santo=dorf

Just a few more comments; I nominated bmags' post, but my favorite part was cut off. It was hilarious that bmags added "MAN" to the end of his post. statmandu got jobbed. 100% of his threads are awesome. What's the difference between "Biggest optimist" and "the Hawk" award? (jphat007 won both, deversingly so.)

QUOTE(Felix @ Feb 8, 2007 -> 11:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Either wear a scarf or one of those facemask things, neither of which make you look goofy. I don't know why you are concerned about looking goofy though.. looks should be the last thing that matter when you (and everyone else around you for that matter) are just trying to stay warm. That's part of my point. I rather see people wearing less clothing. (The positives outweigh the negatives. ) QUOTE(mreye @ Feb 9, 2007 -> 08:13 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> My energy costs are WAY less in the summer! - Summer saves money. End of discussion. forgot to add that too. How many of you voting for cold weather pay for your own utilities? I also have to spend more money on laundry because I'm wearing longer and thicker clothes along with mulitple layers.

QUOTE(DrunkBomber @ Feb 7, 2007 -> 01:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Ill take the COld, its easier to warm up then to cool off. $$ Tell that to my car. for the people talking about bundling up for winter, just how eactly do I bundle my face up , without looking goofy, but more importantly, it doesn't protect my eyes (no, I won't wear ski goggles to work either. In the summer, there are more women wearing less clothes, convertibles shinin', and you can get to your destination in a reasonable amount of time. Personally I hate wearing a lot of clothes, having my beater car covered in salt and that nasty black snow s***, and going to work 30 minutes later than normal because my car needs to warm up and the roads aren't plowed forcing me to go 15 MPH.

Contreras. QUOTE(Steve9347 @ Feb 8, 2007 -> 09:35 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Currently the voting sits at 3,2,3,3, with Vasquez the guy at 2... now that's balance! See sig.

You have some proof to back up your wild claims? Thanks Shoota.

Schaller's Pump or Schinnick's. My family loves business

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 31, 2007 -> 06:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hey, I'm calling that one the way I see it. By my eyes when Rob Mackowiak was playing CF, in an overwhelming majority of those games he directly cost the White Sox 1 run, and indirectly usually led to at least a couple more scoring. In other words, in any game, the White Sox still had say a 50% shot at a quality start last season, but in a much higher percentage of games where he started in CF, Rob Mackowiak's defense in CF did horrific damage. The Sox were 26-23 with Mack starting in CF. EDIT: Forgot to take out games where he started in LF or at 3B. Here are the scores of the games Mack started in. 2_8 5_3 4_2 4_0 9_2 6_5 6_5 4_1 4_5 4_8 5_2 6_1 4_7 9_3 3_2 2_3 7_5 0_5 8_12 8_6 2_6 0_8 8_1 13_5 1_0 7_4 6_5 9_10 4_2 11_15 4_2 6_9 4_6 2_5 5_0 4_7 7_8 6_4 6_5 4_10 4_1 1_7 7_5 4_5 7_8 5_7 3_2 3_4 2_4 There are only four games where the Sox lost by one run, and how is Mack fully responsible if the pitcher continues to get rocked? Next thing you know people will be blaming him for Jacque Jones', who can't hit LHP to save his life, homer off of Neal Cotts. QUOTE(Beltin @ Jan 31, 2007 -> 07:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Game 3 Cubs at Sox - Mack misplays ball off Barret's bat leading to RBI triple followed shortly thereafter by Jacque Jones 2 run homer. Cubs avoid sweep. There are more but I was there for that and was well-positioned to see how Mack's poor read/jump/dive/tumble directly cost the Sox the game but the bullpen got hit with the Earned runs and loss. He easily cost the Sox 2 to 4 games last year. Everyone keeps blaming the starters for the 2006 disappointment but the outfield defense took a toll on the pitch counts throughout the year. Hey what do you know. Mackowiak's bat won us a game against Huston Street and the A's.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 31, 2007 -> 02:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> In Mackowiak's case, that is only because the pitchers were on the mound more than he was in CF. Put him in CF for 162 games, and based on his performance last year, we lose more games because of Mack in CF than because of the pitching. B.S. Simple as that.

The WSX wasn't too bad. The announcing wasn't that good, the ring announcer sucked, and some of the camera effects were not cool. But there were a lot of high spot. Hart looks good, but I canunderstand why he is blackballed and is considered a jagoff. As for last night's rumble, what was the point in having Viscera, The Miz and the Hardy's in it? What ever happened to Snitsky?

Hey flash, Aaron Rowand isn't considered an impact player?

Aside from the annoying ring announcer, some of the camera effects, and Teddy Hart not selling, the WSX was pretty impressive

No. It was a mess of a movie.

QUOTE(maggsmaggs @ Jan 27, 2007 -> 08:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I agree Santana is gone, but Nathan has said he will take a discount to remain a Twin for the rest of his career. Hafner will be in Cleveland for awhile too, they are commited to keeping their young core. So why would they keep Hafner? People seem to forget that Hafner is going to be 30 this year, only one year younger than Konerko.

QUOTE(Jimbo @ Jan 27, 2007 -> 04:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Helton is steroids Please. I remember the hell some reporter caught for mentioning something like that, and Helton was all over him. He's always been the same size and a great hitter. If you're the Red Sox, why wouldn't you do this deal? Granted Helton's SLG% has been dipping, but he still get on base a ton and would be in a much better line up with Lugo, Youk, Manny, Ortiz, and JD Drew. For the two pitching prospects they're giving up, I imagine they'll find at least two similar to those two during the duration of Helton's contract.

QUOTE(beck72 @ Jan 27, 2007 -> 06:46 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Even his .276 avg vs. Johan Santana is a little surprising. But his .276 OBP and .310 SLG% against him isn't surprising. That's why you don't look at one stat while evaluating a hitter, especially batting average.

QUOTE(Hatchetman @ Jan 26, 2007 -> 04:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> not all stolen bases are the same. Same with caught stealings. If a batter at the plate misses the hit and run call and the runner is gunned down big time, the runner gets the blame and get tabbed with the negative stat. Some pickoffs are ruled caught stealing based on the scorer's view of how the runner was leaning.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Jan 25, 2007 -> 10:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yes I have heard this and I personally believe in this line of thinking, 75% and under is just pathetic, 75%-79% is pretty good and 80%+ is money. If a baserunner can't have atleast a 75% SB% then they should not be stealing at all. Anything below the 75% threshold is hurting the team more than it's helping. This just makes Podsednik's 70% (99/141) SB% in a White Sox uniform look all the more pathetic. ...and that based off what? Go ahead, admit that you saw it on BP in an article writtenby "clueless" Joe Sheehan. How is it 75% is "pathetic?" and 76% is "pretty good?"

I like Haeger. I'm hoping he wins it, but at least he better earn it. No tallest midget s*** again.

QUOTE(CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Jan 24, 2007 -> 12:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Whats your point , that all Gold glovers suck ? I already said there are exceptions but its not like Jeter or Palmeiro deserved "lead" gloves is it ? 18 guys get gold gloves every year. You picked 2 guys and go back to 1999 so you're going back 7 seasons. 7 x 18 =126 gold glovers. You're about naming 61 more guys short who YOU didn't think deserve it of making me change my mind. 2 guys u agree with make sense , the rest of us are senseless. Classy ! Debate the move. Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back for your vast knowledge of baseball. It's true that they have given out 126 gold gloves in the past 7 years, but with the current system it seems only about 30 different guys have won one.

QUOTE(bmags @ Jan 25, 2007 -> 05:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> just a little point: in around 1997 there was a high profile movie Rounders, starring brad pitt among others. It had a scene where kids were forced to "service" the prison guards or else were hit over the top of the head. None was actually seen of course, but it was explicitly mentioned what was going on. it was a powerful scene. it didn't numb the issue of this abuse. It's a story. LOL!! That's the poker movie with MATT DAMON!!! Sleepers is the 1996 movie you are thinking of where Kevin Bacon forces one of the boys to strip naked in front of him only to put his clothes right back on. Later he specifically tells the boys he wants a blowjob. How about that Nicholas Cage movie 8mm where he is investigating a bondage film involving a young girl?

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Jan 22, 2007 -> 12:20 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'd rather it say "P-Nut" seeing as how that's his actual nickname. He said otherwise on the Score.

In a Time to Kill a Child was raped. Where was the hoopla then? It was right in the beginning, part of the main plot, and it was releashed nation wide.

How much is MLB.TV? Should we get back at the MLB by splitting up the bill and sharing an account?* *Note to MLB executives. I'm not being serious as Soxtalk does not condone piracy, copyright infringement, or fraud.

....and those 2 aren't really even a contest of anything with the hundreds of registered posters IMO. It's always the same people. Conservatives=NUKE, YASNY, kapomet, Alpha Dog Liberal=Balta, Flasoxjim, Soxy, LCR, Texsox, Rex Kickass.

No "most likely to get flamed" award? Post of the year? Thread of the year?