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 umassgrad2005 on Nov 29, 2016 13:22:04 GMT -5
He doesn't have a very good OPS against lefties, but he's still a .259 hitter for his career. It's not like that's going to kill your lineup. He basically becomes Brock Holt against lefties, decent average no power. In the last 3 years, he has OPSes of .563, .465 and n/a. Not sure how valuable 2008-2013 data is now. Plus, his surgery was on his left shoulder, which will make it even more difficult to hit RH until his strength returns which seems to take more than a year. I guess one area of hope would be that his hurt shoulder was holding him back for years while hitting RH so there is a possible area of improvement. The last 3 years he played includes 2013 and his numbers were not bad. I'm not going to put much weight into his 2015 numbers because he was just bad all the way around, he was way overweight. He didn't hit righties or lefties well and played the worst D of his career. It all comes down to him getting in shape and staying in shape.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 29, 2016 13:31:11 GMT -5
OPS+ is measured relative to the league - so if Sandoval's drop in raw production had mirrored that of the league in general, his OPS+ would have stayed the same. His strong WAR totals were because of his defense. My bad, I thought it was just park adjusted, didn't realize it used league average obs and slugging as a baseline.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 29, 2016 15:45:53 GMT -5
In the last 3 years, he has OPSes of .563, .465 and n/a. Not sure how valuable 2008-2013 data is now. Plus, his surgery was on his left shoulder, which will make it even more difficult to hit RH until his strength returns which seems to take more than a year. I guess one area of hope would be that his hurt shoulder was holding him back for years while hitting RH so there is a possible area of improvement. The last 3 years he played includes 2013 and his numbers were not bad. I'm not going to put much weight into his 2015 numbers because he was just bad all the way around, he was way overweight. He didn't hit righties or lefties well and played the worst D of his career. It all comes down to him getting in shape and staying in shape. The last year where he was actually playable vs. LHP was in 2013. For me, that doesn't mean much for 2017 other than I don't want him hitting against LHP. That's a long time ago.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 29, 2016 16:26:32 GMT -5
The thing is, Pablo wasn't even that good to begin with (wRC+ of 118, 117, 110 in '12-'14) and has a good portion of his value is tied up in being average defensively at 3B which will be difficult to get back to. His hitting profile is awful with the lack of walks and his contact rate will likely decline quicker than most with how much of a free-swinger he is. And his baserunning will only decline and it's really bad now. He has to hit better than he did with the Giants to even be a 2 win player. I'll be shocked if he's above replacement level and way more shocked if he's as good as Shaw. There is very little upside there. His upside for me is that at best, he'll be no better than Shaw. At worst, he'll be unplayable at 3B and below replacement level as a 1B or DH. Hanley's upside was that he'd be one of the best hitters in the league. It's better to compare Sandoval to other 2-3 win players without any elite skills who collapse like Allen Craig or Daniel Nava. I bet you used that article to argue with me about how Allen Craig was going to rebound. I'm on the record now. Feel free to tell me I'm wrong later. A couple of points. The first is relevant to Julio Lugo, Carl Crawford, and Hanley Ramirez in 2015 as well as Sandoval. The Red Sox are a very sophisticated analytical team -- probably not as much so as their reputation, but the analysis they do on any player dwarfs what gets done here on this board or elsewhere online. You can guarantee that every one of these acquisitions profiled attractively in terms of analytics. I still get mocked for saying this was true of Lugo (and I was one of the guys doing the work), but it's pretty self-evidently true. When folks argue otherwise, it reminds me of the people who go on IMDB to point out a supposed "plot hole" in an otherwise very good movie. Really? You just saw it once, and you spotted something the screenwriter, who worked on the script for years, missed? (In these cases it's always easy to explain why the hole isn't one.) No, your guess at a player's analytic profile is never better than the team's analysis. In Sandoval's case, I looked into your bolded claim and found the opposite to be true, if anything. Free swingers in my little study aged surprisingly well. You can bet that the Sox analytic department looked at the question in ten times as much detail. I also took a guess that he would be very well suited for Fenway, and you can bet that they studied the hell out of that as well. (Oh, and the statistics from 2015 suggest it's true, which is to say that his great fit for Fenway may have masked an even worse year than it seemed to be.) I know that there were a lot of people skeptical of all of these acquisitions after doing a cursory "analysis" (just a look, mostly) at the player stats. But these same people were just as skeptical of David Ortiz, Bill Mueller, Mark Bellhorn, and every other undervalued pickup who also, unbeknownst to them, aced their statistical profile. (The list includes Carlos Pena, whom we would have loved to have found a roster spot for, just before his breakout). The one thing you cannot project with analytics is how a player will react psychologically to playing in Boston, especially in the first year of a new contract, and how they will react if that goes badly. Theo's track record for this was simply not good. Lugo and Crawford were sick and hurt in their first years respectively, and for whatever reasons, didn't or couldn't do the work to get back to anything approaching their projected level (all the more frustrating in Lugo's case, because he actually got close to it in his first year's second half and was a key player on a WS winner, then went and apparently tanked another off-season). Hanley couldn't deal with the initial adversity of learning a new position and tanked on his effort to learn it, but proved a year later that he could work hard at acquiring new skills as long as they were a good fit to his existing talents. If Pablo Sandoval bounces back, it's going to be psychologically driven. We know he has the statistical profile to do so, even if you think otherwise. You can't pull an opposite conclusion out of thin air just to justify your gut feeling that he will be one of the exceptions to the tendency for guys to bounce back. And when we don't know what will happen but we do know what will likely happen, you get no credit for correctly predicting the unlikely outcome, unless you can give a credible reason for why this instance will be an exception.Why is it not credible to believe that Pablo's defense and baserunning won't rebound nearly enough to make him worthy of a roster spot? He is at the point in his career where he cannot get away with being as overweight as he has been anymore (see all of 2015 and 2016 spring training for evidence) and he has never shown the ability to lose weight and keep it off throughout an entire season. His defense and baserunning are pretty easily linked to his level of fitness. But this time it's different? If he reverted to his 2012-2014 form offensively but can't play 3B, he might be a 1 win player at the most. And that's a pretty huge IF to believe he can bounce back after a terrible season and a missed season and rebuilding the strength in his left shoulder. As I've said, I'd be shocked if Shaw isn't a better player. My ideal scenario has them replacing Pablo with a 3B who can hit LHP. For Pablo to bounce back to being a 2-3 win player, he'll have to hit LHP like he last did in 2013, he'll have to hit all pitching like he last did in 2014 and he'll have to lose enough weight and keep it off to be able to not have all of his value canceled out by his defense and baserunning. That's a lot of things that have to go right. If only some of those things happen, he'll probably be worse than Shaw, while also taking playing time away from him. He also has to overcome his actual aging curve as well.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 29, 2016 16:40:22 GMT -5
he has never shown the ability to lose weight and keep it off throughout an entire season.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,745
Member is Online
|
Post by nomar on Nov 29, 2016 17:19:11 GMT -5
What I don't get is why people act sure that his weight and performance are even correlated. He never played markedly better after weight loss, however temporary. There's a very real chance he's just not good at baseball anymore.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 29, 2016 18:19:53 GMT -5
Two of his best seasons came right before signing big contracts. In 2011 they were in contracts talks and he had his best season. Got his money and his play dropped. Then in 2014 with another contract on the line he got back in shape and drastically improved his D and had a huge post season.
We've never come close to seeing Sandoval in shape while in Boston. He looked to be 50 or more pounds over weight and not in good physical condition.
Then there's the report of the steps the Giants took to keep the weight off knowing it effect his play. How he didn't have his personal trainer in Boston that he had on Giants and how he couldn't control his weight.
It's really just common sense though, when your way overweight your not going to play as well as when your in shape. You really trying to argue that?
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Nov 29, 2016 18:27:51 GMT -5
I am willing to bet that a large portion of the decision to sign Sandoval was the 5y/$95mill contract for prime years player, which is a pretty reasonable contract and lends itself to being a pretty safe bet....analytics aside. He had to come up with what 10-12 WAR for 5 years. The other stuff.....while important...is just splitting hairs. BC loved himself some less than 100 million dollar FA talent.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Nov 29, 2016 21:32:56 GMT -5
Stats show Sandoval is platoon player. No analytics would warrant paying that much for Pablo. Overall stats show he is awful vs lefties. You can't hide away from that. They couldn't have used analytics here. , As for his defense, don't expect it to improve with age. What did Theo say when he left? He said something to the effect that they made a mistake going for the big name. That's what probably happened here.
He doesn't have a very good OPS against lefties, but he's still a .259 hitter for his career. It's not like that's going to kill your lineup. He basically becomes Brock Holt against lefties, decent average no power. I'm not trying to start an argument, but why would you put much value in his 2009 season? That is 6- soon to be 7 years ago. I realize there is no "science" to what years are valid, but year 7 -- why should it be looked at as any value other than an outlier (which it appears it was. He never came close to that the past 5/6 years.) and part of his youth when he was probably a better athlete. We see a trend over 7 years and it is downward, isn't that more of value than using the one outlier year he had in 2009?
Maybe if I take out his 1st two years of 2008 and 2009 and his last two years of 2014 and 2015 -- he hits.267 but has an OPS of .681? That's not good. We would then have a "singles specialist" who probably won't improve his range with age and is nowhere near an asset on the base paths.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Nov 29, 2016 23:56:09 GMT -5
I am willing to bet that a large portion of the decision to sign Sandoval was the 5y/$95mill contract for prime years player, which is a pretty reasonable contract and lends itself to being a pretty safe bet....analytics aside. He had to come up with what 10-12 WAR for 5 years. The other stuff.....while important...is just splitting hairs. BC loved himself some less than 100 million dollar FA talent. So you are saying they buried their head in the sand regarding his declining offensive production and paid him a very good contract (if I recall only the Red Sox gave him such a big offer. San Fran wanted him but primarily was it only the Sox, wasn't it? I don't know . . . I could be wrong) and the prime reason was because of his age while disregarding declining stats?
Trends don't count but age does? And the comparison of age vs trends is called "splitting hairs?"
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 30, 2016 0:34:54 GMT -5
He doesn't have a very good OPS against lefties, but he's still a .259 hitter for his career. It's not like that's going to kill your lineup. He basically becomes Brock Holt against lefties, decent average no power. I'm not trying to start an argument, but why would you put much value in his 2009 season? That is 6- soon to be 7 years ago. I realize there is no "science" to what years are valid, but year 7 -- why should it be looked at as any value other than an outlier (which it appears it was. He never came close to that the past 5/6 years.) and part of his youth when he was probably a better athlete. We see a trend over 7 years and it is downward, isn't that more of value than using the one outlier year he had in 2009?
Maybe if I take out his 1st two years of 2008 and 2009 and his last two years of 2014 and 2015 -- he hits.267 but has an OPS of .681? That's not good. We would then have a "singles specialist" who probably won't improve his range with age and is nowhere near an asset on the base paths.
A debate, isn't an argument. If he's a .267 .681 OPS against lefties while not great, it's certainly good enough and won't kill the team. With our lineup I'd rather a higher average than a low average and higher OPS.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 30, 2016 0:41:52 GMT -5
I am willing to bet that a large portion of the decision to sign Sandoval was the 5y/$95mill contract for prime years player, which is a pretty reasonable contract and lends itself to being a pretty safe bet....analytics aside. He had to come up with what 10-12 WAR for 5 years. The other stuff.....while important...is just splitting hairs. BC loved himself some less than 100 million dollar FA talent. So you are saying they buried their head in the sand regarding his declining offensive production and paid him a very good contract (if I recall only the Red Sox gave him such a big offer. San Fran wanted him but primarily was it only the Sox, wasn't it? I don't know . . . I could be wrong) and the prime reason was because of his age while disregarding declining stats?
Trends don't count but age does? And the comparison of age vs trends is called "splitting hairs?"
Per an article Giants matched Red Sox offer and might have been willing to go to 100 million, but Sandoval went with Sox because he felt Giants disrespect his agent.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Nov 30, 2016 9:22:18 GMT -5
I'm not trying to start an argument, but why would you put much value in his 2009 season? That is 6- soon to be 7 years ago. I realize there is no "science" to what years are valid, but year 7 -- why should it be looked at as any value other than an outlier (which it appears it was. He never came close to that the past 5/6 years.) and part of his youth when he was probably a better athlete. We see a trend over 7 years and it is downward, isn't that more of value than using the one outlier year he had in 2009?
Maybe if I take out his 1st two years of 2008 and 2009 and his last two years of 2014 and 2015 -- he hits.267 but has an OPS of .681? That's not good. We would then have a "singles specialist" who probably won't improve his range with age and is nowhere near an asset on the base paths.
A debate, isn't an argument. If he's a .267 .681 OPS against lefties while not great, it's certainly good enough and won't kill the team. With our lineup I'd rather a higher average than a low average and higher OPS. Debate and argument isn't the same thing. We're not lawyers here. Anyhow, I offered an olive branch by take out 1st two years and the last two. I'm hoping that is more realistic but frankly, taking the same consideration of what a guy did 6-7 years ago vs discounting what he has been recently is weak way to show data imo.
I won't argue this specific point further. I hope you and the others are right that we can rely on Pablo and I have no problem starting him if he shows what he can do in ST and even giving him a shot to some extent vs righties, but I don't think he can be trusted. I've been against the EE big contract signings and have posted on here I think the sox should platoon Pablo as a hitter and get a righty bat. Unfortunately I can only think of Pearce at 1b then have with some sort of platoon or--- if I recall Pearce's split vs righties is superior to Pablo's split vs lefties if I use last several years of data. But I'm okay for giving Pablo an extremely short rope because I don't know what to do about 3b. Though I'm of the minority - I think Holt would be our best option 3b option IF he can hit lefties like he did in 2014 and 2015 and you just have him work at one position until Moncada comes while getting Pearce. Maybe Pablo can play 1b.
Anyhow- I think the more realistic stats are that Pablo has a declining bat and that he is going to be as his trend has shown - and that is downright rotten vs lefties. Sure in a vacuum we could live with it - but then when you think about oru catchers can't hit, Shaw and Holt and JBJ also potential can't hit vs lefties. That's potentially 4 spots that were weak vs lefties. If we're looking at things in terms managing risk, at this moment it is way too risky. OFC we do have a replacement for JBJ - but no way we want to platoon him. His defense is so awesome he should be the guy we're willing to live with that maybe can't hit lefties. The more games we take that attitude with, the bigger the problem.
Which takes me back to the main point of the thread- the point that we have such a high probability that we have to work around Pablo and the stats show he is very bad vs lefties just wreaks of just a lousy signing fo a platoon-like player that shouldn't have been done and imo had little to do with analytics but more like "sign the big name" and " hope for the best." The stats of his last several years taking into account his power numbers and overall decline in general in his hitting numbers can't be disputed, can it? His numbers are that of a platoon.
I can't respond to your other post you made to me- got to run.
|
|
gerry
Veteran
Enter your message here...
Posts: 1,660
|
Post by gerry on Nov 30, 2016 14:39:13 GMT -5
I remember the discussions at the time. Panda was signed because: 1. We needed a 3B and he was among the best available. 2. He had an excellent post season resume. And we were going to contend. 3. He was a good, not great, bat but he will improve "because his swing is made for Fenway." 4. Cherington was pushed into this by Lucchino as a marketing coup. 5. He was in his prime. 6. His contract was reasonable for what he might deliver (might is the operative word).
All we can do now is wait and see, with the strong belief that: 1. DDo won't put up with 2014 Panda. He will be gone quickly if he flops. 2. Shaw plays a strong 3B defense and would be a good placeholder into July. 3. Moncada is knocking on that door, hopefully by July. 4. A RHB will be found for both of them. 5. Holt, Hernandez, Dubon can fill in as last resorts, maybe even Swihart who has played the position.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 30, 2016 16:37:48 GMT -5
A debate, isn't an argument. If he's a .267 .681 OPS against lefties while not great, it's certainly good enough and won't kill the team. With our lineup I'd rather a higher average than a low average and higher OPS. Debate and argument isn't the same thing. We're not lawyers here. Anyhow, I offered an olive branch by take out 1st two years and the last two. I'm hoping that is more realistic but frankly, taking the same consideration of what a guy did 6-7 years ago vs discounting what he has been recently is weak way to show data imo.
I won't argue this specific point further. I hope you and the others are right that we can rely on Pablo and I have no problem starting him if he shows what he can do in ST and even giving him a shot to some extent vs righties, but I don't think he can be trusted. I've been against the EE big contract signings and have posted on here I think the sox should platoon Pablo as a hitter and get a righty bat. Unfortunately I can only think of Pearce at 1b then have with some sort of platoon or--- if I recall Pearce's split vs righties is superior to Pablo's split vs lefties if I use last several years of data. But I'm okay for giving Pablo an extremely short rope because I don't know what to do about 3b. Though I'm of the minority - I think Holt would be our best option 3b option IF he can hit lefties like he did in 2014 and 2015 and you just have him work at one position until Moncada comes while getting Pearce. Maybe Pablo can play 1b.
Anyhow- I think the more realistic stats are that Pablo has a declining bat and that he is going to be as his trend has shown - and that is downright rotten vs lefties. Sure in a vacuum we could live with it - but then when you think about oru catchers can't hit, Shaw and Holt and JBJ also potential can't hit vs lefties. That's potentially 4 spots that were weak vs lefties. If we're looking at things in terms managing risk, at this moment it is way too risky. OFC we do have a replacement for JBJ - but no way we want to platoon him. His defense is so awesome he should be the guy we're willing to live with that maybe can't hit lefties. The more games we take that attitude with, the bigger the problem.
Which takes me back to the main point of the thread- the point that we have such a high probability that we have to work around Pablo and the stats show he is very bad vs lefties just wreaks of just a lousy signing fo a platoon-like player that shouldn't have been done and imo had little to do with analytics but more like "sign the big name" and " hope for the best." The stats of his last several years taking into account his power numbers and overall decline in general in his hitting numbers can't be disputed, can it? His numbers are that of a platoon.
I can't respond to your other post you made to me- got to run.
In general I worry about our lineup and lefties. That's why I'm really high on someone like Holiday for DH as he's been a lefty killer for his career. I want no part of Holt at 3B, it's his worst defensive position and he has a weak bat. With his bat Holt would have to be above average at 3B and he's just not close to that. He's just better as a super utility guy in my opinion. I don't trust Sandoval one bit, but if he's in shape I think he can be a lot better than most people on here think. We have Shaw and Moncada waiting in the wings, so we really don't need him, he's a luxury at this point. I'm not going to argue that over the last 3 years Sandoval's bat declined slightly. He did show that in 2014 playoffs he can still hit though. I don't look at 2015 and think that's Sandoval skills eroding. I think 2015 was the result of him being grossly overweight and maybe an injury also effecting him. Sandoval against lefties, last 3 years he played 2013, 2014 and 2015. He was good in 2013 and bad in 2014. I don't put any weight on 2015 because he didn't hit at all, not like he hit righties well and not lefties. So I'm not ready to say he's very lousy against lefties. Even with his numbers in 2014 and 2015 he's still decent against lefties for his career. Now if he hit lefties poorly next year and his numbers against righties rebounds I will agree he can't hit lefties, I'm just not there yet. As to signing Sandoval knowing he would be a platoon guy, that's crazy. In the 3 years before we signed him he hit lefties well in 2012 and 2013. You really think one season in 2014 proved he was going to not hit lefties going forward? There's a lot of reason to question the signing, but I don't think anyone thought we were getting a platoon player. A ton of people worried he was declining and worried about his weight. I don't remember a single person going we just signed a platoon guy. Nor would have analytics predicted he would just stop hitting lefties, as it was just one season. Talk about looking at things in hindsight.
|
|
|
Post by rookie13 on Nov 30, 2016 17:27:10 GMT -5
I haven't read this entire thread so I don't know if it's been discussed, but if Pablo goes to ST out of shape and doesn't play well, does anyone think DD would just cut him? At what point do you decide a player is bringing down the team so much that you're better off eating 60MM (may be wrong on that number) than to just let him ride the bench?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 30, 2016 17:34:37 GMT -5
In general I worry about our lineup and lefties. That's why I'm really high on someone like Holiday for DH as he's been a lefty killer for his career. I want no part of Holt at 3B, it's his worst defensive position and he has a weak bat. With his bat Holt would have to be above average at 3B and he's just not close to that. He's just better as a super utility guy in my opinion. I don't trust Sandoval one bit, but if he's in shape I think he can be a lot better than most people on here think. We have Shaw and Moncada waiting in the wings, so we really don't need him, he's a luxury at this point. I'm not going to argue that over the last 3 years Sandoval's bat declined slightly. He did show that in 2014 playoffs he can still hit though. I don't look at 2015 and think that's Sandoval skills eroding. I think 2015 was the result of him being grossly overweight and maybe an injury also effecting him. Sandoval against lefties, last 3 years he played 2013, 2014 and 2015. He was good in 2013 and bad in 2014. I don't put any weight on 2015 because he didn't hit at all, not like he hit righties well and not lefties. So I'm not ready to say he's very lousy against lefties. Even with his numbers in 2014 and 2015 he's still decent against lefties for his career. Now if he hit lefties poorly next year and his numbers against righties rebounds I will agree he can't hit lefties, I'm just not there yet. As to signing Sandoval knowing he would be a platoon guy, that's crazy. In the 3 years before we signed him he hit lefties well in 2012 and 2013. You really think one season in 2014 proved he was going to not hit lefties going forward? There's a lot of reason to question the signing, but I don't think anyone thought we were getting a platoon player. A ton of people worried he was declining and worried about his weight. I don't remember a single person going we just signed a platoon guy. Nor would have analytics predicted he would just stop hitting lefties, as it was just one season. Talk about looking at things in hindsight. For LHP, I like Hanley at 1B and Young at DH in response to your first point. I'd prefer a RH 3B instead of Pablo, but I also think Shaw will be better vs. LHP since he had a BABIP of only .219 last year and hit them really well in 2015. I'd put Pablo at 3B, Shaw at 1B and Hanley at DH for RHP assuming that Pablo is in shape and is playable at 3B (which I'm not going to count on either). I'm not sure how you can just ignore 2014, 2015 and 2016 when determining how well Pablo can hit LHP in 2017. You're going back 4 seasons looking for something you want to find. I know that you can't really hold 2016 against him statistically, but it's also a year of not playing at all leading to possible rust (2016) and a horrible year before (2015) that he'll have to overcome. Saying that he hit them ok in 2013 doesn't inspire a lot of confidence when it was 4 seasons ago.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 30, 2016 17:39:01 GMT -5
I haven't read this entire thread so I don't know if it's been discussed, but if Pablo goes to ST out of shape and doesn't play well, does anyone think DD would just cut him? At what point do you decide a player is bringing down the team so much that you're better off eating 60MM (may be wrong on that number) than to just let him ride the bench? They better have a good handle on that now so they can do something about it or not in the offseason. If he's not in good shape, there's no way he's going to get a long leash. I don't even think he would have had the surgery last year if he wasn't as horrible as he was in spring training and the first few games of the season. I believe it was something to let him keep his dignity instead of being waived and DFA'd because he was too fat to play. May as well get that surgery that was put off for so long instead and have yet another chance of getting into shape.
|
|
|
Post by bookiemetts on Nov 30, 2016 18:56:28 GMT -5
What I don't get is why people act sure that his weight and performance are even correlated. He never played markedly better after weight loss, however temporary. There's a very real chance he's just not good at baseball anymore. I don't think it's necessarily the weight loss itself that correlates with performance, but rather the dedication, work ethic and practice that comes with it. If he comes in again huge, do you have much confidence that he's ready to hit and field at a high level? Then again, he supposedly works out like crazy but just can't control his eating. So maybe I don't know what I'm talking about lol
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Dec 5, 2016 19:48:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Dec 8, 2016 13:04:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Dec 8, 2016 13:31:50 GMT -5
BSOHL
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 8, 2016 13:39:14 GMT -5
Glad to hear him acknowledge it and take the blame instead of coming up with excuses. I can forgive anyone when they admit they were wrong.
|
|
mobaz
Veteran
Posts: 2,757
|
Post by mobaz on Dec 8, 2016 13:48:44 GMT -5
Maybe he realizes that if he doesn't, his enduring legacy, or at least our last memory of him, might be breaking his belt on a swing.
As Salami said, VERY early BSOHL sighting.
|
|
|
Post by Coreno on Dec 8, 2016 21:37:58 GMT -5
Kind of glad he bottomed out, losing his job and then missing the year, instead of another year of subpar performance. Hopefully its the fuel he needed.
|
|
|