moonslav59

I didn't dismiss anyone's insight or perspective. I played a lot of baseball in my life. I never played on the Notre Dame team, but I tried out. I played in the intramural league, which had many all state players. I could not hit well enough to make the team, but I was a good fielder and base runner. A close friend was a great pitcher who got booted off the team for mouthing off at a coach, he thought was another player. I also was the starting WR (freshman year) and QB (senior year) on two championship intramural football teams (we played with pads), and started on our hall's Basketball team that won my freshman year. (I scored one basket shy of half my team's points in the championship game, and yes, I would not call myself "clutch".) I remember o that basketball championship team, we had a set rotation of our players. When it came to be my turn to sit, the guy who was supposed to come in said, "No f***ing way am I going in for you; your playing out of your mind!" I don't consider myself anymore knowledgeable about basketball or football just because I was good and played against some of the best (Orlando Woolridge, Tracy Jackson, Jerome Heavens and more). I actually think I know more about baseball- the game I basically sucked at when competing at a high level. I know I come off as a know it all at times and a stat geek, but really, I'm rather a humble guy with some OCD issues related to numbers. I don't try to appear to be smarter than anyone else, and I don't think of myself that way. Playing baseball was always my highest love. I dreamed of it for much of my early childhood. I was better at other sports and loved them too, but not like the greatest game ever invented: BASEBALL! I value the opinions of just about everyone here and respect the insights of those who played at much higher levels than I ever did or could even dream of. It's the condescension that tweaks me a bit.

I know all the sayings about "ifs, ands and buts, but had Price been healthy and Porcello pitched like 2016, we'd be at worst, co-favorites. I think the plan was to be at or very near favorites to win it all. It's just my opinion, and since I only played baseball for over 20 years but never above high school and college intramural level, what do I know?

1) How does anyone know who has played the game, and who hasn't? 2) Does the higher level you played make you even more informed and intelligent on baseball matters? Is there a scale? 3) People who play the game might be more insightful in some ways or have a different perspective, but it doesn't mean they know more. 4) Throwing the fact you played the game in someone's face is what I consider "sinking to the level".

I wasn't being sarcastic. ERA is not useless, but it does not factor in park, defense or strength of opponent. It is more flawed than some stats and metrics others often bash here, especially for RP'ers.. ERA for RP'ers, who often enter games with 1 or 2 outs, can be very misleading. It's easy to have a lower ERA, if you start an inning with 2 outs and are taken out after the inning, and only your runner counts against you. ERA- or ERA+ attempts to correct some of those factors, but is not perfect either. They are better than ERA though. That's what I meant by "old fashioned". ERA is not useless, but why use it when other data tells a better story?

Don't you have to admit though that there are plenty of people out there who want to think that they know everything about everything? Yes. But, I don't think it is notin or myself. We give our opinions- like you and others do. Just because we may not say, "I believe this..." or "My opinion is..." every post, doesn't mean we make our statements with the intent that they be taken as facts and not as opinions.

I don't pretend to "know the plan". Of course part of the plan at trying to win the championship involves the side benefit of being competitive enough to make the playoffs, draw crowds, increase TV viewership and souvenir purchases. I think the realistic goal of about 5-7 teams is to try hard to win it all. Yes, it is possible to "be as good as you can be every year". I never said I have any inside information on what Henry's "plan" is. I'm also not the one saying I know more about baseball, because I played the game.

If we traded away our extended future just to make the playoffs 4-5 years in a row, I'll be disappointing. I'm sure making the playoffs every year is tied to making more money and keeping interest high, but I'm pretty sure the goal is to get us to be highly competitive, which means being very near favorites at winning the championship. If Price was 100%, I think we'd be right up there with the Guardians and Dodgers. As it is now, we're still given better odds than some playoff teams. Of course, this is just my opinion, but I'm pretty sure DD and Henry's goal is to win a ring.

Right. The whole plan was to win a ring (or two) in the 3-4 year window. It wasn't to make the playoffs 3-4 years in a row.

Kluber is going game 2 (and 5, if needed) NOT game 1.

Of course, I'll feel let down. If we beat Houston and lose in a close series to the Guardians, I won't necessarily call it unsuccessful... ...unless we lose on a bonehead play.

THE YANKEES SUCK!!! The Yankees suck! The Yankees suck! The Yankees suck! The Yankees suck! The Yankees suck! The Yankees suck! The Yankees suck! The Yankees are not that bad.

Either way, I'm glad he refused. I'll think about him less by not seeing his name on our rosters and box scores.

I'm working on a third way. I'll get back to you.

You're assuming that's the only reason we claim clutch hitters do not exist.

Or, they let up less runs 3 times!

I get your point, too. To me, I'd feel better thinking Bogey would have had an .800 OPS had he not gotten hurt. Now, I'm in doubt about just how good a hitter he is (or will be going forward).

We shoulda beat this skanky team by 10 games this year. Repeat after me... The Yankess suck! The Yankess suck! The Yankess suck! The Yankess suck! The Yankess suck! The Yankess suck! THE YANKEES SUCK!!!!

I was assuming he's over the injury and hoping he's not prone to long slumps without reason.

Conjecture. Educated guess. Too much rest could cause rustiness. Who knows. The Sox don't play today, so the Yanks losing is the best there can be.

With 3 days off before this series and 2 days off during the series, we can get 4+ innings from Kimbrel, Price and Reed every game. 1 to 1.1 IP Kimbrel 1 to 1.1 IP Reed 1.1 to 2 IP Price Anything can happen, but I have a lot of confidence in all three. The next group is certainly not a group I have extreme confidence in, but many have done a fine job this year, while others have looked very well at times. I'm feeling pretty good about these 3: Kelly Workman Barnes Maybe Maddox and/or Scott fill out the rest of the staff roster, and both have nice numbers in somewhat smaller sample sizes. I think we can yank a starter very early, as long as it's not 2 games in a row (1 & 2 or 3 & 4).

Well, that's just the way it has to be then. You don't change what is significant just because you want someone to be labeled clutch.

MN over NY CLE over MN 3-1 Sox over HOU 3-1 Sox over CLE 4-3 Sox over Cubs 4-2

Good point. I remember Fisk's HR, but we lost game 7, so I guess we throw that out. (Another reason to shun "clutch".)

I do believe there are clutch situations. I do know Papi came up big in many "clutch situations". No, I do not label him "clutch". 1) The sample size is too small and scattered. (I realize my idea of significant sample size is much larger than most.) 2) His OPS in late & close situations was below his normal OPS. 3) His OPS in high leverage situations was lower than his normal OPS. 4) He had many bad series, including the one against Detroit where he hit the grand slam. I will say, if ever you can call a guy clutch, Papi is the first guy I think of, but nobody is a "clutch" hitter... even Papi and Reggie.

Okay, but Papi didn't, so I guess you can't call him "clutch".