RME JICO

QUOTE(ChWRoCk2 @ Jan 5, 2006 -> 10:56 PM) Better than any Bears QB When, in 2005? Favre did lead the league in passing, TO THE OTHER TEAM. He threw 29 interceptions, the next closest player was Brooks with 17. You can also tack on 7 fumbles lost for a whopping 36 turnovers. He had the lowest Passer Rating among Qualified Leaders at 70.9. Brooks Bollinger, Josh McCown, better Passer Ratings than Favre. He has been a great QB for a long time on a hated Bears rival, but he is done. Here is to your retirement Brett

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 6, 2006 -> 12:56 AM) Have there actually been any Count to Philly rumors? It was mentioned in this thread: http://www.soxtalk.com/forums/index.php?sh...ic=45070&st=200 and when Contreras / Garland names popped up as trade bait, so did Abreu's because the Phils had said they were looking for SP.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 6, 2006 -> 12:52 AM) When you win 99 out of 162 games during that long of a season, eventually it's more than luck. We got lucky when catchers interference wasn't called on AJ in Game 3 against the Angels. We got unlucky when that ball was bounced off the wall in game 3 against the Astros and was ruled a home run when it should have been a double. We got lucky when Mark Buehrle's foot popped and it turned out to not be seriuos. We got unlucky when we got a monster DH back, and he wound up back on the DL. We got lucky when this 17th round draft pick suddenly discovered that no one could hit him. We got unlucky when he stopped throwing his changeup. Etc. That team was a very well built team. Yes, it had some luck. But it had both good and bad luck. And most of the good luck was either made by the team or implied by the plan the team was built around (i.e. we were lucky people stayed healthy, but on the other hand we had 3 starting pitchers well under 30 and a total of 6 starters ready to go, we had 2 backup closers, we had a young team overall which helped them stay healthy longer, etc.) Yeah, luck is overrated. Was Graffanino's or Biggio's errors luck or were they bad plays by the other team? The Sox beat the teams they were supposed to beat last year. There might have been better teams in terms of lineup, but no team put it all together like the Sox did. Great pitching and defense, combined with timely hitting and great managing. The Sox were the most complete team in baseball last year. That is how they won 110 games. Not by luck. Teams are going to dread playing the Sox. Who wants to play a team with basically 4-5 #1 starters. It is not like you get an easy matchup with the 4th or 5th starter. That is demoralizing. Also, the Sox can now easily rest their positional players and have little drop off with Mackowiak as the super sub. That is a huge luxury. I can see him doing that often, and I am sure he will get a lot of pinch hits as well. I know it is better to be conservative because the Sox have never been World Champions before, but just by looking at the regular season from last year, you have to admit that the team is better now, and all the remaining players from 2005 now have post season experience. How could that add up to less wins? I know about injury possibilities and slumps, etc, but isn't every team susceptible to that as well? Do they all get docked 5-10 wins because of possibilities? If that is the case, who is getting all those wins, the Montreal Expos?

QUOTE(SoxFan101 @ Jan 5, 2006 -> 10:37 PM) You just described Marte... Vizcaino really got out of his own problems and was a very important member of our bullpen last season that is under-apreciated... No way. You had to be watching someone else then. In his first 4 appearances in 2005, he allowed 9 runs in 6 innings of relief. In his first 17 appearances he had 2 losses and 3 Blown saves. Then in July he had 3 losses while pitching in a total of 2 IP for those 3 losses. That July span is what I remember most. You can even tell that he was used a lot less from then on. Also, he basically just pitched in garbage innings from then on as well. There was a stretch in Aug-Sep where he pitched in 14 losses out of 16 games. The Sox thought they were going to get this: 3.75 1.18 .228 and instead they got this: 3.73 1.47 .275 ERA about the same, but WHIP and Opponent BA went through the roof.

Shouldn't it be more like this:

QUOTE(SoxFan1 @ Jan 5, 2006 -> 10:19 PM) I think he is in the running for Def. POY. Which would definitely be deserving. The MVP award is really hard for a Defensive player to win, but I thought he should have received some recognition.

QUOTE(Felix @ Jan 5, 2006 -> 10:15 PM) Thats not exactly fair. Vizcaino gets no respect on these boards, and I understand, I maen, I watched him pitch, but he was a lot better than you guys think. He had control issues, with a 1.47 WHIP last year, but he did a good job keeping runners from scoring with his 3.73 ERA. He ate innings, and did well out of the pen by keeping the ball in the park (only 8 homeruns). Yeah, I guess you are right, but it seemed like he couldn't hold anything, and someone would have to bail him out. So I think his ERA would have been higher, and more proportionate to his WHIP if the pitchers after him didn't get his guys out.

Urlacher should have been considered as the QB for the best Defense in the league, especially over Palmer.

QUOTE(TLAK @ Jan 5, 2006 -> 09:29 PM) I would not class Frank Thomas, Carl Everett, Orlando Hernandez, Geoff Bloom, Timo Perez, Damaso Marte, Willie Harris and Luis Vizcaino as 'ass and trash'. I'm surpised this @#$% comes from you because your other posts are almost always well thought out. Your Winshare post put the new team 0.76 wins, not even one game, above the 'ass and trash' team. I also fear Rowand may prove to have been the heart of that team. Further, I don't think you can predict the toughness of the 2006 schedule using the 2005 records, just the Central could be a lot harder. The Royals acquired some good vets and can you guarantee Detroit and Minny have the same injuries as last year? Will Cleveland play only half the year again? The 'ass and trash' went 52-22 in the division last year, I think that will be tough to match. It really pains me to see guys dis a big part of the best team in baseball as 'ass and trash'. Sorry, it is an Army term derived from Ash and Trash that I probably use too often. It means other missions, or secondary missions. I don't want to take away from what any of the players did in 2005, but Rowand was the main starter to go. If you look at the starting roster, you basically take out Rowand, Everett, and El Duque, and put in Anderson, Thome, and Vazquez. Outside of Rowand, the others were not as high profile, injured, or played a secondary role and were "replaceable". Frank Thomas - Best Sox player of All-time, but injuries reduced him to only cameos Carl Everett - serviceable bat with an attitude Orlando Hernandez - clutch pitcher who is now over the hill Geoff Blum - Nice mid season pick up, unbelievable HR Timo Perez - No Comment Damaso Marte - Had electric stuff, but fell off considerably Willie Harris - Very serviceable IF, but not enough starting spots to make him a starter Luis Vizcaino - Batting practice pitcher that ate some innings In reference to the schedule prediction, I took into account off season acquisitions by all teams, that is why I put TOR over the .500 mark as a winning team. I don't think winning 50% of games vs winning teams, and 75% of games vs losing teams is out of the question, and I actually believe it is somewhat conservative.

I like this one better, it is closer to what actually happened in 2005:

QUOTE(Milkman delivers @ Jan 5, 2006 -> 09:15 PM) Extinguish? Sometimes spell check has a mind of its own. I didn't even see that. Auto correct is now off. I guess it adds some excitement to this unbelievable new topic.

Should stop any Count to Phils rumors. http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2281263

QUOTE(Frank the Tank 35 @ Jan 5, 2006 -> 08:55 PM) I don't feel like starting up a new 30 page topic, but I thought I'd interject this rumor since I had been pondering it before someone posted it on the open mlb Sox forum. "Kenny(Pittsburgh) Hi Paul! I'm a huge Phillies fan is their any rumors out there about us getting a starting pitcher. Paul White- I have heard that the Phillies might be close to making another trade with Chicago. A source close to the situation has the Sox sending Contreras and several top prospects for Abreu and Madson." Paul White is a USAToday writer. I seem to recall the Phils being interested in Contreras recently, but this deal seems too good to be true unless the Phils are really desperate. Anyway, I mention it here because I see Abreu as a viable option to be traded for Tejada. I know I'm grasping at straws, but I'm just putting it out there, not expecting anything like this to happen. Madson would be an awesome bp arm that could spot start, but I don't see why they'd give him up in any deal. JC for Abreu I could fathom. Abreu+Uribe for Tejada+Chris Ray I could also see as plausible. I just can't see the attendance-minded FO of the O's taking JC for Tejada as much as I'd like to see it happen. Anyway, just an unfounded personal speculation/wish, so easy on the personal attacks. Then wouldn't it just make more sense to do a 3 team trade: Sox get Tejada, Ray, and Madson Phils get Count + Sox prospects O's get Abreu + Uribe

QUOTE(SoxFan1 @ Jan 5, 2006 -> 08:54 PM) I believe your binary is a bit off but wouldn't 2 be 01? I guess you don't know binary, 01 is 1, 10 is 2, 11 is 3, 100 is 4, 101 is 5, etc. Thats the whole corny ass joke, 10 is not 10 in binary, it is 2.

QUOTE(nitetrain8601 @ Jan 5, 2006 -> 06:59 PM) On paper, they addressed their needs and at the time like Edgar Renteria > Orlando Cabrera. They still got 95 wins, but injuries and a bunch of crap happened in that locker room. I think we win 95, make it to the ALCS and lose in 6. But that's why they play the games. There is no way to compare the 2006 Sox with the 2005 Sawks. The Sox are not losing guys like Pedro and Lowe from their starting rotation. That would be like losing MB and JG. Schilling was also hurt, so put Garcia on the DL. That is what the Sawks had in 2005. There is no way that the Sox will be that bad. Also Renteria was worse than Cabrera, that is why he is now on the Braves: Cabrera 228 AB, 6 HR, 31 RBI, .294 AVG, .320 OBP, .465 SLG Renteria 623 AB, 8 HR, 70 RBI, .276 AVG, .335 OBP, .385 SLG The Sox added Thome, Mackowiak, and Vazquez, while losing Rowand and some ass and trash. There is no way they are going to be worse in 2006. Also, they have a more favorable schedule than in 2005. So they may not get as many bounces next year, but they are going to win a lot more games convincingly.

QUOTE(greasywheels121 @ Jan 5, 2006 -> 05:09 PM) That is such bull s***. SI is crap, I guess the little Urlacher pic was some type of consolation. So the College Football National Championship gets the SI cover the same day they win it, but the Sox win a World Series Championship, and they get a little pic on the cover. It seems that the Sox have always been snubbed by SI. I know that this was the first WS championship since the magazine came out but here is a rundown of SI covers for the Sox all-time: 2005 - 3 - (Commemorative, Pods, Konerko/Belliard) 2000 - 1 - Thomas 1994 - 2 - (Thomas/Griffey, Jordan) 1981 - 1 - Luzinski 1979 - 1 - Harry Chappas? 1973 - 1 - Bill Melton So since 1960, the Sox were on 9 covers, 3 coming in a span of 1 month in 2005. The Scrubs? 9 covers since 1992! Sosa 5x, Kerry Wood 2x. Red Sox - 16 since 1988. Yanks - 19 since 1991. Bears - McMahon 3 covers, The Fridge 2, Payton 2 (1 in 1999), none since 2000 with the Fridge. Tom Brady - 10 Covers since 2002

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 5, 2006 -> 06:00 PM) I read everything except the game-by-game pitcher summaries, which would be useful if I needed to do the same analysis, but which I'm just going to trust were done correctly and pay attention to the conclusions...a useful technique when evaluating large datasets in a limited amount of time. I didn't read every game line, but browsed all the year by year summaries, and the initial post had tons of summarized info.

QUOTE(Milkman delivers @ Jan 5, 2006 -> 05:56 PM) Did anyone actually read the posts, or did they just vote like me? I read them, great info.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jan 5, 2006 -> 05:49 PM) Why are all these posts in binary? There are only 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't. Sorry, had to. Jugger, great analysis, one of the deepest I've seen in awhile. I scrubbed the schedule for next year and came up with 80 games vs winning teams, and 82 games vs losing teams. If the Sox win 50% of the games vs winning teams, and 75% of the games vs losing teams, they would win 101 games. I think that both of those percentages are fairly conservative too. When I did a conservative prediction with Win Shares, I came up with 99.67 wins So I figure their wins will be higher than both of those values, 102 or 103. My schedule analysis: http://www.soxtalk.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=45043 My Win Shares Prediction: http://www.soxtalk.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=45008

QUOTE(supernuke @ Jan 5, 2006 -> 03:57 PM) I'm guessing that we don't get the full ALCS in this set because our ALCS victory was not a dramatic come back from being down 3-0 against the Great Yankees. We are not. We are only getting the clinching games of the ALDS and ALCS, then the 4 WS games. 6 out of 12. I just wish it was the entire playoffs, it would have only been one more game than the Red Sox package.

Anna Benson.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 5, 2006 -> 11:25 AM) Oh, they'll feature UT big time. Which will really piss me off, because SI said they couldn't get the Sox on the cover in time due to the timing of the last game? Even though they put a little picture in a circle at the top. So if they couldn't get the Sox on there, how can you get anyone else on there in time. Then if they missed it for the 1st one, why not put them on the following week like Boston? I think the Red Sox got 5 or 6 covers from Sept 1st on. ESPN and SI = :puke

QUOTE(Iwritecode @ Jan 5, 2006 -> 12:28 PM) Has the # of discs ever been confirmed by someone other than an anonymous post on a message board? I keep hearing 7 but have never seen it on Amazon or anyplace like that. Even the flyer that came in the World Series DVD doesn't say. It is listed here without a description: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000CRR392/ and here it says 7 Discs: http://www.amazon.ca/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000CRR392/ The original link is the US Amazon which has it for $62.99 available March 28th. The Red Sox had 12 Discs (11 games+other stuff) for $103.99. So based off the price reduction of $41, it would seem that the set will include only 7 discs. I just don't see why they are not including the other 6 games. There were so many classic games that will not be on there, which is BS IMO.

Looks like a smoke screen. That is the obvious answer and the politically correct one. This keeps the Sox with the edge in any bargaining.

QUOTE(retro1983hat @ Jan 5, 2006 -> 11:01 AM) Had the Bears not become so full of themselves after the Superbowl year and not worshipped that buffoon Jim McMahon, they could have easily won several more championships with Flutie at QB. Instead the whole team worried more about egos and commercials than they did about winning again. Flutie became a star in the Canadian league and came back to the NFL and played pretty well. Oh well, Chicago's loss. The 86 and 87 team are a lot like the 2005 team. Great defense, and no passing game. McMahon was hurt half of those seasons and Tomczak played a lot. Flutie alone was not going to give the Bears anymore championships. Flutie played well in Canada because the competition is a joke. It is like the World League. He couldn't find a job in the NFL, so he went North. He is a great guy and a scrappy QB, but if he was that much of a difference maker he would have been starting in the NFL a lot longer than he did.