|
Post by bigpupp on Oct 6, 2016 20:08:00 GMT -5
Not good.
|
|
|
Post by bigpupp on Oct 4, 2016 19:02:52 GMT -5
Not to pick on you, but in what way is that interesting? We literally hear this argument every year. If Trout were to win the MVP, it would be the first time in at least five years that the winner was from other than a Division winning team. Right, but what does that have to do with Cafardo's comment being interesting?
|
|
|
Post by bigpupp on Oct 4, 2016 8:20:56 GMT -5
Best part is in the comments when someone makes a sarcastic #firefarrell comment, and someone else responds with "Are people actually making this argument? I haven’t heard it." Guess they don't come around here very often.
|
|
|
Post by bigpupp on Oct 3, 2016 21:35:45 GMT -5
Nick Cafardo had an interesting comment on the Trout vs Betts M.V.P. Debate. Opined that if there were a Player of the Year" award, Trout would have his vote. But considering Betts' contribution actually had an impact on his team and its position in the pennant race, Mookie had his vote. Not to pick on you, but in what way is that interesting? We literally hear this argument every year.
|
|
|
Post by bigpupp on Oct 3, 2016 9:09:48 GMT -5
Being at home should help ERod and Clay, don't think pitching on the road will affect Price/Porcello. I don't disagree with your whole statement, but ERod has been much worse at home than on the road this year.
|
|
|
Post by bigpupp on Oct 2, 2016 21:39:11 GMT -5
Not surprising that they declined that offer. Just sad to see that MLB couldn't work out a deal where the Sox got some sort of compensation - even in the form of a comp pick or international signing money
|
|
|
Post by bigpupp on Oct 1, 2016 21:27:29 GMT -5
Why anyone ever swings against Kimbrell is beyond me.
|
|
|
Post by bigpupp on Oct 1, 2016 11:53:35 GMT -5
Aren't you confusing value with usefulness? $1000 is still more valuable than $900 of food, but it's not as useful. When they start handing out the most useful player award I think Mookie is a perfect fit.
|
|
|
Post by bigpupp on Oct 1, 2016 9:29:04 GMT -5
I mean, I can't stand Kimbrell but there's not much he can do when he throws strikes that are called balls. They were both on 3-1 counts anyways. I'm willing to bet even if called strikes, he would eventually have walked both. And you very well know that I'm not only talking about last night. He might have, but we'll never know because he wasn't given that chance. And I'm clueless with the "not only talking about last night" comment. I don't venture into the abortion that is the Kimbrell/Margot thread, so I don't know how often people have been making excuses for him all season.
|
|
|
Post by bigpupp on Oct 1, 2016 7:52:04 GMT -5
I mean, I can't stand Kimbrell but there's not much he can do when he throws strikes that are called balls.
|
|
|
Post by bigpupp on Sept 28, 2016 22:30:36 GMT -5
Don't miss the forest guys. Division Champs!
|
|
|
Post by bigpupp on Sept 26, 2016 21:33:23 GMT -5
1
|
|
|
Post by bigpupp on Sept 26, 2016 20:57:04 GMT -5
Kluber 60 pitches, 4IP. We're working Porcello hard, Cleveland is resting Kluber? I may yet join the fire F bandwagon. You're upset Farrell is trying to win home field advantage for the playoffs?
|
|
|
Post by bigpupp on Sept 26, 2016 17:37:59 GMT -5
Papi has played almost his entire career while MLB has been testing. If he's not clean he absolutely would have been caught by now (and no, the 2003 list he showed up on - where there was no B sample - that only showed "inconclusive" doesn't count).
But as someone who also loved Bonds - I wouldn't give a damn if he had tested for something along the way.
|
|
|
Post by bigpupp on Sept 25, 2016 15:48:05 GMT -5
Absolutely horrible send
|
|
|
Post by bigpupp on Sept 25, 2016 9:48:08 GMT -5
Tragic. Like Eric, I had a flashback to Bobby Ojeda's boating accident. Fernandez was scheduled to pitch this afternoon. He would still be with us if he had decided to get a good night's sleep instead of boating with his friends after midnight. His start was pushed back to Monday FWIW
|
|
|
Post by bigpupp on Sept 24, 2016 17:15:26 GMT -5
Camera guy sucks
|
|
|
Post by bigpupp on Sept 23, 2016 23:34:27 GMT -5
You keep citing Pythagorean as if it's a managers effectiveness statistics, but you know full well that it isn't. The Sox regularly winning games big because of their amazing offense and being only 18-22 in 1 run games completely explains the teams Pythag. If you believe that Farrell is 100% to blame for every single 1 run loss then that's an interesting take - but certainly not "fair" Here's an article that agrees with my point www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2014/3/17/5504652/manager-pythagorean-winsAgain seem to think you're privileged on this site. Why? You first explain what Farrell is thinking when he makes a decision then admonish those that believe they know why he made the decision but because it doesn't agree with yours, you claim the person can't know. -- Yet Only YOU can when you spoke of what he was thinking? Who do you think you are - privileged?
Now with this- You have a right to post the garbage from cbs sports in which all the guy is doing is putting Farrell on the list because last year the Sox stunk and this year they're real good. That's his only analysis and yet you're admonishing other sources while you posted garbage to begin with? Again- who do you think you are - you get to post suspect analysis while looking at the post I sent in a vacuum? With all the ignorant blunders Farrell has made over the course of the season it lends credence to Pythagorean in this instance. Again all the ignorant decisions with his handling Taz and Koji. His ignorant handling of Abad and Zeigler and the stupidity of not using Pomeranz. I mean c'mon who is anyone kidding that he hasn't been good leading up ot this point?
I'm happy for the guy now- -- but it doesn't take away his ignorance from before and Pythagorean seemed to nail it for this instance. The game has changed now and Farrell is doing fine though I still don't agree with Holy over Vaz. I think it's incredibly stupid to put Hill at 6 over Young.
And please stop with the garbage of "you know full well it isn't."
We're just going to have to agree to disagree. I'll take the pythaogroean when ti is backed up by the many blunders already mentioned here.
I do think he shouldn't be fired if they win the division. Looks like Sox are going to win the division. Good for him.
The only thing I'll say about this post is that you need to do a better job with identifying which posters are disagreeing with you. I posted a link to a CBS article and you did the same thing with articles from another site. Someone else tried to discredit those articles - not me. Beyond that, I'll just say a mod asked that we cut the crap in another thread. I assume from your previous post that you're incapable of agreeing to disagree - so I'll go ahead and block your posts and would appreciate if you do the same with me.
|
|
|
Post by bigpupp on Sept 23, 2016 18:18:19 GMT -5
Papi is amazing.
|
|
|
Post by bigpupp on Sept 23, 2016 8:02:50 GMT -5
The author of the latter article, Shaw, writes for Cleveland.com. Anthony Castrovince for years was the beat writer for the Indians. Do you think there might be a little bias in there for the Cleveland manager? I would not complain if Terry were named M.O.T.Y., he has earned it. But Castrovince lists Giardi and Showalter as contenders, two managers our guy just vanquished. I'm not touting Farrell as M.O.T.Y, but, c'mon, citing Shaw and Castrovince as expert opinions ignores their partialiaty. C'mon man- bigpup provided from cbssports- the guy's main reasoning was last year to this year. What kind of analysis was that? In this article they lsit three. In bipgpup's he lists 5.
And you're serious about what ahs happened the last week vs an entire season? Really? SO all the games Farrell blew earlier don't count? It's not like I'm coming out from left field saying he blew more than the others, right? After all Pythagorean sort of indicates that, doesn't it? In fact if you read the 1st link you would have seen they even reference that instead of what bigpup provided. At least try to pretend you are fair here.
You keep citing Pythagorean as if it's a managers effectiveness statistics, but you know full well that it isn't. The Sox regularly winning games big because of their amazing offense and being only 18-22 in 1 run games completely explains the teams Pythag. If you believe that Farrell is 100% to blame for every single 1 run loss then that's an interesting take - but certainly not "fair" Here's an article that agrees with my point www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2014/3/17/5504652/manager-pythagorean-wins
|
|
|
Post by bigpupp on Sept 22, 2016 23:13:00 GMT -5
I bet Farrell bites his fingernails too. Completely unfit to be a manager.
But to be serious. Farrell starting to pop up on these lists just shows how hard it is to evaluate a major league manager. The manager is never the one to give up the runs, but he doesn't drive them in either.
And despite what some posters trying to make this a black and white issue - it has a lot of nuance. The truth is that ALL managers make questionable decisions....but they also have more information on any given night than anyone else. Farrell has shown, very clearly, that he can get the best out if his players. Here's to hoping they clench soon and everyone stays healthy.
|
|
|
Post by bigpupp on Sept 22, 2016 13:56:26 GMT -5
I saw that earlier and would have posted it if you hadn't beaten me to it. This article proves what an absolute joke the Manager of the Year awards are. Basically, the award is decided by a simple formula: team wins in current year subtracted by wins in previous year. The Red Sox are going to win about 15-16 more games than last year. It must be all Farrell's doing, right? Right. But this isn't any different than what we do on this board. We watch Farrell every day so we think he's a bad manager. We don't watch the other managers, but because their team wins we assume they must be good managers. Just take Francona for example. I couldn't go a series without seeing the term "Francoma" used, but now that he's winning with the Indians everyone here thinks he walks on water.
|
|
|
Post by bigpupp on Sept 22, 2016 8:55:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by bigpupp on Sept 21, 2016 19:02:33 GMT -5
Uh...What was that throw from Benintendi?
|
|
|
Post by bigpupp on Sept 19, 2016 21:17:42 GMT -5
Again..to all the Trout homers out there....the MVP is not the best player award....it's the Most Valuable Player, and that is Mookie. Just ask the Orioles, whom he has almost singlehandedly kept out of first place. Just because a few sports writers have translated "Most Valuable Player" to mean "Most Valuable Player on a contending team" doesn't mean it's accurate. Trout is the most valuable player in baseball no matter how bad the team is that surrounds him.
|
|