Moonslav now and in the future--oblivious

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

    Moonslav now and in the future--oblivious

    Thread after thread on the lineup when pitching is the problem and was last year.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from carnie. Show carnie's posts

    Re: Moonslav now and in the future--oblivious

    In Response to Moonslav now and in the future--oblivious:
    [QUOTE]Thread after thread on the lineup when pitching is the problem and was last year.
    Posted by maxbialystock[/QUOTE]There's a bullpen thread going. Probably on page 2 or 3, you should join in.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from maxbialystock. Show maxbialystock's posts

    Re: Moonslav now and in the future--oblivious

    In response to "Re: Moonslav now and in the future--oblivious": [QUOTE]In Response to Moonslav now and in the future--oblivious : There's a bullpen thread going. Probably on page 2 or 3, you should join in. Posted by carnie[/QUOTE] Wrong. I quit looking after page five. The one entitled bullpen abuse is about Bobby V and completely exonerates the bullpen.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from carnie. Show carnie's posts

    Re: Moonslav now and in the future--oblivious

    In Response to Re: Moonslav now and in the future--oblivious:
    [QUOTE]In response to "Re: Moonslav now and in the future--oblivious": Wrong. I quit looking after page five. The one entitled bullpen abuse is about Bobby V and completely exonerates the bullpen.
    Posted by maxbialystock[/QUOTE]The one I'm thinking of is titled the bullpen and was on page one yesterday. I'll see if I can find it and bump it up. I'd really like to hear your ideas about the pitching.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from antibody. Show antibody's posts

    Re: Moonslav now and in the future--oblivious

    Idea about the pitching: Get some pitching.

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

    Re: Moonslav now and in the future--oblivious

    In Response to Re: Moonslav now and in the future--oblivious:
    [QUOTE]Idea about the pitching: Get some pitching.
    Posted by antibody[/QUOTE]That's easy to say, how would you do that?
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from antibody. Show antibody's posts

    Re: Moonslav now and in the future--oblivious

    In Response to Re: Moonslav now and in the future--oblivious:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Moonslav now and in the future--oblivious : That's easy to say, how would you do that?
    Posted by carnie[/QUOTE]

    Sarcasm, carnie, sarcasm.

    At this point I haven't got a clue.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: Moonslav now and in the future--oblivious

    moon doesn't have to carry the research load of the forum does he? Geez.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Moonslav now and in the future--oblivious

    When did I ever say it wasn't about the pitching?

    Get the facts straight.

    I was screaming for Floyd all winter long and saying it would help the pen and rotation at the same time by keeping Bard in the pen to lessen the jolt of losing Paps.

    It was softy who said our trouble was offense.

    It was soty who said all our troubles would be gone if we dumped Theo, VTek and Wake.

    It was softy who said CERA was voodoo.


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

    Re: Moonslav now and in the future--oblivious

    moon the forum has caught pike-itus and is turning on its very own. Run, run man run!
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Moonslav now and in the future--oblivious

    It's absurd that of all the posters on this forum, max chooses me as the poster boy of not thinking it's all about our poor pirching. It shows his "appaling ignorance [of] this board."
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from maxbialystock. Show maxbialystock's posts

    Re: Moonslav now and in the future--oblivious

    In Response to Re: Moonslav now and in the future--oblivious:
    [QUOTE]When did I ever say it wasn't about the pitching? Get the facts straight. I was screaming for Floyd all winter long and saying it would help the pen and rotation at the same time by keeping Bard in the pen to lessen the jolt of losing Paps. It was softy who said our trouble was offense . It was soty who said all our troubles would be gone if we dumped Theo, VTek and Wake. It was softy who said CERA was voodoo.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    Dead right on almost every point.  Softy is indeed dead wrong.  My complaint is that, while the pitching is clearly going south, you start your series on the infield, outfield, and every field but the pitching field. 

    I do disagree about Bard.  I think he would have saved a couple of games, but could not and cannot save this pitching staff which is the worst in MLB by far, was lousy last September (worst ERA in MLB and blew 6 of 9 saves with Pap and Bard both there), and has been lousy every year since 2008. 

    I also sort of buy the CERA thing, but would point out that Tek was on the 2009, 2010, and 2011 teams.  He probably kept those staffs from being worse, but not from being lousy enough to prevent the Sox from getting to the playoffs. 

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

    Re: Moonslav now and in the future--oblivious

    In Response to Re: Moonslav now and in the future--oblivious:
    [QUOTE]It's absurd that of all the posters on this forum, max chooses me as the poster boy of not thinking it's all about our poor pirching. It shows his "appaling ignorance [of] this board."
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    Moonslav, before I am critical of your calls during the offseason let me say a few things about your posts. In my experience reading to your comments, you are very informative, analytical and for that reason I like reading your opinions, not necessarily agree with you all the times. Analysis backed by facts is a great asset you have but its also bogging you down with your calls in the end. I think you are so much into analyzing that you dont see the obvious facts like this team in its current composition has no chance making the playoffs. I have people that I have to handle on a daily basis that are like you; so much immersed in details that they become blind to the obvious outcomes. But again, dont let these critical comments bog you down. You are most informative here and the forum needs your analysis; keep up the good work!
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Moonslav now and in the future--oblivious

    Dead right on almost every point.  Softy is indeed dead wrong.  My complaint is that, while the pitching is clearly going south, you start your series on the infield, outfield, and every field but the pitching field.  

    Just because I started with OG, C and Left-sdie infield doesn't mean I think those areas are in greater need than pitching. The pitching piece is now done, and I chose to do it last because there was a lot of work needed to complete it, and also when it come to the "future" part of our pitching, there is very little of it.

    I still have no clue why you chose to name me as "oblivious", when I have been carrying the banner of "it's all about pitching" since my first days on this forum and way beyond that.

    I argued all winter that we lost last year because of pitching. I pointed out that we had potential to gain my subtraction enough to maybe compensate for the loss of Papelbo, but that we needed a solid 3 type starter like Floyd and a real closer.

    Just because I give my opinions on line-ups and bats, doesn't mean I value those moves more than pitching moves.

    I do disagree about Bard.  I think he would have saved a couple of games, but could not and cannot save this pitching staff which is the worst in MLB by far, was lousy last September (worst ERA in MLB and blew 6 of 9 saves with Pap and Bard both there), and has been lousy every year since 2008.  

    Beyond Beckett, Lester, Buch, Bard (as set-up), Aceves (as mid-long guy), and Morales, I agree.

    I also sort of buy the CERA thing, but would point out that Tek was on the 2009, 2010, and 2011 teams.  He probably kept those staffs from being worse, but not from being lousy enough to prevent the Sox from getting to the playoffs.  

    Agreed, and he he couldn't have caught many more games than he did, so we had no way to cancel out Salty's short-comings in that area. 

    We need pitching. It's that simple. Finding it is not easy, but we barely tried.
     
  15. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Moonslav now and in the future--oblivious

    I don't know about Buch. He has something to prove his next few starts that his injury and resulting down time is further behind the rear view mirror. What happend to Aceves so far is a fluke IMO, and while he's extremely versatile (Yankee fans would love to have him back, another Cashman blunder, albeit not as bad as Montero); he might be better served if he knew what his role was for the most part.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Moonslav now and in the future--oblivious

    In Response to Re: Moonslav now and in the future--oblivious:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Moonslav now and in the future--oblivious : Moonslav, before I am critical of your calls during the offseason let me say a few things about your posts. In my experience reading to your comments, you are very informative, analytical and for that reason I like reading your opinions, not necessarily agree with you all the times. Analysis backed by facts is a great asset you have but its also bogging you down with your calls in the end. I think you are so much into analyzing that you dont see the obvious facts like this team in its current composition has no chance making the playoffs. I have people that I have to handle on a daily basis that are like you; so much immersed in details that they become blind to the obvious outcomes. But again, dont let these critical comments bog you down. You are most informative here and the forum needs your analysis; keep up the good work!
    Posted by lhtak[/QUOTE]

    When did I say this team as it is now is going to make the playoffs. I projected that if we stayed relatively healthy, we'd make the playoffs by 1 game. I try to be unbiased and "realistic", but I know I am an optimist at heart. Forgive me.

    On the point of facts and data. I do not spend all day looking at data and then make my position based on that. I watch just about every play of every Sox game of every season. I used to play the game. I have my philosphies and ideas of what makes a winner. I do think winning involves looking hard at the "details". Many of my positions are unpopular or go against long-standing baseball paradigms, and so I seek out data, facts and anecdotal evidence to back up my points. Contrary to what many here believe, it's not the other way around.

    If our team was healthy, we are basically the same team (minus Paps) as last year. We've had an abnormally high amount of key injuries. Maybe taht's out fault for signing or tarding for these guys, but I still maintain that on paper, this Sox team at 95% health would be a contender for the playoffs. I have said all along that we needed a guy like Floyd to be one of the favorites to win a ring. I know the game is not played on paper or past observational non-data based opinions either. Far from it. 

    This team has serious issues. I know that. In fact, before the year started, I started a thread about the viability of the idea of blowing up nearly the whole team and starting over with 2013 or 2014 in mind. That's not a "head-in-the-sand" mentality.

    (BTW, the majority of my data-driven posts are in response to other posts by people who make claims that just aren't based in fact or observational experiences at all. I do the research to show the "other side" of the argument has merit, and at times, I end up changing my mind based on the data I find or a good persuasive argument, such as the whole CERA issue- thanks to harness, Jacoby's fielding- thanks to sofy, and more.)

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from tom-uk. Show tom-uk's posts

    Re: Moonslav now and in the future--oblivious

    In Response to Re: Moonslav now and in the future--oblivious:
    [QUOTE]I don't know about Buch. He has something to prove his next few starts that his injury and resulting down time is further behind the rear view mirror. What happend to Aceves so far is a fluke IMO, and while he's extremely versatile (Yankee fans would love to have him back, another Cashman blunder, albeit not as bad as Montero); he might be better served if he knew what his role was for the most part.
    Posted by nhsteven[/QUOTE]


    I'd take his blunders b/c his good moves outweigh them by a lot.

    Ok Igawa, AJ, Marte, Brown,... most were a while ago.

    vs.

    Nick Swisher for Wilson Betemit-

    Granderson, Gardner, Martin, Thames, Nova, (Garcia/Coloc 2011), Robertson, Wade, Logan

    Theo and Ben envy his bullpen and roster filling successes.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chilliwings. Show Chilliwings's posts

    Re: Moonslav now and in the future--oblivious

    It's laughable the Moonslav is forced to defend himself against such ridiculous accusations.  Not that he's infallible, but he's being accused of the exact opposite of his oft-stated views!
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from sporter81. Show sporter81's posts

    Re: Moonslav now and in the future--oblivious

    his threads are kind of annoying, cut and paste stats on almost every one of them. anyone can look up stats on baseball reference or espn . 

    the sox are bad because of their pitching. they will finish in 4th or 5th because they have no pitching. baseball is all about pitching, plain and simple. 
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share