bmags

I take back all nice things I said about Fred as Anthony Morrow checks in.

KC was also the number one pitching staff in baseball entering correct?

QUOTE (chitownsportsfan @ Apr 26, 2017 -> 04:27 PM) Coming into today the Sox were first in DER at like 74% of in play balls turned into outs. Defensively they'd been really solid. I don't think they will keep it up though. This has largely been a result of our pitchers getting a good amount of ground outs and pop outs, and few line drives.

QUOTE (shipps @ Apr 26, 2017 -> 04:17 PM) I really dont think we have anything to worry about as far as that being an issue. The sox record will come around to bad enough eventually. The offense still has a tendency to not show up for long periods of time. The bullpen will normalize. Remember how great they were for the first month or so last year? Even if they have a decent record I cant see the FO having any delusions about who they are this year. Yeah, guys, we aren't going for it. That said, I would have to imagine the two traits of teams that overachieve would have to be defense and relief pitching. Truly terrible teams always seem to have truly terrible bullpens. I imagine we will overperform our predictions if we really have two plus pitchers in Kahnle and swarzak (and Burdi on the way)

Feels good to do this to the Royals.

nice!

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Apr 26, 2017 -> 03:20 PM) He's the only lefty. That's another reason I couldn't figure out why he was pitching on Saturday night. The Sox had no shot at winning. He's going to find his way into about 80 games anyways if he doesn't get hurt. Yeah, just that Royals can't hit anyone regardless, save him for the weekend.

Surprised its Jennings again.

Check out Doogie Houser over here

Whew. That's fun to come back to.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Apr 26, 2017 -> 03:02 PM) He should go one more inning, no? I wouldn't. 2 wild pitches and a walk last inning, and top of the order after Bonifacio.

Great.

Not sure Jose makes it past 6 IP

I was a 19 year old freshman. Stupid arbitrary summer birthday cutoffs. (Fun when you are a junior thou)

QUOTE (almagest @ Apr 26, 2017 -> 02:15 PM) Is it just me or are the Royals suddenly bad at outfield defense/positioning? I remember them getting to everything and having good shifts. In this series it seems like everything we hit is in the gap, and quite a few of them are low liners that just roll all day. Cain and Gordon look nowhere near peak. Cain is hitting fine, but they all just seem so ... atrophied.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 26, 2017 -> 01:12 PM) Looks like Net Neutrality is dead This had so much momentum behind it in 2006-2008 and really seems like the constituency for it fell out, or just assumed it was stable.

I expect him to dominate this horrible KC offense. Was frankly dreading this game because how bad KC is - if they showed life vs him it would make me sad.

Sorry for not looking up but did he complete the game or leave at 6?

Leury was always a fav candidate for me as a bench piece. Speed is real.

QUOTE (OmarComing25 @ Apr 25, 2017 -> 09:12 PM) Eric Thames with yet another home run, he now has as many as the Red Sox do collectively. This is an incredible stretch. Someone showed that with 2 WAR already in April, he basically earned his entire contract.

Does this game look like it will get in?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 26, 2017 -> 08:24 AM) Kenny is going in person. It is now officially serious. Yep. My impression of when Kenny goes is not the "let's get final word if he's good enough" it's the "let's make sure he knows that our whole org believes in him and are serious about competitive offers and hope it gives us an advantage"

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Apr 25, 2017 -> 08:00 PM) Obama Clinton Reagan Truman Going back to FDR's aristocratic roots, the best presidents have usually come from "non-elite" backgrounds. Obviously, FDR and Kennedy don't fit. You can go all the way back to Lincoln and Trump's role model, Andrew Jackson, should you wish. There definitely is an argument to be made, especially today, that a "non-inside the Beltway" candidate best understands the American people. Look at the Bushes, and their being out of touch. Gore, a political scion. Hillary Clinton, a part of the establishment for going on 30 years. Romney, political roots as deep as it gets. Even Palin and McCain were attractive to people because of their maverick/outsider status. Dole, the establishment if ever there was one symbol of it. Obviously this was a large part of the attraction to Bernie Sanders as well, being from a small/rural state and not being an official member of either political party. If you were to add up the net worth of all the US senators, he'd definitely be in the Bottom 5-10% Why did you write any of this down?

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Apr 25, 2017 -> 04:57 PM) This is, to me, the biggest issue that the Democrats have had since '00. Barack Obama uses his wealth and celebrity to push progressive policies, but people reject his voice because he also gives speeches to bankers? It's that type of idea that siphoned votes from Gore to Nader in '00. That's what led the Sanders wing of the Democratic party to rail so hard against Clinton after she won the nomination this year. I reserve the right to come back here and say that I'm wrong if Obama stays out of the fray and sits on his wealth. But if he uses his wealth and celebrity to stay engaged and fight for progressive causes, no one should judge him taking money from speaking to bankers... This is not the biggest issue that the Democrats have made since 2000. On one hand, I actually do sincerely like that you are making this argument. I think in a vacuum it is right. You can take the handouts from orgs with a plush speaking budget and a desire to seem influential and give a stump speech. It is the "I'll take any mother f******s money if they are givin it away" of politics. I made this argument for Clinton, and I still thin it is theoretically right. But there are two things: 1) I think it is a losing argument and it is not the sacrifice Caulfield is making it out to be. It is not banning all speaking engagements, just the closed door, elite org/business ones. 2) I find these speaking engagements to specifically be unseemly. As a whole, it seems to be a "I'm paying you a lot of money to consider my viewpoints!", moreso than the speaker angle "maybe I will convince you about progressive policies". You are criticizing this line being drawn but I think you probably have a line drawn too. If Obama had gone into a law firm with the implicit benefit of having an "insider" they could rely upon for connections on the hill, that would be pretty awful. It wouldn't matter if he also continued on progressive policies. He would also probably never do this. But I also thought he would not so eagerly jump to these types of gigs. My favorite part of him since being a candidate was his very disciplined optics and campaigns that reduced distractions. And that's all this is, it's a distraction. It doesn't mean he's insincere. It doesn't mean he can't advocate for progressive future. But it is a "well why do you have to do that then?" thing. And, contrary to caulfield that this is the most inherently American thing he can do (which come to think of it, generationally rich people taking gobs of money for no reason except they are already rich MAY be the most American thing possible), I don't think this is a particularly big sacrifice. I think it's tiny. Again, it's not all speeches.

QUOTE (chitownsportsfan @ Apr 25, 2017 -> 10:22 PM) if the score holds the sox will have the 3rd best RD in the AL and tied for 6th in MLB at +13, luolz. Well.