iamshack

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Aug 4, 2010 -> 12:43 PM) Ask one of your mutual friends for her number. Not only will you get it, but she will hear you asked for it and went the extra mile. Yeah, I was thinking about this too. If you can get it without having to turn into Sherlock Holmes, probably not a big deal. But if you have enlist the help of Dr. Watson just to track it down, it may look like you're trying a bit too hard.

QUOTE (knightni @ Aug 4, 2010 -> 12:39 PM) Tigers sweep (1) Tigers win game 1, lose game two (3) Tigers lose game 1, win game two (4) Sox sweep (2) Sox win game 1, lose game two (4) Sox win game 2, lose game one (3) That's three different outcomes per team, two being a split (interchangeable). But the Tigers losing game 1, and the Sox winning game 1 are the same things. Just as the Tigers winning game 1 and the Sox losing game 1 are the same things.

QUOTE (knightni @ Aug 4, 2010 -> 12:32 PM) No, they aren't canceled. They are just duplicated. The other result would be Tigers winning game 1 and Sox winning game 2. But both results are a same result, a split by two teams. No they aren't. These are your possible results: 1) Sox win game 1, Sox lose game 2 2) Sox lose game 1, Sox win game 2 3) Sox win game 1, Sox win game 2 4) Sox lose game 1, Sox lose game 2 For the purposes of this argument, result 1 and 2 are equal. They result in a split. For purposes of this argument, result 3 and 4 are equal. They result in a sweep. For purposes of this argument, it does not matter which team wins or loses, only whether a split or a sweep occurs. Of the possible outcomes, all things being equal, a split will occur 2 of 4 times. A sweep will occur 2 of 4 times.

The easiest way to understand it is just to write out all possible outcomes. You will get 4, but for the purposes of this argument, the two different splits and the two different sweeps are the same result, which leaves you with only two possible results, a sweep or a split.

QUOTE (knightni @ Aug 4, 2010 -> 12:19 PM) The sweeps produce two different results, though. A split is a split. But, if you want to split hairs (heh), I guess a game 1 win in a split or a game 2 win in a split, are two different things. He's not arguing for the purposes of which teams sweeps though. He's arguing that one would think there would be more sweeps (by either team) than the statistics show. There can only be a sweep or a split, irregardless of which teams do which, right?

QUOTE (knightni @ Aug 4, 2010 -> 12:05 PM) For all practical purposes, the two different splits would equal the same sought after result. 25% sweep on either side, 50% chance of split. I think it's the case for the sweeps too though, Jer. There are 4 possible outcomes. 1) Sox win game 1, lose game 2. 2)Tigers win game 1, lose game 2. 3) Sox win both games. 4) Tigers win both games. For the purposes of this argument, the splits are the same, as are the sweeps. 2/4 = 1/2. So it is really a 50% chance of a split or sweep.

QUOTE (Jenksy Cat @ Aug 4, 2010 -> 11:39 AM) Why would the dodgers throw in any cash? If we claimed him they could dump his whole salary. He's saying if he went unclaimed. If he goes unclaimed, they can negotiate with us, or anyone else, just like a regular trade that happens before the waiver deadline on July 31.

QUOTE (girlslikebaseballtoo#26 @ Aug 4, 2010 -> 11:50 AM) I'm in my mid twenties thank you very much!! LOL I know it's all bs ..if Chase and I hadn't been too scared to show any real emotion in the beginning ..we wouldn't have 2 weeks of wasted time wondering what the hell was going on! LOL ...I wouldn't have wanted him to be all creepy and needy, but if I had just come out and said that he liked me and wanted more, I would have been completely thrilled! And that's just it...I think when you really like someone, or someone really likes you, it doesn't really matter how you act as long as it is within reason. I think people start to understand that more if they have the unfortunate experience of still dating in their thirties (like me)...you just figure "why do I even care? If they like me, they'll like me...and if not, f*** 'em."

QUOTE (ScottyDo @ Aug 4, 2010 -> 11:40 AM) That's not entirely accurate. It kind of works like a Punnett square, if you can think back to high school biology. You've got team A and team B. You've got 4 possible outcomes: AA, AB, BA, BB. If the teams are evenly matched, then you've got 2 sweeps and 2 splits. Oh you're right. I wrote out the possibilities and saw the 4 outcomes, but for some reason only cancelled out the second sweep outcome, since it was the same for the purposes of your argument as the first sweep outcome. For whatever reason, I didn't seem to think that was the case with the two splits.

QUOTE (girlslikebaseballtoo#26 @ Aug 4, 2010 -> 12:36 PM) NO, that just means they were drunk! LOL ..We have all made out (drunkenly) with a friend or someone we knew ...wait ...haven't we?!?! haha It's not games, it's just not wanting to seem too eager. It's ok to let her know he likes her, but I would hate for him to come on too strong and freak her right the hell out! Oh boy...not to sound like the wise old man here, but the bs that goes on in your early twenties....too funny.

Well, keep in mind that there are 3 possibly outcomes, not 2 here. So the odds are more like 33.3 % in a sweep. Then you add in the conservative nature in the way the bullpens are usually managed - most managers will manage more safely in the first game to avoid running through their entire bullpen, and I think it leads to more splits. Most managers seem to almost manage for a split.

QUOTE (girlslikebaseballtoo#26 @ Aug 4, 2010 -> 11:24 AM) OMIGOSH!! DO NOT lurk her page for her number! I have had someone do that to me before and he's now one of my "blocked listers" lol ..Just wait ..you don't wanna seem too into her, or she will get bored with you. If you know for sure that you'll be seeing her again, just be patient and act cool about it. Hah, Bren...I get what you're saying about stalking her page for info...but they drunkenly made out in a bar. Isn't the cat out of the bag a bit in terms of "seeming too in to her"? Hah, these games people play are so ridiculous...

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 4, 2010 -> 11:13 AM) Honestly, everything I've heard about ManRam suggests that his workouts are crazy (he supposedly got some of his supply through a gym right down the street from me when I was in Pasadena) which is entirely consistent with him being a juicer; you can pull off some crazy workouts. I think he used to get in great shape because the roids allowed him to do workouts that mere mortals couldn't do. Interesting. It's difficult to see his body shape because his uniform has always been so incredibly baggy.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 4, 2010 -> 11:00 AM) He's likely a long-time steroid abuser who's now off the juice. A pulled muscle for him should be as common as waking up in the morning for us or the towel drill for a Cubs pitcher. He's also a 38 year old malcontent whose had everything come easily to him because he is so incredibly talented. I doubt he puts in the time to put himself into game shape like Jim Thome does. I don't really put much into the steroids thing. That may be a contributing factor, but let's not act as though this would be that abnormal for a player his age who had never touched steroids.

Well have you sent her facebook messages before? Or are you talking about just looking her up randomly and sending her one? If you're friends with her on facebook, i don't think it's lame to say "How does a movie one night this week sound (I would have called, but you're unlisted)" Girls like guys who court them. As long as you're not pushy about it, and you insert some humor into it, they usually react fairly well. But yeah, if this means adding her as a friend, then asking her, well, you may want to wait until the next game.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Aug 4, 2010 -> 10:39 AM) So Manny is actually hurt...? I think he is. He was pulled out of the middle of a game at one point after awkwardly rounding 2nd base I believe. I really don't believe this crap B&B were saying about him not being hurt. I do believe we would be one of the teams he would like to play for.

The article states players on the DL cannot be placed on waivers.

Brett and his Crocs

QUOTE (Benchwarmerjim @ Aug 3, 2010 -> 10:06 PM) the next 2 games are pretty much must wins for the Twins...just to show themselves that they can win a couple games against the elite teams Well, hard to judge without Morneau in there.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Aug 3, 2010 -> 10:22 PM) The Ranger seems to think that Teahen and Viciedo are not good enough to take Kotsay off this team. I think I made this point clear in a post of mine back in a game thread a couple of days ago. Mark Teahen will produce 7 more runs than Mark Kotsay given the same number of PAs for the next 58 games. Dayan Viciedo will produce 11 more runs on offense (and this is based on a conservative guesstimate). Both of those guys can play 1B, maybe not as well as Kotsay, but they sure as hell hit a lot better. And I referenced that in the Stealth Elf thread last night when the Kotsay argument came up with Rongey. We need to convince him that there are cumulative effects that do make a difference, whether they are gradual or not.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Aug 3, 2010 -> 10:17 PM) It's not that there has to be a whipping boy. If there were no crappy players on this team, nobody would be complaining. We'd all be happy happy joy joy and I think almost everybody would want that. I don't know how you can't complain about Mark Kotsay. He sucks at hitting and he's is DHing the most games on this team. Chris Rongey brought this point up on the post game show, how there always seems to be one guy the Sox fans hate...well...let's run down this list. 2010 Mark Kotsay 2009 Dewayne Wise 2008 Javier Vazquez 2007 Darin Erstad 2006 Rob Mackowiak 3, if not 4, of the past 5 most hated people on this team are terrible baseball players. Kotsay is a even worse version of Darin Erstad. Ozzie keeps running this guy out there even though he hasn't proven he could hit in the past 4 months. Don't blame the fans for pointing weaknesses out, blame the players for not performing and blame Ozzie for trotting him out there. If you have no other options, it's one thing. It's the fact that Ozzie seems to do this when there are better options. That's what drives a lot of people crazy.

QUOTE (103 mph screwball @ Aug 3, 2010 -> 09:09 PM) Me too. I may not post that much, but I read just about every word. Rock has had great info and I have no reason to doubt NJ either. Not all inside rumors will actually happen, but that doesn't mean it isn't from a good source. Please don't drive away good posters who claim to bring real info even if you choose not to believe it. Not aimed at anybody, just a blanket request. I love the rumor stuff a lot more than another Kotsay crucifixion thread. Again, I don't think this is the issue at all. Everyone appreciates info from a different perspective. What the issue is, is when posters barge into other discussions and say "Don't even bother discussing this! Such and such is going to happen! Believe me!" Then they do this repetitiously in multiple threads over the course of several days. Not cool.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Aug 3, 2010 -> 08:51 PM) The "believe me" stuff is overblown. Its a figure of speech, I dont read it literally. If some one has sources great, if they dont, I dont care either. Its all for fun and reputation Same for the steve knock, what he believed made sense, but logic doesnt always win. And that's fine, Badger...but you and I both know that there is always room for reasonable minds to disagree. There is nothing I dislike more than being told what to believe without any reasoning behind it.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Aug 3, 2010 -> 09:41 PM) Didnt he tell us that Gavin wouldnt amount to anything in the majors? Well, that would be consistent with what the Phillies believed when they gave up on him...

QUOTE (lostfan @ Aug 3, 2010 -> 08:06 PM) I've yet to see a credible argument in favor of this. I mean yeah, there is some deflection, there's some "he's not really why the team loses games" but that's not the point. But we don't even know that! Just because he's not pulling Bill Buckner's every night does not mean his presence on this roster, in lieu of someone else, is not costing us games!