Red Sox/MLB - 2019 Regular Season IV - 6 back in the loss column with 28 to play | Page 9 | HFBoards - NHL Message Board and Forum for National Hockey League
Toggle sidebar

Red Sox/MLB 2019 Regular Season IV - 6 back in the loss column with 28 to play

Status
Not open for further replies.
Absurdity said:
Competitive in the sense that he thought he didn't need to make any key additions because the same team made the World Series the year before.
Click to expand...

You can't say this with any certainty. Just because "key additions" in your mind weren't made, doesn't mean he didn't think they needed to make any or didn't try to make any. Maybe he did. Maybe he lined up some deals and was vetoed by ownership due to luxury tax issues or disagreement over trade compensation. Who knows? It could've been a million other things than him just saying "nope. We're 100% good as-is."

Absurdity said:
They are fighting for a spot in the Wild Card race.
Click to expand...

That's the very definition of "competitive", like I said. If you define it differently, then I think we're done here.
 
Seidenbergy said:
You can't say this with any certainty. Just because "key additions" in your mind weren't made, doesn't mean he didn't think they needed to make any or didn't try to make any. Maybe he did. Maybe he lined up some deals and was vetoed by ownership due to luxury tax issues or disagreement over trade compensation. Who knows? It could've been a million other things than him just saying "nope. We're 100% good as-is."
Click to expand...
What additions did he making to the pitching crew? He lost Kelly and Kimbrel and failed to replace them. Those two were arguably their best relief pitchers. That is on the GM. The problem continues to be the bullpen, and it's exemplified because the starting pitchers have not been consistent. Dombrowski can't control the latter, but he can/could have fixed the former.
Seidenbergy said:
That's the very definition of "competitive", like I said. If you define it differently, then I think we're done here.
Click to expand...
I posted that at 9am. I was tired then. I still am now. I could have gone ahead and edited it for semantics, but it is what it is. Whatever the reasons may be, this current Red Sox team is too good on paper to be where they are in the standings right now.
 
Absurdity said:
What additions did he making to the pitching crew? He lost Kelly and Kimbrel and failed to replace them. Those two were arguably their best relief pitchers. That is on the GM. The problem continues to be the bullpen, and it's exemplified because the starting pitchers have not been consistent. Dombrowski can't control the latter, but he can/could have fixed the former.

I posted that at 9am. I was tired then. I still am now. I could have gone ahead and edited it for semantics, but it is what it is. Whatever the reasons may be, this current Red Sox team is too good on paper to be where they are in the standings right now.
Click to expand...

You continue to confuse "thinking" something with "doing" something. Dombrowski can and likely does "think" EXACTLY as you do......that they need(ed) pitching help......and at the same time, not be able to do something about it for a multitude of reasons.

All of this was addressed in my prior post. If you go back through it when you are not tired, you might see things differently.
 
Donnie Shulzhoffer said:
:facepalm:

What math are people using?
Click to expand...

The only kind.

Hell, you can even use the abomination known as "common core" math and get this one right.

A simple google search of "x games over .500" will reveal just how wrong you and LSCII are. This really isn't that complicated.
 
Seidenbergy said:
The only kind.

Hell, you can even use the abomination known as "common core" math and get this one right.

A simple google search of "x games over .500" will reveal just how wrong you and LSCII are. This really isn't that complicated.
Click to expand...
That is a language issue not a math one to you.

.500 is 50%. What is %50 of 108 games? 54. They have 59 wins...I will let you do the rest of the simple math.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LSCII
Seidenbergy said:
The only kind.

Hell, you can even use the abomination known as "common core" math and get this one right.

A simple google search of "x games over .500" will reveal just how wrong you and LSCII are. This really isn't that complicated.
Click to expand...

Ah yes. Misdirection and accusations work instead of actually doing the math. Solid logic behind that one...

But again, what is 50% of 108? I'll wait.
 
Seidenbergy said:
The only kind.

Hell, you can even use the abomination known as "common core" math and get this one right.

A simple google search of "x games over .500" will reveal just how wrong you and LSCII are. This really isn't that complicated.
Click to expand...

Yeah but it FEELZ like they are 10 games under .500! Who cares about facts and numbers these days??? #feelz
 
LSCII said:
Okay people. Let's go at this another way. What's half of 108? Anyone?
Click to expand...

We get your point. We really do. It's just not the way "games over .500" is measured in sports. It's just not. There is literally no sports "authority" that measures games over .500 by anything other than the number of losses it would take to equal the current number of wins.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Carbonated Puck and EverettMike
Seidenbergy said:
We get your point. We really do. It's just not the way "games over .500" is measured in sports. It's just not. There is literally no sports "authority" that measures games over .500 by anything other than the number of losses it would take to equal the current number of wins.
Click to expand...
Right. Their language on it has always been wrong and people just accepted and conformed to it.
 
Seidenbergy said:
We get your point. We really do. It's just not the way "games over .500" is measured in sports. It's just not. There is literally no sports "authority" that measures games over .500 by anything other than the number of losses it would take to equal the current number of wins.
Click to expand...

No. You're still not quite there. They're 10 up in in the loss column meaning they have 10 more wins than losses. Hence their record of 59 Wins, 49 Losses. But they are 5 games over .500. 59 wins vs 55 wins equaling .500.

Regardless of how you want to say it is, that's how it really is.
 
Rays got Aguilar from the Brewers. If he flips the switch back to what he did last year that could be problematic
 
LSCII said:
No. You're still not quite there. They're 10 up in in the loss column meaning they have 10 more wins than losses. Hence their record of 59 Wins, 49 Losses. But they are 5 games over .500. 59 wins vs 55 wins equaling .500.

Regardless of how you want to say it is, that's how it really is.
Click to expand...

Here it is................DIRECT FROM THE MLB:

Interactive Standings

2013 Red Sox record 97-65 is listed as 32 games over .500 if you hover over the last day September 30th

DONE
 
CDJ said:
Yeah but it FEELZ like they are 10 games under .500! Who cares about facts and numbers these days??? #feelz
Click to expand...

Given that Donnie was doing the actual math and catching shit for it, I'd say the only person injecting feelings and emotion into this is you and the people that were saying he was wrong. He wasn't. Like usual, it was....wait for it...wait for it.....WAIT FOR IT....

You.

But hey, accusations, denials, and misdirection by you works too.
:laugh:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Donnie Shulzhoffer
Donnie Shulzhoffer said:
Again that is language you are fighting for, not the math.
Click to expand...

Which I've been attempting to make clear since post one. I said I get the math. I get it. I understand it. What I'm saying is NOBODY in the sports world refers to the "hypothetical" scenario of losing games a team won when discussing games over .500. They refer to the pure difference in wins over losses at that point in time. They don't go back and figure out what half of the current number of games is and then take the difference from that. In math class, you'd be right. In the sports world, you're wrong.
 
Seidenbergy said:
Which I've been attempting to make clear since post one. I said I get the math. I get it. I understand it. What I'm saying is NOBODY in the sports world refers to the "hypothetical" scenario of losing games a team won when discussing games over .500. They refer to the pure difference in wins over losses at that point in time. They don't go back and figure out what half of the current number of games is and then take the difference from that. In math class, you'd be right. In the sports world, you're wrong.
Click to expand...
All I care is that you get the math. We will just disagree. Just because all these years the sports world has been calling it that way doesn’t mean it is right
 
You people are in rare form.

It's the trade deadline and you're all engaging in casuistry over the definition of games over .500.
 
Maldonado back with the Astros, in exchange for Tony Kemp. 2nd time Maldonado has been traded this month


I think Kemp is a good player. Strong athlete. Useful to have off the bench. They’d have these extended slip and slides at the youth camps that a cape league team runs and the players and the kids would be able to slip and slide on Friday. He’d stand up and surf 3/4 of the way down the thing. Watched a lot of players eat shit trying to replicate it lol
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Latest posts

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom