southsideirish

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Sep 6, 2006 -> 01:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Awesome. Doesn't change the fact that if you use a 1 week sample time, you can skew statistics anyway you want to. Yes, and ARod's or Pujol's worst week of their career will be better than any week in BA's career thus far. You can't compare certain players. YOu can't compare apples to oranges. Well, you obviosly can, but it doesn't work or prove to be a good argument. What the f*** is this thread all about. I read the article and I can't see what everyone is so upset about. What did he say wrong? Ozzie wants BA to get better. He wants him to go to winter ball to work on it. What the f*** is the big deal? Will someone please point this out to me? An 11 page thread full of BS and hatred towards Ozzie for what?

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Sep 6, 2006 -> 01:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yeah the .672 OPS ARod put up in '95 was pretty f***ing awesome. ROOKIES STRUGGLE FOR THE FIRST FEW MONTHS OF THEIR PRO CAREERS HOLY s***! And take a look at what pujols did last week, he had a s*** couple of games most players tend to do this, especially when they're not used consistantly. ARod was NINE-FREAKING-TEEN YEARS OLD! Plus he only had 48 games. Brian Anderson is 23 years old and has at least double the at bats and games played than ARod did in 1995. Take a loook at all of ARod's full seasons and get back to me. OH BOY! 2 games in a week. WOOHOO! I really can't believe this is an argument or that you are really even comparing these players. QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Sep 6, 2006 -> 01:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Who's had more bad weeks in the last 3 months, ARod or BA? (relatively speaking here...a .700 OPS is bad for Rodriguez whereas a .700 OPS for Anderson is mediocre). I haven't had time to do the research, but I'd bet it is close. ARod has obviously been better, but we are not expecting .300 45 140 25 1.000 out of BA. You helped prove my point. Thank you. These players shouldn't be compared.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Sep 6, 2006 -> 01:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> BA has been nothing but good IMO. His offense hasnt been hurting the team in this slump, and his defense has saved us many a time. Holy s***! I actually agree with something you've said.

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Sep 6, 2006 -> 01:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'm done with this topic. Brian Anderson is becoming a damn good player and if you guys who have watched this team all season long can't figure that out then, well whatever... Where in that article does it state that BA will not become a damn good player? I don't get it. I really don't. Please point this out to me. Thank you.

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Sep 6, 2006 -> 01:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Give me a f***in break. You can cherry pick a f***in bad week for Alex Rodriguez and Albert Pujols. I will give you ARod, but I am not so sure about Pujols. Plus I don't think comparing BA to two the best offensive players in baseball is a good thing. From the looks of it BA has had more bad weeks in one year than Arod and Pujols have had in their combined careers.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Sep 6, 2006 -> 12:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Brandon McCarthy sucked last year just check the numbers but if you're going to do that you'll probably want to ignore the fact that his ERA for the '05 season was lower than all five of the White Sox starters in 2006. But in 2005 it was higher than all but El Duque's. You could have made a case for him to replace any of our starters at some point during this season.

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Sep 6, 2006 -> 12:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The reason this is all bugging me is because it's so painfully obvious that Ozzie has no clue about his own players and team. Ozzie has no freakin idea how good of a player BA has become. Ozzie doesn't, but you and White Sox fandom does? Seriously? Come on. You have to be joking. This has to be placed in green, right? I think Ozzie does know and wants him to improve. That is what the article said to me. Please don't think that you know more about the team or the players than a coach does. That is just absurd. You are not there to observe anything that goes on. How could you possibly know more than a coach that does?

QUOTE(Jordan4life_2006 @ Sep 5, 2006 -> 10:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Ozzie is dumber than I ever thought possible. I read this article. What did he say that was wrong? He didn't say anything bad about BA. His expectations are very high for BA and he wants him to get better. He wants him to get faster. He wants him to play winter ball to work on it. What is wrong with that? He is a young player that should go play winter ball and get better. I don't get it. Are you guys just looking for fault? QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Sep 6, 2006 -> 12:42 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> How many players want to play for a guy who openly s***s on you in the media. Well unless you are one of his boys. Pods playing like crap = trying to hard Freddy throwing 86 = Freddy being Freddy Uribe hitting 235 = we need defense Cintron and Mack getting 300 ABs a utlity guys. I make the f***ing lineup. BA = You better choose speed kid, or I will bury you. You are only hitting .230. Bmac = You are not Cy Young, I am working on Burying you. I swear if KW gets rid of either of these two kids because of crap mouth ..... When do soxfest tickets go on sale. I want to make sure I get my tickets, cant miss the Q&A session. Really? I think you guys are looking way too much into this crap.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Sep 5, 2006 -> 07:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Bottom line he'd be a better everyday player than Pods at this point. I totally agree. I would also take Sweeney in left field and leadoff everyday instead of Pods. I'm not saying that he is a better fit than Ozuna, but if my choice was between Sweeney and Pods I choose Sweeney. At the very least he will greatly improve our defense.

QUOTE(Steff @ Sep 2, 2006 -> 12:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> There lies the problem... this exchange could have been avoided had you used common sense and simple comprehension skills versus assuming. HAHA!, OR, How about you using the common sense and simple posting proceduers instead of posting random quotes to your random thoughts. That would make everything so much easier for everyone. Then again, it is never your fault is it, or at least you would never admit to it.

QUOTE(Steff @ Sep 2, 2006 -> 12:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> As your stance was clear, I was asking the other members of the board, hense my "do people..." rather than "do you..." Then why place MY quote in your post? When you do that it makes one assume you are speaking to that poster about that post. I'm just sayin'.

QUOTE(Steff @ Sep 1, 2006 -> 10:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Don't quite understand what that has to do with my question.... . Because I already answered it in the post you were questioning. Not onyl did I answer it, but I place it in bold and italicized it. I don't quite understand why you asked a question that was already answered in the post you were questioning. Plus I couldn't make it stand out anymore for you to see.

QUOTE(Steff @ Sep 1, 2006 -> 06:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Do people really ask before they use a service and walk away from that service if the person providing it states they are a Cub fan? Or a Gb fan if you are a Bears fan? Or a Redwings fan if you are a Hawks fan...?? Don't you think that is why I stated, italicized, and put in bold, the following statement?: So, if I knew this owner was a Cub fan, and had a choice to go somewhere else, then I would definitely go somewhere else instead of giving my money to a Cub, GB, or Redwings fan.

QUOTE(Steff @ Sep 1, 2006 -> 10:49 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> He's been there 23 years... how many times have we made the playoffs in those 23 years? He's far from coming close to breaking even. I don't mind that he's a Cub fan. At least he is a real fan of the game and can carry on an intelligent conversation. He's also critical without bias. 4 times to be exact. That is still a lot of money when they do. I'm just sayin'. I have never been there and I never felt the need to go, but I wouldn't want a Cub fan making money off of me if I knew and had the choice.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Aug 31, 2006 -> 08:18 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Couldn't Jimbo just find another spot and re-open? His place needs a makeover anyway. This kind of stuff happens everyday, and its the landlord's right to do what he's doing. Personally, I think if they fix it up and open their own restaurant/bar, it probably will do fine. I could understand Jimbo's frustration, as now the crowds come, he maximizes profit and loses his lease. It could very well, but what there probably aren't enough liquor licenses to open a new place. JImbo's current liquor license belongs to the owner of the land, not the owner of the establishment. No liquor, no crowd. QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Aug 31, 2006 -> 07:27 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Anyone know what we can do to help??? Just from reading this it seems as if the landlords are trying to get Jimbo to pay more money, or possibly tried to raise the rent and Jimbo refused. I am not sure. I am not in the know, however, it seems as if they may be trying to get more money out of Jimbo in a new lease. Could this possibly be the case? QUOTE(Cerbaho-WG @ Aug 31, 2006 -> 12:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well, you'd be quite wrong in that regard. Parts of the South Side, especially in Bridgeport, are going to boom within the next ten years. Hell, you don't have to go far to realize that. Look at how much the Pilsen area increased in value with the new condos and townhomes going up. That was the worst area in Chicago not too long ago. QUOTE(Jenks Heat @ Aug 31, 2006 -> 11:46 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> First Santa's Village now this. I think a place at the 35th and Wentworth would be ideal as this is where the buses park, the el is and next year the route to the Metra would be. All routes for those that can indulge without the worries of traffic. Liquor license? How will they get it? The liquor license does not travel with them. If the owner of their current location really wants to open their own restaurant I am sure they will keep that liquor license. QUOTE(Steff @ Aug 31, 2006 -> 10:40 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What situation is that? huh? The situation that they are currently in. The situation of possibly losing their location.

QUOTE(cgaudin @ Aug 30, 2006 -> 11:17 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The Sox have had their butts handed to them on those west coast trips for some time now. They will be playing the West Coast version of the Twins in the A's and a very good Angels team. I don't see them doing better than 2 wins in those 6 games. I will be delirious if they break even. Oh, and the day after a long trip back from the west they face off the Tigers. Yeah, dude...it looks great..... So you are on the pessimistic bandwagon as well? So be it. I really don't care. I think they will do very well out west and come back home and take care of the Tigers as they usually do at home.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Aug 30, 2006 -> 08:33 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Before interleague play, wins and loses would equal out in each league. Now with interleague play, this year there will be more wins in the AL than loses and vice versa. I thought it was an interesting observation. Put another way, there will be more wins than loses in the AL and more loses than wins in the NL. Subtracting wins from loses in the AL will result in a positive number and a negative number in the NL. With more wins spread around this year, it could take more to win the wild card. So it isn't nonsense. If I did some quick math here, adding up wins and subtracting loses, the AL has 55 more wins than loses. So just because the American League as a whole beat up on the National League means it will take more than 95 wins to win the wild card? That is nonsense. There is a lot more that goes into it than adding and subtracting. You hae to take percentages and what teams beat up on what teams and so on and so forth. That claim is just nonsense. Now if you are saying for this specific year that it will take more wins to win the wild card in the American League than it will to win the wild card in the National League then I completely agree. That is definitely true. QUOTE(Hangar18 @ Aug 30, 2006 -> 08:46 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Best case scenario, is that BOTH teams stumble, with someone majorly stumbling. That takes alot of luck, but that also takes into account the SOX going on a major HOT streak, something they havnt done since June/early July So you are saying it would be an optimisitc point of view to see this happening? OK, where do I sign up? QUOTE(Zoogz @ Aug 30, 2006 -> 08:54 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That is a bold prediction... you believe that a team that has up until now played at a .626 clip will finish at a .355 pace? I understand that their past three weeks have not covered them in glory, but they somehow found a way to get to +40 games over .500 previously this season. Whether or not it was luck is another discussion, I suppose, but 11-20 would still be an extremely extended piece of underperforming especially with teams like the Royals (6), Seattle (3), fading Toronto (3), and Baltimore (4) still on the schedule. They would have to put up a month WORSE than the one they're currently putting up now, as they are 12-14 (by my count) through August. If I were a Sox fan, I'd be rooting more for the Sox to go .667 through the final month rather than to count on the Tigers choking... Yes, that is truly what I believe. It is an extremely bold prediction. Just remember where you heard it first when it happens.

QUOTE(forrestg @ Aug 30, 2006 -> 12:20 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> tigers 16wins 15 losses =31 remaining games +82 wins =98 wins/ losses 64 minnesota 22 wins 10 losses=32 remaining games +76 wins = 98 wins/losses 64 Now if the sox can go 21 and 10=31 remaining games 77+21 =98/wins 64 losses... I discounted Boston but for the wild card and even the Central division aren't over yet . SO Detroit will go 11-20. Minnesota will go 18-14. The White Sox will go 18-13. White Sox win the division. Twins win the wild card. Tigers are out. Too bad, soo sad, bye bye.

QUOTE(SoxFan1 @ Aug 30, 2006 -> 02:01 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Should have picked Reuben Droughns. Over Gore? That is insane? Have you seen his schedule? Have you seen his offensive line? Cleveland has the 29th hardest schedule against the run. 7 games against top 10 run defenses and another 4 games against teams that are getting stronger against the run. 11 out of 16 games are tough games against the run. That is ridiculous. No thank you. Give me the potential stud in Frank Gore who plays in a very weak division and has Green Bay, Seattle, and Arizona in weeks 14-16 (my fantasy football playoffs). Don't you look at that stuff? Plus why do you just blurt something out there without anything to back it up? Just a question about something I notice you do all the time. Cleveland's Schedule: Week 1 NO Week 2 @CIN they will be better against the run Week 3 BAL #4 Week 4 @OAK Week 5 @CAR #3 Week 6 BYE Week 7 DEN #5 Week 8 NYJ Week 9 @SD #12 amd getting stronger Week 10 @ATL Week 11 PIT #6 Week 12 CIN - they will be better against the run Week 13 KC - they will be better against the run Week 14 @PIT #6 Week 15 @BAL #4 Week 16 TB #7 QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Aug 30, 2006 -> 12:39 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No... Keep Vick. Leftwich has looked shaky, and Simms is still not 100% proven. I figure Vick will give you 5 scores will his legs, at least, and 15-low 20s through the air (improved wr corps + experience makes me guess around 20). That's pretty good for your backup. And I think Simms will have a pretty good year, but I'd still prefer Vick. Thank you for your advice. I will hold on to him.

QUOTE(shakes @ Aug 29, 2006 -> 11:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Personally I think Simms is the Pick. Gruden has him ready with one of the brightest young backs in the league. Leftwich is probably going to fall off without the wr leadership of Jimmy Smith and Greg Jones out for the season. Fred Taylor hasn't been nearly as injury prone as everyone has made him out ot be, but he is not a reliable everydown back. Their offense should take a step back. You sure? Matt Jones looks pretty damn good and TB plays one of the hardest schedules to pass against.

QUOTE(Fotop @ Aug 16, 2006 -> 09:39 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> As we all know, the "big 3" in fantasy football is L. Johnson, S.Alexander, and L.Tomlinson. My question is how do you rank them and why? For me, I think it goes a little something like this: 1) L. Johnson 2) L. Tomlinson 3) S. Alexander However, I'm not really sure...this is pretty much based on the fact that I don't really like Alexander and would much rather root for johnson or tomlinson. I have 2nd pick in my big money league this year, so I'm curious as to everyone's opinion on this. Publications and "experts" are saying Johnson, Alexander, Tomlinson with some even stretching Alexander to #1. Ultimately this discussion is moot if the person w/ #1 in my draft takes Peyton Manning. *Edit: The topic title is not implying I'm playing for that much money, that'd be insane. More a reference to the old pyramid game show. Just thought I'd clarify that for the young whipper snappers out there. I have had LT the last two years and he has failed me in the playoffs both years in a row. I will never touch him again. He will also be playing with a rookie QB. No thank you. He may win the regular season for you, but he will be so worn down and worthless to you come playoff time. Isn't that what it is all about? LJ has many many questions. First he goes from a very good system for RBs that has made superstars out of Marshall Faulk, Priest Holmes, and LJ himself to an unknown system. Dick Vermiel retired and Al Saunders, the KC OC, left for Washington. THat is one negative. Another is that he has lost Willie Roaf to retirement and 2 other linemen are injured. That is not good. The third strike against him, in my opinion, is that Tony Richardson, his great blocking fullback, left and signed with Minnesota. There are just way too many questions surrounding him to take him #1. Shaun Alexander had the least turnover on his team and offense. He is very consistent and has averaged 1670 rushing yards with a 4.78 yard per carry average and 19 TDs per year. Over the last 5 years he has averaged 17 TDs per year. There is no doubt I take this guy #1 overall. All of that plus Alexander has the easiest schedule of the 3. LT has the hardest schedule to run against in the playoffs. There is no way I take anyone else but Alexander #1. It is a no brainer. My rankings are: Shaun Alexander Larry Johnson LaDanian Tomlinson Trust me

I am looking to pick up one of these QBs for my backup to Warner/Leinart. Vick, Simms, Leftwich, Kitna, Pennington, Smith, Carr, Losman. I rank them: Leftwich Simms Vick Carr Losman Kitna Pennington Smith What do you guys think?

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Aug 29, 2006 -> 05:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'm not an expert, but my impression is that it's pretty good. Since the league is weighted so heavily toward scores, Gore could be a weak point. You may or may not be able to make that up off the bench, depending on those rookies come on. But you did well taking rookie rbs on high-scoring teams. I didn't know Matt Jones was going so high. He could well be worth it, I'm just surprised. You are correct about Gore, but after I took Alexander and my 3 WRs, there wasn't another back out there that was getting all the carries and also had the stud potential of Gore. I was looking at taking Chester Taylor in the 4th round, but he was taken 3 picks before mine, so I took Jevon Walker. To give you an example of what was out there, the next picks at RB after Gore were Droughns, Mike Bell, and Joseph Addai. Alexander may have to carry my RBs if Gore and none of my rookies pan out. I just figured no one would be able to match Alexander, Moss, Harrison, and Walker in our scoring system. We will see how right I am. You are also right about Matt Jones, he went 1 pick later in the 7th round and Joseph Addai was taken 1 pick earlier in the 6th. I mixed them up. He has been going that high. I would have never been able to pick him 20 picks later, so if I wanted him I would have had to take him then. There was really nothing else available at that point worth taking. I figured it was worth the risk. Plus, since we start 3 WRs I figured I needed a good backup with some potential to be great. He was the only one I still saw out there that could do that. I really wanted Lee Evans, but he went a round earlier if you can believe that crap. Question: Chris Simms and Byron Leftwich are still available. Are they better than Michael Vick? Should I pick one of them up and drop Michael Vick? If so which one?

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Aug 29, 2006 -> 05:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'm not saying that you're intentionally leaving out data. But you're acting like a team with 95 wins will never miss the playoffs because it hasn't happened in 10 tries yet. Where the hell did I say that? I even gave percentages. It has never happened in the American League and only once in the National League. Given those odds I will say that 95 wins gets us in the playoffs. 3 teams in the same division will not win 95+ games. Boston and NY will not both win 95+ games. Oak and LAA will not win 95+ games. 95 wins gets us in the playoffs. It is pretty simple. QUOTE(lukeman89 @ Aug 29, 2006 -> 11:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> with the way the AL beat up on the NL this year, it would make sense if it took more than 95 for the AL wildcard So you think 3 teams from the same division will win 95 games? Do you think Boston is going to win 95 games? Do you think LAA and Oakland will both win 95 games? If you said yes to all of that then you are correct, it will take more than 95 games to get in. Just because the AL beat up on the NL does not have it make sense that it will take more than 95 games for the AL wildcard. That is nonsense.

QUOTE(Hangar18 @ Aug 29, 2006 -> 04:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> So the SOX have to go 19-13 the rest of the way to make the wildcard. That means the Twinks have to majorly stumble also. I dont see it. I see the SOX doing the stumbling, especially during that west coast trip. Im very worried about that. Dye #3 helps now. Anderson FT CF rest of the way will help too. Because you are a pessimistic fan, which is ok. The Twins don't HAVE to do the stumbling. Detroit can stumble to both the Twins and the Sox - which is what I see happening and I have predicted happening. The West coast trip doesn't worry me at all.