moonslav59

Hey, they are one up on the mighty O's!

If this guy could pitch like he did way back in the olden days, this team would no longer be considered the underdog.

Get in the right lane!

.802 OPS and .419 SLG%

The Sox need to score some runs for Richards. Despite his 2.70 ERA over his last 5 games, the team has gone 2-3 in those starts. He's walked 12 batters in his last 27 IP, and the 3 Hrs hurt, so he hasn't been lights out, but he K'd 27 and only allowed 22 hits (.220 BA against).

What if Marilyn had married Dom?

He also spent 3 years (ages 26-27-28) in the military.

Let's get the moon mojo to 3 in a row times two! 3 wins in a row for the Sox! 3 losses in a row for the Yanks! Richards has been our best starter since after his first start of the season: Last 28 days: 2.70 Richards 3.54 ERod 3.86 Pivetta 4.18 Perez 6.08 Eovaldi

That was you!

That never happens.

One more thing on the need to "find out" what Dalbec, Chavis and Cordero can do: our three best prospects all play the same the positions and will be challenging anyone currently in those slots over the next few years: OF: Duran 1B: Casas 2B: Downs Make it easier on Cora and Bloom by finding out what we already have. (Also, there's the option of moving Devers to 1B over the winter.)

I find I have more patience now than earlier in my life, or at least I don't get as jacked up over long lines and slow drivers in front of me.

There was talk of a Dimaggio for Williams trade, whereby both players would be sent to a park seemingly more conducive to their traits.

Thanks, Max, and I can only dream of having the mojo you brought to this board on the 9 game win streak that has electrified this board.

It might not really be about pitchers learning how to get him out and him needing to counter adjust. It could just be the kid is going through s lump, some personal issue or a nagging and unreported injury. If it is "the book," he'll have to write a new chapter in his book and counter what they have been using to get him out. He has coaches and other players to help him do that. It doesn'y mean he'll ever find the answer, but I'm hopeful he will. He's been around longer than Devers.

Indeed, and that's why a much larger sample size does not see a 69 point swing on any one game's numbers, and it's not like Dalbec went 4 for 5 with 2 dingers and a double. He just went 2 for 3 with a walk, a single and a homer.

Well said.

Of course 2 more game like last night won't be easy, but my point was about making definitive judgments on players with such small sample sizes where they are just 2 good games away from being decent or even fine. Should players really be demoted, DFA'd or bashed over sample sizes so small, it only take 2-3 big games to radically change anyone's opinion. Sure, I'm as frustrated as anyone else when a player is going through a tough 25-35 game stretch. It seems like a long time, and it is in many ways, but if we make rash decisions on struggling players, we may be doing so just before a red hot streak was about to begin. Of course, maybe the 35 game streak was really who that player is. That happens, too. Not every player with a strong minor league history or even some major league success ends up turning around a slow start or bad stretch by being given an extra long leash. Most managers and GMs don't make major decisions based on 70-90 PAs. I'm glad ours doesn't. Another factor is determining if you have another option in the system that shows better promise and is actually ready to be thrown into live games after spending several weeks at the alt site taking batting practice and shagging fly balls. We have several players on our roster that are largely unknowns. I looked at this season as one where we were not likely going to compete for a ring, so it seemed like the perfect time to give a few of these players a LONG ENOUGH look to be able to at least come close to a sample size where a definitive evaluation could be made. Cordero: This kid has always shown a lot of talent- much of it raw and untested. His injury history forced a very spotty sample size spread over many seasons. I'm not sure when was the last time he even had 100+ PAs of near consecutive games played. I would think he might need 200-400 PAs of near solid FT play to know anything of value. This does not mean he gets that amount at the ML level, if the team is fighting for a playoff slot. Even I was saying we should send him to AAA to play everyday, if and until he works things out. Others were saying we should just cut him loose. (I'm not sure that one big game should mean sending him down is now a bad idea.) I'd like to see him play continuously, some where, for a long time, and if he shows promise, give him another shot on the big club. I don't get how anyone can think 73 PAs is enough, given his history, to give up on him. Dalbec: This kid has done very well in the minors and during his short time on the Sox, last year. His OBP more than made up for the high K rate, but it's his power that got him here. The kid now has 96 PAs, this season and 188 overall. He has a .759 OPS with 10 HRs. That's a 30+ HR pace. He had 50 HRs in his last 1100 PAs in the minors and a .358 OBP. No way am I demoting this kid after 96 PAs. I might PH for him, if I had someone to PH. I might even gently move him towards a temporary platoon. I'm glad nobody has said we should DFA Dalbec, but demoting him would be wrong, even if he had not had that big game a couple nights ago. Chavis: I felt like Chavis had shown enough in the bigs and the minors to earn a long look, at some point, this year. I'm not saying I have a ton of confidence he can or will earn a ML roster spot, but I just wanted to find out, once and for all, if he is a MLB player. Keeping him just at the surface and never really knowing if he can be or not might be, at best, the waste of a roster spot and at worst a risk of never getting the good to great value he might have. He may still get a long look, this year, but I'd hate to go into 2022 knowing nothing more about his ML abilities. In general, I just don't get how some people are so quick to definitively judge a player, and it goes the other way, too, when a player starts off really well in a short sample size. Then, the player crosses them up, and they say "Oops," and go right back to doing it again with another player- over and over. Sure, sometimes they end up being right. The player judged early on goes on to continue what their initial small sample size showed, but how many times can someone be wrong and yet continue doing the same thing over and over? I'm not trying to single any one poster out, except for the ghost, and I've been known to state definitive sounding opinions based on smaller sample sizes, too, but 5 weeks is a very small sample size. VERY! Does anybody think the Sox are really the best team in MLB, right now? Hell, we've had over 1200 PAs and nearly 300 IP! Surely, that's a huge sample size, right? NOT! Who knows? Maybe Dalbec, Cordero and Chavis all bomb out at the ML level- big or small final sample sizes. There's a significant chance that happens, especially for the last 2 players listed, but to me, all 3 deserve a longer look than 70-90 PAs and 5 weeks of play after just going through a long winter and short season the previous year. Hell, even without those factors, these kids deserve more of a chance.

It's not all that important anymore, but it still has value and is "telling" in some regards over a long enough sample size like most recent 63 GS.

Nailed it.

Bobby Dee's OPS went up 69 points in one game. That just shows how much small sample sizes should not be counted on as being all that important. Just 2 more games like this, he's over .700, and a new punching bag will be found.

This year: a 999 billion to one.

The sign of a winner. The team's record in his starts have been mind-boggling. 5-1 2021 (undefeated in 2020- LOL) 26-8 2019 19-4 2018 50-13 since 2018. .794 winning %!

I don't mind Jacko at all, and yes, he's pretty sharp.

Of course not, but if the roles were reversed, he'd be gloating with "I told you so's."