zach23

QUOTE(SoxFanInDallas @ Jul 3, 2006 -> 02:18 PM) Stop the Insanity Wow, a Susan Powter reference.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Jul 3, 2006 -> 02:05 PM) Well I guess we should just shut this board down since there isn't anything left to talk about. Actually you just described the problem of modern day sports. Because of the internet and 24 hour sports programming it is harder to enjoy the game now. Every little detail is beaten to death on message boards and sports blab shows. 20 years ago you would simply watch the game and read about it the next day in the paper and that was that. Now every little thing is blown up a discussed to death until people are going crazy. It used to be a lot easier to just watch the game, and either enjoy a win or just deal with the loss until the next day. The bad thing is, the internet is addictive and it is hard to stay away from the insanity.

Last year's mantra of the bed wetters: "Our pitching is great, but we keep winning only 2-1 and 1-0 and our offense isn't good enough to keep up with the big bad scary Indians. Sooner or later the pitching will fail and we will lose the division to them." This year's mantra of the bed wetters: "Our offense is great, but we keep winning games 10-9 and 11-8 with big comebacks. Our pitching isn't good enough to keep up with the big bad scary Tigers. Sooner or later the hitting will fail and we will lose the division to them." How do some people make it through life? When there is a little adversity or competition do you go running to hide from that too? Maybe the Tigers are the better team, but f*** them, they have to prove it over the long haul first. Come take it if you want it. Fear nobody. If you want to sit and piss your pants right now, then don't brag when the team does win.

I was hoping after going through the pressure of last year's postseason and seeing that this team can handle it, that more people would grow some balls. Too bad there are still so many that wet their pants so quickly during the season. f*** the Twins and Tigers. Let them and their fans wet their pants when they have to face the defending champs. Bring them on. If they really are that good then they deserve it. I thought Cleveland was supposed to be the big scary monster under the bed this season anyway?

Why not email Carl and ask him why he doesn't post here: http://www.palehosesix.blogspot.com/

QUOTE(Hangar18 @ Jun 28, 2006 -> 10:48 AM) These Palehouse 6 comics are pretty clever. Who makes them? Just a wild guess here, but I would bet that the part of the cartoon where it says, "by Carl Skanberg" could be a clue as to who makes them.

Oh what the hell, since this madness continues... Hangar, if the Tribune has this master plan to hurt the Sox by ignoring them, is it even working? They have a World Series win, they added to their team and payroll, they have sold out all their season tickets, and they are setting team attendance records. Wow, all those extra Cubs stories are sure killing the Sox right now. And speaking of attendance, weren't you the one ranting about boycotting the Sox and giving up your tickets a few years ago because the team was cheap in your opinion? So were you staying away because you were pissed at the Sox or because the media told you to? Were others doing the same as you? Which is it, did Sox fans stay away because they won't accept an inferior product, or did they do so because the media told them to do so? So by you staying away, didn't you help the Tribune in their perceived cause? Wouldn't the empty seats help them in the quest to make the Sox look bad? Once again all of this come full circle to your real motivation behind this. You crave popularity and want reassurance that the team you support is the most popular. Fine if that is what you want, but you may never get it. Most people don't need that and are happy just to enjoy their team.

Just my opinion, but I would say that this is due to the big dollars involved in baseball currently and the fact that the league believes that fans want to see nothing but the long ball. In the old days teams didn't make as much money, now they rake in billions from TV and advertising. So now if a team's star player takes one off the face and has to miss a ton of games, it could affect a team's marketing of that player. The league has fallen in love with the long ball and seems to be doing everything possible to give the hitters the advantage. The strike zone has shrunk down and all the warnings take away the inside of the plate from pitchers. If they make a mistake, they could get warned or tossed from the game. Unlike the old days, hitters have no fear of standing right on top of the plate. I think if the warnings went away and the umps went back to letting the players police this part of the game, you would see a steady decline in the amount of HRs as more pitchers brush guys back off the plate. And that I beleive is something the league doesn't want at all. Their view is that HRs bring fans and fans bring advertisers and advertisers mean dollars.

QUOTE(hammerhead johnson @ Jun 16, 2006 -> 08:45 AM) What I learned from this thread: If your name is Zach, you are genetically predisposed to hating Hangar posts. Correct, I don't hate hangar as a person. In fact, if we sat down and watched a game together we would probably both get along real well. What I do hate is the crap he spews most of the time. He embodies the stereotype that Sox fans care more about what the Cubs do than they do their own team. Plus, his media watches prove nothing. If you want to have the opinion and perception that there is a media bias, that is fine. But to thump your chest saying you have "proven" there is a bias just by counting stories as you see fit proves squat. I would even go so far as to say that something like this can't be proven by any means. The whole thing is just perception. You can see things one way while others see them differently. To prove something like this you would need to have data collected by someone that has no bias toward one side or the other. You would also need to collect that data from a wide variety of sources and not just two newspapers. Lastly you would need to have a clear definition of which things show bias before collecting the data. Even with all that, it would be hard to prove something that really isn't a black and white issue as this is. All hangar has proven is that he hates the Tribune and that he is overly concerned with being part of something popular. Oh and everything that JimH said above pretty much sums up how I feel. And that includes growing up in Bridgeport, following the Hawks, and hating the Cubs. QUOTE(RibbieRubarb @ Jun 15, 2006 -> 10:11 PM) Maybe we should combine the Zachs and create a SuperZach84! I have had to deal with the other Zach my whole life, please don't lump me into a single being with him. He is enough of a pain in the ass already.

QUOTE(Hangar18 @ Jun 15, 2006 -> 12:11 PM) and he gushed like a cheerleader about how great 1984 was. Memo to Sutcliffe: You guys didnt win anything. So were all the guys at the Sox 1983 reunion wrong for gushing over that great year? They didn't win anything either, but for the players it was a great year. Wasn't Jack McDowell in the booth during a game gushing over 1993 and how great that was?

QUOTE(JimH @ Jun 15, 2006 -> 05:23 PM) And out of curiosity what does MSPT stand for? My Senseless Paranoid Thread?

QUOTE(Hangar18 @ Jun 15, 2006 -> 12:03 PM) Heres a quick tidbit I thought Id share with everyone. Late afternoon on Saturday, we were driving on the Ryan northbound just past 31st, when to my right, I happened to look over to a guy on my right passing and when I couldve swore I saw a WS Ring on the guys hand (on the steering wheel). Sped up a bit and took a look at the guy, who now took a quick glance to his left, and it was Jermaine Dye! I laughed and gave him the thumbs up, he smiled. I happened to be wearing my SOX jacket, so I pointed to it and he gave us an even bigger smile and nodded his head. Thought that was pretty funny ........ You should have yelled to him how you spent all of last year screaming that he should be traded and the only reason the Sox signed him was because he came cheaper than getting a good RF. Isn't that how you felt about him?

QUOTE(Steff @ Jun 14, 2006 -> 01:17 PM) And we're off.... Coming out of the first turn its paranoia....followed closely by b****ing and moaning....here comes cubsession on the outside. cubsession gains as they come past the half mile marker...paranoia holding off b****ing and moaning but here comes cubsession! Into the final turn b****ing and moaning are going strong but its paranoia and cubsession.....here they come down the stretch....its paranoia, its cubsession, paranoia, cubsession and at the wire its cubsession followed by paranoia and b****ing and moaning! Hold your tickets folks because everyone is a loser at today's race.

QUOTE(Hangar18 @ Jun 14, 2006 -> 01:08 PM) I didnt think it was that big a deal, but apparently, the media are running wild with this the last couple of days. If they start letting outfielders wear wireless headphones ............... "Running wild with this the last couple of days."? Huh? The Tribune has a brief mention of it in the Cubs game recap today and the Sun-Times briefly mentions it in the Quick Hits. That is "running wild" with it? Man, you are paranoid.

QUOTE(Hangar18 @ Jun 14, 2006 -> 11:26 AM) Wait, your taking ONE LINE, where he mentions that the SOX are outspending the Cubs by $10 million ... where are you going with this? His article is RAHRAH, did you read the end of it? His throwing that $10 Million out there is certainly a way (in his mind) to remind the Cubs to start outspending the SOX. Its foolish on his part, because we know that simply spending $$$$$$$$$ doesnt guarantee winning. ("hey hangar, but werent you the one who called the SOX cheap because they wouldnt spend money? Your contradicting yourself again) I started my "crusade" in 2002, after years of noticing this ridiculous inequity in coverage. In fact, I noticed it Immediately in 81, 82, and especially in 84 when things got out of hand. The problem I had in posting my totals from 1984 was THE INTERNET WASNT READILY AVAILABLE as it is now. Your right, the random fan in SanDiego will hopefully read that and say to himself, WOW, the SOX are a big-market team After the SOX won the WS last year, I remarked often how things in the Media will change. Or how the Media will be FORCED to acknowledge the SOX and there was really only 2 ways for them to go. There was a reporter from the Tribune and SunTimes at the bar I was at (puffers) and they asked what all of this meant to me. I basically said the White Sox winning it all changes EVERYTHING, they will NOT be the dirty step-child of the city, and the Media will HAVE TO ACKNOWLEDGE the White Sox and Give them their DUE finally, they EARNED IT. Well, they never used my quote obviously. But the 2 ways the Media couldve gone (which is why alot of people were interested, myself included, to see how the Media would take the SOX winning) were either A: Give the SOX their due, and give them the EXTRA COVERAGE they didnt get previously OR B: Continue with Status Quo but b**** even more about the Cubs and What they need to do to win. So far, thru June 14th ................ that other team is winning But just because the internet wasn't available then doesn't mean you can't gather the data now. So you are just using your own perception from the 80's as "proof" with no hard data or facts. Pretty typical for you. You are also now admitting that the moment the Sox won the World Series, your first thoughts were about who is more popular. Obviously your real issue in all of this is being the most popular and nothing else. You are also admitting that just equal coverage isn't good enough for you. You want the coverage biased toward the Sox. This makes you a hypocrite. (No shock there since I have seen you being hypocritical on other issues as well.) You make the accusation of bias when you in turn want bias in favor of your view.

QUOTE(Hangar18 @ Jun 14, 2006 -> 10:50 AM) good questions. Kind of. DeLuca story is about BARRET, not the SOX. SOX only mentioned because they are part of that suspension,and DeLuca LAZILY uses ozzies quotes from day before YESTERDAY. The SunTimes felt compelled however to put this in the "cub" section. QuickHits uses its lead headline to determine what is the real "story" in its section. Had they used something else like "Woods likes Golf", I wouldnt have counted it. Greg Couch is ridiculing the Cubs. He sounds like a pissed off cub fan who is tired of losing and is trying to play GM and get them to do something. Of course, he submitted this from the Wrigley press box, and the Cubs are in town, so he is compelled to write a Cub story (unlike last week, where he did a piece on the Tigers ). I too see Couch laughing at the cubs ........... This article doesnt rub off as "negatively slanted" as much as its a "were tired of losing-heres what we need to do" piece. Couch could easily have written a piece on who is available for the SOX Pen, or we could have another update on Dustin Hermanson. Lazily uses quotes from the day before yesterday? What the hell does that prove? So if the quote happended yesterday instead it is better? Was he supposed to get Ozzie to repeat his reaction again a day after he already commented on it? Did you even bother to read what you wrote to see how insane it sounds? QuickHits is evil because it used a Cub headline? LOL. So if the Sun-Times starts plopping Sox headlines onto stream-of-consciousness articles then you are happy. Or would you then cry foul because they are only being lazy by adding Sox headlines to stories that don't really cover them in-depth? Aren't there mentions of Dustin Hermanson in other places in the paper? Is there really anything to mention about him that we don't know? My god, the guy's back is shot and his career is probably over. How much of an article can you get out of that? Are you saying Couch has never written a Sox article? Look at the link to his recent articles, since May 10th he has written 6 Sox articles to 4 for the Cubs. And since you only count the number of stories and not the tone or content, don't even say that is disputable because what he wrote about the Sox wasn't positive enough for you.

QUOTE(Hangar18 @ Jun 13, 2006 -> 01:00 PM) YES. One more Cub article over a SOX article is an insult, considering the White Sox had the 2nd best record in the entire 1990's. Its an insult considering that other team, since 1950, has only THREE 90-win seasons, yet since the 1980's, has outright dominated the White Sox in coverage in both newspapers You still haven't backed up your claim that the Cubs have "dominated" the Sox in coverage in both newspapers since the 1980's. You had said previously that you didn't start your little crusade until 2002, so how do you have proof that the number of stories have differed greatly since the 80's? QUOTE(Yossarian @ Jun 14, 2006 -> 10:46 AM) The Cubs aren't as far away as they look, and can rebuild on the fly. They can be ready for next year as long as they don't become sellers. Best I can figure, if they would save $8.5 million by dumping always-hurt Wood, $9 million by dumping old Greg Maddux and $5.7 million by dumping ineffective Juan Pierre. And that would free up $23.2 million. On top of that, the other guys in shoes similar to the Cubs' in the rich-boys club -- the two L.A. teams, Boston, the White Sox and the Mets -- are spending about $10 million more than the Cubs. The above comes from the Couch article. Sounds pretty supportive if you ask me. I don't want to get into a crossfire, or be subject to personal insults. That being said, if the Cubs ever put together a true championship team then you'd see how badly most of the so called sports journalists in this town want to cheer on the Cubs. It is a Cubs town journalistically. I'm old enough to remember when it was the other way around, all though not to the degree it is now. We all have short memories. Remember the Cubs near miss in 03? If the Cubs hadn't bonked and taken advantage of their best opportunity in 95 years it would have been the biggest sports story ever in Chicago, maybe nationally. No need to tear anything down. Just build. So says Mr. Couch. Doesn't sound like a rip job to me. But he mentions that the Sox are outspending the Cubs by $10 million. If he aim is to make the Cubs look good and the Sox look bad as Hangar claims, why would he do that? Wouldn't Hangar's random fan in San Diego read this and think, "Wow, the Sox are right there with the rich-boys. That team must be good."

QUOTE(Hangar18 @ Jun 14, 2006 -> 09:49 AM) Chicago NewsMedia Watch 6/14/06 The SOX win a nice game last nite, with the big story being the performance of the bullpen last nite. The SOX unfortuneately lose ground to the 4th Place Cubs and are now behind by 100 stories. Despite Winning the World Series in 2005, the White Sox find themselves INEXPLICABLY getting less attention from our 2 major Chicago newspapers, who somehow believe that the 5th Place cubs are worthy of more news coverage than a team that just won the World Series in 2005 AND are currently in 2nd place with one of the top records in baseball. Chicago Tribune: 4 cub stories 3 sox stories Chicago SunTimes: 7 cub stories 3 sox stories Standings as of Wednesday June 14th, 2006 Priviledged, Media Owned, Media Favored, 4th place in 2005 Cubs 578 Underdog, Media Maligned, Media Ignored, WS Champs in 2005 Sox 478 Shouldn't the Chris Deluca story in the Sun-Times count as a Cubs and Sox story? It is all about the suspensions from the brawl and has quotes from Ozzie in it and things about A.J. and Brian Anderson as well as Barrett. If not, then why are you counting the Quick Hits as a Cubs story. There is only about a paragraph or so about the Cubs using wireless phones in the bullpen and then there is a bunch of other stuff about other things in baseball and other sports. Also, the tone of the story by Greg Couch is almost ridiculing the Cubs. How would that fit your theory that the papers are writing only positive things about the Cubs and negative about the Sox in order to sway popularity. I can almost see Couch laughing at the state of the Cubs as he writes that.

I hope there is good RP out there to get via trade soon. Bone spurs causing "twinging" in the arm doesn't sound good. Early last year Politte was hitting 95-96 mph consistently. Late last year and all this year he is topping out around 91-92. In my opinion he isn't going to be the same guy as early last year until he has surgery to fix whatever is wrong. I wouldn't be shocked if he comes back and winds up going to the DL again shortly after that. I don't like the idea of going through the stretch run with two rookies in the bullpen. I hope there is a good veteran arm or two that they can get before then. That bullpen is the achilles heel of this team right now.

I hate the Cubs, but I hope they sweep Detroit and Cleveland. After that they can go back to their usual losing.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Jun 13, 2006 -> 04:08 PM) Is there more info on this? http://www.midwaybaseball.org I haven't heard if they are going to do a fall league this year. It all depends on field availability. I do know they are planning an offshoot league for guys 38 and over and hope to play some games this year in August after the regular league wraps up. I can talk to the guys that run our team and see if they plan to add any players. Our team is the Cardinals.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Jun 13, 2006 -> 02:48 PM) I would love to join a competitive league next summer or the end of this summer. Its been a short hiatus and I would love to get back into it. Let me know, there are always teams in our league looking for guys. We have 16 guys on our roster but we have only been getting 9 or 10 to shop up the past few games. We usually play a fall league where there are no win-loss records and the games are more like pick-up games but with umps.

QUOTE(Hangar18 @ Jun 13, 2006 -> 01:24 PM) Rick Morrissey, Chicago Tribune. It was a pretty big thread back when it happened, pissed off alot of SOX fans. And you know what? I was in Anaheim few weeks ago, chatting with some Angel fans. Someone casually mentioned that they "heard not a lot of SOX fans were at their own parade". Trib prints more stories about certain team. Perception is that certain team must be more important. Brought up the radio show to lay to rest some here who think other SOX fans dont notice this disparity. The guy that called in and lambasted the hosts was a "lawyer" from burbs somewhere, Marty was his name? He gave the hosts a reaming, saying Who Cares about the Cubs anymore, they stink, lets talk about a winning team instead, a team that won the World Series. He was mocked by the hosts and dismissed, I then was angry he was treated like that and tried to call, and they said NO, were talking cub right now. Point is, the media has simply gotten LAZY. Why try and do some work, when we can just talk about goats and curses and ivy. "Well dont listen anymore". I could do that ........... but then that doesnt solve the problem does it? Fact is, Id love to listen to the radio and hear interesting SOX topics. Were winning and we should dominate the airwaves. What were getting is far from it. The Trib shoving that other team down everyones throats has made sports talk/media in this town a JOKE. Jason brings up a good point, being in LA, everything was about the LAKERS and DODGERS, but they were WINNING! They should get the coverage and the love. A better comparison would be the Clippers getting TONS of coverage, even though the Lakers just won a NBA Title or something of that nature So if sports talk radio is a joke to you and you a yearning to discuss the World Champion White Sox, why go there to do so? You had a forum at WSI and you have a forum here where you can talk about the Sox with tons of other Sox fans 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. There isn't a topic pertaining to the Sox that hasn't been disected to death on either of the forums. But what do you instead choose to discuss on the forums? The media, seat colors and seat brackets, the media, arguments with Cub fans in bars, the media, things that happen in and around Wrigley field, and some more about the media. I don't think you really want the sports radio talk shows or the newspapers to talk about the Sox, so much as you want them to ignore the Cubs so you can get a thrill out of being popular and have that to shove in the face of all the Cub fans you encounter while out and about. I also think that you would trade away the current winning that the Sox are enjoying for more media coverage and assurance that the team you follow is more popular. If that is incorrect, then why do you continue to dwell on the popularity of the team in the papers and on the radio when they are defending their first championship in all of our lifetimes? Like Chisoxfan said, the World Series win is enough, who cares about all the rest. You sound like the Jan Brady to the Cub fan's Marsha. "Cubs, Cubs, Cubs. Why does everyone like them so much and not me? It isn't fair."

QUOTE(Hangar18 @ Jun 13, 2006 -> 01:00 PM) I will change this to newspaper watch. More stories = More Coverage. How is it that a team with a miserable record for a Century, can have More Coverage than a Winning Team? More Fans? Incorrect. They didnt have as many "fans" as they do now. Winning tradition? Laughable. They dont win. How do they continue to have more coverage, and have had more than the SOX since Ive been keeping track? Because they are owned by a Media conglomerate. My pointing it out everyday just paints a picture of how absurd the whole thing is This sounds like a teenage girl whining about not being homecoming queen because she wasn't as pretty and popular as the girl that won. "Why do they get more attention? We deserve it more?" Sorry, but it sounds pretty sad and pathetic.

QUOTE(Hangar18 @ Jun 13, 2006 -> 12:52 PM) YES. One more Cub article over a SOX article is an insult, considering the White Sox had the 2nd best record in the entire 1990's. Its an insult considering that other team, since 1950, has only THREE 90-win seasons, yet since the 1980's, has outright dominated the White Sox in coverage in both newspapers. It is an insult, and you should be offended. The fact you arent is troubling. The Tribune since becoming owners of that team, have set out to make sure their team was covered FIRST, covered MOST, and covered OFTEN. What about the other team? They made sure the SOX were covered LAST, covered LESS, covered INFREQUENTLY. Cub positives? PLAY THEM UP. Cub negatives? Bury it, dont talk about it. Instead, Bring up SOX NEGATIVES, Play Those up, talk about things that dont necessarily have anything to do with the team. Talk about the neighborhood, the fans, the crime. A couple of weeks ago, when that other team was in the midst of one of their losing streaks, a saturday morning show talked for hours on end, moaning and groaning about the woes of that team. Finally, callers started getting thru, saying WHO CARES, lets talk about a team fighting for 1st place, one of best teams in baseball. YOu know what the hosts said? Winning is Boring, nobody wants to talk about the SOX. It was BS, because when I called, the producers tell me thier taking only cub calls. It is an insult. My pointing out how that other team gets more stories, no matter the fortunes of the SOX is repulsive. The Media telling the world that those werent all SOX fans at the WS parade, tons of cub fans were there just to watch things is basically a LIE. Zach will say Who Cares, let them say what they want, or Jim saying Hey its a story about the SOX parade, why cant you be happy is everyone missing the point. So you have proof that the Cubs have dominated the Sox in coverage since the 80's? I thought you started this in 2002? Why should someone be offended about how much a newspaper writes about a baseball team? All that matters is seeing the team win, not winning popularity contests. A newspaper is a business and they are free to write about whatever they want. The Trib and Times writing about the Cubs and Sox does not affect my life and therefore doesn't offend me. If it did offend me, I wouldn't give them my money to read thier paper. And I don't give them my money because I read the Southtown. You should try the same. Same thing with radio shows. If they are not catering to your needs, then don't listen. Plus, I thought you were only counting the Trib and Times in your bias reports, now you mention radio shows. Which is it? So the Southtown doesn't count, but now radio shows do? Which shows count and which don't? Or again, does it only count if it fits your perception of bias?