PDA

View Full Version : Burnsey on the score makes a good point


irish rover
05-09-2005, 12:02 PM
I'm sure there were many here who have mentioned this, but this was the first from a media person.

He said that people are saying the sox havn't played anyone based on thier opponents won/lose record, however they have that won/lost record because the SOX HAVE BEATEN THEM

MUsoxfan
05-09-2005, 12:05 PM
I loved his 3-0 vs. 0-3 analogy. "In a four game series the Sox win the first 3 games. Then people say, 'Well of course the Sox are gonna beat them, they're playing an 0-3 team.' But you didn't mention the SOX are the team that made them 0-3!!!!" I love B&B

Uncle_Patrick
05-09-2005, 12:33 PM
I'm sure there were many here who have mentioned this, but this was the first from a media person.

He said that people are saying the sox havn't played anyone based on thier opponents won/lose record, however they have that won/lost record because the SOX HAVE BEATEN THEM

I think about this especially regarding the Indians and Tigers. Before the season started, many experts had one or both of these teams doing better than the Sox in the AL Central. Now that the Sox beat them, people act like "Well, of course they beat them, they're mediocre" as if it was expected all along.

MIgrenade
05-09-2005, 12:42 PM
I've been saying this for a while. I was looking at the RPI on ESPN and for a while the Sox were in 3rd place because their strength of schedule was low. The first thing I thought was, it's low because the Sox are beating everyone, how fair is that. Oh well keep on doing it.

cleanwsox
05-09-2005, 12:45 PM
I picked up an old ESPN the Magazine issue in my bathroom that had predictions for every division. I had to laugh seeing them put the Sox in fourth. Good research guys!

samram
05-09-2005, 12:46 PM
I picked up an old ESPN the Magazine issue in my bathroom that had predictions for every division. I had to laugh seeing them put the Sox in fourth. Good research guys!

Well, the good thing is you probably found another use for it.

irish rover
05-09-2005, 01:07 PM
They just had stoney on, to further in our discussion here, said that sox fans should enjoy how well the team is doing, however they have to be aware that they have not been able to put the twins away.

My point to that is we have not allowed the sponge cakes to gain. Sox have no control over how the twinks play, they have control over how the play

PaleHoseGeorge
05-09-2005, 01:14 PM
They just had stoney on, to further in our discussion here, said that sox fans should enjoy how well the team is doing, however they have to be aware that they have not been able to put the twins away.

My point to that is we have not allowed the sponge cakes to gain. Sox have no control over how the twinks play, they have control over how the play

LOL! The Twins have gone 7-3 over their last 10 games -- and they lost ground to the Sox!

:roflmao:

I'm quaking in my boots about Minnesota. My only regret is that we can't use our current UNHOLY TEAR to dump their asses another 2 games per day in the standings head-to-head.

Jjav829
05-09-2005, 01:18 PM
I've been screaming this lately whenever I hear someone say we're facing easy teams. Our opponents winning percentages are bad because they played us! The Sox helped get the Indians bats off to a bad start. The Sox played a big role in exposing the Tigers as a mediocre team as opposed to a contender. The Sox helped create that gap between us and the Twins.

And if we're waiting to play the best teams, we might be waiting a while because we don't have the Chicago White Sox on our schedule. Thankfully. :cool:

But really, who are we supposed to fear? Who are these great teams looming on our schedule that we should be shaking in fear of? The Orioles have had a great start and they're going to be a test. The Yankees have been awful. The Red Sox haven't played that great. We just beat down the Blue Jays. The Devil Rays are awful, as are the Royals. Seattle and Oakland are both bad. Are we supposed to be fearing the Rangers? The Angels? I don't get it.

Ol' No. 2
05-09-2005, 01:27 PM
I've been screaming this lately whenever I hear someone say we're facing easy teams. Our opponents winning percentages are bad because they played us! The Sox helped get the Indians bats off to a bad start. The Sox played a big role in exposing the Tigers as a mediocre team as opposed to a contender. The Sox helped create that gap between us and the Twins.

And if we're waiting to play the best teams, we might be waiting a while because we don't have the Chicago White Sox on our schedule. Thankfully. :cool:

But really, who are we supposed to fear? Who are these great teams looming on our schedule that we should be shaking in fear of? The Orioles have had a great start and they're going to be a test. The Yankees have been awful. The Red Sox haven't played that great. We just beat down the Blue Jays. The Devil Rays are awful, as are the Royals. Seattle and Oakland are both bad. Are we supposed to be fearing the Rangers? The Angels? I don't get it.And even after we beat those supposedly good teams, all you'll hear is "Well, the Sox just happened to catch them when [insert lame excuse here]."

All together, now...

:KW We...don't...care.

MisterB
05-09-2005, 02:05 PM
I've been saying this for a while. I was looking at the RPI on ESPN and for a while the Sox were in 3rd place because their strength of schedule was low. The first thing I thought was, it's low because the Sox are beating everyone, how fair is that. Oh well keep on doing it.

Get a load of this: I checked ESPN's current RPI list and found that, according to strength of schedule, the Cubs are 5 games under .500 while having the easiest schedule in baseball so far.

How pathetic is that? :D:

Frater Perdurabo
05-09-2005, 03:11 PM
Get a load of this: I checked ESPN's current RPI list and found that, according to strength of schedule, the Cubs are 5 games under .500 while having the easiest schedule in baseball so far.

How pathetic is that? :D:

Especially since teams are padding their win totals by beating up the Cubs!

SoxEd
05-09-2005, 03:14 PM
Get a load of this: I checked ESPN's current RPI list and found that, according to strength of schedule, the Cubs are 5 games under .500 while having the easiest schedule in baseball so far.

How pathetic is that? :D:

Oww... that's just got to hurt! :D:

Harry Chappas
05-09-2005, 03:24 PM
They just had stoney on, to further in our discussion here, said that sox fans should enjoy how well the team is doing, however they have to be aware that they have not been able to put the twins away.

My point to that is we have not allowed the sponge cakes to gain. Sox have no control over how the twinks play, they have control over how the play

Did you happen to catch the genius that called in to voice his concern over our bullpen in general and Hermanson in particular? He asked Stone if the Sox had anyone in the farm system they could bring up to replace Hermanson. To Stone's credit, he didn't start laughing, but you could tell he wanted to set him straight. Naturally, Bernstein didn't spare him and basically call him an idiot.

irish rover
05-09-2005, 03:29 PM
lol, yes I did

wdelaney72
05-09-2005, 03:32 PM
Did you happen to catch the genius that called in to voice his concern over our bullpen in general and Hermanson in particular? He asked Stone if the Sox had anyone in the farm system they could bring up to replace Hermanson. To Stone's credit, he didn't start laughing, but you could tell he wanted to set him straight. Naturally, Bernstein didn't spare him and basically call him an idiot.

Which part of Hermie's 0.00 ERA did he want to replace?

:wills "Drill-rod!"

irish rover
05-09-2005, 03:33 PM
basicly didn't beleive Hermie was the real deal

SOX ADDICT '73
05-09-2005, 03:43 PM
Did you happen to catch the genius that called in to voice his concern over our bullpen in general and Hermanson in particular? He asked Stone if the Sox had anyone in the farm system they could bring up to replace Hermanson. To Stone's credit, he didn't start laughing, but you could tell he wanted to set him straight. Naturally, Bernstein didn't spare him and basically call him an idiot.
Had to be either drunk, or a sCrUBS fan. As if there's a difference.

elrod
05-09-2005, 04:24 PM
One criticism I've heard about Hermie is that he doesn't have closer stuff. He doesn't have 98mph heat, and he doesn't have a Hoffman-Foulke-Shingo style killer changeup. Ah, but he does have guts, which is what you really need out there.

MUsoxfan
05-09-2005, 04:33 PM
Had to be either drunk, or a sCrUBS fan. As if there's a difference.

Hey, that's an offense to all us drunks out there!:D::gulp:

Tragg
05-09-2005, 05:17 PM
I'm sure there were many here who have mentioned this, but this was the first from a media person.

He said that people are saying the sox havn't played anyone based on thier opponents won/lose record, however they have that won/lost record because the SOX HAVE BEATEN THEM

Yep, some of us have pointed that out. Case in point - Toronto

But there's Moronotti a minute ago saying we haven't beat winning teams.

RKMeibalane
05-09-2005, 05:19 PM
LOL! The Twins have gone 7-3 over their last 10 games -- and they lost ground to the Sox!

:roflmao:

I'm quaking in my boots about Minnesota. My only regret is that we can't use our current UNHOLY TEAR to dump their asses another 2 games per day in the standings head-to-head.

I'm waiting for Frank Thomas to put those clowns away when he comes back. Minnesota won't know what hit them.

TDog
05-09-2005, 06:50 PM
Get a load of this: I checked ESPN's current RPI list and found that, according to strength of schedule, the Cubs are 5 games under .500 while having the easiest schedule in baseball so far.

How pathetic is that? :D:

I was just thinking how the Cubs hadn't taken advantage of their easy early schedule. And of course the Yankees aren't even .500 after playing Tampa Bay last week.

Essentially, the Sox' schedule so far is not very much different than the Twinks' schedule has been. Both teams have done home and road series with teams in the division. Both have played Seattle. Sox have played Oakland instead of the Angels and the Twinks have played Tampa Bay instead of Toronto. Are people saying the Twinks have the league's third-best record based upon their easy schedule?

If the Sox have an inflated record because they've been playing an easy schedule, then what does it say for the White Sox prospects this year if those easy teams are the other teams in their own division and comprise close to half their schedule?

TommyJohn
05-09-2005, 06:56 PM
The whole "they aren't playing winning teams" argument is so much crap. I
mean, let's imagine for a minute that the Sox are, say, 12-17. (Just tossing
a random number out here.) The hue and cry from the "mediots" would be
"How pathetic is your team when you cannot sweep the Kansas City Royals?
Or beat the equally inept Mariners? This team is horrible! No wonder the
attendance is so bad!!!"

kobo
05-09-2005, 07:07 PM
LOL! The Twins have gone 7-3 over their last 10 games -- and they lost ground to the Sox!

:roflmao:

I'm quaking in my boots about Minnesota. My only regret is that we can't use our current UNHOLY TEAR to dump their asses another 2 games per day in the standings head-to-head.
Until we win the division, or finish ahead of the Twins at the end of the year, we should fear them. It's May 9, we have 131 games to play, anything can happen. While I enjoy what the Sox have done so far, the Twins are right behind us and are going to be there all year long. Let's just hope we keep playing this well, and then we won't have to worry about the Twins.

havelj
05-09-2005, 09:49 PM
One criticism I've heard about Hermie is that he doesn't have closer stuff. He doesn't have 98mph heat, and he doesn't have a Hoffman-Foulke-Shingo style killer changeup. Ah, but he does have guts, which is what you really need out there.

Oh...he must mean Kyle Farnsworth - he has 98 MPH heat, right?

TornLabrum
05-09-2005, 10:00 PM
Oh...he must mean Kyle Farnsworth - he has 98 MPH heat, right?

:tealpolice:

batmanZoSo
05-09-2005, 10:57 PM
Not only that, but how can you fault a team for beating up on a few bad teams? We have two eight game winning streaks. The Tigers, Indians and Twins are all decent, competitive teams at the very least and we dominated all of them. Good teams are supposed to beat bad teams, but they hardly ever go 24-8.

And what about the Twins, who've had a similar, if not weaker schedule? How come they're only 18-12?

MUsoxfan
05-10-2005, 02:08 AM
And what about the Twins, who've had a similar, if not weaker schedule? How come they're only 18-12?

Wait, wait, wait!! I thought they were 30-2?!?! I guess all those ESPN projections had me thinking that

seanpmurphy
05-10-2005, 02:50 AM
Not only that, but how can you fault a team for beating up on a few bad teams? We have two eight game winning streaks. The Tigers, Indians and Twins are all decent, competitive teams at the very least and we dominated all of them. Good teams are supposed to beat bad teams, but they hardly ever go 24-8.

And what about the Twins, who've had a similar, if not weaker schedule? How come they're only 18-12?

Cause we took 4 out 5 from them :)