NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Sep 21, 2006 -> 01:58 PM) To be fair, you'd have to see if the teams that won the WS and missed the playoffs would have made it in with a wildcard spot. The White Sox didn't win their division and didn't win the wildcard, while teams pre-1994 just didn't win the division. AND, you need to look at what the teams did after winning. If they went into a rebuilding year, vs. a supposed major upgrade to the "best rotation ever assembled" there's going to be big difference. Clearly, my measure is not perfect - there is no such thing as the perfect stat in baseball. But it sure as heck is indicative of a pattern.

QUOTE(shawnhillegas @ Sep 21, 2006 -> 01:45 PM) Its pretty hard to feel sorry for the guys that work 3 hours a day. Construction workers cant go on the 15 day DL. Ive never seen so much whining from a team in my entire life. I certainly agree that people who make that kind of money deserve no pity. And you won't see my cry any rivers. You get paid a lot, the job is likely to be tough. But if you think they only work 3 hours a day, you have no idea how professional baseball works.

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Sep 21, 2006 -> 12:05 PM) BS. I don't think anyone can realistically ask a team to repeat. That's too tough a proposition. But Kenny Williams built a team good enough to make it to the playoffs. The players and the coaching staff (Guillen, Cooper, Walker, Cora, etc etc) failed. Three out of the four teams that will make the playoffs in the AL this year have had what I'd call catastrophic injuries at one point or another in the season. The Twins lost Liriano, Oakland lost Harden (Chavez has been playing hurt for a long time as well), and the Yankees lost both of their corner OFers and a couple of starting pitchers. What big injury did the Sox have? We lost Contreras for two starts. Apparently a couple guys have been playing injured (I've heard or read whispers of Buehrle, Garcia, Dye, and Crede all playing hurt), but if it's not bad enough to go on the DL, then at that point, I'd say you have to suck it up. I'm not calling Konerko a liar; I believe that a lot of White Sox players are hurt/exhausted at the 150 game point of the season. But who isn't? It's been a long season for EVERYONE, not just the Sox. I'm not buying it. As I said, this team failed, period. BS, huh? Well, let's look at my BS claim. In the last 24 years (I'd have done 25 except 1981 was a strike year), the following is true of teams that won the World Series: 3 of 24 repeated as champs 8 of 24 made the playoffs 6 of 24 had a better record the year after 15 of 24 had records over .500 So tell me again how my claim is BS? Those are the facts. Most teams, like I said, do worse the year after. 18 of 24 in fact. Only a third EVEN MAKE THE PLAYOFFS. And not even two thirds have a .500 record. Am I disappointed? Yeah, I had high expectations too. But let's have some perspective here, shall we? QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Sep 21, 2006 -> 01:32 PM) I quickly looked up WS appearances vs. playoff appearance the following year since the introduction of the WC. 8 out of 22 teams have not made the playoffs after appearing in the WS the year before. '97 Marlins* '98 Padres '00 Mets '01 D-backs* '02 Angels* '03 Marlins* '05 White Sox* & Astros *Out of the WS winners, 5 out of 11 didn't return. What I'd like to know is what exactly those teams did after winning the world series, ie complete rebuild after a fire sale. Here is the last 24 years, WS winner, record, record in following year, and playoff status... 1982 St. Louis Cardinals, 92-70, 79-83 (no playoffs) 1983 Baltimore Orioles, 98-64, 85-77 (no playoffs) 1984 Detroit Tigers, 104-58, 84-77 (no playoffs) 1985 Kansas City Royals, 91-71, 76-86 (no playoffs) 1986 New York Mets, 108-54, 92-70 (no playoffs) 1987 Minnesota Twins, 85-77, 91-71 (no playoffs) 1988 Los Angeles Dodgers, 94-67, 77-83 (no playoffs) 1989 Oakland A’s, 99-63, 103-59 (lost in WS) 1990 Cincinnati Reds, 91-71, 74-88 (no playoffs) 1991 Minnesota Twins, 95-67, 90-72 (no playoffs) 1992 Toronto Blue Jays, 96-66, 95-67 (repeated as champs) 1993 Toronto Blue Jays, 95-67, 55-60*** (no playoffs, third place, strike) 1994 ***Strike 1995 Atlanta Braves, 90-54, 96-66 (lost in WS) 1996 New York Yankees, 92-70, 96-66 (lost in ALDS) 1997 Florida Marlins, 92-70, 54-108 (no playoffs) 1998 New York Yankees, 114-48, 98-64 (repeated as champs) 1999 New York Yankees, 98-64, 87-74 (repeated as champs) 2000 New York Yankees, 87-74, 95-65 (lost in WS) 2001 Arizona Diamondbacks, 91-71, 98-64 (lost in NLDS) 2002 Anaheim Angels, 99-63, 77-85 (no playoffs) 2003 Florida Marlins, 91-71, 83-79 (no playoffs) 2004 Boston Red Sox, 98-64, 95-67 (lost in ALDS) 2005 Chicago White Sox, 99-63, *85-67 (no playoffs)

How many teams have repeated in the last 20 or 30 years? Few. And I'd love to see, if someone has the data, what the regular season records of WS champs were the following year (in the last 20 or 30 years). I'd bet that very, very few had better records the year after.

Well I'll be damned. They are indeed doing what I wanted them to do with the border, more or less.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 21, 2006 -> 10:08 AM) Which I don't have a problem with at all. The entire world has tried a million different ways to fix this situation, and the only solution Iran would have is the one thing that pretty much no one else wants, and that is for Iran to be producing nuclear materials. Russia even offered to ship them the materials, let them utilize it for power purposes, and then to take it back after it had been depleted. This would solve the problem of Iran's supposed needing more power capability, and it would also satisfy those who are worried about nuclear West hating clerics. Of course this proposal went no where, which raised all kinds of red flags for me personally. I remember mentioning that Russia proposal when it was aired. I was surprised at how negative the reaction to it was from the West at first, then even more telling, it was ignored. There are a few different interperetations one could take from that. None of them are particularly good.

QUOTE(SoxHawk1980 @ Sep 21, 2006 -> 08:33 AM) They also look much different in the dugout than they did last year. Last year, everyone was into every game. Most guys were on the top step of the dugout. This year, most everyone is sitting back, looking genuinely uninterested. I've seen more than a few yawns in the dugout. These guys just aren't into it like they were last year. It's easy to come up with excuses for this team. However, their lack of hustle, fire, intensity should not be excused. You have a very selective memory. Contrary to your memories of the post-season, the team was not always everyone on the top step of the dugout, cheering on the team, during the regular season. That was, in fact, a rarity.

That is not right. I'm a little disturbed that it is even on my screen. Creepy.

QUOTE(SoxHawk1980 @ Sep 21, 2006 -> 08:04 AM) I'm sorry, but to me that sounds like you working hard to come up with an alibi for this team. If you see a player who looks like he isn't playing at 100%, you assume it must be some nagging injury. When I see so many Sox players with a lacadaisical effort, I see a team without fire, intensity or hunger. They got their championship and now they're satisfied. They had nagging injuries last year at this team (all teams do) and they still played with intensity. They willed themselves to win. This team isn't doing that at all. So, the proof that they haven't quit is that they are showing up at the ballpark? That's enough for you? It's enough that they just show up and play? THAT isn't enough. That is the very, very least that they have to do. More importantly, they have to give 100%. They have to play all out, every day, particularly in the stretch run. Instead, I see half-hearted efforts.Putting off surgery is a very common thing. Players do it all the time. There are many surgeries that do not need to be done immediately and can easily be postponed until the end of the season. And you have no proof that Thome or anyone else is "risking major injury" by playing. Let's not wildly exaggerate the situation.All I want to see is effort. I want to see them giving all they have. And I haven't seen that. And a bunch of injury alibis aren't nearly enough. First, that extra "month" was 12 games. And 12 more games in a prior season when you had months off to rest and recuperate shouldn't account for so many more "nagging injuries" that you shouldn't be able to play hard in a stretch run. I don't think anyone would argue that the team hasn't shown some lack of hustle and focus here and there. We see it every day when Paulie or Dye doesn't run out that grounder, or Uribe flubs an easy popup. And yeah, that frustrates me too. But you have a stunningly simplistic view of professional sports. Pain effects people. It makes you less able to give your all. And having 1 less month off in the offseason absolutely has an effect on players' bodies - look how rarely teams repeat. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I'd wager that if you compared our record this year to other teams right after a WS win, we'd be better than most. And remember how our pitching didn't get solid until mid-August? The offense carried the team until then. So yeah, there going to be a bit worn down at this point in the season. I dislike the lack of hustle, and I do think some players were still in a daze from the WS. But injuries, and being worn down, and any number of other factors also came into play. Its not just a simple little matter of trying hard (as if they all don't want to or something), despite how it may seem in your very small view of the world.

QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Sep 21, 2006 -> 07:24 AM) It actually gets better.. Now that is some ignorant crap from Ozzie. I am now 100% convinced that there is something going on between Anderson and Ozzie that none of us know about. Ozzie knows the game too well to actually think that Sweeney is as good as Anderson defensively, or that a guy with like 12 AB's at the MLB level will hit better than Anderson. There is something else there.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Sep 20, 2006 -> 10:48 PM) In my group for Strategic Management class I'm taking is a girl from Venezuela - who actually has some connections to the Chavez group that's in power in Venezuela. I have yet to talk to her a lot (about this subject), but she was saying that he's EXTREMELY popular and he does redistribute enough money down to the poor that he will remain in power for quite some time. It's another reason why 'leftists' in this country love him... he takes money from the 'rich' and GIVES it to the poor. I find it amazing that he pretty much quoted the rhetoric by (insert Democrat name here) and it's all ok. I have yet to meet anyone, even "leftists", who like the guy. Rex was just amused by the speech, which admitedly, is kind of funny.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 21, 2006 -> 07:23 AM) Jordan is considered an Asiatic nation in the UN? Weird. Well, it is in Asia.

QUOTE(samclemens @ Sep 20, 2006 -> 10:25 PM) as for the fence, if it decreases the amount of illegals crossing the border, i support it. i dont remember your earlier post that details why a fence is such a stupid idea, but i think it would supplement all the ideas you list. i got no problem with either of these. Well, one of the things I suggested is what SS2K5 has eluded to above. Dealing with the demand side of the equation. Here is what I'd like to see to reduce the flow of illegal, undocumented immigrants... --Set up a special division within the Border Patrol, whose singular role is to investigate, prosecute and fine business who hire illegals. --Fines should be hefty, for two reasons... One, its a better deterrent. Two, we'll need the income as you will see in a moment. --Use the money from the fines to fully fund the investigative division, and send the overage to the Border Patrol's tactical units. --Budgeted money for actual border security should not go to a wall - a wall will be hideously expensive (the terrain along the border is difficult to access and mountainous in many areas), it will require a lot of maintenance money, its an environmental disaster (causes water flow problems, disallows any kind of migration or range expansion for species), it is a PR nightmare (makes the US look even more cowboy), and it will STILL require a lot of man power to patrol. Plus when you eventually don't need it, what do you do with it? --Instead of a wall, set up a surveillance network. This would be made up of cameras and sensors, aircraft and helicopter patrol with FLIR, and just a handful of small tactical teams (border patrol or national guard, I don't care which) that can respond directly to the location of people crossing. Think about money here - which is more expensive for a given 100 mile stretch? A handful of cameras and senors, a helicopter on patrol, and one 4 man tac team? Or 100 miles of hardened wall that STILL requires the cameras and sensors and patrol units anyway? --And with the surveillance plan, you get two nice side benefits. One, if/when the tide slows, its easy to staff down without dismantling much. And two, the data collected from the sensors that will also pick up animals, can be used by the scientific community to study. --One caveat - in urban areas, a wall may be a necessity. With too much in the way of buildings and heat bloom near the borders, a fence is probably the only alternative. So there it is, my platform for border security. Enjoy.

QUOTE(EvilMonkey @ Sep 20, 2006 -> 08:29 PM) I'm all for having to show ID to vote. Contrary to the popular liberal belief, just about everybody of voting age has an id. You can't get into a bar without id, can't write a check without id, can't get on an airplane without id and so on. There are also provisions in several states to subsidize state idcards for those who "can't afford the $20". So if the id's are free, do you still have a problem with them? QUOTE(samclemens @ Sep 20, 2006 -> 10:25 PM) northside, you would not have an objection if cards were subsidized for people who cannot afford it, right? showing ID to vote isnt so unreasonable, I for one support it just so that we dont have non-citizens voting and to prevent double and triple dips, as we all know happens. To answer these questions: yes. If ID's were available for free in some way, then I would be 100% OK with this. I am all for reducing voter fraud. Just as long as we aren't charging for a right.

House passes measure to require voters to show photo ID at the polls. Senate is talking 700 mile fence.... http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060920/ap_on_...o/immigration_4 My thoughts... The ID thing, which has been struck down by more than one state Supreme Court, won't survive judical review. Its unconstitutional, for multiple reasons - most importantly, it is disenfranchisement by way of economics. You CANNOT CHARGE THE PUBLIC FOR A RIGHT. Voting is a right. Driving is a priviledge. You cannot treat them the same way. Its basic Con Law. So it will either fail in the Senate, or be struck down in court. The fence is just plain stupid, as I have detailed before. I'm all good with putting troops there, setting up electronic surveillance of all sorts, beefing up border patrols, etc. Stiff penalties are good too. But the wall is a PR, environmental and BUDGET disaster. Its the expensive way to do it - just like Congress likes.

I think BMac needs a chance to start for a few months next year before we know what he will be. I see him maybe pulling a Garland, sucking for a month or two, then figuring it out. I don't think we can read a lot into his adventures in middle relief.

Well... if they are going to allow gel-filled bras and other "prosthetics"... I think you've gotta allow the KY.

QUOTE(Cuck the Fubs @ Sep 19, 2006 -> 07:20 PM) http://detroit.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsit...2BRes.%2B460%3A I'm really glad my tax money is going to such worthy pursuits. What a bunch of dumbasses.

QUOTE(MSHAWKS @ Sep 20, 2006 -> 01:55 PM) During real coups, the streets run red with the blood of monarchs and loyalists. Bloodless coups are for pussies. How profound.

Wow. I am so sending this to my wife.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 20, 2006 -> 01:03 PM) Where I was going with that point was you felt economic sanctions might not matter... I was sharing that people are already upset with their standing in life by and large in Iran. If the people felt that the government's insistance on taking on the world on certian issue was exsaserbating their suffering, Iran might be more likely to back down, fearing revolt or revolution in a country that has done it before. And that right there is basically what I was trying to get at. People in Iran, increasingly, have enough information to know about their country's foreign policy and actions. They will know who to blame.

QUOTE(GaelicSoxFan @ Sep 19, 2006 -> 06:24 PM) I think the primary reason is Ozzie being so in love with Pablo Ozuna and Rob Mackowiak. I know that after this season, Pods will be referred to as "the former White Sox left fielder", but I'd take him any day over Ozuna. Pods is fast and mediocre. Ozuna is fast and bad. I can name several teams Ozuna can play everyday for: the Schaumburg Flyers, the Kane County Cougars, the Joliet Jackhammers, the Windy City Thunderbolts and the Gary South Shore RailCats. And... which part of Pods' game do you think is better than Pablo's? Pablo was better this year in AVG (+63), OBP (+28), SLG (+85) K's (9% versus 19% of AB), and BARISP (+134). Heck, Pablo even has better stats against RHP than LHP, and he doesn't get much time against RHP, which bodes well for if he played regularly. Offensively, the only category Pods bead Pablos is SB%, and even Pods was pretty bad there. Defensively, Pods has made a whopping 8 errors in LF this year. Pablo has never made one in his CAREER in LF, though admitedly that is only 35 games (and yeah, I've seen him make some horrific plays that were not errors). Of course, FPct is not a great measure. How about arm strength? I think Pablo has that one over Pods. Other factors? Well, Pablo has trouble reading fly balls. Not that Pods doesn't, but Pablo hasn't gotten nearly as much time out there either. And he is improving. So tell me again how Pods is so much better than Pablo? Because other than SB% and better fly ball judgement, I don't see it. And Pablo is basically a rookie when it comes to LF.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 20, 2006 -> 12:32 PM) Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a non-partisan group, has once again released its list of the top 20 most corrupt members of Congress (and they added 5 more people to watch for next year). Here is this year's list. A full summary of why each member made their list can be found at http://beyonddelay.org/ Tell me if I am mistaken, but aren't 2 of those three senators looking like they will lose their next elections, based on current polls? And I have to say I'm a bit surprised at Hastert being in there. He has always seemed to me to be a straight arrow. I'll have to read up on their reasoning there.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 20, 2006 -> 12:19 PM) Wait one second...how exactly does economic sanctions help the people in Iran gain a more free flow of information? What economic sanctions are likely to do is first make the people of Iran more poor, such that it will be more difficult for them to afford the sorts of communications technologies that would allow them greater access to information, second it would make that sort of equipment more expensive because it would be harder to import it into Iran, and third it would likely make the people themselves more dependent on the government for general supplies that they can't get elsewhere, like food, which works against any anti-government instinct that people in that country might have. I think you missed my point. Economic sanctions will not help people get a more free flow of information. What I said was, they already HAVE a growing flow of information, and despite Iran's best efforts, people there are getting access to it. The way that plays in with sanctions is all about blame. Iran's people, if they see the news about the sanctions and they want to continue to have access to western culture, will blame their own government and cry out for change. THAT is why you put on the sanctions.

OK, I'm going to throw an idea out here, and see what people think. I have a feeling it won't be pretty, but here goes... Crede plays SS Ozuna plays 3B Sweeney and/or Fields in LF That frees up Uribe and Pods for trade bait, and decreases the salary total for the team, gives us a leadoff hitter at 3B with speed and good contact, Fields/Sweeney get a chance at the big time. Let those 2 compete in spring training for LF. The one who loses gets 1 more year in AAA, then takes over Dye's slot in RF. Plus Crede and Ozuna can play each other's positions. EDIT: If we use Uribe and/or Pods and/or Garcia for a SS who can lead off, then Ozuna can go back to the bench, and Crede back to 3B.