How the White Sox are Winning - from BP
... Can this be sustained? Despite playing above expectations as a team, the White Sox don’t have a lot of negative markers. The home-run rate, especially among the relievers, is going to rise. However, the offense isn’t likely to change much—four guys are above expectations, while four others are substantially below. If the usual happens, that still gives the Sox a good lineup, although it would be hard to improve it substantially. The only place where the Sox are likely to add a player is second base, and finding a good-hitting second baseman in the trade market is like looking for a portly vegan. The bench is awful: seven walks and ten extra-base hits so far. That’s something Kenny Williams will look to improve.
Mostly, with these Sox, what you see is what you get. They won’t hit for average, won’t knock balls into the gaps, won’t impress you with their defense. They hit home runs and draw walks, keep the bad guys from doing the same. Probably the biggest reason to like them is simply the inability of the Indians and Tigers to play .500 baseball so far. The buy-in for winning the AL Central eight weeks ago was 93 wins. It’s lower than that now, and if the Sox weren’t likely to reach that first number, it’s much more likely that they can get to 88 or 89, and that may be all they need.
about 1 year ago
larry
99 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
btw, the entire article is free
The greatest trick the White Sox ever pulled was convincing their fan base that "Ozzieball" ever existed.
by The Wizard on May 22, 2008 2:14 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
took this from the other thread
because it really hits one of the other main points, if not the main point, of the article (cutting and pasting the whole article would have been a bit of overkill)
BP’s playoff odds…
are pretty interesting, and revealing about how the White Sox are built.
They show the White Sox with a 57% chance of making the playoffs, as things stand.
But adjust for PECOTA (in other words, stop assuming that the team stays healthy and productive), and the odds drop to 15%.
You were right on the other day when you said that health and consistency are the keys to this team’s continued success. As the article points out, the team is successful because the regulars are playing every day, and in the aggregate, the regulars are doing an outstanding job.
by The Jerry Royster Experience on May 22, 2008 2:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
_
i would add to this that the pecota odds also assume that the indians and, perhaps more importantly, the tigers will become healthy and/or productive. the assumption about the latter team is one that i’ve questioned for a long time.
by larry on May 22, 2008 2:28 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Good point on the Tigers.
They’ll win some games simply because they have an explosive offense, but I don’t think that pitching staff is taking them anywhere.
by The Jerry Royster Experience on May 22, 2008 2:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why is adjusting for PECOTA interesting
Do the playoff chances of our rivals drop less drastically when adjusting for PECOTA? Stop assuming any team stays healthy and productive, and I would expect a slim chance at playoff birth. Or does it imply we are just playing way over our heads? As far as the pitching staff goes that seems the case but I can’t say the same for the offense
by 3E8 on May 22, 2008 2:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The playoff chances of the Indians and the Tigers increase...
once you adjust for PECOTA.
PECOTA tries to predict how much a player will produce over the course of a season, and it thinks the Indians and Tigers are underperforming, and the White Sox are overperforming.
by The Jerry Royster Experience on May 22, 2008 3:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Gotcha
It’s using the preseason projections. Then I definitely understand the stark differences between our PECOTA playoff odds and those of CLE/DET. So it’s not really as much assuming the team stays productive as it is assuming the team continues to outperform its modeled output
by 3E8 on May 22, 2008 3:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Right.
AFAIK the raw playoff odds go under the assumption that the Sox will continue to score and prevent runs at about the same rate, with some variation in distribution.
by The Jerry Royster Experience on May 22, 2008 3:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
well i believe what they do actually is use a regression model
using the actual results and then regressing them as necessary (i.e. depending on how many games are left).
dude, that was totally not swish you saw on rush street last night. swish was at home playing xbox.
by colintj on May 22, 2008 3:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
so what the PECOTA adjusted odds show are how much the current performance of the team
has changed its long terms odds. To this point, it looks like only a win or two have been additionally decided.
dude, that was totally not swish you saw on rush street last night. swish was at home playing xbox.
by colintj on May 22, 2008 3:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
the sox' rivals playoff chances increase quite a bit when adjusting
because they are “underperforming” compared to their preseason projections.
the thing to keep in mind about PECOTA is that just about no position player is ever projected/assumed by the system to play more than about 90% of the time. and a starter is rarely projected to pitch more than 190 or so innnings. the sox projections, for example, assume that jose contreras will only throw about 135 innings, IIRC, and that jim thome will only play about 70% of the time and so on. and their replacements will be replacement level (like a charlie haeger) or below (like pablo ozuna).
as one can probably discern quickly, if jose contreras throw fifty more innings, especially at the level he’s performing at now, that’s a big boost over haeger. and jim thome is way better than ozuna.
it’s not so much that the sox are overperforming individually, at least in rate statistics. it’s that injuries or whatever haven’t happened so, as a collective unit they’re performing better than expected because no one has really missed any time.
of course, one needs to keep in mind that pecota is a projection for the entire season, not 45 games, so there’s still time for what pecota projected to happen.
by larry on May 22, 2008 3:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
"pecota is a projection for the entire season"
totally, but health and consistency are explaining the current success. so can we reasonably expect our regulars to play the bulk of the games for the remainder of the season? i guess its better to frame the question this way, what can we do to ensure our aging core (namely dye, thome, pk, crede) play the bulk of games for the remainder of the season? acquire a capable player off the bench, someone better than ozuna?
"I got the shotgun. You got the briefcase. It's all in the game though, right? "
by onlysoxfaninboston on May 22, 2008 3:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That would be nice...
and it’s exactly what the article suggests that the Sox do. They can’t continue to carry this crappy bench if they want a realistic shot at October baseball.
by The Jerry Royster Experience on May 22, 2008 3:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
i've said from the start
actually, before the start, that the sox will need to get big-time, unexpected production from their big guns, at least in terms of games/PAs. i said ride those big guns as long as you can and as hard as you can because there’s nothing behind them. sure, acquiring a capable bench player would be a good idea but even a good bench player will be a decent and noticeable drop in production from guys like JD, PK, thome, so on. but i’m not sure there’s any way to ensure the regulars play the bulk of the games. resting those players regularly may end up actually being more counterproductive than playing them, despite that perhaps not making immediate intuitive sense, because of the drop-off in production to their replacement. the margin for error by the sox is thin.
if you want a real answer, if the sox are going to go for it, it’s time (or, once he’s fully back from his injury, almost time) for josh fields to be brought up. sure, not playing regularly (especially presumably not playing much in the field) will screw up his development as a player. but if you’re going for it this year, throw it to the wind. fields is your perfect platoon partner for thome, the guy who is most likely to need rest to stay productive. he’d also allow some playing with the lineup, if you’re willing to play him in LF, so you could get JD out of the field and at DH, or other permutations i’m sure we can all ponder.
and, yes, i’m aware that this last paragraph isn’t what i’ve advocated previously. i’m still not sure it’s a good idea overall – it pretty much wouldn’t be unless the sox reach the playoffs – and i’m not ready to advocate it now, either. but it’s time to start thinking about it.
by larry on May 22, 2008 3:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
This makes sense
But I think there is still some time. Let him attempt to develop a little more and then maybe for the 2nd half run.
by Tdogg on May 22, 2008 3:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think you could convince Ozzie Guillen...
to platoon Thome, no matter how much sense it makes.
Guillen is a player’s manager, and players hate being platooned.
by The Jerry Royster Experience on May 22, 2008 3:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
let me elaborate
i’m not suggesting a strict platoon there. play with the lineup a day or two a week, just like ozzie does now anyway. fields provides a much better option to do that with than anything he’s got now. his use would be much more valuable for being a bat off the bench that can actually do something or in allowing another player to be on the bench if he’s starting. in short, he’s a good player when we’ve presently got a bunch of marginally above replacement players, at best. options and the depth and flexibility such options provide is what we’re looking for.
and i’m not sure i knw what ozzie guillen can’t be convinced of after seeing some of his decisions this year. oh, wait, i think there might be something to do with bunting. but outside of that.
by larry on May 22, 2008 3:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
right
ozzie moving swish up to #1, q to #3, he’s been making unconvential (in the context of ozzie) moves this year. i want to give ozzie and kw the benefit of the doubt thus far for making moves when necessary.
"I got the shotgun. You got the briefcase. It's all in the game though, right? "
by onlysoxfaninboston on May 22, 2008 3:41 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
We'll probably get that chance, anyway, this summer
when Thomer or Paulie pull a groin. As far as current implementation, why mess with it now? We’re winning. And you don’t mess with the streak.
Respect the streak. It’ll need to be fixed when it breaks, but right now it ain’t broken. We got the Pixie Dust for the time being.
I took the "under".
by winningugly on May 22, 2008 4:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Kind of how I feel about it.
You know Fields will be here eventually.. we just have to hope he gets healthy before one of our big guns goes down.
by Grinder in Training on May 22, 2008 4:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
2 weeks ago people would have said he would never
Drop “insert” in the batting order. Give him some credit for growth. If it doesnt improve he’ll change it I think.
by Tdogg on May 22, 2008 3:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
i know bring up fields
totally b/c he can spell thome and probably dye. but this may require either releasing ozuna or shipping BA back to AAA. i’m not sure either move is likely to happen. OR if alexei regresses, option him when uribe is ready to play.
resting players regularly (during the regular season) was kind of like ozzie’s mo until this season. he’s riding the hot hand year and sticking with the regulars, i like it.
"I got the shotgun. You got the briefcase. It's all in the game though, right? "
by onlysoxfaninboston on May 22, 2008 3:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
another reason to platoon Thome
(although the Sox would never admit it), is to prevent him from getting his $13M option guaranteed next year.
He’d probably have to miss about 20-ish games this year to not get his 564 PAs…
Mosi Tatupu! Mosi Tatupu!
by Nordhagen on May 22, 2008 3:41 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
i don't even think that would enter they're thinking
if thome is healthy and is productive, they’re going to play him regardless of the contract.
"I got the shotgun. You got the briefcase. It's all in the game though, right? "
by onlysoxfaninboston on May 22, 2008 3:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
right, I dont think the Sox
operate that way. However, the payroll flexibility gained would be an added benefit to plan as proposed by larry.
Mosi Tatupu! Mosi Tatupu!
by Nordhagen on May 22, 2008 3:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
i think that's probably the reason why the Sox aren't going to platoon him
with any kind of regularity. i don’t think they can afford an act of apparent bad faith. i mean something that costs a guy 13 million dollars is a huge deal.
dude, that was totally not swish you saw on rush street last night. swish was at home playing xbox.
by colintj on May 22, 2008 3:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think apparent bad faith
has anything to do with the use of thome. he should be getting most of his at-bats assuming he “regresses” upward.
"I got the shotgun. You got the briefcase. It's all in the game though, right? "
by onlysoxfaninboston on May 22, 2008 4:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
i'm just saying that while it would make sense to let fields take his ABs
against lefties, they won’t because that eats into the 20 or so games that Thome can’t afford (literally) to miss.
dude, that was totally not swish you saw on rush street last night. swish was at home playing xbox.
by colintj on May 22, 2008 4:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
thome's contract
i’m confused. according to cot’s contracts, it’s a club option, not a player option. does reaching 564 PAs make it automatic that the sox have to pick up the option or just guarantee thome at least the $3M buyout? it would suck to be paying thome $13M next year.
by Ryno on May 22, 2008 4:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
i agree with your conclusion.
but not with the reasoning that they’ll play him to avoid looking like they are acting in bad faith. that’s a serious accusation for a player to make, especially one with his lefty splits.
"For those that don't understand stats... that ops is horrifying."
by Toonderstrook on May 22, 2008 4:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
i don't think the player would make an accusation
at least not Jim Thome. but i do think some grumbling would be in order AND would affect his performance potentially, yknow?
dude, that was totally not swish you saw on rush street last night. swish was at home playing xbox.
by colintj on May 22, 2008 4:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
why would grumbling be in order?
“did you see what the white sox are doing, resting their their aging DH (who as awful lefty splits) against lefties and instead playing a guy who absolutely mashes lefty pitching on those days? they killed thome! those bastards!”
"For those that don't understand stats... that ops is horrifying."
by Toonderstrook on May 22, 2008 4:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thome wouldn't grumble about it?
It’s not that the logic isn’t obvious, it’s that a guy that’s used to playing and has money riding on how much he plays won’t be playing. If I were Thome, I’d grumble. I’m just saying that it’s a potential risk of inserting Fields in the lineup like that.
dude, that was totally not swish you saw on rush street last night. swish was at home playing xbox.
by colintj on May 22, 2008 4:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Jim Thome platoon splits 2008
vs. RHP – .190/.351/.333
vs. LHP – .275/.356/.725
Now, a big part of that difference is the three homers Thome has against CC Sabathia this year, but it’s hard to use “Thome’s not hitting lefties” as your reason to bench him when he is, in fact, hitting lefties, at least at the moment. It’s actually righties he’s not hitting.
by The Jerry Royster Experience on May 22, 2008 4:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
my mistake.
my point was that a team atop a division giving someone thome’s age with his current hitting numbers a day or two off a week should never come close to any “bad faith” grumblings. hell, a plausible reason for doing it is to keep him healthy for the stretch run. now, if the sox were 10 games out and all of the sudden fields is up taking at bats, maybe that gets closer (although there are still plenty of logical reasons for that ,too).
"For those that don't understand stats... that ops is horrifying."
by Toonderstrook on May 22, 2008 4:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
these arguments always bug me a little bit anyway.
the option and its vesting requirement are bargained-for. in exchange for the option based on PA, the club has to give something up. of course, there is an implied duty of good faith and fair dealing in every contract, but that is a far cry from forcing a team to play a guy in every game he physically can because otherwise the option won’t kick in.
this is the same reason it pissed me off when everybody raked devean george over the coals for exercising his NTC when the mavs wanted to dump him. he negotiated that clause, likely because he wanted to make sure he wasn’t dealt to any old shit team, and in the process conceded something. once he got it, he damn well had every right to exercise it.
"For those that don't understand stats... that ops is horrifying."
by Toonderstrook on May 22, 2008 4:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
well i've already advocated that to some degree
and already commented to your above post with a similar sentiment. if the sox are going for it, he’s an asset.
dude, that was totally not swish you saw on rush street last night. swish was at home playing xbox.
by colintj on May 22, 2008 3:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
this was the "pro" argument in favor of keeping Joe Crede that I made
though it assumes he can be better than replacement level to a significant degree. Fields can theoretically cover LF, 3B, 1B and DH and be above replacement level when he does it and those happen to be significant injury risk players (well Dye more so than Quentin).
dude, that was totally not swish you saw on rush street last night. swish was at home playing xbox.
by colintj on May 22, 2008 3:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I like the ELO adjusted odds
they do a decent job of trying to identify the teams on the field right now, not projected, which makes a difference.
AIM: SouthSideCheat
by The Cheat on May 22, 2008 3:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not sure exactly...
what ELO is (and the article explaining it is behind the subscriber wall), so I didn’t know what to make of that.
by The Jerry Royster Experience on May 22, 2008 3:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Electric Light Orchestra
Actually, WIKI describes it:
Elo was originally invented as an improved chess rating system although it is used in many games today. It is also used as a rating system for competitive multi-player play in a number of computer games, and has been adapted to team sports including international football, American college football and basketball, and Major League Baseball.
We shall reach greater and greater platitudes of achievment.
by Chiburb on May 22, 2008 3:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry, meant to give you the link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELO_rating
We shall reach greater and greater platitudes of achievment.
by Chiburb on May 22, 2008 3:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You can read up on the origins on Wki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system
BP has adapted and calibrated their own system, which I think gives the best picture of playoff odds within the season…
AIM: SouthSideCheat
by The Cheat on May 22, 2008 3:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hm...
Is that a “strength of schedule” model? Meaning the Sox get more points for beating, say, the Angels than by beating the Giants (and conversely, lose more points by losing to the Yankees than by losing to the Rays?)
by The Jerry Royster Experience on May 22, 2008 3:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
kind of -- it's about who you beat and when...
but it really seems to capture hot streaks… and it at least partially rolls over results from the last season.
So the indians, for instance, still have a rating above the White Sox (1524 vs. 1513) despite the difference in ‘08 record.
1500 would be a team that wins 50% of their games, and 1600 would be about a 64% winning percentage team…
AIM: SouthSideCheat
by The Cheat on May 22, 2008 3:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Because of our weak schedule to this point?
I took the "under".
by winningugly on May 22, 2008 4:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
well that and we started below 1500
while they started well above.
AIM: SouthSideCheat
by The Cheat on May 22, 2008 4:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yep the team
Got the ole preseason out of the polls treatment.
by Tdogg on May 22, 2008 4:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
More like...
2007 is still having an affect on the number, if I’m understanding The Cheat correctly.
by The Jerry Royster Experience on May 22, 2008 4:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
yep
they (unscientifically) split the difference between end of season rating and 1500 at the beginning of the year.
The numbers sort themselves out eventually, as there are some muted run differential effects as well.
AIM: SouthSideCheat
by The Cheat on May 22, 2008 4:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The BPro ELO ratings don't move much because they're modeled on MLB winning percentages
which don’t really fluctuate that much from the best teams to the worst… For example, from the subscribe article…
The highest Elo Rating during the decade of the 2000’s is 1624 (109-53 Eloport), belonging to the Oakland A’s after they beat the Yankees in the second game of the LDS on October 11, 2001. The lowest is 1335 (45-117 Eloport), “achieved” by the Tigers on September 23, 2003. The highest year-ending ranking in the decade for a World Series champion is 1609 (106-56 Eloport), belonging to the 2004 Red Sox.
The White Sox finished the ‘05 postseason with a rating of 1581, though they entered with one of 1540… They had an MLB high rating of 1573 on June 28th ‘06 when the explaining article was written.
AIM: SouthSideCheat
by The Cheat on May 22, 2008 3:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
44% to CLE's 38% do look nice.
We shall reach greater and greater platitudes of achievment.
by Chiburb on May 22, 2008 3:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
No way
The Sox wont compete for the next decade. Seriously.
by Tdogg on May 22, 2008 3:25 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
you know what else is pure lunacy?
joe crede having more than an OPS of like .750. you’d have to be bat shit crazy to leave open the possibility – let alone say it out loud – that he could do that, even for like, let me pull a number out of the sky, 43 games. total insanity.
by larry on May 22, 2008 3:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It all goes back to the beginning of the season.
Its crazy to be making guarantees off an article some hack writer wrote about who will play where and for how long. The main difference so far is still there is more talent than last year. And of course health and some growth. You think improving the bench will be difficult once the trade season begins? (Besides Fields of course)
by Tdogg on May 22, 2008 3:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
no
we’ve already seen players jettisoned who would make nice additions to the a bench, though perhaps not necessarily the sox bench. j. jones as an e.g. the sox have such a shitty bench that improving it should not be hard at all. and relatively inexpensive, too. the question will be whether the sox will commit to doing it because it will mean dumping ozuna, in all likelihood.
by larry on May 22, 2008 3:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
lol
One of the most funny/puke things I’ve read today is that last sentence.
by madvillian on May 22, 2008 3:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
they really have to dump Pablo
just. not. good.
dude, that was totally not swish you saw on rush street last night. swish was at home playing xbox.
by colintj on May 22, 2008 3:58 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
If someone predicted that...
Joe Crede would have a career-best offensive year before this season started, I’d assume that they were either a huge Crede fanboy or a pie-eyed optimist who predicts great things from every Sox player.
The offense should stay about the same (again assuming everyone stays healthy). As the article indicates, Crede, Pieryznski and Quentin should cool off, and Thome, Konerko, and Swisher should improve. A 102 OPS+, like the Sox have right now, is probably towards the high end of the team’s offensive capabilities.
The main thing is that the starting pitching, as a whole, has been insanely good. Before the season started, I looked at Contreras, Danks, and Floyd, and thought that at least two of those three need to be league-average or better. I thought that was probably too much to ask for. Right now, all three are way above-average. The pitching staff has been good beyond everyone’s wildest expectations, even taking into consideration that offense as a whole is down in the early going.
by The Jerry Royster Experience on May 22, 2008 3:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
.750 ain't a career year
it’s a career average year. i was referencing a ridiculous mauling tdogg took for asserting that maybe expecting something like a career average-ish year or a little above from crede wasn’t totally ludicrous.
by larry on May 22, 2008 3:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh, okay.
I don’t remember that.
by The Jerry Royster Experience on May 22, 2008 3:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Was looking at the Sortables
Sox have the 3rd best K/9 and one of the best K/B ratios as well. They are missing bats and not walking guys, that’s a completely sustainable model. The emergence of Danks and Floyd so far has been beyond even the wildest expectations and is driving the team’s run prevention efforts.
by madvillian on May 22, 2008 3:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The bullpen also
Most of the team throws strikes. Which is so un 2007 like.
by Tdogg on May 22, 2008 4:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
what's up with Nevin Griffith? (last year's 2nd round draft pick)
has anyone heard anything after the end of last year’s bristol sox season?
The greatest trick the White Sox ever pulled was convincing their fan base that "Ozzieball" ever existed.
by The Wizard on May 22, 2008 3:38 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Im back
After 2 weeks in NC without internet except on my phone to check Sox updates thank G-d…Im back on SSS…look forward to talkin with yall about randomness…and yelling at colin because he is gay and goes to Michigan…that is all for now…also Vote Q!
Ground ball to first, and the White Sox have won the Pennant!
by beanohatesthecubs on May 22, 2008 3:49 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
dude, that was totally not swish you saw on rush street last night. swish was at home playing xbox.
by colintj on May 22, 2008 4:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Who is "elite"
I have heard this a few times lately. As the Sox attempt to climb.
Besides Boston who in your eyes is an elite AL team now?
by Tdogg on May 22, 2008 4:15 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
You are the only person in this thread...
who has used the term “elite”.
by The Jerry Royster Experience on May 22, 2008 4:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
and it's an awful, awful thing to introduce a new topic or question, isn't it jer.
by larry on May 22, 2008 4:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It just seemed to be out of left field.
Who is talking about “elite” teams?
by The Jerry Royster Experience on May 22, 2008 4:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Last night, IIRC, someone posted an anagram-ish that looked like "elite"
I got it, Nordhagen did not. He immediately wanted to shoot hisself.
I took the "under".
by winningugly on May 22, 2008 4:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It was mentioned last night.
And an honest question. Calm down.
by Tdogg on May 22, 2008 4:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
And how!
Our record is almost as good as theirs now. (Though their schedule has been quite brutal, comparatively.)
I took the "under".
by winningugly on May 22, 2008 4:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Of course it's brutal
They had to pitch to Carlos Quinton.
by Grinder in Training on May 22, 2008 6:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Know what Larry?
I agree with you. For now…....
by Tdogg on May 22, 2008 4:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
53 more games, according to my secretary's big board
something like .460 ball the rest of the way and it’s clinched.
by larry on May 22, 2008 4:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
She's the expert? Wow.
You surround yourself with strong women – Grandma was a 2nd baseman, secretary is a scout (or handicapper – either way, a woman in a man’s world). Mazeltov.
I took the "under".
by winningugly on May 22, 2008 5:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
not an expert
one of her daily tasks is to check the standings everyday and change accordingly the “countdown to 80 and stuffing it in tdogg’s face” tear-off that’s hanging on my wall.
by larry on May 22, 2008 5:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
can I get a reminder of what the bet was on?
The greatest trick the White Sox ever pulled was convincing their fan base that "Ozzieball" ever existed.
by The Wizard on May 22, 2008 6:37 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not really a bet
I just got tired of hearing all the crap about the Rays (like every year) and told Larry they wouldn’t win 80 games. Offered to send a reasonable bottle of wine if they did
by Tdogg on May 22, 2008 6:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
oh yeah
thanks
The greatest trick the White Sox ever pulled was convincing their fan base that "Ozzieball" ever existed.
by The Wizard on May 22, 2008 6:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Throw out all the stats and predictions
This is turning out to be a bizzaro year…which can only work to the Sox advantage.
KC and Tampa (and the Sox) are doing well…the Yankees and Tigers faltering. All teams are having their woes (weak bullpens, cold bats, injuries, etc.) causing parity and no clearly defined superior teams.
Sure, it could all go in the crapper tomorrow, but if the Sox bats ever heat up and the pitching remains steady, their 57% chance will really start looking good.
VOTE Q! I DID!
"We're gonna bring it all day, everyday...we're gonna keep grinding it out." - Nick Swisher (4/1/08)
by tailgater on May 22, 2008 4:19 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Random OT thought, but I remember you asked about tailgating in SF
The ballparks in CA don’t have beer vendors!
In an attempt to make sure those who want to get drunk also get their exercise, you have to go to the concourse to get your alcomohol.
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
by rhythm on May 22, 2008 5:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh, yeah...
it’s actually illegal for roving vendors to serve beer at sporting events in California.
There are actually very few roving vendors of any type, and most of the ones that do exist sell crap for the kiddies (cotton candy, ice cream, souvenirs), not real food.
by The Jerry Royster Experience on May 22, 2008 5:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd expect that in Orlando (and in Chicago) but in SF?
You guys eat much healthier than we do. How has that not come up for a referendum? Sounds like if your bring the kids you have to BYO snacks. When my kid is old enough to go to the ballpark she ain’t getting cotton candy. Pennant or bat, sure.
I took the "under".
by winningugly on May 22, 2008 5:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Everyone troops to the back...
to buy from the stands. It’s a pain.
by The Jerry Royster Experience on May 22, 2008 5:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
At what age did you start taking the kids to games?
I figure it’s at least 2 years from now for mine, who will be 7 then.
I took the "under".
by winningugly on May 22, 2008 5:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
We don't have any kids.
I started going to games when I was very, very little.
by The Jerry Royster Experience on May 22, 2008 5:37 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think I was 7 when I went to my first.
Thanks for the feedback.
I took the "under".
by winningugly on May 22, 2008 5:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Did you expect to hear of a brie and grapes vendor?
Perhaps a California Roll guy?
You hit the nail on the head, with or without kids, it’s best to bring your own food. You don’t miss the action, can indulge in more healthy culinary delights, and you save some cash in the process.
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
by rhythm on May 22, 2008 5:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Some sprouts, fer Chrissakes, at least.
I took the "under".
by winningugly on May 22, 2008 5:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
btw, my oldest daughter was at a game at 5 weeks.
quit sheltering her!
We shall reach greater and greater platitudes of achievment.
by Chiburb on May 22, 2008 6:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
and there was such potential
LHP Ray King was released by the White Sox.http://www.oursportscentral.com/services/releases/?id=3645219
The greatest trick the White Sox ever pulled was convincing their fan base that "Ozzieball" ever existed.
by The Wizard on May 22, 2008 7:39 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
...for comedy!
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
by rhythm on May 22, 2008 10:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recent FanShots
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
