OmarComing25

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Nov 4, 2015 -> 07:47 AM) I read something yesterday that the White Sox have no intention of using Q to acquire hitting. They want to use their minor leaguers. Was that in the papers? A quote by Hahn?

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Nov 3, 2015 -> 10:36 PM) Royals players decided to talk about how they didn't have a ROY, Cy Young or MVP but they're still awesome and beat them all. God they're assholes Neither did the 2014 Giants, or the 2013 Red Sox, or the 2012 Giants, or the 2011 Cardinals. I could go on but they are not at all unique in that regard.

QUOTE (fathom @ Nov 3, 2015 -> 10:28 PM) Bama is going to end up with best SOS if they win out. They are easily in if they win out Yeah I meant that even if the current undefeated teams win out, they still might not have a better resume than a 1-loss Bama.

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Nov 3, 2015 -> 09:34 PM) Well I think everyone will disagree with you. Still also ignoring the point. No one cares about wins over Rice just as nobody should care losing to the number 1 team. What people should care about is the quality teams you've beaten. Clearly the playoff committee doesn't disagree. And about your point, what if a team has 4 losses but has 7 top ten wins? They would have by far the best quality of wins, but they'd have no chance at the playoff. Clearly it does matter. What if two teams both have one loss, but team A lost by 1 in overtime on the road to the #1 ranked team, and team B lost by 25 to an unranked foe at home? Team B has beaten 3 top 25 teams, while Team A has defeated 2. Who is more deserving in that scenario? Also, I did address the wins, I said ND was 7-1 against the 14th SOS. But it will sort itself out anyway. If Baylor/TCU/Ok State/MSU all win out, their resume will be better than ND's. Not sure about Bama though.

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Nov 3, 2015 -> 09:17 PM) Who you beat should far, far, far outweigh who you lose to, so yes. The selection committee actually came out and said this last year which is why Ohio State ended up in the playoff over TCU and Baylor. Otherwise you reward teams for "quality losses" which is really dumb. Not sure where you're going with the scheduling fcs team thing. That'd be the opposite of what I'm saying. Reward teams for who they have beaten. Scheduling fcs teams certainly would not accomplish that. Because if we're not going to treat all wins as the same, then it should follow we shouldn't treat all losses the same either. I'm saying that I think a team that loses a close game to a top team deserves some credit, it shouldn't be treated the same as if they were blown out by a decent team, and I'll go as far to say that it's much more impressive than beating some cupcake. I'll give Michigan a lot more credit for losing on the last play to MSU than I'll give Baylor credit for beating Rice. That doesn't mean that I think a team with 5 close losses to top teams deserves playoff consideration, but a tough loss should be weighed more favorably than some wins.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Nov 3, 2015 -> 05:52 PM) I had Royals fans tell me Rex Hudler is good for baseball. The problem is a lot of these former players are god-awful announcers. Some are good. The Sox are probably gonna look at Pods, Rowand, Frank, etc. who have all been terrible in the booth with Stone or Hawk. Give me a trained announcer, not a former player. At one point I got the international stream with Matt Vasgersian and John Smoltz. Vasgersian was awesome, Smoltz was meh. Vin Scully never played baseball, I agree that the bias towards former players is too much.

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Nov 3, 2015 -> 09:02 PM) Who gives a s*** who you lose to? They still don't have good wins. So all losses are the same? Losing a close game to a top team on the road is better than beating some cupcake like Lamar or whomever. It's not that black and white. It should matter, otherwise why not just schedule FCS teams and s***ty G5 teams every year? Their wins are comparable to those of the teams below them.

So wanting to trade for Derek Norris is "chasing heroes". You're really stretching that definition to its limits.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Nov 3, 2015 -> 06:25 PM) Crazy that a 1 loss Bama team ranks over some undefeated power conference teams. I do think Bama is playing like one of the best 4 teams in the country, so in many cases, I actually think they got it right, but hard to do that when you have a field of 4. If the field was 8, I have an easier time giving it to the better team with a loss vs. a power conference team without a loss. #3 SOS. The undefeated Big 12 teams haven't played anyone besides Texas Tech yet and Michigan State has looked pretty poor in a lot of their wins. I like that the committee takes into account strength of schedule and how teams look in their wins instead of just overall record, otherwise everyone would just schedule cupcakes. People are too focused on just top 25 teams as well. Hypothetically, a team that beat the #31, #29, and #27 teams has a better resume than the team that beat the #94, #51, and #17 teams. QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Nov 3, 2015 -> 06:33 PM) Notre Dames resume is not good at all. No idea how they're that high, but probably won't be for long. #14 SOS and lost to the #1 ranked team by two points on the road, how is that a bad resume? They might not necessarily deserve to be #5 but it's really not that egregious, maybe a few spots too high.

QUOTE (reiks12 @ Nov 3, 2015 -> 02:53 PM) I'm liking the bullpen but would like to see us land a good lefty I'm excited for Jones and Robertson show next season Jennings was actually rock solid in the 2nd half of the season.

Regarding the Jar Jar theory: http://imgur.com/gallery/y8oTn Check out #9

http://redlettermedia.com/plinkett/star-wars/ Plinkett's Star War reviews, I rewatch them occasionally as they're hilarious. They're very long but definitely worth watching.

QUOTE (sin city sox fan @ Nov 3, 2015 -> 09:35 AM) My plan would be to get a manager that can effectively manage the pen. http://grantland.com/the-triangle/2015-mlb...ny-joe-girardi/ I've posted this before but Robin is actually decent at managing the pen.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Nov 3, 2015 -> 06:26 AM) Quintana/Adams for....the steal deal of the century (love those 4-6 for 1-2 plans they come up with) mlbtraderumors Cubs get a solid pitcher in quintana and a potential stud in spencer who has a ways to go before making his MLB debut seeing as he’s only like 19 years old (at LEAST 2 years away…. more likely 3-4). Sox get the young position prospects they DESPERATELY need. They get a better SS in Castro over having to keep worse Alexei Ramirez…. regardless what Sox fans say. Castro’s down year this year is not too far off a typical Ramirez year. They also get a HR masher in Vogelbach who has superb plate discipline to play 1B/DH with Abreu. They get a solid hitting catching prospect in Zagunis. They get a gold glove in waiting in Almora who scouts say could hit about .280 or better and develop into a 20 HR hitter…… especially playing in US Cellular. And I’ll throw in pierce johnson as a toss in. Projects to be a 3-4 starter if he pans out. Cough up 1 ML pitcher and a pitching prospect for 4 players who could address almost all the Sox weaknesses on offense within 2 years. It at least gives you positional prospect hope. Looked at the top position prospects the Sox have listed on their website……. it’s pretty ugly. This hypothetical trade is more than fair imo. http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2015/10/offs...hite-sox-6.html So we give up Quintana and Adams for a bunch of prospects that aren't even at the top of the Cubs' own system? The only one there I've heard good things about is Almora, and looking at his minor league stats they're far from impressive. No Torres, McKinney, or Contreras?

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Nov 2, 2015 -> 08:49 AM) Is that how Cubs fans look at this year? Sure, it took KC from post draft 2006 until 2013 to build a winner. Despite all the draft picks, they had limited payrolls and media rights in the bottom 2-3. The Rays, Twins, A's, Pirates and Rockies couldn't get it done from that small market group. The margin of error is smaller. Ten years for the Astros. Roughly the same for the Mets. Even less for the Northsiders. Isn't the point to build a team with a 3-5 year window that provides you a consistent opportunity to at least get an invitation to the dance and at least 2-3 legit chances for a ring? The White Sox have had seven going on eight years and not even sniffing .500 for the moment. So we weren't sniffing .500 for the last eight years? If you're giving KC nine years of under .500 baseball, then the Sox have at least 6 more seasons to get back to .500 if they want to follow in the same path.

Yeah these odds mean absolutely nothing, and the idea that the Royals would feel slighted by them is ridiculous.

The Royals scored 40 runs from the 8th inning on in the postseason. No other team scored more than 5. That's a crazy stat. Also, I doubt Murphy or Cespedes lost any free agent money from their World Series performances, no more than Murphy gained from his homerun streak, which was little to none.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Nov 1, 2015 -> 11:41 PM) And now they will win 90 games next year behind stellar offense and OK pitching as their bullpen implodes and they will miss the playoffs. If only the 2nd Wildcard was around in 2006...

QUOTE (kitekrazy @ Nov 1, 2015 -> 11:29 PM) It seems odd that a team would have consecutive world series appearances these days. Phillies and Rangers did it very recently.

QUOTE (Flash Tizzle @ Nov 1, 2015 -> 11:25 PM) I wouldn't bet on that. Although I'd say the Royals have a better shot of making the 3rd world series than we do even making the playoffs You wouldn't bet against a single team not making the World Series? That's an easy bet to make, no matter who the team is.

QUOTE (OmarComing25 @ Nov 1, 2015 -> 11:23 PM) I'm sure there's plenty of teams before 1980 that hit fewer than 139 homers. Giants hit fewer homeruns last year.

QUOTE (MexSoxFan#1 @ Nov 1, 2015 -> 11:20 PM) I wonder what the record for lowest total HRs for a WS winning team is. This KC team's gotta be there. I'm sure there's plenty of teams before 1980 that hit fewer than 139 homers.

Nothing against the Mets but I'm happy the AL is going to win it, clearly the superior league this year.

QUOTE (SoxAce @ Nov 1, 2015 -> 11:08 PM) Particularly why I deleted the post. I agree with you, but I'm not going to doubt professional athletes who play the game either on their mentality. I just think experience is waaaay down on the list of why the Royals are winning this series.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Nov 1, 2015 -> 11:07 PM) Christian Colon...lmao Only AB in the playoffs too.