Texsox

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 9, 2008 -> 12:01 PM) I really like the bolded above, and you are right. Those are two of the key reasons why it took me a while to really settle on Obama as my choice. McCain is, on SOME social issues, a little more liberal than his cohorts. He was also basically the only GOP candidate actually interested in the environment and alternative energy in some fashion. And yeah, the GOP is still stuck in the religious conservative control, though I think that is starting to wane (see: McCain's nomination). I have plenty I disagree with Obama on - his cowardly FISA vote, his lack of experience, his bizarre tax plans and general fiscal policy, his overreaching agenda, his support of affirmative action... there are others too. But it really came down to, I don't have to "resolve" anything. I just need to choose the candidate whose total package - issue and policy views, leadership and management skills - was better. These two candidates are the strongest pair we've had in my voting lifetime (this is my 5th cycle). A McCain Presidency, leaving the disaster that is Palin aside, would not make me nearly as angry as Bush has, I think. But Obama is even stronger, overall. There is so much here I strongly agree with. Well, except your final choice. Perhaps I should have used a different term than resolve. I would really like a pre-Reagan fiscal conservative. Someone who actually makes us pay for every program. I have respect for small government, small tax Republicans. I have respect for tax and spend Democrats. I really dislike and have no respect for the don't tax and spend spend spend leaders we have been electing in both parties and I see the start of that with Reagan. The business of America is business and neither candidate is addressing issues through that filter. Although I believe McCain has a slightly better handle than Obama. I also believe that McCain can successfully end the Iraq war quicker than Obama.

QUOTE (scenario @ Oct 9, 2008 -> 11:10 AM) The problem is that you have to assume pitching is a constant to make those comparisons meaningful. Since it's not, that makes the stats interesting but not very useful in the real world. Perhaps http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/...istency-is-key/ Interesting read.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Oct 9, 2008 -> 10:40 AM) They are definitely in the running. Zing. but is zing really the best term?

QUOTE (scenario @ Oct 9, 2008 -> 11:11 AM) Well... I think it goes without saying that inconsistently good is going to be better than consistently bad. That's were some tie back to league average needs to be made. Does consistent .3 runs below the league average top inconsistent .3 runs above the league average?

QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 9, 2008 -> 11:27 AM) Yeah what's wrong with you Tex? McCain in some tight jeans with no back pockets as to not mess with the lines...oh yeah you know, maybe a three way with his wife . . .

Staying friends works in movies

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 9, 2008 -> 09:58 AM) I'm not a statistician, but I would think you could normalize the std. dev. based on the average, and use that to compare across the league. Average for the team or against the league? How would you account for a team that doesn't score enough runs? Or another way, the question is how important is consistency. How would you compare a team who is inconsistent and scores say 5 runs per game against a team that is very consistent but only scores 2 runs per game? The lack of scoring would confound the study.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Oct 9, 2008 -> 10:54 AM) mmmm I'm hoping he didn't mean John

I would guess that different organizations have reputations that we would not know from living in the US and not being players. We can guess at what those reputations are, but I would say they are probably wrong.

It would seem Brian Anderson is better suited as posse then player

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 9, 2008 -> 10:43 AM) I agree there. Consistency is very important. Still, a small ball lineup that consistently puts up 3 runs a game isn't very good. I don't know how the statistics break down here, and I would be curious to know. Does Baseball Prospectus or anyone else do a "consistency" analysis? As for Detroit, they would have had a much better record, even with that inconsistent-but-powerful team, if their team ERA (4.90) wasn't 3rd to last in the AL. Same with Texas (5.37). There are a few tools that would allow you to check that. One of the researchers around here would have a better handle on the stats. A couple things you might want to compute is the standard deviation around each teams average runs per game. That would give you a number that shows how consistent a team scored around their average but not tell you much about their scoring compared to the league average. It might also be useful to compare teams consistency with runs allowed as well.

QUOTE (YASNY @ Oct 9, 2008 -> 10:23 AM) Do any of these three know what the "norm" is when it comes to Sox and the playoffs? Yeah, the studied Javy and Thome. Who were the non roster guys on the bench in 2005? That would be really interesting to see how it affected their careers.We know Anderson was there every step of the way.

http://www.matthew25.org/ I am using this as a jumping off point for a question. No candidate can possibly match your beliefs 100% unless your beliefs are incredibly pliable. How have you resolved issues with McCain and Obama that do not match your beliefs? I find it interesting that a Christian group could set aside any Pro-Life issues and support Obama, but in the bigger sense I always thought it was a fairly easy step to take. Just like I'm concerned about a couple of McCain's positions, but overall prefer him to Obama.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Oct 9, 2008 -> 09:14 AM) In fairness, he did specify "not here but elsewhere." Yes he did.

QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 9, 2008 -> 09:12 AM) This statement doesn't excuse posters on this site from the incredibly annoying characterization of Obama posters in the filibuster when, with the exception of one, it is without merit. For example, the first three posters in this thread discredited this, some Obama supporters, then PA spouts off about "how could Obama supporters make this an issue!?!?!" We specialize in incredibly annoying, gross misinterpretations, characterizations, and labels. Not just here but everywhere.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 9, 2008 -> 10:11 AM) Those are educated guesses looking forward, not statistical analysis of what has happened. Historically, bunting has *usually* been a bad idea because you give away more potential runs than you gain. There are situations where it makes sense (bottom 9th, extra innings where one run = win/tie vs. lose), but bunting a runner from 1st to 2nd in the 5th inning? In a power-hitting, HR dominating lineup? That's just not very smart. I agree. And the statement that having someone who can bunt is worthless is also an educated guess looking forward. If the lineup is a power hitting lineup, bunting is silly. But the question in October is thus, should the team make an adjustment and move slightly away from power hitting by adding some speed and small ball capability. Obviuously some people believe no, that bunting is always a wasted out. Others disagree.

QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 9, 2008 -> 09:07 AM) If I'm going to get characterized the way PA and others have characterized every Obama supporter no matter how I act, I might as well get my moneys worth and start acting obnoxious. Obama is bringing new faces into politics. Younger voters especially are ignited by has candidacy. McCain's supporters are generally older, more subdued, and with more experiences to fall back on.So the styles of the campaigns are different and the supporters are generally from a much more diverse background. No wonder these types of comments arise.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Oct 9, 2008 -> 09:06 AM) Tex I had to read that 2-3 times before it made any sense and I'm an English major that was tough to follow.

QUOTE (StatManDu @ Oct 9, 2008 -> 09:53 AM) Were the 2008 White Sox the slowest Sox team ever? Consider ... *The 13 triples were an all-time franchise low *The 67 steals were the fewest by a Sox team since the 1977 team swiped 42 If not the slowest, they are a finalist.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 9, 2008 -> 08:33 AM) OK, so... no one here makes an issue out of it. You start a thread with a video of it, asking if anyone else caught it. Then you say its a non-issue to you, and you just hate the Obamatons who want to make it an issue? When, in this forum, YOU made it an issue? We've had threads that are basically "how can anyone make an issue out of this" started before. We've especially had the threads about "the other side is bat crazy for making an issue out of this" started.

QUOTE (YASNY @ Oct 9, 2008 -> 08:28 AM) I don't care how it was presented. This was a major mistake by each of these guys. I agree it was probably a mistake for these guys as it appears now. But I do care how it was presented. I care if this is highly unusual to have AAA guys asked to hang out and be the posse and the norm is for only the team and the one or two alternates to stay.

QUOTE (Cubano @ Oct 9, 2008 -> 08:05 AM) Texsox: I can infer you like politics. I do not want to get ban here. The reason mexicans are targeted are various. One is the great numbers of mexicans that come to the USA. At the beginning of the cuban wave in the early 60's and 70's, the Jews and white americans in South Florida saw it as a bad thing. I bet you that if 10 million cubans enter Mexico now and live in the same area in Mexico many mexicans will protest. Another reason mexicans are targeted is because the gangs and drug issues in Mexico. Colombia is far away from the USA and we do not have many colombians coming to the USA. However, Mexico is next to the USA. Many mexicans are hard workers, but many also come and create problems in the USA. Then, all mexicans pay the price. Every week you read something bad about mexicans mafia in Mexico and americans do not want the same thing hapen in here. Another thing is that the most visible mexicans are the ones working in construction, lawn movers, etc. These guys usually travel together before and after jobs. Everytime you see many men together people think gang, trouble, first. In addition, USA-Mexico history has been a rocky one. Americans also do not mind peolple from Asia such as Korea, India, etc. One thing I never understood about mexicans is the following. You guys take issues with USA immigration policies against mexicans. However, Mexico immigration policies are the same or worst for Hondurans, Salvadorans, Guatemalans, etc. Cubans usually can get by Mexico on their way to the USA, but you guys put us in jail many times unders not so good conditions. Every country has the right to control who enters their country. Mexico has the right to control immigration as well as the USA. Shame on the cubans for allowing Castro to gain power. I am not blaming only the cubans for Castro because the USA also has some blame in here. Couple areas I disagree. The US has had a couple hundred years of the longest unguarded, peaceful borders, in the world. The relationship is far from rocky. Every country has different immigration needs. Even if Mexico allowed unlimited immigration for Americans, it would not be a valid reason for the US to allow unlimited Mexican immigration. I do not believe comparing the two is a valid tool. What works for America and is in America's best interest is what is important, not some other countries laws. I don't know if Cuba accepts every immigrant who touches their shore, not do I care. We accept every Cuban defector who reaches the beach because it is the right thing to do and overall good for America. We have issues with every non English speaking immigrant. The better educated immigrants almost always speak English, or have the capacity to quickly learn. That is why we accept an immigrant taking a $100,000 position, then go crazy when he hires a Spanish speaking maid, taking that job from a deserving American. What makes Mexico unique is the people can walk across. A very primitive technique that has occurred since the dawn of man. Other countries you mentioned require greater travel and greater expense, again helping to self select who is here. Once here, Mexicans find private American businesses competing for their business in that great American ideal of free enterprise. These American businesses roll our the "alfombra roja" to these customers. Further, they find a large population of ex-pats who also speak Spanish. The need to speak Spanish is small, and too many never learn. We should probably move this to the filibuster. I enjoy reading your posts on all subjects and look forward to hearing what you have to say about Cuban - US relationships.

QUOTE (knightni @ Oct 8, 2008 -> 06:49 PM) The letter "C" is the Roman numeral for 100. I've watched Cub fans be the most loyal anywhere in sports, and that is laudable. But it's only been in the past few years, perhaps as the Big C loomed, that the fans became restless and the team started being a perennial playoff team. So I cannot condemn them for taking a more aggressive approach and demanding a winner now. I also try and remember these are the exact same fans we high five at Bears, Bulls, and Blackhawk games.

QUOTE (YASNY @ Oct 9, 2008 -> 08:15 AM) Fundamantals need to addressed up and down the organization. Situational hitting, bunting, hitting the cutoff man, thinking ahead on defense. These are organizational weaknesses from top to bottom and I hoping that Buddy Bell changes things for the better. We just have to look to the strongest program in our division for conformation.

QUOTE (YASNY @ Oct 9, 2008 -> 07:54 AM) What these guys are showing by leaving is a lack of the concept of "Team". Or another way it can be interpretted is "f*** you guys, I'm going home." For a young player like Broadway to take a stance that can possibly be interpretted in either of these ways is a huge mistake. Logan probably doesn't have a future with the Sox, but as of that moment, the Sox were his best chance and what kind of message does that send to other organizations? MacDougal? Who gives a s***? I do not disagree at all, I am certain their some of their AAA teammates would have killed for a chance to sit in the clubhouse. But if the roster had been set before leaving Chicago these guys probably would not have even been invited. Plus we really do not know how the offer was made. Was it "sorry you guys had to make the trip to Florida, but Oz didn't put you on the playoff roster. See you in Spring Training. BTW, we feel bad you made the trip so if you want to just kind of hang out and watch the games from the Clubhouse, you can. No biggie, it's up to you". Some are acting like they flew these guys to Florida knowing they would not be on the roster and the club asked them to stay and they refused. I can't remember a club talking about their AAA guys being invited to sit on the bench or hang out in the clubhouse before. So what message does it send? We don't really know, because we don't know how common it is to fly in your AAA guys to be a posse for the MLB team.