I watch 85% of all the Angels games as well as the Sox - and there is no way the Sox aren't every bit as good - IF NOT BETTER.  The Angels have a good lineup - but it too has been very inconsistent (and in a weak division.)  Add to this the Sox rotation which is the best in baseball....

 

this just shows these so-called experts have not watched us play.  the lineup isn't that great, on paper, but what counts is results - which we have. 

 

I think there's room for an in-depth comparison of the Sox, Angels, and Red Sox lineups (the only guaranteed teams IMO in the playoffs.).  Maybe later....

 

you and me both, brother. I watch a lot of Angels games and listen to a lot of their radio talk and can tell you without a doubt that they can be beat. YES, the Angels are good, very good. And Vlad is superhuman, it's true. BUT THERE'S NOT ANOTHER ROTATION IN THE f***ING MAJORS AS GOOD AS THE SOX.

I listened to that show...the guy came off as an arrogant, ignorant, uninformed fan-boy, WORSE than Marrioti...which I didn't know was possible until today.

 

He made a total ass of himself multiple times and showed a total lack of baseball knowledge when it came to "lineups".

 

A lot of teams have fantastic lineups...the Rangers come to mind, the O's...the White Sox of years past...and a lot of good it does these teams when they run into real pitching.

 

Total moron. Ignore him, he will go away...it's why he's a substitute and not a real radio personality.

 

You would think with all the playoff series wins we've had the past 100 years we would get a hell of a lot more respect. What the hell have the Yankees, Red Sox, or Angels done the past decades?

 

To get respect you have to win something in the playoffs. Until then, we're a surprise winner.

Eric Casilias said last week if the WSox were in the AL East they would be a 4th place team

This weekend, we get the chance to start proving him wrong. And if I'm not mistaken...we're going to really like how our pitching staff falls into place for that series: Buehrle and Garland will lead it off.

 

Hell, even I'll admit that right now we are first in our division entirely because we've been beating the s*** out of our own division. We haven't played the east much, and it's time to show them and everyone else that we're for real.

Lets see how those wonderful lineups do against Buerhle, Garcia and Garland.

 

and contreras

Yeah, I heard most of the commentary too. I tuned in at the point he was apparently trying to refute a Sox fan's charge he has an east coast bias. To paraphrase him, he said The Angels have had lots of coverage too, so he said perhaps it could be called "both coasts" bias but that was reasonable since the "group" from the midwest (i.e. the central) hasn't really done anything in recent times.

 

Then he threw out a stat that really is worth looking at. He said that against .500-plus teams, the sox were only something like 29-28, which is reason to be skeptical of their playoff chances. This point is worth discussion for various reasons: (1) is it even true, (2) are some of the losing teams under .500 because the Sox beat them (3) are the Yanks & Angels records against winning teams any better. Discuss...

 

SFF

Edited July 19, 200520 yr by SpringfieldFan

Yeah, I heard most of the commentary too.  I tuned in at the point he was apparently trying to refute a Sox fan's charge he has an east coast bias.  To paraphrase him, he said The Angels have had lots of coverage too, so he said perhaps it could be called "both coasts" bias but that was reasonable since the "group" from the midwest (i.e. the central)  hasn't really done anything in recent times.

 

Then he threw out a stat that really is worth looking at.  He said that against .500-plus teams, the sox were only something like 29-28, which is reason to be skeptical of their playoff chances.  This point is worth discussion for various reasons: (1) is it even true, (2) are some of the losing teams under .500 because the Sox beat them (3) are the  Yanks & Angels records against winning teams any better.  Discuss...

 

SFF

Seattle swept the angel in their last 3 game set and Tampa Bay owns the yankees in their head to head play. An old saying is "the proof is in the pudding" we don't prove anything by talk we have to show our doubters we're for real.......................As for me i believe :finger

let these mutherf***ers say what they want....of course their gunna doubt us against the yankees and bo sox but f***em....we'll have to prove them wrong and thats not a problem with me cuz i know we can do it

let these mutherf***ers say what they want....of course their gunna doubt us against the yankees and bo sox but f***em....we'll have to prove them wrong and thats not a problem with me cuz i know we can do it

 

They'll still be doubting when the parade gets to Grant Park.

No, I do not believe it is even close to true that we are only 1 game above 500 against +500 teams. Matter of fact, it's a total lie, and yes, many teams we've played WERE +500 until they played us, multiple times.

 

These stats are meaningless anyway, fact is, they are ALL major league teams. The Yankees are in first place again...note this is the same team that was swept by the Royals.

 

So...so much for that.

 

 

Yeah, I heard most of the commentary too.  I tuned in at the point he was apparently trying to refute a Sox fan's charge he has an east coast bias.  To paraphrase him, he said The Angels have had lots of coverage too, so he said perhaps it could be called "both coasts" bias but that was reasonable since the "group" from the midwest (i.e. the central)  hasn't really done anything in recent times.

 

Then he threw out a stat that really is worth looking at.  He said that against .500-plus teams, the sox were only something like 29-28, which is reason to be skeptical of their playoff chances.  This point is worth discussion for various reasons: (1) is it even true, (2) are some of the losing teams under .500 because the Sox beat them (3) are the  Yanks & Angels records against winning teams any better.  Discuss...

 

SFF

Just a quick guess, but we are 31-5 against AL Central after yesterday? And we are 62-29 overall?

 

Therefore... we're 31-24 against non AL Central teams, by my math.

Is this guy still talking?

Is this guy still talking? 

]

 

 

THis morning he's filling in for Mike and Mike talking about the same stuff with Steve Phillips. Steve Phillips is still a moron, " starting piching is average, our bullpen is average, our lineup is average but they play like a team." Why are these morons allowed to open their mouths????? I just want to win it all to shut them all up!

Exactly why I tend to avoid sports talk radio in Chicago.

Eric something

 

Erik Kuselias

 

 

He is in the middle of the picture.

 

He hosts the SportsBash on ESPN Radio after the Dan Patrick show. We don't get that in Chicago thanks to Mac, Jurko and Harry.

Edited July 19, 200520 yr by innersanctum

He said that against .500-plus teams, the sox were only something like 29-28

Total bull.

 

The best way to gauge teams by strength of schedule is RPI. The Sox are #1.

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/rpi

 

The White Sox SOS is .500

The Red Sox is .504

Edited July 19, 200520 yr by nvxplorer

This weekend, we get the chance to start proving him wrong.  And if I'm not mistaken...we're going to really like how our pitching staff falls into place for that series:  Buehrle and Garland will lead it off.

 

Hell, even I'll admit that right now we are first in our division entirely because we've been beating the s*** out of our own division.  We haven't played the east much, and it's time to show them and everyone else that we're for real.

 

Isn't this the point of the uneven schedule. Why they changed it to playing so many games within the division? We play these teams 19 times. The farther it gets into the year, the more times we play them, the harder it gets to win. We've seen pretty much all of their hitters and pitchers and they've seen ours. And yet, we keep winning. I'd say that's pretty good.

 

Also, one of the problems the Sox have had in the past is playing down to their competition. They lost the season series to the Tiggers a couple years ago when the Tiggers were at their low point and everyone was saying this team wasn't going anywhere if they can't beat the KC's and Tiggers and DRays of the league. Now they are doing it and that's turned into a bad thing?

 

Finally, in my long rant, there was an ESPN article somewhere around May where they were saying that it's hard for any team to maintain a near .700 winning percentage and that the winners mostly come back down to around .600. Well, the White Sox are at a .681 winning percentage for the year and the 31-24 record against non-AL Central teams, that's a very respectable .563, which, if you look at the standings is STILL better than the Yankees, Red Sox, Orioles, Braves, and Padres winning percentage FOR THE YEAR. Only the Cardinals, Angels and Nats have a higher winning percentage for the year than the Sox have outside the AL Central and the Nats are at .570.

 

Sorry Kuselius...your arguments are wrong.

Guys, it's clear you don't stand a chance in hell against the red Sox in the playoffs.

 

Clement over Buerhle easy.

 

Arroyo over Garland, no contest.

 

Schilling/Foulke is in a different galaxy than Hermy/Politte.

 

I just don't see how you guys can drink that much kool-aid....

 

Guys, it's clear you don't stand a chance in hell against the red Sox in the playoffs.

 

Clement over Buerhle easy.

 

Arroyo over Garland, no contest.

 

Schilling/Foulke is in a different galaxy than Hermy/Politte.

 

I just don't see how you guys can drink that much kool-aid....

 

 

He forgot to tell us Wakefield over Garcia.

He would have moved onto his music list for the week by then.

Eh f*** him he obviously doesn't know a strong baseball team when it hits him in the ass.

here's insight into this guy: in his same rant, he said he'd rather have curt schilling starting the first game of a playoff series than mark buehrle.

 

nuff said.

here's insight into this guy: in his same rant, he said he'd rather have curt schilling starting the first game of a playoff series than mark buehrle.

 

nuff said.

 

Are we talking about foot-falling-off Schilling or normal Schilling? I'd take normal Schilling, too.

Are we talking about foot-falling-off Schilling or normal Schilling?  I'd take normal Schilling, too.

 

 

The Curt Schilling of the Arizona Diamond backs sure. Last years and this years. Forget it. Buerhle over him in a heartbeat.

Are we talking about foot-falling-off Schilling or normal Schilling?  I'd take normal Schilling, too.

 

he did not specify, i just thought it was an absurd comparison to make at a time when schilling is failing as a reliever.