6-for-60, how do you go 6-for-60???

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from S5. Show S5's posts

    Re: 6-for-60, how do you go 6-for-60???

    Not to pile on here, but did anyone notice that over the past two games (28 innings) positions 5-9 in the order are 1-49?

    Couldn't a blind squirrel hit two acorns in 49 attempts?  

    Any owners who sign previously suspended PED abusers to a big $$ contract are as guilty of perpetuating the PED problem as are the players.

    And I have never posted here under any other names.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: 6-for-60, how do you go 6-for-60???

    Sox 10-for-92 in the last 2 games, yet they almost swept the series and probably should have. 10-for-92...is that legendary terrible or what? Yikes, horrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrribbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbble.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from royf19. Show royf19's posts

    Re: 6-for-60, how do you go 6-for-60???

    In response to dannycater's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Sox 10-for-92 in the last 2 games, yet they almost swept the series and probably should have. 10-for-92...is that legendary terrible or what? Yikes, horrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrribbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbble.

    [/QUOTE]
    So what does that say for the Angels who lost the series?

     

     

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: 6-for-60, how do you go 6-for-60???

    5 through 9 couldn't hit water if they fell off a boat.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: 6-for-60, how do you go 6-for-60???

    Angels are in bad shape right now, that's for sure....their pitching has been pretty awesome and yet their RISP is off the charts pathetic of late.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: 6-for-60, how do you go 6-for-60???

    Hamilton is almost as disastrous as Bradley at the plate...which in itself is pretty damning to Josh.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from BogieAt12oclock. Show BogieAt12oclock's posts

    Re: 6-for-60, how do you go 6-for-60???

    In response to dannycater's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Sox 10-for-92 in the last 2 games, yet they almost swept the series and probably should have. 10-for-92...is that legendary terrible or what? Yikes, horrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrribbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbble.

    [/QUOTE]

    This pathetic offense, according to the usual suspect bootlickers, is no one's fault; just the luck of the draw. I'm having so much fun with this team this year, I hope the SOX bring back most of them next year. I'm sure they will.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from BogieAt12oclock. Show BogieAt12oclock's posts

    Re: 6-for-60, how do you go 6-for-60???

    In response to royf19's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to 67redsox's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to stan17's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I've been watching the Sox a long time but I've never seen them with a hitting lineup that has under achieved this badly.  Today they picked up right where they left off last night, 2 hits in 6 inns so far against the amazing Hector Santiago.  They're our team and we'll all follow but wow the offense is unwatchable right now.     

    [/QUOTE]


    No hitting, no pitching, they are hard to watch.  2015 can't come soon enough.

    [/QUOTE]
    What do you mean no pitching.

    Pitching has been pretty good all year and hasn't been bad even after the trade of Lester and Lackey. You've been hanging around Bill too much.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Wish I had said that. 

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: 6-for-60, how do you go 6-for-60???

    I'm stunned at how many people think it's okay to have 7 out of 9 hitters simply not hitting on every given night.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from BogieAt12oclock. Show BogieAt12oclock's posts

    Re: 6-for-60, how do you go 6-for-60???

    In response to 67redsox's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    Yikes, looks like I'm outnumber!  Ok, I give, you guys are right I'm wrong.  What was I thinking



    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.  


    Eleanor Roosevelt


    ( QUOTE>)


    You should let Eleanor do the thinking.











     




     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: 6-for-60, how do you go 6-for-60???

    In response to S5's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Not to pile on here, but did anyone notice that over the past two games (28 innings) positions 5-9 in the order are 1-49?

    Couldn't a blind squirrel hit two acorns in 49 attempts?  

    Any owners who sign previously suspended PED abusers to a big $$ contract are as guilty of perpetuating the PED problem as are the players.

    And I have never posted here under any other names.

    [/QUOTE]

    1 for 49 - man, that is spectacular.

     

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from royf19. Show royf19's posts

    Re: 6-for-60, how do you go 6-for-60???

    In response to dannycater's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I'm stunned at how many people think it's okay to have 7 out of 9 hitters simply not hitting on every given night.

    [/QUOTE]

    Ummmm ... where are all these people? I haven't found any who agree with that statement.

     

     

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Flapjack07. Show Flapjack07's posts

    Re: 6-for-60, how do you go 6-for-60???

    Ironic that the pitching seems to be carrying us right now.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: 6-for-60, how do you go 6-for-60???

    In response to royf19's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to dannycater's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I'm stunned at how many people think it's okay to have 7 out of 9 hitters simply not hitting on every given night.

    [/QUOTE]

    Ummmm ... where are all these people? I haven't found any who agree with that statement.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    There are fans that feel it's okay to have Bradley in the every day lineup based on his defense alone. There are fans that are trumpeting Nava on a daily basis, there are fans that want Holt every day, there are fans that are comfortable with Xander and Middlebrooks playing. So yeah, there are people finding the Pawtucket Sox fun to watch or some sort of future. People clamored for Mookie and Vasquez...The team's offense is an absolute joke and it's still missing 3 SPs from the WS champion team. So exactly how did the Sox get better with the trades? I don't feel comfortable about '15, let alone '16. Future not bright.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Flapjack07. Show Flapjack07's posts

    Re: 6-for-60, how do you go 6-for-60???

    There are fans that feel it's okay to have Bradley in the every day lineup based on his defense alone. There are fans that are trumpeting Nava on a daily basis, there are fans that want Holt every day, there are fans that are comfortable with Xander and Middlebrooks playing. So yeah, there are people finding the Pawtucket Sox fun to watch or some sort of future. People clamored for Mookie and Vasquez...The team's offense is an absolute joke and it's still missing 3 SPs from the WS champion team. So exactly how did the Sox get better with the trades? I don't feel comfortable about '15, let alone '16. Future not bright.

    I'm not sure what you're looking for here, but:

    -Yes, play JBJ, Xander, and Middlebrooks...there's no downside to giving them time to work things out, which they either will or won't. Then you have a better idea of where you stand next season. It's not like we have better alternatives anyway.

    -Nava should not be playing on a daily basis...I like him on the team, but more as a bench bat. He is still productive vs. RHP.

    -Holt was one of our best hitters and arguably the story of the season until very recently. Even with his slump he still leads the team in BA.

    -Vazquez is no worse than Pierzynski with the bat, a clear upgrade behind the plate and probably in the clubhouse...and again, we have no one better right now.

    Saying any of those guys should be in the lineup any given day is not the same as saying we're "okay with #7-9 not hitting." I would love a lineup full of studs, but this is what we have to deal with for the remainder of this year.

    Yes, the offense is still sad to watch, and yes, I'm skeptical that the trades made us better, but I'm holding judgment until I see what happens this offseason. Aug/Sept 2014 will simply be tryouts for the 2015 team as far as I'm concerned...sad, but true.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: 6-for-60, how do you go 6-for-60???

    Not 7 through 9, 7 out of 9....that's how bad it is...no one hitting but Pedroia and Ortiz of late...Cespedes and Napoli are obviously very good hitters, so ultimately it's 4 out of the 9 that are productive MLB players...Not enough right now to warrant being a good ball team next year...Lot of work to do. This "auditioning" for spots is not working out either. All it's doing is taking young players and putting them into situations that they can't handle as they are too young to deal with the pressure or too young in their development. 

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: 6-for-60, how do you go 6-for-60???

    Best way to improve is with MLB  ready players. Even the young players that the Sox have are not 2015 MLB ready...They just are not options, viable ones for 2015. 

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: 6-for-60, how do you go 6-for-60???

    Holt is a utility player with no position, .290 avg or not.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from slasher9. Show slasher9's posts

    Re: 6-for-60, how do you go 6-for-60???

    In response to BogieAt12oclock's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to dannycater's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Sox 10-for-92 in the last 2 games, yet they almost swept the series and probably should have. 10-for-92...is that legendary terrible or what? Yikes, horrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrribbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbble.

    [/QUOTE]

    This pathetic offense, according to the usual suspect bootlickers, is no one's fault; just the luck of the draw. I'm having so much fun with this team this year, I hope the SOX bring back most of them next year. I'm sure they will.

    [/QUOTE]
    i dont get it.  are you wishing the sox do poorly?  and next year as well?

    i'm not sure if you are actually a Sox fan.....

    other names i have posted under:  none

     

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from slasher9. Show slasher9's posts

    Re: 6-for-60, how do you go 6-for-60???

    i dont care if they go 1 for 99 as long as they win 2 out of 3 every series.....

     

    other names i have posted under:  none

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from BogieAt12oclock. Show BogieAt12oclock's posts

    Re: 6-for-60, how do you go 6-for-60???

    In response to slasher9's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BogieAt12oclock's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to dannycater's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Sox 10-for-92 in the last 2 games, yet they almost swept the series and probably should have. 10-for-92...is that legendary terrible or what? Yikes, horrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrribbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbble.

    [/QUOTE]

    This pathetic offense, according to the usual suspect bootlickers, is no one's fault; just the luck of the draw. I'm having so much fun with this team this year, I hope the SOX bring back most of them next year. I'm sure they will.

    [/QUOTE]
    i dont get it.  are you wishing the sox do poorly?  and next year as well?

    i'm not sure if you are actually a Sox fan.....

    other names i have posted under:  none

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Yes, I'm a SOX fan, but some of these posters who keep apologizing for the FO deserve a last place team next year.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from royf19. Show royf19's posts

    Re: 6-for-60, how do you go 6-for-60???

    In response to dannycater's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to royf19's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to dannycater's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I'm stunned at how many people think it's okay to have 7 out of 9 hitters simply not hitting on every given night.

    [/QUOTE]

    Ummmm ... where are all these people? I haven't found any who agree with that statement.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    There are fans that feel it's okay to have Bradley in the every day lineup based on his defense alone. There are fans that are trumpeting Nava on a daily basis, there are fans that want Holt every day, there are fans that are comfortable with Xander and Middlebrooks playing. So yeah, there are people finding the Pawtucket Sox fun to watch or some sort of future. People clamored for Mookie and Vasquez...The team's offense is an absolute joke and it's still missing 3 SPs from the WS champion team. So exactly how did the Sox get better with the trades? I don't feel comfortable about '15, let alone '16. Future not bright.

    [/QUOTE]

    Danny, Danny, Danny:

    Can we please not give up on 2015 before 2014 even ends. You're smart enough to know that 2015 lineup will be different than the lineups the Sox are using from now to the rest of the season.

    Even before 2004, Sox fans would at least remain positive through spring training and not start lining up on teh Tobin Bridge until the season began. No need to start a new trend after three titles in 10 years.

     

    As for the rest of your post, with the Sox being out of it yeah -- I have no problem with Middlebrooks, Bogaerts and Bradley playing to see what they can do. Many of us feel the same way. It doesn't mean we're happy with a bottom of the lineup that isn't hitting. It means we want use the next two months to see who is viable going forward and who isn't.

     

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from Teakus. Show Teakus's posts

    Re: 6-for-60, how do you go 6-for-60???

    It's not ok at all Danny and you were right to start this thread. But the faaar more serious issue is the damage they are doing to our prospects by allowing them to flounder at the MLB level all year. JBJ is now officially a failure. His defense doesn't mean a thing if he's going to hit .200, and he's now officially been proven to be a .200 hitter. He should have NEVER been anywhere but AAA this season, because he had already proven he wasn't capable of hitting MLB pitching! Only morons demand that a prospect mature when it's convenient for them. Smart leaders realize it's an individual process that can't be rushed. Leaving him up because "his deeefence is just sa dang good" couldn't be a more unintelligent decision. Xander is 21 yrs old. A mere child!! He was rushed to the big show prematurely because management was desperate to fill positions on the cheap. PERIOD. We reduced our team control and probably hindered his development as a player all because we want him NOW. And in addition to forcing him to face the finest pitchers on Earth at age 21, we also forced him to learn a new position after the stupid Drew signing. BRILLIANT!! Finally, we also need to stop keeping hitting coaches because they can laugh and get along with the managers. If they can't do the job-get someone who can! Our young kids were NOT HELPED as they struggled (though in fairness it may be a physical development issue as well), and even Pedroia and Ortiz have major drops in their batting averages. There are many issues at play in this debacle of a season, and the Red Sox need to take an HONEST look at their collective failures to perform. All I hear though from those in the organization is spin, spin, spin. And nobody is buying it anymore. 

     

     

    In response to dannycater's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I'm stunned at how many people think it's okay to have 7 out of 9 hitters simply not hitting on every given night.

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: 6-for-60, how do you go 6-for-60???

    I find it alarming how bad the Sox bats have been, but explainable. The prospects are not MLB ready to hit, they are overmatched at the plate, some by different levels. Xander seems to be able to hit some balls hard, but has had stretches where he can go 8 plate appearances and struggle for one decent hit ball. Bradley simply can't catch up to fastballs and can't touch curves. Vasquez is a singles hitter at best. Betts was here for a cup of coffee, but really not prepared to face MLB pitching. Middlebrooks is a disaster. Nava is a singles hitter. Holt is a singles hitter. How many are worth keeping around next year on the '15 roster? Arguably none of them.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from NLU75. Show NLU75's posts

    Re: 6-for-60, how do you go 6-for-60???

    In response to dannycater's comment:


    I find it alarming how bad the Sox bats have been, but explainable. The prospects are not MLB ready to hit, they are overmatched at the plate, some by different levels. Xander seems to be able to hit some balls hard, but has had stretches where he can go 8 plate appearances and struggle for one decent hit ball. Bradley simply can't catch up to fastballs and can't touch curves. Vasquez is a singles hitter at best. Betts was here for a cup of coffee, but really not prepared to face MLB pitching. Middlebrooks is a disaster. Nava is a singles hitter. Holt is a singles hitter. How many are worth keeping around next year on the '15 roster? Arguably none of them.


    Danny you are correct in every way, great post 



     

     

Share