A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    I'd take Dice-K back too, for the record.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Put salary aside.

    Use park adjustments (with Bedard's recent past as well), injury adjustments, whatever you want. Does anyone really have confidence in anyone as our 3rd starter behind Beckett and Lester? Think ahead to October. Assume the series is 1-1 and we have ______ to put our hopes behind. Personally, I think there is a good chance one of the many 3 slot to 6 slot type starters we have can rise to the occasion over the next 2 months and raise our confidence level higher than it is now. 

    The other factor is, how good are other team's top 3-4 starters?

    NYY:
    CC Sab:  2.55 / 1.121
    B.Colon: 3.30 / 1.229
    F.Garcia: 3.22 / 1.295
    AJ Burn.: 4.23 / 1.294
    (The names don't sound threatening, but their 3 & 4 slot numbers
    are better than ours. The Yanks have 4 starters with a 100+ ERA+ including Nova, and 3 starters ober 127.)

    Tex
    CJWilson:  3.38 / 1.235
    Ogando:    2.88 / 1.040
    Harrison:  2.94 / 1.245
    C. Lewis:  4.00 / 1.185
    Holland:   4.14 / 1.360
    (Texas has 5 starters with a +ERA of 1004 or better and 3 starters over 127)

    Det
    Verlander:  2.24 / 0.867
    Scherzer:    4.28 / 1.383
    Porcello:      4.50 /1.371
    Penny:         4.89 / 1.547
    (Only Verlander is over 100 ERA+, the rest are all at 90 or below.)

    LAA
    Weaver   1.88 / 0.942
    D. Haren 2.89 / 0.990
    Sanatana 3.47 / 1.162
    Chatwood 3.93 / 1.551
    J Pineiro    4.91 / 1.576
    (3 guys over a 107 ERA+. Tough short series Opp!)

    Cleve
    Jimenez:      4.46 / 1.043  (with Colorado: 145 ERA+)
    Masterson:  2.56 / 1.176
    J. Tomlin:     4.16 / 1.052
    Carmona:     5.13 /1.375
    Carrasco:     4.67 / 1.343
    (Only Jimenez and Masterson are plus 100 ERA+, Tomlin is 90, the rest are worse.)

    Back to the issue at hand: who of these guys instill the most confidence, any confidence, or the best "hope of confidence" by October 2011?

    E. Bedard: 3.45 / 1.172  (ERA+ 108) Can he stay healthy?
       Just 15 starts in 2008, 15 in 2009, 0 in 2010, and 16 this year)
       Last 3 seasons were in a pitcher's park: Seattle- Can he pitch well here?

    J. Lackey:  6.23 / 1.548 (ERA+ 66) Can he regain?

    Wakefield: 5.06 / 1.314 (ERA+ 81) Can he endure?
       (As a starter:  5.11 / 1.344)

    A. Miller:    5.36 / 1.884 (ERA+ 77) Can he improve contol?

    A. Aceves: 3.19 / 1.145 (ERA+ 129) Can he be a starter? 
       (As a starter: 5.14 / 1.571 in just 4 starts-small sample)

    Buchholtz: 3.48 / 1.294 (ERA+ 118) Can he return? 
         Can he return at top form or near top form?

    Here's an "off the top of my head" percent confidence rating for each of these guys as our 3rd starter for October, 2011:

    1) Bedard: 25-30%
    2) Lackey: 10-15%
    3) Wake:   8-12%
    4) Aceves 6-10%
    5) Miller     4-8%

    Buch? I'm not a doctor, but I have a gut feeling he won't be back this year
    I also do not think Theo will push him. (Maybe 5-10%)

    Together, the odds are someone will have my confidence by October, but it's a close call.



     

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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Moon I can't argue with you at all because it is early to see just what is up with Bedard's knee. Healthy I like him a lot.

    Not to beat Lackey to death, something is off with that man physically. Whether it ever gets better or gets better this year is ahuge question mark. Perhaps the ligaments are just wearing down as they have since they started playing this game on the majority of good pitchers as they hit their 30's? But it isn't like he forgot how to pitch, he had good command and he had that ability to crank it up and get it by hitters when in a jam like most guys who had the success he had in the past.

    Wake is a box of chocolates, it just is the nature of his knuckleball which may be the biggest "mover" any pitcher has ever thrown.

    Aceves could be capable of giving you a great tag team start but do you really want to go into a huge game with a pitcher on a 65 pitch count?

    The situation is IMO not great to go all the way unless Bedard and/or lackey catch fire.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Great stuff Moon! How did you like Salty's slide? Good thing they put him in on that play although I thought they might put in a faster runner instead. If it were Tek on that play I don't think he scores. Great decision on the slide.

    To me, we really need 3 good starters for the playoffs. We might be able to move guys up a little in the rotation to snaggle by. Who really expected NY's rotation to end up that good? I mean come on! If it stays like it is they have an excellent shot at the series.

    I have some faith in Bedard. I know he has pitched in Seattle this year but his numbers are good and he's LH. He could come in handy against NY and the Phillies. It was worth a chance.

    I'm really disappointed that Cechinni broke a bone in his wrist when getting HBP. He was projected to be one of our top 2-3 hitting prospects and now he is out for the year:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JsD-Z-Jevo
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    For everybody who always bags on Bogar, profs to him for going for it. Good throw has Salty DEAD. As it was even with the ball up the line without the slide by Salty he is out. But the Bogar challenged the CF to make the perfect throw and he didn't.

    If CF had made a perfect throw somebody would have started a FIRE BOGAR thread, a memo to Theo to fire Bogar thread and posted that Ellsbury had a reverse pivot swing on that play and the CF should have had it so it really wasn't a walk off hit but another failure by Jake the MLBPA left wing terrorist loving slug that he is!

    Great win for the Sox, but Josh deserved more run support AGAIN!
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    I really like this Sean Coyle kid. He looks a little stronger and faster, more toolsy than Pedroia and his heart might be moving in the right direction also. Is it just me or are he and Cecchini being targeted!


    http://www.citizen-times.com/article/BS/20110727/SPORTS/307270052/Drive-s-Coyle-his-way-back-after-big-hit?odyssey=nav|head
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from jidgef. Show jidgef's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Well the union roster spot good old boy catcher set the table and the reverse pivot, slap-hitting, NL profile jitterbug delivered the game-winning hit. Great win! Right on Boom on Salty's slide, Tek is out by a mile without the pinch-runner.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    When Bogar comes through another 6-7 times he will have my full support!

     
  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]In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III : Actually I do play the horses (only a few times a year). I win not only often but probably 70 percent of the time, And I win because I use logic and actually watch the horses who lose in races and how they finish. For instance, I nailed the Preakness for the exacta (I won the derby as well, but on a small side bet) because I stuck with my original horse in the Derby--Shackelford. Now did I stick with him due to pedigree, I mean he faded in the Derby after leading most of that race. No, I didn't "dismiss" him. I realized all the horse had to do was run the same race and realize Animal Kingdom wasn't going to catch him this time, the jockey pushed him down the stretch. It was funny because during the pre-race coverage, Shackelford, for whatever reason, was "dismissed" by a few "experts." So don't even try to categorize me, don't try to underestimate what I know, how I know, and don't ever f-ing question my intelligence ever again you pompous windbag. You make smart aleck remarks when people have shown you time and time again that the statistics don't lie about Lackey.
    Posted by dannycater[/QUOTE]

    First you tell Jid to blow you. Now this. For one so intelligent, you don't learn. That's why they nabbed you before.

    Glad you won the few times you bet. Good for you. My statement alluded to playing them full-time. Whole different ball-game. Try it.
    I wasn't slighting your IQ level, which I never questioned in the past, so why would I now? It was about taking stats at face value - in a vacuum.
    Perfect example: Tek. You bashed him for his poor hitting numbers, never acknowledging his affect on the pitching staff while I repeatedly (to say the least) showed compelling evidence.

    It had to do with impulsive behavior. Game to game. You hammered Beckett last year when he was hurt. "Wasted extension". Over and over. Then he throws one good outing last year and you apologize. One lousy outing. You judge Lackey by his FA salary. Dismiss his elbow issue the first two months.

    You cried about the team deploying 6 starters to get Wake in the rotation. Now, half the staff is out and you "dismiss" that logic. Get a grip.
     
  10. 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]As for taking statistics out of context, making a blanket statement that "Lackey is a winner, he won his last 4 starts" is doing EXACTLY THAT. YOU ARE DESCRIBING LACKEY'S SUCCESS WITHOUT TAKING INTO FACTORS SUCH AS OFFENSE AS HELPING HIM EARN HIS WINS. You are so pitching predominant in your thinking, you dismiss that batting is more than batting average. You keep citing .253 like it's the most horrible batting average ever, and don't keep in my mind the 5 runs a game and the MLB leading 71 home runs on the road. You think if John Lackey threw in Anaheim this year, he would have a lower ERA, lower WHIP, but he'd have less victories...why??? The Angels offense is not that good anymore. He has 9 wins out of the grace of Sox juggernaut hitting, not by his own pitching. You are over-reaching with the distortion thread, and you are wasting your time defending a pitcher who IS NOT EARNING HIS SALARY.
    Posted by dannycater[/QUOTE]

    No, I never said he'd have less victories in CA.
    My whole stance revolves around the fact he'd average the same amount of victories in Boston or in CA. Put their team in Fenway for 81 games, and put Boston in CA, and we'll see who has the better offensive numbers.
    Here's a hint: since this juggernaut Boston offense took root in 2003, up to the present, Boston has hit .246 in CA (304 H - 1237 AB).

    I'm sure the OPS/slugging numbers correspond to 2011 road levels...or worse.
     
  11. 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]moon, will you explain to the masses why Wakefield is not as bad an option as people (including Shaughnessy) make him out to be. His WHIP and batting average against is certainly indicative of a better SP selection than Lackey.
    Posted by dannycater[/QUOTE]

    I have posted so many Wake numbers to this point, I'm not sure there is much more to be said. As a starter by the numbers, Wake is our 4rd best starter behind Beckett, Lester and Bedard (ERA/WHIP numbers with Seattle should be adjusted upwards).

    However, as much as I love what Wake has done, I have a feeling that by year's end, Lackey will be pitching better than Wake. If Bedard is healthy, I'd say he will be better than both.

    End of year rotation, assuming everyone but Buch is healthy:
    1) Beckett
    2) Lester
    3) Bedard
    4) Lackey
    5) Wake
    6) Miller
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Great stuff Moon! How did you like Salty's slide? Good thing they put him in on that play although I thought they might put in a faster runner instead. If it were Tek on that play I don't think he scores. Great decision on the slide

    YES! Awesome. I also loved "Jake" getting the big hit after VTek started it all off. Of course if AGon wasn't in the line-up, Jake would have wiffed... LOL!..

    To me, we really need 3 good starters for the playoffs. We might be able to move guys up a little in the rotation to snaggle by. Who really expected NY's rotation to end up that good? I mean come on! If it stays like it is they have an excellent shot at the series.

    I'm sure Yankee fans are looking at our 3-5 starters and chuckling, but I really can't see Colon, Garcia, Burnett or Nova leading the Yanks to a WS. If they win, it will be CC and hitting.

    I have some faith in Bedard. I know he has pitched in Seattle this year but his numbers are good and he's LH. He could come in handy against NY and the Phillies. It was worth a chance.

    It's all about health: that was the gamble. He has the skillset to keep us in a game 3 of a series.

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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Harness in all honesty the Red Sox would score more runs in Anaheim IMO than the Angels do and the Angels would score less in Boston than the Red Sox do if they switched parks.

    Part of road numbers is the road and not the park. Players play better when they sleep in their own beds, drive themselves to the park etc. They aren't up as late, sleep better.

    Here's an example. Texieria hit way better in Texas than he did on the road. Duh. It was the park. He better in Atlanta than he did on the road, OK neutral park but whatever. Then he hit better in Anaheim than he did on the road. Why? he hits better at home.

    Now I'll grant you this, Fenway is a good hitters park. Great background and the LF wall and wide expanse everywhere else makes it a dounles haven. The lack of foul ground saves an out or two from happening almost every game. It is mistaken for a HR hitters park which it hasn't been for years, ever since the structure behind home was erected. For fly ball pitchers who mostly enduce them from alley to alley it is a pretty safe place to pitch.

    Anaheim plays about as fair to hitters as any park in the west. Not an excessive amountg of foul ground. Like Dodger Stadium the power alleys aren't deep but unlike Petco and Dodger Stadium it doesn't get as much of the evening marine layer because of it's location. And in the daytime the ball absolutely jumps out of both the Southland parks. They are actually very small places with very short walls in the daytime.

    But the RS can flat rake anywhere and the Angels are flat built to scratch out runs anywhere. Look at the 1-9's of the two teams.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from SoxPatsCelts1988. Show SoxPatsCelts1988's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    How much longer before the Sox realize that they shouldn't have a .167 hitter on their bench.  I really do like McDonald.  He was great for the team last year and seems like a good guy.  Realistically though, they may need to upgrade the OF depth.

    Reddick - as many of us expected, he's coming back down to Earth

    Convert Aviles to OF - seems like an odd solution that may not solve the overall problem

    Stay with Darnell McDonald - Hardly seems like a reasonable solution

    Hope JD Drew comes back strong - seems like wishful thinking

    I mean this team really doesn't have much to work with here for the OF depth.  They may be forced to scoop something up during the waiver period but I'm not so sure what's going to be available.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from mikeyinthebronx. Show mikeyinthebronx's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    [QUOTE]How much longer before the Sox realize that they shouldn't have a .167 hitter on their bench.  I really do like McDonald.  He was great for the team last year and seems like a good guy.  Realistically though, they may need to upgrade the OF depth. Reddick - as many of us expected, he's coming back down to Earth Convert Aviles to OF - seems like an odd solution that may not solve the overall problem Stay with Darnell McDonald - Hardly seems like a reasonable solution Hope JD Drew comes back strong - seems like wishful thinking I mean this team really doesn't have much to work with here for the OF depth.  They may be forced to scoop something up during the waiver period but I'm not so sure what's going to be available.
    Posted by SoxPatsCelts1988[/QUOTE]

    They have enough hitting where the bench won't affect them much...the Sox pitching will make or break them.
     
  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:
    [QUOTE]Harness in all honesty the Red Sox would score more runs in Anaheim IMO than the Angels do and the Angels would score less in Boston than the Red Sox do if they switched parks. Part of road numbers is the road and not the park. Players play better when they sleep in their own beds, drive themselves to the park etc. They aren't up as late, sleep better. Here's an example. Texieria hit way better in Texas than he did on the road. Duh. It was the park. He better in Atlanta than he did on the road, OK neutral park but whatever. Then he hit better in Anaheim than he did on the road. Why? he hits better at home. Now I'll grant you this, Fenway is a good hitters park. Great background and the LF wall and wide expanse everywhere else makes it a dounles haven. The lack of foul ground saves an out or two from happening almost every game. It is mistaken for a HR hitters park which it hasn't been for years, ever since the structure behind home was erected. For fly ball pitchers who mostly enduce them from alley to alley it is a pretty safe place to pitch. Anaheim plays about as fair to hitters as any park in the west. Not an excessive amountg of foul ground. Like Dodger Stadium the power alleys aren't deep but unlike Petco and Dodger Stadium it doesn't get as much of the evening marine layer because of it's location. And in the daytime the ball absolutely jumps out of both the Southland parks. They are actually very small places with very short walls in the daytime. But the RS can flat rake anywhere and the Angels are flat built to scratch out runs anywhere. Look at the 1-9's of the two teams.
    Posted by fivekatz[/QUOTE]

    I wrote a similar piece on the "distortion" thread and compared numbers.

    One more thing that makes Fenway a hitters park: less foul ball territory.

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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    How much longer before the Sox realize that they shouldn't have a .167 hitter on their bench.  I really do like McDonald.  He was great for the team last year and seems like a good guy.  Realistically though, they may need to upgrade the OF depth

    True, but he has hit 6 for his last 20 ABs and has gotten on base in 12 of his last 26 PAs. His fielding worries me more than anything


    Reddick - as many of us expected, he's coming back down to Earth.

    Now, softy will comeback telling us all he said all along we should have "sold high" on Josh..

    Convert Aviles to OF - seems like an odd solution that may not solve the overall problem.

    Or just hope CC hits and nobody gets hurt.

    Stay with Darnell McDonald - Hardly seems like a reasonable solution

    Hope JD Drew comes back strong - seems like wishful thinking

    I mean this team really doesn't have much to work with here for the OF depth.  They may be forced to scoop something up during the waiver period but I'm not so sure what's going to be available.

    I had hoped we picked up Jeff Francouer. He would have played Rf well and platooned nicely with Reddick (and at times CC). He would also have been a very capale player in case anyone gets hurt..
     
  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:
    [QUOTE]Moon , you said "salary does not come into play when comparing starter's numbers". When the hell did I ever say they did? I'm saying the same thing you are. I'm telling DCATER to look beyond salary when evaluating Lackey. He isn't nor will he ever be what he or many others think his salary is perceived to indicate I think there is a misuderstanding here. I know you are not saying salary is a big issue, but I get the impression you think most of those criticizing Lackey are using his salary as a foundation of their position. Yes, someseem to be, but my point was that some of us do "see the forest for the trees" and it ain't a pretty site. You are missing my point. I'm defending Lackey in  2010/11   for not being a bust . I'm also saying that his 14 wins/4.40 ERA run true to from, venue adjusted. This year, at least the first two months, he is what Josh was last year. Josh didn't deserve the #4/5 spot last year any more than Lackey does this year. Get it? Yes, Lackey did come close to expectations once adjusted for park and stronger opps, but then you extended it to 14 wins 6.20 ERA / 1.55 is true or near true to form as well. It is not, and that is where we disagree. I do recall you saying Lackey might need an adjustment period to his new park, new catcher, etc.. Times up. If you give Josh a free pass last year because of his back, why don't you acknowledge Lackey's issues, especially his elbow over the first two months? I didn't give Josh a "free pass", but do accept that injury is a mitigating factor.The fact that Josh seems to get hurt (and pitch hurt) often help the view that when he is not pitching well, it is because he is hurt, so he is a great pitcher almost always when healthy. I'm not sure I would say the same for Lackey. Lackey has had some past injuries as well, and this year I have heard everything from Tommy John, to shoulder, to family health issues. I am willing to give John the benefit of the doubt. I had to take his mound antics towards his teammates and manager with a grain of salt, but I am not convinced that a 4 game sampe size means much at all. I hope it does, but truthfully, I have about 5% faith in him as a quality3rd starterin the playoffs. His numbers this year are horrible. His numbers since May are not quality 3rd starter material either. The only thing I see that is good about Lackey's season are his numbers the last 5 starts and the % of near QS starts. He is letting up 6+ runs per 9 innings and getting 6+ runs of support. It does not surprise me that he is at about a .500 winning %.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    If you accept 2010 injury to Josh as a mitigating factor, then the same should hold true for Lackey.
    And there are similarities.

    Beckett in April/May (2010), pitching with a back issue:
    45.6 IP  57 H  37 ER  7.30 ERA  1.667 WHIP

    Lacket in April/May (2011), pitching with an elbow issue (2 Cort. shots in May).
    49.3 IP  53 H  35 ER  6.39 ERA  1.440 WHIP

    Beckett since his return off DL (2010):
    82 IP    94 H  45 ER  4.94 ERA   1.463 WHIP

    Lackey since his return from DL:
    64.6 IP  78 H  37 ER  5.15 ERA  1.393 WHIP

    This may be further indication of Lackey being/pitching hurt:
    SO/BB ratio in April/May: 19 SO/18 BB (2 SO/10 BB in May)
    SO/BB in June/July/August: 52 SO/ 12 BB (28 SO/ 3 BB July/Aug.).

    You may recall the July 4th "fireworks" vs. Toronto: He got lit up and said "I was looking for help but didn't get any". Typical Lackey. What he was referring to was the fact he had no command whatsoever of any of his breaking stuff. He didn't know how to correct the problem (mechanical). Isn't that Young's job? To point out something so flagrant? Yeah, it was a direct slight on Young, but pitching coaches are supposed to know the mechanics of their pitchers like the back of their hands.
    This is the only time I ever saw Lackey with just his FB command. Hitters were sitting dead red. 2.3 IP  9 H 7 ER. Beyond this outing, these are Lackey's numbers HEALTHY in 2011: 62.3 IP  69 H  30 ER  4.33 ERA  1.300 WHIP
    Lackey in 2010:   215 IP  230 H  105 ER 4.40 ERA  1.419 WHIP
    (Note: Lackey's WHIP after May of 2010 (June - Sept.) was 1.344.
    I think the first two month last year were the biggest transition).

    Now, if you want to call Lackey a 6.10 ERA/1.548 WHIP pitcher and think that's looking at the forest for the trees, good luck. That means Josh was a 5.78 ERA/1.535 WHIP in 2010. To me, Becket was 4.93 ERA/1.463 healthy, or healthier,
    last year, and I believe he was compromised to a degree by VMART.

    I don't measure a player hurt/playing hurt. Sorry.

    As for his perceived #3 status when signed, Dice was a #2 perceived signing. Buch surpassed both. I saw him projected around 15 wins/ 4.25 ERA/ 1.3-1.35 WHIP in Fenway.
    17 mil on the open market buys just that. That is a "distant" #3 on the Redsox.
    With Buch down and Bedard an unknown, Lackey's numbers HEALTHY still put him in that position, at least until Bedard passes him.

    Cue the "cherry-picking"...
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from ampoule. Show ampoule's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    [QUOTE]For everybody who always bags on Bogar, profs to him for going for it. Good throw has Salty DEAD. As it was even with the ball up the line without the slide by Salty he is out. But the Bogar challenged the CF to make the perfect throw and he didn't. If CF had made a perfect throw somebody would have started a FIRE BOGAR thread, a memo to Theo to fire Bogar thread and posted that Ellsbury had a reverse pivot swing on that play and the CF should have had it so it really wasn't a walk off hit but another failure by Jake the MLBPA left wing terrorist loving slug that he is! Great win for the Sox, but Josh deserved more run support AGAIN!
    Posted by fivekatz[/QUOTE]


    I watched the re-play a couple of times and didn't see Bogar do anything. It looked like his hands were at his side. 

    Incidentally, it seems like many runners are just making believe he doesn't exist.  Which, in my opinion, is not a bad thing. 
     
  20. 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 watched the re-play a couple of times and didn't see Bogar do anything. It looked like his hands were at his side.  Incidentally, it seems like many runners are just making believe he doesn't exist.  Which, in my opinion, is not a bad thing. 
    Posted by ampoule[/QUOTE]

    I actually thought it was a risky move to go home. If the throw was there Salty would have been out. I guess he's just an excitable boy!

    I didn't replay it but I didn't see Bogar do anything either.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    I don't have anything against Lackey at all. I've admired him for many years. He's always been a tremendous competitor and he could well be hurt. He could be clinically depressed about his wife's situation. I went through 2 years of depression when my mom got cancer. I didn't go on medication but a doctor probably would have recommended it if I went to one. I thought she was going to die and I couldn't do anything about it. Lymphoma all through her body. Close to 60 years old. It didn't look good. It can absolutely affect a person severely. I would think particularly with his wife. Does he have kids? All this stuff is devastating and could well be causing this in itself. Or he could be hurt as well. No question about it. I don't think any of us have anything against the guy at all personally.

    We have to manage the team still. We need a #3 starter. We did what we had to do to get Bedard and I'm with Moon on this one. The chances of LAckey being a quality #3 are not good.

    Chiang put up some incredible numbers this year. He is not the greatest fielder but the guy may well end up an excellent hitter. His XBH numbers were excellent and learning to manage his diabetes is huge. I'm still struggling with it a year later. Who knows, he might be a significant loss to us and could potentially have even helped us some this year. 
     
  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]Harness in all honesty the Red Sox would score more runs in Anaheim IMO than the Angels do and the Angels would score less in Boston than the Red Sox do if they switched parks. Part of road numbers is the road and not the park. Players play better when they sleep in their own beds, drive themselves to the park etc. They aren't up as late, sleep better. Here's an example. Texieria hit way better in Texas than he did on the road. Duh. It was the park. He better in Atlanta than he did on the road, OK neutral park but whatever. Then he hit better in Anaheim than he did on the road. Why? he hits better at home. Now I'll grant you this, Fenway is a good hitters park. Great background and the LF wall and wide expanse everywhere else makes it a dounles haven. The lack of foul ground saves an out or two from happening almost every game. It is mistaken for a HR hitters park which it hasn't been for years, ever since the structure behind home was erected. For fly ball pitchers who mostly enduce them from alley to alley it is a pretty safe place to pitch. Anaheim plays about as fair to hitters as any park in the west. Not an excessive amountg of foul ground. Like Dodger Stadium the power alleys aren't deep but unlike Petco and Dodger Stadium it doesn't get as much of the evening marine layer because of it's location. And in the daytime the ball absolutely jumps out of both the Southland parks. They are actually very small places with very short walls in the daytime. But the RS can flat rake anywhere and the Angels are flat built to scratch out runs anywhere. Look at the 1-9's of the two teams.
    Posted by fivekatz[/QUOTE]

    Sorry, Katz. But the RedSox don't 'flat out rake anywhere'.
    Of the 13 venues they've played in this year, they've hit less than .250 in 7 of them. OPS less than .705.

    Boston has a .246 BA in CA since 2003, which was the start of this historic offensive run. Haven't crunched the numbers with the Angels, but this year they are hitting .321 in Fenway, despite a .246 mark in CA.

    Teix has a better BA in at least 16 venues over hitting in CA. His .277 BA in CA hardly comes close to AGONE's .397 BA in Fenway. (I think it was around.265-.270 in Petco). It's about venue, Katz. Not to dismiss UR point about feeling more at him...at home, but over since 2003(where I began the research), the western teams travel just as much, and I do know that the A's and the M's have better road numbers offensively than in their own home park.

    Check out the FENWAY FACTOR -THE GREAT DISTORTION thread as it has some compelling data. Better to measure it by team over individual as some play's hitting style suits their home venue to a tee.
     
  23. 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 don't have anything against Lackey at all. I've admired him for many years. He's always been a tremendous competitor and he could well be hurt. He could be clinically depressed about his wife's situation. I went through 2 years of depression when my mom got cancer. I didn't go on medication but a doctor probably would have recommended it if I went to one. I thought she was going to die and I couldn't do anything about it. Lymphoma all through her body. Close to 60 years old. It didn't look good. It can absolutely affect a person severely. I would think particularly with his wife. Does he have kids? All this stuff is devastating and could well be causing this in itself. Or he could be hurt as well. No question about it. I don't think any of us have anything against the guy at all personally. We have to manage the team still. We need a #3 starter. We did what we had to do to get Bedard and I'm with Moon on this one. The chances of LAckey being a quality #3 are not good. Chiang put up some incredible numbers this year. He is not the greatest fielder but the guy may well end up an excellent hitter. His XBH numbers were excellent and learning to manage his diabetes is huge. I'm still struggling with it a year later. Who knows, he might be a significant loss to us and could potentially have even helped us some this year. 
    Posted by Boomerangsdotcom[/QUOTE]

    Truly sorry to hear of UR wife's illness. Those who have never been in UR shoes, or Lackey's, don't have a clue as to the mental anchor of it all. It's unbelievable.

    If Bedard is right, he's a solid #3. First time he's ever played for a winning franchise. Yet he has a good W/L career record.

    Hughes pitched a gem for NY tonight.
    Nowmaybe we know why Cashman stood patt.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from law2009a. Show law2009a's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    m
     
  25. 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 : First you tell Jid to blow you. Now this. For one so intelligent, you don't learn. That's why they nabbed you before. Glad you won the few times you bet. Good for you. My statement alluded to playing them full-time. Whole different ball-game. Try it. I wasn't slighting your IQ level, which I never questioned in the past, so why would I now? It was about taking stats at face value - in a vacuum. Perfect example: Tek. You bashed him for his poor hitting numbers, never acknowledging his affect on the pitching staff while I repeatedly (to say the least) showed compelling evidence. It had to do with impulsive behavior. Game to game. You hammered Beckett last year when he was hurt. "Wasted extension". Over and over. Then he throws one good outing last year and you apologize. One lousy outing. You judge Lackey by his FA salary. Dismiss his elbow issue the first two months. You cried about the team deploying 6 starters to get Wake in the rotation. Now, half the staff is out and you "dismiss" that logic . Get a grip.
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

    the jid line was sarcasm and in a light-hearted way, which he TOTALLY UNDERSTOOD...but not you. Second, If I had the time to play the horses full-time, I'd do it, but see I don't get to collect health benefits and there are no guarantees in horse betting in taking care of a family. However, I did do it for 2 months between jobs about 20 years ago when I hit a Pick 6 at Hollywood Park and won several grand so please don't talk ever again to me about horse racing and gambling. You've done this several times in the last 2 years.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share