JUSTgottaBELIEVE

Oh, and they should have legitimately been good in many years past as well so when they crash and burn again I will be here to enjoy it. Nothing would make me happier as a sports fan than to see the White Sox win another World Series and watch the Cubs' hype train come to a crashing halt.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Apr 21, 2015 -> 12:52 PM) Right but now the big prospects are up and they should legitimately be good for awhile. Why is that a bad thing? I want the Cubs to be good. It leaves the Sox under pressure to be good. Bulls*** arguments with Cubs fans ended for me in 2005. Again, your opinion. Am I not allowed to have my own? Just because that's your line of thinking doesn't mean it needs to be everyone else's opinion. I thought I already answered your question in my previous post. I find it very annoying to live in the Chicagoland area and to hear nothing but Cubs, Cubs, Cubs every day. White Sox are a complete after thought. You don't find that annoying? Or do you not live in the area?

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Apr 21, 2015 -> 12:29 PM) They still have some HS pitching from last year's draft and Gleyber Torres and Eloy Jimenez that could really break out. Cubs are probably just outside of the top 10 with promotions. Why does it matter though? I hate comparing the White Sox and Cubs. Completely irrelevant. Not when you hear it everyday from co-worker and friends that are Cubs fans. Not to mention the local and national media...Very relevant, maybe not to you but it is to me. I am just happy that they no longer have the fall back of "well at least we have the best farm system in baseball and it doesn't matter that the big league team sucks because just wait until the big prospects come up." So now if they don't make the playoffs, I guess their response will be wait til next year when these guys are another year older etc? It's just annoying.

Per BA at the start of the year their top 10 prospects looked like this: TOP 10 PROSPECTS 1. Kris Bryant, 3b 2. Addison Russell, ss 3. Jorge Soler, of 4. Kyle Schwarber, c/of 5. C.J. Edwards, rhp 6. Billy McKinney, of 7. Albert Almora, of 8. Gleyber Torres, ss 9. Pierce Johnson, rhp 10. Duane Underwood, rhp Take away the top 3 and you are left with basically the quality of the White Sox current farm system, correct?

I don't think anyone answered my question. Where would you rank the Cubs system now that Soler, Bryant, and Russel are all in the bigs? Somewhere in the range of 10-15? Average to slightly above average?

So now that their elite prospects are with the big leagues, where does the Cubs farm system rank? 10-15?

Any chance ventura gets fired if they get swept in detroit? That would pretty brutal especially when you specifically line up your top 3 starters for the series.

That team was the best, so many good memories. I went to that third game against the Indians in mid September when the Indians cut the division lead to 1.5 games. Probably the most depressing game I have ever attended as a Sox fan. Was also at the second to last game of the year in cleveland after the sox beat them in the first two of the series and could knock them out of the playoffs with a sweep. I remember taking the train back to my girlfriends house after the game and the Indians fans talking mad s***. They were so pissed they might not make the playoffs. Stuff like you guys aren't going to make it out of the first round of the playoffs, you guys are overrated, etc. I didn't say much at the time didn't want to start something just responded with "we'll see." Last laugh was on them

That team was the best, so many good memories. I went to that third game against the Indians in mid September when the Indians cut the division lead to 1.5 games. Probably the most depressing game I have ever attended as a Sox fan. Was also at the second to last game of the year in cleveland after the sox beat them in the first two of the series and could knock them out of the playoffs with a sweep. I remember taking the train back to my girlfriends house after the game and the Indians fans talking mad s***. They were so pissed they might not make the playoffs. Stuff like you guys aren't going to make it out of the first round of the playoffs, you guys are overrated, etc. I didn't say much at the time didn't want to start something just responded with "we'll see." Last laugh was on them

QUOTE (ewokpelts @ Apr 1, 2015 -> 12:58 PM) What book is taking Divison bets? I know not everyone takes al championship bets. https://sportsbetcappers.sportsblog.com/pos...n_division.html many online sportsbooks are taking division bets

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Apr 1, 2015 -> 11:27 AM) Wouldn't high odds be bad? By highest, I mean 6th best chance of winning the WS. What I find most interesting is that the White Sox have better odds to win the World Series than the Tigers but worse odds to win the division. Bettors are implicating the White Sox make the playoffs as a wild card and then become very dangerous in a short series with a potential starting 4 of Sale, Shark, Q, and Rodon. Makes a lot of sense actually.

and 3rd highest in AL. Bettors are loving these Chicago teams! http://espn.go.com/chalk/story/_/id/125968...-cubs-las-vegas

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 14, 2015 -> 09:57 AM) Could you do Dish and make it work? I always thought of DirecTV as much higher quality but you pay accordingly. Does dish offer a reasonably priced package that meets these needs? I'm paying ~$100/mo right now for DirectTV right now and I think this is too much for TV alone considering I barely have time to watch more than 5-10 hours a week.

In an effort to save some costs I am trying to figure out how to get rid of DirectTV. Besides sports channels, the only channels I absolutely must have are local channels (NBC, PBS, etc) and AMC (I guess this one isn't a must have but I do enjoy me some Walking Dead and Saul). Any suggestions? My biggest concern is losing Comcast Sports Net because of the number of local sporting events shown on it (esp White Sox games).

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Mar 11, 2015 -> 12:24 PM) They also have great depth behind the starters. Don Barclay and JC tretter could probably both be starters on a lot of teams. I would bet they draft another OL at some point in the draft. Health is always the biggest question though. yep, either way it's good to see rodgers finally get some good protection. you could see it most visibly in the seahawks game. even though he was extremely hobbled, seattle still barely managed to get pressure on him. that bodes well for a healthy rodgers/lacy

go read for GoSox05 and other Packers fans out there http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2392204...ke-mccarthy-era

Not just saying this because I am a Packers fan, but I feel the Seahawks and Packers have really separated themselves even more from the rest of the NFC. It looks like teams such as Philly, SF, and New Orleans are taking a big step back and even teams like Dallas and Detroit are taking small steps back. Anything can happen obviously but if everyone stays relatively healthy I fully expect a NFC championship game rematch next season. Hopefully the Packers can return the favor for that ugly meltdown last January. This is starting to feel like the early/mid 90s with the Dallas/GB rivalry for NFC supremacy.

I wonder if they are also excited about Baez's sub .100 batting average this spring? All hype. Bryant is the only legit one of this group. Soler has a chance too if he can manage to actually stay healthy for more than 1/2 the season.

http://insider.espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/...ing-2015-season anyone have access to this article? curious to see where the white sox fall

QUOTE (SoxPride18 @ Mar 7, 2015 -> 09:33 PM) Randall Cobb back to the Packers. 4 years 40 million 17 guaranteed. Huge! Great deal

http://beta.espn.go.com/espn/story/_/id/12...-nerds-too-easy If it still doesn't work it's their cover story under their MLB section

http://beta.espn.go.com/espn/story/_/id/12...-nerds-too-easy Point #2 is the reason why I previously argued that Cubs' batters with high strikeout rates IS a real cause for concern. Stat nerd himself Nate Silver says that strikeout to walk ratio is one of the most predictive stats for a pitcher's win-loss record. Taking the other side of this, unless the Cubs' big strikeout guys are getting on base at a high rate via walks or high batting average, it's a real problem.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Feb 7, 2015 -> 11:25 PM) You're talking about something completely different with your example. Mike Trout is irrelevant. I'll try to boil it down further: 1. Strikeouts do contribute to bad offense. 2. Bad offense is bad offense regardless of strikeouts. Good offense is good offense, regardless of strikeouts. 3. You can say "Kris Bryant won't be good because he'll strikeout too much." You cannot say "Kris Bryant cannot be good if strikes out a bunch." Regarding point 2, I think the point that some of us are trying to make is that high strikeout rates DO contribute to bad offense. Let me ask this because I'm sure someone on this board could quickly figure this out. How many of the top 3 scoring offenses in MLB the last 10 years have also been in the top 3 in strikeouts that same season? And yes, I can say that if Bryant strikes out a ton (at a similar rate to 2014 Baez) he CANNOT be the player everyone expects him to be. He would literally have to hit a bomb on every fifth ball he put in play to put up good numbers with a strikeout rate that high.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Feb 7, 2015 -> 09:46 AM) The problem with linear weights is that it treats all runs equal, when we all know that is not the case. The distribution of how those runs is scored is incredibly important. All else being equal, a narrower distribution will result in more consistent scoring and ultimately more wins. A lineup full of high strikeout players may score a ton of runs (if power is there), but their output of runs will have high levels of variation. A lot of their runs will come in blowouts and provide no marginal value. Total run production obviously matters, but consistent run production is far more important when it comes to wins and losses. Very good point

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 7, 2015 -> 10:12 AM) DP arguments about strikeouts are beyond lame. If you hit the ball there are no strike em out, throw em outs either. Strikeouts are fine if you are Mike Trout. They are not fine when you fan 140 times and have an OPS under .700, which there were several in 2014, including Flowers. I think there were 36 players that fanned over 100 times and had an OPS under .700. If you cannot hit, at least move runners around some other way. No one freaks out at run producers fanning. Its the ither guys. 100 strikeouts in a season used to be embarrassing, now 4 guys a team on average reach that level and far beyond. Strikeouts are way up, runs are down. Hit the ball.Some of those will become hits. Some will become errors. Some will be iuts that don't make a difference. Some will become walks as you foul off a tough pitch or 2. Some will be double plays but not nearly enough to offset the good that can happen if you just hit the ball. Couldn't have said it better. It frustrates me to hell whenever this debate comes up with metrics guys because you really do need to look beyond what the numbers are saying since there are just too many variables at play to accurately quantify. Put the ball in play, put pressure on the defense, and you have a better chance of good things happening. It's really that simple. This GIDP argument is very short sighted since the variation in the top 10 leaders in GIDP are typically not that far above league average. Also, GIDP does not have a direct correlation to strikeouts. It is one factor but as I said before the type of contact a hitter makes is just as important as the percentage of strikeouts/AB. Otherwise, how else are guys like Chris Johnson and Matt Dominguez in the top 5 for GIDP in all of baseball last year?