RockRaines

QUOTE(Steff @ Apr 13, 2006 -> 11:14 AM) I'm very scared if (when) we hit a slump. This place is going to explode. We are slumping, as a team I believe we are hitting under 200.

In some of the teachings Hubbard had intended only for this select group, he claimed that Jesus had never existed, but was implanted in humanity's collective memory by Xenu 75 million years ago, and that Christianity was an "entheta [evil] operation" mounted by beings called Targs (Hubbard, "Electropsychometric Scouting: Battle of the Universes", April 1952). Some critics have claimed that one of the highest levels, OT VIII, tells initiates that Jesus was a pederast (it is decidedly unclear whether the version of OT VIII in the Fishman Affidavit, where this claim originates, is genuine). Thus, critics claim, Hubbard makes clear his belief that advanced Scientologists are to identify Jesus and Christianity more as a force of evil than as a force for good.

Silent Birth and Infant Care Based on Hubbard's writings, Scientologists believe that mothers should keep as silent as possible during birth. This stems from the belief that birth is a trauma that may induce imbalance onto the baby, who may also absorb his mother's trauma. Hubbard also wrote that for the first 24 hours after birth, infants should not be touched, cleaned or spoken to, and that mothers should refrain from speaking in the presence of their babies for the first week after birth. He further claimed that babies should not be breastfed, advocating instead a diet of barley extract supplemented with corn syrup or honey. [citation needed] It should be noted that honey given to infants under 18 months can be lethal due to the traces of botulinum spores in honey.

"Scientology is a new religious movement based on a system of beliefs, teachings, practices, and rituals that was originated as a philosophy in 1952 by science fiction author L. Ron Hubbard. It is characterized by the Church of Scientology in 1953 as an "applied religious philosophy". Hubbard defined Scientology as "knowing how to know" [2], although he first introduced it with the words, "Scientology would be a study of knowledge."[1]

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Apr 13, 2006 -> 10:50 AM) The good news for the kid is this...after Tom Cruise dies in a tragic battle against a lamppost he mistakes for Xenu, the kid will have enough money to afford all the therapy he or she ever needs. The thing that I dont get is, how can these people seriously follow this "faith" seriously. I mean, its just about the same as following the Lord of the Rings books as a faith, or Star Trek. A guy wrote a book not too long ago, and you are basing your life direction off of that whacko? Come on people.

QUOTE(chitownsportsfan @ Apr 13, 2006 -> 10:31 AM) I don't think this is a case of "I don't know what I'm talking about". I think it's a case that you're reading my conclusion totally wrong--it WAS NOT that BMAC is not a strikeout pitcher. It was a relative conclusion: relative to Papelbon, BMAC relies more on finesse to get hitters out. Ok, so your conclusion is that you arent wrong, you posted stats that support my opinion, and BMAC has historically struck out more batters than Papelbon, in all levels of the minors. Yet BMAC is less reliant on the strikeout than Papelbon. I dont understand how more strikeouts=more of a finesse pitcher. To each his own I guess. Maybe the term you were looking for is that Papelbon is more of a power pitcher because he has more MPH on his fastball, but BMAC has much better offspeed pitches, his plus curve and plus changeup strike out more batters per 9 innings.

Jesus, great hiding spot.

QUOTE(chitownsportsfan @ Apr 13, 2006 -> 09:47 AM) More finesee doesn't necassarily equal he's not a strikout pitcher. I meant that he's not as reliant on the K as Papelbon, which I should have made more clear. I agree though that BMAC certainly has the ability to strike guys out. I was thinking about that 2004 stat when I wrote the post--I should have mentioned that so far he's been hitting basts more often in the majors--which is expected with a move up the ladder. Here's a question: Verlander or BMAC? I don't think there is a wrong answer at this point. I dont think you know what you are talking about here. BMAC has consistently struck out more people than Papelbon. He was the most prolific strikeout pitcher in the minor leagues a couple of seasons ago. As far as "hitting basts" im not sure what you mean there, but BMAC already this year is showing that he is going to strikeout batters at a high rate as he has 6IP and 4 k's and only 3 hits.

I workout. It always makes me feel better.

QUOTE(chitownsportsfan @ Apr 13, 2006 -> 09:10 AM) Yea, the ironic thing is that BMAC is 2/1/2 years younger than Papelbon, posted better numbers in everything except ERA and K/9 last year (WHIP, BB/9 K/BB) and yet gets drastically less hype. Somehow Papelbon managed an ERA+ of 166 with a WHIP of 1.471. Granted he's a strikeout pitcher )which makes his WHIP less important) whereas BMAC is more finesee. Whoa whoa whoa, since when is BMAC not a strikeout pitcher? He has always been a strikeout pitcher in the minors racking up 536 k's, he also led the Arizona and Pioneer leagues in strikeouts in his first two seasons, then led all of Minor League Baseball with 202 Ks in 2004. His k/9 in the majors last year was 6.45. I dont understand how that translates in your head to him being a finesse pitcher.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Apr 13, 2006 -> 08:29 AM) I think it's safe to say that thought never even crossed his mind. I agree. I wouldnt mind having Viz back though. He looked nasty last night.

QUOTE(kyyle23 @ Apr 13, 2006 -> 07:17 AM) So, put off the bond with your baby for a week before its born. Nice. I wonder how the baby feels when all the sudden mom goes silent for a week. The strongest bond between parent and child is solidified right after birth. I guess they can just forget that s***. Does anyone realize this isnt the slightest more crazy than Trekkies who raise their kids speaking Klingon and whatnot. This s*** is wacked.

JimH is probably the best person to ask about different cities.

QUOTE(nitetrain8601 @ Apr 13, 2006 -> 06:38 AM) The white alternate cut-offs are my favorites. I believe thats Buehrle and Contreras's favorite. Mark also seems partial to the home pinstripe.

QUOTE(SoxPhan7 @ Apr 13, 2006 -> 07:23 AM) The girl friend wont let me buy it. Ya think you can post a recap and perhaps the funny stuff?

The best part is, if the girls actually got into it, im sure most of the men would have solved their differences while waiting for a possible piece of clothing to be torn off during the brawl. Plus theres always a chance they could kiss.......

QUOTE(lukeman89 @ Apr 12, 2006 -> 10:01 PM) #1 - Buehrle & Contreras #2 - Freddy & Garland #3 - Vasquez & Mac #4 - Blackjack & Wilson Alvarez ... ... #388 Sirotka & Parque #389 Prior & Wood Sirotka and Parque at their prime definaltey were better than Prior and wood. Adjusted for the Al of course.

QUOTE(greg775 @ Apr 12, 2006 -> 10:27 PM) Anderson still isn't hitting. Has he looked any better at the plate at least? I haven't seen the last couple days since his lousy at bats versus KC. He has looked brutal, striking out alot. Missing on alot of low and outside pitches.

I just watched Vizcaino against the Rockies tonight, he was filthy, I never thought i'd say this, but I kinda would like him in our pen this year. Oh well, Vazquez is paying off too.

QUOTE(hammerhead johnson @ Apr 12, 2006 -> 05:38 PM) But the runs that you gave up in that inning as a result of a horses*** play by Scotty Pods? Point: ERA is mad misleading, WHIP tells me the truth If its an error, the runs will be unearned, therefore ERA would still show the pitcher's true statistics.

QUOTE(hammerhead johnson @ Apr 12, 2006 -> 05:18 PM) Hmmm, sounds about right. Yeah, meaning that those pitchers are dominant at home, so the stadium appears to be a pitchers park in that sense. Because if you go by your "parks make the player" theory, you would have to go by more than just home/away stats, you would have to examine each stadium and their corresponding stats in each stadium. Doug Davis's worst stadiums 2005: Rogers Centre 37.80 Shea Stadium 14.73 Busch stadium: 9.0 Minute Maid 5.25 citizens Bank 6.75 RFK 6.0 Those mostly are pitching parks. So I wonder if his ERA is just not great on the road in general, because he would rather pitch at home. Career-wise, some of his worst stadiums are "pitchers parks." And some of his best are hitters parks. Chris Capuano has the same mixed statistics. As far as your love fest with WHIP. There are several flaws in using WHIP over ERA to find a pitcher's worth. WHIP considers all walks and hits allowed. Period. ERA considers only the runs allowed that the opponent earned—that is, runs that would not have scored if not for an error. The focus of each statistic, therefore, is different. For instance, consider Pitcher X, who loads the bases on three consecutive errors by his fielders. He then proceeds to surrender two hits and two walks before completing the inning after allowing five runs. Since he should have completed the inning after the first three hitters, his ERA is 0.00. His WHIP, in contrast, is 4.00. You also see the trade off when you can watch a strike out pitcher vs someone like Jon Garland. Jon is going to trade off less walks because he strikes out players less. Therefor he relies more on ground outs and contact while lower his WHIP. Other pitchers who strike out batters at a higher rate may miss the strike zone once an inning and walk a batter, only to rack up a strikeout the next person up to bat. Which pitcher is more valuable? Both would have an ERA of 0, but one would have a higher WHIP. Does that make the strikeout pitcher less skilled? not IMO. I think they are both valuable, but there is not as much correlation as you may think. And IMO ERA is the most valuable statistic because it focuses truly more on the pitchers skill and worth.

Gio pitched 5 innings giving up no runs, striking out 7 and 2 walks. No decision.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/parkfactor?season=2004 there is a link to the page. Also Miller Park apparently is one of the hardest stadiums to get a hit in, which definatley could point to the pitchers being more dominant at home.

QUOTE(hammerhead johnson @ Apr 12, 2006 -> 03:21 PM) Okay, without even looking at PF numbers (which can be a mindf*** from year to year in some cases), I'd say that these are the 12 best pitching parks in baseball, in no particular order: New York (Mets) 21st Washington 29th Florida 26th Milwaukee 16th Pittsburgh 11th Chicago (Cubs) 15th Los Angeles 25th San Francisco 20th San Diego 30th Oakland 7th Seattle 19th Detroit 22nd Who am I missing? Wrigley Field is a hitter's nightmare when the wind is blowing in, which is seemingly more often than not. And you know what? I should have brought up Danny Kolb when we were discussing Miller Park before. That dude is Exhibit A. Christ, how about Luis Vizcaino? Don't tell me that it's all Mike Maddux. Seriously, I just can't trust anyone on their pitching staff unless they kick ass elsewhere, like Sheets or Turnbow. There are your rankings as far as rank by Park Factor Pitchers parks are listed like this in ranking from slightly pitchers(1) advantage, to the best advantage for a pitcher.(15) 1. Miller 2. Tropicana 3. Kaufmann 4. Safeco 5. SBC 6. Shea 7. Comerica 8. Minute Maid 9. Angel 10. Dodger 11. Dolphins 12. Jacobs 13. Camden 14. RFK 15. Petco 2004: Turner Field (Turner Field ) 16 Shea Stadium (Shea Stadium ) 17 Angel Stadium (Angel Stadium ) 18 Jacobs Field (Jacobs Field ) 19 Busch Stadium (Busch Stadium ) 20 Comerica Park (Comerica Park ) 0 21 Yankee Stadium (Yankee Stadium ) 22 PNC Park (PNC Park ) 23 Tropicana Field / Tokyo Dome* (Tropicana Field ) 24 Kauffman Stadium (Kauffman Stadium ) 25 Dodger Stadium (Dodger Stadium ) 26 Olympic Stadium / Bithorn* (Olympic Stadium ) 27 Dolphins Stadium (Dolphins Stadium ) 28 Great American (Great American ) 0 29 PETCO Park (PETCO Park ) 30 Safeco Field (Safeco Field)

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Apr 12, 2006 -> 02:02 PM) This is a guy you have to be patient with. He is a rook that can get wild at times. You have to make him throw strikes and elevate his pitch count. He is also someone that you need to look oppo on because his high 90s heat is something hard to get around on. Konerko should do well as this guy will challenge our hitters with a good fastball. The benefit of this is we will face a similiar type arm in AJ Burnett this weekend. So this will help us get ready for that. The good thing is that this team hits fastballs like its their job. They have problems when they run into junkballers like Byrd etc./