moonslav59

I get and said as much, at least twice. You keep going on and on, even after someone agrees with you.

It makes sense, since the contract counted for $10.85M for 2023, and his total outlay will be $15M for 2 years. ($8.3 M for 2023 + $6.7M "buyout" for 2024) $15M- $10.85M= $4.15M

Max. For the hundreth time I totally agree pitching is the main issue. That does not mean defense can't have accounted for 8-12 losses and pitching 30-50. Why are you showing me these numbers? We agree. BTW, there has been a clear change in the way plays are ruled hits vs errors in 2023, so our ERA would be much better had 20-30 hits been called errors, and it might be more than 30.

Did you watch the game? The play Duvall misplayed was a sure third out and not called an error. A runner scored on the misplay and the next guy homered. It should have been 3 unearned runs. If you can't count that one as poor D leading to runs, I can never convince you of anything. Again.... With average defense, I am convinced we'd have won 8-9 more games, minimum. With slightly above average: 9-11. Great D 11-12 or more. Box scores show errors and unearned runs. We've already seen dozens of plays that used to be called errors caalled hits, this year, not to mention all the plays they've never called erros, like an OF'er circling a fly ball and never touching it. Opposing teams had a .309 BAbip vs us, this year. That means about 31% of all balls put in play were hits, while 60% were outs. Since 183 of the 1239 hits were for HRs, 1066 were balls hit for singles, doubles or triples. (That's not counting reach on errors, and we have had 94, some of which did not allow a baserunner to get on base, but did allow him to advance a base or two.) The overly generous scorekeepers already shows our errors,alone led to 50 unearned runs, which in theory led to 5 losses. I'm 100% certain, uncalled errors that were clear misplays led to another 30 runs and 3 losses, and marginal plays not made led to 1-3 more losses. Of course, no game is one or lost on one or even 2 plays, but losses could have been converted to wins with better pitching, better batting, better defense and better baserunning.

Did the Sox misplays on D cost us runs or not? In a tied agme after 9, I'm saying we make those plays, we win. It has nothing to do with how we scored. I already proved we might have lost 5 games from our scrubs in the 7-8 slots of the pen. I have evidence to prove our D has made 60-77 less outs on D than our top contenders in 139 games. I showed evidence. BTW, box scores don't note plays that weren't made that should have been made. I've watched every game. 77 less outs made is being conservative. I did not ever say defense and nothing else, just like you can't say x amount of games were lost on pitching and nothing else or batting and nothing else.

I'm not doubting this, but I am not out of hope for Coramagic, just yet. I'm close as close can be.

Why $4.15? I know, because "it says so." cots shows the tax hit was $10.85M for 2023, so I guess, when he opts out, the remaining $4.15M that makes it $15M is what counts on 2024. Another sunken cost!!!!

I get it and wrote that, but why call it a "buy out?"

I'm not sure why you don't get it. You forget zero is a number. +1 vs -1 is 2 numbers apart. Yes, one game difference, but when you play head to head, its one game up for one team plus one down for the other- a 2 game "SWING!" Two teams- both 70-70 play each other. After the game played one is 71-70 (team A) and the other is 70-71 (team . Yes, team A is up one game. I get it. However, if the other team had one, Team A is 70-71 and Team B is 71-70, and team Bi is one up NOT one down! That's a two game swing based on one game played. Do you deny the differential is not two games based on who wins? There is no way both team will be 71-70 or 70-71 after the game played.

It's getting to the point, if we haven't already reached it, where any loss can be viewed as the final nail.

I guess it's a way to bring down the AAV, but we were so far under in 2023, I don't see why it matters. Does the $6.7M now count on 2024's tax budget line? If yes, it's another "mistake." I realize the deal is structure like this: Turner’s deal is worth $21.7 million if he exercises his player option for 2024. If he doesn’t exercise the option, it is one year at $15 million. Why doesn't the $15M show up on cots tax line for 2023? (Is this why we stayed under by $7-11M?)

That's what it seems, but on cots, it says "buy out," which implies that if they don't want to pay him the player option, then they buy it out at $6.7M. I'm not saying I'm right, but it's seems to be worded wrongly on cots. and it seems like an odd way to write a contract.

That's such an absurd concept.

I've already proven you wrong, yet you persist. Two teams are tied and play each other. After the game, either team A will be up one game or down one game. This is fact, and that's a 2 game "swing." Yes, team A or B will only be one game ahead or behind, so in that sense, it's just one game, but the differential between team A or team B winning makes for aa 2 game swing. Why is that so hard for you to grasp? I get your point. Team A wins, team B goes from tied to -1. That's one game, but the only other alternative was Team B wins and is up 1 games. The differential is 2 games, not one, between the two opposing results. Simple math.

We kept hoping DHern could lower his BB/9, but he never did. Other have. Wikelman has nasty stuff, but he needs to control it better. I remain hopeful, perhaps to a fault.

OK, bWAR and ERA-, why skip over those?

This whole option thing sounds confusing to me. It's a player option. To me, it seem slike JT can take the $13.4 option, which he should not, and then the Sox have the option of paying him $13.4M in 2024 or buy him out to play elsewhere and pay $6.7M. It seems to me, they don't pay him the $6.7M, if he opts out. That's what it seems like to me, but I keep hearing we pay the $6.7M, even if he opts out. Why?

By fWAR and your chose stats, but not by BWAR, ERA, ERA- and some others.

Where am I trying to force anything? I started my point with "maybe," and we all know most players would take a contract $10M more than another, unless if talking about $360M/12 vs $350M/12. Maybe it does cause TBR to counter with enough to land him there longer, but it's not absurd to think we might have signed him had we started with an offer of $50M/3 or $55M/4

I didn't say it was. Please re-read. His 2.95 ERA and 67 ERA- were set to be outliers. His fWAR, no. His bWAR was on track for about 5.1 or 5.2 and it was 4.3 in '21. It's easy to find some stats to refute every comment made, here, but Nate was, IMO, on pace for his best year ever. Maybe "outlier" was hyperbolic. I know your stats of choice show otherwise, but other reputable stats show otherwise.

That has been my point for 4 years. You get what you pay for. The limited budget forced Bloom's hand in 2020 and to some extent in 2021. He could have focused more of the increased spending in 2022 and 2023 on pitching, but I think the plan has been to build up the foundation until we think we are withing striking distance, and then ponce on pitching, which costs a lot and a lot of years to get the best. (This is just my opinion on why. I'm not saying I support the idea, but it does make some sense, if the plan was always about 2024 and beyond?)

ON D. He did not need to run, jump and twirl to make those plays from the hole. He was a plus defender from '97 to '00 or '01 but was not a great defender.

Start by sweeping TEX and TOR 6-0 and we are right in this thing-- you know, the whole 2 game swing thing on every game played with each team! LOL 6-0 in those games and 11-6 in the others andwe may still squeek in..

I know the odds are very long. Losing, last night was not a tease. Almost winning was.

I've been saying jeter was the worst SS on defense in my lifetime. My point was that Nomar was over-rated. My numbers showed Nmarw as better than Jeter.