PDA

View Full Version : More evidence that Phillips is a moron.


Harry Chappas
06-23-2005, 10:23 AM
I was listening to ESPN on my way to work today and the host (not sure who it was) asked Steve Phillips, the so-called "expert," to rank the World Series favorites. He was asked before he began his rankings, who's better, the White Sox or the Twins. He gave the nod to the Twins based on their starting pitching and the fact that they were his pre-season favorites. His latter reason is beyond stupid, but the former is downright laughable when you consider the success of Minnesota pitchers not named Santana. Radke, Mays, and Lohse all have ERA above 4.0 and 13 wins between them. By contrast Garland alone has 12 wins and an ERA well below 4.

When it came time to rank the teams, Phillips changed his tune and ranked the Sox ahead of Minnesota (but behind the Angels and the Red Sox). I think his rationale was that the Sox were almost assured a playoff spot whereas the Twins might get edged out in the wild card. Wouldn't the fact that the Sox have the best record in baseball and have already won 4 of 5 games point to the obvious fact that we're the better team?

I am not one to get worked up about the perceived "media bias." Frankly, I wouldn't mind keeping a low profile for a while longer. As an Iowa grad, I've watched Kirk Ferentz's teams get overlooked only to go on to win a share of the Big Ten the last 2 seasons and finish in the Top Ten the last 3 years. I like the way we've quietly gone about our business, but it's the ignorance displayed by the likes of Steve Phillips that gets under my skin.

MIgrenade
06-23-2005, 10:27 AM
Their tune won't change unless the White Sox win a playoff series.

Irishsox1
06-23-2005, 10:31 AM
Their tune won't change unless the White Sox win a playoff series.

I totally agree with this. The media has seen this before with the Sox, '83, '93, 2000. The Sox get super hot, make the playoffs and choke. Winning will take care of all that.

MIgrenade
06-23-2005, 10:41 AM
Actually I was listening to Boers and Bernstein and Boers brought up the point that the Sox have not even won a playoff series since 1917. I never thought about it. In '59, league leaders made the WS. That's a bad track record.

Harry Chappas
06-23-2005, 10:55 AM
Their tune won't change unless the White Sox win a playoff series.

To clarify, my issue wasn't with them not picking the Sox to win the World Series. A strong case can be made for a lot of teams. I just found it ridiculous to call the Twins the better team but moments later give the Sox the edge for the World Series. Seems a bit contradictory to me, but then again, we're talking about Steve Phillips. Maybe I expect too much...

Ol' No. 2
06-23-2005, 11:03 AM
To clarify, my issue wasn't with them not picking the Sox to win the World Series. A strong case can be made for a lot of teams. I just found it ridiculous to call the Twins the better team but moments later give the Sox the edge for the World Series. Seems a bit contradictory to me, but then again, we're talking about Steve Phillips. Maybe I expect too much...I heard it too, but I have a different take. They were talking about teams' chances for winning the WS. The Sox have to get the nod over the Twins (as Phillips said) because they're almost a lock to make the playoffs while the Twins might be playing golf in October. It's hard to win when you're not playing. But they didn't think too highly of the Sox' chances of doing much once they make the playoffs, for a variety of reasons. Most of the reasons are dumb, but they're the same standard reasons "experts" use all the time. He picked both the Angels and the Red Sox ahead of them as having better chances for winning the WS.

socko82
06-23-2005, 11:27 AM
At this point I expect this from Phillips. What was worse than Phillips comments was the other guy who was on with him this morning (Eric The Silliest) who said the Sox lineup was crap.

SOXSINCE'70
06-23-2005, 11:35 AM
He picked both the Angels and the Red Sox ahead of them as having better chances for winning the WS.

Maybe because of playoff experience.But I would sooner give the
Halos the nod over the Blow Sawx.When Aug. and Sept. roll around,
their bullpens may be counted on much more than they are now.
If that's the case,the Halos have a huge advantage because the
Blow Sawx 'pen has been putrid this year.

SOXSINCE'70
06-23-2005, 11:38 AM
At this point I expect this from Phillips. What was worse than Phillips comments was the other guy who was on with him this morning (Eric The Silliest) who said the Sox lineup was crap.


He's right.The Sox should have at least 60 wins by now.
This lineup blows chunks.Only 49 victories?? Come on!!:roflmao: :roflmao:

Ol' No. 2
06-23-2005, 11:41 AM
Maybe because of playoff experience.But I would sooner give the
Halos the nod over the Blow Sawx.When Aug. and Sept. roll around,
their bullpens may be counted on much more than they are now.
If that's the case,the Halos have a huge advantage because the
Blow Sawx 'pen has been putrid this year.He justified picking the Red Sox because he assumed they would make a mid-season move to bolster their pen, Eddie Guardado by name. Which is just another example of how these dweebs just decide who they like and make up stuff to justify it. Of course, no one else will make a move to improve their team.

skobabe8
06-23-2005, 12:34 PM
Wouldn't it be funny if the Cubs hired Steve Phillips?:rolling: :roflmao:

Lip Man 1
06-23-2005, 12:53 PM
MI:

VERY well said.

Lip

Ol' No. 2
06-23-2005, 02:06 PM
Actually I was listening to Boers and Bernstein and Boers brought up the point that the Sox have not even won a playoff series since 1917. I never thought about it. In '59, league leaders made the WS. That's a bad track record.And completely pointless, since they didn't have divisional playoffs until 1969. It's a little like saying the Houston Astros haven't won a WS in a thousand years.

Huisj
06-23-2005, 02:58 PM
And completely pointless, since they didn't have divisional playoffs until 1969. It's a little like saying the Houston Astros haven't won a WS in a thousand years.

You mean they won it back in 1005? Who'd they play? Was Biggio still a catcher back then?

Herbal
06-23-2005, 03:14 PM
I barely heard the part about the White Sox since I was still laughing at his comments on the Yankees. He went on for about a minute on how their rotation is not good, guys are old and hurt, and their BP is bad. He then proceeded to pick them as his number 5 team. It seems like they were #5 only because they might not make the Playoffs. He seems to think that if they get in they would probably win.

beckett21
06-23-2005, 03:18 PM
MI:

VERY well said.

Lip

:rolleyes:

What does this year's team have to do with any of the previous ones?



I'll tell you.....NOTHING.

Lip Man 1
06-23-2005, 07:01 PM
Beck:

Technically nothing since past is no indication of future returns (I heard that in a commercial! :smile: ) however, unfortunately, in the minds of many until the Sox can win something of substance it's 'more of the same...'

The issue here was 'respect'. Many complain the Sox don't get any....part of the reason for that is their lack of October success.

Win something and you'll be amazed how fast that changes!

Lip

Reichardt
06-23-2005, 07:22 PM
Beck:


The issue here was 'respect'. Many complain the Sox don't get any....part of the reason for that is their lack of October success.

Win something and you'll be amazed how fast that changes!

Lip

I'm not so sure about that. IMO the Marlins didn't recieve more coverage in 2004 compared to 2003. The same can be said for the Angels in 2003 following the 2002 Championship. ESPN has a template and the White Sox don't fit. The Sox are one of the have-nots regardless of win totals or maybe even championships.