Papelbon calls Manny a cancer
edmundfitzgerald
Posts: 4,306 ✭✭
in Sports Talk
That a boy Jonathan. However, we all knew that already.
Now if you ever face him in the world series, make sure you try your best to make him feel a little bit uncomfortable at the plate
Oh yeah, add Aroid to that list too
0
Comments
Bosox1976
<< <i>An insult to Jonny Lester!
AGREED MIKE! I know he probably meant nothing (other than to tell Manny he is a BIG A$$H*le) by it, but having had my little girl AND wife diagnosed with Cancer, it's not a term I enjoy hearing thrown around like that.
Doug
Liquidating my collection for the 3rd and final time. Time for others to enjoy what I have enjoyed over the last several decades. Money could be put to better use.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
mates will pay for it. Clemens got quiet when he went to Houston...not so hot when you have to get into the batter box and have it coming
the other way at you!
I hate Man Ram, but I would love to see Pap say this to a player that he would see 10-15 times a year instead of a guy he might never pitch against
ever again!
JS
After all, isn't the thrust of that term being that his attitude affects the other players on the team, via spreading rapidly?
How strong mentally is a player, if their play is allowed to be affected by the attitude of another player on the team?
The reality is, the attitude of a single player really does not have an affect on other teammates play.
It is a term thrown around baseball teams all the time. The reality is that these so called attitudes do not affect the amount of runs scored, runs prevented, and ultimately wins.
Manny's attitude may have prevented guys from going out to dinner with him, but it didn't prevent them from throwing strikes, or getting hits.
This was always said about Dick Allen, and his attitude as a way of preventing winning. The reality is that his poor teammates prevented winning. The results of his playing, combined to that of his teammates, actually produced more or equal wins than what should be expected from their performances.
I agree that Manny's attitude didn't prevent other guys from getting hits or throwing strikes. That's up to them and they are all competitive enough to want to achieve those things regardless of the LF's attitude. But I disagree with you on your point that Manny's attitude didn't have a negative effect on the amount of runs scored, runs prevented, and number of wins. It's impossible to know what would have happened if Manny had chosen to swing his bat in the 9th inning with runners on base, but I do know that his bad attitude and decision to not swing led to an out which didn't help the team win a game against a divsion opponent.
The decision to not swing that led to an out is recorded as an out in a high leverage situation in his measurement assessment. It is therefore accounted for already in his performance.
In other words,
If Manny hits 50 bad attitude Home Runs, and George Dogood hits 50 good attitude Home Runs, then they have equal impact on their team(all other performances being equal in quantity and situation).
Attitude will matter extremely little, above and beyond what is already measured in the players performance.
I can see what you are saying in that, "If his attitude were better and he tried harder, he would have even BETTER numbers, thus helping the team to win more." ]
But the common mistake is that people think a lesser player with a better attitude will make the team better because it will somehow make other players throw more strikes and get more hits. This is where I am coming from.
<< <i>I can see what you are saying in that, "If his attitude were better and he tried harder, he would have even BETTER numbers, thus helping the team to win more." ]
But the common mistake is that people think a lesser player with a better attitude will make the team better because it will somehow make other players throw more strikes and get more hits. This is where I am coming from. >>
I hope I'm not making that mistake here. I'm just trying to say that if Manny had a better attitude his already good or great stats would be that much better. I'm also saying that his bad attitude did cost his team additional wins (even if his stellar offense helped his team win games that a lesser player wouldn't have).
I know someone has done research on Manny and how many hits he's cost himself by not running hard to first base or how many doubles he lost out on because he was busy admiring what he thought was going to be a home run. I know the prevailing thinking is that Manny also chose important times to purposely strike out. I know that at times in his tenure at Boston he chose to simply not play which required the Red Sox to start a player with less talent. All these things either directly cost the team outs or made it harder for the team to score as many runs as they would have been capable of scoring otherwise.
You aren't making the mistake I am referring to.
It seems you are saying Manny could have a .620 SLG% instead of a .600, simply by running out a few more batted balls, and/or not just giving away at bats just to be an a s s.
I understand that completely, and that does cost his team compared to if he tried harder and hustled a bit more.
Doug
Liquidating my collection for the 3rd and final time. Time for others to enjoy what I have enjoyed over the last several decades. Money could be put to better use.