Have at it. Go whoever isn’t the Red Sox.

Comments (110)

  1. I remember when Stoeten referred to Saltamacchia as Salty Cock Face.

    Go Tigers.

  2. Cibia will be better next year – told Fangraphs he’s going to stop confusing his approach with trying to walk.

  3. I’m here everyone

  4. “The rich girls from TO must be home from college. Tubby, unfortunately manish, and super stuck up are all at Hemingways tonight”

    — Gregg Zaun (@greggzaun) December 19, 2012

    Transcripts have been realeased, here are the top 5 pickup lines Greg Zaun used that infamous night he struck out at Hemmingways:

    1) “Hey Babe, you want to play army? I’ll lay back and you can blow the hell out of me.”
    2) “Hey Babe, do you have pet insurance? Because I’m gonna crush your pussy.”
    3) “Hey Babe, I’d like to wear you like a catchers mask”
    4) “Hey Babe, glad I ran into you, I think you left your panties at my house tomorrow morning.”
    5) “Hey Babe, I’d like to put my penis in your vagina……… so to speak.”

  5. That loss by Kershaw is perhaps the best demonstration of why wins are a worthless stat. Two hitter.

  6. I feel bad for Cabrera. He can barely walk. Normally he would have got a double

  7. That’s right, David. Go ahead and yell at the umpires. Yell real good now!

  8. I think Jose did complain too much. He pissed off the umps with possibly bad results for the team. Which is why I’m thrilled our David there is having a go.

    • +1, but I think the umpires allow the red sox & yankees more flexibility at yelling at them than other teams

      • Yeah… that seems to be the truth most of the time. With the Jays big off season and Jose’s history, there seemed to be a target on their back this season. I think that’s part of Jose’s game thou, something you can’t change. It’s part of his DNA, part of being a competitive athlete, to bring intensity to almost every at bat. He feels confident that he know’s where the strike zone is, and has shown his patience, for the most part, at the plate in the last few seasons. He needs to have that fire to be the player he is, but he also needs to remind the umps once and awhile that he is Jose Bautista. It’s like basketball, and I’m not saying I particularly like it, that when a start player thinks he gets foul, he lets the ref know, and then 9 times out of ten they will get a foul called in their favor shortly after, whether it is legit or not. It’s basic psychology. Jose is an ultra competitor that is trying to milk every bit of production out of his a bats. Can any one really fault him for that. Those are the kind of players every team want on their team. Whether they bitch at the umps or not.

    • Bautista needs to learn the art of quietly making his point to the umps. Period.

    • Why the need to make this stuff up? Seriously.

      Yes, Jose argued with umpires. There is zero evidence it impacted anything. I’ve cited a couple times now a reporter saying he hears Miguel Cabrera is the worst in the league for arguing. Really hurts him and the Tigers, huh?

      If there was any indication it was a problem, then it would be a problem, sure. Right now it’s just as make believe as it’s always been, though.

  9. Dammit. There goes the no-hitter. Still, well-pitched, Tigers!

  10. And that’s the ball game. Suck it Massholes.

  11. Tigers win!!!!!.

    Each pitch in the 9th took what seemed to be 5 minutes.

    Too bad that the no hitter was broken up.

    Farell & the evil red sox empire are 3 games away from elimination.

  12. Suck it Farrell. Eat shit Farrell

  13. It would have been just like those Red sox fucks to have won the game on 2 hits or something. In my wildest dreams I can only hope detroit smokes em 4-0
    NL, don’t care , really. I think both NL clubs have better overall pitching than either of these 2 and will win it all but I don’t want the bosux to evne get a sniff. Bite me Farrell

  14. Suck it Red Sox!

  15. Impressive to shutout that offense in the bandbox that is Fenway.
    I hope the Tig’s keep the foot on throat all series.

  16. The Sox are blaming Joe West the home plate umpire. Apparently he had the temerity to call a bunch of them out on strikes. Pedey couldn’t believe the injustice!

  17. Listen here you mamba jamba bottom feeding pit with hurricane eyes

  18. Happy Thanksgiv’r DJFs! Go Tigers!

  19. I hope John Farrell trips on a pile of dog shit then chokes on it.

  20. Hey Farrell, maybe you should get your bullpen up and warming? Just a thought…


  22. This is the moment where the Sox and their fans discover that their shiny new manager has a whole bullpen made of clay. Farrell will catch major shit for this and he well deserves it. Should have yanked Bucholtz three batters ago.



  24. Congratulations Detroit! Your pitchers have been amazing! I wish we had pitchers half as good as you guys!

  25. Happy Thanksgiving to all the DJF’s board members.

    Just tuned into the game. Very happy with the result!

    13 strikeouts by the Tigers?


    It’s close to a record 31 strikeouts in back to back games.

  26. Shit happens.

  27. Fuck.

  28. Man, I hate the Red Sox.

  29. wow the Tigers bullpen really sucks

  30. I took the dogs for a walk. Tigers have a 5-1 lead.

    I come back & the bases are loaded, & Big Papi hits a grand slam!!!.

    No. this can’t be happening.

    Tori Hunter went over the wall..

    I wonder if AA would consider trading some bullpen surplus to the Tigers?

  31. Arrghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhggggggggggh


  32. epic choke job by the Tigers. what a waste of an great start by Scherzer.

  33. Watching the red sox celebrate a walk off win is depressing

  34. What an ugly end for Detroit there, goddamn

  35. AND Scherzer pitched a fucking gem. Wasted.

  36. The Tigers tried Benoit as a closerr a couple of years ago before they got papa grande and he was awful. He is back in there again because papa was released and Veras is debateable. This is still an achilles heel for Detroit ( that and that fat fuck Fielder playin first base muffing a one hopeer , then dropping a pop up). Their bullpen is weak and may cost them the ALCS .They had Boston OVER and OUT and now it’s all even.Dunno

  37. I know of a team with a surplus of quality relievers and depth SP types.

  38. Fucking Red Sox.

  39. Who should Aaa trade for?

  40. Just to stir the pot a little.

  41. Fielder….gad. Not saying that the bulk of the damage was already done….but geez, Bluto, snag a waist-hight one-hopper, already. Pretend it’s the last thing on the buffet table.
    Maybe actually LOOK UP and squeeze the glove on a pop-up occasionally.

    • @fastball.

      I thought a fan interfered with Fielder when he tried to catch the foul ball at first base.

  42. Why do all these players believe in culture and intangibles!!??!

    Why don’t they understand that if you plug in X player with Y fWAR your team will instantly gain the net amount of wins between him and his replacement? It’s sooo easy!

    These players like Gomes are obviously part of a conspiracy against former house league tee-ball failures and people who prefer a computer screen to human interaction.

    • Personally I think you can use advanced statistics (disclaimer: not a fan of WAR but I use most other advanced stats) to find guys who will produce while also taking into account their affect on a clubhouse. I think Cherington did just that in the off-season (with a bit of help from the Dodgers of course) and the results are showing right now. And yes, I do think other teams could follow that example and use a mix of “old school” and “new school” thinking, however you define those, to create a winning team and a winning environment.

      That’s as close as I’ll get to praising Boston because fuck them always.

      • I can agree with this.

      • @sharkey.

        +1. This makes sense.

      • The clubhouse stuff is all make believe, no matter how often people want to drag out narratives to suggest otherwise or point to players believing in it. The Red Sox filled in their roster gaps with quality players in the off-season, got better health from Ortiz and Ellsbury, saw improvements/returns to previous norms from Lester and Lackey, and breakouts from Saltalamacchia, Doubront, Nava. That’s pretty much it.

        If you want to believe some kind of clubhouse magic had a hand in that, you’re really only talking about the last five names there, and Lackey was finally healthy, Lester had always been pretty good, and the other three are about at the point in their careers where a step forward wasn’t out of the question. Could a good environment have helped nurture out some of what was good about their seasons? It could have, but no person remotely serious could actually think the magic elixir of clubhouse chemistry had near enough impact to come close to outweighing the talent those guys possess and the work they did to make it happen.

        People pretend I don’t think the positive impacts of a good working environment don’t exist, but they’re intentionally reading it wrong in order to play up their moronic “didn’t play the game” appeals to authority– or my supposed lack thereof (even though they have zero idea what I’ve done in my life). The issue is partly that you can’t quantify it, but more importantly that even if you could, there’s no reason to believe you would find it has remotely the kind of impact that people want to pretend it does. It gets talked about SO MUCH, it has so many knee-jerk defenders who clearly don’t even understand how it’s supposed to work. It’s a religion. It’s been drummed into people’s heads– the players included (and probably more than most)– for so long and so without question that we see confirmation bias en masse, based on nothing but the word of the already converted and results that happen to coincide with what people want to believe about it. Such absurdity is worth pushing back against.

        • I’m with you 100% Stoeten, they didn’t win because they have those stupid fucking beards or Boston was bombed and Papi said it’s their fucking city (so glad I haven’t seen anybody seriously suggesting that one) or Farrell is Jesus/not Bobby Valentine, or whatever kind of intangible you want to point to. Every reason you point to is exactly why they are where they are. But my point is that it’s just not as black and white of an issue as people make it out to be, and I say that to both sides of the argument. Obviously Cherington looked for a certain kind of guy for the clubhouse who could produce while ALSO changing the tone of the clubhouse. You can use statistics to help point you to the right players who will produce for your team, and then you can stop and evaluate them as a clubhouse presence if that’s what you want to do. But overall we’re in agreement.

          Can I just make sure though that you did not read this as me shitting on the 2013 Jays for lack of chemistry and lack of “real winners” and all of that bullshit? Because I was not doing that at all.

          • Fair enough, but why should anybody believe in the stuff about looking for a certain guy in the clubhouse? It’s easy, and completely in the organization’s interests, to say after the fact, ‘oh yeah, we wanted really great guys and that’s what we got,’ but we have no idea about any of that stuff. Most of the fried chicken and beer guys who supposedly partly got Francona run out of town are still there, but now we’re supposed to believe everybody is perfect and on the same page? It’s all a bit silly to me. They got good players, we don’t need to make up anything beyond that.

        • Also, I don’t like WAR and who knows, I’m probably not even citing it right but what the hell, just for you: Victorino gave the Sox 6.1 WAR this year. Second only to Pedroia. Just throwing that out there, and you can take that to mean whatever you want. Love these debates.

    • Bottom line is…winning.
      Winning creates a positive clubhouse culture, at least in my limited beer-league sports career.
      A team starts winning, and winning a few more – and then it becomes a matter of personal and team pride. You get a sense of entitlement in which you say that we’re SUPPOSED to win. Whether you’re a sit-back team that waits for the the inevitable three-run shot – or a dirtbag hustling team that will steal and slap-hit an opponent to death….it’s a feeling that that W is gonna eventually happen, one way or the other. Guys pick each other up…because at the end of the day, it’s not the E beside your name in the box score that counts – it’s the W at the win column that’s the ultimate goal.
      Just start winning, and the competitive clubhouse attitude that characterizes so many championship teams starts to emerge. It’s not just the WANTING – (hell, if that was the case I’d have won 6-49 about 3 times by now)…it’s the confidence that knowing that you’re never out of a game.
      Just my 2 cents worth on that.

    • Could be that. Or it could be that narratives are easier and, you know, the shop floor never really has been involved in managing the company, and you let them believe whatever they need to to show up for their shift.

    • +1 for sarcasm.

      Wilner has played competitive co ed softball in Mississauga, so he knows about intangibles

  43. Man that Tigers bullpen is bad. I wonder if they would be desperate enough to overpay for a bullpen piece or two…in July. Or December.

  44. Watching Moneyball for the first time ( read the book).
    Interesting observing new school/old school stuff.

  45. Thanks Radar ! From TSN

    “This statistics-obsessed culture places zero value on cohesion, preferring to individualize each player and position as if he and it work mutually exclusive to all else. It’s strange because when you talk to players who’ve won, in some cases won often, they preach about the importance of accountability and sacrifice for one another.

    No, there weren’t deep divisions in the clubhouse, but neither was there cohesion on the field on a consistent basis.

    Back in April, it was popular to slough off the mounting losses with the tired “It’s early” mantra. There were musings about how the standings didn’t matter until the season’s final day, when you hoped to be at least one game ahead of the team in second place. True, if not simplistic, but the public lack of concern over the slow start shouldn’t be tolerated to the same degree if it repeats in 2014. Some teams don’t recover from a bad first two or three weeks.

    Thanks Radar!. This article directly contradicts Wilner & Stoeten. It’s a specific attack on Stoeten & Wilner ‘s view that losses in April & May don’t count because it’s early.

    • Don’t be too hard on them.
      Baseball is driven by statistics,some stats are good ,some aren’t so good.
      It’s also an inexact science, otherwise everybody would do the same thing.
      Baseball’s a lot like life.

    • Buy a clue.

      One, it’s one reporter pushing one narrative, and hardly some kind of smoking gun that people are wrong for understanding that any value assigned this kind of stuff is pretend value until someone can actually quantify it, and two, it looks to be exactly in line with what everybody always says about this nonsense: winning makes good culture, not vice versa.

      Three: don’t be a jackass with that shit about people thinking early wins don’t matter. If you don’t understand what people are talking about when they tell you that “it’s early,” that’s fine, but maybe don’t shit on them for it. Of course every win matters.

      • Agreed

      • +1 for Stoeten for working on Thanksgiving.

        It seems that Mcarthur specifically singled out you & Wilner without mentioning your names.

        The “it’s early” reference caught my eye, since you had several posts about it early in the season . I assume both of you meant that at the 40 game mark, teams can still recover from a weak start, such as the Dodgers in 2013 & the Oakland A’s in 2012. There are countless examples of teams getting off to a weak start & coming back strong later in the year & vice versa. The Jays 27-14 start in 2009 comes to mind.

        I think you should write a rebuttal post to Mcarthur if you have the time.

        • It’s not the worst idea, but I like Scott and am not sure how much I want to harangue him for feeding this lazy narrative. He’s got a job to do, and it looks to me like he’s just working with what the players have given him, in terms of quotes. Besides, what bothers me most is how people take this stuff as gospel and mistake it for evidence in the absence of anything tangible that suggests there was something more to the Red Sox turnaround than the addition of quality players and not wholly unexpected emergences (or reemergences) of others.

          • Ugh. But yeah, reading it again, I probably should respond.

          • +1 Stoeten,

            I still think his article deserves a rebuttal.

            If you look at the red sox lineup, it’s pretty deep. It’s obvious that the return to health of Lackey , Ortiz etc + good performances from others helped.

            There is no way that a healthy Jays opening day roster produces 74 wins.

    • Re: It’s early. See 2013 LA Dodgers. It WAS early. for them.

  46. Consider the pot stirred.

    • Yeah, real fucking provocative stuff, trotting out this bullshit again.

      • Got oakville thinking and you reacted to oakville’s view.
        Want to reconsider your comment?
        I didn’t say I disagreed or agreed with the content of the article,just thought it might provoke ( which is the root of provocative) a discussion.

        • It provoked a horseshit discussion of horseshit that has been talked about ad nausem by you lot. Like we don’t already know that you’re the insufferably smug president of the flat earth society.

          Honestly, how many times do people have to be told that pointing to players who’ve had it drummed into their heads for year believing something exists isn’t the same as demonstrating that it exists?

          • So it was provocative just not your type of provocative?
            I thought you’d be off this weekend.
            Attack the author of the piece, don’t shoot the messenger.
            Is president of the flat Earth society any better than president of the tin foil hat brigade?
            As an emeritus of both,I figure you’d be the best to ask.

            • It’s provocative of the same horseshit you always like to interject and then pretend you’re above.

        • @Radar.

          I was shocked that Mcarthur went after Saber stats fans so directly without mentioning their names.

          I agree with Derosa that the team started off horribly in April & May. From a stats point of view, it would be hard to come back from 10-21 especially in the AL East.

          Incredible comebacks by the Dodgers & Oakland A’s do happen in baseball, but it helps if you get to play in a division with a few week teams to gang up on.

          • You act like there are only two of us.

            • @Stoeten.

              No doubt, there are more than two Saber Bloggers & commentators in Toronto sports media, but it looks to me that Scott went through your posts from April & May & decided to go after the “Chemistry doesn’t count” & “It’s early posts” .

              It looks to me that he is setting up a Fire Gibby campaign by May 30th 2014 if the Jays aren’t in first place by then.

  47. OK numbers give me a headache so I don’t understand sabermetrics and never will. But one thing I don’t know and it would be good to find out or invent if it doesn’t already exist: is there a metric way of evaluating how an individual player reacts to adversity? For example, suppose pitcher A pitches well until he has a bad outing and gets pulled early from a game. What happens on his next start? Does he pitch better? Does he pitch worse? Does he tend to go into a bit of a spin after a bad game and pitch worse than you’d expect? Does he bounce back and pitch better? If so how much worse or better? How does he do over his next, say 4 starts? Does he regress? Does he steadily improve? And the same for position players. A guy has gone 0 for 4 in a game. What happens over the course of the next four games? I’ve no idea whether this stat exists but a 4-game spread is manageable. It’s a stat I would want to know if it was available and I was a GM. It’s a stat that takes the intangibles out of ‘clubhouse chemistry’ and puts it into an individual evaluation. I imagine most pitchers and position players come in around the middle of the curve. But if there were any outliers I’d prefer to spot them before I hired them–if they go into a tailspin. And hire them fast–if they rebound quickly.

    OK, Stoeten, feel free to take your shot…

    • There isn’t any sort of handy way to look at that stuff without going through game logs, and even then it would be difficult in creating an “adversity” base line, and impossible to take anything from it anyway, because game events (hits, defensive opportunities, etc.) aren’t distributed evenly. A guy going 4-for-4 after an 0-for-4 tells us nothing of value about his ability to handle adversity. That’s just sort of how the game works.

      And the thing is, it’s not like these guys aren’t subject to adversity constantly over the course of their careers, all the way up to the Majors– in all kinds of clubhouse situations, with all kinds of different teammates and coaches. If a player was unable to succeed unless the environment around him was just so, he’s going to get weeded out pretty quickly. That’s one of the reasons the analogies to beer league teams don’t hold up.

  48. And I don’t mean that you’d only track 4 games. But that you would do it in 4-game tranches.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *