witesoxfan

QUOTE(SinkingShip06 @ Dec 11, 2006 -> 08:45 PM) Keep bringing the hate folks. Just shows your own failings as human beings. k

QUOTE(Jordan4life_2006 @ Dec 11, 2006 -> 12:52 AM) Wite, help me out, what the hell does that mean? lol. I hear this all the time and still can't figure out what it means. By definition, it basically means numbers outside those you don't look at directly. Worded funnily, but it basically tells the truth. In the case of pitchers, pretty much every stat but runs allowed. GO/AO, BAA, WHIP, BB/9, K/9, K/BB, HR/9 In the case of hitters, you're looking at AVG, PA/BB, SLG, OBP, OPS, XBHs, IsoSLG(isolated slugging...SLG - AVG), IsoOBP(same concept), and the ilk. Vaz had good peripheral numbers last year, whereas Chien-Ming Wang had pretty mediocre peripheral numbers; thus, Vazquez is likely to allow fewer runs than Wang is next year. Uribe had a mediocre year last year, but his IsoSLG of .206 suggests he was more apt to hit XBHs when he got hits than Lyle Overbay, who had an IsoSLG of .196. Thus, Uribe's more likely to drive in runs at a better rate than Overbay is when he gets hits. That should help. QUOTE(scenario @ Dec 11, 2006 -> 01:07 AM) It's pretty simple! For the last 5 years, those are pitchers that have pitched 200+ innings per year. They are ranked by strikeouts per nine innings. People can draw their own conclusions about what it says from there. It doesn't say that Tim Wakefield is one of the top 20 pitchers in baseball. It simply says he's a guy who averaged 200 innings per year and did a good job of striking people out compared to other starters. Simple. Bottom line: the pitchers at the top of the list are all good and durable pitchers. Javy is on that list. So anyone who says he's just a mediocre pitcher is either uninformed or WRONG. Simple. His career ERA+ of 104 suggests he's pretty mediocre, and his ERA+'s of 92, 99, and 96 the past 3 years suggests that he's slightly worse than mediocre. I'd say he's a mediocre pitcher that has great peripheral numbers, with the potential to be a pretty damn good pitcher next year.

QUOTE(scenario @ Dec 11, 2006 -> 12:30 AM) Here's the new version. It goes from April 2001 to current rather than 2000 to current. Dumps Hideo Nomo and Chan Ho Park as a result. Happier? I'm just not sure what it is you are trying to get at though. If the order they are in is trying to describe value or quality, then I'm gonna have to go ahead and pretty much wholeheartedly not only disagree, but suggest it's completely wrong. RJ isn't anywhere near that level anymore, and Tim Wakefield is not one of the top 20 pitchers in baseball. I doubt that's what it is though, but I'm just confused. That's also a span of 6 years...pitchers change pretty quickly. A smaller timeframe...say 3-4 years...would be much better to look at, though K/BB, which is really what you're getting at, is only one indicator of success. GO/AO, HR/9, WHIP, OPSa...you kinda need a lot to evaluate, even beyond ERA. Hell, throw QS's and QS% in there too. Javy's got great stuff, and great peripherals, but neither means he's necessarily going to be a good pitcher.

QUOTE(Brian @ Dec 10, 2006 -> 09:35 PM) Jessica Rabbit is my generation. she was definitely pretty smoking hot There is also Patti Mayonnaise. It would be weird if I still had a crush on her, but when I was a kid, she was pretty awesome.

well happy friggin b-day to the creator of my former wallpaper, my current wallpaper, and probably like every wallpaper after this.

QUOTE(Milkman delivers @ Dec 10, 2006 -> 10:12 PM) Oh God, I'm so tired of people comparing him to Contreras. Contreras was the greatest pitcher in Cuban history. Vazquez had two good years in a s***ty division in a s***ty league pitching in a huge stadium with absolutely no pressure on him. So, I am interpreting the first part in two ways. Either... * Cuban League = Major Leagues * Vazquez wouldn't be good in the Cuban League And regardless, Contreras couldn't handle the big leagues early on because he was a headcase. I seem to recall him choking badly against the Red Sox early in his career. (also, please indeed see below) QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Dec 10, 2006 -> 11:15 PM) Which Player would you rather have? IP H R ER HR BB K ERA Player A 200.1 184 116 108 29 98 160 4.85 Player B 202.2 206 116 109 23 56 184 4.84 Answer: (Highlight to read) :wub:

I'm seeing 1. Chicago 2. Seattle 3. New Orleans 4. Dallas Chicago's D is unreal...they can have bad games and still be outstanding defensively. When they are playing well, you're lucky to get into double digits. Seattle is finally healthy, and assuming they stay healthy, they easily have the second best offense in the NFC in terms of talent...Hasselback is a top 10 QB, Alexander is a top 3 back (I figure LdT, LJ, and Alexander), and then they have quite a few good receivers too, to go along with a pretty damn good OLine. And I have them above New Orleans in the rankings because they have a respectable defense, so they aren't involved in like 38-34 shootouts. New Orleans is next because their offense is so ridiculously good. Brees is a top 5 QB - probably is 5 - and he has about 14 different receivers he can throw to, and I don't think I'm exaggerating. Deuce and Bush are great in the backfield together too, because they compliment each other so well. Their defense is, however, horrendous, so basically if the offense has a bad half, they'll be playing some crazy catch up. Dallas has been playing well recently, but Romo is inconsistent as hell. Given, he's a hell of a lot better than Bledsoe, but just because he can move around, and because he's had two great games doesn't mean he is a proven starter in the NFL. He's going to be inconsistent, as seen by tonight's game, and by last week's game against the Giants. Also, Jones and Barber are solid in the backfield, but are nowhere near Alexander or Bush/McAllister, and their receivers aren't nearly what Seattle's or New Orleans are either (though that is also due in part because of the QB). And the defense, while good, seems to be a bit overrated. From what I can tell, they can stop the run pretty well, but their secondary seems a little weak, and if they face a team like New Orleans or Seattle, they'll be in trouble. They're also in trouble against Chicago if Romo isn't picking up on the blitzes well and Grossman's having a decent day.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Dec 10, 2006 -> 05:42 PM) I'll chime in on behalf of those oldtimers Tex and YAS, and say that back in the day they'd have been all over Wilma Flintstone and Betty Rubble. no Jane Jetson fans?

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Dec 10, 2006 -> 09:24 PM) Woah, this can't be correct. Tony Romo and the best team in the NFC -- probably in the NFL, probably ever -- are losing to the Saints? To the Saints? That's funny... Bears lose by four to a top four AFC team and are pretty much guaranteed to lose to Dallas in the first round. I wonder what that says if Dallas loses gets destroyed by an NFC team that probably isn't even in the top three of their conference. New Orleans is a top 3 team in the NFC. With how explosive their offense is, I don't know how you couldn't say they are. They'd get destroyed by an AFC team, due to how poor their defense is, but when their offense is clicking - like it pretty much has all year - they are a top 3 NFC team. That offense is just so.friggin.fast. I think Deuce is probably the slowest player they have, and he's the starting running back.

QUOTE(iamshack @ Dec 10, 2006 -> 07:42 PM) The assumption gets made because both Garland and Vazquez have been rumored to be involved the most. There was information that came out recently that stated that the Houston deal was made from their end for either Jon or Javy. And do you think there's a reason why Javy was not discussed further? He's older than Garland, he's getting paid more than Garland, and he had a worse year. Under normal circumstances, it would be a no-brainer that you'd trade Vazquez before Garland, especially if given the same package for both. Instead, Williams seemingly didn't discuss anything regarding Vazquez being traded - I wonder why? All that article stated was that the Astros would have been more than willing to give the same package...not that it was discussed. QUOTE(Milkman delivers @ Dec 10, 2006 -> 08:19 PM) I can't believe Vazquez still has so many people fooled. The guy is a born loser. It's obvious in his mental make-up. Javy will never ever live up to his potential. Sounds like a 2005 horse with skin of bronze. Psychological problems can be fixed. Mechanical problems can be fixed. Mediocre stuff problems usually can't.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Dec 10, 2006 -> 08:53 PM) Jeff Shaw joined the Sox at the age of 28, was mediocre in his 9.7 IP with the team. Imediately became an elite bullpen arm the year after he leaving the organization in '96. and was later traded for Paul Konerko

QUOTE(whitesoxin @ Dec 10, 2006 -> 07:58 PM) Why? He made the choice to use heroin and screw his life up. I don't know his story, but I'm fairly sure he wasn't tied down and injected with heroin. I'm fairly sure he wasn't tied down and forced to completely quit heroin (though I'm sure if he was arrested, he was put into detox), nor was he forced to work his ass off to try and make a comeback in the MLB. I for one hope every recovering drug addict in the world succeeds and stays away from heroin/other drug for the rest of their life, and perhaps make something of themselves in the real world.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 10, 2006 -> 06:50 PM) And 1 more thing...J...E...T...S... JETS TAKE THAT! Just a couple more players on the Bills...and I believe they have a ton of cap space next offseason. hail yes The Bills aren't even completely done this year, and they are looking so good for next year.

QUOTE(IowaSoxFan @ Dec 10, 2006 -> 06:48 PM) Having our top 4 starters next year 1. Count 2. MB 3. Vazquez/Garland whichever is not traded 4. BMac Why make the assumption that either Vaz or Garland or traded? Why do you assume that Vaz is even going anywhere? From everything I've read, the Sox aren't really openly shopping Vazquez at all. If anything, it's Count, Buehrle/Garland, Vazquez, BMac, young guy...and that's if another starter gets dealt.

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Dec 10, 2006 -> 06:17 PM) Same as Garland, no? mr. quick fingers

QUOTE(WHarris1 @ Dec 10, 2006 -> 06:15 PM) Ok how about... LT is a God...is that better? He only broke the record in 13 games, he sucks.

QUOTE(scenario @ Dec 10, 2006 -> 05:19 PM) Sometimes I think I'm one of the only people who wants to keep Vazquez. I think Coops work on his stance fixed the 5th inning problem, and as a result he's going to have a big year for us. And no... I haven't been drinking. agreed...add in a little comfort of not having to friggin move everything, and getting adjusted to the teams within his division, and I think he will have a very solid year for the Sox.

QUOTE(DBAH0 @ Dec 10, 2006 -> 04:50 PM) Ah yes, Winnie was HAWT as a kid growing up I have to say (apologies in advance if this is going to turn into one of those threads were everyone says who you had a crush one in your early years ). Dina from Saluta your Shorts aka, Heidi Lucas

QUOTE(DBAH0 @ Dec 10, 2006 -> 04:48 PM) Oh Boo - Hoo. Come live down here and enjoy the wonderful Australian Television Experience down here. Steve Irwin on every channel would be ok, no?

QUOTE(whitesox1976 @ Dec 10, 2006 -> 05:12 PM) Why are we looking to trade our starters? We traded Garcia, I wouldn't trade any more with the exception of Vazquez. Why trade Vazquez? That doesn't make sense.

QUOTE(Milkman delivers @ Dec 10, 2006 -> 08:08 AM) What happened to the f'n Wonder Years? One of the greatest shows ever, and it's never on TV. I still can't understand that one. They went extinct in the last episode of the show. Not sure if it was ever televised, but that's really how it ended. Depressing as hell... I seem to recall that actually...it was dark, and it was snowing like mad or something. Something to do with a volcano maybe? I dunno. That show was amazing though.

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Dec 10, 2006 -> 04:25 PM) Man, Vince Young sucks at football. QUOTE(WHarris1 @ Dec 10, 2006 -> 04:26 PM) DEAD roffle

whatever happened to Dinosaurs?

QUOTE(philadelphia sox fan @ Dec 10, 2006 -> 12:23 AM) What if they are two rookies who hit .290+ and consistantly make plays in the field? If you never take the risk, you never know what they can do for you. Who was the last White Sox rookie to hit .290? And if I were to build a team that I wanted to win a division, I'd like to keep my risk as minimal as possible. Why take the risk if you there are other options?

QUOTE(philadelphia sox fan @ Dec 10, 2006 -> 12:15 AM) But if it works, the outfield will be solid for the nexy 6-7 years. There is nothing wrong with starting youth in the field, you just have to know when to pull them. Two rookies in the outfield in a year in which you are looking to contend is bad, and there's no other way around it.