SI1020

QUOTE (SoxFan562004 @ Jun 10, 2009 -> 06:04 AM) yeah, it's unecessary. Hopefully JR talks to him about it because I don't think KW would work. I'll make a wild prediction that Ozzie "retires" after this season Some of us can only hope.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jun 9, 2009 -> 07:41 PM) Tell that to the Native Americans slaughtered because of his policy. Somehow I doubt they'd care about economic cycles of today. Of course I bow to your obvious moral superiority. Still I wonder who said the following. "I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion." "No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith." "I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. We have definitely adopted the position at the Peace Conference of arguing in favour of the retention of gas as a permanent method of warfare. It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes." "One may dislike Hitler's system and yet admire his patriotic achievement. If our country were defeated, I hope we should find a champion as indomitable to restore our courage and lead us back to our place among the nations." What famous historical figure said this? “We believe as much in the purity of race as we think they do, only we believe that they would best serve these interests, which are as dear to us as to them, by advocating the purity of all races, and not one alone. We believe also that the white race of South Africa should be the predominating race.” How about this? "I am not, nor have I ever been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races" Try saying something like this today and see how long your political career lasts. "The Jews, I find, are very, very selfish. They care not how many Estonians, Latvians, Finns, Poles, Yugoslavs or Greeks get murdered or mistreated as D(isplaced) P(ersons) as long as the Jews get special treatment. ... Despite those harsh words the man responsible for this diary entry is still looked on by most as a hero to Israel. Some people are able to approach historical events and historical figures in more than a one dimensional manner. These are just quotes. I could have used many actual events, but who reads long posts on the internet or really goes to message boards to actually learn? Back to Andrew Jackson. Unless you are a Seminole or some other person of native ancestry when are you going to return to Europe, Africa, Asia or wherever it is your ancestors came from?

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jun 9, 2009 -> 06:19 PM) Complete douche IMO I never view history or historical figures totally from the moral prism of today. If more Presidents had been like Andrew Jackson there we be no Federal Reserve Bank and with it the incessant boom and bus cycles in the economy. This one having pushed the world to the brink of a financial catastrophe.

The list of ones I don't like is a lot longer than the ones I do. The ones in office today are for the most part abysmal. While I'm typing this I'm trying real hard to remember some names from the past or the present more to my liking. I'm still typing. OK Andrew Jackson James K Polk Charles Augustus Lindbergh (father of the aviator) Robert Taft Barry Goldwater Ron Paul Gustav Streseman Konrad Adenauer Although not in agreement with his political philosophy I agree with the late British historian AJP Taylor, a brilliant and quirky iconclast who felt that history was made for the most part by towering figures of stupidity rather than of genius.

QUOTE (KipWellsFan @ Jun 8, 2009 -> 03:52 AM) Yah, Drudge's tilts are kind of annoying sometimes. He's always obsessing over the latest climate change skepticism. I do too. I have a documentary from 1978 warning about the impending Ice Age.

QUOTE (WCSox @ Jun 8, 2009 -> 06:25 PM) Most likely because Andro was legal and available at GNC back then. There's speculation that McGwire intentionally placed the bottle there to deflect attention from what he was really taking. I suppose that's possible but most conspiracy theories are BS. Yes, andro was legal, but that plus the massive McGwire physique could have and should have raised eyebrows. I remember well the intense media hype in 98. No one wanted to break up the party.

QUOTE (WCSox @ Jun 8, 2009 -> 04:55 PM) (1) Quentin's hurt (2) Danks is having an off-year, after all of the extra innings he threw last season (3) Floyd is back to his inconsistent self (4) Contreras and Colon are both done (5) No leadoff hitter with a decent OBP in April (although Pods is hitting well now) (6) Alexei had a terrible April (7) Fields appears to have been highly-overrated Thankfully, the rest of the division isn't much better and I don't see why the Sox can't contend. Getting Quentin back and Alexei re-gaining form will help. I don't disagree with any of your points but I continue to wonder in frustration why the bigger and supposedly stronger pitchers of today are so fragile. I don't accept any of the pat explanations about it either.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jun 8, 2009 -> 02:58 PM) I read a study on the Sosa/McGwire saving baseball and the truth was it was total BS. In 1998 when they had their run at history attendance was up about 7 million from 1997, but there were 2 new teams that drew about 6 million between them. So there was an increase of about 1 million from 97 which was less than increase between 96 and 97. Attendance actually dipped in 99. So the whole saving baseball crap is just that. It does bother me now as much as I dislike Sosa and McGwire, the villians they are made out to be now when it was so "obvious" they were doing steroids. How come no one, not baseball, not fellow players, not the media, not the fans called them out when this was happening if it was so obvious? Oh McGwire was called out all right, but the reporter that broke the McGwire andro story was shouted down by a very angry mob. Baseball and it's public didn't want to hear about it back then. Of course the Canseco revelations and the sudden appearance of a cyborg who used to be Barry Bonds changed all that. McGwire andro story ignored

QUOTE (scenario @ Jun 7, 2009 -> 09:53 PM) Yikes. Stop. The problem is that you don't know what you don't know. There are lots of good books that cover the topics of how the business of baseball and baseball measurements have changed over the last 25 years. Start there. No, the problem is that some of us do know. We just don't fall for it hook, line and sinker and even worse refuse to deify Bill James.

QUOTE (kyyle23 @ Jun 5, 2009 -> 02:14 PM) oT a cixelsid sith sdaer yltcefrep I understood that. Should I be worried?

QUOTE (Texsox @ May 29, 2009 -> 06:30 PM) Who was it that robbed a 7-11, in his DePaul letterman's jacket, six months after graduation he left DePaul? Skip Dillard.

QUOTE (scenario @ Jun 4, 2009 -> 05:39 PM) Ok... whatever. By the way, Bill James was an accountant... who is now fabulously rich because baseball people finally decided that his stupid numbers really matter. Baseball as a whole has lagged waaaaaaaaay behind other industries in learning how to appropriately use statistics to improve their business. Like living in the freakin' dark ages type of behind... kicking and screaming to avoid change and progress that is routinely being applied by other successful businesses. Most fans have been right there with them, confused by numbers, and longing for the good old days when numbers didn't matter. Sorry. That cat is out of the bag. You prefer to continue to think the world is flat? Be my guest. Your post is both arrogant and insulting. Some hot trends have merit. Others do not. If refusing to bow to the universal wisdom of Pythagorean wins and it's proof of Ozzie's superior management skills means living in the dark ages to you there is nothing I can do about it. Some of us have actually spent hours crunching some of the latest stats and come away less than impressed. So go cry in the corner or stamp your feet or whatever you feel is necessary.

QUOTE (southsideirish71 @ Jun 4, 2009 -> 04:47 PM) So are you resisting the entire Digital TV thing also. Of course I am. I ride a horse too.

QUOTE (scenario @ Jun 4, 2009 -> 04:16 PM) So, the fact that it consistently predicts correctly is stupid and shortsighted to you and a bad reason to use it. I'm afraid this won't have the outcome you like. I'm not a zealot for the new stats. I think it might have been better if Bill James had been an accountant or sold tacos from a road side stand. The fact that many or most teams real wins might match fairly closely their Pythagorean wins does not move me. It doesn't take into consideration short term trends and various other anomalies and outliers. In the end, I want to know how a team really did. If a team has a substantial run differential and doesn't have the corresponding wins one might expect, or the opposite, a team with lots of close game wins and more wins than the formula would indicate, I'm not going to take the knee jerk reaction. Believe me, this is only part of my dislike of the whole sabermetrics thing. It will just make you mad at me, and I'd like to stay on mostly friendly terms here. I will continue to gag every time I hear the words "Pythagorean wins." I just do not approach baseball or any other sport that way.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jun 4, 2009 -> 03:06 AM) 3B at Charlotte should be a sign. Bye bye Josh. If Getz is healthy I'd rather see Beck at third, Lexi at short and Getz at 2B. I agree.

QUOTE (scenario @ Jun 4, 2009 -> 01:48 AM) Why? Because judging a team based on run or point differential is stupid and shortsighted IMHO. I could care less how many Pythagorean wins a team has, they don't count in the standings. At least not yet. They may someday if some stats geeks have their way.

QUOTE (Lemon_44 @ Jun 3, 2009 -> 08:57 PM) in my short time here, that may be one of the funnier things i have read. that's kind of like saying Tiger Woods really isn't all that good because he misses alot of fairways off the tee.Nevermind the fact that he wins all the time, he needs to straighten out that driver. Ozzie Guillen is not the Tiger Woods of baseball managers. The thing is White Sox fans starved a winner for longer than the average persons lifetime, finally cashed in with Ozzie at the helm. I could name a few Sox managers that I believed to be superior to Ozzie Guillen, and that is sacreligious to some I suppose. Ozzie has his strengths as a person and as a manager. It shouldn't be a problem if some of us long time Sox fans don't think he is the best thing since sliced bread. Ozzie as a motivator I like. Ozzie's philosophy on how to play the game I like. Ozzie's lineups and game day moves often leave me dazed and confused. One more thing and this is not directed at you, just a general comment. I find the Pythagorean wins formula to be one of the more worthless of the newer Saber stats that many are in awe of.

QUOTE (TitoMB345 @ Jun 3, 2009 -> 04:05 PM) Because Ozzie Guillen doesn't know how to manage a lineup. Ozzie is not a good game day manager. His mismanagment of the post Rowand CF situation is now approaching legendary status. QUOTE (Special K @ Jun 3, 2009 -> 04:50 PM) I love Anderson as much as the next guy, but Guillen has a never ending vendetta against him Guillen is trying to get Wise a lot of playing time now for these two weeks b/c if Wise gets hot, when Quentin comes up, he finally has an excuse to get Anderson off this roster. Guillen is sitting there and praying Wise has the 2 weeks of his life so nobody can say anything when he keeps Wise instead of BA. Unfortunately, Wise just isn't good enough to do it. This post took some hits but I have to say I agree. I don't pretend to know why Ozzie feels this way. QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Jun 3, 2009 -> 05:01 PM) I'm not so sure about that. Ozzie sees Javy sucks when it counts, so Javy is off the team. Ozzie hates Swisher's attitude, so he's gone. Ozzie see Boone Logan, Mike MacDougal, etc. all sucking ass so they are gone. Ozzie sees Jerry Owens and DeWayne Wise sucking so he gives them more playing time. Something doesn't quite fit. You know it doesn't fit. Could it be his dislike of BA is so strong that he is giving marginal players like Owens and Wise every chance and then some? QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Jun 3, 2009 -> 05:07 PM) I don't even care about that. Give him away for absolutely nothing. The kid deserves a chance to play and if Ozzie won't start him in the sorriest CF situation in all of baseball then Ozzie & Kenny need to f*** off already and give him a chance elsewhere. If the Sox have believed since 2006 that Rob Mackowiak, Darin Erstad, DeWayne Wise, Jerry Owens, and Scott Podsednik were all better CF options than BA then get BA out of here and run out grinder du jour for the next two seasons for all I care since they're just going to do it anyway. I don't know if BA can cut it in the long term, but the way he's been handled with the Sox almost guarantees his failure. He's never going to be even a good hitter, but if he can hit .260 or so with a little pop in the bat his D is worth it. Jim Landis made a career of it and BA can too. I know it's ancient history, but Landis was given a long term chance and BA needs one too. He's apparently not going to get it here.

KW's first couple of years as GM were kind of rough, and I was not a big fan. However, KW is both a gunslinger and a hard worker and you have to tip your hat to him. He hung in there and got much better. He did what Frank Lane, Ed Short, Roland Hemond and Larry Himes, all top notch GMs were not able to do. I like Ozzie as a motivator and support his overall philosophy on how to play White Sox baseball. Unfortunately for him, he has not usually had the personnel to play his style of baseball. When he did in 05 the results were magical for long suffering Sox fans. I'll never be totally enamored with his handling of pitchers, lineup changes, and game day decisions. Al Lopez and Chuck Tanner were better game day managers, but they never won a WS for the Sox, although Tanner got a ring with the Pirates in 79. As for Gavin Floyd, I had to be one of his biggest detractors. The same with Clayton Richard. May they both continue to prove me wrong. I'd much rather be wrong about guys and see the team play well and win.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ May 22, 2009 -> 05:11 PM) Our AA team is an extremely impressive array of talent, probably one of the best minor league teams we've ever had. I agree there are some decent prospects at Birmingham. It's a big step up from AA, so it will take a little time. Hopefully this is a team that will begin to turn things around in the farm system. QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ May 22, 2009 -> 02:02 PM) Bleak? The future for this team looks better right now than it has in a long time. There is a whole lineup of very good looking prospects at AA Birmingham. There are a handful of pitchers at A+. AA and AAA who could be of value as well. Add that to some good young talent already with the club. 2009 is ugly so far, but 2010 and 2011 are looking pretty damn good. You are definitely a glass is half full optimistic sort of person. It's a good thing I suppose in order to balance off hard headed cynics like me. As stated above, the situation at Birmingham looks promising. I don't feel the same way about Charlotte. Even in the best of times, in the best of organizations most prospects don't pan out. Baseball is a very tough game to master. The White Sox must do a better job of scouting, drafting and developing players. It's going to take time to turn the ship around and yes I hope Birmingham is a sign of better things to come.

There is nobody at Charlotte to get excited about, although I understand wanting to have some hope that somebody can help this floundering team. Face it, we're stuck with what we have. Hopefully the Sox will drastically improve at drafting and developing players. If not, the future is bleak.

QUOTE (The Ginger Kid @ May 21, 2009 -> 08:49 PM) just wanted to compliment the white sox on their performance today. It takes an all around team effort to get beat 20-1 by a division rival...to fall to 6.5 games out of 1st in May. Bravo. If I'm Jake Peavy I can't wait to get on a plane and play for this inspired group of talent. Apparently Jake has said thanks but no thanks. Who could blame him?

Absolutely true. The Chicago of my youth was very segregated. I had a few asian and hispanic classmates in grammar school. The first time I had black classmates was in my Freshman English class, two girls. Many all or predominately white areas had a nice ethnic mix but yes Chicago was then a very segregated city.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ May 19, 2009 -> 03:56 PM) No I definitely do not work for the city. But there is no question in my mind that it has improved dramatically for the great majority of its population (though not all) in the past few decades. No doubt at all. Heck, go for a walk. There are so many neighborhoods now that were anywhere from crappy to war zone 25 years ago, that are vibrant and relatively safe now. All over the place there are these neighborhoods. Now, try to tell me about some neighborhoods that have declined - there are a few I am sure, but very small in number compared to the flipside. North Side or anyone else that might care to read this please be advised, this may be long. Most will probably find it boring. When my family first moved to Chicago in 1953 it was a totally different city. It was before the Immigration Act of 1965, so most Chicagoaons were either white or black, the city as a whole was about 80% white. Many neighborhoods were to change from all white to all black in the 40s, 50s and 60s as this was the era when southern blacks were leaving in droves in hopes of getting jobs in what was then the industrial north. In 1953 neighborhoods all over the city like Austin, South Shore, Avalon Park, Calumet Heights, Auburn Gresham, Washington Heights, Roseland, West Pullman, Grand Crossing, and Chatham just to name some, were pretty stable and solidly middle class. Grand Crossing and Chatham were at the beginnings of racial change but blacks moving in were for the most part upwardly mobile. Other neighborhoods like South Lawndale, Brighton Park, most of Lincoln Park (believe it or not), West Garfield Park were more blue collar and lower middle class but had stability, tradition and healthy business districts. Almost the entire NW side from Fullerton north to the city limits, Pulaski on the east and the city limits on the west was solid and stable. Ditto for the SW Side, I'm talking about West Elsdon, Archer Heights, West Lawn, Marquette Park (mostly called Chicago Lawn back then), Ashburn, Clearing, and Garfield Ridge. In the 50s many homes sprung up in Clearing, Garfield Ridge and Ashburn in what had been prairies. There were real ethnic neighborhoods then too. Lincoln Avenue from North all the way up to Lawrence was German. Taylor Street was a teeming Italian district as was a long stretch along Grand Avenue. Chicago Avenue between Kedzie and Pulaski in the Our Lady of Angels parish had the most unique and lively Italian American business district I've ever been in. Albany Park had a large Jewish community that was more blue collar than it's decidedly wealthier neighbor North Park, which had a Jewish community more upscale. There were also large Jewish populations in Rogers Park, Uptown, West Ridge (mostly called Northtown back then) and Lincoln Square. Great swaths of the south side were Irish, parishes like St. Sabina, St. Killian, Little Flower and others in neighborhoods from West Englewood to South Shore to Beverly. Chicago had the largest Polish community centered at Milwaukee and Division, and working its way north on Milwaukee all the way to Jefferson Park. In addition to this there were some Irish up north (Rogers Park, Edgewater and Albany Park) and Jews on the south side, and a good sized Polish community in Brighton Park and South Chicago. Being older I remember what it was like to experience the sights, smells and experiences of those old neighborhoods and compare it to the remade latte crowd areas of gentrification today. It's not even close. The Chicago of that era blows the Chicago of today right out of the water. Yes, gentrification has improved parts of the city. I had a relative that lived in the Kenmore-Winthrop corridor in Edgewater in the 70s and 80s when it was really bad. I lived on the Western border of Edgewater near Hayt School and could relate all kinds of urban horror stories from a generation or so ago. Yes some neighborhoods have definitely improved, that can't be denied. I still contend that when you look back the city as a whole has declined. I will say this, of all the so called rust belt cities Chicago has by far done the best job of both reinventing and preserving itself. Change is inevitable and all the large American cities have been under incredible social and economic pressures for over half a century. I'll stop here for now. There is so much more I would like to say. Maybe I'll write a book, but there is no guarantee anyone would read it. I've noticed a few books written recently about 1940s and 50s Chicago, particularly about certain far north side neighborhoods.

QUOTE (Cali @ May 19, 2009 -> 05:38 PM) I think the point is he wasn't throwing it out of necessity in '05-'06. It was at 96 and nasty when he threw it sporadically. Now it's at 91 and EVERY pitch and missing badly most times. I wish we had someone at his Charlotte start to see if he was dropping down every pitch or actually trying to go over the top... Exactly. You said it better than I did.