PDA

View Full Version : More Joe Sheehan Nonsense


Mr. White Sox
08-31-2005, 08:32 PM
*Yawn, here goes...this is from a chat transcript (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/chat/chat.php?chatId=132):

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/images/dot_gray.gif Dan Okeefe (Hippie): How does Podsednik make the A.S. game? Better yet how did Podsednik make the ballot over Hafner?

Joe Sheehan: He was the fan-vote guy. [shrug] It'll be fun to look back in 20 years at this .260/.325/.315 OF who got 2600 MLB ABs and wonder how he made an All-Star team.



(Me: Scott Podsednik, career, is .276/.343/.385)

helix123 (bay area): Many discussions about whether Ozzie is playing "smart ball" or "lucky ball". Three "doing good" teams are "doing great" in one-run games. (to 7/21) White Sox: 23-10 Angels: 21-13 Nationals: 24-14 The Nationals are back to earth after lose 6 straight one-run games. The interesting thing is the White Sox are 14-1, the Angels are 13-5 in one-run games against AL Center teams. They played just .500 one-run games against other divisions. It seems can't be explained by pure luck. Do you think there are somethings special between AL Center and these two teams?

Joe Sheehan: The lower the run environment, the greater the chance of one-run games. The AL Central has, what, three of the five worst offenses in the AL? Plus the Indians didn't score for six weeks at the start of the year. I think that explains it.

Whether you want to consider that "special"...

(Me: Yawn, he's rationalizing again...)



Chomsky (Brooklyn): AL Wild Card prediction?

Joe Sheehan: A's, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was the Indians.

Or the White Sox. [ducks]

(Me: Man, this guy needs a good old-fashioned lobotomy)

Optipessimism
08-31-2005, 10:55 PM
It's funny how none of these media people liked us when we were all offense and minimal pitching, yet they just love the Yanks and BlowSox. And it's funny how they loved the A's and Twins built around pitching and defense, but when we do it we're a fluke.

There's one explanation for this: Cub fans. The Cubs may not be their favorite team, but they're probably in the top three of these *******s' predictions every single year. They think that everyone in Chicago cares about the Cubs, and all knowledgeable baseball fans are Cub fans while Sox fans are mullet-headed coach-assaulting rednecks. Therefore, anything good that happens at the Cell must then be justified as an aberration.

It's always the same garbage. These pricks do whatever they can to make excuses for the same teams over and over as to why they suck, and then when another team comes around and does something good they ignore it.

All I have to say is wait until the playoffs. As the saying goes, put a bow on a piece of **** and it's just a piece of **** with a bow on it. Watch these media know-nothings put pretty little bows on Curt Schilling in the playoffs and watch him 'take one for the team' like the 'hero' he is and give up nine runs through four innings.

Lip Man 1
08-31-2005, 10:59 PM
The media 'loves' the Yankees and Red Sox because they have a track record, they have the stars, they have the history and that translates into ratings and newspapers sold. That's the way the business operates.

If the Sox were to start winning like nuts for five years, have a 200 million dollar payroll and a bunch of popular players they'd love them as well.

Lip

Optipessimism
08-31-2005, 11:11 PM
The media 'loves' the Yankees and Red Sox because they have a track record, they have the stars, they have the history and that translates into ratings and newspapers sold. That's the way the business operates.

If the Sox were to start winning like nuts for five years, have a 200 million dollar payroll and a bunch of popular players they'd love them as well.

Lip

That's still no excuse. While that may be more than enough motivation for companies to offer lucrative endorsement deals to successful organizations, it has nothing to do with accurately reporting on sports. Isn't that what a sports journalist is supposed to do? Isn't that supposedly what ESPN and the like are for?

I see where you are coming from and admit that nothing will change until the Cell sells out year after year, but it's just annoying. If a guy is going to report on a team then he should do a little research beyond looking at a stat sheet. If not, then don't write anything at all. It's the same reason why we don't go on other team's boards and dissect their teams, since we know very little about them.

SouthSide_HitMen
08-31-2005, 11:27 PM
It's funny how none of these media people liked us when we were all offense and minimal pitching, yet they just love the Yanks and BlowSox. And it's funny how they loved the A's and Twins built around pitching and defense, but when we do it we're a fluke.

1. Joe never liked the White Sox - he pegged them with 72 wins. The White Sox fans on the site have rubbed his face in it.

2. He and most of the BP Prospectus crew are HUGE cub fans.

3. He wrote an article admitted screwing up big time when it concerns the White Sox this year but the tone was pretty much their pitching is very good, their hitting stinks and it is a matter of time before the come back down the Earth.

SouthSide_HitMen
08-31-2005, 11:30 PM
That's still no excuse. While that may be more than enough motivation for companies to offer lucrative endorsement deals to successful organizations, it has nothing to do with accurately reporting on sports. Isn't that what a sports journalist is supposed to do? Isn't that supposedly what ESPN and the like are for?

ESPN stands for Entertainment....

They are not objective though they may claim to be.

Their purpose is to serve their viewers which they view as Northeast America and to pimp their shows and to make money for Disney. Period.

MRKARNO
09-02-2005, 06:47 PM
1. Joe never liked the White Sox - he pegged them with 72 wins. The White Sox fans on the site have rubbed his face in it.


He was bitter about picking us to win in 2004 and seeing us lose (I believe he picked us a few other times too), so he overreacted and pegged us for 72 wins. Then when the Sox outperformed their expectations, he looked like an absolute fool. That's my take. It's not personal.

FielderJones
09-02-2005, 06:55 PM
That's still no excuse. While that may be more than enough motivation for companies to offer lucrative endorsement deals to successful organizations, it has nothing to do with accurately reporting on sports. Isn't that what a sports journalist is supposed to do? Isn't that supposedly what ESPN and the like are for?

Dude, that is so last century. "News" organizations are profit centers now. That means kowtowing to the powers that be to maintain access, maintain a subscriber/viewer base, and sell advertising. Don't go looking for objectivity in any national "news" organization. You might find it yet in some small-market outlet.

bestkosher
09-02-2005, 09:56 PM
ESPN, is very much like the bosses of Chicago Public Schools, they take the easy solution to a problem. The Yankees Boston, and the Flubbies, have the easiest names to remeber and easiest names to market, so why make the effort to do a little work, when society accpets the minimum.

MarySwiss
09-02-2005, 10:23 PM
Who is this "Joe Sheehan" person? (no teal; I really never heard of the dude--which, I gather, is not a bad thing!)

santo=dorf
09-02-2005, 11:07 PM
Who is this "Joe Sheehan" person? (no teal; I really never heard of the dude--which, I gather, is not a bad thing!)

Some chubby, high pitched-voice, stat head loser who writes for www.baseballprospectus.com (http://www.baseballprospectus.com) .

noquitter
09-02-2005, 11:21 PM
Some chubby, high pitched-voice, stat head loser who writes for www.baseballprospectus.com (http://www.baseballprospectus.com) .You forgot the "virgin" part. :redneck

MarySwiss
09-03-2005, 04:19 PM
Some chubby, high pitched-voice, stat head loser who writes for www.baseballprospectus.com (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/) .

Oh, BP. Well, that explains why I never heard of him. I never look at it unless someone on this list brings it up. ESPN and the Chicago papers make me crazy enough without going out and looking for further irritants.

Thanks, santo=dorf!

DumpJerry
09-03-2005, 04:27 PM
Come on guys, Sheehan was right. The Sox did win 72 games this year. Was he referring to total wins?


P.S. I really miss the spell check on here.....

SouthSide_HitMen
09-12-2005, 04:21 PM
Part 48 - I was wrong - But the Sox still stink and I will be vindicated.

87-55 is 87-55, and there's no way I can spin the White Sox except to say that I was wrong about their run prevention capabilities.



With that said, the White Sox have benefited from an insanely easy schedule. Their dominance of the AL Central--40-14--has been noted, and included in there is a 24-6 mark against the Tigers and Royals. But don't ignore their interleague slate: 18 games, none of which came against a team currently above .500. They went 12-6 in those contests. It's quite possible the the 2005 White Sox are playing the weakest schedule in three-division history, and one of the weakest in the game's history. You have to consider that in evaluating what they've done this year.

DMarte708
09-12-2005, 04:55 PM
Part 48 - I was wrong - But the Sox still stink and I will be vindicated.

87-55 is 87-55, and there's no way I can spin the White Sox except to say that I was wrong about their run prevention capabilities.



With that said, the White Sox have benefited from an insanely easy schedule. Their dominance of the AL Central--40-14--has been noted, and included in there is a 24-6 mark against the Tigers and Royals. But don't ignore their interleague slate: 18 games, none of which came against a team currently above .500. They went 12-6 in those contests. It's quite possible the the 2005 White Sox are playing the weakest schedule in three-division history, and one of the weakest in the game's history. You have to consider that in evaluating what they've done this year.

That's unbelievable. I'll consider this idea just as long as I'll consider anointing Beane my Lord and Savior.These statisticians and Beane lovers go to such great lengths to justify their "models" it's comical.

I recall earlier in the year someone revived an old thread where a Baseball Prospectus writer claimed Florida Marlins winning the World Series two seasons ago was (and I'm paraphrasing) "close to winning a date with Eva Longoria luck." They just can't stand to fathom the possibility baseball is not an equation which can be solved with a complex formula. There are intangibles to the game which can't be measured on a laptop computer. If players were machines, yes, it may be possible to present a perfect model.

This year isn't exactly a poor year for the AL Central Division. Aside from the prototypical standing dweller (KC or Detroit), three teams in our division have records above .500. Even the NL West teams Sheehan refers to aren't atrocious clubs. They're medicore. And when we played them-- Arizona and San Diego, in particular, they were regarded as possible playoff teams. There have been worse years for the AL Central division--2002 comes to mind. Where was the complaints concerning other clubs beating up on us back then?

Next time he asserts our schedule as one of the weakest he may want to load his spreadsheet and attempt to disprove it. Of course, it's necessary any graph created is needlessly complicated. Must continue the condescending tone Baseball Prospectus has established since its creation. But even then, at least it would be something we in the world call "evidence."

mdep524
09-12-2005, 05:32 PM
Part 48 - I was wrong - But the Sox still stink and I will be vindicated.

87-55 is 87-55, and there's no way I can spin the White Sox except to say that I was wrong about their run prevention capabilities.



With that said, the White Sox have benefited from an insanely easy schedule. Their dominance of the AL Central--40-14--has been noted, and included in there is a 24-6 mark against the Tigers and Royals. But don't ignore their interleague slate: 18 games, none of which came against a team currently above .500. They went 12-6 in those contests. It's quite possible the the 2005 White Sox are playing the weakest schedule in three-division history, and one of the weakest in the game's history. You have to consider that in evaluating what they've done this year. I'll give him the "beating up on crappy teams" excuse to some extent. While the Sox have won us fans over, I can see how their unimpressive record against the "important teams of baseball" would leave outsiders skeptical.

Still you can only play who is on the schedule. The Twins were tough in April. and the Sox beat 'em. The Indians and Tigers have solid teams, and the Sox have trounced 'em. They've done what they've had to do.

Also, that interleague comment is ridiculous. How many teams are currently over .500 in the NL anyway? Like 5? :rolleyes: The Padres were over .500 when we played them. The Yankees got to play the sub-.500 Brewers...how'd that work out for them? :cool:

maurice
09-12-2005, 07:54 PM
And the BS excuses just keep on coming.

The AL East and the AL West can kiss my ass. The AL Central has the team with the best record in the AL (us), the leading WC candidate (Cleveland), a 3rd team that was a playoff contender until very recently (Minnesota), a mediocre team (Detroit), and a crappy team (KC). When it's all said and done, there's a very good chance that the AL Central will have both of the teams with the 2 best records in the AL, and a 3rd team with a record well over .500. Neither of the other 2 divisions can say that. Cleveland has won 7 in a row, has more wins than anybody in the West, and has only 1 fewer win than the best team in the East. Meanwhile, the Sox have beat this very good team like a drum all year.

If you want to talk about easy schedules, consider the division that gets to play an unbalanced schedule against the worst franchise in major league history -- the lowly Devil Rays. Give me a call when the Rays win more than 70 games out of 162.

I'm also not going to apologize for beating bad teams like the Royals and the Rays. Allegedly good teams like the Yankees have gotten pounded by the Royals and the Rays from time to time. They didn't get the job done, but we did. That's all the evidence I need.

Jurr
09-12-2005, 08:15 PM
(Me: Man, this guy needs a good old-fashioned lobotomy)

It is quite apparent that he has already received one. :tongue:

TommyJohn
09-12-2005, 08:19 PM
I get mad when I hear the AL Central is so weak argument. OK. Who does
the AL East have? Boston, New York, then who? Toronto, Baltimore and
Tama Bay? Don't make me laugh. You want to talk insanely easy schedule,
let's talk about those three patsies the Red Sox and Yankees get to
use for padding the win totals.

It is always the same. Last year, when they collapsed and were buried, the
cry was "they can't beat up on the AL Central? Just how BAD is this team?"
Now they are beating up on the AL Central, and the cry is "Of course they
have the best record! They're beating bad teams!" It's a vicious circle. The
White Sox will never, ever, ever, ever EVER get respect from these *******s.

If the White Sox were to win the world series, it would be dismissed as
a fluke. They wouldn't be "Miralce Mets" or "Destiny's Darlings" or
"Lovable Underdogs." We'd see no highlights like Psycho Kirk Gibson
circling the bases or hear Boob Costas getting a hernia trying to
describe the poetic majesty of it all. We'd get the shaft, as always.

SouthSide_HitMen
09-12-2005, 09:01 PM
I get mad when I hear the AL Central is so weak argument.

For the record the AL Central ha the third best playoff record among the six divisions since the new format was implemented (AL East (Read Yankees) and NL East (read Atlanta) are 1-2). It must be because of the weak playoff schedule they faced.

The only thing weak is Joe Sheehan's excuses for why he picked the White Sox to win 72 games this season.

IowaSox1971
09-14-2005, 03:38 AM
Why is our 10-3 record against Cleveland always discounted by these "experts?" If the season ended today, Cleveland would be in the playoffs. Against Cleveland, New York, Boston, the Angels and Oakland, we have a combined 22-23 record. Add Minnesota to the mix, and we're 28-28. That's a .500 record against the other top six teams in the American League. That's not great, but it's not horrible, either.

What I found interesting is that when we had to make a one-day trip to Boston for a Monday day game, we beat the Red Sox while starting a rookie and the Red Sox were starting their ace.

skobabe8
09-14-2005, 11:43 AM
Sheehan defines sour grapes.

miker
09-14-2005, 12:15 PM
You forgot the "virgin" part. :redneck
...and not in the good way.

SouthSide_HitMen
09-14-2005, 01:42 PM
In recent years, where September was all about the A's, Angels, Red Sox and Yankees, I've run four-team standings to reflect the race for three postseason berths in the AL. If MLB is going to reduce a division title to merely a playoff spot by instituting a wild card, I think the next logical step is to think of each league as one big pool from which four teams emerge, at least in the plurailty (sic) of years in which the layout of records allows. 2005 is one of those years:

White Sox 88-55 .615 --Red Sox 84-60 .583 4.5Indians 83-62 .572 6.0Yankees 81-62 .566 7.0Angels 81-63 .563 7.5A's 80-64 .556 8.5Here's the way to think of the AL down the stretch: the top four teams in this list go on to the postseason, provided at least one team from each division is in the top four. If not, skip over #4 and take #5.

For those of you annoyed that I would list the White Sox…I don't care. The only thing saving them right now is regular doses of the Royals and Tigers. Since August 1, they're 7-1 against those two teams, 12-19 against everyone else. The Indians--probably the best team in the league right now--get six games against them starting with a three-game series at Jacobs Field next Monday. The White Sox haven't locked up anything yet.
__________________________________________________ ________________

Another day, another blast of the White Sox. If Cleveland is lucky enough to make the playoffs, they will be 1 and done.

Joe cannot even read a schedule - The Sox host Cleveland next Monday.

I wish I would have known about the site's prejudice against the White Sox before signing up so I would have declined.

maurice
09-14-2005, 03:03 PM
The only thing saving them right now is regular doses of the Royals and Tigers.

Yeah, that and the fact that they have 4 more wins that the beloved Red Cubs, 7 more wins than the Yankmes and Angels, and 8 more wins than FOBB's favorite team. But that's all just luck!

And the selective stats continue. Why ignore the Sox season-long dominance of the Jndjans, Joe? Scared that the introduction of a few relevant facts might undermine your argument?

Lip Man 1
09-14-2005, 05:28 PM
Ummm Joe, the games are at Comiskey Park next week. Drillrod!

Lip

Cowhead418
09-14-2005, 07:50 PM
Part 48 - I was wrong - But the Sox still stink and I will be vindicated.

87-55 is 87-55, and there's no way I can spin the White Sox except to say that I was wrong about their run prevention capabilities.



With that said, the White Sox have benefited from an insanely easy schedule. Their dominance of the AL Central--40-14--has been noted, and included in there is a 24-6 mark against the Tigers and Royals. But don't ignore their interleague slate: 18 games, none of which came against a team currently above .500. They went 12-6 in those contests. It's quite possible the the 2005 White Sox are playing the weakest schedule in three-division history, and one of the weakest in the game's history. You have to consider that in evaluating what they've done this year.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolling: :roflmao: :bs: :smokin: :whatever: :booty:

voodoochile
09-14-2005, 08:02 PM
The Indians--probably the best team in the league right now--get six games against them starting with a three-game series at Jacobs Field next Monday.

But earlier...

the White Sox have benefited from an insanely easy schedule. Their dominance of the AL Central--40-14--has been noted, and included in there is a 24-6 mark against the Tigers and Royals. But don't ignore their interleague slate: 18 games, none of which come against a team currently above .500. They went 12-6 in those contests. It's quite possible the the 2005 White Sox are playing the weakest schedule in three-division history, and one of the weakest in the game's history. You have to consider that in evaluating what they've done this year.

So which is it? Have the Sox had an easy schedule or are the Toons all that and a bag of chips?

Who have the Tribe been beating up on to get to their current record?

Sheehan is talking out both sides of his mouth and hoping no one will notice.

He's just another mediot and whether the Sox bring home the brass ring or not, nothing will ever change that fact...

TommyJohn
09-14-2005, 09:42 PM
But earlier...



So which is it? Have the Sox had an easy schedule or are the Toons all that and a bag of chips?

Who have the Tribe been beating up on to get to their current record?

Sheehan is talking out both sides of his mouth and hoping no one will notice.

He's just another mediot and whether the Sox bring home the brass ring or not, nothing will ever change that fact...

I was wondering the exact same thing. OK. What the **** division are the
Indians in!? They're beating up on the same teams, are they not? And last I
checked, 10 of the White Sox' 88 wins have come against "the best team
in the American league right now."

What riles me is the double standard. It is like you said....when the White Sox
win, it is their "insanely easy schedule." When Cleveland wins, they are the
best team in the American Leauge. Is it OK for me to say that the guy is a
complete and total pud?

voodoochile
09-14-2005, 09:57 PM
I was wondering the exact same thing. OK. What the **** division are the
Indians in!? They're beating up on the same teams, are they not? And last I
checked, 10 of the White Sox' 88 wins have come against "the best team
in the American league right now."

What riles me is the double standard. It is like you said....when the White Sox
win, it is their "insanely easy schedule." When Cleveland wins, they are the
best team in the American Leauge. Is it OK for me to say that the guy is a
complete and total pud?

Yeah, but I might have to ban you for being mean to the puds of the world. We're all about equal rights at WSI and it is completely demeaning to the puds of this world...

TommyJohn
09-14-2005, 10:05 PM
Yeah, but I might have to ban you for being mean to the puds of the world. We're all about equal rights at WSI and it is completely demeaning to the puds of this world...

I apologize to all the puds of the world. Didn't mean to lump them in with....Joe.

TommyJohn
09-14-2005, 10:19 PM
Ok, so I did a little check. Here is the record of the "best team in
the American League right now" against those playoff teams that
should have no trouble with the White Sox, given their insanely
easy schedule:

Yankees 3-4
Red Sox 2-4
Angels 3-5
A's 5-3

Well, I can understand that they have a winning record against only
one team. After all, it IS an insanely hard schedule.


Now let's try the AL Central:
White Sox 3-10
Royals 7-5
Tigers 13-6
Twins 9-9

I don't know. Does any more need to be written, other than the obvious?
Joe Sheehan is a moron? Apologies to all the morons of the world.


:ass :moron :clueless :farmer :costas :morrisey :morgan :boston

APOLOGY NOT ACCEPTED!

SouthSide_HitMen
09-14-2005, 10:28 PM
Apologies to all the morons of the world.


:farmer :costas
APOLOGY NOT ACCEPTED!

I agree with most of your morons. I don't think Farmer, Gammons or Costas are morons. Arogant and full of themselves yes but they usually don't peddle useless or even worse false information. I would say Steve Stone is also in the Farmer / Costas mode.

Other morons:

http://www.jimpoz.com/quotes/images/speakers/kruk.jpg :lynch&mcfail :toolhttp://images.radcity.net/5176/584831.jpg

Cowhead418
09-14-2005, 10:45 PM
Is there an e-mail address for this tool? I'd love to e-mail him those statistics TommyJohn and show him up for the moron he is.