StrangeSox

QUOTE (T R U @ Apr 19, 2011 -> 09:48 PM) I feel like we started out bad last year but ended up with like 88 wins Obviously, that couldn't have happened because if you are 3 games under .500 by mid April you're done.. right? that did take a pretty extraordinary run, and in the end they still missed the playoffs because of their horrendous start.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Apr 19, 2011 -> 09:07 PM) How hard is it to give a name of a manager? I'm asking you an honest question since you said there are brilliant managers who make strategic moves that win games. Fathom gave one two seconds ago. I don't think it's that hard of a concept. That's not really what I said. I started with specifically saying that the White Sox didn't win in 2005 because of brilliant management, and when you asked a question, I said maybe a game here or there is won because of that. I was intentionally wishy-washy because I think a manager has more of an ability to lose the game with a dumb decision than to win it. You can make all of the 'correct' decisions, not give up bad outs with your #2 hitter, not bring in a reliever who threw 2 innings the night before, not advocate a rotating DH, not playing a bunch of garbage bench players way too much and still have the players. On the other hand, if you give up outs left and right, you're hurting the players' abilities to win.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Apr 19, 2011 -> 09:04 PM) No, I'm asking you not the thread. What team and what manager makes those moves that wins games. You said it's out there, I just want to know who I should be thinking about. Ah, I get it. If I don't spend the time to give you some specific examples of moves made by other managers that led to winning the game, it's impossible to criticize Ozzie for making the same bad decisions over and over and over and over again. Tell me more about giving up outs via the sac bunt and how awesome it is at producing runs.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Apr 19, 2011 -> 08:41 PM) Yeah, but what team is that and what manager? read the thread, ozzie's a genius for 2005! he knows so much about baseball!

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Apr 19, 2011 -> 08:33 PM) Satellites have to be somewhat insulated to EMP anyway because they don't have the atmosphere to protect it - i.e. aren't solar flares EMP's? Second, and I do not know if it's totally true, I'm almost positive that there's technology that would fry electric grids, radio waves, and basically all forms of communication virtually dead in seconds. Same thing, EMP. Electromagnetic Pulse. Satellites in general are shielded from background Electromagnetic Interference, same thing just less energy and not a big punch all at once. The same thing, EMP, could bring just about all electronics and the electrical grid to its knees and cause trillions in damage.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Apr 19, 2011 -> 08:39 PM) And lest not forget all of the boneheaded moves he made in 2005 as well. Luckily the pitching staff was too good to be "Ozzied" out of the race. It would have taken something special to screw up their performance in the post season.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Apr 19, 2011 -> 08:39 PM) What team wins because of brilliant managerial moves and strategy? a game here or there, maybe. that's sort of the point, no reason to continue to fellate ozzie for a dominate pitching staff 6 years ago.

QUOTE (C_LEE45 @ Apr 19, 2011 -> 08:31 PM) just think of the people that call ozzie a moron,but there is nobody on this board that know a fraction of what that man knows about baseball like him or not he still is a good manager the same manager that won in 2005 when everybody was all over his hog,,,,,,hey why dont we talk about KW dont he have some blame ? 2005 was 6 years ago. And it was largely due to an unstoppable pitching staff from top to bottom, not brilliant managerial moves or strategy. Winning 6 years ago doesn't excuse the next 5 years of poor game management. Giving up outs with dumb bunts, giving up outs with unnecessary steals, lefty-righty obsession, bizarre bullpen choices.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Apr 19, 2011 -> 08:26 PM) Yes, I'm sure you gloss over those posts though. needles in haystacks, my friend no excuse for giving up outs there

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Apr 19, 2011 -> 07:55 PM) Most likely Ozzie knew there was a 100 percent better chance of konerko getting a hit than beckham and Dunn. And I can't say I disagree with him there. is there anything oz does you don't make an excuse for?

FWIW I don't necessarily support the firesale, I just don't buy any argument that the Sox have fallen short of expectations

QUOTE (Greg Hibbard @ Apr 19, 2011 -> 04:42 PM) How many other American League teams have won more than 1 World Series since 1993? I can think of two: the Yankees (5) and the Red Sox (2). These teams have won one: Angels, Blue Jays These teams have won none: The Mariners (not even a pennant), Indians, Devil Rays, Rangers, Twins, Tigers, Royals, Orioles, Athletics. 9/13 other teams haven't won a world series, 2 others have won exactly as many as the White Sox, and 2 have won more. How many other AL teams have had more than 4 playoff appearances since 1993? New York, Boston, Minnesota, Cleveland, Seattle, Oakland, LA. 7 of the 14 AL teams. 3 of those play in a 4 team west. I honestly don't understand how anyone could evaluate the White Sox as anything but a top 5 AL franchise over the past twenty years. When your main metric is WS wins, sure. If its consistent WS contender, no.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 19, 2011 -> 04:32 PM) You know, I'm not sure that I buy the "AL Central has been pretty weak" for the last decade. The AL East, for example, has had 2-3 moribund franchises for almost the whole decade, the Central has only had one. All of the other 4 teams from the Central have made the playoffs this decade, everyone except Detroit more than once. Every team has had at least 1 down year. The AL Central has won the Wild Card a grand total of one time since its inception. If I have the time later, I'll dig into AL Central vs. MLB statistics.

Who the hell was appalled at the Dunn contract? That turned out to be a bargain based on the rest of the off season.

QUOTE (Heads22 @ Apr 19, 2011 -> 04:30 PM) THE SEASON IS 10% OVER AND WE'RE FIVE GAMES OUT SELL SELL SELLLLLL This.team.is.dead. Reminds me of the JERMAINE DYE or whatever that username was threads in 2007 or 2008.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 19, 2011 -> 04:28 PM) Yes it does, it means you're watching a team that wins more games than it would at the same payroll if we weren't getting that. The White Sox, based on their payroll, should be an average team, winning about 81 games a year. Instead they average about 85. The difference between an 81 and an 85 win team is negligible. Both are likely to miss the playoffs, and an extra four wins scattered about the season isn't otherwise noticeable.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 19, 2011 -> 04:22 PM) So, you're content with losing this year and declare that no one should lose their job over this year's performance? BS's point is that the AL Central has been pretty weak for the last decade, excluding significant payroll bumps this year, and that the Sox should have had much more success given their payroll levels vs. their competition over that period. Not sure how that leads to it being okay to lose in 2011.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Apr 19, 2011 -> 04:08 PM) So what does that tell me? That we finish over .500 pretty often but fail to make the post season? It means JR is getting the most wins per dollar. That doesn't mean s*** to me as a fan beyond the long term sustainability of payroll levels.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 19, 2011 -> 02:22 PM) This is Mike Madigan. Despite the source, do you have a doubt in your mind that this is possible, or even probable? I know I don't. Not exactly, but it's still a cheap attack based on the self-serving accusations of a demonstrably insane person.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 19, 2011 -> 02:17 PM) In other words, if you want to down a satellite, don't waste time with the EMP and just throw rocks at it. lol yeah, and thus ends another derail

Seems kinda silly to demand explanations or hold others accountable for crazy stuff Blago says to save his own ass.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 19, 2011 -> 01:56 PM) Satellites don't exactly have backup systems. That's the weight problem, you can't overbuild the things. You don't put anything in there that isn't an essential system. I'm sure satellites have redundant systems. What's more costly, the extra weight for a backup power supply, or losing an entire satellite because one component failed? And the satellite might be capable of performing multiple functions, but you figure out which ones are absolutely 100% critical and start with protecting those and work from there. That's the way any critical system is done--not every single piece of equipment is necessary for core functionality. At least some military satellites are EMP hardened, so they've figured out a way to get it done. edit: this report includes vague references to redundant sub-systems in large satellites.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 19, 2011 -> 01:38 PM) There aren't a lot of "Nonessential components" in satellites. You pick what's absolutely critical for the system to still perform at least some functions and protect those the most. Anyway, like I said, any electronics put into space are going to have EMI shielding anyway. EMP shielding is just beefing up that same thing.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 19, 2011 -> 11:35 AM) Anyone watch Game of Thrones? I haven't watched the premiere yet, but the 15 min preview was pretty bad ass. I'm looking forward to checking it out this weekend. Just finished the first book, wanna catch the first episode. The book was good and I've heard that, so far, the show is pretty faithful except the last scene with Daeny.

I would think that all satellites have at least some protection from EMI anyway, so beefing up that protection to EMP levels wouldn't necessarily be that drastic.