zach23

QUOTE(SoxFanInDallas @ Jul 3, 2006 -> 02:18 PM) Stop the Insanity Wow, a Susan Powter reference.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Jul 3, 2006 -> 02:05 PM) Well I guess we should just shut this board down since there isn't anything left to talk about. Actually you just described the problem of modern day sports. Because of the internet and 24 hour sports programming it is harder to enjoy the game now. Every little detail is beaten to death on message boards and sports blab shows. 20 years ago you would simply watch the game and read about it the next day in the paper and that was that. Now every little thing is blown up a discussed to death until people are going crazy. It used to be a lot easier to just watch the game, and either enjoy a win or just deal with the loss until the next day. The bad thing is, the internet is addictive and it is hard to stay away from the insanity.

Last year's mantra of the bed wetters: "Our pitching is great, but we keep winning only 2-1 and 1-0 and our offense isn't good enough to keep up with the big bad scary Indians. Sooner or later the pitching will fail and we will lose the division to them." This year's mantra of the bed wetters: "Our offense is great, but we keep winning games 10-9 and 11-8 with big comebacks. Our pitching isn't good enough to keep up with the big bad scary Tigers. Sooner or later the hitting will fail and we will lose the division to them." How do some people make it through life? When there is a little adversity or competition do you go running to hide from that too? Maybe the Tigers are the better team, but f*** them, they have to prove it over the long haul first. Come take it if you want it. Fear nobody. If you want to sit and piss your pants right now, then don't brag when the team does win.

I was hoping after going through the pressure of last year's postseason and seeing that this team can handle it, that more people would grow some balls. Too bad there are still so many that wet their pants so quickly during the season. f*** the Twins and Tigers. Let them and their fans wet their pants when they have to face the defending champs. Bring them on. If they really are that good then they deserve it. I thought Cleveland was supposed to be the big scary monster under the bed this season anyway?

Why not email Carl and ask him why he doesn't post here: http://www.palehosesix.blogspot.com/

QUOTE(Hangar18 @ Jun 28, 2006 -> 10:48 AM) These Palehouse 6 comics are pretty clever. Who makes them? Just a wild guess here, but I would bet that the part of the cartoon where it says, "by Carl Skanberg" could be a clue as to who makes them.

Oh what the hell, since this madness continues... Hangar, if the Tribune has this master plan to hurt the Sox by ignoring them, is it even working? They have a World Series win, they added to their team and payroll, they have sold out all their season tickets, and they are setting team attendance records. Wow, all those extra Cubs stories are sure killing the Sox right now. And speaking of attendance, weren't you the one ranting about boycotting the Sox and giving up your tickets a few years ago because the team was cheap in your opinion? So were you staying away because you were pissed at the Sox or because the media told you to? Were others doing the same as you? Which is it, did Sox fans stay away because they won't accept an inferior product, or did they do so because the media told them to do so? So by you staying away, didn't you help the Tribune in their perceived cause? Wouldn't the empty seats help them in the quest to make the Sox look bad? Once again all of this come full circle to your real motivation behind this. You crave popularity and want reassurance that the team you support is the most popular. Fine if that is what you want, but you may never get it. Most people don't need that and are happy just to enjoy their team.

Just my opinion, but I would say that this is due to the big dollars involved in baseball currently and the fact that the league believes that fans want to see nothing but the long ball. In the old days teams didn't make as much money, now they rake in billions from TV and advertising. So now if a team's star player takes one off the face and has to miss a ton of games, it could affect a team's marketing of that player. The league has fallen in love with the long ball and seems to be doing everything possible to give the hitters the advantage. The strike zone has shrunk down and all the warnings take away the inside of the plate from pitchers. If they make a mistake, they could get warned or tossed from the game. Unlike the old days, hitters have no fear of standing right on top of the plate. I think if the warnings went away and the umps went back to letting the players police this part of the game, you would see a steady decline in the amount of HRs as more pitchers brush guys back off the plate. And that I beleive is something the league doesn't want at all. Their view is that HRs bring fans and fans bring advertisers and advertisers mean dollars.

QUOTE(hammerhead johnson @ Jun 16, 2006 -> 08:45 AM) What I learned from this thread: If your name is Zach, you are genetically predisposed to hating Hangar posts. Correct, I don't hate hangar as a person. In fact, if we sat down and watched a game together we would probably both get along real well. What I do hate is the crap he spews most of the time. He embodies the stereotype that Sox fans care more about what the Cubs do than they do their own team. Plus, his media watches prove nothing. If you want to have the opinion and perception that there is a media bias, that is fine. But to thump your chest saying you have "proven" there is a bias just by counting stories as you see fit proves squat. I would even go so far as to say that something like this can't be proven by any means. The whole thing is just perception. You can see things one way while others see them differently. To prove something like this you would need to have data collected by someone that has no bias toward one side or the other. You would also need to collect that data from a wide variety of sources and not just two newspapers. Lastly you would need to have a clear definition of which things show bias before collecting the data. Even with all that, it would be hard to prove something that really isn't a black and white issue as this is. All hangar has proven is that he hates the Tribune and that he is overly concerned with being part of something popular. Oh and everything that JimH said above pretty much sums up how I feel. And that includes growing up in Bridgeport, following the Hawks, and hating the Cubs. QUOTE(RibbieRubarb @ Jun 15, 2006 -> 10:11 PM) Maybe we should combine the Zachs and create a SuperZach84! I have had to deal with the other Zach my whole life, please don't lump me into a single being with him. He is enough of a pain in the ass already.

QUOTE(Hangar18 @ Jun 15, 2006 -> 12:11 PM) and he gushed like a cheerleader about how great 1984 was. Memo to Sutcliffe: You guys didnt win anything. So were all the guys at the Sox 1983 reunion wrong for gushing over that great year? They didn't win anything either, but for the players it was a great year. Wasn't Jack McDowell in the booth during a game gushing over 1993 and how great that was?

QUOTE(JimH @ Jun 15, 2006 -> 05:23 PM) And out of curiosity what does MSPT stand for? My Senseless Paranoid Thread?

QUOTE(Hangar18 @ Jun 15, 2006 -> 12:03 PM) Heres a quick tidbit I thought Id share with everyone. Late afternoon on Saturday, we were driving on the Ryan northbound just past 31st, when to my right, I happened to look over to a guy on my right passing and when I couldve swore I saw a WS Ring on the guys hand (on the steering wheel). Sped up a bit and took a look at the guy, who now took a quick glance to his left, and it was Jermaine Dye! I laughed and gave him the thumbs up, he smiled. I happened to be wearing my SOX jacket, so I pointed to it and he gave us an even bigger smile and nodded his head. Thought that was pretty funny ........ You should have yelled to him how you spent all of last year screaming that he should be traded and the only reason the Sox signed him was because he came cheaper than getting a good RF. Isn't that how you felt about him?

QUOTE(Steff @ Jun 14, 2006 -> 01:17 PM) And we're off.... Coming out of the first turn its paranoia....followed closely by b****ing and moaning....here comes cubsession on the outside. cubsession gains as they come past the half mile marker...paranoia holding off b****ing and moaning but here comes cubsession! Into the final turn b****ing and moaning are going strong but its paranoia and cubsession.....here they come down the stretch....its paranoia, its cubsession, paranoia, cubsession and at the wire its cubsession followed by paranoia and b****ing and moaning! Hold your tickets folks because everyone is a loser at today's race.

QUOTE(Hangar18 @ Jun 14, 2006 -> 01:08 PM) I didnt think it was that big a deal, but apparently, the media are running wild with this the last couple of days. If they start letting outfielders wear wireless headphones ............... "Running wild with this the last couple of days."? Huh? The Tribune has a brief mention of it in the Cubs game recap today and the Sun-Times briefly mentions it in the Quick Hits. That is "running wild" with it? Man, you are paranoid.

QUOTE(Hangar18 @ Jun 14, 2006 -> 11:26 AM) Wait, your taking ONE LINE, where he mentions that the SOX are outspending the Cubs by $10 million ... where are you going with this? His article is RAHRAH, did you read the end of it? His throwing that $10 Million out there is certainly a way (in his mind) to remind the Cubs to start outspending the SOX. Its foolish on his part, because we know that simply spending $$$$$$$$$ doesnt guarantee winning. ("hey hangar, but werent you the one who called the SOX cheap because they wouldnt spend money? Your contradicting yourself again) I started my "crusade" in 2002, after years of noticing this ridiculous inequity in coverage. In fact, I noticed it Immediately in 81, 82, and especially in 84 when things got out of hand. The problem I had in posting my totals from 1984 was THE INTERNET WASNT READILY AVAILABLE as it is now. Your right, the random fan in SanDiego will hopefully read that and say to himself, WOW, the SOX are a big-market team After the SOX won the WS last year, I remarked often how things in the Media will change. Or how the Media will be FORCED to acknowledge the SOX and there was really only 2 ways for them to go. There was a reporter from the Tribune and SunTimes at the bar I was at (puffers) and they asked what all of this meant to me. I basically said the White Sox winning it all changes EVERYTHING, they will NOT be the dirty step-child of the city, and the Media will HAVE TO ACKNOWLEDGE the White Sox and Give them their DUE finally, they EARNED IT. Well, they never used my quote obviously. But the 2 ways the Media couldve gone (which is why alot of people were interested, myself included, to see how the Media would take the SOX winning) were either A: Give the SOX their due, and give them the EXTRA COVERAGE they didnt get previously OR B: Continue with Status Quo but b**** even more about the Cubs and What they need to do to win. So far, thru June 14th ................ that other team is winning But just because the internet wasn't available then doesn't mean you can't gather the data now. So you are just using your own perception from the 80's as "proof" with no hard data or facts. Pretty typical for you. You are also now admitting that the moment the Sox won the World Series, your first thoughts were about who is more popular. Obviously your real issue in all of this is being the most popular and nothing else. You are also admitting that just equal coverage isn't good enough for you. You want the coverage biased toward the Sox. This makes you a hypocrite. (No shock there since I have seen you being hypocritical on other issues as well.) You make the accusation of bias when you in turn want bias in favor of your view.