NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Sep 28, 2006 -> 01:02 PM) The hole with that last post is that the 0-3 outs might have been where they wanted him to go more innings, he just couldnt get anyone out. ^^^^^^^^^^^^ Big time polluting factor there. Not a good measure.

QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 28, 2006 -> 11:27 AM) A high profile guy completely overreacts to a simple, relevant question. So he was criticized a little, get over it. You don't think if CNN got Bush to overreact (and posit a conspiracy theory against him for christ sakes) they wouldn't be publicizing the hell out of it? You don't think CNN reporters are told to try and bait Bush into saying something stupid? Give me an f'n break... 1. Bush the the President. If he gets hot under the collar and shouts at a reporter, the whole world will know about it. 2. The MSM is left-leaning, and tries to show itself as unbiased. Fox News is unabashedly far right, and only half-ass tries to say otherwise. I'll take slightly left over far right for my news, thank you. That Fox graphic above says it all. CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS or PBS would never do something that atrociously biased in their news.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 28, 2006 -> 12:43 PM) I think for their purposes it would be good to inflate the number of fighters there, but to inflate the number of deaths can't be good for recruiting. Sure making it sound like there a bunch more people there fighting would help, but not more people dying IMO. Under most circumstances, I would agree. But these are not people looking just for the chance to beat up the U.S. They are also brainwashed by some crazy extremist cleric into thinking that this is an opportunity to take American lives and go to Eden after the fact. If you've ever seen some of the tapes the suicide bombers make... they believe hard. Death in this fashion is not seen as a negative - it is something to aspire to. I'm sticking with inflation.

Given the tone of the statement, I'd say its equally likely they actually INFLATED the number. Its a recruiting thing. Remember, the ones they are recruiting will be motivated by more deaths caused by Americans, and further, seeing these "martyrs" in action will only further embolden them.

I'll pipe up. While it is probably legally OK, it bothers the heck out of me. Is the city council that lacking in other, important things to address? And I agree that it is far too intrusive. The foie gras thing bothered me too, although in that case, I felt there was at least a more reasonable argument - that it was cruel in its production (and its just one food item). In this case, its definitely waaaaaaay too paternal.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 27, 2006 -> 04:28 PM) I'll still say that the biggest single difference this team could have made in the win column this season would have been to not play Rob Mackowiak in CF. His defense, to my eyes, cost us likely in the 5-10 win range this season, compared to where we would have been had we played Anderson 14/15 games or so. In the second half, when Brian remembered how to hit, I agreed we should have played him 95% instead of 66%. But this 5 to 10 game difference from ANY one position player defensively (since offensively, Mack was better than Anderson) is a huge stretch.

QUOTE(greasywheels121 @ Sep 27, 2006 -> 04:18 PM) You're looking too deep into this. Well, its less depressing than looking deeply into this team.

I dislike this promotion primarily because it butchers the use of the term "hometown". Almost none of these people are from, or in some cases even ever lived in, these towns. They are not "hometown heroes". They are just favorite players.

QUOTE(Mplssoxfan @ Sep 27, 2006 -> 03:58 PM) I could be reading your posts incorrectly, but it seems to me that you're confusing a right to privacy with basic Fourth Amendment rights. Our Fourth Amendment rights are not the same thing as a right to privacy. You mentioned that privacy was formed as a "penumbra", and you're correct. The argument ofer warrentless wiretaps is distinct from any argument over any right to privacy. Thanks for clarifying. That was the point I was trying to make.

QUOTE(AbeFroman @ Sep 27, 2006 -> 02:23 PM) If T.O. is going to speak himself, I can't imagine that he actually tried suicide. Anybody that had just attempted suicide would be counseled to be taken out of the spotlight for their own mental health. And TO is so good at taking advice. QUOTE(MHizzle85 @ Sep 27, 2006 -> 02:54 PM) Just ended, basically he said he didn't try and commit suicide and that it was just an allergic reaction to the pills. His publicist (who was with him at the time of the incident) backed the story up saying it was completely false and the only reason she called the cops is because he looked out of it...who knows what really happened. Sorry TO, but I'll take the word of the paramedic and the cop over you and your publicist. You may or may not have been serious about it, but... allergic reaction my a**.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 27, 2006 -> 12:21 PM) They may want to, but if a patient wants to leave, then there are a some situatinos where a hospital can't force he or she to stay. I don't know Texas law well enough to know if that's the case here. I do know that hospitals in at least some states can hold someone for a short period (usually something like 48 hours) against their will if they demonstrably represent grave harm to themselves or others.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Sep 27, 2006 -> 12:18 PM) If we did this, we would still need a lead off hitter, which would mean we would have to unload either Fields, Sweeney or Anderson or all to deal for a lead off man, because Crawford isnt it. What I would ultimately love to see is Crawford in LF in exchange for BMac... and throw Uribe, Pods and Fields out there for a good SP prospect for 2008 and a SS with good OBP and decent defense - he'd be the leadoff guy. That's in the ideal world. I don't know what teams are out there with that type of SS, and some good SP's in their system, who would make the deal for some combo of Pods/Uribe/Fields/Gload/prospect.

Circle Line, from today's Trib... http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/c...ll=chi-news-hed

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 27, 2006 -> 11:26 AM) I performed that analysis on the 2006 results. Here are the transformed numbers. 2006: mean 5.182278481, stdev 2.982550505 When you perform a similar analysis on the 2005 results, you also get a decrease in both: 2005: mean 4.420987654, stdev 2.515009159 There is still a difference in variation between the 2, but that's going to wind up in almost any way you do this, because of the data we're looking at. In 2006, the White Sox scored 7 or more runs 54 times. In 2005, they scored 7 or more runs only 32 times. There's going to be a skew because there are more numbers at a higher distance from the mean in 2006, regardless of how we process the thing, which is why I keep coming back to the histogram. In 2005 the numbers were more closely packed, solely because they didn't have the ability to score a lot of runs in a game. In 2006 the numbers are more spread out, but they're consistently higher at every level. Interestingly, the difference in deviation is almost the same with the ceiling applied. Also, considering the mean is different by .7 and the deviation different by .5, I'd say the 2006 offense was only slightly more inconsistent than 2005.

QUOTE(LVSoxFan @ Sep 27, 2006 -> 11:17 AM) I appreciate the statistical homework, but please. Everybody can throw out as many stats as they want. Here's the stat that matters: "W". Take a nice long look at that one. Because for all the decimals and stats and figures, etc., it sure didn't amount to much, did it, compared to 2005? Who cares if we scored a lot of runs, if it didn't mean a win? Yeah, we scored a lot of runs, all right: and then would score zero the next day. Pull out all the stats you want, but I've seen this team before. In 2004. Only then instead of Thome, Konerko and Dye it was Maggs, Frank, Konerko and C. Lee. This team will end up with about 90 wins. 2004, they went 83-79. And your "W" comment is absolutely correct. But your conclusion that the difference was the offense (despite the fact that 2006's offense kicks 2005's butts in nearly every respect, while our pitching is the opposite), is illogical and unsupported by fact.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 27, 2006 -> 11:01 AM) In 2005, the White Sox averaged 4.574074074 runs per game, plus or minus 2.880229364 In 2006, the White Sox averaged 5.35443038 runs per game, plus or minus 3.397406184. So, in 2006, the StDev was higher than in 2005. However, as I tried to point out earlier...the reason this is higher is due entirely to the high-end games and the added variance by adding in more of those. When you look at any particular way of sorting, especially on the low-scoring games, the White sox in 2006 were shut down fewer times than in 2005 by a factor of around 2.5. For comparison, the 2004 White Sox averaged 5.339506173 runs per game, plus or minus 3.721956976. In other words, the 2004 White Sox scored almost as many runs, but were significantly more inconsistent in their output of runs per game. The histogram results bear this out...in 2004, the White Sox were held to 2 runs or less 45 times. In 2005, with a much lower Runs/game number, the White Sox were held to 2 runs or less 49 times. However, in 2006, the White Sox have been held to 2 runs or less only 31 times. That is definitely interesting. For one, people's fears about this team being too much like 2004, seem unfounded. We have scored a lot of runs, but more consistently, in 2006. Also interesting is how low the SD was in 2005. But as you said, the many high totals will skew that result. One way to neutralize the skew to some extent is create an artificial ceiling based on spread. For example... if the Sox averaged 5.35 runs in 2006, that allows 5.35 runs on the low side. Create a ceiling at 5.35 on the high side, which would be 10.7 runs. Anything over that, make it 10.7. That won't entirely remove the skew, but it will mitigate much of its effect, in theory.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 27, 2006 -> 10:39 AM) Eh...you were the last post at the time...I just hit reply on the last poster. hey, if you have all those scores, here is a test I'd like to see run... I'd like to see a standard deviation model on scores this year versus last year. I'd be it would be higher this year - more volatility. That doesn't necessarily mean its bad or good, but it would be reflective of consistency (or lack of) in the offense.

QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Sep 27, 2006 -> 10:32 AM) So my question is, Is attempted suicide a criminal offense? http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0927061owens1.html In some states, yes, I believe. But it is virtually never prosecuted. I mean, why bother?

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 27, 2006 -> 10:33 AM) Unfortunately, I don't think the numbers in terms of our offense agree with your conclusion that the offense was effective last year. I haven't yet added the last 2 weeks to my database, and I'm not sure it's worth it because the team has clearly quit and that's a bit of a statistical anomaly...but I've been keeping a database of the final scores of each game for the last 3 seasons in order to look at the offensive performance...and you know what I've found? At least until this week...under any way that I sort the numbers....this year's offense was significantly better. It's not just a matter of them averaging more runs because they score more in a few games but have more shutouts or anything like that...this year's offense was better all around. Last year, we scored 0-1 runs 7 times. Through the end of August 2006, the Sox scored 0-1 runs 3 times. The 2005 Sox scored 3 runs or less 42 times. Through the end of August 2006, the Sox scored 3 runs or less only 17 times. That's 20 games through the first 133 games of the season where the White Sox scored less than 4 runs...as compared to nearly 50 in 2005. The 2005 Sox scored 4 runs or more 81 times. The 2006 Sox scored 4 runs or more 113 times in that first 133 games. The offense was not just better this year. Under every means of sorting I can find...under every way of grouping I can find, the offense was better and more consistent the entire year until they finally gave up this last week or so. I looked through again and again to see if I could find some trend that would make 2005 look more favorable under any circumstances...and it's just not there. The offense gave more runs per game, gave fewer games with very little runs, and did so consistently throughout the entire year. I'm struggling to see what you are disagreeing with. I said, last year's offensive was effective, and that this year's is rockin' - as in, better than last year. I'm also amazed you are keeping your own database of stats.

QUOTE(SleepyWhiteSox @ Sep 27, 2006 -> 10:22 AM) Just wondering, what kind of CTA and metra link is being called for? From what I recall offhand... A CTA circle line (just got a flyer on my door from the Alderman, it goes through our neighborhood), which basically goes from the Loop southwest along the Orange line corridor to Ashland... follows Ashland north to around North Avenue... then turns East and ends at North/Clybourn to link up with the Red and Brown. This will supposedly link up with stops on 5 or 6 Metra line stops. Metra is putting in a beltline too, from O'Hare west along I-90 to around Rte 59 or Randall Road, then south through the west burbs all the way to Joliet. The link is at O'Hare. CTA wants a new line or an extension to Oak Brook, and to link up directly at stops in Oak Park that are already right next to each other. What I'd LIKE to see is links at existing places... for example, the green line goes right over Northwestern station for the Metra. Why not just build a stairwell entrance right there? Things like that can be done easily.

QUOTE(fathom @ Sep 27, 2006 -> 10:12 AM) Ugh.....I simply can't believe how people think that the problem with the Sox this year was their lack of smallball. The Sox offense in 2005 sucked, and the only reason is seemed like smallball was working was that our pitching staff made every run we score seem so important. When we have a lineup with guys like Pierre and Lugo next season, I can't wait for people to complain that we don't have enough power consistent through the lineup. Our starting and relief pitching got us to the dance last year...end of story. Not exactly. The extremists on the board yelling "SMALL BALL RULES" or "SMALL BALL WAS AN ILLUSION" are missing the point. The offense was effective last year because of a combination of home runs, timely hitting and yes, small ball. It worked because it had all those things. No one of them was the magic bullet. That all said, the offense this year was rockin', even without being good at execution of small ball when it would have come in handy (which, even on an offensive juggernaut, it still occasionally does). If people want to point at something that caused our problems this year, better to look at pitching and coaching. The offensive issues we did have (low OBP at 1, 2, 8 and 9, primarily) come after those.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Sep 27, 2006 -> 10:03 AM) How would it be integrated? That doesnt make sense really. Apparently you have never been to LA and see what a lack of public trans can do to a city. Chicago's is not the best (i think DC is awesome) but we have so many routes to get within blocks of where you want to go, its one of the tops IMO. Chicago's system is better than most cities. But I do agree that CTA and Metra could be linked much more effectively. And that is a big part of that 2020 transit plan for the city. Olympic money would get that rolling.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Sep 27, 2006 -> 09:04 AM) Just remember if McCarthy were to be traded the rotation would get 5 years older and a few million more expensive next year. Plus only 3 starters are locked up beyond '08 (Buehrle & Garcia are not) and one of those 3 is a 52 year old who has been horrible since comming back from injury. If McCarthy is dealt for a position player the rotation in 2008 could be horrendous. Which is what I was saying.

QUOTE(Steve9347 @ Sep 27, 2006 -> 09:09 AM) ESPN is going to look foolish on this. I'm believing that this "suicide attempt" is complete bulls***. Last article I saw, a paramedic and a cop stated Owens said these things, and they actually saw him take 2 of them. So that part is likely true. Everything else... who knows.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060927/ap_on_.../wall_street_80 So... are we going to bust over? Durable goods orders reported this AM as down .5%, versus concensus +.5%, so I'd say its unlikely today. But maybe soon? This reminds me... for the second straight month (first time in two years), durable goods large-ticket orders were down. The articles I read about that fact this AM talk about the negative impact that may have on factory production, and about this slow down being a surprise to some. To me, I think the reason should be obvious - the housing market is flattening, and in some places even deflating a bit. Why is that important? Well, as I have stated in here previously, I think a BIG part of the reason why the economy recovered so quickly from the 2001 recession was the boom in housing market value, coupled with low interest rates. This pushed a lot of people to re-fi, or to take out equity. That money then went into the economy. A lot of people don't seem to be highlighting this in these articles, but I think its a big issue. Now, prices are flat at best, and interest rates are higher and going up. That means less cash in people's hands, and less going into big ticket items (durable goods). So here is my second question... what do we think the housing market will do in the next year, 2 years and 5 years? I'll make a prediction. I think, aside from a few absurdly over-valued markets (isolated, mostly in FL and CA), the market will stabilize but not decline much. And in fact, values will likely go back up, as equity markets go down a bit from this lack of cash in the economy. What this will eventually cause is further rises in housing in major urban markets, creating a wave of movement out to rural areas. This will be amplified by the retirement of the baby boomers, who will be looking for that recreational land or that cabin in the woods to retire too, where land is cheap. And of course, since even in the U.S. there is less and less land available... prices will go up by even larger percentages in rural areas. Basically, we will start becomind Europe, in the housing sense. So, my advice... buy open space in areas with recreation opportunities, particularly if relatively nearby major urban centers. What say you, economics and finance people?