KipWellsFan Posted July 20, 2003 Share Posted July 20, 2003 From a no-hitter. The White Sox are doing a great job of keeping up yesterday's success. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonkeyKongerko Posted July 20, 2003 Share Posted July 20, 2003 I hope he throws the no-hitter. I'm sick of this team making excuses. This guy shouldn't be throwing no-hitters and if he no-hits the Sox it will show how pathetic this team's offense has become. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoxFanForever Posted July 20, 2003 Share Posted July 20, 2003 Haha, I just made the same post. Guess we are all thinking the same thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KipWellsFan Posted July 20, 2003 Author Share Posted July 20, 2003 Maggs pop out 8 away Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KipWellsFan Posted July 20, 2003 Author Share Posted July 20, 2003 Everett flies out 7 left Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clujer420 Posted July 20, 2003 Share Posted July 20, 2003 Cancel the post-game show. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerbaho-WG Posted July 20, 2003 Share Posted July 20, 2003 Thank you Paul Konerko, you do not suck anymore! Well, at least the Sox can't hit into a double-play now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwsox Posted July 20, 2003 Share Posted July 20, 2003 I hope he throws the no-hitter. I'm sick of this team making excuses. This guy shouldn't be throwing no-hitters and if he no-hits the Sox it will show how pathetic this team's offense has become. The no hitter is over but I can never accept a no hitter against us, let alone wish for one. What will that prove in real life? Jack Morris is calling the game on Tiger tv and that reminds me of his no hitter against us obviously. Do you think one single damned thing was changed after we were no hit then? So show how patrhetic we are will change what? We are down 2-0. I'd much prefer to win the game than lose a no hitter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CubKilla Posted July 20, 2003 Share Posted July 20, 2003 The no hitter is over but I can never accept a no hitter against us, let alone wish for one. What will that prove in real life? That JR, KW, JM, and this team SUCKS! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwsox Posted July 20, 2003 Share Posted July 20, 2003 You need to be told that? I'd still rather win than be the victim of a no hitter and believe what I wish anyway! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bmr31 Posted July 20, 2003 Share Posted July 20, 2003 You need to be told that? I'd still rather win than be the victim of a no hitter and believe what I wish anyway! Some people believe the sooner JM is out the better for the team. Im not saying id go to the exteme of wishing us to lose, but i see their view. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CubKilla Posted July 20, 2003 Share Posted July 20, 2003 You need to be told that? I'd still rather win than be the victim of a no hitter and believe what I wish anyway! Some people believe the sooner JM is out the better for the team. Im not saying id go to the exteme of wishing us to lose, but i see their view. That would be me. I don't wanna see the White Sox lose either. But I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place. If this team does come back and miraculously win the AL Central, no doubt JR will let JM ride out the last year of his contract. That, IMHO, is not in the White Sox best interest. Come to think of it, letting JM manage THIS SEASON was not in the White Sox best interest . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonkeyKongerko Posted July 20, 2003 Share Posted July 20, 2003 Jeff Brantley on BBTN was talking about how JM early in the season used Koch too much. He also said something along the lines of "Jerry Manuel was just rotating his players too much and they really never knew what to expect from him on a daily basis". Obviously he has become nationally renowed for his tinkering skillz. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CubKilla Posted July 20, 2003 Share Posted July 20, 2003 Jeff Brantley on BBTN was talking about how JM early in the season used Koch too much. He also said something along the lines of "Jerry Manuel was just rotating his players too much and they really never knew what to expect from him on a daily basis". Obviously he has become nationally renowed for his tinkering skillz. And Jeff Brantley must be reading SoxNet and WSI He's not reporting anything we don't already know. As for Botch, 1 game was too much Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aboz56 Posted July 20, 2003 Share Posted July 20, 2003 Jeff Brantley on BBTN was talking about how JM early in the season used Koch too much. He also said something along the lines of "Jerry Manuel was just rotating his players too much and they really never knew what to expect from him on a daily basis". Obviously he has become nationally renowed for his tinkering skillz. Jeff Brantley is an idiot and that's why he's only used occasionally on Baseball Tonight and is usually doing day games on ESPN. He's a terrible announcer and I've never heard him point out one thing that wasn't obvious to anyone who can see and hear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mathew Posted July 20, 2003 Share Posted July 20, 2003 As for Botch, 1 game was too much period! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clujer420 Posted July 20, 2003 Share Posted July 20, 2003 Jeff Brantley on BBTN was talking about how JM early in the season used Koch too much. He also said something along the lines of "Jerry Manuel was just rotating his players too much and they really never knew what to expect from him on a daily basis". Obviously he has become nationally renowed for his tinkering skillz. Seems that this board sure is selective in what they choose to accept from BBTN announcers. One day they're idiots, and the next they are very observant. It's gotta be 1 or the other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bmr31 Posted July 20, 2003 Share Posted July 20, 2003 Seems that this board sure is selective in what they choose to accept from BBTN announcers. One day they're idiots, and the next they are very observant. It's gotta be 1 or the other. From what ive seen, most of them are not very smart. Gammons is the biggest moron of them all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clujer420 Posted July 21, 2003 Share Posted July 21, 2003 From what ive seen, most of them are not very smart. Gammons is the biggest moron of them all. I think they know more about that game than most, simply because they probably see much more of the games than your typical baseball fan. I do, though, also think that the networks they work for (such as ESPN or FOX) has some kind of agenda with certain teams, so they are "asked" to push those teams and/or the players on those teams. That's when I think they say moronic things -- when they aren't simply analyzing, but also fulfilling the wishes of the network. Plus, you have to keep in mind that people like Peter Gammons are not impartial -- Gammons is a huge Red Sox fan, so by nature he's going to favor them, even if his job calls for no biases. Myopic views often lead to moronic statements. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted July 21, 2003 Share Posted July 21, 2003 It would be like if one of us was an analyst on baseball tonight, we'd cover the White Sox more because it was our team of interest, but also because we would have the most knowledge about that team. I know when going over the highlights I'd want to have a little more discussion over the team. Gammons wants to do the same, but I do think he knows quite a bit about whats going on. The one guy I really don't like hearing is Brantley and the guy played baseball. I just don't think he watches many of the games. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clujer420 Posted July 21, 2003 Share Posted July 21, 2003 It would be like if one of us was an analyst on baseball tonight, we'd cover the White Sox more because it was our team of interest, but also because we would have the most knowledge about that team. I know when going over the highlights I'd want to have a little more discussion over the team. Gammons wants to do the same, but I do think he knows quite a bit about whats going on. The one guy I really don't like hearing is Brantley and the guy played baseball. I just don't think he watches many of the games. I don't know about Brantley specifically, but I can see how having a former player do analysis can be a mistake. He may think he knows it all simply because he played, and that is obviously not the case. Plus, when you have former ballplayers (some of whom probably aren't very bright), you just wonder how many of their "opinions" TRULY are their opinions. Maybe they have a bunch of writers just come up with stuff and they read it off a teleprompter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted July 21, 2003 Share Posted July 21, 2003 I'm sure they pull up stats and stuff from telepromters and all that crap. I think its probably a harder job then we think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clujer420 Posted July 21, 2003 Share Posted July 21, 2003 I'm sure they pull up stats and stuff from telepromters and all that crap. I think its probably a harder job then we think. Oh sure, the stats and everything...absolutely they have 'prompters for those -- it would be impossible to memorize all those numbers. But what I'm wondering is, when Brantley or Harold Reynolds says "I think the Red Sox have a shot at making the playoffs because...", if that's them saying it, or if someone wrote it for them? Ya know, are they REALLY doing the analysis and providing commentary, or is it like any other news broadcast where people are simply hired to read what other people wrote? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted July 21, 2003 Share Posted July 21, 2003 I'd bet thats their own opinion. Otherwise they'd simply be puppets and they could hire basically everyone. They are paid for their analysis and while they may get help, I'm sure they come up with it based on watching the games. I do think Reynolds knows what he's talking about on the most part. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.