jackie hayes

Baker wasn't worrying about the win, he just wanted to put another few hundred pitches on the Cubs' arms.

No, it's not you, it's just dull. At first, I thought, they have too many characters, I'll give it a chance to work itself out. But in the last episode they had plenty of flat out overacting and bad writing. Just overkill. We get it, she's Mormon AND consumerist. Anything else? Spare me.

Next week -- Sox v Sopranos.

Kill 'em all. The only one who can't go is Jack. Everyone else is disposable.

QUOTE(hammerhead johnson @ Mar 28, 2006 -> 06:50 AM) And Royce Ring had a 2.05 WHIP against left-handed hitters last year. In 6 ip. Plus, they have Heilman in the pen for now.

Mugged. Hell or high water?

QUOTE(hammerhead johnson @ Mar 28, 2006 -> 06:39 AM) There you go. It has more to do with his surroundings than it has to do with actual pitching talent, and his numbers should be significantly worse on the road. I'd like to see how he performs in Philadelphia, or in Atlanta. Agreed, I don't think Sanchez is a great bet in the long run. But look at his minor league numbers, and compare his home away splits in 2004 and 2005 -- I think it has to do as much with pure luck as surroundings. And if he doesn't do well, Julio should be pretty good, too. First Shingo went down, then Hermanson -- that's depth. But still, they're screwed if Pedro goes down. The Mets and every single one of your fantasy teams, I'm guessing.

Also, Duaner Sanchez = product of Dodger Stadium (or whatever it may be called now, I don't care about these things), not Shea. Which is just to say, yes, I noticed that, I thought about that. Okay, fair enough. But he looked darn good there. I think he'll be at least decent at Shea. Also, Jay Seo = not really so bad. The Mets are not great talent evaluators, but Pedro + broken clock, etc.

QUOTE(hammerhead johnson @ Mar 28, 2006 -> 05:48 AM) I like Wagner, Julio, and Heilman, but I'm not impressed by the rest of them. Sanchez appears to be a product of Shea Stadium. I dunno about Bradford. He gave up a .410 batting average to left-handed hitters last year? Good God. The book on Royce Ring is that he sucks badly, but maybe there's an outside chance that he could turn it around. I'm sure that someone will emerge and pitch well, but chances are that one of their big three (Wagner/Julio/Heilman) will get injured, and then you'll have a bullpen crisis. And if a starter goes down, I'm assuming that Heilman will step up and fill that slot. Also, their rotation minus Pedro looks like it belongs in Kansas City. It's not just merely bad. It's gruesome. Pedro goes down, the season is finished. As bad as Benson is, you have to wonder about that trade. I think Royce will be okay for middle relief. At least someone will -- they have a bunch of options for that lefty spot. As for Bradford, that's always been his line, and he's been used appropriately -- unless the Mets are unbelievably stupid, stupid enough to trade, oh, Kazmir for Zambrano, I can't imagine they'd throw him against many lhb. I wouldn't pick the Mets, but I heart David Wright, so a healthy year from Pedro and I wouldn't be surprised by anything.

Meh. The bad guys are still the bad guys and the good guys are the good guys. Kind of boring, imo. On top of that, how many explosions do you think I need to stay interested? And what's with Jack Bauer the Millenium Falcon?

QUOTE(hammerhead johnson @ Mar 28, 2006 -> 05:23 AM) On paper, the Mets have terrible pitching depth. They have dudes like Glavine and Trachsel starting games for them. Victor Zambrano sucks hard as well, yeah? They don't have bullpen depth. Amazing lineup, though. That 3-6 combo of Wright/Delgado/Beltran/Floyd is f***ing insane, but it ain't gonna be enough. The Phillies also have a pretty bad overall pitching staff with little to no depth. I'm not scared of anybody in their starting staff with the exception of Myers. The AL has all of the pitching depth right now, and that's where it's at. That's how you build. Good job K-Dub. The Mets don't have much rotation depth, okay. But in the pen you have Jorge Julio (their Luis Vizcaino), and (for now) Aaron Heilman, and Duaner Sanchez. I think Ring and Bradford will be at least ML average. All backed by, da da da da, Billy Wagner. It's not bad, even in terms of depth. The Phillies can't help themselves when they see a 35+ reliever earning $5 mil+. Best of luck with that. Then they throw out Padilla. Maybe they think Howard can bat twice, I dunno.

Mets & Phils, who steps up? = Heilman & Madson, who steps up? The Mets look good. The Phils, who knows. If they hadn't traded Padilla for jack s***, I'd think they had something. Still, with Utley and Howard, who knows?

Haven't the Patriots taught us that nothing is more pathetic than a CHAMPION whimpering about getting no respect? Crasnick meanwhile called the White Sox the strongest team in MLB. He says, "...here's a look at the 30 big-league clubs (listed by estimated strength)..." First on the list? Your Chicago White Sox. Because the ESPN columnists don't take their own predictions 1/10th as seriously as many here do.

Pretty good trade for both teams. The A's didn't have a place for Cruz, and Halsey still has options. Cruz is a great arm in the bullpen, and with Duque as the 2nd starter, he may well get some spot start chances this season. Makes sense.

Wait, you're saying the Little Chocolate Donut Training Program doesn't really work?

QUOTE(chitownsportsfan @ Mar 26, 2006 -> 03:42 AM) It's often mistaken that "statheads" don't actually watch baseball, and have never played baseball. For all the pub Billy Beane gets about "starting sabermetrics", (lol) nobody seems to remember that he played the game at the highest level himself. And "stathead" seems to imply this monolithic and dogmatic ideal around here, probably something like the worst article Baseball Prospectus has ever written. In reality, "stathead" means many different things to many different people. I enjoy sabermetrics, but am I going to suddenly pursue an advanced degree in statistics so I can go work for Theo Epstein? No way. However baseball as a game leads naturally to statistical analysis, as there are a discreet number of outcomes--like chess on a diamond. Yet each game is unique, which makes it more than just a science. I can appreciate looking at the game as a science, and I can appreciate the artistry in at as well. These things aren't mutually exclusive to statheads. Regarding the luck thing, the one thing I never hear critics of sabermetrics say is that "well the Sox got lucky last year according to sabermetricians, but they also said most great teams are lucky, so I guess it's a wash." Almost every sabemetric oriented article I've read about the Sox and luck also mentions that almost every world series champion enjoy good luck throughout the season. e.g. good health, 1-run W/L, etc. OMFG, reasonableness. You Soxhating stathead!!!!! Seriously, well said. I don't think there's anything I'd disagree with there.

Thanks, Sausage King. That's pretty much what I'm thinking. I like Mora mora and mora the mora I think about it, although I wasn't too happy when I made the pick. Still, he's a little older, a little up-and-down (his season averages have been between .230 and .340 -- that's amazing unpredictability), and Ramirez is in the prime of his career. But you're right, it's a small improvement. Actually I was thinking of trying to land Sheets. Though I'm a little worried about injuries now.

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Mar 25, 2006 -> 06:52 PM) Statheads eat babies too. Efficiently -- only low VORP babies. QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Mar 25, 2006 -> 06:52 PM) Yeah, statheads absolutely HATE teams with good pitching and great defense. I mean, look at Oakland. Awful pitching (err, wait), and a bunch of fat-men who can't play defense (oh, wait, that's wrong too). :banghead Face it, Keith, everyone has pegged you to the life. You hate baseball. You love spreadsheets. I bet you never played baseball as a kid, never watched a single game until you knew that you could scorn the game and limit your involvement to really complicated math concepts, like "sum" and "average". You hated being outside and are only truly happy in the soft glow of an LCD. You don't understand "heart" because you clearly don't have one. And that's why you eat babies, Keith. That's why.

QUOTE(nitetrain8601 @ Mar 25, 2006 -> 05:37 PM) Doesn't he have to go through AL teams first before NL teams get a crack at him since he was released by an NL team? If that's the case, that's a pretty good reason why the Reds wouldn't have picked him up. I'm not sure if the rule still applies, but I think it works (worked?) the other way -- all teams in the same league have priority.

So there's a guy in one league I'm in who really wants Pujols (or says he does -- getting ahead). I have Pujols, and he proposes a ridiculous offer (Tejada, Giambi, and HERMANSON -- yeah, that was a laugh -- for Pujols and Francisco Cordero). So the general question is, how do you value the top top players? (ARod, Pujols, Teixeira.) What's a fair price? I don't mind trading Pujols. Trades make fantasy more fun, and I don't want it to become a dead league. If he is just in love w/ AP, that's fine. But I don't want to get screwed either. And I don't think the guy has much that could help me. Mine / His C J. López / IRod 1B A. Pujols / Giambi 2B C. Utley / Vidro 3B M. Mora / Ramirez SS J. Reyes / Tejada OF A. Huff / Griffey OF J. Francoeur / Burnitz OF B. Wilkerson / Swisher Util L. Castillo / Jeter BN J. Morneau / Nomar BN R. Freel / Polanco BN R. Baldelli / Kendall BN I. Kinsler / R. Sanders SP R. Harden / Mulder SP C. Zambrano / Maddux RP B. Ryan / Lidge RP H. Street / KRod P F. Cordero / Guardado P M. González / Hoffman P C. Orvella / Hermanson BN P. Maholm / Morris I mean, I have definite weaknesses (of, sp, maybe 3b). But I don't see how a trade could work. So 2 questions: In general, how do you value the very best players? And is there any way I could get value for Pujols here?

QUOTE(DBAH0 @ Mar 25, 2006 -> 04:04 AM) There's no doubt Justin Huber should be starting for them at 1B this season. But Allan Baird's trying to save his own ass, and not think about the long - term. It may be that he's just got a dumb plan. I believe he thinks a lot of these guys will bring him all those prospects he's incapable of drafting or finding in Latin America, at the trade deadline. Redman might net him something, but the others, nothing. Though with Reggie Sanders, God knows what he was thinking.

QUOTE(ptatc @ Mar 25, 2006 -> 04:40 AM) This is correct. the back problem will not allow for full trunk flexion. This does not allow him to finish off his pitches. He will lose velocity and usually leave pitches up in the zone. If he can learn to compensate by flexing more at the hip instead of his spine he may be able to work through it. In best Hawk voice: I luuuuv you, man. Any physical problem and the call goes out on st: Is there a ptatc in the house?

QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Mar 25, 2006 -> 12:18 AM) He's 27 and this is his 4th team, that is dangerously close to bust territory. However I will say this, Choi has some tools that you can't teach and for him to almost pass all the way through waivers is pretty silly. As for the Reds, I'm not sure but when Choi would have passed them on waivers I think would have been before the Arroyo trade, when they had Dunn at 1B and Pena, Grifffey, and Kearns in the OF. I think of a bust as someone who has poor production, and he's played fairly well the last couple years. And in his time with the Cubs, he looked like a ROY candidate before the injury. From a stats perspective he looks good, from a tools perspective he looks good. I just don't get it. Also, let me 2nd what SSH said -- he'd fit with a lot of teams as a backup 1b at that price. Not saying there are a lot of places he could start, but he should have been picked up before he got to Boston. The Reds are one. The Royals -- how can a team composed of such utter crap, with nothing in the pipeline, pass on Choi?

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 24, 2006 -> 11:19 PM) Ok, so it's level of importance may be non-zero. But if I had to list my top 20 concerns about things which would have the ability to swing elections in the next 30-40 years, this concern would not even make the list. I'm not trying to dismiss all statistical theory, I just think that this is such a minor component that it's not even worth spending effort to think about. If I did a principal component analysis, it would be one of the components barely above the noise. There are plenty of other reasons why trends may be trending democratic even beyond this one, single metric. Hell, there was a decent book about that a few years ago. If nothing else, think about this...how logical does it seem to draw conclusions based only on population growth within a state, without considering the groups of people who are growing, those who are stagnant, which regions are growing, how each of them vote, etc. Simply drawing lines at the states is how the electoral college does things, but it's not always the best way to analyze things. You want a demographic trend that will be of vital importance to the next 30 years of elections? Watch the Hispanic vote. Highly volatile, no firm party affiliation, lots of ability to change. Agree that a more detailed argument would be better, but this is USA Today, not a refereed journal. You'd never get anything published in a paper where the first paragraph explains what a CMSA is. But I think you're wrong in seeing this argument as Democrat vs Republican. The Dems simply wouldn't allow themselves to become a permanent minority, they'd shift the party's platform towards the conservative 'end' of the spectrum if the population shifted. So you wouldn't necessarily see any change in party dominance, but you would definitely see a change in policy. And in that sense, I think it's an interesting argument. I'm not sure how important it is, quantitatively, but I'm not as convinced as you are that it's minor.

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Mar 24, 2006 -> 11:21 PM) I think Cruz's trade value is somewhere in between a bag of baseballs and Brian Anderson. Hey, thanks for narrowing that range down for us.