2003 vs. 2004 Redsox PLAYOFF TEAM. who's better? [Archive]

ColombiaYanksFan

10-04-04, 08:26 PM

Many have claimed that this years team is much improved from last year. It's hard for me to tell either way.

The ones gone from last year are Yankee killers Todd Walker and Nomar. (Kevin Millar seems to be the new Yankee killer) I think between them both, they only made 1 error in the post season last year, so defensively, no improvement there(plus both robbed a few players from hits). As far as 1stB, Mientwetizeketz, I've heard he's great at first, but him and Cabrera have a lifetime batting avg. under .240 (or so).

Acquiring one of the best pitchers and closers in the majors this year, was a humungous improvement(Schilling and Foulke). Now as far as Scott Williamson, will he be on the PS roster? That may even out the comparison to last year's bullpen, depending who replaces him.

Mr. Pedro last year gave up 7 homeruns in 29 games. This year, he's given up 26 homeruns in 32 games!. That's a no no going into the playoffs. His ERA went from 2.22 last year, to 3.78 this year.

Wakefield I think is about the same. Some may argue that he's gotten better, but with a knuckleballer, I just don't know what to expect. Eventhough, when he gets clobbered, he really gets clobbered. With the exception of the Yankees(eventhough last time he gave up 5 runs w/them).

Does anyone know what other players are gone, and ones that are new on this team, going into this playoffs? OR WHAT OTHER COMPARISONS THERE ARE? I really would love to compare a little more to see if those so called "analysts" at ESPN (Phillip, Gammons) are going to eat their words again, as they do year after year with their bad predictions.

RhodeyYankee2638

10-04-04, 08:34 PM

2003

WebsterMulligan

10-04-04, 08:46 PM

2004 is better, IMO. They have better infield defense, starting pitching and a better bullpen. They still slug the baseball with authority, as they did in '03.

NDBoston

10-04-04, 08:49 PM

Originally posted by COLOMBIAYANKSFAN
Many have claimed that this years team is much improved from last year. It's hard for me to tell either way.

The ones gone from last year are Yankee killers Todd Walker and Nomar. (Kevin Millar seems to be the new Yankee killer) I think between them both, they only made 1 error in the post season last year, so defensively, no improvement there(plus both robbed a few players from hits). As far as 1stB, Mientwetizeketz, I've heard he's great at first, but him and Cabrera have a lifetime batting avg. under .240 (or so).

Acquiring one of the best pitchers and closers in the majors this year, was a humungous improvement(Schilling and Foulke). Now as far as Scott Williamson, will he be on the PS roster? That may even out the comparison to last year's bullpen, depending who replaces him.

Mr. Pedro last year gave up 7 homeruns in 29 games. This year, he's given up 26 homeruns in 32 games!. That's a no no going into the playoffs. His ERA went from 2.22 last year, to 3.78 this year.

Wakefield I think is about the same. Some may argue that he's gotten better, but with a knuckleballer, I just don't know what to expect. Eventhough, when he gets clobbered, he really gets clobbered. With the exception of the Yankees(eventhough last time he gave up 5 runs w/them).

Does anyone know what other players are gone, and ones that are new on this team, going into this playoffs? OR WHAT OTHER COMPARISONS THERE ARE? I really would love to compare a little more to see if those so called "analysts" at ESPN (Phillip, Gammons) are going to eat their words again, as they do year after year with their bad predictions.

Cabrera has a lifetime BA of .268 and he's a GG fielder. He's batting .295 since coming to Boston.

Mientkiewicz is a lifetime .272 hitter.

Nomar wasn't a Yankee killer in the playoffs last year. He finally started hitting in Game 7.

The positives
Damon is having his best year in MLB. Much better than last year

Ortiz is having his best year in MLB. He seems to do just fine against NY

Ditto for Manny

The bench. Dave Roberts, Mientkiewicz, Youkilis and Maribelli is a very strong bench.

Negatives

Pedro and his last 4 starts. I prefer the 4 starts before that. I will take my chances with Pedro over Lieber, El Duque, Brown or Vaz.

Bottom Line: It's a more well rounded team with better pitching, defense and hitting than last year.

MaineSoxFan

10-04-04, 08:52 PM

Dooley Womack

10-04-04, 08:52 PM

The 2003 Sox team. They had more of an aura if that counts for anything.

Take away their impressive stretch and this 2004 Sox team was slightly better than a .500 club.

MaineSoxFan

10-04-04, 08:53 PM

Originally posted by Dooley Womack
The 2003 Sox team. They had more of an aura if that counts for anything.

Take away their impressive stretch and this 2004 Sox team was slightly better than a .500 club.

Take away their .500 stretch and they were around a .750 team.

NDBoston

10-04-04, 08:53 PM

ColombiaYanksFan

10-04-04, 08:56 PM

But Nomar and Walker had great range. Remember that great diving catch last year in the 7th game by Walker?

RhodeyYankee2638

10-04-04, 08:57 PM

perhaps I shall explain my stance

1) Last year, the Sox were more solid up and down their rotation. Pedro 2003 is about equal to Schil 2004. Wakefield was very good last year. Burkett and Lower were decent, not great. Wakefield was not getting smashed around last year. Lowe was very good out of the pen

2) Williamson at his best > Foulke at his best

3) More guys had career years last year: Millar, Mueller, Varitek etc.

4) guys are having the worst years of there career this year: Orlando, Pedro, Doug M

5) The Sox weakness of playing on the road was really accented this year

ColombiaYanksFan

10-04-04, 08:58 PM

I was more than convinced that this guy went downhill compared to what he did last year, and to my surprise, he's almost even from last year.

NDBoston

10-04-04, 09:00 PM

Originally posted by COLOMBIAYANKSFAN
But Nomar and Walker had great range. Remember that great diving catch last year in the 7th game by Walker?

Neither Nomar or Walker have great range, especially this year for Nomar.

Walker was so bad that he was nicknamed "Lawnchair" by my group of friends.

Sometimes you were better off just sticking a chair out there and take your chances at 2B. It was the reason he didn't start with the Cubs this year.

WebsterMulligan

10-04-04, 09:02 PM

Originally posted by NDBoston

Neither Nomar or Walker have great range, especially this year for Nomar.

Walker was so bad that he was nicknamed "Lawnchair" by my group of friends.

Sometimes you were better off just sticking a chair out there and take your chances at 2B. It was the reason he didn't start with the Cubs this year.

I completely agree. Walker was in the lineup, solely for his bat.

ColombiaYanksFan

10-04-04, 09:04 PM

Yet against the Yankees, he used to seem like Mr. Perfection on defense and offense. Go figure.

NDBoston

10-04-04, 09:09 PM

Originally posted by RhodeyYankee2638
perhaps I shall explain my stance

1) Last year, the Sox were more solid up and down their rotation. Pedro 2003 is about equal to Schil 2004. Wakefield was very good last year. Burkett and Lower were decent, not great. Wakefield was not getting smashed around last year. Lowe was very good out of the pen

2) Williamson at his best > Foulke at his best

3) More guys had career years last year: Millar, Mueller, Varitek etc.

4) guys are having the worst years of there career this year: Orlando, Pedro, Doug M

5) The Sox weakness of playing on the road was really accented this year

Arroyo is better than Wakefield last year. Wakefield is a mixed bag. We shall see.

Foulke is a VERY solid closer. He's proven that time and time again. He had two bad patches this year.

Cabrera is having a very good 2nd half with the Red Sox. Ortiz, Damon, Manny are having better years than last year.

Millar is on par with last year now with a better 2nd half. Mientkiewicz is a late inning replacement. He won't be starting at 1B.

Red Sox record on the road in 2003 was 42-39
Red Sox record on the road in 2004 was 43-38

Varitek in 2003 273 .351 .512 .863
Varitek in 2004 .296 .390 .482 .872
He also has 2 errors all year long.

RhodeyYankee2638

10-04-04, 09:18 PM

Originally posted by NDBoston

Red Sox record on the road in 2003 was 42-39
Red Sox record on the road in 2004 was 43-38

Look at Pedro on the road. That could be huge right there, especially against high powered offenses like the Angels, Yanks and Cards who they may have to face. He is starting game 2 in Anaheim. Look at Aroyo's numbers at home. He is starting game 3 at home.....

Look at the 46 point difference in batting average on the road. and the loss of 100 points in OPS. I don't know how there numbers were last year, but those are pretty bad, considering they get homefield advantage only in the WS if they make it there

And, IMHO, Foulke is probably the 6th best closer in the playoffs, and I'm being nice, not taking into consideration his horrible postseason numbers at Fenway......

NDBoston

10-04-04, 09:31 PM

Originally posted by RhodeyYankee2638

Look at Pedro on the road. That could be huge right there, especially against high powered offenses like the Angels, Yanks and Cards who they may have to face. He is starting game 2 in Anaheim. Look at Aroyo's numbers at home. He is starting game 3 at home.....

Look at the 46 point difference in batting average on the road. and the loss of 100 points in OPS. I don't know how there numbers were last year, but those are pretty bad, considering they get homefield advantage only in the WS if they make it there

And, IMHO, Foulke is probably the 6th best closer in the playoffs, and I'm being nice, not taking into consideration his horrible postseason numbers at Fenway......
Every team has splits in average home and away. I'm tired to keep looking.

the bottom line is that the Red Sox have a better record this year than last year away.

Foulke has a VERY small sample size in the playoffs. If Dye wasn't in RF last year , it would have been Oakland vs the A's in the ALCS. He's going to be just fine and hes done well against the Yankees and the Angels this year.

Anaheim 0.00 ERA 4 appearances 3 saves
NYY 1.50 ERA 9 appearances 2-1 3 saves

I'm not too worried about the closer.

Looie #19

10-04-04, 09:33 PM

Originally posted by NDBoston
it would have been Oakland vs the A's in the ALCS.

Well it has been said they've beaten themselves!:p

NYYFAN

10-04-04, 09:33 PM

The key will be which pedro shows up...if it's the Daddy Pedro it will be another long winter in Boston...

NDBoston

10-04-04, 09:38 PM

Originally posted by NYYFAN
The key will be which pedro shows up...if it's the Daddy Pedro it will be another long winter in Boston...

I agree 100% on that. Arroyo is the other key IMO. The Red Sox need him to be the pitcher he was all year.

RhodeyYankee2638

10-04-04, 09:41 PM

Originally posted by NDBoston

Every team has splits in average home and away. I'm tired to keep looking.

the bottom line is that the Red Sox have a better record this year than last year away.

well i would hope every team has home and away splits

1 more win than this year...... even though there numbers are much worse on the road this year than last. not a great sign heading into postseason

NDBoston

10-04-04, 09:47 PM

Originally posted by RhodeyYankee2638

well i would hope every team has home and away splits

1 more win than this year...... even though there numbers are much worse on the road this year than last. not a great sign heading into postseason

I had a typo in the last post. I'm working too hard.
It's not keeping me up at night. The splits didn't effect the win/loss record and in the end that matters.

I would also rather have Pedro pitching in 80 degree weather in Anaheim versus the 40 degrees in Boston.

RhodeyYankee2638

10-04-04, 09:50 PM

Originally posted by NDBoston

I would also rather have Pedro pitching in 80 degree weather in Anaheim versus the 40 degrees in Boston.

I'm just curious. If Pedro has always had trouble pitching in the cold, how come he has such great postseason numbers, considering most of the time he pitches in Boston in October

Bosox Guy in Chitown

10-04-04, 09:50 PM

Originally posted by RhodeyYankee2638

well i would hope every team has home and away splits

1 more win than this year...... even though there numbers are much worse on the road this year than last. not a great sign heading into postseason

Red Sox 2004 Road Record: 43-38
Yankees 2004 Road Record: 44-37

I guess one game is all that stands between a long winter and a ticket to the World Series... :rolleyes:

SINCE77 2

10-04-04, 09:54 PM

Originally posted by MaineSoxFan

Take away their .500 stretch and they were around a .750 team.

Take away the wildcard and the boys are off to the golf course.

RhodeyYankee2638

10-04-04, 09:55 PM

Originally posted by Bosox Guy in Chitown

Red Sox 2004 Road Record: 43-38
Yankees 2004 Road Record: 44-37

I guess one game is all that stands between a long winter and a ticket to the World Series... :rolleyes:

Thank you, that is an incredible point

I can think of a few instances when 1 game stands between a long winter and a ticket to the World Series, or even an ALCS. Ask Pedro after Game 7, or Foulke after the 2003 ALDS

RhodeyYankee2638

10-04-04, 09:56 PM

Originally posted by MaineSoxFan

Take away their .500 stretch and they were around a .750 team.

.750????

I didn't realize they were the greatest team in the history of baseball

NDBoston

10-04-04, 09:57 PM

Originally posted by RhodeyYankee2638

I'm just curious. If Pedro has always had trouble pitching in the cold, how come he has such great postseason numbers, considering most of the time he pitches in Boston in October

those number were before his shoulder problems in 2002. For whatever reason he has problems getting loose in cold weather now.

Bosox Guy in Chitown

10-04-04, 09:59 PM

A few more head-to-head stats:

Yanks Rd:
Avg. .267
OBP .353
SLG .453
OPS .806
ERA 5.30 (ouch)
WHIP 1.41
BAA .281

Yanks Home:
Avg .270
OBP .353
SLG .463
OPS .816
ERA 4.11
WHIP 1.30
BAA .262

Sox Rd:
Avg .260
OBP .342
SLG .441
OPS .783
ERA 4.30
WHIP 1.30
BAA .256

Sox Home:
Avg .304
OBP .378
SLG .504
OPS .883
ERA 4.09
WHIP 1.29
BAA .255

NDBoston

10-04-04, 10:00 PM

Originally posted by RhodeyYankee2638

Thank you, that is an incredible point

I can think of a few instances when 1 game stands between a long winter and a ticket to the World Series, or even an ALCS. Ask Pedro after Game 7, or Foulke after the 2003 ALDS

Oh come on Rhodey. The fact that the Red Sox and Yankees have a 1 game difference in away records shows your argument doesnt hold up.

Bosox Guy in Chitown

10-04-04, 10:01 PM

Originally posted by RhodeyYankee2638

Thank you, that is an incredible point

I can think of a few instances when 1 game stands between a long winter and a ticket to the World Series, or even an ALCS. Ask Pedro after Game 7, or Foulke after the 2003 ALDS

These are your words:

"5) The Sox weakness of playing on the road was really accented this year"

If one game separates the Yanks and Sox with regard to road records, then I guess the Yanks are a weak road team too. Just applying your logic here... no reason to get snippy.

Bosox Guy in Chitown

10-04-04, 10:03 PM

Originally posted by NDBoston

Oh come on Rhodey. The fact that the Red Sox and Yankees have a 1 game difference in away records shows your argument doesnt hold up.

Funny how people that like to talk stats and records get so pissy when their arguments fall apart by actually looking at the stats and records.

RhodeyYankee2638

10-04-04, 10:05 PM

Originally posted by Bosox Guy in Chitown
A few more head-to-head stats:

Yanks Rd:
Avg. .267
OBP .353
SLG .453
OPS .806
ERA 5.30 (ouch)
WHIP 1.41
BAA .281

Yanks Home:
Avg .270
OBP .353
SLG .463
OPS .816
ERA 4.11
WHIP 1.30
BAA .262

Sox Rd:
Avg .260
OBP .342
SLG .441
OPS .783
ERA 4.30
WHIP 1.30
BAA .256

Sox Home:
Avg .304
OBP .378
SLG .504
OPS .883
ERA 4.09
WHIP 1.29
BAA .255

I dont think its a secret that the Yankee pitching has been horrible. But look at the Yanks hitting, very consistent on the home and road. The Red Sox supposedly have a better offense, but their numbers drop off MASSIVELY when not hitting at Fenway.

ANd a 4.11 ERA at home isn't too shabby considering we gave up 22 ER's in a game

NDBoston

10-04-04, 10:05 PM

Originally posted by RhodeyYankee2638

I dont think its a secret that the Yankee pitching has been horrible. But look at the Yanks hitting, very consistent on the home and road. The Red Sox supposedly have a better offense, but their numbers drop off MASSIVELY when not hitting at Fenway.

ANd a 4.11 ERA at home isn't too shabby considering we gave up 22 ER's in a game

Rhodey:

you have been OWNED in this thread. Stop while you're ahead.

RhodeyYankee2638

10-04-04, 10:06 PM

Originally posted by Bosox Guy in Chitown

These are your words:

"5) The Sox weakness of playing on the road was really accented this year"

If one game separates the Yanks and Sox with regard to road records, then I guess the Yanks are a weak road team too. Just applying your logic here... no reason to get snippy.

look at the numbers. 100 point OPS difference and 46 points in batting average. You posted it yourself. The Yanks dropoff isn't nearly that much.

cubswin

10-04-04, 10:08 PM

Originally posted by RhodeyYankee2638

...And, IMHO, Foulke is probably the 6th best closer in the playoffs, and I'm being nice, not taking into consideration his horrible postseason numbers at Fenway......

6th or not, his ERA and WHIP were better than Rivera's this year, and he pitched better against the Yanks than Rivera did against the Sox. I'm pretty confident of his abilities out there.

Bosox Guy in Chitown

10-04-04, 10:08 PM

Originally posted by RhodeyYankee2638

look at the numbers. 100 point OPS difference and 46 points in batting average. You posted it yourself. The Yanks dropoff isn't nearly that much.

Yep: and the Sox more consistent and superior ptching (home and road) counters that effect. It all translates to a ONE GAME difference in road records.

Face it: you talked out of your a$$ about the Sox and road difficulties. The Yankees are one measley game better on the road. Move along... nothing to see here.

cubswin

10-04-04, 10:10 PM

Originally posted by RhodeyYankee2638

... look at the Yanks hitting, very consistent on the home and road. The Red Sox supposedly have a better offense, but their numbers drop off MASSIVELY when not hitting at Fenway...

All that says is that the Yanks don't hit especialy well at home. Their road OPS is 20 points higher than the Sox -- hardly a substantial difference.

NDBoston

10-04-04, 10:10 PM

Originally posted by cubswin

All that says is that the Yanks don't hit especialy well at home. Their road OPS is 20 points higher than the Sox -- hardly a substantial difference.

pesky facts

:lol:

RhodeyYankee2638

10-04-04, 10:11 PM

Originally posted by cubswin

6th or not, his ERA and WHIP were better than Rivera's this year, and he pitched better against the Yanks than Rivera did against the Sox. I'm pretty confident of his abilities out there.

His Era is higher than Rivera's, and has blown 3 more saves in just a couple less opportunities

RhodeyYankee2638

10-04-04, 10:15 PM

Originally posted by Bosox Guy in Chitown

Yep: and the Sox more consistent and superior ptching (home and road) counters that effect. It all translates to a ONE GAME difference in road records.

.

Just curious, not to be an ass

But if they have superior hitting at home and superior pitching on both the home and road compared to teh Yanks, and the pen and team has played better against the Yanks, why the hell did they finish in second?

stevethesoxfan

10-04-04, 10:15 PM

Originally posted by RhodeyYankee2638

I'm just curious. If Pedro has always had trouble pitching in the cold, how come he has such great postseason numbers, considering most of the time he pitches in Boston in October

I think the Pedro "cold" factor is a recent one. It didn't seem to bother him as much a few years ago. And to define "cold", I'd say 40-45. A night of 50-55 won't bother him too much.

My team take?

2004 vs 2003
Schilling=Pedro
Pedro>Lowe
Arroyo=Wakefield
Wakefield=Burkett
Lowe= pitcher x

Among the position players, the differences are improvements at 2b (defensively and slightly offensively)with Bellhorn over Walker, a slight downgrade at SS (Cabrera is better defensively, but Nomar was a better hitter), downgrade at 3b (Mueller was the AL BA champ in 03), upgrade at CF (Damon has been fabulous). Also better at DH, as Ortiz is now officially a MONSTER hitter.

The bench is FAR better. They have added 2 GG in Minky and Pokey, plus a good glove and base stealer in Roberts.

The bullpen is probably a wash. Foulke is a plus, but the rest of the pen isn't performing quite as well as in 03.

So overall I think they are stronger. What mainly helps them is they have two studs at the front of the rotation now. The 5th starter is meaningless. That's 5 starts of Martinez and Schilling in a 7 game series -- they're bound to win at least 3 of those. I know Pedro has struggled a little lately, but there's no way I see him losing twice in a series.

Bosox Guy in Chitown

10-04-04, 10:17 PM

Originally posted by RhodeyYankee2638

His Era is higher than Rivera's, and has blown 3 more saves in just a couple less opportunities

Rivera Foulke
ERA 1.94 2.17

K/9 7.55 8.57

BAA .225 .206

WHIP 1.08 0.94

Yep, Rivera has a lower ERA. Foulke is better in every other category.

Care to continue?

cubswin

10-04-04, 10:17 PM

Originally posted by RhodeyYankee2638

His Era is higher than Rivera's, and has blown 3 more saves in just a couple less opportunities

My mistake -- I mixed the 2 up. ERA and WHIP were comparable -- ERA 2.17 v. 1.94 is virually meaningless, as are WHIP, BAA, K/BB, K/9 advantages.

Rivera had a much better SV %, which is why I thought it was interesting to see how they did in relatively high-pressure games, ie, their head-to-head matchups.

I'm not claiming that Foulke is better than Rivera -- just pointing out that claims that he will choke really don't have much foundation.

RhodeyYankee2638

10-04-04, 10:17 PM

Originally posted by NDBoston

Rivera against the red Sox 4.50 0-2 3 saves in 5 appearances.
Foulke against the Yankees 1.50 you've seen the rest.

you didnt say against the Sox

You said Foulke's ERA and WHIP were better this year

Bosox Guy in Chitown

10-04-04, 10:18 PM

Originally posted by RhodeyYankee2638

Just curious, not to be an ass

But if they have superior hitting at home and superior pitching on both the home and road compared to teh Yanks, and the pen and team has played better against the Yanks, why the hell did they finish in second?

Mystique and Aura.

Derek Lowe's blisters resulted from sticking singles in their g-strings.

NDBoston

10-04-04, 10:18 PM

Originally posted by RhodeyYankee2638

you didnt say against the Sox

You said Foulke's ERA and WHIP were better this year ''

that wasnt me.

Just admit your road argument was bogus and we can call it a day. I'm sure you can admit that now. The evidence is overwhelming.

cubswin

10-04-04, 10:19 PM

Originally posted by RhodeyYankee2638

Just curious, not to be an ass

But if they have superior hitting at home and superior pitching on both the home and road compared to teh Yanks, and the pen and team has played better against the Yanks, why the hell did they finish in second?

Changing the subject now...

Finished second b/c aggregate stats don't tell the whole story.

RhodeyYankee2638

10-04-04, 10:20 PM

Originally posted by Bosox Guy in Chitown

Care to continue?

53/57 in saves

.75 ERA in postseason (I know postseason stats shouldn't count when talking bout the postseason though)

cubswin

10-04-04, 10:20 PM

Originally posted by RhodeyYankee2638

you didnt say against the Sox

You said Foulke's ERA and WHIP were better this year

I said it and admitted my mistake. (Something you seem unable to do.)

YankeePride1967

10-04-04, 10:21 PM

Originally posted by stevethesoxfan

I think the Pedro "cold" factor is a recent one. It didn't seem to bother him as much a few years ago. And to define "cold", I'd say 40-45. A night of 50-55 won't bother him too much.

My team take?

2004 vs 2003
Schilling=Pedro
Pedro>Lowe
Arroyo=Wakefield
Wakefield=Burkett
Lowe= pitcher x

Among the position players, the differences are improvements at 2b (defensively and slightly offensively)with Bellhorn over Walker, a slight downgrade at SS (Cabrera is better defensively, but Nomar was a better hitter), downgrade at 3b (Mueller was the AL BA champ in 03), upgrade at CF (Damon has been fabulous). Also better at DH, as Ortiz is now officially a MONSTER hitter.

The bench is FAR better. They have added 2 GG in Minky and Pokey, plus a good glove and base stealer in Roberts.

The bullpen is probably a wash. Foulke is a plus, but the rest of the pen isn't performing quite as well as in 03.

So overall I think they are stronger. What mainly helps them is they have two studs at the front of the rotation now. The 5th starter is meaningless. That's 5 starts of Martinez and Schilling in a 7 game series -- they're bound to win at least 3 of those. I know Pedro has struggled a little lately, but there's no way I see him losing twice in a series.

If the 2004 playoff Schilling is equal to the 2003 playoff Pedro then Boston is done.

RhodeyYankee2638

10-04-04, 10:21 PM

Originally posted by NDBoston
''

that wasnt me.

Just admit your road argument was bogus and we can call it a day. I'm sure you can admit that now. The evidence is overwhelming.

I dont see how saying the Sox are statistically worse on the road is a bad argument.......

NDBoston

10-04-04, 10:22 PM

Originally posted by cubswin

I said it and admitted my mistake. (Something you seem unable to do.)

He's 18 It's expected. :lol: Have a good night everyone.

Hunt Club Wed night BSG. Its on North State. A number of Red Sox fans will be attending.

cubswin

10-04-04, 10:22 PM

Originally posted by RhodeyYankee2638

53/57 in saves

.75 ERA in postseason (I know postseason stats shouldn't count when talking bout the postseason though)

Yes, but he also got lit by the Sox this year, despite having great #s all season -- which shows that one can't rely solely on the past as a predictor of the future.

And if Foulke is only the 6th best closer in the playoffs, why did he fare much better against the Yanks than Rivera -- who must be 1st or 2nd, I assume -- did agsint the Sox?

RhodeyYankee2638

10-04-04, 10:22 PM

Originally posted by cubswin

I said it and admitted my mistake. (Something you seem unable to do.)

I know I didn't catch that on page one, my bad

And did you read this thread, I mentioned that the Sox don't hit as well on the road and it could be a potential weakness, and it became a Yanks vs. Sox argument

Bosox Guy in Chitown

10-04-04, 10:23 PM

Originally posted by NDBoston

He's 18 It's expected. :lol: Have a good night everyone.

Hunt Club Wed night BSG. Its on North State. A number of Red Sox fans will be attending.

Sounds good. I'll try to drop by!

PM me with some sort of way to recognize you this time.

RhodeyYankee2638

10-04-04, 10:23 PM

Originally posted by cubswin

And if Foulke is only the 6th best closer in the playoffs, why did he fare much better against the Yanks than Rivera -- who must be 1st or 2nd, I assume -- did agsint the Sox?

Ah lets call Rivera 5 and Gagne, Smoltz, Nathan and Percival 1-2-3-4

SINCE77 2

10-04-04, 10:25 PM

Originally posted by Bosox Guy in Chitown

Yep: and the Sox more consistent and superior ptching (home and road) counters that effect. It all translates to a ONE GAME difference in road records.

Face it: you talked out of your a$$ about the Sox and road difficulties. The Yankees are one measley game better on the road. Move along... nothing to see here.

Hate to bring this up, but in our defense the Yankees accomplished that 1 game advantage without their #1-2 starters for a large portion of the season. Where would the Sox be without Curt for more than half the season? Much less Curt and Pedro. You look at numbers, but you fail to see the circumstances by which they were rendered. Personally, if your team suffered such maladies and finished the season as the AL East Div. winners I would have to reaccess what I considered to be a successful season.

cubswin

10-04-04, 10:25 PM

Originally posted by RhodeyYankee2638

I know I didn't catch that on page one, my bad

And did you read this thread, I mentioned that the Sox don't hit as well on the road and it could be a potential weakness, and it became a Yanks vs. Sox argument

No worries.

Of course I read the thread -- that's what sucked me in. If you had posted what you just wrote, there would be no issue. But what you said (followed by other things) was, "The Sox weakness of playing on the road was really accented this year."

NDBoston

10-04-04, 10:26 PM

Originally posted by RhodeyYankee2638

I dont see how saying the Sox are statistically worse on the road is a bad argument.......

Here's what you said

The Sox weakness of playing on the road was really accented this year

It was so accented that they had a better record then 2003 which this thread was all about.

RhodeyYankee2638

10-04-04, 10:27 PM

Originally posted by cubswin

No worries.

Of course I read the thread -- that's what sucked me in. If you had posted what you just wrote, there would be no issue. But what you said (followed by other things) was, "The Sox weakness of playing on the road was really accented this year."

I think it was accented. Tell me how a 100 point drop off in OPS and .46 dropoff in BA doesn't clearly show they have had hitting woes on the road.........

cubswin

10-04-04, 10:28 PM

NDBoston

10-04-04, 10:28 PM

Originally posted by SINCE77 2

Hate to bring this up, but in our defense the Yankees accomplished that 1 game advantage without their #1-2 starters for a large portion of the season. Where would the Sox be without Curt for more than half the season? Much less Curt and Pedro. You look at numbers, but you fail to see the circumstances by which they were rendered. Personally, if your team suffered such maladies and finished the season as the AL East Div. winners I would have to reaccess what I considered to be a successful season.

the fact the Yankees are able to field an ALL Star at almost every position is why they were able to keep winning. That's what 195 million does. Quantrill, Gordon, Sheffield and ARod help to quell the loses of Brown and Mussina.

Not to mention the Red Sox lost Nomar, Nixon, Mueller, Kim and Williamson for most of the year. Their payroll helped them too with better depth but it cant compete with the Yankees day to day lineup

cubswin

10-04-04, 10:29 PM

Bosox Guy in Chitown

10-04-04, 10:31 PM

Originally posted by RhodeyYankee2638

I think it was accented. Tell me how a 100 point drop off in OPS and .46 dropoff in BA doesn't clearly show they have had hitting woes on the road.........

B/c it's not "woes."

Think about it.

That's like saying a team is slumping by going from a .750 winning percentage to a .650 winning percentage.

It's not that the road OPS and related numbers are low, its that the home numbers are stratospheric. They fall from other-worldly at home to pretty darn good on the road. It's not like they slip from average to subpar.

SINCE77 2

10-04-04, 10:31 PM

Originally posted by cubswin

And the Sox suffered injuries to Nomar, Nixon, Reese, Ortiz, Williamson and Mueller.

Ooops, failed to mention Giambi, Karsay, Bernie, Quantrill (that damn Japan trip).

Bosox Guy in Chitown

10-04-04, 10:32 PM

Originally posted by SINCE77 2

Ooops, failed to mention Giambi, Karsay, Bernie, Quantrill (that damn Japan trip).

Guess I'll have to "reaccess" my analysis.

:lol:

RhodeyYankee2638

10-04-04, 10:33 PM

Originally posted by cubswin

B/c their road #s are about the same as the Yanks', and I don't think you would say the Yanks are a weak road team.

The Yanks arent a great road team

That ERA :barf:

NDBoston

10-04-04, 10:33 PM

Originally posted by SINCE77 2

Ooops, failed to mention Giambi, Karsay, Bernie, Quantrill (that damn Japan trip).

You make it sound like the Yankees survived on mystique and aura. It was the money George spent before the year started.

cubswin

10-04-04, 10:34 PM

Originally posted by SINCE77 2

Ooops, failed to mention Giambi, Karsay, Bernie, Quantrill (that damn Japan trip).

Sure. But when were Bernie and Quantrill hurt?

cubswin

10-04-04, 10:35 PM

Originally posted by RhodeyYankee2638

The Yanks arent a great road team

That ERA :barf:

Didn't say they were. Said they aren't a weak road team -- big difference.

Bosox Guy in Chitown

10-04-04, 10:35 PM

Originally posted by RhodeyYankee2638

The Yanks arent a great road team

That ERA :barf:

The Yanks have the second-best road record in the AL and fourth-best in MLB.

They are a good road team.

SINCE77 2

10-04-04, 10:37 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bosox Guy in Chitown

Guess I'll have to "reaccess" my analysis.

:lol: [/QUOTE

Ooops, getting late. Perhaps its time I "reaccess" my spelling .

bakntime

10-04-04, 10:37 PM

Originally posted by NDBoston

You make it sound like the Yankees survived on mystique and aura. It was the money George spent before the year started. Yeah, let's hear the payroll argument again. We haven't heard that one enough.

Bosox Guy in Chitown

10-04-04, 10:37 PM

Originally posted by SINCE77 2
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bosox Guy in Chitown

Guess I'll have to "reaccess" my analysis.

:lol: [/QUOTE

Ooops, getting late. Perhaps its time I "reaccess" my spelling .

It happens.... just pullin' your leg a bit, BTW.

:P

EDIT: I once, when I was a newspaper reporter, had an article get to print that referenced "sirosis of the lover." What I meant was "cirrhosis of the liver."

SINCE77 2

10-04-04, 10:40 PM

Originally posted by cubswin

Sure. But when were Bernie and Quantrill hurt?

Quantrill has worn a brace on his knee from game 2 onward due to a collision with Arod going after a D'Ray bunt attempt in Japan. Bernie had to undergo an emergency appendectomy near the end of ST.

cubswin

10-04-04, 10:42 PM

Originally posted by SINCE77 2

Quantrill has worn a brace on his knee from game 2 onward due to a collision with Arod going after a D'Ray bunt attempt in Japan. Bernie had to undergo an emergency appendectomy near the end of ST.

Yeah, but they both played full seasons, and Quantrill was very effective until Torre pitched his arm off, wasn't he?

NDBoston

10-04-04, 10:43 PM

Originally posted by bakntime
Yeah, let's hear the payroll argument again. We haven't heard that one enough.

Its the reason the Red Sox and Yankees are able to ovecome injuries better.

I doubt the Red Sox of 2003 would have survived the injuries of 2004. Schilling and Foulke were huge keys this year and those two were the main reasons payroll went up 25 million.

Just because Yankee fans will fight to the death to deny it isn't an advantage doesn't mean it's not true.

I didn't start the injuries/mystique discussion. I thought some real reasons should be brought in.

RhodeyYankee2638

10-04-04, 10:48 PM

Originally posted by Bosox Guy in Chitown

The Yanks have the second-best road record in the AL and fourth-best in MLB.

They are a good road team.

Just trying to look at things as unbiased as possible

Most analysts say the Yankees won't win the World Series, not enough pitching. The 4.11 home ERA isn't bad, better than league average. That wouldn't prompt anyone to say a team with great hitting couldn't manage with that type of pitching.

Factor in that 5.11 on the road. Runs are at a premium in the postseason. Asking to score 6 runs against a Schilling or a Santana or even an Escobar on the road is just asking for it. They might be the second best road team in the AL, but in the long run, those aren't great numbers to take into the postseason with you

SINCE77 2

10-04-04, 10:49 PM

Originally posted by cubswin

Yeah, but they both played full seasons, and Quantrill was very effective until Torre pitched his arm off, wasn't he?

Quantrill never showed that dominance that he exhibited in LA. His weak knee prevented him from getting the ball down from the outset and from that point onward it was just a matter of time before the league became overly familiar with him. Bernie under normal circumstances is a notoriously slow starter. Following his surgery it took him nearly 3 months to start hitting with authority and consistency. Factor in his age and reduced playing time (Lofton) and you have what you have. Jeter's prolonged slump didn't exactly help either, nor did Arod's failure w/RISP.

RhodeyYankee2638

10-04-04, 10:54 PM

Originally posted by SINCE77 2

Quantrill never showed that dominance that he exhibited in LA. His weak knee prevented him from getting the ball down from the outset and from that point onward it was just a matter of time before the league became overly familiar with him. Bernie under normal circumstances is a notoriously slow starter. Following his surgery it took him nearly 3 months to start hitting with authority and consistency. Factor in his age and reduced playing time (Lofton) and you have what you have. Jeter's prolonged slump didn't exactly help either, nor did Arod's failure w/RISP.

If anyone has doubts about this, look through the archives. At the all-star break, we were discussin how a .300 BAA isn't too good, and how he could barely hold a runner on base (and by barely I mean more than 50% were coming around to score)

And Since, if you want to talk about not having one of our best players healthy and struggling to lift up his arm and catch a fly ball, just say Sheffield

ColombiaYanksFan

10-04-04, 10:55 PM

Hey hey!! Since Steinbrenner is so blessed with getting alot of revenue (from having so many yankee fans worldwide), maybe we should call him and tell him NOT to reinvest that money back in the team because it's not fair to the other teams. But instead that he reinvest that money on Enron. Or maybe go out and buy Opera theatres the way the first Bosox owner did with the money he gained from selling Babe Ruth.

Yeah that's it!!

cubswin

10-04-04, 10:57 PM

Originally posted by SINCE77 2

Quantrill never showed that dominance that he exhibited in LA. His weak knee prevented him from getting the ball down from the outset and from that point onward it was just a matter of time before the league became overly familiar with him. Bernie under normal circumstances is a notoriously slow starter. Following his surgery it took him nearly 3 months to start hitting with authority and consistency. Factor in his age and reduced playing time (Lofton) and you have what you have. Jeter's prolonged slump didn't exactly help either, nor did Arod's failure w/RISP.

OK, but now we're just getting into things that are performance. It's like me saying that the Sox would have done better if Pedro had had a better year.

cubswin

10-04-04, 11:00 PM

Originally posted by COLOMBIAYANKSFAN
Hey ...

Shockingly, that is even further off topic than the rest of this is.

Since you guys insist on going down this path, a simple test devoid of exagerration and emotion: True or false -- a higher payroll should provide a team an advantage, helping it perform better and weather problems such as injuries.

RhodeyYankee2638

10-04-04, 11:02 PM

Originally posted by COLOMBIAYANKSFAN
Hey hey!! Since Steinbrenner is so blessed with getting alot of revenue (from having so many yankee fans worldwide), maybe we should call him and tell him NOT to reinvest that money back in the team because it's not fair to the other teams. But instead that he reinvest that money on Enron. Or maybe go out and buy Opera theatres the way the first Bosox owner did with the money he gained from selling Babe Ruth.

Yeah that's it!!

I wish we didn't take advantage of free agency.

I wish for the past 15 years we didn't have crappy players come out of our farm system like Jeter, Posada, Rivera, Pettitte, Soriano, Bernie and Mendoza, who had nothing to do with helping us win a world series.

I wish I had players like Manny and Schilling, that everyteam in the league could afford

Please, enough with this crap about salary, sure its an advantage, but did that stop the Marlins and Angels or Diamondbacks?

RhodeyYankee2638

10-04-04, 11:04 PM

And BTW, imagine what kind of team The Twins would be if they had a $130 mil payroll

NDBoston

10-04-04, 11:04 PM

cubswin

10-04-04, 11:04 PM

Originally posted by RhodeyYankee2638

...sure its an advantage...

This is all that you had to say.

ColombiaYanksFan

10-04-04, 11:05 PM

And? Now compare the starting pitchers, and see how far the Sox would have gotten them injured.

Anyway, if the 2004 Sox are better, what do you think about NOT facing Oakland, FINALLY (in the playoffs! And instead Anaheim?

I heard that the majority of fans on other sites make sound like the Angels won't even score 1 run! Huh?

cubswin

10-04-04, 11:05 PM

Originally posted by RhodeyYankee2638
And BTW, imagine what kind of team The Twins would be if they had a $130 mil payroll

Spent wisely, and w/o bad luck, far better than the Sox or Yanks.

RhodeyYankee2638

10-04-04, 11:07 PM

Originally posted by cubswin

This is all that you had to say.

You see our payroll as an advantage, just as much as The Twins or the Royals would see your payroll as an advantage.

Can having money be a burden? Look at the Rangers Circa 2002. The biggest waste of $100 mil ever. Its about how you spend it and what you spend it on

cubswin

10-04-04, 11:09 PM

Originally posted by COLOMBIAYANKSFAN
And? Now compare the starting pitchers, and see how far the Sox would have gotten them injured.

Anyway, if the 2004 Sox are better, what do you think about NOT facing Oakland, FINALLY (in the playoffs! And instead Anaheim?

I heard that the majority of fans on other sites make sound like the Angels won't even score 1 run! Huh?

You're repeating what Since77 said. I'll try to make it easy for you. See where the Yanks would have been w/o Jeter, Sheffield, ARod, Gordon and Cairo.

I don't know what to make of Anaheim. I don't think their starting pitching is strong, so that's a nice thing. But no playoff team is a walkover, so it doesn't much matter to me who we play.

(I don't know anything about what fans might be saying on other sites. Where did you "hear" this? Regardless, it's pretty irrelevant to me and to this discussion.)

ColombiaYanksFan

10-04-04, 11:10 PM

Dude, you are just too funny! LMAO!

Hey, by the way, stop bring the Yankees up.

How will you guys do against Anaheim? I thought that you guys had homefield adavantage in this one, but I keep forgetting that a better record doesn't necessarily give you that because of the new playoff aumentations (w/wild card added).

ghosts02

10-04-04, 11:10 PM

Originally posted by NDBoston

Not to mention the Red Sox lost Nomar, Nixon, Mueller, Kim and Williamson for most of the year. Their payroll helped them too with better depth but it cant compete with the Yankees day to day lineup

Mueller played 110 games this year...this hardly qualifies as missing "most of the year", and Youkilis filled in quite capably at any rate. And Kim had a lot more wrong with him than just injuries...he's a certified head case and one of Theo's few glaring mistakes.

I'll grant that the absence of Nixon and Williamson were much more significant.

RhodeyYankee2638

10-04-04, 11:11 PM

Originally posted by cubswin

(I don't know anything about what fans might be saying on other sites. Where did you "hear" this? Regardless, it's pretty irrelevant to me and to this discussion.)

he doesnt mention that on this board, the Yanks fans don't seem to think the Twins will score runs off of us either

cubswin

10-04-04, 11:11 PM

Originally posted by RhodeyYankee2638

You see our payroll as an advantage, just as much as The Twins or the Royals would see your payroll as an advantage.

Can having money be a burden? Look at the Rangers Circa 2002. The biggest waste of $100 mil ever. Its about how you spend it and what you spend it on

Actually, you're a little off: I see the Sox payroll as an advantage, too. I have no problem admnitting it, and I don't understand why some yankees fans are so up in arms over the notion that a vast payroll advantage is, in fact, an advantage.

Can having money be a burden? No. It doesn't guarantee anything, but it is not a burden.

ColombiaYanksFan

10-04-04, 11:12 PM

Huh? No comprendo por favor. por favor CLARIFY.

cubswin

10-04-04, 11:13 PM

Originally posted by ghosts02

Mueller played 110 games this year...this hardly qualifies as missing "most of the year", ....

That is true, but neither did most of the Yankees players cited miss most of the year. Just Giambi, I think, out of players expected to be with the team.

That said, I don't even know what the original point was...

RhodeyYankee2638

10-04-04, 11:14 PM

Originally posted by cubswin

Can having money be a burden? No. It doesn't guarantee anything, but it is not a burden.

well, I'm sure the Rangers lost a ton of money that season cause
a) the team sucked
b) they paid a team $100+ mil to suck
c) poor attendence/ratings

spending lots and lots of money in an unsmart manner can be detremental to finances, not burdening. perhaps I used the wrong word

cubswin

10-04-04, 11:14 PM

Originally posted by COLOMBIAYANKSFAN
Huh? No comprendo por favor. por favor CLARIFY.

No. Ya te dije.

cubswin

10-04-04, 11:15 PM

Originally posted by RhodeyYankee2638

well, I'm sure the Rangers lost a ton of money that season cause
a) the team sucked
b) they paid a team $100+ mil to suck
c) poor attendence/ratings

spending lots and lots of money in an unsmart manner can be detremental to finances, not burdening. perhaps I used the wrong word

I totally agree. Like I said, it's no guarantee, but it is an advantage.

ColombiaYanksFan

10-04-04, 11:18 PM

Ooh! That was a good one! :D

See ya tomorrow.

Sofa King Cool

10-04-04, 11:44 PM

Originally posted by COLOMBIAYANKSFAN
Huh? No comprendo por favor. por favor CLARIFY. :uhh:

Are you serious?

ColombiaYanksFan

10-05-04, 12:00 AM

Dude, you're giving me a headache.

He obviously was comparing the 2 teams, but I guess he missed my point, that the starting pitching being hurt is more drastic to a team, in my opinion, than a hitter being hurt.

cubswin

10-05-04, 12:23 AM

Originally posted by COLOMBIAYANKSFAN
Dude, you're giving me a headache.

He obviously was comparing the 2 teams, but I guess he missed my point, that the starting pitching being hurt is more drastic to a team, in my opinion, than a hitter being hurt.

I just think your point is oversimplified. Mussina, for ex, missed, what, 5 starts? Do you really think that compares to losing Trot for most of the year?

Dave Visbeck

10-05-04, 12:32 AM

2004 team is better, no doubt about it. :D

bakntime

10-05-04, 12:53 AM

Originally posted by NDBoston

Its the reason the Red Sox and Yankees are able to ovecome injuries better.

I doubt the Red Sox of 2003 would have survived the injuries of 2004. Schilling and Foulke were huge keys this year and those two were the main reasons payroll went up 25 million.

Just because Yankee fans will fight to the death to deny it isn't an advantage doesn't mean it's not true.

I didn't start the injuries/mystique discussion. I thought some real reasons should be brought in. Who said it wasn't an advantange? :confused:

And bring in real reasons for what? Can't we ever just talk baseball around here without bringing up the economics of the game? Injuries are relevant... I just don't see why you have to bring up payroll pretty much any time someone mentions an injury.

Mystique and Aura are part of the game, as well, whether or not you admit it. Some players buy into that stuff, both in a positive way, and a negative way.

http://forums.nyyfans.com/showthread.php?postid=1626566#post1626566

MaineSoxFan

10-05-04, 06:16 AM

Originally posted by RhodeyYankee2638

.750????

I didn't realize they were the greatest team in the history of baseball

Huh? Much like you can't take away a part of the season to claim they were essentially a .500 team you can't take away a different part and claim they were a .750 team.

RhodeyYankee2638

10-05-04, 06:26 AM

Originally posted by MaineSoxFan

Much like you can't take away a part of the season to claim they were essentially a .500 team you can't take away a different part and claim they were a .750 team.

Well the person essentially said they were a .500 team for the better part of the season which is a valid statement. After the first month and a half they were barely above the .500 line for 3 and a half months. And then they played 700 ball for 2 months of the season.. So saying they were a .500 club for a while is valid, but of course, not mentioning the fact they finished with 98 wins is pretty flawed, so i agree

ColombiaYanksFan

10-05-04, 09:53 AM

Is he on the roster? And if he is, why hasn't he played much this year? Thanks.

DCfan

10-05-04, 10:02 AM

Originally posted by COLOMBIAYANKSFAN
Is he on the roster? And if he is, why hasn't he played much this year? Thanks.
He won't be on the playoff roster. He was out most of the year with a knee injury.

edit: to answer the original question, I think the 2004 team is better. They were only marginally better during the regular season. On the other hand, they had no injuries last year and a ton of injuries this year. But I think this team is designed more to win a playoff series than last year's team was. Better closer, better at the front of the rotation, better defense, more flexible bench. Last year's team relied mostly on Pedro and their ability to mash offensively. This year's team seems a little more versatile.

It doesn't mean they will win, of course. In a short series, anything can happen. But I think they're better designed to win in different kinds of ways.

bnorris85

10-05-04, 10:17 AM

as for people talking about nomar and walkers range...if u have pokey and cabrerra in there, posada's bloop hit never falls in. A scout said this when we had nomar and pokey, nevermind caberra and pokey..but i cant find the linl

ghosts02

10-05-04, 10:44 AM

Originally posted by bnorris85
as for people talking about nomar and walkers range...if u have pokey and cabrerra in there, posada's bloop hit never falls in. A scout said this when we had nomar and pokey, nevermind caberra and pokey..but i cant find the linl

That's nice, except how much scoring would the Red Sox have had with Reese and Cabrera in there? The Gold Glove infield of Reese, Cabrera, and EyeChart is an offensive black hole.

One thing I haven't seen mentioned is that as supposedly improved as the Sox are defensively this year, the team is much worse in throwing runners out....the only team in the playoffs whose starting catcher might be worse is Atlanta's.

I think the Sox are more dangerous in 2004 now that Nixon is healthy, but their pitchers have to keep men off base, or else it will get ugly in a hurry...this will be the case especially with the Angels and the way they play.

Saxmania

10-05-04, 11:08 AM

This team is better, largely because of Schilling and Foulke. They've still scored more runs than any other team in the majors, even with the injuries to Nixon, Mueller, Nomar, and Burks. That's partly because Millar has stepped up a bit, and Varitek may even have been better than in 2003. They're also better defensively; however, their starters haven't improved that much because of the declines of Pedro and Wakefield, and the continuing problems of Lowe.

Rotation: slightly better
Offense: slightly worse (after Nomar trade)
Bullpen: Better
Defense: Better
Haircuts: Ungraded

Be seeing you,

Saxmania

FoulkeLore

10-05-04, 11:20 AM

Originally posted by cubswin

I totally agree. Like I said, it's no guarantee, but it is an advantage.

Right. And to add if I may, having more revenues then most teams always gives them an advatnage in that they simply have more flexibility with payroll and have the ability to fill holes and gaps (damage control) or simply bolster their lineup. Just because teams like Texas and Baltimore have failed to execute in attaining the right group of personnel to translate into victories, doesn't necessarily mean that they didn't have the advantage and wider range of options as smaller market clubs. The Red Sox and Yankees have both proven succesful at this over the past 5 years. The Yankees have the ability to maintain a higher payroll than the Red Sox. So i you are comparing the two, the advantage goes to the Yankees. When you compare the Red Sox or Yankees to other clubs it's just as relative.

Having more assets, resources and/or revenues to draw from always gives a business a competitve edge over a competitor in that same market. It's just basic principles of business management.

kennyl

10-05-04, 11:22 AM

Originally posted by Saxmania

Be seeing you,

Saxmania

I don't know why, but this just drives me crazy.

ClayParker

10-05-04, 11:25 AM

Originally posted by kennyl

I don't know why, but this just drives me crazy.

Now that you pointed it out - it's going to bug me too. Thanks a lot.

FoulkeLore

10-05-04, 11:28 AM

Originally posted by kennyl

I don't know why, but this just drives me crazy.

I don't see anything wrong with someone being polite and courteous. I'd rather that then someone closing with.......

"Go Eff Yourselves :) "

Ya know? Cut 'em some slack.....

bakntime

10-05-04, 11:30 AM

Originally posted by FoulkeLore

I don't see anything wrong with someone being polite and courteous. I'd rather that then someone closing with.......

"Go Eff Yourselves :) "

Ya know? Cut 'em some slack..... Really... It's Saxmania's signature signature.

(Do I get anything for using the same word back to back as both an adjective and a noun?)

kennyl

10-05-04, 11:32 AM

Originally posted by FoulkeLore

I don't see anything wrong with someone being polite and courteous. I'd rather that then someone closing with.......

"Go Eff Yourselves :) "

Ya know? Cut 'em some slack.....

I am not getting on his case.......I have respect for him as a poster, but I think i am entitled to tell him that the "Be seeing You" line, which I recognize, is his trademark makes me go stir crazy everytime I read it. That's my problem, not his.

FoulkeLore

10-05-04, 11:35 AM

Originally posted by kennyl

I am not getting on his case.......I have respect for him as a poster, but I think i am entitled to tell him that the "Be seeing You" line, which I recognize, is his trademark makes me go stir crazy everytime I read it. That's my problem, not his.

You must feel like I'm nitpicking at you today huh? :lol:

It's all gravy my friend. You stated your opinion and I was stating mine is all. That's what we're here for right?

As long as you know it's not him that's troubled ;) :D :P

FoulkeLore

10-05-04, 11:37 AM

Originally posted by bakntime
Really... It's Saxmania's signature signature.

(Do I get anything for using the same word back to back as both an adjective and a noun?)

You get a choice choice of any prize prize you like..... :D

kennyl

10-05-04, 11:39 AM

Originally posted by FoulkeLore

As long as you know it's not him that's troubled ;) :D :P

You will never see Kennyl claiming to be mentally right in October.

Saxmania

10-05-04, 01:09 PM

Originally posted by kennyl

I don't know why, but this just drives me crazy.

Which is fair enough. Because I don't know why, but I like doing it. It's actually a vague reference to a classic TV show. Anyway, try not to worry yourself.

Kindly take care of yourself, my good sir, and continue to refer to yourself in the third person if at all possible,

Saxmania

kennyl

10-05-04, 01:12 PM

Originally posted by Saxmania

Which is fair enough. Because I don't know why, but I like doing it. It's actually a vague reference to a classic TV show. Anyway, try not to worry yourself.

Kindly take care of yourself, my good sir, and continue to refer to yourself in the third person if at all possible,

Saxmania

Hahaha, great stuff Saxmania. I love the third person referances. They just seem so stupid to me when I do it that I can't help myself but to continue doing it.

Saxmania

10-05-04, 01:16 PM

Originally posted by kennyl
Hahaha, great stuff Saxmania. I love the third person referances. They just seem so stupid to me when I do it that I can't help myself but to continue doing it.

Rickey Henderson appears to have the same problem, so at least you're in good company. I myself occasionally wonder why the hell I'm bothering with a manual signature. Then I have another beer, and mock Bozidar. It's more fun.

Respect and word to your mother,

Saxmania