jackie hayes

QUOTE(KipWellsFan @ Jan 19, 2005 -> 05:36 AM) I don't consider him the 5th starter but I think it should be El Duque. He needs 5th starter rest periods or he will get hurt. This is the real confusion -- I say Jose is the 5th starter b/c he's the least reliable. As of now, he's the last one I'd start in the playoffs. But if you mean who should get the most rest, I'd say Orlando, at least initially. I don't think there's anything contradictory in saying, El Duque is our 3rd (best) starter, but we should skip him instead of our 4th or 5th starter, when possible.

QUOTE(ChiSoxyGirl @ Jan 19, 2005 -> 06:25 AM) I'm not entirely sure I buy this argument. But it's pretty much that argument that keeps single sex schools in business. Myself, being brash and over-confident, I've never been one to keep my thoughts to myself in class. But I am, perhaps, an atypical student. I think you'd have to have some particular correlations between intelligence, gender, and brashness to make this argument convincing, but it doesn't sound untenable. I am curious to hear what your mentor says. Please post or pm, if it's not too much trouble. I'd love to know everyone else's opinion of Summers' comments, too. It's one of the most popular stories on the NYT, other people must be thinking about this.

QUOTE(ChiSoxyGirl @ Jan 19, 2005 -> 06:08 AM) I think teaching style might influence this. I had one class this past term with my lab partner who answers every question--even if no one else understands. A good prof should be able to sniff out overall class consensus--but I'm not sure the class "talkers" are average students. I usually feel like they're a box of rocks or else head and shoulders above everyone else... Still have questions about this response, but I don't want to sound like I'm advocating anything. I'm really just curious. Thanks, great discussion.

QUOTE(ChiSoxyGirl @ Jan 19, 2005 -> 05:54 AM) I think speaking in class can matter because it provides a bench marker for a teacher on what is getting through and what isn't. So, classes tend to move at the speed of the talkers not, necessarily, the general trend of the class. Kids that push the class ahead or hold it back are really what form the concept of if they're getting it or not--while the rest of the class is assumeably just going along with them, whether they really are or not is another issue. Not the most cogent argument ever--but it might be one small piece of the puzzle. Okay... But I still don't see how that would create a bias if both men and women were exactly the same. The average talker would be average on the whole, as well, and as many women as men would be more apt than the talkers.

QUOTE(qwerty @ Jan 19, 2005 -> 05:38 AM) I believe this is already his second tommy john surgery. Eh, still worth a shot. Especially considering what he was still able to do while it was total junk. For the min? On the 60-day dl? I'd do it in a heartbeat, at least unless the team doctors tell me otherwise.

QUOTE(ChiSoxyGirl @ Jan 19, 2005 -> 05:38 AM) Yeah, I think the distributional comment is interesting--but if you're looking at a smaller sample size and that sample is biased (and presumably the kids that are getting IQ tests or into college are already, at least historically for women, the better ones with more opportunity) I am just not sure that any valid comparisons CAN be drawn. I think that in the history of academia the playing field is just now becoming truly level (or approaching it)--I would hesitate to answer the distributional claim but I think that might change more down the road, because I think there will be more brilliant women and more dumb women going to school. Also, and this is an argument I HATE, but it seems pretty valid. Men speak more in class and in academic like that settings. So, the more you talk the more you have an opportunity for brilliance or idiocy...Maybe if he was somehow the pres at Wellsley or Bryn Mawr he might have a different take... I've got a meeting with my mentor tomorrow, and I'll ask her for her take on this. She's a hardcore academic, and I am sure she would have some interesting insights... Thanks for the response -- I've actually been thinking about this all today. It's the most interesting, nuanced controversy I've heard for a long time. Some replies -- Why does speaking in class matter? There's a lot less subjective grading in math-science courses (by necessity). I'm not sure why this would matter. Also, iirc he was citing test scores of relatively young kids, which would mitigate the argument about opportunities, although one could argue about relevance and development. Although noone in the mainstream media has pursued either course. This actually has the ability to spur an interesting discussion, not the same old stupid "Are women less talented" thing. I'm sure it won't go that way, but I still feel that's the really fascinating direction. Edit: I was wrong, he was referring to high school. Which makes me wonder what the scores look like at younger ages... Which Soxy may actually know...

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Jan 19, 2005 -> 05:23 AM) I'll agree with you on that jackie that it was a decent gamble for the cubs because when scott is healthy he's a damn good pitcher. Who knows though if he'll ever be completely healthy again his elbow seems real messed up. Can someone tell me why he seems so far gone? I just haven't read anything like that.

QUOTE(ChiSoxyGirl @ Jan 19, 2005 -> 05:09 AM) I read the NYT article earlier today... I think that as far as pure ability and raw intelligence go in academia they are not the best predictors. I think that more needs to be reported here than simply more men have PhD's in the Sciences and Math. For example: of the top PhD producing schools (i.e. their grads go on to do terminal degree work in their field) what has been the male/female ratio of the past 20/30/40/50 years. I imagine that the ratio has gotten distinctly more equal as time goes by. As, I imagine, has the amount of men/women seeking terminal degrees in those areas. I think this remark can be seen as being akin to saying well, impoverished people or people of color have a genetic make-up that makes them worse at these subjects. When really, it's a matter of opportunity to get into schools that will prepare people for those terminal degrees. Also, I took some classes in the "hard sciences" in my undergrad career--and, this is CERTAINLY not true for all professors, but many of them treat male students differently. Professors will ask men if they're pre-med and women if they're nursing. Or women are more likely to be asked if they're taking the class for a Gen Ed. I'm not saying that would deter women from going far in those subjects--but it is demoralizing to say the least. And embarressing. Basically, I think this goes much deeper than any of the articles go into. I think that the Old Boy mentality is pretty entrenched in academia--a lot of institutional sexism (heck, racism, classism, lots of isms) there. Well, I meant to put in my 2 cents but ended up putting in a whole nickel. Sorry. I'm glad to hear the full price response, actually. But let me pick out one part: "I think this remark can be seen as being akin to saying well, impoverished people or people of color have a genetic make-up that makes them worse at these subjects. When really, it's a matter of opportunity to get into schools that will prepare people for those terminal degrees." I don't think that's correct. He's not saying that women are men, just take away a bit. That's how I take your statement that "genetic make-up...makes them worse". He's saying that the whole distribution is altered, w/ fewer great minds and fewer nitwits. It's worse only if you first condition on being in the upper echelon, not just on being female. It comes down to the definition of sexism -- I really wonder how women in academia think about this argument. Now, you may think this is a backdoor method of the same old argument, instead of an honest argument. I doubt that -- most big U presidents are very glib, but Summers was not the usual appointment. He's MUCH better as an academic than as a U president. I think he's never really escaped that predilection, hence the track record.

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Jan 19, 2005 -> 04:53 AM) Williamson won't even pitch this year. I keep reading that, best case scenario, he pitches at the end of 2005. The Cubs will pay him minimum if he does not pitch this season, w/ a $2 mil (team) option for 2006. That's a gamble that's EASILY worth it, imo. The Sox scored w/ Ellis Burks, why not give it a go w/ Lieber or Williamson?

#@$@#%&~!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! They got Williamson for a song. He is just tremendous when he's right. Hell, even wrong this year, he was better than ever. Damnit, I was really hoping the Sox would get him. Worst f***ing outcome.

I'm glad this got posted, I'm very curious how people here (esp the women) will respond to this. Another link, to the NYT article. (I think the NYT article is a bit more fair to Summers -- for example, the Crimson has a quote that characterizes Summers' view as saying there's a "genetic flaw in women", which is a stretch, at least.) Summers is saying that it is possible (he does not say that he endorses this -- actually he says that he hopes it's wrong) that a man picked out at random is more likely to be brilliant, and more likely to be a moron, than a woman. They may on average be the same, or women may even be more intelligent on average in math and science. But, there may be more men at the extremes of the distribution. Because math and science professors are more likely to be culled from the upper extreme, the percentage of men in academic professorships would then be higher. The question is, Is it sexist to suggest that the sexes may not be exactly alike in aptitude? NOT, Is it sexist to suggest that women are always bad in math?, which is how it's being portrayed.

QUOTE(AddisonStSox @ Jan 19, 2005 -> 01:53 AM) Derrick Johnson to the Chargers!? Mel, you have to be kidding me. Johnson is arguably the best player in the draft...gimme a break. He can easily be selected in the top 5. Johnson is going too low in mock drafts b/c people don't see a fit, and they don't like guessing at trades. But I agree, even w/o a good fit he'll go higher.

QUOTE(qwerty @ Jan 19, 2005 -> 01:22 AM) Koufax withotu a doubt has the best five year time span of any pitcher to ever play the game. But i don't know if i can put him on the top 10 list. His years before his last five while good, were not great for that time frame. Just to be clear, I'm not knocking Koufax, his best years are a standard. Maybe b/c of personal prejudice, I'd still put him in my personal top-10. (Nolan Ryan wouldn't even be very close.) I think Pedro's career is about the closest thing we have to that nowadays, w/ 5-man rotations and the care shown w/ pitch counts. No 300-inning seasons, sure, but even our iron man Halladay didn't manage that last season. But if limited brilliance should be considered, Pedro has to be considered alongside Maddux. Incidentally, he's also EASILY the best Dominican player in recent years... :sosasucks (At least until Pujols gets a couple more years under his belt...)

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 19, 2005 -> 01:05 AM) Its impossible to do numbers comparisions based on different generations. I look more at how a pitcher stands out of his own group. That's why Greg Maddux is on my list. His numbers are so much better than just about anyone of this generation. I'd say Pedro bests him, except in durability. But if Koufax has a spot on the list, I think Pedro's got a legitimate gripe.

About the $22 mil, I don't get that at all. If he really wants to retire, he should just do so. All this could do imo is stir up resentment in Houston. He can't want to leave that way. Looking at the stats, I have to say that I'm convinced Clemens is top-10, maybe top-5. His era+ and k numbers were great, and he was durable and reliable beyond most any pitcher that I can think of. A lot depends on how you rate durability -- that'll make or break Koufax and Pedro. (Incidentally, all-time best era+? Pedro, and by a LOT.) Also I'm not sure how you look at dead ball pitchers. Everyone agrees that Walter Johnson was incredible, how do you rank Ed Walsh though?

QUOTE(WHarris1 @ Jan 19, 2005 -> 12:36 AM) As I look at the numbers It's really hard to compare the eras. Clemens is 2nd in K's and 9th in W's, but not on the map in ERA. It's really hard to compare. All time, though? Runs scored have gone up a lot, and he pitched for most of his career in the AL. Can't really compare him straight era. Looking at era+, he's tied for 12th all-time, and looking at the names ahead of him, I'd definitely move a few people below him based on other criteria. Off the top of my head I'd say he's definitely top-10, but I'd need to do some more work to back that up.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jan 18, 2005 -> 07:18 AM) This is such a stupid point ot be arguing. First of all the population has gone up quite a bit in the last 20 years and the turnout was higher as well. Of course candidates today are going to get a higher vote total than Reagan did, even if they lose. Wow, I agree w/ Nuke on something in this forum. All this comparing vote totals is so silly, whether it's Bush or Kerry. Both candidates were so good that they each got more votes than George Washington! I know, it's not just here. I've heard pundits talking about this stuff. But what a waste of time.

I don't think this is really a Dem/Rep question. I'm trending Dem, but I didn't expect him to answer this question w/ a 'heads will roll'. Here's the type answer I'd expect to that question: 'I'm not going to fire someone just b/c they didn't have perfect foresight. We need to find out if mistakes were made, if procedures and guidelines were not followed. If so, people will be held accountable. But nothing of that sort has come to my attention.' Now, b/c I dislike Bush, I wouldn't really believe that statement, but I wouldn't find it offputting. What he in fact said was that after an election, the administration's entire 1st term record should not be scrutinized further. That's just not acceptable on its face. Mistakes were made, he's obligated in principle to find out why, so as not to repeat them.

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Jan 17, 2005 -> 05:48 PM) Were you at soxfest?? Like southsider said I think you'd feel much better about aj as a person if you were there. I'm not going to say he's the nicest guy in the world but he's not a clubhouse cancer either, imo. No, but I wouldn't count that as meeting him even if I had. AJ has always, always said the right things publicly. I just can't imagine how SF could have reacted in such an extreme way, or where these stories are coming from, if AJP hadn't really crossed the line. Anyway, let's not have this argument in this thread.

Btw, in the postgame interview, Ozzie said that HE would take responsibility for responding if he thought it was dirty. "When I'm gonna hit somebody, I'll make the call... If I thought the play was dirty...I will send a message."

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Jan 17, 2005 -> 05:40 PM) I'm glad you've met aj and know what kind of guy he is. Please. Like this is just me. If you don't think there's a lot of evidence that AJ's a jerk (like Rooney's quip, like multiple teammates calling him out in the paper), then you're living under a rock.

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Jan 17, 2005 -> 05:24 PM) Ozzie wanted the players to retaliate, oz has said numerous times and a lot of times this weekend also that if Hunter was on his team he would have hugged the guy, he also said if the players didn't like it they should have done something about it. That means ALL the players -- so where was the retaliation from anybody else? If there wasn't any, why was Carlos the only one "shipped" out? Ozzie is full of s*** on this. The play he's talking about wasn't even a dp (from listening on the radio, it doesn't even sound as if a throw was made to 1b). There WAS a dp in the 8th inning too, w/ Rowand going into 2b. Wonder why he doesn't mention that play... Ozzie's looking for an excuse for not retaliating until September (he also defends himself by saying that FG threw at someone in September...when we were swept...), and an excuse to run his mouth. And it's more character assassination of someone who improved himself while here and left in a classy way -- after signing AJP. (Interestingly, in the Hunter-Burke game, John Rooney mentioned that the Twins were very glad to lose AJP.) For the rest of this offseason, anytime Sox management announces how important character is, it's just bs.

This is just stupid. You should ALWAYS go in hard. Is Ozzie saying he should have gone in w/ spikes up? Pure bulls***.

QUOTE(Rex Hudler @ Jan 16, 2005 -> 05:49 PM) I think it is quite simple how someone can not be offended by those comments. Some people don't look at one simple quote and automatically assume its interpretation without seeing the whole interview and other comments that may or may not have been made around it. I read that and was not bothered at all. The article was not printed as a Q&A where you could get a better feel for the line of questioning and his answers. Words in print are way too easy to be taken out of context or even interpreted incorrectly. It is real easy to cherry pick a quote here or a quote there to satisfy one's agenda. It happens everyday on both sides of the political spectrum. I, as well as at least some others I assume, prefer to look at bigger pictures rather than isolating one comment here or one day there. Bush will eventually be judged on many fronts, including Iraq. Some can deal with that judgement coming later rather than having to judge him on a daily basis. I am not saying you are wrong in your views, just that there are other ways of looking at things as well, partisanship aside. True, he was probably just thinking, "Geez, we already did the accounting on election day, and now they'll want a reaccounting in Florida again..." If you're saying this quote is being taken out of context, you should at least say how it's being misinterpreted. Here's the full Q&A. It seems pretty plain to me.

That might work as a platoon w/ Willie, but I wouldn't really want him as a replacement. He's had trouble w/ rhp at times, and even w/ all the tough lefties in the Central, you're still going to see a lot more rhp over a full season.