PDA

View Full Version : The "Go Yankees!" thread


chisoxfanatic
05-29-2006, 02:38 PM
With the Yankees leading the Tigers 4-0 in the top of the 6th at Comerica Park, the Sox could gain another game on them and be 1.5 games out of first place by the end of the afternoon!

Go Yankees!

dcb56
05-29-2006, 02:43 PM
Randy Johnson is having a good game.

EDIT: Rodriguez just broke up the no-hitter.

downstairs
05-29-2006, 02:48 PM
You can cancel the postgame show.

Chips
05-29-2006, 02:58 PM
Hell yeah go yankees.

Soxfanspcu11
05-29-2006, 03:09 PM
Hell yeah go yankees.

Hey Chips, I don't understand your sig. Can you please enlighten me??

Sorry if this is a stupid question.

HomeFish
05-29-2006, 03:51 PM
Yankees win!

Tigerslover
05-29-2006, 03:54 PM
1 word: BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO lol. Seriously though, they're just hitting a rough spot, it will pick up soon enough. Preferably sooner.

Unregistered
05-29-2006, 03:56 PM
1 word: BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO lol. Seriously though, they're just hitting a rough spot, it will pick up soon enough.i.e., when they start playing the bottom-feeders again...

Tigerslover
05-29-2006, 03:57 PM
Uh.... no. I'm gonna predict we take at least 2 from the Yankees.

Baby Fisk
05-29-2006, 03:58 PM
1 word: BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO lol. Seriously though, they're just hitting a rough spot, it will pick up soon enough. Preferably sooner.
As my buddy the lifelong Tigers fan says: "Don't worry, this is the Tigers, and it's still early..." :cool:

chisoxfanatic
05-29-2006, 04:04 PM
Uh.... no. I'm gonna predict we take at least 2 from the Yankees.

No dice!

CLR01
05-29-2006, 04:06 PM
Uh.... no. I'm gonna predict we take at least 2 from the Yankees.


Beatings?

Tigerslover
05-29-2006, 04:09 PM
Alright if you guys want to go poo poo it go right ahead. If I'm wrong I'll gladly admit it, but I don't think I will be.

oeo
05-29-2006, 04:22 PM
Alright if you guys want to go poo poo it go right ahead. If I'm wrong I'll gladly admit it, but I don't think I will be.
This is a WHITE SOX message board, so you shouldn't be hoping that we're going to have the same opinion. I think you will take the last game of the series to avoid the sweep with Verlander on the mound, but that's it.

Grzegorz
05-29-2006, 04:26 PM
Tigerlover,

With Maroth out, is Roman Colon a capable starter?

chisoxfanatic
05-29-2006, 04:29 PM
Tigerlover,

With Maroth out, is Roman Colon a capable starter?

I'm not Tigerlover; but, Roman Colon is scheduled to start tomorrow. We'll see how that works out.

Chips
05-29-2006, 04:32 PM
I'm not Tigerlover; but, Roman Colon is scheduled to start tomorrow. We'll see how that works out.

I'm thinking the Yankees will win that one.

Soxfanspcu11
05-29-2006, 04:36 PM
Alright if you guys want to go poo poo it go right ahead. If I'm wrong I'll gladly admit it, but I don't think I will be.

You get extra points if you admit RIGHT NOW that your team is going to finish no better then 3rd in the division.

I understand that it is only May 29th, BUT I know how the teams will finish. They are as follows;

1. SOX
2. Cleveland
3. Detroit/Minnesota
4. Detroit/Minnesota
5. Kansas City

Remember, I said this on May 29th, 2006 at 3:30 pm.

I just want this documented so that when October 1st, 2006 rolls around, I will have proof that I got it right.

Take care!:D:

elrod
05-29-2006, 04:37 PM
The Tigers have been shut out two games in a row. That might not mean much of anything. It isn't like they stranded a bunch of runners and then started making bad swings. Randy Johnson just dominated them today. And so did Jason Johnson yesterday. Tomorrow Aaron Small goes for the Yankees, and he's more of a finesse pitcher. He isn't as sharp this year as last year, so I don't see him keeping the Tigers down the same way. I'd say the Tigers' best chance to get a win is tomorrow, as long as Colon gives a solid outing. Jeter might be out tomorrow, which will help the Tigers.

SoxEd
05-29-2006, 04:48 PM
i.e., when they start playing the bottom-feeders again...

This reminds me of a comment from John/Joe last night.

They had been saying how the A's always got good around this time of year.

They mentioned that the A's had Kc at home next series - and that they always had KC at home around this time of year.

Joe Morgan said - "oh yeah, playing against KC will pretty much cure nearly all of what ails you!".

No?
OK, well, it made me laugh, anyway...

QCIASOXFAN
05-29-2006, 06:06 PM
Lets keep those bats going Yankees, its time for the Tigers to get swept!

The Immigrant
05-29-2006, 06:22 PM
The Tigers have been shut out two games in a row. That might not mean much of anything. It isn't like they stranded a bunch of runners and then started making bad swings. Randy Johnson just dominated them today. And so did Jason Johnson yesterday. Tomorrow Aaron Small goes for the Yankees, and he's more of a finesse pitcher. He isn't as sharp this year as last year, so I don't see him keeping the Tigers down the same way. I'd say the Tigers' best chance to get a win is tomorrow, as long as Colon gives a solid outing. Jeter might be out tomorrow, which will help the Tigers.

Randy Johnson, okay. He has dominated a few batters in his lifetime.

But Jason Johnson? I do believe that the Tigers are a good offensive club, but hopefully the "domination" by Jason Johnson is a sign of good things to come for our Sox. IIRC, even the Royals unloaded on this Johnson.

MarySwiss
05-29-2006, 06:33 PM
You get extra points if you admit RIGHT NOW that your team is going to finish no better then 3rd in the division.

I understand that it is only May 29th, BUT I know how the teams will finish. They are as follows;

1. SOX
2. Cleveland
3. Detroit/Minnesota
4. Detroit/Minnesota
5. Kansas City

Remember, I said this on May 29th, 2006 at 3:30 pm.

I just want this documented so that when October 1st, 2006 rolls around, I will have proof that I got it right.

Take care!:D:

Yup! Nailed it!

Also, I think we should encourage fans of other teams to post here, as long as they don't troll. It just cements our position as one of the finest--if not THE finest--fan sites on the Web. Tigerslover is obviously deluded, but thus far, he's been well-behaved. First time he's not, bye-bye!

buehrle4cy05
05-29-2006, 06:34 PM
This stretch is Detroit's biggest of the year, IMO. They have played some mediocre teams (Oakland, Cleveland, Cincinnati) and have had success against them, but they have only played the big boys once, and that was a 3-game set where the Sox swept them (at Comerica). They need to still prove themselves, and facing some of the AL's better teams-especially the ones that can hit-will provide a true measurement as to how good the Tigers really are. If they falter against potential playoff teams, then they may be nothing but the 2005 Baltimore Orioles.

elrod
05-29-2006, 06:40 PM
I don't buy the argument that the Tigers aren't for real until they play good teams. I think the bigger issue is what they do when they inevitably struggle against everybody - good and bad. When we struggled in August last year, it was against both the Yankees and the Royals. The key is how they respond. Two shutout losses in a row might portend just such a test, but it's too early to say. They did just win eight in a row before that.

Tigerclaw
05-29-2006, 07:50 PM
This stretch is Detroit's biggest of the year, IMO. They have played some mediocre teams (Oakland, Cleveland, Cincinnati) and have had success against them, but they have only played the big boys once, and that was a 3-game set where the Sox swept them (at Comerica). They need to still prove themselves, and facing some of the AL's better teams-especially the ones that can hit-will provide a true measurement as to how good the Tigers really are. If they falter against potential playoff teams, then they may be nothing but the 2005 Baltimore Orioles.

I luuuuuuv when white sox fans bring up strength of schedule....

2005 White Sox record against playoff teams during the regular season...

NYY - 3-3

Bos - 3-4

LAA - 4-6

Other .500+ teams

Oakland - 2-7

Minnesota - 11-7

Cleveland - 14-5

I only see two teams that the sox did very well against last year that were .500 or above...and they were in their own division. 9 of the Sox's 14 victories against Cleveland were by 1 run, in which luck was a large factor....what you can get from these numbers is that the biggest tests in the season is how you do with teams you should beat and in your division...potential playoff teams you hopefully hold your own against, but can't expect to dominate...obviously there are 16 games left between the sox and tigers and that is much more important than how they do against the Yankees and Red Sox this week.

Chips
05-29-2006, 07:58 PM
I luuuuuuv when white sox fans bring up strength of schedule....

2005 White Sox record against playoff teams during the regular season...

NYY - 3-3

Bos - 3-4

LAA - 4-6

Other .500+ teams

Oakland - 2-7

Minnesota - 11-7

Cleveland - 14-5

I only see two teams that the sox did very well against last year that were .500 or above...and they were in their own division. 9 of the Sox's 14 victories against Cleveland were by 1 run, in which luck was a large factor....what you can get from these numbers is that the biggest tests in the season is how you do with teams you should beat and in your division...potential playoff teams you hopefully hold your own against, but can't expect to dominate...obviously there are 16 games left between the sox and tigers and that is much more important than how they do against the Yankees and Red Sox this week.

And our postseason record against playoff teams:

Boston: 3-0
Los Angeles: 4-1
Houston: 4-0

Ol' No. 2
05-29-2006, 07:59 PM
I luuuuuuv when white sox fans bring up strength of schedule....

2005 White Sox record against playoff teams during the regular season...

NYY - 3-3

Bos - 3-4

LAA - 4-6

Other .500+ teams

Oakland - 2-7

Minnesota - 11-7

Cleveland - 14-5

I only see two teams that the sox did very well against last year that were .500 or above...and they were in their own division. 9 of the Sox's 14 victories against Cleveland were by 1 run, in which luck was a large factor....what you can get from these numbers is that the biggest tests in the season is how you do with teams you should beat and in your division...potential playoff teams you hopefully hold your own against, but can't expect to dominate...obviously there are 16 games left between the sox and tigers and that is much more important than how they do against the Yankees and Red Sox this week.You missed a few:

Boston (10/4-7): 3-0
LAAA (10/11-16): 4-1
Houston (10/22-26): 4-0

These seem to me to be rather key games but somehow you overlooked them.

Edit: Damn, I have to type faster.:tongue:

Trav
05-29-2006, 08:01 PM
9 of the Sox's 14 victories against Cleveland were by 1 run, in which luck was a large factor....what you can get from these numbers is that the biggest tests in the season is how you do with teams you should beat and in your division...potential playoff teams you hopefully hold your own against, but can't expect to dominate...obviously there are 16 games left between the sox and tigers and that is much more important than how they do against the Yankees and Red Sox this week.

Why don't you explain how lucky we were? What happend in those games?


Because I don't think it was luck. When you have the best record in 1 and 2 run games, it isn't luck. It's a heck of a skipper and solid fundamentals.

SoxSpeed22
05-29-2006, 08:31 PM
So in short, none of you can prove a damn thing by using numbers. Detroit only goes away when we make them go away.

Tigerclaw
05-29-2006, 08:50 PM
And our postseason record against playoff teams:

Boston: 3-0
Los Angeles: 4-1
Houston: 4-0


Exactly my point...The Sox's record during the regular season against those teams had no bearing on how they did in the playoffs...The Sox were able to win their division despite playing below .500 during the season against playoff teams and were able to make a run in the playoffs...that's why I don't buy whether this week is a gage on how for real the Tigers are...the gage is how they do against teams they should be beating and the teams they play most often...their division...Any team that does those things are in good shape come september...the strength of schedule argument is a weak argument.

MRKARNO
05-29-2006, 08:55 PM
Another big difference between the Sox and Tigers:

2005 Sox vs Cle 14-5
2006 Det vs Sox 0-3

If the Tigers lose next week's 3-gamer, they're already going to be down 1-5 or 0-6 against the White Sox, and given how the White Sox have been playing at home this year (19-6), a Tiger's series victory seems less likely than a White Sox series victory. It took a great head-to-head record against ALL the division opponents, including the major competition (ie the Indians) in 2005 for the White Sox to win the division. The Tigers have yet to show that they can beat us head-to-head. They will certainly have their opportunities...

Tigerclaw
05-29-2006, 08:58 PM
Another big difference between the Sox and Tigers:

2005 Sox vs Cle 14-5
2006 Det vs Sox 0-3

If the Tigers lose next week's 3-gamer, they're already going to be down 1-5 or 0-6 against the White Sox, and given how the White Sox have been playing at home this year (19-6), a Tiger's series victory seems less likely than a White Sox series victory. It took a great head-to-head record against ALL the division opponents, including the major competition (ie the Indians) in 2005 for the White Sox to win the division. The Tigers have yet to show that they can beat us head-to-head. They will certainly have their opportunities...

The Tigers record on the road is as equally impressive as the Sox's at home...if they lose the series to the white sox or get swept than that will tell me a lot more about how they are than the Yankees or Red Sox will...and a series loss or sweep would not bode well, that I will admit. As of right now, a 0-3 record means nothing with 16 games left...if they are 1-5 or 0-6 than that means a lot more.

elrod
05-29-2006, 09:05 PM
I think everybody is missing the point here. It doesn't matter how Detroit does against the +.500 teams, or the divisional teams. What matters is how Detroit responds to the inevitable down period. No team other than the 2001 Mariners or 1998 Yankees is going to win at a .690+ clip all year. Suppose the Tigers go into a funk and lose nine out of ten games. What happens afterward - regardless of who they face - will determine their season. Take the Indians last year, for example. They started slow, had a great June, fell off in July, and instead of falling apart (after we swept them in a four-game series in Cleveland) they got hot again until the very last week of the season. The White Sox did it a little differently. We were great in April, May, June and most of July. Then we couldn't hit a lick in August, and Cleveland nearly caught us in September. But then we recovered and went 11-1 through the post-season. Our "test" came fairly late in the season. When we struggled in August, we blew embarrassing games to the Royals, Rangers and Blue Jays. Detroit has had a great May. Will they be able to rebound after a tough stretch? The Tigers might have their worst struggles against the Devil Rays or the Athletics. Who knows? It will come. How they respond will matter more than who they play.

Ol' No. 2
05-29-2006, 09:10 PM
The Tigers record on the road is as equally impressive as the Sox's at home...if they lose the series to the white sox or get swept than that will tell me a lot more about how they are than the Yankees or Red Sox will...and a series loss or sweep would not bode well, that I will admit. As of right now, a 0-3 record means nothing with 16 games left...if they are 1-5 or 0-6 than that means a lot more.The baseball record books are litttered with teams that got off to a hot start, only to fade. The Orioles managed a white-hot start last year, but finished the season 14 games below .500. The 2003 Royals managed to keep it going into July, but finished the last two months of the season 26-30, and wound up in 3rd place.

You can't win a title in April and May, but you sure can lose one. All the Tigers have managed to do so far is avoid the latter.

Tigerclaw
05-29-2006, 09:11 PM
I think everybody is missing the point here. It doesn't matter how Detroit does against the +.500 teams, or the divisional teams. What matters is how Detroit responds to the inevitable down period. No team other than the 2001 Mariners or 1998 Yankees is going to win at a .690+ clip all year. Suppose the Tigers go into a funk and lose nine out of ten games. What happens afterward - regardless of who they face - will determine their season. Take the Indians last year, for example. They started slow, had a great June, fell off in July, and instead of falling apart (after we swept them in a four-game series in Cleveland) they got hot again until the very last week of the season. The White Sox did it a little differently. We were great in April, May, June and most of July. Then we couldn't hit a lick in August, and Cleveland nearly caught us in September. But then we recovered and went 11-1 through the post-season. Our "test" came fairly late in the season. When we struggled in August, we blew embarrassing games to the Royals, Rangers and Blue Jays. Detroit has had a great May. Will they be able to rebound after a tough stretch? The Tigers might have their worst struggles against the Devil Rays or the Athletics. Who knows? It will come. How they respond will matter more than who they play.

I agree with what you are saying...the Tigers haven't had anything more than a 3 game losing streak this year, so it is key to see how they respond to a bad week or 2, regardless of who they play.

Grzegorz
05-29-2006, 09:18 PM
I think everybody is missing the point here. It doesn't matter how Detroit does against the +.500 teams, or the divisional teams. What matters is how Detroit responds to the inevitable down period.

Though Bonderman lost today both he, Maroth, and Verlander are good pitchers. Pitching will keep the Tigers from an extended losing streak.

Unregistered
05-29-2006, 09:25 PM
The baseball record books are litttered with teams that got off to a hot start, only to fade. The Orioles managed a white-hot start last year, but finished the season 14 games below .500. The 2003 Royals managed to keep it going into July, but finished the last two months of the season 26-30, and wound up in 3rd place.

You can't win a title in April and May, but you sure can lose one. All the Tigers have managed to do so far is avoid the latter.
Exactly. Lets wait until at least after the All-Star break before we talk about the Tigers' winning percentage or even them being a contender, much less comparing them to the 05 White Sox.

Ol' No. 2
05-29-2006, 09:25 PM
Though Bonderman lost today both he, Maroth, and Verlander are good pitchers. Pitching will keep the Tigers from an extended losing streak.Bonderman, Maroth and Robertson all have significant histories of mediocrity. Among them they have 11 years experience prior to 2006, not one better than a 4.31 ERA. It's possible (but unlikely) that one of them could have a breakout season. The odds of all three of them doing it simultaneously are microscopic.

Tigerclaw
05-29-2006, 09:26 PM
The baseball record books are litttered with teams that got off to a hot start, only to fade. The Orioles managed a white-hot start last year, but finished the season 14 games below .500. The 2003 Royals managed to keep it going into July, but finished the last two months of the season 26-30, and wound up in 3rd place.

You can't win a title in April and May, but you sure can lose one. All the Tigers have managed to do so far is avoid the latter.

There have been 50 teams that won 35 of their first 50 games of the season...Only 7 didn't make the playoffs and the last one was the 1951 white sox...neither of those teams played as well as the Tigers have so far this year...Both of those teams had bad or worse May's than their hot aprils...the Tigers won 16 games in April and have won 19 games in May...I don't see the connection to those two teams.

Grzegorz
05-29-2006, 09:35 PM
Bonderman, Maroth and Robertson all have significant histories of mediocrity. Among them they have 11 years experience prior to 2006, not one better than a 4.31 ERA. It's possible (but unlikely) that one of them could have a breakout season. The odds of all three of them doing it simultaneously are microscopic.

A team really needs one stopper; I think the Tigers have one. I'll admit I am partial to the Tigers, but that staff has been through alot together and I like the composition.

I believe this division will tighten; sans the Royals the pitching in this division is just too good.

elrod
05-29-2006, 09:58 PM
Though Bonderman lost today both he, Maroth, and Verlander are good pitchers. Pitching will keep the Tigers from an extended losing streak.

Not necessarily. Maroth is on the DL, and nobody knows how long he'll really be out. Verlander is off to a great start, but he could come down to earth. And Bonderman isn't really that tough this year. Even with solid pitchers, you can still get in a rut. Surely, Nate Robertson is due to rediscover his 4.50+ ERA. And how dependable will Kenny Rogers be down the stretch? He ALWAYS starts off strong. But he doesn't always finish well.

Then there's the hitting. The Tigers have the same lineup as they did last year. They were horribly inconsistent last year. At times they destroyed teams, and then they couldn't hit a lick for two weeks. When the Sox went into that tough spell in August, where we lost 7 in a row, it was our bats that disappeared. The pitching was there all year. Anything can cause a slump. Nobody, except the 2001 Mariners or 1998, is slump-proof.

elrod
05-29-2006, 10:04 PM
There have been 50 teams that won 35 of their first 50 games of the season...Only 7 didn't make the playoffs and the last one was the 1951 white sox...neither of those teams played as well as the Tigers have so far this year...Both of those teams had bad or worse May's than their hot aprils...the Tigers won 16 games in April and have won 19 games in May...I don't see the connection to those two teams.

Those kinds of statistics will soothe the mind in the early going. But when the going gets rough, they don't mean a thing. I remember checking out all those stats last year too about the Sox's great start. Then there we were in mid-September with Cleveland breathing down our necks. It was all about the 1969 Cubs, and the 1964 Phillies, and the 1978 Red Sox, and the greatest collapse in baseball history. Nobody had ever blown a 15 game lead in the division after August 1. All those early season stats about how we had the tenth best start in baseball history meant squat down the stretch.

Like I said before, let's see how the Tigers deal with adversity. They've got a great manager. Will their players respond?

elrod
05-29-2006, 10:08 PM
Exactly. Lets wait until at least after the All-Star break before we talk about the Tigers' winning percentage or even them being a contender, much less comparing them to the 05 White Sox.

I think it's fair to compare the '06 Tigers to the '05 White Sox - up to this point. Both teams combined small ball and power, great defense and great pitching to win close games. A different hero stepped up every night. And a great manager inspired the team to avoid complacency. But...it's still May. The Tigers will have many tests ahead. The Sox almost blew it in September, and then rallied like no other team in history. (16-1 from the Detroit series to Game Four of the World Series).

Tigerclaw
05-29-2006, 11:18 PM
Those kinds of statistics will soothe the mind in the early going. But when the going gets rough, they don't mean a thing. I remember checking out all those stats last year too about the Sox's great start. Then there we were in mid-September with Cleveland breathing down our necks. It was all about the 1969 Cubs, and the 1964 Phillies, and the 1978 Red Sox, and the greatest collapse in baseball history. Nobody had ever blown a 15 game lead in the division after August 1. All those early season stats about how we had the tenth best start in baseball history meant squat down the stretch.

Like I said before, let's see how the Tigers deal with adversity. They've got a great manager. Will their players respond?


I agree with you, history is on the Tigers side, but that doesn't mean that they are guaranteed anything...Those teams you mentioned are aberrations...The Tigers were a .500 team last year until late august...if they were to play .500 the rest of the year they will win 92 games...nothing is guaranteed but their chances are good...like you said it will be interesting to see how they face adversity, but I also like their chances against adversity with Leyland as their manager.

Tigerclaw
05-29-2006, 11:24 PM
Then there's the hitting. The Tigers have the same lineup as they did last year. They were horribly inconsistent last year. At times they destroyed teams, and then they couldn't hit a lick for two weeks.

Magglio and Guillen, two of the most important parts of the lineup did not play very much last year and both were a fraction of themselves...Granderson was a late season call up and Shelton was in the minors until June....Polanco came in June and missed most of July....The offense is definitely different so far this year and is more consistent largely because of health...

oeo
05-29-2006, 11:30 PM
Magglio and Guillen, two of the most important parts of the lineup did not play very much last year and both were a fraction of themselves...Granderson was a late season call up and Shelton was in the minors until June....Polanco came in June and missed most of July....The offense is definitely different so far this year and is more consistent largely because of health...

Don't count on Magglio to help you out very much down the stretch. Like someone said before, he's Mr. Non-Clutch when it comes to a division race.

elrod
05-30-2006, 12:51 AM
Magglio and Guillen, two of the most important parts of the lineup did not play very much last year and both were a fraction of themselves...Granderson was a late season call up and Shelton was in the minors until June....Polanco came in June and missed most of July....The offense is definitely different so far this year and is more consistent largely because of health...

Actually, the Tigers had a very good offensive season last year statistically in spite of the injuries to Maggs and Guillen. They finished with the 4th best batting average. But they were 11th out 14 AL teams in runs scored. Sounds like the Cubs in recent years. Lots of hits, but not a lot of runs. Poor situational hitting did them in, just as it ultimately did Cleveland in. If the Tigers can get lots of hits with RISP, and can get productive outs, then they won't be susceptible to a terrible slump. The 2001-2004 White Sox could mash the ball with anybody. But they couldn't manufacture runs. So when the power disappeared, so did all the offense.

Right now the Tigers have an OPS of .801, good for 7th in the big leagues. But their OPS with RISP is only .749, which is 21st in MLB. There's a similar drop-off in batting average with RISP. However, the Tigers have the second most home runs (after the White Sox). In other words, the Tigers are mashing the ball, but they aren't getting many clutch hits with RISP. They've hit into 41 double plays (the Sox have hit into only 32). They have the fourth-fewest pitches-per-plate appearance, meaning they aren't very patient at the plate. Consequently, they're 26th in drawing walks (Sox are 8th). Walks prolongue innings and tire out pitchers. And then there's productive outs. ESPN doesn't give you the full PO stat, but sac flies are a good indicator. The Sox have 24 sac flies (2nd most in baseball) and the Tigers have only 10 (third fewest).

For comparison's sake, the Tigers were 15th in OPS overall last year, but 13th overall in OPS with RISP. They were actually a better clutch hitting team last year than this year - and they were not a very good clutch hitting team last year.

So why are the Tigers winning? Pitching, obviously. They're hitting a lot of home runs, which is giving them just enough offense to win. But when teams start to rely too much on the home run, they become vulnerable to prolonged slumps (See White Sox, 2001-2004). The big question, then, is whether or not the pitching will hold up. Without Maroth, the other guys have to step up. Bonderman wasn't bad today, but he couldn't make the big pitches with two outs. And Kenny Rogers got destroyed the other day.The starts by Robertson and Verlander coming up will be huge. If they can anchor the back of the rotation, the Tigers will be tough for a long time. But if they start watching their ERAs balloon up to the high 4s, then the team will have to rely on a homer-dependent lineup. And that sounds like the 2004 White Sox, not the 2005 White Sox.

Tigerclaw
05-30-2006, 02:24 AM
Actually, the Tigers had a very good offensive season last year statistically in spite of the injuries to Maggs and Guillen. They finished with the 4th best batting average. But they were 11th out 14 AL teams in runs scored. Sounds like the Cubs in recent years. Lots of hits, but not a lot of runs. Poor situational hitting did them in, just as it ultimately did Cleveland in. If the Tigers can get lots of hits with RISP, and can get productive outs, then they won't be susceptible to a terrible slump. The 2001-2004 White Sox could mash the ball with anybody. But they couldn't manufacture runs. So when the power disappeared, so did all the offense.

Right now the Tigers have an OPS of .801, good for 7th in the big leagues. But their OPS with RISP is only .749, which is 21st in MLB. There's a similar drop-off in batting average with RISP. However, the Tigers have the second most home runs (after the White Sox). In other words, the Tigers are mashing the ball, but they aren't getting many clutch hits with RISP. They've hit into 41 double plays (the Sox have hit into only 32). They have the fourth-fewest pitches-per-plate appearance, meaning they aren't very patient at the plate. Consequently, they're 26th in drawing walks (Sox are 8th). Walks prolongue innings and tire out pitchers. And then there's productive outs. ESPN doesn't give you the full PO stat, but sac flies are a good indicator. The Sox have 24 sac flies (2nd most in baseball) and the Tigers have only 10 (third fewest).

For comparison's sake, the Tigers were 15th in OPS overall last year, but 13th overall in OPS with RISP. They were actually a better clutch hitting team last year than this year - and they were not a very good clutch hitting team last year.

So why are the Tigers winning? Pitching, obviously. They're hitting a lot of home runs, which is giving them just enough offense to win. But when teams start to rely too much on the home run, they become vulnerable to prolonged slumps (See White Sox, 2001-2004). The big question, then, is whether or not the pitching will hold up. Without Maroth, the other guys have to step up. Bonderman wasn't bad today, but he couldn't make the big pitches with two outs. And Kenny Rogers got destroyed the other day.The starts by Robertson and Verlander coming up will be huge. If they can anchor the back of the rotation, the Tigers will be tough for a long time. But if they start watching their ERAs balloon up to the high 4s, then the team will have to rely on a homer-dependent lineup. And that sounds like the 2004 White Sox, not the 2005 White Sox.

I won't argue with much of what you have to say...if you look up my previous posts though I have stated on this board that the Tigers have not done that well offensively this year and that they rely too much on the home run. That said, they are batting over .300 in the month of May with 2 outs and runners in scoring position, which has been a big improvement over what they did in April and what their numbers state overall. They do need to hit in the clutch better...however...

Recall that the 2005 white sox were 4th in the league in home runs with 200 and were 9th in runs scored with just 741 runs scored. Regardless of the small ball/ozzie ball myth...the White Sox were one of the most dependent teams on the home run last year. The Sox last year were amongst the worst teams with runners in scoring postion last year...12th in OPS in fact...and were very reliant on pitching.

This year the Sox pitching has not been as good but are a top five team in hitting with runners in scoring position...a different script this year.

All of these stats eerily show similarities between this year's Tigers team and last year's White Sox team....both were dependent on the home run and pitching and defense...The Tigers lead the league by a large margin in defensive efficiency...which is turning batted balls in play into outs...this has largely helped the pitching staff this year and no one more so than Mike Maroth. I'm not sure if you are aware of a stat called FIP Era...which basically calculates what a pitchers ERA would be if defense was taken out of the equation...in other words assuming that they are pitching with a league average defense...Maroth's FIP ERA is nearly a run and a half larger than his actual ERA which means he depends on his defense a lot...that shouldn't be a surprise...My point of all of this is...with the defense that the Tigers are playing...there is a good amount of reason to believe that the pitching will remain strong as long as the fielders remain healthy...Rogers will be fine, every pitcher is entitled to a bad start or two...even if they are in a row...I recall Mark Buehrle recently shaking a bad 3 start streak....

Overall I agree with you, the Tigers are reliant on pitching and defense....On the offensive end, they are very reliant on the home run...the main difference between this years offense and last year's offense is that the home runs were not there nearly as often last year. If the offense can hit better with runners in scoring position, which they have improved on this month, than they will be less reliant on their pitching, but their pitching should stay strong if their defense stays healthy.

oeo
05-30-2006, 02:38 AM
I won't argue with much of what you have to say...if you look up my previous posts though I have stated on this board that the Tigers have not done that well offensively this year and that they rely too much on the home run. That said, they are batting over .300 in the month of May with 2 outs and runners in scoring position, which has been a big improvement over what they did in April and what their numbers state overall. They do need to hit in the clutch better...however...

Recall that the 2005 white sox were 4th in the league in home runs with 200 and were 9th in runs scored with just 741 runs scored. Regardless of the small ball/ozzie ball myth...the White Sox were one of the most dependent teams on the home run last year. The Sox last year were amongst the worst teams with runners in scoring postion last year...12th in OPS in fact...and were very reliant on pitching.

This year the Sox pitching has not been as good but are a top five team in hitting with runners in scoring position...a different script this year.
This year Sox pitching hasn't pitched as well as it is able to. They're coming around, with Garland the only one having a tough time as of late.

And "Ozzie-ball" is not small-ball, no one on the Sox ever said they played small-ball. It's playing the game the right way. If you need a bunt, you lay the bunt down, sac-fly...you drive him in that way. The Sox did hit a lot of homeruns last year, and they're hitting even more this year...but they can beat you in a ton of different ways. If they don't hit it out of the park, they'll beat you inside the park. They were never dependent on the homerun, and they can win without it; that's what put the Sox over the hump. For four years they could hit the ball out of the park with the best of them, but once the power took a slump, they were done. Power hits slumps, and a lot of them...can the Tigers hold on without it? If their pitching holds up...maybe; if it implodes, I think they're in serious trouble.

Tigerclaw
05-30-2006, 02:49 AM
This year Sox pitching hasn't pitched as well as it is able to. They're coming around, with Garland the only one having a tough time as of late.

And "Ozzie-ball" is not small-ball, no one on the Sox ever said they played small-ball. It's playing the game the right way. If you need a bunt, you lay the bunt down, sac-fly...you drive him in that way. The Sox did hit a lot of homeruns last year, and they're hitting even more this year...but they can beat you in a ton of different ways. If they don't hit it out of the park, they'll beat you inside the park. They were never dependent on the homerun, and they can win without it. That's why they weren't inconsistent last year.

Sac Flies and bunts are not small ball? Than what is small ball? It's pretty hard to argue with numbers...and the numbers say that they hit a lot of home runs...didn't score many runs overall and didn't hit well with runners on base....When you have a high amount of home runs and don't have a lot of runs scored overall doesn't that sound like runs were highly correlated to the amount of home runs hit? Maybe it appeared that they weren't inconsistent, but the numbers seem to say otherwise. The Sox still slugged with the best of them last year...the pitching was the difference, not really Ozzie ball...

oeo
05-30-2006, 02:54 AM
Sac Flies and bunts are not small ball? Than what is small ball? It's pretty hard to argue with numbers...and the numbers say that they hit a lot of home runs...didn't score many runs overall and didn't hit well with runners on base....When you have a high amount of home runs and don't have a lot of runs scored overall doesn't that sound like runs were highly correlated to the amount of home runs hit? Maybe it appeared that they weren't inconsistent, but the numbers seem to say otherwise.
Yes they are small ball, but they were not a "small ball team" like a lot of people seemed to believe throughout the year.

You use everything to score runs, whether it be through small ball or by the homerun. You do what the situation calls for. Again, I'm telling you they did not RELY on the homerun. Do the Tigers? You seem to think so. You will not succeed if you RELY on the homerun...see: 2001-2004 Sox. Did they hit a lot of homeruns? Sure did...but when the situation called for a stolen base, a sac-bunt, a sac-fly...they took it. They hit the homerun, but they could also manufacture runs when they needed to as well.

Tigerclaw
05-30-2006, 03:01 AM
No, it's playing the game the right way. No one ever said you couldn't hit homeruns. You use everything to manufacture runs, whether it be through small ball or by the homerun. You do what the situation calls for. Again, I'm telling you they did not RELY on the homerun. Do the Tigers? You seem to think so. You will not succeed if you RELY on the homerun...see: 2001-2004 Sox.

Then judging by your definition of Ozzie ball...the home run was a large portion of it as that was the reason for a very large percentage of the runs they scored last year. If that's not dependence than I don't know what is. I will agree to disagree with you on this but I indeed am agreeing with statistics.

Leyland is big on situational bunting and manufacturing runs...but the fact remains that the home run is the Tigers best offense as it appears was also the Sox's best offense last year.

MUsoxfan
05-30-2006, 03:05 AM
Then judging by your definition of Ozzie ball...the home run was a large portion of it as that was the reason for a very large percentage of the runs they scored last year. If that's not dependence than I don't know what is. I will agree to disagree with you on this but I indeed am agreeing with statistics.

Leyland is big on situational bunting and manufacturing runs...but the fact remains that the home run is the Tigers best offense as it appears was also the Sox's best offense last year.

The Tigers are not pretenders. They're along for the long haul and they worry me VERY much. 16 more games to go with you guys. I'm not as confident as I wish I was

elrod
05-30-2006, 10:42 AM
Then judging by your definition of Ozzie ball...the home run was a large portion of it as that was the reason for a very large percentage of the runs they scored last year. If that's not dependence than I don't know what is. I will agree to disagree with you on this but I indeed am agreeing with statistics.

Leyland is big on situational bunting and manufacturing runs...but the fact remains that the home run is the Tigers best offense as it appears was also the Sox's best offense last year.

You are generally right about the Sox's reliance on the long ball last year. But what about productive outs? You win close games by moving runners along. Get a single or a walk. Steal second. Bunt to third. Score on a ground out. The Sox did that in the first inning over and over against last year. We didn't get a lot of hits with runners on first and second. But we did move them over to second and third, and allow them to score on an out. That's Ozzie Ball.

Do the Tigers play that way? The tiny number of sac flies on the current Tiger team suggests that they aren't. I have no idea how many runners on second they're moving to third with no outs. They have been getting more singles with runners on first and second as of late - the non-Ozzie Ball way of scoring. But like home runs, this sort of hitting is contagious and can get cold. It happened to the Twins last year, for example. The number of double plays is the best indicator that the non-Ozzie Ball way of hitting is failing. The Tigers are middle of the pack in the AL in GIDP. Usually teams that hit a lot of home runs also hit into a lot double plays too. Guys looking for three-run homers get antsy and roll over a changeup to the shortstop for a rally-killing DP. Actually, what's amazing about the Sox both this year and last year is how few double plays they hit into - even while hitting a bunch of home runs and having slow-footed sluggers like Konerko, Thome and Crede in the middle of the lineup (and AJ too).

As for sac bunts, the Tigers are 4th in the AL right now. But in 2005 the Tigers were 3rd in the AL. Seems like Alan Trammell liked small-ball too.

Another big problem with the current Tiger lineup is that they LEAD the American League in strikeouts. And they're 11th out 14 AL teams in drawing walks (they were last in the AL last year in walks). Strikeouts tend to go hand-in-hand with home runs (like GIDP), so it's not terribly surprising that the Tigers lead in this category. But this ratio can be deadly over the long haul. Last year the Sox didn't draw many walks either. But they also didn't strike out too much. Again, productive outs are the key to winning lots of close games, even when your lineup is struggling.

LongLiveFisk
05-30-2006, 12:10 PM
This is supposed to be a White Sox message board. Why all the Tigers fans?? :?:

MarySwiss
05-30-2006, 12:22 PM
This is supposed to be a White Sox message board. Why all the Tigers fans?? :?:

Actually it's only a few Tigers fans; they're just very animated for some reason. But I was kind of wondering why they're here also. I do sometimes go check out other teams' fan sites, but I can't imagine wanting to participate in one of them.

LongLiveFisk
05-30-2006, 12:39 PM
Actually it's only a few Tigers fans; they're just very animated for some reason. But I was kind of wondering why they're here also. I do sometimes go check out other teams' fan sites, but I can't imagine wanting to participate in one of them.

I mean, I appreciate that they're being cool and everything but if we let too many fans of other teams post here our site will get diluted with fans of other teams and we won't have that "biased" feel anymore, you know? :wink:

MarySwiss
05-30-2006, 12:43 PM
I mean, I appreciate that they're being cool and everything but if we let too many fans of other teams post here our site will get diluted with fans of other teams and we won't have that "biased" feel anymore, you know? :wink:

Never fear; they'll go away in a few days--when their team is no longer in first place. :D:

SoxFan76
05-30-2006, 12:58 PM
Tigerclaw,

I'm just going to back up elrod here by saying Ozzie ball and Small ball are very different. Small ball is all about bunting, stealing, hit and run, etc. The Sox did all that. But Ozzie ball means so much more. Running out a grounder to the 2nd baseman, hitting the cutoff man, hitting the ball to the right side with a runner on 2nd (even if your name is Carl Everett or Paul Konerko), breaking up a double play, stuff like that. Oh yeah, they hit a lot of home runs too. It's the way you play the game as a whole. Guys throwing complete games, I could go on.

Tigerclaw
05-30-2006, 02:59 PM
You are generally right about the Sox's reliance on the long ball last year. But what about productive outs? You win close games by moving runners along. Get a single or a walk. Steal second. Bunt to third. Score on a ground out. The Sox did that in the first inning over and over against last year. We didn't get a lot of hits with runners on first and second. But we did move them over to second and third, and allow them to score on an out. That's Ozzie Ball.

Do the Tigers play that way? The tiny number of sac flies on the current Tiger team suggests that they aren't. I have no idea how many runners on second they're moving to third with no outs. They have been getting more singles with runners on first and second as of late - the non-Ozzie Ball way of scoring. But like home runs, this sort of hitting is contagious and can get cold. It happened to the Twins last year, for example. The number of double plays is the best indicator that the non-Ozzie Ball way of hitting is failing. The Tigers are middle of the pack in the AL in GIDP. Usually teams that hit a lot of home runs also hit into a lot double plays too. Guys looking for three-run homers get antsy and roll over a changeup to the shortstop for a rally-killing DP. Actually, what's amazing about the Sox both this year and last year is how few double plays they hit into - even while hitting a bunch of home runs and having slow-footed sluggers like Konerko, Thome and Crede in the middle of the lineup (and AJ too).

As for sac bunts, the Tigers are 4th in the AL right now. But in 2005 the Tigers were 3rd in the AL. Seems like Alan Trammell liked small-ball too.

Another big problem with the current Tiger lineup is that they LEAD the American League in strikeouts. And they're 11th out 14 AL teams in drawing walks (they were last in the AL last year in walks). Strikeouts tend to go hand-in-hand with home runs (like GIDP), so it's not terribly surprising that the Tigers lead in this category. But this ratio can be deadly over the long haul. Last year the Sox didn't draw many walks either. But they also didn't strike out too much. Again, productive outs are the key to winning lots of close games, even when your lineup is struggling.

I understand what you are saying...but there are lots of statistics out there that show that things such as stealing bases and sacrifice bunting are very overrated stats. If you look at the teams that lead the league in runs the last few years I'm sure there's a much higher correlation to on base and slugging percentages than stolen bases and sacrifices...teams that can get a hit with a runner on second and no one out are going to be a lot more successful than a team that bunts him over to third, gives up an out and hopes to sacrifice them in. There is no substitution for getting on base and extra base hits.

Tigerclaw
05-30-2006, 03:03 PM
Tigerclaw,

I'm just going to back up elrod here by saying Ozzie ball and Small ball are very different. Small ball is all about bunting, stealing, hit and run, etc. The Sox did all that. But Ozzie ball means so much more. Running out a grounder to the 2nd baseman, hitting the cutoff man, hitting the ball to the right side with a runner on 2nd (even if your name is Carl Everett or Paul Konerko), breaking up a double play, stuff like that. Oh yeah, they hit a lot of home runs too. It's the way you play the game as a whole. Guys throwing complete games, I could go on.

Any team with a good manager can probably say they play "ozzie ball" or "Scioscia ball" or "Leyland ball". Playing the game the right way is a recipe for any winning team.

Tigerclaw
05-30-2006, 03:10 PM
This is supposed to be a White Sox message board. Why all the Tigers fans?? :?:

If this is a serious question than I will give you a serious answer...I understand this forum on this message board is about other happenings in the major leagues, but any thread that has a topic about a particular team...especially a rival team has the potential to attract fans from those teams. I only participate for the most part on this message board in threads that were started about the Tigers and the reason you haven't seen many Tiger fan posters before is because this is probably the first year in the history of this website that people cared to start threads about them.

I enjoy having good discussions with rival fans, it's fun as long as things stay respectful and that's why I'm here.

MadetoOrta
05-30-2006, 03:37 PM
This is the Talking Baseball Message Board. We'd better be talking about the Tigers; they're playing very good ball with a solid club. Like I've said, baseball is like a golf tournament. You can't win a tournament in Round 1, but you can lose one. The Sox are playing at a solid pace that is, in my opinion, more sustainable than the Tigers. But we've finished the first round. A couple of double bogeys at the end of Round 2 can change things. Tigerclaw has been a respectful poster. We should welcome and embrace those folks. Isn't Fenway technically in the same boat?

LongLiveFisk
05-30-2006, 03:41 PM
Isn't Fenway technically in the same boat?

Not exactly. While Fenway is a Red Sox fan first and foremost, he's also a White Sox fan. And btw, I don't personally mind fans of other teams as long as they're respectful; my only point in bringing it up in the first place was that I could have sworn I've seen fans of other teams removed from this board in the past. And I don't think they were necessarily being disrespectful.

SoxFan76
05-30-2006, 03:54 PM
Any team with a good manager can probably say they play "ozzie ball" or "Scioscia ball" or "Leyland ball". Playing the game the right way is a recipe for any winning team.

Yet you rarely see it.

Tigerclaw
05-30-2006, 04:35 PM
Yet you rarely see it.

I would argue that the Twins, Angels have always played that way under their respective managers and see the Tigers play that way this year.

Daver
05-30-2006, 04:46 PM
Not exactly. While Fenway is a Red Sox fan first and foremost, he's also a White Sox fan. And btw, I don't personally mind fans of other teams as long as they're respectful; my only point in bringing it up in the first place was that I could have sworn I've seen fans of other teams removed from this board in the past. And I don't think they were necessarily being disrespectful.

Vic is a Cubs fan, he's seldom around anymore, but he was never banned.

Ma-Gaga is a Twins fan, he's still around.

The only time a fan of another team gets banned is for trolling, we've had three or four Murder City Kitties fans register in the last month, not one of them has been banned, though one came close.

LongLiveFisk
05-30-2006, 04:57 PM
Vic is a Cubs fan, he's seldom around anymore, but he was never banned.

Ma-Gaga is a Twins fan, he's still around.

The only time a fan of another team gets banned is for trolling, we've had three or four Murder City Kitties fans register in the last month, not one of them has been banned, though one came close.

Ok, thanks for the clarification. The mind must be failing with age. :D:

elrod
05-30-2006, 05:04 PM
I've got no problem with Tigers fans on this board. In fact, I like Tigerclaw and Grzegorz and other Tiger fans who talk intelligently about their team. They aren't trolls.

elrod
05-30-2006, 05:19 PM
I understand what you are saying...but there are lots of statistics out there that show that things such as stealing bases and sacrifice bunting are very overrated stats. If you look at the teams that lead the league in runs the last few years I'm sure there's a much higher correlation to on base and slugging percentages than stolen bases and sacrifices...teams that can get a hit with a runner on second and no one out are going to be a lot more successful than a team that bunts him over to third, gives up an out and hopes to sacrifice them in. There is no substitution for getting on base and extra base hits.

Well, you've just cracked open one of the oldest nuts here on WSI. There are, of course, many philosophies about offense. What you are citing - OPS, basically - is what we all affectionately (and most often unaffectionately) refer to as Billy Ball, because of Billy Beane in Oakland. There are now many GMs who adhere to the Billy Ball philosophy of walks, extra-base hits, no sac bunts, and no steals. We even have a special WSI insult for aficionados of the Billy Ball approach - called FOBB (Friends of Billy Beane).

Ozzie Ball - the antidote to Billy Ball - takes a very different approach. More like Joe Torre Ball or Scioscia ball, Ozzie Ball is based on using National League style of play with American League quality hitters. The result is that you get both speed and power, and you play aggressively. (There is a defensive and pitching component too, but let's just focus on hitting). There are those who try pure small ball, like Tampa Bay and Seattle, but they don't get enough consistency to win with it. Those in the Billy Ball school - notably Boston, Toronto and, of course, Oakland - will end up with some gaudy numbers. But they rarely win in the post-season. The one time the Red Sox won it all, they did it with a steal by Dave Roberts to keep Game Four of the 2004 ALCS alive. From then on it was all Big Papi. The way we see it, there's a reason the Athletics keep choking in the post-season. They don't manufacture runs in the National League way. Thus, they kept losing one-run playoff games to the Twins and Yankees, while they sat around and waited for the three-run homer.

If you ask me, a team that plays the more complete style of baseball, where speed is as important as power, is more of a serious threat than an OPS-only team. Frankly, the Tigers have shown signs of playing the complete style as of late. It was Nook Logan last year, and Granderson this year. Get a runner on by walk (preferably a ten-pitch walk), swipe second, sac him to third, and then score him on an out. There is nothing more demoralizing than giving up a run in a close game without giving up a hit. If you keep the rest of the lineup stationary on the basepath, you'll end up disappointed in the end.

SoxEd
05-30-2006, 07:33 PM
If you ask me, a team that plays the more complete style of baseball, where speed is as important as power, is more of a serious threat than an OPS-only team. Frankly, the Tigers have shown signs of playing the complete style as of late. It was Nook Logan last year, and Granderson this year. Get a runner on by walk (preferably a ten-pitch walk), swipe second, sac him to third, and then score him on an out. There is nothing more demoralizing than giving up a run in a close game without giving up a hit. If you keep the rest of the lineup stationary on the basepath, you'll end up disappointed in the end.

[Southern Baptist Preacher]
Testify!
Testify!
[/Southern Baptist Preacher]

When I see Detroit apparently playing like the '05 Sox, I get to both worrying (that they might stay with us all the way, and possibly beat us), and I also get cheered up - because IMO what enabled us to dominate in October was the tough race we got into with the Jndians down the stretch last September.
If the '06 Sox are forced to compete with a Divisional rival that is as multi-tooled as us through the whole season, IMO it can only make us more focussed, and more determined - and harder to beat as a result.
(First person to say 'burnout' gets a nastyrudesailorword thrown their way!)

I think it's great to see that the two best teams in the AL are in the 'Comedy' Central, and that they are the two best teams because they play 'Ozzieball'.

Of course, I'll still be massively bummed-out if the DT's end up knocking us out of the Show...
:wink:

CHISOXFAN13
05-30-2006, 07:35 PM
Based loaded nobody out for the Tigers in the first and they score no runs.

santo=dorf
05-30-2006, 07:45 PM
Based loaded nobody out for the Tigers in the first and they score no runs.
Bases loaded, one out for the Yankees in the second and they score 3 runs.............and counting. :smile:

EDIT: 4-0

Tigerslover
05-30-2006, 07:47 PM
Ugh, there goes my 2 win prediction seemingly. There's no excuse for not scoring a damn thing after loading the bases with no outs. None at all.

Tigerslover
05-30-2006, 08:56 PM
6-4 game now. Man on 1st, with 2 outs for the Tigers in the 5th.

Tigerslover
05-30-2006, 09:24 PM
Now a 6-5 game.

JUribe1989
05-30-2006, 09:59 PM
The Tigers pitching looks bad once again this game, but then again it was Roman Colon starting.

Mr. White Sox
05-30-2006, 10:01 PM
Farnsworth with the DLBB

aaand now runners on 1st and 2nd, nobody out. Here we go :(.

Now 3-1 to the next hitter. Farnsworth ****ing sucks.

Tigerslover
05-30-2006, 10:01 PM
Not really. Colon struggled, but sans a couple of runs after that it was solid. Particularly the bullpen once more. Zumaya especially, he had a great outing in his 2 and 2/3 innings.

JUribe1989
05-30-2006, 10:01 PM
Oh joy, ****ing Farnsworth with a leadoff walk. I don't care what his ERA will ever say, that guy can't handle pressure and he SUCKS. Just look to his performance in the playoffs against the Astros last year.

Mr. White Sox
05-30-2006, 10:05 PM
Bases loaded, nobody out. Why am I still watching this?

whitesoxfan
05-30-2006, 10:06 PM
Why the hell is Farnsworth still in?

JUribe1989
05-30-2006, 10:07 PM
I hate that guy so much.

Mr. White Sox
05-30-2006, 10:08 PM
Farnsworth needs to go start tackling people for his new career and stop walking people with 100mph fastballs. What a lame pitcher; he's like John Rocker but more annoying.

whitesoxfan
05-30-2006, 10:08 PM
Tie game :angry:

JUribe1989
05-30-2006, 10:09 PM
Brandon Inge should probably pump his fist on fielders choices, it's not all that pathetic.

JUribe1989
05-30-2006, 10:11 PM
You don't blow 6-1 leads if you have that many wins....unless you are an overpaid team worth **** like the Yankees.

JUribe1989
05-30-2006, 10:13 PM
6-6, end of 8th. This is hell watching two teams I hate and caring about the game.

whitesoxfan
05-30-2006, 10:13 PM
Well, at least the Headcase came back and struck out Granderson and Polanco.

Cmon Yanks.

Mr. White Sox
05-30-2006, 10:13 PM
Wow, Farnsworth got out of it, only giving up 1 run with the bases loaded, nobody out. And he struck out Polanco too, which is a nice feat. That means I like him now!

JUribe1989
05-30-2006, 10:17 PM
Genious Tiger fans cheer a high fastball that gets away from Rodney and almost hits A-Rod. YAY! I would want a leadoff baserunner too!

mccoydp
05-30-2006, 10:18 PM
A-Fraud with a nothing at-bat.

JUribe1989
05-30-2006, 10:21 PM
Johnny Damon to pinch run for Jorge Posada after a 1 out walk. Let's go Cano!

mccoydp
05-30-2006, 10:21 PM
Johnny "I'll have the duck, with the mango salsa" Damon in.

JUribe1989
05-30-2006, 10:22 PM
I love it when Pudge tries to show off with that snap throw to first base, but then realizes after the throw that he is a washed-up steroid-induced *******.

Cano is the go-ahead run, get him in.

JUribe1989
05-30-2006, 10:25 PM
Solid stop by Pudge.

JUribe1989
05-30-2006, 10:27 PM
Absolutely terrible baserunning. If you're that fast, you can't get thrown out on that. Yankmees ****ing suck.

Tigerslover
05-30-2006, 10:30 PM
Winning run on 1st with 1 down.

JUribe1989
05-30-2006, 10:31 PM
Cano is an awful fielder too. Man, he just does everything wrong, doesn't he?

itsnotrequired
05-30-2006, 10:31 PM
Johnny "I'll have the duck, with the mango salsa" Damon in.

:rolling:

JUribe1989
05-30-2006, 10:32 PM
1-6-3 DP, on the the 10th.

itsnotrequired
05-30-2006, 10:32 PM
Guillen grounds into a DP!

Onto the 10th...

JUribe1989
05-30-2006, 10:32 PM
:rolling:

Great commercial.

"I'm sorry, I lost my appetite."

whitesoxfan
05-30-2006, 10:32 PM
Ok you rich bums, win the damn game.

Tigerslover
05-30-2006, 10:32 PM
Win or lose here, this has been a great ballgame. Big plays on both sides throughout.

JUribe1989
05-30-2006, 10:37 PM
Rivera going for another inning. The Yankees sure pay a lot for that clutch hitting.

Jerko
05-30-2006, 10:47 PM
Roid boy puts the Yanks up 7-6

Chips
05-30-2006, 10:47 PM
Rivera going for another inning. The Yankees sure pay a lot for that clutch hitting.

Rivera usually doesn't hold up in the second inning. Glad he did.

whitesoxfan
05-30-2006, 10:47 PM
Thank you Giambi!

Kogs35
05-30-2006, 10:47 PM
thanks jason!!

Mr. White Sox
05-30-2006, 10:47 PM
Did I just pump my fist for a GIAMBI HOME RUN?! ***, my world is turning upside-down.

JUribe1989
05-30-2006, 10:48 PM
It's a run, by a jerk off though.

Why couldn't Bernie or A-Rod have done it? I hate Giambi.

That's ok, I hate the Tigers more.

Chips
05-30-2006, 10:48 PM
:putitontheboard

Is that allowed for Yankees?

JUribe1989
05-30-2006, 10:49 PM
Todd Jones is overrated, and given the chance will unravel.

thomas35forever
05-30-2006, 10:49 PM
Let me hijack this thread for a moment. Tigerslover, you're welcome to post here as long as you don't turn into Timberwolf, and don't even get me started on him. He has to be the biggest troll in WSI history.

JUribe1989
05-30-2006, 10:49 PM
....and there's a base hit by A-Rod.

JUribe1989
05-30-2006, 10:50 PM
Let me hijack this thread for a moment. Tigerslover, you're welcome to post here as long as you don't turn into Timberwolf, and don't even get me started on him. He has to be the biggest troll in WSI history.

Don't worry, Tigers fans are smarter than Twins fans. I think that is safe to say. :D:

whitesoxfan
05-30-2006, 10:51 PM
Don't worry, Tigers fans are smarter than Twins fans. I think that is safe to say. :D:

I'm not going to argue that one.

Tigerslover
05-30-2006, 10:52 PM
Todd Jones is overrated, and given the chance will unravel.

Sometimes, but he still more often then not gets it done. He had 14 saves in 15 chances coming into this one. That's gotta count for something.

FarWestChicago
05-30-2006, 10:54 PM
Don't worry, Tigers fans are smarter than Twins fans. I think that is safe to say. :D:Despite his misguided love for Sabremetrics, ma-gaga is easily one of the most intelligent posters on this site. Our Tigers friends have a long way to go to catch up to ma.

Kogs35
05-30-2006, 10:56 PM
nice catch ohhhhhhhhh wait never mind maggs :D: 8-6 yankees

JUribe1989
05-30-2006, 10:57 PM
o-e-o

Maggs You Blow

Mr. White Sox
05-30-2006, 10:57 PM
Sometimes, but he still more often then not gets it done. He had 14 saves in 15 chances coming into this one. That's gotta count for something.

How long is Jones' contract? Isn't Zumaya supposed to be the closer next year?

Kogs35
05-30-2006, 10:58 PM
bases loaded for ny, detroit making a pitching change

Kogs35
05-30-2006, 11:02 PM
10-6 now 2run single by andy philips

EDIT:
11-6 melky cabbera with a single

JUribe1989
05-30-2006, 11:03 PM
11-6

whitesoxfan
05-30-2006, 11:04 PM
Well the lead will still be 1 1/2 :smile:

Tigerslover
05-30-2006, 11:05 PM
That first inning really came back to bite us.

mccoydp
05-30-2006, 11:06 PM
Nice to know that Detroit and all of their "kitty-power" won't be able to come back in this one.

mccoydp
05-30-2006, 11:07 PM
Well the lead will still be 1 1/2 :smile:

A big "MEOW" to that!

Kogs35
05-30-2006, 11:10 PM
and this ball game is over:smile: yanks win

elrod
05-30-2006, 11:12 PM
Well, the Tigers staged an impressive comeback. But not enough. It'll be interesting to see how the Tigers bounce back tomorrow. They could see this game as closer than it should have been, given the early disaster. Or they could see this as a frustrating loss. This game reminds me of the game we lost to the Angels when Charlie Haeger pitched. We were down 6-0, cut it to 6-5, and then got blown out in the 9th.

Lip Man 1
05-30-2006, 11:14 PM
The night isn't a total loss...given the choice between losing a game in the standings to Detroit or losing a game in the wild card standings to the Yankees, I'll take the former.

Lip

chisoxfanatic
05-30-2006, 11:14 PM
Well, the Tigers staged an impressive comeback. But not enough. It'll be interesting to see how the Tigers bounce back tomorrow. They could see this game as closer than it should have been, given the early disaster. Or they could see this as a frustrating loss. This game reminds me of the game we lost to the Angels when Charlie Haeger pitched. We were down 6-0, cut it to 6-5, and then got blown out in the 9th.

I hope to forget that game as soon as possible. If it weren't for that game, I'd have an undefeated record going.

Anyways, thank you, Yankees!!!

CHISOXFAN13
05-30-2006, 11:39 PM
That first inning really came back to bite us.

Us? No, actually the first inning debacle and eighth inning struggles by the Tigers really helped US.

Tigerslover
05-31-2006, 01:05 AM
LOL you know what I meant.

voodoochile
05-31-2006, 06:45 AM
The night isn't a total loss...given the choice between losing a game in the standings to Detroit or losing a game in the wild card standings to the Yankees, I'll take the former.

Lip

I think you mean the latter.

It's WAY too early to worry about WC standings. Always good when any top tier AL team takes a loss, but with the Yankees playint the kittens, they can't both lose. ALC losses are always preferable when given the choice.

Lip Man 1
05-31-2006, 01:05 PM
Voodoo:

Oooppsss.....

:redface:

Lip

Trav
05-31-2006, 05:29 PM
Todd Jones is overrated, and given the chance will unravel.

Jones is overrated? By who? The guy just goes out and gets it done and has been doing so for years. I would rather have a proven guy out there who has had bad years but who I know can handle himself in a tight spot then an unproven gas thrower.

He is similar to Bob Wickman and even though he is on the downside of a unsuspecting career, many teams would love to have him. If the Tigers slide out of contention before the deadline I bet someone tries to get him.

Tigerslover
05-31-2006, 07:09 PM
Tigers/Yankees in a rain delay right now.

Kogs35
05-31-2006, 08:45 PM
1-0 yanks bottom 1

itsnotrequired
05-31-2006, 10:13 PM
Tigers just had first and second with no outs. Failed bunt gets the first out at third and a double play ends the threat. 2-0, Yankees. On to the 7th.

Chips
05-31-2006, 10:15 PM
Tigers just had first and second with no outs. Failed bunt gets the first out at third and a double play ends the threat. 2-0, Yankees. On to the 7th.

Hopefully we won't lose any ground.

itsnotrequired
05-31-2006, 10:17 PM
Hopefully we won't lose any ground.

Homefish has already pointed out that we will lose ground in the Wild Card race.

:rolleyes:

itsnotrequired
05-31-2006, 10:23 PM
Mussina is efficient. 73 pitches through 7 innings.

2-0, Yankees. Top of the 8th.

itsnotrequired
05-31-2006, 10:26 PM
Giambi doubles (ground rule variety) to lead off the 8th.

Chips
05-31-2006, 10:27 PM
Mussina is efficient. 73 pitches through 7 innings.

2-0, Yankees. Top of the 8th.

I hope I started him in fantasy. Although it might not matter, because I'm getting smoked.

itsnotrequired
05-31-2006, 10:27 PM
A-Rod TRIPLE. Yankees lead 3-0.

itsnotrequired
05-31-2006, 10:33 PM
Fielder's choice for Cano. A-Rod scores, 4-0 Yankees...

itsnotrequired
05-31-2006, 10:41 PM
Inge grounds into DP to end the 8th.

81 pitches for Mussina through 8. Damn...

Jerko
05-31-2006, 10:49 PM
5-0 Yankees now. Minus Damon, Sheffield, and Jeter FWIW.

itsnotrequired
05-31-2006, 10:52 PM
Giambi doubles in Cairo. 6-0, Yankees.

Chips
05-31-2006, 10:52 PM
Excellent. Excellent.

itsnotrequired
05-31-2006, 10:53 PM
A-Rod intentionally walked.

itsnotrequired
05-31-2006, 10:54 PM
Posada flies out to end the inning. 6-0, Yankees. Bottom of the 9th.

Lip Man 1
05-31-2006, 10:59 PM
Well if this holds up the Sox catch a good break. At least they have picked up two games in the last four days.

Lip

Chips
05-31-2006, 11:03 PM
Magglio with the RBI

itsnotrequired
05-31-2006, 11:03 PM
Ordonez takes the first pitch and drives in Polanco on an RBI single. The CG shutout is over but the run is unearned due to an A-Rod throwing gaff.

itsnotrequired
05-31-2006, 11:06 PM
Guillen goes down swinging, game over.

6-1, Yankees.

The Sox Wild Card lead shrinks.

Chips
05-31-2006, 11:06 PM
Tigers lose fourt straight. :smile:

Kogs35
05-31-2006, 11:06 PM
yankees win game 3

Lip Man 1
05-31-2006, 11:07 PM
Just out of curiosity what is the 'wild card' lead right now?

Lip

Tigerslover
05-31-2006, 11:07 PM
Ugh our bats have just flat out S T U N K. We're so much better then this, and that's why it's so frustrating to watch them struggle.

itsnotrequired
05-31-2006, 11:08 PM
Ugh our bats have just flat out S T U N K. We're so much better then this, and that's why it's so frustrating to watch them struggle.

Who is this "our" you speak of?

:tongue:

Tigerslover
05-31-2006, 11:09 PM
Shut up lol. BTW lead is 2 games in the wild card now.

Jjav829
05-31-2006, 11:11 PM
Ugh our bats have just flat out S T U N K. We're so much better then this, and that's why it's so frustrating to watch them struggle.

Are you sure? :smile:

whitesoxfan
05-31-2006, 11:11 PM
Shut up lol. BTW lead is 2 games in the wild card now.

who cares about the wild card? It's only May. Geez.

itsnotrequired
05-31-2006, 11:13 PM
who cares about the wild card? It's only May. Geez.

That excuse won't fly in two hours.

:redneck

getonbckthr
05-31-2006, 11:18 PM
who cares about the wild card? It's only May. Geez.
Wild card has won 3 of the last 4 world series, that 1 was us.

CLR01
06-01-2006, 12:06 AM
Wild card has won 3 of the last 4 world series, that 1 was us.


and it will be 3 of the last 5 after we win the WS again this year.:cool:

Tigerslover
06-01-2006, 07:56 PM
Well this series is over. 4-0 Yankees in the 3rd. This is just pathetic, period.

Tigerslover
06-01-2006, 08:23 PM
Bats have finally woken up. 5-2 game, bases full and no outs still in the 4th.

Tigerslover
06-01-2006, 08:26 PM
Make that 5-3.

Tigerslover
06-01-2006, 08:57 PM
1 run game. 6-5. 1st and 2nd, no outs, bottom 5.

CubsfansareDRUNK
06-01-2006, 09:17 PM
shut up

whitesoxfan
06-01-2006, 10:18 PM
Oh boy, Farnsworth coming in to close for the Yanks.

For the love of god, don't blow it.

Tigerslover
06-01-2006, 10:19 PM
Shouldn't even be coming to this really. Inge screwed it up swinging at the first pitch with the bases full. If he is more patient maybe we'd have won already.

Viva Medias B's
06-01-2006, 10:20 PM
Where is Mariano?

HomeFish
06-01-2006, 10:20 PM
Since when is Terrance Long a Yankee?

Being a Yankee is supposed to be an honor, something reserved for only the best players. Having guys like Long on there cheapens the Yankee mystique significantly.

whitesoxfan
06-01-2006, 10:23 PM
Where is Mariano?

He had some sort of a freak injury I believe.

itsnotrequired
06-01-2006, 10:24 PM
Granderson flies out. One down.

Viva Medias B's
06-01-2006, 10:27 PM
Uh, oh. Ivan Rodriguez up with Thames on 1B.

whitesoxfan
06-01-2006, 10:27 PM
Long AB for Thames finally leads into a 1 out walk.

The bobblehead doll is now up.

whitesoxfan
06-01-2006, 10:29 PM
ugh, 1st and 2nd with only 1 out.

Thanks Farnsworth :angry:

Viva Medias B's
06-01-2006, 10:29 PM
:wanne
Uh, oh

Let's hope that :maggs does a GIDPK.

thomas35forever
06-01-2006, 10:30 PM
Please Maggs. You wouldn't hurt your old team in the standings, would you?

whitesoxfan
06-01-2006, 10:30 PM
Tie game :angry:

You SUCK Farns.

Viva Medias B's
06-01-2006, 10:31 PM
<Insert incredibly overused chunks tag>

The Boss is probably not happy.

thomas35forever
06-01-2006, 10:31 PM
Where the hell's Rivera?:angry:

CHISOXFAN13
06-01-2006, 10:31 PM
Farnsworth is the most overpaid player in the game. Period. END OF STORY.

Oh boy. Now we get to listen to Tigerslover talk about how gerat the Tigers are. YAWN.

Viva Medias B's
06-01-2006, 10:31 PM
Please Maggs. You wouldn't hurt your old team in the standings, would you?

:maggs
Your what hurts?

CHISOXFAN13
06-01-2006, 10:32 PM
Where the hell's Rivera?:angry:

He injured his back in pregame.

Viva Medias B's
06-01-2006, 10:32 PM
Oh boy. Now we get to listen to Tigerslover talk about how gerat the Tigers are. YAWN.

Wouldn't he get banned for being a...

:troll

Tigerslover
06-01-2006, 10:33 PM
Nah I'm not gonna rub it in. Be nice if we can get 1 though to build confidence with Boston coming in.

Viva Medias B's
06-01-2006, 10:34 PM
The storm in the postgame thread has intensified to a Cat 5.

itsnotrequired
06-01-2006, 10:34 PM
Game over, Tigers win.

:whiner:

CHISOXFAN13
06-01-2006, 10:34 PM
Wouldn't he get banned for being a...

:troll

I would have thought that would have happened by now. Getting tired of the "we" crap that he spews everytime they do something positive.

whitesoxfan
06-01-2006, 10:34 PM
Damn :angry:

well this raises Detroit's record to teams named the Sox and Yankees to 1-6. Very nice record. Have fun against Boston this weekend.

Foulke You
06-01-2006, 10:35 PM
Freakin Farnsworth! Lousy no good ex-Cub. Why didn't Mariano Rivera pitch for the save here?

CHISOXFAN13
06-01-2006, 10:36 PM
Freakin Farnsworth! Lousy no good ex-Cub. Why didn't Mariano Rivera pitch for the save here?

Tweaked his back.

thomas35forever
06-01-2006, 10:37 PM
What the hell's going on? This has been a very sucky day for me. In addition the Sox losing and the Tigers winning, the electricity went out before I could take my history final today and now I gotta take it tomorrow after what should've been my final exam of the year. Now the school year's been extended by 1 hr 45 mins for me. I wish this day was over.:whiner:

Foulke You
06-01-2006, 10:38 PM
Tweaked his back.
Ugh.:(: Figures. Oh well, the Yanks did take that series and kept us close to Detroit. Just one of those bad karma nights for the Sox.

Lip Man 1
06-01-2006, 10:39 PM
Well that caps a 'perfect' close to a 'perfect' friggin' day.

Lip

JB98
06-01-2006, 10:42 PM
Well that caps a 'perfect' close to a 'perfect' friggin' day.

Lip

It's been a very pleasant evening.

CubsfansareDRUNK
06-01-2006, 10:52 PM
**** **** **** **** :angry::angry::angry:

MUsoxfan
06-01-2006, 10:55 PM
The Yankees are once again dead to me