This about made me  :puke

 

http://boards.espn.go.com/cgi/mlb/request....b_chw&id=237600

That is f***ing pitiful!

Im about ready to give Joe a nice romanesque phone call.

 

"Hello?"

"Joe?"

"This is him."

"Yo Joe! You blow!"

Click.

a)from 7 out to 1 out in less than 4 weeks;hey joe look at the standings uh oh are u going to be # 3?

 

B) ur jealous that we actually have money to spend

 

c) u are a hick town without a website to talk on

 

d) the 18,000+ is more than ur team draws for most of their games idioit!

 

I NOW HATE THE ROYALS

 

FAX THOSE ARTICLES TO THE SOX PLAYERS THAN WE'LL FINISH THE JOB!

This about made me  :puke

 

http://boards.espn.go.com/cgi/mlb/request....b_chw&id=237600

If he really did win that award, I have to find that out for myself, its for his work in 2002. When his team was s*** and any hatred for the White Sox didnt exist. I doubt you will be seeing any awards going his way for his journalism this year.

I did get an answer from the KC columnist. Take it for what you will.

 

Thanks for your e-mail and thoughts. Since you put so much effort into

your points, I thought I would respond:

 

#1.  The White Sox didn't last win a pennant during World War I.  They

won a

World Series during WWI.  They made the World Series in 1959, winning

the AL

pennant.

-- I never said they did. I said they have not won a postseason series

since World War I. They have not.

 

#2  The White Sox did not pay Albert Belle $13 million.  They gave him a

5

year $55 million dollar deal (averages to $11 million) which he voided

after

two years to take a 5 year $65 million deal from the Baltimore Orioles,

for

an average of $13 million that was quoted in your story.

-- I am told by a reliable baseball source they paid Belle $13 million

each of those first two seasons before the contract was voided.

 

 

#3  When you used the example of how many teams have blown a 7 game lead

at

the all star break, I didn't see another fact that you neglected to

mention.

  ZERO teams have lost 100 teams one year, and won their division the

next

year.  In other words, what are better odds, 2 in 50, or never?

-- One has absolutely nothing to do with the other. No team that has

lost 100 games one season ever had a 7-game lead at the break the next

either. There are a lot of statistics.

 

#4 When noting the amount of payroll that the Sox have in their line up,

 

there was no mention of the fact that the White Sox don't even have the

biggest payroll in the AL Central.  That distinction belongs to the

Twins

-- This is true. I do not recall ever writing that the White Sox had the

largest payroll in the division.

 

#5  One article pans the big money signings of players such as Chan Ho

Park,

Tom Glavine, Bobby Higgenson, etc, while applauding the find of Jose

Lima

for next to nothing.  Yet in another article the Sox find of an

established

#2 or #3 pitcher in Esteban Loiaza is described as lucky.  What is the

difference between the signings and their results that makes KC's move

so

much more impressive versus lucky also?

-- My point was not to bash the White Sox for signing Loaiza -- that was

a good move. My point there was simply that the White Sox got lucky with

Loaiza, they have had the easiest schedule, and they have not having any

injuries. And that despite that luck, they are still in second place.

 

I don't see any factual errors at all. But I understand your points and

appreciate them.

 

Kindest regards,

Joe Posnanski

Well thats too bad. I think Mr Posnanski is simply in the denial stage of the fact that the Sox are putting the finishing touches on KCs coffin...

Well thats too bad. I think Mr Posnanski is simply in the denial stage of the fact that the Sox are putting the finishing touches on KCs coffin...

send him another email tell him to kiss our collective white sox ass.

I still like my phone call idea...

This about made me  :puke

 

http://boards.espn.go.com/cgi/mlb/request....b_chw&id=237600

People in sports media generally suck. This should be proof.

Please People Post Whatevr the f***ing Nerd answers !!

 

Those were good E-mails LOL!!!

 

 

Royals Writer

 

:dips***

send him another email tell him to kiss our collective white sox ass.

We should've sent ONE master E-mail to that guy....From Soxtalk.com, and we could have made all our points in the thread and include it in the e-mail and then send it...

Like him baggin on Manuel for predicting we would win the next two against the Royals while he was predicting the Royals wpould win the central and we're being cocky...stuff like that

and all the other questions

I'm sure he would have responded to an e-mail from an entire site like Soxtalk.com

You sould E-mail him on how his team plays Dirty and brent Maybe almost injured Olivo or how they keep on plunking Thomas. Or hey tell him about his manager, when the dude caught for the sox and he told Carlos Castillo to plunk bernie in the head :fyou

Actually, I thought his response was fair, and he answered all your points. Numbers can be twisted to say whatever you want them to say, and I don't blame the guy for being a homer to a degree. He's writing for a KC paper, not USA Today. Seems like an OK dude, based on his email, no?

Actually, I thought his response was fair, and he answered all your points.  Numbers can be twisted to say whatever you want them to say, and I don't blame the guy for being a homer to a degree.  He's writing for a KC paper, not USA Today.  Seems like an OK dude, based on his email, no?

IMO I answered many of his points in the way he wrote his article (intentionally) and then basically in the 3rd he admits that his whole style of using stats and history as a basis for his articles, is wrong when I do it. The tone which he takes is condesending for someone who bascially used the exact same techniques to justify his arguements, yet blows these same techniques off, when applied to him. It doesn't do much for his intergrity IMO.