SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
|
Post by telson13 on Feb 25, 2016 2:21:37 GMT -5
His batting average on the balls in play during that stretch - that underlying data - doesn't bear that out. It was at .329 and that's a bit above his career number which is .300. Just my take, but he seemed to be finishing his pitches with better command, and using a much improved sequencing at the end of the season. I don't have much in the way of evidence to back that up outside of the fact that in none of those games did he walk more than 3 batters and he only did that twice.. So I should run off to BrooksBaseball to check out those games. I think he, and the other pitchers, were helped enormously by having much better outfield defense, and decent infield defense as well. Wait, Norm, you're saying his BABIP during the 8-1 stretch was .329? I was just comparing FIP/SIERA. I don't have the numbers handy but I seem to recall that his pre-run ERA was right around 6, and during that run it was right around 3. But, his FIP/SIERAs were, like low-4 pre- and just under 4 post (minimally different). His BB rate did drop, and by eyeball he looked better, I'm just not sure I've seen a clear, viable explanation for a difference, other than a change in FB usage frequency. If the BABIP were high during his run, that would be encouraging...suggesting that he succeeded in spite of some poor batted ball luck (and indicating the small differences in FIP/SIERA were artificially small). I do think Eric posted about this in the "What can be done...?" thread, so maybe you're right. I still contend that the main thing holding Kelly back is a lack of experience...give him another 300-400 innings the next two years, and he'll reveal himself. I hold out hope that lack of repetitions is what's hindered his command and kept his stuff from being the swing&miss filth we all hope.
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Feb 25, 2016 2:42:50 GMT -5
When and not a matter of if but when he starts failing again, I'll want Owens or Johnson for that matter up as soon as possible. This guy is a disaster. He was arguably the worst pitcher on this staff last year except for maybe Masterson. You must be a joy at family gatherings. Seriously, though...I'm giving you a hard time simply because you seem to be arguing beliefs, not ideas supported by facts. In every discussion I've seen you voice your opinions, you've made up your mind going in, and absolutely no evidence will sway you. It's like you have visceral black-or-white, good-or-bad, binary reactions to players or situations, and everything you discuss is in absolutes, rather than along a spectrum. And there's little internal consistency. You (rather vehemently) claimed that Owens was relegated to being a 4/5 unless he added a couple mph to his fastball, but then claimed Brian Johnson was destined for great things...despite essentially identical FB velocity. You went on to tout Johnson's CB and command as reasons for his assured success. That was diametrically opposed to your rationale for why Owens was limited...you had just argued that it was his velocity, and not command/secondaries that were holding him back. On top of that, you were essentially arguing that he *could* increase his FB velocity (which is actually pretty uncommon after 24...most pitchers historically peak at 22, drop slightly at 25, then again slowly from 30-33)...but that he couldn't improve his control/command (which is actually quite common). Here, in discussing Kelly, you're basically denying that pitchers often succeed despite struggling throughout their early/mid-20s. I gave you an **extensive** list of almost 30 pitchers--several of them HOFers, and most of the rest easily among the top 5-10 in MLB at their peaks, which **completely disproved** your argument. Your response (after trying desperately to backtrack or deflect) is to simply say "well Kelly can't do that." Again, it's black or white, and it's what you **believe**, regardless of fact or nuance. All of which is well and good, but it makes for incredibly dull discussion. It's like trying to discuss evolutionary biology with a creationist or viral immunology with an anti-vaccine advocate. Their mind is made up, and nothing anyone says will change it. In fact, they're only interested in the discussion as a way to speak their beliefs, and they simply deny any external input. The result is that the other person gets bored and just...shrugs, says "whatever," and stops listening. While I appreciate your getting involved in, even starting, discussions, in the end, facts are facts and beliefs are beliefs. The best discussions on here arise when people differentiate the two. I still have high hopes for both Owens. Just because I don't think of Owens as a number 2 anymore doesn't mean I don't think he will be terrible. The whole premise of that past argument is that I thought Owens was more highly valued back 3 years ago when he was striking out batters like crazy (which he was). I still think there's room to fill out on his body too. You can see it just by looking at the kid. When/if that happens, he probably will gain more velocity in in my opinion. How could he not add velocity with added strength? He says he's in the "best shape of his life," I know that's usually a spring training motto but for a 24 year old kid who REALLY could gain more with more strength, that's very exciting. Yes I'm high on Johnson for the same reasons I'm down on Kelly. That's pitch ability, Johnson has it and Kelly doesn't. When Kelly tries to pitch backwards, he usually falls behind. When he's trying to blow batters away he usually gets hit hard. I don't hate Joe Kelly. I hate the way the Red Sox are using him. The more he thinks out on that baseball mound, the more he gets into trouble. You can see it. I don't have the numbers to back it up but it isn't hard to miss. That's what going to the bullpen would totally eliminate from him. If he was used in a one or two inning role, he could increase the velocity to his already good fastball and command wont HAVE to be such a issue for him. It's probably also has the fact that the Sox are just going to hand him the car keys to the fifth spotting slot in the rotation is what really irks me too. Doesn't work when the car is usually broken or doesn't run effectively and efficiently (like with Kelly). The guy has had two years in two different organizations to prove his worth starting full-time and he hasn't proven anything in that time. That's why I think it's a mistake to try it all over again. Trying the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is the definition of insanity as quoted by Einstein. If he came out of the bullpen and pulled a Arroyo in 2004 or a Carrasco and proved his worth and proved that he could be better than just a bullpen arm, then okay yeah put him in the rotation. Until then it's just a experiment, no matter how many 27/28 year old pitchers have broken out in past years. End Rant.
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Feb 25, 2016 3:02:27 GMT -5
A quick answer: -- The IP per start thing is meaningless. You don't want your #5 starter to pitch the 6th inning, facing guys for the 3rd time and tiring a bit, if your alternative is a fresh Junichi Tazawa, or Layne or Ross against LHB. That might be desirable if the rest of the rotation were not good at occasionally going 7, but we have that. And Kelly's splits by times around the order actually suggest he could go deeper in games than he has. He can go 6 or even 7 if the bullpen is shot and outpitch almost any 5th starter. He doesn't because a bullpen guy is usually available and always a better option. -- I think Owens is likely to pass Kelly at some point in this year, and I think you may well see Kelly traded next winter to make room for Owens. But right now, in ST, this question is entirely moot. You give Kelly a shot at the 5th starter job and find out just how good he is, and you send Owens to AAA to work on a variety of things. And if Kelly struggles early as a starter, I think you probably see him swapping roles with Wright before you see a permanent Owens callup. -- Speaking of which, one interesting thing to watch: will Owens at Pawtucket pitch so well that he moves past Wright as the 6th starter? How soon might that happen? Now, there is a scenario where Bannister's got a tweak for Owens' FB comand, and his BSOHL adds 1 or 2 mph, and he just utterly dominates AAA for 5 or 6 starts, and looks so good doing so that you start to see scouts re-assessing him, and he forces his way into the rotation. We'll see. Problems with this line of thinking: 1. Joe Kelly was so bad last year you really need to give him starts to "see how good he is"? You don't know how good he is today? I do. Not very. Could that change at some point? Yes, absolutely but as of right now he is a bad pitcher. Terrible starting pitcher. This is based on his past performance. 2. Paraphrasing but DD has said performance is what matters. So if Owens is better he should get the 5th spot. Period. If Kelly ends up pitching out of the pen or gets a start because someone gets hurt, and pitches well, then you give him another shot. But at least he would have earned it. On the mound in a real game. 3. Henry Owes is better than Joe Kelly and Brian Johnson may be as well. So if you put Owens in AAA you have to have two things happen to get Johnson up. So two things have to happen for you to just start your best rotation? Makes zero sense. Think it is the right thing to start BJ in AAA based on his injury last year, but the point is, if he is ready and someone is needed it should be him if he is better than Kelly. Completely agree with this post. Nailed it.
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Feb 25, 2016 3:10:59 GMT -5
In his 35 starts with Boston he has a ERA close to 4.50. That's pretty much a full season to gauge what he is as a starter in Boston. I truly think Owens could easily surpass those numbers while giving the team more innings because he's more durable and he should last longer in games. In 35 starts with Boston, he has 195.2 IP, a 4.60 ERA, 4.31 FIP, 4.36 SIERA and 1.3 fWAR and 1.3 bWAR. That's not great, but it's acceptable from your fifth starter, an d there's no guarantee that Owens can outperform him. Can anyone name me when Kelly has thrown 150 innings in a season either? In 2012, between the majors and the minors, he threw 179.1 innings despite making eight appearances out of the bullpen, which just about matches Owens' career-high, and last year, he threw a combined 153.1 innings between the majors and the minors. Also remember that a lot of the reason for Kelly's lack of innings is because he's been jerked around between the rotation and the bullpen for most of his career. He's not a guy like Buchholz who has never stayed healthy for a full season. He had DL stints in 2014 and 2015, and all pitchers are injury risks to one extent or another, but there's otherwise little reason to think that he can't give them 180 innings this year. At this point, go with the unknown and let that unknown develop in your rotation because that unknown is younger and could have an actual future in this rotation. At least you gain development time in the majors instead of "hoping" on a Joe Kelly to become the next Cliff Lee or Curt Schilling. There's nothing worse than having a bad veteran taken up a spot where a rookie could excel in right now. Kelly has been a bad pitcher in the rotation in his time in Boston. He has given the Sox very little to this point. Okay and I didn't know he had that many innings in 2012 but it would be very optimistic to expect he won't break down again. He's done it for 2 years now for one reason or another, while Owens has been building up innings in that same span. One bad injury could sway things but the trend is up for Owens and the trend is down on Kelly.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,981
|
Post by jimoh on Feb 25, 2016 6:43:28 GMT -5
To read through this whole thread is to see an endless series of remarkably weak, lame arguments in favor of the dubious proposition that Owens is clearly a better bet than Kelly. You've literally scored zero points.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Feb 25, 2016 7:13:10 GMT -5
To read through this whole thread is to see an endless series of remarkably weak, lame arguments in favor of the dubious proposition that Owens is clearly a better bet than Kelly. You've literally scored zero points. That's a much better argument that Kelly is better than Owens. Owens is a pretty unique pitcher and is very difficult to project. And until he pitches more in the majors, it's almost impossible to compare he and Kelly. I really like Owens' ability to miss bats and think that's a much bigger indicator than just about anything else to me. He has done it consistently throughout the minors and flashed a bit of it in the majors. Kelly has had a problem with that.
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Feb 25, 2016 7:28:00 GMT -5
To read through this whole thread is to see an endless series of remarkably weak, lame arguments in favor of the dubious proposition that Owens is clearly a better bet than Kelly. You've literally scored zero points. Was that quote directed at me? If so then I'm not making it a point to say Owens is that much better than Kelly at the moment. I'm making it a point to say that Owens is clearly the better option for future reasons going forward presently. It's better to have Owens developing in the majors right now in a season full of question marks. Minus well figure out if he's also a part of the real future or not. Putting Kelly in the rotation right now does very little in terms of progress. We know he can barely start, maybe. Putting him in the bullpen, now that's a different story. Maybe he can thrive there and the Sox have a great controllable bullpen piece moving forward. Don't know what's with the insults either. If you don't like the discussion, then why bother? That's lame. I don't go out of my way to call you weak. This isn't about me or "my dubious propositions," it's about the fifth spot in the rotation and to see who is the best option for this team this year.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Feb 25, 2016 10:47:45 GMT -5
To read through this whole thread is to see an endless series of remarkably weak, lame arguments in favor of the dubious proposition that Owens is clearly a better bet than Kelly. You've literally scored zero points. Was that quote directed at me? If so then I'm not making it a point to say Owens is that much better than Kelly at the moment. I'm making it a point to say that Owens is clearly the better option for future reasons going forward presently. It's better to have Owens developing in the majors right now in a season full of question marks. Minus well figure out if he's also a part of the real future or not. Putting Kelly in the rotation right now does very little in terms of progress. We know he can barely start, maybe. Putting him in the bullpen, now that's a different story. Maybe he can thrive there and the Sox have a great controllable bullpen piece moving forward. Don't know what's with the insults either. If you don't like the discussion, then why bother? That's lame. I don't go out of my way to call you weak. This isn't about me or "my dubious propositions," it's about the fifth spot in the rotation and to see who is the best option for this team this year. FWIW, I think he was referring to the specific arguments you've made, and not to you, personally. I think what most people (myself included) see as the major issues are the following: 1) Owens has options to burn. With three options, he can be optioned back to the minors without concern, for the moment. Obviously the team doesn't want to burn options, but given the SP depth (but also durability/performance concerns) there may be a need to shuffle pitchers around. Kelly, I believe, has one option left. It needs to be used very carefully. 2) Their results last year were similar, and career-wise, Kelly has a 3.82 ERA and 4.12 FIP, in 460+ IP. Some of that is helped by his numbers in relief. Eric Van somewhere also made a reasonable argument that the difference in ERA-FIP is intrinsic to Kelly and probably repeatable. Owens last year had a 4.57 ERA and an FIP around 4.4 (I'm just too lazy to look it up). So Kelly has 400 more career innings, a substantial lead in ERA, and a quarter of a run lead in FIP. Now, it's reasonable to expect Owens to improve significantly as he gets acclimated and learns at the MLB level. That's a point I've argued quite a bit. However, the counterpoint is also true: given his age, it's far from assured. He could struggle. Kelly *has* struggled, and may continue to do so. But given Kelly's 400 IP edge in MLB, I think it's reasonable to think that his "downside risk" of worse performance (and especially catastrophic performance) is lower than Owens's is. As far as upside, I think it's tougher to call. Kelly is at a career innings total and an age where guys tend to put it together, and he has great stuff. Owens gets a lot of swings and misses and his zone% swing and miss suggests that his numbers should be a lot better than they were. FWIW, prior to last year Kelly's career BABIP was around .290, and it was .320 last year. So he had some bad luck, too. So overall, **if nothing changes**, we can expect Kelly to be similar or slightly better, based on career numbers. Owens is probably a higher risk to struggle, while their upsides are probably similar, with tough-to-argue real differences in likelihood of significant improvement. 3) Their career IP/start totals are similar. Both struggle with command (Kelly with his secondaries, especially his change, and Owens with his FB) and efficiency. Owens, when on, has shown the ability to go very deep in games. Kelly has not, so far. However, the data suggest that he does not suffer from the typical "performance degradation" that occurs on the 3rd and fourth times through the order. So he may be getting an unnecessarily early hook at times, or simply be running up his pitch counts too much, even when pitching well. BUT, remember that both project to have ERAs/FIPs around 4. That they average 5.5 or so innings per start means most of the time, they go 6+, with a few clunker 2-4 inning jobs killing their averages. Now, the Sox have no less than four (thankfully!!) excellent bullpen arms in Tazawa, Smith, Koji, and Kimbrel. They also have a LOOGY who absolutely destroys lefties, in Layne. And, Robbie Ross is no slouch, either. Just looking at the big 4, you're looking at a combined ERA/FIP in the mid-2s, most likely. So in most cases, your bullpen is going to be **substantially** better than either starter. You really don't want (especially not with a good bullpen) your fifth starter in there much longer than the sixth, even more so because your horse, Price, pitches the next day and probably goes 7. If anything, you want to be more concerned with limiting the 2-4 inning clunkers, which might favor the veteran. 4) Owens has exactly zero injury history. Kelly has had multiple nagging injuries although his arm has been largely sound. Now, this might argue for Owens, with the idea that he's probably a more stable bet in the 5 spot. BUT, he has options. If Kelly is in MLB and gets shut down, Owens can come up and take his place, and go back down after. If the reverse happens, or if Owens pitches poorly, Kelly has to stay up or be exposed to waivers. The Sox have sufficient backup SP depth to weather an injury or weak performance. 5) Kelly is Sox property for two more years. He has no value pitching in the minors and marginal value as the 3rd-5th arm out of the bullpen. It's important to both maximize his value, and make every attempt to facilitate the performance leap forward that he constantly seems on the cusp of making. Owens has five years of control and is at a stage in his development where he needs maximum innings. He's more likely to get those in the minors, where he's more effective and more free to experiment with pitches, etc. I actually argued last year for Owens over Kelly, so trust me, I get your stance. In balancing the issues above, particularly the options issue and the fact that I think it behooves the Sox to make every effort to unlock Kelly's potential while he's under team control, I lean towards Kelly, although I really think it's got to be determined by performance.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Feb 25, 2016 11:13:30 GMT -5
To read through this whole thread is to see an endless series of remarkably weak, lame arguments in favor of the dubious proposition that Owens is clearly a better bet than Kelly. You've literally scored zero points. That's a much better argument that Kelly is better than Owens. Owens is a pretty unique pitcher and is very difficult to project. And until he pitches more in the majors, it's almost impossible to compare he and Kelly. I really like Owens' ability to miss bats and think that's a much bigger indicator than just about anything else to me. He has done it consistently throughout the minors and flashed a bit of it in the majors. Kelly has had a problem with that. I have pretty much the exact same thoughts. I'm high on Owens's upside because he really does miss a *ton* of bats. And yeah, he gets shelled when he can't locate and his performance is volatile, but that's the nature of most young pitchers (see ERod). I think his FB command will come, and I'm a lot less concerned with his velocity than most because he has good movement on the FB too. But he could be Casey Fossum+Johnny Way-Back Wasdin. Kelly does struggle with missing bats, although he's shown gradual improvement, with a clear step forward last year. His walk rate's been pretty static, too. Poor control of his CH and generally weak command of his secondaries seems to be the main issue. 99 is great and all, but not if hitters can sit on it.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Feb 25, 2016 11:20:31 GMT -5
Re: Kelly, his Z-swing % dropped notably last year off of his norms, and his SwStrike% was up, slightly. The combo means both more called and swinging strikes, so maybe he is starting to fool hitters. His O-swing% isn't as good as when he first came up, suggesting batters learned to lay off. But it did rebound some after a terrible 2014. I'm really hoping the combo of Bannister, Vasquez, and better defense will help him. As bad as he looked at times last year, that .320 BABIP and ERA way out of line with his FIP give me some hope.
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Feb 25, 2016 11:45:10 GMT -5
If Joe Kelly wins the 5th spot in ST, which is good possibility, how much rope does he get? 5 starts, 10 starts, AS break?.....I know it's a fine line, and a lot depends on what Owens is doing in Pawt, I just hope JF doesn't wait too long & we're 8 games back in May.
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on Feb 25, 2016 13:14:52 GMT -5
If Joe Kelly wins the 5th spot in ST, which is good possibility, how much rope does he get? 5 starts, 10 starts, AS break?.....I know it's a fine line, and a lot depends on what Owens is doing in Pawt, I just hope JF doesn't wait too long & we're 8 games back in May. If Joe Kelly is 8 games better than Owens, it's going to be apparent real quick. Snark aside, I think both are pretty good pitchers and hope that we can find a way to give them both innings while managing their service time to play them through the most valuable years of their career.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Feb 25, 2016 13:59:59 GMT -5
If Joe Kelly wins the 5th spot in ST, which is good possibility, how much rope does he get? 5 starts, 10 starts, AS break?.....I know it's a fine line, and a lot depends on what Owens is doing in Pawt, I just hope JF doesn't wait too long & we're 8 games back in May. I'd say 10-12. Enough to figure out that he's not just having bad luck, who most deserves his spot, and what to do with him at the trade deadline (including getting him some bullpen time to see if he can provide value to the team, or as a trade piece). I genuinely don't think the 5th starter position will determine if this team is a contender or not.
|
|
|
Post by kman22 on Feb 25, 2016 15:13:15 GMT -5
I still have high hopes for both Owens. Just because I don't think of Owens as a number 2 anymore doesn't mean I don't think he will be terrible. The whole premise of that past argument is that I thought Owens was more highly valued back 3 years ago when he was striking out batters like crazy (which he was). I still think there's room to fill out on his body too. You can see it just by looking at the kid. When/if that happens, he probably will gain more velocity in in my opinion. How could he not add velocity with added strength? He says he's in the "best shape of his life," I know that's usually a spring training motto but for a 24 year old kid who REALLY could gain more with more strength, that's very exciting. Yes I'm high on Johnson for the same reasons I'm down on Kelly. That's pitch ability, Johnson has it and Kelly doesn't. When Kelly tries to pitch backwards, he usually falls behind. When he's trying to blow batters away he usually gets hit hard. I don't hate Joe Kelly. I hate the way the Red Sox are using him. The more he thinks out on that baseball mound, the more he gets into trouble. You can see it. I don't have the numbers to back it up but it isn't hard to miss. That's what going to the bullpen would totally eliminate from him. If he was used in a one or two inning role, he could increase the velocity to his already good fastball and command wont HAVE to be such a issue for him. It's probably also has the fact that the Sox are just going to hand him the car keys to the fifth spotting slot in the rotation is what really irks me too. Doesn't work when the car is usually broken or doesn't run effectively and efficiently (like with Kelly). The guy has had two years in two different organizations to prove his worth starting full-time and he hasn't proven anything in that time. That's why I think it's a mistake to try it all over again. Trying the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is the definition of insanity as quoted by Einstein. If he came out of the bullpen and pulled a Arroyo in 2004 or a Carrasco and proved his worth and proved that he could be better than just a bullpen arm, then okay yeah put him in the rotation. Until then it's just a experiment, no matter how many 27/28 year old pitchers have broken out in past years. End Rant. I think you confused yourself with all the negatives in the second sentence.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Feb 25, 2016 15:25:20 GMT -5
I think it'd be possible to scout your way into which of them is better instead of just results ... their areas of improvement are fairly well established. Kelly needs to mix his pitches well and get his secondary pitches over at a rate that makes it possible to mix his pitches. Owens needs to command his fastball and command his fastball and command his fastball and, as a side matter, sharpen his breaking ball just a bit more. There may be more they can do (like Kelly can vary the shape of his curveball or something), but these are things you can scout.
All things being relatively unchanged from last year, I think Owens is better served with just a little more time in AAA (and Kelly has more value as a starter), so I'd go with Kelly because the difference between the two performance-wise is relatively trivial. But if one of them shows solid improvement on the areas they need to work on, you wouldn't need to wait a bunch of starts to know it.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Feb 25, 2016 15:30:48 GMT -5
I'll take Owens' future over Kelly's any day of the week. As another poster aptly put it, there are a lot of options for the spot, which is most important
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Feb 25, 2016 16:04:22 GMT -5
I think it'd be possible to scout your way into which of them is better instead of just results ... their areas of improvement are fairly well established. Kelly needs to mix his pitches well and get his secondary pitches over at a rate that makes it possible to mix his pitches. Owens needs to command his fastball and command his fastball and command his fastball and, as a side matter, sharpen his breaking ball just a bit more. There may be more they can do (like Kelly can vary the shape of his curveball or something), but these are things you can scout. All things being relatively unchanged from last year, I think Owens is better served with just a little more time in AAA (and Kelly has more value as a starter), so I'd go with Kelly because the difference between the two performance-wise is relatively trivial. But if one of them shows solid improvement on the areas they need to work on, you wouldn't need to wait a bunch of starts to know it. Absolutely. Results doesn't mean just statistics, as Henry recently pointed out more or less, it's a balance between eyeball scouting and crunching numbers. If either pitcher (or one of the 7-8-9 options) shows a clear, consistent, robust improvement, it will probably be borne out in the stats. But conversely, I would hope that if it isn't at first, that the team trust their scouting and temper their decisions accordingly.
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Feb 25, 2016 18:05:31 GMT -5
They should go with whomever has more moxie and guile to win baseball games.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Feb 25, 2016 18:13:35 GMT -5
They should go with whomever has more moxie and guile to win baseball games. Yeah, and focus on winning minor league games to instill a culture of winning.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,981
|
Post by jimoh on Feb 25, 2016 21:15:09 GMT -5
Was that quote directed at me? [...] Don't know what's with the insults either. [...] This isn't about me or "my dubious propositions," it's about the fifth spot in the rotation and to see who is the best option for this team this year. FWIW, I think he was referring to the specific arguments you've made, and not to you, personally. [..] Yes, exactly, that's why I criticized the "arguments" and the "proposition."
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Feb 25, 2016 23:24:18 GMT -5
They should go with whomever has more moxie and guile to win baseball games. I never thought Nick Cafardo would infiltrate the SP staff. Luckily, his shtick is quite transparent.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Feb 26, 2016 0:25:32 GMT -5
They should go with whomever has more moxie and guile to win baseball games. Worried though, when the Yankees counter with the pitcher with the most mystique and aura.
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Feb 26, 2016 1:53:37 GMT -5
Well let's hope the Red Sox find someone with the mound presence to gut it out.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Feb 26, 2016 10:06:48 GMT -5
They should go with whomever has more moxie and guile to win baseball games. The only definitive measure are their corresponding numbers on the Gomesiness Meter. That and the dirt and stains on their uniforms 10 seconds after they take the field.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Feb 26, 2016 10:07:17 GMT -5
They should go with whomever has more moxie and guile to win baseball games. Worried though, when the Yankees counter with the pitcher with the most mystique and aura. Or the most rounds fired in his garage.
|
|
|