PDA

View Full Version : Sports Weekly has a grudge against us


jeremyb1
02-19-2004, 03:45 PM
From my point of view, for at least the second consecutive spring, Sports Weekly has bent over backwards to downplay our chances of success. We're 20th in their preseason rankings but the Twins hold tough at 14 because they "Lost closer, setup man, and catcher but its the AL Central". Then in our individual team report, they write that Marte "continues to emerge as a premier left-handed reliever". Funny, I would've thought the sub 2 ERA would've secured his spot as a premier reliever. Lets hope he continues to emerge in that role. The express concerns about Garland because he "has gone 24-25 in the past two seasons, with ERAs above 4.50". Why focus so strongly on won loss record which is widely regarded as a worthless stat? That's quite misleading about a pitcher with ERAs of 4.51 and 4.58. If the ERAs were 4.43 and 4.48 he'd be an all-star? Give me a break.

ewokpelts
02-19-2004, 04:24 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
From my point of view, for at least the second consecutive spring, Sports Weekly has bent over backwards to downplay our chances of success. We're 20th in their preseason rankings but the Twins hold tough at 14 because they "Lost closer, setup man, and catcher but its the AL Central". Then in our individual team report, they write that Marte "continues to emerge as a premier left-handed reliever". Funny, I would've thought the sub 2 ERA would've secured his spot as a premier reliever. Lets hope he continues to emerge in that role. The express concerns about Garland because he "has gone 24-25 in the past two seasons, with ERAs above 4.50". Why focus so strongly on won loss record which is widely regarded as a worthless stat? That's quite misleading about a pitcher with ERAs of 4.51 and 4.58. If the ERAs were 4.43 and 4.48 he'd be an all-star? Give me a break.

twins/royals are ranked higher in division due to chemistry....i disagree with your viewpoint...SW is more or less good to the sox...a little too much cub love for my taste, but they cover all teams well...very little bias toward east coast(only do big stories on yanks/bosox cuz they making headlines).... try this on for size if you think they have a grudge for us:
We Predict - A rocky ride, even if the ultimate destination is the playoffs. ......... Although the Large-Market Sox should have the talen to take command in the AL Central, this team dosen't seem prepared to do it.

Gene

rdivaldi
02-19-2004, 04:26 PM
Although the Large-Market Sox should have the talen to take command in the AL Central

Anyone else notice the backhanded slap taken at the Sox in this sentence?

jeremyb1
02-19-2004, 04:47 PM
Originally posted by ewokpelts
twins/royals are ranked higher in division due to chemistry....i disagree with your viewpoint...SW is more or less good to the sox...a little too much cub love for my taste, but they cover all teams well...very little bias toward east coast(only do big stories on yanks/bosox cuz they making headlines).... try this on for size if you think they have a grudge for us:

Well I guess you could argue an emphasis on chemistry is simply stupidity and not biased reporting but I didn't get the impression that was the main thrust of the article. As far as that last quote, I'm not sure largely bashing the club throughout the entire article and then conceeding a chance of making the playoffs at the end constitutues being friendly. We were in the race until the last couple weeks last season, we play in the worst division in baseball, and the top team lost several key players. What else could they say? It simply doesn't seem like they're willing to give many of our players a fair shake.

poorme
02-19-2004, 04:50 PM
It's not a grudge, it's the truth. Wake up!!

MRKARNO
02-19-2004, 05:44 PM
Originally posted by poorme
It's not a grudge, it's the truth. Wake up!!

No, it's a grudge. We lost a lot less than the Twins did. Their Strength has become their weakness and their entire season is depending on Joe Mauer and other unproven rookies. Their rotation is worse than ours and the Royals is a ton worse than ours.

ewokpelts
02-19-2004, 05:51 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
Well I guess you could argue an emphasis on chemistry is simply stupidity and not biased reporting but I didn't get the impression that was the main thrust of the article. As far as that last quote, I'm not sure largely bashing the club throughout the entire article and then conceeding a chance of making the playoffs at the end constitutues being friendly. We were in the race until the last couple weeks last season, we play in the worst division in baseball, and the top team lost several key players. What else could they say? It simply doesn't seem like they're willing to give many of our players a fair shake.

I've been reading Baseball/Sports Weekly since 2000. The Sox get thier love when they deserve it. Unlike Moronotti, SW's columnists actually dont root for one team, and are pro-fan. As for the "backhanded slap" that one guy thought he read, the sox are large market, they only think small market. That paper dosent like owners that are cheep. You hear a lot of bitching about the astros, cubs(both before this offseason), reds, definitely the brewers, and yes the white sox. And to be fair, not much love is given towards the yanks and bosox for thier big payrolls.
Gene

thepaulbowski
02-19-2004, 06:02 PM
Originally posted by MRKARNO
No, it's a grudge. We lost a lot less than the Twins did. Their Strength has become their weakness and their entire season is depending on Joe Mauer and other unproven rookies. Their rotation is worse than ours and the Royals is a ton worse than ours.

Yeah, it's a grudge because the Sox have done so well the last three years with more talent than the Twins.

The Sox have been the favorite for the last three years and fell on their faces. Why should this year be any different? Who cares what these people think, my lord, win and prove everybody wrong. The conspiracy (grudge) theory is becoming really old.

MRKARNO
02-19-2004, 06:08 PM
Originally posted by thepaulbowski
Yeah, it's a grudge because the Sox have done so well the last three years with more talent than the Twins.

The Sox have been the favorite for the last three years and fell on their faces. Why should this year be any different? Who cares what these people think, my lord, win and prove everybody wrong. The conspiracy (grudge) theory is becoming really old.

Because the Twins have gotten a lot worse compared to the White Sox and the White Sox aren't the media favorites.

ewokpelts
02-19-2004, 06:17 PM
Originally posted by MRKARNO
Because the Twins have gotten a lot worse compared to the White Sox and the White Sox aren't the media favorites.

Let's not forget that Gardenhire's a back to back division winning manager. Ozzie's a first year guy. Tony Pena and Gardenhire have mor experience as a manager, and they havent pissed off thier sluggers with comments in the press. Thre Sox are NOT the favorites according to SW. Kc is. They have as many holes aswe do, but they were hungry. Have you felt that from teh sox last year, or even this offseason? We're trumping Willie Harris as the shiznit, while they are trying to build a contender. Yeah, it's spare parts, but it's better than standing pat.
Gene

ChiSox65
02-19-2004, 06:24 PM
Originally posted by poorme
It's not a grudge, it's the truth. Wake up!!

Thank You...........Our "big market" team hasn't done squat to deserve a good ranking.

jeremyb1
02-19-2004, 08:47 PM
I've been reading Baseball Weekly religiously at least since 1999. I don't think they're always unfair to us but they don't seem to be excited about us particularly often either. I'm not talking about the bottom line, I'm talking about the rhetoric in the article. How do you explain the comment about how Garland hasn't liven up to expectations because his ERA has been above 4.5 the past two seasons when its been 4.54? That statement is technically true but its clearly designed to show him in a negative light. Why?

hold2dibber
02-20-2004, 08:58 AM
Originally posted by MRKARNO
Because the Twins have gotten a lot worse compared to the White Sox and the White Sox aren't the media favorites.

The Twins lost their closer, primary set up man and catcher. They replaced the catcher with a guy who is widely regarded as the best catching prospect in the country.

The Sox lost their closer, one of their set up men, their starting center fielder, their starting second baseman, one of their best starters (and a certified innings eater), and half of their SS platoon. They replaced those guys with .... a cast of misfits.

I'd say the Sox regressed more than the Twins this offseason.

Procol Harum
02-20-2004, 09:48 AM
Originally posted by rdivaldi
Anyone else notice the backhanded slap taken at the Sox in this sentence?

As if they haven't earned a front-handed slap over the last three years for underachievement???

ma-gaga
02-20-2004, 10:09 AM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
From my point of view, for at least the second consecutive spring, Sports Weekly has bent over backwards to downplay our chances of success. We're 20th in their preseason rankings but the Twins hold tough at 14

You know, maybe they were looking at team PECOTA VORP values.

:)

hold2dibber
02-20-2004, 10:17 AM
Originally posted by Procol Harum
As if they haven't earned a front-handed slap over the last three years for underachievement???

I have to pick nits, but I don't really think the Sox underachieved in '01 - they lost almost their entire pitching staff (Wells, Parque, Baldwin, Eldridge) and Thomas to injury. That was an intensely frustrating season, but I don't think they underachieved, per se.

CubKilla
02-20-2004, 11:12 AM
Originally posted by rdivaldi
Anyone else notice the backhanded slap taken at the Sox in this sentence?

The White Sox Organization? I sure do. No one should have a problem with "this sentence" because it's the truth.

CubKilla
02-20-2004, 11:15 AM
Originally posted by MRKARNO
No, it's a grudge. We lost a lot less than the Twins did. Their Strength has become their weakness and their entire season is depending on Joe Mauer and other unproven rookies. Their rotation is worse than ours and the Royals is a ton worse than ours.

I guess I'm old school. Even though the Twins lost talent and the Sox didn't even try to resign their talent (seriously), the Twins have won the AL Central the last two seasons. THE TWINS ARE THE TEAM TO BEAT IN THE AL CENTRAL.

CubKilla
02-20-2004, 11:17 AM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
How do you explain the comment about how Garland hasn't liven up to expectations because his ERA has been above 4.5 the past two seasons when its been 4.54?

Nitpicking

fuzzy_patters
02-20-2004, 11:17 AM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
I have to pick nits, but I don't really think the Sox underachieved in '01 - they lost almost their entire pitching staff (Wells, Parque, Baldwin, Eldridge) and Thomas to injury. That was an intensely frustrating season, but I don't think they underachieved, per se.

Who is Eldridge? Do you mean Cal Eldred?

SSN721
02-20-2004, 11:24 AM
Originally posted by MRKARNO
Because the Twins have gotten a lot worse compared to the White Sox and the White Sox aren't the media favorites.

They shouldnt be, even when they have been picked as the favorites they have miserably underacheived. If I was paid to write about baseball and not a fan of this team there is no way I would just hand them the division, they have gotten much weaker and even though the Twins have too the Twins have shown the ability to consistently beat the White Sox when they need to. I think it is that simple and has nothing to do with bias or anything like that.

stillz
02-20-2004, 11:30 AM
The Twins have proven themselves better consistently. It's their division. Hasn't been ours since we lost the milkman. Does anyone know what Herbert's up to?

ewokpelts
02-20-2004, 12:23 PM
Originally posted by SSN721
They shouldnt be, even when they have been picked as the favorites they have miserably underacheived. If I was paid to write about baseball and not a fan of this team there is no way I would just hand them the division, they have gotten much weaker and even though the Twins have too the Twins have shown the ability to consistently beat the White Sox when they need to. I think it is that simple and has nothing to do with bias or anything like that.

my point exactly