A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    You all are keeping it going by trying to all have the "last word". 

    This isn't about the Sox. Can you guys take it out to the street?

    I think this thread is ready for the archives. It's a shame it is ending like this.

    Time to look forward. The past has been disected enough.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from expitch. Show expitch's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Boom, you missed my point again. YOU declared yourself the winner in the running argument, your opposition the losers. Man, would I love to play by those rules the next time I'm in an argument, especially in a live debate. At the end, I'd be pleased as punch if the moderator asked me who won the debate. 
    If you weren't here to argue, you were doing an imitation of one.
    You stated that a post was your "last one," then continued to add more last ones.
    You never came close to giving anyone the "last word."
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    I gave you and Harness the last word TWICE in the last 2 days alone but you wouldn't limit it to one post and move on. Read the threads above. It's a fact. It's a clear, unequivocal fact.

    That's my problem with all of this. I state facts like Bautista is under suspicion for PED use by sportswriters and back it up with 10 pages of sportswriter and blogger articles and it gets ignored. The argument continues even after I PROVED I STATED IT ACCURATELY. Is 10 pages of Google listings enough proof? I personally think that is pretty clear. Yet, I get 10 pages of argument from expitch about it. Ruining a very good thread.

    I state that 58% of all professional baseball players banned for PED use are from the DR and I cite Misk Fish's report on ESPN.COM.  Less than 10% of all professional baseball players are from the DR and yet 58% of all PED bannings are from the DR. What do those numbers tell us? Do you think that just maybe PED use is more likely for players from the DR? YES. I think that is a fact.

    Expitch and Harness just flat out ignore the facts when it means that their position in an argument is proven wrong. Unlike Moon. Unlike me. Arguments with them are not based on fact. They are based on patience. If I end up saying "Whatever" , "Talk to the hand" etc...they just say I'm a coward and running. I have little patience for such posters. Yes, I get angry. So here we are.

    I think I know one way to fix this problem.
     
  4. 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]I gave you and Harness the last word TWICE in the last 2 days alone but you wouldn't limit it to one post and move on. Read the threads above. It's a fact. It's a clear, unequivocal fact. That's my problem with all of this. I state facts like Bautista is under suspicion for PED use by sportswriters and back it up with 10 pages of sportswriter and blogger articles and it gets ignored. The argument continues even after I PROVED I STATED IT ACCURATELY. Is 10 pages of Google listings enough proof? I personally think that is pretty clear. Yet, I get 10 pages of argument from expitch about it. Ruining a very good thread. I state that 58% of all professional baseball players banned for PED use are from the DR and I cite Misk Fish's report on ESPN.COM.  Less than 10% of all professional baseball players are from the DR and yet 58% of all PED bannings are from the DR. What do those numbers tell us? Do you think that just maybe PED use is more likely for players from the DR? YES. I think that is a fact. Expitch and Harness just flat out ignore the facts when it means that their position in an argument is proven wrong. Unlike Moon. Unlike me. Arguments with them are not based on fact. They are based on patience. If I end up saying "Whatever" , "Talk to the hand" etc...they just say I'm a coward and running. I have little patience for such posters. Yes, I get angry. So here we are. I think I know one way to fix this problem.
    Posted by Boomerangsdotcom[/QUOTE]
    You've threatened to gather up your whining, your pleading for help, your tantrums, your infantile sarcasm, your claims to universal spokesmanship and mind reading, your epithets, your despicable imagery. You can "end it" by making good on that threat.

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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Boom, let's hear your "one way" to fix the problem.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Ruining a second thread is not a good solution to ruining the other one.

    This thread is about the 2011 Sox, not a player on The Blue Jays.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Here's my final grades for the 2011 Sox (based on performance and a little on pre-season expectaions). I took off points for injuries.

    Salty  C
    VTek   B-

    1B
    AGon  A

    2B
    Pedey  A

    SS
    Scutaro  B-
    Lowrie    D
    Aviles     B+

    3B
    Youk       C-

    LF
    Crawford F
    DMac        C-

    CF
    Ellsbury    A+
    Camero    F

    RF
    Drew          F
    Reddick     B-

    DH
    Ortiz           A-

    Starters
    Beckett     A
    Lester        B+
    Buchholtz  C
    Dice-K        F
    Lackey       F
    Wakefield  C-
    Miller          D
    Bedard       C
    Weiland      D-

    Relievers
    Papelbon   A
    D. Bard       B+
    Aceves      A+
    Albers        C
    Wheeler     C-
    Morales     B
    Atchison    B-
    Jenks         F

    I did this off the top of my head, so I am open to adjustments.




     
  8. 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]I'm not here to argue. You guys just will not stop. I've given you the last word several times which you blew past without a nanosecond's delay and now you are starting it up again. You are the problem. Not me.
    Posted by Boomerangsdotcom[/QUOTE]

    You are full of it. Your last word was "shove it".
    You are a child, with the emotional spikes of a h-o-r-n-y teenage girl.

    It's always the other person. Never poor old Boom.
    Nit-picking is hardly an adequate definition for UR wishing a death wish on a fellow poster. You run from UR own past. You then offer a "financial reward" for anyone who can find the sick statement. Then you run.

    I'll bet you here and now - $500.00 - that you clearly wished death on Softy.
    In fact, I called you out on it at the time, figuring you had the decency to delete it, but you were adamant about the statement.

    Goes to show how emotionally imbalanced you really are. Now you blot it out, as you probably will UR "special Olympics" crack.

    $500.00 little boy. How are you on guts?
    What's the child run.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Moon. Came by and saw your grades earlier but did not have time to comment. Came back and saw the fued is still in full force. Perhaps you could re-title the thread 'the endless verbal food fight' until it is over?

    J/K but guys can't you just let it go?
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Nothing to see here (whistles)..nothing to see here....
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    OK, let's examine the last look of 2011:
    ....there's drive to right-center, and the Orioles win a walk-off.
    well, it's realistic...and it had an end to it....
    thank you (golf clap)
     
  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]In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III : You've threatened to gather up your whining, your pleading for help, your tantrums, your infantile sarcasm, your claims to universal spokesmanship and mind reading, your epithets, your despicable imagery. You can "end it" by making good on that threat.
    Posted by expitch[/QUOTE]

    This accurately sums it up. He's a child, and children can't be held accountable for their actions. He's a rags-to-riches blowhard. He say "put up or shut up" - then runs away from his bogus financial reward.
    Come the time, with all looking on, I'm gonna shove the very statement he is too cowardly to own up to right down his big mouth.


    It is a shame this great thread ended like this. Out of respect to Moon, I'll keep this crap on this thread this year. If the child in denial puts his money where he bloviates, it'll end here. Otherwise, I'll pick the future time to expose him for what he really is.

    Moon and CO enjoy the GM stuff, so I won't extend this to the new Realistic thread this winter.




    Moon
    : You know how it is when stuff like this goes over the top. Ya can't walk away from it. You, I, and Rame know this all too well. "Put up or shut up" goes way over the line with me: regardless of the author or how it's escalated.

    BTW: I agree with your grades, except for one. I think Youk deserved better.
    I think his numbers should be seen for their own merit, not how they compare to his better years. The guy was in a ton of pain and probably exceeded expectation in that regard.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Grades? Ok
    C-Salty (C), dropped from a B+, and dropped mightily
    C-Varitek (B-), dropped from an A, and mightily, should have been an A as he supplied for the most part what you could expect from a part-time catcher
    1b-Gonzalez (A-), dropped from an A+, hard to go below based on his overall, which to be real, was pretty, pretty good.
    2b-Pedroia--(A-), showed leadership ability in a month where few hit and few performed. Did have a long slump that hurt team early in season.
    3b-Youkilis-(B-)--injury obviously impacted his season
    SS-Scutaro-(B)--here's a guy who I think got better as the season wore on, and not in reverse like many did.
    3b-Aviles--(A)...guy did more than I ever thought he could offensively
    LF-Crawford--(F)..and here's why. Even if you weigh in that he had trouble handling the pressure of Boston, and threw in his early injury, even when his numbers improved, he never really stole bases, he didn't get on base enough, and he played a putrid defensive LF at Fenway more so than on the road. Flat out liability in the lineup frequently.
    CF-Ellsbury--(A+)---almost the exact opposite of CC, MVP candidate...nuff sed.
    RF-Drew--(D+)...He doesn't get an F because even in his last few games he turned out to be at least able to get a few hits.
    RF--Reddick--(C)--Had a great month, then spent pretty much the rest of the season proving why it was a fluke.
    LF-RF--McDonald...(B-) poor defensive player, poor for average hitter, and yet he hit home runs, and actually did hit some righties when the Sox needed it. For a reserve OF, can't say I expected much in the first place. I liken him to Bill Hall in the clutch respect.
    SP-Beckett (B+)--A for most of the season, but did little in his biggest starts near the finish. Needed lights out from him, instead of 5 inn and get me a beer.
    SP-Lester (B+)--Probably was closer to an A, and even though maybe he had some rough starts, his last start was good enough on 3 days rest to get the Sox into a wildcard playoff.
    SP-Lackey (D-)--You expected an F? For what it's worth, as horrible as he was, he went out there and pitched some games that sort of kept the team in games (can I change this to an F?)....just kidding
    SP-Wakefield (C+)--Was a B for a good while, stayed healthy, kept the team around for many of his starts, but did have a tough time last few in particular, and his catcher basically gave up trying to catch him...never had seen that in Wakefield's tenure except when Sox desperately got back Mirabelli that one season.
    SP-Bedard (D)--getting 11 outs is a middle reliever goal, not a SP. Sorry, this act was as advertised minus a few good starts when he was on his "pitch count."
    SP-The Minors--(F)...pathetic, did anyone come through ever?
    SP-Miller (D)--looked great a few times, but looked just as bad in others.
    RP-Aceves (A+++)--one of the greatest middle relief seasons in Sox history.
    RP-Papelbon (A)--what? what? Yes, an A for overall. A big fat L for his last performance.
    RP-Bard (B-)--A for most of the season, went to pieces too often 2nd half
    RP-Wheeler (C)--looked good in between being horrible, hurt, then hurt again
    RP-Jenks (F)--sad
    RP-Albers (C)--guy was an A for a while, and an F last 2 months
    RP-Clown Car (C+)--some of the lefties did ok from the minor league bus, some of them didn't, some of the righties looked good (Bowden) and not so good. When push came to shove, Francona was afraid to use them in a key situation and with good reason.
    Manager--Francona (B-)--Honestly, he was a candidate for AL Manager of the Year for getting the team out of a 2-10 funk and into a sure wild card. Then lost his A when the team folded its tent. His lineups were getting stranger and stranger, and his predictable nature in how he did things finally caught up to him a bit. I'm sure some would give him a D for blowing it in September. Still think he couldn't stop this sinking ship if he had a team meeting every day.
    GM-Theo (D-)--CC signing was unforgivable considering his overspending of Lackey a year before and reluctance to put money into C, SS, 3b (moved his 1b over there). Jenks and Wheeler did little to help him or the team. Salty's defensive liability as a catcher showed why you need a proven catcher (not Tek) as your main guy behind the dish. AGON was a great signing for most, but other aspects are disturbing--his leadership ability (zilch), his poor hitting v. 2 key AL East teams, and the fact that Theo spent 3 years trying to get him and threw away VMART and Beltre in that quest. He did nothing but add an injury prone pitcher (Bedard) after the break. He got lucky on Aviles, and the Conor signing also did nothing. He got Aceves and that kept him from getting an F.


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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    DH-Ortiz (A)...he hit well enough or better than most DHs...
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    SS--Lowrie....(C)
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Owner-John Henry (C)--As a baseball team owner, he sure had soccer on his mind. His silence during most of this drama is well, Jacobs-esque.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Danny,

    not sure how Lester and Beckett get the same scores. Beckett was better than Lester until the ankel injury and after that Lester wasn't better than Beckett. Neither guy had "it" in September but Beckett was better the other 5 months and not by just a nose. Also it is no shock that you have Wakefield higher than almost any other poster (including Moon) would.

    The other one is Francona. I loved the guy, will defend him to the deah but it was at best a C year for Terry. The starting pitching was a car wreck by September but my goodness, the collapse just wasn't a B job. If Terry gets points for the team being the best in baseball for 4 months, Theo has to get some kind pass for that too huh?

    Aside from that I think your scores are terrific.
     
  18. 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]In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III : Wasn't he involved in an accident?
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

    to quote Lovey, he's doing fine now. Can't he talk now? Too soon?
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Dem Yacht summersaults can be tricky;)
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    5, yeah, I guess Beckett probably does need to be adjusted, good point. Give Beckett A-...but I'm probably speculating that he was a cancer in his approach and lack of leadership last month. He certainly was part of the beer brigade. Wakefield was not expected to pitch, so to think he should be given a poor grade when he made everyone one of his 24 starts, I think is wrong. And I still believe he often had great stuff, but poor luck. Re-examine those starts and I think you will find he wasn't as horrible as he has been painted. He did let the team down last few starts, and that part was disappointing, but during the "wait" for his 200th, he should have won 4 in that period. Instead Lackey gets to be the No. 2 wins guy in one of the worst seasons ever by a No. 3 starter.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    I stand by my B-minus for Francona. I think at the 120-game mark he was AL Manager of the Year...you don't become a C because your relievers systematically fall apart along with your entire SP in September. He gets a C for his lineups though, some maddening, some bizarre even for Tito.
     
  22. 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]5, yeah, I guess Beckett probably does need to be adjusted, good point. Give Beckett A-...but I'm probably speculating that he was a cancer in his approach and lack of leadership last month. He certainly was part of the beer brigade. Wakefield was not expected to pitch, so to think he should be given a poor grade when he made everyone one of his 24 starts, I think is wrong. And I still believe he often had great stuff, but poor luck. Re-examine those starts and I think you will find he wasn't as horrible as he has been painted. He did let the team down last few starts, and that part was disappointing, but during the "wait" for his 200th, he should have won 4 in that period. Instead Lackey gets to be the No. 2 wins guy in one of the worst seasons ever by a No. 3 starter.
    Posted by dannycater[/QUOTE]

    No way I blame Sept. on Beckett, who was pitching on a shaky ankle.
    Players playing hurt should have a grade of their own.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    was he hurt? or was he drunk...:-)
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    I agree with your grades, except for one. I think Youk deserved better.
    I think his numbers should be seen for their own merit, not how they compare to his better years. The guy was in a ton of pain and probably exceeded expectation in that regard.

    Yeah, I guess he might deserve a B-, but his fielding was poor, and like I said, i held injuries against the players- right or wrong. We needed him in Sept, and again, he was out. I'll settle for C+.
     
  25. 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]I stand by my B-minus for Francona. I think at the 120-game mark he was AL Manager of the Year...you don't become a C because your relievers systematically fall apart along with your entire SP in September. He gets a C for his lineups though, some maddening, some bizarre even for Tito.
    Posted by dannycater[/QUOTE]He became a C because the club was SO bad in September. You just can't by the fact that the team was 7-20. They go 9-18 the team gets in the playoffs. He lost the team and he knew it. I admire that he did know it but it wasn't any above average year.
     

Share