doubleM23

http://www.obsoletecomputermuseum.org/magi...magicexpo.shtml

There's no mention of wins in the Magic Number formula.

Told ya so. :finger

This makes so little sense it's unbearable... First off, yes, the team that has the most wins wins the division championship because of two reasons... a) the teams have played the same number of games and B) the team with the most wins generally also has the fewest losses. When 1 game or so can swing the balance of a division (for example, season ends and a team is 1/2 a game above/below the other), then they'd play that game. So while your first point is valid, it also validates Koch This's and my point. Secondly, if the Sox and Royals finish in a tie after all 162 have been played, the team with the Head-to-Head does not win the division. Instead, they win home field advantage in a 1-game play-off. Remember Seattle/Anaheim in '96 (IIRC) and the Giants/Cubs for the NL Wild-Card in 1998? With your "KC has a 53% chance to win 58" (which is mathematically absurd, BTW), flip the situation. There is a 46.7 chance the Royals will lose their 51st game, but the Sox have a 100% chance of losing that 51st. So what did you really prove? Also, winning percentage has no real valid use in predicting future games. It's use is purely for standings (teams with the higher winning percentage are placed higher) and this is most notably affected by wins/losses, as is shown by the fact that the Sox and Royals are in a virtual tie with one another but the Royals are truly (in a pure mathematical sense) sitting alone atop the American League Central. Of course, all of this is still very irrelevant (other than letting a multitude of Royal fans jack off to being in first place one, last time) because there are still 50-odd games left to be played. But, as you brought up, the fact that the Magic Number uses the loss column (not the win) CLEARLY shows that baseball puts more emphasis on losses rather than wins... You cannot be mathematically eliminated by the "wins" column; your fate rests solely in the hands of the loss column. But of course, because there are only 2 possible outcomes in baseball (win or lose), you can't seperate the wins and loss column, like you are apparently trying to do. Losses mean more than wins when comparing two teams that have not played an equal number of games. GO SOX!

Let's see .. the '64 Phillies blew a, what was it?, 9 game lead with 2 weeks left in the season to the Cardinals. Anyone here ever hear of the '69 Cubs? The Angels blew a big lead to Seattle just a few years ago. Can't remember the year. This guy says two in 50 years, and I think of 3 off the top of my head. But technically, what was the lead each of those teams had at the All-Star Break. If they were under 7 games, he'd "technically" be right. Not so much as not getting his facts right as it is manipulating those facts to tell more than they really should.

According to ESPN, the time that Kobe called 911 in March (the first incident), the "unidentified female" needed to be rushed to the hospital. Second time, about a month later, the police and paramedics were there for about 1/2 an hour but no hospitalization was apparently needed.

If he refused assignment, he gets released (a la Josh Paul). but isn't it the team that will do the releasing? I'm not sure of the exact rules behind the moves, but I do know that if a player is out of options (such as Rick White) and is designated for assignment by the Major League team, he has the option to refuse and file for free agency. I don't know if the team can withdraw their designation or not, but essentially White's options are to go to Charlotte or end up on the F/A wire.

If he refused assignment, he gets released (a la Josh Paul).

I don't know where you learned that but baseball standings have always regarded the loss column more important than the wins column for over a century. Winning percentage proves this, as the Royals have the edge in the winning percentage (.533-.532) even though they have less wins than the Sox (57-58) because they also have less losses (50-51). Wins only mean more than/as much as losses when looking at the division standings when all teams have played the same number of games (say, at the end of the year, ideally). If not, the All-Important Loss Column takes precendence. Not that the win/loss column mean anything when the teams are in a virtual tie on August 1. As long as they keep on hittin'.

Not yet, but it has been announced on Yahoo! Sports' White Sox team page that Wright is the Game 2 starter.

Wright is 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% assured of the start on Saturday.

how can you imagine that 11 save is ok for someone who is making his money and suppose to be a #1 closer. how many games did jm did not use him b/c lack of confidence. no one can answer this b/c no one is jm. he had opportunties and he posted a 5.4 era, how many more chances does he need. how can his stats not be THAT bad. define this for me. I got to agree here. If you don't think Koch hasn't been one of the two biggest busts of the year (with Konerko, but he's starting to turn it around), then you obviously haven't been watching the team close enough.

Wow... Lots'o'mistakes... #1) Cal Eldred was aquired by Ron Schueler with Jose Valentin before the 2000 season. #2) Marte really can't be considered that good of a trade because the Pirate GM said he was going to put Damaso on waivers anyway. So instead of wasting our #4 pitching prospect at the time (Matt Guerrier) on another guy, we spent it on a guy we could have had for free... Oh well. #3) You have Olivo as a good trade, but Bradford as a bad trade (FYI, they were dealt for one another). How can one trade by listed as good and bad? That, and I think Schueler made that trade. #4) Rios wasn't aquired via trade. Anyways, the Ramirez deal, IMO, was a wash because the guy we gave up, Jeff Abbott, was nothing special. At least Ramirez had an upside.

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/s...als/6437074.htm What a moron.

Here's the easy answer, as I see it... No f***ing way.

I've also heard DeadAIM is pretty good, too, though I just use boring old AOL IM 6.something.

Awesome. To each their own.

Nah, it's life's a lot easier when you think everyone sucks. You never get bad surprises.

I know... People never lie. What was I thinking?

I'm sure Shaq will give up a cushy job somewhere in the broadcasting world to go out and help out those "real people."

I like A-Rod. I like this saying that he would rework his contract to help the Rangers get more competitive. It's not like it's his fault the Rangers got into a bidding war... With themselves. Rumor was they could have had him for $14/year and wound up inking him for $25/year. Tom Hicks.

I saw "Snow Day" in Spanish... with English subtitles.

God damn this Reed kid is ridiculous... Anthony Webster who?

If we had their record vs. the Central, we'd be 10 games up in the division. So, they must not suck as bad as you say they do. Until we're in 1st place, you really can't say anything about them. To do so is just silly. lol cluho for once i agree with ya.........untill were in first you cant say s*** and shouldnt cause you know what boasting will get us... the big jinx......... No one's boasting, I just said the Royals suck. Big difference. well they are sucking in first place right now... and not us.. so its safe to say we suck more being in second......right?????? Damn straight. Those first few months sucked unimaginably.