RockRaines

QUOTE (TheBigHurt @ Sep 23, 2010 -> 03:26 PM) Rock, do I really need to try to break this down? Do we REALLY need to do a instinct/statistics debate for simple s*** like pitching to Morneau in a 1 run game with 2 outs and a base open? That's the type of s*** I'm talking about. I don't care what guts say, some s*** you just have to think fundamentally about. There's a fine line between going with instinct and being flat out stupid/ignorant. As for how often, he does s*** like THAT very regularly. Once again that is one example of a decision out of many during a game. The question is, what is it that you actually want from a manager? What would be your sucecss criteria? You understand saying "a guy that doesnt do dumb s*** like this one time something happened bad" isnt actually explaining your viewpoint. Either is "he does THAT regularly". How regularly? How many times has that happened? If you can remember each time, then it really didnt happen that often, its just that you remembered a particular instance because it upset you personally. Personally, I dont think a manager has all that much influence on a game, in fact the good ones you never notice. I am of the frame of mind that the players do the actual work while the manager takes the blame for when they dont.

QUOTE (TheBigHurt @ Sep 23, 2010 -> 03:16 PM) Being right 100% of the time has absolutely NOTHING to do with it, if you're talking about results. I don't expect every decision to lead to success. It has to do with making the right statistical and strategic decision, which Ozzie botches carelessly far too often to ignore. If it fails, it fails (maybe this is where I and others are different because I'm gonna b**** constantly about what happens as long as the manager made the correct decision for the situation). But at least you make the CORRECT decision. Ozzie entirely too often does not do that. How often does he not make the correct decision disregarding the results? DO you know? What would be acceptable? Would you prefer a manager that always goes with the stats? These are honest questions.

LOL

QUOTE (TheBigHurt @ Sep 23, 2010 -> 02:50 PM) How many of those points are common sense even to a non-professional baseball player? Seems like you're saying it's unfair to criticize Ozzie for the IDIOTIC decisions he makes but we should praise him when he simply makes the right decision. If the best you can say about a manager is that he made the right decision not pitching to a guy who's hitting .400 or so against us when there's a base open and 2 outs... then your manager just sucks. I'm not saying we shouldn't be proud of him when he makes the right decisions... but we're talking NO-BRAINERS here that Ozzie consistently ignores/f***s up; not occasionally, not even a good amount... but ON A REGULAR BASIS. No, I'm saying that perception is not always reality which John once again pointed out about two posts above when all you can remember is the bad decisions without actually taking a look at the entire picture. There are alot of people on this site that expect the Sox and Ozzie to be correct 100% of the time, and if there is a mistake made, then it lessens the other positive attributes and activities of that player or coach. If Ozzie is correct about 75 percent of the time in his decisions, especially with the pitching staff, is that a good ratio or not? Thats what I am pointing out. You could easily take Ozzie's name out of the discussion and just use manager A as an example and I think it would be just as relevant. The question is, is there a manager in baseball that makes the correct in game decision with his lineup and his pitching staff 100% of the time. And if not, what is the perception of his success rate by his own fan base. It applies for players as well. When a poster says "he mad the wrong decision in this game in this moment and therefore he does it all the time and its retarded" you can guarantee that the perception of the actual performance has been influenced by the emotional attachment to those instances instead of actually taking a step back and analyzing the entire body of work both positive and negative. And before someone idiotically responds calling me a fanboy, I am not referring to Ozzie specifically, and frankly I dont give a rats ass if he stays, so dont try it.

QUOTE (That funky motion @ Sep 23, 2010 -> 02:01 PM) I got this from a radio guy who comes in my business. He said, he ran into Ozzie's son at the East Bank Club. Ozzie's son said that if the Sox don't sign Oz to an longer deal, that Oz will call Jim Hendry personally, to try to manage the Cubs. Which son? I see a few of them on my block and I'd be more than happy to try and confirm this even though I think its BS.

QUOTE (JohnCangelosi @ Sep 23, 2010 -> 01:33 PM) I recall when we signed Guillen, sometime in 2004, I told a friend from out of town that we had hired a star- mostly because he commanded respect, was likeable and wasn't a p**sy like Manuel was. The next year we won the World Series and I really believed it to be true....however, I don't feel that way anymore. Ozzie's consistent: * Leaving the starting pitcher in 2 outs too long * Sacrifice bunting in a HR ballpark * Overplaying of matchups in late innings (you have to go lefty on lefty right?!?!?!) * Horrible lineups way too often * Insistent love of horrible players like Mark Kotsay, Andy Gonzalez, et al * Seemingly never making the right decision with Pitchers, at ANY time I'm also interested in what the board hates about Ozzie in terms of management/tactical decisions?!??!!? How many of those points are skewed by your only seeing the situation when it goes wrong? The resurgence of Jon Garland was attributed to Ozzie keeping him in longer in outings giving him confidence. I would like to know how many times he has made the correct decision with pitchers vs the incorrect decision. Perception in this case is skewed by a negative outcome and the emotions attached to it.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Sep 22, 2010 -> 06:31 PM) After reading Cowley's story, I don't see how anybody could want Kenny over Ozzie. Kenny sounds like an egomaniac with his restauranting and pretty boy attitude. His acquisition of Teahen was a joke and his trade of Hudson for a similar type pitcher was equally dumb. As far as Ozzie, he is an egomaniac as well. But at least he was a far better player than Kenny. Give Ozzie another GM to work with. Jerry's silence, however, makes me think he will back Kenny on this one. That's dumb. It's Ozzie over Kenny in this battle. It is sad when former players come back to manage the team that made them famous. Because managers are hired to be fired and when Ozzie gets canned there will be hard feelings and he'll probably never be a Sox again. Hal McRae was a great great Royal; now he never comes back after getting canned as manager. To a lesser extent, Wathan was a very good Royal and though he works for the team now, there were hard feelings when he got canned. It's why Frank White can't ever be manager. KW has about 1% to do with Market, he doesnt make any decisions and is an owner by name only. Cowley clearly hasnt done much research on that establishment.

I used to fly every day for business and its not so much the flying I hate, its the taking off and landing. I've done KLM to Amsterdam and it was a great flight. The jet lag got me pretty good though.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Sep 23, 2010 -> 10:43 AM) I found that just a bit odd, regardless, as Julie Bowen is mad hot. She has to have a serious eating disorder.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 23, 2010 -> 10:02 AM) This is the Bulls. They have the money to spend, so spend it. Noah is one of the top 5 centers in the league and he's entering his what, 4th year? Young, skilled, energetic and all about the team. I dunno if there's any player in the league like him, let alone a center. Plus, he's becoming a fan favorite. I say sign him for what he wants and make him happy. Melo is one of the top 5 PLAYERS in the league however, and is young, skilled and downright dominant.

I've turned around and began to really like Noah the last 2 seasons, especially with his development as a player and the energy he brings. However, I dont buy that the guy is worth that much money, I'd rather get a Melo for him while we can instead of signing him and turning him into a contract albatross and eventually an expiring contract that we cannot wait to get rid of.

QUOTE (justBLAZE @ Sep 22, 2010 -> 04:34 PM) http://blogs.suntimes.com/whitesox/2010/09...o_walk_awa.html Paulie hints here that he wants to play about 3 more years. READ he wants a 3 year deal to finish career with the White Sox. Fine. 2 guaranteed years at 10-12 a pop with a mutual 3rd year at 10.

I really dont care what a player's assist numbers are when he has to completely carry a team offensively like DROSE has had to. Put some players that actually give him some help, and he will probably become an avg passer, and still an elite player.

QUOTE (pittshoganerkoff @ Sep 22, 2010 -> 01:50 PM) I don't think I've ever seen the word "fluke" used so often. The 2005 team was quite good, and they were almost completely dominant in the playoffs. But everything for that team clicked at the same time. Maybe not a fluke by definition, but it wasn't just the fact that the team was better than every other team. Every championship has a degree of flukiness about it. Check out the Blackhawks Stanley cup winning journey. TONS of flukes contributed to their run, as is with every championship.

QUOTE (thxfrthmmrs @ Sep 22, 2010 -> 12:34 PM) really? do you have to think again before you make that comment? I am willing to make a bet with you that if we have boozer and carmelo on the team, rose would not even put up numbers like he did last season. No. He wouldnt have to put up numbers if he had two more stars on the team, but that doesnt make him weak or a bad player. Thats the case with every team who has multiple stars. You are saying he showed he cannot produce because of an "Alpha Male" on the team, I am saying he would produce if needed just as well as he has already shown in the NBA.

Day 2 yesterday, Plyo. Day 3 today, shoulders and arms.

QUOTE (thxfrthmmrs @ Sep 22, 2010 -> 12:16 PM) filled with superstars? exactly who besides durant is a superstar? rose was suppose to play second fiddle to durant, and he played so poorly at the end that he had a 0 point game vs in the semis, played only 12 minutes, and was nearly pulled out of the starting lineup in the finals. Bryan Colangelo even said after the win that he felt good for Rose after he scored 3 baskets in the fourth quarter of the finals to get some of his confidence back. After all, it's the FIBAs game, we shouldn't take too much from it. but it's still worth pointing out that he played poorly when playing next to an alpha male. WTF, alpha male? How about Rose plays great in the NBA on the bulls every game. Doesnt that do enough for you? Durant's presence had nothing to do with anything Rose did in a FIBA tournament. I can say with a 100% certainty that not only with DRose have a great season, but if they added another star to the team, he would have an even better season because they would win.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ Sep 22, 2010 -> 11:09 AM) I don't see how you can say 2005 wasn't a fluke at this point. I don't get why people get mad at those of us who call it a fluke. It doesn't make 2005 not feel great, it doesn't change the fact that the championship was earned, and it doesn't cheapen what happened at all. But 2005 was still a fluke. At what point? What does the teams since then have in common with that team? Nothing. BY your reasoning, almost every team that has won a WS in the modern era was a fluke. The 2005 White Sox were one of the most dominant teams in the regular and post season in many years. There hasnt been a team to run through the playoffs like the 2005 White Sox did. If they stumbled across the finish line and barely won a title, that could be a fluke. But dominating every team they played in the post season en route to a title, thats flat out winning.

Wow, Jewel out of the year again with an ACL injury? I think that may close the book on his Iowa career.

He wasnt as bad as people think he was, players uniformly love his approach. However, this team needs a new voice.

QUOTE (MuckFinnesota @ Sep 21, 2010 -> 08:49 AM) I'm a 22-year-old senior and have found that I don't want to deal with stupid girls who are fresh out of high school. My age range is 19-24, and even 19 and 24 are pushing it. I really like to find someone who is close to my age and maturity. Even if the girl is willing to give it up at 18-19, it's still kind of weird. Especially when the drunken freshman says, "Do it without the condom, it feels better." That's what happened to my one friend. Then again, I know people date people older and younger when they get out in the real world. I also think college dating is sort of pointless, because everyone moves on after graduation. I'd rather save some money, get my s*** together, get my own place and then look for someone. That makes the most sense...and it gives you time to have fun while you do save. (Who said you couldn't use a hotel when you temporarily are living at home?) It does feel better.......until you piss razor blades. Saving money and getting your life together is the best way to go. I have changed so much since I was 22 that if I would have found someone then, most likely we would have grown apart.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Sep 21, 2010 -> 10:03 AM) Braylon Edwards' DWI violated his parole for an Aggravated Battery charge earlier this year, and he could be looking at jail time. Im sorry getting a DWI in NYC while rich is dumb as f***.

QUOTE (SoxFan1 @ Sep 20, 2010 -> 06:58 PM) I have a question for those in college: when are you too old for freshman girls? I almost feel bad.....almost. Never. I'd hit that now and im 29.

I think he was hurt.

So a friend wanted to go P90 so I started over with him today. Day 1, chest and back, ARX.