Disco72

QUOTE (BearSox @ Apr 17, 2009 -> 04:55 PM) I agree, one of the Florida teams need to move, and whichever team stays needs to build their new stadium in either Jacksonville or Orlando like Hawk said. I also think baseball needs to add 2 expansion teams. Make it 16 teams in each division (5-6-5). I 100% disagree with adding two more teams. I don't think the "market for baseball" is big enough to expand, especially right now. You can move a team (or two) if necessary, but no more expansion.

QUOTE (G&T @ Apr 17, 2009 -> 04:44 PM) No, people do remember that. But that doesn't mean you have to put a guy hitting .167 with a .242 obp in the 4 spot. Now that I've said all of this, he will hit 2 homers and drive in 5 tonight. True, but if you read further up the page, you'll see that I posted that he was pretty bad in April last year too. I'm not giving up on a proven guy like Thome after a couple of weeks. If he sucks all year, then I think we all agree that he won't be back no matter what.

QUOTE (Flash Tizzle @ Apr 17, 2009 -> 04:35 PM) Rio de Janeiro (2006) -- 37.7 murders per 100,000 Chicago (2006) -- ~15 murders per 100,000 Look at some of this other information: 2006 -- 1,060 criminals were killed in Rio by the police. In a city roughly double the size of Chicago 2006 -- 347 criminals were killed by the police in the entire USA. I'm sure the disparity would only extend further if other crime rates are taken into consideration. I'm also going to guess, even without proof, that their corruption issues make ours look tame. I don't know stats by city, but comparing countries, Brazil scores a 3.5 on corruption compared to 7.3 for the US (lower numbers = more corrupt). Source: Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index. In other words, Brazil is perceived as being MUCH more corrupt than the US.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Apr 17, 2009 -> 04:30 PM) Without Thome in the middle of the order, your going to have one massive string of right handed hitters. Is that something the Sox are willing to do? Maybe you can move Thome to the 5th spot, but as long as he's in the lineup they are going to have him somewhere near the middle of the order because of his ability to get on base and the fact that he's the only left handed bat in the lineup that projects as a middle of the order hitter (AJ does not). And Wise, forget about it. I don't think many people remember very well those all RH middle of the orders where the "LH power bat" was talked about the way the 5th starter was talked about (in those years) and CF/leadoff is talked about now.

QUOTE (FedEx227 @ Apr 17, 2009 -> 01:41 PM) Well it's a ton of reasons. The Rays stadium is awful first off, it's in a so-so neighborhood away from where the bulk of the general Tampa population lives. Ditto for the Marlins, their stadium is essentially in a suburb. While that no doubt works for football, it doesn't work for an 82-game baseball schedule. Add in the fact that their unpredictable weathers leads to tons of rain outs and delays... and the fact it's a god awful stadium with no personality. Also you have to remember despite the bits of success as a whole the franchises have not been very good. You don't have any 2nd or 3rd generation Rays/Marlins fans. Yes, they went to the WS last year but over the past decade they were one of the worst teams in the league, ever year... great talent or not. So long term success in a good ballpark will build up a fan base. You still have to remember these are very new franchises in a very new market, so it'll take time. Ok, I'll bite. How long will it take? Will the team need 2 generations of fans before it'll draw? If so, can the team even be successful if it takes that long? Unless the team will be wildly successful in 2-3 generations, is it even worth it to wait that long? Keep in mind that I think your points are valid, but I think overall the fans still are not supporting the Florida teams as much as should be expected given that they are a) new, B) have terrible stadiums and c) the stadiums are in 'bad' locations.

QUOTE (FedEx227 @ Apr 17, 2009 -> 01:13 PM) hahaha... nah I wish. I got banned from WSI a few weeks ago so I've had to use this and Palehosed as my main source of White Sox talk, so that's all. I probably had 2 posts from the date I joined until a week ago. But that's irrelevant...no, I'm not bashing Sox attendance in fact I hate that type of stuff but facts are facts. They don't draw very well, and neither do we in the April-May months. We're a great summer and walk-up attendance team, no doubt... that's our bread and butter. I just don't think we as Sox fans have a right to bash other teams attendance when we aren't really the toast of the league attedance-wise either. At least not without explaining a few of the reasons why their attedance is as pitiful as it is. It's not just "THEIR FANS AREN'T GOOD!!!" there's a ton that goes into their putrid attendance. You're missing the point. Both Florida teams have been to and/or won the World Series, yet the Rays and Marlins are not getting the attendance (and therefore revenue) boost that teams usually get during and after successful seasons. The bad stadiums/locations is a mitigating factor, but if you don't draw when you are winning, when will you draw? The teams have been there long enough to develop a fan base, and the "new stadium boost" in attendance has not been as big a factor in recent years, especially if the team isn't winning. So it's hard to claim that new stadiums will solve the attendance problems for these teams.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Apr 17, 2009 -> 12:08 PM) He's hitting about as well as Frank would if he were on the team. Sorry Thome lovers but he's done. Yeah he'll have a few HRs this year but I'll be amazed if he hits .250. QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Apr 17, 2009 -> 12:12 PM) He was late on three identical low-90s fastballs from Balfour. I agree, Big Jim is toast. He's not done. A lot of people were saying the same thing last year too. Jim Thome hit .216 / .361 / .420 in March and April last year, and we had the same "he's done" posts. He may be in decline (as his OPS has declined two straight years), but he's not done.

I wish someone on our major league roster could go 4-4...

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Apr 12, 2009 -> 06:57 AM) for f***s sake, a matter of like 6 hits takes you from .290 to .300, given 600 at bats. And besides that, Quentin is a high average hitter, Dye's a high average hitter, Konerko's a high average hitter, Pierzynski's a high average hitter, Ramirez is a high average hitter, and Getz hit .300 in 3 of the 4 years he played in the minors. The Sox have plenty of "high average guys" and anybody b****ing otherwise needs to STFU. They have a good offense. I never said it was a bad offense. I said that they don't have guys who will consistently hit over .300. Who on the current roster has ever hit consistently over .300 in their major league career? Nobody. The point is that when people complain that "how come nobody goes 4 for 5 on the major league team" it is because we don't have the kind of hitters that will do that. It doesn't mean nobody will ever do it nor that they are bad hitters. Frankly, I'm also tired of people b****ing about the offense. We, as fans, should know exactly what kind of offense we are getting. It is based on power, not guys hitting 4 for 5 every night. However, adding a guy or two like that would certainly bring some balance to the team just as adding OBP at the top would/has (if Getz keeps playing well).

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Apr 11, 2009 -> 11:24 AM) I'm sure a lot of our big leaguers could go 4-5 in AA. It's not really that; it's that the major league team does not have any high average hitters. The "core" basically gives you averages between .260 and .290, but there is nobody that can be counted on to consistently bat over .300. It's another of the ways the team is unbalanced.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Apr 7, 2009 -> 12:29 PM) it's gorgeous out... this game is happening. ...and we have snow flurries in Atlanta.... can't wait to fire the slingbox up!

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 6, 2009 -> 01:08 PM) There was actually a genuine meteorology guy from Western Kentucky who did the math on this a few years ago. His results are interesting. Long, worth glancing through, but interesting. Bashes the Twins a bit for not sticking with a dome. One of the arguments against opening in all warm weather and dome cities is that these cities get fewer home dates after school is out, which they argue reduces their ticket sales. It does seem that it would be better for MLB, as a whole, to make some concessions for early season weather problems.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Apr 2, 2009 -> 12:29 PM) Anybody ever catch My Boys on TBS? They might want to consider hiring some writers with actual comedic talent. It's been that way for a year or more now, and the writing never gets better. Decent concept, horrible writing...yet for some reason I still watch it if I'm flipping through channels and it is on.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Apr 2, 2009 -> 09:18 AM) I rank them as this: 1) Rio 2) Chicago 3) Tokyo 4) Madrid Madrid is last because of what you said. Tokyo is 3rd because they've hosted before, Rio is #1 because no games have ever been hosted in South America and I too have thought they want Rio to step up and prove they can do it. If not, it's in Chicago. I don't believe that Rio can overcome it's problems enough to impress the Olympic Committee. Therefore, I think Chicago is the de facto front runner. In fact, I'd argue that Rio as a finalist is really just a practice run in the Committee's collective mind for a future games.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 1, 2009 -> 03:46 PM) Atlanta was a dump...and it still is...it's just a slightly better looking dump. :/ I'm not a huge fan of Atlanta (my home for the last 4+ years), but the Olympics is widely credited with kick starting urban redevelopment in Atlanta. While other cities, like Chicago, had already started developing their inner cities, Atlanta was a mess. I haven't met a single person who doesn't believe that the Olympics was a godsend for downtown Atlanta. I'm not sure that it'll have the same effect on Chicago, though, since Chicago is a very different city from what Atlanta was pre-1996. If BigSqwert's link is accurate and not much infrastructure work will be done, it does seem to limit the tangible benefits to the citizens of Chicago.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Apr 1, 2009 -> 03:37 AM) I'm still hoping KW comes out today and says that this is all a long-drawn out April Fools' Day joke. Unfortunately, some of the April Fools Day threads are more believable than Wise as an everyday leadoff hitter. QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 1, 2009 -> 09:01 AM) I'm usually a pretty big KW defender, but... Wise starting in CF and leading off? Seriously? Come on. Fortunately, I'm guessing that Getz leads off by late May, and Anderson overtakes Wise in playing time by June, hitting 9th. I just hope it happens much sooner than that. I think we're all hoping that.

The Sox REALLY need someone to back up SS/2B not named Lillibridge. Hopefully Nix can come back quickly enough to serve in that role without L'bridge doing too much damage in early April. As bad as Betemit looked at SS early in spring training, L'bridge's offensive futility makes me wonder if I'd risk the bad D for Betemit's gazillion times better offense.

QUOTE (EvilJester99 @ Mar 27, 2009 -> 05:52 PM) Seen this write up on MLBTraderumors.... Offseason In Review: Chicago White Sox By Tim Dierkes [March 27 at 1:50pm CST] I don't understand how these projections are made and how they fail to account for past results. They have Buehrle, a career ERA of 3.80, as the best starter on the Sox in 2009 with a projected 4.57 ERA? Then the author takes things further by claiming that Fields' defense will be worse than the twenty errors by Crede in less than 2/3 of a season in 2008. Next, although the author notes that Vazquez had an ERA higher than the starters' average ERA, he thinks it would have been better to keep him for 2009. Finally, the writer projects the team at 84 wins with the Sox needing "multiple unexpected performances to repeat their 89 wins of '08." Under this kind of analysis, a career average (or even worse) year by Buehrle would be an "unexpected performance." If I used this kind of statistical analysis and logic in my own research, I'd get laughed out of the profession. For the record, I voted for 84-87, but this writer convinced me that the Sox have a ceiling much higher! (half joking there)

I absolutely refuse to believe that Owens, Wise, Anderson, or Lillibridge will hit leadoff once the regular season starts. I think that Ozzie is just giving these guys every chance to succeed (or conversely fail convincingly) by giving them as many ABs as possible. Maybe I'm refusing to see reality, but I cannot imagine any of those four hitting leadoff come April.

QUOTE (Princess Dye @ Mar 22, 2009 -> 02:46 PM) i really cant wrap my mind around this one. He doesnt have a short quick swing, he doesnt take walks. He'll get from first to third but thats about all I can think. He wont steal bases. Are you referring to the news articles stating this? Or are you referring to the fact that BA has hit leadoff in some spring training games recently? IMO, the former is just Ozzie BS'ing, if there's any truth to it at all. The way the Trib article was written, it appeared to be more speculation on the writer's part than any actual statement by Ozzie. On the latter, I think Ozzie is trying to give the guys still in competition for spots as many ABs as possible.

Getz played 27 games at SS last season. There's no reason to keep a guy like L'bridge that can't hit major league pitching at all right now just to be the backup SS. When Lexi needs a rest, Getz can be the backup SS with Nix playing 2B. Let Betemit focus on the corners with middle INF only in emergency situations.

QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Mar 22, 2009 -> 09:29 AM) Yeah, the blackout was cool last year but I prefer the Sox steer clear of as many gimmicks as possible. Let's keep the blackouts only for when we're facing playoff elimination. Only elimination? Or clinching games too?

QUOTE (PlaySumFnJurny @ Mar 19, 2009 -> 04:36 PM) "Has anyone seen L'Bridge?" Where's that confounded L'Bridge?

QUOTE (Kalapse @ Mar 8, 2009 -> 10:21 PM) Hey if he's able to go down into his crouch, move laterally while down and spring upwards to throw then he must be in pretty damn good health. Obviously if he's not 100% then he has no shot at the job but from what I've seen he looks just fine. If he's healthy then I can't think of any inherent disadvantage he'd have over the others. If he's healthy, but perhaps not healthy enough to play every day, could a case be made that he could still be fine in the backup role with the Sox? Assuming he can hit and field the position adequately, the Sox don't need a guy that is going to play all that often. Again, this is contingent on him showing he's healthy enough to contribute 1-2 times per week.

QUOTE (danman31 @ Feb 28, 2009 -> 06:31 PM) The earliest classes in college start at 8am. The longest non-lab class periods are 75 minutes. I had 90 minutes classes in high school with the block schedule, but it would have been impossible to have earlier classes and stay later. I was in sports broadcasting in high school and sometimes the out of school hours would consume an entire day. I would get done at 9 or 10 and go to bed not long after and still be sleep deprived having to wake up at 7am. The problem isn't the amount of hours, or the length of the school year. My high school was one of the highest rated in the state, mostly because the parents had money (but that's a different argument), and I feel confident in the quality of my education there. Compared to what a bunch of the other kids at school with me now had coming into college, I had a huge leg up. Like maggs said, if the teachers are good you will learn more and be prepared for college. Also, did he think about the kids in poorer economic situations that have to work to get by and the summer is their chance to make more money? These things may be true at your college, but they are not everywhere. I've taught classes starting earlier than 8am and classes as long as 2-1/2 hours (granted, only once per week). From a teaching perspective, 50 minute classes (at least at the college level as I've never taught high school) are virtually worthless. There's so little time to do anything that really helps learning (no activities, exercise, good case discussions, etc.). 75 minute classes are better; 2-1/2 hour classes are too long (especially starting at 7:30am or 7:30pm) when most people are already tired. While the "extend the school day" argument is interesting, I'd still rather see the school year extended if forced to choose between longer days and longer years. Of course, something will have to be done with teachers as well. At many schools (at least the high school teachers I know), they are already working extremely long hours during the school year and spend much of the summer lesson planning, revising curriculum, etc. It's not that much of a break for many teachers.