76.8

  1. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: 76.8

    In response to royf19's comment:

    1 -- the loneliest number in all the world.




    2 -- can be as bad as 1,  it's  the lonliest number since the number one.

     

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

    Re: 76.8

    In response to softlaw2's comment:

    His actual runs scored per season is 107

    No, his actual runs scored per season is 76.8.  A season of actual runs scored is not a projection on how many runs might have scored if the palyer got out of bet and played 162 games in a season.



    Ok so now you go back to the health issue.  Which you did not at all imply in your original post.  You did imply that the team score few runs as Ellsbury as a lead off hitter.  But the truth is when he's in the lineup that's wrong.

     

    You wanna argue his ability to stay healthy, fine.  But make that point clear and stop being vague and moving the goal posts.

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from BosoxJoe5. Show BosoxJoe5's posts

    Re: 76.8

    In response to softlaw2's comment:

    His actual runs scored per season is 107

    No, his actual runs scored per season is 76.8.  A season of actual runs scored is not a projection on how many runs might have scored if the palyer got out of bet and played 162 games in a season.



    Doesn't work like that.

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

    Re: 76.8

    Anybody know the average number of days Ellsbury spends on th DL?

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from mef429. Show mef429's posts

    Re: 76.8

    In response to DirtyWaterLover's comment:

    Anybody know the average number of days Ellsbury spends on th DL?




    do you know the number of times hes been on the DL?

    2

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Schumpeters-Ghost. Show Schumpeters-Ghost's posts

    Re: 76.8

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    107.0

    The average number of runs Jacoby scores per 162 games.

    Runs scored by our leadoff hitters in recent years:

    2012    88  (Jacoby missed over half the season)

    2011  127

    2010  103  (Jacoby missed almost the whole year)

    2009  111

    2008  108

     

    It's clear our leadoff hitters score much more when Jacoby is not playing. Right?

    ~115 per season when Jacoby plays FT.

    ~95 per season when he does not.

    Silly clown.




     

    Exactly correct.  107 runs per 162. 

     

     

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: 76.8

    In response to softlaw2's comment:

    His actual runs scored per season is 107

    No, his actual runs scored per season is 76.8.  A season of actual runs scored is not a projection on how many runs might have scored if the palyer got out of bet and played 162 games in a season.



    You don't get it. When he is not playing, somebody else does, and they score some too, so it's not like the Sox just get 76.8 runs from the leadoff slot.

    They score more when he plays.

    He's been hurt a lot.

    Get over it.

    Clown.

     
  10. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: 76.8

    I wish we could like comments...just saying.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from mef429. Show mef429's posts

    Re: 76.8

    In response to ctredsoxfanhugh's comment:

    I wish we could like comments...just saying.




    1 thing at a time. let's get the deleted post situation squared away first..

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: 76.8

    In response to softlaw2's comment:

    Dirty Water, you need to check on what Ellsbury's "162 game average" is on the disabled or vacation list.

    And, stooge, "when he plays" makes my point. "We score more when he" is something only a stooge could come up with. The Red Sox scored more when Ortiz was healthy and playing or when the stars lined up correctly.

    Anyone know Ellsbury's 162 game average for the disabled list?

    I though Ellsbury was sensational when he finally played those 70 plus games in 2012. His 162 game average had to be 40 homers and 200 runs scored.



    What's the guy's numbers from the DL you wanted so badly, and still cry over?

     

     

    (VMart has averaged 72.5 games and 298 PAs with Detroit since the signing.  6 HRs and 52 RBIs.)

    Is Ben Sheets still around?

    Anyone on the DL you know that should take lackey's place?

    Is Grady Sizemore ready yet?

    How did the human statue Ramon Hernandez work out since the last signing?

    Sure wish we traded for HanRam when you wanted him (after the 2010 season)...  just about the very second he went into a tailspin.

     

    (Cue: Santana and Wake stale drivel.)

     

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: 76.8

    Both worked out much better than the human passed ball and atuomatic out, Varitek.

    Both who? Ramon & Hernandez?

     

    Ben Sheets on a minor league contact is better than your man Santana. Is Santana still around,? Is he still on your payroll?'

    Different year, clown. Sheets never pitched one inning the year you would have signed him.

    I have admitted to my mistake on Santana, but I was spot on that you'd bring him up to deflect from your horrid streak of over 400 straight wrong positions. Next time flip a coin- you'll have a 50% better chance of being right.

     

    R. Johnson for 2M and Sizemore and Pods on a minor league contract, as placeholders for Bradley, Jr.,

    Sizemore will not be ready to play until maybe June... nice "placeholder"- just like when you wanted Doubront to start instead of Wake, when he was on the DL or in rehab. Brilliant clownsmanship here, softy.

     

    Ellsbury traded and J. Upton acquired for a little more than that pitiful Braves offer, that's a little better than 23 million for Ellspuff and old Shane.

    Why do you keep pretending like you are the only one who wanted Ellsbury traded or wanted Upton traded for. Stop the strawman act. I offered much more realistic offers for Upton than you.

     

    Yes, those 24 homers were terrible for Hanley, not to mention what Fenway's little league LF would have done. Instead, your man Aviles and Lowrie and Aviles and some old toilets have really done a great job.

    My man Aviles? Dude, I wrote hundreds of posts about why Iggy should have started instead of Mike. Your strawman act is getting old. Have you no sense of decency?

     

    I like Hanley in LF (been saying for years that the Red Sox must do better than garbage in the OF and could have acquired Kemp, then Hanley, then  J. Upton), over the great OF of Ellsbury, Shane, and some garbage purchased from Bloomberg's garbage barge service.  

    So, at least you are not now denying you wanted HanRam, that's a good step in teh right direction for you. Have you begun having counseling sessions recently?

    Oh, and by the way, Sherlock, since it is you who chose HRs to judge HanRam by and now say you wanted him in LF, here's the score since you wanted him after 2010:

    HRs:

    HanRam 34

    Jake        36

     

    Want more?

    DBLs: HanRam 45/ Jake 64

    SBs: HanRam 41/  Jake 53

    Runs: HanRam 134/  Jake 162

    RBIs: HanRam 137/ Jake 131

    Gms-PAs: HanRam 249-1052/  Jake 232-1065

    Contract Cost: HanRam $26M/ Jake $10.45M

    I won't mention BA, OBP, SLG%, or your prized GG Awards that you hold in such high esteem (see the Jeter is a great fielder position held by the resident clown).

     

    Cue: Next goalpost move.

     

     

    Stay tuned, folks.

     

     

     (Softy's got a goalpost made of balsa wood for easier positional movements.)

     

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Promise4you2. Show Promise4you2's posts

    Re: 76.8

    14, the number of flushes needed to clean this board up once and for all! softy first, then the fool with the bone his his mouth that says nothing but negative things second, then Bill, there are a million reasons, then again he could be softy and we could save a flush. This place has gone down the flusher!

     Thank heavens for the NY posters who are sane and the few great sox posters here! I don't need to say who they are since they know!

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: 76.8

    In response to Promise4you2's comment:

    14, the number of flushes needed to clean this board up once and for all! softy first, then the fool with the bone his his mouth that says nothing but negative things second, then Bill, there are a million reasons, then again he could be softy and we could save a flush. This place has gone down the flusher!

     Thank heavens for the NY posters who are sane and the few great sox posters here! I don't need to say who they are since they know!



    Stick around, promise.

    We need more posters like you here.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share