PDA

View Full Version : *Extra! Extra! Read All About It!!! More Media Bias!


Cubbiesuck13
03-08-2005, 03:26 AM
Go to the MLB page on ESPN and there is a poll (http://http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/index). Who has the best rotation? Braves, Yanks, BoSox, Cards, and Flubbies. So do you think they might be wondering if they should put in the deepest rotation in there? NAH! just as an option? NO! I hate the media.

ChiWhiteSox1337
03-08-2005, 03:32 AM
All 5 of the teams are "media darlings" so it's not a surprise to not see the WHITE SOX listed. While all 5 of those have pretty good rotations, you could make a strong case for other teams as well, such as the White Sox and the Marlins(IMO). It's hard to argue with Buehrle and Garcia at the top of the rotation, but you have to remember that this is ESPN we're talking about. Jose Contreras will always be looked at as the pitcher who got shelled every time he faced the BoSox in the eyes of the East coast media propaganda machine.

Cubbiesuck13
03-08-2005, 03:36 AM
By that token then shouldn't El Duque be remembered for his playoff excellence?

samram
03-08-2005, 08:04 AM
Under the radar, that's the motto. I want this team to be so far under the radar that writers, when making predictions, forget to include the Sox in the AL Central standings, leaving just four teams.

daveeym
03-08-2005, 09:06 AM
Under the radar, that's the motto. I want this team to be so far under the radar that writers, when making predictions, forget to include the Sox in the AL Central standings, leaving just four teams. Exactly, and you got two possible headcases and a guy that hasn't had a full healthy year in what, 2 or 3 years, on the staff. The sox have the potential to be one of the best rotations, but they haven't earned crap yet.

Cubbiesuck13
03-08-2005, 09:40 AM
Exactly, and you got two possible headcases and a guy that hasn't had a full healthy year in what, 2 or 3 years, on the staff. The sox have the potential to be one of the best rotations, but they haven't earned crap yet.

Have the scrubbies earned crap yet?

Jjav829
03-08-2005, 10:33 AM
Come on now. Let's be realistic. The Sox rotation has a chance to be good. But top 5 in all of baseball at this point? No way. I'd take the Braves, Cubs, Yankees and Red Sox rotation over the Sox without even hesitating. Based on performance last year, plus the addition of Mulder, I'd take the Cards rotation as well. For that matter, I'd take the Astros rotaton without even thinking twice. The Marlins and Mets both have rotations I'd consider taking over the Sox. The Marlins biggest problem is health. That's the only thing that would cause me to hesitate if I had to pick between the Sox and Marlins. I'd seriously consider the Mets rotation, as well. There's just no way the Sox rotation deserves to be on there.

mdep524
03-08-2005, 10:42 AM
Come on now. Let's be realistic. The Sox rotation has a chance to be good. But top 5 in all of baseball at this point? No way. I'd take the Braves, Cubs, Yankees and Red Sox rotation over the Sox without even hesitating. Based on performance last year, plus the addition of Mulder, I'd take the Cards rotation as well. For that matter, I'd take the Astros rotaton without even thinking twice. The Marlins and Mets both have rotations I'd consider taking over the Sox. The Marlins biggest problem is health. That's the only thing that would cause me to hesitate if I had to pick between the Sox and Marlins. I'd seriously consider the Mets rotation, as well. There's just no way the Sox rotation deserves to be on there.
Yeah, I gotta agree with JJav here. I love to make a big stink about the media bias too, but I don't see it here. All of those teams have better staffs than the Sox, by a pretty good margin.

daveeym
03-08-2005, 01:03 PM
Have the scrubbies earned crap yet? You didn't have to even say that to show that your hatred for the cubs drove your irrational posting.

FightingBillini
03-08-2005, 02:56 PM
Come on now. Let's be realistic. The Sox rotation has a chance to be good. But top 5 in all of baseball at this point? No way. I'd take the Braves, Cubs, Yankees and Red Sox rotation over the Sox without even hesitating. Based on performance last year, plus the addition of Mulder, I'd take the Cards rotation as well. For that matter, I'd take the Astros rotaton without even thinking twice. The Marlins and Mets both have rotations I'd consider taking over the Sox. The Marlins biggest problem is health. That's the only thing that would cause me to hesitate if I had to pick between the Sox and Marlins. I'd seriously consider the Mets rotation, as well. There's just no way the Sox rotation deserves to be on there.

The Astros have the best rotation in baseball. I dont care what the tools at ESPN say, with Clemens, Petitte, Oswalt, and Backe, nobody can match them. As for the Cubs, they have 4 staters and "Flash in the Pan" Glendon Rusch, who is a lot more likely to return to his career ERA than his from last year. Of the 4 real starters, only two of them have proven they can stay healthy. Of the two frail nancy-boys, Prior can be effective, but Wood(s) is the single more overrated pitcher in baseball. I am right, but I guess we will need the season to prove it. We may have the better rotation, but at least at the end of the year Cub fans will be able to whine that their rotation was injured, which is why they lost 90 games. By the way, if anyone wants to be brave and predict that Wood will win more games than Garland, I will take you up on that bet.

kittle42
03-08-2005, 03:10 PM
Come on now. Let's be realistic. The Sox rotation has a chance to be good. But top 5 in all of baseball at this point? No way. I'd take the Braves, Cubs, Yankees and Red Sox rotation over the Sox without even hesitating. Based on performance last year, plus the addition of Mulder, I'd take the Cards rotation as well. For that matter, I'd take the Astros rotaton without even thinking twice. The Marlins and Mets both have rotations I'd consider taking over the Sox. The Marlins biggest problem is health. That's the only thing that would cause me to hesitate if I had to pick between the Sox and Marlins. I'd seriously consider the Mets rotation, as well. There's just no way the Sox rotation deserves to be on there.

Could not agree more. I am getting tired of all the whining.

IITsox
03-08-2005, 10:25 PM
I'd take the Braves, Cubs, Yankees and Red Sox rotation over the Sox without even hesitating.

I agree that the Sox are probably not in the top five, but the Cubs?

Buehrle > Wood (Buehle's career 69W 45L vs. Wood 67W 50L, not to mention Buehrle's ability to take 200+ IP every year)
Garcia > Prior (until Prior can prove that his 18 win 2003 wasn't a fluke)
Zambrano > Contreras (they both have the incredible stuff, but Zambrano has proben he can harness it)
Maddux > El Duque (both aging, both have the potential to hit 18 wins, but health is a big question mark -- Maddux has been more reliable health wise lately, though)
Garland >>> Rusch/Mitre (12 wins can be counted on from Garland -- let's remember that Rusch went 1-12 in 2003, and Mitre hasn't proven he can handle the bigs yet. Garland is so far ahead of the Cubs in the number 5 slot that it really makes up for some of the ground lost with the Cubans vs. Zambrano/Maddux)

So the Sox have three out of five -- the Cubs hardly even have five. How does the team that has only gotten worse since being destroyed in the NL Central last year get so much hype?

Norberto7
03-08-2005, 10:30 PM
Another thread complaining of the media bias, etc., etc.! Come to think of it, I doubt Sox fans would really want it any other way. If the Sox have a breakout year and tear through the American League and suddenly become the "media darlings", how would we all feel about that? I think we'd all feel like we'd gotten robbed of something we prefer to have. I think we'd all feel like our brotherhood was somehow violated if the Sox were media favorites.

I'd say that being a Sox fan is kind of like having a cool place back in the woods with your friends. On one hand, you think it'd be sweet to have more people to come around, but deep down, you'd rather just keep the place to yourself, because you know that the more people that are included, the less special it is.

Maybe that makes no sense at all, maybe it does. It does to me at least. Whenever that day comes that the Sox are rolling toward the World Series, I'd love nothing more that to grab a big fatty whip and stand at the back of the White Sox bandwagon and snap it at any fairweather fans or media or, ugh, "Chicago baseball fans" trying to get their fat grubby fingers latched on. Get 'em outta here!

Brian26
03-08-2005, 10:40 PM
Come on now. Let's be realistic. The Sox rotation has a chance to be good. But top 5 in all of baseball at this point? No way. I'd take the Braves, Cubs, Yankees and Red Sox rotation over the Sox without even hesitating.

You'd take the Braves over the Sox without hesitating? The Braves have Hudson and Smoltz.....after that you've got Hampton, Thompson, and ?. Hampton is done, and Thompson could easily revert back to mediocrity. I guess I'd take Hudson and Smoltz over Buehrle and Garcia, but the Sox have a definite advantage with their back 3 pitchers (unless I'm missing something obvious). I'd take El Duque, Contreras and Garland over the Braves bottom 3. Close call...but there's no way the Braves are such a clear cut favorite.

CubKilla
03-08-2005, 10:43 PM
So do you think they might be wondering if they should put in the deepest rotation in there?

Screaming teal.

There are other rotations deeper than the White Sox. Some have been left off the list and others have been named by previous posters. Duque is an injury risk, Contreras is a head case, and Garland is mediocre.

Where are they selling this White Sox crack anyway :rolleyes: ?

Lip Man 1
03-08-2005, 10:50 PM
Leo Mazonne of ther Braves has been working miracles with re-treds for over ten years.
I see no reason why he is going to stop now.

Lip

kittle42
03-08-2005, 11:19 PM
I agree that the Sox are probably not in the top five, but the Cubs?

Buehrle > Wood (Buehle's career 69W 45L vs. Wood 67W 50L, not to mention Buehrle's ability to take 200+ IP every year)
Garcia > Prior (until Prior can prove that his 18 win 2003 wasn't a fluke)
Zambrano > Contreras (they both have the incredible stuff, but Zambrano has proben he can harness it)
Maddux > El Duque (both aging, both have the potential to hit 18 wins, but health is a big question mark -- Maddux has been more reliable health wise lately, though)
Garland >>> Rusch/Mitre (12 wins can be counted on from Garland -- let's remember that Rusch went 1-12 in 2003, and Mitre hasn't proven he can handle the bigs yet. Garland is so far ahead of the Cubs in the number 5 slot that it really makes up for some of the ground lost with the Cubans vs. Zambrano/Maddux)

So the Sox have three out of five -- the Cubs hardly even have five. How does the team that has only gotten worse since being destroyed in the NL Central last year get so much hype?

Gimme a break. While the difference between the talent in the Sox rotation and that of the Cubs is certainly closer than it was last season, the Cubs still have the better rotation on paper.

Cubbiesuck13
03-09-2005, 12:50 AM
Of course the White Sox have question marks but so does every other team on that list. There are other teams that deserve to be on that list more than the flubies as well as the Sox. I have never claimed that the Sox will have a great rotation when it is all said and done but the poll was clearly for paper stats only. The potential for each rotation if you will. The Sox have 5 starters that have all won at some point.

BoSox: 3 double digit winners. 59 wins.
#1 Curt Shilling 21-6
#2 Matt Clement 9-13
#3 David Wells 12-8
#4 Bronson Arroyo 10-9
#5 Wade Miller 7-7.

CHC: 2 double digit winners. 36 wins.
#1 Mark Prior 6-4
#2 Kerry Wood 8-9
#3 Carlos Zambrano 16-8
#4 Greg Maddux 16-11
#5 Glendon Rusch 6-2

NYY: 5 double digit winners. 71 wins.
#1 Randy Johnson 16-14
#2 Mike Mussina 12-9
#3 Carl Pavano 18-8
#4 Jaret Wright 15-8
#5 Kevin Brown 10-6

STL: 5 double digit winners. 78 wins .
#1 Mark Mulder 17-8
#2 Matt Morris 15-10
#3 Chris Carpenter 15-5
#4 Jason Marquis 15-7
#5 Jeff Supan 16-9

ATL: 3 double digit winners. 41 wins.
#1 John Smotz 0-1 (Not fair to count this)
#2 Tim Hudson 12-6
#3 Mike Hampton 13-9
#4 John Thomson 14-8
#5 Horacio Ramirez 2-4

HOU: 2 double digit winners. 53 wins.
#1 Roger Clemens 18-4
#2 Roy Oswalt 20-10
#3 Andy Pettit 6-4
#4 Brandon Backe 5-3
#5 Pete Munro 4-7

FLA: 3 double digit winners. 50 wins.
#1 Josh Becket 9-9
#2 AJ Burnett 7-6
#3 Dontrelle Willis 10-11
#4 Al Leiter 10-8
#5 Ishmael Valdez 14-9

NYM: 5 double digit winners. 62 wins.
#1 Pedro Martinez 16-9
#2 Tom Glavine 11-14
#3 Steve Trachsel 12-13
#4 Kris Benson 12-12
#5 Victor Zambrano 11-7

SOX: 4 double digit winners. 49 wins.
#1 Mark Buehrle 16-10
#2 Freddy Garcia 13-11
#3 Jose Contreras 13-9
#4 Jon Garland 12-11
#5 Orlando Hernandez 8-2


Stats and rotations per ESPN.com

Naturally anyone can use any stats they see fit to make or break their point. My point was that by best rotation they meant wins. Injuries, down years, moving from closer to starter, moving from AL to NL and NL to AL and many other factors are involved but IMO every rotation has questions. It only seems natural to put in the top teams using last years stats. Thus leaving out the scrubs. Is that irrational daveeym? I didn't think it was but then again I am totally biased. And so is the media; I'm just calling a spade a spade. I used the Sox as an example, naturally because I know more about them than any other team. Certainly there are other rotations that have stronger cases than the Sox and all of the teams posted have stronger cases than the flubs.

Norberto, do you live in Chicago? Because I don't and the national media is pretty much the only way most people like me get their info so anytime they mention the Sox it is a special day. I for one, would love to have the east coast/scrubs problem of recieving to much attention. I'm not a fan of being under the radar. I had someone tell me today that for the longest time they thought the only team in Chicago was the flubs. They had heard of the Sox but had no idea where they were located. He lived in Arkansas and had WGN but didn't like baseball to begin with. He knew who the scrubs were but not the Sox. That's telling, IMO

Stroker Ace
03-09-2005, 01:24 AM
All 5 of the teams are "media darlings" so it's not a surprise to not see the WHITE SOX listed. While all 5 of those have pretty good rotations, you could make a strong case for other teams as well, such as the White Sox and the Marlins(IMO). It's hard to argue with Buehrle and Garcia at the top of the rotation, but you have to remember that this is ESPN we're talking about. Jose Contreras will always be looked at as the pitcher who got shelled every time he faced the BoSox in the eyes of the East coast media propaganda machine.

Couldn't have said it better myself

Jjav829
03-09-2005, 08:37 AM
I agree that the Sox are probably not in the top five, but the Cubs?

Buehrle > Wood (Buehle's career 69W 45L vs. Wood 67W 50L, not to mention Buehrle's ability to take 200+ IP every year)
Garcia > Prior (until Prior can prove that his 18 win 2003 wasn't a fluke)
Zambrano > Contreras (they both have the incredible stuff, but Zambrano has proben he can harness it)
Maddux > El Duque (both aging, both have the potential to hit 18 wins, but health is a big question mark -- Maddux has been more reliable health wise lately, though)
Garland >>> Rusch/Mitre (12 wins can be counted on from Garland -- let's remember that Rusch went 1-12 in 2003, and Mitre hasn't proven he can handle the bigs yet. Garland is so far ahead of the Cubs in the number 5 slot that it really makes up for some of the ground lost with the Cubans vs. Zambrano/Maddux)

So the Sox have three out of five -- the Cubs hardly even have five. How does the team that has only gotten worse since being destroyed in the NL Central last year get so much hype?

If you're going to break it down by the rotation spots, then you at least have to have them correct. It's more like this.

Prior > Buehrle
Zambrano > Garcia
Wood > Contreras
Maddux > El Duque
Rusch < Garland

That's one rotation spot the Sox win, and that's the 5th spot. That's 4 out of 5 the Cubs win. They have a better rotation. Doesn't mean they'll win anything, but their rotation is clearly better. Now their bullpen....:o:

Jjav829
03-09-2005, 08:43 AM
You'd take the Braves over the Sox without hesitating? The Braves have Hudson and Smoltz.....after that you've got Hampton, Thompson, and ?. Hampton is done, and Thompson could easily revert back to mediocrity. I guess I'd take Hudson and Smoltz over Buehrle and Garcia, but the Sox have a definite advantage with their back 3 pitchers (unless I'm missing something obvious). I'd take El Duque, Contreras and Garland over the Braves bottom 3. Close call...but there's no way the Braves are such a clear cut favorite.

It's not really that close. Hampton is done? He's 32 and put up a 4.28 ERA last year. Not great, but not horrible. He had a 3.84 ERA in 2003. You're thinking too much of the Coors field Mike Hampton. Forget him. This is the removed-from-Coors Mike Hampton. He's shown he can pitch again and I'm sure Mazzone had a lot to do with that. Thomson had a terrific year last year in the 2nd half. Maybe he regresses somewhat back to his previous years, but he's no less a sure thing than Contreras or El Duque. Ramirez, their #5, was actually their best pitcher until he got injured and missed half the season. You're really underrating him.

fquaye149
03-09-2005, 08:46 AM
If you're going to break it down by the rotation spots, then you at least have to have them correct. It's more like this.

Prior > Buehrle
Zambrano > Garcia
Wood > Contreras
Maddux > El Duque
Rusch < Garland

That's one rotation spot the Sox win, and that's the 5th spot. That's 4 out of 5 the Cubs win. They have a better rotation. Doesn't mean they'll win anything, but their rotation is clearly better. Now their bullpen....:o:

Prior > buehrle, if healthy...otherwise it's prior>el duque because the bench throws the same numbers no matter who's sitting on it.

zambrano>garcia? maybe, maybe not. It's very debatable. Yes, Zambrano had a great year last year, yet he has not been consistently good and experts seem to agree his arm is apt to fall off soon. Not to mention his fragile mental state. And let's not forget Freddy HAS won 20 games before, unlike Z.

Wood>Contreras - once again, maybe. Since we're assuming Wood's "potential" and "great stuff" you have to give contreras the same credit. Neither one of them has come close to fulfilling any kind of promise. Another Wash, I think, like Zambrano and Garcia - only time will tell, that is to say.

Maddux>El Duque - once again, you assume a.) maddux and El Duque will be healthy - but if that's the case - doesn't it seem that Maddux's numbers (wins notwithstanding) have been on the decline, whereas El Duque's 2004 (a small sample size, I know) was pretty much in line with the rest of his career numbers. Time seems to be pending here.

Rusch< Garland - once again, don't be too quick to give Garland the nod. Rusch might have put it together, he might not have. Then again, maybe this will be Garland's year. The past tells us probably not, but the kid's still young.

I think the point is, we can go toe to toe with Cubs pitching so long as you don't give them the benefit of the doubt on every single question mark and assume the worst for us on every question mark.

But then again, everyone in the media suggests the cubs, not us, are among the best staffs in the league. Who's the one who has to defend themselves? Not us.

fquaye149
03-09-2005, 08:48 AM
You'd take the Braves over the Sox without hesitating? The Braves have Hudson and Smoltz.....after that you've got Hampton, Thompson, and ?. Hampton is done, and Thompson could easily revert back to mediocrity. I guess I'd take Hudson and Smoltz over Buehrle and Garcia, but the Sox have a definite advantage with their back 3 pitchers (unless I'm missing something obvious). I'd take El Duque, Contreras and Garland over the Braves bottom 3. Close call...but there's no way the Braves are such a clear cut favorite.

don cooper is our coach, not leo mazzone. If you threw in Mazzone, I'd take whatever band of brothers he threw together over whoever we have.

Nothing against Cooper per se. He's just not a magician.

FightingBillini
03-09-2005, 11:29 AM
If you're going to break it down by the rotation spots, then you at least have to have them correct. It's more like this.

Prior > Buehrle
Zambrano > Garcia
Wood > Contreras
Maddux > El Duque
Rusch < Garland

That's one rotation spot the Sox win, and that's the 5th spot. That's 4 out of 5 the Cubs win. They have a better rotation. Doesn't mean they'll win anything, but their rotation is clearly better. Now their bullpen....:o:

You are kidding me, right? I guess this arguement goes along with your "the Braves suck because I dont like them" theory. Zambrano is not better than Garcia, Buehrle is at least equal to Prior at this point in his career. I dont see how Wood is better than Contreras when both have the same career high in wins. The only difference is that Contreras has a huge upside. He has the ability to be lights out this year and win 20. When he is on, he is one of the most dominating pitchers in the game. When Carrie Woods is on, he is good. Wood has had 6 years to live up to the hype, he cant do it. I would hope that being "unbiased", you would be able to tell that Wood is a creation of the media, and he hasn't done a single thing more than Jose Contreras in his career. If anyone wants to bet me that Wood will win more games than Contreras this year, I will take that bet.

Jjav829
03-09-2005, 12:02 PM
You are kidding me, right? I guess this arguement goes along with your "the Braves suck because I dont like them" theory. Zambrano is not better than Garcia, Buehrle is at least equal to Prior at this point in his career. I dont see how Wood is better than Contreras when both have the same career high in wins. The only difference is that Contreras has a huge upside. He has the ability to be lights out this year and win 20. When he is on, he is one of the most dominating pitchers in the game. When Carrie Woods is on, he is good. Wood has had 6 years to live up to the hype, he cant do it. I would hope that being "unbiased", you would be able to tell that Wood is a creation of the media, and he hasn't done a single thing more than Jose Contreras in his career. If anyone wants to bet me that Wood will win more games than Contreras this year, I will take that bet.

What the hell are you talking about? Where did I say the Braves suck? I picked them to win 100 games.

Carlos Zambrano
2002 - 4-8 3.66 ERA
2003 - 13-11 3.75 ERA
2004 - 16-8 2.75 ERA
Career - 34-29 3.25 ERA over 3 years

Freddy Garcia
1999 - 17-8 4.07 ERA
2000 - 9-5 3.91 ERA
2001 - 18-6 3.05 ERA
2002 - 16-10 4.39 ERA
2003 - 12-14 4.52 ERA
2004 - 13-11 3.81 ERA
Career - 85-54 3.94 ERA over 6 years

Have you ever watched Prior pitch? Have you ever watched Zambrano pitch? Hell, have you ever watched any of these guys pitch? Or are you just going off your biased opinion that because they are Cubs they are no good. You don't see how Wood is better than Contreras? You blew it right there. Try the career 3.63 ERA. You want to argue that he is overrated because he's never won more than 14 games. Fine. That's a valid argument. He probably does get overrated because he doesn't win games. But even comparing him to Contreras - who had a freaking 5.50 ERA last year!!! - is laughable. That's the equivalent of saying Mark Buehrle is no better than Shawn Estes because Buehrle only won one more game last year. I would gladly take your money, but Wood is no guarantee to stay healthy and I can't actually bet on the Cubs. It's sad I have to support them in this argument...

Palehose13
03-09-2005, 12:15 PM
Another thread complaining of the media bias, etc., etc.! Come to think of it, I doubt Sox fans would really want it any other way. If the Sox have a breakout year and tear through the American League and suddenly become the "media darlings", how would we all feel about that? I think we'd all feel like we'd gotten robbed of something we prefer to have. I think we'd all feel like our brotherhood was somehow violated if the Sox were media favorites.

I'd say that being a Sox fan is kind of like having a cool place back in the woods with your friends. On one hand, you think it'd be sweet to have more people to come around, but deep down, you'd rather just keep the place to yourself, because you know that the more people that are included, the less special it is.

Maybe that makes no sense at all, maybe it does. It does to me at least. Whenever that day comes that the Sox are rolling toward the World Series, I'd love nothing more that to grab a big fatty whip and stand at the back of the White Sox bandwagon and snap it at any fairweather fans or media or, ugh, "Chicago baseball fans" trying to get their fat grubby fingers latched on. Get 'em outta here!

:worship:

Jerko
03-09-2005, 12:16 PM
CHC: 2 double digit winners. 36 wins.
#1 Mark Prior 6-4
#2 Kerry Wood 8-9
#3 Carlos Zambrano 16-8
#4 Greg Maddux 16-11
#5 Glendon Rusch 6-2


SOX: 4 double digit winners. 49 wins.
#1 Mark Buehrle 16-10
#2 Freddy Garcia 13-11
#3 Jose Contreras 13-9
#4 Jon Garland 12-11
#5 Orlando Hernandez 8-2


Stats and rotations per ESPN.com



Were those totals on Espn? They better take some math classes.
Flubs 6+8+16+16+6 = 36?
Sox? 16+13+13+12+8 = 49?

daveeym
03-09-2005, 12:29 PM
Were those totals on Espn? They better take some math classes.
Flubs 6+8+16+16+6 = 36?
Sox? 16+13+13+12+8 = 49? Oh you and your new math, just shut it.

PaleHoseGeorge
03-09-2005, 12:55 PM
Another thread complaining of the media bias, etc., etc.! Come to think of it, I doubt Sox fans would really want it any other way....

I'd love nothing more that to grab a big fatty whip and stand at the back of the White Sox bandwagon and snap it at any fairweather fans or media or, ugh, "Chicago baseball fans" trying to get their fat grubby fingers latched on. Get 'em outta here!

This is a great post, Norberto. Everything you say is 100 percent true.
:thumbsup:

I'm sure I'm not the only one here who remembers 1990, 1993, and 2000 when the Sox were drawing lots of new fans. And what bedsheet sign did the self-appointed Old Guard carry into Sox Park? Pretty ****ing embarrassing...

"Yuppie Scum Go Home!"

Great. Piss and moan about the media bias, day after day, month after month, year after year... at the precise moment the Sox show signs of deserving to be treated in any manner other than their current second-class status, why naturally start complaining about the new fans who show up!
:?:

Any Sox Fan carrying the yuppie scum sign ought to be hauled off into the holding area inside Sox Park and beaten senseless. These people are POND SCUM... 100-times worse than the people they complain about!

I bet some the whiners in this thread think the yuppie scum signs are just fine. I've already told you what I think of your kind. You're no kind of Sox Fan...
:mad:

Lip Man 1
03-09-2005, 01:02 PM
The actual title of the bedsheet as shown in the S.I. story of the first Sox / A's series in June of that year was:

'Yuppie Scum : Go back To Wrigley!'

It was hung over the right center field wall.

Lip

Baby Fisk
03-09-2005, 01:12 PM
Funny thread.

I was musing about this last night while looking through a book about ballparks. Photos of USCF showed things like the scoreboard & pinwheels, fans in Sox gear milling outside the park, the field during BP, Lyle Mouton (!) making a catch in RF, etc. Baseball stuff. Meanwhile, photos of Wrigley showed people crawling over each other in the teeny-tiny seats, and of course Sammy tossing a ball to a bunch of half-naked bleacher bums. If it came to deciding between less media and a sense of cool exclusivity OR loads of attention and the posers that it attracts, I'd take the former any day. This site alone offers more up-to-the-minute Sox info than the average human prolly needs to know.

FightingBillini
03-09-2005, 02:19 PM
Carlos Zambrano
2002 - 4-8 3.66 ERA
2003 - 13-11 3.75 ERA
2004 - 16-8 2.75 ERA
Career - 34-29 3.25 ERA over 3 years

Freddy Garcia
1999 - 17-8 4.07 ERA
2000 - 9-5 3.91 ERA
2001 - 18-6 3.05 ERA
2002 - 16-10 4.39 ERA
2003 - 12-14 4.52 ERA
2004 - 13-11 3.81 ERA
Career - 85-54 3.94 ERA over 6 years


Zambrano - 54% winning percentage
Freddy - 61% winning percentage
Comparing ERAs is pointless, because any ERA from the AL is roughly one run higher than an equivalent in the NL. Freddy is a workhorse, and other than the time he had the ear infection which messed him up, he has been pretty solid. Zambrano has been good, but he hasn't been around as long as Freddy, and therefore isn't guaranteed to put up the same numbers year after year. He very well may put up numbers similar to his in 04, but it cant be assumed that he will. I dont see how posting their stats argues that Zambrano is better. I have watched the Cubs extensively. I know that they have a good pitching staff, but they arent the best in all of baseball. I would argue that the Sox have a better staff, but its perfectly fine you disagree. I still maintain that Contreras will not only win more games this year, but have better numbers than Carrie Woods.

Jjav829
03-09-2005, 02:38 PM
Zambrano - 54% winning percentage
Freddy - 61% winning percentage
Comparing ERAs is pointless, because any ERA from the AL is roughly one run higher than an equivalent in the NL. Freddy is a workhorse, and other than the time he had the ear infection which messed him up, he has been pretty solid. Zambrano has been good, but he hasn't been around as long as Freddy, and therefore isn't guaranteed to put up the same numbers year after year. He very well may put up numbers similar to his in 04, but it cant be assumed that he will. I dont see how posting their stats argues that Zambrano is better. I have watched the Cubs extensively. I know that they have a good pitching staff, but they arent the best in all of baseball. I would argue that the Sox have a better staff, but its perfectly fine you disagree. I still maintain that Contreras will not only win more games this year, but have better numbers than Carrie Woods.

Still, a 2.75 ERA is great in any league. It's hard to put up a 2.75 ERA when starting for a whole season. I'd argue that he might even be their #1, not #2. Zambrano has the best stuff on that staff, no doubt. When he has that 2-seamer going, you really can't hit him. It's all about his emotions. But any way you stack it, he's the better pitcher. You wanna go by stuff, Zambrano has better stuff. The only downside is that he can't control himself. If he had the makeup of a Mark Buehrle, he'd be a Top 5 pitcher. Just the same as you claim ERA isn't a fair comparison, winning percentage isn't very fair either as Zambrano has only pitched two full seasons as a starter. I won't claim they have the best pitching staff in baseball, simply because of their health. That's the big risk. If Prior and Wood are healthy though, they'll have the best rotation. As much as the biased Sox fan side of me wants to say the Sox have a better pitching staff because they are the Sox and I hate the Cubs, the unbiased baseball fan side of me won't let me. I just can't reason that a staff with Jose Contreras can be the best staff in baseball. I just can't argue it. Good staffs don't rely on guys with 5+ ERA's. I won't argue that Contreras and Wood might have similar wins numbers, but ERA numbers, not happening. If Contreras puts up a 3.63 ERA, I'll faint. It won't happen. He's just not a good enough pitcher. His two plus pitches aside, he's not a good enough pitcher.

fquaye149
03-09-2005, 08:55 PM
Still, a 2.75 ERA is great in any league. It's hard to put up a 2.75 ERA when starting for a whole season. I'd argue that he might even be their #1, not #2. Zambrano has the best stuff on that staff, no doubt. When he has that 2-seamer going, you really can't hit him. It's all about his emotions. But any way you stack it, he's the better pitcher. You wanna go by stuff, Zambrano has better stuff. The only downside is that he can't control himself. If he had the makeup of a Mark Buehrle, he'd be a Top 5 pitcher. Just the same as you claim ERA isn't a fair comparison, winning percentage isn't very fair either as Zambrano has only pitched two full seasons as a starter. I won't claim they have the best pitching staff in baseball, simply because of their health. That's the big risk. If Prior and Wood are healthy though, they'll have the best rotation. As much as the biased Sox fan side of me wants to say the Sox have a better pitching staff because they are the Sox and I hate the Cubs, the unbiased baseball fan side of me won't let me. I just can't reason that a staff with Jose Contreras can be the best staff in baseball. I just can't argue it. Good staffs don't rely on guys with 5+ ERA's. I won't argue that Contreras and Wood might have similar wins numbers, but ERA numbers, not happening. If Contreras puts up a 3.63 ERA, I'll faint. It won't happen. He's just not a good enough pitcher. His two plus pitches aside, he's not a good enough pitcher.


a lot of if's about zambrano and prior and wood.

then again, there ARE a lot of if's about freddy, contreras, garland and hernandez.

But how come we automatically assume the IF's about the cubs will end favorably, while our if's are almost certain to end poorly?


don't get caught up in the trib mentality.

Jjav829
03-09-2005, 09:16 PM
a lot of if's about zambrano and prior and wood.

then again, there ARE a lot of if's about freddy, contreras, garland and hernandez.

But how come we automatically assume the IF's about the cubs will end favorably, while our if's are almost certain to end poorly?


don't get caught up in the trib mentality.

It's not a trib mentality. You're just calling it that because it isn't pro-Sox. I never assumed anything would happen for the Cubs. I said Wood has a lot of injury questions. The one thing there are no if's about is the fact that all three cubs can pitch well. The problem is health. Wood is always a question mark. Prior doesn't seem like an injury plagued pitcher, but that was disproved last year. Zambrano is just dominant, but has to control himself.

With the Sox, we don't know that Contreras can pitch. El Duque has bigger injury questions than Wood, though. We're talking about a guy who hasn't thrown more than 147 innings in the past 3 years. Wood, with all his injury problems, has thrown over 200 innings twice in the past 3 years, and had 140 last year. Contreras hasn't proven anything. He's the biggest question mark of any pitcher discussed here. Garland is solid, yet unspectacular. You know what you're gonna get from him, so I don't know that it's fair to call him a question. You know he'll pitch around 200 innings with an ERA around the mid-to-upper 4's. That's not really a question. Garcia is only a slight question mark. You know he'll throw 200 innings with probably a high 3's ERA to low 4's.

My point is that the Sox questions are bigger and have less upside than the Cubs. Like I said with the two injury plagued pitchers. While they are both known as being injury risks, Wood has managed to put together two 200 inning season. El Duque has been under 100 twice in that same span. El Duque is the bigger risk. We can label Prior an injury risk, but really, it has to happen more than once before you can label a guy an injury risk. If he doesn't pitch a full season this year, he's an injury-prone pitcher. But as of now, with his mechanics, it's unfair to label him as that. You wanna compare the two headcases? Zambrano is a headcase because he's too emotional. But the guy knows how to pitch and has proven he can dominate opposing batters. Contreras has shown that he has no clue what to do on the mound, and has proven that he has be easily destroyed by the other team. Each case of these similar questions just has more of an upside for the Cubs and less of a risk of the problem occuring.

FightingBillini
03-09-2005, 10:01 PM
Still, a 2.75 ERA is great in any league. It's hard to put up a 2.75 ERA when starting for a whole season. I'd argue that he might even be their #1, not #2. Zambrano has the best stuff on that staff, no doubt. When he has that 2-seamer going, you really can't hit him. It's all about his emotions. But any way you stack it, he's the better pitcher. You wanna go by stuff, Zambrano has better stuff. The only downside is that he can't control himself. If he had the makeup of a Mark Buehrle, he'd be a Top 5 pitcher. Just the same as you claim ERA isn't a fair comparison, winning percentage isn't very fair either as Zambrano has only pitched two full seasons as a starter. I won't claim they have the best pitching staff in baseball, simply because of their health. That's the big risk. If Prior and Wood are healthy though, they'll have the best rotation. As much as the biased Sox fan side of me wants to say the Sox have a better pitching staff because they are the Sox and I hate the Cubs, the unbiased baseball fan side of me won't let me. I just can't reason that a staff with Jose Contreras can be the best staff in baseball. I just can't argue it. Good staffs don't rely on guys with 5+ ERA's. I won't argue that Contreras and Wood might have similar wins numbers, but ERA numbers, not happening. If Contreras puts up a 3.63 ERA, I'll faint. It won't happen. He's just not a good enough pitcher. His two plus pitches aside, he's not a good enough pitcher.

No, IF the Cubs are all healthy, they MAY be in the top five in rotations. Atlanta is better reguardless, so are the Yankees. Houston has the best staff in all of baseball. Even if everything goes right for the Cubs starters, and Rusch pitches like last year and not the rest of his career, they cant hope to be any higher than the fourth best staff. As for Contreras posting an 3.63 ERA, you might want to be sitting down when you watch him pitch in September. That way you wont hit your head when you faint. He has better stuff than Carrie Woods. When he is on, he is lights out. I fully believe that Contreras will put it all together this year.

Jjav829
03-09-2005, 10:10 PM
No, IF the Cubs are all healthy, they MAY be in the top five in rotations. Atlanta is better reguardless, so are the Yankees. Houston has the best staff in all of baseball. Even if everything goes right for the Cubs starters, and Rusch pitches like last year and not the rest of his career, they cant hope to be any higher than the fourth best staff. As for Contreras posting an 3.63 ERA, you might want to be sitting down when you watch him pitch in September. That way you wont hit your head when you faint. He has better stuff than Carrie Woods. When he is on, he is lights out. I fully believe that Contreras will put it all together this year.

Hey, believe what you want. Just try not to be too disappointed/surprised when he lets you down.

BTW, you do realize that this same Cubs staff that you think has no chance at being the best had a 3.81 team ERA last year, right? That was 3rd in all of baseball. That was without a healthy and as effective Prior and Wood for half the season. That also factors in their crappy bullpen. Take all that into account and they still finished 3rd. They did lose Clement and Rusch won't be as good this year. But they should have a healthy Prior all year, who, if healthy, should be a Top 5 pitcher. Wood, who knows. He's already hurt. Who knows how much time he will miss, but when he is healthy he'll give them some good starts. As for Contreras, he puts up an ERA under 4 this year (with at least 25 starts), I have a 20-spot with your name on it. You wanna do the same, fine, but my end stays the same regardless. I'd be glad to give you it, but I don't see it happening.