Twins Dumbfounded? - Sports Forums

#41

10-09-2006, 02:12 AM

Zeke

Junior Member

Join Date: Aug 2005

Posts: 274

"Steve In Louisville" <no*stevenfischer*spam@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:MseWg.20728$vi3.17045@bignews3.bellsouth.net. ..

Quote:

"T-Bone" <behyndblueeyes@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:wpXVg.8195$TV3.5098@newssvr21.news.prodigy.co m...

Quote:

There you go again - stats. Apparently you have little desire or ability to elaborate, albeit briefly.

How much more elaboration do you need? The stats don't lie! Perhaps you should read the entire post before you panic at seeing the numbers. Even better, check some stats before you post. Steve In Louisville

Yeah, and there were 100,000 new homes built in Tijuana.
That includes those made of pallets and cardboard boxes.
You have proven to be a moron Steve.
Stats don't lie, but they certainly can be misintrepreted.
Time to move on, Stevie....

#42

10-09-2006, 02:30 AM

Zeke

Junior Member

Join Date: Aug 2005

Posts: 274

Twins Dumbfounded?

"mercutio" <jim@witsend.com> wrote in message
news:m5uhi2dso4fs7qc5r09fo6j7e2s0ffcubb@4ax.com...

Quote:

Game 3 of the 2005 World Series in Houston, a fair ball off the wall

below

Quote:

the home run line (what is the deal with the uneven home run line on thatwall anyway?) was called a home run for Houston. At least 1 extra run

for

Quote:

Houston = extra innings = Sox winning in 14.That's one example of a call that Houston got and the Sox did not get

during

Quote:

their 2005 playoff campaign.Steve In Louisville I stand Corrected then. Let me rephrase the statement. The Sox got the overwhelming majority of calls in all the post season games they played. Don't get me wrong. I am not trying to be little the sox accomplishments in 05 or 06. (been a Sox fan way too long to do that) Just to simply point out that neither team was (is) quite the juggenaut that T-Bone seems to believe they are.

Juggernaut? Ha Ha! Nonetheless having another season with over 200 home runs
should continue to raise eyebrows.
What is it five years in a row now. Sorry, correct me if I'm wrong stat-man.

Quote:

The one thing that irritates me the most is when people expect that just because the player puts on a Sox uniform that he will perform at a higher level than in the past.

What people are you talking about? Oh forgive me - it must have been I.
Now I rmember - as soon as Sandy Alomar put on the White Sox uniforn, I says
to meself,
"mercy", I think I see a tight blue uniformed stud with a red S encompassed
with canary yellow on his chest.
"Look! Up in the sky! It's an airplane, no wait! It's Sandy Alomar"!

Quote:

The perfect example of this is Posednik. He is a career 275 hitter ( only because he hit 314 in 03 and 290 in 05) so to expect him to hit 300 as he did in either of those years is unrealistic. Most likely he will hit around 260-270. Vasquez is another. We traded for a guy who was a 500 pitcher that was plagued by big innings and what we got was exactly that All I am saying or have said for years is judge the talent fairly and dont expect that just because they put on a Sox uniform that the are going to perform at the highend of thier career stats ( altho we can hope for that). Looking at he Sox roster you would have to say that they are good team and going to be competitive but they are not a great team. Jim

"Competitive?" Stevie in Louville says otherwise. And he knows more than the
rest of us because he's got "stat".
I usually have a glass of stat every morning and at night before I go to
bed. That's why I know so much - but definitely not as much as Stevie In
Lookville.
T

#43

10-09-2006, 03:40 AM

Steve In Louisville Steve In Louisville is offline

Junior Member

Join Date: Jul 2006

Posts: 68

Twins Dumbfounded?

"T-Bone" <behyndblueeyes@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%2iWg.10305$GR.2@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net.. .

Quote:

Eat shit asshole. I would have apologized for using your name - mistakenly, but now I won't. I was referring to Smith.

Hang it up T-Bone. SOme of us would like to discuss baseball and the White
Sox here.

Steve In Louisville

#44

10-09-2006, 04:40 AM

Zeke

Junior Member

Join Date: Aug 2005

Posts: 274

Twins Dumbfounded?

"Steve In Louisville" <no*stevenfischer*spam@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:OwjWg.54968$vX5.2989@bignews8.bellsouth.net.. .

Quote:

"T-Bone" <behyndblueeyes@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:%2iWg.10305$GR.2@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net.. .

Quote:

Eat shit asshole. I would have apologized for using your name - mistakenly, but now I won't. I was referring to Smith.

Hang it up T-Bone. SOme of us would like to discuss baseball and the

White

Quote:

Sox here. Steve In Louisville

Ok, let's start with Detroit vs. A's? St.L. vs. N.Y. Who you picking?
If you can handle that, then let's start a new header and let bygones be
bygones.

#45

10-09-2006, 06:44 AM

Zeke

Junior Member

Join Date: Aug 2005

Posts: 274

Twins Dumbfounded?

"Gary S. Simon" <garscosi@thisisatypo.pipeline.com> wrote in message
news:garscosi-8F5854.19275507102006@news.west.earthlink.net...

Quote:

In article <KlUVg.2739$NE6.2562@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>, "T-Bone" <behyndblueeyes@hotmail.com> wrote:

Quote:

As far as comparing the '05 team to the mid sixties teams, I'd say that you're getting senile. Konerko v. McCraw? Iguchi v.

Andrews/Buford/Causey?

Quote:

Uribe v. Hansen (maybe)? Crede v. Ward (Ward couldn't bat over .250

except

Quote:

for one year with 23 HRs), Nicholson v. Podsednik (swooshy-swooshy)? Cater/Berry/Stephens/Agee v. Rowand/Everett)? Walt William v. Dye?

Anybody

Quote:

v. Thome? You're/we're really having a difficult time convincing me that there's any comparison. Scoring overall is markedly higher now in was in the mid-1960s. Perhaps even more importantly, Cellular Field is, relative to other parks, much more of a hitter's park than Comiskey Park was in the mid-1960s. The baseball-reference web site shows park-adjusted statistics: OPS+ plus for hitting and ERA+ for pitching. A score of 100 represents the league average. A score of 110 is 10% better than league average, 90 is 10% worse. Here's how the White Sox did in the relevant years. Year OPS+ ERA+ 2006 104 101 2005 95 123 1967 90 126 1966 93 118 1965 106 105 1964 95 126 1963 100 118 Compared to other AL teams in the mid-1960's, the White Sox were generally superb at preventing other teams from scoring runs and mediocre (or worse) at scoring runs. That was also the case in 2005, but decidedly not the case in 2006. These statistics clearly refute the argument that a team great at preventing runs but not so great at scoring runs wouldn't win a World Series.

Quote:

And there's little doubt in my mind that the White Sox remain one of the elite teams in MLB. You've even admitted that the '03 team was in the

race

Quote:

Being in serious contention for the playoffs in four of seven seasons, and qualifying in only two, doesn't make a team elite. [FWVLIW, the "we" in "we disagree" is me and the person with whom I'm disagreeing

This is interesting Gary. It actually does make sense. I have to admit that
the "we" was perceived as a 'change-up' which was somewhat of a distraction
from my perspective. Have you anymore info on the '59, '83 and '92 White Sox
vs. their major opponents?
Thanks

#46

10-09-2006, 09:46 PM

Jim

Junior Member

Join Date: Dec 2004

Posts: 44

Twins Dumbfounded?

On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 02:30:43 GMT, "T-Bone"
<behyndblueeyes@hotmail.com> wrote:

Quote:

"mercutio" <jim@witsend.com> wrote in messagenews:mJuggernaut? Ha Ha! Nonetheless having another season with over 200 home runsshould continue to raise eyebrows.What is it five years in a row now. Sorry, correct me if I'm wrong stat-man.

So lets take a look at that stat. What hat stat tells us is that
hitting alot of home runs doesnt necessarily translate into
championships. Who cares how many homeruns they hit? It didnt help
them win. also i believe they led the league in 1 run homers ( I'm not
sure about that but i believe I heard that.Anyone else know?)

Quote:

The one thing that irritates me the most is when people expect that just because the player puts on a Sox uniform that he will perform at a higher level than in the past.

What people are you talking about? Oh forgive me - it must have been I.Now I rmember - as soon as Sandy Alomar put on the White Sox uniforn, I saysto meself,"mercy", I think I see a tight blue uniformed stud with a red S encompassedwith canary yellow on his chest."Look! Up in the sky! It's an airplane, no wait! It's Sandy Alomar"!

I don't recall metioning
Alomar at all. I gave 2 examples below. I was refering to this great
pitching staff you keep refering to.The best of the lot Buerhle had
the worst year this year and I expect him to bounce back but the other
4 have a collective era around 4.70. This is not the ERA of a great
staff (it would have been higher had Freddie not had had the 2 good
starts when they made little to no difference.) The point was that
their ERA's have always been about what they were this year. So this
year they didn't have a bad year . Really they all had a pretty
average year (except for Buehrle). For you to expect hem to pitch like
they did in 05 is unrealistic (altho we can all hope for that) More
than likely they will pitch like the did this year.They are not a
dominate staff.

Quote:

"Competitive?" Stevie in Louville says otherwise. And he knows more than therest of us because he's got "stat".I usually have a glass of stat every morning and at night before I go tobed. That's why I know so much - but definitely not as much as Stevie InLookville.T

I think Steve expects for the Sox to be competitive from reading his
posts.However I also believe that he feels there are things on this
team that need to be fixed (as I do). From reading your posts i get
the overwhelming feeling that if the season started tomorrow you would
feel the Sox are a lock to win the division (and obviously they are
not.)
Also I have said this to you before. Stats do not paint a complete
picture always however couple with observation can lead you to
certain conclusions. Since you admitedly didn't actually get to view
many Sox games(I saw between 100-120 and would bet Steve was a close
second). Why would you post an opinion or even have an opinion without
researching it first and in your case that would be to take a careful
look at stats on the White Sox that are online (since obviously you
are online) and there are a ton of resources out there

#47

10-10-2006, 03:57 AM

Zeke

Junior Member

Join Date: Aug 2005

Posts: 274

Twins Dumbfounded?

Thanks,
T

#48

10-10-2006, 01:23 PM

Gary S. Simon Gary S. Simon is offline

Junior Member

Join Date: Nov 2003

Posts: 464

Twins Dumbfounded?

In article <vdmWg.21044$Ij.10155@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>,
"T-Bone" <behyndblueeyes@hotmail.com> wrote:

Quote:

Have you anymore info on the '59, '83 and '92 White Sox vs. their major opponents?

Assuming you meant 1993, rather than 1992:

Year Team W L OPS+ ERA+

1959 White Sox 94-60 96 114
Indians 89-65 108 98

1983 White Sox 99-63 100 114
Orioles 98-64 111 108

1993 Blue Jays 95=67 109 104
White Sox 94-68 103 113

This, and a wealth of other information, can be found at
www.baseball-reference.com

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode