"If the Sox think (newly acquired player) will be their savior, they're in big trouble!"

Just because the Sox acquired a new player doesn't mean they think that player alone is going to take them to the promised land. It means they think they'll be a better franchise for acquiring this player than they were without him.

Sometimes an acquisition is to build depth, like a utility player who doesn't hit well but plays many positions. Or like a pitcher who can give them competent (not necessarily outstanding) innings the rest of the team won't have to pitch (ex. Paul Byrd for starting pitching depth in '08 and '09. Both times there were SoSHers who posted something to the effect of the title of this blog entry, as if the Sox thought Byrd would be a top of the line starter). Or a player who can hit LHP in place of someone in the lineup who doesn't hit well vs. LHP.

Curt Leskanic wasn't acquired in '04 to be a savior, but he helped keep the Sox alive in '04 ALCS Game 4 when the rest of the bullpen was excessively used. Bobby Kielty wasn't acquired in '07 to be a savior, but he helped the Sox win the World Series clincher.

Sometimes an acquisition is for payroll flexibility, in dollars and/or years (ex. the Sox sign player A for 1 year/$4.5 million when better player B is 34 and would have cost 4 years/$45 million).

There are too many possible reasons to think of for one blog entry (ex. trade value, draft pick compensation, etc.), but the point is that it takes many transactions in general to build a team that has a chance to win a championship, not just one acquisition.

"What's the joke with Buck Showalter?"

This entry isn't a counterargument like most of these entries, but it's a response to a question I've been asked a handful of times.

After the Yankees won Game 3 of the 2004 ALCS, SoSHer Buck Showalter posted on SoSH that he couldn't take the pain anymore and that he couldn't continue to root for the Red Sox. Mr. Weebles, showing a rare display of compassion, responded with a serious and supportive post telling Buck to hang in there and not give up.

To try to lighten up the situation, I posted, "Let him go, Weebs! Every time Buck Showalter leaves a team, the team ends up winning the World Series." For those who don't know, the real Buck Showalter left as manager of the Yankees in 1995 and as manager of the Diamondbacks in 2000. Both teams won the World Series the following year.

SoSHer Buck Showalter responded with a ROFL emoticon. This was his last post on SoSH until shortly after the Red Sox came all the way back and won the World Series that year.

I wish I could link to the aforementioned posts, but unfortunately the posts were deleted by the ezboard crash.

Starting pitcher's W-L record or winning percentage

It's virtually worthless to show how good or bad a starting pitcher* is by showing his W-L record or winning percentage. These statistics are too dependent on the rest of the team.

*Note: This is true for all pitchers as opposed to just starting pitchers, but most people seem to know not to use this for relievers. Also, most relievers don't accumulate enough wins or losses in a season for someone to want to use their W-L record.

A major factor in a starting pitcher's W-L record is how much run support he gets from his team. This is completely out of his control if he's not batting, and most pitchers don't hit well enough to be a major factor of run support even when they are batting.

Unless a starting pitcher pitches a lot of complete games, which is very rare in this day and age, the other reason a pitcher's W-L record is virtually worthless is his bullpen. Bullpens can blow a starter's leads and cost him wins. Or if a starting pitcher leaves with a lead after just 5-6 innings, bullpens have to do the work for at least 1/3 of the game to preserve a win.

I'll give you a couple of extreme examples. A starting pitcher could pitch a complete game and give up 1 run (even an unearned run), but lose 1-0. A starting pitcher could pitch a crappy outing, but a good bullpen and a lot of runs from his hitters can bail him out from a loss. He could even get a win in that situation if he pitches at least 5 innings.

You could also make an argument that a pitcher's defense behind him is another reason not to use W-L record. I wouldn't use that argument because defense also affects stats that are a lot more relevant for a starting pitcher like ERA, ERA+ or opponents' AVG and SLG.

As I have often said, I'm no sabermetrician. If you're looking for more advanced stats like VORP, I'm not your guy. However, this means any casual fan can understand the stats I use to show how good a starting pitcher is, like:

• ERA
• ERA+. If you're not familiar with ERA+, it's park-adjusted and it's rated the same way a person's IQ is. 100 is average, > 100 is above average and < 100 is below average.
• Opponents' AVG/OBP/SLG
• IP, H, BB, K

If you've seen this post before, you already know why I don't use ERA or ERA+ for middle relievers.

"Why is SoSH only showing 1 post of a thread and a list of posts below it?"

If SoSH is only showing the first post of a thread while the bottom says, "Posts in this topic" and shows a list of who has posted in the thread but isn't showing the material from those posts, do the following:

1. Click on the "Options" dropdown, which is at the right side of the thread topic.
2. Select "Switch to Standard".

Your SoSH should be fixed.

6-man rotation

The problems with using a 6-man rotation include:

1. The best pitchers pitch fewer starts, in exchange for starts by a pitcher who isn't as good as the other pitchers in the rotation.
2. A 6-man rotation knocks pitchers off their throwing routine/schedule. Off days could cause weeklong waits between starts, or even more days between starts for some pitchers to keep other pitchers on normal days rest.
   
3. A 6-man rotation causes more wear and tear on the bullpen because there's one less reliever to pitch innings. This means that in addition to reducing starts from your best starter, you're forcing some of the worst pitchers on the team (the middle relievers) to pitch more innings. If instead you carry the same amount of relievers, a 6-man rotation causes less depth on the bench because of one less position player. Note: this issue of depth doesn't make as much of a difference during the regular season after September 1st when major-league rosters expand to 40.
   
4. A 6-man rotation causes an artificial demand for a starter. Starting pitching is one of the toughest areas to acquire depth on your team. If a starter gets injured or if there's a doubleheader because of a rainout earlier in the season, you need more depth on the team to have a 7th man make a spot start to keep the others on schedule than to have a 6th man make a spot start in a 5-man rotation. If your counter to that is to go to a 5-man rotation when a starter of a 6-man rotation gets injured, you're causing another example of the first sentence of reason #2.
5. Starting pitchers would likely be less willing to sign incentive-laden clauses if they know they're going to a team with a 6-man rotation because they would know it would be tougher to hit incentives such as innings pitched or games played. Signing players with incentive-laden clauses allows more payroll flexibility when players get hurt.

Even if you put one starter on a normal rotation and the others on an extra day of rest by using a hybrid rotation of 1234516234156231..., most of the reasons I have listed will still be factors.

Yes, I understand the potential benefits of an extra day of rest. Yes, I know Dice-K pitched on 6-man rotations in Japan. Most pitchers aren't used to a 6-man rotation. The cons still outweigh the pros.

Posting on SoSH about Shaughnessy's articles

There's no reason for Red Sox fans to take articles by Dan Shaughnessy, a.k.a. CHB, and post about them on SoSH. There's no reason to even read his articles. Too many Red Sox fans not only read his articles, but post about them on SoSH to complain about something he writes.

Here's a little secret if you're a Red Sox fan. Getting angry after reading his article is exactly what he wants. He's a heel writer whose job is to bait you, push your buttons, get under the skin of Red Sox fans, get people to talk about him and give his material publicity. He does this in different ways:

• Makes intentionally unreasonable statements. Example: When Pedro was still with the Sox and wasn't getting a lot of run support and/or had his bullpen blow his leads, CHB once said, "You want to win a game for the Red Sox? Pitch a complete game shutout". If you don't know that CHB was well aware Pedro wasn't going to pitch a complete game shutout every time Pedro pitched, you simply took CHB's bait.

• Writes something that could give the impression his article is going to do something harmful for the Red Sox. Example: When the Red Sox used him to bash Theo when it looked like Theo was going to leave the Red Sox in 2005. This intentionally pissed off many Sox fans into thinking the article would destroy any chances of Theo Epstein re-signing. It also kept CHB in good terms with the Red Sox ownership by playing bad cop for them. Just when you thought that last part was only Lucchino's job. [/insert your own emoticon]

You'll notice I'm giving old examples. This is because it's been a long time since I've read his articles. Reading his articles won't keep you any more informed than not reading them. "But the Globe puts his articles to the forefront", you might say. The Globe has plenty of other information about the Red Sox without CHB's articles. So does SoSH, rotoworld and other sports sites, whether or not you like the Herald. Usually a Globe article online shows CHB's name before you click on the link. Occasionally it doesn't. If you click on one of his links accidentally, you're much better off hitting the "<-" button on your browser than reading another word.

Let's say temptation gets the best of you and you continue to read his articles, even though every click on his articles is another hit for the site for which he could take credit. If you know he's baiting you and using any means to generate publicity, why would you talk on SoSH about his articles and give him more publicity? You're only doing him a favor.

Same thing if you write to him. The Globe wants people writing to CHB. Heck, CHB wants people writing to him. If it's angry, all the better for him. That's his job.

If you continue to read his articles because you don't believe me that it's better to ignore his articles, try for a week or two to review each CHB article when you're done reading it and conclude: 1) what you're better off knowing for reading that article and 2) what either pissed you off or what was intentionally written to piss you off in some way, shape or form. Chances are #2 will consistently outnumber #1.

I know writing this blog entry is ironically generating publicity for him. If giving him a little publicity this way costs him more publicity in the long run, I'd say it's well worth it.

"How do you pronounce 'SoSH'?"

The question of how to pronounce "SoSH" has been disputed on SoSH over the years possibly more than any other question, even more often than who would win a fight between a bear and a shark. Where better to answer the most disputed question in SoSH history than a reference site of counterarguments to arguments that have been posted numerous times on SoSH?

If you look at how words spelled similarly to "SoSH" are pronounced, the commonality is obvious.

• bosh
• gosh
• josh, or Josh as a nickname for Joshua
  
• kibosh
• Macintosh/McIntosh
• mosh
• nosh
  
• posh
• sloshed
• tosh

The main argument used by the misled who pronounce SoSH with a long o is that unlike the words I just posted, SoSH is an acronym like "OSHA". Anyone who uses this argument can take a look at these acronyms:

SOT

In production, a sound bite is known elsewhere as "SOT" -- which stands for "sound on tape" (no, nobody uses tape anymore) and pronounced as if it was a habitual drunk.

SOQ

SOQ (pronounced "sock"): Short for standard outcue, or the words a news reporter says at the end of a report

Apple SOS, which used a correct pronunciation to create a pun.

Apple SOS, or "Sophisticated Operating System", pronounced "Apple Sauce"

SoS

Scum Of Society
Short form, SoS, pronounced Sauce.

Here's something else to think about if you're still skeptical. What common interest brought people to Sons of Sam Horn in the first place? You don't pronounce the answer to that question, "The Red Soaks". That doesn't even work for people who use the acronym excuse.

SoX

Serenity of X (SoX - pronounced just like "socks")

In conclusion, the correct way to pronounce "SoSH" can be answered by using either or both of my two former avatars below.