MiddleCoastBias

I like how today's game has progressed, the 'doom and gloom' has become more evident. We're coming back to win this in the 9th and we're going 6-4 in the next 10!

I picked 6-4. I feel like we're definitely going to win the Boston series, maybe sweep. They've been playing pretty poorly lately, pitching has been off. I expect the Yanks to continue their tear, and the Twinks seem pretty confused. Optimistically, 7-3 if we get the sweep in Boston.

QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Aug 19, 2009 -> 12:05 AM) This loss sucked. I really believed in this team. Loss after loss I'd think "they'll turn it around soon ." Seems no matter who we put out there it's the same results night after night. It's not any different with Rios and it won't be any different with Peavy. Did someone just kick your dog?

Holy unbelievable s***, Batman! Liney did it again!

We have had a couple key players that have been underperforming or injured, namely: Q, Ramirez (defensively), Gavin (early). Unlike last year, we haven't had the other guys pick up the weight and shine will some are underforming. Last Paulie was playing poorly for the majority of the year but we had Q and Alexei to pick up the bats, as well as the unexpected from Gavin and Danks. This year we've had a good season out of Getz and Nix, and obviously the addition of Gordo has been huge to our lineup. Overall, I'd say we're underperforming, but only a little. We came into this season not expecting much (remember, started a lot of young guys and also had Fields and Owens in the lineup). It's taken awhile but we've turned it around. Most teams will have guys they depend on have an off month or year, and they need others to step up and fill the void. Last year we had those guys step up, this year has been a little less overall.

I've been a fan of calling Buehrle "Bailey" ever since that Cowley article came out last year. http://www.prosportsdaily.com/comments/wel...08-01-2008.html ''I kill you, Gif-fey, like I kill Bailey'' -- yes, Juan still thinks Mark Buehrle's name is Bailey -- Uribe says, then walks away.

QUOTE (GO CHI SOX! @ Aug 15, 2009 -> 02:26 PM) It will be on the score today. So at least we can listen in. Not online. I believe MLB blocks out Score's streaming broadcast; every time I try to listen online through that link provided earlier, they replay old B&B interviews during the game time. You have to have a subscription to mlb.tv to get the radio feed streaming, and at that point you might as well just watch the HD video feed with your subscription.

QUOTE (SockMe @ Aug 15, 2009 -> 01:44 PM) NO TV? this is bogus. I hate just watching the gamecast Haha I find sick pleasure in knowing that everyone has to share the same pain as the rest of us out-of-marketers and watch the gametracker. Actually, it's still depressing, I'd rather just watch the game.

Hip hop hooray

QUOTE (son of a rude @ Aug 15, 2009 -> 01:23 AM) I bet he likes spaghetti and is in the mob too I lived with an Italian for a summer that was a walking, talking stereotype... Male model, semi-pro soccer player, family owns and lives on a vineyard, and his uncle owns a pizza parlor.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 14, 2009 -> 02:00 PM) So... in the face of all the huge number of scientists, NASA, and everyone else saying that it happened... your evidence against it is an uncited source on an obsessed guy's website about a supposed NASA astrophysicist? It doesn't bother you that there is no name, no citation, no quote, not anything like that? Let me reiterate my position from my first post... I do not take all of this as fact. I just said that I looked around at some websites and the counter evidence was intriguing and worth a second thought. It's an interesting topic to discuss. When I read a story I do not need a citation to find it interesting. I'm not going to write to NASA and demand they release the 'hidden' story. This is just something I stumbled upon and found intriguing, and I wished to share with others.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 14, 2009 -> 01:44 PM) I searched that entire site for "NASA", looked at the areas around it, and saw no citations of any NASA scientists, at all, saying what you are saying. My search must not have worked right. Can you quote this supposed passage? In the section of the 33 things towards the bottom of the site

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 14, 2009 -> 01:35 PM) Where have you seen that cited? It was in the site I provided above. Lot's of garbage to get through, yes, but there is some science provided on that site.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 14, 2009 -> 12:29 PM) There's a number of fairly simple debunkings of these supposed errors. Seriously, there is zero chance it was a hoax. We have the samples They're very cool. Unlike anything you would have expected had you not gone there. It taught us a ton that we wouldn't have known otherwise. We actually have images of the rover tracks from a recent orbiter. You can see where the things drove. The video/image anomalies are fairly easily explained. Given your history of very thorough rebuttals, I must say that was a little weak, with all due respect. I'm not claiming that I buy into it, but it's interesting listening to the other side's point of view. For instance, I don't doubt we've had landers on the moon; these rovers could easily have made those tracks and claimed they were from the original landers. And like I said, the image anomalies don't concern me, I don't really buy into those... It's the fact that many current and past NASA scientists say that landing a man on the moon and getting him back is a feat unattainable by our current technology, given the radiation problems, etc.

http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html So I've never really questioned the Apollo moon landings, and I've always laughed at my friends that say that it was faked. I've always accepted that it was real like a good American. Last night I decided to do a quick google search to see what everyone was talking about (always good to know what you're detractors are talking about). Well, after reading this and other sites, I'm pretty upset with myself because I've started questioning the truth of the whole thing. The pictures and videos being 'faked' aside (I still don't really buy that but whatever), the science of it the whole trip and the fact that we haven't been back since (and many saying we're still many years away from returning) has shaken my faith. I almost feel like I just found out Santa isn't real. I've always been a proponent of learning both sides of an argument and deciding on the best, and now that I've seen some of this I'm upset that I have. I really want the lunar landing to be real, and if it turns out that it wasn't, well, damn. I understand there are always conspiracies about contentious events and I never really believe them. People always have explanations for this or against that, and that's good and great because that's why it remains a conspiracy and not fact. I know the page is long (and ignore the fact that the website is called ufos-aliens, or that it's written by those bloody brits), but it's an interesting read, especially the 33 items at the bottom of the page. Share your thoughts, call me unAmerican, I just thought it was an interesting read. http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html

Agreed. I'm in.

QUOTE (knightni @ Aug 13, 2009 -> 07:43 PM) Commitment to the leagues is important; so, if any of you can't spend 1 hour a week at minimum to adjust your roster, let me know and I won't include you in the PMs. Don't worry about that; I'm a recent college grad with no job, no future, and no life haha

QUOTE (knightni @ Aug 13, 2009 -> 05:09 PM) The signup deadline is the 15th. I will put together a mini-questionaire asking what people prefer and group leagues by that. Is there a formal sign-up or just a verbal commitment here? Should I be signed up through something else, or are you just collecting numbers of people in this thread so we can set up the league?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 13, 2009 -> 03:34 PM) Hopefully Ramirez too. His big problem is so completely mental/focus that it's totally something that can be fixed. I don't know, I've always felt like the mental problems are the hardest to fix. If he's playing at that level and he still has lapses in his focus, I think that's a serious personal problem that isn't going to fix with the flick of a switch. It's the same thing with people that don't hustle, like Andruw Jones. I feel like you make it seem like a quick-fix, something that can be easily corrected. Sure it sounds easy to correct (Ramirez- get your head out of your ass!) but it might be harder than that (and yes, I know I'm oversimplifying)

This is seriously still going on? Nice.

QUOTE (VAfan @ Aug 12, 2009 -> 02:26 PM) I've never thought of Buehrle as an ACE. And I don't think KW does either, which is why he went after a #1 in Jake Peavy. Heck, given a little more consistency, I think both Floyd and Danks could be #1s over Buehrle. What Buehrle has is a tremendous rhythm on the mound, which enables him to work his pitches up down in out and keep hitters off balance. I know this is early and off topic, but who do you give the opening day start next year? Peavy should be the selection of the #1, but I also feel like Mark Buehrle IS opening day baseball for the Sox.

I made the joke to KarkosThroatSkin awhile back... Bartolo and Jose both had a handful of awesome starts right after they were sent down, then they collapsed and needed to be sent down. I feel Freddie will be good for 3 starts and then blow. We just need to cycle them all through so that one of them is in the majors for 3 starts, send them down and bring up the next one. Problem solved, haha

Wow, this info kind of throws a wrench in many people's predictions for the lineups... Raines' thread about Getz as leadoff does not sit well according to this analysis. But then again, neither does Rios at leadoff which many have mused. Then again, the projected runs scored for the worst lineup is 5.159 runs per game while our lineups this season have averaged only 4.640

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Aug 12, 2009 -> 12:03 PM) I think Beckham+Q works out pitchers alot more than when Dye is in the 3-hole. I do like your lineup, and I agree Becks to Q is a good idea. I'm a proponent of moving JD down to 6 but leaving him in the lineup. Many people have been saying to sit Dye outright but I think he needs to stay in, just not in a key position to set up the rest of the lineup. Q has been hitting the ball hard the past couple series and would be a good hitter to follow Becks. As far as Rios and Getz go, I'm still up in the air as to having Getz leadoff. I understand his numbers are up as of late but we brought Rios in for a reason.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Aug 12, 2009 -> 10:29 AM) undoubtedly a "pad your post count" thread Weak, beaten again