BobDylan

McCarthy! Big game pitcher!

QUOTE(Milkman delivers @ Mar 7, 2006 -> 07:38 AM) No offense, but who hasn't heard Bad To The Bone? Who hasn't heard Hells Bells or Enter Sandman? My vote gets f***in' in the Bushes by Oasis Or the last minute and a half of A Poor Man's Memory by Explosions in the Sky (I don't know if this song was in Friday Night Lights, I never saw it).

Try in a different browser. I reccommend not using Firefox all together. Opera or IE both run better.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Sep 3, 2006 -> 05:48 PM) That makes sense, you penalize the pitcher because his offense sucks. I assume Roger Clemens had a s*** year last year because he was only 5 games over .500. If Dye does not come through with a single up the middle in the top of the 9th in game 4 of the WS, Freddy gets a N/D. Judging a pitcher strickly by whether he gets the win or not is what gets GMs fired and puts teams in holes personel wise that they can not recover from. It's cool you can have all the Russ Ortiz' you want I mean he may give up 6 runs a game but hey he gets the win and that's all that matters therefore he must be a good pitcher. What do you constitute a big game pitcher as? One who keeps his team in the game or one who wins when it counts the most? There are plenty who can keep a team in the game. There are very few who can win at will. Obviously there aren't any that have won every single big game, but if you ask me who I'd rather have on the hill last season come 2005's game 4 of the World Series and my choices are Brandon McCarthy and Freddy Garcia...(do I need to answer?) 2 good games in low pressure situations do not make a pitcher a big game pitcher, let alone one you want out there when the team simply can't afford to lose. Maybe you replied before I made the edit, but again, Orlando Hernandez. Plus I'll state it again: I have not once said that I don't think McCarthy is an upgrade to the rotation this season. But for the love of god, he's not a big game pitcher and he's not going to save the season.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Sep 3, 2006 -> 05:41 PM) Haha, McCarthy goes 8 innings and allows 1 run but does not get the win so he's not a "big game pitcher". That's some nice logic. Funny what 1 run of support does for a pitcher, McCarthy gets 1 run from the offense in his outing Vs the Twins in September and gets a N/D yet Freddy puts up the exact same line in game 4 of the world series and gets 2 runs and gets the win earning him the "big game pitcher" tag. Terrific. It's the win verses the loss that gets a pitcher that tag. You can't say McCarthy's outing was better than Garcia's because no baseball game is the same. That's logic. (Not to mention one game was in the holyest of holy's...THE WORLD f***ING SERIES) Besides, Guillen went with what many have dubbed as a big game pitcher when the playoffs came around and left McCarthy at home. Orlando Hernandez. His numbers didn't exactly look good coming into the playoffs either. And many questioned the decision to boot. Yet, he pitched perhaps the most impressive inning in playoff history.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Sep 3, 2006 -> 05:35 PM) Yeah and those outings against Minnesota and Detroit were pretty horrid too. The no decision was a amazing duel at the Cell between Brandon McCarthy and the best pitcher in baseball over the past 5 years, Johan Santana. Brandon went 8 innings allowing 4 hits and 1 run the loss to the Tigers he went 6 1/3 and allowed 3R the Sox scored a grand total of 3 runs for him in those two outings combined, just another reason why a pitcher's W/L record means nothing. You're telling me you wouldn't take either of those 2 lines from any of the Sox current pitchers tomorrow? I would, but Johan Santana, a pitcher who most would obviously note as a "Big Game Pitcher" didn't lose to Brandon McCarthy, who isn't a "Big Game Pitcher". By the way, nice job changing the subject there, eh?

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Sep 3, 2006 -> 05:13 PM) I'm still confused as to how the games last September don't count as big game experience. On Sept. 5th, 2005 Brandon McCarthy pitched against Boston. At the time the Sox were 8.5 games ahead of Cleveland. While in the grand scheme of things it might've been an important game, but with a comfy 8.5 game lead, I can hardly see that as a "big game". Check that, they were 9.5 ahead. EDIT 2: When things actually got hot, McCarthy recroded one loss and one no decision in a loss in late September against pretty average teams (Minnesota, Detroit)

QUOTE(BearSox @ Sep 3, 2006 -> 05:05 PM) Just because Juan has a strong arm makes him a good fielder? He has 11 errors this season, and you can even make a case for more with some of the balls he thrown away on ordinary DP's, and some of the other decisions he has made. And he has played lazy sloppy defense at times. Plus, he offense is horrible. He is even worse then Brian Anderson was earlier this season. At least Anderson was able to take a walk. And when you say offense isn't a problem, you are dead wrong. Since the all-star break, how many rpg has this team been averaging? I bet it is less then 5, which is pretty bad. 3 runs and reling on the long ball isn't going to win you many games, no matter how bad the pitching is. Worse at the plate than BA was earlier in the year? Do you watch the games or just rely on ESPN.com's Gamecast? QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Sep 3, 2006 -> 05:07 PM) So because McCarthy has no playoff experience , he shouldn't have been in a rotation for this year, at all? And I would count those games down the stretch against Boston and Texas "Big Games" but what do I know... Jesus, I argue what one person says and don't spell it out for all the other people that might not be willing to take things in context. I've never said McCarthy would not be an upgrade. I just don't think he's the "answer" everyone makes him out to be. The "answer" frankly, is an ACE.

QUOTE(shoota @ Sep 3, 2006 -> 05:05 PM) McCarthy doesn't have to be savior or as good as Mark Prior. He only needs to pitch better than one of Freddy G or Javier Vazquez for the team to benefit. I agree. But that's not the way some people make it sound.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Sep 3, 2006 -> 05:00 PM) So his 42.2 IP and 1.69 ERA over the final month or so of the season last year does not count as experience? He may not be a savior but to say he has no experience just is not true seeing how he was the Sox' best SP while they were sucking down the stretch last year. Does it equate to post-season and big game experience? That's where the Sox stand now. I like McCarthy, but people around here treat him like Mark Prior.

I think the Uribe bashing posts need to stop. I think the offense bashing posts need to stop. I think all the blame needs to go on the starting 5. QUOTE(BearSox @ Sep 3, 2006 -> 03:22 PM) Okay, Uribe needs to be benched. While his defense might be good, it is also very questionable at times, and his offense is just killing any rally we get. Pods needs to be benched for about a week to get his head out of his ass. And Thome needs to sit for about a week to get back to 100%, which he is obviously not healthy yet. Then, we need to get Ozuna, Mackowaik, Gload, and Cintron in regularly, and giving Sweeney a start here or there to see what he can do. I'll put it this way, Ozzie needs to start panicing a bit. he is playing it all cool and calm, and sticking with his boys. But him doing that is really hurting us. Him not putting the players in the best position to succeed is really hurting this team, and really pissing me off. hmm, maybe Jim is half way alright after all. So you'd bench Uribe, arguably the best defender on the team (and arguably the best defensive SS in the game) and bench Podsednik, arguably the worst hitter on the team as well as defender (and arguably the worst defensive LF in the league) for only a week? It doesn't seem very smart to weaken your defense up the middle ESPECIALLY at SS, the most important and hardest position to play on the field (other than maybe catcher) for guys that should be utilized in other places. Ozuna should take Pods time in LF, that's where the platoon needs to happen. As far as Cintron? The play he showed while Uribe was hurt is more than sufficient evidence as why he should be used in the field in VERY limited time. He has no range, no arm and isn't much of an upgrade at the plate. And again, for f*** sake, the problem ISN'T the offense. It's giving up 7 mother f***ing runs day in and day out. Don't point the finger at Uribe. Don't point it at Thome, Uribe, Konerko, Dye, Anderson, or even Podsednik (and then some). Point it at the underachieving pitching staff. That means Jon Garland, Mark Buehrle, Freddy Garcia, Jose Contreras and Javier Vazquez. Aside from Garland, not any single one of them has stepped up ONCE this entire year. I know we're all frustrated. I know they are a better team than this. But good lord, they are hitting .285 as a team. And though they don't get all the big hits (name me on team that has gotten EVERY big hit), it's only magnified because the Sox pitching staff has the guts of a wet noodle. QUOTE(TitoMB345 @ Aug 27, 2006 -> 11:29 AM) Uribe's defense is not that good. Sorry. That should be in green. Seriously. QUOTE(shoota @ Aug 27, 2006 -> 08:16 PM) And the team's ERA is higher because OZZIE decided not to let McCarthy start. McCarthy is not a savior. He has no experience under his belt and he, himself cannot bring the team ERA down a full run, let alone a half a run or a quarter of a run.

Probably a motivation thing, but it obviously isn't working.

Miguel Cabrera, a late call-up, helped the Marlins when Ozzie was there. Frankly, it'd be stupid not to give Sweeney some AB's. I just hope he doesn't get in there, get his hits, and then get replaced with Podsednik because "he's our guy". f*** that s***. Get some juice into the line-up...some guys that will fight with their life to keep just a spot on the team, let alone a starting spot.

QUOTE(My Dixie Normus @ Sep 1, 2006 -> 01:12 PM) What the hell is on her nose?

QUOTE(danman31 @ Sep 1, 2006 -> 05:50 PM) I meant from USA Basketball, not the NBA. Well then. Anyway, the Dwayne Wade and Lebron James comparisons to MJ should stop right here. You'd NEVER, EVER, EVER, EVER see a day MJ loses to Greece. Besides, MJ didn't play beside MJ if you see what I'm getting at. I mean, if these two guys are the next Jordan just imagine playing a team that had Michael Jordan and Michael Jordan on the same floor.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 1, 2006 -> 01:55 PM) Actually, some of us would argue that there are ways to make your offense more effective in certain situations by being able to make use of either small ball or moneyball type games, for example, some pitchers you can beat much easier by running (i.e. they don't walk a lot of people), but others you can beat by just being patient and expecting to hit the 3 run bomb. The real beauty is being able to recognize beforehand or early in a ballgame which is going to be most effective for your team that day. All of that though is an after-after-after effect. Variable #1 is your pitching, variable #2 is your hitting, Variable #3 is your defense, maybe variable 4 is how you employ your hitting. You can argue the benefits of small ball all you'd like. I'll agree with every single point you make. But the fact is that the best offense is a good defense. White Sox pitching is a joke, plain and simple. They pound out 12 runs against Tampa Bay -- the worst offensive team in the league -- and then barely scrape by.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Aug 31, 2006 -> 06:08 PM) I'll be optimistic...Javier Vazquez gave up 2 runs in 6 innings today. I'd be thrilled to get that from him the rest of the year. Our bullpen is good enough to win most games, even if it had a let down today. If we just get a little bit of pitching, we'll take this division. I'd be thrilled to get that from every starter the rest of the way. So would every other team in the league.

QUOTE(danman31 @ Sep 1, 2006 -> 11:40 AM) It just continues to baffle me how these players can not win every game by about 30 to teams like Greece. Argentina or Spain would be one thing, but Greece doesn't have a single NBA player. I just don't understand it. I still say USA basketball needs to ban all players that fail to win a gold medal in a world competition. Something is obviously wrong with them if they continue to lose to a bunch of scrubs who can't even make the NBA. Greece?! How the f*** is this possible? Honestly, how? Don't give me this 'the US doesn't play team ball or doesn't shoot well' bs because they have more than enough talent to win by 40 with ease. I just don't get it. The Bulls would be f***ed. Kirk Hinrich is the heart and soul of that team. QUOTE(JoeBatterz @ Sep 1, 2006 -> 01:28 PM) Barkley was on the Dan Patrick show and he said that the US needs to run up and down the court more like the Dream Team and not allow the foreign teams to play back in a zone. That's probably true. I'd be shocked if any team out there can match the speed of the U.S.

QUOTE(Steff @ Sep 1, 2006 -> 02:17 PM) Great tip, mensa. My IQ is not to be discussed here. Though, it isn't in the top 2 percent. It's in the top 1 percent.

Small ball is crap. Anyone can tell you winning baseball is about pitching. It doesn't matter how a team gets their runs across so long as the team's pitching can keep the oppositions runs to a minimum.

QUOTE(Steff @ Sep 1, 2006 -> 10:49 AM) 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. Then go run off and make a Cubs bar.

I can't believe that is only $400. I also can't believe that a duo core is only 1.66 MHz.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Aug 30, 2006 -> 03:16 PM) So why don't fine art kids go to a different school? Like I said more kids end up needing a dress code, than using fine arts in their professions. Why is it wrong to force kids to follow a dress code, but OK to force them to take classes most will never use again? I don't get how one thing is so vital, yet the other is pointless? Well, there are no fine art schools around where I grew up. Not until I got to college. Why shouldn't I be forced to take an accounting class? I have to learn how to do my taxes, don't I? Most of the classes I was forced to take were intro classes. If I had interest in the field, I could go on to the advanced classes. Also, when you talk about a huge high school like the one I was at, the number of art students to business students was about 50/50. Obviously these numbers are inaccurate, but I'm not taking account for the kids that didn't want to do anything.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Aug 30, 2006 -> 02:29 PM) And that in a nutshell is why I hated the fine arts. It just was 180 degrees of everything that is me. I got way more out of rules that told me how to dress in high school, than I did out of any of those classes combined. I like answers, I hate gray. Philosophy was an excrucitaingly miserable class for me because of that fact. If I ask a question, I want an answer, not another question. To me a painting is a painting, there is no deeper meaning, I don't get it, and I don't pretend to do so. No art class ever did a bit of good for me in that respect. Now what if my idea for change and rebellion was that kids shouldn't waste their time with that intangible stuff, and instead they should concentrate on stuff they can use in the future? What if I feel that forcing kids to take fine arts is facist, and controling their lives unfairly, because they can't express freely themselves by taking someone cool like Economics or Finance? Guess what, I would be taking away from the education of someone else. For someone else that dress code is a vital lesson that they need in life, just like music could be the key to your life. If it's vital, they should go to a private school. And like I said, these things need to be taken to the classroom. I don't think it's right to make EVERYONE join in these rules if it's not a big problem. Obviously if a girls nipples are hanging out or if a guys ass it staring everyone in the face something needs to be done. But that is rarely the case (or at least it wasn't at my school). Sure some skirts were risky and I could see a lot of guys underwear, but if I couldn't see their privates I didn't think it was an issue. Maybe somebody looks bad if their underwear is clear as day, but honestly, where is the harm? There was a certain point in my high school career where I didn't need to take art classes. I believe I only needed 1 credit. After that, whether I wanted to take more or not was up to me. Since I liked it, I took more. (Once the school ran out of art classes to take, you could do independant study and it was basically you and the teacher concentrating on where your interests peak. It was something I did and something I enjoyed.) And the fact is that school is a grey matter. There is no telling what is best for the kids. There are opinions and theories, but who is anybody to say what is best? I hate finance and once I finished off those credits I never touched them again. I had friends that continued on with those classes just as I had friends that continued on with the arts. If dressing clean was what was going to be best for me, I'd have done it. Since it isn't, what should I care?

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Aug 30, 2006 -> 02:19 PM) I guess artists dont go to catholic or private schools then. Because they are forced to wear uniforms or have a dress code. But then again I graduated with a guy who was an artist. Maybe he is just a bad one then, because he went to a catholic school. Sigh... As if ANYWHERE I said a person can't be an artist under bull s*** rules. I was only saying that freedom of expression can help an artist. No school can make a person an artist just as no school can make somebody a business (wo)man. In the end, that's all up to the induvidual.