Jake

QUOTE(sox-r-us @ Jun 10, 2005 -> 10:29 PM) We should have traded Jon Garland to the Angels for Darren Focking Erstad :finger Haha, my friend from North Dakota would have liked that one.

What the hell happened to his velocity? He's getting shelled because his fastball is only 86-89 most of the time...he likes to throw an 83 mph pitch a lot too...not exactly sure what that is. I don't know why he's lost his velocity, but he's been flirting with danger lately and we're about to pay for it. Does anyone know whats going on? Does he need a trip to the DL?

I never really felt that way, but a lot of you felt a lot of hatred for the now loved Jon Garland

QUOTE(DABearSoX @ Jun 10, 2005 -> 09:00 AM) Some good comes out of site that bash people www.firejohnshoop.com F*** these bastards, We will find out who they are.... I hate John Shoop...I remember one time we were watching a pre-game show and a fan was holding up a sign that said "ANOTHER SHOOPID PLAY"...and thus, "shoopid" has become a part of my vocabulary.

QUOTE(LosMediasBlancas @ Jun 10, 2005 -> 08:57 AM) No s***, when Scotty walks, you might as well call it a double. I guess doubles are insignificant too....idiots. And even when Scotty doesn't steal, the pitcher still about s***s himself with every movement Scott makes. He ends up more or less giving up the steal by allowing a hit while he's preoccupied with Pods.

QUOTE(nitetrain8601 @ Jun 4, 2005 -> 12:36 AM) He said he should've taken out Buehrle after he gave up the leadoff hit. I tend to agree. He also said you should get your closer in there in a save situation. Ozzie didn't. It wasn't before the inning started, it was after the first hit Brantley said Hermy should go in. I seem to remember Ozzie being criticized last year for bringing in Shingo only in save situations, instead of bringing him in to try to win the game.

isnt mccarthy due to start?

QUOTE(letsgoarow @ Jun 1, 2005 -> 11:56 AM) "Coming into the season you know you're going to win 60 and lose 60," Dye said. "It's those one-run games that make the difference." does anyone remember hawk's little thing about this... i wonder if dye ripped him off ahah i thought it was 50 and 50

QUOTE(fathom @ May 29, 2005 -> 06:56 PM) Great, we're comparing our offense with that of a dead ball era offense. don't compare it with steroid era teams either!

I wonder why so few sports...think they only chose ones with a lot of red winners?

Dye will break out! 1 homer every game!

I'll acknowledge Dye's errors, but don't overlook how many runners he's kept from taking the extra base with his arm.

Yeah, my understanding is that he's talking about streaks in any stretch of the season.

Yeah. Never saw the point of fungos, regular bats should get the job done.

You're a diehard fan when the heart of your lineup is injured and Minnesota has already clinched the division but you still feel the need to see every inning of every remaining game...no matter who is on the mound.

I'm going to be different. I say Garcia goes, I know I'll get b****ed at but for some reason I see him giving up the big hit with a lot on the line.

reminds me of a book i read.....

We're White Sox fans, of course we're gonna say underrated!

QUOTE(Goldmember @ May 6, 2005 -> 09:32 PM) 1. I am in shape. Round is a shape. My favorite ^^^^

Time to drill in ANWR.

Saluki. GO SIU!

Here are some interesting numbers from 2004(give or take a couple on each): Games with: 0 runs : 8 1-2 runs : 41 3-4 runs : 35 5-6 runs : 26 7-8 runs : 19 9-10 runs : 17 More than 10 runs : 16 See what was wrong? We were at extremes way too much. Games with 7+ runs = 52. Games with 5+ runs = 78. Games with 2 or less runs = 49. We were only at our average (5.34 runs per game) 26 times. We were within 2-3 runs of it 80 times. Less than half. That's how the numbers lie. This year: 0 runs : 0 1-2 : 6 3-4 : 7 5-6 : 7 7-8 : 4 9-10 : 1 More than 10 : 0 Our average runs per game this year is 4.56. We are within 2 runs of this 14 games, over half the time (56% to be exact). We are within 3 runs 20 games. (80%) This is our consistency and staying away from extremes. These numbers don't lie.

He fails to mention the inconsistency of last year's offense. We scored a lot of runs yes, but we might pack in 10-15 in one game. And if we win 15-3, 9 of those runs aren't needed. They're needed when we lose the next game, 3-1 or 2-0 or something like that. Here's an example: 5/11/04 - White Sox win 15-0. Buehrle pitches brilliantly. 5/13/04 (the next game) - White Sox lose 0-1. Garland pitches brilliantly, but is offered NO run support. None. Not a single run. 14 of the runs the day prior were not needed that day but were most definitely needed this day. Or another example, just days later. 5/14/04 - White Sox lose, 2-3. No run support for a good pitching performance. 5/15/04 - White Sox lose, 1-4. No run support for a decent pitching performance. 5/16/04 - White Sox win, 11-0. Mark Buehrle is awarded 11 runs of support when he only technically needs 1. Those extra 10 could have been used to win those other games. That's exactly what I'm talking about.

I'm a lover! And I love to be noticed! Yesssssssss