Ozzie Throwing in the Towel... on Himself?

[elrockinMT]

And for the argument that he wouldn't be available tonight: I think avoiding the sweep against your main AL Central rival is more important than a possible save opportunity in the first game of a 4 game series against Toronto.

 

 

That's why you have more than one relief pitcher in the pen. I do remember Ozzie saying that Jenks was his man, but he wouldn't be afraid to use someone else in a closing situation if needed.

[29thandPoplar]

QUOTE(fathom @ May 31, 2007 -> 02:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And for the argument that he wouldn't be available tonight: I think avoiding the sweep against your main AL Central rival is more important than a possible save opportunity in the first game of a 4 game series against Toronto.

 

Yeah well you avoid the sweep if:

 

- he gets Hunter out in a nonsave situation where he typically performs poorly, AND

- the White Sox get a hit against MN relief pitching which they hadn't in the previous 6 ings. AND

- that hit(s) turned into a run AND

- whatever pitcher (Jenks or otherwise) needing to hold the Twins down in the next inning does his job.

 

That would be 4 things that needed to go right for the White Sox in a game when after the 3rd inning they couldn't do anything right. Saying avoid the sweep is a little more complex than you make it sound, just saying.

[witesoxfan]

Because there are players on this team that are above average, many of them. 80% of this team is underachieving. I think they ran out of gas last year......kind of like the Tigers are looking right now. You and many other people on this site need to stop looking at the last half of last season. If you are going to look at last year, look at the whole year not the second half and then the first part of this season. They won over 90 games last year. Will they this year.....who knows but the Tigers are within reach and as bad as the Sox have played they are still in it. For god sake it is May31st can they go on a run like the 06 Twins, 05 Indians, 02 Marlins, 83 Sox......I don't know but I am not going to say that because they have played average baseball over a span that is irrelevant that they are done. I will rather say this team hasn't played nearly as well as they can. Facing Halladay and Burnett will not be easy but they have to be better at wha they do and go from there.

 

Do you think them running out of gas had anything to do with their age? Or their underachieving this year?

 

The average age for the starting lineup this year was 31.3. That is super freakin old. Joe Crede and Juan Uribe are the only players under 30 in the lineup, and both of those two have been starting since 2003 (or in Juan's case, 2002 along with half the games in 2003).

 

I really don't believe this team is underachieving anymore, I just really believe they have gotten that old and slow. KW was stressing pitching this past offseason, but this next offseason he needs to be looking at getting younger, faster, and more athletic all around.

[jackie hayes]

Yeah well you avoid the sweep if:

 

- he gets Hunter out in a nonsave situation where he typically performs poorly, AND

- the White Sox get a hit against MN relief pitching which they hadn't in the previous 6 ings. AND

- that hit(s) turned into a run AND

- whatever pitcher (Jenks or otherwise) needing to hold the Twins down in the next inning does his job.

 

That would be 4 things that needed to go right for the White Sox in a game when after the 3rd inning they couldn't do anything right. Saying avoid the sweep is a little more complex than you make it sound, just saying.

Bs. You just break it down into enough steps to make it sound "complex". The Sox needed to get one out, then have a better inning before the Twins did. Certainly not "complex", and if that's really only remotely possible, then this team is truly hopeless.

[caulfield12]

Bs. You just break it down into enough steps to make it sound "complex". The Sox needed to get one out, then have a better inning before the Twins did. Certainly not "complex", and if that's really only remotely possible, then this team is truly hopeless.

 

 

We probably would have faced Nathan again, as he only threw a handful of pitches.

 

Impossible? Well, Iguchi almost got to him and Konerko had a huge homer (if I'm recalling correctly) to tie a game against Minnesota off Joe as well, or maybe it was Dye, but one of those two.

[Balta1701]

We probably would have faced Nathan again, as he only threw a handful of pitches.

 

Impossible? Well, Iguchi almost got to him and Konerko had a huge homer (if I'm recalling correctly) to tie a game against Minnesota off Joe as well, or maybe it was Dye, but one of those two.

It was JD. Last season. 2 out in the 9th, back in August. Tied the game. It was only the 2nd home run Nathan had ever given up to a Sox player, and it was the first time he'd ever blown a save against the Sox.

 

The Sox then continued listless, uninspired play, and wound up losing in 12 IIRC.

 

At the time, I proclaimed it the single worst loss I had see for the Sox since the game Loaiza started in the Metrodome late in 03 when he had the flu, and I still stand by that assessment. Heartbreaking.

[29thandPoplar]

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ May 31, 2007 -> 04:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bs. You just break it down into enough steps to make it sound "complex". The Sox needed to get one out, then have a better inning before the Twins did. Certainly not "complex", and if that's really only remotely possible, then this team is truly hopeless.

 

BS right back at ya.

 

It's four things that had to go right. How many went right for the White Sox yesterday. Not many, especially after the 3rd inning. Maybe you just can't understand how "complex" their inability to do things right were during that game. I watched it.

[WCSox]

For the short time I have been here and again this is a really nice site I do not see that many people blindly sticking up for Guillen, but what I do see are posters like rockraines and a few others who fire back at some posters who tend to blame the mgr for everything. To me those Sox fan posters are asking for the blame to be spread more evenly and specifically more on the players since they are the ones screwing up.

 

What I am seeing is a lot of posters here hate Guillen and it is a snowball going downhill as others jump on board with the people who post the most and every time the White Sox lose it is due in small part or mostly large part to some mess up, in their minds, by Guillen. And then they point their fingers and say see I told you our manager is a thisandthat or a soandso.

 

 

The Ozzie Hatred Hysteria on this board would be laughable if it weren't so sad.

 

No doubt that Ozzie makes questionable decisions at times, but he isn't the one hitting .210 or giving up four- or five-run innings on the mound. But notice that in his recent comments to the media, he's putting the blame on himself for not getting more out of this overwhelmingly veteran and overwhelmingly under-achieving group. He throws himself under the bus and protects his players, who in reality deserve 99% of the blame.

[whitesoxfan101]

Yeah well you avoid the sweep if:

 

- he gets Hunter out in a nonsave situation where he typically performs poorly

 

Well that's true. Jenks only threw a scoreless inning in a non save spot to get us a win his last outing, and pitched a scorless 9th in his 3rd most recent outing, also a non save spot, just as it was on opening day when he threw a scoreless inning. If your going to make an argument, at least have good facts.

Edited May 31, 2007 by whitesoxfan101

[29thandPoplar]

QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ May 31, 2007 -> 06:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well that's true. Jenks only threw a scoreless inning in a non save spot to get us a win his last outing, and pitched a scorless 9th in his 3rd most recent outing, also a non save spot, just as it was on opening day when he threw a scoreless inning. If your going to make an argument, at least have good facts.

 

If "your" going to have comebacks at least be aware he has had lots of problems in those non save situations and also it is very possible that he could have been rusty. But then again maybe "your" not aware of those subtleties.

 

There is a game on tonite, yesterday is gone, there will be something for you to find wrong with Ozzie in this game, I'm sure of it.

 

I see that all of the Ozzie haters like yourself apparantly have issues with people who have an opposing viewpoint and can back it up. I agree with WCSox that he does make mistakes but I also feel some of the criticism of his moves are knee jerk reactions by people who either don't have all the info, haven't considered all the possibilities, or maybe just maybe don't know the game all that well.

[fathom]

If "your" going to have comebacks at least be aware he has had lots of problems in those non save situations and also it is very possible that he could have been rusty. But then again maybe "your" not aware of those subtleties.

 

There is a game on tonite, yesterday is gone, there will be something for you to find wrong with Ozzie in this game, I'm sure of it.

 

I see that all of the Ozzie haters like yourself apparantly have issues with people who have an opposing viewpoint and can back it up. I agree with WCSox that he does make mistakes but I also feel some of the criticism of his moves are knee jerk reactions by people who either don't have all the info, haven't considered all the possibilities, or maybe just maybe don't know the game all that well.

 

First, this is a poorly coached team. Even if it's the players messing up, the coach needs to take responsiblity. Second, please stop saying Jenks was rusty. HE PITCHED ON FRIDAY!!!!!!!!!

[jackie hayes]

BS right back at ya.

 

It's four things that had to go right. How many went right for the White Sox yesterday. Not many, especially after the 3rd inning. Maybe you just can't understand how "complex" their inability to do things right were during that game. I watched it.

This is absurd. Your argument is that the team isn't doing things right, anyway, we really had only an infinitesimal chance of winning. Hell, we haven't been doing things right for weeks -- why even show up?

 

Lord, it's only the 'negative' posters that believe this Sox team might possibly score more in one inning than the mighty bottom-of-the-order Twins. An interesting twist.

 

But, then, you "watched it." Now there you have us all beat. I am duly amazed by your ability to sit in front of a television.

[GoodAsGould]

I dont know if Ozzie is "throwing the towel in" but i am after tonight, just totally have had enough of this team. Right now I give us the same chance I give the Texas Rangers or the Tampa Ray Devil Rays to make the playoffs. Of course ill still watch games because no matter how bad I love the whitesox.. but this team just makes me , what happened to the puke smiley.

[WCSox]

I see that all of the Ozzie haters like yourself apparantly have issues with people who have an opposing viewpoint and can back it up. I agree with WCSox that he does make mistakes but I also feel some of the criticism of his moves are knee jerk reactions by people who either don't have all the info, haven't considered all the possibilities, or maybe just maybe don't know the game all that well.

 

Nah, they're right. Ozzie's a terrible manager, as evidenced by his WS title, two 90-win seasons, and ZERO losing seasons in just 3+ years.

 

Ozzie may not be Tony LaRussa or Bobby Cox (or even Mike Scioscia), but I'd wait for a losing season or two before declaring that he's awful and should be run out of town.

[29thandPoplar]

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ May 31, 2007 -> 07:22 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is absurd. Your argument is that the team isn't doing things right, anyway, we really had only an infinitesimal chance of winning. Hell, we haven't been doing things right for weeks -- why even show up?

 

Lord, it's only the 'negative' posters that believe this Sox team might possibly score more in one inning than the mighty bottom-of-the-order Twins. An interesting twist.

 

But, then, you "watched it." Now there you have us all beat. I am duly amazed by your ability to sit in front of a television.

 

Hey guy/gal or whatever you are,

 

When you start throwing out terms like "BS" you can expect to get it right back. Do you want to talk baseball or do you want to be a smart guy/gal or whatever you are. Because if it's the latter you have a long way to go. Yes I did watch it and apparantly retained and observed more than you did. My amazement is returned in that you had the ability to type and string together a sentence or two.

 

Now if you want to talk baseball thats great because when I'm here I'm here to do that. Otherwise I think we can agree that the ignore function is an amazing invention and not "BS".

 

QUOTE(fathom @ May 31, 2007 -> 06:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

First, this is a poorly coached team. Even if it's the players messing up, the coach needs to take responsiblity. Second, please stop saying Jenks was rusty. HE PITCHED ON FRIDAY!!!!!!!!!

 

Yes, one inning in a week, encompassing 6 games. See I can spin things the way I see fit just as you do.

 

I am sorry if I am bringing out the capital letters retorts from you as I certainly don't mean to do that, it appears I have upset you by raining on the negativity parade. I thought this board was for expressing viewpoints, some of which may differ from those who I guess are on here every day with 30k posts saying mostly the same things. If you tell me to please stop saying something that's fine and I appreciate the courtesy of you at least saying please. In return I will have probably about two dozen things I will please ask you to stop saying, whether in capital letters or small case.

[fathom]

I am sorry if I am bringing out the capital letters retorts from you as I certainly don't mean to do that, it appears I have upset you by raining on the negativity parade. I thought this board was for expressing viewpoints, some of which may differ from those who I guess are on here every day with 30k posts saying mostly the same things. If you tell me to please stop saying something that's fine and I appreciate the courtesy of you at least saying please. In return I will have probably about two dozen things I will please ask you to stop saying, whether in capital letters or small case.

 

Weren't you the one who said Jenks hadn't pitched in 9 days? Well, his last save appearance was then, but he had the 9th inning against Tampa on Friday. How come I have the feeling that if he had pitched 3 times in the last 6 games, you'd be praising Ozzie for not overusing him. I'll be happy to listen to anything you want me to stop staying, as long as it's an actual fact.

[witesoxfan]

Nah, they're right. Ozzie's a terrible manager, as evidenced by his WS title, two 90-win seasons, and ZERO losing seasons in just 3+ years.

 

Ozzie may not be Tony LaRussa or Bobby Cox (or even Mike Scioscia), but I'd wait for a losing season or two before declaring that he's awful and should be run out of town.

 

Just curious, does the name Bob Brenly have any meaning to you at all?

 

2001 - 92-70, WS title

2002 - 98-64, division title

2003 - 84-78, 3rd place

2004 - 29-50, last place, fired midseason

 

and since that time period, I don't recall ever hearing his name mentioned for potential managing situations. He instead now sits in the Cubs booth.

 

but your criteria - his WS title, two 90-win seasons, and ZERO losing seasons in just 3+ years - fits Brenly absolutely perfectly, and he was not a good manager.

[29thandPoplar]

QUOTE(fathom @ Jun 1, 2007 -> 01:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Weren't you the one who said Jenks hadn't pitched in 9 days? Well, his last save appearance was then, but he had the 9th inning against Tampa on Friday. How come I have the feeling that if he had pitched 3 times in the last 6 games, you'd be praising Ozzie for not overusing him. I'll be happy to listen to anything you want me to stop staying, as long as it's an actual fact.

 

Well at least you're off the capital letters you must have calmed down and thats good.

 

Yes in fact I will ask you to stop ranting about practically everythng being Guillens fault. He makes mistakes but it is painfully obvious that because you dont like the mgr practically everything falls on him. Also you can please stop saying F--- this team and F--- Guillen and F--- Williams, you're embarassing yourself. Do you ever go back and read your comments in the game threads as it is one whine after the next. Believe me I have already learned in a short time the game threads are not a good place to talk much baseball, it is a lame sarcasm pit and last nite it was pile on Erstad nite and thank you for the administrator intervention. And you are the leader of the band, not on the Erstad nonsense but if a message board is a place for you to vent your spleen on a daily basis please for your mental health stop.

 

Also please stop saying I would praise Guillen for overusing Jenks because you dont know. Jenks is a closer, that is not to say he will never or never should be used in a nonsave situation but he has had trouble with those situations. Im sure now you will throw out stats to show me he hasn't but surely you realize with 30k posts that baseball is more than numbers. Also it appears it is necessary for you to try and divide posters into two camps, one if they don't fall in lock step with your daily over-the-top criticisms of the mgr then they are not in your pessimist camp and if they do its "we". If you could please stop doing that itd be great.

 

Also will you please begin to realize the mgr will put guys on the field in certain situations to test them. I realize every loss is important due to Cleve. and Det. but the mgr will give guys opportunities and he will test guys. So far many are failing the test but can you please realize he will do it again and understand the viewpoint that the org. is seeing what these guys are made of and can they grow into roles. Yes the bullpen sucks but it is young and to borrow your phrase arent you the one who said you want a mgr with more patience for young players.

 

Were you one of the Sox fans who complained last year about using Jenks in nonsave sitautions, if you weren't I certainly apologize but since you snipe about everything else it is somewhat logical to make that conclusion. Again if not then my bad.

 

Believe me I am not blind to whats wrong with this team as I have watched closely for a while now and some changes need to be made, not much more to say on that.

 

I also realize you are a sr. member of this board and with almost 30k posts it is prob. naive for me to ask you to stop doing things or saying things. However being from Bridgeport we call a spade a spade as the old card players used to say. If you cannot step outside of yourself and see at least some of what Im saying has merit then i certainly understand and I will learn how to use the ignore function.

[WCSox]

Just curious, does the name Bob Brenly have any meaning to you at all?

 

2001 - 92-70, WS title

2002 - 98-64, division title

2003 - 84-78, 3rd place

2004 - 29-50, last place, fired midseason

 

Yep, after they lost Schilling, Luis Gonzalez fell apart, and Mark Grace retired. What a shocker!

 

and since that time period, I don't recall ever hearing his name mentioned for potential managing situations. He instead now sits in the Cubs booth.

 

Funny, Buck Showalter HAS managed since Brenly took his job (and won a championship with Showalter's team). What was your point again?

 

but your criteria - his WS title, two 90-win seasons, and ZERO losing seasons in just 3+ years - fits Brenly absolutely perfectly, and he was not a good manager.

 

Well, that's nice, but Brenly succeeded in doing something that most managers haven't, so it doesn't make him a crappy manager either. FWIW, I'll take Brenly over Jerry Manuel, Terry Bevington, Gene Lamont, Jeff Torborg, and most of the other ex-Sox managers who failed to win a pennant. Knee-jerk reactions aside, it's pretty difficult to argue with Ozzie's results thus far. He averaged 91 wins in his first three seasons. Don't you think that it might be a good idea to at least wait until that average drops into the 80s before calling for his head?

 

But if you want to to believe that it's Ozzie's fault that prolific veterans like Konerko and Dye aren't hitting or that it's Ozzie's fault that MacDougal and Aardsma have been blowing leads left and right, go right ahead.

Edited June 1, 2007 by WCSox

[witesoxfan]

Yep, after they lost Schilling, Luis Gonzalez fell apart, and Mark Grace retired. What a shocker!

 

And so talent plays an aspect, which Ozzie has very little to do with. Interesting concept.

 

Add to the fact that he had the league's best pitching staff in 2005, a year in which it overproduced, and then he had one of the league's best offenses last year that he poorly manipulated by having Podsednik leading off for all but 18 of his PA's, and you get your two 90+ win seasons pretty easily.

 

Seeing as how the talent just doesn't seem to be there anymore, now what?

 

Seems I'm every bit as wrong as calling a bad manager as you are calling him a good manager, when really, a manager is only ever as good as the players he has.

 

Funny, Buck Showalter HAS managed since Brenley took his job (and won a championship with Showalter's team). What was your point again?

 

My point was that you like to twist words to form exactly what you want them to mean.

 

Well, that's nice, but Brenley succeeded in doing something that most managers haven't, so it doesn't make him a crappy manager either. FWIW, I'll take Brenely over Jerry Manuel, Terry Bevington, Gene Lamont, and most of the other ex-Sox managers who failed to win a pennant. Knee-jerk reactions aside, it's pretty difficult to argue with Ozzie's results thus far.

 

But if you want to to believe that it's Ozzie's fault that prolific veterans like Konerko and Dye aren't hitting or that it's Ozzie's fault that MacDougal and Aardsma have been blowing leads left and right, go right ahead.

 

I've never seen Lamont manage, so I'm a little in the blind, but from what I can tell, I'll take him over Brenly. He didn't win in Pittsburgh, but no one's won in Pittsburgh since Clinton's first term as President. Manuel I might; he couldn't inspire a fly to eat a piece of s***, but he knows baseball pretty well and is a damn fine bench coach for Willie Randolph in New York. That's more of a coin flip. Bevington was just an idiot.

 

It's difficult to argue with Ozzie's results, but it's not difficult to realize the talent he's had. Point friggin blank, a manager's effect on a team is probably 10 games, 15 at most, and if he has the talent to win 70 games, the most he can do is bring that team to .500; if he has the talent to win 120 games, the worst he can do is win 105. With Ozzie, it seems his teams have found a way to lose close games over the past year and a half, and that does have to do with how he manages a bullpen, a lineup, a bench, and a defensive alignment. He doesn't make Aardsma and MacDougal terrible, but he can put them in terrible spots. He's done it several times before, and I'm sure he'll do it again.

 

This argument grows so tiresome; I'm really just tired of seeing grinders. I want to see a talented team up and down the 25 man, and it's probably going to be atleast 2009-10 before that happens.

[WCSox]

And so talent plays an aspect, which Ozzie has very little to do with. Interesting concept.

 

Add to the fact that he had the league's best pitching staff in 2005, a year in which it overproduced, and then he had one of the league's best offenses last year that he poorly manipulated by having Podsednik leading off for all but 18 of his PA's, and you get your two 90+ win seasons pretty easily.

 

It's not "easy" to get a 90-win season with the below-average pitching that the '06 Sox did. If you don't believe me, look at the Jerry Manuel teams. All of the power in the world got them ONE division win (and an 0-3 playoff record) in six years.

 

Seems I'm every bit as wrong as calling a bad manager as you are calling him a good manager, when really, a manager is only ever as good as the players he has.

 

I'd say that Ozzie got a lot out of a not-that-great 2005 offense by making them manufacture runs. I didn't see that approach in the Jerry Manuel or Terry Bevington eras. Ozzie also had to replace his future-HOF DH with a washed-up Carl Everett and they were on their third closer going into the playoffs (a 270 lb. rookie with a drinking problem). Pure talent carried that team to a LARGE extent, but I'd say that Ozzie deserved at least A LITTLE credit. As I'll point out in a minute, lesser managers have failed with similar talent.

My point was that you like to twist words to form exactly what you want them to mean.

I've never seen Lamont manage, so I'm a little in the blind, but from what I can tell, I'll take him over Brenly. He didn't win in Pittsburgh, but no one's won in Pittsburgh since Clinton's first term as President.

 

Then you've probably forgotten that Lamont had the best pitching staff in the AL in '93 (Blackjack, Fernandez, Alvarez, Bere, Thigpen, Hernandez, etc.), not to mention an MVP-caliber Frank, Robin Ventura, Ellis Burks, and Lance Johnson, and a very solid defensive infield... and they BLEW IT in the ALCS!

 

Manuel I might; he couldn't inspire a fly to eat a piece of s***, but he knows baseball pretty well and is a damn fine bench coach for Willie Randolph in New York. That's more of a coin flip. Bevington was just an idiot.

 

Finally, we agree on something.

 

It's difficult to argue with Ozzie's results, but it's not difficult to realize the talent he's had.

 

Gene Lamont, Jeff Torborg, Tony LaRussa, and Al Lopez had similar talent and none of them won a ring. And I'd argue that the latter two are/were much better managers than Ozzie.

 

With Ozzie, it seems his teams have found a way to lose close games over the past year and a half, and that does have to do with how he manages a bullpen, a lineup, a bench, and a defensive alignment. He doesn't make Aardsma and MacDougal terrible, but he can put them in terrible spots.

 

How is Ozzie putting MacDougal and Aardsma in bad spots? Is MacDougal (a former closer) suddenly incapable of being a setup man now? He seemed to be pretty freaking good at it last year (1.55 ERA).

 

I want to see a talented team up and down the 25 man, and it's probably going to be atleast 2009-10 before that happens.

 

If that. A big part of managing/coaching is being able to go all the way when you catch lightning in a bottle. Ozzie was able to do that two years ago. I can't say the same for some of his predecessors.

[jackie hayes]

Hey guy/gal or whatever you are,

 

When you start throwing out terms like "BS" you can expect to get it right back. Do you want to talk baseball or do you want to be a smart guy/gal or whatever you are. Because if it's the latter you have a long way to go. Yes I did watch it and apparantly retained and observed more than you did. My amazement is returned in that you had the ability to type and string together a sentence or two.

 

Now if you want to talk baseball thats great because when I'm here I'm here to do that. Otherwise I think we can agree that the ignore function is an amazing invention and not "BS".

 

For the record, I was saying that your post was bulls***. Which it was -- everyone who's going to seek out this site knows how a game that's tied in the ninth can be won. It's actually pretty basic stuff to most of us. The idea that it's a complex sequence of impossible events is, well, bulls***.

 

I did respond sarcastically to a boast (that you watched the game -- my!). I'm sorry you took this so hard, but honestly, I never really doubted that your remote was functioning properly. Then this, which said nothing of substance (bravo!), but oddly implied that I must be too stupid to compose sentences. (In my experience, this works better if the accuser can actually, say, write better sentences. Maybe you have found otherwise; who am I to say?) Which is fine. Look, you're not the first pedantic nitwit this site has seen. I wish you as much luck as the rest.

 

I invite you to continue your deep investigation into the deep complexities of how baseball games tied in the ninth can be won and rest on your laurels as an accomplished Watcher Of TV. By the way, once you've completed your study, I suggest you investigate the irreducible complexities of how a batter can reach second. There are so many possibilities that it'll BLOW YOUR f***ING MIND. When you've figured it out, let me know. I'll be watching the game by listening to the call through a tin can phone and drawing the action in the dirt outside my hut.

[greg775]

Ozzie is Ozzie. It seems to me you love him or hate him.

Put me in the love category.

It's our talent that has sucked.

When is Moronottti gonna write his first Lou Piniella bash column.

A fight in the dugout??? That's on the manager folks.

And if he rips Lou find that column in the Sox series where Lou was proclaimed

a god.

[29thandPoplar]

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Jun 1, 2007 -> 03:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

For the record, I was saying that your post was bulls***. Which it was -- everyone who's going to seek out this site knows how a game that's tied in the ninth can be won. It's actually pretty basic stuff to most of us. The idea that it's a complex sequence of impossible events is, well, bulls***.

 

I did respond sarcastically to a boast (that you watched the game -- my!). I'm sorry you took this so hard, but honestly, I never really doubted that your remote was functioning properly. Then this, which said nothing of substance (bravo!), but oddly implied that I must be too stupid to compose sentences. (In my experience, this works better if the accuser can actually, say, write better sentences. Maybe you have found otherwise; who am I to say?) Which is fine. Look, you're not the first pedantic nitwit this site has seen. I wish you as much luck as the rest.

 

I invite you to continue your deep investigation into the deep complexities of how baseball games tied in the ninth can be won and rest on your laurels as an accomplished Watcher Of TV. By the way, once you've completed your study, I suggest you investigate the irreducible complexities of how a batter can reach second. There are so many possibilities that it'll BLOW YOUR f***ING MIND. When you've figured it out, let me know. I'll be watching the game by listening to the call through a tin can phone and drawing the action in the dirt outside my hut.

 

Wow, big words and everything.

 

Your mommy must be very proud. Looks like I've figured you out, I suspect the rest of the world has too.

 

You left the hut too soon, it's better to evolve first.