Jump to content
Talk Sox
  • Create Account

moonslav59

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    109,052

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    164

 Content Type 

Profiles

Boston Red Sox Videos

2026 Boston Red Sox Top Prospect Rankings

Boston Red Sox Trade & Free Agent Rumors

Boston Red Sox Fan Guides & Resources

2025 Boston Red Sox Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

Boston Red Sox News, Rumors & Analysis

2026 Boston Red Sox Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by moonslav59

  1. moonslav59
    True, if only "clutch" existed!
  2. moonslav59
    If you look at it on a proportionate basis, 1.89 is about 55% of 3.54 and 3.38. So a comparable number for 2016 might be more like 2.30. Here's a comp: from 1999-2003, Pedro had a 2.10 ERA. The closest other was RJ at 2.66 and then Mussina at 3.58! The AL ERA in that time was between 4.47 and 4.98 for an average of about 4.60. 2.10 is about 45% of 6.65! Pedro's 2000 ERA+ of 291 was the best in MLB since 1880. He also had the 9th best alltime ERA+ at 243 in 1999. All-in-all, he had 5 of the best 36 in MLB history (5 of the top 18 since 1930)! Bob Gibson placed 7th in 1968, but had no other top 220 seasons.
  3. moonslav59
    In 1968, Gibson started 34 games and completed 28 (13 were shutouts!). He had a 1.12 ERA and 0.853 WHIP. He also had 28 CGs in 1969!
  4. moonslav59
    Agreed. Nobody comes close to the iron men of eras past.
  5. moonslav59
    I was thinking warm Mountain Dew.
  6. moonslav59
    soxprospects.com on Groome.... http://news.soxprospects.com/2017/03/notes-from-field-jason-groome-debuts-on.html
  7. moonslav59
    Pretty incredible numbers, even for a small sample size. I'm not trying to lessen the greatness of this feat, but a little context is needed. The NL ERA those years were 3.54 and 3.38, so while 1.89 is amazing, it was only about 1.50 better than the regular season NL ERA those years. Last year's NL ERA was 4.17, so a comparable modern number might be a 2.67 ERA.
  8. moonslav59
    Maybe it was really some other warm yellow liquid.
  9. moonslav59
    True, but we needed to replace Koji, Ziegs and Taz, and Thorn looked like a very good option among available RP'ers.
  10. moonslav59
    +1 !
  11. moonslav59
    I think we both agree Marco is an overall better player than Rutledge, especially at SS or 2B. Personally, I'd rather have Marco over Brock, but our OF depth (on the 25 and 40 man roster) is thin. I want to keep Rutledge until we know more about Pablo, and starting Marco in AAA or Rut on the DL seems like the best way to do it.
  12. moonslav59
    lol!
  13. moonslav59
    Putting Rutledge on the DL would not hurt our team. It's one way to keep the depth and allow Marco a chance to shine at the big level.
  14. moonslav59
    Nice response. I've also been a huge Marco supporter since we traded for him. I wanted him to play 3B last year instead of Shaw and Holt. The issue this year goes beyond keeping epth due to options, which itself is a strong argument to keep Rutledge in the mix. I have long been a doubter of Pablo's ability to hit LHPs ever again. I think he should be platooned immediately. While Marco's splits are not wide, I think Rutledge is probably equal or better than Marco vs lefties. Maarco might have a better glove but worse 3B arm. I think they are pretty even when a lefty is pitching. That's the point that tips the balance to giving Marco full time playing at AAA to start the year. Any injury to Bogey, Pablo or Pedey would man an immediate call-up and FT job for Marco. If Pablo struggles vs RHPs too, then I'd think of replacing him with Marco. I apologize for implying your decision was based on just (or primarily) ST'ing numbers. Others here seems to be basing it on that, because besides a handful of posters, there was little love for Marco before this spring.
  15. moonslav59
    How about those of us who said don't worry about JBJ?
  16. moonslav59
    (And, I'm a huge Marco fan and was high on him years ago.)
  17. moonslav59
    Why do ST'ing numbers mean so much?
  18. moonslav59
    Phantom DL?
  19. moonslav59
    Yes
  20. moonslav59
    Plus, Pom is better. There's that too. Some people (not you) put too much stock in ST'ing numbers.
  21. moonslav59
    Yeah, I knew you were, but I thought I'd mention "the other" healthy one.
  22. moonslav59
    MLBTR... Thornburg has a shoulder impingement, according to Pete Abraham of the Boston Globe. Thornburg won’t throw for another 10 days, and Abraham notes that this injury could sideline him for a month (Twitter link).
  23. moonslav59
    Smith has 4 years of team control, so I'd say yes to him. Thornburg has 3 years remaining. I say yes here too. Who knows if we will see them much this year, but we should.
  24. moonslav59
    Nobody is arguing every player has the exact same focus in every PA. That's an absurd thought and never was part of the argument from those of us who believe that "clutch" is not a skill set.
  25. moonslav59
    I said from the start, our pen is the weakest link ("not weak but weakest"). Now it looks worse than I expected.
×
×
  • Create New...