Fun With Stats II

Babe Ruth, April 1917*:
5-0, 45 IP, 29 H, 15 ER, 13 BB, 25 K, 3.00 ERA, 0.933 WHIP

Pedro Martinez, April 2000:
5-0, 35.1 IP, 22 H, 5 ER, 8 BB, 50 K, 1.27 ERA, 0.849 WHIP

Josh Beckett, April 2007:
5-0, 32.2 IP, 27 H, 9 ER, 7 BB, 28 K, 2.48 ERA, 1.041 WHIP

* Accuracy heavily dependent on my ability to correctly interpret digital reproductions of 90-year-old box scores.

————————————————————–

Before you hang Julio Lugo high, consider this: Two more hits in
four fewer at-bats and his .234/.330 line morphs into Kevin Youkilis’
much more palatable .274/.369 line. Each hitter has 11 Ks to go with 11
walks, four doubles and five RBI. Youk has one more run scored and one
home run to Lugo’s zero, but Lugo has six steals in six attempts.

————————————————————–

Still thinking about trading for Todd Helton? Why not, especially if
it means keeping Julian Tavarez away from the Fenway Park mound? As hot
as Mike Lowell is right now (.316/.366/.553), Helton would provide a
whopping 110 points more in on-base percentage
(.365/.478/.486). If nothing else, pull the trigger on the basis of
Lowell’s impending free agency and the theory that Helton’s power will
pick up while Lowell has a history of slumping as the season goes
along.

Still, the Sox’ offensive inconsistency wouldn’t be solved by
bringing in Helton — Lugo (0 for 9 slump notwithstanding), Youkilis,
Ortiz, Drew and Lowell are all close enough to normal to be reliably
productive. Manny Ramirez (he and Coco Crisp are the only starters with
a sub-.300 OBP) is not, and that’s the crux of the lineup.

————————————————————–

The last time Boston held at least a 5.5-game lead over New York was
Aug. 10, 2005, when the Sox held the same margin. Needless to say, the
Yankees won the division. Still plenty of baseball.

79 comments… add one

  • What I’d like to see from Lugo (almost more than some consistency) is a little more power. Some doubles, a triple here and there, and the occasional homer. Even with the 4 doubles, it seems like it’s been all singles from him. That barely makes sense.
    The speed has been nice (as well as the spots he’s been picking).

    QuoSF April 27, 2007, 3:53 am
  • Damn, Pedro’s line is just sick. 50 Ks in 5 games?

    Hudson April 27, 2007, 8:06 am
  • The best thing about Beckett is that he’s been able to fly under the radar for the most part. With Dice-K coming in, and then the various act that draw attention to other players (Coco struggling, WMP struggling, Lugo struggling, Red Sock Redux, WMP’s homer), it seems like something always overshadows Beckett.
    And that’s just fine. Keep it coming, JB.

    I'm Bill McNeal April 27, 2007, 8:57 am
  • Wow, Paul still drunk from last night?
    As if the Matsuzake comps to Pedro aren’t enough, now Beckett too, huh? Hate to break it to you, but we’ll be lucky to see another Pedro in the next ten years. And Beckett ain’t it. Maybe it’s this line by Hanley:
    .366 .464 .620 71 AB
    that has you *really* seeing Beckett through one desperate rosy lens?
    And Lugo? I’m still surprised they traded down from Rentaria especially since he’s got this line going himself:
    .318 .389 .482 85 AB
    but yeah, no Hanley.
    Meanwhile, Helton – you might want to check those home/road splits and reconsider:
    Home: .419 .548 .548 31 AB
    Away: .326 .420 .442 43 AB
    Though, I’d take that for the Yanks in a second. Too bad they’d rather have Mfghsdj’s “glove” swing a bat.

    jim - YF April 27, 2007, 9:48 am
  • relevance? Hanley and Renteria can’t pitch. I guess the Sox could still have Hanley but Ill take the young stud pitcher. good pitching is scarce and they dont have to throw out a Karstens or a Rasner ….

    Ric April 27, 2007, 9:57 am
  • Actually, Jim — the reason Pedro and the Babe are being listed with Beckett is that they are now the only three Red Sox pitchers to go 5-0 in April.

    Kluv April 27, 2007, 9:58 am
  • Nah, Hanley may only be te best young SS in baseball, better than Reyes. But a pitcher with a career 110 ERA + is more valuable.
    And Rentaria only matters because Lugo’s name came up. He’s Rentaria Lite.
    And Kluv – that wouldn’t have been a bad introduction. Maybe you should be writing the posts?

    jim - YF April 27, 2007, 10:20 am
  • Jim, I figured the readers of this blog are either informed enough to have known that fact, or smart enough to have figured that out based on the timeframe and records listed. My apologies if I overestimated your ability on both those fronts.

    Paul SF April 27, 2007, 11:15 am
  • Jim’s nitpicking out of frustration.
    Just let him be. No need to kick a three-legged dog.

    I'm Bill McNeal April 27, 2007, 11:23 am
  • Yes, Paul, you overestimated my abilites at being informed of all things Red Sox.
    When you sling comps like that around, based on a good month from an average pitcher, I reserve the right to speak up.
    Meanwhile, from one beaten dog, good to see Varitek reverting back to “form”. I’m sure the Yankee bullpen will help him out.

    jim - YF April 27, 2007, 12:06 pm
  • Just to be clear though. Helton wasn’t a nitpick. It’s not clear he’d be an upgrade and not at the cost. If the Sox ride first for a while, and Lowell continues to be decent with Youk, I can’t see them making that move.
    For the Yankees though, Helton could help save the season. Not that I’d expect their GM to see that.

    jim - YF April 27, 2007, 12:11 pm
  • Yeah, who needs a guy with talent like Beckett? I mean, he does afterall have average stuff, and mediocre velocity at best. Given the chance, I’d cut him altogher and give up hope on him EVER learning how to pitch.
    Paul, you definitely over-estimated there.

    Brad April 27, 2007, 12:17 pm
  • Yes, Paul, you overestimated my abilites at being informed of all things Red Sox.
    _________________________________
    Strange, you sure do act as if you are all the time.. and given the last ten games, you’re right, it is nice to see Varitek getting back to form.

    Brad April 27, 2007, 12:18 pm
  • For the Yankees though, Helton could help save the season
    _______________________
    Helton in combination with a few good pitchers, and I totally agree.

    Brad April 27, 2007, 12:19 pm
  • desperate rosy lens
    and one last note, Jim: No rosy lens is needed here if you’ve seen him this year. He’s been awesome for the most part, and untouchable at others, which is what most of us thought him capable of. The line speaks for itself.

    Brad April 27, 2007, 12:28 pm
  • Nah, Helton and a league average 4 and 5. Karstens and Rasner could be that. As can Hughes – easily. With that offense, they’d only have trouble against great pitching performances. You know, unlike anything I saw from the Sox last weekend, Beckett included. And that was against a Yankee lineup that featured Wil Nieves and Doug Mfjdkfgdf as well as the young Melkman struggling.
    Beckett’s line is one month. Let’s see him stay effective AND healthy for one year before getting too excited about his comps. The only year in his career he pitched 200 innings he also posted a below league average 92 ERA+.
    And back to form for Varitek was his 1 for 7 the last two nights with 4 K’s. Back to form is his sub-700 OPS.
    But who’s nitpicking?

    jim - YF April 27, 2007, 12:46 pm
  • Meow meow meow meow, meow meow meow meow, meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow.
    (Tried to get the number of meows right just for you, d1.)

    Devine April 27, 2007, 12:51 pm
  • Did I mention Hanley’s April so far?
    .366 .464 .620 71 AB 3 HR 2 3B 5 2B 6 SB
    Hey, but look at Josh Beckett’s line!

    jim - YF April 27, 2007, 12:55 pm
  • Jim:
    I assume you understand the idea of “gotta give something to get something”. The Sox got Mike Lowell and Josh Beckett in that deal, two Major League players. Ramirez hadn’t yet played for any length of time in the Majors when the trade was made, so the upside was there but not proven. It was a logical, smart deal for both teams. Beckett was an established front-line NL pitcher, and someone who many thought would or could be a front-line AL starter. It appears that they might be right about that, if it did take him until his second year in the league to learn how to pitch smartly and cleverly. I don’t understand why Hanley Ramirez is relevant at this point: the Sox are now almost 18 months removed from trading him while he was still a minor leaguer. If you are going to put up his numbers this year in isolation, that’s fine, but I imagine that you’ve pointed to those numbers by themselves because putting them up against Lowell AND Beckett’s numbers so that the visual and intellectual connection is complete doesn’t help your position, which once again has regressed into the “I am going to antagonize, damn the facts or context” territory of debate. (Frankly, you’d also have to put up Anibal Sanchez’ numbers as well, which this year are Cy Young level. If you’re a Yankee starter, that is. 4.17 ERA, 1.80 WHIP, for a pitcher’s team in a pitcher’s league).

    SF April 27, 2007, 1:06 pm
  • “Did I mention Hanley’s April so far?”
    and look at A-Rod’s April! a lot of good it will do your team with no pitching to back it up… I understand you must be frustrated today, but your argument is worthless.

    Ric April 27, 2007, 1:07 pm
  • Jim, you seem intelligent and are a great contributor probably more than half the time. But then you just try and jab a needle in our nuts because you’re a YF, and we’re SFs. It’s that particular brand of BS that leaves me meowing and seeing meows (not that some SFs aren’t guilty of the same thing as well).

    Devine April 27, 2007, 1:07 pm
  • “It’s that particular brand of BS that leaves me meowing and seeing meows (not that some SFs aren’t guilty of the same thing as well).”
    Please see next thread up for example of this from the SF side.

    sam YF April 27, 2007, 1:11 pm
  • the yankees are truly killing me. yo, babe ruth opened that season with five complete games?!

    tom yf April 27, 2007, 1:12 pm
  • This is the problem: Jim doesn’t represent all YFs just like Hudson (the needler in the above thread that Sam references) doesn’t represent all SFs. In fact, in the above thread there are three SFs, two of whom agree with the YFs about the basics of Hughes’ appearance, while in this thread the only YF who is in full-on blind antagonism mode is Jim, which is par for the course. For the most part, we’re doing ok avoiding the flames.

    SF April 27, 2007, 1:18 pm
  • SF – The Bagwell deal never died. Nor will that one. Beckett has to perform at the current level for the rest of his Sox career in order to make up for Hanley. He’s an All-Star this year at age 23. The comp will always be valid no matter how much you wish it to go away.
    And Sanchez was just icing on the cake, as is Lowell. The difference is Lowell may be gone this off-season, and certainly within three years. Sanchez just turned 23. Oh, and he’s 2-0. Certainly a better 5 than Leatherface (and yup, better than the current Yankee pitching).

    jim - YF April 27, 2007, 1:19 pm
  • SF – The Bagwell deal never died.
    The Bagwell deal never died because a) Larry Andersen didn’t pitch beyond a month and a half for the Sox, b) Lou Gorman didn’t really have any idea about Bagwell’s skills (this is a major factor in the history of this deal, but I don’t expect you to know that since it’s not about a subject you care to know anything about, by your own admission). Amazingly, what you also fail to understand is that the deal basically clinched a division for the Red Sox – Andersen was absolutely phenomenal during his stint in crunch time with the Sox, and a big reason they made the playoffs that year – another thing I don’t imagine you have any knowledge of.
    See, it’s easy to pull a name or number out of context and say “see, horrible trade”, it’s another thing to try to understand the complexities of deals, the context in which they were made, and the legitimate criticisms that can be levelled at the men who made those trades. This is something you seem highly uninterested in doing, which isn’t helpful to your position.

    SF April 27, 2007, 1:28 pm
  • So a clinched division = a HOF 1B?
    See, we could be repeating this same discussion in October and every October after that for, what, four more years?.
    Beckett was acquired (at a mighty high price) to be a #1. Any thing less and it only looks terrible if Hanley is legit.
    Based on last year it looked like a horrible trade. The Sox won nothing. Hanley was ROY. And even Anibal was decent (though so was Lowell).
    See, we’ll do that comp every year (which is much more interesting than Beckett:Pedro in April). The only way the trade is certainly a win is with a ring. After that, Beckett better damn well keep up his current pace. Cause I have no doubt that Hanley will, esp. since he’s shown he’s learned to take a walk.

    jim - YF April 27, 2007, 1:40 pm
  • Based on last year it looked like a horrible trade.
    To you, right? I love these blanket generalizations that carpet bomb everyone, regardless of their actual thoughts. You’re good at these, Jim.

    SF April 27, 2007, 1:46 pm
  • Tom, re: Ruth…
    Box scores in 1917 don’t have pitchers’ lines like they do today, so the only way to figure innings pitched is to peer at the grainy digital reproduction to see if a. Only nine batters batted, or b. If any pitchers are listed after Ruth in the “Bases on balls” or “strikeouts” categories, which were listed in there with doubles, home runs, double plays, and the like. It’s crazy. It looked kinda like this:
    “Doubles: Speaker. Home runs: Carrigan. Bases on Balls: Off Ruth, 4. Off Johnson in seven innings, 2. Off Mays in 2 innings, 1. Strikeouts: By Ruth, 6. By Johnson in seven innings, 3. By Mays in two innings, 2. Double plays: Tinker, Evers, Chance.”
    Of course, a 2 could be an 8, or an 8 could be a 6, or a 1 could be a 2 or even a 3 if the paper’s not reproduced properly. But most of the box scores I looked at were clear enough.
    Likewise, it’s highly likely Rith’s ERA was in fact far lower because errors were more common back then. But I don’t believe ERA was kept as a stat in 1917, and at any rate, the Sporting News box scores don’t differentiate between runs and earned runs. I calculated Ruth’s ERA based on how many runs the opponents scored in games he pitched because he pretty clearly did pitch complete games every single time.

    Paul SF April 27, 2007, 1:47 pm
  • jeez, its getting ugly around here fast. The yanks better put together some wins soon or SF’s will just be Sh*tting on YFs for our team sucking and YFs will just be bitter all year.
    I think under these terms we call all hope for a yankee sweep this weekend!

    sam YF April 27, 2007, 1:52 pm
  • Paul, it’s not his ERA I would be so interested in as much as his +ERA since offensive production wasn’t as it is now (especially if you took Ruth’s bat out of the equation). Get on it now, Paul! Do the research ASAP! I want answer now!

    Nick-YF April 27, 2007, 1:53 pm
  • Right Jim, I’m sure Hanley’s gonna hit .366 his entire career. Couldn’t possibly have anything to do with that absurd .426 BA/BIP he’s got this season, either. No, of course not.
    I don’t care what anyone says, the Fish didn’t know what they were getting when they made that trade any more then the Sox knew what they were dealing. They made the deal because they thought Ramirez would be a stud some day in the future; he’d never done anything in the minors to suggest he was there already. Period. And Anibal Sanchez is mediocre; he might get better, but he’s just not that good. Walked way too many guys last year and he’s off to a terrible start this year.
    And once again…Beckett v Pedro in April is only interesting because of the historical significance of 5-0 in Boston; Ruth’s involvement is kinda ironic, when you think about it. If anything, those three lines show just how incredibly far above Beckett Pedro was when he made his 5-0 start. Ugh.

    desturbd1 April 27, 2007, 1:58 pm
  • lol, Couldn’t tell you that, Nick, without doing what I did for Ruth’s games (which took a good 30 minutes or so), and doing them for EVERY game, then averaging them and doing the percentage calcs. No thanks. In 1917, his ERA+ was 128 (2.01 ERA). It was his last full year as a pitcher, and wasn’t even his best year. That was 1916, when he posted a 158 ERA+ with a 1.75 ERA.

    Paul SF April 27, 2007, 2:00 pm
  • It’s stupefying. Paul put up statistics of the three Sox pitchers who have gone 5-0 in April and all of a sudden he’s accused of calling Josh Beckett both Babe Ruth and Pedro Martinez, of equalizing them.
    Who is that uncritical that they think that is what Paul was doing? The numbers speak for themselves. Paul shouldn’t have to defend himself against this kind of silly accusation.

    SF April 27, 2007, 2:03 pm
  • “Couldn’t possibly have anything to do with that absurd .426 BA/BIP he’s got this season, either. No, of course not.”
    Do fast guys generally have higher BABIPs, due to their their ability to beat out infield singles?
    “Paul put up statistics of the three Sox pitchers who have gone 5-0 in April…”
    All I can say is that if Beckett doesn’t hit AT LEAST 60 homers at some point then I’ll consider this deal a total bust.

    Tyrel SF April 27, 2007, 2:11 pm
  • All the jabs at Beckett …
    Hmmm.
    In another threat, someone cited Hershiser’s comment that Hughes was “as advertised.”
    I agree. The dude did well and there’s no reason to believe that he won’t get much better.
    Well, ALSO last night, Hershiser said that Beckett was BECOMING A PITCHER AND NOT JUST A THROWER.
    So why is it OK to give credibility to an expert’s comment about one player but to ignore his comment on another?
    Yes, Beckett struggled last year. Why? Because he was stubborn and tried to throw his fastball past everyone when he got in trouble. He’s not doing that this year. He’s got a 2-seamer and a 4-seamer, a better curve and a change and he’s throwing them all effectively.
    The boy has grown up a lot since last year. Why is it so hard to give him credit for that? Just because he had average numbers against a very good offense but still won?
    But back to BBTN: They ALSO pointed out that Beckett is the third RS pitcher to go 5-0 in April. So this isn’t an epiphany from Paul.
    Lastly, this is going to be a long season. Everyone, lighten up a little. It’s just baseball. We come to this site for fun, not to throw rocks at each other. I’d sincerely hope that if any of us met on the street that we could sit down and enjoyably have a beer together.

    I'm Bill McNeal April 27, 2007, 2:23 pm
  • Oops. That’s “thread.”

    I'm Bill McNeal April 27, 2007, 2:24 pm
  • The 5-0 stat iwas widely reported — on NESN after the game, on NESN this morning, in the AP story posted online on ESPN.com and every other sports service, in the Globe game story, and presumably on SportsCenter (and apparently BBTN). This was not news by the time I posted it. I was curious — and thought others might be — whoat those three pitchers looked like on May 1 in each of their years. So there ya go.
    If this was called “Important Predictions Made Possible Through the Inscrutable Fortune-Telling Properties of Stats” you might have an argument. But it’s not. It’s called “Fun With Stats.” So have FUN!!

    Paul SF April 27, 2007, 2:29 pm
  • “Do fast guys generally have higher BABIPs, due to their their ability to beat out infield singles?”
    I think the way it works is that generally speaking, anything way over or below .300 is considered a product of luck. Over the course of a career, some guys–speedy guys, maybe, or hitters like Ichiro with such incredible bat control that they can sorta aim the ball–show an ability to consistantly be at a level above .300. But .426 doesn’t usually happen for an entire season, and I don’t think it ever happens for multiple seasons. (Another factor may be line-drive %, but Hanley’s %15.8 is actually lower then you’d expect from a quality hitter…)
    And Bill’s right about the Hershiser comments. I wondered yesterday what Beckett was doing differently…were there more two-seamers and changeups or something? The ball was on the ground a lot more then usual, and that plus the O’s inability to work a count helped him go 8, throwing only 100 pitches…and finishing his day by striking out Tejada and Huff.

    desturbd1 April 27, 2007, 2:31 pm
  • Beckett was awesome. I wonder how much he and Curt pow wow about “pitching to contact,” because they’ve both been nailing it.

    Tyrel SF April 27, 2007, 2:34 pm
  • Hanley doesn’t have to hit .366 or have a .464 OBP – all he needs is a 3/4/5 and he’s extremely valuable as a SS. Indeed, it’s not like you’ll see any Sox SS with those numbers anytime soon.
    And no doubt YF’s will happily point out Beckett’s numbers for the rest of the year as he tumbles. After all, he’s consistently been average, if that. Now all of a sudden he knows how to pitch? Cause Orel said so? Like I said, let’s see him do it for 200 innings before you start comparing him to Pedro and Babe. It’s an insult to the history of the game. I mean, Josh Beckett?
    Oh, and Varitek is 1 for his last 10 with 7 K’s. Like I said, good thing he gets the Yankee bullpen for two games.

    jim - YF April 27, 2007, 2:55 pm
  • “Like I said, let’s see him do it for 200 innings before you start comparing him to Pedro and Babe. It’s an insult to the history of the game. I mean, Josh Beckett?”
    “We come to this site for fun, not to throw rocks at each other. I’d sincerely hope that if any of us met on the street that we could sit down and enjoyably have a beer together.”
    I’m pretty sure I’d be cooler with the rock fight thing with Jim here. Heh.

    desturbd1 April 27, 2007, 2:59 pm
  • Always love the tough talk coming from keyboards, especially from dorks with pimp names.

    jim - YF April 27, 2007, 3:11 pm
  • Always love the tough talk filtered through keyboards, especially from the wannabe pimps. Heh.

    jim - YF April 27, 2007, 3:13 pm
  • Pimp names…? I’m not even sure what that means. And I was kidding…mostly. FWIW, I fully recognize the lameness of my handle…just a matter of habit, and an inability to think of something new.

    desturbd1 April 27, 2007, 3:16 pm
  • Uh, maybe your name? Or are you a Francis?

    jim - YF April 27, 2007, 3:16 pm
  • “Always love the tough talk coming from keyboards, especially from dorks with pimp names.”
    “Always love the tough talk filtered through keyboards, especially from the wannabe pimps. Heh.”
    Always love redundancy laced with machismo. I think he was kidding, bro.

    Tyrel SF April 27, 2007, 3:20 pm
  • Ugh. I feel like I shouldn’t even dignify this with a response, but I’m going to anyway.
    Like I said, let’s see him do it for 200 innings before you start comparing him to Pedro and Babe. It’s an insult to the history of the game.
    For the last time, Paul was not trying to compare Beckett to Pedro and Ruth. He was simply listing the pitching lines for the only three Red Sox starters to go 5-0 in April. It’s more like the answer to a trivia question that will pop up in a few years. Nobody is saying that because Beckett did something that Pedro did that he will be like Pedro. That’s silly.
    And no doubt YF’s will happily point out Beckett’s numbers for the rest of the year as he tumbles. After all, he’s consistently been average, if that.
    True, Beckett’s career ERA+ is only a tick over average. But you’re not factoring in that he hasn’t peaked yet. I know it’s easy to forget because he’s been in the majors awhile, but Beckett turns 27 next month. He isn’t some reclamation project in his mid-thirties. To say that he’ll always be average is flat out ignoring his age and potential.
    Now all of a sudden he knows how to pitch? Cause Orel said so?
    Actually, he knows how to pitch because John Farell, Terry Francona, Curt Schilling, Jason Varitek, Jerry Remy, Dennis Eckersley and, most importantly, the box scores say he does. That and the fact that anyone who has watched Beckett this year will see an obvious difference in his command and pitch selection. A side by side comparison of his ’06 and ’07 selves (done on NESN last night, actually) show that he is doing a lot of things differently this year, and so far, the results have been great. No one’s saying he’ll go undefeated all year; that’s impossible. Sox fans are simply happy to be seeing a much different Josh Beckett than last year, and happy with the results so far. That’s all.

    mouse April 27, 2007, 3:21 pm
  • “Disturbed” is a metal band. Misspelled because, at the time of my handle’s conception, the properly spelled versions were taken.
    I’ve had the same handle serve as a number of things since I was a freshman in high school…which was over six years ago. (I think I made a typekey account four years ago) I don’t like it anymore, and don’t even really care for the band that much…but I’ve been too lazy to go ahead and change things around.

    desturbd1 April 27, 2007, 3:21 pm
  • “Uh, maybe your name? Or are you a Francis?”
    Haha, that’s actually my middle name. Not too happy about that either.

    desturbd1 April 27, 2007, 3:22 pm
  • I mean, Josh Beckett?
    Yes, Josh Beckett. He throws a hundred miles and hour, and has one of the best hooks in the game. When he fully learns to pitch, you can count on him being dominant. Not because I say so, but because everyone (but you of course) say so. Why the need to piss all over this thread, Jim. Don’t you have something about Posada to post somewhere?
    We clearly can’t talk about Beckett in July, well, becuase it isn’t here yet. But, what will you say if we get there and he’s 14-2 with a 3.0? Will you be back? I’m looking forward to it. Really, I am.

    Brad April 27, 2007, 3:25 pm
  • Always love the tough talk coming from keyboards, especially from dorks with pimp names.
    __________________
    As you insult, ummm… wait for it…., through your keyboard.
    Indeed, you are the toughest of the internet bullies around here, friend.

    Brad April 27, 2007, 3:29 pm
  • Of course I’ll be back. And happily point out Varitek’s .650 OPS.
    No doubt Beckett has potential. But he has yet to deliver, except in brief bursts like the current one. All I’d like is at least that half season to go by. Let’s see it. Then 200 innings. Where has a SF said that in this thread?
    And thanks, Francis.

    jim - YF April 27, 2007, 3:35 pm
  • Okay, looking forward to it.

    Brad April 27, 2007, 3:50 pm
  • “All I’d like is at least that half season to go by. Let’s see it. Then 200 innings. Where has a SF said that in this thread?”
    All ANYONE in this thread has said: Beckett looks like a different pitcher and we’re optimistic that he’s made some adjustments; the only reason Pedro and Ruth are being mentioned is because they were the only other two to go 5-0 in April. To which you keep replying, “Beckett hasn’t done it over a full season so why are you mentioning Pedro and Ruth?” Yes, ignoring what we say and repeating yourself over and over again…that’s trolling.
    Varitek struck out three times against Roy Halladay (who’s always owned him) and three times against Cabrera (ditto). Both pretty good strikeout pitchers. Overall, he’s got a .273 BABIP despite a fantastic 23.4 LD%, and a solid walk-rate. All indicators of an improvement over the coming months, barring injury. Not to 04-05 Tek, but at least a high-700′s OPS, I think.
    (On a side note, Manny’s BABIP is just .203…teeny-tiny. Still says he looks bad in the games I’ve watched, but things will get better.)

    desturbd1 April 27, 2007, 3:52 pm
  • D1, All these stats… And all this logic. Why can’t you understand that Varitek just sucks? Jim says so, so it’s clearly true. We’re all just trying to catch up.

    Paul SF April 27, 2007, 4:00 pm
  • Francis -
    The reason to mention Pedro and Babe is to be giddy like little schoolgirls (which was the direction this thread was headed). The historical “precedent” is meaningless. Glad I can be the hammer of truth. You guys seem to need that these days, especially as you piss out the same so readily (see next thread).
    And Brad, I’m sure in July Beckett will be falling well short of that 14-2 3.00 line. Good one though. I thought you were serious for a few minutes.

    jim - YF April 27, 2007, 4:01 pm
  • Of course, Varitek sucks. Always has too. But now, he’s just finished. Sure Francis brings up some good points. And that’s why they play the games. But me, I’m going to enjoy the calls for Varitek to be benched. But not as much as SF’s are enjoying the Yanks’ pitching woes while rubbing our noses in it.

    jim - YF April 27, 2007, 4:06 pm
  • …yeah, Paul, I know. Maybe Varitek nailed Jim’s girlfriend a few years back, or ran over his dog. Who knows…
    …funny, all Paul’s post did was show the three lines, with no commentary whatsoever. Bill said: “Good job Beckett, keep it up.”
    First person to bitch: You. First person to inexplicably bring up Hanley: You. First person to compare Beckett’s career to Pedro’s: You. Thread wasn’t going in any particular direction until you started spouting.
    Last time I respond to jim…if I want to argue with an unnecessarily beligerant Yankee Fan, I can find some drunk f*ck at a bar or Orioles game and have far more fun then I would typing at a computer. Internet’s more useful in actually discussing the game then fighting over nothing.
    (PS: We don’t bail on our idols that quickly; I don’t remember anyone calling for Tek’s ouster last season, and it sure hasn’t started yet this year)

    desturbd1 April 27, 2007, 4:17 pm
  • “We don’t bail on our idols that quickly”
    Addendum: Except for that time Manny got booed, which was totally different because, uh, Manny’s totally different.

    desturbd1 April 27, 2007, 4:19 pm
  • The reason to mention Pedro and Babe is to be giddy like little schoolgirls (which was the direction this thread was headed).
    This is the direction of the thread before you trolled in, Jim:
    Quo: Would like to see more power from Lugo.
    Hudson: Pedro’s line is incredible.
    Bill: Beckett’s good work is being overshadowed.
    Yeah, a lot of giddiness there. Meanwhile, I appreciate the effort at reading my thoughts, but considering you had NO IDEA about the actual FACT behind choosing those three seasons from those three pitchers, and were called on that, it’s interesting you continue to try to grasp at trying to make this into something it wasn’t.
    I would like to thank you though for continuing to make Sox fans look incredibly intelligent by your very presence in these threads. I have never seen anyone do such a thorough job in making an ass of himself and being an embarrassment to the rest of his fanbase. Congratulations.

    Paul SF April 27, 2007, 4:37 pm
  • I know it’s not perfect because of the difference in eras, but how about this comparison for Tek (you have to scroll down to see their comps by age) -
    http://tinyurl.com/2r7tlm

    Tyrel SF April 27, 2007, 4:41 pm
  • My amazement is that you think you have something important to add, Paul, when your “analysis” is so completely superficial:
    a) Beckett’s April!
    b) Lugo isn’t as bad as you thought
    c) Helton’s a better option than Lowell
    Keep trying though. I’m sure you’ll get it sooner or later.

    jim - YF April 27, 2007, 4:42 pm
  • Nice try, Jim. You’ll have to do better than that.

    Paul SF April 27, 2007, 4:48 pm
  • As do you, Paul, but beginning with the thread. Shoot, man, you didn’t even bother to look at Helton’s home/road splits!?
    Wow.

    jim - YF April 27, 2007, 4:51 pm
  • But Paul — It doesn’t matter that you did not go and fabricate the correlation yourself.
    He is Jim, the “Hammer of Truth”. His logic is infallible. You cannot argue with him.

    Kluv April 27, 2007, 4:53 pm
  • “My amazement is that you think you have something important to add, Paul, when your “analysis” is so completely superficial:”
    Jim’s analysis, in brief
    - Paul you’re drunk
    - Helton hits differently in CO than on the road, but he’s still good
    - HANLEY RAMIREZ!!!
    - JEFF BAGWELL!!!
    - Beckett < Babe Ruth and Pedro
    - D1 is a pimp named Francis
    - Tek is teh sucky
    - Paul’s analysis is superficial

    Tyrel SF April 27, 2007, 4:54 pm
  • Silly me, Kluv, I expected *more* analysis than the mainstream media, not a copy of it.

    jim - YF April 27, 2007, 4:56 pm
  • …breaking my promise already but this is just too easy…
    Shoot, jim, you didn’t even bother to look at Lowell’s home/road splits?
    Home: .351/.381/.676
    Away: .282/.333/.462
    Works for both players, genius. Original point stands…though I can’t say I have any idea of what yours was in the first place…that he’s not THAT much better then Lowell, still better, but not THAT much? Ugh…

    desturbd1 April 27, 2007, 4:59 pm
  • Ah, those must be the home/road splits in which both are better than Lowell’s production. Yes, that certainly would have been insightful. Sorry, Jim, you’re like your mind’s version of Varitek — toast. It’s been fun reading your juvenile rantings, but that’s enough.
    Let’s grow up a little, OK? Seriously. You have made yourself a pariah, both here and at Bronx Banter because of your negative, ill-informed and spiteful comments. I would urge everyone here, both SF and YF, to ignore Jim from now on, even during his bouts of rationality. It’s just not worth wading through the crap to find a penny.

    Paul SF April 27, 2007, 5:00 pm
  • Uh, Francis, Helton would be coming to play in Fenway while Lowell is already doing so much better there.
    Are you people really this dense?

    jim - YF April 27, 2007, 5:02 pm
  • Let’s see:
    Helton Road: .326 .420 .442
    Lowell Home: .351 .381 .676
    Nah, I’d rather have Helton.

    jim - YF April 27, 2007, 5:04 pm
  • And Brad, I’m sure in July Beckett will be falling well short of that 14-2 3.00 line. Good one though. I thought you were serious for a few minutes.
    Really? Why, because you say so?

    Brad April 27, 2007, 5:12 pm
  • Nevermind… I’m with Paul here. Go back to BB and let those guys make fun of you. At least then it’s your own fanbase pointing it out.
    Also, that’s a great post, Kluv…

    Brad April 27, 2007, 5:19 pm
  • Jesus Christ people, can’t you see that Mike Lowell’s 37 at bats in Fenway Park this season and Todd Helton’s 43 at bats on the road are the only criteria worthy of deciding whether or not the Sox should consider dealing one for the other? Are you dense?
    [/Retahd]
    Anyways, I posted this on another thread, not because I thought it was applicable to a poster there, but because I thought it was funny. However, I would venture to say it applies to our special friend Jim.
    “Probably the most successful kind of internet troll, the kind of troll unaware that it is actually attempting to troll, is the truly stupid person. They attract an immense amount of attention, bringing out all of our inner teachers. We cannot believe they are actually that stupid. We believe that maybe, somehow, if we explain things to them very slowly they will actually have the capacity to learn. But they don’t. They are giant honking ignoramuses who don’t know anything about anything and likely never will.
    Yet we can’t resist them, because we are fascinated by their stupidity. Fascinated that they manage to be that profoundly dumb yet still manage to tie their shoes, string complete sentences together, etc”

    Tyrel SF April 27, 2007, 5:23 pm
  • Um, Jim, your Ridalin is calling.

    I'm Bill McNeal April 27, 2007, 5:29 pm
  • mmmmmm. Ridalin.

    Brad April 27, 2007, 5:37 pm
  • mmmmmm. glove sandwich.

    sf rod April 27, 2007, 5:41 pm
  • mikes middle name is averett, and todds is lynn. sounds like a couple of soft tossers to me jim. maybe you could blindside them with your keyboard.

    sf rod April 27, 2007, 8:07 pm

Leave a Comment