That one was on Scutaro and Crawford

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

    Re: That one was on Scutaro and Crawford

    A team loses when the other team plays better... I wonder about all those teams that beat the Red Sox in April, what are their records?

    Just because a team wins one and is the best that day does not equate to them being better overall.

    Is KC better than Boston? No. Were they better today? Yes.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from soxmeister. Show soxmeister's posts

    Re: That one was on Scutaro and Crawford

    Yes, Spaceman, Lester pitching well is more important than one loss.  That is our whole rest of the season, and it looks a lot better now.   Get Buck back and we will be in business.  
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Your-Echo. Show Your-Echo's posts

    Re: That one was on Scutaro and Crawford

    You could almost predict which posters would gravitate to this thread and what they would say. Sort of like dropping some blood into shark-infested waters.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from The--Babe-----------. Show The--Babe-----------'s posts

    Re: That one was on Scutaro and Crawford

    In Response to Re: That one was on Scutaro and Crawford:
    [QUOTE]You could almost predict which posters would gravitate to this thread and what they would say. Sort of like dropping some blood into shark-infested waters.

    Posted by Your-Echo[/QUOTE]

    Well we all certainly knew you would be here to complain about other posters.

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

    Re: That one was on Scutaro and Crawford

    In Response to Re: That one was on Scutaro and Crawford:
    [QUOTE]A team loses when the other team plays better... I wonder about all those teams that beat the Red Sox in April, what are their records? Just because a team wins one and is the best that day does not equate to them being better overall. Is KC better than Boston? No. Were they better today? Yes.
    Posted by BurritoT[/QUOTE]

    How profound.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Your-Echo. Show Your-Echo's posts

    Re: That one was on Scutaro and Crawford

    Hats off to you Babe for agreeing with Yazzer that the Sox players are gargage / pathetic. Do you realize that if everyone acted like Yazzer then you would have no need to come here. There isn't much difference at all between you and Yazzer. In fact, the two of you might be the same person.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: That one was on Scutaro and Crawford

    In Response to Re: That one was on Scutaro and Crawford:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: That one was on Scutaro and Crawford : Wow, please point out where I agreed with yazzer...here's a clue, I didn't. Again, I know I ask this daily, but can you get someone to help with your reading comprehension? You must have a 5 yr old niece or nephew that has no school during the summer that can help you out.  
    Posted by -The--Babe-----------------[/QUOTE]

    Maybe you can lend him your plastic girlfriend.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from tbrod. Show tbrod's posts

    Re: That one was on Scutaro and Crawford

    BJ Upton (not to mention Longoria and Pena) also used to terroize the Sox.
    Maybe we should add all of them, too.
    Crawford looked so bad last night, swinging at everything and anything.
    20 millon for 7 years!
    AAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from the_yazzer. Show the_yazzer's posts

    Re: That one was on Scutaro and Crawford

    In Response to Re: That one was on Scutaro and Crawford:
    [QUOTE]BJ Upton (not to mention Longoria and Pena) also used to terroize the Sox. Maybe we should add all of them, too. Crawford looked so bad last night, swinging at everything and anything. 20 millon for 7 years! AAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Posted by tbrod[/QUOTE]



    you took the ANGRY word right out of my mouth:
    AAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!
    and SLACKEY for 4 more years:
    AAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from trouts. Show trouts's posts

    Re: That one was on Scutaro and Crawford

     13 hits and only 1 run. Astonishing!
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: That one was on Scutaro and Crawford

    that's ok, while Crawford is deservedly getting ripped here, some people are actually ripping Ellsbury for not stealing bases or ripping middle relievers who are shutting out opponents. Ortiz hasn't homered in a few games, oh, oh, release him!!!!
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from The-Babe------------------. Show The-Babe------------------'s posts

    Re: That one was on Scutaro and Crawford

    In Response to Re: That one was on Scutaro and Crawford:
    [QUOTE]Hats off to you Babe for agreeing with Yazzer that the Sox players are gargage / pathetic. Do you realize that if everyone acted like Yazzer then you would have no need to come here. There isn't much difference at all between you and Yazzer. In fact, the two of you might be the same person.

    Posted by Your-Echo[/QUOTE]

    Again you show your lack of reading comprehension skills.

    Please point out exactly where I agreed with yazzer....here's a hint....I didn't.

    I know I have asked you this many times, but please get someone to help you with your reading comprehension. Surely you must have a 5 yr old niece or nephew that is off for the summer that can help you out.

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

    Re: That one was on Scutaro and Crawford

    In Response to Re: That one was on Scutaro and Crawford:
    [QUOTE]This is a really dumb thread.  The Sox can't win every game.  Crawford wasn't so hot, especially that at bat with men on base and he swung at the firs two pitches out of the strike zone and eventually struck out.  But everyone has bad games.  Scutaro missed the sign--and, no, you don't have a big meeting to make sure everyone knows what to do because that tips off the defense.  But AGon didn't look too sharp either.  And Ellsbury still continues not to attempt to steal a base, something that has been going on for awhile.  I hated losing but found it to be just as interesting as that 16 inning win at Tropicana.  Also, give some credit to the KC pitching staff who did a pretty good job. 
    Posted by maxbialystock[/QUOTE]
    Not a big meeting but a confirm sign.


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

    Re: That one was on Scutaro and Crawford

    In Response to Re: That one was on Scutaro and Crawford:
    [QUOTE]Its a tough loss when they had opportunities to win the game. Basically they did not hit when they had to and ran out of pitching at the end there. They made blundres and it hurt them. Shake it off and go out there tonight. This KC Team gives the Red Sox fits and they have got to get over it and win tonight.
    Posted by agarbari[/QUOTE]

    Your right "agarbari", tonight's game will be interesting after unfortunately blowing one last night.  With Youk out, and a doubtful pitching match up, the Sox could very easily lose tonight also.  If the Sox win this series against the lowly Royals then Francona, his coaches, and more importantly the players had best be on the top of their game, decision making, pitching, fielding, hitting, and knowing what to do in any given situation whether it be on defense, or offense, all of which our Sox have been very good at so far this year, for the very most part, especially the offense.  GO SOX!  
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: That one was on Scutaro and Crawford

    In Response to Re: That one was on Scutaro and Crawford:
    [QUOTE]A team loses when the other team plays better... I wonder about all those teams that beat the Red Sox in April, what are their records? Just because a team wins one and is the best that day does not equate to them being better overall. Is KC better than Boston? No. Were they better today? Yes.
    Posted by BurritoT[/QUOTE]

    No, KC was not better than Boston last night. Anybody watching the actual game knows it was Boston's game to lose due to the gaffs.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from royf19. Show royf19's posts

    Re: That one was on Scutaro and Crawford

    In Response to Re: That one was on Scutaro and Crawford:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: That one was on Scutaro and Crawford : No, KC was not better than Boston last night. Anybody watching the actual game knows it was Boston's game to lose due to the gaffs.
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

    Hate to do this harness, but I have to agree with Burrito on this one. K.C. was better last night. Yes the Red Sox made costly mistakes. The Royals didn't. That's the point. If one team makes mistakes and the other team didn't, the team that didn't make mistakes was on that day the better team. There shouldn't be anything controversial about that. 
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: That one was on Scutaro and Crawford

    In Response to Re: That one was on Scutaro and Crawford:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: That one was on Scutaro and Crawford : Hate to do this harness, but I have to agree with Burritoon this one. K.C. was better last night. Yes the Red Sox made costly mistakes. The Royals didn't. That's the point. If one team makes mistakes and the other team didn't, the team that didn't make mistakes was on that day the better team. There shouldn't be anything controversial about that. 
    Posted by royf19[/QUOTE]

    That hurts ROY.
    I suppose it depends on how you define "better".
    As I see it, Boston lost last night because they ran themselves out of the game, which they could have won several times. KC didn't beat them. They beat themselves.

    To draw an analogy, if a horse tries to wire the field, is pressured on the front end all the way, and is barely beaten by an inferior 30-1 shot that got there due to
    an exhausted front runner, who ran the better race?
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from royf19. Show royf19's posts

    Re: That one was on Scutaro and Crawford

    In Response to Re: That one was on Scutaro and Crawford:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: That one was on Scutaro and Crawford : That hurts ROY . I suppose it depends on how you define "better". As I see it, Boston lost last night because they ran themselves out of the game, which they could have won several times. KC didn't beat them. They beat themselves. To draw an analogy, if a horse tries to wire the field, is pressured on the front end all the way, and is barely beaten by an inferior 30-1 shot that got there due to an exhausted front runner, who ran the better race?
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

    The inferior horse because he didn't try to run himself out of the race only to die at the end. He did what it took to win. The mental part of the game is just as important as the physical part.

    I've seen plenty of instances where a player or team with more talent lost to a team with less talent because they didn't play smart. 

    Yes the Red Sox lost the game. That the Royals didn't do anything to lose the game made them the better team last night.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: That one was on Scutaro and Crawford

    In Response to Re: That one was on Scutaro and Crawford:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: That one was on Scutaro and Crawford : The inferior horse because he didn't try to run himself out of the race only to die at the end. He did what it took to win. The mental part of the game is just as important as the physical part. I've seen plenty of instances where a player or team with more talent lost to a team with less talent because they didn't play smart.  Yes the Red Sox lost the game. That the Royals didn't do anything to lose the game made them the better team last night.
    Posted by royf19[/QUOTE]

    That's right. The RedSox didn't play smart. But the issue is who was better.
    Not who was smarter. If he'd said "the Royals were the smarter team last night..."
    then I wouldn't have commented. 

    The best teams in the game will lose at least 60 games a year. Often they are beat by a hot team or a hot arm. But there will be times when they beat themselves.
    And last night was one of them.

    BTW: in my analogy, that horse who was beat often comes back and absolutely dominates his field next time out, running the same type of race. The difference is he's not taking as much pressure because there's less talent to push him.
    In horse racing, the old adage often applies: "longshots don't win...favorites lose".
    And when they are beat, it's not always because another ran a smarter race. Off the pace horses of lesser ability have no choice but to stand pat and hope for a speed dual.
     
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Your-Echo. Show Your-Echo's posts

    Re: That one was on Scutaro and Crawford

    Doesn't a longshot have to beat more than one favorite to win. Doesn't a longshot have to surpass five or six other horses that have better odds? What are the odds of six favorites all having a bad day at the same time?
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: That one was on Scutaro and Crawford

    In Response to Re: That one was on Scutaro and Crawford:
    [QUOTE]Doesn't a longshot have to beat more than one favorite to win. Doesn't a longshot have to surpass five or six other horses that have better odds? What are the odds of six favorites all having a bad day at the same time?
    Posted by Your-Echo[/QUOTE]


    I've seen it happen many times. A given race favorite barely wins 38% of the time.
    Understand, I'm talking individual race favorites.

    In the context of horses bet in a given event, which you are alluding to, the likelihood of their success depends on the disparity of ability.
    For example, if you have a heavily bet horse at 2-5 odds, the next "favorite" will be around 9-2, and much less likely to hit the board. Obviously, if the 2-5 horse comes up short, the chances of a long shot (8-1 or better) winning are high.

    OTOH, if there's no clear-cut fav. then you might see 3 horses at 2-1/5-2. This minimizes a longshot presence, unless the favorites burn each other out, which is very possible, as their skill-set is more easily compromised.

    Longshot horses come in for two reasons:
    1) They are under-bet due to an overlay on the fav(s).
    2) They aren't very good, which is reflective of the odds, but the fav. is pushed too hard or breaks stride.

    You can easily turn an 8-1 horse into 3-4 grand with minimal investment if you play the exotics properly.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from aussiewill. Show aussiewill's posts

    Re: That one was on Scutaro and Crawford

    I haven't done the exact numbers but, and I am guessing a bit here , however, from observations, I would bet I am real close.

    If you took out Crawford's bloop hits to left field and his infield hits, his batting average would be about .130 . Now I know hitters get bloop hits to the opposite field , Pedey sure gets a lot (LOL) .

    But Crawford , not only can't hit a lefty's breaking ball , or a righty's curve in the dirt, but 1/2 of the hits he does get are bloopers to left or infield hits. Now he's 30-31 he can beat out a lot of slow rollers, that was his only hit today. What happens in 4 years when he's 34-35 he won't beat those out that's what will happen.

    J. D. Drew stunk most of his first year, he got hot in August that year, he was hitting like .210 to the middle of July, but he was expensive , not near as much as Crawford is , and JD killed the Cardinals in the World Series that year. 

    Guys that get that kind of money $20 million per season, get no slack, neither do the guy's who sign them. The pressure's on from the get go.

    When a player signs a huge contract, management is basically saying, you are the guy we want to play (in this case) Left Field for the next 7 years. Think about that for a moment. So we are not going to see any hot prospects getting a chance in Left , because they are totally committed to Crawford, ridiculous, but true.

    Basically they gave Crawford , Adrian Gonzales money , more than St. Louis gave a better player and a right handed hitter Holliday. More than the Sox gave Beckett, Youk, Pedey, Big Papi. Does that upset the apple cart? With Crawfords performance so far , there are rumblings in the clubhouse, that I guarantee. For one Boras is licking his chops. He's Ellsbury's agent case you forgot. 

    Crawford will go down as the biggest mistake, because of the money, since Harry Frazee sold George Herman Ruth to the New York Yankees for $125,000, 90 years ago. I hope Theo pays for this one.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from parhunter1. Show parhunter1's posts

    Re: That one was on Scutaro and Crawford

    what a statement.  Do you really think that 90 years from now people will be talking about the money Carl Crawford got to play in Boston?  I don't.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from parhunter1. Show parhunter1's posts

    Re: That one was on Scutaro and Crawford

    That is, unless you, Yazzer, The-Babe, and billyboy find the fountain of youth and live that long...
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: That one was on Scutaro and Crawford

    In Response to Re: That one was on Scutaro and Crawford:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: That one was on Scutaro and Crawford : No, KC was not better than Boston last night. Anybody watching the actual game knows it was Boston's game to lose due to the gaffs.
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

    royf19 thanks. When you win a game you are simply the better team that day, and maybe you were only the better team because the other one had "many gaffes."  harness if your team makes too many gaffes as you say, and the other team makes fewer does that not make them the better team that particular game? Uh, yes it does.

    Or do you just want to argue or disagree on EVERYTHING I SAY? Your so ready to get on my case you made yourself look silly on this one.
     

Share