Balta1701

His best pitch was his changeup...as recently as Spring Training. He hasn't found it in the last few months, and it's shown. A lot. I don't think the shirt looks that wierd. Although...vertical stripes are supposed to make you look thin...and well, BMac already does that on his own.

It's not Kolb any more. I honestly don't have a clue who it is.

This is exactly the proof I've been saying we'd see that Baseball's steroid program has no teeth. Supposedly the idea was that once players were being named, other teams would be hesitant about signing those players. Instead, we get Felipe Alou figuring out some reason to say why he doesn't care whether or not he was caught using steroids, because, of all things, he wasn't the last? That doesn't even make sense! Alex Sanchez was caught using steroids illegally, substances that are both banned and capable of making him a better player. When a team goes out looking for players, they will only see the latter part. This is why we need the 2 month suspension. Don't give me this "10 days and we'll tell you who they are" B.S. Make it 2 months, and there won't be a person out there who seriously doesn't know exactly everything they're swallowing. Not a single person would be stupid enough to risk 2 months salary in baseball by not knowing what was in something - they'd all be hoping they could beat the system. Alex Sanchez, Juan Rincon, and the other couple of guys should have been suspended for 2 months or more. They should barely be coming back right now.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Jun 23, 2005 -> 09:45 PM) Brandon seems extremely mature for his age. I keep wishing we could say the same thing about his changeup.

Can somebody post a picture at some point?

QUOTE(KipWellsFan @ Jun 23, 2005 -> 06:56 PM) House Votes to Nix CPB Funding Cuts http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,160534,00.html CPB Names Ex-GOP Head as President http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,160509,00.html Okay so the President and Chairman are now Republicans if you're keeping score Just remember, as they themselves have said...they're not there to institute a right-wing bias or prevent any balanced reporting on PBS...they're only there to make sure that PBS reflects the values voted for by a majority of Americans. (Someone other than me better be smart enough to pick up the contradiction in those statements. Here's a source.)

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Jun 23, 2005 -> 09:36 PM) Tune into Comcast. Some of us are about 2000 miles outside the region where Comcast is available on basic cable/satellite. Don't tease me with this without some details.

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Jun 23, 2005 -> 03:33 PM) What's the need? Pods is at 9, Caballo's at 13...I'd probably eat my shoe if like Pods and AJ werent more than Caballo, let alone Duque, Iguchi, and Viz(who has actually been mediocre in the month of June, instead of just awful) In terms of win shares also...something tells me that stat doesn't include something as subtle as sitting behind the plate for Garland, Buehrle, or Contreras and calling a great game. Hell, right now I'd take A.J.'s ability to call a great game behind the plate even if he was putting up numbers like Crede in May. That's been by far his biggest contribution to this team; he can handle that pitching staff.

QUOTE(Milkman delivers @ Jun 23, 2005 -> 09:06 PM) It wasn't really a compliment. They did say we'd have the best record in the AL when it's all said and done, but they compared us to the 2001 Mariners. They both said we have no playoff experience, like them, and that will hurt us. I think they're both saying we'll go nowhere in the playoffs, but I'm picky about anything anyone on ESPN says. Aside from Pudge, the Florida Marlins didn't have jack in terms of playoff experience in 2003 either. The guys who won it for them were their pitchers - Beckett has seen a few less playoff games than say, Mariano Rivera, and yet they still pulled it out. You know what it may very well come down to? 3 things; how healthy is our pitching staff come October, how hot is our bullpen, and who is hitting. If only 2 guys hit in the playoffs, we won't have a shot. If one or two of our starting pitchers are hurt or worn down, we'll be in bad shape. If the guys in our bullpen who are on fire start to break down, then we'll be in deep dog doo. On the other hand...aside from Oakland, who exactly out there is it who you'd say can beat us in the playoffs? We've gone to both Baltimore and Anaheim and split series in their parks. We haven't played Boston or New York yet, but we've also beaten up on a few teams in the NL and successfully played NL style ball.

So is it just me, or was anyone else sitting there watching the last seconds of this game and imagining seeing the ChiSox running out to the pitcher's mound some time late this October?

When I think about worst athletes to play in chicago...David Wells immediately comes to mind.

There has been much discussion around here lately on the topic of whether or not the detainees at Guantanamo bay have any legal classification under the Geneva Conventions, and consequently whether or not the U.S. is permitted to torture those detainees for information. I believe part of this Media Matters piece gets to the heart of the issue. The key point here is that even if the detainees at Guantanamo are classified as something other than Prisoners of War, they are not fully removed from the protections of the Geneva Convention. The 4th Geneva Convention deals specifically with detainees who are not classified as POW's. They are explicitly given certain rights by the convention, and these rights cannot be abridged by attempting to create a new category of detainee not defined by the convention. The actual rights listed in the convention for these sorts of detainees may be a useful bit of info as well. They include such rights as the right to religious worship, clean facilities, showers, visits from the Red Cross, etc. These are spelled out under the rights of detainees starting at about article 80 of the 4th convention. The Geneva Conventions themselves spell out specific categories of people who can be detained by parties that are signatories to the convention. POW's, detainees, and spies. We have not granted POW status to the Al Qaeda detainees. This however, does not mean that they are granted no protection by Geneva. The rights of the 4th convention would still remain in effect, as these are the rights given by the signatories of the convention to all prisoners who are detained. Finally, it is also worth noting that the Geneva Conventions were signed by the President and ratified by the U.S. Senate. This gives these treaties the force of law. In other words, it is a violation of U.S. law to violate the Geneva conventions.

Freddie...it's not a noon game, but it's still afternoon, right? Let's take 5 of 6 from these guys and make it a 10 game streak! :fthecubs :sosasucks

I miss the taste...

QUOTE(CubsSuck1 @ Jun 23, 2005 -> 01:53 PM) LOL, he always mentions this, I think he even goes as far as keeping track of our record in those "42 games". You know...at the rate we're going, we're gonna wind up being 42-0 in those 42 games.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Jun 23, 2005 -> 02:05 PM) Get Randa, release Timo and use Cruddy to split time spelling Randa and Konerko at 1st. Here's the deal...any time you have anyone take Timo's roster spot, things immediately look a lot better. But the fact is...it seems like Ozzie or KW don't want Timo to go - that's why they kept talking about Harris leaving when Gload comes back. I think we're just as good with Crede at 3rd and Gload taking Timo's spot as we are with Crede and Randa both. If Gload ever heals, of course. If he doesn't, then we need another backup 1b, and I'll concede that point.

QUOTE(3E8 @ Jun 23, 2005 -> 02:21 PM) Are these years flip-flopped? This is what happens when you copy & paste from Excel. Fixed!

I believe TBS also shows Family Guy reruns, which raises them up a level in my book.

Well, we're now 71 games into the 2005 season, the season that was supposed to bring a new style of baseball to the South Side, and a season that has certainly been a fun one to watch. Now that we're nearly half way into the season, and since today's an off day, I think it's as good a day as any to take a look at how this team actually has changed from last year's team in the most important categories around; how many runs we put on the board compared to the amount of runs the other team puts up. For this analysis, I used results from ESPN.com for my 2005 results and Baseball Almanac.com for my 2004 results. My work was as follows: I entered the final score for each game over the last 2 years into Excel and performed some rudimentary statistical analyses on the scores to see if any obvious trends appeared. And, not to my surprise, I found several. First, let's look at the average amount of runs scored: 2004: 5.339506173 2005: 4.845070423 Ok, so for starters we're down about a half a run per game. That's not surprising to me at all, considering Lee is in Milwaukee, Frank's played like 10 games, and Ordonez played half a season last year. But let's look past total runs scored for a minute, and look at 2 other numbers: Median runs scored: 2004: 4.5 2005: 5 Standard Deviation of Runs Scored: 2004: 3.721956976 2005: 2.707913732 A-Ha! Here I present to you what I feel the key stats are this year for our offense. If you look at the median runs scored, in 2004 it is right between 4 and 5, meaning 1/2 of our games we scored 5 runs or more, and 1/2 we scored less. In 2005 on the other hand, we're scoring 5 runs or more a fair amount more often, and we're scoring 4 runs or less in fewer games. This is good; if you imagine our pitchers averaging 5 runs allowed per game like they did last year, the more games we score over 5 the more we're going to win. The second stat is the real key to this offense; this is the "Speed doesn't go into slumps" stat, this is the Ozzieball stat. Last year, we scored 5.3 plus or minus 3.7 runs per game, on average...with a few games falling outside those bounds. This year, we're scoring 4.8 runs a game, plus or minus 2.7. We've decreased our standard deviation by a full run. This means that yes, we're scoring less 15 run games, but it also means we're having less 0 and 1 run games. The numbers are clustering much more closely around 4, 5, and 6 runs per game; numbers that give us a good shot to win the game. Looking at these numbers...it is clear to me that Ozzieball is actually working; we're scoring enough runs to win more often, even though we're not scoring as many total runs as we were last year. The variation in our runs scored has dropped, and we're scoring 5 runs or so a lot more often than last year's ballclub. 1 last item I noticed...and I can't figure this one out at all. For some reason, the White Sox in both 2004 and 2005 just do not like to score 3 runs. In 2005 we have scored 3 runs exactly 4 times, while we've scored 2 or 4 runs 23 times between them. The same trend happened in 2004: we scored 2 runs 24 times, 4 runs 24 times, but 3 runs 12 times. It's a really wierd pattern in a histogram, and I have no idea why it's happening. I also looked at our opponents scores, and they are much closer to a bell curve, while the Sox scores have these 2 peaks with a large dip at 3 runs per game. So, next time the Sox score 3 runs in a game...act surprised. It really is a rare occurence.

Actually, I would say that Phoenix might even have a chance at a championship without prowess at the defensive end, if they can accomplish 2 things. 1. They need to own the defensive boards. This is not an option. Those rebounds will lead to fast breaks, and giving up offensive boards will destroy the few defensive stops they get. 2. They need to be very close to the top of the league in steals; same reasons as above. Fast breaks and defensive stops. If they can do those things well, they will keep people from scoring more than 100-110 against them, and they will actually be able to outscore everyone else. The biggest problem I saw with the Suns in the Spurs series was rebounding. The Spurs owned the boards, which prevented a lot of the Suns fast breaks and gave the Spurs a lot of 2nd chance points.

Aside from sports, the channel I most commonly watch is Fox...Simpsons Reruns, new simpsons, new Family Guy, new American Dad, and occasional 24. Next to that...carried almost entirely by 1 show, is Comedy Central...thanks to the Daily Show. And since Stephen Colbert (aka Ted Hitler) is getting his own show on that network...there's a good shot that my viewership will increase.

Fresh off the presses, we have another one...

QUOTE(hammerhead johnson @ Jun 23, 2005 -> 11:50 AM) Was that Jerry's master plan? I'm pretty sure that was actually his master plan when he drafted them...he pointed at San Antonio as an example of what he was trying to do. Let me put it this way...Curry is not a rebounder, and Chandler is not a scorer. Not yet anyway. But if you have both of those guys on the floor, they compliment each other, and they'll make each other better at what they do. And I still think that both will only get better with time. Although...those damn guaranteed contracts still scare the hell out of me.

Just out of curiosity...anyone care to wager a guess about how long it takes there to be a thread here about how Detroit is sneaking up on everyone and they're our next big threat?

QUOTE(SoxFan101 @ Jun 23, 2005 -> 10:55 AM) I wouldnt say thats neccesarily true... The era will go up but 1 hitter isnt going to increase it by a whole run... most teams DH's arent even that great... you have Ortiz, Thomas, and Hafner... other than that its mostly avg. players. It's not just that. It's the pitcher's spot being a nearly-automatic out. When a pitcher comes up in the batting order, it's a dead spot. It's a bunt if there's runners on, which hurts the chances at a big inning. It makes sure that you have an out at any point in your inning. It also robs you of guys off of your bench because you need to PH for the pitcher's spot. It also makes you throw less pitches. What's the ideal thing for a pitcher to do in the NL in a lineup? Start off the inning with the pitcher - because then you get the easy out, and then you're facing the leadoff man with already 1 out, and it's much harder for the other team to start a rally. One of the guys at ESPN did the numbers on this a few months ago...I can't find the actual link, but his number was that on average, almost every pitcher who goes from the NL to the AL sees his ERA increase by over .9 runs, and the exact opposite is found when they move the other way.