South Side

So I'm the one who brought AJ into a thread about Adam Dunn? Responding to a previous post is not hijacking, hijacking is attempting to change the topic of the thread (which was done by someone else, not me). I made my comment brief and without insult to the Cubs or the poster. I don't post often here, but every post I have made has been respectful, on topic, and not insulting to the Cubs. And my "opinion" about blocking the plate (or any base) without the ball is not "opinion", it is chapter and verse from the MLB rulebook, which was backed up 100% by the disciplinary actions of MLB. I will not respond to this thread in any manner in the future, so no one will need to be concerned about it being "hijacked". You may resume Dunn and Miller discussions.

I enjoyed his mild spike of the ball in Dunn's direction afterwards. note to AJ - - that is when colliding with the catcher is appropriate. you know, when the catcher actually has the ball or the ball is somewhere near the plate. And note to MB: that is when blocking the plate is appropriate. You know, when the catcher actually has the ball or the ball is somewhere near the plate.

ESPN is reporting that Carlos Lee now plays for your new favorite team (and you'll need to remove the Mench picture, he's now a Brewer).

FWIW, you'll need to think about that possibility quickly, they play tonight at 7 pm.

FWIW, Liriano is now officially an All Star. Contreras bailed after throwing 120 pitches on Sunday, Guillen named Liriano as his replacement.

You're right, it's about having the best performing players from each league play in the game. I love Mark, but he has had a mediocre year by his standards and Liriano/Verlander/Schilling/Mussina should have made it past him. Definitely agree that Schilling or Mussina should have been on the team before MB. I think you can somewhat blame 2002 for that one. Schilling is starting on Sunday, and Mussina has been semi injured (I think his next start was scheduled for Sunday also, but may not happen). Both would be limited to one inning. Buehrle is starting tonight, and could easily go six or seven if the game went extra innings. Of course, Ozzie could ask Boston to skip Schilling on Sunday, but for some reason I don't think that would fly.... Detroit has also been concerned about how many innings Verlander has pitched, and even scratched his last start (which would have been Sunday also). I also agree that the best performing players should be there. But I don't think that putting a rookie with very limited experience (and NONE in any type of pressure situation) helps the league win. And if you increase the sample size by including his four starts last September (a couple of them against good teams) his stats don't even warrant it (14 ER in 22.2 innings last Sept). Players should earn the honor on the field, not based on media projections.

We're talking about a Major League All Star game here, not the Futures Game. With only nine starts under his belt, he hasn't proven anything yet. He still has the next twenty ASG's ahead of him. BTW, would you have voted for Hafner if he had only been on Cleveland's starting lineup for seven weeks? Don't think so. (Although your Hafner vote certainly makes sense, I can't argue against it). The All Star Game isn't about potential.

If you're comparing his stats to other major league pitchers, it absolutely matters that he never had to start against Chicago, NY, Boston, Cleveland, Detroit or Toronto. Its a huge advantage. And every team he faces hasn't seen him yet, which gives him a huge advantage. Note that the only team he started against twice, Seattle, beat him the second time they saw him. He allowed 9 baserunners in 6 innings (and three runs), striking out only three. I'm not saying Liriano won't be a great pitcher, its quite likely. I'm just saying he should at least prove he can pitch well against the premier teams over a period of time greater than seven weeks. He has not done so yet. The history books are full of pitchers who achieve greatness over a seven week period. Most aren't All Stars.

From what I read, the final ballot is selected by MLB from the pool of players who received the most votes on the player's ballots, but did not make the team. Statistically, AJP is the second best starting offensive catcher in the AL, by any measure, and is having a better season than the fan's choice. He was also on the 2002 AL AS team, selected by Joe Torre, during a lesser season than he is having now. I agree Hafner and Liriano should be on the ballot, but why the assumption that Liriano should be on the team? Liriano wasn't even a starting pitcher until seven weeks ago, and so far has only started against three teams in his own league- Seattle, Baltimore and LA Angels, all of which are at the bottom of the AL in offense. Throw in his NL starts, and he's only pitched against one team with an above average offense. I agree he will probably be an All Star in the future, but why not let him actually pitch around the league once or twice to prove it first?

Doesn't always work that way---last year Red Sox fan boards were getting out the vote for Podsednik...to keep out Jeter.

There is no excuse for what Ozzie said. It was pure stupidity. But I do recall lots of baseball boards (including this one) posting the picture of Ozzie and his son kissing on the lips, with lots of commentary about how funny it was (also degrading to homosexuals). I don't recall anyone comparing those posters to John Rocker. And I'll bet a high percentage of those ripping on Guillen have used the exact same slur about someone, sometime in the past.

I've heard this one too, but it doesn't pass the smell test- The trainer claims it happened during an exhibition game in Arizona (and I think we all know about the integrity of the SF training staff). He claims that AJP took a ball to the nuts. When he went out to see if he was OK, AJP kneed him in the nuts. At home plate, in front of thousands of people. Yet the story went unreported until the day Pierzynski signed with the White Sox (10 months later). One writer claimed it happened when all the beat writers weren't looking, therefore it went unreported. Of course, thousands of witnesses saw and said nothing either. And no member of either team mentioned it to any writers when it happened. Right. And no, I don't want to marry him. I just don't want to see the game woosified to the point where players who play hard are ripped on for it. And that's exactly where we are headed with this. The pitchers in SF had all kinds of problems with AJP. Apparently he wouldn't go over opposing batters with them. There were all sorts of comments about him not being a good teammate, etc.. Brett Tomko was the Giants pitcher who had a problem with Pierzynski, and went to the newspapers with it (allegedly without discussing with AJP first). Interestingly, originally Ken Williams was not going to consider signing Pierzynski, based on Tomko's comments. He changed his mind after being convinced by the newly acquired Dustin Hermanson (also from SF of course) that the problems were Tomko's, and not the opinion of the pitching staff, which caused Williams to talk to a few other former teammates who backed up Hermanson.

I've heard this one too, but it doesn't pass the smell test- The trainer claims it happened during an exhibition game in Arizona (and I think we all know about the integrity of the SF training staff). He claims that AJP took a ball to the nuts. When he went out to see if he was OK, AJP kneed him in the nuts. At home plate, in front of thousands of people. Yet the story went unreported until the day Pierzynski signed with the White Sox (10 months later). One writer claimed it happened when all the beat writers weren't looking, therefore it went unreported. Of course, thousands of witnesses saw and said nothing either. And no member of either team mentioned it to any writers when it happened. Right. And no, I don't want to marry him. I just don't want to see the game woosified to the point where players who play hard are ripped on for it. And that's exactly where we are headed with this.

OK-I've got to ask the question- What has AJP done during his career that is so bad that he is being compared to John Rocker? As far as I can tell- He has a big mouth. That's a given. But until this weekend, I've never read a quote from him ripping on a teammate, or even a competitor. And his criticism of Barrett has been relatively mild, given the seriousness of the situation. He's never said anything racist, homophobic or even mildly insulting. Someone took a picture of him doing shots at a bar with two good looking women. He is apparently the only MLB player to do shots with women in a bar? And of course, we have to assume they had sex afterward? He's a "clubhouse cancer". Nothing negative was ever said by his Minn teammates-ever. Gardenhire goes out of his way to make positive comments. Ortiz is quoted today saying what a great teammate AJP was to him. The team won consistently while he was there. It appears the only clubhouse he didn't get along in was SF's which is notoriously disfunctional. Since he became a starter in 2001, his teams have won 3 division titles, one pennant and one WS. How much of a cancer can he be? He got punched in the face by Barrett after a clean play, one that AJP has been on the other end of many times. He doesn't fight, get thrown out of games, treat fans or meda poorly. No arrests, domestic batteries, DUI, drug allegations. If the umpires are annoyed by his mouth, they sure don't show it. Someone help me here, I must be missing something. How can merely having a big mouth (without using it to trash others) put anyone on a public enemy list?

Have you read the first page of posts on "Baseball Discussions?" We're practially carrying torches and pichforks. Absolutely, I'm actually agreeing with most of you here. Going back to the original post I was disagreeing with, I just don't think its a good idea to throw the injury thing in the face of Sox fans. Its not a valid excuse, nor a valid way to discredit what the Sox have accomplished the last year and a third.

Be careful- someone might point out the starting 3B, LF, DH, one starting pitcher and the closer all spent time on the DL last season. Depth is actually a good thing, keeps teams from using injuries (especially injuries to the same player over and over again) as excuses. He said a serious injury. Crede and Podsednik were both at 130 games last year, and the worst starter on the team(including his replacement) was the only one that didn't make 30 starts(but still made 22). Thomas maybe, but he plays the easiest possible position to replace, and wasn't exactly a force himself. Podsednik's injury was serious. Take a look at his numbers from mid-July on. Had the Sox not been in the pennant race, he would have had surgery and missed the rest of the season (as it was, he had surgery in November and was not recovered completely in time for spring training). For Podsednik, losing his running game for three months and then spending three month recovering from surgery is "serious". The injury still appears to affect him at times. Dustin Hemanson, the closer, had a career ending injury mid season. I'd call that serious. Frank Thomas' career appears to be effectively over. I'd call that serious. The point is, Ken Williams covered for the injury possibilities before the season started. He acquired Jenks (off the scrap heap) in case Takatsu and Hermanson couldn't get the job done. He got Carl Everett in case Thomas failed to return. He did not trade McCarthy (despite lots of interest) in case a starter went down. And this year, when Crede's back problems of last season (again, would have spent much more time on the DL if not in the pennant race) appeared to be possibly chronic he picked up Mackowiak, and replaced the injured Thomas with Thome. My Point: Instead of ripping the Sox for not having enough injuries, why not rip Hendry for not covering the possibility that Wood or Prior might be hurt? Why not rip on Hendry for not adding a real offensive force at OF or SS, so they wouldn't be so reliant on Lee's offense (which I admit is a huge and unexpected problem)? Isn't the goal of the team to stay healthy? Isn't it the goal of the GM to get players that stay healthy, and have alternatives ready for those who don't? Or is it the goal to create excuses?

Be careful- someone might point out the starting 3B, LF, DH, one starting pitcher and the closer all spent time on the DL last season. Depth is actually a good thing, keeps teams from using injuries (especially injuries to the same player over and over again) as excuses.

I'll give you a little advice from the "other side" to help you "survive": 1. Don't rip on the ballpark. Wrigley Field has plenty of flaws also. The Chicago media just doesn't rip on them constantly. Enjoy tailgating before the game, the food inside the park, the fan deck, outfield concourse, etc. Its become a nice place to see a game. 2. Don't rip on Sox fans, as the posts above have. Both parks get their share of losers. Claiming that Cub fans have some sort of social or economic advantage is not only stupid and elitist, but its asking for trouble. 3. Don't make fun of attendance. Unless you get some sort of dividend from the Tribune company, the Cubs higher attendance figures only line the owners pockets, it does nothing to improve the product on the field or the fans' experience at the park. Sox fans understand this, and consider attendance talk to be another form of Cub fan elitism. 4. Wear your Cubs gear, pull for your team and enjoy the game. I'll be taking a couple of Cub fans with me to one of the games, as I do every year, and they've never had a problem.

Most of Wrigley's peers were torn down in the 60's. While I'm too young to remember, from pictures it appears that many were every bit as nice as Wrigley (and definitely as nice as Fenway). A few were victimized by teams moving westward, but most were replaced because the trend was toward huge, circular, interstate convenient astroturfed nightmares that would support not only baseball but the influential NFL/AFL as well. If baseball owners of the 60's would not have believed that modern, oversized stadiums were the wave of the future, perhaps a few more of the older stadiums could have survived if properly maintained. While the last couple of decades of Wrigley ownership didn't accomplish much on the field, at least they didn't make the mistake so many other teams made.

Actually, most Sox fans that stopped attending did so as a reaction to the 1994 strike, not the "suckiness of the ballpark". Sox attendance averaged 33,500 per game from '91 until the strike in '94 (actually better than the Cubs). Even if you exclude '91 on the basis that the park was new, the team still averaged 32,000 per year, pretty good at the time, and far better than they ever did at Old Comiskey. It wasn't until '95 that it dropped to the 20k level it hung at for a while. If it was a reaction to the park, it would have dropped in '92, as everyone had their chance to form an opinion by then. You can't tell me it took four years to decide that the parked sucked, although the media certainly tried to sell that point. And yes, there is a reason that most of the older parks have been torn down, and most of the new parks have higher attendance than their predecessors. The Cubs can market Wrigley as one of the few remaining old parks successfully only because most of the other old parks have been replaced, not because it is necessarily better than the modern parks. Being unique is marketable, it brings in tourists.

Look at it this way- this time of the year following the 2003 season every newspaper was annointing Dusty Baker the genius saviour of the Cubs. Many publications were predicting a Cubs World Series in 2004, often citing Dusty's leadership as a reason for the prediction. And that was triggered by a 88 win season followed by a 6-6 postseason. "In Dusty we Trusty" t-shirts were big sellers. Guillen and Williams are getting the same props as Baker and Hendry did, but more deservedly so following a 99 win season with an 11-1 postseason. Its all cyclical, and Guillen and Williams are both one sub-.500 season away from returning to the media hit list.

I've spent a lot of time at both ballparks over the years, although admittedly lots more at USCF (and old Comiskey before that). But, I still hit around 10 Cubs games a year, so I think I have a little feel for the fan bases and the crowds that surround me. Wrigley Field's attendance can be broken down into three components-die hard Cub fans, tourists/Out of towners, and trendies. And I think the split is currently 1/3 of each. Because of over two decades of national exposure on WGN and the fact that Wrigley is one of the only classic ballparks still in use, Chicago tourists will still flock to Wrigley. And never underestimate just how many people at each game are really in the category (including business travelers, conventioneers, vacationers, transplanted Chicagoans). The brokers get rich off these people. This fan base will never switch, but it is a national, not Chicago fan base. The White Sox would have to get "Yankee-like" to ever have a chance of taking a dent in this group. The "trendies" have already begun the switch, annoying the hell out of die hard Sox fans. While lots of Cub fans like to brag about their annual attendance title, the truth is that die hard Sox fans never wanted Chad and Muffy at USCF, nor the associated hassles with ticket brokers, obnoxious fans blocking the game, etc. However, lots of these fans have discovered that USCF is really not all that bad- easier to get to, better food, more comfortable, enjoy tailgating as much as bar hopping, and, most importantly, they can get drunk there too! The casual fans may be converted to whichever team they can get tickets to, instead of just hanging at Wrigley. Finally the die hards, obviously the group involved in this board, will never switch. The White Sox have the same group, the 9 or 10,000 that was at USCF in the late 90's or 2002-3-4, but never had support from tourists and trendies that the Cubs have held for years. BTW, you'll never be able to measure the "Chicago popularity" of the two teams by attendance. When the Cubs dump tickets on ticket brokers, including the one they own themselves, it counts as a "ticket sold" regardless of whether or not a fan ever buys the tickets. I've been to plenty of "sold out" Cubs games (particularly in Sept) when brokers had hundreds of unsold tickets before game time they were getting rid of for a couple of dollars, and sections virtually empty during the game. While the White Sox don't pander to ticket brokers in the same manner, they do discount heavily on certain dates. You can't compare the two, they choose to play the game differently.

You can certainly make the point that it has been harder for the Cubs to make changes than for the White Sox. But in all fairness to Mayor Daley, I would like to correct some mistatements: The City of Chicago did not contribute one penny of taxpayer money to the new Comiskey. The park was built with money from the State of Illinois collected from tourists through a hotel tax (the same tax that rebuilt Soldier Field). This happened in 1988, when Daley had not even been elected yet. It was primarily pushed through by Gov Thompson with support of Mayor Washington (prior to his death). It is a marketing decision by the Cubs to remain in Wrigley. Lets face it, Wrigley sells tickets. But one of the great selling points of Wrigley is the neighborhood, and with that comes the greater difficulty of modifying by building out over sidewalks, etc. The Cubs have to take the good with the bad when it comes down to Wrigley. The Sox can change whatever they want because they are surrounded mostly by parking/expressway, and their changes don't affect peoples homes.

Based on the way the Trib Co markets the ballpark rather than the team, I don't think they have any intention of attempting to build a new stadium in the suburbs, or anywhere else. I do find it interesting that they sold this project as a "renovation" and "expansion", and then proceeded to tear down 75% of the bleachers and rebuild them. It wouldn't shock me to see them do the same thing to the existing upper deck in a couple of years (citing the crumbling concrete as a reason) and put in a completely new upper deck with more skybox capacity. And then a couple of years later, renovate the lower deck (which, in my opinion, needs the least amount of upgrading). They'd get many of the financial advantages of a new ballpark, without losing the marketing advantage of playing in a historic stadium. And most new ballparks are being built in the 40-45000 capacity range anyway, so Wrigley's wouldn't need to be increased at all.

If you don’t mind a Sox fan putting in his two cents worth: Having watched the Sox play this season, I can assure you they completed defied “Moneyball” type analysis. As stated above, the White Sox won because of pitching, starting and bullpen. They finally had five real starters, and a bullpen so deep they were able to go through three closers and still win the World Series. Ken Williams gets the credit for that. But the “Smallball” mentality actually had something to do with that IMO. It comes down to the psychological aspect of the game that numbers can never capture. An example is Jon Garland. Garland, throughout his career, had a tendency to self destruct around the fourth or fifth inning. Typically he’d get down a run or two, try to be perfect to keep the game close, and end up getting his butt handed to him. This year, thanks to the Sox attempt to play for one or two early runs, Garland typically had a lead or tie in the middle innings, and was a completely different pitcher. In one game I saw early on, Garland had a two run lead in the fourth, and reverted to his old tendency to nibble around the plate. Pierzynski walked out to the mound, pointed at the scoreboard and yelled something at Garland. Garland went right after the hitter, and went on to have a great season. Garcia always has a tendency to give up early runs. The Sox negated that by scoring a run or two early, giving Garcia a chance to settle down. I also saw the same tendency with Hernandez, but not to the same extreme. In previous seasons, the Sox were always a big inning offense, and if that big inning didn’t come early, the pitchers tended to fall apart attempting to hold the game scoreless. The 2005 Sox didn’t put up a five run inning until almost halfway through the season, yet held a lead sometime in virtually every game to that point (they actually set a ML record in that respect). Moving on to the offense, with Podsednik on base, pitchers tend to make mistakes. Lots of mistakes. Iguchi hit around .325 when there was a runner on first (typically Pods, sometimes Uribe). That’s not a coincidence. And it’s not a coincidence that Iguchi’s worst part of the season was when Podsednik was injured. He stopped seeing a steady diet of fastballs. The tradeoff is the Sox sometimes give up one of their outs to keep the threat out there. The tradeoff often worked. Finally, the most important part is the fact that the team had the ability to play Smallball when necessary, but had enough power to put up a big inning when necessary. And Guillen had an uncanny ability to identify which situation was which. Obviously it will take a few more seasons to determine if that was luck, or if the Sox have an unusually talented manager. I can’t really prove or justify the above with anything other than the experience of four decades of watching baseball. But I am confident that numbers don't always tell the story.