moonslav59

It's amazing how so many pitchers developed this new pitch virtually overnight.

I'm not sure why having more stuff to pack to move from Woo to Boston should matter.

Like who?

Maybe the pitch clock has messed with some defenders' ability to stay focused on defense. It does seem like there are more blunders, and I've never seen more catcher interference calls in a whole year, as I've seen in 5 weeks. The point remains, even if the overall level of play has dropped, we have done better ve tough teams than almost anyone else, and have played double the tougher teams than some teams. I think that helps determine just how good a team is beyond just looking at a win- loss record. I find it interesting that the guy who keeps calling "scoreboard" as in it's all about winning, now says that winning is happening because of a watered downn league. It is no longer only about wins. I've said all along, one reason I think we have a good shot at the playoffs was because other teams have major issues, too. It's easy to focus just on the Sox and all their faults, and think that is all that goes into determining a team's chances. Don't the other teams matter? We've been trying to point out how difficult it is to win when you play more good teams than others. How that is any different from claiming we are now winning because the teams we are beating are watered down or not as good as their record indicates is the same thing- just in reverse. It's no big deal, except the guy can't stop bringing up how sick he is hearing about the strength of our division and schedule, is now doing the same thing.

Wow, I would have never known MIA beat my Bucks, because they played better. Thanks. Yes, maybe all winning teams are not "good teams," but we are talking comparatively. Besides, I thought you judged everything by wins and losses- no excuses- no if and or buts. In most cases, having the same record by beating winning teams as another team beating lesser winning teams shows some extra value. I'm fine with you disagreeing, but saying you don't "get it" is something you won't explain. How can you not, at least understand why it means something to others?

Bogey, Betts and JD never did this! (LOL)

I'd still rather us have Castillo than SEA, although I'm not sure I'd want to pay the price for him.

You must be one of those "apologists" some talk about.

I'm assuming jacko does not have keys to your cellar.

Well said, as always. To me, the "one that got away" was Luis Castillo, but I realize we'd have had to part with the untouchable Mayer and probably Rafaela or Bello, too. Maybe Mayer, Mata, Walter and Anthony would have come close.

We will certainly hit a rough patch or two (or three, or...) ahead of us, and we will ear about it. It's kinda nice not having jacko calling us horrible, everyday.

If you take away what our opps did against us and compiled their records vs all others, their combined record is around 65%. Nobody has played more games vs teams at >.500 than us, and we have a winning record vs them. It is too hard for some to deal with, so they have to convince themselves the winning teams we beat are watered down or "not as good as we think they are," whatever that means. Look, I'm pretty sure PIT is not as good as they have played, but we played them, when they were hot. Somehow, if seems okay to discount the Pirates, but when we talk about trying to count games vs the ALE as more competitive, we get bashed. That being said, I wish we were playing the Yanks, right now.

How often does anyone say "hater?" Is it really "way overused?" Like 3 years ago, I made the mistake of saying a poster "hated Cora." I quickly admitted I was wrong to call someone who bashes him often a "hater," but I have to relive that horrible moment in my life, over and over. As far as I know, it's the only time the word "hate" has been used in this sort of context. To me, the term "Bloom apologists" or "Bloom lovers" is way overused, and nobody has yet to answer the call to name just one from the apparent legion of them.

I do wonder, sometimes, when the biggest bashers go silent during a win streak. Is that being pessimistic?

If the Sox are winning, and it might make the Bloom hiring more palatable, then there has to be a reason it can't be Bloom getting something right. The league must be watered down, but only the teams the Sox play. Other GMs, doing worse, must be playing a non-watered down schedule.

But you honestly don't understand why many people think winning (or losing) vs tougher teams shows more than winning (or losing) to worse teams? I get why some don't care, but to say you don't "get it" is hard for me to understand. To me, it's worse for my Bucks to get beat in the first round by an 8 seed than to lose in the conference or NBA finals. I don't think that should be hard to understand.

You've been a beacon of light through all the gloominess.

You honestly don't "get why?" Couldn't I ask why you go on and on about how watered down MLB is? It's the exact same thing, just with opposite perspectives.

You think that is the only gloom and doom thing you've said? (BTW, that wasn't even gloom n doomish. That was just being real.)

Yes. You've always been so high on Yoshida.

Just mentioning how strong the AL East is forbidden.

It's probably about the same. I never said the Sox benefited more. If you look at the amount of blowout wins and losses vs close wins and losses, it's hard to imagine we won more due to good luck than lost due to bad luck or handing games away with poor D, blunders or whatever.

Sure, it would have been better had we signed him to $65M instead of $80M, but nobody knows what other team might have swooped in. Just like we don't know what Bogey would have accepted in 2021, 2022 or early 2023.

That was "call 'em all suspects" Ole Red, perhaps.

Pick-sixes? I just used that as a hyper example. I watched many games, where he sucked all game, then played great in the 4th quarter and became the "hero." I've said it's anecdotal. If someone wants to do some research and prove me wrong, go for it.