Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Sox Therapy > Discussion
Sox Therapy
— Where Thinking Red Sox Fans Obsess about the Sox

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.

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 
   1. Phil Coorey is a T-Shirt Salesman Posted: October 03, 2005 at 12:11 AM (#1658438)
I guess in the end I am just happy to be in the playoffs.

Waking up this morning and knowing we had won, I must admit I could not wait to see what would be said about the tied division. This could be a fun day for me at work today!!
   2. The Original SJ Posted: October 03, 2005 at 12:34 AM (#1658468)
Congratulations on the Red Sox on their unprecedented 3rd straight Wild Card. Truly a great day in Boston.
   3. Phil Coorey is a T-Shirt Salesman Posted: October 03, 2005 at 12:49 AM (#1658489)
Congratulations on the Red Sox on their unprecedented 3rd straight Wild Card. Truly a great day in Boston.

Thanks!!
   4. Robert S. Posted: October 03, 2005 at 12:50 AM (#1658491)
Pedro Martinez.
   5. Phil Coorey is a T-Shirt Salesman Posted: October 03, 2005 at 12:58 AM (#1658495)
Pedro Martinez.

Keith Foulke
   6. Famous Original Joe C Posted: October 03, 2005 at 01:05 AM (#1658501)
Pedro Martinez.

Tony Clark.
   7. The Original SJ Posted: October 03, 2005 at 01:10 AM (#1658507)
If this is just player association, allow me to interject....

Tony Clark.

Travis Lee.
   8. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: October 03, 2005 at 01:15 AM (#1658514)
I was really glad to see that the Sox' and Yankees' Pyth records match up with my observations of both teams. As playoff squads go, these guys on both sides are profoundly mediocre.

Sharing first place in the East wasn't exactly what I wanted, but it ain't so bad. By the end of May or so, my expectations were so incredibly low that i'm just happy they made the playoffs. Everything past this is gravy.
   9. Miko Supports Shane's Spam Habit Posted: October 03, 2005 at 01:43 AM (#1658549)
Tony Clark.

Did anyone notice Tony Clark posted a 1.002 OPS this year? 30 HR in 349 AB's...if only he had shared the B12 with Millar.
   10. SG Posted: October 03, 2005 at 01:49 AM (#1658563)
I was really glad to see that the Sox' and Yankees' Pyth records match up with my observations of both teams.

MCoA, don't you think that with the amount of churn on both rosters that looking at the full-season Pythagorean records is somewhat meaningless? The playerss that put up a lot of those runs scored/runs allowed numbers are gone.

Not to deny that the Red Sox are mediocre mind you. I agree with your assessment.
   11. Artie Ziff Posted: October 03, 2005 at 02:00 AM (#1658574)
Great work by Francona this season. Boston deserves this postseason along with New York.
   12. ericr Posted: October 03, 2005 at 02:13 AM (#1658603)
There's been a lot of turnover in both rosters, but I don't seem compelling reasons for why either team is significantly better or worse than their pythag would suggest.
   13. Phil Coorey is a T-Shirt Salesman Posted: October 03, 2005 at 02:16 AM (#1658606)
""It feels good," said Schilling. "The goal in Spring Training is to get to the postseason. Once you get to the postseason, your goal is to win the World Series.""

:):):)
   14. SG Posted: October 03, 2005 at 02:27 AM (#1658625)
but I don't seem compelling reasons for why either team is significantly better or worse than their pythag would suggest.

Darrell May and Tim Redding.
   15. SM in DC Posted: October 03, 2005 at 02:29 AM (#1658635)
So hooray for our co-division champs, the Boston Red Sox!

Co-division champs my left buttock. Much like the 2001 Cardinals - you employ Mike Timlin and you finished second in the division and claimed the wild card entry into the playoffs.

Kudos nonetheless.
   16. ericr Posted: October 03, 2005 at 02:48 AM (#1658683)
Darrell May and Tim Redding.


Combined 8 innings. Try again.
   17. SG Posted: October 03, 2005 at 02:54 AM (#1658700)
8 innings, and -14 VORP, or 1.5 wins. Take them away, the Yankees win the pythagorean championship.
   18. OlePerfesser Posted: October 03, 2005 at 03:11 AM (#1658719)
Kudos to the Sox for their 3rd straight post-season appearance. I'm feeling pretty Sunshiney about playing the Pale Hose. Will there be a daily "Dissecting Ozzie's Moves" thread?

This may have been beaten to death elsewhere, but this weekend exposed some flaws in the Wild Card System. E.g., if the NYY-BOS-CLE dead heat had happened, the playoff schedule would've given the Tribe a huge advantage: Watch the Sox/Yanks burn themselves out and torch their 'pens on Monday, then take on the loser on Tuesday? C'mon!

Seems to me if you're gonna rely on team-vs.-team record to decide the division champion when a playoff is unnecesary, you gotta do the same thing when it's necessary in order to avoid the above scenario. But maybe that's just me.
   19. _Jed Posted: October 03, 2005 at 03:29 AM (#1658746)
I doubt the Cleveland Indians are celebrating their AL Pythagorean championship today. 147 runs to the good, and unrestricted tee times next week.

My favorite Pythagorean comparison for teams finishing in a flat-footed tie is the sixth-place 1967 Orioles and Senators. The Orioles ended the season +62 in run differential, the Senators –87. They each had a record of 76-85, yet the difference in their Pythagorean winning percentages was .112.

Darrell May and Tim Redding. Or, as we in San Diego now refer to them, "the Wooden Nickels."
   20. Toby Posted: October 03, 2005 at 03:33 AM (#1658754)
SJ, you do realize that you are coming off as a poor sport, right? I mean, if you are right, you are being completely ungracious, and if you are wrong, you are a sore loser.
   21. The Original SJ Posted: October 03, 2005 at 03:39 AM (#1658769)
SJ, you do realize that you are coming off as a poor sport, right?

A prominent Red Sox chatterer and I made a bet. I won the bet, and now he is refusing to pay on some ludicrous grounds.

That made me more angry than I should have been. And for that, I apologize to all of sox nation.
   22. Rough Carrigan Posted: October 03, 2005 at 04:15 AM (#1658831)
I'll see your May and Redding and raise you a Remlinger.
   23. Biff, highly-regarded young guy Posted: October 03, 2005 at 06:05 AM (#1659070)
A prominent Red Sox chatterer and I made a bet. I won the bet, and now he is refusing to pay on some ludicrous grounds.

The ludicrous grounds that "tied" does not equal "lost"?
   24. The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott) Posted: October 03, 2005 at 06:14 AM (#1659088)
y'know, if the yanks had owned the season series, it'd be one thing, but they took 10-9, and finished with the exact same record as the sox. hardly something to hang ones hat on.

btw, did anyone see "Dig"'s cover for this week? disgusting.

how a sox fan could find love with a yanks fan is totally unnatural.
   25. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: October 03, 2005 at 06:18 AM (#1659097)
Whoever is refusing to pay you, SJ, is a giant horses-ass. The MLB sets the rules, and if they declare the Yankees champion, then they're champion. Sure, its arbitrary, but dems the breaks. AFAIK, Vegas is only paying off the Yankees to win the East, but I'll double check that. If that's confirmed, then you're doubly right.


But whoever isn't paying is a little puss-n'-Red Sox and boots.
   26. Biff, highly-regarded young guy Posted: October 03, 2005 at 07:08 AM (#1659140)
<i.Whoever is refusing to pay you, SJ, is a giant horses-####.</i>

Thank you sir, may I have another?
   27. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: October 03, 2005 at 07:18 AM (#1659147)
Seriously, Biff, the only fair way to settle it is to see what Vegas is doing...they took future bets on the division, and if they're paying off the Yankees but not the Sox, then you should pay as well. If they're paying off both (or neither), then you're free and clear.
   28. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: October 03, 2005 at 10:15 AM (#1659173)
I really, really don't care about your stupid bet.

SJ, quit whining. Biff, quit whining. One of you two kids grow up and be the bigger man and let it go. This is pathetic.

SG=- all teams have crap players that cost them wins. Tim Redding and Darrell May? Dude: Curt Schilling and Keith Foulke. The Yankees are relying on old dudes and bad pitchers in their rotation, and their defense stinks. Just because the defense and the bad pitchers and one old pitcher had a hot month, doesn't suddenly make the Yankees a very good team.

The Red Sox defense and pitching and bullpen are all weak, too. I don't think I need to go into that.

Luckily, the White Sox can't hit. This should be an interesting series. Great strength vs. great strength, and sad, atrophied weakness vs. sad, atrophied weakness.
   29. Josh Posted: October 03, 2005 at 12:45 PM (#1659196)
So, who is on the playoff roster?

Pitchers
Clement
Wells
Wakefield
Schilling

Arroyo
Timlin
Papelbon
Bradford
Myers

Position players
Veritek
Olerud
Graffanino
Renteria
Mueller
Ramirez
Damon
Nixon
Ortiz

Mirabelli
Cora
Millar
Youkilis

I imagine they will go with 10 pitchers and 15 position players in the first round. That means we need one more pitcher out of:

Dinardo
Gonzalez
Hansen
Delcarmen

I’ve left Harville off that list, but probably should leave Delcarmen off too -- I can’t imagine him making it. And, that means that both Machado and Hydzu make it, too.

Other than picking from Dinardo, Hansen and Gonzalez, and I think both Dinardo and Gonzalez make it if there is a next round, there aren’t many choices. I don’t think we will see Hansen again this year and I’m hoping Dinardo gets the call before Jeremi.
   30. Nasty Nate Posted: October 03, 2005 at 01:02 PM (#1659212)
woo-hoo I found out last night that I'll be going to LDS game 4 on saturday. I went to LDS in '03 and that was one of the best games i've ever been too.

So what's our pitching rotation?
Clement on Tuesday
Wells on Wed ?
Wake/Schill on Fri?
Wake/Schill on Sat?

Bronson out of the pen?
   31. Nasty Nate Posted: October 03, 2005 at 01:05 PM (#1659215)
that should read "I went to LDS game 4 in '03..."
   32. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: October 03, 2005 at 01:28 PM (#1659239)
The Sox need a long man, as I assume Arroyo will be pitching high-leverage relief. That means Dinardo or Gonzalez, and I think recent usage strongly suggests it should be and will be Dinardo.

I think the Sox will go with 11 pitchers and 14 position players. Their bullpen is crap, and Bradford/Myers really should be considered one pitcher taking up two spots.

I'd rather have Hansen in there over Machado, I think.
   33. philly Posted: October 03, 2005 at 01:52 PM (#1659263)
Did you know Dinardo was/is a groundball machine?

BA has a cool new player finder that spits out G/F ratios for pitchers. Here are some of the key Sox:

Dinardo - 3.27
Meredith - 2.61
Rozier - 1.26
Lester - 1.19
Buchholz - 1.17
Papelbon - 1.03
Sanchez - 0.99
Dobies - 0.98
Hottovy - 0.92
Alvarez - 0.69
Blackley - 0.66

Of the Big 3, Lester gets a good chuink of groundballs. The other two are more flyball oriented. The one game I saw Sanchez he induced a ton of infield popups though so maybe he's not quote that flyball oriented.

I included a bunch of the finesse lefty types (Alvaez, Dobies, Hottovy, Blackley) to show how different Dinardo's ratio is from pitchers who you might think were similar.

No clue how ml G/F ratios translate up the latter because the info has never been available before, but hopefully some folks will poke around into the data now.

And what's the deal with no active ml thread while BA is throwing up their league lists? What are you slaves to WC fever?
   34. OlePerfesser Posted: October 03, 2005 at 02:08 PM (#1659296)
BA has a cool new player finder...

Excellent work, Philly--except you omitted the obligatory link. Always, always assume that I am too lazy to find my own information.
   35. villageidiom Posted: October 03, 2005 at 02:09 PM (#1659298)
woo-hoo I found out last night that I'll be going to LDS game 4 on saturday.

If necessary.
   36. Nasty Nate Posted: October 03, 2005 at 02:23 PM (#1659323)
umm, yes, i am aware of the possibility of a sweep
   37. philly Posted: October 03, 2005 at 02:35 PM (#1659338)
Let me see if I can do this link thing.

yes? no? maybe?

Not too be ungrateful for new data to obsess about, but you'd think L/R splits would be there too, no?
   38. philly Posted: October 03, 2005 at 02:37 PM (#1659345)
And actually, I realized I forget another potential playoff candidate.

Delcarmen - 1.23
   39. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: October 03, 2005 at 03:22 PM (#1659453)
I've got a somewhat complex but equally unsubstantiated view of GB/FB ratios. I'm oddly attached to it. I'd be interested to see what people think.

1) A high GB rate is well correlated to a low HR rate. That's a really good thing.

2) In many cases, a high FB rate can be correlated to a high IF pop-up rate, which is often considered a marker of a DIPS-beater. (I think here of Sid Fernandez, Barry Zito, Keith Foulke, a lot of knuckleballers... Mariano Rivera, too?) Michael Humphries suggested this link a little while ago, and it makes sense - IF popups are technically BIP, but they are always, always outs.

Guys like Li'l Papi and Anibal are likely to allow their share of homers. Lester, too. 1.19 is basically neutral, and over 150 IP, I doubt there's much of any significant meaning in 0.2 of GB/Fb ratio. Hopefully, though, they can develop some ability on BIP. And, of course, there are a lot of real good pitchers out there with significant HR rates - your Robin Roberts types.

(By the way, where's Fabian? His whole "Hughes is teh best because he has an amazing GB rate" thing appears to have vanished in a puff of data. Hughes' GB/FB rate in A-ball was also 1.19.)

WRT Dinardo, 3.27 is a heckuva rate, and it suggests that his excellent HR ratio this year was no fluke.
   40. Toby Posted: October 03, 2005 at 03:33 PM (#1659478)
SJ, let me just state my own view here for the record.

First of all, the Yankees did finish first in the division and have been awarded the playoff seed of the division champ as if they were sole division champ. So you win the bet.

The only question is whether Biff *also* wins the bet, for the Sox *also* finishing first in the division. If Biff also wins the bet, it's a push; if Biff loses, he owes you the half-dollar.

I think there's some uncertainty over whether the tiebreaker determines the division champion or whether it merely determines which team will be treated as the division champion for purposes of seeding. I haven't seen anything, yet, that is convincing either way. Even the Katy Feeney quote that I posted in Chatter is ambiguous. Maybe Bud will clear this up soon; maybe not.

I would urge you and Biff to split the difference, meaning Biff gives you a George Washington quarter, preferably one of the Massachusetts ones from the State Quarters series. The alternative is to wait a few days to see if there is an official ruling, but assuming there isn't one, the one who gets the moral high ground in my book is the one who is first to propose this settlement.
   41. Toby Posted: October 03, 2005 at 03:40 PM (#1659489)
By the way, the Marlins and Mets finished with identical records in the NL East. Would you say they tied for third, or would you say the Mets are third and the Marlins fourth (because the Mets beat them head-to-head)?
   42. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: October 03, 2005 at 03:42 PM (#1659494)
Looking over the above, I think I got a little confused in the application of my theory to the minor leaguers.

None of Li'l Papi or Anibal Lester show a significant trend either way in GB/FB rate. They look pretty neutral, maybe on average tending toward FB types, but not so extreme. So they don't look like Robin Roberts types.
   43. OlePerfesser Posted: October 03, 2005 at 03:58 PM (#1659526)
The link works great, Philly--thanks.

BTW, I'm shocked--shocked!--to learn that gambling is going on here.

Finally, I say again (repeating #18 above) that it's perfectly OK by me to say that two teams' head-to-head record is a tie-breaker, and that therefore the MFY finished 1st in the A.L. East. It ain't perfect, but it's defensible.

What is not okay, IMHO, is failing to say that exact same thing if the MFY, Sox, and Tribe had finished with identical records. That 3-team, 2-day playoff setup would have been a fuster cluck of monumental proportions, and if it had happened there would have been mass hysteria in either Nueva York or Beantown as one of those teams faced Cleveland with a severe case of burnout.
   44. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: October 03, 2005 at 04:05 PM (#1659537)
OleP-

I think i disagree on the last point, for two reasons. The second reason comes in two parts.

1) It's great drama, great tv, thus great for baseball.

2) The Yanks and Sox would both get two shots at the playoffs. There would be a game Monday and a game Tuesday. Further, they'd all have failed to win it on their own in the regular season, so it'd be hard to complain after that.
   45. villageidiom Posted: October 03, 2005 at 04:06 PM (#1659539)
I'm just trying <u>out</u> the <strike>old</strike> new
Blogpen.

<table><tr align="left"><td width=60%>Name</td><td align="right" width=40%>Age</td></tr>
<tr align="left"><td red;">villageidiom</td><td align="right" blue;">35</td></tr>
<tr align="left"><td purple;">mrsidiom</td><td align="right" green;">37</td></tr>
</table>
   46. villageidiom Posted: October 03, 2005 at 04:07 PM (#1659540)
Oh, well. It looked really cool in preview.
   47. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: October 03, 2005 at 04:13 PM (#1659558)
Table:
      Red Sox    Yankees
Suck    No         Yes
I'm in the old format stuff here, and the tables seem to work?
   48. villageidiom Posted: October 03, 2005 at 04:19 PM (#1659581)
The "pre" tags don't recognize carriage returns any more, Mikael.
   49. Josh Posted: October 03, 2005 at 04:21 PM (#1659591)
The "pre" tags don't recognize carriage returns any more, Mikael

I found that out a few posts above :-(
   50. Toby Posted: October 03, 2005 at 04:23 PM (#1659596)
OleP--

personally, I have long advocated a mandatory sudden death wild card play-in game, featuring the two best second-place teams.

Under that system, today we'd have the Phillies at the Astros and the Indians at ... well, either at Boston or at the Boston/NY loser, depending on how the tie were resolved.

By the way, if head-to-head is used to determine who is seeded as division winner, and to determine home field for the playoffs, why is it not also used to determine which team hosts a Game 163 playoff? Stupid coin flips.
   51. OlePerfesser Posted: October 03, 2005 at 05:12 PM (#1659705)
I) Drama is nice, M.C. Alexandria. And a foolish consistency, yadda yadda. But head-to-head either decides things or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then have your dramatic two-day pre-playoff playoff at the expense of severely damaging the WC team's chances of advancing (and have a 1-game layoff today to decide the afore-discussed bet!). If it does, then just have one playoff to decide that WC team. And I'm just not buying your "two shots" argument or that the 3 teams involved in the fuster cluck deserved their fate 'cause they failed to wrap things up neatly in the regular season. Theoretically, all three could have better records than, say, the Western Division leader, but could enter the real playoffs with a toasted bullpen, tired lineup, and severe jet lag.

II) The foregoing also supports Toby's comment that coin flips are stupid.

III) So Mikael is now Josh? I guess I gotta pay closer attention. Or maybe less attention. Definitely one of those two.
   52. Joel W Posted: October 03, 2005 at 05:17 PM (#1659711)
Mikael is MCA
   53. Joel W Posted: October 03, 2005 at 05:20 PM (#1659719)
WRT the great New York Boston first-place debate, here's a question: If Boston had won on Saturday and lost on Sunday, how would we have felt about the conclusion, given that Cleveland had the same thing happen to them?

I think it would both feel like more of a tie and more that the Yankees won the division. Or better, what if Cleveland had won on Saturday and then went on to lose on Sunday?
   54. philly Posted: October 03, 2005 at 05:20 PM (#1659720)
2) In many cases, a high FB rate can be correlated to a high IF pop-up rate, which is often considered a marker of a DIPS-beater. (I think here of Sid Fernandez, Barry Zito, Keith Foulke, a lot of knuckleballers... Mariano Rivera, too?) Michael Humphries suggested this link a little while ago, and it makes sense - IF popups are technically BIP, but they are always, always outs.

That's what I was alluding to when I mentioned Sanchez gave up a lot of infield pop ups the one game I saw. When we did the whole Hughes vs the big 3 thing I flipped through some game logs for Sanchez and noticed that it did seem like there were a lot of pop ups (the milb.com game recaps separate out pop ups from flyballs). I didn't completly quantify it, but it was much higher than the rate that THT has for MLB pitchers.

And I suppose it makes sense that in the minor leagues where a pitcher can completely overwhelm hitters the way Sanchez did you may find some extreme pop up numbers or something like that.
   55. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: October 03, 2005 at 05:43 PM (#1659763)
OleP-

I tried to email you after your kind comment in the self-immolation thread, but your BTF-listed email account was dead.

I'm wicked anonymous now.

These sorts of playoffs, I think. are the best answer to a bad situation. If Cleveland tied, I think it would be much more unfair to the Sox if they weren't guaranteed a playoff spot while the Yankees were, simply due to head-to-head record. If we take as given that we can't postpone the playoffs for more than a day, I don't see what else to do.
   56. Toby Posted: October 03, 2005 at 06:00 PM (#1659803)
After doing some further research, I am ready to declare SJ the winner.

Here's what I dug up:

Excerpts from Major League Rule 33 and Major League Rule 34


Scenario #1: If there is a tie for a Division Championship and the winning percentage of the two Clubs tied for first place is higher than the winning percentage of each of the second-place Clubs in the same League, the Division Champion shall be:

The Club with the higher winning percentage in head-to-head competition between the two tied Clubs during the championship season
; or ... [further tiebreakers]

<a href="http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/mlb/news/mlb_press_release.jsp?ymd=20030908&c>LINK</a>
Of course, this doesn't change the conclusion that SJ has been a poor sport.

Congrats, SJ & other Yankees fans, on the division championship. Biff, pay the man.
   57. OlePerfesser Posted: October 03, 2005 at 06:03 PM (#1659810)
Glad to know you're alive and well in Alexandria, Mikael... er, M.C.

Anyway, so you're saying the superior head-to-head record is not a sufficient criterion to guarantee one team the playoffs, but it is sufficient to guarantee that team a home-field advantage if it ultimately faces the WC team? Effectively, that the inconsistent treatment of head-to-head record is justified on cost-benefit grounds?

I can probably agree with that. But I'd argue that the fact that the fuster cluck would leave all involved at a major competitive disadvantage going forward is a huge part of the cost side of the equation. I don't like that; you appear to like giving the head-to-head winner the division crown even less. Maybe we'd have to actually play these games sometime to see whether people feel the benefits > costs. It'd be dramatic as hell, I'll give ya that.
   58. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: October 03, 2005 at 06:19 PM (#1659848)
Glad to know you're alive and well in Alexandria, Mikael... er, M.C.

Sometimes, I forget that the history of the first centuries of Christianity is not one of the mental databases that normal people go to first to decipher odd references.

Clement of Alexandria was a second-century church leader and writer. I was looking for some stupid baseball/antiquity pun. I obviously chunked it, but I'm not switching again out of stubbornness, and out of the fact that being addressed as MCA is relatively cool.

And, yes, your summary of my position as regards cost-benefit analysis is accurate. I tend to think baseball managers would agree. In regular season games played where the division title but not a playoff berth was at stake, teams have not used their best players. The managers thus most likely would not use their best players in an equivalent one-game playoff. I assume they'd play to win in a scenario where two losses means you're out (though I don't know that for sure, I'm pretty confident).
   59. OlePerfesser Posted: October 03, 2005 at 06:36 PM (#1659893)
My guess is that if the MFY and Sox were in a playoff today where the loser had to play the next day for its life, both managers would adopt the ole "there is no tomorrow" attitude (though, of course, there is a tomorrow, but it's one you want to avoid very much). Failure to pull out all the stops would forever expose one to ridicule if the worst happened, and managers are pretty damn risk-averse. (And, BTW, I was pretty sure your new handle was some sort of obscure historical reference and not your location, but I'd be lyin' if I said I knew who the hell Clement of Alexandria was.)

New topic: another reason to root against the ChiSox!!! A genuinely evil man is very much rooting for them. Or at least for Ozzie.
   60. Josh Posted: October 03, 2005 at 06:37 PM (#1659896)
III) So Mikael is now Josh? I guess I gotta pay closer attention. Or maybe less attention. Definitely one of those two.

It would be quiet a coup for the Harvard divinity student who types flawlessly to switch with the Jewish lawyer who can't type a lick!
   61. Toby Posted: October 03, 2005 at 06:38 PM (#1659902)
Mikael,

I think Jesus ChrisTruby is still available.
   62. OlePerfesser Posted: October 03, 2005 at 06:40 PM (#1659907)
...And, of course, as I re-read your comment #58 and mine, MCA, I realize we are saying pretty much the same thing regarding the 1-game vs. 2-game playoff scenarios. I'll pipe down now.
   63. chris p Posted: October 03, 2005 at 06:52 PM (#1659948)
OlePerfesser, could you explain again why Chavez is "genuinely evil"? I think I missed that part of the lecture ...
   64. The Original SJ Posted: October 03, 2005 at 07:15 PM (#1659996)
I would once again like to apologize for being perceived as a "poor sport."

I regret a couple of my posts, such as post #2 in this thread. However, I rightly believed that I won something that was being denied to me. I was taking out that frustration in any thread on the topic.

I will now withdraw my request for payment from Biff, and publically forgive his debt.

I am moving on, I hope he can do the same and we can all live happily together again. Money just gets in the way of the passive aggressive snark, the give and take that makes these Sox/Yankee whinefests wonderful.
   65. AROM Posted: October 03, 2005 at 07:24 PM (#1660019)
Chavez, who said he once dreamed of pitching in the major leagues

That settles it. He's another Castro.
   66. AROM Posted: October 03, 2005 at 07:29 PM (#1660033)
Against the White Sox, I wouldn't even have Myers on the roster. They are too right-handed.

Do you really need a pitcher whose sole purpose is to get out AJ Pierzynski?

I'd take DelCarmen and Hansen in the last 2 spots.
   67. OlePerfesser Posted: October 03, 2005 at 07:37 PM (#1660048)
I missed that part of the lecture

My apologies to all and sundry for making a political reference that invites snark.

My apologies to Chris P for failing to provide an explanation. (My experience is that, for those who demand an explanation of why Marxist-Leninist despots are evil, none will ever suffice. So why bother?)
   68. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: October 03, 2005 at 07:43 PM (#1660058)
Do you really need a pitcher whose sole purpose is to get out AJ Pierzynski?

Two reasons I think that you actually do.

(Well, also, it's not just AJ Pierzynski, but also Scott Podsednik.)

First, the Red Sox pitchers aren't that good just yet. Both Manny D and Hansen have been quite shaky, and the Sox know way better than we do how these guys are adjusting to MLB pressure. Even if his innings are radically limited, Myers is likely to do his job.

Second, the Red Sox middle relief is not just heavily RH, but heaving RH with significant splits. Bronson Arroyo and Chad Bradford are both much better with the platoon advantage. Mike Myers serves a purpose as a bridge between RH relievers whom the Sox were going to switch between anyway. Another righty would just be depth.
   69. Biff, highly-regarded young guy Posted: October 03, 2005 at 07:49 PM (#1660067)
I will now withdraw my request for payment from Biff, and publically forgive his debt.

I am moving on, I hope he can do the same and we can all live happily together again. Money just gets in the way of the passive aggressive snark, the give and take that makes these Sox/Yankee whinefests wonderful.


I still maintain it was a tie, and both teams "won" or both teams "lost" depdning on how you look at ties. Why are we depending on Cleveland to determine this?

How about this? In the event of another Yankees-Red Sox ALCS, double or nothing.
   70. mommy Posted: October 03, 2005 at 07:57 PM (#1660078)
maintain whatever you want, you're an idiot.

the Yankees are the division champions, and all of baseball except a few moronic Sox fans on this website realize it.

you realize Jaret Wright started yesterday's game, right?
   71. Joel W Posted: October 03, 2005 at 08:08 PM (#1660112)
Nate Silver's analysis of the White Sox, and the recognition that the White Sox are heavily Right-handed made me have higher expectations for the series. Bronson should be a weapon in the pen.
   72. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: October 03, 2005 at 08:17 PM (#1660126)

I still maintain it was a tie, and both teams "won" or both teams "lost" depdning on how you look at ties. Why are we depending on Cleveland to determine this?


Except that, according to the rules of Major League Baseball, there is no tie. The Yankees are winners by dint of a superior record in head to head competition against Boston. Cleveland doesn't factor into it.

I find it amusing that people here are ripping on SJ for being a poor sport when Biff is the one squelching on a bet.
   73. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: October 03, 2005 at 08:35 PM (#1660177)
maintain whatever you want, you're an idiot.

What the hell is this crap? Go home, mommy.
   74. Toby Posted: October 03, 2005 at 08:36 PM (#1660178)
I wasn't ripping on him. I said he was being completely ungracious, and he was. In fact, he seems to have more or less acknowledged, and apologized for, that. I was also critical of Biff.

I find it amusing that you have a distorted perception of things.
   75. Daryn Posted: October 03, 2005 at 08:38 PM (#1660180)
I find it amusing that people here are ripping on SJ for being a poor sport when Biff is the one squelching on a bet.


I agree (but I'd say irritating, not amusing), and I like the improper use of squelching to replace the prejudiced use of welching/welshing (seen earlier today on the site).
   76. Daryn Posted: October 03, 2005 at 08:39 PM (#1660186)
And Toby, it wasn't you -- others were quite hard on SJ just for standing his ground.
   77. Biff, highly-regarded young guy Posted: October 03, 2005 at 08:42 PM (#1660192)
Cleveland doesn't factor into it.

Cleveland does factor into it. If they won 2 more games, it would've been settled on the field, like it should've been.
   78. The Original SJ Posted: October 03, 2005 at 08:50 PM (#1660212)

How about this? In the event of another Yankees-Red Sox ALCS, double or nothing.


No, thank you. I will make more bets with you.
   79. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: October 03, 2005 at 08:50 PM (#1660215)

Cleveland does factor into it. If they won 2 more games, it would've been settled on the field, like it should've been.



Irregardless of what "should" have happened, what "did" happen was that the Yankees won the division because they won the regular-season series against Boston.
   80. The Original SJ Posted: October 03, 2005 at 08:52 PM (#1660219)
Argh. I will make no more bets with you, Biff.

that is a crucial word to leave out there.

Welching is prejudiced? I had no idea.
   81. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: October 03, 2005 at 08:54 PM (#1660225)
The problem with your argument, Biff, is that it fundamentally boils down to "I don't like the ruling of MLB, I don't think its fair, and so I'm going to disregard it."

OK, lets set up a hypothetical situation. Cleveland wins 2 games that weekend, so the Yanks & Sox have to settle the division in New York. Bottom of the ninth, down by 1, Yankees get runners on 2nd and 3rd. A long drive is hit to the outfield, and Damon traps the ball. 2 runs score.

But the umpire blows the call and rules that Damon caught the ball cleanly. God, country, and every replay shows that the Yankees SHOULD have won, but major league baseball declares the Red Sox the winners. SJ refuses to pay you. How would you respond?
   82. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: October 03, 2005 at 09:01 PM (#1660240)
The analogy doesn't really work, DZOP. The Sox and Yankees really actually did win the same number of games.

The Yankees, it appears by all rights, won the division on a technicality.

If I were Biff, I'd pay SJ.

If I were a Yankee fan, I wouldn't be walking around gloating about a "title" that exists in name only.
   83. Daryn Posted: October 03, 2005 at 09:02 PM (#1660245)
Welching comes from welshing -- suggesting people from Wales don't make good on their bets. Catherine Zeta Jones would be very upset. Getting off scot-free is another common one -- jewing someone down on a price seems to have faded from prominence due to its obvious prejudice.
   84. Sean McNally Posted: October 03, 2005 at 09:05 PM (#1660254)
I still maintain it was a tie, and both teams "won" or both teams "lost" depdning on how you look at ties. Why are we depending on Cleveland to determine this?

How about this? In the event of another Yankees-Red Sox ALCS, double or nothing.


Biff, the rules of MLB clearly state that in the event of a tied record where a playoff spot is <u>not</u> on the line, then the head-to-head record will decide the order of finish (i.e. who is the division champ and who is the wild card winner). By that definition, confirmed by MLB and the way the ALDS pairings have been set, the Yanks are the division champs and the Sox are the wild card.

A similar situation arose between St. Louis and Houston in 2001 - where Houston was the rightful division champs, but the Cards declared themselvs co-champions. I believe they were instructed to stop doing that.

How about this? In the event of another Yankees-Red Sox ALCS, double or nothing.

Today I proposed to SJ similar relief. If the Yanks advance farther in the tournament, you provide SJ with a Susan B. Anthony dollar and a Sacajewea dollar. If the Sox advance farther, he provides you with the JFK half dollar from the original bet.

This provides SJ a measure of relief in that he actually won this bet, and would provide you with something to hang your Wild Card Champions hat on.
   85. Josh Posted: October 03, 2005 at 09:11 PM (#1660272)
How about this: everyone on Primer can pitch it to raise 25c for each of you. Then you can both stfu AND have a pretty new quarter!
   86. karlmagnus Posted: October 03, 2005 at 09:19 PM (#1660288)
I believe scot free is a land tenure term, referring to "scot and lot" leaseholders.
   87. Dewey, Soupuss Not Doomed to Succeed Posted: October 03, 2005 at 09:21 PM (#1660294)
Nate Silver's analysis of the White Sox

Before leaning too heavily on BP's analysis, keep in mind that they had the White Sox pegged for fourth place in their division, with 71 wins.

Silver was a little more generous - he did have them ahead of the Tigers by a bit.
   88. Toby Posted: October 03, 2005 at 09:21 PM (#1660296)
Daryn, thanks for the clarification.

On the other topic, don't forget 'gypped', a Dutch date, an Indian giver, and getting one's Irish up.
   89. mommy Posted: October 03, 2005 at 09:32 PM (#1660322)
"If I were a Yankee fan, I wouldn't be walking around gloating about a "title" that exists in name only."

yankee fans don't gloat about division titles. nor do they particularly care about 50 cents. as far as i know, they do honor their bets.
   90. mommy Posted: October 03, 2005 at 09:35 PM (#1660331)
"Before leaning too heavily on BP's analysis, keep in mind that they had the White Sox pegged for fourth place in their division, with 71 wins."

MGL certainly never understood how they could make such a projection. any accurate projection would peg them for 80 wins, like his.
   91. chris p Posted: October 03, 2005 at 09:35 PM (#1660332)
wok is going to love this thread.
   92. Joel W Posted: October 03, 2005 at 09:56 PM (#1660386)
Baseball Prospectus is wrong all the time, we all are. The point that the ChiSox are worse against right-handed pitching is without dispute, nor is the fact that that Bronson Arroyo and Chadford (among others) are quite good against right-handed hitters. These two facts are independent of prior faulty analysis, and I think bode well for the Red Sox.
   93. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: October 03, 2005 at 09:58 PM (#1660392)

The Yankees, it appears by all rights, won the division on a technicality.



What defines "a technicality" is in the eyes of the beholder.
   94. Guapo Posted: October 03, 2005 at 10:04 PM (#1660406)
I still maintain it was a tie, and both teams "won" or both teams "lost" depdning on how you look at ties. Why are we depending on Cleveland to determine this?

How about this? In the event of another Yankees-Red Sox ALCS, double or nothing.


You strike me as the sort of person who cheats at "Go Fish."
   95. Joel W Posted: October 03, 2005 at 10:05 PM (#1660408)
For the difference between entitlement theories and desert theories, see Nozick v. Rawls. Given that the Yankees won under legitimate rules, they are entitled to their division championship. It doesn't mean they deserve the championship anymore than the Red Sox do.
   96. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: October 03, 2005 at 10:05 PM (#1660409)
According to BP, it appears the Yankees won the Pythag title, as well as the fancier Pythag titles.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/standings.php
   97. Dewey, Soupuss Not Doomed to Succeed Posted: October 03, 2005 at 10:13 PM (#1660426)
The point that the ChiSox are worse against right-handed pitching is without dispute

This is true, mainly due to the fact that Aaron Rowand and Juan Uribe killed lefties this season. But the guys who will be counted on to produce (Dye, Everett, Konerko) don't have significant platoon splits.

Somehow, despite all this, the White Sox pulled this off -

Record vs. - 

Left-handed starters  -  23-20
Right
-handed starters -  76-43 


Yeah, I don't get it, either.
   98. Dewey, Soupuss Not Doomed to Succeed Posted: October 03, 2005 at 10:15 PM (#1660430)
According to BP, it appears the Yankees won the Pythag title, as well as the fancier Pythag titles.

For some reason, BP didn't factor in yesterday's games.
   99. nickm Posted: October 03, 2005 at 10:17 PM (#1660434)
Mikael is MCA

Who (or where) is kevin?

Congrats to Larry Bowa: you must be happy with Phillies performance (and he called CLE sweep, BTW).
   100. E., Hinske Posted: October 03, 2005 at 11:29 PM (#1660523)
Without getting into the various personal issues that have become a part of this debate, this Red Sox fan thinks it's foolish for other Red Sox fans to be whining about how it's a "technicality". The rules are the rules. They weren't changed in mid-stream and the Yankees have been declared champions of the AL East by MLB. What more do you want?

FWIW, any Yankee fans complaining about Texas (this goes for that ##### A-Rod too) should STFU. No one owes you anything. If you don't like it, win more games next time.
Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Adam S
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.6686 seconds
60 querie(s) executed