-
Re: Mike & Mike- Red Sox-Angels
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pavelb1
With Torii Hunter, Vlad and Texieria they should have been able to match the Sox for power. Especially since they shut down Pedroia and papi isn't Papi anymore.
The truth is they were just unlucky.
Or if they were run by anti-sabrs they'd say they "Lacked intestinial fortitude, didn't know how to win and were unclutchy."
I don't know... Teixeira should have been the difference, and should have put the Angels right up there with the Sox. But he didn't. I guess I was somewhat incorrect in that I was mainly assessing the Angels pre-Teixeira. And the reason he was acquired was probably primarily so they could match up with the Sox or Rays when the postseason rolled around.
But I still think they need another bat. One that is better than Anderson and Hunter and even Vlad. One to go along with Teixeira. Or... two huge bats. One to replace Teixeira and one to go along with that bat.
The Angels were NINTH in the AL in SLG% this season. That simply isn't going to win you an AL playoff series. Granted, the Rays were only 8th in SLG, but they had a lower ERA and a higher OBP. So they were out-Angeling the Angels anyway...
You've got to be absolutely STACKED with power bats to make it through those tough AL playoffs.
The Angels aren't.
-
Re: Mike & Mike- Red Sox-Angels
Nice point there Reade..
"...about half of the threads on this site ends up with someone calling someone else names or putting down someone else beliefs or thoughts."
Do you remember that about two days ago you called all Boston fans "extreme dicks"?
-
Re: Mike & Mike- Red Sox-Angels
-
Re: Mike & Mike- Red Sox-Angels
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HoustonGM
Yeah, you're right, for the most part. I'm sorry. There was no need for this nonsense. All I did was post what I thought the correct call for the play was. I'm honestly still completely baffled as to why there had to be any debate here, and why the post I made was attacked, considering nobody was disagreeing with anybody.
houston, I really shouldn't continue to feed into this, but because you're 'baffled' I will try to politely explain exactly what occurred in a manner which I hopes will help you avoid these little spats you constantly get into. Sorry to all for going here, but what was a good thread has gone to he1l already, so WTF.
1. a discussion about the play ensued, and the one who made the thread asked if anyone knew the actual rule, and posted that a radio show had issue with the call and basically said the rules were gray in this area.
2. You not once but twice in the next ten posts stated that the player was out (which i agree with) but did so in a manner that was unequivocal and at no point acknowledged what others did (in fact it appeared you were refutting) and that was that there is more to this call. Your posts took the stance that the radio show and those posting that the call raised questions were wrong. If that wasn't your position, you did a poor job explaining it.
3. I then posted that its not as black and white as you make it seem, and used you in the quote because your two posts were so definitive that it was black and white. Seem is a pretty soft word meaning thats what I read from your post. If you disagreed with that, you could have easily claried your position and we would have moved on, but you did this (see #4);
4. You then highlighted my post that it was black and white and you stated 'uh, no'.....which based upon your earlier posts appeared i'm sure to any reasonable person to be a sarcastic response solidifying your earlier statements that it was a black and white correct ruling.
5. I did make a post about you being a homer, which apparently was a mistake as for some reason I thought you were rooting for the sawx. It was not sarcastic in anyway, unlike your uh,no...and in fact read that I was surprised you were taking this stance because you are usually more level headed.
6. You then made the thread about you, stating I was picking a fight with you. This then went back and forth and led to where we are now.
Houston, what I see which often leads you down this type of road is that you have a way, maybe purposefully, of posting short open ended and often misleading responses and then get very argumentative and defensive when someone reads into them. I see it so much I honestly believe you do it on purpose. "Uh, no" after being very definitive in two prior posts which disagreed with my comments, and then coming in and stating you agreed with me all along really is kind of backhanded. You could have initially stated your full opinion at any point on the first page and avoided leading this thread down a juvenile 'stop picking on me' road.
This is a discussions thread, people are obviously going to try to develop an opinion of what you post so they can continue the discussion, and when your posts are misleading because you leave out half of your position it appears that you are looking to get combatitive when someone asks why you feel that way. How many times a week do you have to post something like, "I didn't say that" after someone reads into your post that you took a particular stance? Even when you post that, you often don't restate your position until well after an argument ensues!! Again, it appears to me because I've seen it so often that you do it purposely....and I speak for many when I ask that you stop it. If its not done purposely, take it as constructive criticism and try to be more precise when stating your opinion.
-
Re: Mike & Mike- Red Sox-Angels
Quote:
Originally Posted by
justanewguy
I don't know... Teixeira should have been the difference, and should have put the Angels right up there with the Sox. But he didn't. I guess I was somewhat incorrect in that I was mainly assessing the Angels pre-Teixeira. And the reason he was acquired was probably primarily so they could match up with the Sox or Rays when the postseason rolled around.
But I still think they need another bat. One that is better than Anderson and Hunter and even Vlad. One to go along with Teixeira. Or... two huge bats. One to replace Teixeira and one to go along with that bat.
The Angels were NINTH in the AL in SLG% this season. That simply isn't going to win you an AL playoff series. Granted, the Rays were only 8th in SLG, but they had a lower ERA and a higher OBP. So they were out-Angeling the Angels anyway...
You've got to be absolutely STACKED with power bats to make it through those tough AL playoffs.
The Angels aren't.
anyway back to the actual topic...
I agree fully with you. The angels need to make a run at resigning texeria and then find a big bat... the problem is... WHERE. I guess you could try and trade mathews but what are you going to get for him??? And who is out there to sign???
Frank Thomas, Giambi,
Adam Dunn may be the best bet.
Then how about this... Let Vlad and Anderson walk, that puts you down to 3 outfielders right??? Manny 3 years 65 million and Dunn 3-4 years 15 or so million each. I think their pitching is fine and those 2 leaving saves 30 million. Garland is also of the books at another 12 million. K-Rod leaves thats another 10 Million.
Questions tho... what do you do about a closer, and do they then weaken their pitching roo much if garland is not resigned?
-
Re: Mike & Mike- Red Sox-Angels
Justanewguy said....."The Angels were NINTH in the AL in SLG% this season. That simply isn't going to win you an AL playoff series."
So this is how we determine who can win a playoff series now? So, the Angels finished ninth in slugging and cannot win a series, but the Rays finished 8'th and they can? You must be joking. Is this more of the "built for the playoffs" crap that the talking heads in the media spout ad nauseam?
Well lets see, in 2006 Oakland was 13'th in the league in slugging, and they swept a playoff series. In 2005 the Angels were 9'th, and they beat the Yankees in a series. Also in 2005, the White Sox were 7'th (maybe 7'th qualifies you though) in slugging, and they won the WS.
Yeah, watch that slugging percentage. Excellent observation.
-
Re: Mike & Mike- Red Sox-Angels
Quote:
Do you remember that about two days ago you called all Boston fans "extreme dicks"?
Maybe you should read again. I never said all fans and never used the word extreme
-
Re: Mike & Mike- Red Sox-Angels
and as a matter of fact I never even call them dicks that was Moot.
-
Re: Mike & Mike- Red Sox-Angels
And if you can find someplace where I've attacked or called someone a name show me and I'll eat that damn crow.
Quote:
Boston fans are extreme dicks. Act like you've been there before.
That was Moot's statement and here's what I said in return
Quote:
Thats probably true, its just the dicks seem to be louder than the one's on the other side of the fence.
-
Re: Mike & Mike- Red Sox-Angels
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dickay
2. You not once but twice in the next ten posts stated that the player was out (which i agree with) but did so in a manner that was unequivocal and at no point acknowledged what others did (in fact it appeared you were refutting) and that was that there is more to this call. Your posts took the stance that the radio show and those posting that the call raised questions were wrong. If that wasn't your position, you did a poor job explaining it.
I simply stated my interpretation of the rule, and what I had heard myself. I wasn't responding to any specific posts, besides the overall question of what my opinion was on the play, and why, and then a clarification of what I interpreted the rule to be. This is why I quote posts when I respond to them, and the only post I quoted was in post #6, when Reade was asking for clarification, and I did so.
Quote:
3. I then posted that its not as black and white as you make it seem, and used you in the quote because your two posts were so definitive that it was black and white. Seem is a pretty soft word meaning thats what I read from your post. If you disagreed with that, you could have easily claried your position and we would have moved on, but you did this (see #4);
4. You then highlighted my post that it was black and white and you stated 'uh, no'.....which based upon your earlier posts appeared i'm sure to any reasonable person to be a sarcastic response solidifying your earlier statements that it was a black and white correct ruling.
You're apparently the only one who took it that way. I stated "Uh, no" because I feel as though it was very clear that I was not "refusing to acknowledge that MLB did a poor job", particularly because I wasn't at all talking about MLB or anything beyond why I think he was out.
Quote:
5. I did make a post about you being a homer, which apparently was a mistake as for some reason I thought you were rooting for the sawx. It was not sarcastic in anyway, unlike your uh,no...and in fact read that I was surprised you were taking this stance because you are usually more level headed.
My "Uh, no" wasn't sarcastic, and also, I'm taking the same stance as you. You're just attributing more to what I was saying than I actually was saying, which was simply that I think he was out (which you agree with, and that's my only "stance" on this topic), and what I heard about the rule and my interpretation of it.
Quote:
6. You then made the thread about you, stating I was picking a fight with you. This then went back and forth and led to where we are now.
Yeah, I defended myself against you misrepresenting my opinion.
Quote:
"Uh, no" after being very definitive in two prior posts which disagreed with my comments, and then coming in and stating you agreed with me all along really is kind of backhanded.
My posts did not disagree with your comments. In fact, THEY AGREE. You believe he was out, so do I. That is all my posts said (and why). I did not mention any play beyond this one, nor did I mention anything about MLB's handling of this play or similar plays.
Quote:
You could have initially stated your full opinion at any point on the first page and avoided leading this thread down a juvenile 'stop picking on me' road.
I think I did. Repeatedly.
Yeah, my first post in response to you may not have been very clear, but that's because I didn't want to derail this thread and go off into an argument with you, which is what regretfully happened, because I didn't and don't disagree, which I stated immediately in my next response (quoted below), and then again multiple times in later posts:
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
I hadn't said anything that would go against anything you've said, nor have I refuted any of your points.
Also, this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
you have a way, maybe purposefully, of posting short open ended and often misleading responses and then get very argumentative and defensive when someone reads into them
First of, whatever it is, it's not purposefully. I just post my thoughts.
Secondly, this thread is certainly not an example of whatever it is that you're talking about. My first few posts are short, but they're too the point, not open-ended. And they're not misleading. I think he's out. I heard on TBS them discuss the rule for it and I posted what they said. I then clarified it more completely. And that's it. So, yes, I'm going to get defensive when someone tells me that I'm "making it seem like its so black and white", when all I did was paraphrase what I heard, and that I'm "refusing to admit that MLB mishandled it" when I SAID ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT MLB OR ITS HANDLING OF IT.
But whatever, it's all my fault. That's fine. If you wanna continue this crap, you can always PM me, but let's keep the thread on track as best we can, thanks.
-
Re: Mike & Mike- Red Sox-Angels
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HoustonGM
I simply stated my interpretation of the rule, and what I had heard myself. I wasn't responding to any specific posts, besides the overall question of what my opinion was on the play, and why, and then a clarification of what I interpreted the rule to be. This is why I quote posts when I respond to them, and the only post I quoted was in post #6, when Reade was asking for clarification, and I did so.
You're apparently the only one who took it that way. I stated "Uh, no" because I feel as though it was very clear that I was not "refusing to acknowledge that MLB did a poor job", particularly because I wasn't at all talking about MLB or anything beyond why I think he was out.
My "Uh, no" wasn't sarcastic, and also, I'm taking the same stance as you. You're just attributing more to what I was saying than I actually was saying, which was simply that I think he was out (which you agree with, and that's my only "stance" on this topic), and what I heard about the rule and my interpretation of it.
Yeah, I defended myself against you misrepresenting my opinion.
My posts did not disagree with your comments. In fact, THEY AGREE. You believe he was out, so do I. That is all my posts said (and why). I did not mention any play beyond this one, nor did I mention anything about MLB's handling of this play or similar plays.
I think I did. Repeatedly.
Yeah, my first post in response to you may not have been very clear, but that's because I didn't want to derail this thread and go off into an argument with you, which is what regretfully happened, because I didn't and don't disagree, which I stated immediately in my next response (quoted below), and then again multiple times in later posts:
Also, this:
First of, whatever it is, it's not purposefully. I just post my thoughts.
Secondly, this thread is certainly not an example of whatever it is that you're talking about. My first few posts are short, but they're too the point, not open-ended. And they're not misleading. I think he's out. I heard on TBS them discuss the rule for it and I posted what they said. I then clarified it more completely. And that's it. So, yes, I'm going to get defensive when someone tells me that I'm "making it seem like its so black and white", when all I did was paraphrase what I heard, and that I'm "refusing to admit that MLB mishandled it" when I SAID ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT MLB OR ITS HANDLING OF IT.
But whatever, it's all my fault. That's fine. If you wanna continue this crap, you can always PM me, but let's keep the thread on track as best we can, thanks.
Somebody is a little grumpy... :D. And wow, that must be a record for most quotes in one post
-
Re: Mike & Mike- Red Sox-Angels
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheNamelessPoet
anyway back to the actual topic...
I agree fully with you. The angels need to make a run at resigning texeria and then find a big bat... the problem is... WHERE. I guess you could try and trade mathews but what are you going to get for him??? And who is out there to sign???
Frank Thomas, Giambi,
Adam Dunn may be the best bet.
Then how about this... Let Vlad and Anderson walk, that puts you down to 3 outfielders right??? Manny 3 years 65 million and Dunn 3-4 years 15 or so million each. I think their pitching is fine and those 2 leaving saves 30 million. Garland is also of the books at another 12 million. K-Rod leaves thats another 10 Million.
Questions tho... what do you do about a closer, and do they then weaken their pitching roo much if garland is not resigned?
1) Why would they let Vlad walk?
2) Arredondo and Shields are just fine as candidates as closers.
-
Re: Mike & Mike- Red Sox-Angels
I just think unless vlad goes for a 2 year contract take him but he can get more for that on the open market. Unfortunatly even with that GUN for an arm hs knees (from what I've read) are starting to fail him. If they can dump mathews I say DEFINATLY keep vlad ans still go for the big bat. I say make a push for manny instead of keeping vlad. he would be a beast inthe lineup... lol what the hell hehehe go for them both :p
I dont know their bullpen well enought to know wether those guys could close. I honestly dont ay anyattention to bullpens because its far to often a guy is great one year then hoeeible the next. I want guys that pitch 8-9 inning not 3 guys that can pitch an inning each.
-
Re: Mike & Mike- Red Sox-Angels
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheNamelessPoet
I just think unless vlad goes for a 2 year contract take him but he can get more for that on the open market.
The Angels have a team option for 2009 on Vlad.
-
Re: Mike & Mike- Red Sox-Angels
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheNamelessPoet
I just think unless vlad goes for a 2 year contract take him but he can get more for that on the open market. Unfortunatly even with that GUN for an arm hs knees (from what I've read) are starting to fail him. If they can dump mathews I say DEFINATLY keep vlad ans still go for the big bat. I say make a push for manny instead of keeping vlad. he would be a beast inthe lineup... lol what the hell hehehe go for them both :p
I dont know their bullpen well enought to know wether those guys could close. I honestly dont ay anyattention to bullpens because its far to often a guy is great one year then hoeeible the next. I want guys that pitch 8-9 inning not 3 guys that can pitch an inning each.
I didn't know anything about the Angels pen either until the ALDS and I saw Arredondo had a 1.62 ERA and 61 innings. Off observational data he and Spiers looked dynamite and K-Rod looked overrated, and not just because of the results. I couldnt wait to get those guys out of there and get to krod.
-
Re: Mike & Mike- Red Sox-Angels
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pavelb1
I didn't know anything about the Angels pen either until the ALDS and I saw Arredondo had a 1.62 ERA and 61 innings. Off observational data he and Spiers looked dynamite and K-Rod looked overrated, and not just because of the results. I couldnt wait to get those guys out of there and get to krod.
I think you mean Shields, not Speier, as Speier was pretty atrocious this season and left off the Angels playoff roster.
-
Re: Mike & Mike- Red Sox-Angels
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HoustonGM
The Angels have a team option for 2009 on Vlad.
Its not vested tho its jsut an option. let him walk or keep him and trade him. ill tell u this... us braves will take him. Francouer has already shown he can play center. more him there if we dont trade him away and Vlad for 1 year in right. Wren has 40 mill to work with and adding vlad is just 15. so that still leaves 25 million. I say offer smoltz about 3-5 mill to come back in the bullpen, offer hamptin 2 mill with about 7 mill in incentives. thats about 15 mil or so to offer to Lowe for 3 years. id be happy with that.
Diaz and Blanco can platoon in left, Francouer in center, vlad in left
Chipper, escobar, johnson/prado, kochman
with mccann at catcher. not terrible. Id like another thumper but wouldnt we all. if we can get francouer back to about 25 HR and we add vlad I think we can do alright.
Maybe this for a lineup
Blanco
escobar
chipper
vlad
mccann
johnson
francouer
kochman (can move to the #2 spot if he starts hitting again)
with
Lowe
Jurrjen
Hampton
campillo
james/reyes/glavine
closer smoltz
setup sorriano/gonzalez.
the question is...
what do you think the Angels would want?
would a young pitcher be enough??? James,Reyes, Campillo.
-
Re: Mike & Mike- Red Sox-Angels
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheNamelessPoet
Its not vested tho its jsut an option. let him walk or keep him and trade him.
Right. It's an option, which means they have the ability to keep him for exactly one more year no matter what. You said:
Quote:
I just think unless vlad goes for a 2 year contract take him but he can get more for that on the open market.
Unless the Angels decide that they don't want Vlad anymore, he has no leverage, as there's no negotiations to be had, and he won't go to the open market.
Vlad is not going to be a free agent, and the Angels are not going to trade him. It's a given that they'll pick up his option, and they'd really be stupid not to, as that'd leave their lineup completely devoid of any big bats unless they manage to sign Teixeira, who IS a free agent and who they'd have to negotiate with and compete with other teams for, whereas with Vlad, all they have to do is pick up the option.
-
Re: Mike & Mike- Red Sox-Angels
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Swampdog
Justanewguy said....."The Angels were NINTH in the AL in SLG% this season. That simply isn't going to win you an AL playoff series."
So this is how we determine who can win a playoff series now?
Yep! That's how! That's exactly what I was saying! And that's THE ONLY THING I was saying! :rolleyes:
Quote:
So, the Angels finished ninth in slugging and cannot win a series, but the Rays finished 8'th and they can? You must be joking. Is this more of the "built for the playoffs" crap that the talking heads in the media spout ad nauseam?
There is such a thing, if you want to believe it or not. The Angels were built to win lots of games over the course of a season. They play NL style ball. They don't match up well in short series against a team like the Red Sox. They didn't acquire Teixeira to help win the division, they acquired him to be able to match up with a team like the Red Sox, White Sox or Yankees in the playoffs.
Quote:
Well lets see, in 2006 Oakland was 13'th in the league in slugging, and they swept a playoff series.
They swept an almost equally feeble hitting club. Then they went on to get swept by the Tigers. Oh boy, that sure blows holes in my "argument." You know, the one I wasn't even really making.
Quote:
In 2005 the Angels were 9'th, and they beat the Yankees in a series. Also in 2005, the White Sox were 7'th (maybe 7'th qualifies you though) in slugging, and they won the WS.
Yeah, watch that slugging percentage. Excellent observation.
So you've given one whole example of an average slugging team winning a World Series. Good work!
You're just lacking in reading comprehension skills. Seriously.
A series CAN be won "with poor slugging," on account of good offense otherwise, great pitching, and good fielding.
"Poor slugging" will work itself out over the course of a season if all the other pieces are in place for the team... but it's not likely to carry you through 2 AL series. When one or two hitters "don't show up" (by the way, before you go out of your way to jump on this statement, I'm not talking about lack of "clutch," I'm talking about a statistical slump and lack of hits), you need to have a powerful lineup outside of those hitters to make up for it. Again, in the regular season, this works itself out. But in a series that turns into a shootout, you're going to find yourself in a quick hole. Hmm... I wonder if there have been any recent examples of THIS... :)
The Angels need more power bats. Period. They're not stacked. They're CAPABLE of winning a World Series, but they don't have the firepower to SOLIDIFY their chances in the playoffs.
Now, pick out one thing I said and write an entire post about it. And don't forget to remove it from context.
-
Re: Mike & Mike- Red Sox-Angels
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HoustonGM
Right. It's an option, which means they have the ability to keep him for exactly one more year no matter what. You said:
Unless the Angels decide that they don't want Vlad anymore, he has no leverage, as there's no negotiations to be had, and he won't go to the open market.
Vlad is not going to be a free agent, and the Angels are not going to trade him. It's a given that they'll pick up his option, and they'd really be stupid not to, as that'd leave their lineup completely devoid of any big bats unless they manage to sign Teixeira, who IS a free agent and who they'd have to negotiate with and compete with other teams for, whereas with Vlad, all they have to do is pick up the option.
The only reason I thought they might not pick it up was that they have too many outfielders. But you are right... ther will take the option... blows my whole theory up lol
-
Re: Mike & Mike- Red Sox-Angels
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheNamelessPoet
The only reason I thought they might not pick it up was that they have too many outfielders. But you are right... ther will take the option... blows my whole theory up lol
If you have too many outfielders, the solution isn't to get rid of your best one ;)
-
Re: Mike & Mike- Red Sox-Angels
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheNamelessPoet
Its not vested tho its jsut an option. let him walk or keep him and trade him. ill tell u this... us braves will take him. Francouer has already shown he can play center. more him there if we dont trade him away and Vlad for 1 year in right. Wren has 40 mill to work with and adding vlad is just 15. so that still leaves 25 million. I say offer smoltz about 3-5 mill to come back in the bullpen, offer hamptin 2 mill with about 7 mill in incentives. thats about 15 mil or so to offer to Lowe for 3 years. id be happy with that.
Diaz and Blanco can platoon in left, Francouer in center, vlad in left
Chipper, escobar, johnson/prado, kochman
with mccann at catcher. not terrible. Id like another thumper but wouldnt we all. if we can get francouer back to about 25 HR and we add vlad I think we can do alright.
Maybe this for a lineup
Blanco
escobar
chipper
vlad
mccann
johnson
francouer
kochman (can move to the #2 spot if he starts hitting again)
with
Lowe
Jurrjen
Hampton
campillo
james/reyes/glavine
closer smoltz
setup sorriano/gonzalez.
the question is...
what do you think the Angels would want?
would a young pitcher be enough??? James,Reyes, Campillo.
Did the Braves even try and work an extension with Tex? It's not like they're poor and man...that guy is ridiculously good.
-
Re: Mike & Mike- Red Sox-Angels
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pavelb1
Did the Braves even try and work an extension with Tex? It's not like they're poor and man...that guy is ridiculously good.
They did, but it did not work out, so they traded him
-
Re: Mike & Mike- Red Sox-Angels
Quote:
Originally Posted by
RedsoxRockies
They did, but it did not work out, so they traded him
I don't remeber if they made an offical offer, but he DID turn down 8/140 from the Rangers, Im not sure the Braves got past the "starting at 20m/season" point.
-
Re: Mike & Mike- Red Sox-Angels
i forget what it was but it was about years and around 20-22 i THINK
-
Re: Mike & Mike- Red Sox-Angels
Justanewguy, you said exactly what I quoted. It makes no more sense now than it did when you posted it. This is precisely the type of thing that we all hear from the media every day, and it is such a crock. "Built for the playoffs". Lol.
Yeah, the Red Sox sure pummelled the poor, weak hitting Angels. In games 2 and 4, you change the outcome of one pitch... ONE... and the Angels could have easily won both games. If that is the best of 7, the Angels could have easily won the next 3 games and won the series. If last years ALCS had it just happened to have been a best of 5 (like it was for years), instead of best of 7, then Boston... the team you claim is "built for the playoffs" would have been watching Cleveland in the WS. I didnt give one example of how silly your comment was, I gave three. And I only checked 2 years. If necessary, I could probably give a couple dozen examples of a weaker hitting team beating a better hitting team in a short series. No, wait, I could give hundreds of examples of that.
Again, you buy into this media nonsense which is just so ridiculous. The media seems to believe it has to explain everything...there is some special, secret reason why the Angels, or Cubs, or Brewers, etc, lost a game, or a series. The truth is that, in many, many instances, it is just a completely RANDOM series of events. It just happens. A team loses a short series because it didnt pitch especially well, or didnt get timely hits, or just didnt play good baseball. Thats it. Thats all there is to it.
From April to October, every year, there are teams that lose a short series to inferior teams solely because they didnt play good baseball. Thats IT. Thats all there is to it. Like many others, I get tired of hearing all these pseudo experts try to make more of it than it is. History has shown us that ANY team can beat any other in a short series. There is no mystery to it.
This "Built for the playoffs" is the latest baseball cliche. Dont forget to also say that the "postseason is a crapshoot", that Jamie Moyer is "crafty", any particular player will perform exceptionally well "in his contract year", that any particular statistic is or is not "sexy", that there "is no tomorrow", and that any team that scored a run without hitting a home run can "manufacture runs". Surely you can work these into your posts as well.
I didnt take your post out of context, not at all. A careful review will prove that. I simply disagree with what you said, and I proved you wrong. You arent the only one that makes comments that are untrue, and it really isnt your fault. You just believe the garbage you hear the media espouse and you repeat it. I suggest you educate yourself. Try doing a little research of your own sometime, or maybe read any of the 40 odd books authored by Bill James, or someone of his ilk.
-
Re: Mike & Mike- Red Sox-Angels
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Swampdog
Justanewguy, you said exactly what I quoted. It makes no more sense now than it did when you posted it. This is precisely the type of thing that we all hear from the media every day, and it is such a crock. "Built for the playoffs". Lol.
I said some other stuff too. Maybe you should... you know... try reading.
Quote:
Yeah, the Red Sox sure pummelled the poor, weak hitting Angels. In games 2 and 4, you change the outcome of one pitch... ONE... and the Angels could have easily won both games.
Actually, I wasn't necessarily talking about that series. I was more or less talking about every series that you didn't manage to quote while arguing against a point I didn't even make.
Quote:
If that is the best of 7, the Angels could have easily won the next 3 games and won the series.
What's the point of "what if?" Dude, seriously, what's the point? How about this... if it were a 21 game series, Boston could have hit like, 100 home runs. Dude, I totally just proved my own point. Boston could have hit more home runs than Anaheim in a 21 game series.
Quote:
If last years ALCS had it just happened to have been a best of 5 (like it was for years), instead of best of 7, then Boston... the team you claim is "built for the playoffs" would have been watching Cleveland in the WS.
Uh... again... wtf is the point? I'm gradually coming to the conclusion that you're merely an aggressive idiot, as evidenced by your quickness to call me a homer for disagreeing that the Dodgers were a playoff weakling.
But seriously, what's the point in bringing up hypothetical situations that don't exist? :confused: I didn't even read whatever POINT you were actually trying to make, because it was set up by a fantasy situation.
Quote:
I didnt give one example of how silly your comment was, I gave three. And I only checked 2 years. If necessary, I could probably give a couple dozen examples of a weaker hitting team beating a better hitting team in a short series. No, wait, I could give hundreds of examples of that.
Good for you. I'm sure you could give all sorts of examples of all sorts of things, many of which don't even exist. Such as, 7 game DS's and 5 game CS's.
Quote:
Again, you buy into this media nonsense which is just so ridiculous.
Oh, you sure got me. Yeah, I get 100% of my baseball information from ESPN. And I believe in the existence of things like "clutch." Yep, you got me.
Quote:
The media seems to believe it has to explain everything...there is some special, secret reason why the Angels, or Cubs, or Brewers, etc, lost a game, or a series. The truth is that, in many, many instances, it is just a completely RANDOM series of events. It just happens. A team loses a short series because it didnt pitch especially well, or didnt get timely hits, or just didnt play good baseball. Thats it. Thats all there is to it.
Uh... I guess it doesn't matter what type of team you're taking into the series then.
Quote:
From April to October, every year, there are teams that lose a short series to inferior teams solely because they didnt play good baseball. Thats IT. Thats all there is to it. Like many others, I get tired of hearing all these pseudo experts try to make more of it than it is. History has shown us that ANY team can beat any other in a short series. There is no mystery to it.
And you're still ranting about the pseudo-experts that I don't even agree with.
Quote:
This "Built for the playoffs" is the latest baseball cliche. Dont forget to also say that the "postseason is a crapshoot", that Jamie Moyer is "crafty", any particular player will perform exceptionally well "in his contract year", that any particular statistic is or is not "sexy", that there "is no tomorrow", and that any team that scored a run without hitting a home run can "manufacture runs". Surely you can work these into your posts as well.
And you're still doing it...
Quote:
I didnt take your post out of context, not at all. A careful review will prove that. I simply disagree with what you said, and I proved you wrong.
Uh... no, you didn't, actually. You just think you did because you're close minded.
Quote:
You arent the only one that makes comments that are untrue, and it really isnt your fault. You just believe the garbage you hear the media espouse and you repeat it.
I'm glad you know me so well. I'm glad you've been around me all my life and watched how I take in information about sports. And I'm glad you can read my mind while I'm making my posts.
Is making conclusions all you can do? I mean, other than talking about nonexistent playoff series?
Quote:
I suggest you educate yourself.
I'd suggest the same to you, actually, but whatever.
Quote:
Try doing a little research of your own sometime, or maybe read any of the 40 odd books authored by Bill James, or someone of his ilk.
Oh, OK. I get it now.
I've read plenty of Bill James and those "of his ilk." Just because I happen to believe in the concept of a team being built to match up well against certain other teams in a playoff series doesn't mean I "buy into the media" or "repeat that garbage" or "lack education" or whatever other stupid sh*t you feel the need to accuse me of. It means, uh, guess what, I can actually form my OWN opinions, and not borrow each and every single one of them from a mathematician, like you seem to have done. That's the irony of this... you're actually the one repeating everything you hear.
As much as I appreciate the work of James, et al, there comes a point where you have to pull the SABR dick out of your mouth and form your own opinions. People weren't just idiots about baseball for an entire century, and knew absolutely nothing, and were completely clueless... and then statisticians came along and SAVED THEM.
You're a tool.
-
Re: Mike & Mike- Red Sox-Angels
Lol. Yeah Dude, AWESOME post. Totally. I could react just like you...you know, name calling, infantile insults. Lets try this instead.
I have read every post you made, up to the last one. After about 3 lines, I see theres no point in debating you further. You clearly dont know baseball and, like so many, you do not like for anyone to disagree with you.
A few years ago I knew a 5 year old girl. She had heard, apparently, that a cheetah is the fastest running animal. She informed me that her dog was faster than a cheetah. Her dog was a bulldog. I could have probably have outrun her dog. I tried, to no avail to explain to her that, although her dog was probably very fast, he could not outrun a cheetah. Of course, she was determined that she was right, and I could not dissuade her.
There is a good lesson to learn from this. There is no point is debating people on any topic who 1) do not know what they are talking about, 2) Think they know what they are talking about, 3) Refuse to review evidence and facts, and 4) Insist that their subjective opinion is a fact. You, my friend, are like that 5 year old.
Keep thinking that a bulldog can outrun a cheetah, justanewguy. Thats your right to be wrong.
Have a great day.
-
Re: Mike & Mike- Red Sox-Angels
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Swampdog
Lol. Yeah Dude, AWESOME post. Totally. I could react just like you...you know, name calling, infantile insults. Lets try this instead.
I have read every post you made, up to the last one. After about 3 lines, I see theres no point in debating you further. You clearly dont know baseball and, like so many, you do not like for anyone to disagree with you.
A few years ago I knew a 5 year old girl. She had heard, apparently, that a cheetah is the fastest running animal. She informed me that her dog was faster than a cheetah. Her dog was a bulldog. I could have probably have outrun her dog. I tried, to no avail to explain to her that, although her dog was probably very fast, he could not outrun a cheetah. Of course, she was determined that she was right, and I could not dissuade her.
There is a good lesson to learn from this. There is no point is debating people on any topic who 1) do not know what they are talking about, 2) Think they know what they are talking about, 3) Refuse to review evidence and facts, and 4) Insist that their subjective opinion is a fact. You, my friend, are like that 5 year old.
Keep thinking that a bulldog can outrun a cheetah, justanewguy. Thats your right to be wrong.
Have a great day.
Uh... what's funny is, I've disagreed with many people in these forums, and it's been civil. Unfortunately, all you could do is passively aggressively ridicule something I said.
You are an aggressive a**hole. It only took me disagreeing with you, twice, for you to, twice, jump into ridicule and stupid accusations.
My "infantile insults" are no worse than you going on and on and on and on and on about how I love the media and how I do nothing but believe what they say, and how I know nothing except what I see on ESPN.
They were also warranted. Because, you were aggressive first, and because you ARE a tool.
Just because I don't agree with ONE point made by Bill James or whoever does not mean I don't know baseball. Just because I do not agree with YOU does not mean I don't know baseball. If you believe that, your logic is, frankly, retarded.
If you actually saw anything I've posted in other threads, you'd see that I fall into the Bill James "camp" probably more often than not. You'd see me arguing against Ryan Howard for MVP, you'd see me quoting adjusted stats, you'd see me putting the word "clutch" in quotes.
But whatever. You're just too weak-minded to form your own opinions. Do you take your coffee the same way as Bill James also?
-
Re: Mike & Mike- Red Sox-Angels
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheNamelessPoet
i forget what it was but it was about years and around 20-22 i THINK
He wants more?? He's not Manny fukking Ramirez.
-
Re: Mike & Mike- Red Sox-Angels
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pavelb1
He wants more?? He's not Manny fukking Ramirez.
Yeah, he's a bit more valuable. :p
