Protecting the Shields -- The Nick Cafardo Thread
- Thread starter MyDaughterLovesTomGordon
- Start date
- Status
Really? The ~.700 OPS in the NL over the last 2 years, 36 yr old defensive specialist 1B with declining glove skills was the wrong guy to let go? Is it just because he went to NY and is now the starter, or are there better reasons why we should have kept him, Nick?
E5 Yaz said:
Yes he's correct, but anyone making the comparison is ridiculous. The season before Trout put up a 326/414/544 line at AA in 400+ AB and got experience in the majors at age 19/20. Last season Bradley put up a 271/373/437 in 271 AB in AA and has zero major league experience.
The biggest problem with what Trout and Harper did last season is that people are going to start to expect that from rookies. That shit doesn't happen.
The ridiculous thing about referring to the Angels not starting Trout from day one as a "mistake" is that it wasn't a choice based on preserving service time or pushing back arbitration. Trout was ill during spring training and missed a lot of time. He simply wasn't ready to play Opening Day. Who knows if Trout has the season he does if they rush him into the lineup from the day camp broke. But of course that doesn't fit the narrative, so Nick ignores it. Wait, what am I saying? For Nick to ignore the point, he'd have to actually understand the truth in the first place.
The whole Glob baseball preview section was horrible, with the whole theme being "chemistry." Basically, it's a huge section of the paper where Cafardo gets to inform us who he thinks is a good guy and who he thinks is a bad person. Without a shred of evidence or reasoning ever presented of course. Judge Cafardo don't need no evidence to make his declarations.
Some classic Cafardoes:
on the Reds' "chemistry rating": "5- Nice rhythm to this team."
On Pittsburgh: "3- There's something amiss."
Arizona: "4- Got rid of bad chemistry guys and brought in Ross."
And Cafardo gets to announce "10 Glue Guys" and "10 Poison Players," basically his chance to promote scrappy guys who were nice to him and stick a knife in to guys he doesn't like. Like he always does, all the time anyway. But here's some more of it, because chemistry!
Classic "Glue Guy" comment on Miguel Batista: "He's had equal success as a starter (248 games, 4.46 ERA) and a reliver (410 appearances, 4.53 ERA.) He's also a writer, poet, philosopher and philanthropist who is hoping to pitch a 19th season." So he's sucked as a starter and a reliever, is old, and is a self-styled intellectual. How does that make him a "Glue Guy"? How does any of that help his team? Nick doesn't say. He just is. Don't question it!
Damn that whole section was a joke. Complete with a typical Shaughnessy "effort," where his preview for this season is to take shots at dozens of former players, from both the recent and distant past. It's his typical schtick, along with Cafardo's. What always used to be a useful, informative season preview section has devolved into this joke, it's sad.
Some classic Cafardoes:
on the Reds' "chemistry rating": "5- Nice rhythm to this team."
On Pittsburgh: "3- There's something amiss."
Arizona: "4- Got rid of bad chemistry guys and brought in Ross."
And Cafardo gets to announce "10 Glue Guys" and "10 Poison Players," basically his chance to promote scrappy guys who were nice to him and stick a knife in to guys he doesn't like. Like he always does, all the time anyway. But here's some more of it, because chemistry!
Classic "Glue Guy" comment on Miguel Batista: "He's had equal success as a starter (248 games, 4.46 ERA) and a reliver (410 appearances, 4.53 ERA.) He's also a writer, poet, philosopher and philanthropist who is hoping to pitch a 19th season." So he's sucked as a starter and a reliever, is old, and is a self-styled intellectual. How does that make him a "Glue Guy"? How does any of that help his team? Nick doesn't say. He just is. Don't question it!
Damn that whole section was a joke. Complete with a typical Shaughnessy "effort," where his preview for this season is to take shots at dozens of former players, from both the recent and distant past. It's his typical schtick, along with Cafardo's. What always used to be a useful, informative season preview section has devolved into this joke, it's sad.
The Gray Eagle said:
Not a fan of the "glue guys" piece myself, but the byline indicates it was producee by Sean Smith.
Funny, I dont remember any "superb" plays by Iglesias. Neither does Nick:
You can't have a bigger number than "immeasurable," you stathead dorks you.
But THREE HITS!!!!!
Is that what you call three infield dribblers? It's "what they want him to do?" One of the new hitting coaches is the "dribbler" coach?
OK...just the mere fact that he made contact three times is an improvement. But its still a recipe for a 220/275/320 season.
Totally insufferable. Iglesias being the forgotten "other" rookie that Cafardo has been pimping for years. Absolutely nothing to support the "pitchers love him bestest" comments other than body language. Seriously?
And of course the obligatory shots at Ellsbury (overaggressive, didn't dive for a ball that Cafardo deemed catchable).
Oh... and everyone did great things yesterday... even the trainers!
And of course the obligatory shots at Ellsbury (overaggressive, didn't dive for a ball that Cafardo deemed catchable).
Oh... and everyone did great things yesterday... even the trainers!
Oh, this exchange was just as bad:
1. "You could tell there was some surprise." Really? Don't you mean, "I could tell there was some surprise"? He does this pronoun shit on purpose to deflect responsibility. It's not that he detected surprise, it's that ANYONE could have. But should Farrell have really been surprised? And should anyone have been surprised he didn't make the final roster, when you looked at his performance and his option situation? No. Does Nick mention any of that? No.
2. Nick's scouting report: "needs to get his act together mechanically and re-commit to the delivery that made him so successful." Oh, really, Nick? What's not right about his mechanics? Dropping his shoulder? Yanking the ball? Stride too long? Glove hand flying out? Perhaps you could have asked Farrell about that instead of whether he was surprised or not. Also, "re-commit"? Has Bard tried to change his delivery and is he being obstinate about returning to the old way? Hopefully, Bard read the Q&A because now he's all set: "Aha! I just need to go back to what I was doing before! Why didn't I think of that?"
3. How on Earth can the man continue to carry water for Bobby Fucking Valentine? The man was so bad he is quite literally out of baseball.
1. "You could tell there was some surprise." Really? Don't you mean, "I could tell there was some surprise"? He does this pronoun shit on purpose to deflect responsibility. It's not that he detected surprise, it's that ANYONE could have. But should Farrell have really been surprised? And should anyone have been surprised he didn't make the final roster, when you looked at his performance and his option situation? No. Does Nick mention any of that? No.
2. Nick's scouting report: "needs to get his act together mechanically and re-commit to the delivery that made him so successful." Oh, really, Nick? What's not right about his mechanics? Dropping his shoulder? Yanking the ball? Stride too long? Glove hand flying out? Perhaps you could have asked Farrell about that instead of whether he was surprised or not. Also, "re-commit"? Has Bard tried to change his delivery and is he being obstinate about returning to the old way? Hopefully, Bard read the Q&A because now he's all set: "Aha! I just need to go back to what I was doing before! Why didn't I think of that?"
3. How on Earth can the man continue to carry water for Bobby Fucking Valentine? The man was so bad he is quite literally out of baseball.
MyDaughterLovesTomGordon said:
Wonder if it occurred to Nick that Farrell's look of surprise may have actually been directed at the question, not at Bard's progress or lack there of. Perhaps Farrell was surprised that anyone would think a pitcher that had fallen so far off his past level of performance could magically turn everything around in a scant six-seven weeks.
joe dokes said:
No, but I do remember the unnecessarily casual flip to first he made that almost got away from Napoli.
As for BobbyV, Neumeier spent 15 minutes of the CSNNE baseball show last weekend putting in another belated defense of BobbyV. Nick and Neumie still holding tight to their fan club cards.
With Stephen Drew on the fast track back I'm sure we can expect Nick to ratchet up the grumpy old man routine.
CoffeeNerdness said:
No more calls please, we have a winner (ignore the title of the link):
http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2013/04/03/jon-lester-has-good-season-red-sox-may-have-pay/GpRscgtDahW2yEG5N8SQnI/story.html
"Five hits in nine at bats" -- A/K/A one ball hit out of the infield.
"Superb defense" -- A/K/A A routine Game 1 with a shaky throw; a great stop in Game 2 with a hurried, worm-burner thrown that failed to beat a deceased Lyle Overbay at first base.
"Failed to move runners along" -- A/K/A was asked to make an out on purpose even though the pitcher was on the ropes and there was first and second with none outs. Also amnesia, since after Game 1, his strength was "moving runners along."
"Didn't matter" -- A/K/A "Why do I need real women when I have my right hand and some nice pictures."
EDIT: That was in the first few grafs. It gets worse.....
you do know that both Iglesias's hits last night were well struck and out of the infield, right? And that a good 1B would have had that bad throw last night and probably gotten Overbay out?
There's enough shit in his writing you don't need to add to it.
There's enough shit in his writing you don't need to add to it.
joe dokes said:
You said he didn't hit the ball out of the infield, when in fact he hit two very sharp grounders that probably should have netted him two doubles on the day. Those were two solid hits and to just casually dismiss them as "they looked like ground balls to me" is ridiculous.
And yeah, the throw could have been better, but are we just taking for granted the amount of effort, sense of positioning and athletic ability that it took for him just to get to that ball in the first place? Let alone the fact that Napoli absolutely should've had that one, and the throw, while poor, had enough on it to get Overbay.
I'd rather have Drew starting in the lineup he's ready, and I also believe Iglesias needs more seasoning before he starts for the major league club, but the way you just diminish absolutely everything the kid accomplishes is absurd.
I am passing judgment on Cafardo, not Iglesias. If Drew hits those balls (or balls to SS), some version of "Arod (or Jeter) would have had them" would have been in the story.
But I see which way the wind is blowing on this one, so lets call the question and move on to another day.
But I see which way the wind is blowing on this one, so lets call the question and move on to another day.
You're passing judgement on Cafardo when there was nothing substantially wrong with what he said.
We can more easily pass judgement on YOU for your idiotic analysis of Iglesias's hits and that play in the hole.
NOW we can move on to another day.
We can more easily pass judgement on YOU for your idiotic analysis of Iglesias's hits and that play in the hole.
NOW we can move on to another day.
Do you realize how stupid you look with your comments? Every blind squirrel finds nuts sometimes and this is one of the few times Carfardo happens to be right. I thought Iglesais has been one of the better surprises so far. As others have mentioned, both hits last night went to the outfield unlike what you said. In addition, the throw to first base should have been scooped by any regular first basemen. If anything, your ire should be directed towards Napoli. I strongly advise you to invest in some eyeglasses before watching the next game. There is enough suck in the usual Carfardo article that when he writes a decent one, it is surprising. Finally, you might want to leave your strong anti Iglesais bias at the door before commentating anymore in this thread.joe dokes said:
richgedman'sghost said:
Anybody else? Sunday's almost here, and I'm sure Nick will provide new ground to plow. But for the last time, whatever my ignorance/studpidity/blindness about Iglesias, the point of the article, that the last few days & ST should somehow turn the SS job into a competition, was, IMO, stupid. In others' opinions, I am the stupid one. That's the way the world goes 'round.
As for my "bias," perhaps you are right and I should be completely objective like every other poster here is about everything else. OTOH--It has been said that the only truly objective people are the ones in the cemetary.
If people here "left their 'biases' at the door," the doorway would be very crowded, and threads would be empty.
I'm assuming that the reference to "Steve" Grilli shattered that illusion of competency, though, right?
The Montreal thing was better than some of Nick's other work. However, I thought the laundry list of former Expos players who were good was a weak justification for saying baseball can thrive in Montreal. As if good ballplayers wouldn't be good wherever they played.
"Andre Dawson and Pedro Martinez were great players. Therefore, a Major League team should move to Montreal."
"Andre Dawson and Pedro Martinez were great players. Therefore, a Major League team should move to Montreal."
Cousin Walter said:
Since I brought this up, I should say that this is not what he's saying at all. He talked about the change in ownership and the difference in the city from when things went south. He never made the direct link that because the franchise had great players, they should move a team to Montreal ... only that it is a city that has a credible history in baseball
Cafardo's take on race in cringe worthy:
http://bostonglobe.com/sports/2013/04/12/mlb-seeks-answer-increasing-african-american-participation-baseball/HfwB6ugfOwQF2WojHZSK7H/story.html
http://bostonglobe.com/sports/2013/04/12/mlb-seeks-answer-increasing-african-american-participation-baseball/HfwB6ugfOwQF2WojHZSK7H/story.html
What a classic pile-onner Nick is - "ticket distribution streak." Ha! Good one, Nick! Tell me more about what a great manager Bobby V was!
And about how "we" have been dealing with the lack of African Americans in baseball for years...
And about how "we" have been dealing with the lack of African Americans in baseball for years...
Humphrey said:
Technically, .182 (his avg in Pawtucket) is "hitting". I'm not putting up his OPS cuz Nick doesn't like that stat.
At least he was quick to congratulate Chuck Waseleski on his 30 years of such piquant observation as:
That's 37%.
According to my quick and dirty basbeall reference skills, last year in the AL there were 9629 RBIs. 3557 of them occurred with 2 outs. That's 37%.
This season, in what is probably a too-small sample size, there have been 733 RBIs. 307 of them occurred with 2 outs. That's 42%.
So, to the extent that this "stat" has any meaning, it means the Sox are currently worse than league average.
On the bright side, the Sox are tied for the MLB lead in fewest double plays hit into with two outs -- 0.
That's 37%.
According to my quick and dirty basbeall reference skills, last year in the AL there were 9629 RBIs. 3557 of them occurred with 2 outs. That's 37%.
This season, in what is probably a too-small sample size, there have been 733 RBIs. 307 of them occurred with 2 outs. That's 42%.
So, to the extent that this "stat" has any meaning, it means the Sox are currently worse than league average.
On the bright side, the Sox are tied for the MLB lead in fewest double plays hit into with two outs -- 0.
Going back to Sunday's column, Cafardo really can't believe that the Indians would leave Cleveland for Montreal due to a few cold April nights and low attendance, right?
And that's the thing about our boy Nick. He writes one interesting piece (Montreal wants to get a team back) and he will shoehorn that story into everything he writes for the near future. It's maddening.
And that's the thing about our boy Nick. He writes one interesting piece (Montreal wants to get a team back) and he will shoehorn that story into everything he writes for the near future. It's maddening.
What's the over/under on how many weeks during the season Nick's notes column's main portion will be "Team X, if they feel they're out of it: will be looking to deal Player Y and Player Z before the deadline" and/or declaring Team X out of it 2 or 3 months too soon?
How many teams did he want to have a fire sale in today's article? Even the Jays, who just spent a big wad of cash putting their team together. Bad first four weeks? Blow it up.
How many teams did he want to have a fire sale in today's article? Even the Jays, who just spent a big wad of cash putting their team together. Bad first four weeks? Blow it up.
The first third of his column was Cafardo at his laziest. He looked at the standings and wrote a line about each team. No analysis whatsoever.
I have graduated from reading his column to skimming it. Cafardo is literally making me dumber.
I have graduated from reading his column to skimming it. Cafardo is literally making me dumber.
- Status