SpringfieldFan

QUOTE (SoxFan562004 @ May 23, 2008 -> 02:39 PM) I'm bi-lingual when it comes to coffee ordering! I went out with a girl who was a barista and they are insane about it, so I got into the habit. It drives my father INSANE!!! He refuses to order anything but S, M, L. Yeah, why when I go through a Starbucks drive thru, and want a "small" black coffee, I have to specify a "tall" black coffee?

How can Stewert's not be part of the discussion? If course I heard the commercials on the Score, and when a local store here finally stocked it, I gave it a try. That is some good no-nonsense coffee right there. SFF

Does "Deal or No Deal" count?

I drink practically everything. Got Folger's right now, but my favorite is probably Caribou Coffee French Roast. However, a coworker and I look up the highest rated coffees at coffeereview.com and order them online. Those are in such a different league and taste so different you might either love them or hate them. You can also buy raw green beans and roasted them in an air popcorn popper, which is great if you want to save money these days, too. Oh yeah, gotta say - black with sugar please. SFF

QUOTE (shipps @ May 23, 2008 -> 08:05 AM) But he hasnt gained so that has to count for something. Yes, perhaps you have to approach this as Congress approaches discretionary spending. He has seen a reduction in the rate of increase. SFF

QUOTE (FlaSoxxJim @ May 22, 2008 -> 09:28 AM) Some of that initial core cast (Lisa Whelchel, Julie Piekarski) came from the cast of the New Mickey Mouse Club that had debuted a year or so earlier. Mrs. Garrett was the Drumond's original housekeeper before they spun her into working as the housemother at the school on Facts of Life. A little further research... Back then I thought any one of Molly (Ringwald), Nancy (brunette), Sue Ann , or Cindy (tomboy) >>> any one of Blair, Jo, Tootie, or Natalie. It had amazed and disappointed me that the worst four were retained, but I guess given the popularity they attained, what did I know. SFF

Back in the first year or so of the show, there were a few other "regulars", and I like a couple of them more than the eventual "core" 4. One was played by a really young Molly Ringwald and the other was a long haired blond whose name I don't recall. SFF

Being from downstate, I am suprised nobody has mentioned the proposed Waldorf-Astoria, which will be 1200+ feet if built. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldorf-Astor...Residence_Tower SFF

QUOTE (heirdog @ May 6, 2008 -> 02:59 PM) Why not just get rid of Walker and insert a guy that could actually hit... Baines. Woah, hold on now. Walker could hit. In his day he had the sweetest natural swings around. Perhaps that's the problem, that he was too naturally gifted to effectively teach. Communicating a complicated ability one is born with to someone who isn't - well maybe that's too tall a task. I bet he is trying to teach the elementary mechanics of something he just "felt" and it just ain't working. SFF

QUOTE (JorgeFabregas @ May 7, 2008 -> 11:30 AM) Try making a graph correlating K:BB with ERA. That's the issue. You can be a good/great pitcher without a lot of strikeouts (Buehrle), but you better walk very few. Gavin's K:BB is one. As you wish: The elite stand apart, and there is a general correlation. Buehrle was #25 here by the way.

QUOTE (RME JICO @ May 7, 2008 -> 10:54 AM) You can see the elite K pitchers have an advantage. If you think about it, based on probability, the opposing teams have less of a chance to score when the ball is not put in play. So there has to be some correlation. ...unless you consider Matsuzaka (#4). His ERA was nearly the same as Trachsel, the lowest rated strikeout pitcher. But yeah, the top dozen or so seem to get the K's and prevent the runs as well. I guess if you can be an elite pitcher, strikeouts are worth your consideration. SFF

The talk about Gavin needing more strikeouts reminded me of something I was going to show in a previous thread about the correlation of ERA and strikeouts. Bear with me in the explanation here. This graph is based on the final 2007 stats for every pitcher with at least 100 innings worked. In it, each pitcher is represented from left to right by a dot in order of his strikeout per inning rank. In other words, the dot on the farthest left represents Eric Bedard, who had the highest strikeouts per inning. Now, the vertical axis represents each of these pitcher's ERA. For example, Bedards was 3.16. So, is there a correlation between K's and ERA? If so you should see the line connecting the dots increase (higher ERA) as you move from left to right (lower K rates). As I look at it I can see a *slight* average slope up, but really it is not very regular. There seems very little correlation to me; that you cannot predict ERA based on strikeout ability. What do you all think? By the way, I did a similar graph plotting strikeouts vs. win percentage and it yielded similar (lack of) correlation. Unfortunately, the tables I had to work with did not have WHIP stats, so I could not test that. SFF

Okay, I have to ask - when security busts underage drinkers for breaking a well known rule, who exactly is the "bad guy" here?

QUOTE(southsideirish @ Dec 14, 2007 -> 11:29 PM) So tell us how you would have accomplished it. He did everything in his power to accomplish it. What would you have done differently to get these deals done? If it is as farfetched to accomplish it as it appears, it probably isn't wise to present it or approach it as a "plan". To me that implies it is something like a checklist which would be reasonably feasible to accomplish. If it wasn't so feasible, they shouldn't get our hopes up by presenting it as a plan. At least call it a dream if that's what it really is, and for heaven's sake have safety net lined up if the miracle doesn't materialize. If Jerry Owens is Williams' definition of a safety net, we have more problems than I even imagined. SFF

I agree with everything. Also in the light of fairness, keep in mind that not only were Frank's accomplishments eclipsed by juiced hitters, but he had to spend a career hitting against juiced up pitchers as well. SFF

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Dec 14, 2007 -> 03:06 AM) I don't really understand the concept of this thread. I don't get a pat on the back for driving the speed limit or using my turn signal, so why are Konerko and Thome being applauded for not using steroids? I mean, cool s*** and everything, but they really didn't contribute anything to this. Hey, if you drive the limit and use your signal, you better believe you get a pat on the back from me!!! From someone with a five year old strapped in the vehicle, I hate the blatant disregard for traffic laws that is such common practice these days. Now, regarding Konerko and Thome, resisting the kind of cheating that raises yourself above everyone else is one thing; resisting the kind of cheating that merely to keeps up with everyone who already does it, is another thing in my eyes, especially when your livelihood is at stake. SFF

Well, if the list is accurate: no Thomas, Thome, Konerko, Dye, Crede, Ventura, Ordonez, Jenks, Buehrle, McDowell... Great day to be a Sox fan!

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Dec 13, 2007 -> 12:00 PM) No, because there is no empirical evidence that any of these guys did roids. They have no tested positive, and some of them were only named because the Mitchell investigators asked interviewees who they "thought" was on steroids. Thats a very good point. SFF

You know, as I think about the potential fallout from all this, I wonder if the owners could legally revoke the contracts of some of their players on the grounds the players misreprented themselves and their value, especially given how it will drop in the wake of these events. Also, can we fans sue for ticket reimbursement because we were never getting the product we thought we were getting. Thoughts? SFF

It seems like KW will spend quite a bit when it comes to retaining what he has already acquired, wisely or unwisely. However, when it comes to getting new players, its like going to garage sales in the rich folks' neighborhood. We seem to specialize in reclamation projects hoping to catch lightning in a bottle at low risk given the reduced cost. Quentin is this year's poster boy. *Sigh* - oh well, at least 2005's reclamation poster boy (Jenks) became an all star for us. SFF

Forget Pierre, and the others out there as well. I would have been willing to see the Sox overpay for any of the available options if it could have made a real difference, but I don't see that for 2008. Instead, I would play 2008 as an investment season. Rather than selling low, keep the current roster intact and let it rebound. It is almost inevitable there will be some rebound, given how awful 2007 was. Then see what kind of return you might get on them. Also, hold your nose, retain Owens, and let him add a little value by going as wild as he can on the basepaths. If he can swipe 50 to 70, I bet someone might be willing to offer something for that dimension in 2009 (i.e. like us with Pods). Seriously, don't invest money in a non-solution, and don't sell what you have now for minimum return. SFF

QUOTE(klaus kinski @ Dec 5, 2007 -> 01:50 PM) We need Rowand and Bedard. Face it, we arent gonna out hit Detroit. We have to pitch with them, then play strong defense to be in it. I don't see this being about Detroit anymore; they are in their own category now. I think its all about wildcard chances now. We need to see how acquiring Rowand positions us against Cleveland. SFF

I don't know about everyone else, but I am getting a bit tired of the Angels always showing up as a big kid around our Christmas tree when bonafide talent comes available... SFF

Hmm nice...maybe the parent club will add a little red too? *ducks and runs for cover* SFF

You heard it here first: he will be back with St. Louis within the next two years. SFF