nvxplorer

I just heard this on MLB Radio. The story is supposed to be in the Denver Post, but I can find nothing on the Post's website. If it's a joke, it's in very bad taste. It was reported that ROY candidate Clint Barmes fell while carrying groceries up the stairs, and will undergo surgery tomorrow for a fractured left clavicle. Expected to be out 12 weeks. Barmes is batting .329 with 8 HR & 34 RBI. What a way to go. It's a freak accident, but it certainly helps the Sox.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jun 6, 2005 -> 12:55 PM) What Shingo needs is control. Agreed. I'd go a step further and say the whole bullpen has been struggling to find the strike zone lately. (Maybe not Politte.)

Two out of three is exactly what the Sox are playing. Actually, the only "freaky" thing about that is the Sox are consistently taking two out of three. You would think they'd lose a series here and there, sweep others, but the Sox are playing .667 ball by the book. If they continue, the Twins don't have a chance.

QUOTE(Wong & Owens @ Jun 6, 2005 -> 12:38 PM) I can't read minds, but I think he's referring to the continued makeover of the Bridgeport neighborhood, as well as the neighborhood directly across the Ryan. Once those projects are gone, and replaced with a more affulent populace(and it will) and some bars/restaurants, the area will be much better than Addison. He's absolutely right though, in that if the Sox's stadium was in any west/southwest suburb, they'd draw much better than they currently do. Thanks for the explanation. (And for your insight as well, LosMediasBlancas.) One thing I would strongly disagree with is any move to a northwest suburb like Addison. The South Side image is non-negotiable, IMO. I'm glad to learn that Bridgeport is being redeveloped. Sounds like a win-win proposition.

QUOTE(DABearSoX @ Jun 6, 2005 -> 12:13 PM) I dont get the point of this I agree. What the hell does this mean: Reinsdorf said the team "absolutely" would have been better off the past 10 years had it been in Addison but, "Ten years from now, I think we'll be better off where we are." Is this just Reinsdorf babbling, or does he have something planned that will make it better ten years from now?

The title of the thread is the most valid point. All-in-all, it wasn't a poorly played game. If predicting the outcome were as simple as second guessing in hindsight, the Sox would be undefeated. Here's my second guess, based on something Farmer said: When Pods was running, he was on his own, and it's likely Dye didn't know he was running. If Dye had laid off those pitches, Pods would have been on third before Dye flied out, thus Pods would have scored the winning run. The point is, anything could have happened in that game. There were a few mental errors, but that's always going to happen. I can think of other games where Ozzie's calls were much more questionable than this one. The way the game looked, it could have easily gone deep into extra innings, so I can't fault Ozzie for pitching Hermanson like he did.

QUOTE(nitetrain8601 @ Jun 4, 2005 -> 12:06 AM) I thought Ozzie ball was supposed to put us up there, not at the dweller of these stats. In a way it has. I remember the Sox and Boston were the only teams not to have been shut out. Of course, now we have been, but Ozzie ball has succeeded in putting up at least some runs each game.

QUOTE(nitetrain8601 @ Jun 4, 2005 -> 12:33 AM) http://www.ticketmaster.com/event/04003995...7&minorcatid=10 Wow! I remember three categories from old Comiskey - box, grandstand and bleachers (They may have divided them up before I left in '77, but I know there weren't a dozen different classifications of seats.) Some of the prices seem reasonable, but what's the deal with the variable rates? For example, Upper Box: $9-$32. Is that 9 and 32, or 9 to 32? And what's the difference between the $9 seats and the $32s? I can't believe a seat can cost three times as much as another in the same section.

QUOTE(nitetrain8601 @ Jun 4, 2005 -> 12:09 AM) About the football team, contrary to popular belief, the city just doesn't give a damn about football. In Chicago, baseball is a major sport and tons of people care about it. I don't think Cub fans don't get as much credit as they deserve. Their fanbase has increased knowledge of the team. I mean, I even know this one completely ditzy girl who doesn't watch any other sports who can tell me what's Aramis Ramirez's stats and stays up to watch the Cubs play the west coast games. So far, most of the Cub fans I've met this year are actually baseball smart. Even they will be the first to tell you Nomar shouldn't be starting in the ASG. I agree with you completely about Chicago fans. Chicago is a die-hard sports town. Always has been, always will be. Living out west myself, I only have the media to rely on, but as far as attending Cubs games, I read that a lot of people are there for reasons other than being a hard core fan. Maybe it's true, maybe it isn't, but the neighborhood, the bars, etc., etc., all seem to suggest this is true. While I remember Bears home games being blacked out years ago (many, many years ago), the baseball games have always been broadcast on TV (RIP, Harry). I don't know, but maybe in this day and age, the ballpark itself is a big factor. I can't comment on the Cell as I've never seen it, but is it possible that the park isn't a big enough attraction? Just hypothesizing here, but what if JR built the new park on the lakefront, similar to the Giants' SBC Park, for example? With the games available on cable, local TV, the internet, the proliferation of sports bars; do you think this provides a disincentive to see the games live? I guess I could look it up on the Sox website, but since I'm posting, I'll ask you guys. What do seats cost nowadays? Are they overpriced? I haven't lived in Chicago since '77, but IIRC, tickets were only $5 that year. Back then, that was less than one hour's wages, on the average.

QUOTE(sox-r-us @ Jun 3, 2005 -> 11:37 PM) I am not bringing it up here to point fingers at anyone. See my first post, disclaimer #2. I am bringing it up to solicit opinions on what could the real reason be? With every passing day, every reason thrown before (weather, attendance, lack of winning team, lack of confidence the team will continue to win, non-friendly park, upper deck, blue seats etc etc) is getting proven to be wrong Let me pose this question to perhaps shed some light on the subject. If it wasn't for the "atmosphere," and if going to Wrigley wasn't the "in thing" to do for many people, what would the Cubs' attendance be? In other words, how many people in Chicago are actually interested in going to a baseball game for the baseball? Here's another angle. The two Los Angeles teams draw 3 million plus, year in and year out, but the city will not support a football team. Figure that one out. (I don't think it's as easy as saying Los Angelinos don't like football.)

Another stat. The Sox still haven't scored 5 in an inning. They're probably one of the few teams not to do that as well.

QUOTE(nitetrain8601 @ Jun 3, 2005 -> 11:17 PM) Because with Konerko batting cleanup, you lose the protection for ARow. PK is pretty much HR or bust. My lineup: Podsednik Iguchi Rowand Thomas(could be flipped with ARow) Pierzynski Dye Konerko Crede Uribe AJ has been in a slump (4 for 32), so I would not bat him 5th. I'd move Dye and Konerko up and bat AJ 7th.

Everyone's suggestions are valid (sadly, even the one about Timo - well, not valid, but painfully accurate). The bright side is that the middle bats seem to be coming around. Dye has been fairly hot, and Everett showed signs today. Konerko has been getting hits here and there. It's a good position to be in. If everyone keeps hitting, the Sox will do some damage regardless of the order. To answer the question, I'd go with Rowand in the #3 spot.

QUOTE(Dam8610 @ Jun 3, 2005 -> 11:01 PM) A Compost pile. Oh.

What's a s***heap?

QUOTE(SoxFan101 @ Jun 3, 2005 -> 08:08 PM) I wouldnt say that, Garland actually pitched really well vs the angels just some shaky defense and the 0 runs our offense scored against Ervin Santana... Than Texas did dominate him but Texas was on a tear so its not like its a huge surprise. Agreed, but I do notice a difference. Especially with Contreras and Garcia. Those games Garcia and Contreras pitched quickly were gems.

QUOTE(Dam8610 @ Jun 3, 2005 -> 08:08 PM) The White Sox are 19-4 against AL Central opponents. Hopefully, Garland will get his 9th win and the Sox will run that record to 20-4. That's an amazing record against division opponents. And Minnesota is only 16-12 against the Central. As pesky as the Twins are, I hope this is indicative of how the division will play out. The only other team with such a lopsided record within their division is St. Louis at 20-4. That says something as well - the comparison between the Sox and Cardinals both dominating their divisions.

I remember about a month ago, all the starters were mimicking Buehrle. Pitching quickly, not shaking off the signs. They were all very effective using this strategy. All four of them are back to their slower ways, and it shows. Even Garland has slowed down.

QUOTE(GASHWOUND @ Jun 3, 2005 -> 07:45 PM) Then you haven't watched any of Hernendez's past starts this year, have you.. Don't you remember that game he pitched against the TWins? He gave up like 10 hits..the Twins had the bases loaded like every inning and still only allowed like 2 runs..This is how he's pitched the whole year..Where's the shock!? Yes, that game was pitiful. Hell, one more inch foul, and he would have given up only one run today (assuming Crisp follows by making an out).

QUOTE(qwerty @ Jun 3, 2005 -> 01:05 PM) Scott sheldon. Did he also pitch? An A's player played all nine positions back in the '60s. I think it was Bert Campaneris, but I'm not sure.

If Konerko had to have a day off, why wasn't Ozuna playing first? At least he's played the infield his whole career.

I can usually come up with some sort of reasonable rationalization for every move made by Ozzie, even though some may be a stretch, but I can think of no reason whatsoever for the Sox keeping Perez on the roster. Attempting to rationalize such a non-move would involve going outside the realm of baseball, and all this board's remarks about gay lovers, secret tapes and other methods of blackmail are about the only things that would actually make sense.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jun 2, 2005 -> 08:59 AM) One million votes for Timo. LMAO. At first, I thought there was something wrong with my browser.

QUOTE(ptatc @ Jun 2, 2005 -> 09:02 PM) I think you do to an extent. The GM and scouts saw something they liked in order to sign him. You needed to find out if he has anything. You tried it, it didn't work now HE GAWN!!!!!!! Yes, this is my line of thinking as well. We can all look to Walker's stats to assess him as a crappy pitcher, but there had to be something the team saw in the guy. Who knows what, but unless we have connections within the Sox organization, all our guesses are exactly that - just guesses.

QUOTE(Cerbaho-WG @ Jun 2, 2005 -> 08:47 PM) Ozzie has the right to manage anyway he pleases, but he doesn't seem to understand the criticism that comes with the job. People can rattle off quote after quote about Ozzie will take criticism instead of the players, but whenever someone critiques any minute moves he made, he immediately turtles up and just spewing expletives to cover his ass. Teenagers do this, not people who are 40. Ozzie fails to realize that managing by your gut, instead of using splits, something I like to call common sense, you're more apt to receive flak because gut moves, when they fail, lack any backing other than, "Gee, I had a feeling Kevin Walker would hold a one run lead when he's barely pitched the last few weeks." Ozzie's great at being a friend, but he's probably one of the worst managers in all of baseball; I don't care what the win and loss column suggests. Ozzie is a very, very stupid manager who fails to understand player's roles, especially in the bullpen. I mean, come on, how the f*** can you defend playing arguably the worst player in all of baseball in Timo Perez at a position he hasn't played in over half a f***ing decade. Hey Ozzie, Konerko played catcher once, what's stopping you from having Konerko play C, Widger at 3B, Crede at SS and Dye at 2B? Common f***ing sense, that's what. Then again, Hawk and DJ would still suck off Ozzie for being creative or some other horses***, which is why I enjoy listening to Rooney and Farmer more often than the two biggest cocksuckers in all of announcing. I agree with your characterization of Ozzie in the first paragraph. However, it's one thing to say how a 40 year old should act (which I agree with you on), and quite another to put yourself in that person's shoes. Let's face it. Ozzie is still very green, in all aspects of managing. He will learn from his mistakes. I have faith in that. And I think Ozzie himself may be very upset about the moves he's made. Think about it. If you had just made some boneheaded moves that may have cost you the game, and you were well aware of your failures, how much patience would you have with some nobody second guessing you? Yes, he should learn to handle it in a more mature manner, but after blowing a game, the last thing I'd want to hear is some armchair manager saying I f***ed up - something I'm already well aware of. Just because Ozzie doesn't publically admit fault doesn't mean he's not aware of it himself. I have to disagree with your win-loss comment. Wins and losses are all that matter. The Sox are probably baseball's biggest surprise. Whether the team's success can be attributed to Ozzie is open for debate, but you can't argue with the best record in baseball.