witesoxfan

QUOTE(knightni @ Aug 9, 2007 -> 01:34 PM) They should go get Borchard then. They'd have to clear a spot on the 40 man roster than. And this is a better PR move anyways.

My Darin Erstad wallpaper still tops all.

QUOTE(AirScott @ Aug 1, 2007 -> 12:49 PM) He didn't run all that much in 2003 and 2004, and I remember there was some confusion swirling around Culpepper and his knee last season in Miami. I'm just saying he's not as good as he looked when he had Randy Moss. and Scott Linehan

I don't recall ever finding out why you are even after this chick. Maybe yelling will help. DUDE, SHE DOES NOT FIND YOU THAT INTERESTING. IF SHE DOES, SHE WILL COME FIND YOU. IF SHE DOESN'T, YOU'LL FIND SOME OTHER GIRL THAT IS YOUR NEXT TRUE LOVE IN ABOUT A MONTH AND COME BACK ON HERE AND TALK ABOUT WHAT YOU SHOULD DO. DON'T STALK HER, BECAUSE THAT'S AGAINST THE LAW. I feel better now; and dude, get a f'ing clue.

you missed one

QUOTE(LosMediasBlancas @ Aug 9, 2007 -> 03:25 AM) Someone said he "broke the greatest American sports record". True? Can you think of any other record in American sports that's as heralded as the all-time home run record? I can't. Brett Favre is going to set like every meaningful record for a QB this upcoming season, and I'm not sure how many people, football fans included, even care, and that's really the only other sport on the level of either baseball or football. So yeah, I'd say he broke the greatest American sports record.

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Aug 8, 2007 -> 11:29 PM) I also recall Cotts having one too, but that may be me having a shady memory. slightly shady memory. He didn't have a hidden perfect game, but he did have a hidden no-no. From May 31st to June 14th, Neal Cotts pitched 9.2 of no-hit baseball, allowing 4 walks during the time frame. Not nearly as impressive.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Aug 9, 2007 -> 01:21 AM) Sure. But it's less incredible than it would be if he had done it clean. Which is why I find the records, especially the hr records, a lot less interesting than I did before. And being much, much better than other 35+ players who also chose to do steroids just strikes me as underwhelming and pretty uninspiring as an accomplishment. Especially for someone who would have been an all-time great, anyway. Mere hunch, but I think 35 is understating it quite a bit. We'll probably find out for sure within the next 15-20 years when former MLB players wind up dying prematurely due to heart disease and all kinds of cancers and whatever other problems may arise, but I truly believe 35 is shooting way under the bar. I'd guess 20% is more likely - which is 5 per 25-man roster - and perhaps even higher than that. Speculation leads to nothing really, and I find what Bonds did to be remarkable. Some may not, and that's just a difference of opinion.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Aug 9, 2007 -> 12:57 AM) Come on, it's just wrong. Sure, if a player could lose NO ability from 29 to 35, he'd be just as good, but that DOESN'T happen. It's not just "speculation" that a player will slow down after 30, it's biology. And a player sure as hell won't suddenly GAIN massive amounts of quickness, coordination, or sheer power at 35, like Bonds did. ARod could, at best, maintain his production (Williams doesn't look MUCH different late, maybe more inconsistent -- but he wasn't better). But whatever 'smarts' he gains will be offset by the physical decline. Doesn't mean he won't have a lucky year, like Williams and Aaron did. But if he consistently attains unprecedented peaks of production after 35, I for one won't have any doubt about how he accomplished it. Probly true. And I've never questioned that Bonds has done steroids, just merely that nobody really knows what percentage of the MLB is currently or was at one point on steroids and how truly unprecedented it really is, and how much better he really is after the age of 35 then the rest of the game is period. It's an incredible accomplishment, steroids or not.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Aug 9, 2007 -> 12:17 AM) wite, that is the most absurd thing you've ever posted. And you don't even back it up. You cite a couple exceptions of players having good seasons in their twilights. Btw, you missed the big one, where Williams had a huge year at 38. ONE big year, with an ops+ of 233. Which is much closer to his career ops+ of 190 or so than Bonds' THREE years of 260+ ops+ were to his career ops+ of 180-something (which includes those years, not to mention the piddly 231 ops+ sandwiched in between). Just look at the best single-season ops+ ever -- why aren't there more than a handful of 35+ players from before the steroid era, since hitters get "better as they age"? Why has it been said for ages that players peak between 27 and 31 (depending on who you're listening to)? This is so ridiculous, I have to add -- if you're being sarcastic, kudos. O/w, this is borderline dishonest. I'm perhaps twisting words a little bit, but I really believe hitters become better as they age. They get worse when their bodies can't catch up to a 96 MPH fastball or hold up over the rigors of a season. Perhaps that can be interpreted as getting worse with age, but if a guy's body can hold up over those, a person could logically play at a very high level until he is 40-45. Once his bat speed drops or he starts losing strength is when he becomes a worse hitter; that happens with age, but that could be anywhere from 32 years old to 42 years old. That means ARod could be a very good player until he's 44, or he could be out of baseball by 38. It's hard to say, and that's why it's unrealistic to speculate as to whether he will break the record when he isn't even 2/3rds of the way to the record.

QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Aug 8, 2007 -> 11:45 PM) witesoxfan's post is a classic of ignorance. First of all, the Bonds 756 has been appraised for 500 k tops, so millions my ass. Second, your post on players and age.....lmao. Do you watch baseball? The reason Bonds OPS+ in his younger years was his total bases were so high due to all of his doubles, stolen bases, speed, and hitters around him on some really good Pirates teams. Doesn't explain his home run explosion in his late 30's and early 40's. But it was a good try. It's going to get millions. If it doesn't, I'll eat my crow like everyone else, but if McGwire's 62nd went for $3.1 mill, and Hank Aaron's 755th went for $750K sometime in the late 70s to early 80s, what the hell do you think this ball is going to go for? I'd imagine the Giants will do everything in their power to buy that ball, and that may be shelling out as much as $5 mill for it. And I don't question whether I watch baseball. I question whether you understand stats at all. Neither his OPS nor OPS+ would be affected by his stolen base numbers, but nice try. OPS is on base percentage (H+BB+HBP/PA) plus slugging (TB/AB), and OPS+ is adjusted OPS, which is just a number centering around 100 which suggests what a league average OPS would be...tell me, how do stolen bases work into that? Next, don't give any credit to Bonds who, uhhhhhh, led the team in OPS in each of the Pirates' NLCS seasons. But no, it was everyone else around him as to why Barry Bonds was a good player, because without those good players, Barry Bonds doesn't put up good numbers. I'd suggest reading what you type, because it's absolutely ludicrous that you believe that the other players made Bonds perform. It's really not coincidental that the years the Pirates won 3 straight division titles, Bonds put up OPS's .971, .924, and 1.080, and that in 1989 when they sucked, Bonds sucked. And players do become better hitters with age. They get worse when their body breaks down. Why do you think a rookie isn't as good as a 10 year veteran, and why do you think young players ask for advice from older players? Pretty common sense dude. Hank Aaron would still be playing if his body would allow it, but that quite frankly isn't possible. Frank Thomas is probably going to play as long as his leg holds up, and Jim Thome will play as long as his back doesn't leave him hunchbacked. Right? Right? And the home run explosion probably comes from steroids. Or perhaps it was heavy lifting and becoming a better hitter, who knows? All I was suggesting was that Bonds wasn't a nobody or merely a good player in the 90s - like you seem to be trying your heart out to make him out as - but rather he was dominant. He wasn't some "30 homer a year guy" who transformed into a "49, 73, and several more 40 homer seasons with 200 walks." He's been a 35-40 homer a year player all his career up until last season. And that if ARod breaks it or nears it, there will be controversy.

QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Aug 8, 2007 -> 05:04 PM) Since I can't figure out how to type stuff in the neat code format, I'll just attach a picture. If you think those are bad numbers, you are either blind, stupid, or a hater. Which is LV? Of course he can't be a clutch hitter, look how little the other team is actually pitching to him.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Aug 8, 2007 -> 06:31 PM) Jim Barr retired 41 consecutive hitters in 1972, which is still the record to date. What Bobby is doing right now is called a "Hidden Perfect Game" - retiring 27 consecutive batters over multiple appearances - Shingo had one in 2004. I also recall Cotts having one too, but that may be me having a shady memory.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Aug 8, 2007 -> 11:08 PM) Probably a similar deal to Byrnes. He's going to finish the year with a high .800 OPS more than likely which isn't exactly spectacular. I think he could re-sign at a semi-discount maybe $8m-$9M a year. If it's $9 mill a year - which even with a discount I think is very generous on JD's part - then it'll probably be a 3 year deal with an option for the 4th with a pretty nice buyout too.

QUOTE(Linnwood @ Aug 8, 2007 -> 11:09 PM) No, I really would. And there is no way that is going to go for a million, let alone millions. Well this thread will almost undoubtedly be bumped then.

QUOTE(Stan Bahnsen @ Aug 8, 2007 -> 04:53 PM) I sure hope he gets called up in Sept. - I've been dying to see him pitch. I've seen the praise for his curve and changeup - considering that he only started throwing a change in ST, I'd say that he's making excellent progress. I've also seen that he averages perhaps 93 on the heater, but is it straight or does it move nicely? Given that he does give up a few dingers, maybe it's a little straighter than we'd like. Other than his size, I don't see any other negatives. He seems to have made good strides with his control as well. DLS will hopefully be ready by '09. One hit every two innings is a sick stat at any level. If those two succeed, the Sox should be a serious contender at that time. Maybe too many holes to fill for '08, but I've been wrong before. DLS could be ready by '09, but I think they should take it slower with him. Let him increase his innings a little bit next year between high A and AA, and then repeat again in '09. If he's up by '10, that would be magnificent.

QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Aug 8, 2007 -> 05:11 PM) I wouldn't bet on it, unless he goes from a 30 homer or so a year guy to hitting 49, than 73, than 40 a year while walking 200 times a year and having OPS's in the 1.200 or so range starting at age 37 and into his 40's, all the while having a moutain of evidence connecting him to a state of the art steroid factory and having his shoe size go up by 3 and head size by 1 and a half. To clarify, I mean that about A-Rod. I'm very suspecious of Pujols on the other hand, and there is reason to be. Bonds put up an OPS+ of 205 and 206 in 92 and 93 respectfully, and hit more than 30 homers in 10 of 11 seasons from 1990 to 2000. And he only walked 200+ times one year and walked 198 times another (so essentially 2 200 walk seasons). I really don't understand what his walks have to do with anything, because Bonds has always been the most patient hitter in the game. He drew 556 walks in 4 seasons from '95-'98; that's 140 walks a season. It's not like he randomly started hitting for huge power and drawing walks out of nowhere. And further, to suggest hitters don't get better with age is wrong. Hitters get worse when they break down, which has started happening with Barry, but if anything, hitters get better as they age. Pete Rose hit .331 as a 38 year old and .325 as a 40 year old, Tony Gwynn had arguably the best season of his career in 97 as a 37 year old and hit .332 from 99-01, and Hank Aaron had the highest OPS and OPS+ of his career as a 37 year old, and then went on to put up a 1.045 and a .301 average with 40 homers as a 39 year old. So quite frankly, it's very possible ARod could do that and still be perfectly clean. QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Aug 8, 2007 -> 07:25 PM) I'm not under the impression that the ball will sell for millions. Then you're naive. Hank Aaron's 755 went for $750K and McGwire's 62nd went for $3.1 million. If you don't think the ball that broke the all time home run record is going to sell for atleast the $3.1 mill McGwire got, then I imagine you are lying to yourself.

QUOTE(ChiSox35 @ Aug 8, 2007 -> 03:11 PM) I hope we keep Pods, not as a primary leadoff option, but as backup. I'm still not sold on Owens, but it's looking like he's earning the '08 job. If we don't put all our eggs in the Pods basket, the production he gives us will be that much of a sweet bonus, and as the Win/Loss record w/ Pods shows, he helps the team. :puke

And for anyone to think for a second that ARod or Pujols are just going to storm to the record and take it with no one booing or questioning how they got so big, you're wrong. There will always be controversy. It hasn't been brought up yet because they aren't close and nothing has come out yet.

QUOTE(GoSox05 @ Aug 8, 2007 -> 08:48 AM) I'm just glad it's over, I was really sick of hearing about it. I think the homerun record is overrated. It lasted like 33 years and it takes 20 some odd years to break. So when you think about it, that's not that long. I think other records in baseball are way more unbreakable. Like do you see anyone anytime soon breaking Ricky Henderson's stolen base record or the strikeout record? You think the most famous record in sports is overrated? Why do I have a hard time believing that? And you've apparently never heard the saying "records are meant to be broken." When they are set so high that they have become unreachable, they lose all of their glamor and fun.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Aug 8, 2007 -> 12:15 PM) Terry Ryan smart smart smart, smart smart smart smart smart.... No, Terry Ryan just not dumb.

I sat in the car for 11 hours with random stops in cities throughout South Dakota, moved in the next day, and got drunk my first night living in the dorms. It was pretty sweet.

QUOTE(Linnwood @ Aug 8, 2007 -> 03:51 AM) Yeah, 'cause BB has so put the Giants in contention this year... If they had anything offensively around him, they'd be just fine. Quite frankly, when you're second best hitter is Ryan Klesko, you never had a shot at competing in the first place. They have arguably the best hitter of this era in their lineup, 2 average hitters, and 5 well below average starters to go along with a pretty mediocre bench. I don't think God could make the 2007 Giants a competing team. I mean, the Cardinals are 7 games under .500 and I'm not going to turn Pujols down because they suck. You're talking about two guys who can bring garbage to bad, bad to mediocre, mediocre to good, and good to great. Without Bonds, the Giants would probably be 20-30 games under .500 right now, and that's just how bad they really are. You put Bonds on a team with some actual talent - and I feel funny saying that because the White Sox have like the least talented team in the AL Central - and he will almost instantly make that offense a force.

Carl Everett

QUOTE(zimne piwo @ Aug 8, 2007 -> 02:44 AM) Good God no! I said it before and I'll say it again... BUCK FARROID!!!!!! ...because it would be terrible if the Sox signed one player and instantly put themselves in contention next year.