PDA

View Full Version : Buster Olney says Red Sox more likely to win WS than Yanks



ericns1
03-21-06, 10:22 PM
This is more or less what I heard on ESPN radio - I heard Buster Olney say the Yanks will win the division and he really likes their offense but the Sox pitching is better and he thinks this is the reason they would be the more likely to win the WS.

Comments

Rich
03-21-06, 10:24 PM
He's an idiot.

MattUNC2003
03-21-06, 10:29 PM
Buster being Buster.

38Special
03-21-06, 10:30 PM
Wouldnt it be boring if everyone thought the Yankees were going to win the WS? It's not like we've won it more recently than the Sox.

I'm glad they have differing opinions, as long as its not in a malicious scumbag way like Jim Caple

dabomb2045
03-21-06, 10:39 PM
Why is it anytime someone thinks a team other then the Yanks will win the WS....someone has to start a thread??

Jeez people....NOT EVERYONE is gonna pick the Yanks to win it all. Accept it, and move on.

SubwayFanatic
03-21-06, 11:00 PM
Why is it anytime someone thinks a team other then the Yanks will win the WS....someone has to start a thread??

Jeez people....NOT EVERYONE is gonna pick the Yanks to win it all. Accept it, and move on.

It's the anti-Yankees consipracy.

Everyone who does not pick the Yankees to win 115 games and win it all is a biased lunatic, don't you know? ;)

yanksphan
03-21-06, 11:02 PM
Who is Buster Olney? ((in best Pedro Martinez voice))<in best="" pedro="" martinez="" voice=""></in>

27IsNext
03-21-06, 11:03 PM
:lol: at the "Sox pitching" being the reason they're more likely to win the World Series.

JDPNYY
03-21-06, 11:13 PM
This is more or less what I heard on ESPN radio - I heard Buster Olney say the Yanks will win the division and he really likes their offense but the Sox pitching is better and he thinks this is the reason they would be the more likely to win the WS.

Comments

Well. Then. That's it. I'm not watching the Yankees this year. If they aren't gonna win, I'll just skip it this year.

Get 'em next year Yanks!

BombersBlvd
03-21-06, 11:21 PM
Wouldnt it be boring if everyone thought the Yankees were going to win the WS? It's not like we've won it more recently than the Sox.

I'm glad they have differing opinions, as long as its not in a malicious scumbag way like Jim Caple


Yeah, seriously. Neither team is a sure bet w/ the way some of the AL has improved. And, at the same time, neither team are exactly longshots. It's so up for grabs, it's not like comparing the Angels' chances against the Royals' chances, which I don't think Olney is really doing.

Caple is exactly that, a malicious scumbag. Why spend the energy and effort to write a book called "The Devil Wears Pinstripes" when you can just as well use that time in your life to promote and discover something about a team you DO like? What a puny mind. So-called journalist. Add Jayson Stark to that list, too. People rip on Gammons, Gammons just annoys us because he's a Red Sox fan, but he seems good natured in his broadcasts. Jayson Stark on the other hand - you can tell he is probably one of those people who are very difficult to deal with in real life because they are constantly angry and sarcastic. I'd hate to be a waiter at his table or his secretary or his mechanic, I bet the guy is a real picnic.

ryanthe13th
03-21-06, 11:26 PM
Boston's staff is just as injury plagued and up in the air as ours. I don't get why people are citing them with an advantage because of their 'enormous depth at pitching'. Who do they have now that they traded Arroyo for a poor defending, all or nothing hitter like Pena? Schilling, Beckett, Wakefield, Clement, Wells. That isn't too impressive considering Clement tanks in the second half, Wakefield relies on his knuckler, Schilling will never be the 2004 Schilling again, Wells is pissed, Beckett still has to prove himself in the AL, and Papelbon may or may not be in the rotation. Either way, he has to prove himself to be a good starter before I buy into all the hype around him.

Boston's bullpen is good. I'll give them that. However if I were a Sox fan, I'd worry about Julian Tavarez. 2004 was his best season and he reverted back to normal(just below 4.00) in 2005 and performed horribly in the postseason if my memory serves me correct. Now he is coming into the AL a year older against harder hitting lineups. The same thing goes for Seanez, except Seanez has actually been consistantly good when healthy.

Tex_Pettite
03-21-06, 11:53 PM
Schilling will never be the 2004 Schilling again

I'll believe that when I see it. I've seen so many people say the same thing with such certainty. I'm expecting Schilling to have a huge year.

BillBuckner
03-21-06, 11:57 PM
He's an idiot.
How Rich?

CTSoxFan
03-22-06, 12:07 AM
This is more or less what I heard on ESPN radio - I heard Buster Olney say the Yanks will win the division and he really likes their offense but the Sox pitching is better and he thinks this is the reason they would be the more likely to win the WS.

Comments

Sounds like Buster is playing the "pitching and defense" card...you can take a number of different paths to get to the playoffs, but you won't proceed far without pitching and defense. If Buster sees the Red Sox as superior to the Yankees in that regard, then his conclusion makes some sense.

HelloNewman
03-22-06, 01:24 AM
I'll believe that when I see it. I've seen so many people say the same thing with such certainty. I'm expecting Schilling to have a huge year.Screen names that are designed to bait are much more effective when the player's name is spelled correctly.
:o

JeffWeaverFan
03-22-06, 01:28 AM
He's an idiot.
But a Vanderbilt idiot! ;)

Either way, Buster is a Sox fan so it comes as no surprise. Both the teams pitching staffs have major question marks as of right now anyways.

apolansk
03-22-06, 01:44 AM
...and no one cares.

Sam18
03-22-06, 01:56 AM
Screen names that are designed to bait are much more effective when the player's name is spelled correctly.
:o

:roflmao: :roflmao: :clap:

NYYBombshell
03-22-06, 02:06 AM
Buster Olney = http://www.keyway.ca/jpg/donkey.jpg

DontHateOnNumber2
03-22-06, 02:07 AM
:lol: at the "Sox pitching" being the reason they're more likely to win the World Series.
Really, their rotation is just as much of a question mark as the Yankees if not more. Josh Beckett has been injured, Wells has been inconsistent and on the DL on and off with back spasms, Wakefield seems to have one good year followed by one not so good (plus his catcher Mirabelli is gone), and Curt Schilling is somewhat nonexistent. Unless you count him "pitching a gem" against Boston College. :roflmao:

DontHateOnNumber2
03-22-06, 02:09 AM
Screen names that are designed to bait are much more effective when the player's name is spelled correctly.
:o
:roflmao: You just got Punk'd! -Sigh- I just think it's funny because it's true.

ryanthe13th
03-22-06, 02:16 AM
I'll believe that when I see it. I've seen so many people say the same thing with such certainty. I'm expecting Schilling to have a huge year.

He is never going to be able to push off his ankle without discomfort. Ever. Schilling and the Sox FO basically said they had to invent ankle surgery to get him on the mound for Game 6.

It bugs me when people will say they fully expect Schilling to rebound but then they say 'Johnson is going to tank soon, he has no cartilege in his knee'. Curt Schilling doesn't have an ankle to push off!

brosiusbuddy
03-22-06, 02:20 AM
I really have a hard time understanding this. I respect Olney and think he is generally unbiased but this prediction just blows my mind. The Sox pitching is not great at all.
If you wanted to make predictions using last year's numbers, the Yankees starting 5 is far better than Boston's starting 5.

Using '05 stats, Bostons's starting 5 (Schilling, Wells, Wakefield, Clement and Beckett) combined for 672.2 innings of work with a combined ERA of 5.59.

New York on the other hand (Unit, Moose, Chacon, Wang, and Pavano) threw for 773.1 innings and a combined 4.18 era. In the last few months of the season, NY had the best pitching in the AL. If you make the argument that Pavano is gonna be an injury case all year, then throw in Small's numbers and the overall numbers get even better.

Boston may have a decent middle relief... but who are they setting up saves for??? Timlin's numbers are also deceiving because his era is low despite the fact he gave up a LOT of inherited runs.

Boston also has to count on 5 new pieces fitting the puzzle in the lineup (crisp, lowell, gonzalez, loretta and youkilus/snow) and there is no more tailor made catcher for Wakefield.

NY on the other hand has pretty much the same players taking the field aside from Damon who has shown he can fit in anywhere

JamieMadrox
03-22-06, 02:30 AM
I can't fault him for making this prediction, I mean it's all just based on opinion, but it really is laughable that he's basing it on pitching prior to the season. It is almost a GIVEN that Beckett will be injured at some point during the season. It's also almost a GIVEN that Schilling will never be Schilling 2004 ever again. Also almost a GIVEN that Wells will suck and be injured. Then you have Wakefield, who has gotten progressively worse and lost his catcher and Clement, who just got completely bombed last year.

Now the Yankees have a ton of question marks too, but not like Boston to be quite honest. It's not a GIVEN that Wang will be hurt, although it's not an impossibility. It's not a GIVEN that Chacon will revert a great deal, although it's not an impossibility. It's not a GIVEN that Johnson will be less effective or injured, although it's not an impossibility. It's not a GIVEN that Mussina will be completely useless, but it's not an impossibility. It's almost a GIVEN that Pavano will be injured, almost a GIVEN that Wright will suck.

The point to all this is, there are big question marks in both rotations, but you have to admit the Yankees have the better on paper rotation. Of the aces of the staff (I'm calling Johnson and Beckett), even though Beckett is younger, he's the one who is much more likely to be injured. As for the rest, Schilling and Mussina are not the pitchers they used to be, and at this point I'd rather have Chacon and Wang filling out 3/4 than Clement and Wakefield. We have a ton of guys we can march out there for our 5th starter, as do Boston, but that's just a 5th starter, toss-up.

Whether or not it all comes together will determine who actually has the better chance at the WS, but it's crazy to say the Red Sox have such pitching depth and it's the reason for their WS run this year.

yankeebot
03-22-06, 05:49 AM
http://j.domaindlx.com/3blazers/doigiveadamn8zz.gif
.....

InterlockingNY
03-22-06, 07:42 AM
Just because he picked the Red Sox doesn't make him an idiot.......in fact, he's right......boston has a better pitching staff then New York, theres no question. If everybody stays healthy on both sides, Boston is better

AJW
03-22-06, 07:53 AM
Why is it anytime someone thinks a team other then the Yanks will win the WS....someone has to start a thread??

Jeez people....NOT EVERYONE is gonna pick the Yanks to win it all. Accept it, and move on.

Agreed. People are entitled to their opinions.

yankeebot
03-22-06, 07:56 AM
Agreed. People are entitled to their opinions.
and entitled to opinions on others' opinions, etc.... it's a message board! ;)

yanksconstantino24
03-22-06, 08:01 AM
I don't understand how anyone could think Boston is better at this point. Schilling and Wells are both old, and have had major injury problems in the past. Beckett has also had some injuries. They just traded Bronson Arroyo, who was a pretty durable starter for them. It will be interesting to see what happens with Wakefield now that Mirabelli is gone. Clement is a pretty good starting pitcher, but was awful in the second half last year. And Papelbon is only a rookie. Plus, who knows about Keith Foulke.

For arguments sake, lets assume Pavano and Wright are out until June. The Yankees still have Johnson, Chacon, Mussina, and Wang. Plus, a much improved bullpen, and a better offense.

InterlockingNY
03-22-06, 08:29 AM
I don't understand how anyone could think Boston is better at this point. Schilling and Wells are both old, and have had major injury problems in the past. Beckett has also had some injuries. They just traded Bronson Arroyo, who was a pretty durable starter for them. It will be interesting to see what happens with Wakefield now that Mirabelli is gone. Clement is a pretty good starting pitcher, but was awful in the second half last year. And Papelbon is only a rookie. Plus, who knows about Keith Foulke.

For arguments sake, lets assume Pavano and Wright are out until June. The Yankees still have Johnson, Chacon, Mussina, and Wang. Plus, a much improved bullpen, and a better offense.


Shilling and Wells both old....correct. Wouldnt you say the same about Randy and Mike? Beckett injured all the time.....correct. Pavano - hurt, Wang - Shoulder problems, Wright - cannot make it through a start without getting hit with something. Chacon can he repeat what he did last year? Plus the arguement that a player is only a rookie is weak.....the yanks dont make the playoffs last year without the help of there rookies

brosiusbuddy
03-22-06, 09:01 AM
Just because he picked the Red Sox doesn't make him an idiot.......in fact, he's right......boston has a better pitching staff then New York, theres no question. If everybody stays healthy on both sides, Boston is better

Ha, if everybody stays healthy?? Wells has had back problems for a few years and is 42 years old. Schilling destroyed his ankle and was plagued by it all of last year and when he said he was alright was terrible and is now close to 40. They are two of the main cogs in that rotation and you can bet anything that they will not be very effective this year.

Sure you could say Moose has been injured and I'll give you that and Im assuming he'll have some DL time. You could say RJ is 43, but I will say that he has still pitched 220 innings for the past few years.

Yankees rotation at this point is better and the only way Boston could be better is if they have a couple of their young studs just completely break out into stellar seasons and steal to of the rotation slots.

Yankees1962
03-22-06, 09:07 AM
Is Olney picking the Red Sox this year that big of a deal? It's a prediction and based on ESPN's past predictions, they're wrong just as much as their right. It's really nothing and doesn't deserve any serious discussion about it.

tdel23
03-22-06, 09:17 AM
oh great, tear the team down and start to rebuild.

Ghost of Dan Pasqua
03-22-06, 09:24 AM
If a Sox team is going to win the World Series this year, it'll be the White Sox again. Kinda hard for Boston to win it when they miss the playoffs this year.

gdn
03-22-06, 09:33 AM
I'm jus glad to haw hom feel abane

ShaneTravis
03-22-06, 09:35 AM
Just in case anyone forgot Espn's amazing predictions for the 2005 season....

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?page=05expertpicks

Out of a panel of 20 "experts" that work for Espn care to guess how many picked the Whitesox to win the series? Zero. In fact if you look at their predictions and the outcome no one here should be caring one way or another what they say. Too much happens during the season that you can not account for.

btw,Buster had the Twins over the Marlins for the WS title.

Yanksule
03-22-06, 09:58 AM
Just another meaningless prediction.


I predict the Red Sox don't even make the playoffs this year.

The Yankees are going to win the division by double-digits.

MaximMan121
03-22-06, 10:00 AM
Honestly, I think that Buster Olney is a great sportswriter, and the work he puts in is tremendous. He's also rather unbiased--if anything he leans TOWARDS the Yankees. There's a reason that day in, day out, there's significantly more information on his blog about the Yankees than most other teams, including Boston. He's fairly objective.

Now, I think his comments are right on, in the most predictable way. Our team is better than Bostons for a long season, because our offense is tremendous and our pitching is better than theirs man for man, in terms of average performances. What we don't have is a postseason tested staff. The difference is, our main gamebreaker is Randy Johnson in the playoffs, and his days of being dominant (to the degree that he once was) are behind him. He's still a great pitcher--don't get me wrong, and I hope he unfurls that nasty slider for another season and proves me wrong. Schilling is similar--his days of dominance are far behind him now, after his ankle decided to eat itself alive. He's not going to be as good as Johnson. The difference is Beckett. I have as many questions about his performance in Fenway as anyone else, but let's remember how this guy performed in the postseason against us. He almost singlehandedly won the series for the Marlins. In a postseasno series, right now, I'd pick the Yankees, but that's because I'm biased. I think that it could go either way, and that in a 5 game series seeing Beckett twice, it might swing to the Sox.

This, of course, is all very premature. We don't know who's going to break out and who's going to break down. We do know our hitting is better than theirs, and our pitching is comparable with variance spikes in either direction. This discussion is similar to the recent discussions on why the A's can't win playoff series. Using the composite averages to put teams together the way Oakland does, will generally paint a fairly accurate picture of total output--but that output will not be entirely homogenous, and so it doesn't help predict who will perform in a particular game, on a playoff stage.

The only thing we have to examine that is to look at who performed and who didn't in the past. Beckett has, our starters havn't, with the exception of RJ--and while Becket is young and improving, RJ is old and declining. That's the edge.

ShaneTravis
03-22-06, 10:12 AM
Honestly, I think that Buster Olney is a great sportswriter, and the work he puts in is tremendous. He's also rather unbiased--if anything he leans TOWARDS the Yankees. There's a reason that day in, day out, there's significantly more information on his blog about the Yankees than most other teams, including Boston. He's fairly objective.


Yankees sell. That is why he continually mentions them. If the topic is baseball the Yanks are sure to be mentioned. A column about the Royals will not bring in the people so to speak. I column/blog or even a book (Dynasty) with the topic being Yankees will sure to bring in NY and Boston fans. And right there is an obscene amount of baseball fans. Buster is fine. I like the guy but his identity and most Sox fans are partly based on the Yankees. Love or Hate as long as there is interest the fans will tune in.

Tampa Devil Rays = Indifference
The same can not be said for the Yanks, hence why all the media coverage.

UncleSam
03-22-06, 10:12 AM
Honestly, I think that Buster Olney is a great sportswriter, and the work he puts in is tremendous. He's also rather unbiased--if anything he leans TOWARDS the Yankees. There's a reason that day in, day out, there's significantly more information on his blog about the Yankees than most other teams, including Boston. He's fairly objective.

Now, I think his comments are right on, in the most predictable way. Our team is better than Bostons for a long season, because our offense is tremendous and our pitching is better than theirs man for man, in terms of average performances. What we don't have is a postseason tested staff. The difference is, our main gamebreaker is Randy Johnson in the playoffs, and his days of being dominant (to the degree that he once was) are behind him. He's still a great pitcher--don't get me wrong, and I hope he unfurls that nasty slider for another season and proves me wrong. Schilling is similar--his days of dominance are far behind him now, after his ankle decided to eat itself alive. He's not going to be as good as Johnson. The difference is Beckett. I have as many questions about his performance in Fenway as anyone else, but let's remember how this guy performed in the postseason against us. He almost singlehandedly won the series for the Marlins. In a postseasno series, right now, I'd pick the Yankees, but that's because I'm biased. I think that it could go either way, and that in a 5 game series seeing Beckett twice, it might swing to the Sox.

This, of course, is all very premature. We don't know who's going to break out and who's going to break down. We do know our hitting is better than theirs, and our pitching is comparable with variance spikes in either direction. This discussion is similar to the recent discussions on why the A's can't win playoff series. Using the composite averages to put teams together the way Oakland does, will generally paint a fairly accurate picture of total output--but that output will not be entirely homogenous, and so it doesn't help predict who will perform in a particular game, on a playoff stage.

The only thing we have to examine that is to look at who performed and who didn't in the past. Beckett has, our starters havn't, with the exception of RJ--and while Becket is young and improving, RJ is old and declining. That's the edge.

Solid post all around. I think we all know the Yankees will win a ton of games this year. But, as has been the case in recent years, is there enough pitching to win in the playoffs? On the flip side, I'm not sure if the Sox will win enough games to make the playoffs, but if they get there and they're healthy, it seems like they've got some better arms. However, will all the question marks out there, it's all a guessing game at this point.

MaximMan121
03-22-06, 10:22 AM
Ha, if everybody stays healthy?? Wells has had back problems for a few years and is 42 years old. Schilling destroyed his ankle and was plagued by it all of last year and when he said he was alright was terrible and is now close to 40. They are two of the main cogs in that rotation and you can bet anything that they will not be very effective this year.

Sure you could say Moose has been injured and I'll give you that and Im assuming he'll have some DL time. You could say RJ is 43, but I will say that he has still pitched 220 innings for the past few years.

Yankees rotation at this point is better and the only way Boston could be better is if they have a couple of their young studs just completely break out into stellar seasons and steal to of the rotation slots.


When it comes down to it, Wells is still a very good pitcher. It's hard to just laugh off someone who killed us last year on several occasions, at Yankee stadium and at Fenway. Boomer is still a big league pitcher. I would be very very happy to have him as my number 5 pitcher.

Let's line up the lineups, shall we?

RJ-Beckett

Advantage, RJ: He's much more consistently good, and has flashes of greatness. I do think that in terms of highest level of performance, Beckett wins out. When he's on, he's as unhittable as RJ was in his prime--thankfully this happens rarely.

Mussina-Schilling

Tie: Both are injury prone, both rely on calls from the umpire to do their best work at this stage in their careers. Schilling is much more apt to haul back and try to overpower someone, but he's basically left those days behind. I consider this a wash, though if both stay reasonably healthy, Schilling wins by a ways. I'm terrified when mussina is pitching.

Now it gets tougher, because we have to decide who is in the next spots for the yankees. We know it's wakefield for the sox. Given Pavano and Wright are not set for the season (and that neither of them are as good as my pick) I choose Wang.

Wang-Wakefield

Advantage: Wakefield

We know the upside for Wang. I hope he continues improving as he did last season, and remains injury free. Could be a great pithcer. He could also be league average or a bit better, which is more likely. Wakefield, however, is a proven commodity, and as a knuckler, is not very affected by age. As much as I'd like to give this to Wang, you can't, really, especially not with two middle infielders with bad range metrics behind him.

Chacon-Clement

Advantage: Clement

Here's where I get yelled at. I know, I know, sea level Chacon was nothing but nasty for us last year, and I'm actually more excited to see him pitch than any of our other starters. I think of our starters, he's by far the most likely to get 20 wins, if what he showed us last year is for real. That being said, I need to see more to be convinced. Clement, while ending on a horrible note, led the Red Sox staff for the first part of the season. During the Sox attempts to trade him this offseason, I was praying they'd pull the trigger and get Jeremy Reed for him, and I'd laugh as Clement blossomed again. Final choice--they're both question marks, I hope that Chacon pulls ahead, but with his k/9 dropping and his Bapip well below league average, it's tough not to think that part of Chacon's dominance came from his luck with balls put into play.

Pavano/Wright/Small/Desalvo-Wells

Advantage Wells: Clear cut decision there. Whatever you think of the guy, he's a hell of a pitcher to tro out on day 5. None of our choices are particularly inspiring. I already posted my opinion of Wells above, so I won't restate it. Now, I havn't written off Pavano, not by a long shot. Of the starters listed, he's got the strongest chance to pull off a big season, and I pray he does. I just won't count on it.

So, while our ace is better than their ace, mussina ties (and that may be generous--the season will show) schilling, and their bottom three are better than our bottom three. I hope this is wrong, and we just blow them out of the water in both pitching and batting, but this is why it's tough to call the yankees the favorites of a playoff series betwen the two of us. Our hitting is vastly superior to theirs, but that also depends on a lot of people not breaking down. We overpaid for Damon and Matsui, Sheffield is a questionable commodity until we extend his contract, Cano, Posada and Giambi are prone to massive streakiness. It wouldn't take much going wrong to even or even tip the batting scales in their favour, especially if Lowell decides to hit.

Don't get me wrong, we've got the better bats. I'm just playing devil's advocate.

Anyhow, the season will show.

effdamets
03-22-06, 10:29 AM
{an open letter to Buster Olney}

Dear Buster,

Shut the f*ck up!

Sincerely,
Ozzie Guillen

:mad: :mad: :mad:

flymick24
03-22-06, 10:39 AM
my next door neighbor, stan, says the devil rays are more likely to win WS than yanks.

moral of this story: nobody gives a crap.

NewEraYanks2527
03-22-06, 10:48 AM
Well Buster is wrong and that is really all there is to it.

PaulieIsAwesome
03-22-06, 10:48 AM
Ha, if everybody stays healthy?? Wells has had back problems for a few years and is 42 years old. Schilling destroyed his ankle and was plagued by it all of last year and when he said he was alright was terrible and is now close to 40. They are two of the main cogs in that rotation and you can bet anything that they will not be very effective this year.

Sure you could say Moose has been injured and I'll give you that and Im assuming he'll have some DL time. You could say RJ is 43, but I will say that he has still pitched 220 innings for the past few years.

Yankees rotation at this point is better and the only way Boston could be better is if they have a couple of their young studs just completely break out into stellar seasons and steal to of the rotation slots.

Yeah, Wells has had back problems, and he is 42, but you are talking about a guy who has had 1 year in the last 11 with fewer than 184 innings and 29 starts. I'll bet he can do what he always does, league average for >175 IP.

Schill, I think he won't be that good. He's getting up there. Maybe, maybe, I could see him tough it out for a 4 ERA over 150 innings or something, which is pretty good, on the order of a 110 ERA+ pitcher, but assuming he can get anywhere near 2004 is crazy.

Also, I don't think Moose is going to be that good. Nothing in his stat line from the last 3 years shows me that he can be more than a 105 ERA+ in 200 IP, at best. The injuries are building up.

RJ will have a 115 ERA+, or greater, in 225 IP. I doubted him last year, but the simple fact is, he can grit it out. Really, all the way. Gritty as all hell.

iodon
03-22-06, 10:48 AM
The only thing we have to examine that is to look at who performed and who didn't in the past. Beckett has, our starters havn't, with the exception of RJ--and while Becket is young and improving, RJ is old and declining. That's the edge.

I guess I'm curious why Beckett is considered the lock. Other than the 2003 post season, when has he CONSISTENTLY been a great pitcher? There's a lot of talk about Randy being old and "his best days being behind him", but when has Beckett put up a season like the 42 year old Johnson did last season? Don't get me wrong, the guy has a ton of potential, but it's hard to win games when you are on the DL.

Guys like Beckett and Kerry Wood get by on reputation and a few big games (2003 post season or the 20 K game for Wood), but when you look at their stats they aren't as impressive as they seem. Remember Jose Rijo put it together for one World Series and had "great stuff", but that didn't make him a given.

Injuries are part of the game. And no matter how much potential a guy has you have to factor his injury patterns in when saying that he is a lock and Randy Johnson isn't. I know the standard argument is that he's young and has plenty of time to acheive greatness. I will not argue that point. But let's wait until it happens to say that he's more of a given than Randy. You are comparing him to a (still) highly effective hall of famer.

Pocketaces1232
03-22-06, 11:05 AM
When it comes down to it, Wells is still a very good pitcher. It's hard to just laugh off someone who killed us last year on several occasions, at Yankee stadium and at Fenway. Boomer is still a big league pitcher. I would be very very happy to have him as my number 5 pitcher.

Let's line up the lineups, shall we?

RJ-Beckett

Advantage, RJ: He's much more consistently good, and has flashes of greatness. I do think that in terms of highest level of performance, Beckett wins out. When he's on, he's as unhittable as RJ was in his prime--thankfully this happens rarely.

Mussina-Schilling

Tie: Both are injury prone, both rely on calls from the umpire to do their best work at this stage in their careers. Schilling is much more apt to haul back and try to overpower someone, but he's basically left those days behind. I consider this a wash, though if both stay reasonably healthy, Schilling wins by a ways. I'm terrified when mussina is pitching.

Now it gets tougher, because we have to decide who is in the next spots for the yankees. We know it's wakefield for the sox. Given Pavano and Wright are not set for the season (and that neither of them are as good as my pick) I choose Wang.

Wang-Wakefield

Advantage: Wakefield

We know the upside for Wang. I hope he continues improving as he did last season, and remains injury free. Could be a great pithcer. He could also be league average or a bit better, which is more likely. Wakefield, however, is a proven commodity, and as a knuckler, is not very affected by age. As much as I'd like to give this to Wang, you can't, really, especially not with two middle infielders with bad range metrics behind him.

Chacon-Clement

Advantage: Clement

Here's where I get yelled at. I know, I know, sea level Chacon was nothing but nasty for us last year, and I'm actually more excited to see him pitch than any of our other starters. I think of our starters, he's by far the most likely to get 20 wins, if what he showed us last year is for real. That being said, I need to see more to be convinced. Clement, while ending on a horrible note, led the Red Sox staff for the first part of the season. During the Sox attempts to trade him this offseason, I was praying they'd pull the trigger and get Jeremy Reed for him, and I'd laugh as Clement blossomed again. Final choice--they're both question marks, I hope that Chacon pulls ahead, but with his k/9 dropping and his Bapip well below league average, it's tough not to think that part of Chacon's dominance came from his luck with balls put into play.

Pavano/Wright/Small/Desalvo-Wells

Advantage Wells: Clear cut decision there. Whatever you think of the guy, he's a hell of a pitcher to tro out on day 5. None of our choices are particularly inspiring. I already posted my opinion of Wells above, so I won't restate it. Now, I havn't written off Pavano, not by a long shot. Of the starters listed, he's got the strongest chance to pull off a big season, and I pray he does. I just won't count on it.

So, while our ace is better than their ace, mussina ties (and that may be generous--the season will show) schilling, and their bottom three are better than our bottom three. I hope this is wrong, and we just blow them out of the water in both pitching and batting, but this is why it's tough to call the yankees the favorites of a playoff series betwen the two of us. Our hitting is vastly superior to theirs, but that also depends on a lot of people not breaking down. We overpaid for Damon and Matsui, Sheffield is a questionable commodity until we extend his contract, Cano, Posada and Giambi are prone to massive streakiness. It wouldn't take much going wrong to even or even tip the batting scales in their favour, especially if Lowell decides to hit.

Don't get me wrong, we've got the better bats. I'm just playing devil's advocate.

Anyhow, the season will show.

Good post, however I still consider Shilling to be their ace. If you compare shilling to Johnson I almost put it at a tie. Becket is probably better than Mussina, mainly because of Mussina's age and injuries. I'd put Wang over Wakefield, on pure upside alone. Chacon and Clement are a wash if Clement rebounds. The key is Pavano. While everyone may be down on Pavono all the time, I'm excited about him. If he rebounds this season, we're relying on him to essentially be our number 5 guy. Can you imagine a healthy Carl Pavano as our number 5? That would be sweet. Factor in that the return of Pavano makes our bullpen significantly better, and it's a win-win situation. The key is Pavano being healthy...

iodon
03-22-06, 11:37 AM
Can you imagine a healthy Carl Pavano as our number 5?

There are two things I can't imagine. Pavano being healthy and a fifth starter being paid 10 million per year. That being said, I thought he pitched well in his first start of the yar against the Red Sox last year. It seemed so promising at the time. If he can return to that sort of level it will be like finding a 20 dollar bill that you thought you had lost.

BobbyWeird
03-22-06, 11:40 AM
Face it, Onley is neither a Yankee fan or a Red Sox fan, and is just another talking head giving his opinion in mid-March, when there are a thousand variables that will come into play between now and late October. In other words, his prediction means zippo and there are equal numbers of fans in both cities who dislike him.

Similarly, every media person pronounced the Red Sox dead when the Yanks got Damon in December. That was equally uninformed and based on half-baked inputs.

As of now, both teams have lots of pluses and lots of questions. Most of those questions involve health. If both pitching staffs remain healthy, Boston's is probably better, though having Rivera at the end of the pen goes a long way to evening things out. But, either way, both staffs wont remain healthy, and the key will be the extent of the injuries, how good the replacements will be and how fast the injured guys can bounce back to full effectiveness. Parenthetically, one thing that is worrisome is that the Sox seem to have more quality arms in the minors as potential reinforcements, but who knows if that's really true.

The Yankees were fortunate last year that Small, Wang, Chacon and even Leiter could do what they did. None of that was anticipated.

The Red Sox were fortunate that Paplebon could do what he did. That was not anticipated.

The Sox were fortunate that Pavano, Wright and Wang got hurt. All not anticpated (well, except Wright).

The Yanks were fortunate that Schilling and Foulke were injured and horrendous all season.

But getting upset about some writer's prediction, when it's his job to say provocative and speculative things, and when it's not a totally crazy position, is silly.

UncleSam
03-22-06, 11:45 AM
Face it, Onley is neither a Yankee fan or a Red Sox fan, and is just another talking head giving his opinion in mid-March, when there are a thousand variables that will come into play between now and late October. In other words, his prediction means zippo and there are equal numbers of fans in both cities who dislike him.

Similarly, every media person pronounced the Red Sox dead when the Yanks got Damon in December. That was equally uninformed and based on half-baked inputs.

As of now, both teams have lots of pluses and lots of questions. Most of those questions involve health. If both pitching staffs remain healthy, Boston's is probably better, though having Rivera at the end of the pen goes a long way to evening things out. But, either way, both staffs wont remain healthy, and the key will be the extent of the injuries, how good the replacements will be and how fast the injured guys can bounce back to full effectiveness. Parenthetically, one thing that is worrisome is that the Sox seem to have more quality arms in the minors as potential reinforcements, but who knows if that's really true.

The Yankees were fortunate last year that Small, Wang, Chacon and even Leiter could do what they did. None of that was anticipated.

The Red Sox were fortunate that Paplebon could do what he did. That was not anticipated.

The Sox were fortunate that Pavano, Wright and Wang got hurt. All not anticpated (well, except Wright).

The Yanks were fortunate that Schilling and Foulke were injured and horrendous all season.

But getting upset about some writer's prediction, when it's his job to say provocative and speculative things, and when it's not a totally crazy position, is silly.

Where the heck did you come from? And are there any more like you?

BobbyWeird
03-22-06, 11:59 AM
Where the heck did you come from? And are there any more like you?
I am sitting in downtown NY right now.

If you mean are there more like me that don't get their panties in a knot when a sportswriter makes a prediction in mid-March, I assume that the answer is yes.

UncleSam
03-22-06, 12:09 PM
I am sitting in downtown NY right now.

If you mean are there more like me that don't get their panties in a knot when a sportswriter makes a prediction in mid-March, I assume that the answer is yes.

Just saying that it was a nice change of pace around here.

BobbyWeird
03-22-06, 12:11 PM
Just saying that it was a nice change of pace around here.

Thanks much.

jimmyclark
03-22-06, 12:21 PM
If the Yankees do win the World Series, does Olney have to change the title of his book? I am a little surprised he is picking the Red Sox: they seem to be a team in transition. But he could be right. Come November 1st no one will remember who picked whom in March.

yanksrule51
03-22-06, 12:24 PM
Just in case anyone forgot Espn's amazing predictions for the 2005 season....

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?page=05expertpicks

Out of a panel of 20 "experts" that work for Espn care to guess how many picked the Whitesox to win the series? Zero. In fact if you look at their predictions and the outcome no one here should be caring one way or another what they say. Too much happens during the season that you can not account for.

btw,Buster had the Twins over the Marlins for the WS title.

I remember Olney picking the Yankees on Francessa's late night sports show last year, saying getting Randy put them "over the top". Then a couple of weeks later, he picks the Twins to win the World Series.

CTSoxFan
03-22-06, 12:31 PM
I'm getting a good chuckle out of all the people wondering HOW in the name of ALL that is SWEET and HOLY could anyone predict the RED SOX are even POSSIBLY better than the Yankees. Honestly, folks, it ain't that hard. Here's a list of assumptions that gets you there:

1. Healthy pitching staff. Schilling a year removed from his serious injury. Beckett (who has pitched a progressively greater number of innings every year) tops out at or above 200 innings. Wells pitches brilliantly in Fenway, OK on the road. The remaining starters have few health questions, and pitch to the general level of their abilities: that means 200+ good not great innings out of Wakefield, and decent production from Clement (preferably more like first-half Matt than second-half Matt from last year). Papelbon pitches well enough in his spot starts and bullpen work.

2. Rejuvenated bullpen. Unquestionably the Achilles heel of the team last year, this year's collection of relievers will almost certainly be better. Admittedly, that ain't saying much. A lot rides on Foulke's health, both physical and mental. Unlike last year, when Foulke's failure meant it was Timlin or bust, there are a number of different palatable options for the Sox this year.

3. Robust offense. There's a likely downgrade at the top of the lineup with Damon's departure, and at the bottom, where Gonzalez is an offensive black hole. The rest of the lineup COULD be as strong or stronger than last year. Assumptions: Lowell isn't cooked, Crisp is solid, Youkilis is as good over a full season as he has been in parts of a season. Fewer runs scored are a likelihood...offensive struggles are doubtful.

Will ALL these rosy assumptions come to pass? Of course not. Nor will the similar list of rosy assumptions that would propel the Yankees to a division title with a large margin. The winner, as always, will benefit from three things: pre-season planning, in-season maneuverings, and pure luck (especially as concerns the health of the players). Right now, we can only grade out ONE of the three things, looking at the rosters as they are. The Sox are at least as well situated in this regard as anyone else in the AL East, so why is it so shocking to see them predicted by some as a winner?

CTSoxFan
03-22-06, 12:36 PM
Face it, Onley is neither a Yankee fan or a Red Sox fan, and is just another talking head giving his opinion in mid-March, when there are a thousand variables that will come into play between now and late October. In other words, his prediction means zippo and there are equal numbers of fans in both cities who dislike him.

Similarly, every media person pronounced the Red Sox dead when the Yanks got Damon in December. That was equally uninformed and based on half-baked inputs.

As of now, both teams have lots of pluses and lots of questions. Most of those questions involve health. If both pitching staffs remain healthy, Boston's is probably better, though having Rivera at the end of the pen goes a long way to evening things out. But, either way, both staffs wont remain healthy, and the key will be the extent of the injuries, how good the replacements will be and how fast the injured guys can bounce back to full effectiveness. Parenthetically, one thing that is worrisome is that the Sox seem to have more quality arms in the minors as potential reinforcements, but who knows if that's really true.

The Yankees were fortunate last year that Small, Wang, Chacon and even Leiter could do what they did. None of that was anticipated.

The Red Sox were fortunate that Paplebon could do what he did. That was not anticipated.

The Sox were fortunate that Pavano, Wright and Wang got hurt. All not anticpated (well, except Wright).

The Yanks were fortunate that Schilling and Foulke were injured and horrendous all season.

But getting upset about some writer's prediction, when it's his job to say provocative and speculative things, and when it's not a totally crazy position, is silly.

Hee hee. Bobby, you'll never make it to your 10th post if you keep making sense like this. :)

(I wish I had read your post before I went off on my own stemwinder. Coulda saved me a lot of time.)

Pocketaces1232
03-22-06, 12:41 PM
There are two things I can't imagine. Pavano being healthy and a fifth starter being paid 10 million per year. That being said, I thought he pitched well in his first start of the yar against the Red Sox last year. It seemed so promising at the time. If he can return to that sort of level it will be like finding a 20 dollar bill that you thought you had lost.

I guess when I say fifth starter, I mean more of the 5th guy right now that we can trust to give the ball. I trust RJ, Moose, Wang, and Chacon enormously. But I have trouble finding a guy I feel completely confident for that last spot. Pavono -- Injured, Wright -- Worthless and a bullseye for all inanimate objects on the field, and Small -- possibly a fluke, time will tell. I also am not as excited as everyone else about our minor leaguers just yet. DeSalvo, Smith, Clippard, etc....they can all wait another year as far as i'm concerned, I don't feel confident handing them the ball every fifth day just yet.

Sam18
03-22-06, 01:35 PM
Hee hee. Bobby, you'll never make it to your 10th post if you keep making sense like this.

What are you trying to say?

The Dynasty
03-22-06, 01:36 PM
If the Yanks and Red Sox go into the Playoffs with their pitching staffs as questionable as they are now, they BOTH won't win it all. If both staffs are healthy, you can't go wrong either way. I don't see why Olney's getting bashed.

Sam18
03-22-06, 01:43 PM
If the Yanks and Red Sox go into the Playoffs with their pitching staffs as questionable as they are now, they BOTH won't win it all. If both staffs are healthy, you can't go wrong either way. I don't see why Olney's getting bashed.

Olney's getting bashed cuz he makes these retarded comments all the time. Not because he's anti-yankee or what not. Last year he predicted the Yankees would win 110 games and then two weeks into the season he predicted they'd miss the playoffs. He's getting bashed for being stupid.

UncleSam
03-22-06, 02:00 PM
Olney's getting bashed cuz he makes these retarded comments all the time. Not because he's anti-yankee or what not. Last year he predicted the Yankees would win 110 games and then two weeks into the season he predicted they'd miss the playoffs. He's getting bashed for being stupid.

But they're only "retarded" because you and other Yankee fans happen to think so. In truth, we have no idea if they're any good and we won't know for quite some time. They could be pretty accurate, in fact, but we have no way of knowing. That's why bashing him is dumber than the comments themselves.

Martini6196
03-22-06, 02:12 PM
I don't understand how anyone could think Boston is better at this point. Schilling and Wells are both old, and have had major injury problems in the past. Beckett has also had some injuries. They just traded Bronson Arroyo, who was a pretty durable starter for them. It will be interesting to see what happens with Wakefield now that Mirabelli is gone. Clement is a pretty good starting pitcher, but was awful in the second half last year. And Papelbon is only a rookie. Plus, who knows about Keith Foulke.

For arguments sake, lets assume Pavano and Wright are out until June. The Yankees still have Johnson, Chacon, Mussina, and Wang. Plus, a much improved bullpen, and a better offense.


Although I believe Johnson will have a big year he is old and comes with injury risks. Wang has had shoulder issues and has struggled at times this spring training. Chacon has never been a good pitcher except for half of last year. Mussina at this point is more like a number 4-5 than a number 2. How many meltdowns will we see from Mussina this year when the umps are squeezing him? I'm not saying I think the Sox are better but both rotations are filled with "what-ifs".

yanksconstantino24
03-22-06, 02:44 PM
Although I believe Johnson will have a big year he is old and comes with injury risks. Wang has had shoulder issues and has struggled at times this spring training. Chacon has never been a good pitcher except for half of last year. Mussina at this point is more like a number 4-5 than a number 2. How many meltdowns will we see from Mussina this year when the umps are squeezing him? I'm not saying I think the Sox are better but both rotations are filled with "what-ifs".

I realize that both rotations have many "what-ifs." But, I just think the Red Sox have more at this point. I think the Yankees are less dependent on their rotation because they have more middle relief, and a much better closer. Plus, the Yankee offense is better than the Red Sox.

brosiusbuddy
03-22-06, 02:56 PM
Good post, however I still consider Shilling to be their ace. If you compare shilling to Johnson I almost put it at a tie.


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

ShaneTravis
03-22-06, 03:09 PM
But they're only "retarded" because you and other Yankee fans happen to think so. In truth, we have no idea if they're any good and we won't know for quite some time. They could be pretty accurate, in fact, but we have no way of knowing. That's why bashing him is dumber than the comments themselves.

So, the reporter should be beyond reproach?

Buster and several other Espn "experts" were laughably off in 2005. It's not just Yankee fans you should call out them out when they are wrong.

You pay the premium for Insider and let me know if you get your monies worth. Sam and other posters brought up how he flip flops all the time. If the man wants to make claims we as fans should hold him responsible for those predictions.

Judging merits and faults of reporters will help us better understand their value. George King, Buster Olney and Rosenthal elicit different responses from all of us because of their past contributions to the sport.

BRNXBMRS
03-22-06, 03:09 PM
I realize that both rotations have many "what-ifs." But, I just think the Red Sox have more at this point. I think the Yankees are less dependent on their rotation because they have more middle relief, and a much better closer. Plus, the Yankee offense is better than the Red Sox.

scratches head.

YankClipper5
03-22-06, 03:19 PM
I remember Olney picking the Yankees on Francessa's late night sports show last year, saying getting Randy put them "over the top". Then a couple of weeks later, he picks the Twins to win the World Series.

And they are still dancing in the streets of Minneapolis.

Pocketaces1232
03-22-06, 04:09 PM
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

:confused: You don't think a healthy Randy Johnson is equal to a healthy Curt Shilling?

UncleSam
03-22-06, 04:12 PM
So, the reporter should be beyond reproach?

Buster and several other Espn "experts" were laughably off in 2005. It's not just Yankee fans you should call out them out when they are wrong.

You pay the premium for Insider and let me know if you get your monies worth. Sam and other posters brought up how he flip flops all the time. If the man wants to make claims we as fans should hold him responsible for those predictions.

Judging merits and faults of reporters will help us better understand their value. George King, Buster Olney and Rosenthal elicit different responses from all of us because of their past contributions to the sport.

Beyond reproach? No. But this prediction is well within the realm of possibility so it seems crazy to call it "retarded" or idiotic.

If he picks the Twins to win the Series again, then let him have it. I'll be happy to join in.

brosiusbuddy
03-22-06, 04:17 PM
:confused: You don't think a healthy Randy Johnson is equal to a healthy Curt Shilling?

Even when both of them were healthy a few years ago RJ was better. But we aren't talking about the two healthy. We are talking about one guy who threw 91 innings last year due to an ankle injury that hadn't fully healed over the course of an entire year and a guy who was injury free and threw 225 innings and went 5-0 against boston.

Schilling is a gamer who has guts, but even when both were at the top of their games, RJ had the edge. If you want to talk historically then RJ has 5 cy youngs. if you want to talk currently look at the stats from last year

JeterRodriguezSheff
03-22-06, 04:28 PM
:confused: You don't think a healthy Randy Johnson is equal to a healthy Curt Shilling?

At this point in their careers no. Randy was insane in the last few months and put up the numbers I expected in the second half,which is the exact same time he talked to his old pitching coach, and took some of the suggestions giving to him by Kerrigan and Mel. I am expecting what Randy put up in the second half around a 3.10-3.30 era and wins depending on run support. Schilling showed flashes of himself last year but never put it together for a consistant amount of time, and is coming off surgery that many think is impossible to full recover from. I have heard talk of him never being able to push off the mound without pain again. I am expecting a 3.90-4.00 era type season out of him.

Also look at Becketts road stats the past 3 years, you would find his era is over 4. I am not saying it will be over 4 in the AL East but that combined with his DL problems makes him anything but a lock. Randy imo has less question marks than Schilling. Beckett has less than Moose. Id put the aces as Randy and Beckett at this point. Mussina I expect to have the same kind of year as Schilling. Chacon was horrible for every year besides last year. However he was a former first round pick and he played in Coors every year besides last year. That affects you on the road and there is no stat that can account for not having your breaking ball work. Want to know a cool fact? Nobody has ever had 200 ip and an era lower than 5 in Coors, ever...

What I am trying to say is that you really cant put one staff over the other right now.

Pocketaces1232
03-22-06, 04:28 PM
Even when both of them were healthy a few years ago RJ was better. But we aren't talking about the two healthy. We are talking about one guy who threw 91 innings last year due to an ankle injury that hadn't fully healed over the course of an entire year and a guy who was injury free and threw 225 innings and went 5-0 against boston.

Schilling is a gamer who has guts, but even when both were at the top of their games, RJ had the edge. If you want to talk historically then RJ has 5 cy youngs. if you want to talk currently look at the stats from last year

Randy Johnson is the better of the two in their prime, yes. Randy Johnson is the better of the two when Curt Shilling is injured and spends most of the season on the DL, yes. Comparing the two on last seasons performance is just comical. However, it's apparent that RJ is declining, look at his stats in 2003 for example. We can't say the same for Schilling can we? Prior to his injury he was a lights out pitcher. For all we know he may return this season and be lights out again, which would probably make him better than RJ. But since we don't know how Schilling is going to bounce back, I concluded it a tie.

Pocketaces1232
03-22-06, 04:31 PM
[QUOTE=JeterRodriguezSheff]At this point in their careers no. Randy was insane in the last few months and put up the numbers I expected in the second half,which is the exact same time he talked to his old pitching coach, and took some of the suggestions giving to him by Kerrigan and Mel. I am expecting what Randy put up in the second half around a 3.10-3.30 era and wins depending on run support. Schilling showed flashes of himself last year but never put it together for a conistant amount of time, and is coming off surgery that many think it is impossible to full recover from. I have heard talk of him never being able to push off without pain again. I am expecting a 3.90-4.00 era type season out of him.

QUOTE]

We can't compare the two based on last years performance. Schilling was on the DL the entire season. Let's atleast wait until the regular season starts and he pitches some real games before we say his comeback has failed and he'll never be the pitcher he once was.

JeterRodriguezSheff
03-22-06, 04:34 PM
[QUOTE=JeterRodriguezSheff]At this point in their careers no. Randy was insane in the last few months and put up the numbers I expected in the second half,which is the exact same time he talked to his old pitching coach, and took some of the suggestions giving to him by Kerrigan and Mel. I am expecting what Randy put up in the second half around a 3.10-3.30 era and wins depending on run support. Schilling showed flashes of himself last year but never put it together for a conistant amount of time, and is coming off surgery that many think it is impossible to full recover from. I have heard talk of him never being able to push off without pain again. I am expecting a 3.90-4.00 era type season out of him.

QUOTE]

We can't compare the two based on last years performance. Schilling was on the DL the entire season. Let's atleast wait until the regular season starts and he pitches some real games before we say his comeback has failed and he'll never be the pitcher he once was.

Why? His ankle surgery was a pretty big deal, and he pretty much has said he has to resort to throwing inside(something he doesnt appear to be good at) to still be an effective pitcher. I am not saying it cant happen but Johnson has the much better chance to be the better pitcher.

JeterRodriguezSheff
03-22-06, 04:37 PM
Randy Johnson is the better of the two in their prime, yes. Randy Johnson is the better of the two when Curt Shilling is injured and spends most of the season on the DL, yes. Comparing the two on last seasons performance is just comical. However, it's apparent that RJ is declining, look at his stats in 2003 for example. We can't say the same for Schilling can we? Prior to his injury he was a lights out pitcher. For all we know he may return this season and be lights out again, which would probably make him better than RJ. But since we don't know how Schilling is going to bounce back, I concluded it a tie.

LMAO why use 2003, a year he was injured in? He already proved he was still an Ace in 2004. With his 2.49 era or whatever insane number it was. Thats not happening in the AL East obviously, but I expected a 3.00-3.30 era and I got it in the second half when his mechanics were right. I see no reason barring injury(which we are doing here) for me not to assume he will be the same pitcher he was in the second half last year.

Pocketaces1232
03-22-06, 04:39 PM
Why? His ankle surgery was a pretty big deal, and he pretty much has said he has to resort to throwing inside(something he doesnt appear to be good at) to still be an effective pitcher. I am not saying it cant happen but Johnson has the much better chance to be the better pitcher.

Why what? Why can't we compare the two based on last years performance? Because it would be ridicoulous Schilling was out almost the whole season. Why should we wait until he pitches a few games this regular season to rush to judgements? Because none of us, including Schilling, knows what kind of a pitcher he'll be. We have to wait and see. Like I said, before the injury he didn't show any signs of aging or decline. Who's to say he won't return and pitch that same way?

ShaneTravis
03-22-06, 04:51 PM
Beyond reproach? No. But this prediction is well within the realm of possibility so it seems crazy to call it "retarded" or idiotic.

If he picks the Twins to win the Series again, then let him have it. I'll be happy to join in.

The Twins last year, 2004 after game 3 when he said "this is over", 2004 when he said the Angels would beat the Braves or in 2003 Yanks over the Cubs in the world series.....

If he makes public prognostications that are wrong he should get hammered for it.

I like Buster. I remember when he was a beat reporter for the Times. But you and I (fans) certainly should hold their foot to the flame when wrong or misinformed.

bnorris85
03-22-06, 05:43 PM
I can't fault him for making this prediction, I mean it's all just based on opinion, but it really is laughable that he's basing it on pitching prior to the season. It is almost a GIVEN that Beckett will be injured at some point during the season. It's also almost a GIVEN that Schilling will never be Schilling 2004 ever again. Also almost a GIVEN that Wells will suck and be injured. Then you have Wakefield, who has gotten progressively worse and lost his catcher and Clement, who just got completely bombed last year.

Now the Yankees have a ton of question marks too, but not like Boston to be quite honest. It's not a GIVEN that Wang will be hurt, although it's not an impossibility. It's not a GIVEN that Chacon will revert a great deal, although it's not an impossibility. It's not a GIVEN that Johnson will be less effective or injured, although it's not an impossibility. It's not a GIVEN that Mussina will be completely useless, but it's not an impossibility. It's almost a GIVEN that Pavano will be injured, almost a GIVEN that Wright will suck.

The point to all this is, there are big question marks in both rotations, but you have to admit the Yankees have the better on paper rotation. Of the aces of the staff (I'm calling Johnson and Beckett), even though Beckett is younger, he's the one who is much more likely to be injured. As for the rest, Schilling and Mussina are not the pitchers they used to be, and at this point I'd rather have Chacon and Wang filling out 3/4 than Clement and Wakefield. We have a ton of guys we can march out there for our 5th starter, as do Boston, but that's just a 5th starter, toss-up.

Whether or not it all comes together will determine who actually has the better chance at the WS, but it's crazy to say the Red Sox have such pitching depth and it's the reason for their WS run this year.

LOLING at all your "givens"

ericns1
03-22-06, 06:08 PM
Good post by MaximMan121 - the only thing I wanted to add is that if we meet Boston in the post season it will be a 7 game series - a five game series is only in the first round and teams in the same division can't meet in the first round.

Euclis
03-22-06, 06:17 PM
LOLING at all your "givens"

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Pocketaces1232
03-22-06, 06:17 PM
LMAO why use 2003, a year he was injured in? He already proved he was still an Ace in 2004. With his 2.49 era or whatever insane number it was. Thats not happening in the AL East obviously, but I expected a 3.00-3.30 era and I got it in the second half when his mechanics were right. I see no reason barring injury(which we are doing here) for me not to assume he will be the same pitcher he was in the second half last year.

Ok, let me put it this way. Johnson is declining, whether we want to admit it or not. Schilling too is most-likely declining, but we have no idea as to whether that's a fact or a probable assumption. Johnson did rebound after 2003, so who's to say Schilling won't. If Schilling comes back to play the way he did prior to injury, he will have a better season than Johnson.

Bambino22
03-22-06, 06:44 PM
Ok, let me put it this way. Johnson is declining, whether we want to admit it or not. Schilling too is most-likely declining, but we have no idea as to whether that's a fact or a probable assumption. Johnson did rebound after 2003, so who's to say Schilling won't. If Schilling comes back to play the way he did prior to injury, he will have a better season than Johnson.

Ummn saids who?
Johnson's statistical drop off could be attributed to his move to the al east and nothing more.

brosiusbuddy
03-22-06, 06:59 PM
Randy Johnson is the better of the two in their prime, yes. Randy Johnson is the better of the two when Curt Shilling is injured and spends most of the season on the DL, yes. Comparing the two on last seasons performance is just comical. However, it's apparent that RJ is declining, look at his stats in 2003 for example. We can't say the same for Schilling can we? Prior to his injury he was a lights out pitcher. For all we know he may return this season and be lights out again, which would probably make him better than RJ. But since we don't know how Schilling is going to bounce back, I concluded it a tie.

Yes, we can use last year because that injury isnt like a nagging thing that kept Schilling sidelined. Its a serious injury that required surgery and even an entire year afterwards was not fully healed. Thats the reality of it... we may never see a healthy Schilling again because if he continues to have a bum ankle he will not have the same type of success he's had in the past. If he were 20 something than I'd say that maybe he could recover from the injury but hes in his upper 30's and the recovery just wont be there.

I expect RJ to be RJ again... a very good pitcher with a lot of K's, a low era and a high win total.

I expect Schilling to be good enough for 12-16 wins but a very average ERA. Sure he's still got guts and will step it up a little in big games, but he wont have the endurance and the strength to be the pitcher he once was.

Its always been RJ>Schilling and still is

Euclis
03-22-06, 07:12 PM
Ummn saids who?
Johnson's statistical drop off could be attributed to his move to the al east and nothing more.

Um, no, it can't.

RJ 2004: 171 era+
RJ 2005: 117 era+

He went from being the best pitcher in the national league to being 18th among AL starters in era, between Bruce Chen and Cliff Lee. The drop wasn't quite as steep as it looks, but to say it was all because he moved to the AL east is plain wrong.


*edit- ops-->era:eek:

HelloNewman
03-22-06, 07:25 PM
RJ 2004: 171 ops+
RJ 2005: 117 ops+
I had no idea he was such a good hitter.
:doh:

BronxByTheBay
03-22-06, 07:25 PM
Beyond reproach? No. But this prediction is well within the realm of possibility so it seems crazy to call it "retarded" or idiotic.

If he picks the Twins to win the Series again, then let him have it. I'll be happy to join in.

Who cares if you join in though? What you don't get is that Sam called the comments "retarded" because Sam is a Yankee fan. Not every post submitted needs some stamp of approval from our roving Red Sox Forumers Thread Committee. You know who you are - the guys that have to come running the moment any Yankee fan shows even a hint of satisfaction or belief in his/her team based on nothing more than that it IS our team. This goes beyond arguing stats, which is lost on you. Yes, we believe the Yankees are the better team this year. No, it may not play out that way. No, we don't care that you think we're demonstrating unrealistic expectations. It's not for you to sh*t on that.

Yes, we will consider all predictions not ending in a victory for the Yankees to be "retarded" at this point. It's why we're fans. I'm tired of you and a few others constantly trying to take that away from the folks that post here. No one needs a Red Sox fan to give us the okay to expect our team to be better than the Boston Red Sox.

UncleSam
03-22-06, 10:07 PM
Who cares if you join in though? What you don't get is that Sam called the comments "retarded" because Sam is a Yankee fan. .

I guess you missed this one:


But they're only "retarded" because you and other Yankee fans happen to think so. In truth, we have no idea if they're any good and we won't know for quite some time. They could be pretty accurate, in fact, but we have no way of knowing. That's why bashing him is dumber than the comments themselves.


Yes, we believe the Yankees are the better team this year. No, it may not play out that way. No, we don't care that you think we're demonstrating unrealistic expectations. It's not for you to sh*t on that.

Yes, we will consider all predictions not ending in a victory for the Yankees to be "retarded" at this point. It's why we're fans. I'm tired of you and a few others constantly trying to take that away from the folks that post here. No one needs a Red Sox fan to give us the okay to expect our team to be better than the Boston Red Sox.

You know what? You won't find a single post from me saying that I expect the Sox to be better this year or that it's crazy to think that the Yankees are definitely the better team this season. Frankly, I think the Yanks look better right now. I don't think Yankee fans expectations are unrealistic. I simply don't think you call Olney "retarded" at this point before we start to see things play out.

But I appreciate the "how to be a fan" lecture. Especially from someone who has so little tolerance for other people who do the same things.

BronxByTheBay
03-22-06, 10:25 PM
I guess you missed this one:





You know what? You won't find a single post from me saying that I expect the Sox to be better this year or that it's crazy to think that the Yankees are definitely the better team this season. Frankly, I think the Yanks look better right now. I don't think Yankee fans expectations are unrealistic. I simply don't think you call Olney "retarded" at this point before we start to see things play out.


You're still not getting it. This isn't about projections for a coming season. This is simply about being a fan. This isn't about a statistical analysis. Or do you only cheer once the Sox win the game? I mean, have you ever been to Fenway? Do you not clap when a guy comes up to hit or do you find such exuberance a waste of time until he actually does something?



But I appreciate the "how to be a fan" lecture. Especially from someone who has so little tolerance for other people who do the same things.

Who lectured you on "how to be a fan"? It seems you're very good at being a Red Sox fan, I'm suggesting that maybe you show cut the same slack to the guys on this YANKEE FORUM who happen to be YANKEE FANS.

I have great tolerance for fans being fans, just not so much for fans of other teams choosing a Yankee forum to express that fandom in certain areas. You join a forum that states it has a "Bronx bias" and then can't get your head around the notion of a Yankee fan on a Yankee forum calling a writer "retarded" for betting against the Yankees. It reminded me of some fans in another thread getting excited of Bernie's contributions to his team in the WBC. They were simply being Yankee fans happy for one of our players. They weren't assuming this meant Bernie was reborn. So in comes a Red Sox fan to helpfully explain Bernie was successful only because the pitching is lousy. That's the kind of sh*t that scrapes nerves. You engage in it yourself far too often.

Rich
03-22-06, 10:33 PM
How Rich?

Almost every time I hear Olney offer an opinion, it seems like he is just spouting the conventional wisdom, and he offers very little insight.

UncleSam
03-22-06, 10:52 PM
You're still not getting it. This isn't about projections for a coming season.

Wait, in your last post you said it was about expectations and predictions. Sounds like one of those circular arguments you usually rant about.


This is simply about being a fan. This isn't about a statistical analysis. Or do you only cheer once the Sox win the game? I mean, have you ever been to Fenway? Do you not clap when a guy comes up to hit or do you find such exuberance a waste of time until he actually does something?

Are you serious? I just argued the use of the word "retarded".


Who lectured you on "how to be a fan"?

You did in your last post. Well maybe, how fans act.


You join a forum that states it has a "Bronx bias" and then can't get your head around the notion of a Yankee fan on a Yankee forum calling a writer "retarded" for betting against the Yankees.

I understand perfectly why it was said. I offered my opinion that I didn't agree with it. Since other Yankee fans agreed with me, why can't you get your head around that?


It reminded me of some fans in another thread getting excited of Bernie's contributions to his team in the WBC. They were simply being Yankee fans happy for one of our players. They weren't assuming this meant Bernie was reborn. So in comes a Red Sox fan to helpfully explain Bernie was successful only because the pitching is lousy. That's the kind of sh*t that scrapes nerves. You engage in it yourself far too often.

99 times out of 100, I chime in when Yankee fans are ripping on the Sox or their fans. If you can find more than a handful where I criticize the Yanks or their players, good luck.

UncleSam
03-22-06, 10:57 PM
The Twins last year, 2004 after game 3 when he said "this is over", 2004 when he said the Angels would beat the Braves or in 2003 Yanks over the Cubs in the world series.....

If he makes public prognostications that are wrong he should get hammered for it.

I like Buster. I remember when he was a beat reporter for the Times. But you and I (fans) certainly should hold their foot to the flame when wrong or misinformed.

I don't think anyone should be criticized for saying it was over after Game 3 in '04.

With regard to getting hammered, I just think we have different opinions. I don't really care how wrong he was, especially because I can't think of anyone who's got a great track record with these things.

bnorris85
03-22-06, 11:08 PM
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."


INCONCIEVEABLE

BronxByTheBay
03-23-06, 09:57 AM
Wait, in your last post you said it was about expectations and predictions. Sounds like one of those circular arguments you usually rant about.

No. In my last post I stated it's about a FAN having expectations for his/her team. Sounds like normal logic that's usually lost on you.




Are you serious? I just argued the use of the word "retarded".

Who needs you to argue anything? It's a fan showing enthusiasm.




You did in your last post. Well maybe, how fans act.

Actually, I make no assumption as to how you act as a fan. I asked if you if you actually cheered your team during the game or waited till after they won to make sure it was okay. You didn't answer, so I'll assume that's a "yes". Well, those of us who like our baseball team generally like to root for them to win.




I understand perfectly why it was said. I offered my opinion that I didn't agree with it. Since other Yankee fans agreed with me, why can't you get your head around that?

Because those fans don't have a history of baiting other Yankee fans on this forum.

UncleSam
03-23-06, 10:13 AM
No. In my last post I stated it's about a FAN having expectations for his/her team. Sounds like normal logic that's usually lost on you.

Who needs you to argue anything? It's a fan showing enthusiasm.

Actually, I make no assumption as to how you act as a fan. I asked if you if you actually cheered your team during the game or waited till after they won to make sure it was okay. You didn't answer, so I'll assume that's a "yes". Well, those of us who like our baseball team generally like to root for them to win.

Because those fans don't have a history of baiting other Yankee fans on this forum.

Are you really so blinded by negativity and Red Sox fan hatred that you don't even read what I'm saying? I have nothing against being FANS. I already said I think the Yankees look like the better team this year and I have no problem with fan enthusiasm. My only argument was that I thought it was a little much to call Olney's opinion "retarded". That's it. Stop turning it into a Red Sox/Yankees baiting issue. It's nothing of the sort.

BronxByTheBay
03-23-06, 10:17 AM
Are you really so blinded by negativity and Red Sox fan hatred that you don't even read what I'm saying? I have nothing against being FANS. I already said I think the Yankees look like the better team this year and I have no problem with fan enthusiasm. My only argument was that I thought it was a little much to call Olney's opinion "retarded". That's it. Stop turning it into a Red Sox/Yankees baiting issue. It's nothing of the sort.

I don't have any "Red Sox fan hatred". "Hatred" would assume I gave Sox fans much thought. I dislike people who try to sh*t on others good time.

UncleSam
03-23-06, 10:52 AM
I dislike people who try to sh*t on others good time.

Anyone seen a kettle around here? A black one?

BronxByTheBay
03-23-06, 10:56 AM
Anyone seen a kettle around here? A black one?

It seems to have gone missing since around Sep. 2004.

YankeePride1967
03-23-06, 12:05 PM
I don't see either team winning it this year to be honest.

SoxfaninNY
03-23-06, 09:55 PM
Olney also said the Wily Mo Pena trade was a bad one for the sox.

He's retarded. :D

BobbyWeird
03-23-06, 10:02 PM
Olney also said the Wily Mo Pena trade was a bad one for the sox.

He's retarded. :D
What did he base his opinion on?

(Not that anyone should care, because most of what he says is, indeed, retarded.)

brosiusbuddy
03-23-06, 10:59 PM
Olney also said the Wily Mo Pena trade was a bad one for the sox.

He's retarded. :D

I sense your sarcasm here, but I tend to agree with Olney. Sure, Pena has a good upside but the Sox offense as it was is pretty good without Pena.

Sure, Arroyo was nothing above average, however he was versatile. He could start or relieve long or short, make spot starts and there were times when he was really very good on the hill. Pitching is more valuable to a team like boston than offense is at this point and anytime you trade away pitching without any in return its risky.

At best, Pena will be a .320 obp guy (should Papa John or Jack or whatever the hitting coach is called improve his patience) who can knock out 20 something homers, but unless trot goes down Pena wont see a full season of AB's to really blossom into the player he might be capable of because RF is trots and ortiz has the DH spot all locked up. And while pena's bat might be enough to win a couple games for the sox, they could count on Arroyo for probably 9 wins.

Sam18
03-23-06, 11:17 PM
He's retarded. :D

He is. Pena will hit a HR and watch Buster call it the greatest trade evah!

donniesrecordholdsup
03-23-06, 11:28 PM
its not that we care that someone picks a team outside the yankees. its the bs argument they use. the yankees pitchers are all getting hurt but the red sox pitchers are all staying healthy and winning 20 games. i know its an exaggeration but nobody questions the boston staff but predicts gloom and doom for the yankees. you want to say the white sox are going to win because of pitching, no problem. you want to argue boston, fine but come up with a good reason. not some obviously biased crap.

bnorris85
03-24-06, 01:20 AM
What did he base his opinion on?

(Not that anyone should care, because most of what he says is, indeed, retarded.)


He baised it on the fact that pena struggles when he faces elite pitchers...showed some stats based on this....but failed to mention that the rest of the leauge did just as bad, even a little worse.

Apparently a 24 year old power hitter is supposed to bat 320 against the pedros and santana's

BobbyWeird
03-24-06, 07:21 AM
its not that we care that someone picks a team outside the yankees. its the bs argument they use. the yankees pitchers are all getting hurt but the red sox pitchers are all staying healthy and winning 20 games. i know its an exaggeration but nobody questions the boston staff but predicts gloom and doom for the yankees. you want to say the white sox are going to win because of pitching, no problem. you want to argue boston, fine but come up with a good reason. not some obviously biased crap.
I think Onley is a lazy writer who does not (or can't) develop his opinions with any meaningful back-up.....which makes him functionally an idiot as a writer.

But if you think he's a closet Red Sox supporter, you're nuts. He was killing the Red Sox after the Damon signing. There is nothing in his writing or his ESPN appearances to suggest he's a fan of either the Yankees or the Red Sox.

But we agree on the fact that the success of both teams will depend on pitchers staying healthy. And the liklihood of injury is about equal on both sides, except that the Yanks are starting the season with more reported injuries to the staff than the Red Sox.

BobbyWeird
03-24-06, 07:26 AM
Pitching is more valuable to a team like boston than offense is at this point and anytime you trade away pitching without any in return its risky.

You can never have enough good pitching. Teams ordinarily use well more than 7 starters over the course of a season. So your point is well taken.

But look at the potential black holes the Red Sox have on offense: Gonzalez, Youkilis and Lowell. This isn't the 2003 and 2004 relentless Red Sox offense. And Nixon gets hurt every year.

As a result, I can see why they would want to have better hitting reinforcements than they had on the bench before the trade, and why they needed offensive help more than a 7th starter/reliever.

Arod for President
03-24-06, 10:32 AM
I got a comment. Buster Olney is a redsox fan. BIG surprise. Hey guess what I think. The yankees are going to win the WS for the next 10 YEARS and because I said it people should think it will happen.

aeromac76
03-24-06, 11:43 AM
its not that we care that someone picks a team outside the yankees. its the bs argument they use. the yankees pitchers are all getting hurt but the red sox pitchers are all staying healthy and winning 20 games. i know its an exaggeration but nobody questions the boston staff but predicts gloom and doom for the yankees. you want to say the white sox are going to win because of pitching, no problem. you want to argue boston, fine but come up with a good reason. not some obviously biased crap.

Perfect post!
This is what I have been saying for the better part of the past couple of seasons.
I don't care who you predict, but you cannot pick and choose facts.

If you think the Sox will win because RJ is old and injury prone, that is a legit thing to say. But to ignore his counterpart, Curt Schilling, has the same if not far more severe case of this phenomenon is to cherry pick.
You have to set forth a reason, backed up by some empirical evidence, that you think Johnson's age and injury questions will cause him to fail and why Schilling's problems won't manifest themselves negatively fine.. Observations from scouts, stats, trends, personal observations, whatever. But too many times we see an argument that puts one team above the other citing questions on one side. But to fail to address the predicted winner's question marks makes for an incomplete story..

BobbyWeird
03-24-06, 12:00 PM
Perfect post!
This is what I have been saying for the better part of the past couple of seasons.
I don't care who you predict, but you cannot pick and choose facts.

If you think the Sox will win because RJ is old and injury prone, that is a legit thing to say. But to ignore his counterpart, Curt Schilling, has the same if not far more severe case of this phenomenon is to cherry pick.
You have to set forth a reason, backed up by some empirical evidence, that you think Johnson's age and injury questions will cause him to fail and why Schilling's problems won't manifest themselves negatively fine.. Observations from scouts, stats, trends, personal observations, whatever. But too many times we see an argument that puts one team above the other citing questions on one side. But to fail to address the predicted winner's question marks makes for an incomplete story..
For the record, I think you are 100% right. I just don't think that Onley is saying what he's saying because he's biased. Virtually everything he writes or says is half-baked, and that he is saying, and the flimsy back-up he provides for saying, that the Yankees will win the division and the Red Sox the WS is more evidence of that.

UncleSam
03-24-06, 02:11 PM
For the record, I think you are 100% right. I just don't think that Onley is saying what he's saying because he's biased. Virtually everything he writes or says is half-baked, and that he is saying, and the flimsy back-up he provides for saying, that the Yankees will win the division and the Red Sox the WS is more evidence of that.

Just for the record, Olney didn't say the Sox would win the World Series. He said that he thought the Sox pitching would give them a better chance to win the WS than the Yankees if they were both in the playoffs.

MFern09
03-24-06, 06:02 PM
people need to start realizing that Curt Schilling in an instant can be the old curt and with beckett.. i mean their pitching is alot better and deeper...but, they have ifs and so do we...we just need RJ and Moose to carry the load and be consistent...Buster is an idiot though...

JeterRodriguezSheff
03-24-06, 07:00 PM
Ok, let me put it this way. Johnson is declining, whether we want to admit it or not. Schilling too is most-likely declining, but we have no idea as to whether that's a fact or a probable assumption. Johnson did rebound after 2003, so who's to say Schilling won't. If Schilling comes back to play the way he did prior to injury, he will have a better season than Johnson.

Look at Johnsons second half numbers. If he plays like he did in the second half and he has a realistic shot of doing that then he will be even with Schilling 04 who has a very unrealistic shot of going back to 04 form.

BTW stats:
Usually I dont take spring training stats with more than a grain of salt but look at his second half stats .
Pre all star: 9-6 4.16 era 1.23 whip 8.25 k/9 9.38 h/9
Post all star:8-2 3.31 era .99 whip 8.63 k/9 6.80 h/9
September and October: 4-0 2.48 era .91 whip 7.68 k/9 5.45 h/9

It really seems like he had an bad first half and figured it out in the second half. He is feeling good this spring unlike last spring and I am very optimistic about Johnson. He also took some adive from Mel and Kerrigan and changed his mechanics a bit while having his velocity increase a lot when he started to get good. I dont care if I sound like a homer I am predicting a line of 20-4 3.00-3.30 era 1.01 whip 8.7 k/9 6.9 h/9.

brosiusbuddy
03-24-06, 09:04 PM
I think Onley is a lazy writer who does not (or can't) develop his opinions with any meaningful back-up.....which makes him functionally an idiot as a writer.

.

I dont agree with this assessment. I think Olney is a very good reporter/journalist, but this prediction is just out of the ordinary for him. Olney has well grounded, usually unbiased perspective on most things and is the reason I'm surprised to read his latest prediction. I think I may speak for many here which might be why this thread has received so much attention.

suha
03-24-06, 11:22 PM
\

The only thing we have to examine that is to look at who performed and who didn't in the past. Beckett has, our starters havn't, with the exception of RJ--and while Becket is young and improving, RJ is old and declining. That's the edge.

Great post, well thought out! One minor point I'd like to make, though, is that Moose has been good to very good in the past couple post-seasons, especially 2004. In fact, he's seemed to have pitched beyond his regular season level in both years. That said, however, I have a gut feeling that our go-to guy, assuming we make the PS this year, will be Chacon.

keithf1
03-25-06, 12:54 AM
Good thing Buster Olney isn't bias. I really value his opinions on everything, especially the Red Sox.

Yankees1962
03-25-06, 08:28 AM
its not that we care that someone picks a team outside the yankees. its the bs argument they use. the yankees pitchers are all getting hurt but the red sox pitchers are all staying healthy and winning 20 games. i know its an exaggeration but nobody questions the boston staff but predicts gloom and doom for the yankees. you want to say the white sox are going to win because of pitching, no problem. you want to argue boston, fine but come up with a good reason. not some obviously biased crap.
Why does his reasoning have to be bias? Someone explain to me that Olney is bias against the Yankees which means he holds some kind of prejudice against them. Just because he prefers the Red Sox starters doesn't mean he's bias against the Yankees. Anyhow, it's only a prediction! Most of those guys that covered baseball last year for ESPN were wrong with their predictions and they were wrong by a large margin. It doesn't mean a thing and I always thought Olney was fair with his toughts about the Yankees.

kaos1
07-13-06, 09:47 AM
i will make a bold prediction:

yankees will win the world series

yanksrule69
07-13-06, 10:04 AM
i will make a bold prediction:

yankees will win the world series

Now, there's a prediction worthy of bumping a 4 month old thread.

DontHateOnNumber2
07-13-06, 10:13 AM
Now, there's a prediction worthy of bumping a 4 month old thread.
How's this?

Buster Olney will say at LEAST two more things about the Yankees this season that are either obvious, not worth mentioning, or not worth believing. I'd say all of the above, but I'll just wait it out.

Boogiedown Bomber
07-13-06, 10:21 AM
What's with all of these Buster Olney threads??? Does someone have a crush on this fool?

yanksrule69
07-13-06, 11:52 AM
How's this?



I was referring to kaos' prediction not Olney's and I was being facetious. :)

Hitman23
07-13-06, 12:24 PM
well, I'm calling it a season. Sox are gonna win. Buster said so. :(

scooterfan
07-13-06, 12:29 PM
i will make a bold prediction:

yankees will win the world series

I'll 2nd that motion

Boldness is in the water in Jersey City (along with some other chemicals)
(it's my hometown, so...)

MFern09
07-13-06, 01:53 PM
well we all know buster is always right...didnt he say the same thing last year...

kaos1
07-13-06, 03:05 PM
I'll 2nd that motion

Boldness is in the water in Jersey City (along with some other chemicals)
(it's my hometown, so...)

lmao.. it truly is :rockin:

ryanm1058123
07-13-06, 03:25 PM
buster sure knows what he is talking about. since he has such a great track record in this kind of stuff. he's so smart. i wish i could be buster olney

Squid
07-14-06, 04:04 AM
lmao.. it truly is :rockin:

Totally!