Spending real money on a 5th starter is a waste. They don't help you in the postseason.

 

But they help you GET to the postseason.

And if you disagree - then don't try and pretend to put down a simple argument by pulling out 1 stat in the line of a million. Howry pitched very well for us that year - better then Jenks has in 2 different season.

 

WHIP is a much better metric for relievers than ERA, BAA, etc. And your argument that Howry was a more effective closer for us in '99 than Jenks has been over the past two seasons is pure ignorance. Howry was a f'n gas can as a closer.

 

When you reply to someone with "LOL, Yeah"

 

Commonly taken as insulting and sarcastic...You get what you deserve.

 

There are plenty of message boards out there that tolerate trolls with poor grammatical skills. This isn't one of them.

 

Edited August 4, 200916 yr by WCSox

Guys. Chill please.

Girls, Girls...you're both pretty!

WHIP is a much better metric for relievers than ERA, BAA, etc. And your argument that Howry was a more effective closer for us in '99 than Jenks has been over the past two seasons is pure ignorance. Howry was a f'n gas can as a closer.

 

 

 

There are plenty of message boards out there that tolerate trolls with poor grammatical skills. This isn't one of them.

 

Well, first of all, I said in 2 different seasons. That word is pronounced dif-fer-ent. It is from around the 14th century (which I am sure you're an expert on as well much like everything else apparently) and its Middle English, from Latin. You misread it for consecutive or the last two seasons. Clearly acceptable and expected from someone like yourself.

 

Those 2 DIFFERENT seasons being 2006 and this season. Or was Jenks 1.39 whip in 2006 acceptable because you will pull out the 1 other stat he outperformed Howry in? Get real. Howry was not dominant but neither was Jenks. And that is the point!!! A guy like Howry has a decent season and gets called crap. Jenks has a worse season and a similarly bad one - and he is defended to the moon.

 

And I didn't type the "LOL, yeah" to start the bickering - you did. So if that was your reference to poor grammaticals skills. Then so be it. I didn't realize this was a 14 year old AOL/Text msg site where LOL constituted as an intelligent way to rebuttal someones opinion.

 

Then again. I did go to high school at some point but I forgot how you kids conduct civilized conversations there.

 

I'm not going to get into a pissing match with you. You go out of your way to try and put people down with your resonses even though it is crystal clear you have zero clue what you're talking about. I'll move on from here to different replies and you can manipulate someone elses words.

 

You're incorrect and obnoxious.

Edited August 4, 200916 yr by Pumpkin Escobar

I remember in 1997 with Roberto Hernandez, we went through Bill Simas, Matt Karchner, Bobby Howry, Keith Foulke, Tom Gordon, Damaso Marte, Billy Koch, Shingo Takatsu and Dustin Hermanson before we got another good closer in Jenks. In fact, there was a deluge of semi-questionable closers prior to Bobby Thigpen like Bob James, Ron Reed, Dennis Lamp, Salome Barojas, Ed Farmer, Mike Proly, Lerrin LaGrow, Jim Willoughby, and Dave Hamilton.

 

Keith Foulke and Dustin Hermanson were actually serviceable though.

Keith Foulke and Dustin Hermanson were actually serviceable though.

 

Foulke was very good for us. I know he got bombed that May but I checked and it wasn't 25 scoreless innings it was only like 17 1/3 but his era in the 2nd half for us in 2002 was like .71. He got roughed up that May - no doubt but he should've been given more of a chance.

 

Which is why I am all for giving Jenks more time/chances. It's just scary to think of the $ and the downside if it backfires on us.

 

Hermy was good. Shame he got hurt.

Well, first of all, I said in 2 different seasons. That word is pronounced dif-fer-ent. It is from around the 14th century (which I am sure you're an expert on as well much like everything else apparently) and its Middle English, from Latin. You misread it for consecutive or the last two seasons. Clearly acceptable and expected from someone like yourself.

 

Those 2 DIFFERENT seasons being 2006 and this season. Or was Jenks 1.39 whip in 2006 acceptable because you will pull out the 1 other stat he outperformed Howry in? Get real. Howry was not dominant but neither was Jenks. And that is the point!!! A guy like Howry has a decent season and gets called crap. Jenks has a worse season and a similarly bad one - and he is defended to the moon.

 

And I didn't type the "LOL, yeah" to start the bickering - you did. So if that was your reference to poor grammaticals skills. Then so be it. I didn't realize this was a 14 year old AOL/Text msg site where LOL constituted as an intelligent way to rebuttal someones opinion.

 

Then again. I did go to high school at some point but I forgot how you kids conduct civilized conversations there.

 

I'm not going to get into a pissing match with you. You go out of your way to try and put people down with your resonses even though it is crystal clear you have zero clue what you're talking about. I'll move on from here to different replies and you can manipulate someone elses words.

 

You're incorrect and obnoxious.

 

 

if you dont want to get into a pissing match, dont finish your statement by calling him obnoxious. You have both been warned already, continue your disagreement in civil terms.

Well, first of all, I said in 2 different seasons. That word is pronounced dif-fer-ent. It is from around the 14th century (which I am sure you're an expert on as well much like everything else apparently) and its Middle English, from Latin. You misread it for consecutive or the last two seasons. Clearly acceptable and expected from someone like yourself.

 

This is what you said...

 

better then Jenks has in 2 different season

 

Forgive me for making the assumption, as I wasn't sure what "better then Jenks in 2 different season" referred to. Given that your argument is premised on Jenks declining, it would make sense to cite the last two seasons as evidence. Your citation of 2006 actually works against that argument, as Jenks was nearly lights-out the following year.

 

Cherry-picking aside, Jenks' worst seasons were better than Howry's one as a closer. His WHIP was lower and his stuff has been off-the-charts better. Howry was a hard thrower with mediocre command who couldn't throw any off-speed pitches for strikes. This is one of the reasons that he lasted one whole year as a closer. I don't know of any Sox fans who think that 1999 Bob Howry was more effective than 2006 or 2009 Bobby Jenks. And, of course, that completely omits Jenks' better years, which leave Howry in the dust.

 

You're incorrect and obnoxious.

 

If you're incapable of tolerating a dissenting opinion, a message board isn't the place for you.

Edited August 4, 200916 yr by WCSox

via Cowley:

 

Jenks back to the hospital with kidney stones again.

Bobby Jenks is 5 for 9 in save situations when he enters with a one run lead. It wouldn't be hard to replace that with someone cheaper than Jenks.

Brandon Webb has season ending shoulder surgery

 

 

That's what we need two ace starters on the DL