Hadn't Cooper already been out to the mound that inning? I'm fuzzy on that though.

 

Not sure, but I'm sticking with my above post.

If the team was in 1st place by 10 games it wouldn't exist.

 

If the team was in 1st place by 10 games, Pale Hose Talk would be dead silent.

Listen, you have two warriors, two men who battle. It's going to happen. These men are men.

Haha, savage. Man, the hyperbole is out in force today.

 

If anyone cares to look back, there are only like 2 or 3 people in this entire thread making this an issue and it's not the usual crew. The vast majority seems to be fine with everything.

 

 

No, but they do affect the culture of the board. That's blatantly obvious.

Listen, AJ shouldn't have done that, clearly. He went about things the wrong way, but Ozzie shouldn't have left Jake in that long and/or shouldn't have had to be begged to come out and replace Jake, either.

 

Blame it on Ozzie, it's easier that way.

 

Also, I adored Jake's comments that they were just talking about hunting!

Also, I adored Jake's comments that they were just talking about hunting!

Assholes.

If the team was in 1st place by 10 games, Pale Hose Talk would be dead silent.

 

Jeez, come off it. The vast majority of regular posters are here after every single game.

 

This whole martyr syndrome from the eternal optimists gets old, although I'm sure they feel the same way about the pessimists.

No, but they do affect the culture of the board. That's blatantly obvious.

 

Who or what is the "they" you speak of?

Listen, you have two warriors, two men who battle. It's going to happen. These men are men.

 

 

Here, you also have two warriors, two bears who battle. It's going to happen. However, these bears are NOT men.

Assholes.

 

I meant to ask you. Do you bike to work? I saw a guy this morning on a bike that looked exactly like you. He drew my attention because he was so tall. That's when I noticed the resemblance.

The loss versus the cubs actually saw the least amount of gamethread posts.

The loss versus the cubs actually saw the least amount of gamethread posts.

 

Don't let facts interfere with any bias.

If the team was in 1st place by 10 games, Pale Hose Talk would be dead silent.

You're on drugs. This place hops when the Sox are good.

The loss versus the cubs actually saw the least amount of gamethread posts.

 

I would bet you money that if you took the average posts in a thread in losses versus wins there would be a massive difference with many more in the loss threads. I'd also bet the leading posters in each type would be very different.

 

Here, you also have two warriors, two bears who battle. It's going to happen. However, these bears are NOT men.

 

Please don't sue me, Disney.

I would bet you money that if you took the average posts in a thread in losses versus wins there would be a massive difference with many more in the loss threads. I'd also bet the leading posters in each type would be very different.

 

That's just human nature. Heated topics are going to get much more discussion than things that everyone agrees on. That's pretty simple.

 

And in the case of loss threads getting a lot of traffic, the "blame" doesn't go squarely on the people that are angry about the loss. It's a two-way street. It takes somebody to take up the side of the franchise/team/management/player to continue the argument.

My point is that the same amount of regulars are always here. That's why they are regulars. Sure, you're going to get more of the randoms dropping in when something draws them (a tough loss, a big trade, but also a huge victory).

That's just human nature. Heated topics are going to get much more discussion than things that everyone agrees on. That's pretty simple.

 

And in the case of loss threads getting a lot of traffic, the "blame" doesn't go squarely on the people that are angry about the loss. It's a two-way street. It takes somebody to take up the side of the franchise/team/management/player to continue the argument.

 

Not always. The drama threads get plenty of posts on their own.

Yeah, I'd rather have a team full of guys that hate each other but play hard. I can't argue with that.

 

Chemistry in baseball has always been overrated - I can't remember who said "winning brings chemistry, not the other way around", but it's in a regular poster's sig, and it's spot-on.

 

Among teams you can count as having plenty of hate for one another are the Big Red Machine, the Tanner A's, the '86 Mets, etc, etc.

Chemistry in baseball has always been overrated - I can't remember who said "winning brings chemistry, not the other way around", but it's in a regular poster's sig, and it's spot-on.

 

Among teams you can count as having plenty of hate for one another are the Big Red Machine, the Tanner A's, the '86 Mets, etc, etc.

 

I'm pretty sure the manager of the White Sox consistenly says something along those lines.

Not always. The drama threads get plenty of posts on their own.

 

I say this all the time and all the time it's pretty much ignored. But some of you guys (not you specifically) really need to frequent other teams' message boards. There is a baseball world beyond Soxtalk. This board is NOTHING like the Yankees, Mets, Red Sox, Phillies or Cardinals' boards when they're going bad. Not even close. There's always going to be more discussion when the team is going bad. When the team is flourishing ('05 for example), there's nothing to complain or debate about for the most part. Everybody is happy. When the team is sucking ass, you're going to have two sets of posters: optimistic vs pessimistic. Therefore generating more discussion. It's rather simple. I don't think certain posters make it a point to post after a loss, yet go into witness protection when the team wins.

I meant to ask you. Do you bike to work? I saw a guy this morning on a bike that looked exactly like you. He drew my attention because he was so tall. That's when I noticed the resemblance.

No sir. But he must have been a very handsome man.

How the f*** do you know if he woke it up? How many games have we played/won since this incident? He showed up his pitcher, period. REFUTE THAT, for christs sake, instead of bringing up other irrelevant s*** that has no basis on the topic of this thread, which is AJ showing up his pitcher. It's this kind of s*** that he's been known to do on just about every team he's been on

 

 

Let me spin this around another way for people who are using this as a bash Peavy thing. How about the next time AJ misses throwing out a runner by 10 feet if Jake points into the dugout? Or the next time a pitcher walks the bases loaded in front of AJ with no one out, and AJ swings at the first pitch and pops out weekly to second, is it then OK for the runner on third to point into the dugout for a guy who can hit?

 

1.) Wow. I think he woke the team up because we still won the game. The White Sox tend to blow games in all sort of ways. Blowing that game against the Cubs would really have sucked. We were at home and needed to win 2 of 3 against them to show any signs of life.

2.) That's actually a fair point. It's thought provoking. It's definitely something Jake might be pondering doing in response. I guess if we have a one run lead and a guy gets a single, steals second and third and that team has already had 4-5 stolen bases in the game, it would be very similar situation. The pitcher saying, 'get him out of the game already.'

 

That's just human nature. Heated topics are going to get much more discussion than things that everyone agrees on. That's pretty simple.

 

And in the case of loss threads getting a lot of traffic, the "blame" doesn't go squarely on the people that are angry about the loss. It's a two-way street. It takes somebody to take up the side of the franchise/team/management/player to continue the argument.

 

So just for the "fun" of it. I tested the ideas out a bit. I went back through the game threads and figured out how many posts per game in wins and losses, and who had the most posts in each type of thread. Instead of trying to average it out, I counted who was in the top 5 posters for each type of game thread, and how often they appeared in winning and losing thread post leaders.

 

Game threads where we won have averaged 301.8 posts this year, versus 364.2 in losses, or about 20% bigger in losing games. The fun part is who posts in threads.

 

Breaking the people who appear in the highest rate of game threads, the first number is number of times a top 5 post total in a game thread where we won, followed by top 5 appearances in a game thread where we lost. For the purposes of not typing out all of the names, I only included people who had at least 5 in one or the other category.

 

Fathom 17-32

Balta 18-21

TheGingerKid 14-13

Soxfest 10-14

JoeCoolMan 12-8

Jordan4Life 7-9

Caufield 4-12

Greg775 6-9

Heads 8-1

BigEdWalsh 3-5

 

For the record 53 different people had at least one time they were in the top 5 in a game thread for wins, and only 40 for the losing games. 13 times when a game thread has been under 200 posts, it was a win, only 7 times for a loss. The two highest totals in game winner threads were both in the opening week of the season, including opening day for the second biggest winners thread. The biggest game thread of the year at 847 was the 7-4 loss with Oakland where Matt gave up 3 in the 9th and then three more scored in the 10th, including the really bad Pierre defense.

 

It seems more people post a lot less when we win, and fewer people post a lot more when we lose.

1.) Wow. I think he woke the team up because we still won the game.

 

He woke up the team because of showing up the pitcher? Did we even get on base in the last 3 innings?