Today in the Sun Times

[DrunkBomber]

There is a chronological timeline of AJs controversies through out his career. I may be wrong but I could swear when he pointed up in the sky after hitting a home run off Zambrano that it was after the whole fight with Barrett. It says it was before though, it almostt seems like they were trying to justify it.

 

May 21: Pierzynski homers and points to the sky in a gesture many viewed as mocking Cubs pitcher Carlos Zambrano, who has to be calmed down.

 

July 1: Pierzynski barrels into Cubs catcher Michael Barrett, who punches him in the jaw after the play. Major League Baseball fines Pierzynski for inciting the crowd after the play.

 

am I wrong about this or wasnt the fight before the Zambrano thing? Can anyone help me out here, thanks.

 

http://www.chicagosuntimes.com/output/sox/cst-spt-aj11.html

[Steff]

July 1 AJ runs into Barrett...?? Ummmm.. no. That happened at our house on the 19th. You are correct that AJ did the point after on May 21, though it was after he had crossed home plate.

[RockRaines]

Yeah, pretty much his timeline is off. Basically it was a slow day in sports.

[DrunkBomber]

Yeah, I was a little confused by this, especially because it wasnt written by Marriotti

[Gene Honda Civic]

It's wrong. Those two incedents happened about 24 hours apart. back in may.

[maggsmaggs]

The brawl was the saturday afternoon game on Fox, May 20th.

[Milkman delivers]

I love how everyone hates AJ.

[LVSoxFan]

The article wasn't dissing him, just trying to lay out why he's supposedly this controversial figure.

 

BTW anybody catch him on ESPN last night while Dye was up? Hilarious. He told them Dye was using a corked bat. LMAO.

[Steff]

The brawl was the saturday afternoon game on Fox, May 20th.

 

 

 

You're right. It wasn't the game Mark pitched and he pitched on Friday. My bad.

[Gregory Pratt]

The SunTimes should be embarrassed with themselves for making such basic errors.

[DrunkBomber]

The hate that people have for AJ seems to be so much different then hate for someone like bonds. He is a genious at getting underneath peoples skin. He can get opponents off their game. He isnt cheating or bashing people in the media. Im glad hes on our side.

[bdt91680]

Also, Zambrano started yelling at Pierzynski and Cora well before aj crossed home plate and pointed to the sky.

[CanOfCorn]

The hate that people have for AJ seems to be so much different then hate for someone like bonds. He is a genious at getting underneath peoples skin. He can get opponents off their game. He isnt cheating or bashing people in the media. Im glad hes on our side.

 

He is the classic guy that Chicago will embrace: Dennis Rodman, Bryan Cox, Albert Belle (although not to the same extent), guys who are a little crazy, but work their asses off.

[Drew]

This is funny. Is it me, or does everyone who has something bad to say about AJ sound like a crybaby?

 

June 18: Pierzynski slides hard into Reds second baseman Brandon Phillips, who says, ''I'll remember that the next time.''

 

That slide, where AJ slid late forced Phillips to make an errant throw, breaking up a double play and ended up meaning the game.

 

AJ is a gamer, and will do whatever it takes to win.

Edited July 12, 2006 by Drew

[Gregory Pratt]

This is funny. Is it me, or does everyone who has something bad to say about AJ sound like a crybaby?

That slide, where AJ slid late forced Phillips to make an errant throw, breaking up a double play and ended up meaning the game.

 

AJ is a gamer, and will do whatever it takes to win.

 

Without him sliding into Loretta Sunday against Boston on Cintron's should've-been double play ball, we'd have lost. And on that occasion, AJ visibly pushed Loretta while sliding into him.

 

I love that guy.

[BFirebird]

Without him sliding into Loretta Sunday against Boston on Cintron's should've-been double play ball, we'd have lost. And on that occasion, AJ visibly pushed Loretta while sliding into him.

 

I love that guy.

Yeah I didn't even notice that until they showed it on either SC or BBTN. HE should have been called for interference but got away with it. I am surprised Loretta didn't argue.

[Balta1701]

Yeah I didn't even notice that until they showed it on either SC or BBTN. HE should have been called for interference but got away with it. I am surprised Loretta didn't argue.

Loretta knows he'd do the exact same thing, and he's also smart enough to know he wouldn't want the guy called out on that exact same play. You've got to do something pretty obscene to get called for interference on a play like that, as it should be. AJ could still have reached 2nd on that slide if he wanted, that's good enough for me.

[Hangar18]

The article wasn't dissing him, just trying to lay out why he's supposedly this controversial figure.

 

BTW anybody catch him on ESPN last night while Dye was up? Hilarious. He told them Dye was using a corked bat. LMAO.

 

 

 

YES, but what everyone forgets, is that the SunTimes indeed covered that game first-hand.

They know what happened, getting the Timelines blatantly wrong is one thing, but continueing to act as if AJ pointing to the SKY is what got Zambozo hot is MISLEADING. Then again, we know why they continue to put out junk like this ............... simply to discredit the SOX and AJ. Why else would they continue this?

[Guest JimH]

Pierzynski is news, he is good copy and newspapers are gonna write about him. People like to read about him and actually if it's thought through in the proper context, it's publicity. Which is good for the Sox.

 

Zambrano got upset at three things ... one, he felt Pierzynski flipped the bat after the HR and stared at him (Zambrano). Two, he thought Pierzynski said something to him after rounding first base, and that's why he started yelling at Cora "Get control of your players blah blah".

 

And three ... when Pierzynski pointed to the sky after crossing home plate.

 

It doesn't take much to upset Zambrano but those were the three supposed "sins" Pierzynski commited.

 

And I totally agree the article isn't dissing Pierzynski or the White Sox in any manner.

Edited July 12, 2006 by JimH

[DrunkBomber]

I emailed the writer of the story yesterday and actualy got a response back:

 

That was a graphic put together by the graphics department. It was not in my story.

 

Thanks,

 

JC

 

This is a lillte rediculous, maybe I should write the graphics department. I mean, dont they have editors there. I know its not that big of a deal, but Im pretty sure they knew what they were doing.

[GoRowand33]

I emailed the writer of the story yesterday and actualy got a response back:

 

That was a graphic put together by the graphics department. It was not in my story.

 

Thanks,

 

JC

 

This is a lillte rediculous, maybe I should write the graphics department. I mean, dont they have editors there. I know its not that big of a deal, but Im pretty sure they knew what they were doing.

 

I got the same response from him

[Hangar18]

I got the same response from him

 

 

Some of the other excuses they use (both papers) is:

1. I dont write the headlines, someone else does

2. Editor chooses which stories I should write, not me

3. Editor chooses which teams I should write about, not me

4. I dont write the stories, only the headlines

5. Editor is in charge of overall content, not me

6. I dont edit my stories, our copy editors do that

[DrunkBomber]

I hate the Sun Times.

[fullcollapse]

Some of the other excuses they use (both papers) is:

1. I dont write the headlines, someone else does

2. Editor chooses which stories I should write, not me

3. Editor chooses which teams I should write about, not me

4. I dont write the stories, only the headlines

5. Editor is in charge of overall content, not me

6. I dont edit my stories, our copy editors do that

my wife works for the local paper here in south dakota, and 1,2,5 and 6 are true. she is not a sports writer, but these same rules apply to every department. basically she is assigned a story, submits it, and the editor moves parts around or takes parts out for whatever reasons. not completley defending them, just saying that writers don't always have complete control of their stories.

Edited July 13, 2006 by fullcollapse

[DrunkBomber]

The thing about this was that the facts were mixed up. I dont care that they wrote a story about AJs controversies at all. I found it interesting. It just bothers me that no one at the sun times caught the fact that the dates in the timeline were mixed up...actually, they werent even mixed up, they were completely made up. They said something happened way after it really did.