IlliniKrush

Regardless of whether it was a balk, tossing your glove like that will get you tossed 100% of the time. So, MB deserved to get tossed for his actions. To those of you who think a letter high strike should be called...wow. You want 1-0 baseball games and .200 averages, you got it. You can't hit 95 MPH pitches at the freaking letters. There's a reason that's not called. You can drop your hands and have a better chance hitting a knee/below the knee pitch than you do anywhere up there. That's ridiculous thinking. Plus, over the history of the game, with all the changing of the strike zone via the rule book and the strike zone, every year the MLB average has been around .260. Seems like they know that they are doing in that regard. QUOTE (BearSox @ May 27, 2010 -> 05:00 PM) Also, as far as the strike zone is concerned, now it is basically all the umpires judgment. Back in the day there used to be strict strike zone rules like the arm-pits for the high strike, then they changed it to the top of the letters, etc. Now, it really does seam like there is no set strike zone, just whatever that ump feels is the strike zone. This couldn't be further from the truth. You may not like a call or two in a particular game, but all the stats, now that you have Questec, says they are all calling about the same zone, day in and day out. Most umpires score over 95% every game. Those who aren't don't stay around very long. If anything, you used to have control over "your" strike zone back in the day. Anyone else remember Eric Gregg/Livan Hernandez? You don't see anything close to that whatsoever right now. That's not way back in the day, granted, but it's still before Questec.

Let's try this: Do you have a better chance to beat Usain Bolt in a 100 meter race on a dry track, or in 4 inches of snow? ...and why is that so?

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 27, 2010 -> 08:04 PM) I couldnt agree less. If youre the best team, youre the best in all field conditions. Furthermore, all the Super Bowl ever proves is who was the "best team" that day, with those conditions. I dont see how playing in 4 inches of snow or ice decreases the chance that the better team wins. There should be absolutely no correlation to bad weather and upsets. Both teams have to play in the bad conditions, it impacts them both equally. Just the same as if the weather is 100 degrees and humid, 60 and sunny, or -100 and windy. If the Colts are playing the Lions in a snow storm, Id still take the Colts every single day of the week. They are the superior team, why would I think that the Lions would do better? Both teams play in the same conditions, why would it give the underdog an advantage? If anything I would believe that the superior team would more likely win in bad conditions, because they are more talented and therefore should be able to deal with adverse weather better. I guess I just remember football being an outdoor sport. I dont remember not playing games because it was raining, or to cold, or any other excuse. You played with the conditions that you were given, and quite frankly I never remember thinking "Damn were the better team but its bad weather so we just arent going to win." I do remember thinking "Man that other team is going to suffer because its going to be hell getting beat down in bad conditions." /shrugs If you like indoor football, maybe the arena league is for you. I personally like outdoor games and believe that football is at its best in all conditions. It just seems that if the Championship game can be played in abysmal conditions, that the Super Bowl should be as well. But Im a Bears fan and have always loved the winter. Cold weather is when football is to be played. I always hated 2 a days and summer training because it was just to damn hot. Of all the conditions, heat was the one I didnt like to play in. Pads, helmets etc, your just burning up in the summer. You seriously don't understand how terrible field conditions is an equalizer? Um, wow. If you have better athletes who make better plays, they aren't able to make those plays due to crazy snow/wind/etc. The field/conditions don't allow them to show their true skill. That's why dome/great weather football is awesome. I don't see why people are so fascinated with football in the snow. It's fun to see on your tv for 5 minutes while you drink hot chocolate in your 72 degree home, but after that, you realize how s***ty the game play is. Like TRU said, that Pittsburgh game in the rain wasn't fun to watch, and probably wasn't fun to play in. Don't see how that was productive.

QUOTE (vandy125 @ May 27, 2010 -> 01:56 PM) Eh, I don't really care about the relationship of weather to player since that is too narrow of a view to scope. If we widen the view to the systems which you did admit are partially built based upon their home fields, that is when you get to my point. If a systems are built for outdoor fields in the north and systems are built for fields in the south/dome fields, then why is it that you only have the biggest game of the year in south/dome fields? The teams that are built for the outdoor fields up north would seem to be at a bit of a disadvantage every year. I guess that I'm saying is that throughout the whole season teams play in all kinds of different weather and some systems are set up to take advantage of the type of weather they hit the most. Why would the Superbowl not be played in all kinds of weather? Considering you play 8 of your games on the road, and the majority of the home games in likely "normal" conditions, I don't think teams are planning strategies nor personnel around weather. If it snows or rains or something, teams say oh s***, and try to work around it for that game. That's about it. You know what works best in domes? Anything. Colts pass the ball around, they have Manning. Vikings run the ball, they have Peterson. Anything works because it's optimal for performance. What team designs their offense around crappy weather? Bears got Cutler, are they playing to the weather? How often is the weather so bad in Chicago that you can't throw the ball at all? Rarely. The whole Chicago tough running the ball thing is stupid. Why shouldn't the super bowl be played in all kinds of weather? Because it takes away from the performance of the game. It's not optimal conditions. If you play the game on a sheet of ice or 4 inches of snow, it decreases the chance that the better team wins. It becomes a crapshoot. It is a great neutralizer, which is not what I'm looking for in the most important game of the year.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ May 27, 2010 -> 09:16 AM) It's true, Philadelphia has more talent up front, so when they cause these turnovers, and forecheck, it works out for them more often. They are a talented team. I think anyone who watches games knows Montreal was very lucky to be where they were, and Nashville was a 7 seed for a reason. They play hard and sometimes it works. The Flyers, also a 7 seed, were riddled with injury throughout the season, snuck in, got lucky, and now are full strength and a legit Stanley Cup representative of the East. In that series the Canadiens played like the Predators because the Flyers were easily the more talented team. You will see the Flyers play like the Predators in the Cup Final because the Blackhawks are easily the more talented team. Just because the Flyers are more talented than the Canadiens, that does not dispute that they play a similar style to the Predators when they are forced to, which you disputed (and knowing your posting style, regardless of being proven wrong will dispute to the grave). So, with that, I'll make this my last post on the topic. Of the teams we have played, the Flyers can most easily be compared to the Predators. Get real. I'm proven wrong? I watched the games against Montreal (as well as their previous 2 series). That's simply not the way they played. Unless you want to break down tape somewhere, I guess no one's really wrong/right here. If you are going to argue that you now think they'll completely go into a shell ala Nashville, because they are playing the Hawks, that's an entirely different matter. Maybe they will but that's not how they've played up until now. Also, every team plays a trap at some point in the game (or if forced to, as you term it). LOL, my posting style? Look who's talking. Now that's good stuff. Get real.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 27, 2010 -> 09:16 AM) Here's my question in reply...how much higher are the odds of a terrible snowy day in early Feb. than in late December or early January? I don't know. Slightly more? If you are going to refer to playoff games, teams earned the home field advantage there, it's not a designated neutral site game. Now, I still hope the weather for those games isn't s***ty so the game can be played well - as TRU pointed out, that game in Pittsburgh was stupid - but at least there's a valid reason for it to be there.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ May 27, 2010 -> 09:10 AM) So baseball is a spring sport, then? Not a summer sport? Seems like you are just reaching now, trying to make a pedantic argument about spring/summer or fall/winter to make your point. Football is played, more or less, September to February in the NFL. That means cold, winter weather, often, in northern cities. It is part of the game, always has been. LOL, I'm reaching? The majority of the games are played in the fall. You called it a winter sport, which is fundamentally wrong. Furthermore, how many games were played in the snow or terrible weather last year? Not very many. That's my point.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ May 27, 2010 -> 08:52 AM) Of the teams we have played on a regular basis, the Predators are the closest equivalent. I don't see why that's so hard to understand. The Flyers' neutral zone trap starts a bit higher, and they do forecheck hard and cause turnovers to generate their offense. If you watched Predators games, you would see that this is their style as well... as about 90% of their scores come off of turnovers generated by forechecking and the neutral zone trap. Get real. The forwards of Philly are much different than the forwards of Nashville. Nashville pretty much trapped the entire game and hoped the Hawks would make a mistake. There weren't aggressive. Philly dumps and chases hard, their fowards are much more skilled, quick, and physical. Again, Montreal played like Nashville in that series, not Philly. Get real.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ May 27, 2010 -> 12:36 AM) Really? They aren't both defense first teams playig an altered version of the neutral zone ttap? get real If you watched Flyers games, you would see that they forecheck really hard and their offense is based on getting turnovers in the offensive zone. Montreal was more like Nashville in that series. Get real.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 26, 2010 -> 09:42 PM) If teams don't give consideration to players that fit the type of place where they play, they are stupid. Do you draft warm weather players in Tampa? Dusty Baker is that you?

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ May 26, 2010 -> 08:42 PM) Clarification please: Its not fair if dome teams cant play in a dome, because they built their team with that expectation. ---BUT--- It is fair to make outdoor/northern teams play in a dome, even though they build their teams to cope with the elements. Is that what you're trying to say? You say "best playing conditions" like it means the same thing for every team. Optimal conditions are relative, the Green Bay Packers would much rather play with the New Orleans Saints in a snowstorm than in a dome. Already said, but no one builds teams to win snow games. They build the best football team possible. Did the Bears get Cutler because he's a cold weather QB or something? No, they got him because they think it gives them a better chance to win football games. In a neutral site game, the conditions should be optimal. QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 26, 2010 -> 08:47 PM) I like snow, Im not 10. I also like soldier fields grass and think it wouldnt be the same with field turf. /shrug If you like soldier field's completely unacceptable turf where players fall all over the place, I really don't know what to say. Plenty of teams have field turf, seems to be working out fine. What wouldn't be the same? Please don't be one of the BEAR WEATHER meatballs.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ May 26, 2010 -> 04:09 PM) Who is having it both ways? I see it one way - its a winter sport (Sept-Feb), played outdoors most of the time, and weather is part of the game. Call me a traditionalist, but that's the way I see it. I don't know who's having it both ways, but there's a ton of people that are upset with the turf at Soldier Field - for exactly the same reason some of us don't like the SB being in possible bad weather. BTW, winter doesn't start in September.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ May 26, 2010 -> 10:46 AM) In football particularly, weather is not random or unrelated to the game - its very much part of the game. Its a winter sport. It's a winter sport? It's played in the fall. And the whole reason the randomness was taken out of the weather (or at least an attempt) for all these years was to provide the best playing conditions to optimize performance and game quality. Had the Colts/Saints game been in a snow storm, it would have sucked, end of story. The only people who like the snow are the 10 year olds looking out the window. Think about the Soldier Field turf. Why isn't everyone just saying that's part of the game, too? Why make a big deal out of that? You can't have it both ways.

This is dumb. The two best teams should have the best field available so they can showcase their skills. The more random luck/shoddy field conditions involved, the worse it is for everyone. Watching a game in snow is cool for about a minute, then you realize it's a terribly played game and it's just garbage football. I want a football game to have the athletes running, jumping, hitting, and cutting to the best of their abilities in the most important game of the year.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ May 24, 2010 -> 07:34 PM) They are going to be incredibly similar to the Predators. They really don't play similar styles. QUOTE (Steve9347 @ May 25, 2010 -> 01:49 PM) Whichever mod did this, you were OH SO CLOSE. Now change playoffs to FINALS! Now just take the "S" out of "FINALS" if you want it perfect QUOTE (SoxFan1 @ May 25, 2010 -> 02:48 PM) At over $400 a pop, yes, it matters. They're all pretty much the same up there. I wouldn't qualify any of them as crappy, but I'm someone who thinks the 300 level is a better seat than the first 10 rows of the 100 level.

QUOTE (SoxAce @ May 21, 2010 -> 11:58 PM) I missed the overtime period (working out) but I'm glad one of my favorite Hawks scored it. BUFF! Wait, you watched the whole game, then voluntarily decided to workout during the OT?

Hossa isn't having what I would call a great playoffs, but he hasn't been terrible by any means. It's just weird to have a "sniper" be a bigger factor on the defensive side of the puck more than the offensive side. That's why there's so much talk. Tuesday's 4th goal was epic Hossa.

QUOTE (SnB @ May 18, 2010 -> 11:02 AM) If I make one meal every 2 weeks months, my wife is ecstatic. crock pots are my friend. Ditto

http://zoowithroy.spreadshirt.com/stinks-t...omize/color/196

QUOTE (whitesoxfan99 @ May 8, 2010 -> 12:42 PM) DMac and Davis returning to Illinois, Johnson and Moore returning to Purdue. Huge.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ May 7, 2010 -> 11:35 PM) So did tickets for the Finals actually already go on sale? I see ticketmaster lists them, but they all come up sold yet there are none available anywhere. http://blackhawks.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=527269

QUOTE (fathom @ May 6, 2010 -> 09:40 PM) Holy cow, swinging and missing meatballs in that inning. What an absolutely horrible offensive showing tonight. Taking a 3-1 pitch down the cock is about the dumbest thing I've ever seen. Not only did he take a 2-0 and 3-1 fastball when he needs to be looking fastball in those counts to maybe tie the game...what was simply amazing was that he was taking the entire way, which I'm sure you noticed. What in the f***?

Saturday, May 1 at Chicago, 7:00 p.m. Monday, May 3 at Chicago, 8:00 p.m. Wednesday, May 5 at Vancouver, 8:30 p.m. Friday, May 7 at Vancouver, 8:30 p.m. *Sunday, May 9 at Chicago, 7:00 p.m. *Tuesday, May 11 at Vancouver, 8:30 p.m. *Thursday, May 13 at Chicago, 7:00 p.m.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Apr 27, 2010 -> 11:28 AM) For all you haters, I'd like to point out that we went 3-0 with Campbell back. Not sure who would argue that he isn't better than Sopel, Hendry, or Byfuglien?

QUOTE (SoxAce @ Apr 24, 2010 -> 03:59 AM) Congrats to Duncan Keith. Norris Trophy finalist (along with Mike Green...yes...Mike Green.. and Drew Doughty) If he doesn't win it, it will be a travesty IMO. Most ice time of ALL of the NHL players (and their top lines with Seabrook) not to mention most ice time in penalty kill (didn't inflate his numbers on the power play like Green) and still put up 69 points. Doughty no doubt will win several of these in the near future though. It really should be Keith in a landslide. We're all Hawks fans here, but come on, let's not be so ridiculously biased. A landslide? You're just not paying very much attention to the NHL outside the Hawks.