A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

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

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Well, smart guy, tell us why this guy is catching for a one game away from a World Series winner, if he's so lax in his abilities?
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Is betting for money on this site illegal?  Just curious. I am into reporting posters now, Laughing....... not really.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Is .600 bad?
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from hankwilliams. Show hankwilliams's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Well, smart guy, tell us why this guy is catching for a one game away from a World Series winner, if he's so lax in his abilities?

    Harnazz does not have an answer that makes any sense. He was bashing Napoli last year as a 1st baseman whose CERA was bad.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]Well, smart guy, tell us why this guy is catching for a one game away from a World Series winner, if he's so lax in his abilities?
    Posted by GhostofTito[/QUOTE]

    I didn't say he was lax in his abilities. Lax is not the right terminology. It depends on UR frame of reference.
    The reason he's one game from a ring is because he's on a good team with an underrated staff. VMART compromised the RedSox pitching staff, but they were still good enough to make the PO's in 2009. It just depends on the margin for error.

    I happen to think TX is much better than the Cards, but this series is closer than it should have been. Napoli has had a potent bat and was deployed properly throughout the season.

    TX has missed Boston due to pitching injuries. They missed NY thanks to the Tigers. And they missed Philly. That's 3 very good line-ups in hitting venues.
    And still this series is going at least 6 games.
    Did you ever think they are where they are in spite of how Napoli handles the staff?
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Haha good one harness. You continue to take every success away from other teams and their players. What a hoot.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]Is betting for money on this site illegal?  Just curious. I am into reporting posters now,  ....... not really.
    Posted by BurritoT[/QUOTE]

    I never saw anything in BDC policy that says otherwise. Wagers can be in many forms. Ours is in Cyberspace form. But it's still a wager.

    Is .600 bad? It's not the PCT: It's the disparity. The Angels won more with the light-hitting Mathis because he gets more out of the pitchers. It's certainly not his anemic bat.

    In the same sense, we could be talking about a team that plays .475 ball with one catcher as opposed to .400 with another. It's the difference if the difference is reflected in the pitching.

    A good staff is a good staff. A bad staff is a bad staff. Both can be made better or worse with a good/bad catcher or pitching coach. But the degree of difference one way or the other isn't as great as the staff itself.

    This is what Softlaw misses. He thinks it's all on the staff. That catchers have nothing to do with pitching. This is blatantly false. Just as false as a pitching coach not affecting pitchers. I can tell you first-hand that a poor coach or a poor catcher will affect a pitcher's performance over time.

    A team strong enough to overcome the degree of difference will win. A lesser one might not.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]Haha good one harness . You continue to take every success away from other teams and their players. What a hoot.
    Posted by BurritoT[/QUOTE]

    If it's such a hoot, why don't you accept the generous wager of 5-1 or 6-1 odds?
    I'm not degrading TX success. In fact, I projected it. Nor am I saying Napoli hasn't contributed in a big way with his bat. 

    I'm saying to look at the realities. It's like when Boston won the 2nd ring. They missed two teams that may have beaten them in the PO's. Then they played a Colorado club that sat around for over a week. They deserved what they
    got. Just as TX does. But both have been fortunate along the way. Is this so hard to accept?
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    I already have one non-monetary wager I am waiting payment on... that is enough for me.

    How does a 2 week vacation September 3rd through the 17th sound?  I would not want to include Labor Day  = )
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Nice try. Won't you be traveling on those dates?
    June sounds better.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I




    A CATCHER'S RELEVENCE


    ACT  TWO


    Since we are playing the Angels:

    Year   Pitcher w/Catcher     IP    Hits   Runs   SO  BB  ERA

    2007/8/9    Lackey W/Mathias        261     254        93       207    61    3.21    
    2007/8/9    Lackey W/Napoli            279     277       114      224     73    3.68


    2007/8/9   J. Weaver W/Mathias       322     291       130      266     89    3.63
    2007/8/9   J. WeaverW/Napoli           213     244       108      163     72    4.56


    2007/8/9  E. Santana W/Mathias       315     308      133       293     84    3.80
    2007/8/9   E. Santana W/Napoli         118     138        72         91      44    5.49



    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZsO5_CL6DQ
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Well, smart guy, tell us why this guy is catching for a one game away from a World Series winner, if he's so lax in his abilities?

    Tell us smart guy, what happened to the Sox when they started VMart all 3 playoff games?

    Judging players based on short sample playoff series is a bad way to judge. Because a guy pitches one or two bad games when it counts, you think it tells something about who they will be for years to come?
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    You know, sometimes it's best to just not say anything! No amount of data. No amount of proof. It's gonna get completely ignored, distorted, tap danced around...etc. Why have a discussion with someone who in their mind is incapable of being wrong ever? Why have a discussion with someone who can't even admit that Young should not have been drummed out of the league after all the data I showed TWICE to support him. His team leading the league in ERA over the entire 7 years he was with Oakland, when they constantly did it with rookies and 2-3 year veterans. No doubt the venue was a huge factor but nonetheless he was the BEST statistical pitching coach in the AL during that time also. And it took him a week to land a job after harness said he probably wouldn't be able to get one ever again and yet I'M WRONG?

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

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    must have been the venue Cool
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from GhostofTito. Show GhostofTito's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Um, the 16 run game by the Cards was caught by Torrealba, not Napoli.
    The games Napoli has caught, the Cards average 1.5 runs.
    Got that? Must be because he can't call a game, right?
    Small sample, so it's luck, right?
    Duh, the Rangers have done very well with Napoli behind the plate this season, with only one passed ball and throwing out 36% of runners in 61 regular season games.
    Wish the Sox had a catcher with those numbers behind and at the plate.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    You're the master of small sample size judgements.

    (Softy is now #2)
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Beantowne. Show Beantowne's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Ever wonder why the Angels traded Napoli? What we don't know is what transpired behind closed doors. Obviuosly Mike Scocicca had to have played a role...FYI the GM who made the move was relieved of his duties. Sounds like someone had some splanin' to do...and Arte Moreno didn't like the answers...

    http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/mlb/story/_/id/7149521/mike-scioscia-says-ex-los-angeles-angel-mike-napoli-clash

    http://texasrangerstrades.blogspot.com/2011/01/mike-napoli-trade-analysis.html

    That said, not sure what the revelance was or is regarding Napoli in the context of the Red Sox. Because we didn't have what the Angles were seeking which was a middle of the order bat...The Blue Jay's who jumped at the chance to move Wells, also recieved Riviera as part of the trade...The Jay's didn't see Napoli as a player that projected to be part of their shortterm plan because they already had their catcher and 1B of the of the future on the roster, So they then spun him to Texas.

    When Texas aquired him they saw him saw him in much the same way as the Sox did with Martinez in 2009. A guy that if deployed correctly could catch a little, play 1B where he was a natural platoon with Moreland and DH some. 

    So that said, whether or not Napoli is or is not a great game caller. I've yet to hear anyone offer a reason why the Angels would consider trading him to us? Because in the end. They already have a bunch of pretty good young prospects what they lacked entering 2011 due to the injury to Morales was a bonafide middle of the order bat...Why they chose to aquire Wells is a mystery to me and cleary that's why thier GM had to move all of his stuff to another office...

    So excuse me if I seem to be defending the non aquisition and I also find it someone presumptious to imply that Epstein and Sox missed the boat and chose not to aquire him...regardless of who we have manning the position...

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

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    There's certainly more meat to the Theo blowing the VMart situation than the Napoli one.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from GhostofTito. Show GhostofTito's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    The small sample size, Mr. Boring Everyone to Death, was in the context of the entire 2011 season.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    And, your bashing of CJ was in what context?

    You also bashed someone else over one game in the playoffs.

    Your "context" is all about definitive judgements based on small sample sizes in a playoff series.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from GhostofTito. Show GhostofTito's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    I haven't heard ONE person with a brain, think CJ Wilson would be a good signing for the Red Sox. Let us know when you find one.
    The other one was Marcum, who stunk up the NLDS, with  almost historical
    dumps on whatever mound he was pitching on.
    Another guy who someone proposed the Sox trade Ellsbury for.
    Insanity!
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    All the more reason to explore what we can get for Jacoby.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    We should be riding with Elles all through 2012, enjoy the ride. The winter of 2012-13 will be the time to trade him if thye chose not to ink him up.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Fine with me, but we'd get more now. It can't hurt to kick the tires. If we could get 4-5 years of control from a good young starter, we'd have to think long and hard about saying "yes".
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Sure I agree... I won't be upset. I saw the writing on the wall the minute they brought in Crawford. Too bad they had not just offered Crawford the same rate for 4 years, they probably still would have landed him.
     

Share