User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out! |
Page rendered in 0.6348 seconds
64 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Albers was just aight for me, though, dog. I didn't see much in the way of a second pitch, and his fastball command was spotty. It's a good fastball, and he can probably be a competent back end guy with just that, but I didn't see anything that made me think we got any real upgrade over Scott Atchison.
I dunno, but I thought Crawford looked a lot worse at the plate. Not that I want to overreact to that either.
MCoA, Albers was getting squeezed pretty bad, I thought his command was ok.
Can't wait for tomorrow's game , I really look forward to watching this team play this year (except Dice K starts) . Hopefully Jed can sneak some at bats in as well some way...
In 2010, he gave up only 16 earned runs in 74.2 innings.
He's given up 4 earned runs after only .2 innings this year, for an ERA of 54.
Obviously, the math says that he can only give up 12 ERs in 74 innings if he wants to match his ERA from last year. That's a 1.45.
Put it this way - if you just add the runs given up yesterday to his performance last year, his ERA would go from 1.93 to 2.4
Even before yesterday that was a likely result. Replicating a sub-2.00 ERA is pretty unlikely. He could have a terrific year and still be worse than he was in 2010.
The defense wasn't very good. Cameron in center would make me feel better. Bard and Lester had one of those days... it happens. Papi driving one out was a good sign. Can't wait for the next game.
Crawford, he no can hit the curveball.
Just kidding about Crawford. I mean he'll never live up to being the highest paid OFer in the history of Baseball, but what can you do. Salty though will be nearly useless. Not worried about Bard or Lester, and I'm excited about a healthy Ellsbury. A little worried about Youk at third. Not his hands, that'll come around but he just doesn't look very mobile. Pedey's a frigging vacuum cleaner, though I did see him limping some.
At least Lester, more or less stayed out of a big inning.
But, Saltalamacchia stinks, so it isn't overreacting to say so. Crawford will be fine. He'll crush righties.
You might be interested in something I saw on ESPN.com: http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/8297/wackiest-season-ever-look-back-at-1986
It looks like it is going to be an ongoing series about the 1986 season, looks promising.
The big downer to me was Lester. I was hoping that a new pitching coach might me he gets off to a better start. He looked brutally bad, probably one of the 2-3 worst starts of his career, performance-wise.
Edit - Just read "You Can’t Walk Off The Island? Why Not?" from the same blog. That is awesome stuff there!!!
Red Sox pitching has given up more runs in the first 2 games of the season than any 2 game start since the 1980 Brewers scored 27.
Bullpen has given up 7 runs in 7 IP so its not all on the starters (14 runs in 9 IP)
a) the only emotion you can feel at the end is either relief or abject disappointment. Since ultimate victory has been long assured, there's no real upside, emotionally.
b) the season doesn't hold any real drama. It's a joyless march until October, when the dice-rolling begins.
So I don't believe that Yankee fans disingenuously take the mantle of "underdog" in the early going; it's in their subconscious interests.
Nobody roots for the Empire; we're all for the Rebel Alliance. If you do root for the Empire, the first thing to do is to define it as the "Rebels"
I totally think when we meet aliens Earth should adopt the Imperial March as our official anthem. Also, while the Emperor was a bad guy, the resulting chaos of his overthrow would kill a lot more people than his basic tyranny.
The Red Sox are definitively not the rebel alliance. The Yankees even more so. Telling yourself they are is silly, and acting like they are in public is obnoxious.
The Red Sox are one of the best few teams in baseball, based on what we can know about a baseball season before it starts. However, (a) we can't know with great precision how good a team is in the preseason, the Sox may not be all that great, and (b) a baseball season is long and unpredictable. This is the sport where favorites are never more than 3 to 1, pretty much never more than 2 to 1 to win a game. I don't need to develop a persecution complex to follow my team with worry and hope, and be happy about good outcomes. I may think these outcomes are reasonably likely, but nothing in baseball is ever even close to guaranteed.
Gameday glitches aside, if this is as good as it gets for Lewis this year, Texas is going to be in trouble. I'm sure the Sox would love another hack at him.
WTF?
Checks....yep, that's correct, losing still really sucks.
It's not the losing, it's the manner of the losses. The Sox got smoked in this 3 game set and I am just glad it's over.
There weren't any injuries were there? Other than A-gon and Papi, I'm trying to find some positives....
Gonzalez
Ortiz
Ellsbury - showed some pop and seemed more disciplined at the plate
Sort of Papelbon - if you buy into the need of a close to get an adrenalin kick once he got in trouble he got tough. I thought his slider was especially good. That ignores the first few hitters of course
Buchholz - I thought his stuff was great. Like he said post game, they just crushed every mistake. If he pitches like that regularly he'll have a good year.
Some of that is a reach admittedly but against a very good team at home on the rush of celebrating an AL pennant I think losing two of three was probably likely so while I'm frustrated I'm not overly concerned ...yet.
Well game one was tough to watch. Papi tied it a 5 in the middle innings and the pen let it go.
#41, yes Bucch's stuff looked pretty good. Sometimes you pitch without luck. Of course the one game we "hold" them to 5 runs, we fail to score more than 1.
No, losing 3 games, on the road, at Texas, at the start of the season, is not a big deal. Giving up 11 homers in 3 games was just hard to watch.
Having a Salty sized black hole in the line-up is*. Sox arn't going anywhere until that rally-killing singularity is filled. We're not talking a Lugo-sized hole, we're speaking as if TIm Wakefield were the DH hole.
*I've never poorer discipline from a modern everyday player.
Note that they stacked their rotation with 3 lefties. From here on out it's going to be much harder for teams to do that. On the other hand Tito is going to have to face reality on this score and start playing the matchups better against lefties than he did.
*Though, I still don't know why McDonald started Sunday, instead of Cameron.
I agree from a fan's perspective, but disagree as someone who thinks math is swell. If the Sox had an unproductive out-making robot and batted him leadoff, they'd be fine.
In any one game, sure. But even a string of three late-inning heartbreakers at least don't (generally) cause that sinking "Perhaps we're not as good as we thought we were" feeling.
I think it was probably a case of just wanting to get him in there, not let him get rusty. Francona's pretty much the anti-Ralph Houk, ain't no one spending the entire year on the roster and getting ten at bats with Tito in charge.
Is there a new math I don't know about? Pretty sure Carl Crawford was the only player who met that criteria and someone who looked an awful lot like Crawford was in the lineup yesterday and had a pretty good day.
The question then is why isn't Varitek playing against the lefties? I suppose Tito wants to get his starters the playing time to start the year...then again Drew was on the bench against both lefty starters.
The Indians have right-handed starters scheduled for each game of the upcoming series. This should help the Sox dig out of their current hole, but it suggests that Tito isn't paying much attention to platoon issues with his catchers. Varitek will surely start one game in Cleveland, and it will not be against a lefty.
EDIT: I don't actually think a hard platoon is a good idea with catchers. I figure that you want your starting catcher to get rest on a more regular schedule than a hard platoon allows. But as much as possible, Varitek should be starting against lefties and Saltalamacchia against righties**. Sunday, a day game after a night game, facing a lefty starter, was about the most obvious Varitek situation you could call for.
**I should acknowledge that platoon split data is wonky, and it's possible the Red Sox don't think that either Varitek or Saltalamacchia will continue to have as large splits as they've had in the past.
Francona has said repeatedly this off-season that he expects Varitek to play more than the average backup catcher. Now deeds count more than words and so far that obviously is not the case but I think this is an element of personnel management more than anything else. I think the Sox/Francona wanted to make it clear that Saltalamacchia is the starter and that they trust him to perform against both lefties and righties.
Maybe you are right and if that's the case I agree that's a mistake but reading anything into the usage patterns of three games is a recipe for error. I think it's clear that Francona is still getting a feel for the lineup, Gonzalez batted in three different spot, Youk batted in a couple of different spots, Crawford got moved pretty aggressively.
I agree from a fan's perspective, but disagree as someone who thinks math is swell. If the Sox had an unproductive out-making robot and batted him leadoff, they'd be fine.
You know, in my opinion there are questions about every spot in the lineup outside of 2-5. I actually believe Ortiz will have a good year, but can Drew stat on the field? There's every possibiltiy that Salty and Scutaro/Lowrie turns out to be a black hole of suck at 8 and 9. Early signs on Ellsbury are promising, but will he live up to his promise or is he a .340/.390 guy?
At the very least, the bottom of the order could be a problem. Not a crippling problem, mind you.
"short of sitting the highest paid outfielder in the history of baseball in his third game ever with his new team." means, "Short of doing something really really dumb, Francona did fine with his match-ups" (Except immediatly cutting Salty and getting a police escort for Mirabelli from Phoenix, or wherever the hell Doug is selling real estate these days)
At least Tito started Lowrie after he reached twice in both his opportunities and Scutaro had failed to leave the infield (I think). Of course Lowrie went 0-4 but..
And, I mean, all players have "questions." Going through lineup spots 2-5 that you excluded: Pedroia is coming back from injury and 2B have a history of early declines, Crawford has huge disagreements in his projections with a PECOTA under 800 OPS, Gonzalez is coming off a significant shoulder surgery and didn't hit for much power in spring, Youkilis is coming off injury and has a history of fragility and is trying to take on a more difficult position at 32. I could probably do that for every team in baseball if I knew enough.
The Red Sox, three terrible games notwithstanding, look to me to have probably less than average expected variance in their projections than most clubs. All teams, though, as the "questions" thing demonstrates, have huge possible variance once the games start getting played on the field.
Also, are you going for a Fly-on-Papelbon thing with Salty? We've already got one, you see.
Blame any/everyone on TV for ESPN and special blame for Schilling and Gammons.
You are not the oppressed. The media does not have a special anti-Yankee bias.
It's not unfair of the media to pick a team based on whatever criteria they want, but it's also not tinfoil-hat-wearing crazy of fans to take extra pleasure (and it's Monday of the first week of games; I draw no conclusions about how the season is going to be in the end) if the local nine proves them wrong.
I assume I'm the "one" in question here. I think I was good about not complaining about Saltalamacchia's suckitude this weekend. Let's see if we can get a binky and anti-binky list going;
Jose - anti-binky Saltalamacchia
Darren - anti-binky Beckett
tfbg and Phil Coorey - anti-binky Wakefield
Karlmagnus - binky Wake, anti-binky everyone else
Dale - binky Lowrie, anti-binky Saltalamacchia
Fly - anti-binky Papelbon
MCoA - binky Saltalamacchia (binky status currently under review)
(You will find, though, that a lot of people seem to think that a biased media does persistently underrate the team they root for. It's possible that this general fan tendency is the issue, rather than a media bias that only Yankee fans can perceive.)
'going'? You did see his ABs right? You did see his golf swings right? His swings at pitchs in his eyes? Did he ever even reach a 3 ball count? Once? I mean, watching the ABs on Gameday isn't nearly the same as watching him K in person. So I'm just wondering if you actually saw the ABs.
I doubt he makes it to the AS break before cut/trade.
"Dale - binky Lowrie, anti-binky Saltalamacchia"
Dead on.
"counted out" is a subjective term but virtually every projection I saw has the Yankees picked to win 90+ games and the Wild Card. It's not like they've been predicted to go 79-83 here. When over half the people (estimating) expect you to make the playoffs you aren't being counted out.
I agree. I think the Yankees/RS have been pretty much indistinguishable over the past few years. It's just annoying hearing how the RS are going to win 100+ games this year and seeing them picked as the division winners almost unanimously when, by any objective measure, the Yankees are only a slightly worse club. I don't think the media has a special anti-Yankee bias, but I DO think several of the more high profile baseball media persons have an interest in maintaining the Yankees on the verge of collapse narrative. If that makes any sense. Apologies for taking the discussion here off track.
Ok. I've watched a lot of guys have three bad games in a row. 315/395 hitters have bad games all the time, but they're not black holes at the catcher slot. I guess I was ready to overreact after watching Salty flail out there, but the overreactions here are so extreme I've been pushed back to the other side. He still projects as a bad hitter, below average for a catcher, but not unacceptable at the position.
The media has a persistent bias toward teams that "do something" over the offseason, and they've been overrating the effects of free agent signings all the way back to Bruce Sutter and beyond. It's got nothing to do with the Sox or Yankees, but it did hit them both this year, as the Sox did lots of stuff and the Yankees didn't do much.
The RLYW shtick, though, isn't a new development this year. It's persistent.
I hereby limit "counted out" to the division title, not the consolation prize.
This is something I think Red Sox fans learned long ago. Being the underdog against one team and only one team does not make you an underdog overall. Being projected to win "just" the wild card does not make you an underdog.
Fair nuff. Then you have definitely been "counted out."
Frankly the team that I thought has been really shafted in most pre-season discussion is Tampa. While I think they are third best I don't think it is anywhere near as big a gap as perceived. Of course that theory looked a lot better before they lost three in a row at home to Baltimore and lost their best player to the DL. Now THAT'S a team that the "worst weekend ever."
Dave McCarty was something like a 700-750 OPS guy at his best. Saltalamacchia projects in the lower end of that range. Dave McCarty was never a good enough hitter to be useful at 1B, but he would have been a perfectly cromulent catcher.
In the third game, after he killed a couple of rollie-pollies two feet in front of the plate, he fouled a couple of pitchs off that were in the strike zone...I swear, Mathis went out to the mound and asked Harrison what the F he was doing throwing anything in the strike-zone. Salty promptly struck out on a pitch under his nose.
I think Boston's big concern after the first series is Lackey (and the catcher situation, but I think most people expected that to be bad). He looked awful, and unlike Lester, there's reason to expect that to continue.
As to the media issue, the Red Sox and the Yankees are now a package deal, both on FOX and ESPN, so there is no real "bias" either way. Boston always does seem to have more than its share of media honks with national gigs, with Schilling now added to the long list. But people picked Boston to win the AL East for simple, obvious reasons:
Gonzalez and Crawford
Pettitte
Yankee age
Red Sox 2010 injury list
I don't see it as a bias issue.
I'll have you know, I defer to no Sox fan in this category.
Losing at Texas isn't that big a deal, although the Red Sox didn't look particularly good in doing so, but if Boston were to lose the upcoming series in Cleveland, the Pants Pissers might begin to spot a bit. Still, it's awfully early.
Unknown.
Do I have one?
Perhaps.
How can I tell?
Several tests are useful;
Do you check the box score for one particular player each day? "hmmmm...where's Varitek's line today?"
Do you find yourself arguing with anyone and everyone about that particular player? "I'm telling you, Marco Scutaro is a good player, slugging percentage is overrated!"
Do you find the positives in any performance by that player? e.g. "Lackey wasn't that bad, he had a 1-2-3 second inning and would have gotten out of the fourth if Ellsbury caught the ball!"
Do you find yourself using phrases used by Joe Morgan when discussing the player? "Varitek was the heart and soul of the 2004 team. Sure he only had two hits in the series but he should have been MVP!" (note: I have actually made that argument)
If you know of a player who fits these questions, that's your binky!
Anti-Binky: Lackey
Today I have a positive attitude.
Good things:
Buchholz looks good despite the bombs.
Papelbon got the ###### memo that he only sucks because everyone tees off on his fastball.
Adrian Gonzalez is going to hit .350 and break the single season RBI record. He will settle for 50 home runs.
Pedroia looks healthy.
Ellsbury looks good and didnt break anything when he dove for that ball.
ORTIZ!!!
Matt Albers seems useful. Wasnt expecting that.
Youkilis only made one bad play at third and looked solid otherwise.
Saltalamachhia is well on his way to being so bad that Theo is forced to give up on this project.
Hey I can dream, cant I? It would sure beat him sucking up the joint at .230/.300/.380 and convincing everyone from MCoA to Theo that its an acceptable option that needs no fixin on a team that hopes to win something this year.
History of past binkies:
2009-present - Papelbon
2007-2010 - Daisuke Matsuzaka (I give up)
2005-2008 - Dustin Pedroia (he doesn't need me anymore)
2005 - Freedom
2004-2005 - Mark Bellhorn
2003 - Byung-Hyun Kim
1999-2003 - Nomar Garciaparra
1998-forever and ever amen: Pedro Martinez
There were plenty of other guys I latched onto as sort of a lovable cult player type thing...Bellhorn, El Guapo, Matt Stairs, Manny. I'm not sure if they're really binkies, though.
Now are those binkies...or just people you were forced to defend because the fanbase is generally nuts? Cause if it's the latter:
2007: Crisp
2008-2009: Papelbon
2008-2010: Drew
To a lesser extent, Foulke when people bag on him or Schilling when those people who swore to name their kids after Curt, complained about him 'ripping the Sox off for 8mill."
Past binkies: Manny, Nomar, Valentin. Binkie status survives and generates a mild interest in the team Binkie is traded to; thus I'm currently mildly supporting the Rays.
Anti-binky: Lackey (because buying him messed up Wake's chances of the Sox win record, and he is pretty mediocre and uninteresting
Ortiz (because people kept wittering on about him when Manny was much better)
Past anti-binkies:
Mo Vaughan: mid 90s Ortiz, overrrated at the time
Castillo/Schourek (because they kept Wake out of the rotation -- Kerrigan too.)
Agree 100%. Needs a new name. #### those guys.
But it's so... cute. I guess I haven't heard the various obnoxious ways the term is surely used on talk radio, but it seems like it must just sound sort of, you know, adorable.
EDIT: I mean, I am a man, apparently without a binky.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main