jackie hayes

QUOTE(Reddy @ Mar 1, 2007 -> 12:03 AM) i luuuv being the underdog Well, tradesports.com has us as the 5th most likely to win the WS (at last check -- and the Tigers were very close, so that could change soon), so if you want to believe that, you'd best not look at other sites.

QUOTE(Buehrle>Wood @ Feb 28, 2007 -> 07:11 PM) No one in the NL winning 90 games?? Noone in the majors winning more than 93 wins, either. It's probably just a function of having some regression-to-the-mean built into whatever model they're using. Some team will get much better than average performances, or a good deal of luck, but you can't now predict which one.

QUOTE(CanOfCorn @ Feb 28, 2007 -> 06:01 PM) Did that person give the predictions for the entire division? Yeah, Flash posted these here.

QUOTE(SoxFan1 @ Feb 27, 2007 -> 06:42 PM) Ok, we need 4 more people to join. Fattyguy78, jackie hayes, SoxFanForever, and joey nach. I'll sign up tonight or tomorrow, early. I can't think of any team name that I like... Btw, why draft so early?

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 27, 2007 -> 08:24 AM) Pods is hurt, who else would be starting? There could be a competition with any of those guys mentioned along with Anderson, with Perez, there could be a platoon. The interesting thing to me is that we haven't seen anything from Erstad yet, and he's already been given a starting job.

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Feb 26, 2007 -> 10:32 AM) No mention of Pods. I'm happy because of it. I'd assume he's handing LF to Erstad, and if Podsednik can get healthy in time, then it's a matter of who is playing better between Erstad and Anderson. I also assume Podsednik is going to land himself on the DL too, atleast for the greater portion of April. I'm not convinced he's handing lf to Erstad. Ozuna and Mackowiak won't be in the mix in cf, after all. (I pray.) And there's no mention of a competition between Erstad and Anderson. Anderson's competing with everyone else, Erstad's a sure thing.

From the Tribune : It's interesting to me because Erstad is already considered a starter, on par with Dye, while Anderson is just another guy looking for pt. At least Terrero is not listed.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 26, 2007 -> 09:53 AM) Just so I can find such things later... source? EDIT: Sorry, meant to be referring to Rock's quoted text. It's from Reifert's blog, linked above.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Feb 26, 2007 -> 09:48 AM) Why isnt anyone saying those things about Contreras? he pitched pretty bad as well. Its the first scrimmage, get over it. Never should've traded Loaiza for that bum. Kick him to the curb!

Frank and the munchkin

QUOTE(fathom @ Feb 26, 2007 -> 09:35 AM) I'd bet anyone right now that Floyd won't be in the rotation to open up the season. I keep hearing about Floyd working on this, working on that. I think they're sold on him, and they're trying to sell everyone else.

QUOTE(GreatScott82 @ Feb 26, 2007 -> 09:35 AM) I know its really early, but something tells me Floyd will not be our 5th starter after all. IMO its Haegar's job to lose and not Floyds. Hopefully that something was there before today. I think it's kind of funny how Floyd started, but it doesn't mean s***. I wouldn't put any money against Floyd starting in the rotation, and from what I've read I DEFINITELY wouldn't put any money on Haeger breaking camp as the fifth man.

QUOTE(GoSox05 @ Feb 26, 2007 -> 09:27 AM) i hope it wasnt gavin floyd he hit it off of. Nope. Floyd sprained his ankle in the first inning, after walking Sweeney and giving up an rbi double to PK. So all-in-all, a pretty good start.

QUOTE(GIOin08 @ Feb 26, 2007 -> 09:10 AM) 3 run bomb... 2-2... gotta love that He could mean that Josh is 2 for 2 at the plate.

QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Feb 25, 2007 -> 04:16 PM) When has chet posted in the fillibuster before? What was the point in bringing up aborting (regarless if it was sarcastic) in this thread? When minors posted here we had no idea if she was serious or not until the same rhetoric was posted over and over by her. That comment was very minors-like. I know he's posted in the "Dem only" thread before. I presume he posted it to show that there are hypocritical conservatives, too (in response to the op). It strikes me as an overreaction (I think the original post is just a funny story, not meant as any sort of political comment), but it definitely is not serious.

QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Feb 25, 2007 -> 04:47 PM) Am I the only one who thinks when Pods gets a hit and the Sox win it speaks more about the opposing pitcher not Pods' influence on the team itself? Shut your mouth!

The other interpretation of that number is that Pods doesn't get a hit unless the opposite pitcher's so bad we'll pummel him, anyway. If Pods is just really important, you'd expect that the runs he created would've often been the difference in those games in which he got a hit and we won. Suppose we subtract from the margin of victory all the runs Pods scored and all the runs he knocked in. This will overstate Podsednik's importance -- we're replacing those contributions with zeros, and it's not likely that a replacement would never score or knock in runs in those games. It turns out that only 6 of those 62 games turn to losses. So, Pods gets hits but doesn't score or knock anybody in, or scores a run or two in a blowout. I think we need to start talking long-term contract before this guy gets away.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Feb 25, 2007 -> 10:44 AM) There was no group guilt implied, you should recognize that. Chet made a comment that was so over-the-top ignorant (the comment not the poster) – that "passionate pro-lifers have never taken lives for their anti-abortion causes" – and a reasonable person could only assume that this was a sarcastic comment. No reply yet from Chet, however, so maybe the comment was made in earnest. If, so it is an entirely uninformed comment. Look at his other posts. It was CLEARLY sarcastic.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 25, 2007 -> 12:13 AM) It seems like they are equating religious with conservative. In that description, all my hours would be counted in the conservative group because I am also religious. I don't think so. They're more careful than that. Iirc, it involves survey data where people self-identify as conservative or liberal. It happens that conservatism and religious-ness are correlated, which probably leads to the quote. This comes from a non-believer, so don't infer any value judgements.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Feb 24, 2007 -> 05:07 PM) Right now the only video available to watch is streaming at either 350K or 400K, when my internet connection is running strong and fast the picture looks pretty damn good with no buffering and a consistently good picture. When my connection slows or I'm on a slow network connection I get a lot of buffering and the picture tends to pixelate a bit. I don't know about the 700K yet because there really isn't any video that's streaming at that rate right now but if you're planning on watching the regular MLB.tv stream of 350K on a slow connection your likely going to run into a good amount of buffering and pixelation but still a watchable picture. Okay, great. Why I'm asking is that I know the 350k stream works pretty well (at least, if that's the same speed as last year -- I got it for the last month of 2006, and it's a little fuzzy when I put it on the tv, but good enough for my purposes). I'm worried that 700k might give me a lot of buffering on my home connection, which would annoy the hell out of me. But if I can choose to just go with the 350k/400k connection there, no problem. Thanks a lot for the info.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Feb 24, 2007 -> 04:07 PM) Not with any kind of consistent picture quality. Also according to ESPN.com the first White Sox Spring Training game on February 28th will be aired on MLB.tv which is outstanding news. Do you mean that the regular MLB.tv picture is inconsistent, or that 'downshifting' hurts the picture? I know the regular MLB.tv quality isn't perfect, but in one of the two places I'll watch, it's probably the best I can expect to stream.

Riddle me this: If you buy MLB.tv premium, can you use the regular MLB.tv stream if the connection somewhere is too slow?

I actually hope the three of you are kidding.

My first response was, Yum... Then I read, "One expert said calamari rings made from it would be like tractor tyres." Now it sounds less appetizing.

QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Feb 22, 2007 -> 09:47 AM) When did Brandon McCarthy become "a proven commodity" as I saw him referred to by the Texas GM and the writer of the article in yesterday's Sun-Times? He's a 22 year old kid who had 2 stretches as a starter (1 really good, 1 really bad) in 2005, and was mediocre in long relief in 2006. He's less of a gamble than Danks and Masset I guess, but it's not like Texas is getting Cy bleeping Young (sorry, I had to). He's proven in the sense that he's had a good deal of time in the majors and hasn't wetted the bed. Unlike Gavin Floyd, say, who's done nothing but. What they're saying is that he may have a good year or a bad year, but he's not going to turn out to be an 8 era guy if he remains healthy. There's a difference between "proven" and "surefire ace". Esteban Loaiza is "proven", even though he's obviously not CfY.