Jump to content
Talk Sox
  • Create Account

Maxbialystock

Old-Timey Member
  • Posts

    21,066
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

 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 Maxbialystock

  1. I completely agree. Those first 8 games of a season are everything. By the same reasoning, I figure the Sox for 110-125 wins.
  2. Meh. If he hits it hard, he will be fine.
  3. Could be. I just checked up-to-the-minute stats, and Bogaerts now leads the team in dingers, rbi's, runs, hits, OPS. SLG, doubles, and AVG. Looks like 5th is the right slot for him.
  4. OK, let's give credit to the real guy responsible for those 8 runs. Forget Bogaerts. I'm nominating Porcello because his crappy pitching gave the lineup notice--if we are going to win this one, it won't be because of great pitching. Well done, Porcello! The rest of you scummy starters now know what you have to do--stop pitching great in the first 5, 6, or 7 innings. Just stop it.
  5. Orioles tie Yankees, 2-2, in the 3d.
  6. ump inconsistent on low pitches. That ball to Betts was higher than the strike to Bogaerts.
  7. Vintage Porcello. Not just 2 runs, but 20 pitches per inning. Good K pitch however.
  8. I was not against bringing him up, but also was happy with whatever the FO decided.
  9. You are such a cynic, but right now Porcello deserves every bit of it. Let's hope you're wrong.
  10. Dumb Rays catcher. Those low fastballs were working, so he called for a splitter that stayed up. Thank you.
  11. Good decision by Beni.
  12. He throws too many fastballs, doesn't have good location, and especially can't seem to keep the ball low. I agree with a700hitter--Porcello is simply a bad pitcher. 2016 was a career year very much on the order of Ellsbury's 2011 season, which he's never come remotely close to repeating.
  13. Absolutely true. However, as I love to remind you, 7 games are the only data we have for this season. Moreover, I think most of us can make some pretty fair predictions on the immediate future if not the entire season-- 1. Pitching won't stay this good--lowest ERA in MLB and by a good margin. 2. Weak hitting will improve. It has to. The question is how much. 3. Winning percentage of 86% will go down. 4. moonslav will dazzle with stats only he can dream up--stats that suggest the future or at least tell us about the present in interesting ways.
  14. Sadly true. We are a long, long way from October and the proof of the pudding.
  15. Time for the lineup to produce--and for the pitching to stay the best in MLB by a pretty good margin. I see the same lineup as Thursday's if we play.
  16. With a nod to mvp78, the above means that a team's run differential is more important than any other stat--team OPS, team ERA, team WHIP, you name it. Case in point: we are 6-1 right now, but have the 9th best run differential (+8) in MLB. If run differential is predictive, we cannot sustain 6-1 or anything near it with our weak run differential. Discuss.
  17. Actually, if randomness means unpredictable, we should be delighted it is there because it's what makes sports in general so much fun to watch. I think this is especially true in MLB where a .600 winning percentage, which is hardly dominant, usually means winning a division. In MLB lousy, no good, rotten, stinking cellar dwellers usually win about 40% of the time. Ironically--or maybe appropriately--the fans tend to stay away from those teams' games. We just took 6 out of 7 from two teams who will likely win 40% of their games, and some of us are saying (incorrectly, I think), "we should be beating those teams at that rate."
  18. Stunning. I never thought of it that way and agree. I follow NCAA basketball and subscribe to kenpom.com. He has a stat he calls "luck," which basically is how often that team wins close games. Last season on talksox there was a discussion about whether run differential (runs scored - runs scored against) was predictive, and it sure turned out to be. We won 93 games, but had a lower run differential than the Yankees, Guardians, and Astros--and were left in the dust in the ALDS once again. Right now our run differential of +8 is 5th best in the AL. We really do need those hitters to start coming around.
  19. I think the SOB is guilty and am glad they caught him.
  20. I'm older than you and only made it to the 10th. I really don't like Showalter, but like the Yankees even less. Porcello today for the Sox--finally-- if they can get the game in. I seriously doubt there is any precedent for the Sox having open dates scheduled on a Wed and a Fri.
  21. Yup. I definitely went overboard on defending Cora in game one. And I've already said I have not seen anyone comment that we are winning despite Cora. But what I did say is that the inference is there when almost all the comments about Cora are about his mistakes. But even there I agreed the managers rarely get credit for wins.
  22. I was not pushing for Devers to come up because he was so darn young, but he was pretty amazing when he did.
  23. Amazing. I do the same thing, made easier when the other team is the Orioles. Machado just homered off Sabathia in the 3d to put the Orioles up 2-1. Last night was also enjoyable, especially when they got to Tanaka. Both those guys, if memory serves, gave our hitters problems last season. Plus I'm still enjoying yesterday's terrific comeback win.
  24. Nothing to put up with. I ain't crazy, but it took me right about 50 years to achieve sanity.
×
×
  • Create New...