PDA

View Full Version : Phil Arvia Column


Lip Man 1
04-23-2003, 10:45 AM
Phil Arvia in the Daily Southtown has an interesting column today talking about the proposed stiff fines and jail times for those who go on the field.

He has some questions about that policy which do need to be examined.

I'd recommend the column. Here's a small sample that should bring a smile...

"This is not to suggest support for lunkheads such as Eric Dybas, the drunken Cubs fan (forgive me if that's a redundancy) who attempted to molest an umpire's ankle last week at the Cell.

It's to suggest that, if you really want to do Sox fans a favor by keeping losers from running on the field, legislate against Jon Garland."
Steve Rosenbloom in his column in the Chicago Tribune has some interesting comments on the Sox less then steller start, Jon Garland and Jerry Manuel.

Lip

cheeses_h_rice
04-23-2003, 10:51 AM
From Rosenbloom's column:

The Sox started the season with 19 games against the AL Central, games against the lousiest teams, teams they were supposed to be better than, a schedule that was supposed to help them win the division immediately.

But no.

They can't take a series from stinkin' Cleveland at home. They are the only team that pathetic Detroit had beaten. They are so unprepared to start the season that they get swept by an overachieving Kansas City team and have their closer blow two saves to leave them at 11-8 and four games out of first.

So the fact that the Sox are now 12-8 (.600 winning percentage) in a division featuring a team that's 15-3 somehow equates to a failure for this team?

Let me guess: in Rosie's mind, the Flubbies' 13-7 start is exactly the opposite...an unqualified success, with them demolishing such heavy-hitters as Cincinnati and Pittsburgh. ***?

fuzzy_patters
04-23-2003, 11:02 AM
Originally posted by cheeses_h_rice
From Rosenbloom's column:



So the fact that the Sox are now 12-8 (.600 winning percentage) in a division featuring a team that's 15-3 somehow equates to a failure for this team?

Let me guess: in Rosie's mind, the Flubbies' 13-7 start is exactly the opposite...an unqualified success, with them demolishing such heavy-hitters as Cincinnati and Pittsburgh. ***?

I think he bring up a legitimate point. The Sox should have a better record than they have considering who they have played. The Sox will need a .600 or better winning percentage if they want to make the playoffs. They need to play around .700 against the weaker teams, because they likely won't have a .600 winning percentage against the Yankees, Twins, Red Sox, and the AL West.

As for the Cubs thing, we rip on Mariotti daily because he can't right a Cubs article without ripping on the Sox. If Rosenbloom had ripped the Cubs in his article, wouldn't he be guilty of the same thing?

LetsGoSox_1
04-23-2003, 11:16 AM
Originally posted by cheeses_h_rice
From Rosenbloom's column:



So the fact that the Sox are now 12-8 (.600 winning percentage) in a division featuring a team that's 15-3 somehow equates to a failure for this team?

Let me guess: in Rosie's mind, the Flubbies' 13-7 start is exactly the opposite...an unqualified success, with them demolishing such heavy-hitters as Cincinnati and Pittsburgh. ***?


Bah, typical Crubbie Crap. If the Sox were to sweep the SCrubs in a World Series the headline of the sports section of that circus newspaper ofthe Cubune would be something stupid like this:


"Lovable Cubbies lose to South Siders"
http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/barney&sham.jpg

"Barney greets Sammy Sosa after their heartbreaking 13-0 Game 4 lose to that "other team" here at beautiful Wrigley Field."

cheeses_h_rice
04-23-2003, 11:16 AM
Originally posted by fuzzy_patters
I think he bring up a legitimate point. The Sox should have a better record than they have considering who they have played. The Sox will need a .600 or better winning percentage if they want to make the playoffs. They need to play around .700 against the weaker teams, because they likely won't have a .600 winning percentage against the Yankees, Twins, Red Sox, and the AL West.

As for the Cubs thing, we rip on Mariotti daily because he can't right a Cubs article without ripping on the Sox. If Rosenbloom had ripped the Cubs in his article, wouldn't he be guilty of the same thing?

My point is that he shouldn't be ripping the Sox for having a 12-8 record. Sure, there are some problems with the team -- Garland and Koch, for example, along with the lack of hitting from the meat of the lineup, and some dumb fielding/running mistakes -- but overall, the Sox have been winning DESPITE playing far from their potential.

Here are the Sox results so far:

vs. KC (.833) 2-4
vs. Detroit (.059) 5-1
vs. Cle (.368) 4-3
vs. Baltimore (.474) 1-0

They have done poorly against only KC, one of the 3 hottest teams in all of baseball. Sure, we'd like to see them with a 5-2 record against the Indians and a 6-0 record vs. the Tigers, but really, are these results really rip-worthy?

Iwritecode
04-23-2003, 11:32 AM
Originally posted by cheeses_h_rice
So the fact that the Sox are now 12-8 (.600 winning percentage) in a division featuring a team that's 15-3 somehow equates to a failure for this team?


Exactly. If the Royals didn' have that damn horseshoe shoved up their ***es right now, the Sox would be in first...

Jucier Cruz
04-23-2003, 11:35 AM
An interesting thing I thought was that Loiaza was the headline of the Trib Sports section and Sosa was the cover boy in the Times. If Loaiza had pitched for the cub last evening he would have been the cover. I think the Trib is more evenly matched than the Times in coverage. Of course they won't rip the cub, that is good buisness sense.

Daver
04-23-2003, 11:36 AM
Originally posted by Jucier Cruz
An interesting thing I thought was that Loiaza was the headline of the Trib Sports section and Sosa was the cover boy in the Times. If Loaiza had pitched for the cub last evening he would have been the cover. I think the Trib is more evenly matched than the Times in coverage. Of course they won't rip the cub, that is good buisness sense.

Hey welcome aboard! :redneck

cheeses_h_rice
04-23-2003, 11:49 AM
Originally posted by Jucier Cruz
An interesting thing I thought was that Loiaza was the headline of the Trib Sports section and Sosa was the cover boy in the Times. If Loaiza had pitched for the cub last evening he would have been the cover. I think the Trib is more evenly matched than the Times in coverage. Of course they won't rip the cub, that is good buisness sense.

Well, come on, all Loaiza did was pitch 8-1/3 innings, giving up 4 hits and 1 ER, 0 BBs and 8 Ks, lowering his ERA to 1.24 (4th best in all of baseball), while Sham-ME went 0 for 3 with 3 Ks. Oh yeah, he also got beaned on the ass. Easy to see why he made the Sun-Times cover with those stellar stats.

Foulke You
04-23-2003, 12:03 PM
For the record, Loaiza was featured on the Sun-Times cover today however it was a small photo on the sidebar. The Cubs have had the last 3 or 4 baseball full color shots on the Sun-Times. The out of town Cubs and Clement for example was a full cover color shot the same day Colon pitched a complete game gem in Chicago against the Tribe. If the Cubs continue to win regardless of how well the Sox are playing, we can expect sidebar status the rest of the season.

DrCrawdad
04-23-2003, 12:05 PM
I saw a segment of the interview on the 9 news. The WGN drillrods put on this bottom of the screen,

"ERIC DYBAS, SOX FAN"!

Foulke You
04-23-2003, 12:19 PM
Originally posted by DrCrawdad
I saw a segment of the interview on the 9 news. The WGN drillrods put on this bottom of the screen,

"ERIC DYBAS, SOX FAN"! I'm sure it was an honest mistake and just overlooked by the fine folks at Trib owned WGN

trimbo
04-23-2003, 12:21 PM
Originally posted by Foulke You
If the Cubs continue to win regardless of how well the Sox are playing, we can expect sidebar status the rest of the season.

You just said it -- the Cubs get extra hype if they continue to win. But there's still a lot of games:

Number of times at or better than .500 since 1990:

Cubs: 4
Sox: 8

Number of 1st or second place finishes in division since 1990:

Cubs: 1
Sox: 10!

Hangar18
04-23-2003, 12:46 PM
Originally posted by Foulke You
For the record, Loaiza was featured on the Sun-Times cover today however it was a small photo on the sidebar. The Cubs have had the last 3 or 4 baseball full color shots on the Sun-Times. The out of town Cubs and Clement for example was a full cover color shot the same day Colon pitched a complete game gem in Chicago against the Tribe. If the Cubs continue to win regardless of how well the Sox are playing, we can expect sidebar status the rest of the season.


Man, I apologize, ive wanted to keep better track of that, the COVER SHOTS and whose getting them. The Cubs are again dominating this category, and how can that be? when theyre only 1 game better then the Sox Currently? Again, I cant stand the Media circus/love affair they have with this damn cub team.
I dont want to hear "hey, theyre more popular", BULLS***, The MEDIA MAKES THEM MORE POPULAR

cheeses_h_rice
04-23-2003, 12:48 PM
I like how the Tribune is *still* milking Sham-ME's getting beaned in the head, 3 days later.

hold2dibber
04-23-2003, 01:04 PM
Originally posted by fuzzy_patters
I think he bring up a legitimate point. The Sox should have a better record than they have considering who they have played. The Sox will need a .600 or better winning percentage if they want to make the playoffs. They need to play around .700 against the weaker teams, because they likely won't have a .600 winning percentage against the Yankees, Twins, Red Sox, and the AL West.

As for the Cubs thing, we rip on Mariotti daily because he can't right a Cubs article without ripping on the Sox. If Rosenbloom had ripped the Cubs in his article, wouldn't he be guilty of the same thing?

A .600 winning percentage would translate to 97 wins. Do you really think it will take 97 wins to take the Central? I wouldn't be shocked if 87 wins took the central. My guess is that 90 or 91 will do the trick (i.e., a .560 winning percentage).

AngelLeroy
04-23-2003, 02:57 PM
I wouldn't doubt it... I don't think Kansas City is going to win ~130 games, as would project from their current WP, and I can see the Twins in the 87-91 range. If the Sox can win at least 90 theyll be competitive, if not outright winners (if the Twins keep imploding...)

fuzzy_patters
04-23-2003, 03:04 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
A .600 winning percentage would translate to 97 wins. Do you really think it will take 97 wins to take the Central? I wouldn't be shocked if 87 wins took the central. My guess is that 90 or 91 will do the trick (i.e., a .560 winning percentage).

Let me amend that to a .600 winning percentage will guarantee they make the post-season. I believe the Twins are just as likely to win 95 as they are to win 88. They play great turf defense and have slap hitters who know how to use their home field. The Twins only have to play .550 ball on the road if they can play .650 in the Rollerdome to have a .600 winning percentage.

fuzzy_patters
04-23-2003, 03:06 PM
Originally posted by AngelLeroy
I wouldn't doubt it... I don't think Kansas City is going to win ~130 games, as would project from their current WP, and I can see the Twins in the 87-91 range. If the Sox can win at least 90 theyll be competitive, if not outright winners (if the Twins keep imploding...)

Have the Twins imploded, or are they playing better teams? I would venture that it is the latter more so than the former. The Yankees and Blue Jays are a heck of a lot better than the teams we have been playing.