SI1020

QUOTE (103 mph screwball @ Jul 29, 2009 -> 01:37 PM) Can't blame Josh. Maybe he can get trade to a team who might actually be able to FIX his swing. First Brian and now Josh. Is this a case of two weak minded young players or should the Sox organization examine themselves and figure out why guys like these did not succeed. Is it Ozzie? Is it the minor league instruction? Walker? AJ!? Please Please figure this out before we are talking about Beckham or Mitchell wanting out of town in a few years. Agree.

We went to see the Charlotte Knights play Rochester on Saturday night. Brian Anderson was in CF for the Knights. He went 1 for 5 and for the most part looked not so good at the plate. I don't have the ability to make a scout quality assessment like Jason and some other posters here, but his swing has so many weaknesses. He was retired three times on off speed pitches low and away, twice stiking out and looking bad. In the bottom of the ninth he came up with the bases loaded and one out and grounded weakly to third forcing the winning run at home. He did have an RBI double, a screamer in the left center field gap, and did make a fine running catch in CF, but alas it looks like it will never click for him at the plate.

Read the comments. Most of those replying to this awful article get it.

I don't want Granderson to see a fastball in that count. Bobby's fastball is nothing special at this point, and it seems that he is reluctant to throw the curve in certain situations. Jenks for whatever reason, hasn't had the velocity of his initial season. When his heater isn't moving and locating right, the hitters feast, and that is exactly what they have been doing of late. This would have been a nice save to get him started back on the right track. I wish I could hit the reset button and have him think that pitch over again.

QUOTE (Melissa1334 @ Jul 26, 2009 -> 03:25 AM) probly bcuz he threw all fastballs. he struck out the 1st batter by throwing 2 fastballs then the hook got him out. with granderson, he had him 0-2 and the next pitch, he throws him a fastball in the zone when a breaking pitch gets him and the games over. I totally agree.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ Jul 22, 2009 -> 05:41 AM) His off speed stuff looked great for the first 2 hitters last night, I don't think anybody would argue that. The fastball velocity thing baffles me though, because his heater has looked to the naked eye to be the worst it's ever been this year, and hitters seem to be hitting it harder than they ever have been. I agree about the fastball. At times he's been able to mix in a knee buckling curveball and a decent slider. When those pitches are not working as well the diminshed fastball is very hittable. Count me among those concerned about Jenks.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jul 21, 2009 -> 07:16 PM) Borchard has made me extremely wary of sick power and lots of K's. Granted they are not the same player, i understand that, I just dont like to see that high of a percentage of K's in any player. I don't like it either.

QUOTE (CanOfCorn @ Jul 15, 2009 -> 08:33 PM) McD's guy is Scotty Bowman, yes? Well, as much as I love Dale Tallon for the years he has given to this organization, Scotty Bowman is better. I don't know enough about Stan Bowman, but if he is half the hockey guy as his father, he'll be twice the GM Dale was. Check out the Trib today for Dale's 5 best and 5 worst things he's done. I think the 5 worst outweigh the 5 best, by a lot. I couldn't disagree more. Just because a guy's name is Bowman he still has to prove himself. I just don't understand all this Tallon hate. Do people forget how long this team was beyond abysmal? Tallon did a very good job. As far as his five worst moves being so much worse than his five best, I can't see that either. It has been said by several sources that worst move number one was actually the responsibility of the man that replaced him. I say that not to absolve Tallon of the blame he deserves but to put things in a little perspective. If you've worked for a while then you know that sometimes it doesn't matter if you're good at your job or not when a new team comes in. McDonough for all his supposed marketing genius comes across to me as very arrogant and thin skinned. It won't matter one whit if the Hawks end their long Stanley Cup drought. Personally I think they are still a little short, and if they should happen to meet the Penguins in the finals next year, the result will be the same as in 1992.

QUOTE (La Marr Hoyt HOF @ Jul 15, 2009 -> 11:15 PM) Was very cool to see the President in a Sox jacket ... that said, and I'm not questioning his legitimacy as a Sox fan, but during the Costas interview referring to the old park as Kominsky Park? Anyone else catch that? President Kennedy would pronounce the country 90 miles from Florida, "Cuber". President Carter was heard to speak about nukeyer power. Our recently departed President was known to fracture the language a time or two. Anyway, he looked good in that Sox jacket. His delivery needs a little work but at least now maybe more people from the hinterlands will not automatically assume that everyone from Chicago roots for the Cubs.

As I was reading this thread I was prepared to make a long reply. It's not necessary. SS2K5, YASNY and Dick Allen said it best. Sometimes I think stat geeks are determined to squeeze every last ounce of joy out of the game. Joe Crede doesn't suck. Even if you're really into stats his defense is continually above average in a number of categories. This year he has been outstanding to date in the field. As for the game, I'm glad they won a tough one on the road against a team that usually gives them trouble. It was nice to see the bottom of the order come alive. Even better to see that they can score runs different ways and play the kind of game Ozzie likes to play. It would be such a lift to win this series going into the All Star game break.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jul 8, 2009 -> 04:17 AM) I'm sorry, but I really just don't buy into this. I think people are going waaaayyy too far in crying about this economy. Sure, the economy is bad. Sure, people are losing their jobs. Sure, people lost money in the stock market. But honestly, how many of us here have had their lives changed in the past 18 months so significantly so that we can no longer afford to go to White Sox games? It's like a massive social excuse for everything bad that happens to people now...the economy, the economy, the economy. While it's certain some people have had their lives significantly changed, whether it be through losing their jobs, losing some of their 401k, etc., this has not been such a great disaster that 95% of our fans cannot continue to support the team as they always have. Let them eat cake.

QUOTE (hogan873 @ Jul 1, 2009 -> 12:17 PM) I'm not going to make a prediction and say that the Sox will go to the playoffs. They may, especially if they continue to play like they have of late. This team, however, is very exciting to watch right now. And that is what makes me happy. We've got some young talent (and some not so young, Pods I'm looking at you) that are playing very well. The pitching is good, runners are getting on base, and bases are being stolen. Sure the homers are still there, and no one is going to complain about that, but we are starting to see more manufactured runs. Playoff bound? Not sure yet. Team worth watching? Absolutely. Great post.

I just love that big beautiful L sign, and this made my weekend too. Things looked so grim on Friday. That's the Linebrink I want to see out there. Danks had the Cubs for lunch twice.

The fielding percentage would be a few points lower if not for Konerko. Alexei Ramirez should be especially thankful.

After it was offline awhile I was wondering maybe it isn't and maybe I'm banned. I wasn't planning on posting much, but I do like to read. So now that it's back that's what I'll do. I know the folks that run this place have taken it a long way from its humble beginnings.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 12, 2009 -> 03:06 PM) Thank you. Soxtalk has been around for almost 6 years now, and nothing we have done resembles WSI. It is disrespectful of the job that they admins and mods have done here to mention WSI everytime that having some decency and standards gets mentioned here. I have full faith that we can have a better posting enviorment without being like that. It amazes me that people who have been here for a long time don't believe in the people who bring this site to you enough to think that this would turn into WSI. Looking at the entirety of the thread I've got to believe you had me in mind when you posted this. Maybe not just me, but I get the point and can easily remedy the problem.

I'm as opinionated a person you would ever hope to meet. That being said, if I cross a line just let me know. I didn't come here, or should I say back here, to spread ill will. I would just like to have my say while remaining cyber friendly.

QUOTE (The Critic @ Jun 12, 2009 -> 02:58 PM) FWIW, put me in the camp of "personal attacks bad, negativity good (or at least acceptable)". I don't want to see over-modding of the site. That would bland things up in a hurry. In almost any thread, you can skim over the "bad posts" and find a lot of good points and interesting discussion/debate. I don't think we necessarily need to eliminate the more negative (or even the relatively pointless) posts in order to find or highlight the "better" ones. A lot of times the non-sequiturs save a thread for me by giving me something to laugh about. I like WSI (even when they can get a little stiff for my liking), but I don't need two WSI's. I pretty much agree with this post. I would hate to see the pack mentality that exists at WSI take hold here. I've been at ST since the days of soxnet with some long absences in the interim. This site has survived worse turbulence in the past. It's really impressive how the site has grown from its modest beginnings.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 10, 2009 -> 08:19 PM) I never argued the power of the Fed, nor did I say that a quick explanation was the end all be all of the economic history of northwest Indiana. I am also smart enough to realize that they do not have anywhere near the complete control of the economy that the conspiratilists would have you believe. Especially in this day and age, it had become less and less, that is until the Obama administration showed up and gave the government absolute power over just about everything. I don't think you are going to shake me off of thirty years of research and observation either, especially with an economics degree to back up my understanding of how the economic sector actually works. LOL. Get 10 economists in a room and you have 11 different opinions. Would like to hash this out with you in the real world some day. Probably won't happen, I don't get to the midwest much. Oh by the way, I'm not a conspiracy theory kind of guy. Most conspiracy theories are BS. I still don't like the Fed. I still appreciate AJ for beating back the dogs and actually paying off the debt. What a novel idea. We're now looking at the possiblity of the permanent lowering of American living standards. You don't need an economics degree to see as Ollie once said to Stan "what a fine mess" we've got ourselves into.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jun 10, 2009 -> 06:56 PM) You don't post here enough to make sweeping generalizations like that. You're absolutely right. That was a shoot from the hip statement to make, and you shouldn't do that. Although I posted here when this place was just soxnet.net (man do I miss those days) I have had long absences in the interim.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 10, 2009 -> 06:56 PM) Wait, you want to try to tell me that the Fed was responsible for the crash of the economy in NW IN? I know exactly what the problem is here. I grew up in it, and it had nothing to do with a bank. It was a group of labor that overpriced itself in a world-wide market place, and then refused to shop the same sorts of products and services. It doesn't take a big leap of faith to understand it. You're right. That's part of it. But only part of it. John Hoerr's book The Wolf Finally Came is a good comprehensive look at what happend to the steel industry in the 80s. It doesn't absolve labor. At the same time to make the sweeping generalization you did is not accurate either. The Fed has much more economic clout and power than any President. When you control the money supply and interest rates then you have life and death power over the economy. It doesn't take a big leap of faith to understand that either. Look, I think you're a great long time Sox fan with a positive outlook on life and the Sox. You're not going to shake me off of over thirty years of research and observation.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 10, 2009 -> 07:44 PM) Because the world didn't have boom or bust cycles before the National Bank was set up by Jackson? Sigh. What can I say in a hopeless cause? If you don't know all the damage the Fed has caused, with it's malovelent hand in almost every economic downturn since it's inception, then pass me the kool ade I guess. I'm with Ron Paul. Audit it and then get rid of it. Yeah I know old Andy Jackson was a cantankerous fighter. I like Geronimo, Crazy Horse and Sitting Bull too. Can I at least make it to purgatory? If you want I could outline in brief detail the dirty deeds of the Fed since the 74-75 recession. I don't really believe people come to this forum to learn, but rather to flame each other. Oh wait. You live in NW Indiana right? You should definitely know better then.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Jun 10, 2009 -> 03:24 PM) Chemistry is very important for a team to have, especially in such a long season as we have. A player-player or player-manager feud can really drain a team's energy or focus. Thus, a good manager can help the team stay focused, loose, yet aggresive while putting the right player in the right position, basically giving the team hte best chance to succeed. It is then up to the players to perform in those positions. A bad manager can lose his team's faith or focus, and instead of devoting their time to scouting or film the players may be spending their time arguing with who should be playing or some fued between the manager and player. The team can get tense, lackadaisical, etc. and really hurt the team's ability to win. Ozzie was great in 2005 because the player's performed in the positions given (atleast most of them, especially the starters and the bullpen). When the team got unfocused towards the end Ozzie was able to get them back on the right track and not have them combust like they were looking too. Ozzie now is setting himself up for failure by playing his favorites who are not performing and thus making his decisions look bad not only to fans, but to management and players alike. His team isnt just worried about winning now, they are worried about who is going to be in the lineup, who is going to get called down, who is coming up, who is losing playing time, what the other players are doing. I can often count on someone here making my points better than I can myself. Excellent post.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jun 10, 2009 -> 02:06 PM) I really wonder how much difference managers make in wins and losses. Really good managers can steal you a few wins in a season. A manager does need talent, that's obvious. Look at Casey Stengel with the Yanks and then with the Mets. Still, a manager can say and do things that are counterproductive and Ozzie is doing just that now. Plus Ozzie was never a good game day manager.

QUOTE (Melissa1334 @ Jun 10, 2009 -> 01:57 PM) yup, worst sox manager of all time. No, not the worst but certainly not the best either. Look I realize if you call out Ozzie or KW then some folks will send the hounds out after you. Both have strengths and weaknesses, but in Ozzie's case it would be better for both parties if it were to end.