jackie hayes

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ May 2, 2005 -> 05:26 PM) Next if you ever have problems or questions, if you look at the bottom of the mainpage, you will notice a list of who is currently on the site. The posters whose names are in red are the sites administrators, of which I am one. These people are the first people you can always turn to in any event. Next in orange are the global moderators, and then in blue are the forum moderators, who look after specific sections of Soxtalk. All of these people are easy to contact through the private messaging system we have, or through email. And in case if you don't trust anyone but ss2k5, he's the one in red italics. Always the italics.

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ May 3, 2005 -> 04:03 AM) As far as replacements -- Cheat mentioned one in another thread, his name is Ryan Howard. He's a first-basemen who's blocked by Thome. He put up a career .373 OBP in the minors and a .901 OPS. He's a lefty, too; don't know much about his defense, though. I figure that Philly is always wanting pitching, so hopefully Contreras is able to have a pretty good year. 'Cause I think some teams might come knockin' if he does. Not the Phils, though. From what I've read, they are very high on Howard. They're dumb with relief pitchers, not so dumb with starters. Go figure.

Welcome! I'd like to see him back. $24 mil over 3 years is as good as saying you really don't want him back. I'd be happy to see $9 odd per over 3 years -- though we'll see if that happens. We still need some pop -- best make sure you have it elsewhere, if we don't keep PK. Everett and Frank are not sure things either, you know.

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ May 3, 2005 -> 03:43 AM) Sheesh. You guys are overcomplicating things. A strikeout is the only type of out that a pitcher can control. It ensures an out. Does a groundball ensure an out? No. Jackie isn't saying that Jon needs to strike more guys out (though it would be nice). Jackie isn't saying that Jon is a bad pitcher because he doesn't strike guys out. He's saying (and if I'm off base, then just give me an internet b**** slap Jackie ) that a strikeout is the best thing a pitcher can do. No, that's exactly what I'm saying. I thought "Not saying you can't live without them..." and "No argument that an out's an out" made that clear, but maybe not. Jon's not going to change, he'll always be a gb pitcher. But how in the world can anyone say that a strikeout is not the best outcome of an ab, in the pitcher's view? It's like saying making contact is better than a home run. Edit: And I've NEVER said Jon's a bad pitcher. The only even slightly negative comment I've had about him (that I could find on a search) is that a money conscious team may prefer Redman to Garland, b/c he was signed for 2 years instead of just one -- with the caveat at the time that I don't think Redman is any better than Jon. And I'm not saying anything bad now. Only, if Jon strikes out the first 20 batters of the game, I won't be complaining... That's negative???

QUOTE(CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ May 3, 2005 -> 03:33 AM) 5-0, 1.38 ERA, hardly walking anybody. Do K's matter ? K's show dominance yes . Clemens , Ryan, Carlton, Jonson all were dominant pitchers but K's are not needed to be dominating. Jon is showing you that now . What further proof do you need? Classic strikeout pitchers are few and far between. Jon doesn't need to become Clemens in order to keep winning. Good God. In the game...is a strikeout (note the "out") better than a groundball (note the lack of an "out")?

This is not about what type of pitcher Jon is. When he strikes out someone, he's still going to be a groundball pitcher on the next pitch. But a strike out is better than a groundball for a flyball pitcher, is better than a groundball for a groundball pitcher. Isn't that obvious?

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ May 3, 2005 -> 03:18 AM) Average length? I assume that means three minutes or so? I think that evens out -- I have some songs that are about a minute and a half, and a bunch that are four minutes... Yeah, it's 3-4 min, something like that, which is fine for me too. But if you had a lot of Grateful Dead live jams, you might be in trouble. Not important for most people.

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ May 3, 2005 -> 03:05 AM) Ok, I understand that. But say I buy one of the iPod's shown here. Other than how much music I can hold on it (which, fwiw, 1000 is plenty for me. I doubt I'll even use 500), is there any reason that I shouldn't buy it? So, for example, the 4 gb iPod will hold approximately 1000 'average length' songs if you have them at 128 kbps quality. Higher or lower quality, adjust the number of songs accordingly. And like soxnbears says, you should be sure that you won't want more songs later on. I don't listen to that much music, but I have over 2100 songs on my iPod. I'm happy that I have the 20 gb.

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ May 3, 2005 -> 03:00 AM) Wait, I'm confused. Is there a disk within the iPod that you save the songs on? Or, do you get 1,000 songs -- period? You rip the songs onto your computer's hard drive, then transfer these to the iPod's hard drive. Edit: Not a removable drive, nothing like that.

QUOTE(Soxnbears01 @ May 3, 2005 -> 02:53 AM) ipod mini's are cheaper, but hold alot less songs. Not sure of the exact stats and too lazy to look it up. Especially if you're finicky about the song quality. Ripping songs at a higher quality quickly eats up disk space.

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ May 3, 2005 -> 02:50 AM) Ok Jackie, my point is I could care less how he's getting outs and strikeouts for him really don't mean much, he's supposed to get ground balls. If he's getting ground balls it's more likely he's right and pitching the way he's capable of, that's it. So if for one game Jon suddenly became Roger Clemens that would be bad? No argument that an out's an out. But this is like saying a slap single's better than a home run, if Juan Pierre's hitting. That may be what he usually does, but a hr is always better. A strike out is a pitcher's hr, it's always, always better.

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ May 3, 2005 -> 02:37 AM) I'd rather Jon throw 20 groundballs in a game then strikeout 20, if he's throwing groundballs that means he's pitching well. In his instance a groundball is more important then a strikeout. If he strikes out someone, the next guy's no less likely to hit into a dp, if that's what you're getting at. O/w, that's nonsense. A k means -- no ground balls out of anyone's reach, no dribblers, no high bounces, no bad bounces, no bad hands, no bad throw, no bad catch -- it's an out, and you're done. Strikeouts are never hits. Groundballs can be. What are you talking about?

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ May 3, 2005 -> 02:31 AM) Jon has beaten some good offenses. As far as his strikeout rate who the hell cares? He's a groundball fricken pitcher, the less strikeouts the better with Jon. Huh??? Doesn't matter what kind of pitcher you are, strikeouts help you. Not saying you can't live without them, but to say you're better off w/ fewer strikeouts -- you can't seriously believe that.

Mp3 player usually means a flash memory player (like the iShuffle -- one of billions). These are nice because they they are tiny and never skip, but they're a pain in the ass when you want to reload them with songs. At least I find it annoying to delete everything, pick out what I want today, and load it up -- it takes too much time. Plus, all the songs are locked in the order in which you loaded them (at least that's true of mine, and the iShuffle) -- so searching for a song is a chore. iPod's are hard disk players, so they will skip, but you gotta REALLY do a number on them to have that happen. They're also a little bigger, and I would guess that battery life is not as great (but my mp3 player's battery isn't so hot, so I'm not sure about that). But they hold a boatload of songs, and it's much easier to navigate to the song you want. Rio and Dell make other hard disk players. I own a 20 gb iPod and a 256 mb mp3 player. The mp3 player's 2-3 years old, the iPod I've only had for a few months. (I want to add, you can of course load mp3s on an iPod.) I never use the mp3 player anymore, just because I don't want to bother switching out songs. I've used about 6 gb on the iPod (2100 songs), and that's pretty much everything I'll listen to for years, I expect. And if I feel like Bessie Smith in the afternoon, it doesn't matter if this morning I knew I would feel like Bessie Smith. So I'm big on the iPod. There's some controversy about iPod batteries -- you may want to check this out. The car stereo hook up I'm not too sure about -- there are radio transmitters, probably some other gizmos. Where to buy it depends on what you want to buy -- first decide on what you want, then just hunt for the lowest price. There have been some sales recently, especially with the introduction of the newer iPod models. There are also student discounts in some places (the online Apple store, I think) -- I don't know if you would qualify for these, but you can always check.

QUOTE(Wedge @ May 2, 2005 -> 10:13 PM) That's not really true, standard deviation is good for nonnegative ranges. It definitely holds true for things like the distribution of height. You're right though, for the nonsymmetric distribution, it might not be the ideal statistic, but it does paint a decent picture, I think. You're right about the nonnegative ranges in general -- I meant that most distributions with nonnegative ranges are asymmetric. (Certainly the distribution of runs/game is.) I don't know if it's a "decent picture". At least in principle, the std dev could vary quite a bit with the mean. I don't have a good idea what the 'usual' is.

QUOTE(Wedge @ May 2, 2005 -> 09:25 PM) Not to turn into Juggs here, but I did a rough a dirty calculation of our runs/game standard deviation. My data was a bit suspect, I was only going off of the info in Jake's post (i.e. I weighted games in the 9-10 category as 9.5 runs scored and 10+ became 12 runs). Despite this, the numbers should illustrate a good trend. Standard deviation (also known as variance) is a measure of how spread out a distribution is (thus a lower number means more consistent data). In 2004, this figure was roughly 3.5. This year so far, our figure is 2.5, ergo statistically we are much more consistent in terms of run scoring. It's not a good measure here -- runs are nonnegative, and the distribution is nonsymmetric. Take the same distribution, do nothing except scale it down a little, and you'll get a lower standard deviation. If you're curious: April 2004 Mean scored: 5.4 Std dev: 3.2 Mean allowed: 4.8 Std dev: 3.1 April 2005 Mean scored: 4.4 Std dev: 2.2 Mean allowed: 3.4 Std dev: 2.8

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ May 2, 2005 -> 09:24 PM) Big spot, you get lucked in, adrenaline rush, some guys can keep there nerves in check some can't, a different and better approach in different situations. There are many different reasons. "nerves in check" would mean that people fall apart in the clutch -- not someone who doesn't play well otherwise (Timo, for instance). And if they only apply the "better approach" in certain situations, I don't know why you'd want them on your team. Which leaves adrenaline, which I don't buy, but it's a theory. As I'm sure you can guess, no, I don't think much of clutch. But that argument's been beaten to death, I don't think having the debate again will be helpful...

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ May 2, 2005 -> 09:19 PM) Riiight, my bad I forgot there was no such thing as clutch hitting. :banghead Well -- why is it these clutch guys only turn it on at certain times? Something I've always wondered.

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ May 2, 2005 -> 09:14 PM) I'll defend it. They aren't putting up astronomical numbers but for the most part they've come up with every single clutch hit they've had to. You'll win a ton of games like that, that's what the twins have done for years. Good pitching and timely hitting. The individual stats will improve but as long as the timely hittings there the offense will be fine. Not if the good pitching isn't there any more. "Timely hitting" -- when is this time when you're not supposed to be hitting?

QUOTE(Wedge @ May 2, 2005 -> 08:57 PM) I think that he was showing a case of how inconsistent our offense was last season and used what appeared to be a pretty good example.where in a 5 game stretch we outscored our opponent 29-8 and yet went 2-3 despite 5 good pitching efforts. I think he was trying to make more of a case that our offense is more consistent this year than last season. Our pitching is definitely improved and nobody can really argue with that, but given the same 5 pitching efforts he cited, don't you like our chances of winning those games more with the 2005 offense than the 2004? No, not really. All the stuff about 'inconsistency' last year is anecdotal. Some people here have looked at that and asked if the Sox scored fewer than X runs (3, say) more often than other teams -- and found that there were no big differences. And this year we'll score 8, 9, 11 runs one day, and 1 or 2 on others.

QUOTE(Jake @ May 2, 2005 -> 06:10 PM) He fails to mention the inconsistency of last year's offense. We scored a lot of runs yes, but we might pack in 10-15 in one game. And if we win 15-3, 9 of those runs aren't needed. They're needed when we lose the next game, 3-1 or 2-0 or something like that. Here's an example: 5/11/04 - White Sox win 15-0. Buehrle pitches brilliantly. 5/13/04 (the next game) - White Sox lose 0-1. Garland pitches brilliantly, but is offered NO run support. None. Not a single run. 14 of the runs the day prior were not needed that day but were most definitely needed this day. Or another example, just days later. 5/14/04 - White Sox lose, 2-3. No run support for a good pitching performance. 5/15/04 - White Sox lose, 1-4. No run support for a decent pitching performance. 5/16/04 - White Sox win, 11-0. Mark Buehrle is awarded 11 runs of support when he only technically needs 1. Those extra 10 could have been used to win those other games. That's exactly what I'm talking about. Nice method, cherry pick a couple days. Are you claiming that we will not once, this whole season, score a bunch to win in one game, then lose close ones around that day? Why does it matter that they're consecutive? Hell, we won by 8 runs yesterday, we could have "used" those runs against Oakland and in the first game of the Detroit series. This is not meaningful, because you can't save runs. If what you're saying was a rule, then we would must have been blowing everyone out of the water in our wins last April, right? Well, the average margin of victory is about 2.4 this April, compared with 2.6 last April -- while our average runs scored was a full run higher last April. So there's something clearly wrong with that story. Pitching, pitching, pitching is what's keeping the Sox going. I think Gleeman is 100% right about what's gone right so far for the Sox. And he does say that the offense will get better, so that we don't have to expect magic from our starters all year. I think Jon, at least, has been flukey bad. And Duque is a big improvement if his health holds up. But if our starters revert to their career average numbers -- we're in big trouble.

QUOTE(CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ May 2, 2005 -> 02:13 AM) Lovers : Jeckle2000, T R U , CWSGUY406, greg775, Dbaho, soxfan101, Yasny, JDsDirtySox, Kapkomet, Rowand44, ChiSoxFan, Heads22, Palehosefan, DanMan31, HammerheadJohnson, daSox24, BridgeportHeather, TexSox, Soxfan420, FlaSoxxJim, greasywheels161, Reddy, Jake, ChiSoxmatt, GeneHondaCivic, MurcieOne and of course CaliSoxfanViaSWside. QUOTE(hammerhead johnson @ May 2, 2005 -> 03:35 AM) Put me down as a major hater, although I never actually criticized him on here. Pfft. Like you would know...

QUOTE(YASNY @ May 1, 2005 -> 09:42 PM) That's not what the rulebook says. You need to let this go. Why? I was just beginning to wonder what the cricket rule book states about a hbb...

WOW. Jon is our MVP to this point. The pitching as a whole, unbelievable.

QUOTE(Texsox @ May 1, 2005 -> 02:21 PM) He only won $21 Rotflmfao!!!