madmikeisback Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 Ellsbury is a career .291 hitter. He hit .301 in his last full season. Why can't he hit again? Everything on the Sox injuries from last season are coming up fine. No one is being restricted at all. Heck, rumor has it Beckett is has been fiercely training and Lackey has lost 15 pounds. Wow when you resort to batting avg it just shows that you have no argument. It's gonna be funny when boston dumps him for nothing at some point and you magically realize that he sucked all along. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SenorGato Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 Ellsbury is a career .291 hitter. He hit .301 in his last full season. Why can't he hit again? Everything on the Sox injuries from last season are coming up fine. No one is being restricted at all. Heck, rumor has it Beckett is has been fiercely training and Lackey has lost 15 pounds. Ellsbury also doesn't hit for power and isn't much of a walker...he's a slightly better version of Juan Pierre with more injury history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrazyCarl40 Posted February 14, 2011 Author Share Posted February 14, 2011 Ellsbury also doesn't hit for power and isn't much of a walker...he's a slightly better version of Juan Pierre with more injury history. He doesn't have that much of an injury history. Just last year and that was broken ribs. He's more than serviceable for the Sox needs and is certainly not a gaping hole. You don't need an All Star at every position to be successful. He can be a game changer with his speed and defense at times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bugg Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 Who's suspecting? Every team had guys using PED's, including the Red Sox. No one team is above another in that regard. At this point though, who cares anyway? Exactly. Virginity on this ia pretty much gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GimmeShelter Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 If your among your reasons for rooting for any MLB team is the belief that your guys have not used PEDs, time to grow up. Suspect almsot everyone to some degree or another at some point in their career uses PEDs.Serious quibble with Sawx fans;w e've come to deal with Aroid, you guys are in denial over your PED users. And nobody really cares any more. The guys we see on the field are either using better chemists who are ahead of the testing. Far more outraged that our government wastes resources prosecuting Clemens, Bonds and now Lance Armstrong. Agree 100%. It is interesting though that three years ago a post like yours was nowhere to be found among Yankee fans and most MLB fans. Prior to the Roger, Andy and ARod use becoming public it was prety much a Barry Bonds witch hunt for the most part on this board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmikeisback Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 He doesn't have that much of an injury history. Just last year and that was broken ribs. He's more than serviceable for the Sox needs and is certainly not a gaping hole. You don't need an All Star at every position to be successful. He can be a game changer with his speed and defense at times. Thats just talking around a terrible player and not very well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SenorGato Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 He doesn't have that much of an injury history. Just last year and that was broken ribs. He's more than serviceable for the Sox needs and is certainly not a gaping hole. You don't need an All Star at every position to be successful. He can be a game changer with his speed and defense at times. IIRC he also had injury problems in college and possibly the minors...you're welcome to fact check for me if you'd like. The guy is a decent player at his absolute best...more fun and entertaining than anything really...oooh look how fast and such... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PFSIKH Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 Ellsbury also doesn't hit for power and isn't much of a walker...he's a slightly better version of Juan Pierre with more injury history. Is Ellsbury done developing? No one knows. You are comparing him to a guy in his mid-30s. He was 24 and 25 when he showed the impatience at the plate. The power is what it is. He doesn't have it. While he did show impatience, he did improve from his first full season in 2008 to 2009. He hit better, walked more and struck out less. All his important numbers improved. Yes, if he does not get any better over the next 6 years, then he is a slightly better Juan Pierre. However, he could still improve, we both do not know. He has shown improvement though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackout Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 you are a FOOL to think Ellsubry will steal 70 this year who wants to give up all those RBI opps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmikeisback Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 Is Ellsbury done developing? No one knows. You are comparing him to a guy in his mid-30s. He was 24 and 25 when he showed the impatience at the plate. The power is what it is. He doesn't have it. While he did show impatience, he did improve from his first full season in 2008 to 2009. He hit better, walked more and struck out less. All his important numbers improved. Yes, if he does not get any better over the next 6 years, then he is a slightly better Juan Pierre. However, he could still improve, we both do not know. He has shown improvement though. He's never shown that improvement. Anything you say about him improving wishful thinking and is based on nothing other than your red sox fan delusions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PFSIKH Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 He's never shown that improvement. Anything you say about him improving wishful thinking and is based on nothing other than your red sox fan delusions. Really? His BA went from .281 to .301, OBP increased from .336 to .355, SLG from .394 to .415 and OPS from .729 to .770. Additionally, with 82 more plate appearances in his second season, his amount of strikeouts decreased and the amount of walks increased. How did he not improve? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmikeisback Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Really? His BA went from .281 to .301, OBP increased from .336 to .355, SLG from .394 to .415 and OPS from .729 to .770. Additionally, with 82 more plate appearances in his second season, his amount of strikeouts decreased and the amount of walks increased. How did he not improve? You wernt talking about him improving from horrible to just bad. You were implying he's good. Which he isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PFSIKH Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 You wernt talking about him improving from horrible to just bad. You were implying he's good. Which he isn't. Then what is Granderson? He is a horrible hitter. He can't hit for average. His Ks way too much. Ellsbury is good and with huge upside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmikeisback Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Then what is Granderson? He is a horrible hitter. He can't hit for average. His Ks way too much. Ellsbury is good and with huge upside. Are you out of your mind? Granderson is a good defensive CF with a CAREER 822 OPS. Do you know how rare that is? But I guess in boston retard world 822 OPS = Can't hit haha. Comparing him to crap like Ellsbury is hilarious. So Granderson is "horrible" yet he destroys Ellsbury is pretty much every meaningful stat... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PFSIKH Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Are you out of your mind? Granderson is a good defensive CF with a CAREER 822 OPS. Do you know how rare that is? But I guess in boston retard world 822 OPS = Can't hit haha. Comparing him to crap like Ellsbury is hilarious. So Granderson is "horrible" yet he destroys Ellsbury is pretty much every meaningful stat... Go look at Granderson's stats. He can't hit. A career .268 hitter is not a good hitter by any standard. A hitter that averages a 136Ks since he became an everyday player is not a good hitter. Granderson's .822 OPs is an anomaly. He had two monster, relatively speaking, OPS years. Every other year he is a .250ish hitter with a sub 800 OPS. When he retires, he will have a sub-800 career OPS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SenorGato Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Go look at Granderson's stats. He can't hit. A career .268 hitter is not a good hitter by any standard. A hitter that averages a 136Ks since he became an everyday player is not a good hitter. Granderson's .822 OPs is an anomaly. He had two monster, relatively speaking, OPS years. Every other year he is a .250ish hitter with a sub 800 OPS. When he retires, he will have a sub-800 career OPS. Yeah....no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmikeisback Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Go look at Granderson's stats. He can't hit. A career .268 hitter is not a good hitter by any standard. A hitter that averages a 136Ks since he became an everyday player is not a good hitter. Granderson's .822 OPs is an anomaly. He had two monster, relatively speaking, OPS years. Every other year he is a .250ish hitter with a sub 800 OPS. When he retires, he will have a sub-800 career OPS. This is a tour de force in not having any idea what you're talking about. Talk about cherry picking. He's had 3 years out of 6 where his OPS has been well over 800 so it's not an anomaly. He's done it and repeated it. NTM the fact that even his worst years are heads and shoulders above anything Ellsbury has ever done in his life. Are you really stupid enough to be using K's and Batting Average to bash him? Probably the 2 most useless stats for judging hitters when all his important stats say that he's a very good player? Really? I could say that Adrian Gonzalez K's about 125 times a year so he sucks but then again I'm not a moronic homer grasping at straws to bash a player from another time and to defend utter crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 I'm not a moronic homer You had us all enraptured at this line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmikeisback Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 You had us all enraptured at this line. I thought for a second you had something to add to the Ellsbury-Granderson argument but then i remembered that you have nothing to add to anything other than trolling for a reaction. Silly me. PS Also pull out a dictionary and learn how to use enraptured correctly so you don't sound so ignorant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 I thought for a second you had something to add to the Ellsbury-Granderson argument but then i realize that you have nothing to add to anything other than trolling for a reaction. Silly me. Ellsbury>Granderson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmikeisback Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Ellsbury>Granderson You contributed a ">" symbol. This is actually one of your better posts. Congrads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt39 Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Ellsbury>Granderson That is factually incorrect though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmikeisback Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 That is factually incorrect though. Don't you know this formula? X > Y Where Y is any yankee player and X is any non yankee player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt39 Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Don't you know this formula? X > Y Where Y is any yankee player and X is any non yankee player. Granderson isnt a star by any means, but he's better than Ellsbury who's probably the Sox worst hitter outside of who's catching that day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 The most interesting battle will be which TEAM is better than the other in 2011. The rest is superfluous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt39 Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 The most interesting battle will be which TEAM is better than the other in 2011. The rest is superfluous. Individual players make up a team, so these conversations are worth having. Simply discussing the center fielders of both TEAMS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Individual players make up a team, so these conversations are worth having. Simply discussing the center fielders of both TEAMS. Have at it, but teams win, players don't Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmikeisback Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Have at it, but teams win, players don't So just as a quick summary, you tried to interject a dumb point in to a conversation that was basically dismissed in one sentence and then you respond with a one line cliche (once again adding nothing to the discussion.) Banner performance by you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt39 Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Have at it, but teams win, players don't Players make up teams...batter vs pitcher is 1 on 1. If each individual on a team does their job, better than the other side...that team usually wins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Players make up teams...batter vs pitcher is 1 on 1. If each individual on a team does their job, better than the other side...that team usually wins. Correct-You are then comparing TEAMS (each individual, as you state) and line-ups, rather than 1 individual player against the other. in 2010 Jose Reyes> Derek Jeter. No one is dumb enough to say that the Mets > Yankees because of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt39 Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Correct-You are then comparing TEAMS (each individual, as you state) and line-ups, rather than 1 individual player against the other. in 2010 Jose Reyes> Derek Jeter. No one is dumb enough to say that the Mets > Yankees because of that. Of course not. But the Yankees would have been a better team with Reyes over Jeter. Even though Reyes was hurt a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Of course not. But the Yankees would have been a better team with Reyes over Jeter. Even though Reyes was hurt a lot. But that exercise is fruitless. Again, have it at it, but the madmikeisbannedagain argument is frothy at best, and vindictive at worst. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmikeisback Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 But that exercise is fruitless. Again, have it at it, but the madmikeisbannedagain argument is frothy at best, and vindictive at worst. Yeah it's completely useless to compare players who play the same position and who are barely 3 years apart in age. Who the hell would want to do that? Look what you did! You changed my name around to imply that i'm going to get banned again. So clever! You really are a great poster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt39 Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 But that exercise is fruitless. Again, have it at it, but the madmikeisbannedagain argument is frothy at best, and vindictive at worst. I don't see it as fruitless, but ok. It's hard to argue that having an inferior player at a position on a good team, can't be upgraded by a better player, who plays the same position, on a bad team. Baseball for the most part is an individual sport. I'd have to lean toward winning improves team chemistry over the opposite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 I don't see it as fruitless, but ok. It's hard to argue that having an inferior player at a position on a good team, can't be upgraded by a better player, who plays the same position, on a bad team. Baseball for the most part is an individual sport. I'd have to lean toward winning improves team chemistry over the opposite. That is a whole other argument-chicken vs egg type of thing-but that is not what is being done here. Who is better Gonzalez or Teixiera? Is that what is going to be the deciding factor this year? Let's see what Yankee's 3-4-5 does. That would seem to be where the curiosity lies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.