Soxbadger

Then you need to find the Globetrotters of Baseball. Because even the best team in any given season will only gaurantee you a 60% chance of seeing a win. The best GM of the best team can only put the best players on the field, and hope for a win. You never know what will happen, that is why they play the game, and that is why people attend. Not because of the 100% gaurantee of what will happen, but because of the unknown.

Fathom, I dont know, I never have seen Dick Allen post it and I am not in the business of piggybacking on other peoples arguments. All I can tell you is that last years team had trouble winning when they scored less than 4 runs, and this years team has the same problem. You do not have good odds when scoring that little, even the best pitchers in the game have around 3 era, which means on an average day they give up 3 runs per game. So at 3 runs the best teams should be around .500, as they move towards 4 runs their record should improve drastically. Milkman, You pay for X hours of entertainment. You dont pay for a win. If the White Sox dont make the playoffs this year it wont have anything to do with their record. It will just be one of those years where 3 teams in one division would have been atleast 1st or 2nd in the other 2 divisions. That happens in other sports as well, it sucks but thats the nature of the division system.

My comment was posted in general to anyone that posted in this thread and felt that they "no longer could take the pain of being a supporter of a team with the 3rd best AL record and in the lead for the WC." If my comment does not apply to you, then you dont have to worry about it. My problem is that people believe that last year was the norm, not an exception. Last years team happens to a city maybe once, a team that outside of a core of people no one thought would do anything, becomes the best team and basically dominates the playoffs. That is not normal. I just cant stand that people act like they are entitled to be given a winner. I was a Sox fan when they were in 2nd, when they were under .500, no matter what. Your a fan, not because the team owes you anything, but because you want to be.

That stat is inaccurate, maybe you mean when scoring atleast 3 runs or less. But the Sox have won around 17 games when scoring 4 runs or less.

There is quite a difference between: "I think Javy is struggling for Y reason and I think that the best way to solve the problem would be X." As compared to: "Javy sucks, we should have B-Mac in there." That thread just gets old after the 1,000th time. Im sorry but at a point its just no longer constructive, its just a constant whine. I do not think most of us come here to read the worst things said about players, we all think them in our own heads. Every fan thinks when one of their players k's, or gives up a home run, commits an error, "Damn f***ing piece of s*** cant you just make the play." We just do not have to read it every other day, eventually it just is noise.

Its not accepting failure. Its the fact you dont have to whine, b****, and moan when the team has a winning record and if the season ended today would be in the playoffs. Also its sickening to hear the words "underachieving" being thrown around at a team with the 4th best record. I dont believe anyone is saying give them a 10 year pass, I believe they are saying: Hey most of these guys brought us home a championship. The team is not going to change over the last 2 months, so we might as well support the Sox, instead of whining constantly.

The same thing could be said for last years team, they only had 12-13 wins when scoring 2, and only 6-7 more when scoring 3, where as the majority are won when they scored 4+. Meaning last year they won 20 games when they scored 3 runs or less, and approximately 79 games when they scored 4 runs or more. Thus the team last year barely won when they scored less than 4 runs as well. Not many teams in the modern era are going to win games with regularity scoring less than 4 runs.

You must have watched a different team last year then me, according to what I saw and the stats, the White Sox never have won many games when only scoring 2 runs. http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/CHW/2005_sched.shtml I counted fast but it only happened like 12-13 times, the other 70+ wins occurred when atleast 3 runs were scored. Not really "sending it to cooperstown" when 2 runs are scored.

Fathom, I disagree. Last years "team" had more luck. They were almost unbeatable in 1 run games. But if you look at the players this year versus last year, this years team is better. Now there are many reasons why they have lost more games, a major one being they are the defending champs. Any team that wins, becomes a target and every team is getting ready to play them. As compared to last year where even in the playoffs many "experts" were calling it a fluke. Not to mention the team last year really struggled at this point of the season, but then really came up big in the playoffs. If this team does the same thing, it will be hard to say that last years team was better.

Why wouldnt you think the Sox can win it all? They have a better team than last year and they have done outstanding against teams with winning records. Its just not cool to think the Sox can do it.

If you cant take it anymore there are 20+ teams that need more fans. Good luck.

Its a shame what has happened. It seems like forever ago, but there was once a time when posters on this site were supporting the Sox when they were 5+ games back. There was a time when Dan Wright was our 5th starter, and we still hoped that we had a chance to make the playoffs. The Sox win 1 WS, and now every fan feels like they are entitled to something. As for underachieving, and all this other nonsense. The White Sox overachieved last year. It was an anamoly, get over it. Right now the Sox have the 3rd best AL record, 4th best over all, and people are b****ing. WTF is that. This is a team that for the majority of most of our lives made the playoffs 1 time every 10 years, and now they have a good shot at going back to back and people are s***ting on them. I used to be proud to be a Sox fan. Now Im just tired of hearing the constant complaints. Either people have forgotten where we have come from, or they just were never there in the first place.

Pluto for life!

Well the Onion is of course good because its from Madison. And yes they do a lot of Chicago articles, because as they know Chicago is the best.

Marijuana was the drug of mexicans and blacks. Opium was the drug of Asians. Alcohol was the drug of Europeans. Tobacco was the drug of Europeans. As for the gateway affect, honestly I do not believe it. Marijuana is not the gateway, underage drinking is. If you meet some one who has not yet drank, it is almost impossible to get them to smoke. But once you get them to drink, then getting them to smoke is so easy. Why? Trust. When teenagers drink and dont die, or there are no ill effects, they trust the people who told them, "Dont worry drinking wont really do that much." Then when that same person says "Dont worry taking a hit wont hurt you either", they believe them. They dont believe their parents or television, because teenagers can see when they are just selling them a bunch of lies. You want to really attack drugs, get scientific research that shows how taking that drug will shorten your life. We may never get rid of cigarrettes, but science is making many people think twice about their habit. Because the govt wants to just use propaganda on the war on drugs, and not do actual research into the effects of marijuana it will always be the top illegal drug. The govt wont do the research because there is a risk if they do it, like Laguardia, they will find out marijuana has almost no health risks, and if that is the case how can they keep it illegal? If the govt truely wants to battle addiction, it needs to take the approach that, people are going to do drugs no matter what. The only way to change most people's minds, is to give them the information and let them make the choice.

Jokes on them contracts for sex are void against public policy. But yeah I expect some jail time, its pretty bad.

Texsox, I think I understand where some of the confusion is coming from here. 1) You have a right to interstate travel, but this does not mean that you have the right to travel however you want. The majority of the time this type of conflict occurs when a state passes a law, that would prohibit people from traveling through it, (ie snow tires). 2) The commerce clause, which prevents the states from putting restrictions on interstate travel. What this means is that it is entirely within the federal govt's power to regulate air travel. Because air travel is not a fundemental right, all laws in regards to air travel are "rational basis" standard, meaning that unless a person can show there is no rational basis for the law, the law is constitutional. It is clear there is a govt interest in the safety of people flying in airplanes, therefore they can make flying on an airplane contingent on being searched. Private airlines could not evade this law, as they would have no legal argument why it was unconstitutional. If you do not want to be searched, you dont have to take airplanes, trains, or other forms of public transportation. You can walk, ride your bike, or take your own car.

Zoom, I cant watch every game, so I can only go with what I see. I saw Auburn last year, and then I saw them 2 years before that. The team 2 years prior was much better and physically just took it to Wisconsin. Last year I saw the reverse, an Auburn team that looked like it was not on the same physical level as Wisconsin, and that was Wisconsin missing almost its entire D-line. I think Texas will have some problems as Young was such a dynamic player at the college level he is basically irreplaceable. They also have had a history of not playing well in big games the last few years so it should be interesting how they will perform now that Young is gone. As for Wisconsin, OSU always seems to be a team that the Badgers can beat. For whatever reason Wisconsin has beaten OSU when it has failed against Michigan and Iowa. I think the Big 10 is going to be really tight this year and the schedules do favor Wisconsin slightly. It just is hard to tell in preseason, and that was my basic point. Ive seen every Wisconsin game for years now, and I couldnt give you a realistic assessment of what this year has in store. The College game is very streaky and with the turnover, you just never know what players getting their first chance to start will do. Outside of the very few elite programs who are top 10 every year, the rest is a crap shoot. Without even a game played, its just hard to tell.

Zoom, Its not that Auburn cant, its just that watching their performance last year against Wisconsin, I just did not see a team that would be a NC contender. I really liked Irons last year, but Auburn just was unable to control the tempo through the running game like Wisconsin was. Calhoun went for more yards then the entire Auburn team gained I believe. As for Wisconsin, its basically impossible to tell at this point. New coach, new RB, and no one exactly knows what Beilema is going to bring to the table. Chryst was the OC last year so there should be some cohesiveness, as its unlikely that BB will really try and screw with the offense as he is a defensive guy. I assume they are going to stick with their strength, they have what should be one of the top OL's, and have possibly the best LT in the NCAA in Joe Thomas. They have PJ Hill (big RB) and Rowan (quick rb) so I think they are going to try something a little different using Hill as a Dayne type (although Dayne was more finesse then power) and Rowan as a Calhoun/Davis. But its impossible to really know, to many unknowns. The only thing that is for certain is that the Badgers should have one of the top OL's and one of the top DL's in the Big 10. How the rest of their units play will determine if they are a Rose Bowl contender, of if they will be fighting to play in one of the more average bowl games.

Zoom, That was my top 4, after that there are just to many guys who could be 5. Also Ive never been that big of a Brady fan, although he continues to prove me wrong. As for Mcnabb, he may not have the best WR, but he has a coach who throws the ball constantly. In that system, Mcnabb will always put up great numbers because he has so many opportunities.

Balta, Believe me, I have all the patience in the world. Im still waiting on Scott Ruffcorn.

Wiconsin has black people at the school. Its just an unfair picture, they are taking a picture of the stands, when clearly all the black people are actually on the playing field.

Texsox, And we allow it because we have been conditioned to accept our freedoms slowly being eroded. Just because it is allowed, does not mean that it is right or it is what should be. The reason that people allow drugs to be illegal, is because of the scare tactics of the 20th century. The govt is allowed to use any advertisement any propaganda it wants in the "drug war", because they have been doing it so long that people accept it. I mean the commercial where they show if you buy drugs you support terrorists, or the one where they show the kid not being picked up, etc. None of the commercials prove any facts, and the only commission done on the subject of marijuana by the gov. of NY Laguardia, came up with the result that the govt. was exaggerating the effects of marijuana. This is a classic example of how if a govt says something enough times, people just stop having the will to fight it. And of course the voters can change things, if marijuana became a hot topic, which I think it will in the next 20 or so years, people running in elections will latch on to it. People in the govt dont have ideals anymore, all they care about is how will they get elected for the next term. Its why you see the constant hypocrisy and dog chasing its tail in congress.

Why would the NYT, be anti-Israel? All NYT class-b share of stocks are owned by the descendants of Adolph Ochs, a jewish-german immigrant. Class B shares are not publically traded and vote for a majority of the board of directors. Its interesting how the "liberal media bias" changes to suit the argument of the day. Prior to this Israeli conflict, the liberal media was always the friend of the jews, or the jews were controlling the liberal media to advance their own causes. Now its the liberal media is against the Israeli's. Very interesting that the NYT would be considered anti-Israel, especially as the NYT has historically been controlled by jewish people.

Texsox, For the majority of our nations existence, people and the govt as well, did not believe that it had the power to control what an individual did with their own body. Regardless, the economic cost of enforcing marijuana laws is very high and the gain to society is very low. Most laws that try and enforce morals are a waste of tax payers money.