A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom'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 : I didn't say I wrote books about pitching. I said simply that I was a pitching coach. "Noble prize winning experiences." You are still pathetically flailing around. At best, you sound like a disputant in a middle-school playground.  Your struggle to do the situation justice collapsed into a slur on handicapped children. 
    Posted by expitch[/QUOTE]
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from expitch. Show expitch's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Your writing about Bautista did not lack precision. Its meaning was perfectly clear, as I've pointed out when parsing your sentence.
    I said nothing about books. I said I wrote a story about a pitching coach. 
     
  3. 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]And Theo Chicks still want Varitek and Wakefield back for ANOTHER season? That's a .500 team in the AL East in 2012. No thanks.
    Posted by null[/QUOTE]

    I could care less if Theo is back or not for 2012. It has nothing to do with the VTek and Wake decisions.

    If Theo or whoever the next GM is gets someone better than Wake and VTek, I will be happy if both of them walk. 
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom'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 : I didn't say I wrote books about pitching. I said simply that I was a pitching coach. "Noble prize winning experiences." You are still pathetically flailing around. At best, you sound like a disputant in a middle-school playground.  Your struggle to do the situation justice collapsed into a slur on handicapped children. 
    Posted by expitch[/QUOTE]

    Before that you said you wrote "Published Fiction". Above you strongly imply that you didn't write anything. The latest is that you wrote a "story" about a pitching coach. You are losing track of things dude. I do think you are a fiction writer though. Most of us have been reading it for weeks. I knew something was up with you. You are a complete, lying weasel. 

     
  5. 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]In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III : I didn't see your challenge last year Moon. If Tek is Beckett's personal caddy it makes such bets less attractive, especially when we know the alternative catcher will be catching Wake and be given the starters job against tougher competition. Big factors huh. I don't think Tek or Wake will be back and 6 to 1 odds are attractive. I'll take your bet!
    Posted by Boomerangsdotcom[/QUOTE]

    Boom, I'm not betting on team CERA, I'm talking how each pitcher does with each catcher, so it doesn't matter if Beckett has VTek as his personal caddy. If nobody else catches Beckett, his numbers dont count in the bet. If nobody else catches Wake, his numbers are thrown out of the equation. 

    Your making this point shows me that you still don't understand how CERA is supposed to be used. Many of the articles blasting CERA also miss the correct usage as well, so don't get down on yourself. 

    CERA is a very restrictive stat that only has very limited usage and value. It's only viable use is to compare two catchers on the same team with how each individual pitcher does with each one. If one catcher does not catch a certain pitcher at all or in tiny sample sizes, then CERA should not be used to make definitive judgements. Severely unbalanced IP with one catcher over another should also not be counted as much as more balanced sample sizes, even if the second catcher has an over 25-30 IP sample size.

    Look at the pitchers that both Salty and V'Tek caught in significant sample size quantities. Do this every year since V'Tek has been with the Sox. Do the same with VMart and his counterparts. Napoli and Mathis. Posad and his back-ups. Others. Look at opponent's OPS, CERA, W-L records year after year. There will be a few years and a few pitchers who buck the trend, but the trend is very consistent and predictable.

    Here' the specifics of my offer:
    6:1 odds
    V'Tek and Salty (or Lavarnway) are back with Boston.
    Compare only the pitchers who have 25+ IP with both catchers.
    Throw out any pitcher's numbers who does not have large enough sample sizes with both catchers. (Probably at least Beckett and Wake)
    Total up how many qualifying pitchers have a better CERA with V'Tek and how many have a better CERA with Salty or Lavarnway. 
    If Vtek has more, you pay me $20.
    If the Salty or Lavarnway have more, I pay you $120.
    Deal?

    Using this criteria, this year's score would be:
    VTek 5: Lester, Aceves, Bard, Papelbon, and Albers
    Salty 2: Lackey & Miller.



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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III : Boom, I'm not betting on team CERA, I'm talking how each pitcher does with each catcher, so it doesn't matter if Beckett has VTek as his personal caddy. If nobody else catches Beckett, his numbers dont count in the bet. If nobody else catches Wake, his numbers are thrown out of the equation.  Your making this point shows me that you still don't understand how CERA is supposed to be used. Many of the articles blasting CERA also miss the correct usage as well, so don't get down on yourself.  CERA is a very restrictive stat that only has very limited usage and value. It's only viable use is to compare two catchers on the same team with how each individual pitcher does with each one. If one catcher does not catch a certain pitcher at all or in tiny sample sizes, then CERA should not be used to make definitive judgements. Severely unbalanced IP with one catcher over another should also not be counted as much as more balanced sample sizes, even if the second catcher has an over 25-30 IP sample size. Look at the pitchers that both Salty and V'Tek caught in significant sample size quantities. Do this every year since V'Tek has been with the Sox. Do the same with VMart and his counterparts. Napoli and Mathis. Posad and his back-ups. Others. Look at opponent's OPS, CERA, W-L records year after year. There will be a few years and a few pitchers who buck the trend, but the trend is very consistent and predictable. Here' the specifics of my offer: 6:1 odds V'Tek and Salty (or Lavarnway) are back with Boston. Compare only the pitchers who have 25+ IP with both catchers. Throw out any pitcher's numbers who does not have large enough sample sizes with both catchers. (Probably at least Beckett and Wake) Total up how many qualifying pitchers have a better CERA with V'Tek and how many have a better CERA with Salty or Lavarnway.  If Vtek has more, you pay me $20. If the Salty or Lavarnway have more, I pay you $120. Deal? Using this criteria, this year's score would be: VTek 5: Lester, Aceves, Bard, Papelbon, and Albers Salty 2: Lackey & Miller.
    Posted by moonslav59


    I agree Moon. That is the best wy CERA should be used but it a stat nonetheless no matter who is pitching right. The best way to use it is in comparison to another catcher on the sme team catching the same guys.

    At the same time we are still talking about small sample sizes. If Tek catches Beckett when he is hot the numbers go up for Tek. If Tek gets hurt and Salty starts catching Beckett a lot and Beckett tanks, Salty is also affected.

    The baseball prospective and Bill James analyses both talk about sample size issues. Large sample sizes are needed to make the data statistically significant.

    My wife is encouraging me to do other things. Gotta go! 
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from expitch. Show expitch'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 : Before that you said you wrote " Published Fiction ". Above you strongly imply that you didn't write anything. The latest is that you wrote a "story" about a pitching coach. You are losing track of things dude. I do think you are a fiction writer though. Most of us have been reading it for weeks. I knew something was up with you. You are a complete, lying weasel. 
    Posted by Boomerangsdotcom[/QUOTE]
    Your comment about what I "strongly imply" ( that I didn't write anything ) makes me think that your powers of inference are even dimmer than what I had heretofore imagined. You had just quoted me as saying "shucks," here I thought you might have read something I'd published. 
    Book-length fiction is first identified as a novel or, if short, a novella. Once the genre is established, the person talking or writing about the book might go on to say, "This is the story of a pitching coach...." "Story," on its own when referring to fiction, does not mean "book." In fiction, unless a "story" is explicitly identified as a "book," it refers to a short piece. Pity you didn't know this. 

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from expitch. Show expitch'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 : You make me angry. People say things they later regret when they are angry. I've apologized for saying it twice now. I apologize for saying it again. I can't justify it nor should I even attempt.  Will you apologize for LYING above about writing a book about a pitching coach called "Class A"? Will you apologize for taking such a little thing as the Bautista MVP vote issue to absurd lengths now and will not even end it after I gave you the last word?  Let me help you. It's spelled A...P..O...L...O...G..I..Z..E.   Sound it out now.
    Posted by Boomerangsdotcom[/QUOTE]
    As I said, I'll bet that you would have a very hard time selling that apology to a mom of a competitor in the Special Olympics, not matter how many times you tried to apologize. so unspeakably crass was it. Right, people say all sorts of things when they are angry, but I've never seen anything like that on this board, or anywhere, for that matter, as a weapon of insult.
    I do not "make you angry." You get angry -- and beyond. There's help for that problem. 

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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III : Your comment about what I "strongly imply" ( that I didn't write anything ) makes me think that your powers of inference are even dimmer than what I had heretofore imagined. You had just quoted me as saying "shucks," here I thought you might have read something I'd published.  Book-length fiction is first identified as a novel or, if short, a novella. Once the genre is established, the person talking or writing about the book might go on to say, "This is the story of a pitching coach...." "Story," on its own when referring to fiction, does not mean "book." In fiction, unless a "story" is explicitly identified as a "book," it refers to a short piece. Pity you didn't know this. 
    Posted by expitch


    What does "published fiction" refer to expitch? What have you come up with for that one?

    You know your language is a little imprecise. I think I'll post 10 pages of criticism on your apparent incorrect use of the words "published fiction". 
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    I believe you expitch. I have no doubt in my mind that you know a lot about writing fiction. Or is it now that you didn't write "published Fiction"? Or you just wrote a story right? Oh yeah, you didn't say anything about writing a story, you were just a pitching coach right? Complete lying weasel.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III : I didn't say I wrote books about pitching. I said simply that I was a pitching coach. "Noble prize winning experiences." You are still pathetically flailing around. At best, you sound like a disputant in a middle-school playground.  Your struggle to do the situation justice collapsed into a slur on handicapped children. 
    Posted by expitch

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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    I think I've made my point, but then again my writing lacks a certain precision!
     
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    I just grilled some ribs for the dogs. You have my full attention now expitch. What have you got for us today? That story about how your SS put on the catching equipment at practice at USC. I'm sure that sort of thing happened all the time. I was a college athlete. That kind of stuff happened all the time with us. It was a barrel of laughs! 
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    I agree Moon. That is the best wy CERA should be used but it a stat nonetheless no matter who is pitching right. The best way to use it is in comparison to another catcher on the same team catching the same guys.

    At the same time we are still talking about small sample sizes. If Tek catches Beckett when he is hot the numbers go up for Tek. If Tek gets hurt and Salty starts catching Beckett a lot and Beckett tanks, Salty is also affected.

    The baseball prospective and Bill James analyses both talk about sample size issues. Large sample sizes are needed to make the data statistically significant.

    I agree 100%, and there really are not many examples with large sample sizes for both catchers with multiple pitchers in any given year, especially since Tito does not platoon his catchers based on the opposing pitcher's throwing hand, but by a "personal caddy" approach.

    Your point is well taken about the timing and other variables that can effect the results, especially in smaller sample sizes. One bad pitch can skew the numbers. That is one reason why I never considered taking the CERA numbers at total face value. I allowed for adjustments due to luck, and even assumed all the bad luck went to the "other guy" and the good luck to V'Tek. That's why I never said the disparity was 1.00 or 1.50 in CERA. I brought it down (maybe wrongfully, perhaps I should have brought it up) to about a 0.25 to 0.50 differential.

    Although small sample sizes should not be counted, when you look at all of the small and unbalanced sample sizes together, the trend is staggering and one-sided. You can't flip a coin and call it right 80% of the time with 10-15 pitchers each year, year after year after year.

    I then tried to identify how many runs that would amount to over a full season and see if that number could possibly be made up for with better offensive production. When you consider that although V'Tek's offense seems to be pretty bad of late, he still puts up numbers that are about equal to the 15th best starting catcher in MLB, even a Ted William's bat would not make up the difference. Those numbers were supported by the W-L records of the Sox with V'Tek catching vs the W-L records when much better hitting catchers were catching instead.

    To me, the evidence is overwhelming. Couple the numbers with all the anecdotal evidence and testimonials by pitchers present and retired, is enough for me to be 100% confident in my belief that catchers matter. They matter a lot!

    However 
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from YOUKILLUS20. Show YOUKILLUS20'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 : Boom, I'm not betting on team CERA, I'm talking how each pitcher does with each catcher, so it doesn't matter if Beckett has VTek as his personal caddy. If nobody else catches Beckett, his numbers dont count in the bet. If nobody else catches Wake, his numbers are thrown out of the equation.  Your making this point shows me that you still don't understand how CERA is supposed to be used. Many of the articles blasting CERA also miss the correct usage as well, so don't get down on yourself.  CERA is a very restrictive stat that only has very limited usage and value. It's only viable use is to compare two catchers on the same team with how each individual pitcher does with each one. If one catcher does not catch a certain pitcher at all or in tiny sample sizes, then CERA should not be used to make definitive judgements. Severely unbalanced IP with one catcher over another should also not be counted as much as more balanced sample sizes, even if the second catcher has an over 25-30 IP sample size. Look at the pitchers that both Salty and V'Tek caught in significant sample size quantities. Do this every year since V'Tek has been with the Sox. Do the same with VMart and his counterparts. Napoli and Mathis. Posad and his back-ups. Others. Look at opponent's OPS, CERA, W-L records year after year. There will be a few years and a few pitchers who buck the trend, but the trend is very consistent and predictable. Here' the specifics of my offer: 6:1 odds V'Tek and Salty (or Lavarnway) are back with Boston. Compare only the pitchers who have 25+ IP with both catchers. Throw out any pitcher's numbers who does not have large enough sample sizes with both catchers. (Probably at least Beckett and Wake) Total up how many qualifying pitchers have a better CERA with V'Tek and how many have a better CERA with Salty or Lavarnway.  If Vtek has more, you pay me $20. If the Salty or Lavarnway have more, I pay you $120. Deal? Using this criteria, this year's score would be: VTek 5: Lester, Aceves, Bard, Papelbon, and Albers Salty 2: Lackey & Miller.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

     In a list of the top 100 CERA performance of all time, a funny thing happens, it's populated with the names of guys, who were, well, good catchers! Their likes include Johnny Bench 4 times, Manny Sanguillen 4, Tim McCarver 4, Tom Haller 4, Jim Sundberg 3, Thurman Munson 3, Bill Freehan 3, Gary Carter 3(Montreal once and Mets twice), Lance Parrish 3 (Det once and Angels twice).They were lucky to play at a time when their staff happened to be peaking, the oppostion would say. Maybe, and it's hard to prove a negative, because these guys just didn't switch teams much. Take Ray Fosse 1973 Oak, and 1972 Cleveland, the Tribe starters had some great results with Fosse calling the pitches, Gaylord Perry 1.92 era, the best in his long career! Steve Dunning 3.26, the best in his short career, Dick Tidrow 2.77, 2nd best in his career, and Milt Wilcox 3.40, 4th best in his career.
     A good catcher is a good catcher, and the staff might not matter.
     
  16. 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:
    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III :  In a list of the top 100 CERA performance of all time, a funny thing happens, it's populated with the names of guys, who were, well, good catchers! Their likes include Johnny Bench 4 times, Manny Sanguillen 4, Tim McCarver 4, Tom Haller 4, Jim Sundberg 3, Thurman Munson 3, Bill Freehan 3, Gary Carter 3(Montreal once and Mets twice), Lance Parrish 3 (Det once and Angels twice).They were lucky to play at a time when their staff happened to be peaking, the oppostion would say. Maybe, and it's hard to prove a negative, because these guys just didn't switch teams much. Take Ray Fosse 1973 Oak, and 1972 Cleveland, the Tribe starters had some great results with Fosse calling the pitches, Gaylord Perry 1.92 era, the best in his long career! Steve Dunning 3.26, the best in his short career, Dick Tidrow 2.77, 2nd best in his career, and Milt Wilcox 3.40, 4th best in his career.  A good catcher is a good catcher, and the staff might not matter.
    Posted by YOUKILLUS20

    I'd like to see what their back-up catcher's numbers were in those years. That's what CERA is for. If their back-ups did just as well or better, then it clearly was the staff, not so much the catcher, unless it was two catchers with exceptional skills at getting the most out of their pitchers on the same team- certainly a possibility in those days.

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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Apparently, I didn't have your full attention, or maybe I did but it isn't good enough. 
    The topic was relationships between pitchers and catchers. The point of that story should have been obvious. I even used the term "my loving catcher." He and I felt good enough about each other that he could initiate a joke on me when I was having a rough day on the mound. 
     
  18. 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:
    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III : For the record, my distinct memory is that both Harness and moon discussed the impactof CERA being up to 1-1.5 runs. I remember several instances of that. Maybe I interpreted it incorrectly but I REALLY DON'T THINK SO. This is not to insult anyone. I've made my admiration of Moon known many times. I just disagree on that point. And again, maybe I got that wrong, but I do not think so.
    Posted by Boomerangsdotcom


    You are moving the goal posts like Softone. First you said Moon & I projected 1.5 run variance. Now you say "impact". We have stated the numbers. Period. They don't lie.

    Moon offered 3-1 odds that Tek will again get more from the pitching staff.
    We both felt strongly that another differential in 2011 was plausible, but harder to tell the variance given Salty's first FT year in Boston, as he didn't have the MO VMART did. 

    As for your other post:
    I said something like "Softy will have a sign on his grave saying "I hate Ellsbury"...            Boom.

    No, you said you wished Softlaw was dead. I'll put up any amount of money on that allusion. I remember commenting on it. That was a bannable offense.

    It is true that I have researched PED use more than most of you. When I cite news reports though and losts of collaborating EVIDENCE and INDICATORS...

    I have tried to point out that we can't know for sure...            
    Boom

    There's no such thing as evidence if it doesn't prove a point. Evidence of suspicion is not evidence.

    No harness, I don't call what I denounce as journalism. Try to keep up with me here.

    Try staying consistent. You denounced today's journalism, and used that term. Want me to expose you on this also?

    You blamed me for not seeing a detraction made on another thread.
    You didn't post it here until after I retorted on UR mistake.
    Proof: By the way, that post was on the "A realistic Look at 2012" thread,
    not this one and I retracted it a few minutes after I said it with the below post. Which I'm quite sure you read but heh, another opportunity to criticize me just can't be passed up...

    You seem to be quite sure of a lot of things that aren't true. You assume, like you assume what I do or don't read.
    Like you assume PED use.
    Like you assume your "experts" have the handle on "CERA".
    Like you assume EX-P is not a pitching coach.

    Here's a fact for a change: I never saw the retraction on the other thread. I stated as much. But instead of manning up to the possibility you were actually wrong, you go into paranoia mode. Expect to be "criticized" when making such ignorant assumptions as to what I do or don't read.

    If I had seen it, I wouldn't have said anything.

    If there's a true game-calling ability, it lies below the threshold of detection...

    If you bothered to look at the Catcher's Relevance thread, this was stated and discussed. Because something isn't detectable doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
    Care to debate God's existence?

    Numerical formulas are only relative to the method of which the phenomenon is researched.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Let's do this in pieces because my last response settled it in my opinion but I bet some of you didn't read it as it was so long and the text was so small. I know I wouldn't be reading this back and forth by now.

    Harness:


    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III : For the record,
     my distinct 
    memory is that both Harness and 
    moon discussed
     the impactof CERA being up 
    to 1-1.5 runs.
     I remember several instances of that. Maybe I interpreted it incorrectly but I REALLY 
    DON'T THINK SO. 
    This is not to insult anyone. I've made my admiration of Moon
     known many times. I just disagree 
    on that point. And again, maybe I got that wrong, but I do not think so.
    Posted by Boomerangsdotcom
    Harness:
    You are moving the goal posts like Softone. First you
     said Moon & I projected 
    1.5 run variance. Now you say "impact". We have stated the
    numbers. Period. They don't lie.

    ME: I intended to mean UP TO 1-1.5 runs variance or impact,
     which I think are pretty
    much the same in this instance. Moon explained it quite well
    above I think. Possibly you
     guys were saying in Tek's instance, with very small sample
     sizes, it could be up to that
    much over a season. Generally in projecting CERA over a
     longer, more accurate sample
     test, it shouldn't be that much, Maybe I misunderstood that
     as I did get interrupted and
    maybe I didn't think that through enough.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Harness: As for your other post:
    I said something like "Softy will have a sign on his grave saying "I hate Ellsbury"...            Boom.

    No, you said you wished Softlaw was dead. I'll put up any amount of money on that allusion. I remember commenting on it. That was a bannable offense.

    ME: I saw the graveyard sign post last night. I know where it is and can find it again. You are making a very big accusation harness. I challenge you to find something different than what I said above. I remember this from when it was brought up another time. I'D LIKE SOMEONE HERE TO FIND THE POST YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT BUT UNTIL YOU DO SHUT UP. What you are doing is worse than any PED discussion I've been involved in. At least I've stated facts and where there was opinion I stated it as opinion. 

    If you do find something which is as you've described I will voluntarily leave the site. So PUT UP or SHUT UP. 
     
  21. 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 :  In a list of the top 100 CERA performance of all time, a funny thing happens, it's populated with the names of guys, who were, well, good catchers! Their likes include Johnny Bench 4 times, Manny Sanguillen 4, Tim McCarver 4, Tom Haller 4, Jim Sundberg 3, Thurman Munson 3, Bill Freehan 3, Gary Carter 3(Montreal once and Mets twice), Lance Parrish 3 (Det once and Angels twice).They were lucky to play at a time when their staff happened to be peaking, the oppostion would say. Maybe, and it's hard to prove a negative, because these guys just didn't switch teams much. Take Ray Fosse 1973 Oak, and 1972 Cleveland, the Tribe starters had some great results with Fosse calling the pitches, Gaylord Perry 1.92 era, the best in his long career! Steve Dunning 3.26, the best in his short career, Dick Tidrow 2.77, 2nd best in his career, and Milt Wilcox 3.40, 4th best in his career.  A good catcher is a good catcher, and the staff might not matter.
    Posted by YOUKILLUS20[/QUOTE]

    Good stuff Youk.
    I never approached it like that...depicting career bests.
    I do recall the Redsox pitching staff ERA (and most any other) improved by a run when Tony Pena came aboard.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    HARNESS:

    There's no such thing as evidence if it doesn't prove a point. Evidence of suspicion is not evidence. 

    ME: So. When someone's wife dies, and the data indicates that often it is the husband, when police find that 1) he was having an affair at the time, 2) They find poison of the type used in the garage and the only dna found at the scene was his, none of that would create suspicion or be used in court as evidence if they take him to trial. 

    Yeah, I understand your point. 
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Harness: 

    Try staying consistent. You denounced today's journalism, and used that term. Want me to expose you on this also?

    ME: I just spent 10 minutes looking for what in the heck you are talking about. I do often denounce what is supposed to be "journalism" but turns out to be quite often "opinion" without factual basis. For example, the "War on Christmas" Fox put up a couple years ago to distract us from the real news at the time. Real journalism presents both sides on every issue. And when the issue is Bautista, that includes maybe he is and maybe he isn't and here is why. I gave everyone here 10 pages of google listings corroborating my point that "yes, he was under suspicion by sportswriters". Virtually every article published in that list of periodicals and sports news websites presented both sides.

    I was a former journalism major for about a year. There is such a thing as journalism and such a thing as "opinion". People like Rush, Glen Beck and O'Reilly are categorized best as "opinion". Programs like "Zakaria", "This Week" and "Meet the Press" come down more on the side of "journalism. I DVR and watch them every week.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    You know, the rest isn't even worth bothering to respond to. Have a good night harness.
     
  25. 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]Harness:  As for your other post: I said something like "Softy will have a sign on his grave saying "I hate Ellsbury"...             Boom. No, you said

    you wished Softlaw was dead.
    I'll put up any amount of money on that allusion. I remember commenting on it. That was a  bannable  offense. ME: I saw the graveyard sign post last night. I know where it is and can find it again. You are making a very big accusation harness. I challenge you to find something different than what I said above. I remember this from when it was brought up another time. I'D LIKE SOMEONE HERE TO FIND THE POST YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT BUT UNTIL YOU DO SHUT UP. What you are doing is worse than any PED discussion I've been involved in. At least I've stated facts and where there was opinion I stated it as opinion.  If you do find something which is as you've described I will voluntarily leave the site. So PUT UP or SHUT UP. 
    Posted by Boomerangsdotcom[/QUOTE]

    You said it and I'll find it if you wish. But I'll have to go through "BDC Dottie" as the Realistic threads are abound in volume and hard to move to different archives.
    She will then become aware of the content, and at that point I doubt you'll even have the option of staying here.

    Since you said PUT UP OR SHUT UP (funny coming from you, as you still haven't taken moon up on his latest 5-1 odds offer on CERA, etc.), how about making it $$$ interesting. We can use a mutual account. I have no desire to see you leave, but if you are calling me out and wish to put up or shut up, so be it.

    You said it, just as you made the "Special Olympic's" post. Same disturbing mentality. Let's talk money, since you seem to enjoy reveling in UR own status.
    After all, you are saying you never said it, so how can you lose???
     

Share