ZoomSlowik

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ May 24, 2006 -> 10:04 AM) Isn't that a white russian? Yep. Somebody was pretty lazy on that one.

QUOTE(Felix @ May 23, 2006 -> 08:51 PM) Never use that argument again. First, you are comparing a player with a team. Second, you are comparing team accomplishments, not individual ones. Third, Timo Perez has a ring. Is he better than Bonds? The problem is that if we had drafted Bonds, there's a fairly good chance that we wouldn't have been able to draft the Big Hurt. Frank was the best hitter in baseball in the early-to-mid 90's and was obviously the centerpiece to two solid teams. Bonds didn't really pass him up until Frank started having injury problems, and by then Bonds might have been gone in FA anyways.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ May 24, 2006 -> 09:32 AM) Meh, I hope we dont take Reddick. No kidding, that makes no sense. Why the hell would we take another undersized 2 guard? We already have Gordon, who's more athletic and is a better ball-handler.

Supposedly the Raptors are leaning towards taking Bargnani. Apparently Colangelo has scouted him quite a bit, and they're about to hire the GM of Bargnani's old team as an assistant general manager.

QUOTE(Wedge @ May 23, 2006 -> 05:11 PM) Are you Sam Smith? Is Garnett really that great? Uh, yeah. His teams have been horrible for his whole career, and he still consistently got them to the playoffs, making the finals one year. 20 points, 10 boards, and 4 assists would look nice in our lineup, and we'd be a major threat to make at least the conference finals.

QUOTE(watchtower41 @ May 23, 2006 -> 03:28 PM) thanks... I like to take a look at various projections. nbadraft.net and espn seem to differ with several different players. Rajon Rondo is one player that I am trying to keep an eye on as pre-draft camps start up..... he'd be a solid pick for the Bulls 2nd 1st round pick, though I doubt he will be there. ESPN has him going as high as #7 to Boston, nbadraft.net has him going #26 to the Lakers. The kid plays outstanding D. I'm personally not a huge fan. He's a good athlete and a strong defender, but he's a brutal shooter and his ballhandling/passing skills are often a bit suspect. I'd also be worried that when he's not significantly more athletic everyone else that he won't have much of an impact. He'd be an okay fit for some teams, but he'd probably be stuck behind Duhon for the Bulls. I'd imagine he'll go somewhere in the mid-first round, maybe sneaking into the back end of the lottery depending where the teams that need a PG are picking.

QUOTE(watchtower41 @ May 23, 2006 -> 01:58 PM) anybody find any other mock drafts or projections?? I'd assume that you'll see them all over the place starting tomorrow now that the draft order is about to be determined. If you can't wait that long, nbadraft.net has one up.

QUOTE(SleepyWhiteSox @ May 23, 2006 -> 01:08 PM) I was thinking the same thing. I've not seen more than a few highlights so I tend to stay out of "potential" discussions. Well, I'm trying to go on what the general consensus is. Everything I've read seems to say what I said earlier. I'm just throwing that out there.

QUOTE(nitetrain8601 @ May 23, 2006 -> 11:31 AM) He could defend in the post as much as Tyson if not more. The guy is unreal when it comes to blocks and when he's not shooting well, he finds ways to get to the line. 2nd coming of Dirk is appropriate. I seriously doubt that he's going to be a big time post defender. The Dirk comparison I could see once he develops though. He can shoot, he's pretty mobile, and he's a good ball-handler for his size. However, unless he adds like 35 pounds he's going to be a defensive liability just like Dirk has been for a good chunk of his career, and he's probably going to be a decent rebounder at best. I don't see him being a major factor his first two years because of his bulk issues and the drastic increase in quality of competition. I find it funny that we're arguing about a player that I highly doubt either of us has seen in action though.

QUOTE(nitetrain8601 @ May 23, 2006 -> 11:00 AM) I rather go off of draftexpress and nbadraft.net. ESPN just puts together some mumbo jumbo. I don't think he'll be a tweener at all either. He'll definately be a PF in the league. I don't like draft express because they make everyone sound like the second coming of some great player. You'd think that everyone is a future All-star reading their profiles. They also seem to think that everyone can play other positions when they really can't. Eventually he'll be a power forward, but that's not really the case right now. Even draft express says that he doesn't have an NBA position right now, could struggle defensively, and that he's never going to be a real banger in the post. If he can't defend in the post, then that's definitely an issue down the line.

QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ May 23, 2006 -> 08:42 AM) :rolly Please....your aware he went 22-10 with a 2.63 and 1.13 last year, as well as 7 CG's and 5 shutouts, for a .500 team last year aren't you? He's off to a terrible start, but that comment is completely stupid. One year (or I guess one and a half in his case) does not a career make. He's still more of a thrower than a pitcher, and there's a decent chance people might have finally figured out his delivery. It's conceivable that he's on the Hideo Nomo-Fernando Valenzueza-Mark Fydrich career path. All of those guys were pretty dominant early in their career but couldn't sustain it.

QUOTE(SoxAce @ May 23, 2006 -> 01:17 AM) Hell, he has the potential to be the next Dirk Nowitzki with better defense. The only true knock on him is that he's not very strong (might be alittle more of a weak rebonder than Dirk) and that he plays in Italy (still new to the game and European players can be really solid or really awful so it's a major risk.) I'll take a Pau Gasol game from him any friggin day of the week. EDIT: I hate using the word potential. It's really an ugly word. The other problem is his really a tweener right now as well. He's not strong enough and doesn't have the post game to be a PF, and his quickness and ball-handling skills are probably an issue at SF. Wherever he is, he's going to be a defensive liability for at least 2 years. Plus ESPN's profile compares him to Troy Murphy right now, which is a little scary. While he puts up good numbers, Troy is a suspect defender with a low shooting percentage that really isn't as strong a rebounder as his numbers would indicate.

I don't really see why NU gets any early consideration. They just barely made a bowl game last year, and they lost several key players. They lost their leader and best player on both sides of the ball in Basanez and McGarigle, and they lost a solid lineman on each side in Strief and Coefield. Don't get me wrong, they do have some talent. Sutton is a solid RB and they have some depth at the position, Roach and Kadela are decent linebackers, Cole can fly in the secondary, and they have some decent receivers. However, QB is a huge question mark, so is the defensive line, and the rest of the secondary is a little iffy. I think they can make another bowl game, but I don't see them as a top 25 candidate unless Bacher or someone else steps up at QB.

QUOTE(ptatc @ May 19, 2006 -> 11:12 PM) This is always a way I think about it also. However, there are some excetions. Nolan Ryan for example. Should he be in the Hall of Fame? He was never the best pitcher in any given year. No Cy Youngs. His average record for his career is barely over .500. While he holds the record for most strikeouts he also holds the record for most walks in a career. From these numbers I don't know but the BIG thing to put it over the edge is the no-hitters. So, he is obviously a Hall of Famer but was never the best pitcher in any given year. So sometimes that criteria needs to be altered. Well I would say at least a top 5 player at any given time, maybe top 3 at some times. Either that or the top player at your position. The best player in the game is a little harsh, especially if you played in an era with guys like Ruth and Gehrig, or Mays, Aaron, and Musial. Even for the 90's, unless your name was Thomas, Griffey, Bonds, McGwire, or Sosa in the field or Maddux, Clemens, or Pedro on the mound, you weren't even close to #1. (Yeah, I know you could argue differently by awards, but I don't consider that solid evidence). Using that logic, one guy that wouldn't even be close to the hall is Eddie Murray. Yes, his career numbers are fantastic. However, he has one batting title, no homerun or RBI crowns, and no MVP's. That batting title was also his only appearance in the top 5 in the league in batting average or homers his entire career. He had a long, solid career however, which is why he is in. He might not be one of my favorites, but it's hard to argue with the final totals.

Phil Rizzuto is in the Hall of Fame, but Bert Blyleven and Goose Gossage aren't. That's about all you need to know. Being on a good team helps a lot, especially if it's the Yankees.

The listed capacity appears to be too high. Isn't it more like 38k since they took off the top few rows?

QUOTE(JackTalkThai @ May 19, 2006 -> 02:16 PM) I wouldn't exactly call the quarter point of the season "arbitrary". Detroit is not going to finish ahead of the Technically, it's not exactly a quarter of the season. Besides that, I was referring more to the record as opposed to the number of games played. 27 is a weird number, both in terms of total and percentage. A baseline of 25 or 24 (.600 percentage) would make more sense, and would include a few more teams. Well, at least we agree on the second part.

QUOTE(JackTalkThai @ May 19, 2006 -> 01:19 PM) Actually there is some statistical logic that disagrees with you to an extent. It was reported on a broadcast recently that of the teams in the history of baseball that began the season with a 27-13 (or better) record, I believe it was 95% of them finished the season with a .555 or better winning percentage which translates to 90+ wins. I know it has only happened four times with the Tigers organization and all four times they finished the season with 95+ wins, with two of the seasons ending with a World Championship (1968 and 1984). That being said and returning to your second point...what are the constants that tend to separate the teams that fizzle out (after hot starts) and those that continue their strong play? Pitching and defense. TIFWIW Detroit's currently #1 in pitching and #2 in defensive efficiency rating. Their record is really inconsequential, and that seems like a rather arbitrary record to pick as a dividing point. More often than not, good teams are going to start out with that kind of record. Obviously not all of them are, since some have fallen short. I'd be curious to see what the record for all of those teams were the previous year. I doubt that too many of them were in 4th place the previous year. I also doubt that too many of those teams had another very strong club that was right behind them despite their hot start. Well, the Orioles and Dodgers got some decent pitching (at least from some of their guys) on their start as well, and that didn't end too well. The Royals got off to a pretty decent start on the mound too. It's all about sustaining their current performance, and many people have stated why their pitching won't hold up. They still have to win 63 games to reach 90, which would be a .516 pace the rest of the year. Obviously, a lot of us have doubts that it will happen. Also, as I stated, they'll probably need more like 95 wins given the strength of the Sox, which is a .557 pace.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ May 19, 2006 -> 12:40 PM) It is also possible that we fizzle out. That's a lot less likely. We're not even playing all that well and we're only one game behind the Tigers. I think I'll side with the team that won 99 game and a title last year and was almost universally picked to win at least the division over a team that won 71 and was widely picked to finish 4th. 19 game improvements don't happen too often, and it'll probably take even more than that to win this division. We proved that we can play at a high level for a prolonged period last year. They haven't.

QUOTE(JackTalkThai @ May 19, 2006 -> 12:08 PM) So since they lost 3 games to the reigning World Champs in the 2nd week of the season, they aren't a good enough team to play measley .500 ball from here on out even though they've gone 27-10 against everyone else they've played (23 of which were played on the road)? I'm just not following that logic? There's no statistical logic that says they will play .500 ball from here on out because of their hot start. There have been plenty of teams that start out on fire just to fizzle out. A few examples are the Orioles and Dodgers last year, and the Royals from a few years ago. For every team that keeps it up like the 2005 Sox, there are 2 other teams that don't. All you need is one prolonged losing streak to kill that pace, and there's a chance that one is coming with their schedule between now and the break. They still have to play a lot of good teams. Between now and the All-star break, they play 22 games against teams that were expected to be contenders, and the "dogs" include a couple of dangerous teams like a hot Cincinnati club and the Brewers. Plus, they still have 13 more with us in the second half, and Minnesota and Cleveland, who won't be playing like this forever.

QUOTE(hammerhead johnson @ May 19, 2006 -> 12:00 PM) There are no real teams in the AL West? Cleveland and Minnesota are not good teams? Who looks at a club's record and takes a definitive stance as to how good they are in freaking May? Well, regardless of how good those teams are supposed to be, they aren't playing very well right now. Even without the games against the Tigers, none of them would be more than a few games over .500. At this point I'd say their records are just a little more valuable than the pre-season predictions, although neither tells you how they will end up.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ May 19, 2006 -> 07:14 AM) He is now pitching in a hitter's park and won't have to deal with 120 degree Texas heat. Might do a little better in the 2nd half this year. Kenny Rogers' home/road splits for the last 2 years when he was in Texas: 2004 Home ERA- 4.24 Road ERA- 5.31 2005 Home ERA- 2.98 Road ERA- 3.78 So apparently he pitched better in the hitter's park with the heat. I guess the park wasn't really a factor then. I wouldn't expect a 41 year old to have much stamina anyways.

QUOTE(winninguglyin83 @ May 18, 2006 -> 05:40 PM) wouldn't hold my breath waiting for Detroit to go away. They finally have a legit GM and manager. They built a team that fits their park -- pitching oriented. And they've got a veteran lineup with guys who have pennant race experience. They won't play at a 27-13 pace all season. But they're a 90-win team. Where are all these guys with serious playoff experience? They have one guy who has actually won anything in I-Rod, and Maggs took part in a sweep in the ALDS. I must have missed a lot of playoff appearances by Dimitri Young, Carlos Guillen, Chris Shelton, Placido Polanco, and Brandon Inge.

A couple of notes on the Tigers "vaunted" pitching staff. I can't really argue against Bonderman or Verlander. Both are quite talented and have the potential to do well. However, it's far from a given that they keep pitching well. Bonderman has yet to post a sub-4.50 ERA in his three full major league seasons. This might be a Jon Garland-like breakout year, or it might be more of the same. Verlander is a rookie, so who knows exactly what he'll give you from here on out. Maybe he keeps dominating, maybe he has a few more rough outings like the one against the Sox. It's a crap shoot. The outlook for the rest of the staff isn't as rosy. Mike Maroth is getting really lucky right now. His WHIP is at 1.40 and his strikeout rate is only at 3.70. That suggests that he should have a much higher ERA than he currently does. An awful lot of balls are being put in play and a lot of men are getting on base against him without much damage being done. That won't last forever. Combine that with his 4.69 career ERA in 4 seasons in the majors and things don't look so good. Nate Robinson is similar. Despite a WHIP of 1.34, he has a respectable ERA. He strikes out guys a little more frequently, but he's not exactly Randy Johnson. He's another guy with a high career ERA (4.77) that so far has allowed fewer runs that one would expect. Kenny Rogers is a notorius quick starter who starts to fade around the All-star break. Over the last 3 years he has a 3.87 ERA before the break and a 4.80 ERA after it. Evidence suggests that he's doing the same thing this year. There's no way he finishes with a 3.23 ERA. The comparisons to the 2005 staff are out of line. The Tigers' staff has a very spotty major league resume, outside of a few decent years from Kenny Rogers. They don't have anywhere near as much experience or as successful a past as the Sox staff last year. Garland had the least experience on the Sox staff, and he still had more than every starter on the Tigers except Rogers. One could argue that Contreras had little major league experience, but he also was pitching in the Cuban professional leagues while the kids on the Tigers were still in grammar school. Plus, the Sox starters had a much greater history of success. Buerhle was already an established pitcher with three 15-win seasons under his belt in his 4 and a half in the majors. Freddy Garcia also had 3 15-win seasons under his belt, and might have had another in 2004 if he had been on the Sox the whole year. Orlando Hernandez was a fairly solid starter for the Yankees who had a dominant history in the playoffs. Only Rogers has any history of success, and that's balanced by years of mediocrity. Detroit has a decent team, but by no means is this team a threat to win 95 games or more like the White Sox are. There pitching has been good so far, but there is no way it is as strong as ours. They still have to play a lot of games against us. If they can hold their own, maybe I'll reconsider. But right now, they're probably going to max out at about 90 wins, and my guess is 88. That shouldn't be enough to be a major threat to the Sox unless some things go wrong.

I think the story was in Sports Illustrated, because I remember reading it.