Balta1701

QUOTE(aboz56 @ Jun 7, 2005 -> 04:03 PM) Dell is great, until you need help if you have a problem. Hopefully you or someone you know can take care of a computer problem, should you ever have one. I've had my Inspiron 5000 since I graduated from HS back in 2000, recently put some more RAM in it and still use it to surf the net. Only problem I had was about a year ago had to get a new hard drive because I had a failed boot sector. I've found them to be quite helpful even when I have had a problem...although my system is still under warranty.

October 25, 2005. Newbie.

QUOTE(robin_ventura_eternal @ Jun 7, 2005 -> 02:45 PM) nah, he wont play frank, cause franks ankle is still shaky and the rockies blow a fat dick this year. and if its true that frank isnt concerned about PT, and i assume it is, i dont see why he wont sit. you just got to remember that the rockies are the worst team in the league this year, even worse than the royals. frank is in good shape, i could tell from the games the other day he played in, he just cant play the feild yet cause that lateral movement might f*** him up again. ozzie'l wait til the next series, my money says. I hope to God that Ozzie doesn't play Frank at 1b all season. The last thing we need is our DH getting hurt again because he's playing the field when he shouldn't be.

QUOTE(nitetrain8601 @ Jun 7, 2005 -> 02:41 PM) This is what I've always thought, but I've thought it's better if you mix and match everyday instead of getting mass substitutions in there. Well, let's think about it...which one would give you the chance to win more games...playing more of your subs on 1 day or spreading them out. I would guess spreading them out would stand to cost you more...simply because any time you take a starter out of the game, you're taking a decently large step down in quality. If you take several starters out at once...you hurt yourself for 1 game, and you free yourself to keep your best lineup in there all of the rest of the days.

QUOTE(robin_ventura_eternal @ Jun 7, 2005 -> 02:24 PM) HEY, whats wrong with Timo??! Did he not win that game in the 9th against the LAAA (LA angels of anaheim, haha, what a gay name) just a few games ago?? Be fortunate for Timo, he's a great utility player, don't take him for granted. I remember another game at the beginning of the season that he won with a clutch pinch hit earlier in the season, too. Timo's better than other team's utility players by far, I think. I can't even name another team's utility player (then again i'm extremely biased to the sox). Except chone figgins playing right feild against us in the cell and he dropped a fly ball that eventually cost them the victory. name a better utility man. To be a "Utility" player, don't you have to be able to play some position other than the outfield without causing your team to lose the game? Juan Uribe is a better Utility player. Pablo Ozuna is a better utility player.

QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ Jun 7, 2005 -> 01:33 PM) I'd buy that argument at 13, but not 17. If you're 17 and you rob a place, kill a person, rape a person, stab a person you can't use the I was young and dumb excuse. You are treated as an adult. So why should the young and dumb excuse fly here. Why is a 17 yr old in this case not expected to be responsible for their actions, but a 17 yr old that robs a store is. This poor panicky girl had no problem doing the deed and I'm quite sure she knew the possible consequences. I'll strongly disagree that they understood the consequences. Do you think that the kids would have done it if they knew that 1 of them would face life in prison? Secondly...just because some states think that if you're 17 and do any of those things you should be tried as an adult doesn't mean that its the right thing. There are very high percentages of youths who genuinely aren't in a position to make sound judgements at that age. That's why most every other country in the world sets the bar at the age of 18 for allowing children to be treated as an adult by the legal system, and that's why I think it should be set that way in this country. Whether or not that's the case in this situation (they weren't prepared to make a decision), I don't have a clue. These people could have been the wisest, most mature 17 year olds in the country for all I know. But then again...if they're 17, pregnant, and don't really have any plans for what to do, do you really think they're emotionally developed to the point of making sound, rational, adult decisions? Do you think that kids who get pregnant at the age of 17 are the sorts who really stop to consider all the consequences of their actions? Doesn't the fact that she got pregnant in the first place argue that her ability to make sound decisions isn't fully developed yet?

Here's an update on the laws in Texas that could have played a role in this mess.

QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ Jun 7, 2005 -> 12:39 PM) She decided sometime after the 4th month she didn't want it so she beat her stomach and her boyfriend jumped on it...and you blame it on a notification law instead of the two persons involved. Do you think I'm admiring them? Not at all. I think that they need some serious help. I was not trying to blame the law, only to note that it could have been important. Remember, these are still teenage kids. Every other country other than the U.S. and Somalia has signed onto a treaty saying that children under the age of 18 need to be dealt with differently by countries' legal systems because in many (not all) cases, they don't have the judgement to understand how insane what they're doing really is. These kids were clearly wrong. Of course. No one in their right mind would say otherwise. But when you put enough different ideas in the minds of a person who hasn't fully developed the ability for rational decision making, these sorts of things are the net result. Clearly, if there was a parental notification law, it's not the only factor, but I would say you shouldn't discount it as being a possible factor. (By the way...in general I'm in favor of those laws as long as they're teamed with education). I would hope that both of those teenagers received an enormous amount of counseling and treatment after what happened here. I don't think that it deserves life in prison for 1 of them.

QUOTE(kyyle23 @ Jun 7, 2005 -> 11:47 AM) i think one of the ESPN broadcasts brought that stat up. I wouldnt even know where to find a stat like that. I'll have your stats and eat them too... Back in the early part of the year, ESPN took a look at a few of these categories in their "Hot stove heaters" feature. Some of the things they looked at were most pitches per at bat, fewest strikes taken as called strikes, etc. Uribe appears on none of them. So he's somewhere lost in the pack. A.J. and Dye get their names on a couple of the lists, if you're interested.

QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Jun 7, 2005 -> 11:31 AM) I'm appalled at all the HSers being drafted. It's killling the game. These kids are years away from contributing. They really should make an age limit. Did this just turn into an NBA Thread? Isn't that why we have the minor leagues? So that even if people do draft high schoolers...and they're years away from contributing...teams have plenty of time to work with them?

QUOTE(DABearSoX @ Jun 7, 2005 -> 11:31 AM) Havent herd that before.....seriosuly Uribe needs to slow the f*** down and look at a few pitches Why is it that with Crede and Uribe it always seems that when they take the first pitch, it's a strike, but when they swing at it, it ends up being outside the strike zone?

QUOTE(BobDylan @ Jun 7, 2005 -> 11:15 AM) He did it because BMac was out there. Plain and simple. Any of the other four pitchers wouldn't have had the same treatment. Maybe he did it a little because he knows how big the Cubs series is for the fans?

The Led Zeppelin Shark tale. Probably not good reading if you're at work.

QUOTE(GreatScott82 @ Jun 7, 2005 -> 10:50 AM) The Anahiem Angels desperatly want a DH, and their owners are not afraid of spending money. Why in the world would we help out a team that we may very well face in round 1 of the playoffs? Why in the world would we want Frank playing on a playoff team against us? If anything, I could see sending Everett to someone in the NL who needs a bat in the outfield and is willing to sacrifice some defense. I could see Atlanta fitting that mold (Carl...your job is to get out of Andruw's way). I sure as hell don't want Frank coming back to hit against us in the playoffs. Not in the least.

Let's just remember one of the biggest reasons why Ozzie is the manager in the first place...the "2 out of 3 ain't bad" mentality in September 2003 against the Yankees. After an off day...we had Mark Buehrle on 4 days rest and ready to go, and instead, we pitched a Rookie in Yankee Stadium after winning 2 games. The rookie got shelled. I still think our stumble out of the pennant race started with that game. I can't complain about saving people and getting the subs some time this early in the season. Hell, I wouldn't complain if we put El Duque back on the DL for another 15 games here at the end of June just so he gets some extra rest. But when August and September hit...there can be NO more screwing around. Our toughest stretch of the season will hit in August...Yankees, Bosox, Twins, Yankees, Twins over 15 games. After that...it hits September and the sprint to the finish. Those series are the ones that you save people for, and that's the time you give it everything you have. Right now...sure, give people some bench time. But if we get a chance to sweep one of those series, and Ozzie plays the bench....that's when we should mutiny.

QUOTE(AddisonStSox @ Jun 7, 2005 -> 09:14 AM) If Contreras doesn't fall in love with his splitter, we should slug this one out. I'm thinking W. EDIT: Damnit, I just realized we are back to 19 games over .500. Let's finally get to 20 boys, c'mon! Last night it seemed like the Rockies were swinging at anything. I'm hoping they keep that up tonight. With as much as that splitter moves around...if they're swinging at it, they're in deep trouble.

Somehow...this makes me think of Led Zeppelin...

If he's fully healthy, I'll still stick with the big man, even at his age. He is still most likely the strongest hitter on our team, he has spent his career hitting the ball to every field, he knows when to take a pitch the other way, and he has maybe the most discerning eye in baseball over the last 15 years. If he's not fully healthy though, his production seems to decline rapidly. We'll see within a few weeks whether or not that's the case. Excluding Thomas, I'd say its a toss up between Iguchi and Rowand. Both of them, when they're locked in, can do everything I said about Thomas except for take the walks. They spray the ball to all fields, hit doubles, hit solid line drives, shoot the ball into gaps, and hit for power. On the other hand, both of them seem to have times when they really struggle; See Iguchi last night or Rowand to start the year. Both Tad and Rowand have a shot to end this season hitting .320 or better, and I think they both will, unless Tad can't get out of this funk he's been in lately where his average has tumbled.

Does Texas have a "Parental notification law" for abortions for those under 18? I'll bet you based on this case that they do, and I'll bet you this is one of the end results. I don't think life in prison is a good option at all, but there definately needs to be an incredibly long period of counseling for both of them. I'd say institutionalization would be a better recourse for both them and society. Might give them a chance someday.

QUOTE(southsider17 @ Jun 7, 2005 -> 10:14 AM) Funny that you should mention that. I was watching the replay of his HR against the Toons and I noticed that when he was completing his follow thru, he still seemed to have his rear foot planted on the ground which is not usually the case, especially after he just tee'd off on one. That would indicate (to me) that he's still forced to hold back a bit to compensate for any discomfort in his healing ankle. I think he'll be very up an down for awhile unless he get's to play full time. And even then it will take some time for him to get his "groove" back. That swing on Sunday was a very wierd swing solely because it was one hell of a difficult pitch to get to. It was inside and he couldn't get extended on it at all. He had to hold his weight back in order to put a decent swing on the ball, and the ball simply jumped because of his arm strength. I've seen Frank do that same swing for home runs a few dozen times in his career. That's how he looks when he drives an inside pitch out to left. As far as I've been able to tell, his swing looks pretty normal to me. I don't have as many cameras on it as the hitting coaches do, but he looked a lot like the old Frank.

To the people out there who are saying Scott Skiles isn't that good of a coach...I ask you...who were the top 3 defensive teams in the NBA Last year? Give up? 1. Detroit 2. Chicago 3. San Antonio. Skiles helped those guys to a monster year, and put them in a position to really make noise if healthy. Make no mistake...he has earned the right to keep coaching that team, and he earned whatever he asked for last year. I hope John Paxson can find a quality replacement, but no matter what, we'll be losing a coach who took a bunch of rookies and made them the #2 defense in the league. I put this one in the exact same spot I put the blame for the summer of 98: Jerry Reinsdorf. He's the one writing the checks. He's the one who has the final say. He's the only one who would have any sort of veto over Pax. He's the one who drove our last quality coach out of town with his 1 year contract extensions and personality conflicts. And just because I don't like him at all...he also was instrumental in blowing the White Sox best chance at a world series in my lifetime in 94.

QUOTE(robinventura23 @ Jun 6, 2005 -> 09:04 PM) FREDDY: FLAT OUT AWESOME!!! This may be the perfect series for Sox' bats to wake up. Uribe really looked liked he was coming around. If our hitting and pitching are in sync, we can get on a big roll. If playing in Coors field isn't enough to wake up some batters, I don't know what is. Somehow, I'm imagining the Sox finishing like 5th in the AL in batting average...but then having someone on Sportscenter point out that if you exclude the series at Coors field, the Sox were 9th or 10th.

The key to that entire piece hangs on 1 point, which is totally buried in there and presented without evidence. I would like to point it out and discuss it, since it is really the entire point of that post. QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Jun 6, 2005 -> 09:06 PM) Conflict between the two approaches exist when you try to define the process of natural selection in terms of mathematics. In theory every process can be defined in terms of a system of mathematics. However when doing this the process of natural selection does not fit well with probability theory rooted in genetics. The consensus then is that natural selection may not be the predominant factor governing creation. I'm ignoring the stupid "Because humanity can engineer biology, clearly biology entirely was designed" stuff. Right there is the key point above - he is claiming that design must be top down, because natural selection does not fit well with probability theory. However...this to me makes absolutely no sense, because evolution via natural selection is in itself entirely a function of probability. How does natural selection work? It happens when there are changes in the genetic makeup of a group of life forms due to a differential die-off/differential reproductive rate. When a mutation arises in a species, it first arises because there is a finite probability of a creature's reproductive system making some sort of mistake. In fact, many species have functions that drive mutations so as to encourage diversity. But altogether, it is a function of probability. Then, any mutation that arises is either going to produce a small advantage or disadvantage in reproduction. Over time...this small advantage gives groups with that advantage a greater probability of surviving, and that trait can become dominant. This process is entirely based in probability. In fact, it is easy to apply probability theory to explain when you would expect it to happen; if we reduce the total number of individuals in a group, it becomes far more likely that the trait can become dominant in that group, leading to speciation (read: Punctuated equilibrium). I would argue therefore that evolution based on natural selection is a highly probabilistic function. Our friend has argued that it is not. He has not given any citation or logical reasoning to back this up. I hope that will change with time, because otherwise there can be no debate here. p.s. Amongst whom will you find the consensus that you refer to above?

Well...Shingo took on Coors field and Todd Helton and didn't explode. Maybe that's a small good sign? (I hope). Good work Freddie & Shingo getting the rest of the pen a day off.

QUOTE(fathom @ Jun 6, 2005 -> 08:31 PM) For anyone wanting Greg Walker to be fired, I give you this tidbit: Hawk was saying the more he's around Walker, the more he sees how "solid" he is. Since we know Hawk is basically the voice of the Sox front office, it's safe to say Walker's not going anywhere. That's exactly what people speaking for an organization say when a guy is about to be replaced. "We have total confidence in our manager" etc.