Here's a fun game I like to play when I read the Trib in the morning: Take any White Sox feature article, read only the headline and possibly the first paragraph and see if you can guess the writer. I'm not talking about Mark Gonzales' game recaps and "White Sox Bits." The one writer I can pick out every time without a byline: Dave van Dyck.

It's simple-if you see the most negative slant on a Sox story, presenting the worst possible interpretation of the facts, and/or an untimely retelling of some bad news, you're reading van Dyck.

Today's sample headline: "Slugging Sox lose touch with 'Ozzie Ball,' Lacking speed, lineup must rely on long ball." Yup, that's a van Dyck.

That's kind of like saying "Man with perfect teeth misses having braces" or "Millionaire at a loss without food stamps." In the column, van Dyck asks, "Where did 'Ozzie Ball' go?" and casts the Sox new OBP/Earl Weaver attack, that most observers have praised, in a negative light.

Now, I'm not saying van Dyck is "wrong." His facts are all correct: the Sox are last in the league in stolen bases and near the bottom in sacrifice hits, bunts and manufactured runs. And they are leading the AL in homers. And yes, they're slower than the Mooninites' quad glacier on the basepaths.

But is it that hard to understand that they're better now? Yesterday's five-run 4th inning was built on walks and strings of base hits. Not a whiff of smallball in the air. When they still within the game plan-the new game plan that preaches patience and opposite field singles-this team will score more runs than they ever would have by bunting.

The Sox offense still has its problems, for sure (to mention a few: finesse lefties, "power" change ups and everything Juan Uribe). But it's a heck of a lot better without AJ Pierzynski trying to bunt Paul Konerko over to third base. I guess the 'Ozzie Ball' myth is a hard one to shake.