ptatc

QUOTE (JoeCoolMan24 @ Jan 23, 2012 -> 09:40 AM) I hope you realized I was being sarcastic, and was directing that comment at someone else. Dang I'm only 3 for 12 for the weekend. My apologies. My sarcasm filter is not working this morning. My teenage daughter burned it out yesterday.

QUOTE (JoeCoolMan24 @ Jan 22, 2012 -> 11:13 PM) No, that's COMPLETELY fair to say he has spent the last 5 years trying to lose his job by running an organization in to the ground out of some sort of irrational spite. Not unfair at all. speaking of irrational spite. If you really think KW has tried to make this team worse, despite being the most successful GM in the modern era for the Sox, you really are showing an irrational bias.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Jan 19, 2012 -> 05:58 PM) Hold with one of your hands or your legs. Generally if I'm jumping to block a shot or catch a pass I'll hold the broom with my leg. Now THAT takes a great deal of coordination.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Jan 19, 2012 -> 05:50 PM) I'm on Mizzou's... ...and I hate having to defend 7 footers. So it's like basketball in that regard. How the heck do you keep from falling off the broom?

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jan 19, 2012 -> 05:33 PM) No thanks. I've learned over time to pick and choose my message board battles. I'm not going to devote 20+ posts in breaking down why wrestling sucks and is not a true sport, and why basketball requires 20 times more skill. That's just a Baltaesque way of driving up your post count. It is not. I sure don't care about post counts. I just get irked when people are so sure about something for which they are completely uninformed. You are so sure wrestling isn't a sport yet you have no information to base this idea upon. By the way just to clarify the situation, I hope you realize I am not talking about the TV type, WWE wrestling. This is just my opinion but I consider it an informed, educated opinion.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jan 19, 2012 -> 05:18 PM) You need to stick to sports injuries and steroids. That is just awful. Expand your horizon beyond "popular" sports based only around money. There are many better ones out there. You obviously, have no experince with wrestling at a high level.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jan 19, 2012 -> 05:05 PM) Wrestling is a joke of a sport and how dare you say it's better than basketball? That's almost as bad as weekly bowlers talking about how not everybody can bowl a 200 game. I know I can. And I don't even bowl. I dare say it because it's true. The skill level in basketball does not match wrestling. The physical strength, power and agility combo as well as the strategy and quick thinking on the mental level it takes to wrestle at the collegiate and international level is far and above the corresponding level of basketball. I've worked both sports at those levels and rehabbed athletes at both. There really is no comparison in my opinion. If you really put wrestling with bowling you have no experience with the sport.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jan 19, 2012 -> 04:54 PM) Sure. Wrestling is on par with Lacrosse. Just because you sweat a little doesn't make it a sport. Lacrosse is a great sport. I knew nothing about it until this year. Any sport where you can legally beat the crap out of someone with a stick is a blast. Watching my 10 year old's team is a lot of fun and takes a heck of a lot more skill than basketball. By the way do you know who is considered the greastest Lacrosse player ever: Jim Brown. He has been quoted as saying that if there was pro Lacrosse when he came out of Syracuse, he would have played it not football. You my friend have picked the wrong for which to root. Wrestling and Lacrosse are two of the best.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jan 19, 2012 -> 04:48 PM) Wrestling isn't a sport. More than something as silly as basketball.

QUOTE (Palehosefan @ Jan 19, 2012 -> 04:32 PM) Wayne Gretzky is the only other athlete that I would argue with MJ on the greatest ever. I hope you are only thinking the 4 major sports because nobody is better than Dan Gable as an indivdual athlete. He was 345-5 in college and international events. He also never lost in a high school match.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jan 19, 2012 -> 12:39 PM) Really? Unless you're drinkin' the same s*** Hawk does every year, there's little to no chance of this being a solid team. And what the hell purpose would Edwin Jackson serve for the future? I guess it depends on the definition of solid. It will be around a .500 team. Not a division winner unless Detroit loses a few more pieces.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 19, 2012 -> 12:04 PM) That is way over my layman head. Could you summarize a bit? Basically it says that the anabolic steriods reversed the degeneration effect of muscles that had been torn for 6 weeks. Muscles after this time begin to shorten and wast away and build up fatty deposits in them. The anabolic steriods reversed these conditions and allowed the researchers to "pull" the tendons together to re-attach them. This is the first valid and reliable study to show the anabolics can help reverse the effect of injuries to muscles. It gives really good insight as to what physiologic effects they have on muscles other than hypertrophy.

Here is a link to the first well done study completed on the possible effects of anabolic steriods on muscle injuries. Granted it is on a chronic injury which doesn't directly apply to sports injuries but it's really the first one to show some PED effects on injuries. http://www.jbjs.org/article.aspx?volume=93&page=2189

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 14, 2012 -> 09:40 PM) Peavy is 110% talk. You couldn't be more wrong. The guy had an injury that no one has ever returned from and pitched again at the MLB level. He worked his a@# off to get back. I don't know if he'll ever be an effective pitcher again but you cannot fault how hard he worked to get back. You can rip on the results but not the effort.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Jan 11, 2012 -> 10:02 PM) The guy I know said he would lock himself away for long periods of time, though. I'm guessing some kind of manic depression based on that. He also apparently read John Belushi's biography over and over. I'm not sure about the locking himself away part, I really only saw him in the bars. He was a huge fan of Belushi and used to joke about dying that way while we were all drinking.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Jan 11, 2012 -> 08:22 PM) Wow, that's pretty cool, as I know a guy that hung out with him a lot at Marquette as well. Yeah, I was starting there when he was finishing. He was a legend in the bars. He was a great guy and absolutely hilarious. Unfortunately, it also lead to his downfall. It's a shame he had to leave us so soon. He lived in an apartment near us just up the street from Jeffery Dahmer but that's a whole different story.

QUOTE (gatnom @ Jan 11, 2012 -> 07:19 PM) The thing is that putting a bunch of Nick Puntos together will never add up to a truly impact player, making your scenario of trading 5 of them unrealistic. My whole point of that metaphor was to illustrate that you cannot just judge a system based on pure output of players (and on the flip side pure quality of players). You conveniently ignored my scenario of the 5 very good players versus the 10 role players. By your logic, the system which produced the 10 role players is better even though I think you would agree that 5 very good players are better than 10 role players. You brought up the 1 Puljols vs. 10 Punto scenario. I gave you my answer. The scenario of 5 good vs. the 10 average players is nothing more than the middle of the spectrum. That's where the preference applies and that's when you need to start looking at details. Are they pitchers vs. hitters. Pitching is still more valuable so if the scenario is 10 average pitchers vs. 5 very good hitters I'll take the 10 pitchers. We can go on like this indefinitely. As I said, it's a matter of preference in general the more you produce the more effective the farm system. Because the fewer players you develop, the odds are you will have a weaker team.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 11, 2012 -> 04:53 PM) But who would win a fight between Pujols, Mike Ditka, 10 Nick Puntos and a hurricane? (old SNL reference....Chris Farley) Ditka, of course I do have a frame of reference for this as Farley was a drinking buddy at Marquette and that bit came up while at a bar (O'Donohue's) during the Bears Super Bowl season in 1985.

QUOTE (gatnom @ Jan 11, 2012 -> 04:45 PM) You're completely ignoring an entire dimension of evaluation. Is a farm system that produces 10 Nick Puntos better than a farm system that produces, say, 5 John Danks? Hell, I'd rather have 1 Albert Pujols than 10 Nick Puntos. The ideal farm system would produce a large quantity of high quality players, not just one or the other. The ideal farm sytem would produce high quantity and quality players. But most don't. I would prefer the 10 MLB players vs. 1 superstar for a few reasons. 1. In baseball 1 player will not win you anything. 2. You can field a team of the 10 players or package a deal of 5 for a better player and still have the team of 5 average players and one really good one. It's a matter of preference but I would still base it on the number of MLB players.

QUOTE (gatnom @ Jan 11, 2012 -> 02:39 PM) Yeah, you're right. Albert Pujols and Nick Punto should be weighted evenly in terms of draft success. If those were the only two prospects from respective organizations, I would say both were abysmal failures. If you produce only 1 MLB players it's pure luck not a good organization.

QUOTE (striker @ Jan 11, 2012 -> 01:57 PM) The problem I see with BA, Baseball Prospectus, Baseball Intellect, etc. rating prospects is it's all opinion based. What the "experts" think. This list is what the "expert" Phil Rogers thinks. It's no different then CNN or FoxNews "analysts". These are people that know a little bit more than us. What is lacking are measures. I use 2005 as just a base point, you could use any date. Draft Capabilities 1. Of all the White Sox draft picks since 2005, how many are on major league rosters right now. 2. What is the total WAR of all of the White Sox draft picks since 2005. Minor League Depth 1. Of all the players that played for the White Sox minor league affiliates, how many are on major league rosters right now. 2. Of all the players that came through the White Sox minor league system, what is their total WAR. Major League Team Contribution 1. Of the White Sox roster, what percentage was drafted by the White Sox (Sale, Beckham, Morel, Reed, etc.) 2. Of the White Sox roster, what percentage were signed as minor league free agents (Humber) 3. Of the White Sox roster, what percentage were international free agents (Ramirez, Viciedo) 4. What were the total WAR for 1,2,3 These are measure that help you tell how successful a team drafts, scouts and produces talent. I still enjoy reading the "experts" opinions but they are exactly that, opinions. I prefer facts to measure performance. This is the only thing that matters. It doesn't matter how they were rated, where they drafted etc. How many of the draft picks are on MLB rosters. That is what makes a successful draft. To rate a farm system you add the component of what players these drafted players helped to acquire, who then are on MLB rosters. These two variables are will tell you how successful your farm system is.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jan 11, 2012 -> 11:12 AM) lol. So the Sox get credit for Hudson, even though they foolishly and inexplicably traded him after three starts? Yes, the Sox get credit for developing him in the farm system. Unless he spent an appreciable amount of time in Arizona's farm system, his talent was developed with the Sox. Just like I would give the Sox credit for developing Danks even though he hadn't spent much time in the majors before before we acquired him. the Texas farm system produced him. The sox farm system acquired him but didn't develop him.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 10, 2012 -> 06:21 PM) Don't forget Viciedo. Humber and DeAza aren't rookies or our organizational products, but they essentially are for all the money we spent on them. Same with "producing" Sergio Santos. since the Sox were the team to convert him from an IF to a pitcher, I would consider him a sox product. We "made" him a pitcher.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 10, 2012 -> 06:24 PM) But that year, the "over the top" moves weren't farm related... AJ Iguchi Dye Hermanson El Duque I agree not the "whole" team was a farm system product but no team is. Those players are no more "over the top" than Garcia, Garland or Buherle. Most of that 25 man roster was farm system related.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 10, 2012 -> 05:16 PM) Out of that list, the contributions from the "Farm system" are pretty minimal. Loaiza wasn't a farm system product. Matt Karchner was a 30 year old journeyman we'd picked up from the Royals a few years earlier. Jenks spent 1/2 of a season in the Sox Farm System after the Angels tired of his act. I disagree, most of the pitchers and starting lineup came from trades or were in our farm system. I agree Loaiza wasn't. Karchner wasn't but Garland was 18 or 19 when we got him so he learned here. Jenks was 1/2 year but the sox turned him into a releiver. PK was here but it is still a product of the sytem (cameron) which got him here. Everett was a trade. No matter how you look at it most of the team was a product of the farm system or was acquired by a product of the farm system. Not everyone but most. even the great theo got really lucky that a twins castoff decided to start taking PEDs to laed boston to a Series.