no JBJ in the starting lineup, what does this mean?

  1. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: no JBJ in the starting lineup, what does this mean?

    In response to softlaw2's comment:

    Neither Nava or Gomes, "playing deeper" makes that play. The ball was scorched and knuckling and the slow Nava and Gomes would have had to make that catch over their shoulder.

    But keep working on convincing yourself that Nava and Gomes just play deeper and make that play and provide such good slugging that they offer more than Bradley does.




    Nava has won just as many games for the Sox as JBJ, this year.

    Sorry, them's the facts.

    If one JBJ play is important, so is one game-winning 3 run jack.

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

    Re: no JBJ in the starting lineup, what does this mean?

    In response to ThefourBs' comment:

    In response to softlaw2's comment:

     

    Neither Nava or Gomes, "playing deeper" makes that play. The ball was scorched and knuckling and the slow Nava and Gomes would have had to make that catch over their shoulder.

    But keep working on convincing yourself that Nava and Gomes just play deeper and make that play and provide such good slugging that they offer more than Bradley does.

     




    Nava has won just as many games for the Sox as JBJ, this year.

     

    Sorry, them's the facts.

    If one JBJ play is important, so is one game-winning 3 run jack.



    not when it interferes with Softy's warped point of view it isn't

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from mef429. Show mef429's posts

    Re: no JBJ in the starting lineup, what does this mean?

    In response to ThefourBs' comment:

    In response to softlaw2's comment:

     

    Neither Nava or Gomes, "playing deeper" makes that play. The ball was scorched and knuckling and the slow Nava and Gomes would have had to make that catch over their shoulder.

    But keep working on convincing yourself that Nava and Gomes just play deeper and make that play and provide such good slugging that they offer more than Bradley does.

     




    Nava has won just as many games for the Sox as JBJ, this year.

     

    Sorry, them's the facts.

    If one JBJ play is important, so is one game-winning 3 run jack.



    Nava has done more to help the team win games than JBJ.. playing in less games too.

    FWIW Navas WAR through 4 games is .5

    JBJ through 6 is -0.1

    Nava also has 0 strikeouts and is drawing walks at the same clip as JBJ (17.6 to 18.5 respectively). So yes, as soon as Papi returns JBJ will be sent back down and Gomes/Nava takes over LF duties and will continue to outproduce JBJ.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from mef429. Show mef429's posts

    Re: no JBJ in the starting lineup, what does this mean?

    In response to softlaw2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Not hard to "outproduce" a player not on the active roster.

    The butcher OF of Gomes and Nava will produce less, overall, than the talant and skill that Bradley brings to both sides of the baseball game.

    Not in 2013. If one of them is already outproducing JBJ what happens when you add in the other? a big boost in production over JBJ.

    Gomes and Nava are career back bench guys, for a reason. In a bench role, they are useful. Starting the next 155 games will expose these two bench guys. Defensively, they should not spend much time in the OF, and that means not "taking over LF" for 155 games. 

    that would apply if they were FT guys.. they are not. They will be platooning LF and will likely make the LF position one of the top offensive productions on the team. Nava is a solid defender and Gomes will do fine playing in fenways small LF. Luckily we have 2 other GG OF'ers so when we go to parks with bigger OFs they can give Gomes help and limit the area he would need to cover. Effectively limiting the damage his "butchering" could cause.

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

    Re: no JBJ in the starting lineup, what does this mean?

    Maybe he made a big difference in 1-2 games, but Nava won one gamepretty much by himself,

    For someone who said, over and over, to start Bradley in the minors, it must be difficult to use words like "maybe" and "Nava pretty much by himself" in jumping back on the "let's save a year of control and go with Gomes and Nava in LF".

    My position has not changed. I wanted JBJ down for 9 days to start the season. Second choice: send him down for 20 days at some point when we'd m9ss him the least. That extra year may be 7 years away, but I plan on living that long.

    There's no "jumping back" anywhere.

    Unlike you, I do not deny my past positions.

    The 9 days are just about up, and had we played JBJ like you wanted yesterday, we'd be about even on the JBJ 9 day thing. Maybe -1 if you want to be biased on JBJ's side. Yeah, we may have won anyway with JBJ over nava, but the same could be said about the game JBJ made the great catch and drew the big walk.

     

    When you use "maybe big difference" and "pretty much by himself" you are the intellectual midget that I know  you are.

    There you go again!

     

    In 6 games, Bradley's OBP and defnese is exactly what he showed in spring training. Nothing has changed, but this Board keeps repeating his 6 day BA and ignores his OBP. There are several active roster members with sub-.200 BA who aren't slugging and who are lousy defenders.

    Nothing has changed is right. You continue to use small sample sizes and near meaningless ST stats only for the players you like. Nava's ST and start of the regular season is thrown out the window.

    And, can you for once get your facts and data right? Just once!

    JBJ ST OBP: .507

    JBJ Reg: .333

    How is that the same? (No way you even try to answer this, except by some vague Wake reference)

     

    At the end of the day, over the season, Nava and Gomes are bench guys who are terrible defensive player. The spin attempt going now is what it was this spring, the claim that demoting Bradley won't matter in the W/L column and/or that the Red Sox need to focus on what might happen a half a decade from now.

    Of course Bradley is better defensively than the Gomes/Nava platoon in LF. You are not the only one that knows this, so stop with the drivel.  The fact is, LF defense is not as important in LF as SS and CF, especially in Fenway. The Nava/Gomes platoon is likely to combine for the best or one of the best OBP combination on the team. It probably may not make up for the loss on defense, and that's why I wanted JBJ to play all but 9 or 20 days this year. I still do. My point is that the differential is not great enough to be a big deal for 9 days, and as the 9 days are about up, I see it as being about even. Nava and Gomes did well these 9 days, and JBJ fielded well, and got on base at a .333 clip- which is horrible for players you hate, but somehow OK for JBJ.

     

    Bradley's presence is both defensive and energy and leadership. When he's sent back to the minors for bean counting and "needs a few more weeks or month or more in the minors to work on the weaknesses that caused him to be unable to handle MLB pitching in 6 games", this team will be adversely impacted in winning percentage.

    Stop confusing me with others- something you always do. I have never said JBJ needs to work on "weaknesses".  Your lies continue with never a retraction when proven a liar.

     

    Consistent with this motives behind the mishandling of Bradley will be the gifting of the starting SS job to "premium guy". There is no way that S. Drew can provide the overall skills that Iglesias provides, in the starting SS position.

    I have wanted Iggy as our starting SS since before you. Stop the further lying. I was against the Drew signing, and have never wanted him to start. Everyone on this board but you knows this. And, you call me a "mental midget"? You can't even comprehend my position that I have stated over and over for 2 years.

     

    It's one thing to use Nava off the bench, it's entirely another to take one HR and pretend that Gomes and Nava are the better roster answer for LF.

    I said for 9 days, it was "maybe" a wash. What part of that is so difficult for you to understand? I want JBJ and Iggy as our FT CF'er (not LF like you) and SS for the whole season- minus the days needed to keep JBJ for another season of control. Get it? Clown?

     

    Red Sox managment is getting ready to break something that wasn't broken, as only the can do. That will start with the two Mickey Mouse roster moves that are coming up and which I've been denouncing since spring training.

    You are not alone on denouncing the Iggy move, so get over yourself. On JBJ spending the first 9 days in AAA and going with Nava & Gomes in LF vs playing JBJ all the games you wanted him to play, including yesterday, it's easy to argue the results would be the same: a 5-2 record.

    That's the bottom line. We call up JBJ after 9 days, put him in CF and Jacoby in LF, and keep Iggy as the starting SS. That was my plan. I never changed it. Try and keep up.

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

    Re: no JBJ in the starting lineup, what does this mean?

    In response to ctredsoxfanhugh's comment:

    In response to softlaw2's comment:

     

    . But it's too early to know how much their play has really impacted the winning percentage. Quality pitching has had a major impact so far.

    In fact, as always, pitching is overrated and positional team defense is underrated. Team confidence is real, and Bradley's defense in Game 1 of the season was the defining moment of that game. It had a direct impace on the winning percentage. Both players have changed the character of a team that has been a very bad defensive team for many years.

    Managment is incompetent and is looking away from what Bradley and Iggy do on the defensive side of the ball to impact the pitching, and looking towards slugging in the form of S. Drew and Nava and Gomes. It is a mistake.

     



     

    A lesser skilled defender in left would have been playing much deeper on that play, making it close to a routine flyout.....just saying. 



    If "Jake" had made a play like that, softy would have said he got a late break, took the wrong route, and got turned around on the play.

     
  9. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: no JBJ in the starting lineup, what does this mean?

    In response to softlaw2's comment:

    Not hard to "outproduce" a player not on the active roster.

    The butcher OF of Gomes and Nava will produce less, overall, than the talant and skill that Bradley brings to both sides of the baseball game.

    Gomes and Nava are career back bench guys, for a reason. In a bench role, they are useful. Starting the next 155 games will expose these two bench guys. Defensively, they should not spend much time in the OF, and that means not "taking over LF" for 155 games. 



    This is exactly what softy said about Cody Ross last year, then as he did great, he later claimed he said he was a good signing.

    Gomes is one of MLB's best hitters, especially in OBP, vs LHP. Nava has an excellent career OBP vs RHPs. Neither is a great fielder, but with half the games in Fenway, "hiding" a poor to average left fielder in Fenway works in their favor. 

    I love Bradley's fielding- so much so that I think he should play CF instead of Ellsbury, but I guess I am alone on that one. JBJ can save us some runs and losses with his superior defense, probably even more runs and wins than Nava/Gomes get us on offense, but it is not as clear a differential as with a position like SS and the Iggy D vs Drew O debate.

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from mef429. Show mef429's posts

    Re: no JBJ in the starting lineup, what does this mean?

    Ortiz is clearly in a steep decline... that's why his OPS/OPS+ went down over the last 4 seasons.

     

    Year          OPS          OPS+

    2009          .794          102

    2010          .899          137

    2011          .953          154

    2012         1.026         171

    see? this Bum is obviously in decli-

    ........wait a minute, those numbers are going up not down. That's the opposite of a decline.

    softy! you rascal you! you almost had me.

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

    Re: no JBJ in the starting lineup, what does this mean?

    clearly.....

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from snakeoil123. Show snakeoil123's posts

    Re: no JBJ in the starting lineup, what does this mean?

    In response to softlaw2's comment:

    In 2012, David Ortiz couldn't produce a full season of results. It might full some GM's and fans to post his OPS for 2012, and pretend he's not in decline. But his and age and disabled list time proves the opposite is true. Ortiz gave out long before 2012 was over. And despite having nearly a year to recover, he's still on the disabled list.



    Wrong color face.

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

    Re: no JBJ in the starting lineup, what does this mean?

    In response to softlaw2's comment:

    This is exactly what softy said about Cody Ross last year, then as he did great, he later claimed he said he was a good signing.

    This isn't exaclty waht I said about Ross, last year. And I never said it was "a good signing". I said he was a plattoon guy who was overapaid, but he made more sense than the other overpaid FA on more than one year contracts. You boasted about this guy, while I said he was old and a DL guy unless he played as a platoon guy. He was a better fielder than Gomes or Nava, not that this says much.

    I believe in young talent, and I really believe in young talent that is a proven winner in team sports. 

    This team needs the best defense it can get, to back the marginal starting rotation. 

    The two telegraphed moves, since spring training, has been managment's decision to go with Gomes and Nava and S. Drew. It's a mistake, but it was nice having S. Drew and Ortiz on the DL because it delayed management's plan to start the season.

    I've reached the point where I hope S. Drew slugs at a high level, and Nava and Gomes slug at the level Moonshwemp says "we could be looking at". Once that takes place, the spotlight will be on the team's winning percentage and the pitching staff metrics. The team defense will never be the spotlight, which is the case for every season. And while the spin will be "they didn't matter and these roster moves provided a better result and the problems weren't related to what Bradley and Iggy provided on defense, because it's starts and ends with the starting pitching. I hope I'm wrong, but I see this team going south from here, once Iggy is demoted for S. Drew, and once Bradley is replaced by the clearly in steep decline Ortiz. We'll see.

     



    Gomes is almost a carbon copy of Ross. Great against LHPs and not good on D.

    Keep convincing yourself about what you think my position is, but again, you prove can't read. 

    I want our best defensive team on the field: Iggy at SS, Bradley in CF (minus the 20 days) and Ellsbury in LF. Just because I want that, does not man I have to lie about the offense of Gome/Nava by saying they are no better at getting on base than Bradley, as you claimed. I don't have to lie about Drew's offense, which has been slipping, but still projects to be better than Iggy's in 2013.

    When I point out your lies, it does not mean I disagree with your position: play Iggy and JBJ. Is that so hard to grasp, clown?

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from snakeoil123. Show snakeoil123's posts

    Re: no JBJ in the starting lineup, what does this mean?

    In response to softlaw2's comment:

     

    Keep convincing yourself about what you think my position is, but again, you prove can't read.

    I don't take your comment and invective seriously. And, in your rant, you forget to call me a racist, hater and homophobe. The "liar and can't read" invective is getting old. Get it on out, and for the life of me, I can't understand why you have to be the one who trolls to caution the readers that I am liar, a racist, hater and homophobe.

    One last question, would you care to define "homophobe". Thanks.

     




     

    Everyone knows what a homophobe is. It is someone that hates their house.

     
  19. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: no JBJ in the starting lineup, what does this mean?

    In response to softlaw2's comment:

    Keep convincing yourself about what you think my position is, but again, you prove can't read.

    I don't take your comment and invective seriously. And, in your rant, you forget to call me a racist, hater and homophobe. The "liar and can't read" invective is getting old. Get it on out, and for the life of me, I can't understand why you have to be the one who trolls to caution the readers that I am liar, a racist, hater and homophobe.

    One last question, would you care to define "homophobe". Thanks.



    You are all of the above, and among your friends, probably proud of it.

    You lies are on display nearly everytime you misrepresent my position, as in right above...

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

    Re: no JBJ in the starting lineup, what does this mean?

    In response to softlaw2's comment:

    I can't read, but I've been told that "homo" translates to "same", and "phobia" translates to "frear". So, I think you may be wrong on the "hates their house". It appears to translate to "fear of the same".  I had someone ready the definition of "gay", too, from an old outdated dictionary. It referenced "happy", but didn't include anything about "sexual proclvity". It's a good thing we have these Harvard graduates to make sure the language of the culture is evolving.



    Yes, but some of us are devolving.

     

     

    You are DEVO.

    You are DEVO.

    D-E-V-O.

    D-E-V-O.

     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from redsoxpride34. Show redsoxpride34's posts

    Re: no JBJ in the starting lineup, what does this mean?

    i think the sox need to give jackie bradley more of a shot to establish himself. 3 of the sox 7 games have come against lefties. yes bradley has not hit much, but perhaps he just needs time. and he is still play great d and is getting on base. gomes and nava are not starters and neither are great defensively. nava is a fine bench player, i think the guy to go when papi returns is mike carp. carp and nava are redundant. bradley should stay as the start in LF, and gomes will be in there against lefties and can also DH against lefties for ortiz from time to time. gomes is a platoon guy, nothing more. when pedroia came up he struggle at the plate for awhile but eventually started hitting, i think jackie bradley could follow suit. 

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from mef429. Show mef429's posts

    Re: no JBJ in the starting lineup, what does this mean?

    In response to redsoxpride34's comment:

    i think the sox need to give jackie bradley more of a shot to establish himself. 3 of the sox 7 games have come against lefties. yes bradley has not hit much, but perhaps he just needs time. and he is still play great d and is getting on base. gomes and nava are not starters and neither are great defensively. nava is a fine bench player, i think the guy to go when papi returns is mike carp. carp and nava are redundant. bradley should stay as the start in LF, and gomes will be in there against lefties and can also DH against lefties for ortiz from time to time. gomes is a platoon guy, nothing more. when pedroia came up he struggle at the plate for awhile but eventually started hitting, i think jackie bradley could follow suit. 



    JBJ should only be in the bigs if he is going to play FT. subbing him out for Gomes against Lefties is not the proper way to handle him. When papi comes back he should be sent to AAA.

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

    Re: no JBJ in the starting lineup, what does this mean?

    You are all of the above, and among your friends, probably proud of it.

    I don't have any friends, because I'm a racist and a hater and a liar and I haven't evolved on the social issues. My close friends are all old southern old white men who are racists, but they can't go out in public because of the new social justice laws. We have all been imprisoned and I'm posting from prison. I'm getting tolerance training from a loving gay couple, as well as instrustions on getting my GED. My plantation is now a federal training center for underprivileged children of color.

    My hobby is baseball and lying. In about 6 months, they tell me my hatred and homophobia will be managmed with meds and therapy. I aslo a, finally admitting that men did walk on the moon and it's morally wrong for first cousins to marry. I'm learning. 

     

    Admitting your problems is the first step to recovery.

    Good for you!

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share