Balta1701

Cancel the postgame show. Stewart throws out Sizemore. Sweetness

Congrats Jerry! Get that kid the ball! And show Podsednik how a base is actually stolen! QUOTE(fathom @ Sep 27, 2006 -> 04:44 PM) I laugh my ass off when people suggest he'll actually bring us back a significant player if we trade him. Congrats to Owens! You can never underestimate the foolishness of some GM's. I mean, he's a former all star, he's still got 40 steals after going for 60 the year before, he was traded for Carlos Lee, he's got a ring...he at least has a decent resume if you havne't scouted him that well. Give that kid the bag!

Excellent...Podsednik's SB %age goes down even more. 22 caught stealings for Martinez this year...in 118 attempts. That's about 18%.

QUOTE(greasywheels121 @ Sep 27, 2006 -> 04:35 PM) The no-hitter is alive. This will be your fault. Yes, that's right, you get blame for Inglett striking out. Congrats.

Gload sucks btw.

Gload rules btw.

QUOTE(beck72 @ Sep 27, 2006 -> 03:47 PM) The anderson persecution is from Ozzie. He's the one who has said BA needs to play winter ball, improve his game, etc. Most everyone else believes BA has done a nice job the 2nd half. Personally, I'm happy with his d and expect him to hit over .260 in 2007 Uribe's inconsistent offense needs to be addressed--either by him putting more work in or by replacing him Well, BA does need to play winterball. That's actually the right idea. But the couple of additional statements that Anderson is not doing what he needs to do which is either throwing him under the bus or nearly so, combined with the fact that Ozzie constantly cost us games, and IMO at least the Wild Card by putting Mackowiak in CF, is where the real persecution was.

Link

I have no problem of this core of heavy hitters if there is pitching attached to it and we actually put our good defensive guys on the field every day.

QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Sep 27, 2006 -> 03:32 PM) You mean like Alex Gonzalez? Maybe Royce Clayton. Look, a .250 OBP is unacceptable. There's no arguing that... but our best chance at having an upgrade, both offensively and defensively, over '06 Uribe, is probably by understanding that Uribe can't possibly be as bad next season... and hiring Walt Hriniak as a consultant. The problem of course is that Uribe actually can be this bad next season...because aside from 1 year in his career, this year is pretty close to his average numbers 2002 .240 .286 .341 .627 2003 .253 .297 .427 .724 2004 .283 .327 .506 .833 2005 .252 .301 .412 .713 2006 .235 .257 .441 .698 Career .258 .297 .433 .730 Uribe this season is only 32 points below his career OPS. His OBP is a disaster, but his slugging is higher. Yes, we all know there's the potential inside that skull to put up 2004 numbers, or better, if he ever gets his act together. But he's shown very few signs of actualy doing that over the last 2.5 seasons. And we're still not totally certain about his defense...if he keeps carrying his struggles with the bat into the field, there's no reason to expect that he'll go back to his late 2005 form. The other part of that issue is that Uribe's cost also goes up by $1 m a year each of the next 2 years, to the point that he costs over $5 million in 2008. Honestly, I can't totally object to keeping him, because he does have the potential to do some really great things with the bat and on defense. If we plug the hole in LF and Anderson continues to improve and Rob Mackowiak is traded, Uribe is not the worst option in the world at that spot. But he's not the best, and he's not guaranteed to improve either.

QUOTE(GaelicSoxFan @ Sep 27, 2006 -> 03:12 PM) Have you forgotten that Jerry Manuel already tried Cotts as a starter? He wet himself. Well, that one's just unfair...a couple of games started under the worst possible conditions is just no way to judge a pitcher. Seriously...middle of a pennant chase, going for the sweep, at Yankee Stadium, and you start a rookie? Wow. We tried Grilli and Rauch as starters as well. Both of them are now succeeding in other peoples' bullpens.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 27, 2006 -> 02:48 PM) In the second half, when Brian remembered how to hit, I agreed we should have played him 95% instead of 66%. But this 5 to 10 game difference from ANY one position player defensively (since offensively, Mack was better than Anderson) is a huge stretch. I'm afraid I don't have the evidence on this one, but I'm basing it entirely on what my eyes told me defensively. Every single time I saw Mackowiak out there, I knew it was going to cost us a run, if not more. Every single time. A lot of those were close games. Just tallying in the back of my head from the 2nd half alone I got to somewhere in the 7-10 range of games that having him out there made balls drop that lead directly to important runs...let alone the added pitches that our guys on the mound had to throw. And that's just in the 2nd half of the season when I really started paying attention and harping on it (After, of course, Ozzie said that Anderson was his starting CF.) Secondly...and here's the real beautiful part...Rob Mackowiak was not better than Anderson with the bat in the 2nd half. Post all star, Mack put up a .244 .292 .658. And Anderson put up a .270 .316 .730. And that's not even mentionning the fact that Anderson was better against righties than lefties all season, so his numbers could have been even better.

I very much dislike the title of this thread.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Sep 27, 2006 -> 11:10 AM) Exactly. There is NO WAY that they could have pulled this off, because there would be WAAAAAAAAAY too many people who were "in" on the deal. Pilot episode of the Fox series "Lone Gunmen".

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Sep 27, 2006 -> 02:23 PM) I think the pen is being overlooked here as well. With a shut down type pen like in 05, we would have 5-7 more wins under our belt IMO. I'll still say that the biggest single difference this team could have made in the win column this season would have been to not play Rob Mackowiak in CF. His defense, to my eyes, cost us likely in the 5-10 win range this season, compared to where we would have been had we played Anderson 14/15 games or so.

QUOTE(Wanne @ Sep 27, 2006 -> 12:40 PM) That's kind of my point. Everybody's lamented about how BMac is not suited for relief and is a starter. Well...the same could be said for Cotts. He's been a starter his whole life and honestly it takes a certain mindset to come out of the pen IMO. I would like to see him come up with another pitch or work on command of the off-speed. But he sure as hell may be more useful as a starter than he has this year coming out of the pen. I'm not sold on him being a valuable trade piece either, although lefties out of the pen are valuable...he really diminished a ton of his value this year. I just think it's an option to possibly look at. There's a difference between coming up a starter and being suited to be a starter and coming up as a starter and yet still being suitable/best suited for the bullpen. Cotts has been a starter all his career before the big leagues...but he doesn't have the stuff of a starter. After a few innings, every hitter has seen the same pitches over and over and over again. BMac has 3 good pitches already...decent low to mid 90's fastball that is a little too straight...big overhand curve ball, and gorgeous changeup. That's enough for some pitchers to get by...but even with that, he was working on a 2 seam fastball last offseason, which could be another really good pitch for him. So we're talking the difference between 1-2 pitches and 3-4 pitches between the 2 guys. Furthermore, when Cotts was good in 05, a good portion of that came because he has somewhat of a deceptive delivery with the sidearm component. It makes the fastball look faster than it really is. Logan is an even more extreme example. When you only see this for a few batters each game, it works really well, because it takes some time to adapt to it. But like a lot of guys with tricky deliveries...if you don't have the stuff to go with it, i.e. you're not throwing upper 90's or something like that...eventually people can adapt to the delivery.

No. I don't feel like I even really need to provide proof. Next question.

QUOTE(fathom @ Sep 27, 2006 -> 10:13 AM) If he really ingested as many pills as has been rumored, you would think they'd want to observe him a little more. I definitely think he tried to harm himself, but I don't believe the 35 pill rumor is correct. They may want to, but if a patient wants to leave, then there are a some situatinos where a hospital can't force he or she to stay. I don't know Texas law well enough to know if that's the case here.

QUOTE(fathom @ Sep 27, 2006 -> 10:09 AM) Maybe it's me, but if he really tried to kill himself last night, then would they really just let him leave this morning after having to get his stomach pumped? If he didn't commit a crime, which I believe he didn't as far as I can tell, then I don't know how a hospital could actually force him to stay.

QUOTE(fathom @ Sep 27, 2006 -> 09:58 AM) What's going to be fun is seeing how McCarthy's start tonight will completely change the opinion of a lot of people on this site. You know what? For me, it might...because right now, I am really, really worried about what this season has done to BMac. Especially after this last month...I'm wondering if his confidence is shot, I'm wondering if his mechanics are shot, I'm wondering if he's out of shape because he hasn't been used right, I'm wondering if he'll ever get the touch back on the curve ball and changeup he had last year but hasn't had since that outing against the Twins. One good start from him tonight would go a very, very long way towards convincing me that he'll still be as good as he should have been without having to work from the pen this season. The BMac at the end of last year...I basically want a Pujols in exchange for him. He looked as good as any starter in baseball, and given his age, that was dynamite. But if Ozzie permanently damaged him this season...then there's some reason to consider moving him while his value is still high. I just don't want to be caught with BMac doing a Kip Wells/Jon Rauch type collapse because Ozzie screwed him up and we didn't trade him when we saw the warning signs.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 27, 2006 -> 09:30 AM) Interestingly, the difference in deviation is almost the same with the ceiling applied. Also, considering the mean is different by .7 and the deviation different by .5, I'd say the 2006 offense was only slightly more inconsistent than 2005. And when you say inconsistent...it's again more inconsistent at the top end than at the bottom. We're bouncing between about 4 and 9 runs per game this year, last year it was something like 2-6.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 27, 2006 -> 09:12 AM) That is definitely interesting. For one, people's fears about this team being too much like 2004, seem unfounded. We have scored a lot of runs, but more consistently, in 2006. Also interesting is how low the SD was in 2005. But as you said, the many high totals will skew that result. One way to neutralize the skew to some extent is create an artificial ceiling based on spread. For example... if the Sox averaged 5.35 runs in 2006, that allows 5.35 runs on the low side. Create a ceiling at 5.35 on the high side, which would be 10.7 runs. Anything over that, make it 10.7. That won't entirely remove the skew, but it will mitigate much of its effect, in theory. I performed that analysis on the 2006 results. Here are the transformed numbers. 2006: mean 5.182278481, stdev 2.982550505 When you perform a similar analysis on the 2005 results, you also get a decrease in both: 2005: mean 4.420987654, stdev 2.515009159 There is still a difference in variation between the 2, but that's going to wind up in almost any way you do this, because of the data we're looking at. In 2006, the White Sox scored 7 or more runs 54 times. In 2005, they scored 7 or more runs only 32 times. There's going to be a skew because there are more numbers at a higher distance from the mean in 2006, regardless of how we process the thing, which is why I keep coming back to the histogram. In 2005 the numbers were more closely packed, solely because they didn't have the ability to score a lot of runs in a game. In 2006 the numbers are more spread out, but they're consistently higher at every level.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 27, 2006 -> 08:48 AM) hey, if you have all those scores, here is a test I'd like to see run... I'd like to see a standard deviation model on scores this year versus last year. I'd be it would be higher this year - more volatility. That doesn't necessarily mean its bad or good, but it would be reflective of consistency (or lack of) in the offense. In 2005, the White Sox averaged 4.574074074 runs per game, plus or minus 2.880229364 In 2006, the White Sox averaged 5.35443038 runs per game, plus or minus 3.397406184. So, in 2006, the StDev was higher than in 2005. However, as I tried to point out earlier...the reason this is higher is due entirely to the high-end games and the added variance by adding in more of those. When you look at any particular way of sorting, especially on the low-scoring games, the White sox in 2006 were shut down fewer times than in 2005 by a factor of around 2.5. For comparison, the 2004 White Sox averaged 5.339506173 runs per game, plus or minus 3.721956976. In other words, the 2004 White Sox scored almost as many runs, but were significantly more inconsistent in their output of runs per game. The histogram results bear this out...in 2004, the White Sox were held to 2 runs or less 45 times. In 2005, with a much lower Runs/game number, the White Sox were held to 2 runs or less 49 times. However, in 2006, the White Sox have been held to 2 runs or less only 31 times.

LV...the big difference in 2005-2006 is not the offense. It's the pitching. The offense was more potent, more consistent, and more effective the entire way through. The reason we knew a game was over when we went down 3-0 in 2006 was that when you looked back 2 innings later, it was going to be 8-3, not because we couldn't score that many. There were a ton of games in 06 where the offense did come back. But there was just no reason to believe the pitching was going to hold that lead. By the way, your numbers are incorrect. Thus far, in all of 2006, including the last few games where we've completley given up, the White Sox have had 16 games where they scored 0-1 runs, not 20. In 2005, the team had 20 of those games. The numbers don't lie here. They just don't.

QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Sep 27, 2006 -> 08:32 AM) Ya, that was nothing. Cop was a real prick, wont answer any questions, and all he is saying is its not a criminal case at this time. Media really get upset with the spokesmen. So my question is, Is attempted suicide a criminal offense? http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0927061owens1.html Haven't looked through the entire thing...but as far as I can tell, under the Texas Penal code, there is no penalty for attempting suicide, only for assisting another in an attempt to commit suicide.