Nomadsfest Sox Fans

A forum for the old AOL board Sox fans and others.


    Shades of 2000?

    Share
    avatar
    sox55
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 1869
    Join date : 2009-04-05
    Age : 61
    Location : Pleasant Prairie , WI

    Shades of 2000?

    Post by sox55 on Fri Jun 29, 2012 9:45 pm

    When the Sox swept the Yankees in NY around this time of year that took them right to a division title? Half way there!!
    avatar
    Nomads44
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 1688
    Join date : 2009-04-03
    Age : 68
    Location : Springfield

    Re: Shades of 2000?

    Post by Nomads44 on Fri Jun 29, 2012 10:27 pm

    Interesting, I had the same thoughts this morning. It was Cleveland and the Yankees then if I recall. If we go on a huge run here, they might make a believer of me, but I am still hesitant to jump on the bus. We are the little girl with the curl, and when we are bad, we are YOUGLY!!

    I am glad the Sox won, but I did not enjoy the 14-7 game at all. Last night's 4-3 was more fun to me. Sox could have had a commanding lead last night, but shots were getting caught all over the place.

    But watching the Sox score 14 runs is good cause for optimism. 30 runs and nearly 50 hits in three games? Our offense had been a bit overdue.
    avatar
    jaywit
    Chairman Reinsdorf

    Posts : 3601
    Join date : 2009-04-05
    Age : 57
    Location : Spokane, WA

    Re: Shades of 2000?

    Post by jaywit on Sat Jun 30, 2012 1:28 am

    Nomads44 wrote:Interesting, I had the same thoughts this morning. It was Cleveland and the Yankees then if I recall. If we go on a huge run here, they might make a believer of me, but I am still hesitant to jump on the bus. We are the little girl with the curl, and when we are bad, we are YOUGLY!!

    I am glad the Sox won, but I did not enjoy the 14-7 game at all. Last night's 4-3 was more fun to me. Sox could have had a commanding lead last night, but shots were getting caught all over the place.

    But watching the Sox score 14 runs is good cause for optimism. 30 runs and nearly 50 hits in three games? Our offense had been a bit overdue.
    I don't know, Jim. This was not a poorly played game by the Sox. I thought they played good baseball in the field and the young Quintana hopefully proved to himself that he can come back while upon the big stage and keep his team in the ballgame. especially important after the horrendous first inning he had. Tinight's game went a long way to getting him ready for playoff baseball. I also enjoy a 2-1 game but I never find fault in a blow out where the Sox win AND play a good game.
    avatar
    jfraser375
    Cash/Callison Fan Club President

    Posts : 1424
    Join date : 2009-04-05
    Age : 64
    Location : Brookfield, WI

    Re: Shades of 2000?

    Post by jfraser375 on Sat Jun 30, 2012 6:11 am

    Yankees announcers commented on how Quintana's out pitch wasn't working. Can't remember whether they said it was a split-finger pitch or something else. He had no control over it, hence the walks and numerous pitches in the dirt. But he kept his composure and performed reasonably well under the circumstances. The guy has great poise for a rookie.

    As for playing poorly, no way. The Sox hit the living bejesus out of the ball and played stellar defense. And Nomads, for somebody who loves classic moments in baseball, how cool was it to see Dewayne Wise pitch to two batters?

    Not sure I'd want to be a Yankees fan right now. Not so much because the Sox beat them two in a row as that they've shown they're likely to struggle mightily in the absence of Pettite and Sabathia. This team doesn't have the conveyor belt of fine looking rookie minor league pitchers we've seen from the White Sox this year. They might get smacked around a lot right now. Their bullpen is already starting to get way overused.
    avatar
    alohafri
    Pope Malort I

    Posts : 7091
    Join date : 2009-04-03
    Age : 50
    Location : Southwest Suburbs

    Re: Shades of 2000?

    Post by alohafri on Sat Jun 30, 2012 7:25 am

    jfraser375 wrote:Yankees announcers commented on how Quintana's out pitch wasn't working. Can't remember whether they said it was a split-finger pitch or something else. He had no control over it, hence the walks and numerous pitches in the dirt. But he kept his composure and performed reasonably well under the circumstances. The guy has great poise for a rookie.

    As for playing poorly, no way. The Sox hit the living bejesus out of the ball and played stellar defense. And Nomads, for somebody who loves classic moments in baseball, how cool was it to see Dewayne Wise pitch to two batters?

    Not sure I'd want to be a Yankees fan right now. Not so much because the Sox beat them two in a row as that they've shown they're likely to struggle mightily in the absence of Pettite and Sabathia. This team doesn't have the conveyor belt of fine looking rookie minor league pitchers we've seen from the White Sox this year. They might get smacked around a lot right now. Their bullpen is already starting to get way overused.

    Just wondering, Joe. Do you have XM or do you have the Extra Innings Package on tv? You seem to listen to as many home team calls as I do.
    avatar
    jfraser375
    Cash/Callison Fan Club President

    Posts : 1424
    Join date : 2009-04-05
    Age : 64
    Location : Brookfield, WI

    Re: Shades of 2000?

    Post by jfraser375 on Sat Jun 30, 2012 7:55 am

    I bought the MLB package on Time Warner cable. For the most part, games are covered by the home team announcers.

    The Yankee announcers have been treating this White Sox team with a surprising degree of respect, even before yesterday's ass pounding.
    avatar
    Cream1953
    Chairman Reinsdorf

    Posts : 6166
    Join date : 2009-04-05
    Age : 63
    Location : Elkhart, IN.

    Re: Shades of 2000?

    Post by Cream1953 on Sat Jun 30, 2012 10:08 am

    [b][i][color=#0000ff]I don't know, Jim. This was not a poorly played game by the Sox. I thought they played good baseball in the field and the young Quintana hopefully proved to himself that he can come back while upon the big stage and keep his team in the ballgame[/color][/i][/b]

    [b][i][color=#0000ff]**************************************************************************************************************[/color][/i][/b]

    [b][i][color=#0000ff]Agree entirely. Perhaps the most important start of young Quintana's career. Kid got shelled early and was forced to grow a pair. In the process he finds out that not every game is going to be a 3 hit shutout and that if you keep your shit together in the face of adversity good things can still happen. An important and NECESSARY game for him. [/color][/i][/b]
    avatar
    Nomads44
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 1688
    Join date : 2009-04-03
    Age : 68
    Location : Springfield

    Re: Shades of 2000?

    Post by Nomads44 on Sat Jun 30, 2012 10:43 am

    Sharpy said..... I don't know, Jim. This was not a poorly played game by the Sox.


    jfraser375 wrote:
    As for playing poorly, no way. The Sox hit the living bejesus out of the ball and played stellar defense. And Nomads, for somebody who loves classic moments in baseball, how cool was it to see Dewayne Wise pitch to two batters?

    This team doesn't have the conveyor belt of fine looking rookie minor league pitchers we've seen from the White Sox this year. They might get smacked around a lot right now. Their bullpen is already starting to get way overused.

    Good examples of how people's quotes get misconstrued. I did not say anywhere the Sox played poorly at all. I just said I liked the prior night's 4-3 game much better. I don't like to see pitchers get shelled. Quintana certainly did rebound after a tough inning to pitch well. Nowhere did I say he did not. I've been in his corner since the very first game I saw him. I knew nothing of him prior to this year.


    But that brings me to another many years long complaint. All the years some of us called for this reliance on our kids, we were told that all we had were stiffs, so good that we traded them away. I am glad to see the current kids coming through so well, but it's as if now this is a new phenomenon and now we have a never ending flow of talent. We've always had to potential for talent but we did not give it a chance. Good for Williams for finally being FORCED to give it a chance. If his hands were tied, I don't doubt for a minute the kids some of you are raving about now would not be here because he would have tried to get some more WIN NOW players and thrown some of these kids into deals.

    Gio and Daniel Hudson were in our hands, but not deemed good enough, or probably stiffs... good riddance. That pervasive attitude has ALWAYS rubbed me wrong. How do we know they are stiffs until we give them an opportunity. The Yanks apparently thought Quintana was a stiff. Is the great Cooper the reason he is now leap-frogging Danks and Floyd into the #3 slot? Would Kenny have even had him up here if he had been able to afford to buy an expensive pitcher?

    frank bonifacic
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 2469
    Join date : 2009-04-05

    Re: Shades of 2000?

    Post by frank bonifacic on Sat Jun 30, 2012 10:56 am

    Nomads44 wrote:Sharpy said..... I don't know, Jim. This was not a poorly played game by the Sox.


    jfraser375 wrote:
    As for playing poorly, no way. The Sox hit the living bejesus out of the ball and played stellar defense. And Nomads, for somebody who loves classic moments in baseball, how cool was it to see Dewayne Wise pitch to two batters?

    This team doesn't have the conveyor belt of fine looking rookie minor league pitchers we've seen from the White Sox this year. They might get smacked around a lot right now. Their bullpen is already starting to get way overused.

    Good examples of how people's quotes get misconstrued. I did not say anywhere the Sox played poorly at all. I just said I liked the prior night's 4-3 game much better. I don't like to see pitchers get shelled. Quintana certainly did rebound after a tough inning to pitch well. Nowhere did I say he did not. I've been in his corner since the very first game I saw him. I knew nothing of him prior to this year.


    But that brings me to another many years long complaint. All the years some of us called for this reliance on our kids, we were told that all we had were stiffs, so good that we traded them away. I am glad to see the current kids coming through so well, but it's as if now this is a new phenomenon and now we have a never ending flow of talent. We've always had to potential for talent but we did not give it a chance. Good for Williams for finally being FORCED to give it a chance. If his hands were tied, I don't doubt for a minute the kids some of you are raving about now would not be here because he would have tried to get some more WIN NOW players and thrown some of these kids into deals.

    Gio and Daniel Hudson were in our hands, but not deemed good enough, or probably stiffs... good riddance. That pervasive attitude has ALWAYS rubbed me wrong. How do we know they are stiffs until we give them an opportunity. The Yanks apparently thought Quintana was a stiff. Is the great Cooper the reason he is now leap-frogging Danks and Floyd into the #3 slot? Would Kenny have even had him up here if he had been able to afford to buy an expensive pitcher?



    Great points, Jim.

    Sometimes the best decision is NO decision. Kid of funny that (in your well thought out scenario) Kenny is being FORCED to be successful.And it makes total sense especially when you realize we had Gio twice and apparently Kenny had his blinders on while looking for a veteran.
    avatar
    Harry Caray
    Chairman Reinsdorf

    Posts : 2803
    Join date : 2012-02-07
    Location : Listening to Hawk in the Spankatorium!

    Re: Shades of 2000?

    Post by Harry Caray on Sat Jun 30, 2012 11:07 am

    Look at the jackass relief pitchers he has wasted money on and traded for over all these years.
    avatar
    Harry Caray
    Chairman Reinsdorf

    Posts : 2803
    Join date : 2012-02-07
    Location : Listening to Hawk in the Spankatorium!

    Re: Shades of 2000?

    Post by Harry Caray on Sat Jun 30, 2012 11:12 am

    sox55 wrote:When the Sox swept the Yankees in NY around this time of year that took them right to a division title? Half way there!!

    What the Hell is wrong with you?
    The team is as good as the next day's starting pitcher.

    BRING BACK HERBERT PERRY!!!!
    He hit a BOMB off Clemens that year!!!
    avatar
    sox55
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 1869
    Join date : 2009-04-05
    Age : 61
    Location : Pleasant Prairie , WI

    Re: Shades of 2000?

    Post by sox55 on Sat Jun 30, 2012 11:17 am

    Gordon Beckham wrote:
    sox55 wrote:When the Sox swept the Yankees in NY around this time of year that took them right to a division title? Half way there!!

    What the Hell is wrong with you?
    The team is as good as the next day's starting pitcher.

    BRING BACK HERBERT PERRY!!!!
    He hit a BOMB off Clemens that year!!!



    The MILK MAN!!

    winstonage
    Andy the Clown

    Posts : 750
    Join date : 2011-07-26

    Re: Shades of 2000?

    Post by winstonage on Sat Jun 30, 2012 11:30 am

    sox55 wrote:
    Gordon Beckham wrote:
    sox55 wrote:When the Sox swept the Yankees in NY around this time of year that took them right to a division title? Half way there!!

    What the Hell is wrong with you?
    The team is as good as the next day's starting pitcher.

    BRING BACK HERBERT PERRY!!!!
    He hit a BOMB off Clemens that year!!!

    Herbert Perry and Tony Graffanino. If you look up gritty gamers in the dictionary, there is probably a picture of those 2 guys.

    The MILK MAN!!

    Guest
    Guest

    Re: Shades of 2000?

    Post by Guest on Sat Jun 30, 2012 12:28 pm

    Sharpy said..... I don't know, Jim. This was not a poorly played game by the Sox.



    Whooaaaa there pard'ner ...The above isn't by quotation ..the print was blue italics, a dead giveaway for our buddy in the great Northwest...
    avatar
    Nomads44
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 1688
    Join date : 2009-04-03
    Age : 68
    Location : Springfield

    Re: Shades of 2000?

    Post by Nomads44 on Sat Jun 30, 2012 12:49 pm

    Chi-kid wrote:Sharpy said..... I don't know, Jim. This was not a poorly played game by the Sox.



    Whooaaaa there pard'ner ...The above isn't by quotation ..the print was blue italics, a dead giveaway for our buddy in the great Northwest...


    My apologies.... I have problems with this site figuring out who said what to whom. Sometimes things are at the bottom... sometimes inserted somewhere in the middle. I guess I did not see where the blue quote originated from then... Obviously did not go back far enough.

    A Nomadsfest beer on me.
    avatar
    Nomads44
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 1688
    Join date : 2009-04-03
    Age : 68
    Location : Springfield

    Re: Shades of 2000?

    Post by Nomads44 on Sat Jun 30, 2012 12:54 pm

    Nomads44 wrote:
    Chi-kid wrote:Sharpy said..... I don't know, Jim. This was not a poorly played game by the Sox.



    Whooaaaa there pard'ner ...The above isn't by quotation ..the print was blue italics, a dead giveaway for our buddy in the great Northwest...


    My apologies.... I have problems with this site figuring out who said what to whom. Sometimes things are at the bottom... sometimes inserted somewhere in the middle. I guess I did not see where the blue quote originated from then... Obviously did not go back far enough.

    A Nomadsfest beer on me.

    In this case, Sharpy was not even mentioned above, so my mind is playing tricks on me again. Maybe it was the picture of Phoebe that got me discombobulated, or the subject "Shades" looking like "Sharpy". Well, it starts with the same three letters. Anyway, I blew it.
    avatar
    jaywit
    Chairman Reinsdorf

    Posts : 3601
    Join date : 2009-04-05
    Age : 57
    Location : Spokane, WA

    Re: Shades of 2000?

    Post by jaywit on Sun Jul 01, 2012 3:45 am

    Nomads44 wrote:
    Nomads44 wrote:
    Chi-kid wrote:Sharpy said..... I don't know, Jim. This was not a poorly played game by the Sox.



    Whooaaaa there pard'ner ...The above isn't by quotation ..the print was blue italics, a dead giveaway for our buddy in the great Northwest...


    My apologies.... I have problems with this site figuring out who said what to whom. Sometimes things are at the bottom... sometimes inserted somewhere in the middle. I guess I did not see where the blue quote originated from then... Obviously did not go back far enough.

    A Nomadsfest beer on me.

    In this case, Sharpy was not even mentioned above, so my mind is playing tricks on me again. Maybe it was the picture of Phoebe that got me discombobulated, or the subject "Shades" looking like "Sharpy". Well, it starts with the same three letters. Anyway, I blew it.
    Phoebe has always done that to me, too. Anyway, I didn't mean to say you had said the Sox played poorly. You said you didn't enjoy the game at all. Like you, I usually prefer the 2-1, 3-2 kind of games, especially in playoffs or the WS. The Sox/Yanks 14-7 game was not a poorly played game whereas many 14-7 games are very poorly played. I only meant to say, I enjoyed that one even though it wasn't a low scoring pitchers/defense duel. And, mainly, I enjoyed it because the Sox won. Today's game I could respect the outing by Kuroda (sp?) but in the end I hated the game. I'll take a sloppy 13-10 win by the Sox over a smooth 4-0 shutout loss any time.
    avatar
    Nomads44
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 1688
    Join date : 2009-04-03
    Age : 68
    Location : Springfield

    Re: Shades of 2000?

    Post by Nomads44 on Sun Jul 01, 2012 8:47 am

    jaywit wrote:Today's game I could respect the outing by Kuroda (sp?) but in the end I hated the game. I'll take a sloppy 13-10 win by the Sox over a smooth 4-0 shutout loss any time.[/size]

    I'll take a Sox win any way they can get one, but I just won't have a general "baseball appreciation" for it, the way I do a 1-0 game, no matter who wins. 4-3 games are pretty much the limit of the scores of games I "prefer" to see.

    For me, it simply goes back to the appreciation for ERA's under 3.25 or 3.5 of my youth. It's a different time and a different game, but pitchers with ERA's over 4.50 back then were mop up candidates, if they were lucky enough to stay in the majors. Even little Al Jackson, famous for losing all those games in a row with the old Mets, was 33 before his ERA went over 4.50. I'm sure there are many exceptions of guys that did well with ERA's over 4.5 back then, but I would guess it was not their norm.

    For those that like the new high scoring games, they are simply happier watching baseball more often than I am. I did not even know that "the Catch" Wise came into pitch the other night. By then, the game had lost my interest and I had it on while doing other things. The low scoring affairs are more likely to make me stop other things and watch closely, again, just because each batter and even each pitch can be a game changer.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Shades of 2000?

    Post by Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Wed Jul 26, 2017 3:39 pm