jackie hayes

Anywho... Wasn't this launching 3s how they got in trouble in the first place?

OT!!!!! I didn't see any foul, but how there were no fouls there, with everyone flying about, I have no idea.

WOW! Keep up the energy!

Whatever happens -- great effort by Head. The only energetic one is injured.

Everything, everything, everything has gone wrong for Illinois. They have absolutely nothing underneath, and they've been totally unable to keep Arizona from penetrating. This defines collapse. It seems like the refs just got together and decided to actually call fouls. I was wondering if they were just letting the players 'call' them before.

Should someone tell Illinois they're not playing Ohio St anymore? They look horrible.

Willie makes a nice play to end the top of the 9th, Walker pitching. Rooney and Farmer laughing at managing the scorecard w/ all of Showalter's swapping of fielders. Ozuna...made an out (missed the play). Willie HITS A BOMB! J/k, grounds out to ss. Widger's gonna save it! Or he also grounds out, to the 2b. That's the game, 7-2 Rangers. The Sox gotta pick themselves up, that's 2 bad games in a row. McCarthy, it's not a big deal. At least the pen was good.

QUOTE(qwerty @ Mar 26, 2005 -> 10:10 PM) Hawk goes silent way to damn often. Maybe he's watching the tournament too? 3 up, 3 down. Ozuna and Harris fly out, Widger ks. Drese is out.

Okay, bottom of the 7th, get on yer rally caps Sox fans!

Picked on the wrong outfielder there.

QUOTE(robinventura23 @ Mar 26, 2005 -> 08:41 PM) WHat did he say? Something like, 'he's got to have a bad game one of these days, right?' Farmer responded that he looked good in the first, getting 2 ks and the lineout. I think it was at the start of this half inning.

Rooney jinxed 'im.

QUOTE(The Critic @ Mar 26, 2005 -> 07:14 PM) He may have never been "small", but he was much smaller as a rookie than in his glory years. Take a side-by-side look at him as a rook and in 98 - HUGE difference. Hardly even looks like the same guy. And I see your point as well, and you may well be right. Only time will tell. Oh, I know, I've seen tons of those side-by-sides lately. I just mean compared to the changes in Sosa and Bonds, McGwire's is less dramatic. He had 'power potential' written all over him from day 1.

QUOTE(The Critic @ Mar 26, 2005 -> 06:13 PM) McGwire's supporters will remind you that he hit 49 HR his rookie year, when he was still a pencil. I don't doubt that he could and probably would have hit 500 without juicing, that will never be known for sure, and his reputation will be tainted forever now. I just think that in a few years, people will care less about any of this. I know this sounds like a contradiction, but I think both things are true. I think McGwire will always be seen as a cheater, but I think when the freshness of the scandal fades, he'll get in. People always move on to the next outrage, evidenced by the growing support Pete Rose was getting for his HOF crusade until he exposed his decades of lying in order to sell a book. I see your point, I just disagree. McGwire always had a ton of power (and he was never small), but he also got injured early and often. Without the huge surge at the end, which is under suspicion, I don't know if he gets 500. Who knows, though. And, jmho, I think this will linger -- maybe not with all sportswriters, but there'll be enough to make his bid risky. He may get in, but if so I'd guess a squeaker.

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Mar 26, 2005 -> 12:07 AM) I wouldn't be opposed to asterisks at all. I do think that them both being in the 500 homer club, and due to them doing what they did for baseball, that they will be in. I wonder though if voters will do a 'mental correction' to the hr totals, taking out the ones they believe to be post-steroid. (Not that there's any hard evidence -- I just mean, internally, making a guess.) At least, fair or not, that's how I seem to be thinking about it. And imo it's difficult to see how McGwire would have 500 'untainted' hr, but I think Bonds probably did. McGwire has to rely so much on that hr total, I don't know if he gets in if it gets discounted. Bonds was so good, for so long, at so many things, the only reason to leave him out would be to make a moral point, which I don't think the writers will do. Anyway, 500 hr is such a stupid, arbitrary standard. Maybe one of the few good side-effects of the whole steroids scandal is that people will start placing less emphasis on this shibboleth.

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Mar 26, 2005 -> 01:59 AM) And, DIPS isn't really that high on Buehrle -- though they haven't been for the past three years, and (I could be wrong) doesn't BP really like DIPS as far as judging pitchers? You're probably right, I don't really know how much they rely on DIPS, and I'm sure they are in fact looking at the stats quite a bit. I was just trying to give a 'non-stats' justification, something one can see just being out at the game every day. Edit: Also, just off the top of my head, I'd think the 2 are related. B/c you rely on your defense the least when you strike someone out, and DIPS is the defense indep pitching stat, I'd guess that someone who strikes out fewer people will get a big penalty in terms of DIPS. But someone who knows the construction of these stats better than I do could correct/clarify that.

QUOTE(Jabroni @ Mar 26, 2005 -> 12:54 AM) Why else would he think Buehrle is a middle-of-the-rotation pitcher? Sheehan obviously has never seen him pitch if he would make such an ignorant statement. Let me be clear -- I'm not pro-Sheehan on this. But I think it's an understandable position. There aren't many aces who rack up fewer strike outs than Mark, at least before last season. I think Mark looks good enough to be a #1. But if someone really believes (from stats or experience) that a frontline starter needs to be a high-k pitcher, then they may still be uncomfortable w/ Buehrle as a #1.

To play devil's advocate here -- Any sports writer who isn't egregiously wrong at least a few times in his career is guaranteed to produce the most boring columns on the planet. (Phil Rogers once said that Sammy was more likely than Bonds to pass Aaron. How's that looking?) Having to produce something interesting hundreds of times every year means you have to go out on a limb and be provocative. I'm sure a lot of these guys, if they were giving you their true beliefs, would admit a lot of uncertainty. (Heck, the stats people may even give you confidence intervals.) But of course that doesn't sell. Or get people so worked up that they go berserk on a message board. Just take it with a grain of salt. I think this board is generally too sanguine about our chances, but I still found this a little out there. Mostly for the reasons already mentioned. In a worst case scenario, I guess I can see the Sox having a season like this. But projecting it as a most-likely scenario -- that's hard to fathom.

Wp advances Cirillo to third, then my Gameday Audio dies again, so if anyone else wants to give updates, go ahead -- this is ticking me off Sounds like they got the 3rd out, dunno how

Cirillo hits double in the gap, Rowand can't quite get there, 2 runs score, Fielder up

Strikeout, 2 outs w/ runners on 1st and 2nd.

Wp advances runners. Strikes out Durrington. Moeller's up, foul ball, then low, 1-1. Ground ball, Harris misplays it (error), one more run for the Brewers.

QUOTE(3E8 @ Mar 25, 2005 -> 10:02 PM) I dislike Reynoso. Well, you'll love him now. Walks Hardy on 4 straight.

Uh oh. Reynoso walks 1st man up in the 7th. Pods is out.

Sox go down in order as Everett ks And, in better news, mlb.com seems to work (finally) with Firefox