rawaction

I know that Jordan and Winn were pretty solid pros who had good careers, but I personally see the best-case scenario for Soler and Almora to be better than that... Not sure who I would compare them to, but I just think that is a pessimistic best-case I always thought Soler physically looked like Richard Hidalgo build wise. But Hidalgo is a tough comparison because he was good, then amazing, then terrible for a year, then good again and then mediocre at best. But Hildago was a career .276/.365/.500 hitter for Houston. That's about the ceiling I see for Soler.

If u are getting Verlander, do it.

Matt Szczur is having a pretty respectable year. Probably not ready to play a significant role, but I can see him as a Sept callup and getting some starts at the top of the lineup. Though there are a lot of options for the OF right now. Lake, Jackson, Ha, Bogusevic so they may be cautious with Szczur.

Little luck there with the no call.

That's what I fear also.

Kane wants that third.

this site is gold Yeah Hawks have out played them pretty clearly.

Lucky again!

Are u [expletive] serious?

Agree. Its like they were letting them play but wanted the players to know they were there.

Kaner!

Looks like a real effort by them to get the puck to Crawford's glove side. And by us to over play to that side. Hawks look quick and well rested.

Didn't rank Jackson or Maples in the top 30. Jackson's "Just a guy" now. Maples I never really had a good feeling on. Was rolling along til pick 17. Zastryzny was my #16. After that, who knows what the hell I did.

He hit it off of rehabbing, once top prospect, Kyle Drabek.

That was an incorrect thought. Soler has the upside to be a really good player. Baez has the upside to be elite. Like top 10 player in baseball good.

I understand that but Almora still only has very little experience. Baez has more PAs this year than Almora in his career so far. Baez has shown more power. Neither has walked enough. I don't think you can say Baez is further from his ceiling considering that he's at a higher level and has already shown everything he can do for a longer period of time..... including some in ML preseason games. Almora hasn't shown the power or SB ability.

Doesn't make sense to rank Baez higher than Almora in all but glove and then rank Almora higher overall. Especially since SS glove > CF glove.

They had a really good team too with Will Clark, Raffy Palmeiro, Jeff Brantley and Bobby Thigpen in 1985. I thought they won that NC that year, but I guess I was wrong.

Pretty odd seeing IU in a meaningful sporting event of any kind that's nor soccer or basketball. Epically bad at every other sport historically. Uh, swimming and diving? National Champions in 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, and 1973. Dude named Mark Spitz? I meant real sports. Nah, I completely forgot about watersports.

A very sustainable .480 or so.

Off to wonderful start. HR is nice to see as he cooled off a lot since his first week and a half of the season. Though he's hitting .333 in his last 11 (including today), all his hits were singles with only 1 BB and 9Ks. Started with 5 doubles, 3 BBs, and only 2 Ks in his first 25 ABs.

This is just ridiculous. Hawks have had a positive Corsi in every game this series, and only once by less than double digits (game 1: +51, game 2: +13, game 3: +7, game 4: +14). The Hawks have clearly been the better team in this series, both by eye test (games 1, 2 and 4 all looked like the Hawks carried more of the play) and even more by the numbers, and now they have home ice in a best of 3. The Bruins are the best team the Hawks have played so it looks more even, but the Hawks are still the better team. Very silly to read this given the facts completely contradict it. Maybe it's fan pessimism that makes people come to these wrong conclusions, but I don't really get it. I don't even understand what raw meant by that. If you thought the Blackhawks were the better team prior to last night, how did last night change your opinion that they are not the better team. I think they are clearly the more talented team out there, with Boston's advantage being completely dependent on the ridiculous shot blocking. I thought the Hawks were marginally better before the series. I think the Bruins are marginally better now (lesser margin). I don't think the shot blocking is ridiculous. At some point, you gotta give them some credit for being good at it. Did it vs. Pittsburgh too. Maybe I am being too pessimistic, because I've been waiting for the shoe to drop on Crawford all year (just like I did with Niemi a few years ago)...... but the shot blocking, the power play efficiency, defense, and the ways they have scored this series seem more sustainable. Both Hawks wins have come on flukish type goals from 30+ feet away. Seems like rebounds and breakaways are leading to the Hawks scores, while Boston's chances are coming more consistently. I don't know. I expected a good series, but maybe I still got Game 3 on the brain. And I'll admit I expected the Hawks to coast last night the way they were playing, after it was 3-1 and 4-2, but Boston obviously didn't go away. I thought that was as good of an offensive game as the Hawks can possibly have in this series. Yet, it was barely enough to win. That being said, I still expect the Hawks to win. Home ice should be huge.

To be fair, it was very bad defense. Something Boston hasn't really shown even when the Hawks have scored.

Great win. For the first time this series though I don't feel like the Hawks are the better team.

[expletive] YES!