NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Nov 30, 2007 -> 12:04 PM) I guess I should have left a category open for those without a spine too... Yeah, I think that's going to be one of the two major problems for Romney - flip-flopping, kind of like John Kerry in '04. I wonder if that's a Massachusetts thing. The other is the one no one wants to go after in the open, but will still be an issue for a lot of people - his religion.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Nov 30, 2007 -> 11:55 AM) I'm not doing any of that, I'm just saying that a guy with a reputation for being a terrible high pressure pitcher can find success in high pressure situations on a contending team during the stretch run of a season. And as I showed, even when he was at his best in 2006, his numbers in those situations were worse than they were otherwise. And I wouldn't go so far as "terrible". I think "weak" is a better word.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Nov 30, 2007 -> 11:51 AM) Ugh. Its pretty depressing to see the polls pretty much inverse to who I like. We are either going to end up with a guy who is too far to the right, or a guy who is a scumbag. Blech. You think Romney is too far to the right? Or is he the scumbag?

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Nov 30, 2007 -> 11:30 AM) He gave up 1 XBH in those high pressure situations, it was a double. You want to evaluate him on that stretch of 2006, and ignore 2005 and 2007, go right ahead. Its not like he's Fields or Owens where a partial year is all we have to go on - he's been around awhile now. I think his numbers, as well as his comments in the media, and from watching him myself, that he's too fragile to be reliable as a setup guy. I hope he's not in the pen in 2008.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Nov 30, 2007 -> 11:11 AM) I didn't say anything about 2005 or 2007 just 2006. How did he do in high pressure situations during the stretch run of '06 and just '06? I think for relievers, who are streaky by nature and don't put in a lot of innings, its hard to justify just looking at part of a year. But 2006 in total... None on: .180/.206 Leading off an inning: .120/.154 Runners on: .244/.319 Scoring Pos: .207/.303 Close and Late: .222/.273 Overall very good numbers, but again, even at his best, he becomes less dominant with the pressure on.

By the way, back on Riske (sorry for the MacDougal hijack), he actually does a little better in those scenarios. Here are his 3 year splits in those same stats... Low pressure... None on: .236/.286 Leading off an inning: .255/.294 High pressure... Runners on: .216/.297 Scoring position: .214/.319 And Linebrink? Low pressure... None on: .251/.307 Leading off an inning: .213/.278 High pressure... Runners on: .214/.280 Scoring position: .214/.312 He seems to do better with runners on than not. And a final fun comparison between Riske and Linebrink: Close and Late, 3 years... Riske: .267/.324 Linebrink: .229/.291 So, I think there is at least some merit to the idea that Linebrink might be better than Riske in high pressure situations.

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Nov 30, 2007 -> 10:40 AM) OK, maybe only a half billion are evil then. (half green, if it were available!) Even if its 10%, that's still 100 million, and I'd agree that's a scary number. I am not dismissing that there is a significant, and growing, extremist minority using Islam as a banner for their own hatred. I just bristle when ANY religion is labeled en masse as being evil.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Nov 30, 2007 -> 10:36 AM) Except in 2006 when he was dominant in a setup role with the contending White Sox. Not so much, no. I put these stats in a thread a few weeks ago, and they bear repeating... Splits from 3 years, 2005-2007 for average against/OBP against... Low pressure... None on: .227/.297 Leading off an inning: .243/.317 None on with outs: .211/.277 High pressure... Runners on: .287/.377 Scoring Pos: .293/.401 See a trend? You can look at other pitchers in the current Sox pen (like Thornton for example, who I was citing previously as a comparison), and they don't have that kind of differential. He doesn't do well under pressure. But really, this isn't the point I was making. I was responding 406's post that labeled everyone who disagrees with him as armchair psychologists. Some of us look at the actual results when making these assessments.

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Nov 30, 2007 -> 10:21 AM) Santo, you forget that we have certified psychologists on this board who can tell who is "choking", who caves under pressure etc etc. I always seem to forget that too... Some of us used these things called "statistics", showing how certain pitchers did better or worse in certain high-pressure "situations" on the field. Not all of us who point out that certain pitchers don't do well under pressure are just pulling that out of our asses. MacDougal, for example, does poorly in those situations. Its not just a hunch or something.

Meanwhile, all the parents of these kids are all quoted saying they aren't upset about it. Again, Nuke, I know its real easy for you to label an entire religion of a billion people as evil, but its just not reality.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Nov 30, 2007 -> 09:25 AM) Glad to see Thompson with a little bit of a bounce. Also has Guiliani just given up on Iowa? He is getting killed there. It really makes NH very important for him. Last five NH polls... Romney:___34_33_34_36_34 Giuliani:____16_16_20_22_15 McCain:____16_18_13_11_15 Huckabee:__6__5__7__13_14 Paul:______8__8__8__2__8 Thompson:_5__4__2__3__3 So Giuliani isn't exactly doing great in NH either. Huckabee making a run there and is basically even with McCain and Giuliani. But Romney is dominating. Thompson is a non-factor at this point. I think the GOP polls over the next week will be very telling. The GOP debate, for all the bluster and controversy here, was the most watched primary debate in history they are saying. It was the first chance to really see Huckabee for a lot of America, and the chance for Romney and Giuliani to duke it out for pole position. It will be interesting to see what people thought of them after those debates, in IA and NH particularly.

New ARG poll for Iowa shows Romney and Huckabee pretty much deadlocked. Results, with change from previous ARG in parens... Romney: 28% (+2) Huckabee: 27% (+3) Thompson: 14% (+3) McCain: 9% (-1) Giuliani: 9% (-2) Paul: 3% (even) Romney and Huckabee dominating, Giuliani now down in single digits and tied for 4th. ETA: Interesting that Giuliani and McCain were both well into the 20's about 6 months ago in Iowa. Huckabee was at 2% at that time, Romney 16%.

Yet another poll showing Obama leading Iowa. Results, with change from their last poll in parens: Obama: 27% (+6) Clinton: 25% (-2) Edwards: 23% (+3) Biden: 8% (+3) Richardson: 4% (-8) So after Clinton or Edwards leading in virtually every poll since last year, the last 5 polls have been: Clinton +2 Obama +4 Tie Clinton +2 Obama +2 Obama now averaging a lead in those 5 polls. Also interesting, Biden moves into 4th for the first time.

Congress is on the verge of passing a bill to raise CAFE standards to 35 mpg fleet-wide by 2020. There are two loopholes - large "work" trucks like F150's and the like are exempt, and also, auto companies will get some sort of credit against the fleet-wide average if they have flex fuel vehicles. The flex fuel thing isn't really helpful, since corn ethanol is not really a long term solution. But otherwise, sounds like a nice piece of progress. Hopefully Bush signs it.

Looking at the questions asked of the Dems, there were some conservative sounding questions there too. So really, the only difference here is that the tough question was asked by someone who works for a Clinton-related organization, right? Look, I've been as critical of Clinton as anyone here, but my response is still... so what? I could care less if one of those questions asked of the Dems that was uncomfortable was asked by someone related to a GOP campaign. It makes no difference.

QUOTE(fathom @ Nov 29, 2007 -> 08:01 PM) Real quick opinion, not like anyone cares. David Riske is a reliever who doesn't handle tough outs well. His stuff has deteriorated over the last few years, and I have no problem with them not tendering him last season. Sounds like a description of MacDougal to me - the tough outs part.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Nov 29, 2007 -> 06:58 PM) My first question would be did they have known hardcore conservatives ask Dem's on controversial issues to make them look bad? I would love to see the questions for the Dems include those asked by conservatives, liberals and independents. I didn't see the Dem YouTube debate though, so I don't know if that is what happened.

QUOTE(CanOfCorn @ Nov 29, 2007 -> 07:09 PM) Plus defense, ok. 2 good years...ok. But, still, not for more than $10 mil/year. I think he's worth 10 or 12 a year. 15 would be too much. This all based on the current market, mind you.

QUOTE(TheBigHurt @ Nov 29, 2007 -> 06:53 PM) My heart just sank. If we end up with Owens playing center I might officially denounce KW. I'm pretty sure you've already done that.

QUOTE(CanOfCorn @ Nov 29, 2007 -> 06:53 PM) Yep...Rowand would be great for the Sox...but not for over $10 mil a year. Sorry A-Row, but hustle and one awesome year at the plate doesn't make you an elite player. Well, you do have plus defense in there (not going to argue HOW plus it is), and he really has had 2 good years at the plate (2004, 2007). Just to clarify.

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Nov 29, 2007 -> 06:42 PM) It all goes towards credibility. If the questions are good, why sneak in people associated with the Democratic party or candidates in any way? If global warming is such a threat, why exagerate the facts to the point of absurdidty? If the war effort is really that bad, why make up stories of atrocities that never happened? It is like a great many on the liberal side of things have no faith in their facts or arguments and have to try and tweak them to the point that they are crying wolf, and noone will listen. Again, I think you're missing my real question here... What "sneak" occurred with this gay general that wasn't a "sneak" with the other questions? The answer is NONE. CNN put a guy on who would ask a question that would be tough to answer. That isn't sneaky - its good debate fodder. And using your parallels, who is exagerrating points about global warming to the point of absurdity? Surely someone is, but you seem to believe that its being done as a policy point by the Dems, which is 100% false. Are the Dems the same things as the idiots who wrote "The Day After Tomorrow" to you? If they are, then why don't I just go assuming that the GOP is best represented by Ann Coulter? This, to me, is the definition of manufactured outrage.

I think its really interesting that the same day we get a source on the board saying talks are underway (info from within the organization, we get this article on the Sox site.

QUOTE(joeynach @ Nov 29, 2007 -> 06:33 PM) Then what do we do with MacDougal? Trade him, hopefully.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Nov 29, 2007 -> 06:21 PM) My favorite obvious plant was the Gay General who they claim they didnt know who he was, even though he appeared on CNN a few years back on the Dont Ask Dont tell policy. These questions were a series of plants. The Clinton News Network had some fun. Either CNN's research department is stupid, or crooked. All of you conspiracy theorists that keep pointing at these questions and questioners as plants are making the assumption that CNN is somehow acting like they didn't know the general was gay or something. Or that the GOP pundit with a question wasn't a GOP pundit. I watched the entire debate, and they knew darn well who they all were. So what's the conspiracy? How is asking uncomfortable questions that put people in awkward positions making them crooked or stupid? The only thing I am seeing here that's at all dirty is an accusation that this gay general was a supposed Clinton "plant". How is he a "plant" if CNN asked him on there, knowing what he was? And why do people give a s*** if candidates are questioned in the debates by people not of a common viewpoint? To me, that is a very, very good thing, for a change.

QUOTE(iamshack @ Nov 29, 2007 -> 05:06 PM) Personally, I think he is a bit over-hyped. Looks like Jerry Owens with a little more developed stick to me... While people are (rightfully) questioning Owens' hitting ability, its sometimes forgotten that Owens isn't just fast - he is also a very good basestealer, especially for being so new to the league.