Soxbadger

Congrats on surviving another year.

I cant speak for Bmags, but my position is that definitely anyone who wants to have children can have them. Buy my position is also that anyone who wants an abortion can have one as well. My point was about people who want to remove the choice of abortions from underprivileged people while at the same time not wanting to pay more taxes to support the children that they are forcing people to have. I personally have not seen anyone suggesting that underprivileged people must have abortions, just that they should have the same choices as me, that they can have an abortion if they choose.

Unfortunately for Maddon hes going back to the clubhouse where hell see the replay and realize it was absolutely the right call. And Dave Martinez rocking the caveman.

Ump got in the way of Gavin throwing to 2nd, you can see him try and throw around the ump. Bad break.

Dont want to get to excited about Humber after 1 start, so cautious optimism and setting the bar low for expectations.

Well if Peavy can get healthy, Humber may help the pen some because he looked better than Pena.

Homer wasnt earned because had the Sox made the 2 outs previously the inning would have been over. Ive never kept score but it was my understanding that if the out(s) would have ended the inning then the runs scored after are unearned.

Your taking the words to literally and using them in a way that they werent intended to be used. It was clear that my intention was merely about a great reliever not necessarily being a great closer. I merely was saying that you can quote as many stats about Thornton that you want, but it doesnt mean he can close. I was in no way suggesting that statistics in general have no use, if a guy had a 100 era in A, I doubt he could be a closer in MLB. The argument was that just because a guy has a sub 3 era as a reliever, does not mean hell be able to close.

Everyone can remember the success, because well, almost every closer relieved for at least a few innings before they closed. Even Mariano Rivera was set up for a year. The point is you dont know until you try, but when you try you cant just assume that because they were relievers they can close.

I cant explain it, it doesnt make any sense, but there are seemingly guys who can close and guys who cant. I mean its just as strange that some closers seem to do worse in tie games or when the team is down. I dont get it, and I think Thornton should succeed, I just wish they would show is offspeed a little more. Not a huge change, just average 1 out of 5 pitches (basically 1 time to each hitter), just keep them a little honest.

But you dont have 4-5 years of data of Thornton as closer, he hasnt been a closer. The entire premise of my argument is that being a closer is different than being a reliever, thus using reliever statistics are worthless when talking about his ability to close.

Right so on a night when his fastball isnt that great as a reliever, you can pull him and put some one else in. On a night when his fastball isnt that great and hes the closer, he has to figure out a way to finish the game. Most other closers will start to go more to the second pitch in a game like tonight. Hence my problem with the stubborn refusal to use his off speed more often. The guy should be unhittable with his stuff, they just have to call it a little smarter. Use the off speed to set up the fastball as an out pitch, but at least show it early in an inning so players think it might come.

I disagree that there are more high leverage situations than being the pitcher to have to make the last 3 outs. Sure there is a lot of pressure with the bases loaded and no outs in the 8th. But if you fail, your team still at minimum has 2 chances to pick you up. Not to mention the manager is more likely to make a switch if you get a bad match up. As a closer you are the last line, it lives and dies with you. Its a different situation and there is a reason where there are numerous examples of guys who were great as closers and bad as relievers or vice versa. Furthermore, statistics are only good at telling you what has happened in the past. If you watched the game tonight, his fastball was pretty hittable and a guy that had no business beating Thornton hit a HR off him. That wasnt the defense, that was Thornton's best pitch being destroyed by a left handed hitter. Im a huge Thornton fan, but what I saw tonight was a concern, the past isnt going to change what happened tonight.

Let me be clear, Im not blaming tonight on Thornton at all. Im just really concerned he exclusively featured the fastball while giving up 5 runs, and the fastball wasnt really popping like usual. Its a game like that where you need to use your other pitches at least to keep the guy from zeroing in on the fastball.

Id be thrilled if Thornton would throw something other than a fastball 20% of the time. That is 1 out of every 5 pitches, look at the stats from tonight and then you will see the answers you seek. You just proved my argument, he wasnt even 1 for 10 (and Rivera is a freak and throwing something other than a fastball doesnt count as his cutter is his "other" pitch)

Here is a stat 8 That is the most amount of games that Thornton has saved in his entire career in a single season. You can say FIP and stats as much as you want, but most of those stats were not as a closer. And closer seems to be one of those positions where not everyone can handle it. Im not saying that Thornton is a failure at all, just he was far to predictable. I personally think he can be a great closer, I just think as a closer he needs to use his other pitches more often to keep the hitters off balance. Every single guy up there was just sitting fastball and there arent many successful pitchers in the history of the game who have gotten away with only throwing 1 pitch. Statistics be damned.

Ive seen Matt pitch as many times as anyone, I know that most nights he can get away with throwing just fastballs. But if you watched TONIGHT, his fastball wasnt really fooling anyone. Yes there were 2 errors, but the 3 run home run wasnt an error and that was what killed the Sox. Bad things are going to happen, but giving up 5 runs in an inning is a pretty horrifically bad thing. Im about the last person to overreact, but if you didnt watch the game tonight and feel a real sense of unease about how those fastballs were being picked up by the other teams hitters, I dont know what to say. You can get away with being a 1 pitch pitcher a lot more in the 7th or 8th inning. Its an entirely different game in the 9th, when the other team is willing to pinch hit much more often. There is a reason that not every player who has been a great reliever can close. Because of Matt's great previous performances Im willing to give him some time to adjust to the role, just in my opinion as closer, he will need to feature his other pitches more often to keep hitters honest.

As bad as the defense is, how long can a pitcher get away with throwing only fastballs? Even if he has no confidence in his second pitch in a three run game you have to throw your other stuff. Just so that people even believe that you are willing to throw it. That is my biggest concern, Pierre and Ramirez arent going to repeat those errors that often, but there was no reason for Matt shouldnt have at least tried to throw a few offspeed pitches early in the inning to mix it up.

Nice inning so far. Konerko just missed it.

I think the Sox offensive approach has a lot to do with the players being willing to listen and try and improve. Its just night and day with a guy like Rios vs AJP. Rios may struggle, he may succeed (like right now), but you can see that he actually is trying to get better when hes doing poorly. AJ just keeps doing the same s*** every ab and hopes for different results.

I think the part that makes you scratch your head is that if we let people with low income and who are underprivileged have more babies that they cant afford, who is going to end up paying for them anyway. If you have a moral problem with abortions that is your call, but you should be the one responsible for paying for that moral position, not me or the parents that didnt want the baby. To use Tex's mortgage example: Itd be like if a bank could force you to take a property that you didnt want, and the bank would have no responsibility for paying for the house, even though they knew you couldnt afford it.

I think the above post is a great way of legitimately arguing that the Jackson deal may backfire.

Search the posters name in google with terms and you may get lucky. Its how I track down some of my posts.

No when the trade first happened, the main b**** about Javy was that how could the Sox give up on The Chris Young. The Sox traded El Duque for Vazquez plus cash Vazquez was set to make $11.5 mil, El Duque was to make 4.6 mil + he had a 2 mil bonus on innings. Thus when Vaz was first acquired his total cost in terms of money was 11.5-4.6 = 6.9 and the Sox got more cash on top of that. He didnt become overpaid for the Sox until they resigned him to a new contract. But lets not talk about facts. (Edit) Strangesox, lol Okay that makes a lot more sense, it caught me off guard because J4L quoted it like it was a serious statement and that it was actually a good argument. I generally do take comments like that as humorous.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA And dont worry you wont get suspended, Im a big boy, Ill ask that the admin allow you to say anything you want to me. Im not an admin so I cant promise that theyll honor my request, but I strongly believe that: "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it." But you guys are 100% right, because Ive missed 1 time in the 9+ years Ive been on this site, my credibility is worthless. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Man I can not stop laughing at the fact that people think they are right all the time.