qwerty

QUOTE (BearSox @ Mar 10, 2009 -> 09:28 PM) Jenks was at 97 a while ago. He hits it once in a while, but really, he has gone from 100 to 97, from 97 to 95, and now 95 to low 90's. I'd say his average fastball is at 93. 2005- 97.0 2006- 95.8 2007- 93.9 2008- 93.8

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 10, 2009 -> 04:29 PM) Guillermo Mota got a suspension while a member of the Mets. Alex Sanchez was the first player suspended, he was a journeyman infielder. Link. Sanchez was an outfielder, centerfield primarily.

There were many more morons on the bus than just that lunatic. The attempts to stop him were just pathetic. Pathetic is not even the right word.

Some of the very best players in any given sport never win a playoff game, a series, or a trophy. I cannot understand how that takes away from what that individual has done. Just because a player has not been apart of something in the past does not mean it cannot happen in the future. One player is exactly that, one player.

QUOTE (Markbilliards @ Mar 5, 2009 -> 07:46 PM) For all the Broadway haters out that that dislike the guy specifically for his '08 MLB campaign consider this, If you take out his one truly bad outing on Aug 27 (which was a relief outing in which the Sox were already losing and would have still lost even if Broadway gave up no runs) Lance would have had a 3.60 ERA at the MLB level. So in other words, the damage against his ERA was done in a game which it didn't matter anways (never an excuse to not try, but just consider that it didn't matter for the sake of the team). For all those who dislike him because you have observed his pitching style and his "stuff" (or lack of), what kind of sample size do you have? Sure he might not look like a control pitcher in some of his first outings against major leaguers, but that happens often to young rookies who want to overthrow or overcontrol the ball. I really don't think Broadway and Richard are that far apart. With that said, I don't see either one as having much of any decent major league future. I think both will spend a little time in the bigs as 5th starters or long men relievers Cherry picking. Every game matters just as much as any. He came into that game when the sox were only losing 4-2 in the 5th inning. ''If'' he went out and threw shut out ball or even allowed just a run or two who knows what happens. They sox scored 1 more run in that game, ''if'' the game was closer all throughout who knows what could have happened, it is not inconceivable that they may have won. You cannot eliminate a players second most innings pitched that he had in a given outing from a season, especially when his innings were as limited as they were.

QUOTE (Cubano @ Mar 5, 2009 -> 06:52 PM) Caulfield12 and Lostfan: I understand your opinion very well especially the everyday playing time issue for a 19-20 year old. However, let's not forget Viciedo is a White Sox for three reasons: 1. White Sox offered a competitive offer to him. 2. The appeal of the other Cuban in the White Sox organization. 3. The promise of a true competition for the 3B position. I am sure Viciedo has heard all the talk about not being a true competition for the 3B job. I am sure he and his agent are thinking why we chose the White Sox over other teams especially when other teams offered more $$$$$$$$. The White Sox misled Viciedo and his agent. He would have signed for more money with X or Y team if I have to go to the minors anyways. Do you guys believe the White Sox will compete with the other teams this year? I think by July, Dye and others will be gone. If Viciedo and Beckham have not played any other position in the minors, I hope they do not throw them anywhere else beside 3B and SS in the Majors out the blue. If there are concerns with Viciedo's ability to play 3B, then tell him to his face. You are assigned to 1B or the outfield starting today. I doubt it. Viciedo would not start on any team this season whether you disagree with me or not. Anything to do with viciedo with you simply blow out of proportion. He is not some almighty being. Believe me, no one is out to get him. You are asking and practically demanding for him to do something that has only been done 21 times since the draft has been introduced. Not realistic, sorry. He will have to get to the majors just like the nearly every other player, proove himself. He is young, raw, and very talented, there is no reason to rush him for the sake of rushing him. Thankfully the sox know better than to be that foolish. Alexei cannot be compared to viciedo, their situtations are nothing alike, the age differential is just too vast.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Mar 4, 2009 -> 08:07 AM) It's practically impossible to rig the draft lottery. It's a combination of balls that are randomly selected and there are several impartial observers. The 1980 Pennsylvania lottery scandal says differently. It is much easier than you could imagine.

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Mar 2, 2009 -> 02:55 PM) I think it's the exact opposite. This board hates speed so much that having it is almost a negative. (I'm a huge Owens hater though, FWIW.) Everyone seems pretty open to the idea off ''speed''. Not everyone is open to the idea of getting speedy players for the sake of them just being speedy. Aka the ridiculously long ongoing willy taveras thread that should have never gotten that long in the first place. When speed is a players only asset it is understandable why that player gets scrutinized so often.

QUOTE (Kalapse @ Mar 2, 2009 -> 02:42 PM) Jerry Owens can steal lots of bases therefor he has "what it takes to be a leadoff man" That's exactly what Bill Melton just said. How can anyone believe that s***? That seems to be pretty close to the soxtalk definition of a leadoff man. But then again maybe because i am not ''content'' with jerry owens as the leadoff man i need to find a new team to root for. Infinity laughs....

QUOTE (knightni @ Feb 22, 2009 -> 05:14 PM) Milwaukee has a fan base that goes to games because of baseball tradition. That is where people are unfair. The only way they got that ''baseball tradition'' was with an oppurtunity in the first place. So if given the chance it is theoretically possible that teams from other various locations could do just as well as the brewers. One or two teams will slowly leak into the entire league, as such seems inevitable eventually. I cannot forsee the mlb doing anything drastic and adding any more than 2 teams at a time every ten years or so. They know what they are doing and are not gonna water the league down anytime soon. Six more teams out there would just be too drastic and would take many years to get the league back to terms, skill wise. It would be a never ending chain down the line. Just look at how bad the bottom feeders are in the nfl and nba year in year out. I truly love baseball due to how close the talent levels are day in day out. Baseball is a crap shoot compared to the nfl or nba. It is far from uncommon to see the worst team in the nba with a sub .200 winning percentage. Almost every season there are 2,3,4,5 teams with sub .350 records. There is no word for that other than atrocious. The nfl and nba are simply too top heavy. I love football and i love basketball, the disparities in the nfl and nba i can do without.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Feb 22, 2009 -> 09:03 AM) Saw Taken last night and was thoroughly entertained. Yeah most of it was implausible and there were some corny scenes, especially everything leading up to the trip to Paris, but it was fun. I'm also surprised at PG-13 ratings given to movies like this and Dark Knight. They were both ultra violent and I couldn't help but think what the heck did it need to get an R rating? I guess if they showed a boob it would have gotten the R but having 40 people savagely killed or injured is fine. A sad commentary on society today that violence is so easily accepted. This is not directed at you, just society in general. Society has taken nothing but a step backwards in that regard. What was once acceptable will slowly but surely find its way to the dumpster rather than on the big screen. There have been darker and more twisted plots throughout the history of films than the dark knight could ever associate with... with lesser ratings. The actual problem is people have become more defensive and insecure with just 70, 60, 50, even just 40 years ago. With films and literature you are suppose to let your imagination run wild and not take everything to heart. There is no more tobacco on television (they are really trying to get it out of movies entirely also) for the vaaaast majority throughout our nation. Next it will be liqour being shown or consumed, swear words entirely filtered, infidelity, people ditching school (after all it is a no no), drugs in general, aids, rape, etc. These are just a sample of real life problems people go through everyday. Only if the things mentioned above were that simple in real life, fact is movies are actually the lighter side to the ugly truth. The real pieces of s*** and horrid ''ideas'' are accessible to practically everyone. Almost everyone has either a newspaper in their home and/or a television to watch the news. Movies do not compare to 9/11 (and even much, much smaller stories for that matter) and let's say even Katrina. I would say it is safe to say the same people that do not want their children to watch a certain movie based on a rating would have no qualms if they did indeed read the paper or turn on the news. Gone with the wind which is a bonafide classic won 8 oscars with 13 total nominations. The movie touched on rape, drunkenness, moral dissipation, and adultery. "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn." Some people just so happen to believe it is one of the very best movie quotes ever. Can you believe they swore in that line? Shame on them. How about the ridiculous fire? There was no rating scale when this film came out and in 1971 they ''bumped'' it up to ''g''. Gunner Palace http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0424129/ They say phuck 42 times throughout the movie. Those 42 times are the most ever for a pg-13 movie. Doesn't seem right that it should get special treatment due to it being about documentary about war.

Say a fictional player has 5 at-bats throughout a game and does the following, strikeout, ground into double play, strikeout, strikeout, single to knock in the game winning run. Pretty impressive to knock in that game winning run right? What i forgot to mention is this player also stranded 7 runners on base, with a chance to either tie or put his time ahead each and every time he came up to the plate. People that preach clutch fail to realize that games can be won and lost just as easily in the middle of a game and even at times in the very first inning. Short term memory would suggest the ''clutch'' factor. I personally do not fall for it. While i would be grateful for the hit a free pass would not be handed out like candy.

QUOTE (SouthsideDon48 @ Feb 19, 2009 -> 05:21 PM) I'm not going to get into every single player, but here's how I think the 5 most recent American League champions' DH players' value are compared to Thome: Thome Thome Thome Thome = David Ortiz (Both useless, neither can play on the field anymore) Thome Something this silly could have only been said to bait people. I am rather depressed in myself actually... You do not know the purpose behind the dh i take it?

QUOTE (joesaiditstrue @ Feb 19, 2009 -> 01:46 AM) to my understanding, AA isn't really a competition league, it's more of a league where players are learning new things or having their mechanics slightly adjusted and new pitches learned/perfected, AAA is generally where your final talent resides in waiting someone correct me if i'm wrong can't really go by what happened to him in AA, as we all know he's been hard at work with his changeup, and has probably been throwing it as much as his fastball if not more than The most bonafide talent resides in double a. Now if they make it to the majors and have a succesful career is still another thing entirely. Many top prospects that go on to have mlb careers either have limited time in triple a ( half a season) or in some cases forego triple a entirely and work out their ''mechanics'' in the majors. First hand experience is the most valuable out of all. Triple a is generally for all the washed up has beens aka nothing more than fodder material. Triple a is the home of talented but not talented enough overall players to warrant the majors.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Feb 15, 2009 -> 01:42 PM) That's amazing how old Owens is. Proves it's tough to crack a lineup in the majors. I wouldn't discount Wise making it. Oz loves him obviously. Makes it all the more amazing how crede was our every day starting third baseman while only being 24 years old!

I like how he is kissing her chin.

QUOTE (PlaySumFnJurny @ Jan 23, 2009 -> 07:54 AM) This is spot on. In fact, I would add that apart from that difference and the encounters with celebrities, BB is a virtual remake of Forrest Gump (they share the same screenwriter). Someone posted a funny, split/screen comparison of the movies on Youtube that has since been taken down. It highlighted the following similarities: SPOILER ALERT (I don't know how to do that masking thingy): I thought BB was ok, but I'll be pissed if the writer wins an Oscar, because it seems like he just cut and pasted from his Forrest Gump screenplay. The writer of Forrest Gump is Eric Roth, Roth wrote the screenplay for Benjamin Button, not Slumdog Millionaire. Simon Beaufoy wrote Slumdog Millionaire, and his most notable movie written prior was the Full Monty.

QUOTE (onedude @ Jan 15, 2009 -> 03:13 PM) No he isn't special or anything...but he isn't real bright. He just broke something in my kitchen just now...what's that tell ya? It was a drinking glass. I was gonna suggest plastic cups but then again he still may cut himself. Have you thought about investing in something else less dangerous for him? PS, remember to tell him the cups are not edible.

QUOTE (knightni @ Jan 11, 2009 -> 12:54 AM) Actually, Davey Johnson's going to carry only 5 starters and probably 7 bullpen guys. Like a regular team. Thornton could get 10-15 innings. There has to be 13 pitchers, all of whom we will know by feb 24th. Currently there are 8 relievers and 3 starters. Say they grab another 2 starters, which will make it 5 and 8 (they won't really even have a need for five starters but that is not the point). The numbers would show that there were 10 and 3. They used leiter in the relief role due to him being the only other lefty in the pen other than fuentes (him being horrid the season prior did not help any). Leiter was used as a last resort option, so i personally look at it more like there were 9 relievers. I don't see how more starters and practically one less reliever is gonna equate to more innings for the relievers. So instead of three starters pitching in 2 games apiece, 4 will pitch only one game, while only one out of the bunch will pitch in 2 (barring they get where they got in 2006). Innings leaders in the 2006 WBC. Koji Uehara - 17 Korea Jae-Weong Seo - 14 Republic Bartolo Colón - 14 Shunsuke Watanabe - 13.2 Daisuke Matsuzaka - 13 10-15 innings for a reliever? Ya right.

QUOTE (Baines3 @ Jan 10, 2009 -> 11:51 PM) I hope he doesn't tire his arm out. I think his arm will be able to handle the 3-4 innings he may pitch.

QUOTE (knightni @ Dec 22, 2008 -> 08:02 PM) New or older...both? QUOTE (knightni @ Dec 22, 2008 -> 08:32 PM) Ah, I have ones from the 70s-80s-90s. My parents have 7 comic book boxes full of nothing but 10 and 12 cent comics, not to mention an additional 15 boxes which all have a cover price more than of more than 12 cents. Goldmine

Ginger..

QUOTE (Jeremy @ Dec 22, 2008 -> 01:42 PM) When you pair ERA with peripherals you're getting more but still leaving out a lot. The fact that Garland reached the majors at 20 and was adored by scouts (BA's #36 prospect once season) does a ton to distinguish him from Marquez. If Garland pitched in the minors at 23, when he put up a better than league average ERA in the big leagues, he would have obliterated the minor league stats that he and Marquez put up. Wang's peripherals were a good bit better than Marquez's. Both allowed just .5 HR/9 but Wang's K/BB ratio of 3.55 is far better than Marquez's 2.06 K/BB ratio. Again, my point with Wang stands that he wasn't a very good prospect. If we project every prospect of Wang's caliber to have Jon Garland's career, we'll probably have a success rate of something like 5%, because there are plenty of pitching prospects of that caliber in the minors right now. In other words, the fact that Wang exceeded expectations is absolutely no reason to believe Marquez will as well. Admittedly, it's a short cut I used because I didn't want to spend hours posting in this thread. I wasn't trying to look at when pitchers became established major league players though - Marquez may never even do that. I was trying to look at how quickly they advanced through the minors and how old they were for each minor league they played in. We know Garland, Danks, and Floyd were young for their leagues in the minors and that's a big reason they were such big time prospects. Marquez, in contrast, has not advanced through the minors quickly and has not been young for any of the leagues he's pitched in. We know Garland, Floyd, and Danks weren't being pushed particularly aggressively through the minors because they held their own and we know Marquez wasn't being handled too conservatively because he didn't dominate at any level. Grilli reached AAA at 21, Masset at 24, and Glover at 22. Marquez at best was able to advance through the minors as quickly as these players. I never said he won't make it in the majors. The jury is still out on Masset but Grilli has pitched 311 major league innings over 7 seasons while Glover has thrown 516 innings over 8 seasons, so in some sense, they've "made it." All I said is that I doubt Marquez makes substantial contributions next season or has a good major league career. People seem to be arguing against the straw man argument that Marquez can't be good major league player. I thought I was pretty clear at the beginning of my post that I believe that's absolutely possible - just very unlikely. As with Wang, yes, Marquez could beat the odds just like those other prospects who never make top 100 lists, but why should we expect him to? Or even give him, say, a 30% chance? Well, Marquez wasn't a top prospect of the Yankees when we acquired him - I've seen recent top 30 lists he was left off of completely. I don't see why we should emphasize less recent evaluations over more recent evaluations; that's pretty counter intuitive. How much he has in common with Grilli, Glover, and Masset is only so relevant though. What's indisputably clear is that he has next to nothing in common with Floyd, Garland, and Danks, who were consensus top prospects while Marquez is a very average one. He and Garland both rely on inducing ground balls and good control as opposed to missing bats but that's pretty much where the comparisons start and end. No one claims Marquez's stuff is great, his peripherals are mediocre, he can't crack a top 100 list, he can't crack his former team's top 5 - or even their top 30 in some instances - and at 24, he's no spring chicken. He's way too ordinary to merit this much discussion. Now this is what i like to see. Thank you for the logic!

QUOTE (scenario @ Dec 20, 2008 -> 03:27 PM) OK... so... if he's 'more hittable', I'm assuming that people would be getting more hits then right? Year - BAA - H/9 2005 - .225 - 7.78 2006 - .253 - 8.53 2007 - .198 - 6.23 2008 - .230 - 7.44 So... he has been LESS hittable (in terms of H/9) in the last two years than he was in his first two years... not more. Dude, he just doesn't care what the stats say.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Dec 18, 2008 -> 07:11 PM) I bought Holiday Inn, the colorized DVD. Actually is was the three pack. B&W, Colorized, and the sound track. I have a friend coming over tonight. We'll see how it passes. I was encouraged looking at the scene that was on the box. Hope it translates well for you. Let me know what you thought about it.