PDA

View Full Version : More insights from Ken Rosenthal


Ol' No. 2
04-20-2005, 01:18 PM
Although the team's defense is improved, the range on the right side of the infield is limited, and Scott Podsednik isn't a strong center fielder.

Linky (http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/3554702)

Wow.

ChiSoxBobette
04-20-2005, 01:20 PM
Linky (http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/3554702)

Wow.

Someone tell this idiot Pods is playing LF , as far as the range on the right side Gooch is doing fine. Pauly has always been slow , so what Tell Kenny boy to go watch the scrubs.

NonetheLoaiza
04-20-2005, 01:24 PM
Holy cow...it's called research people....unbelievable how these writers aren't doing their jobs.

batmanZoSo
04-20-2005, 01:25 PM
Linky (http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/3554702)

Wow.

Just quit trying already, ya jerks and stick to what you know. They prove time and time again that you can't competently cover all 30 teams in a sport...or they won't put in the effort to do so. When it comes to teams not in the spotlight, they look like idiots.

wilburaga
04-20-2005, 01:28 PM
Rosenthal makes a good point. And, truth be told, Scotty isn't a very good shortstop either.


W

Randar68
04-20-2005, 01:29 PM
Someone tell this idiot Pods is playing LF , as far as the range on the right side Gooch is doing fine..

Idiot? How can that be? He's Lip's favorite quotable baseball "expert"... *COUGH*

:rolleyes:

Brian26
04-20-2005, 01:30 PM
Someone tell this idiot Pods is playing LF

Pods CAN'T be playing left since Gary Redus is currently there.

Get a life, Rosenthal. More incorrect "sources"?

infohawk
04-20-2005, 01:31 PM
Why do I have serious doubts that a guy like Rosenthal would ever claim that Manny Ramirez was playing centerfield in Boston, or that Hideki Matsui was the everyday centerfielder in New York?

JB98
04-20-2005, 01:36 PM
Rosenthal makes a good point. And, truth be told, Scotty isn't a very good shortstop either.


W

I just e-mailed Rosenthal. I told him Sox brass agrees Podsednik isn't strong in center field. That's why we're playing him in LEFT FIELD. Then I told him that Rowand is a solid player, and that he will be the center fielder. Not Podsednik and not Carl Everett. I'm amazed that some national media types still think Everett is our center fielder.

Lip Man 1
04-20-2005, 02:26 PM
Folks:

Here is the part of Ken's story on Fox Sports, this is verbatum. Where is Posednik mentioned at all? I just got it off the web site (and it's not the complete story...)

Chicago White Sox (http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/team/71590)


Here's all you need to know about the White Sox (http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/team/71590)'s transformation from an all-or-nothing outfit to a small-ball, pitching-and-defense club: The Sox won only one game last season in which they scored one or two runs. This season, they did it three times in their first 11 games.

The team's switch to an N.L. approach in the A.L.'s leading home run park appeared to be a reach, but it's difficult to argue with the early results. The diminished offense remains a concern, and a rival G.M. says, "I'd be shocked if they don't struggle to score runs all season." But the rotation includes five accomplished pitchers, and the bullpen features three potential ninth-inning options. The pitching staff should give the White Sox (http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/team/71590) a chance to win most games.

Luck played a part in the team's 8-3 start-the Sox barely outscored their opponents, going 5-0 in 1-run games. The return of designated hitter Frank Thomas (http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/player/85030) from surgery on his left ankle will help, but he isn't expected back until at least mid-May. It's difficult to win consistently playing with such little margin for error. Although the team's defense is improved, the range on the right side of the infield is limited.

Prediction: The Sox won't overtake the Twins (http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/team/71595) in the A.L. Central, but they could win 85 to 87 games and make a run at the wild card.

Lip

Frater Perdurabo
04-20-2005, 02:32 PM
The story has been edited during the last few hours. Podsednik is not mentioned now, whereas he was mentioned before.

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/3554702

Mickster
04-20-2005, 02:37 PM
Folks:

Here is the part of Ken's story on Fox Sports, this is verbatum. Where is Posednik mentioned at all? I just got it off the web site (and it's not the complete story...)

Chicago White Sox (http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/team/71590)


Here's all you need to know about the White Sox (http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/team/71590)'s transformation from an all-or-nothing outfit to a small-ball, pitching-and-defense club: The Sox won only one game last season in which they scored one or two runs. This season, they did it three times in their first 11 games.

The team's switch to an N.L. approach in the A.L.'s leading home run park appeared to be a reach, but it's difficult to argue with the early results. The diminished offense remains a concern, and a rival G.M. says, "I'd be shocked if they don't struggle to score runs all season." But the rotation includes five accomplished pitchers, and the bullpen features three potential ninth-inning options. The pitching staff should give the White Sox (http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/team/71590) a chance to win most games.

Luck played a part in the team's 8-3 start-the Sox barely outscored their opponents, going 5-0 in 1-run games. The return of designated hitter Frank Thomas (http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/player/85030) from surgery on his left ankle will help, but he isn't expected back until at least mid-May. It's difficult to win consistently playing with such little margin for error. Although the team's defense is improved, the range on the right side of the infield is limited.

Prediction: The Sox won't overtake the Twins (http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/team/71595) in the A.L. Central, but they could win 85 to 87 games and make a run at the wild card.

Lip

The exact quote I have is

Although the team's defense is improved, the range on the right side of the infield is limited, and Scott Podsednik isn't a strong center fielder.

It clearly has been edited.

nasox
04-20-2005, 02:39 PM
Luck played a part in our fast start? Shut up jagoff.:angry:

jabrch
04-20-2005, 02:39 PM
Rosenthal is so typical of most of the baseball media.

Here's all you need to know about the White Sox (http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/team/71590)'s transformation from an all-or-nothing outfit to a small-ball, pitching-and-defense club

Small Ball? I see... Monday we had 3 HRs - to score all 5 of our runs. On Saturday we had 2 HRs - to score both our runs. We are 3rd in MLB with 17 HRs, only one HR behind the leader. He's so damn sloppy in his writing that he can't even take the time to read a stat sheet to see what kind of baseball this team is really playing? He's a lazy writer - to lazy to do even BASIC research.


This isn't Small Ball - this is a BALANCED OFFENSE.

Flight #24
04-20-2005, 02:42 PM
Rosenthal is so typical of most of the baseball media.



Small Ball? I see... Monday we had 3 HRs - to score all 5 of our runs. On Saturday we had 2 HRs - to score both our runs. We are 3rd in MLB with 17 HRs, only one HR behind the leader. He's so damn sloppy in his writing that he can't even take the time to read a stat sheet to see what kind of baseball this team is really playing? He's a lazy writer - to lazy to do even BASIC research.

Most interesting is that we're hitting all those HRs - with minimal contribution from Rowand, Uribe, Crede, Dye, Thomas - all among guys who can hit 25-35. That tells me that even if/when Paulie & Everett tail off in terms of the longball, we won't drop off the table.

Not to mention that if Podsednik can stay healthy, we'll see a lot more "smallball" to go with the HRs.

SOXintheBURGH
04-20-2005, 02:50 PM
I would like to hereby officially nominate this douche for:

Biggest Douche in the Universe

Brian26
04-20-2005, 02:54 PM
I would like to hereby officially nominate this douche for:

Biggest Douche in the Universe

Rosenthal or Lip? :D:

Ol' No. 2
04-20-2005, 02:58 PM
The exact quote I have is



It clearly has been edited.Pretty fast work, too. I wonder how many emails he got pointing it out? The quote I started this thread out with came directly from the article.

Brian26
04-20-2005, 03:11 PM
Pretty fast work, too. I wonder how many emails he got pointing it out? The quote I started this thread out with came directly from the article.

Don't worry 2, we got your back.

jabrch
04-20-2005, 03:24 PM
Can anyone, off the top of their head think of a lazier profession besides Sportswriters? Maybe DMV clerk? Just one moment of research...maybe even watch a few games of a team before you write an article? Between the dumb lazy writers and the completely worthless editors... lol

Brian26
04-20-2005, 04:06 PM
Can anyone, off the top of their head think of a lazier profession besides Sportswriters? Maybe DMV clerk?

The three women who work the counter at the Fort Dearborn Post Office (Grand/State) on Saturday mornings in Chicago have to rank right up there.

Hangar18
04-20-2005, 04:39 PM
It's difficult to win consistently playing with such little margin for error. Although the team's defense is improved, the range on the right side of the infield is limited.

Prediction: The Sox won't overtake the Twins (http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/team/71595) in the A.L. Central, but they could win 85 to 87 games and make a run at the wild card.



I do agree with Rosenthal on one point he makes. The SOX cannot expect
to keep winning with such little margin for error. That said, consistent
hitting from Crede and Frank Thomas will take the load off of Everett and Konerko. Also, the SOX cannot expect to give up 15 hits a nite and still
somehow win the game ...... Lets not get all worked up. If we did
indeed get to a 10-4 start out of pure "luck", then a good team will
take advantage and build on this. Its like i said earlier:
Win the Games your supposed to win,
and Win the Games your not supposed to win.

Mickster
04-20-2005, 04:43 PM
Its like i said earlier:
Win the Games your supposed to win,
and Win the Games your not supposed to win.

Would that make us winners? :?:

Hangar18
04-20-2005, 04:46 PM
Would that make us winners? :?:

Yes Sireeeee mickster. Remember in 1990, the Sox had a ragtag team
of rookies and first year players, they were winning games the craziest ways,
sac flies to win in the 9th etc? This team is reminding me of that team,
winning in fine fashion, winning ugly, but winning. They keep playing
at this pace, wow, were winning 100 games this year

gosox41
04-20-2005, 04:50 PM
Yes Sireeeee mickster. Remember in 1990, the Sox had a ragtag team
of rookies and first year players, they were winning games the craziest ways,
sac flies to win in the 9th etc? This team is reminding me of that team,
winning in fine fashion, winning ugly, but winning. They keep playing
at this pace, wow, were winning 100 games this year


Mathematically, the Sox are on pace for a lot more then 100 wins.


Realistically, I'd have to say the odds of 100 wins (or more) are against them.



Bob

Goose
04-20-2005, 04:58 PM
Why can't the Sox keep winning the 1-run games? Why can other teams do it and not our Sox? We have solid pitching (see Hernandez pitching against the Twins on Tuesday overcoming 2 bases-loaded situations without 1 run scored), pretty solid defense and a decent lineup. I am tired of hearing people say that this is too good to keep happening. Now, I am a realist, and know that the Sox will not win all of their close games, but I believe that they are IN all of those games more than they were the past few years. We can play the long ball style when we need to and we can move the runner over to manufacture runs when we need to.



As for the "journalist"...if it ain't Yankees or Red Sox, they just don't care. This guy should work for ESPN.

cheeses_h_rice
04-20-2005, 04:59 PM
Luck played a part in our fast start? Shut up jagoff.:angry:

You're right. The Sox are 6-1 in 1-run games despite some shaky pitching, poor offensive production from half their lineup, and the lowest OBP in the majors.

It's so obvious luck had nothing to do with it.

Chisox003
04-20-2005, 05:04 PM
Honestly, Ken Rosenthal is an idiot.

I started reading his "work" on Yahoo back in December, and he has made some of the stupidist claims about the White Sox--EVER

Ripping the CLee for Pods deal (of course without mentioning where all that $$$ went), saying the signing of El Duque was too much to spend etc etc

Ken Rosenthal = JACKASS!

Iwritecode
04-20-2005, 05:04 PM
Realistically, I'd have to say the odds of 100 wins (or more) are against them.

Well I say it's about time the Sox grabbed those odds by the back of the neck, threw them down on the ground and beat them to a bloody pulp...

I guess winning the division would work too.

:cool:

JB98
04-20-2005, 09:07 PM
Rosenthal e-mailed me back and admitted he blew it.

I've gotten both Rosenthal and Dan McGrath to admit they screwed up in a period of less than 24 hours. LOL :D:

Ol' No. 2
04-20-2005, 10:48 PM
Rosenthal e-mailed me back and admitted he blew it.

I've gotten both Rosenthal and Dan McGrath to admit they screwed up in a period of less than 24 hours. LOL :D:Maybe someone should tell Rosenthal that he has his VCR going and he's actually watching a tape from last year. You'd think the "M" on Podsednik's cap would be a giveaway.

Lip Man 1
04-21-2005, 12:38 PM
What did McGrath have to say?

Also Ken got back with me today on the Posednik caper. He admitted he flat out blew it, no excuse. He said he got a lot of e-mails on the subject, some respectful some not.

Lip

Randar68
04-21-2005, 05:40 PM
What did McGrath have to say?

Also Ken got back with me today on the Posednik caper. He admitted he flat out blew it, no excuse. He said he got a lot of e-mails on the subject, some respectful some not.

Lip

People only put up with disrespectful lazy-asses to a point before losing it. Why would anyone be surprised.

JB98
04-21-2005, 06:35 PM
What did McGrath have to say?

Also Ken got back with me today on the Posednik caper. He admitted he flat out blew it, no excuse. He said he got a lot of e-mails on the subject, some respectful some not.

Lip

McGrath just told me that the errors I pointed out were inexcusable, and that they would try to be more careful in the future.

hold2dibber
04-21-2005, 07:33 PM
Honestly, Ken Rosenthal is an idiot.

I started reading his "work" on Yahoo back in December, and he has made some of the stupidist claims about the White Sox--EVER

Ripping the CLee for Pods deal (of course without mentioning where all that $$$ went), saying the signing of El Duque was too much to spend etc etc

Ken Rosenthal = JACKASS!

It's one thing when a reporter is simply WRONG about something (i.e., Pods in CF), but quite another when you simply disagree with his analysis. It's entirely understandable that someone might think the CLee trade was a crappy trade or that the Sox spent too much on El Duque. I think Sox fans generally are too quick to rip media types and others for opinions with which we disagree. If we save our ammunition for the (many) instances in which mis-reporting or flat out bias occurs to put the Sox in a negative light, we'd have more credibility.

MRKARNO
04-21-2005, 07:42 PM
It's one thing when a reporter is simply WRONG about something (i.e., Pods in CF), but quite another when you simply disagree with his analysis. It's entirely understandable that someone might think the CLee trade was a crappy trade or that the Sox spent too much on El Duque. I think Sox fans generally are too quick to rip media types and others for opinions with which we disagree. If we save our ammunition for the (many) instances in which mis-reporting or flat out bias occurs to put the Sox in a negative light, we'd have more credibility.

Excellent point. It seems like White Sox fans are so fed up with the media to the point that we're oversensitive to some of the smaller things and valid opinions that we happen to not agree with. We often call writers idiots, etc. for expressing opinions that we do not agree with. Now Steve Phillips and Joe Sheehan's predictions were outrageously terrible, but for every two legitimite rips, there are probably about 3 or 4 unfair rips on the National Media. The Chicago Sports media in general sucks, but the Nat'l media does not deserve the same treatment for lesser crimes.

mealfred13
04-21-2005, 07:47 PM
"Luck played a part in the team's 8-3 start-the Sox barely outscored their opponents, going 5-0 in 1-run games."

Why is it that when the Sox "barely [outscore] their opponents," it's Luck, when the Twins have been doing it for years and winning the division because of their skill?

Gimme a f'in break.

fquaye149
04-21-2005, 09:28 PM
It's one thing when a reporter is simply WRONG about something (i.e., Pods in CF), but quite another when you simply disagree with his analysis. It's entirely understandable that someone might think the CLee trade was a crappy trade or that the Sox spent too much on El Duque. I think Sox fans generally are too quick to rip media types and others for opinions with which we disagree. If we save our ammunition for the (many) instances in which mis-reporting or flat out bias occurs to put the Sox in a negative light, we'd have more credibility.

To ignore salary concerns in a salary dump trade is factually incorrect.

Now if you analyzed the deal and found the 4+ players we got via the trade and money saved and still found it to be unbalanced, then we are talking an objective "opinion" that can't be certainly proved right or wrong.

I mean, you COULD make the case that boston trading away nomar last year was a bad move. You COULD. Would that make you an idiot? Hold2dibber says no, and that's his opinion.

But then again, if you said that Texas traded A-rod away for Soriano and therefore since Soriano is not a good of player as A-rod, Texas got fleeced, you ARE an idiot. Period. And nothing Dibber says will change this opinion of mine.