greg775

QUOTE (Harry Chappas @ Apr 27, 2011 -> 02:32 AM) He bunted to get to Tex and A ROD not Omar and Pierre. So what, every manager bunts in that situation no matter what and yet Oz gets ripped by Sox fans on here when he does it.

Oz gets no credit for this win? He managed very very well in a game the offense stunk again. By the way, yes the Yankees bunted in the ninth inning as Oz also woulda done. People think Oz is so different. It called for a bunt so NY bunted.

QUOTE (fathom @ Apr 27, 2011 -> 02:16 AM) It wasn't a defensive sub He still deserves credit for having Lilly in rf.

QUOTE (Real @ Apr 27, 2011 -> 03:10 AM) We lose that game with CQ in RF I guess Ozzie isn't so dumb after all, putting Lilly in right for the ninth. Kudos to you, Ozzie! and Lilly!

Beckham

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Apr 26, 2011 -> 05:18 AM) After 5 years of not criticizing Ozzie and basically letting things fly because he won the World Series, even I have come to the point where Im just tired. Just one day a season I want to feel that we are going to out manage the other team. Badger you sound like a guy who had a bad day. Go grab a Schlitz in honor of Chicago/Wisconsin natives.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Apr 26, 2011 -> 05:16 AM) I have no problem with blow back. I just get annoyed when my point isnt coming across clearly and then I end up having to try and respond to several points at once, which I then get lazy and just blur everything together, which makes it even less coherent. But then I stop caring because its just a message board argument and I know at minimum I wont say anything to bury myself. Not to mention the game was going on and I was just hoping that Ozzie didnt some how find a way to snatch defeat from victory again. As for Santos compared to Soria. Im not saying Santos should never go 4,5 or 6 outs, Im just saying today, his first save at yankee stadium while the Sox are really struggling, is not the day I give him a difficult save. Maybe after he has 5-10 saves I start to give him a longer rope, but today, I give him every chance to succeed. Yup, your points are well taken.

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Apr 26, 2011 -> 03:46 AM) Yeup, exactly my thought process. That building is going to deflate if we can manage the first goal. If they put one in the back of the net first though, everything changes. Yes yes yes. I hope this team is fired up out of its goard. For some reason I don't think the Canucks are deflated like one of the columnists said. They still are playing the Hawks, the reigning champs, albeit a shadow of last year's team. If we do get the first goal, however, the fans might be thinking about the epic choke after being up 3-0.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Apr 26, 2011 -> 04:36 AM) I said his argument was dumb, and most of that was because the poster doesnt seem to understand my argument, which makes his argument back make no sense to me. Once we realized that neither of us are on the same page, it hasnt been a thing. It has nothing to do with Ozzie, Santos or anything other than what I have seen in my life. I feel that I have seen players get messed up due to blown save situations, and after watching Thornton fail so hard, I just would be extra cautious with Santos. I stand by what I said, Ozzie shouldnt have put Santos in during the 8th if he planned to use him as the closer in the 9th. I would not have done it. The Sox won, Im glad to be wrong, I just think that we need to have a much better plan in the future. Hope for the best, prepare for the worst. QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Apr 26, 2011 -> 05:05 AM) Not expecting anyone to agree with me at all. Had an annoying day, and instead of my normal "Im not going to get involved" attitude, I decided that I was going to say what I felt. It happens once every 5 years, I stopped getting involved a long time ago, and for the most part I stick with that, but every once in a while a brief moment in time happens where I just cant stop myself. As for the second part, of course. Even a ball boy arguably has more contact with the White Sox than an average fan on a message board. But that doesnt mean that I as an average fan on a message board, dont have the right to make a logical argument about why that manager may have made a bad decision. Otherwise, why have the message board. If I just wanted to congratulate myself on my own brilliance Id start a blog or become a sports journalist (zing haha). No need to apologize Badger. It's interesting to watch other people get in 'fights' on here after all the fights I got in last year. I can totally see your point. Normally I might agree. It's just that I've wanted Santos to be the 'closer' for a while now and I know Soria with the Royals used to have four and five out saves a lot, so I was glad to see Ozz go to Santos, even tho as you say, Crain could have been used in the 8th. Soria, though, has had several one and a half inning saves for the inept Royals.

QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Apr 26, 2011 -> 04:13 AM) Survive the first wave the Canucks throw at you in the first. The crowd will probably be in it at the start, survive the first 10 or so and at least be 0-0. If you can somehow get a lead, you might take the air out of the place, Vancouver might start to panic, etc. I feel like in all the game 7's I've watched, the games are generally low scoring. Penalty calls are a bit lower, kind of like OT, but not that drastic. So... Stay out of the penalty box. The only acceptable calls are trips or hooks in your defensive zone when there's a scoring opportunity at hand. The Scott punch, the Kane high stick, any other retaliatory or stupid stick fouls in the offensive zone will kill you. Goals will probably be at a premium in this game, so don't give them PP opportunities that they don't "earn." Keep your hands and stick down when receiving/giving a check. The few PP chances we do get, need to score on one of them. Vancouver has done a good job having their weak side D and/or weak side forward cut off the cross ice pass to the back door or far point. Don't force it. Work the one timer to the strong side D who can move towards the slot, or do a give and go down low with two forwards off the strong side if they are going to take that option away. You are right in one respect, Crawford has to play well. If either goalie has a sloppy game, that team will lose, the end. I don't know that he has to steal it, but Crawford needs to stop everything he's supposed to stop, and maybe steal a few. Limit the turnovers in the defensive and neutral zone. When in doubt, the safe play needs to be made. Off the glass, high out of the zone, etc. Also, keep getting out to the points to get some shot blocks. Last game our forwards got sucked down too much because of the Van cycle game. You can't cheat too much, you've got to rely on your 2 d and centers to take care of them down low. Can't let them sneak in and/or get good alleys for shots with no chance of a block. That started to kill us last game. Luckily, Vancouver missed the net on a bunch of them, and missed some tip opportunities. They took a lot more shots than we did. s*** like that goes in off tips and skates and everything else, as we've seen a few times, so limit it. If Vancouver takes the lead, don't panic, they've proven they can get back in it. The key last night was never falling behind by 2. They take the lead, you have to figure out a way to get the next one. Bottom line, like I mentioned earlier, stars and leaders usually win game 7's. That's not to say Ben Smith won't somehow be a hero again. But to win these big games, your star players have to outplay (or at least match) their star players. That goes for goaltending, too. Toews and Kane (even Sharp) have yet to really dominate a game. This would be a great time to do so, and they are WAY overdue. Also, hope the puck bounces our way a time or two. Rebounds, odd deflections, posts, etc. Wow, nice post.

OK guys, let's cut the Luongo is a choker talk and how we are in his head, etc. and discuss technical aspects of Game Seven. What do you see as technically the key to the Hawks winning? Vancouver is going to be fired up beyond belief, probably even moreso than the Hawks, since Vancouver is the One Seed and THIS IS IT for them. It's on their home ice where the Hawks flattened them, 5-0. Is it all on our goalie? To have the first period of his life? I fully expect the Canucks to pepper him with five or more picture-perfect shots that have a reasonable chance of going in, during the all-important first period. I'm saying they'll have more than five shots, of course, but at least five that could beat Crawford on a given night. Can Crawford play the game of his life? Yes, I'm putting it all on Crawford, cause I feel the Canucks are going to out play the Hawks big time in period No. One. Percentage wise, what chance do you give Chicago of winning? 30? 70? What??

I see no need to argue this one tonight. Sergio was the right call. Why? Because the Sox haven't had a need for a closer in what, 11 games? It was time to throw him out there rather than have Thornton face even one batter. Like mod said, Thornton can be used in pressure cooker again after he and the team get on a bit steadier ground. Sergio baby.

Humber was great. Kudos to him. Sergio looked like he belonged. He's the only guy on this staff capable of closing regularly I believe, though Thornton and Sergio and Sale might be a decent closer by committee if Oz reads them right on a given night. The offense sucked big-time again, but Sox won and that's all that matters.

It was great to see him line a hit to go with two walks. Sox hitting sucked again tonight, though.

Nice bunt, Juan. Why not drag it toward third? Geez.

Well I was wrong about Morel. He can't hit, can he?

QUOTE (jeffro2525 @ Apr 25, 2011 -> 11:42 PM) A bunt by Rios either goes foul, and he strikes out eventually, or Paulie gets thrown out at 3rd. It would take a really good bunt to get PK from 2nd to 3rd...and considering right now Rios can't do anything right...the odds of him laying down a successful SAC bunt are slim anyhow. I agree. It's not so much I was calling for the bunt in the second inning, just saying we can fail both ways. Whether we go for the 'big inning' or bunt, it can be the same ol s*** with the White Sox. Rios should be ashamed of himself for not getting the runners over.

QUOTE (fathom @ Apr 25, 2011 -> 11:36 PM) Yep, bunting in the 2nd inning against the Yankees with Humber on the mound is a great recipe to win a game. It would also take a perfect bunt to get Konerko to 3rd. Rios didn't help matters. A bunt would have at least moved the runners over if Rios couldn't do it conventionally. A bunt and it's second and third and one out and you know, maybe a slight chance to get a single or 2 to take a 2-0 lead. Of course it'd take 2 singles.

Sox are snake bit. Beckham takes a meaty fastball right over the middle.

How can AJ get fooled by that s*** pitch? Wake up, AJ.

And that is why you bunt sometimes. Cause Rios couldn't move the runners over. FAIL

QUOTE (The Ginger Kid @ Apr 23, 2011 -> 04:08 AM) I think a lot of you haters are going to be choking on those harsh words about Peavy. I think he's going to be effective by June and dominant by July/August. This hater thinks we'll be 11 games out or more when he's ready and at that point, why pitch him? I mean what purpose would that serve? I'd put him in middle relief if we are more than 10-12 games out just so he can get comfortable again.

QUOTE (Ranger @ Apr 25, 2011 -> 07:17 PM) There isn't anything wrong with being able to execute "smallball" when it needs to be executed. Bunting isn't ALWAYS the dumbest thing in the world as suggested by statheads. It has its place, even in the AL. Gardenhire, Maddon, Leyland, and Scioscia seem to agree as well, and I'm pretty sure none of those guys are baseball stupid. Contrary to popular perception, Ozzie doesn't do it any more than any other manager in the league does it. He's fairly standard in that regard. Exactly. Why don't people realize the bunt sometimes is called for. I'd like to see a study of how many times the Sox mess up bunt situations compared to other teams, however. Included in that would be having two horrible attempts then striking out conventionally as well as popping into triple plays on bunts, etc. This season has a chance to be remembered for 2 things: Bunting into a triple play and those bullpen implosions that sent our team on this tailspin. Somebody deserves to be fired just for those 2 things sending this team into a downward spiral that buried it.

QUOTE (EMONEY @ Apr 25, 2011 -> 06:46 PM) I've been against Ozzie for a few years. He certainly knows baseball, but it's pretty clear that he can't get people to play for him. It's not a fluke, I think that he completely mishandled Slring Training the past few years. All we ever heard was, "We're not doing so well now, but things will come around when the season starts." Well, the season started and our adrenaline got us through the first few games, but then the players have shown that they're comletely unprepared and overmatched. When watching games, it's pretty evident that our team just isn't as good as the opponents. The Tampa series was the worst display of baseball that I've seen in a long time. Firing Ozzie probably won't result in a winning season, but he needs to go regardless. Having said all that, if I owned the Sox, I'd drop Dunn, Teahen, maybe Pierre, maybe AJ, and a few pitchers. I just can't imagine that there will be the ticket sales to support "All In" and the team can't afford to have a bad year. That's not a bad post when you read it closely.

QUOTE (Ranger @ Apr 25, 2011 -> 07:22 PM) That's pretty stupid. You shouldn't ever want them to be swept. I agree. Getting swept will be humiliating again. That's intriguing about roster changes. That might have more impact than canning Ozz when you think about it. But who do we dump? Is Dayan ready? Maybe bring him up and play him immediately. Put Beckham at leadoff and Pierre ninth. Stuff like that. Move Dunn to eighth.