jackie hayes

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Aug 18, 2007 -> 04:22 PM) Arroyo, Lilly, s*** even Rauch. Moving from the NL to the Al gives you about a run higher ERA. Not to mention moving from the weakest division (NLC) to probably the AL east would have killed his value. And Zito, Milton, Burnett? I just don't think the difference between the leagues is a full run, and just finding a couple examples won't convince me.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 17, 2007 -> 02:53 PM) Well, if the argument is that ERA's would be higher for the same pitcher in the AL than the NL, then comparing the current ERA's in each league isn't really a valid comparison. The point being made is that the competition on both sides of the ball in the AL is better (as evidenced by a truly dominant interleague record for the AL). Therefore, the best measures would be pitchers who actually changed leagues. See how their ERA's changed. Which is why I included the second paragraph. But I'd want to see a good analysis. There's no obvious reason that AL teams would spend more on pitchers (but o/w, the change should be on average equal to the average difference between the leagues). Consider that the Giants outbid everyone for Zito. Lol, but it does show that pitching is prized in the NL. I need to see some evidence that one sees almost a full run difference. That's f'n huge -- all I'm saying is, convince me.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Aug 17, 2007 -> 12:36 PM) OF course, if you Judge solely based on ERA, without correcting for the fact that he's pitching in the NL, you're really missing a key factor. On average, a pitcher moving from the NL to the AL sees his ERA go up by just under a run, and the reverse holds true for going from the AL to the NL. Cite? Because average stats are much, much closer than that. In 2006, the AL era was 4.56, the NL era was 4.49. I want to see, at least, some multiple regressions before I believe that line. I think the AL-NL difference is exaggerated to the point of absurdity.

Is there any name more frightening than the DrewHensonAllStars?

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Aug 16, 2007 -> 04:25 PM) Why would we close it again? Because people are hopping off the bandwagon? Cuz this year, Sox fans = jinx. Also, thank YOU, Ned Yost, for totally f***ing over one of the games best pitching prospects by leaving him in to get f***ing shelled. Many, many thanks.

QUOTE(CanOfCorn @ Aug 16, 2007 -> 02:37 PM) Suuuure I can... ...not all at once, though. Very nice.

QUOTE(Jimbo's Drinker @ Aug 15, 2007 -> 05:16 PM) Rangers placed RHP Brandon McCarthy on the 15-day disabled list, retroactive to Aug. 11, with a stress fracture in his right shoulder blade. Uh oh. There was no sign this was coming, and with a 3.18 ERA in six starts since the break, McCarthy had been pretty effective lately. The Rangers have yet to elaborate on the injury, but it's hard to imagine McCarthy pitching again this year. This could turn into a major long-term issue for him. John Rheinecker will start in his place on Thursday. Credit the man! (From rotoworld...)

After an awful start, BMac's had a nice run going. I'll always be a Manhands fan.

What a pussy.

One of my favorite pieces by Royko.

QUOTE(vandy125 @ Aug 14, 2007 -> 03:51 PM) I think that this is the key point here. Most people are going to get their information from the popularizations and not from scientific papers. Therefore, it is seen as fact by the general population. Most people are not taking into consideration that these are the best theories out there so far based upon the scientific model, and they do believe that it is all completely true instead of a theory. By doing that, they have placed placed their "faith" in that model without even realizing it. That's not faith in a model, that's faith in authority. Much, much different. And I think you're wrong about people having "faith" in the idea. If people in general had faith in an idea, you wouldn't see everyone constantly jumping from one diet to the next. Everyone I know would still be eating bagels and commenting about how slim they're gonna be by avoiding all that fat. Still waiting. The silliness that would result from mentioning 'theory-not-fact' for every idea for which it is true is mind-boggling. We'd have to explain that exercise may burn calories, but it's really not proven. Things may fall towards the Earth at 9.8 m/s^2, but it's just one idea. That's a world that no one wants.

QUOTE(vandy125 @ Aug 14, 2007 -> 10:44 AM) IMHO, the "IF" portion of many scientific statements are usually left off. Many theories are presented as fact when they are really theories based upon our current knowledge and projection of that knowledge. Some people believe in these theories so deeply that they do call them fact, and that is where faith comes in. To be able to call it fact, you have to believe in certain projections to be true. Again, their relativity to our timeframe determines how much faith it takes to call something a fact. If the statements are predicated with conditional statements, then, I agree, that does not take "faith". It is merely a statement as to how we see things and not a statement of fact or truth. Disagree. In scientific papers, everyone understands that a model is not unadulterated fact. In popularizations, it's simply cumbersome and apparently mealy-mouthed to mention it. In the latter, the scientists themselves certainly don't have "faith" in the model. And I can't think of many examples in which a scientist had so much faith in his model that he extended it confidently to very different environments -- have evolutionary biologists ever claimed that evolution must work on another planet exactly as it works here, for example? Most popularizations that I've seen are pretty good about respecting the limits of the theory. (I say this for the natural sciences; I will say that the social sciences are very sloppy about this kind of thing -- which is one reason why many people laugh at the idea that these are "sciences", at all.) QUOTE(vandy125 @ Aug 14, 2007 -> 10:44 AM) What I was getting at was not a "slow" change in natural laws. I was getting at the possibility that the natural law is of a substance that over billions of years, the speed of light (as an example) does slow down due to an unknown force, or that it has sped up over billions of years due to some unknown force. We just have not been around long enough, measuring these types of things, to see that there is some force acting that we would need to add to our understanding to better describe how we see things. I'll try to put it another way since that seems a bit jumbled. There is a possibility that there is a natural law that has not been discovered yet that acts on some of the laws that we have determined are constant. We cannot know whether or not that is true because we have not been around long enough to measure enough of these things. I don't think any scientist anywhere would have any problem with that idea. All that would mean is that there is some supermodel that contains the current one as a special case. Newton's laws were subsumed in general relativity, and science was happy.

QUOTE(vandy125 @ Aug 14, 2007 -> 08:59 AM) All I'm saying is that the further back you project your assertions, the more likely that you may be missing something that has not been observed and therefore, has not been understood. A lot more "noise" enters into the picture, and we cannot know everything that has happened back then until we get one of those time ships built. That is why it is always the best guess or theory based upon what we can study here and now. Your quotes are going way above and beyond that. At what point have I invoked a higher power to change how things are going right now or even in the past? It's very simple the further you project in any direction, future or past, the more likely you may have missed something. I am not saying that we shouldn't try and understand things at all, or do these sort of projections. I am just trying to put it in an accurate perspective. It takes a sort of faith to confidently state that your projections can be accurate. If you're only saying that current models may not be accurate, that there may be a more fundamental, underlying model beneath -- well, yeah... As I understand it, that's why string theory is. Science recognizes this. As such, projections are not "faith" -- they are conditional statements. "IF this model is correct, then..." Faith does not allow such a caveat. If, on the other hand, you're saying that there may exist no real underlying order whatsoever, then the story I told is no less arbitrary than "slow" changes in natural laws, whether they arise from a deity or because nature randomly flips switches (and it would have to be some bizarre kind of randomness that would be impossible to quantify, in that case). Positing "slow" changes just makes the notion LOOK more palatable, without making it logically any less far-fetched than the idea that Newtonian physics might suddenly fail and we're all about to fly off the surface of the planet. Whatever faith is required to believe in the basic idea of science is perfectly universal.

QUOTE(vandy125 @ Aug 13, 2007 -> 11:41 PM) I completely agree that this thought is outside of the realm of science because it cannot be tested at all, but even if it is a poor example, it does highlight one of the limits. We have been around for a blink of an eye in the generally agreed upon scientific timeline. How can we really know whether or not those things that we see as constants right now really have fluctuated over time in either a normalized pattern, a slow degradation, or an incredibly slow increase? We just have not been around long enough to measure some of these things. Why require the changes to be "slow" or "normalized"? That doesn't go far enough -- science can actually deal with patterns and change by finding an underlying model. Maybe the constants change wily-nily every time a measurement is made. Maybe the next time you drive a car your brakes won't work, because He won't like friction any more. Maybe -- because He of course has the power to change any measurement with His Noodly Appendage. I'm just saying, don't count it out.

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Aug 13, 2007 -> 12:46 PM) Yes, I was mocking them, as I was mocking anyone who believes they're "right" (looking at the creationist) but can't really prove it because in the end you have to take a WHOLE lot of this life on faith...hence the mocking of "knowledge". as for examples, this was fun: I never said I was a creationist. ASSumptions, check! seems like a pretty nice insult to my church background. Underlying bigotry, check! Again...this is satire. One side says the other side is wrong while they're "right" and vice versa, whilst the "right" side doesn't even agree themselves. This thread was more or less a joke...and the hyperactive evolutionist didn't catch on to that when I said: in other words...I'm not much of a literal creationist, so this doesn't mean very much to me either way in the argument for or against evolution. so in fact: People acting so "right" when their knowledge is in fact so flawed, it makes me laugh. You said, "you all assume I'm some bible thumping creationist". You then quote one poster out of the many who replied, and take his comments out of context. The creationism comment -- he wasn't even responding to you. It had nothing to do with your beliefs, nor did it imply anything about them. The Sunday School comment was not an insult directed at your religion; it made the point that the scientific method is fundamentally different than faith (which was obvious from the graphic). It insulted your argument, not your religion. We didn't "all assume" anything. We defended the scientists who you were admittedly mocking. This is a sad little victory dance you're stepping here.

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Aug 11, 2007 -> 02:27 PM) hilarious thread that served my purposes well. The usual suspects so quick to 1) assume what I was implying, 2) defend something I wasn't questioning, 3) ridicule my personal beliefs and 4) ignore what I actually said after the article. The next time I get banned, I'll pull out this gem and give myself a laugh. PA likes to laugh. this is like Christmas, er, I mean Winter Solstice. Mind providing examples? You clearly were mocking the scientists. That's kinda the whole point of using scare quotes (around "right" and "knowledge"). Whether or not you hold the opinion, you expressed it. I look through this thread, I see reasonable responses followed by a pretty calm discussion. Kudos on yer victory.

QUOTE(LosMediasBlancas @ Aug 11, 2007 -> 03:03 PM) Does he have a cannon of an arm from the OF? Might be more like a shotgun.

QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Aug 10, 2007 -> 05:50 PM) If this was 2006, coming off the WS year, I go with it. However, it's now two years removed from Podsednik's last good season, really has worn out his welcome with a lot of Sox fans, and his .262-.328-.377 line really isn't going to push the Cubs over the hump. Podsednik has absolutely zero value to this team, and very little around baseball. After the mistake Williams made of brining Scott back for 07, if he can get anything for him, you pull the trigger. (I could be missing something, but if the Sox don't offer Arb to Scott after the season, they receive nothing, correct?) Yes, and they pay him the $800k left for this year.

QUOTE(CardsJimEdmonds15 @ Aug 9, 2007 -> 10:21 PM) SEE YOU LATER.. 3 RUN 2 OUT 7th INNING HR ANKIEL.. 5-0 Birds.. I hope he can keep it up. He and Josh Hamilton in one season is one hell of a story.

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Aug 9, 2007 -> 03:31 AM) Mere hunch, but I think 35 is understating it quite a bit. We'll probably find out for sure within the next 15-20 years when former MLB players wind up dying prematurely due to heart disease and all kinds of cancers and whatever other problems may arise, but I truly believe 35 is shooting way under the bar. I'd guess 20% is more likely - which is 5 per 25-man roster - and perhaps even higher than that. Speculation leads to nothing really, and I find what Bonds did to be remarkable. Some may not, and that's just a difference of opinion. I wasn't very clear there -- I meant players older than 35. I'd agree with that hunch.

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Aug 9, 2007 -> 02:04 AM) Probly true. And I've never questioned that Bonds has done steroids, just merely that nobody really knows what percentage of the MLB is currently or was at one point on steroids and how truly unprecedented it really is, and how much better he really is after the age of 35 then the rest of the game is period. It's an incredible accomplishment, steroids or not. Sure. But it's less incredible than it would be if he had done it clean. Which is why I find the records, especially the hr records, a lot less interesting than I did before. And being much, much better than other 35+ players who also chose to do steroids just strikes me as underwhelming and pretty uninspiring as an accomplishment. Especially for someone who would have been an all-time great, anyway.

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Aug 9, 2007 -> 01:26 AM) I'm perhaps twisting words a little bit, but I really believe hitters become better as they age. They get worse when their bodies can't catch up to a 96 MPH fastball or hold up over the rigors of a season. Perhaps that can be interpreted as getting worse with age, but if a guy's body can hold up over those, a person could logically play at a very high level until he is 40-45. Once his bat speed drops or he starts losing strength is when he becomes a worse hitter; that happens with age, but that could be anywhere from 32 years old to 42 years old. That means ARod could be a very good player until he's 44, or he could be out of baseball by 38. It's hard to say, and that's why it's unrealistic to speculate as to whether he will break the record when he isn't even 2/3rds of the way to the record. Come on, it's just wrong. Sure, if a player could lose NO ability from 29 to 35, he'd be just as good, but that DOESN'T happen. It's not just "speculation" that a player will slow down after 30, it's biology. And a player sure as hell won't suddenly GAIN massive amounts of quickness, coordination, or sheer power at 35, like Bonds did. ARod could, at best, maintain his production (Williams doesn't look MUCH different late, maybe more inconsistent -- but he wasn't better). But whatever 'smarts' he gains will be offset by the physical decline. Doesn't mean he won't have a lucky year, like Williams and Aaron did. But if he consistently attains unprecedented peaks of production after 35, I for one won't have any doubt about how he accomplished it.

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Aug 8, 2007 -> 11:19 PM) Bonds put up an OPS+ of 205 and 206 in 92 and 93 respectfully, and hit more than 30 homers in 10 of 11 seasons from 1990 to 2000. And he only walked 200+ times one year and walked 198 times another (so essentially 2 200 walk seasons). I really don't understand what his walks have to do with anything, because Bonds has always been the most patient hitter in the game. He drew 556 walks in 4 seasons from '95-'98; that's 140 walks a season. It's not like he randomly started hitting for huge power and drawing walks out of nowhere. And further, to suggest hitters don't get better with age is wrong. Hitters get worse when they break down, which has started happening with Barry, but if anything, hitters get better as they age. Pete Rose hit .331 as a 38 year old and .325 as a 40 year old, Tony Gwynn had arguably the best season of his career in 97 as a 37 year old and hit .332 from 99-01, and Hank Aaron had the highest OPS and OPS+ of his career as a 37 year old, and then went on to put up a 1.045 and a .301 average with 40 homers as a 39 year old. So quite frankly, it's very possible ARod could do that and still be perfectly clean. Then you're naive. Hank Aaron's 755 went for $750K and McGwire's 62nd went for $3.1 million. If you don't think the ball that broke the all time home run record is going to sell for atleast the $3.1 mill McGwire got, then I imagine you are lying to yourself. wite, that is the most absurd thing you've ever posted. And you don't even back it up. You cite a couple exceptions of players having good seasons in their twilights. Btw, you missed the big one, where Williams had a huge year at 38. ONE big year, with an ops+ of 233. Which is much closer to his career ops+ of 190 or so than Bonds' THREE years of 260+ ops+ were to his career ops+ of 180-something (which includes those years, not to mention the piddly 231 ops+ sandwiched in between). Just look at the best single-season ops+ ever -- why aren't there more than a handful of 35+ players from before the steroid era, since hitters get "better as they age"? Why has it been said for ages that players peak between 27 and 31 (depending on who you're listening to)? This is so ridiculous, I have to add -- if you're being sarcastic, kudos. O/w, this is borderline dishonest.

QUOTE(hammerhead johnson @ Aug 8, 2007 -> 06:52 PM) That's crazy. His ERA jumped from 2.55 to 4.20, and he already had 53 IP under his belt coming into today. Plus 70-some in the minors. They supposedly have him on an inning limit, but they throw him when they would have pulled anyone else? And Lincecum the other day, leaving him in to hit after he'd thrown 105 pitches already. Not that it compares to the Gallardo idiocy, but still, teams are going crazy with these young pitchers.

So, let me get this straight. You're mocking scientists because they haven't learned everything yet. Well alright then.