Blogads

Google Ads


« Mastering the Media | Main | The New Rules, Not Quite the Same as the Old Rules »

Saturday, February 17, 2007

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I was wondering if you'd point out that article, Paul. Thanks for not disappointing me. It could just be the February Kool-Aid, but I have a good feeling about Josh this year. Moreso than I did last year, actually.

I do hope the Twins can somehow find the money to keep Santana (ditto the Cubs with Big Z). Not just to keep him away from the Yankees, mind, but because that's what Minnesota fans deserve. They should get to see their franchise pitcher on the mound of their new stadium after it's built. It only seems right.

I will pre-empt the Yankees fans who don't get Paul's joke:

"30 wins? Yeah, over the next three seasons! OH, SNAP!"

Now back to your regularly scheduled blogging. And I hope to God I am not right about this projection, either.

Great stuff Paul. That data is encouraging for Beckett.

"I do hope the Twins can somehow find the money to keep Santana"

Oh, the Twins have the money. Twins owner Carl Pohlad is a billionaire banker/investor who has viewed the Twins as an investment and has been reluctant to pour anymore money into the franchise then is absolutely necessary.

Pohlad is 89, and he can't take it with him. Why not beef up the Twin's payroll and improve their chances at another ring before he heads up to that big savings and loan in the sky? But that's just me.

The Twins did get a sweet deal recently with their signing of Joe Mauer to a 4 yr. 33 mil. contract extension. PECOTA projects Mauer to be worth 140 mil. over those 4 seasons.

The Bradford article on Beckett is a bit confusing. What does Beckett mean that he has to trust Varitek more? One of the implications of the article is that Varitek and whoever else was calling the pitches and misidentified Beckett as primarily as fastball-curve guy (with very little emphasis on the change). Beckett knew this in his heart but he didn't speak up, presumably because he didn't want to undermine Varitek, or maybe I'm misreading this. Beckett says in the article that if Varitek calls a fast ball twenty straight times, you should do it because the captain knows what he's doing. But isn't the basic idea of the article that Beckett was better served following his instinct?

"I will pre-empt the Yankees fans who don't get Paul's joke:
"30 wins? Yeah, over the next three seasons! OH, SNAP"

SF, thanks for spoiling my fun. I was going to say over the rest of his career, though.

Seems to me that Beckett got hammered last year when he couldn't throw his curve for a strike. Since I don't have James yet, is there any data on the percentage of his curves which were called strikes?

I suppose that would be ok if his career lasted just one more year and he won 30 games in '07 while leading the Sox to a title.

Uh, no it wouldn't. 1 year? C'mon, he's a youngster.I kind of like the prospect of a 5 wins/6yr finish.

How many of the dingers were on fastballs, how many on hanging heaters?

My memory tells me he gave up many home runs on flat, high fastballs.

I wonder how bad my memory is, though. Good question.

Control is definitely the key to Beckett's problems in 2006. He was among the best in the league in BAA, fastest fastballs, unhittable curveballs, etc etc etc. His walks were high and his home runs were atrocious.

You have to assume that his poor control led to his home runs, but just 16 of his 36 home runs allowed were when the hitter was ahead or the count was full. Only two were on 3-1 counts, just one was on a 2-0 count, and none was on a 3-0 count. So, who knows? I can't find any data as to what pitches the home runs were off of, or what Beckett;s strike percentage was for each pitch. Sure would be nice if those were available somewhere...

even i've admitted that beckett will probably have a better year this year...maybe another year under his belt, or the influence of a new pitching coach, less attention on him because of dm, whatever the reason, he'll do better...

foulke did show a lot of class...good to hear that acknowledged, especially since i sensed some animosity after he hinted that he didn't really want to stay with the sox...he also could have kept boston's money by exercising his player option...

can't believe you guys are still trying the "coco's better than damon" angle...i'm sure he's better than him at something, but give it up already...he got away from you and coco was the best available...could work out over the long haul, but you couldn't tell that by the first year...

revenue-sharing: not all of the yf's think it's a bad thing to even the playing field...especially if the other teams actually spend the money, something that's not currently verified...a team signing a player to a long term contract doesn't necessarily mean they won't trade him anyway [look how many times you guys tried to trade manny]...you could argue that a signed player has more trade value than one with impending free agency...no, competition is good...if the yanks were free to just bully the rest of mlb for free agents, it wouldn't be as sweet to win a ws...the whine about the yanks just buying the ws would have a truer ring to it than it does now...

good sportswriting = optimistic puff pieces with strong pro-sox bias

bad sportswriting = hall of fame credentials, sacrifices popularity for telling it like it is

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Search YFSF




Sports Gambling

twitter

schedule & standings