2006 MLB Thread

[Chalupa]

Holy smokes! MVP Ryan Howard just hit his 3rd homer of the game off of Tim Hudson. That's #52.

[Dan Gould]

Not only is Ryan Howard red hot, but so is Barry Bonds.

All of a sudden, if he hits around 10 more this season, he'll be less than 20 away from Aaron's record, and that looks more and more do-able for next season.

Oh well - it will just make it that much more pleasurable to see his record vacated after he is indicted, convicted, and banned from baseball.

[GregK]

Not only is Ryan Howard red hot, but so is Barry Bonds.

All of a sudden, if he hits around 10 more this season, he'll be less than 20 away from Aaron's record, and that looks more and more do-able for next season.

Oh well - it will just make it that much more pleasurable to see his record vacated after he is indicted, convicted, and banned from baseball.

Have they stopped checking for 'roids or something? Giambi, now Bonds...what do we believe?

[Heatwave]

No kidding! Looks like this kid was having a heckuva rookie year. This is just heartbreaking:

Well, his record was better than some of his other stats would suggest. He has trouble commanding the strike zone and would get into high pitch counts and rarely work past the 5th inning. What was impressive was his ability to get out of trouble. All in all, being a 22 year old rookie, its been a decent debut, that's for sure. Hopefully this is all just a bump in the road and he'll get the chance to build on this and become a solid #3.

Now watch for Heatwave to show up with his blather. After ripping Big Papi when the man may have a serious heart condition, God only knows what he'll say about a kid who could be facing cancer.

Just wondering -- do you think Lester's cancer will raise or lower his trade value? My hunch is that a diagnosis of cancer would *lower* one's trade value, but considering the bizarre perspective you offered last week -- where his shaky 2006 performance would have no effect -- perhaps you have other ideas. I'm gonna stick with "cancer = lower trade value" myself, though.

[Heatwave]

"Within 10 days, Trot Nixon and Jason Varitek followed him, and in the month since, Gonzales, Manny, Lester and Ortiz have been disabled or lost for significant periods. And we all know what their record has been ever since."

Trot Nixon was a platoon outfielder and Jason Varitek was having a bad year.

Time yet again for the Truth Patrol:

THE FACTS:

As a lefthanded hitter, Trot Nixon could already be expected to play in approximately 75% of all games as there are more righthanded starters than lefthanded. Yet the fact is that throughout the time that Wily Mo Pena was injured, Nixon started against virtually everyone, righthanded or lefthanded. The bottom line is that when Nixon went down, the team had played 104 games and he had appeared in 92 of them. He had also compiled a .294 BA and an OBP of .396.

Anyone with any knowledge of the game knows that despite his decline in power numbers, Nixon was a critical part of the Red Sox lineup, and far more than a "platoon outfielder".

Which brings us to Varitek.

Anyone who has watched Varitek for the last five years knows full well that he is far more important to the team's success than this year's .243 BA. His team leadership, handling of the pitching staff and pitch calling skills are second to none. While he was on the roster, the young pitchers performed at their highest level to date. No one with any knowledge of the game is surprised at how the pitching staff has collapsed with Mirabelli and Lopez trying to fill Tek's shoes. In fact, what happened the last time the Red Sox lost Varitek for an extended period of time? That would be 2001 when he broke his elbow and the team finished 82-79.

Coincidence? Every knowledgeable observer knew that the Red Sox would be in deep trouble when Varitek went down.

The Truth Patrol signing off for the night.

We're not talking about 2003 or 2004 Varitek, we're talking about the 2006 model, which flat-out sucked at the plate. As for his leadership abilities (which aren't a factor in winning baseball games anyway) 'Tek can "lead" from the dugout, can't he? Stop making excuses. Losing a non-existent bat should have no effect whatsoever on the team. Stop making excuses and, frankly, stop lying. I know you hate it when the facts don't back up your insane ramblings, but one might think you'd be used to it now.

[Dan Gould]

We're not talking about 2003 or 2004 Varitek, we're talking about the 2006 model, which flat-out sucked at the plate. As for his leadership abilities (which aren't a factor in winning baseball games anyway) 'Tek can "lead" from the dugout, can't he? Stop making excuses. Losing a non-existent bat should have no effect whatsoever on the team. Stop making excuses and, frankly, stop lying. I know you hate it when the facts don't back up your insane ramblings, but one might think you'd be used to it now.

The Truth Patrol Back Once Again:

THE FACTS:

Every baseball observer knows that Varitek is much more than his "non-existent bat".

His pitch calling, his knowledge of hitters and his knowledge of his pitching staff are talents that cannot be utilized from the bench. Lopez (who has always been a crappy catcher) and Mirabelli were on their own trying to do a job they are not equipped to do on a full time basis.

But don't take my word for it. Consider the experienced voice of Mike Bauman of MLB.com. He actually earns a LIVING with his knowledge of baseball:

http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article...s&fext=.jsp

The Red Sox lost the one man in their lineup, apart from Ortiz, that they simply could not afford to lose. It is more than coincidence that the August slide coincided with Varitek going on the disabled list with a knee injury. He could not be replaced, either tangibly or intangibly. The subsequent performance of Javy Lopez only served to underscore how invaluable Varitek actually is.

Truth Patrol Signing off For the Night.

[Dan Gould]

No kidding! Looks like this kid was having a heckuva rookie year. This is just heartbreaking:

Well, his record was better than some of his other stats would suggest. He has trouble commanding the strike zone and would get into high pitch counts and rarely work past the 5th inning. What was impressive was his ability to get out of trouble. All in all, being a 22 year old rookie, its been a decent debut, that's for sure. Hopefully this is all just a bump in the road and he'll get the chance to build on this and become a solid #3.

Now watch for Heatwave to show up with his blather. After ripping Big Papi when the man may have a serious heart condition, God only knows what he'll say about a kid who could be facing cancer.

Just wondering -- do you think Lester's cancer will raise or lower his trade value? My hunch is that a diagnosis of cancer would *lower* one's trade value, but considering the bizarre perspective you offered last week -- where his shaky 2006 performance would have no effect -- perhaps you have other ideas. I'm gonna stick with "cancer = lower trade value" myself, though.

The Truth Patrol Back Yet Again:

THE FACTS:

When you are 22 years old and post a 7-2 record in your rookie season, you have done NOTHING to lower your trade value. 3/4 of the league would be happy to have Jon Lester on their roster.

BUT THE MOST IMPORTANT FACT OF ALL IS THAT ANYONE WHO BRINGS UP THE TRADE VALUE OF A 22 YEAR OLD DIAGNOSED WITH CANCER IS A MOTHERFUCKING PIECE OF SHIT.

[Heatwave]

No kidding! Looks like this kid was having a heckuva rookie year. This is just heartbreaking:

Well, his record was better than some of his other stats would suggest. He has trouble commanding the strike zone and would get into high pitch counts and rarely work past the 5th inning. What was impressive was his ability to get out of trouble. All in all, being a 22 year old rookie, its been a decent debut, that's for sure. Hopefully this is all just a bump in the road and he'll get the chance to build on this and become a solid #3.

Now watch for Heatwave to show up with his blather. After ripping Big Papi when the man may have a serious heart condition, God only knows what he'll say about a kid who could be facing cancer.

Just wondering -- do you think Lester's cancer will raise or lower his trade value? My hunch is that a diagnosis of cancer would *lower* one's trade value, but considering the bizarre perspective you offered last week -- where his shaky 2006 performance would have no effect -- perhaps you have other ideas. I'm gonna stick with "cancer = lower trade value" myself, though.

The Truth Patrol Back Yet Again:

THE FACTS:

When you are 22 years old and post a 7-2 record in your rookie season, you have done NOTHING to lower your trade value. 3/4 of the league would be happy to have Jon Lester on their roster.

BUT THE MOST IMPORTANT FACT OF ALL IS THAT ANYONE WHO BRINGS UP THE TRADE VALUE OF A 22 YEAR OLD DIAGNOSED WITH CANCER IS A MOTHERFUCKING PIECE OF SHIT.

This is non-persuasive. I'm gonna have to stick with "cancer=lower trade value." I'm betting that most baseball GMs feel the same way.

[Heatwave]

We're not talking about 2003 or 2004 Varitek, we're talking about the 2006 model, which flat-out sucked at the plate. As for his leadership abilities (which aren't a factor in winning baseball games anyway) 'Tek can "lead" from the dugout, can't he? Stop making excuses. Losing a non-existent bat should have no effect whatsoever on the team. Stop making excuses and, frankly, stop lying. I know you hate it when the facts don't back up your insane ramblings, but one might think you'd be used to it now.

The Truth Patrol Back Once Again:

THE FACTS:

Every baseball observer knows that Varitek is much more than his "non-existent bat".

His pitch calling, his knowledge of hitters and his knowledge of his pitching staff are talents that cannot be utilized from the bench. Lopez (who has always been a crappy catcher) and Mirabelli were on their own trying to do a job they are not equipped to do on a full time basis.

But don't take my word for it. Consider the experienced voice of Mike Bauman of MLB.com. He actually earns a LIVING with his knowledge of baseball:

http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article...s&fext=.jsp

The Red Sox lost the one man in their lineup, apart from Ortiz, that they simply could not afford to lose. It is more than coincidence that the August slide coincided with Varitek going on the disabled list with a knee injury. He could not be replaced, either tangibly or intangibly. The subsequent performance of Javy Lopez only served to underscore how invaluable Varitek actually is.

Truth Patrol Signing off For the Night.

Baseball is full of mediots who "make a living" perpetuating unsubstantiated myths about baseball, and "leadership" is another one of those myths. I guess no team who never had a player-manager never got leadership from their manager, right? Because he wasn't also out on the field? Any of Varitek's bogus "leadership" is just as present when he's on the bench as when he's grounding into a double play and generally embarassing himself by attempting to hit (which pretty much defines his 2006 season). The Red Sox lost absolutely nothing offensively by Varitek going down, and they'll gain absolutely nothing on offense when he comes back.

Again, stop making excuses for your team. They outspend every other team in baseball except the Yankees and can't handle a few injuries to unimportant players. This is the mark of a front office that isn't doing its job.

[BERIGAN]

Heatwave, Varitek has 50 RBI's in 304 AB's,(70 RBI's all last season) which is not horrible at all for a catcher. Yes, his batting average is down about 40 points from last year, but he does have a .270 average with runners in scoring position.

Varitek clearly handles a pitching staff very well, after his injury the next 20 games the staff goes

6-14 with s 6.13 Team ERA, 5 blown saves and a .313 opponents' batting average. Just a coincidence???

[Dan Gould]

We're not talking about 2003 or 2004 Varitek, we're talking about the 2006 model, which flat-out sucked at the plate. As for his leadership abilities (which aren't a factor in winning baseball games anyway) 'Tek can "lead" from the dugout, can't he? Stop making excuses. Losing a non-existent bat should have no effect whatsoever on the team. Stop making excuses and, frankly, stop lying. I know you hate it when the facts don't back up your insane ramblings, but one might think you'd be used to it now.

The Truth Patrol Back Once Again:

THE FACTS:

Every baseball observer knows that Varitek is much more than his "non-existent bat".

His pitch calling, his knowledge of hitters and his knowledge of his pitching staff are talents that cannot be utilized from the bench. Lopez (who has always been a crappy catcher) and Mirabelli were on their own trying to do a job they are not equipped to do on a full time basis.

But don't take my word for it. Consider the experienced voice of Mike Bauman of MLB.com. He actually earns a LIVING with his knowledge of baseball:

http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article...s&fext=.jsp

The Red Sox lost the one man in their lineup, apart from Ortiz, that they simply could not afford to lose. It is more than coincidence that the August slide coincided with Varitek going on the disabled list with a knee injury. He could not be replaced, either tangibly or intangibly. The subsequent performance of Javy Lopez only served to underscore how invaluable Varitek actually is.

Truth Patrol Signing off For the Night.

Baseball is full of mediots who "make a living" perpetuating unsubstantiated myths about baseball, and "leadership" is another one of those myths. I guess no team who never had a player-manager never got leadership from their manager, right? Because he wasn't also out on the field? Any of Varitek's bogus "leadership" is just as present when he's on the bench as when he's grounding into a double play and generally embarassing himself by attempting to hit (which pretty much defines his 2006 season). The Red Sox lost absolutely nothing offensively by Varitek going down, and they'll gain absolutely nothing on offense when he comes back.

Truth Patrol Back One More Time::

THE FACTS:

You have NO READING COMPREHENSION SKILLS WHATSOEVER, RIGHT?

The facts are that we are talking about LEADING a pitching staff. CALLING games. SETTLING DOWN and ENCOURAGING young pitchers.

Furthermore, Berigan has identified that Varitek's bat was far from worthless, and on a pace to easily match his average 80 RBI season. He was actually on a pace for 100 RBIs, but I'm factoring in the usual late season slump.

YOU ARE A FOOL.

Again, stop making excuses for your team. They outspend every other team in baseball except the Yankees and can't handle a few injuries to unimportant players. This is the mark of a front office that isn't doing its job.

"A few injuries to unimportant players:"

Keep saying shit like this and NO ONE on this board will have an ounce of respect for you or your opinions.

Let's tally them up, in chronological order:

THE STARTING CENTERFIELDER FOR 7 WEEKS. (FINGER)

THE NUMBER THREE PITCHER FOR FOUR MONTHS (ASIDE FROM TWO STARTS) (KNEE)

THE NUMBER FIVE PITCHER SINCE JUNE 16 (SHOULDER)

THE NUMBER FOUR PITCHER SINCE JULY 20TH (BROKEN RIB)

THE FOURTH OUTFIELDER FOR 6 WEEKS (WRIST)

THE FOURTH OUTFIELDER AGAIN FOR 8 DAYS (WRIST)

THE STARTING RIGHTFIELDER FOR FOUR WEEKS (BICEPS)

THE STARTING CATCHER AND LINCHPIN OF THE STAFF (KNEE)

THE REPLACEMENT NUMBER THREE PITCHER FOR THE FINAL 5 WEEKS AND PROBABLY MORE (CANCER)

AND

THE TEAM'S TWO MVP CANDIDATES, AND THEIR ACE CLOSER, FOR AN UNDETERMINED LENGTH OF TIME

You are embarassing yourself now.

And I am laughing my ass off.

Edited September 4, 2006 by Dan Gould

[Man with the Golden Arm]

I guess no team who never had a player-manager never got leadership from their manager, right?

just up here in the cheap seats, but does a triple negative put a runner in scoring position?

[Dan Gould]

I guess no team who never had a player-manager never got leadership from their manager, right?

just up here in the cheap seats, but does a triple negative put a runner in scoring position?

Hey, how dare you point out stupid grammar tricks?

My IQ is in the top 1%. I'm pretty sure yours is not.

FLMAO at the man who thinks I am his "bitch".

[Heatwave]

We're not talking about 2003 or 2004 Varitek, we're talking about the 2006 model, which flat-out sucked at the plate. As for his leadership abilities (which aren't a factor in winning baseball games anyway) 'Tek can "lead" from the dugout, can't he? Stop making excuses. Losing a non-existent bat should have no effect whatsoever on the team. Stop making excuses and, frankly, stop lying. I know you hate it when the facts don't back up your insane ramblings, but one might think you'd be used to it now.

The Truth Patrol Back Once Again:

THE FACTS:

Every baseball observer knows that Varitek is much more than his "non-existent bat".

His pitch calling, his knowledge of hitters and his knowledge of his pitching staff are talents that cannot be utilized from the bench. Lopez (who has always been a crappy catcher) and Mirabelli were on their own trying to do a job they are not equipped to do on a full time basis.

But don't take my word for it. Consider the experienced voice of Mike Bauman of MLB.com. He actually earns a LIVING with his knowledge of baseball:

http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article...s&fext=.jsp

The Red Sox lost the one man in their lineup, apart from Ortiz, that they simply could not afford to lose. It is more than coincidence that the August slide coincided with Varitek going on the disabled list with a knee injury. He could not be replaced, either tangibly or intangibly. The subsequent performance of Javy Lopez only served to underscore how invaluable Varitek actually is.

Truth Patrol Signing off For the Night.

Baseball is full of mediots who "make a living" perpetuating unsubstantiated myths about baseball, and "leadership" is another one of those myths. I guess no team who never had a player-manager never got leadership from their manager, right? Because he wasn't also out on the field? Any of Varitek's bogus "leadership" is just as present when he's on the bench as when he's grounding into a double play and generally embarassing himself by attempting to hit (which pretty much defines his 2006 season). The Red Sox lost absolutely nothing offensively by Varitek going down, and they'll gain absolutely nothing on offense when he comes back.

Truth Patrol Back One More Time::

THE FACTS:

You have NO READING COMPREHENSION SKILLS WHATSOEVER, RIGHT?

The facts are that we are talking about LEADING a pitching staff. CALLING games. SETTLING DOWN and ENCOURAGING young pitchers.

Furthermore, Berigan has identified that Varitek's bat was far from worthless, and on a pace to easily match his average 80 RBI season. He was actually on a pace for 100 RBIs, but I'm factoring in the usual late season slump.

YOU ARE A FOOL.

Again, stop making excuses for your team. They outspend every other team in baseball except the Yankees and can't handle a few injuries to unimportant players. This is the mark of a front office that isn't doing its job.

"A few injuries to unimportant players:"

Keep saying shit like this and NO ONE on this board will have an ounce of respect for you or your opinions.

Let's tally them up, in chronological order:

THE STARTING CENTERFIELDER FOR 7 WEEKS. (FINGER)

THE NUMBER THREE PITCHER FOR FOUR MONTHS (ASIDE FROM TWO STARTS) (KNEE)

THE NUMBER FIVE PITCHER SINCE JUNE 16 (SHOULDER)

THE NUMBER FOUR PITCHER SINCE JULY 20TH (BROKEN RIB)

THE FOURTH OUTFIELDER FOR 6 WEEKS (WRIST)

THE FOURTH OUTFIELDER AGAIN FOR 8 DAYS (WRIST)

THE STARTING RIGHTFIELDER FOR FOUR WEEKS (BICEPS)

THE STARTING CATCHER AND LINCHPIN OF THE STAFF (KNEE)

THE REPLACEMENT NUMBER THREE PITCHER FOR THE FINAL 5 WEEKS AND PROBABLY MORE (CANCER)

AND

THE TEAM'S TWO MVP CANDIDATES, AND THEIR ACE CLOSER, FOR AN UNDETERMINED LENGTH OF TIME

You are embarassing yourself now.

And I am laughing my ass off.

I love how you don't include names, because to do so would destroy your argument. Put names and numbers in, please. Nobody cares about Tim Wakefield or Clement. They are awful, ineffective pitchers who the Red Sox are better off not making starts. Nobody cares about the embarassment of a catcher that is Jason Varitek in the 2006 season. And your pathetic plea for his RBI total is nauseating: RBIs aren't a very good statistic to evaluate an offensive player, because it's not an individual stat. Anybody hitting in the Red Sox lineup after Ortiz and Ramirez who has an ounce of power will get an RBI total around 100. This means virtually nothing and is the equivalent of you flailing around mindlessely after being beaten down by the truth -- yet again. Fourth outfielders are eminently replaceable by big-spending organizations like the Red Sox who can throw money at whomever they want, and Trot Nixon is a platoon outfielder, not a starter.

The time missed by Ortiz, Ramirez and the Cancer Kid aren't even relevant, because the Red Sox were out of it by then. And Cancer Boy was sucking up the ballpark, anyway, with his bad starts and watching his trade value plummet.

Bad management. Bad front office. Bad team. And nothing looks to improve for 2007. Enjoy all that. Maybe if they put a chemo unit in the clubhouse, Cancer Boy can provide the "leadership" you covet?

[Heatwave]

Heatwave, Varitek has 50 RBI's in 304 AB's,(70 RBI's all last season) which is not horrible at all for a catcher. Yes, his batting average is down about 40 points from last year, but he does have a .270 average with runners in scoring position.

Varitek clearly handles a pitching staff very well, after his injury the next 20 games the staff goes

6-14 with s 6.13 Team ERA, 5 blown saves and a .313 opponents' batting average. Just a coincidence???

If I remember correctly, none of that 6-14 came against National League teams, on which Boston fattened up their record and made their 2006 campaign appear deceptively successful until the start of August. It is probable that some small part of the pitching ineffectiveness was the result of the starting catcher being out, but most of it is likely because the competition got tougher and the young pitchers weren't ready for the majors -- or, in the case of Lester, are overrated prospects who will never be any good.

[Soulstation1]

back to the tribe

Kevin Kouzmanoff hit another homer.....

2/3 from the rangers..sorry big al clemenza

[Dan Gould]

We're not talking about 2003 or 2004 Varitek, we're talking about the 2006 model, which flat-out sucked at the plate. As for his leadership abilities (which aren't a factor in winning baseball games anyway) 'Tek can "lead" from the dugout, can't he? Stop making excuses. Losing a non-existent bat should have no effect whatsoever on the team. Stop making excuses and, frankly, stop lying. I know you hate it when the facts don't back up your insane ramblings, but one might think you'd be used to it now.

The Truth Patrol Back Once Again:

THE FACTS:

Every baseball observer knows that Varitek is much more than his "non-existent bat".

His pitch calling, his knowledge of hitters and his knowledge of his pitching staff are talents that cannot be utilized from the bench. Lopez (who has always been a crappy catcher) and Mirabelli were on their own trying to do a job they are not equipped to do on a full time basis.

But don't take my word for it. Consider the experienced voice of Mike Bauman of MLB.com. He actually earns a LIVING with his knowledge of baseball:

http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article...s&fext=.jsp

The Red Sox lost the one man in their lineup, apart from Ortiz, that they simply could not afford to lose. It is more than coincidence that the August slide coincided with Varitek going on the disabled list with a knee injury. He could not be replaced, either tangibly or intangibly. The subsequent performance of Javy Lopez only served to underscore how invaluable Varitek actually is.

Truth Patrol Signing off For the Night.

Baseball is full of mediots who "make a living" perpetuating unsubstantiated myths about baseball, and "leadership" is another one of those myths. I guess no team who never had a player-manager never got leadership from their manager, right? Because he wasn't also out on the field? Any of Varitek's bogus "leadership" is just as present when he's on the bench as when he's grounding into a double play and generally embarassing himself by attempting to hit (which pretty much defines his 2006 season). The Red Sox lost absolutely nothing offensively by Varitek going down, and they'll gain absolutely nothing on offense when he comes back.

Truth Patrol Back One More Time:

THE FACTS:

You have NO READING COMPREHENSION SKILLS WHATSOEVER, RIGHT?

The facts are that we are talking about LEADING a pitching staff. CALLING games. SETTLING DOWN and ENCOURAGING young pitchers.

Furthermore, Berigan has identified that Varitek's bat was far from worthless, and on a pace to easily match his average 80 RBI season. He was actually on a pace for 100 RBIs, but I'm factoring in the usual late season slump.

YOU ARE A FOOL.

Again, stop making excuses for your team. They outspend every other team in baseball except the Yankees and can't handle a few injuries to unimportant players. This is the mark of a front office that isn't doing its job.

"A few injuries to unimportant players:"

Keep saying shit like this and NO ONE on this board will have an ounce of respect for you or your opinions.

Let's tally them up, in chronological order:

THE STARTING CENTERFIELDER FOR 7 WEEKS. (FINGER)

THE NUMBER THREE PITCHER FOR FOUR MONTHS (ASIDE FROM TWO STARTS) (KNEE)

THE NUMBER FIVE PITCHER SINCE JUNE 16 (SHOULDER)

THE NUMBER FOUR PITCHER SINCE JULY 20TH (BROKEN RIB)

THE FOURTH OUTFIELDER FOR 6 WEEKS (WRIST)

THE FOURTH OUTFIELDER AGAIN FOR 8 DAYS (WRIST)

THE STARTING RIGHTFIELDER FOR FOUR WEEKS (BICEPS)

THE STARTING CATCHER AND LINCHPIN OF THE STAFF (KNEE)

THE REPLACEMENT NUMBER THREE PITCHER FOR THE FINAL 5 WEEKS AND PROBABLY MORE (CANCER)

AND

THE TEAM'S TWO MVP CANDIDATES, AND THEIR ACE CLOSER, FOR AN UNDETERMINED LENGTH OF TIME

You are embarassing yourself now.

And I am laughing my ass off.

I love how you don't include names, because to do so would destroy your argument. Put names and numbers in, please. Nobody cares about Tim Wakefield or Clement. They are awful, ineffective pitchers who the Red Sox are better off not making starts. Nobody cares about the embarassment of a catcher that is Jason Varitek in the 2006 season. And your pathetic plea for his RBI total is nauseating: RBIs aren't a very good statistic to evaluate an offensive player, because it's not an individual stat. Anybody hitting in the Red Sox lineup after Ortiz and Ramirez who has an ounce of power will get an RBI total around 100. This means virtually nothing and is the equivalent of you flailing around mindlessely after being beaten down by the truth -- yet again. Fourth outfielders are eminently replaceable by big-spending organizations like the Red Sox who can throw money at whomever they want, and Trot Nixon is a platoon outfielder, not a starter.

You really don't know when to give up, do you?

Truth Patrol Coming By Again:

I've already destroyed your argument about Nixon and Wakefield, so let's just repeat them one more time:

Wakefield:

Through the end of June (the last game before he started reporting back pain), Tim Wakefield made 17 starts and threw 105 innings, or in his average start he pitched into the seventh inning. Twelve of his seventeen starts were "quality starts". His ERA was 3.86. This would rank him in the top 15 in the league right now, and even after his injury led his ERA to jump to 4.14, his ERA still ranks in the top 20.

The only thing keeping Wakefield from having a better record was appalling run support. He has losses that include

a 3-0 loss in which he worked a complete game and only 2 runs were earned

a 5-1 loss in which he worked 8 innings, allowed 3 runs, 2 earned

a 7-1 loss in which he worked 5 2/3 innings, allowed 5 runs 3 earned

a 4-3 loss in which he worked 7 innings, all four runs were earned, he got 1 run of support while he pitched

a 6-2 loss in which he worked seven innings, allowed 3 runs (all earned) and got 1 run of support while he pitched

a 5-3 loss in which he worked six innings, allowed 4 runs (3 earned) and got zero runs of support while he pitched

TO SUMMARIZE:

IN SIX LOSSES HE AVERAGED:

SEVEN PLUS INNINGS PITCHED

3.6 RUNS ALLOWED - HIS ERA IN THESE GAMES WAS 3.59

A WHOPPING FOUR RUNS OF SUPPORT WHILE HE WAS IN THE GAME

HIS RECORD IS 7-8, SO HE HAS HAD PRECISELY TWO BAD STARTS ALL SEASON.

YOU ARE EMBARASSING YOURSELF WHEN YOU CALL WAKEFIELD AN "AWFUL, INEFFECTIVE PITCHER."

YOU IMPRESS NO ONE HERE WITH YOUR BASEBALL "KNOWLEDGE" WHEN YOU MAKE SUCH STATEMENTS.

YOU PROVE YOURSELF A COMPLETE AND UTTER MORON.

*********************************

About Nixon:

When Trot Nixon was injured, the team had played 104 games and he had appeared in 92 of them. He had also compiled a .294 BA and an OBP of .396.

Anyone with any knowledge of the game knows that despite his decline in power numbers, Nixon was a critical part of the Red Sox lineup, and far more than a "platoon outfielder".

Nixon had an excellent BA (over .300 for the vast majority of his season) and OBP (ranking in the top 5 most of the season, and now in the top 10) and was critical protection for Manny in the five hole. In Nixon's absence, the fifth spot in the batting order became a black hole, crippling the offense.

YOU ARE EMBARASSING YOURSELF TO CALL NIXON NOTHING MORE THAN A "PLATOON OUTFIELDER". DO PLATOON OUTFIELDERS APPEAR IN 88% OF THEIR TEAM'S GAMES?

NO ONE HERE HAS ANY RESPECT FOR YOUR BASEBALL KNOWLEDGE WHEN YOU SAY SUCH THINGS.

*********************************

About Clement:

Yeah, Clement sucked big time this year, and sucked from August on last year. But he was still a 13 game winner, still an All-Star, still had an ERA below the league average, and there can be no doubt whatsoever that a healthy Matt Clement is 100 times better than Jason Johnson or Kyle Snyder, the people forced into the rotation.

**********************************

About David Wells:

FOUR MONTHS he was out of the lineup - and after his first start, he posted an ERA of ONLY 2.65 in August.

HE WOULDN"T HAVE MADE A DIFFERENCE if he hadn't gotten hit in the knee on May 31st?

You EMBARASS yourself when you make such stupid comments.

******************************

And Cancer Boy was sucking up the ballpark, anyway, with his bad starts and watching his trade value plummet.

Bad management. Bad front office. Bad team. And nothing looks to improve for 2007. Enjoy all that. Maybe if they put a chemo unit in the clubhouse, Cancer Boy can provide the "leadership" you covet?

Please keep proving what a tasteless, useless asshole you are by calling Lester "Cancer Boy".

But let's review:

Lester was 5-0 through his first eight starts, with a 2.38 ERA. That's pretty fucking good.

He went 2-2 in seven starts since, with his ERA rising to 4.76. That's not so good.

Righthanded hitters, who comprise 81% of the hitters Lester has faced, have compiled an OPS of only .745, which is pretty fucking good for anyone, let alone a 22 year old rookie (its better than Schilling's .763 and Randy Johnson's .753).

Considering his age and overall performance, there are a lot of teams who would be asking about Jon Lester in the off season, had he not received the cancer diagnosis.

[Dan Gould]

You're my fucking bitch, and I'm going to continue treating you like one for so long as I deem appropriate.

Who is exactly who's bitch???

Let's Review:

You call Tim Wakefield "awful" - I've demonstrated statistically that Tim Wakefield was having an excellent year.

You call Nixon nothing more than a platoon outfielder - I've demonstrated statistically how solid Nixon's season was by BA and OBP and that by appearing in 88% of the team's games before his injury, Nixon was obviously much more than a mere "platoon".

You claim that the injuries suffered were minor, to worthless players - I and several others agree that the injuries suffered by the Red Sox were stunning in their extent and severity.

You claim that Varitek is a worthless catcher who has no positive impact on a team - I, Berigan, and professional baseball observers differ.

As I post fact-based after fact-based rebuttals, you are incapable of any sort of reasoned, rational response (because there are none), and have received not the slightest hint of support from anyone on this board. In fact, you get warnings about being banned and criticism from your host (you wouldn't know his name).

So I ask again, just who is who's bitch?

Face facts pal. If this were a prize fight, it would have been stopped long ago. In fact, you're very much like the post-Holyfield Mike Tyson: you talk a great game about making someone your "bitch" and the next thing you know, you're stumbling around the ring wondering what the hell happened.

Edited September 4, 2006 by Dan Gould

[sheldonm]

I've been gone an entire week and this pissing match is still going strong....amazing!!!

m~

[Dan Gould]

And they're barely a .500 team, with the Marlins about to pass them. That merits MVP? The MVP is Beltran. Howard may the best player. MVP? Not exactly.

I hate to say it, Brad, but if Howard keeps this up, it may be impossible not to give him the MVP.

[Noj]

Sports arguments are always much more fun when nothing gets personal and opposing fans can still shake hands after the game. Having been guilty of being a poor sport myself on a few occasions, eventually I realized how poorly it reflected on myself as a sports fan when I didn't respect the fans of my teams' opponents. Name-calling and genuinely mean-spirited arguments don't help win the argument, and only lower the opinions others have of the person making them. My two cents.

[Quincy]

I don't understand the "just a platoon player" comments. A great platoon combination often beats a full-time player. Think of the Orioles with Lowenstein & Roenicke. A fantastic platoon that got them to 2 world series in 4 years ('79 & '83.) The Astros last year got to the series in part to adept use of platooning involving 1b, LF & CF (basically whatever was left over after deciding where Berkman would play.) It worked very well for Stengel as Mantle couldn't do it all himself.

Nixon hasn't slugged well this year, in fact he's been terrible, but he's hit for a high average (and OBP) vs. righties. Rob Neyer once overstated his ability to play RF by saying he was better than Dewey. (He later retracted it on his website in the corrections section to his lineup book.) Still, he hustles out there and it's not easy to play RF in Fenway as it's so damn big. For all the attention The Wall gets, you make a mistake fielding RF and you're giving up triples. Must been fun to play out there after a rain, and it was soggy out there all spring.

You lose part of your platoon and it means you lose a player on the bench who might be used as a key pinch hitter. It means having to reallocate roles when you lose the piece of the puzzle unless the player called up can handle the roles of the previous player. And when the Sox lost the other part of the platoon in Pena, it hurt because that meant Nixon was playing vs. lefties. Not what you want happening unless the team can blow out the lefty starter so by his 3rd at bat he's facing a righty.

Just a platoon player?

[Dan Gould]

I don't understand the "just a platoon player" comments. A great platoon combination often beats a full-time player. Think of the Orioles with Lowenstein & Roenicke. A fantastic platoon that got them to 2 world series in 4 years ('79 & '83.) The Astros last year got to the series in part to adept use of platooning involving 1b, LF & CF (basically whatever was left over after deciding where Berkman would play.) It worked very well for Stengel as Mantle couldn't do it all himself.

Nixon hasn't slugged well this year, in fact he's been terrible, but he's hit for a high average (and OBP) vs. righties. Rob Neyer once overstated his ability to play RF by saying he was better than Dewey. (He later retracted it on his website in the corrections section to his lineup book.) Still, he hustles out there and it's not easy to play RF in Fenway as it's so damn big. For all the attention The Wall gets, you make a mistake fielding RF and you're giving up triples. Must been fun to play out there after a rain, and it was soggy out there all spring.

You lose part of your platoon and it means you lose a player on the bench who might be used as a key pinch hitter. It means having to reallocate roles when you lose the piece of the puzzle unless the player called up can handle the roles of the previous player. And when the Sox lost the other part of the platoon in Pena, it hurt because that meant Nixon was playing vs. lefties. Not what you want happening unless the team can blow out the lefty starter so by his 3rd at bat he's facing a righty.

Just a platoon player?

Well stated, Eric, particularly the last part - the reason Nixon played in 88% of the games was largely because not only did he play against lefties when WMP had surgery, but even before, Nixon was important enough that he'd pinch hit as soon as a lefty starter was out of the game. Much more than a platoon player, and the offensive struggles the team had really started right when he got injured, and only got worse when Papi and Manny went down.

Edited September 4, 2006 by Dan Gould

[Soulstation1]

breakin' news

ryan howard smack another homer......

back to

dan and heatwave smackin' each other around

[Guy Berger]

I'm glad to see that Bonds is juicing again! Go Giants!

Guy