There's nothing in there are WHY Hanley wasn't productive after April last year: his shoulder injury. That he suffered playing left field. A position he volunteered to play because the team needed him to do so.(Hanley) won many of us over in spring training. He played well at his new position, first base, though he didn’t have to scoop many throws out of the dirt. Ramirez was never really tested except for a handful of times, with mixed results. The Sox need Ramirez to have an April like he did last year (.293 average, 10 homers, 22 RBIs, .999 OPS), and then keep going. They need him to hit for power in a doubles-oriented lineup. Will playing first base (and occasionally DHing) help him to stay healthy and productive? While he’s won us over with his attitude and maturity in camp, he has to keep that up over a full season. He was once one of the top players in baseball. He won the National League batting title in 2009 with a .342 average (Pablo Sandoval finished second at .330).
Here's what I really don't get. The new slide rule is still the Wild West compared to Rule 8-4 covering sliding into force-out situations in NCAA baseball. I am sure that some purists thought that the games were worthless once middle infielders could try to complete double plays with a reduce likelihood of maiming, but the college game has somehow survived these onerous restrictions. The NCAA has had this rule in play for several seasons now. If only Nick could use his super reporting skills to find out how that rule affected the game, for good or for ill.I admit I was sort of eagerly awaiting this: Nick on the new slide rule.
It's pretty stupid. But it's really long and boring and not stupid in a particularly fun way. Still, this is kinda fun:
Too many rules. Too many restrictions on players,” said one ex-player. “You have to be able to play the game without feeling like you’re doing something wrong.
Great to see that Sullivan has a thorough understanding of the situation. Well done, Joe! Now get back to murdering and defiling print media in one of the only American cities that gives a shit about these sorts of things.E5Y may be right:
■ Correction: Because of a reporting error, the owner of the Montreal Expos at the time the team sought a trade for Derek Jeter was incorrect in the Sunday Baseball Notes on March 27. The owner at that time was Claude Brochu.
That correction is accurate, Brochu was the owner. However, Pedro Martinez was not with the Expos, either. And Brochu's ownership at the time means that the entire premise of the item --- Loria's obsession with Jeter -- is undermined. As I said, the correction is accurate. But it seems to fall short of actually correcting much.
Nick: "The world changed forever on December 3, 1941, when Norway attacked Pearl Harbor."Great to see that Sullivan has a thorough understanding of the situation. Well done, Joe!
My reply:Sullivan just responded
"He had the owner wrong; the trade was proposed"
What's more interesting is Cafardo's lack of understanding of what a metaphor is.Pablo Sandoval’s agent, Rick Thurman, had an interesting line last week regarding his client’s benching: “If you’re going to win, why keep the Ferrari in the garage?” It was interesting because Sandoval has told me, “I don’t like Ferraris.”
Nick borrowed a trick from Wade Boggs. He willed Hanley invisible.Wow, today's column is so bad. Clearly Bautista and/or his agent wanted Cafardo to start some speculation about Bautista to Boston, so Nick obliges with a dumb article about how the Red Sox "need" to bring in a high priced bat next year to be a fulltime DH. Apparently we will need to have a RH slugger who is only a DH, and apparently that guy can't be Hanley Ramirez, for some reason.
Except last year, when they improved their home winning percentage and finished last again.Two things I learned from Nick this week:
1. If the Sox starters don't go deep in games the bullpen will get worn out.
2. The Sox need to improve their home winning percentage to do better overall.
Never would have thought about either one of those.
Today's piece on Chuck Waseleski is telling in a lot of ways. It's not a terrible piece. But in a column memorializing a "stats pioneer," we get a lot of testimonials from Globe sports page staff and alumnus about how dedicated he was but little more than a passing reference or two to what stats he kept ("swings and misses, balls hit on the ground, line drives, averages on certain counts and conditions" and the number of foul balls Boggs hit).
Again, it's not as bad as I initially thought – he does go into Waseleski's influence on agents in arb hearings and the media. He says he gave writers like him hooks. And it def. suggests that the only player to give two shits about this stuff was Boggs.
But there's a distinct lack of appreciation or insight into why this might have made the game richer – or even, if he wanted, why guys like him were different or better than the know-it-all, bandwagon jumping whippersnappers who are running teams and ruining the game from their moms' basements.
It should be noted that it's a warm piece – Nick obviously had a genuine affection for the guy. But it seems to reveal a lot more about Nick than it does Chuck.
Gone for good. Today's numbers dont mean anything. Nick can't just celebrate a friend who was ahead of his time.He was 61 when he died Thursday . With it, a generation of Red Sox baseball numbers that were way ahead of its time and which actually meant something were gone for good.
He was 61 when he died Thursday . With it, a generation of Red Sox baseball numbers that were way ahead of its time and which actually meant something were gone for good.
Nobody liked to see proof of how great Wade Boggs was more than Wade Boggs.He would often give Boggs all of the data. The big thing there was he kept up with foul-ball pop-ups, for which for many years there were none, a sign that Boggs rarely had a bad swing.
That's the timeless, inscrtuable beauty that is Nick. He could take one anomalous play in one game and project a career out of it, actual results be damned; or he can take an anomalous play from 10 years ago and have it define a career, subsequent results be damned.Was last night the event that Nick is talking about? I don't know, maybe it is. Maybe it isn't./nickyism
Nope. Once Nick makes up his mind about a player it never, ever changes. Things have to be black and white in Nick's world, no time for shades of gray. Player X is either a dog or the greatest guy who ever lived.All he has to do is be a superstar and Nick will forgive him.
All depends on who's giving him quotes these days.Nope. Once Nick makes up his mind about a player it never, ever changes. Things have to be black and white in Nick's world, no time for shades of gray. Player X is either a dog or the greatest guy who ever lived.