters in sports is performance--the fact that the ball gets over the fence--not how it got there. I'm thinking of Youkilis's childish displays of 'heart'--or the displays of 'heart' (that is 'tantrums') by, say, any 4-year-old or, alas, us 'post-middle-age' would-be athletes.
-
Middlebrooks at third? Instead of Holt? What have you seen from WMB this year to suggest he should be in the majors next year? All i see is a .180 hitter, often injured, with no power.
-
The whole point of Moneyball was that traditional experts (this includes scouts and coaches in particular) rated players on too many 'intangibles' (form, and yes, 'heart, guts' etc.)--intangibles that formed traditions from which experienced scouts couldn't escape (including tactics like the bunt, various sacrifices, moving the runner over, etc.-- that were demonstrably counterproductive). These traditions are also inarguable--those who believe in the Giants of the Old Days, or that 'heart' and other 'intangibles' are important cannot be disputed, since they do not admit anything as evidence against those beliefs. That's fine, since we're watching sports--and such traditional intangibles are part of our enjoyment (we love the beautiful swing, even if it doesn't result in hits, the sacrifice, the notion of a clutch hitter, hot streaks, the notion that certain mediocre players are 'winners' etc.--even though these things are no more 'real' than a ballet or movie.)
-
2015 seemed a lot less far away when I was actually looking forward to it.
-
Exactly. Beckett, Crawford, and Gonzalez are having so-so years by their career standards. Yet the RS have (... had) only one starter outperforming Beckett, and I believe only two hitters outhitting Gonzalez (or Ellsbury for that matter). The RS alternatives to Crawford (Victorino, Bradley, Sizemore)--make his year look pretty good as well. For a team with few salary constraints, I can't see how consistently getting rid of your top players is a good strategy (last year doesn't count, because they had J. "Winning Finds Me" Gomes, and could hardly have lost.)
-
I think you're right, but the logic is strange, isn't it. The RS have already given up on these two, and believe that their trade value couldn't really get lower than it is right now. So what the hell--let them play: maybe they'll get lucky at the plate and their value will go up. But as fans, we're not really watching the RS building for the future by 'playing the kids'.
-
Exactly what have the RS seen or do they hope to see from Bradley and Middlebrooks that suggests things will be any different next year? Do they keep running these guys out there until, say, July 2015, hoping that maybe they will turn things around?
-
8/10 Red Sox at Angels
jad replied to Northern Star's topic in Mike Grace Memorial Game Thread Forum
Let's see ... maybe it's "All Outs, Jr." or (assuming J is Jr.) All zeros; always out; always overmatched; Aw Ouch; At zero; ... hmm. No idea. ... Oh wait. ... Aha! I got it, finally. (But having stumbled onto the answer, I feel I am not at liberty to reveal it.) -
8/10 Red Sox at Angels
jad replied to Northern Star's topic in Mike Grace Memorial Game Thread Forum
Craig Counsell, 2011, tying Dave Campbell 1973 and Bill Bergen 1909. (Just trying to keep up with the astonishing depth of information possessed by posters here is exhausting). -
8/10 Red Sox at Angels
jad replied to Northern Star's topic in Mike Grace Memorial Game Thread Forum
Gotta be Bradley. I hope they don't explain this abstruse way of referring to him, because it's been very amusing (if futile) trying to figure it out.
