A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Your-Echo. Show Your-Echo's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    What is this obsession with young fans ( post 2004), "pink hatters", bandwagoners, and entitled fans? Most of those that you disagree with on here including are old foggies who are older than 60, cut out coupons in Florida, are retired, are Republican / Conservatives, know ancient movies and music, and are headstrong, obstinate, and set in their ways. The forum is saturated with old men and not younger people ( pink-hatters ). The regulars are old men. I'm surprised that you aren't aware by now of who you are talking to and disagreeing with.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    [QUOTE]We saw it coming, danny. The guy had 4 straight starts with 28.2 IP  (7.1 IP per start) 13 ER  (4.08 ERA) 25 Hits and 5 BB (1.046 WHIP) before his last 2 starts: 9.1 IP   8 ER    19 H+BB Bam! You're outta here!
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    I don't begrudge Lackey, I feel even a little sorry for him. I don't think even he thinks he is this consistent at being mediocre to average. But it's pretty incredible that people think Wakefield doesn't EVER KEEP THE TEAM IN A GAME...in comparison. It's always he's taking someone else's rotation spot, he's just filling in, he's not part of the postseason plans, he's this, he's that, and what he does is because the Sox are "respecting" him by leaving him in the rotation for the 200th win. If that was really the case, then the Sox manager is a bigger moron than fans give him credit for.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    HE EARNED HIS SPOT IN THE ROTATION...EARNED IT....He lost it based on 2 straight starts, one eerily similar to a lot of Lackey type starts. He had a bad start v. Oakland and it cost him 2 weeks. And here's the thing that I'm pretty certain of---don't expect him to pitch great v. Toronto. If anything he could get hit hard again, and I think it's because he is not effective after longer rests. It's just not his M.O.

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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    I honestly don't know how you are supposed to have a strong psyche pitching as if every time you give up a hit, you are either about to be pulled or about to be pulled out of the rotation. Yet that is what Tim did for a long stretch of starts. He made it impossible for Tito to replace him. Once Tito got his out--Miller throwing well, Tim having a bad start--it gave him his opportunity to pull him out. Lackey? Well, he just gets his free ride. He will trot out and do his 5 ER deal. At least he had Posada to give him 5 outs and a Crawford "highlight" reel catch, which in reality was another misplayed jump by CC. But CC hits CC well, and he gave the team some offense while the rest of the team struggled with men on base.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    I know I'll get hell for criticizing Lackey as he faced a good team in a tough park for pitchers. But then again Aceves 1-2-3 inning, Albers gets out of a jam. Doesn't seem to bother the bullpen...Fenway.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    [QUOTE]We saw it coming, danny. The guy had 4 straight starts with 28.2 IP  (7.1 IP per start) 13 ER  (4.08 ERA) 25 Hits and 5 BB (1.046 WHIP) before his last 2 starts: 9.1 IP   8 ER    19 H+BB Bam! You're outta here!
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]OK but what would you do this weekend? Use a six man rotation or skip Miller?

    I don't think this was that hard a call which is why you guys saw it coming. The season is getting very short and Wake became a the cold hand at a bad time and unlike Lackey they aren't stuck with making him work for them for another three years.


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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    [QUOTE]What is this obsession with young fans ( post 2004), "pink hatters", bandwagoners, and entitled fans? Most of those that you disagree with on here including are old foggies who are older than 60, cut out coupons in Florida, are retired, are Republican / Conservatives, know ancient movies and music, and are headstrong, obstinate, and set in their ways. The forum is saturated with old men and not younger people ( pink-hatters ). The regulars are old men. I'm surprised that you aren't aware by now of who you are talking to and disagreeing with.
    Posted by Your-Echo[/QUOTE]

    R U a census taker?
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    katz, maybe you missed it, but I have said Miller should start over Wake if we go to a 5 man rotation. 2 weeks ago, I said Wake needed a break. The problem was he was in the midst of a nice 4 game stretch and we needed every win we could get.

    My argument has been against people bashing Wake and saying Miller deserves to start over Wake based on Wake's 2010-2011 numbers. The fact is Miller has the worst WHIP and tERA of any MLB starter with more than 70 IP since 2010. That's 207th place out of 207 who qualify. Miller also has a worse ERA and xFIP than Wake.

    If people want to start Miller over a tiny 2 game sample size, they should just admit it and stop hiding behind misinformation and selective stats for one guy but not the other.

    Personally, I think Wake pitched too many innings in a short span. From May 22nd to his last start, he has had more GS and more IP than any other Sox starter. He needed a break. That coupled with the distraction of win #200 makes Miller the right choice right now to me, despite the fact that Wake has better overall numbers from 2010-2011 and 2011 alone. ERA and HR/9 are important stats, but Wake beats Miller in almost every other important stat or metric.

    Now, Wake vs Lackey is another matter. Sitting lackey will never happen, so I won't even go there.

    Give Wake 10 days off and then try to squeeze him in somewhere and let him get 3-4 more starts if possible. Of course, if Miller looks great in the next 10 days, Wake may never get another start and many here will be dancing in the streets.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    [QUOTE]Another factor has to be considered: playing in fenway may alter a players approach and "swing". Thinking "go the other way" might mess with their normal thought process rendering them less capable of producing. Also, that Fenway mindset and "adjustment" to their swing could transfer to away games and hurt their away numbers, since it was hard for them to "change back" quickly. It's easier for a pitcher to get a guy out of he knows he trying to pull the ball (RHB in Fenway) of go the other way (LHB in Fenway) all the time.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    Fenway's affect on a hitter's swing away from the park is something perhaps the hitters themselves can offer the best judgements.
    But if you are isolating home advantage beyond venue dimensions, simply look at players who played in Fenway and then moved on.

    How drastic is the disparity after they left Boston?
    I recently did research on Lynn, and I think his numbers over-all favored the road slightly after he left the RedSox. He played for the O's/Tigers/Angels. He's a good case study.

    If memory serves, I believe Fisk's road numbers, playing for  Chicago, were close to his home ones, if not better.

    What I find interesting is the gray area involved weighing out home advantage against venue, considering the player's ability/swing type. IMO, some players thrive on home cooking. But more often than not, venue dimensions will over-ride it when they are extreme.
    AGONE in Petco/Fenway is a strong example.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Serious question: Does Lackey always look like he's out of breath? I noticed by the 4th he was essentially panting.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from S0ftl@w. Show S0ftl@w's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Once I saw what Dunn got

    You wanted Dunn for years, as DH/LF. I said it was nuts. It was. 
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    [QUOTE]Serious question: Does Lackey always look liek he's out of breath. I noticed byt he 4th he was essentially panting.
    Posted by BurritoT[/QUOTE]

    Is that surprising considering this series and what's at stake?
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Moon will now be IGGY-tested for the first time.
    Stay strong Moony!

    Resist temptation.
    New vision be shown.
    Through the wonders of HIS existence,
    where miracles are know.


    A bettor's lament.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III : Is that surprising considering this series and what's at stake?
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

    A pitcher should be in good enough shape not to be out of breath was my concern... but I only got to watch the 3,4,5, and 6th inning.

    In A ball I learned when you see a pitcher exerting himself similar to that it was bad sing long-term.

    I am not assuming anything thus I asked the question.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from S0ftl@w. Show S0ftl@w's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Burrito, CC looked out of breath. Had Red Sox hitter been more patient and laid off the fish hooks, they would have ignited the fumes he was on for the last 30 pitches.

    Tonight, CC control was good for a stint but then went south with fatigue and started relying on a breaking fish hook a foot off the plate.  Ump didnt help by giving CC extra 6 inches away.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III : A pitcher should be in good enough shape not to be out of breath was my concern... but I only got to watch the 3,4,5, and 6th inning. In A ball I learned when you see a pitcher exerting himself similar to that it was bad sing long-term. I am not assuming anything thus I asked the question.
    Posted by BurritoT[/QUOTE]

    C'mon. Many pitchers are out of shape and still excel at the highest level. Wells/Lolich are poster children.

    I do agree with you about a pitcher over-exerting himself as being detrimental, but that's not so much a sign of physique as much as it is temperament/game conditions.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Yeah I was surprised, I think CC was at 119 pitches by the middle of the 6th... he definentely was not at his best.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    It was probably pretty humid out there, after the storm. Sabathia was struggling also.

    Lackey just isn't our guy this year, no matter how we spin it. If he is our #3 we are in big trouble going forward. I've heard that Buchholz might come back enough to relieve. Man it sure would be helpful if he could start.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    What I find interesting is the gray area involved weighing out home advantage against venue, considering the player's ability/swing type. IMO, some players thrive on home cooking. But more often than not, venue dimensions will over-ride it when they are extreme.
    AGONE in Petco/Fenway is a strong example.

    I agree. My point is that when looking at home-away splits, one can not attribute 100% of every player's differential to venue. It is very likely that with most players, just being home is at least a small part of the equation.

    It would be interesting to go back and see how George Scott, Fisk, Lynn and others did at Fenway after they were traded away. Of course, some were dealt after prime, so how much of the decline is prime related vs venue/home-away related?
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    [QUOTE]Yeah I was surprised, I think CC was at 119 pitches by the middle of the 6th... he definentely was not at his best.
    Posted by BurritoT[/QUOTE]

    It seemed like he was helped by the fact that our hitters were swinging for the fences most of the night.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    The K zone really was crazy last night.  Check out Lowrie's strikeout in the 9th on MLB Gameday.  Strikes 2 and 3 are a mile outside.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Essentially Lackey's start wasn't much different than a lot of his starts, but this one the Sox scored 2 runs. The Sox didn't win. What do you conclude from this? Just a few posts ago, katz, said something to the effect that the Sox are stuck with him. Is this because 82 mil is invested in him? Yup.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    I posted that because I really don't want to hear about that contract/money invested doesn't completely affect how a manager/GM uses a player or looks the other way if that invested player is playing poorly, hurting the team, and slumping. A low-salary player doesn't have that luxury, and that is why we have every right as fans to call out a player who is not "earning" his salary. You can't just throw that factor out.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    [QUOTE]katz, maybe you missed it, but I have said Miller should start over Wake if we go to a 5 man rotation. 2 weeks ago, I said Wake needed a break. The problem was he was in the midst of a nice 4 game stretch and we needed every win we could get. My argument has been against people bashing Wake and saying Miller deserves to start over Wake based on Wake's 2010-2011 numbers. The fact is Miller has the worst WHIP and tERA of any MLB starter with more than 70 IP since 2010. That's 207th place out of 207 who qualify. Miller also has a worse ERA and xFIP than Wake. If people want to start Miller over a tiny 2 game sample size, they should just admit it and stop hiding behind misinformation and selective stats for one guy but not the other. Personally, I think Wake pitched too many innings in a short span. From May 22nd to his last start, he has had more GS and more IP than any other Sox starter. He needed a break. That coupled with the distraction of win #200 makes Miller the right choice right now to me, despite the fact that Wake has better overall numbers from 2010-2011 and 2011 alone. ERA and HR/9 are important stats, but Wake beats Miller in almost every other important stat or metric. Now, Wake vs Lackey is another matter. Sitting lackey will never happen, so I won't even go there. Give Wake 10 days off and then try to squeeze him in somewhere and let him get 3-4 more starts if possible. Of course, if Miller looks great in the next 10 days, Wake may never get another start and many here will be dancing in the streets.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]This plan sounds like a longer explaination of what Tito ssaid they are doing, skipping he Texas series and starting Tim in the Toronto series.

    Yeah it is about small sample sets and I get where it gets annoying that it certainly gives every appearance of validating serial trashing.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Katz, since Wake does not do well with extra days rest, my idea was to give him one extended break at some point in the year, then put him back into a routine. That way he only has one time to get back into the rythym. Giving him 2-3 days here and there is worse IMO.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share