StrangeSox

Ban Balta.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Apr 6, 2011 -> 03:45 PM) When's the last time we actually got a run off Soria? Moral victory? uh like 3 minutes ago?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 6, 2011 -> 03:40 PM) I like eggs. ah, nice tacit support of racism there!

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 6, 2011 -> 03:37 PM) Ah, so basically you're stereotyping his audience as being poor and uneducated based on the fact that they don't buy Mercedes. I get it. lolwut?

Fire Ozzie Guillen and Murder Mark Teahan

sigh.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 6, 2011 -> 03:22 PM) Teahen getting an AB with the tying run on base. Fire Ozzie Guillen

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 6, 2011 -> 03:15 PM) And getting mad at this game because of what happened in 2007 is smart because? Not my argument, but it's a reason to continue a long-standing tradition of bashing Walker whenever the offense underperforms. Just thought your guys' counter-points didn't exactly make much sense. QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 6, 2011 -> 03:16 PM) No, but it is misplaced anger. A hitting coach is the least important position, not just in baseball, but in all of sports. And anyone with the least bit of knowledge knows it. Well, that's the typical answer. So why not fire the guy if he's so unimportant? Cut payroll a little, don't even bother with a replacement.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 6, 2011 -> 03:14 PM) You're totally missing the point. Anger at Greg Walker isn't based on 2011, hope that helps.

QUOTE (Real @ Apr 6, 2011 -> 03:10 PM) I love how stats show how awesome a 2-3 team is. Assuming the 2 runs holds up, the Sox are averaging ~6.5 runs per game with a ~5.5 runs per game deviation. Just to illustrate why pointing to total runs scored 5 games in with one game accounting for almost 50% of your runs isn't exactly a good metric.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 6, 2011 -> 03:04 PM) We scored enough runs yesterday to win, period. No reason to have lost. Blaming walker because so far is year we've had one game in which we only scored 1 run, while ignoring the other games that we averaged at least 6 is outright ridiculous. Same thing I told Balta: the Walker animosity is not based on 5 games this year. Any time the White Sox offense struggles, people will call for him to be fired, just like they've done for the last 4+ years. I wouldn't call 6 runs some generally insurmountable number, either. You gotta be able to score off of other teams' bullpens.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Apr 6, 2011 -> 03:03 PM) That .409 with RISP was obviously before today. It probably went down well below .300 after today. 0-6 so far.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 6, 2011 -> 03:01 PM) Dude we do not have offensive problems...the statistics show that I'm right on this. We have one of the best offenses in the league and one of the best RISP teams, and you are outright IGNORING THE FACTS. Statistical significance at this point is pretty much nil.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 6, 2011 -> 02:59 PM) Oh, so 5 games is not a significant enough standard to judge whether or not runs scored per game is useful, but it's absolutely enough time to judge that there's clearly something wrong with the offense and the whole coaching staff needs removed ASAP. RIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT. No one calling for Walker's head is basing it entirely on the last three games, don't be silly. Personally I'm of the opinion it doesn't matter much at all.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 6, 2011 -> 02:56 PM) By what statistics? "RUNS" are a statistic. limited data and includes a pretty significant outlier in game 1.

Why? His ratings were falling off a cliff, which is why Fox decided not to renew his contract.

I was so excited for this season

Fox News cancels Glenn Beck's show

Starting off with ridiculous equivocation: Nice job glossing over wind and solar still being far, far less reliable producers of power by focusing specifically on plant maintenance. These are their solutions? Really? And these don't rely on non-existent technology, even if they did make sense? They're also not projecting these technologies to be economically viable for 20 more years. They're currently not technologically feasible for the same reason I've always stated: the distribution and storage technologies needed for a WWS backbone do not exist right now. "Spot the bad assumption" drinking game could be really dangerous with this paper. I knew this sounded familiar, and some googling revealed that it's more or less an expansion of their 2009 SciAm article, which didn't escape heavy criticism. LOL they made the same terrible "downtime" slight-of-hand argument then, too!

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 6, 2011 -> 12:21 PM) That's because you didn't read closely enough. There's a whole 2nd paper on that. I clicked the link and it kicked me to some table in the paper, didn't realize that there was more. The statement you quoted is just laughably unrealistic hand-waving, but I'll read through the second paper.. Here's a free version of Part II. http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobso...EnPolicyPt2.pdf

Also apparently Jacobsen includes a nuclear exchange every 30 years as part of his carbon output from nuclear plants in other papers, lol.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 6, 2011 -> 08:14 AM) Yet another study backing me up. http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobso...EnPolicyPt1.pdf They're assuming 300MW Solar PV plants, while the largest operating plants are ~80MW. And there's also significant materials limitations that the study points out but hand-waves away that would limit any sort of solar PV or wind build-up on that scale, so I'm not sure how that isn't relying on currently non-existent technology. They also ignore water usage requirements as CSP facilities, which are non-trivial and non-'green'. The US would still need 6,200 of these, which are currently only marginally cheaper than a new nuclear plant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarnia_Photovoltaic_Power_Plant And, despite the press release's claim, I don't see anywhere in that study that addresses base load power supply issues presented by wind and solar.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Apr 6, 2011 -> 09:47 AM) That's what they get for taking a 4-month honeymoon. ^this

^capitalism is a b****!

Link to the actual study?