jackie hayes

QUOTE(lostfan @ Apr 4, 2008 -> 03:37 PM) It's not completely inconceivable that Owens could get on base at about .350, but reading all the hate for the guy here you'd think his OBP would be about .280. he hasn't sucked like that since the first couple months after getting called up. Very little is "completely inconceivable".

Did he almost swing at that?

WOW. That was f***ING STUPID.

If it's blocked where you work, you may be able to get a refund from MLB. For mlbtv, they offer a rebate within 5 days of billing (or something like that), so I'd expect the same thing with Gd audio.

Well...do you want the radio feed? That's really all it is. Sounds fine on any reasonably fast connection. The one thing you'll want to check is that you can get it. Some workplaces might block it.

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Apr 4, 2008 -> 10:20 AM) Maybe Charlotte will like him so much they'll keep him. No... They can have either Owens or Anderson, and I think Charlotte made it's preference pretty clear last season.

QUOTE(RME JICO @ Apr 3, 2008 -> 03:01 PM) It looks like this is not a new injury either: I think I read that he hurt it playing winter ball. Not sure where, prolly rotoworld. Edit: Yes, rotoworld:

It's Medved, what do you expect? I'm surprised he didn't have 13. Mr Osama, why do you hate America and everything it stands for?

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Apr 2, 2008 -> 01:23 AM) He also has 1436.7 IP on his arm. Freddy Garcia got to 1427.3 going into the 2006 season, had a solid year, and hasn't really been the same pitcher since. That's a lot of mileage, and with a knot in his shoulder, I wouldn't trust him long-term. Much different sort of pitcher, though. Anything can happen, of course, I just don't think that comparison is very meaningful.

QUOTE(sox-r-us @ Apr 2, 2008 -> 04:01 PM) The greatest hitting team ever has scored 3 runs in 2 games, being shut out once by the mighty Royals Yes, it is early, but maybe there is some truth to letting the game be played ON the field QUOTE(sox-r-us @ Apr 2, 2008 -> 04:23 PM) Nobody said they will not hit; but to give them the AL Central crown before opening day was a tad bit delusional too. Get my point? Uh, yeah you did. You were mocking the idea that they could score runs. Since that's all you mentioned, that's all I responded to. Anyway, I'm impressed by their team, as many are, but I don't think any of us are 'giving them the AL Central crown'. If anything, I've seen more people here calling the Indians the team to beat. If I had to guess today, I'd expect a hard fight between those two teams. But the main thing is, it's way, way too early to even talk about this. The Tigers will score runs, the Sox won't have a team era over 9, and the Royals won't go 162-0. A couple games means nothing.

It's nice to see that today, as it would seem to help us. But if you really think that team is not going to hit, you're delusional.

"It’s time for his campaign to get out of the gutter." I'm not proud of it, but I did laugh a little at that line.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Apr 1, 2008 -> 04:49 PM) My Flux Capacitor router only activates as packets approach the speed of light, and hit 88mph. Now if I can get my trusty firewall to get the correct power output we can transport the entire internet back into the 1800s. And what would the correct power output be, by the way?

The press always covers slips and gaffes, like Bush falling off the segway. Personally, I think bowling a 37 (good Lord, a 37?!) is at least as good a story as that. (And I'll be voting for him, I'm just saying, it is pretty funny.)

QUOTE(Y2HH @ Apr 1, 2008 -> 02:55 PM) Let me nip this arguement in the bud and simply say, from the Hawk school of thought, where I have my proud to be biased PHD in Soxdom, you -- good sir -- are a closet Cubs fan. Even when you're being sarcastic you shouldn't contradict yourself. A "good sir" and a Cubs fan? I think not...

That is an interesting strategy, but I don't think I'm brave enough to try it. For yr ss, is Drew still available? He struggled last year and started the spring badly (iirc), but he recovered to put up a very strong spring line, and he's still available in some of my leagues. I guess it doesn't matter now, I just thought I'd throw it out there.

QUOTE(almagest @ Apr 1, 2008 -> 12:51 PM) So if Barfield didn't make a throw, what play was Cabrera interfering with? Look, I'm not disagreeing that Cabrera was grabbing for Barfield. That's obvious, and under most any other circumstance, I'd be in total agreement with you. But the rule states that interference occurs when "a runner is adjudged to have hindered a fielder who is attempting to make a play on a batted ball." There was no play to be made, as Thome was safe no matter what, Barfield did not throw the ball, and Cabrera's grab did not prevent Barfield from throwing it. I also didn't say that any runner touching a base has the ability to do whatever he pleases to a fielder. Not sure where you're getting that. I just don't see how you can hinder a non-existent play. The caps were to emphasize certain parts of my claim, not as a response to your inability to see my "clear shining light of rightness." The umpire doesn't have to judge that the play (throwing to first for a dp) would have been successful. The act of starting to throw is part of the play, even though the play probably wouldn't have worked out, and Cabrera interfered with that. Done, apply the penalty. (It was Peralta, btw -- I think I made that mistake earlier.) I'm done. Even Ozzie has said that it was a good call. It was, it's done, and it's time to worry about the next game and bogus AF trade reports.

QUOTE(almagest @ Apr 1, 2008 -> 02:23 AM) Taking an argument that you don't agree with, or don't understand, and hyperbolizing it to the point of absurdity is intellectually dishonest, and shouldn't/wouldn't be accepted as a valid point in any formal debate. Also, I'm not quite sure who's posts you've been reading, but nowhere do I state that grabbing for a defensive player in any capacity is not possible interference. I state, quite simply, that since it is not EXPLICITLY defined in the rules as an interfering action, it is up to the umpire to determine if a player is interfering with a play or not. And since this is a judgment call, it's reasonable to assume that the umpire would make a sound judgment, given that he's a professional with years of experience. And sound reasoning would seem to indicate that you can't interfere with a play THAT DOES NOT EXIST, such as a throw to first base to retire Thome, since NO ATTEMPT TO MAKE A THROW WAS MADE, NOR WOULD SAID PROBABLE THROW HAVE HAD ANY EFFECT on Thome being safe or out. Therefore, the umpire made a poor judgment call. The fact that we can't change the outcome of the play because of this poor judgment call is immaterial to this argument. My second point is that IF you are going to insist on saying that the umpire's judgment is the right call, and is irrefutable on both plays involving Cabrera, then he's establishing a precedent that HAS NOT EXISTED previously in MLB, and has given no prior warning of any changes. I would think that MLB holds its umpires to a higher standard than making decisions based on how they're feeling at the time. If you don't agree, I'd love to hear why, but with actual evidence this time, instead of putting words in my mouth, or absurd hyperbole, or personal attacks. I'd really like to have a reasonable discussion, and I'm sorry if anything I've said seemed out of line. I've read lots of other posts by you, and I respect your opinions, but I just don't see how you can hold your position on this one. Except it's not hyperbole. If we say that any runner who's touching the base should not be called out for interference, that's carte blanche. If you can't grab the guy, then we have to throw that argument out and draw a finer distinction. Barfield was pivoting to throw and was cocking his arm when Cabrera reached out. The facts that he didn't make a throw and might not have made a throw are irrelevant. Even Guillen has said that the ump made the correct call. As for personal attacks, I haven't attacked you once. You're just livid that I can't see the clear shining light of your rightness. (SO NOW YOU'RE USING LOTS OF CAPS -- VERY CONVINCING!) Deal with it.

QUOTE(iamshack @ Apr 1, 2008 -> 01:56 AM) No, I understand what you are saying, and I am willing to concede that it was probably interference, I guess it was just extremely frustrating after what happened about 30 seconds before that...as I said earlier, if that call happens in isolation, and not after the previous two calls most people seem to think went against us, it probably wouldn't have been nearly as big of a deal. And as for the spirit of the rule, you make a good point about the strike zone. However, it seems that perhaps the purpose of the rule should be revisited sometimes, as opposed to simply what has occurred in recent practice and judged to be "the standard," or "acceptable." I'm not saying the other calls were good, just the interference call. Yeah, when I watched the interference play in real time, I was ticked off. But when I saw the replay, I couldn't really argue with it. That's all. Even though I was unhappy about the others.

QUOTE(almagest @ Apr 1, 2008 -> 01:36 AM) This is true; it shouldn't. I'm not changing history as I still support this point. But *if* you're going to claim that Cabrera's play counts as interference, then make a consistent ruling about it. Which this umpire did not, based on what happened earlier in the game. Anyways, what's with the vehement defense of the second base ump, especially since this call honestly does *not* have precedence in MLB? Wrong. There was nothing inconsistent, as there were important differences between the two plays. Like leg-grabbing. I don't know what you mean by "precedence", but I don't think I'm being so vehement. I just think he got that call completely right.

QUOTE(almagest @ Apr 1, 2008 -> 01:29 AM) Sorry, but that's completely incorrect, and shows you know little about debating. No, actually it's not. 'I justify X using Y, but if Y has absurd implications, my argument is still valid. Because I really, really want it to be.' Considering the implications of an argument is just basic logic. As for "debating", I'll assume you don't mean formal debate, because if you ever encountered it even a little, you'd know that taking arguments to their extremes (and to the cynic, beyond) is maybe the most basic tactic. Lord knows what you do mean.

QUOTE(iamshack @ Apr 1, 2008 -> 01:13 AM) No, what I buy is that I see runners sliding all over the place with their spikes and legs flailing several feet away from the base and as long as they are able to get the base with their hand, it is not judged as interference. I'm just wondering how that causes less interference that what OCab did, especially considering MI's get their legs taken out and/or get spiked purposefully because of runners trying to hinder the fielder. That, to me, is far more dangerous and effective at hindering the fielder than what OCab did. What's important is to have a uniform interpretation, just as the strike zone is understood, even though it doesn't correspond to the book strike zone. Not to have everyone agree on just 'how interfering' different actions are, just to have everyone know what the standard is.

QUOTE(almagest @ Apr 1, 2008 -> 01:20 AM) No one's arguing what the rule says. We can read. We're arguing that the ump made a poor judgment call, based on previous events in this game, in previous seasons, and based on the events of the play. If the penalty should be enforced regardless, and the rules don't make an exception, then there should be consistency. No, you were arguing that interference that doesn't change the outcome shouldn't count: "...any umpire using *proper* reasoning would see that Cabrera's grab had no effect on the play whatsoever. I don't see how you can judge that to be interference..." I was pointing out that it should count as interference, according to the rules (and that's beside the fact that your judgement is really pointless, here). Don't try to change the history.

QUOTE(almagest @ Apr 1, 2008 -> 01:11 AM) So what about the play earlier in the game, when Cabrera was bowled over for no apparent reason? Was that interference? Seems by your definition, and the umpire's, it would be. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect consistency from a Major League umpire, nor do I think it's unreasonable to expect that he demonstrate good judgement. Also, there's no need to exaggerate, nor is there a need for straw man arguments. No one's claiming that a bear hug is not interference, no one is claiming that Cabrera tried to toss anyone around (did you even SEE the play?!) nor is anyone claiming that Hawk and DJ are right about anything. I didn't even hear what they said, since I usually mute the game anyway. I saw it about 5 times. Is that enough for you or would you like to send me a betamax? Now apparently you didn't read my "definition". Cabrera was knocked over by a hard slide very close to the bag with the cleats down, although it was a late slide. That fits my "definition" of an acceptable play. And, actually, yeah, there IS a need to take arguments to the logical extreme. If they fall apart, then they obviously weren't phrased well in the first place. If someone argues that you can do whatever you want as long as you touch the bag, it's worth asking if that's reasonable. And, frankly, Cabrera tried to grab the guy's leg. I really don't see a bear hug as being much more extreme than that. The only real difference is which part of a guy's body you grab.