chitownsportsfan

BMAC hasn't even started to warmup.

Singleton is f***ing terrible. The worst I've heard in a awile. Things won't be the same this year without Rooney.

This is pissing me off. Freaking weather.

Strained fat, out 2 to 3 weeks.

What school you go to Felix?

Well Joe could argue that the the speed of light is 3mph too, I just wouldn't take his word for it. Any update on the weather from our good people on the South Side? I really don't want to go to the bar (no cable at my house) if the game is going to be washed out.

TODAY IS THE DAY YOUR LIFE WILL SURELY CHANGE "And now, introducing your World Champion Chicago White Sox" Man, I wish Rooney was around to say that.

I hear the Cubs could use a guy like yourself as their PR guy.

Wait, didn't he have all winter to that? WTF did he do on his honeymoon...?

Ruh-roh--don't get me started on a Juan Piere/Podsednik relative value rant! I'll just say that I don't consider Pierre and Pods that useful of players. Pierre can play CF passably, so he's a usefull player, but Pods plays LF...

Fantasy production doesn't equal real world production, and with his Twins sleepers he usually prefaces it by saying, "well player X will drag down the Twins offense this year, but he'll help your fantasy team with 30 homers, etc." Yea, Aron's a Twinkies fan, but it's not like he's an obnoxious homer. That Morneu pick is a good one, scouts and computers have been hailing this guy for years, and he had a super slow start last year, and still finished pretty solid.

Yea, I hear Griese tripped over his neighbor's dog and won't be able to make the mini-camp's this summer... The Bears have the hardest partying QB trio in the history of the league: Grossman, Griese and Orton all know where the tripple kegger is on Saturday night.

Oh indeed.

Yea, but Pena is 2 years younger than Gload, and might put up some better numbers in the future. I'm not saying we should sign up, especially as money is an object, and trading away Borchard makes Gload's relative versatility a virtue. Yea, I really can't believe the story of Choi, dude does nothing but put up good numbers for a cheap contract, and he keeps getting shown the door. Doesn't make much snese to me.

I'm wondering why they cut Pena loose, he's a solid starting 1B on a number of teams. I wouldn't mind the Sox signing him and cutting Gload loose...

I wish I could summarize my posts this well--maybe someone would actual understand them then. I agree completely SSH2005, in a convoluted sort of way.

So Cleveland will "regress" by one game to 92 wins. They won 93 last year. I really disagree with your whole post--the things your prodicted are extremely rare, and by your own admission, a team that won 93 last year, is in for a serious regression. You didn't say "serious", but that is how infer your comments to mean. And yet you have them winning 92 games logically. I'm going to go out on a limb here--no team in the AL will win 100 games. And, no division will produce three 90 games winners--not even the central. These things are rare, and no team in the central looks capable of more than 95 wins right now, let alone 100. The Sox played brilliant baseball last year and still "only" won 99. If you see that happening again + some, fine, I won't waste me time saying while not--only I urge us to come back in October and see whose prediction was closer to the real outcome.

Wait, you agree that it's true he's a lously regular if he has no speed then you trash the people that gave that opinion--which you just agreed with. That doesn't make any sense. I believe what they were implying is that Pods relies almost entirely on his speed for OBP and stealing percentage, and defense. I wouldn't use the Gagne analogy either, lets compare position players, say--El Caballo. The horse could tweak a hamstring and still be lousy on defense, and still slug the hell out of the ball--if he hurt his wrist, he'd be a lousy regular. Players just have different sources of effectiveness, it's not really a knock against Pods, so much as a plainly visible fact for most ballplayers--they suck hurt. Unfortunely, Pods' little nagging hamstring is much worse than a "minor" injury because although "minor" it totally negates his strenghts as a player. Pods relies almost entirely on his speed for effectiveness, this makes him unique, and especially vulnerable to injury.

You don't say? I think we should just do the Diamond Mind simulation 1000 times and see who wins the world series the most in 1000 seasons. That team is thus crowned the 2006 champion. It could even be like when Kasparov played "Big Blue", and we could all watch on TV as the simulated baseball played out. They could sell tickets and Joe Morgan would announce that he's boycotting the event because "computers didn't play The Game". I really think that would be a good idea. Screw the actual games.

It's better as a fishwrap.

Complain about Thornton with a bandwagoner, you'll educate him, and calm yourself.

Well, I seem to recall having this debate about bandwagoners (for or against) about 10 times over the offseason, but I'll offer my argument again. Bangwagon fans mean more revenue which means more payroll. Payroll helps support winning teams. It's a good cycle. I really don't care about bandwagon fans, let me put it this way: why should I be offended, or my enjoyment of the Sox be lessened--because someone else now enjoys them? It isn't like my enjoyment goes down relative to everyone elses going up--there is no big "Sox enjoyment" pie in the sky that everyone gets a piece from. I'm happy that the bangwagoners daughters and sons will now be "hardcore" Sox fans. I was lucky enough to have a hardcore Sox and baseball in general fan as a father. Otherwise, I'd probably be rooting for the Tigers, just like most everyone else here in MI.

It's often mistaken that "statheads" don't actually watch baseball, and have never played baseball. For all the pub Billy Beane gets about "starting sabermetrics", (lol) nobody seems to remember that he played the game at the highest level himself. And "stathead" seems to imply this monolithic and dogmatic ideal around here, probably something like the worst article Baseball Prospectus has ever written. In reality, "stathead" means many different things to many different people. I enjoy sabermetrics, but am I going to suddenly pursue an advanced degree in statistics so I can go work for Theo Epstein? No way. However baseball as a game leads naturally to statistical analysis, as there are a discreet number of outcomes--like chess on a diamond. Yet each game is unique, which makes it more than just a science. I can appreciate looking at the game as a science, and I can appreciate the artistry in at as well. These things aren't mutually exclusive to statheads. Regarding the luck thing, the one thing I never hear critics of sabermetrics say is that "well the Sox got lucky last year according to sabermetricians, but they also said most great teams are lucky, so I guess it's a wash." Almost every sabemetric oriented article I've read about the Sox and luck also mentions that almost every world series champion enjoy good luck throughout the season. e.g. good health, 1-run W/L, etc.

Yea, there's a reason Sweeney isn't being compared to any of those guys--he's not that good yet. If Sweeney puts up monster numbers in 2006 down in Charlotte then maybe he'll get a cup of coffee in september and be ready to push for a roster spot in 2007. That's the only way I see him making the roster this year.

And what's the point? I just said I'm not arguing that pitchers aren't at their best during spring training; I'm arguing that Jenks is beyond just "getting back into shape", he hasn't been "marginally bad", he's been terrible. Furthermore, he "terribleness" is even more concerning because he's still sucking a week before camp breaks. I think a good analogy is the 3rd preseason game in FB. Sure, it's still preseason, but you don't want the 1st unit to stink it up in the 1st half. Is spring training mostly meaningless: of course. Are pitchers less than 100% velocity and control wise: of course. I'm a worried about Jenks: of course--why shouldn't I be? Every other pitcher on the Sox (other than my new Timo--Thornton) that is expected to make the roster has shown me something good--Jenks hasn't at all.