Pants Rowland

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 26, 2007 -> 06:37 AM) -Why do people buy Britney Spears albums? -Why did people watch the OC? -How hard would it be for that old to turn off of his left blinker, exit the left lane, and speed up from 35? -Why would anyone pay to read Jay Mariotti? The world is full of stupid people. I wouldn't let it bother you. Good points. I equate it to my reason for never seeing the film Titanic. I knew it couldn't be that great of a film if 99 out of 100 Americans absolutely loved it.

QUOTE(Jenks Heat @ Feb 27, 2007 -> 03:05 PM) Becasue the Cubs blew so bad I do not think they even lose their 1st round pick or even their second. Really? How does that work out? The Nats weren't far behind in the suck department. I would think they should be compensated for the loss.

QUOTE(IowaSoxFan @ Feb 27, 2007 -> 03:31 PM) The HOF is such a joke, if you didnt play in New York or win multiple World Series it is getting tougher to get in all the time. You have writers who wont put people in because they didnt like a player or he didnt win enough, and players wont put other players in because they judge players against themselves and always decide they are better so they wont vote for new guys to get in. The HOF voting system is broken and needs to be fixed. Does anyone have a breakdown on the number of players from each team in the HOF? I think the Cubs have significant representation. Obviously, so do the NYY, but they also have 27 titles and thirtysome pennants. There is a good chance that they are going to have major representation. Typically, great players worthy of the HOF are frequently playing on the bigger stages of the game. However, there are also plenty of players that had minimal big stage success but still made the Hall. Yount, Ripken, Gwynn and Schmidt were all in the series but for the most part their individual success is what got them in the Hall. There are a lot of people you need to blame for Santo's lack of election thus far but my guess is he was not deemed worthy by the writers because he was just not worthy. I commend the veterans committee for keeping the Hall an elite institution as much as possible. What is unfortunate is the constant barrage and lobbying by Santo and his supporters has pushed his vote total up every year. Odds are he will get in two years from now more due to sympathy and pressure versus actual merit.

QUOTE(fathom @ Feb 27, 2007 -> 09:50 AM) Compared to the type of prospects they could have received for Soriano, those draft picks are mediocre. It's too bad we don't have any toolsy outfielders, as we could have gotten Soriano easily from Bowden. I forgot my green ink. Sorry. I agree that the Nats were foolish to sit on Soriano and now have to rely on their scouting department to turn those drafts picks into gold.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Feb 27, 2007 -> 01:35 PM) Another 2 years of hearing Santo whine and beg........ Maybe if he helped his team make the playoffs ONCE with 2 other HOFers on the roster. Am I mistaken, or is it three other HOFers? Jenkins, Williams and Banks?

QUOTE(The Critic @ Feb 27, 2007 -> 12:38 PM) ....ahhhh, get a room.... You know you love it, too.

QUOTE(StatManDu @ Feb 27, 2007 -> 11:14 AM) Borderline is the key word here. The reason why the players/members were given the Veterans vote was because too many "borderline" candidates were getting in. Bill Mazeroski was the vet that broke the camel's back, I believe. Santo is a borderline candidate as is Kaat. As stated above, I think Kaat's 283 wins and 16? Gold Gloves should carry some weight with voters. Minoso should get the kind of consideration mentioned in another post concerning his late start because of discrimination, etc. I grew up watching Santo. He was a very good player but it never dawned on anyone while he was playing that he was a Hall of Famer. I can never recall anyone referring to Santo as a future Hall of Famer during his playing days. The comparison to Ventura is a good one. It's the old argument: If Santo gets in, then you have to let Dick Allen in (great post above), what about Vada Pinson or Tony Olivo. The list could go on. In a way, this argument doesn't apply to Kaat because there are few pitchers with 283 wins and 16? Gold Gloves that arent' in the Hall. HOF talk is my favorite hot stove topic, btw Mine, too. Thanks to you and The Critic for the insight. I like the fact that it is difficult to get into the HOF. It should be difficult otherwise it is a ceremonial and sentimental farce. Occasionally the system slights a deserving player but for the most part it rewards greatness on several fronts. I have debated the HOF credentials of many players whose entire careers I watched since I started following baseball in the early 80s. Over those 25 years, there are probably no more than 10-15 players that merit the discussion in my book. Annual voting by the media validates that type of scrutiny. When you apply that type of criteria, my guess is Santo's career does not match the spin doctors' story to get him in. On a related note, I assume Nellie Fox got in prior to the recent veterans system was put in place. Do you think he deserved the second look and eventual induction by the VC?

QUOTE(The Critic @ Feb 27, 2007 -> 10:17 AM) I was 6 years old and WAY into baseball in 1969, so I saw a fair amount of "Primo Santo". He was a very good ballplayer, but probably only the 4th best player on that team. Banks, Williams, and Jenkins were all definitely better. Thanks. We obviously are all fairly anonymous on this site but too often I hear people in their mid-30s to younger who only have the paper statistics to argue Santo's behalf. I get tired of people beating up on the veterans committee for not being more lenient. It seems that if a player could not make it within the eligibility period, then he should have a fairly small grace period to be reviewed by his peers. I know the press falls in love with some players on the big stage sometimes and neglects the stars who never made it the the world series. However, Santo seems to have had plenty of media attention during his playing days. If the press and his peers have not elected him by now, there is probably good reason. My dad saw him play and said he was a good third baseman, similar to a Robin Ventura in the field. He also said he hit a lot of his HR when the pressure was off and he remembers Ronnie going down on strikes with the game on the line a lot. My dad is not a biased Sox fan and watched both teams for years. He scoffs at people comparing Santo's fielding to Brooks Robinson because of the similarity in the paper numbers. The fact that Santo continues to lobby on his own behalf also is troubling to me. If you need to argue your own case so passionately like Santo does, then maybe there is a reason you have not made it on your credentials.

Can we make a SoxTalk rule that all offseason threads must be started by StatManDu? Clearly the most entertaining and thought-provoking threads in some time here on SoxTalk. Your facts and scouting reports are helping us all prepare for the regular season and feeding the passions of baseball/whitesox junkies. Much better than speculative polls over who will start opening day and debating trades over and over again. Thanks.

QUOTE(fathom @ Feb 27, 2007 -> 09:36 AM) And that's why Jim Bowden is an idiot and the Nats got nothing for Soriano. They got the Cubs' draft picks. At 96 losses for the Cubs and another 91 for the Nationals, that should equate to a competitive team 5 or so years from now.

I am not trying to be condescending, but how many of you actually saw Santo play in his prime or even at the end of his career?

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 23, 2007 -> 10:52 AM) Kenny Williams will not sign a pitcher to a 6+ year, $125 million + deal. Kenny Williams is simply not that stupid. And I am thankful for that quite often. What he said...except if it were Johan Santana. But back to the original question, no to Carlos Z. I am leery of bringing him and his mental condition to face AL lineups every turn.

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Feb 15, 2007 -> 05:59 PM) It is pretty easy to clear room for Clark if you were to really think about it. Take like 2.9 seconds and the answer should come to mind. Pods?

QUOTE(Soxfest @ Feb 14, 2007 -> 01:43 PM) #1 I am talking about next winter, nobody knows how it is going to turn out. White Sox have not been a major player in top shelf free agents for awhile and with the money they will have after 2006 season they will be able to be a major player, I am just saying history says otherwise. I hope I am wrong but JR crying about salaries this winter, next winter free agents will not be any cheaper! Aside from the facts about the historical spending patterns of current White Sox ownership, baseball history is fairly clear in illustrating that throwing big money at free agents frequently does not result into a championship. There are wealthy teams that have signed players to big contracts and been successful but baseball success still depends heavily on sound personell decisions throughout the organization. I think the Minnesota Twins, Atlanta Braves, and KC Royals of the 1980s are prime examples of this fact. Further, the NY Yankees of the mid-80s to early 90s are a great example of a wealthy team that was mismanaged (or overmanaged from the top) and floundered.

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Feb 12, 2007 -> 02:29 PM) This is about the only player in the White Sox organization that has actually played OF that would probably play a worse LF than Pods. I'm just assuming right now, which is probably a mistake, but he's 37 (38 in September) and he blew out his achilles once upon a time. The only reason he's played 71.1 innings in the OF over the past 3 years is to get his bat in the lineup, because that's how valuable managers feel he is against LHP. I don't blame said managers, but you really shouldn't even expect more than 5 games out of him in the OF, otherwise he could get hurt in no time. Regardless of that, this is an outstanding signing. The Sox may actually have a pretty damn good offense this year, and they might be able to actually hit both lefties and righties. So, does this make the Sox bench the best in (AL/MLB) going into the year again this year? Cuz I kinda think it does. The only real huge weakness on the bench is that there isn't a super speed guy who can steal a base (Ozuna has the speed, but lacks the stealing), but that plays such a small role that it's not worth digging for it. I think Thome's late season struggles (especially against LHP) and need for rest during the season to stay healthy makes it obvious that Perez can play first against lefties and let Konerko get something of a breather by DH'ing. Paulie played a lot of innings in the field last year due to a lack of a backup with Mack covering CF too often. This also gives you a monster LHP bat off the bench late in the game when the opposing manager has to decide whether to bring in the righty to shut down a rally. I think this is going to turn out to be one of the better offseason moves Williams makes this year.

QUOTE(bad at best @ Feb 3, 2007 -> 03:05 PM) i love knowing that there is a game almost every night. its the relentless calming rhythm of summer....like waves crashing on the shore. You said it. Those few nights off a year and the Thursday getaway day game always leave a void that has me pacing. I know I spend too much time following the games and neglecting my family but I can't give it up.

Old Comiskey, Disco Night 1979 (no, not the infamous Disco demolition against Detroit). I think it was against the Mariners and the Sox lost. I was too young to pay attention to details of the game. I remember seeing a man walk across the infield during the pregame festivities. Someone asked my dad who that was and he said in his strong Greek accent "that drunken ass Harry Carey." I also remember the firewoks going off for a Sox HR. One of my earliest childhood memories. I went to Baseball Almanac to see if I could locate the exact game. It appears it was a 7-2 Tuesday night loss, when the Sox did in fact get a solo home run in the second inning. Funny thing to note is that Mario Mendoza started at SS for the M's and went 2 for 3 with a double and 2 RBI.

QUOTE(Steve9347 @ Feb 1, 2007 -> 02:18 PM) No sex with babies. Man Law? No. Just the Law. Sicko.

QUOTE(Vance Law @ Feb 1, 2007 -> 12:27 PM) This is one of the more bizarre comments that I've seen. You must be joking, lying, willfully ignoring the facts, and or basing your comment on one game that you saw. Mackowiak was a better hitter than the majority of our regulars. He hit .295 with a .365 OBP. Those numbers are better than Iguchi, Crede, Pierzynski, Pods, Anderson, and Uribe. Maybe I am being harsh but I recall a very streaky hitter whose defense was tough to watch. My example was from a game I attended in which Mack was brought in to pinch hit, did not deliver, and then cost the Sox the game in the late innings. My seats are very close to the area the play happened and he was brutal on multiple levels. Granted, he should not have been out there to begin with, but it was one of several examples last year when a combination of Pods in Left and Mack in Center put extra pressure on the man on the bump. Maybe Mack's defensive shortcomings were exacerbated by being out of position and being next to Pods most of the time. Whatever the reason, I am not blaming him, just stating how I feel. Stats can be misleading sometimes. Mack may have decent looking numbers on paper, but there are a lot of fans who watched a whole slew of games last year and can not recall much contribution from Mack outside of his performance against Street. Tell me what your stats say about Joe Crede's 2005 regular season? On paper he had some disappointing numbers but we all remember his clutch offensive contributions that year, not to mention the fact that his defense more than made up for his offensive shortcomings. I know Mack is a reserve, but his defense and streaky hitting stick out far more in my mind. Further, better numbers than 2006 versions of Pods, Anderson, and Uribe is comparable to being the World's Tallest Midget.

QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Jan 31, 2007 -> 07:27 PM) Hey what do you know. Mackowiak's bat won us a game against Huston Street and the A's. I would hope to have a little more production out of my backup than one heroic pinch hit moment. I think we all fell in love with Mack when he beat Hawkins and the Cubs in a double header two years ago. That and the fact that he is a local guy with a passion for the Sox gave him a free pass last year. Overall, he was pretty disappointing both offensively and defensively.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 31, 2007 -> 06:11 PM) Hey, I'm calling that one the way I see it. By my eyes when Rob Mackowiak was playing CF, in an overwhelming majority of those games he directly cost the White Sox 1 run, and indirectly usually led to at least a couple more scoring. In other words, in any game, the White Sox still had say a 50% shot at a quality start last season, but in a much higher percentage of games where he started in CF, Rob Mackowiak's defense in CF did horrific damage. Game 3 Cubs at Sox - Mack misplays ball off Barret's bat leading to RBI triple followed shortly thereafter by Jacque Jones 2 run homer. Cubs avoid sweep. There are more but I was there for that and was well-positioned to see how Mack's poor read/jump/dive/tumble directly cost the Sox the game but the bullpen got hit with the Earned runs and loss. He easily cost the Sox 2 to 4 games last year. Everyone keeps blaming the starters for the 2006 disappointment but the outfield defense took a toll on the pitch counts throughout the year.

QUOTE(Felix @ Jan 31, 2007 -> 11:52 AM) He sucks because he cannot stay healthy, and when he is healthy (which is no common thing mind you), he still isn't very good. He's posted 2 seasons with OPS's above .700 since 2000 (although yes, injury plagued seasons) and really isn't that good a player. So yea, he sucks. Based on what you are saying, StatManDu should probably change his name since he is not looking at your statistics. From what I have seen of his first 47 posts, he is much more of a trivia/history/nostalgia guy than his name suggests. Here are a few suggestions: 1. Histrionics 2. Nostalgiamus 3. FactManDu The last is my personal favorite and probably the most apprpriate since the guy is a wealth of baseball knowledge, in particular anything that has to do with the White Sox. It also is a simple change that the moderators may allow without knocking him down to no-post rookie status. Also, all us older fans seem to like him and the tears he helps bring to our eyes every now and then. My only concern is the change would cause him to become arrogant and think that he has all the answers. He seems like a good guy, however, so it should not be an issue.

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Jan 31, 2007 -> 02:36 AM) I actually don't, I was simply asking a hypothetical question. But you said eat it, and it made me sad. I'm not sure I could ever eat a cat. /expects synonym of cat in next post It really is not all that bad. Tastes just like chicken.

QUOTE(chisoxgrl @ Jan 30, 2007 -> 07:07 PM) They do not all look alike :0) Especially because they all have numbers on their backs! C'mon Crede and Gooch??? Crede is 6'2" and Gooch is 5'10" big difference! :0) Other than the height thing, of course.

QUOTE(chisoxgrl @ Jan 30, 2007 -> 06:39 PM) I have no pink Sox attire, nor does my daughter!! There is nothing PINK about White Sox baseball :0) I support this new policy too! Basic ballpark etiquette! Also, if you are going to cheer for who is at bat, be sure you know who it is! I had a drunken person behind me last year cheering for Crede when it was Iguchi that was up! Very easy mistake. They all look alike.