zach61

QUOTE(The Critic @ Jul 5, 2006 -> 05:50 PM) Yeah, not the best time ever to be a Cub fan. Someone on a Cub board had this to say when Buerhle got shelled: "If he's giving up 10 runs to our crappy offense, he should quit the game" They can't even enjoy a rare victory anymore. FWIW, Hendry is going to "re-evaluate" Dusty over the All-Star break to see if he gets more time to "dig himself out of the hole".....can you dig yourself out of a hole? Yes......It's a grinder rule. The way to get out is to dig deeper.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jul 3, 2006 -> 03:51 PM) MY NEW SIG! "Honestly, we don't put too much stock in opinion outside of our clubhouse. I'm not saying that to sound arrogant, but if we would have listened to what people outside the clubhouse were saying, we wouldn't have had our second baseman, our right fielder, the left fielder, the center fielder, shortstop, half the pitching staff and the catcher. So, sorry, we believe in what we believe in, and that's the way we'll sink or swim.'' And we would have traded away our 3rd baseman for a bag of balls.

QUOTE(EvilMonkey @ Jun 28, 2006 -> 10:27 PM) Not to start something again, but with the Crosstown series coming up, I thught it kinda funny that I saw this tonight. While watching sports highlights, they showed the Cubs game. Pierre comes barreling home, and the throw is dropped by the catcher. Pierre, not sure if he touched the plate, dives pack and slaps the plate. Then, seeing that the ump called him safe, he slapped the plate 4 more times. I wonder if Barrett would have thought it ok for the opposing catcher to sucker punch him while he lay on the ground slapping home plate? Hmmm. Wasn't that Jock Jones slapping the plate?

QUOTE(zygoat @ Jun 26, 2006 -> 12:46 PM) and it would be nice if jim could close his stance and put the ball down the third base line. During that 13 inning game, it would have been nice to see him hit a single down the line and then bring in a pinch runner and work the small ball anyways keep up the good work Especially since it worked out so well when Uribe was bunted over by Mack and didn't score. And with Crede and Dye already out of the game, why take out your other big bat? And I don't know what inning you are referring to, but the only guy left on the bench was Widger becase Pablo came out of the game after that infield hit he got.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Jun 22, 2006 -> 12:36 PM) Wow, I think you're giving Ozzie WAY too much credit here, the team has won 6 straight, 8 out of 9, is 21 games over .500, 5.5 games up in the wild card, second best record in baseball and have scored 33 runs the past 2 days Vs the second best team in the NL. There isn't a whole hell of a lot of negative things for Ozzie to be covering for right now and if anyone is going to be b****ing about any of those things right now (with the exception of Pods maybe) then that's just incredibly petty and I doubt the players would even care. I think he just called a guy a *** and a piece of s*** because he dislikes him, nothing more, nothing less. This is one of the things I do agree with hangar though. Even though the Sox are doing well, the stuff that gets the most attention(usually) is the negative stuff. I don't agreee with the biased against the Sox to make them look bad, but the news that usually gets attention is the bad news, even if the team is doing well. I might be giving Ozzie too much credit, but I think by him being involved with Chicago for about 16 yrs during his MLB career, he knows that we usually prefer to dwell on the negative rather than the positive. Look at what you just said? And this board still has things about wanting to get rid of Anderson. Trade for another bullpen arm. Garland isn't living up to the expectations. So by Ozzie saying something stupid, the media ignores any of the bad things and writes about him instead. Anderson doesn't have to keep answering the question about hitting under .200. AJ doesn't have to keep getting asked about getting beaned or about being the most hated player. As petty as it might be, they don't have to keep getting asked about playing as well as they are and still can't catch the tigers. I would love to be in the Sox clubhouse and not have to deal with the media except to say "That's Ozzie and you'll have to ask him." QUOTE(hammerhead johnson @ Jun 22, 2006 -> 12:59 PM) You let me down, superzach. Some quotes from "In Life, First You Kick Ass". And like I said, from what I remember. Yeah, the media had fun with Ditka, but he did a lot of crap that pissed off the players and they didn't have the same respect for him like the Sox seem to have for Ozzie. I'm not in either clubhouse or locker room, so I'm just giving my opinion on the things that I see. And I could be completely wrong about the players not respecting Ditka, but it did look to me like they didn't respect him the same way the Sox seem to respect Ozzie. And my opinion on why is that Ozzie looks like he will back his players, where Ditka seemed to throw them under the bus.

QUOTE(klaus kinski @ Jun 22, 2006 -> 08:38 AM) Those around in the mid to late 80's might recall the rise of Mike Ditka with the fans & press to and beyond the World Championship in Jan 1986. For a time, outrageous things he said were accepted, as he was the king in this town, but it eventually started wearing thin on the players, and eventually the press. He never backed off, and the team began to fail and eventually he lost his job as the press started criticizing his methods. I hope none of this happens to Ozzie. From what I remember about Ditka, he brought the attention to the team. From what I'm seeing with Ozzie, he takes the attention off of the team. I like how the media is all caught up with Ozzie insulting a group of people when that same group of people aren't even allowed to get married, instead of Anderson hitting under .200, or Anderson being suspended, or Thome in a bit of a slump, or Pods in a pretty big slump and not making plays in the outfield. Or what about the bullpen? What about Sean Tracey? All of that pressure has been removed by Ozzie calling Moronotti the F** word. I believe that Ozzie is dumb like a fox.

QUOTE(knightni @ Jun 21, 2006 -> 04:41 PM) I take it that my comments on 6/20 will be ignored as well eh? Yup. He usually avoids any questions and just says his numbers speak for themselves, then rants about how he proved it already at the "other" site an if you don't like what he is posting, then prove him wrong. I'm still trying to find out what he actually proved though. All he posts is his count of Sox and cub stories from 2 papers then claims he outed the Chicago media.

QUOTE(rangercal @ Jun 21, 2006 -> 04:41 PM) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Around_the_Horn Yeah, I looked it up already. I can't believe people actually watch that. No offense to you if you watch it, but IMO, that woody paige and moronotti don't have a clue of what they're talking about. All they do is shout and try to get any attention that they can. And as long as they get attention, they will be around.

QUOTE(SoxFan1 @ Jun 21, 2006 -> 04:38 PM) Around the Horn What is it? I never heard of it? Ah. Looked it up. So this is an espn show with moronotti and people actually watch it? No wonder the guy is still around. As long as he gets the attention and the times gets complaints about him, he ain't goin nowhere.

QUOTE(rangercal @ Jun 21, 2006 -> 04:08 PM) I missed the 1st 5 minutes of ATH . Did they mention anything of the topic? What's ATH?

And don't forget about all of the questions in this thread that you still can't answer. They are not going away. You are probably hoping that by ignoring them they will go away, but they won't.

QUOTE(Hangar18 @ Jun 21, 2006 -> 04:21 PM) A: I love exposing the media B: Not as much as I would like So please tell us which stories made the Sox look bad today. How many of those were there? Why did they make the Sox look bad and why would they drive fans away from the Sox? And are you really exposing the media or are you just obsessed with the trib and times? If it's the media, then please include the rest of the Chicago media and not just 2 papers.

QUOTE(zach61 @ Jun 21, 2006 -> 01:09 PM) I hope all these questions aren't forgotten and will soon be answered by our media watcher. Still waiting for the answers to these questions since I see the "media watch" is still being done.

QUOTE(JimH @ Jun 20, 2006 -> 04:38 PM) #21 - Start posting the stories that you claim are biased against the Sox to make them look bad and how many of them there are each day. Why is that so hard for you? (from zach61) #22 - the guy just looked it up, presented what he found, and you respond with your recollections? And you paint your recollections as proof??? (re: Muscatel's looking up of the murder in front of Wrigley story) #23 - Also, what does TV have to do with your media watches? I thought you said the two papers, Tribune and Sun Times. Now you are pulling in TV because it suits your purposes. (re: Hangar bringing in TV stations when he's said all along it's Tribune and Sun Times) #24 - Why do you misrepresent things and ignore things Hangar? Hangar it's now 24 questions. If you answer one per hour you can have this done by tomorrow. Of course there will be a whole new set of questions about your proof and your methods tomorrow Hangar. This is not going away Hangar. I hope all these questions aren't forgotten and will soon be answered by our media watcher.

QUOTE(Hangar18 @ Jun 21, 2006 -> 12:31 PM) The SOX are able to gain 5 stories today and try to make a dent in the lead the Cubs continue to have. Rick Telander today decides to do a puff piece on Marlins' manager Joe Girardi, while Toni Ginetti does a reunion type piece on Tony LaRussa and Jerry Reinsdorf. Chicago Tribune: 3 cub stories 6 sox stories Chicago SunTimes: 3 cub stories 5 sox stories Standings as of Wednesday June 21st, 2006 Priviledged, Media Owned, Media Favored, 5th place currently, 4th place in 05 Cubs 613 Underdog, Media Maligned, Media Ignored, 2nd place currently, WSChamps in 05 Sox 522 And these stories make the Sox look bad and the cubs look good? Which stories make the Sox look bad and drive fans towards the cubs and why?

QUOTE(Hangar18 @ Jun 20, 2006 -> 02:09 PM) someone tell me this guy didnt just ask this question ......... I apologize. I wasn't paying attention to which game you were referring to because I though I read somewhere that you were going to be at the games in Cincy this weekend and you wouldn't have heard DJ on TV then if you were at the game. QUOTE(Steff @ Jun 20, 2006 -> 02:30 PM) He did. Want to tell us why you are so rude? I know you've spent most of your time defending your stupid media watch, but around here most people respect others enough to correct them rather than s*** on them. 61, DJ was referring to the seats in Cincy. No problem about being rude. I'm used to it and deserved a slam for not reading the post correctly. I read his response and then got down to yours before going back to re-read the post about DJ's comments. Oops. I guess I miss that corg guy to remind us about reading. I forget his exact line though.

QUOTE(Hangar18 @ Jun 20, 2006 -> 03:02 PM) hey, some people keep asking me for "proof", I offer points to consider, and its ignored. Just like the "there were always more cub fans" statement. I show attendance from 1981 and 1982, and its ignored. Someone says show me proof the media is biased. Someone brings up a murder in front of wrigley, people say it doesnt prove anything. I don't want points to consider. I want you to show me the stories that you are claiming make the Sox look bad everyday instead of just some count that you throw out there. And if you are only going to count the times and trib, then it doesn't matter what TV coverage there was or wasn't for a story or what the score talked about. If thats the case, then you need to start looking at the stories in the southown, etc to prove your media bias against the Sox. So start showing us the stories on a daily basis that are making the Sox look bad and how many of them there are. Not just some random count that you put up here everyday that tells us nothing.

QUOTE(Hangar18 @ Jun 20, 2006 -> 02:53 PM) And to continue that line of questioning, if in that same time span from 2002 til now, why hasnt anyone DISPROVEN my theory? I wouldve thought the Muscatels and Zachs of the world wouldve completely shot this down way back then with a study showing the complete opposite. Im totally surprised someone hasnt come up with an anti-conspiracy theory, where numbers show that the Tribune (and the copycat SunTimes) actually were Biased in Favor of the SOX, and wrote as many stories as they could about the SOX (positive and negative) to keep them in the public eye. How did I miss all of those Comiskey2 is best park ever stories? I keep getting comments and questions from the Earth-is-Flat people around here, shooting down what ive kept track of, but never proving just the opposite. I'll say this, its certainly sparked some debate around here huh? Because I'm not claiming to prove anything. If you proved something, show us why the story you are counting is biased against the Sox. I've been asking you to do that since you showed up here with this stupid watch. I didn't read your media witch hunt on the other site, so I don't care what numbers you posted there. Start posting the stories that you claim are biased against the Sox to make them look bad and how many of them there are each day. Why is that so hard for you? Just putting a count up means nothing. Why are those stories proving your point?

QUOTE(Hangar18 @ Jun 20, 2006 -> 02:47 PM) if you found my counts to have been wrong frequently as you say, did you mention it over at the other site? Methinks you didnt. I also notice how you only bring up the shooting in "lakeview". How convenient. For those of you who were paying attention, the murder happened right after the game, with a fan who was at the game, walking across the street, from the stadium. Shooting happened early Thursday evening. CLTV and WGN, who initially covered the incident, noticably pointed their cameras AWAY from the lovely wrigly marquee. They showed the spot where it happened, and one couldnt help but still note the ballpark right in the background. both stations initially reported it as a "shooting at cubby bear". completely wrong. It was in the street in front of the park, not at the bar. Other stations who had cameras there did point northwards (not south) getting part of the ballpark in the shot. SunTimes did have the incident on its front page. Tribune? Apparently wasnt as "newsworthy" as the fans running on the Cell Field to be put on the front page. Tribune relegated the story to a quick blurb, in its metro section. Again, if anyone was paying attention, there was a firestorm of backlash towards the trib over on that other site. Everyone noticed the blatant way it was portrayed and it dominated sports talk radio the rest of the weekend. Online, the Trib used the word "lakeview" and "northside" in portraying the incident. Funny, because after the backlash within 48 hours, the word "wrigleyville" was sprinkled into the stories, and the Trib finally made mention of this on its front page, DAYS after the incident. Someone from that newspaper came online and actually debated the thinking as to WHY they portrayed the incident as they did. Muscatel isnt telling you the full story, as I dont expect him to. After all, everyone knows its not in the best interest of the Tribune to downplay bad news when it comes to the cubs right? Everyone knows that this never happened right? Hangar makes this stuff up as he goes along. Every poster of that other site knew he was full of it .................. His Media Watches werent from 2002 like he says. He just started it this past April and they told him to shove off, his information is fake and biased. Nice job Muscatel, you really uncovered the anti-conspiracy didnt you?! WELL DONE! There never was a conspiracy after all !!! Hip HooraY! But seriously, Muscatel, if thats your real name, tell us why you never challenged this back in 2002? 2003? 2004? 2005? Surely I mustve fabricated something in that time-span? So what do the TV cameras have to do with your so called media watch that only includes the times and trib?Are you now going to count all Chicago media? Make up your mind. And starting now, show us the current stories that you claim are biased against the Sox to make them look bad. You are avoiding what you claim to be proving. Just editing to point out that I didn't read your media watch stuff on the "other" site, so please keep the other site stuff on the other site and don't drag your dirty laundry here. If you want to prove a point, please do. I enjoy reading that stuff, but all you are doing is counting stories from 2 papers from a major market city with a lot of other media and showing us nothing.

QUOTE(Hangar18 @ Jun 20, 2006 -> 02:08 PM) Ignoring the Media doesnt work. See Reinsdorf, Jerry; Gallas,Rob for more information Seems to work for you though. You ignore everything except what you want to ignore and then call it proof. When are you going to show us these phantom stories in this great big Chicago newsmedia(all of 2 papers) that will prove that they are writing stories to make the Sox look bad and the cubs look good. All you do is count the stories you want to count. Show us how the story makes the Sox look bad, what paper it was in, and how many of these negative stories there are. You keep putting a worthless total of stories up here and expect us to believe that they are all negative Sox stories.

QUOTE(Hangar18 @ Jun 19, 2006 -> 11:26 AM) Was watching the game on Saturday, right at the beginning of the game, the camera is doing a Wide Pan of the park, from right to left. DJ and Hawk were commenting on the park, when DJ says its a very pretty ballpark, one of the nicer ones hes seen. Hawk mentions something about all the fans (as if to CUE the WGN cameras to find a SOX fan to focus on-they didnt) when DJ mentions that he loves how the seats down the lines, are "angled towards the pitchers mound and the infield as opposed towards the outfield" and that he really liked that, Hawked simply nodded in agreement. So in your very first post, you complain that the seats aren't angled. Now you quote DJ commenting about how nice it is that the seats are angled. What the hell are you talking about Cartman?

QUOTE(Hangar18 @ Jun 20, 2006 -> 10:37 AM) If I missed that, you definitely should mention gratuitious pictures like this But you shouldn't be missing that much. It's been proven over and over that you are not counting accurately, so you need to start over fresh and tell us what you are counting and why it is biased against the Sox to make them look bad. You keep claiming that the media is out to make the Sox look bad, but then you only count stories from 2 papers. This media watch tells us nothing except that you attempt to count stories from only 2 papers and do it wrong. How have you proven that the times and trib are out to make the Sox look bad? Please shows us those stories instead of just some bogus count of what you feel like counting.

QUOTE(Hangar18 @ Jun 19, 2006 -> 02:57 PM) My numbers made more "sense" back in 03, 04, and 05, When nobody questioned anything and they just took the story count as proving something. Now everybody expects data and why the story is biased against the Sox and for the cubs instead of just how many stories there were.

QUOTE(Hangar18 @ Jun 16, 2006 -> 04:00 PM) Good Points SoxFan76, all very much valid. If I did a media watch for one day, then told everyone thats the truth, people would say get out of here, you have to do it on a daily basis to see whats true or not. Ribbie seems to be the only one commenting on a specific story whether its positive or negative. Truth be told, the SOX need coverage (positive-not negative) and if a story is "negative" such as "Sox bullpen stinks-heres who they should get", its still a story and it keeps the SOX product in the public eye. Out of sight Out of Mind is the rule-of-thumb in marketing. Why do you think you see Coca-Cola ads and commercials everyday, every year. and McDonalds? You will see that forever, because the minute they stop advertising Coke or McDonalds, Pepsi and Burger King will step up their advertising campaign five-fold and take over the market. "Your such a poo-poo head Hangar, so your saying the only reason I prefer Coke over Pepsi is because of media advertising? You have to get a clue, no wonder they banned you yuk yuk" Tribune knows this. Theyve been in the business for a long long time, they dont want to promote the SOX, it hurts the Cubs, so they make sure to give as much coverage as possible to that team, and if they have to slam the SOX in the process, hey so be it "Hangar, Im a SOX fan because Im a SOX fan, not because of the media, your such an idiot" So every time I see the same people saying the same thing "this is a stupid thread", doesnt really serve a purpose then you sir, havnt been paying much attention the last 20 or so years have you? Ive noticed, and they (trib and others) have noticed that I noticed and acknowledge me, quietly So then start counting stories from zero for both teams and show us which articles are in the trib and times to make the Sox look bad and the cubs look good. The total count means nothing. Why does a specific article that you are pointing out and counting make the trib biased against the Sox. Please start showing that if you want to prove your point. An article saying that the Sox bullpen stunk last nite cause they gave up 10 runs and lost the game doesn't count if thats what happened. If the trib and times is out to make the Sox look bad, then please post those articles, how many there are, and why they make the Sox look bad. Or the way you put it, sways fans from wanting to go to see the Sox.

QUOTE(Hangar18 @ Jun 16, 2006 -> 09:14 AM) The Tribune today makes sure to throw Comcast "under the bus" today, heh heh regarding Comcast missing the big "story" after the game between Ozz and rookie Sean Tracey. The SunTimes is the big story in my eyes today. They give the SOX 7 stories, with every sportswriter on staff contributing ....... and the Sox are on the Road!!!! Awesome. But whats more important to note, is all of the stories today reflect something actually of interest to Sox fans, and not fluff. Fluff is fine, dont get me wrong, the SOX surely dont get enough of that. But there are actual angles by all of the writers today ......people are WORKING. How about that huh? The Sox make a big dent today, awesome. Chicago Tribune: 3 cub stories 6 sox stories Chicago SunTimes: 3 cub stories 7 sox stories Standings as of Friday June 16th, 2006 Priviledged, Media Owned, Media Favored, 4th Place in 2005 Cubs 590 Underdog, Media UnderCovered, World Series Champs in 05 Sox 498 Finally. At least a little something about one of the stories. I don't buy the trib, so I have no idea or care what they print. Unless the story is posted, I don't read it. Everytime they call and try to sell a subscription, I tell them until they sell their baseball team, I won't contribute in any way to them. I won't even give them the hit on their web page to encourage them. Now tell us why these stories are bad for the Sox. Isn't your whole theory that the media is making the Sox look bad and keeping fans from wanting to see the Sox?