S5Dewey

Are you suggesting he'd go 10-2 before the All-Star break and then get hit in the head, essentially ending his career?

Am I the only one who's not quaking in their boots at the thought of playing Cleveland? That team is not going to win out and I'd also guess that they're not going to play .700 ball the rest of the way. C'mon folks. We've been around baseball long enough to know that teams go into - and out of - streaks. Right now the Guardians are in a great winning streak but sooner or later the numbers are going to catch up with them and they're going to slide and maybe slide badly. Remember when the Yankees looked unbeatable at the beginning of the season? Remember when the Rockies looked unbeatable going into the playoffs after wining 14 of their last 15 games and then sweeping their first seven playoff games? Even the mighty Dodgers have lost 11 in a row now. I'm not taking anything away from the Guardians. They're a very good team with a very good manager, but every team comes back to earth sooner or later. One of the secrets to winning the World Series is to not only be talented, but to be playing well at the right time.

Ahhh... my pet peeve! Are you suggesting that pitching and defense are more important in the long run than offense? (Something I believe, BTW)) If that's so why do we focus on offense when we talk about getting players to complement the Sox? When we talk about a player the first thing said is that his OPS is such-and-such with very little attention paid to his defense. Even when we talk about Bogaerts, whose defense is about average for a SS, the thing we talk about more than anything is his offense. This focus on offense is why some were ready to trade JBJ for a sack of used baseballs when he was hitting .220. The same with Vazquez. I'm not saying offense isn't important - it is. But when we talk about players their defense is the ugly step-sister whom everyone seems to want to overlook in favor of their offense. When's the last time you heard someone say, "Yeah, he's only hitting .220, but he plays GREAT defense so I want him on the team!" That is, other than the few of us who've been JBJ fanboys since Day 1.

Anecdotal evidence. Means nothing. I've become so confused with the conflicting differing statistics plus the conflicting "anecdotal evidence" that I've just given up. People, myself being one of them, are going to believe whatever they choose to believe. I believe that neither approach is completely wrong nor completely right, that there's room for both. Based on all of that I also believe I'll have another beer!

I agree that's what they saw - or didn't see. It's the only reasonable explanation for the call after review, that rather than assume he touched the plate they assumed his foot was over the plate. I see that as stupid, but that's only a related story. Here's my problem with it. If they're going to use that criteria (whether or not he actually touched the plate or was his foot over it?) then need to have a camera exactly at ground level and facing the plate. They then can use whether they can see daylight between the foot and the plate as the determining factor. If they're going to use the current criteria of how it looked one-dimensionally looking down on the play they're never going to actually SEE the contact beween the foot and the plate. Therefore the default call always will be the umpire's original call. But of course they won't be consistent on that call. :-( In short, review will do no good on plays at the plate and we got f***ed.

Is it too much to ask for that The Trop get destroyed in the storm? With no one hurt, of course.

I'm wondering how JetBlue park is going to weather this storm. It's gone from being on the edge of the hurricane to being directly in the path of it.

You know I'm just bustin' your chops a bit, right Thunder? LOL

Now that's just sad.

I get the impression that she's talking about maybe a 1-2 game plus. My point is that if we ran smarter IMO that difference would be the 5-6 games Moon is talking about.

IMO there are two factions to blame for the bad base running. First are the players. How in Hell does a player get to this point in their careers without knowing the fundamentals of the game like knowing how many outs there are or that you don't try to go from 2nd to 3rd on a ball hit in front of you?? I know we want to blame Farrell for that but it's on the players. I know that Hanley and I are a lot alike in that we both think we can run like we're 22 again. The difference between us is that I don't try to prove it and he does. I know that there's sometimes a fine line between a running game and running wildly. While Farrell doesn't want to discourage taking chances he does need to reinforce the difference between a reasonable gamble and a stupid chance. If he's not trying to reinforce that he should be trying, and if he is trying to he needs to find a new way to do it because what he's doing isn't working.

But... ok.. I'll chime in on this one more time to point out that I take serious exception to the point that our baserunning has only cost us a game or two because the pluses have offset the minuses. Even if that's true - which I doubt - that's not the goal of aggressive baserunning. The goal is to have a positive affect on the game, which it would have if this team didn't make so many stupid mistakes! It's like saying that although you made some bad investments that cost you $100,000 you also made some good ones that made you $100,000, so it's ok! NO!! The idea isn't to break even. The idea is to come out AHEAD!

Thanks. I just wish I knew how to import that into the forum rather than have to post it as a link. :-(

Great catch by Beni!

Another stupid baserunning error by Hanley.

Ya. I missed last night's game. These three guys dovetail very nicely together. I could easily listen to more of this!

As I said, I'd have to hold my nose to sign Machado. Machado has always been known as a dirty player and I would no more want him than I'd want a proven PED user. Color me an old guy if you will but I want players who can be at least respectable role models. That's why I appreciate guys like Dwight Evans and Mike Lowell. I'm certain that some will read this post and dredge up former Red Sox players who weren't stellar role models and that's fine. I'll watch them play. Just don't ask me to "like" them or want them on the team. I don't always get what I want "but sometimes I get what I need".

I'd be surprised if he breaks training camp (if there's any training camp left after the hurricane!) as the manager and then gets fired in the first month. If he's there in April it means that the FO has some faith in him and a one month sample size probably won't be reason for them to change their minds. June or July, maybe. :-)

I see a lot of possibles, what if's, maybes, mights and usuallys in that post. To quote Bill Parcells, all I know is what I see.

Ugh. I'd have to hold my nose to do it.

...although he didn't do himself any favors with the "It's not me, it's them" routine.

I'd sign JBJ early but not at a slugger's price, more of a defensive player's price. Maybe the thing I like the most about JBJ is that he doesn't rely on his speed to make the plays. He has the innate ability to know where the ball is coming down and run to 'the spot'. That'll play better in the long term than someone like Ellsbury who depend(ed) on his speed to get there. I'd be looking at 5yr/$60-$75M. Bora$$ probably wouldn't advise him to take that but if not I'd pass and see what he looks like when his arb years are over.

https://giphy.com/gifs/week-media-person-RL0xU1daTlMoE

Aughh! I'm not buying that at all!! A missed opportunity is a missed opportunity no matter when it happens. We just tend to focus more on it when it happens at the end of the game. As someone told me when I was just a young man, 'Never pass one up because you'll never get that chance again."

My interpretation of this post is that Moon believes we've run ourselves out of a substantial lead, and I agree with that.