How interesting. I've noticed lately that the Sox, while they generally are doing awesome, the record is being closed in on by the Cardinals and a coupla other teams, isn't it funny how the Sox can never sweep anybody lately? I was azamed as hell the Sox actually beat the Indians twice ina row, and was hoping for the sweep, just like most of the other sets they've played this year, but no luck. We need some sweeps.

 

 

Next, isn't kind of scary how the best player of most teams are out? Let's look at some facts here.

 

White Sox - Frank JUST returning, was out for nearly a year

 

Giants - Bonds OUT

 

Cubs - Garciaparra OUT, Prior OUT

 

Angels - Guererro OUT

 

Tigers - Maggs OUT

 

I think I may be even be forgetting someone. Seems like right now many of the best players are looking at their careers possibly end.

Edited June 6, 200520 yr by TheBigHurt

What has this accomplished.... :sleep

Just because we havent been sweeping teams lately definately doesnt mean we are cursed.

 

Also, just because 5 or so good players are hurt doesnt mean anything its just coincidence. And Frank Thomas is not the best player on the team. Maybe the best hitter but not the best player

Two out of three is exactly what the Sox are playing. Actually, the only "freaky" thing about that is the Sox are consistently taking two out of three. You would think they'd lose a series here and there, sweep others, but the Sox are playing .667 ball by the book. If they continue, the Twins don't have a chance.

Aaron Rowand is probably the most complete player on this team. Frank is one dimensional. He's a great hitter with major power but that's all he can do. No way in hell he's the best player on the Sox. I'm only including position players in this so Buehrle doesn't count.

dumb thread.

Lots of dumb threads are posted everywhere. Just something skeptical I guess.

 

Frank may not be the best(although some people DO argue that point), but he's surely one of the best, that was my point.

I think it's dumb to tell someone the thread they started is dumb.

 

It's an opinion forum. If someone has something to share, they should be encouraged to do so as long as it is in good taste and in keeping with forum policies concerning language and content.

 

I wonder how many people just look and don't participate because they're afraid some jagoof is going to tell them their ideas are dumb.

Curses are for suckers.... hench why Scrubs fans and BoSox fans believe so strongly in them...

I think it's dumb to tell someone the thread they started is dumb.

 

It's an opinion forum. If someone has something to share, they should be encouraged to do so as long as it is in good taste and in keeping with forum policies concerning language and content.

 

I wonder how many people just look and don't participate because they're afraid some jagoof is going to tell them their ideas are dumb.

alright fine, have fun talking about curses.....

I think it's dumb to tell someone the thread they started is dumb.

 

It's an opinion forum. If someone has something to share, they should be encouraged to do so as long as it is in good taste and in keeping with forum policies concerning language and content.

 

I wonder how many people just look and don't participate because they're afraid some jagoof is going to tell them their ideas are dumb.

 

Great post. Thank you, seriously. This has been needed to be said for a while.

I think it's dumb to tell someone the thread they started is dumb.

 

It's an opinion forum. If someone has something to share, they should be encouraged to do so as long as it is in good taste and in keeping with forum policies concerning language and content.

 

I wonder how many people just look and don't participate because they're afraid some jagoof is going to tell them their ideas are dumb.

 

Good threads carry on, poor ones die quickly. As long as there is some semblance of thought before hitting post, it's a good thing. Some excellent posts came about as threadjacks.

 

The win the first two and lose the third is an interesting trend. Not to read too much into it, but come October, the ability to win the last game is very important.

Great post.  Thank you, seriously.  This has been needed to be said for a while.

Piss off southsider. The thread sucked and you know it.

Must you use #33CC00 that s*** hurts my eyes.

Great post.  Thank you, seriously.  This has been needed to be said for a while.

 

Then why the hell didn't you say it?

I think it's dumb to tell someone the thread they started is dumb.

 

It's an opinion forum. If someone has something to share, they should be encouraged to do so as long as it is in good taste and in keeping with forum policies concerning language and content.

 

I wonder how many people just look and don't participate because they're afraid some jagoof is going to tell them their ideas are dumb.

In baseball consistenly winning 2/3 is = winning success and success in the playoffs. Ill take 2/3 every time, of course sweeps are awesome, but when you winning every series they can't come so often.

2 out of 3 every series gives you 108 victories. Currently, the Sox are ahead of that curve even with the series they lost to Oakland because they took 3 out of 4 from Cleveland this year and split the series with the Angels. Currently, they are on pace to win between 112-114 games based on their current standing. Realistically, they most likely won't reach that number of victories which means they will probably lose a couple of series between now and the end of the year. It's how they respond when they do lose those series is what will make or break the team.

 

As for the series they have won, am I the only one that notices that Ozzie plays different people for the third game of the series once they have won 2. Kinda like he feels that if he loses the third game it's no big deal but if they win, it's a bonus. Let's see who he plays tomorrow night if they win tonight to see if my observation is correct.

Edited June 7, 200520 yr by innersanctum

What has this accomplished.... :sleep

 

 

Asked myself the same Question....

Just because 5 or so good players are hurt doesnt mean anything its just coincidence.

 

Coincidence? Is it also just a coincidence that there are much harsher penalties for steroid use this year too?

 

I'm just not buying Bonds', Garciaparra's, Maggs', and perhaps even Thomas's injuries having nothing to do with being off the roids. You also have to consider that Juan Gone and Sammy Sosa have missed time this year too, and that numbers offensively are down EVERYWHERE, especially 3Bman.

 

Roids was a huge problem, and you are already seeing almost instant results from people being off roids, and I honestly have no doubt that's what it is.

2 out of 3 every series gives you 108 victories.  Currently, the Sox are ahead of that curve even with the series they lost to Oakland because they took 3 out of 4 from Cleveland this year and split the series with the Angels.  Currently, they are on pace to win between 112-114 games based on their current standing.  Realistically, they most likely won't reach that number of victories which means they will probably lose a couple of series between now and the end of the year.  It's how they respond when they do lose those series is what will make or break the team. 

 

As for the series they have won, am I the only one that notices that Ozzie plays different people for the third game of the series once they have won 2.  Kinda like he feels that if he loses the third game it's no big deal but if they win, it's a bonus.  Let's see who he plays tomorrow night if they win tonight to see if my observation is correct.

 

Yes, I have to agree. A .667 winning percentage does mean they are on pace to win 2 out of every 3.