1. You have chosen to ignore posts from The-Babe-1. Show The-Babe-1's posts

    Re: Josh and Jon are OUTSTANDING!

    posted at 5/10/2011 11:16 AM EDT

    In Response to Re: Josh and Jon are OUTSTANDING!:
    The-Babe-1, I know it's hard for a Yankee fan, but try not to be a jerk.  Since when do you consider it appropriate to call the Red Sox what you call them in your next to last comment--on a Boston Red Sox board.  Since John Henry took over the Red Sox franchise, the Sox have been far more successful than the Yankees. 

    Posted by maxbialystock

    Far more successful?

    Laughable at best.

     

  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from ctredsoxfanhugh. Show ctredsoxfanhugh's posts

    Re: Josh and Jon are OUTSTANDING!

    posted at 5/10/2011 11:20 AM EDT

    In Response to Re: Josh and Jon are OUTSTANDING!:
    The-Babe-1, I know it's hard for a Yankee fan, but try not to be a jerk.  Since when do you consider it appropriate to call the Red Sox what you call them in your next to last comment--on a Boston Red Sox board.  Since John Henry took over the Red Sox franchise, the Sox have been far more successful than the Yankees. 
    Posted by maxbialystock

    I would say just as successful with far less money spent, which in a sense you could argue make the Sox more successful.

     

  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from promise4you. Show promise4you's posts

    Re: Josh and Jon are OUTSTANDING!

    posted at 5/10/2011 11:46 AM EDT

    I should mind my business, but old men like me are sometimes fools! I wish, I really do wish that (what appears to me) the nasty jabbing going on with what I consider two really good posters here would stop being on the mean side. They both make great arguements, sometimes they are wrong and sometimes they are correct. I wish they would jab and uppercut for ever as I respect and enjoy what both write here. Sure do wish the nasty jabs below the belt would stop though. I could learn a lot more  from their opinions on the game than I can while trying to filter away the nonsense.
    Just my thoughts, as I said I have a great deal of respect for both of their opinions.
     

  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from law2009a. Show law2009a's posts

    Re: Josh and Jon are OUTSTANDING!

    posted at 5/10/2011 3:28 PM EDT

    m
     

  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from law2009a. Show law2009a's posts

    Re: Josh and Jon are OUTSTANDING!

    posted at 5/10/2011 4:50 PM EDT

    m
     

  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from royf19. Show royf19's posts

    Re: Josh and John are OUTSTANDING!

    posted at 5/10/2011 5:12 PM EDT

    In Response to Re: Josh and John are OUTSTANDING!:
    In Response to Re: Josh and John are OUTSTANDING! : Wow wow wow where are you getting these numbers? Are you just ignoring their worst starts highlighted below? If you are these "selected stats" are the most ridiculous thing i ever seen. It like saying in Crawford has 28 hits in 28 at bats (if you ignore the at bats he didnt have a hit in).  John Lackey is an appaling pitcher, he doesnt belong in the majors with the number he has this year. Dice K is a head case but at least can be 50/50 at times.  Lackey this yr Dice K  IP ERs IP   ERs 4 8 6 4 6 2 1 2 8 0 4 1 6 1 8 0 5 6 7 0 3.2 9 2 7 -------- 5 3 32 26 --------- 33    17
    Posted by jamesey271975


    Message me and I can give you the name of a reading tutor who can help you with your reading comprehension. You're obviously lacking it.

    Who ignored the bad starts? I wrote that Lackey was horrible in three starts and DiceK was horrible in one. That equals four. When you posted stats, you highlighted in red the horrible starts -- four of them, the exact same number I mentioned. So again, what did I ignore?

    You're Crawford analogy is what is utterly stupid. You cherry-picked 28 at-bats, which would be over many games. Had I cherry picked 1-2-3 innings that the two pitchers worked, that would includ games where he were good or bad overall, then your analogy would work.

    With the pitchers, I simply pointed out the number of games where Lackey and DiceK were good to great, and I asked a simple question. 

    How many teams' four and five starters have had that many good to great starts this year combined?

    You want to answer that?
     

  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from jamesey271975. Show jamesey271975's posts

    Re: Josh and John are OUTSTANDING!

    posted at 5/10/2011 7:25 PM EDT

    In Response to Re: Josh and John are OUTSTANDING!:
    In Response to Re: Josh and John are OUTSTANDING! : Message me and I can give you the name of a reading tutor who can help you with your reading comprehension. You're obviously lacking it. Who ignored the bad starts? I wrote that Lackey was horrible in three starts and DiceK was horrible in one. That equals four. When you posted stats, you highlighted in red the horrible starts -- four of them, the exact same number I mentioned. So again, what did I ignore? You're Crawford analogy is what is utterly stupid. You cherry-picked 28 at-bats, which would be over many games. Had I cherry picked 1-2-3 innings that the two pitchers worked, that would includ games where he were good or bad overall, then your analogy would work. With the pitchers, I simply pointed out the number of games where Lackey and DiceK were good to great, and I asked a simple question.  How many teams' four and five starters have had that many good to great starts this year combined? You want to answer that?
    Posted by royf19

    So you specifially showed the Inns Pitched and ERs from all starts except their worst ones. You just threw in a token reference some" horrible starts" and you dont see how those metrics might be flawed? 

    So your argument is Lackey and Dice K have amazing stats in the games they pitched well in. What an asinine logic. 

     

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

    Re: Josh and Jon are OUTSTANDING!

    posted at 5/10/2011 7:29 PM EDT

    I think Roy's point was that these two guys have pitched good>great in 8 games and horrible in 4: it's not as bad as the overall numbers seem to show.
     

  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from royf19. Show royf19's posts

    Re: Josh and Jon are OUTSTANDING!

    posted at 5/10/2011 7:56 PM EDT

    In Response to Re: Josh and Jon are OUTSTANDING!:
    I think Roy's point was that these two guys have pitched good />great in 8 games and horrible in 4: it's not as bad as the overall numbers seem to show.
    Posted by moonslav59


    Thanks moon.

    It's like talking to a brick wall with some. How hard is it to understand that point -- the Sox's No. 4 and No. 5 starters started 12 games and pitched good to great in eight of them.

    The question on how many other team's 4-5 starters have that kind of ratio he still refused to answer.
     

  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from jamesey271975. Show jamesey271975's posts

    Re: Josh and Jon are OUTSTANDING!

    posted at 5/10/2011 8:02 PM EDT

    In Response to Re: Josh and Jon are OUTSTANDING!:
    In Response to Re: Josh and Jon are OUTSTANDING! : Thanks moon. It's like talking to a brick wall with some. How hard is it to understand that point -- the Sox's No. 4 and No. 5 starters started 12 games and pitched good to great in eight of them. The question on how many other team's 4-5 starters have that kind of ratio he still refused to answer.
    Posted by royf19

    Firstly John Lacking isnt our 4th of 5th starter, hes our 2nd starter after Lester. So your whole argument is torpedoed right thereTongue out Also for you wins, losses and ERA dont count. Its the p[ercentage of games that they arent abosultely mauled thats important? You didnt provide any back up to your argument of how many teams have a 2nd and a 5th starters who are atrocious 25% of the time. So why bother even bringing up your stupid stats if theres nothing to compare them with? 

    And explain to me how your new key stats of % of awful perfomances works with hitters too. No reason it should be different i assume. 

     

  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from royf19. Show royf19's posts

    Re: Josh and Jon are OUTSTANDING!

    posted at 5/10/2011 9:24 PM EDT

    In Response to Re: Josh and Jon are OUTSTANDING!:
    In Response to Re: Josh and Jon are OUTSTANDING! : Firstly John Lacking isnt our 4th of 5th starter, hes our 2nd starter   after Lester. So your whole argument is torpedoed right there  Also for you wins, losses and ERA dont count. Its the p[ercentage of games that they arent abosultely mauled thats important? You didnt provide any back up to your argument of how many teams have a 2nd and a 5th starters who are atrocious 25% of the time. So why bother even bringing up your stupid stats if theres nothing to compare them with?  And explain to me how your new key stats of % of awful perfomances works with hitters too. No reason it should be different i assume. 
    Posted by jamesey271975


    Do you really think Lackey is the No. 2 starter? Based on what? The fact that he started the second game of the season? Based on salary? Your simple-mindedness is pathetic.

    Lester, Beckett and Buchholz are the top three. If the playoffs started now, that's the 

    You're drivel at the end of this post shows now sense at all and has nothing to do with my point that it's not worth addressing.

    How is it you can't understand a simple point — Lackey and DiceK are the No. 4 and No. 5 starters and they've pitched  well in 8 of 12 starts? Why is that such a controversial statement with you? It's there in black and white.

    I'm saying that's a good ratio for the last two starters on a staff, even if they are atrocious 25 percent of the time. For example, the Angels have had three pitchers combine for the 4-5 spots and in 12 starts, they've had 7 good starts, and fewer lights-out starts, and five horrible starts. And they're in first place. Most teams likely would be even worse.

    And you're right -- wins and losses don't mean a lot in this argument. Beckett got no-decision last night. Are you trying to tell me that he didn't have a great game just because he didn't get the W.

    AS for ERA, it can be very deceiving in a short sample. Who would you rather have, Pitcher A or Pitcher B:

    Pitcher A
    7 IP, 1ER
    8 IP, 2 ER
    7 IP, 0 ER
    5 IP, 7 ER
    3 IP, 8 ER

    30 IP, 18 ER 5.40 ERA

    Pitcher B
    9 IP, 0 R
    8 IP, 4 R
    5 IP, 5 R
    8 IP, 4 R
    5 IP, 5 R

    35 IP, 18 R 4.62 ERA

    Who would you rather have. Pitcher A who was lights out in three starts and horrible in two or Pitcher B who was great once, bad twice and mediocre twice. 

    I'd rather have Pitcher A even though his ERA is higher. I think it's very important the percentage of times a pitcher can go out and give his team a chance to win.

     

  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from promise4you. Show promise4you's posts

    Re: Josh and Jon are OUTSTANDING!

    posted at 5/10/2011 9:33 PM EDT

    Roy,
    Your absolutely correct,
    #1 My boy Lester
    #2/#3 Take your choice Beckett/Buch ( I love Buch no hiding my emotions here)
    #4/#5 Dice/Lackey

    I dont care what they get paid, its the quality of what the do! Having said that many have ripped Buch early, I suggest you go take a look at how he started last year. He is not far off from there this year. I believe its a maturarity thing, also happened with Lester until this year.
     Your comments are similar in math to my if I have 5 good pitchers who pitch well 80% of the time, does that not give me 4 great pitchers who pitch great 100% on the time! I did not need a BU education to figure this one out!

     

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

    Re: Josh and Jon are OUTSTANDING!

    posted at 5/10/2011 9:37 PM EDT

    To Promise4You: I know what UR referrring to. And if you are needled or misrepresented in such a tone (see REALISTIC thread), I think you too would be react accordingly. In fact, I've seen UR fire!

    If I did to Burrito what he did to me, I'd never hear the end of it.
    He calls out-in-out lies "satire". He skews anything at all to fit how he comprehends
    a post or a given subject matter. He rarely does any research and is a needling pain. He refers to CERA-related issues as "garbage" or "stupidity" simply because he can't measure it's application properly, then claims "satire" in lieu of mis-representation.

    I doubt you'd see his latest blast any different if it were directed your way.
     

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

    Re: Josh and Jon are OUTSTANDING!

    posted at 5/11/2011 12:44 AM EDT

    moon and their 4 bad games were in April, when the entire team started off on the wrong foot.  These two will be dominant all the way into October.
     

  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from promise4you. Show promise4you's posts

    Re: Josh and Jon are OUTSTANDING!

    posted at 5/11/2011 6:32 AM EDT

    Your correct Harness ive had my share of fire with a certian few. I was just making a point about fighting through the rheteric to get to very intelligent posters. I dont know what happened and I dont have time to read every post and I certianly did not say it was one sided. I do think that Burrito at times injects humor thats not always seen! Maybe its sarcasm and im just not seeing it, but i dont think so.
     

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

    Re: Josh and Jon are OUTSTANDING!

    posted at 5/11/2011 6:51 AM EDT

    Thanks for your opinion - you won't catch me trying to sway other posters against another poster here on the forum; each poster provides something necessary to the overall success of the popularity of the forum.
     

  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from jamesey271975. Show jamesey271975's posts

    Re: Josh and Jon are OUTSTANDING!

    posted at 5/11/2011 9:48 AM EDT

    In Response to Re: Josh and Jon are OUTSTANDING!:
    In Response to Re: Josh and Jon are OUTSTANDING! : Do you really think Lackey is the No. 2 starter? Based on what? The fact that he started the second game of the season? Based on salary? Your simple-mindedness is pathetic. Lester, Beckett and Buchholz are the top three. If the playoffs started now, that's the  You're drivel at the end of this post shows now sense at all and has nothing to do with my point that it's not worth addressing. How is it you can't understand a simple point — Lackey and DiceK are the No. 4 and No. 5 starters and they've pitched  well in 8 of 12 starts? Why is that such a controversial statement with you? It's there in black and white. I'm saying that's a good ratio for the last two starters on a staff, even if they are atrocious 25 percent of the time. For example, the Angels have had three pitchers combine for the 4-5 spots and in 12 starts, they've had 7 good starts, and fewer lights-out starts, and five horrible starts. And they're in first place. Most teams likely would be even worse. And you're right -- wins and losses don't mean a lot in this argument. Beckett got no-decision last night. Are you trying to tell me that he didn't have a great game just because he didn't get the W. AS for ERA, it can be very deceiving in a short sample. Who would you rather have, Pitcher A or Pitcher B: Pitcher A 7 IP, 1ER 8 IP, 2 ER 7 IP, 0 ER 5 IP, 7 ER 3 IP, 8 ER 30 IP, 18 ER 5.40 ERA Pitcher B 9 IP, 0 R 8 IP, 4 R 5 IP, 5 R 8 IP, 4 R 5 IP, 5 R 35 IP, 18 R 4.62 ERA Who would you rather have. Pitcher A who was lights out in three starts and horrible in two or Pitcher B who was great once, bad twice and mediocre twice.  I'd rather have Pitcher A even though his ERA is higher. I think it's very important the percentage of times a pitcher can go out and give his team a chance to win.
    Posted by royf19

    Look your take on this is Lackey and Dice K are pretty good in comparison to others teams pitchers. The Red Sox should be comparing themselves to other teams that have little or no respources. My argument is Lackey is appaling and Dice K is not close to being a pitcher we can depend on . End Of. 

     

  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from hill55. Show hill55's posts

    Re: Josh and Jon are OUTSTANDING!

    posted at 5/11/2011 10:45 AM EDT

    I found interesting the 2011 WAR* for the Boston, Seattle and Cleveland rotations:

    http://www.fangraphs.com/winss.aspx?team=Red%20Sox&pos=all&stats=sta&qual=0&type=8&season=2011&month=0&season1=2011

    http://www.fangraphs.com/winss.aspx?team=Mariners&pos=all&stats=sta&qual=0&type=8&season=2011&month=0&season1=2011

    http://www.fangraphs.com/winss.aspx?team=Indians&pos=all&stats=sta&qual=0&type=8&season=2011&month=0&season1=2011

    Most rotations tail off at their back end.

    * Wins Above Replacement as reported at FanGraphs
     

  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from royf19. Show royf19's posts

    Re: Josh and Jon are OUTSTANDING!

    posted at 5/11/2011 11:32 AM EDT

    In Response to Re: Josh and Jon are OUTSTANDING!:
    In Response to Re: Josh and Jon are OUTSTANDING! : Look your take on this is Lackey and Dice K are pretty good in comparison to others teams pitchers. The Red Sox should be comparing themselves to other teams that have little or no respources. My argument is Lackey is appaling and Dice K is not close to being a pitcher we can depend on . End Of. 
    Posted by jamesey271975


    The Angels have plenty of resources. But no matter how much resources you have, we're talking about pitching. It's always a crpshoot. You never know when a steady pitcher suddenly has an off year or simply loses it.

    As for DiceK and Lackey, it's still early. Both have had some outstanding outings. Let's see how they progress from here. The problem I have is you seem to want guarantees from all five starters. On a five-man rotation, you're always going to have one or two pitchers -- if you're lucky -- you can't depend on. Few teams ever will have four, let alone five starters who are dependable all season.

    In 2004, how dependable was Derek Lowe and his 5.75 ERA? He had wretched stretches during the regular season.

    In 2007, how dependable was anyone other than Beckett? DiceK was 15-12 and Wake was 17-12 but had respective ERAs of 4.40 and 4.76. Lester was 4-0 but had an ERA of 4.57. Tavarez the No. 5 starter for 3/4 of the year had a 5.15 ERA. Schilling was basically dependable despite being just 9-8. He had a 3.87 ERA but mised about 1/4 of the season.

    If you dump Lackey and DiceK, who are you going to find that are more dependable? At least Lackey and DiceK have shown spurts of excellence? If you dump then, all you're going to do is replace them with mediocrity -- if you're lucky -- and within two or three starts, posters will be throwing them under the bus.
     

  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from law2009a. Show law2009a's posts

    Re: Josh and Jon are OUTSTANDING!

    posted at 5/11/2011 5:50 PM EDT

    m
     

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

    Re: Josh and Jon are OUTSTANDING!

    posted at 5/11/2011 9:06 PM EDT

    In Response to Re: Josh and Jon are OUTSTANDING!:
    Thanks for your opinion - you won't catch me trying to sway other posters against another poster here on the forum; each poster provides something necessary to the overall success of the popularity of the forum.
    Posted by BurritoT


    Oh, of course not. You didn't try to sway Moon when you lied about my statements.
     

  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from titletown2. Show titletown2's posts

    Re: Josh and Jon are OUTSTANDING!

    posted at 5/11/2011 9:13 PM EDT

    I am confused completely here on this feud.
     

  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from jamesey271975. Show jamesey271975's posts

    Re: Josh and Jon are OUTSTANDING!

    posted at 5/11/2011 9:23 PM EDT

    In Response to Re: Josh and Jon are OUTSTANDING!:
    I am confused completely here on this feud.
    Posted by titletown2

    Lol you and me both, and i think im one of the "combatants"!

     

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

    Re: Josh and Jon are OUTSTANDING!

    posted at 5/11/2011 9:23 PM EDT



    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_aPGI5dUeo&featrue=related
     

  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from jamesey271975. Show jamesey271975's posts

    Re: Josh and Jon are OUTSTANDING!

    posted at 5/11/2011 9:31 PM EDT

    In Response to Re: Josh and Jon are OUTSTANDING!:
    In Response to Re: Josh and Jon are OUTSTANDING! : The Angels have plenty of resources. But no matter how much resources you have, we're talking about pitching. It's always a crpshoot. You never know when a steady pitcher suddenly has an off year or simply loses it. As for DiceK and Lackey, it's still early. Both have had some outstanding outings. Let's see how they progress from here. The problem I have is you seem to want guarantees from all five starters. On a five-man rotation, you're always going to have one or two pitchers -- if you're lucky -- you can't depend on. Few teams ever will have four, let alone five starters who are dependable all season. In 2004, how dependable was Derek Lowe and his 5.75 ERA? He had wretched stretches during the regular season. In 2007, how dependable was anyone other than Beckett? DiceK was 15-12 and Wake was 17-12 but had respective ERAs of 4.40 and 4.76. Lester was 4-0 but had an ERA of 4.57. Tavarez the No. 5 starter for 3/4 of the year had a 5.15 ERA. Schilling was basically dependable despite being just 9-8. He had a 3.87 ERA but mised about 1/4 of the season. If you dump Lackey and DiceK, who are you going to find that are more dependable? At least Lackey and DiceK have shown spurts of excellence? If you dump then, all you're going to do is replace them with mediocrity -- if you're lucky -- and within two or three starts, posters will be throwing them under the bus.
    Posted by royf19

    So i guess we chalk this one up as another atrocious start from Lacking. What a shock. See my argument is very simple, you can use all the selective stats you want. % of average or better starts my arrse!!! I would take ANY pitcher on any major league team over John Lackey including Zito. 

    At least i have no idea how they'd do, I know he is and will be pathetic and is getting $85M to spit and "compete".