nrockway

I think we all agree that we like talking (writing) about the Sox. I think it’s a miracle of the modern world, that we all know how to read and write, we possess the gift of literacy, yet we waste it writing about the worst baseball team ever instead of anything worthwhile. Personally I checked out of the season around the all star break. But planning to go to one of these last home games. I have to go to at least one game this year, right?

My typical interactions are telling Cubs fans they’re not making the playoffs either. At least people are talking about the Sox.

This is essentially a compilation of semi-literate Soxtalk takes. I don’t think that qualifies as journalism, frankly. Yeah we suck and the fans are unhappy. Riveting.

I care in the sense that he managed the White Sox, and so I might read his random musings over, I dunno, any other random person. Frankly I like what he has to say and the way he speaks…he does seem like a nice, genuine guy. However, this article seems to suggest that Pedro should have another job in the MLB. No way, he brings nothing to the table. He should coach youth sports, perhaps. He seems like he’d be a good role model. Professional baseball players don’t need a role model though. Or maybe some do, but they ought to grow up.

“ska revival isn’t cool you stupid f***” I’m not calling you a stupid f***, I’m merely suggesting that your excellent idea would work better without a trumpet, perhaps a punk band. My brother played the trumpet growing up and he was really bad at it. I would die happy if I never heard a trumpet ever again. This thread rocks btw. Peak Sox talk content.

Oh hey the Sox lost. Whoda thunk

Does he want to live in Chicago and get paid a bunch of money? What other gigs are available besides the one he's vacating? Seattle? I'm not sure that franchise is in any better position re: ownership or frankly re: players.

He's pitched 16.1 innings with the Dodgers and pitched 376 with the Sox. Do you really think he's any different? All it took was a week of a new coach? That was the difference between Kopech being a bust with the Sox, a former top prospect who crumbled for reasons we know all too well, and the best reliever in the game with the Dodgers? Some guy in LA making a couple good points? If it was so straightforward, couldn't he have done that earlier and potentially earned himself a lot more money? Maybe he'd even still be starting, right. Or could it simply be that it's not a very large sample size and variance in pitchers' performance is incredibly high? The "Lol Sox" narrative sort of overrides common sense. I would expect fans who follow the team closely over several years to know better than journalists who want to ride some popular narrative for the sake of their careers (dodgers good, sox bad, best of both worlds. double the ppc revenue). I'm glad Kopech is pitching well and I hope it lasts, I hope he becomes great. It's just a silly narrative to think after the fact that he had all this value. Personally I thought at the start of the season we could've gotten Jonathan India for him. That seemed like a reasonable trade for both teams. Or a player like that. Maybe Vargas is a player like that (neither are very good). Maybe Kopech returns to normal and he's not suddenly a pitcher who doesn't walk anybody or give up any home runs. Maybe it doesn't happen in the postseason the same way it did with Lynn. I'm gonna take the career averages on this one, frankly.

Defense was incredible in the second half. Caleb looked....whatever, it's his first game. I thought Benetti was commentating this game then I realized it was Amin. I always confuse the two. They don't even sound alike, I just think they're both shills. ez win today for the Sox. the sort of win that strikes fear in the heart of Aaron Judge and the New York Yankees. Pulling a game out late....do we think we've finally turned the corner? have Grady'z Boyz been mathematically eliminated from the postseason?

great avatar, why does AJ look like JD Vance? is it because they both have 2 letters instead of a first name? Or do they both need to shave. I think both.

this seems to be the key. I thought Paddy was actually competent but his hands were tied by not being allowed to go into the DR. this is a positive development, too bad it didn't happen a decade ago. too bad it won't produce any fruit for years, if at all (why wouldn't this team screw it up?).

I think public investment in sports is generally a good one. We just never actually get anything in return. Foot the bill, reap none of the profits. Which is to say, I wish the public perspective on this was “yeah we’ll pay for it but we’re keeping all the revenue”. That clashes with the billionaire governor’s sense of right and wrong though, limiting the exploitive power of the billionaire and empowering the public. Fundamentally sport is a public good, a public good that prints money and doesn’t belong in the hands of the private sector.

wouldn't surprise me to see DeLoach/Vargas platoon DH.

Montgomery hasn't exactly set the International League on fire and his numbers have only gotten worse as the season has gone on. After hovering around .700 OPS for about a month, he finally dropped below .700 and seems to be trending toward .666 (!!!). Couple that with his mediocre defense, we might wanna pump the brakes on this guy a little bit. What are the odds he ends up as a first baseman who can't hit? We already have a couple guys like that. What are the odds that the player development/hitting staff did this to him? I suspect very high. Is he recovering from a back injury and he'll be fine next year? Maybe. But calling up our "best" hitting prospect so that he can go 0 for 100 seems to me like it would be the s%*# cherry on top of a s%*# sundae called the 2024 White Sox.

In terms of its place in American society and culture, they weren't exactly wrong. Major League Baseball is alive and well but I don't think you could call the sport "America's pastime" anymore.

Does it though? Why do I care if the MLB appeals to ADHD Gen Z-ers, am I a shareholder? These guys will all make plenty of money with the fans they have. I really don't. Something to appreciate about baseball is that there is no clock, it exists outside of time in a way, it only takes place in space. That is something I have always loved about baseball. I don't really give a s%*# if the game is over in 15 extra minutes, I'm typically watching the replay and skipping commercials anyway.

Greg, I appreciate your perspective, but personally I would distinguish less between "starting" and "relief" pitcher and just simply say that I want to watch good pitching, with the understanding that they tend to have different skillsets that might be more beneficial in certain situations. For instance, I tend to think that a typical starting pitcher should have three reliable pitches and have reasonably good command on those pitches. I think that because I think the pitcher should be able to go far enough into a game that the bullpen can complete the game and there still be fresh pitchers for tomorrow's game. I think that because there are typically 13 pitchers on a roster and that the other 8 guys should probably do something. They are professionals, the best in the world, and the starting pitcher when he's off his game is not better than any of them. So why do you want to watch bad baseball? Consider that there is nothing preventing baseball teams from carrying fewer relief pitchers. Teams could roster fewer pitchers and carry an extra bat or two. That might be a beneficial strategy that helps you win games if you have enough starters who can go deep into games or a bullpen full of Bryan Shaws. So why don't baseball teams do that if it's "better" baseball? I think as a fan it's a more desirable product when "better" ball is being played, I don't want to watch a worse quality sport simply because I think the SP should go deep into games. So rather than make a rule about it, if baseball teams thought it was beneficial toward winning games, they could make personnel decisions to carry pitchers who go can go deep into games in order to carry an extra platoon bat. Why doesn't any team do that though? Because it doesn't produce better baseball, the basic point I'm making is that this whole thing is blatantly disrespectful to relief pitchers and is probably con artistry to sell jerseys. BTW, my favorite pitchers are groundballers and I think the strikeout is overrated. I sort of project into the future that pitching will move back toward that without any rule changes necessary. I do think that the "desirable" pitcher is someone who strikes everyone out all the time, but hitting will inevitably catch up and I think the pitcher's elbow and shoulder has pretty much stretched itself as far as it can go. Producing weak contact is a timeless skill, I think we'll see that again.

Give examples. This isn't a rule change to "accommodate" game changes, it's a rule change to hearken to a contrived sense of nostalgia about "the good ol days" where there simply weren't enough good pitchers to field a deep bullpen. It's the opposite of accommodating "game changes", it's saying that relief pitchers are too good now and we prefer watching big name star pitchers like Chris Flexen. This is probably just for marketing purposes, you might buy a starting pitcher's jersey but you're probably not going to buy the middle reliever's -- so why should he even play? A hypothetical example: Consider the NBA. The game has moved toward being "positionless" to the point where kids who watch the game don't even know what the 'shooting guard' is (ask some kids what position they think Michael Jordan played...they think he was a small forward). Does the NBA change the rules to say that only the point guard can carry the ball up the floor and begin sets? That centers are only allowed to stand near the rim because that's traditionally where they have played? A real rule change that the NBA should make is to increase the size of the court and move back the three point line, especially in the corner. Or completely reimagine point totals, like maybe scoring should look more like the NFL. The major issue to correct being that the 3-point shot is too easy to make for how valuable it is. Those are rule changes, IMO, that would benefit the sport, not serve as some nostalgic gimmick. Back to baseball, I can't really think of any existential problems about the sport except that it's slow-paced and nobody has attention spans anymore. I can sort of respect that they're willing to experiment and try to make the game better, but also don't fix what isn't broken. Baseball is fine, I think they keep trying to appeal to an audience that won't ever exist with these rule changes (going back to pitch clock, base path shortening).

Changing the rules in an attempt to reproduce some sort of nostalgic feeling is misguided and stupid. Nostalgia is pleasant specifically because it's something that only exists in our minds and "mandated nostalgia" seems like a perfect way to destroy that. "hmm maybe it isn't so much fun watching that AAA injury call-up struggle through a complete game. maybe baseball games weren't actually more entertaining in 1936..." Pitchers don't throw 9 innings anymore because there are A TON more good pitchers now than 100 years ago. The players are better at the game and so they don't play it exactly the same way. What are they gonna do next, you get suspended if you hit too many homers? You get punched in the nuts every time you take a walk? Shorten the base paths because guys used to get more infield singles and steal more bases? Pitchers get penalized for taking too much time before throwing a pitch? Baseball is in a fine place. It's a good sport because of how well it has stood the test of time and how it has evolved and stayed relevant over its 150+ year history. Who does this rule even appeal to, people who will be dead in the next 20 years (no offense)? I'm not so sure about basketball, that sport probably needs a serious overhaul.

A salary cap, right? To me this is the most absurd thing about the MLB, no cap or floor. The thing about a floor is what if you just have a really good team of young players? So you're forced to overpay for free agents you don't want, don't think are good; or else you're not competing? The arbitration process is the primary issue I think. This would be less of an issue if free agents were actually good and players weren't reaching free agency when their careers are on the downward trend. I think a lot would need to change to create financial parity and so it seems unlikely to happen. Or maybe you start counting minor leaguers toward payroll and increase their wages. That seems like a fair idea actually, I think the MILB players are the ones who need a pay raise. Yeah they just got one, but the minor leaguers really are the lifeblood of the league. You need all those players who won't sniff the majors because the actual good players need competition to play against. There isn't a MLB without those players in my opinion.

yeah no s%*#

People seem to think when you're not very good at baseball for a month or two, you're a terrible person. Luis Robert is lazy and a thief! He's stealing Jerry's hard earned money!!

Ramos isn't blocked by a 2B/DH, a position he doesn't play, he's blocked by his .600 OPS in June/July. He has 7 hits this week which I guess is fine, but it's one week of baseball against a bad farm system. Is Vargas a bad trade? Maybe. But maybe Fedde was never that good, huh, an average pitcher with no stuff who is under contract for a 5/4 of a season. What should an MLB team have traded for Fedde? Oh I guess they're playing at Vargas at 3B right now. Yeah he's not better than Brooks or Vargas or Naperville Nicky so why should he play? Trading for Vargas and putting him in AAA would be pretty funny. But maybe he should try hitting the ball. Same with Ramos. Maybe it's your coaches' fault, but it's also your own career.

He can't hit. Will the major league hitting coaches help him? Do we even have one?

y BBush am i right? What is going on with this team? I haven’t watched baseball in like two months, I’d recommend it.