No sir. But he must have been a very handsome man.

 

No doubt

He woke up the team because of showing up the pitcher? Did we even get on base in the last 3 innings?

 

Good point.

Well, I guess we'll have to wait and see if it has any effect on the team long term. Now that this seems to be an issue, I could see our dysfunctional unit going in the tank again and we point to a key moment in the season and it's when AJ turned on his pitcher and it infested the clubhouse with animosity.

If this is playing as big in the clubhouse as it is on here, then maybe we are f***ed again because of this incident.

 

 

So just for the "fun" of it. I tested the ideas out a bit. I went back through the game threads and figured out how many posts per game in wins and losses, and who had the most posts in each type of thread. Instead of trying to average it out, I counted who was in the top 5 posters for each type of game thread, and how often they appeared in winning and losing thread post leaders.

 

Game threads where we won have averaged 301.8 posts this year, versus 364.2 in losses, or about 20% bigger in losing games. The fun part is who posts in threads.

 

Breaking the people who appear in the highest rate of game threads, the first number is number of times a top 5 post total in a game thread where we won, followed by top 5 appearances in a game thread where we lost. For the purposes of not typing out all of the names, I only included people who had at least 5 in one or the other category.

 

Fathom 17-32

Balta 18-21

TheGingerKid 14-13

Soxfest 10-14

JoeCoolMan 12-8

Jordan4Life 7-9

Caufield 4-12

Greg775 6-9

Heads 8-1

BigEdWalsh 3-5

 

For the record 53 different people had at least one time they were in the top 5 in a game thread for wins, and only 40 for the losing games. 13 times when a game thread has been under 200 posts, it was a win, only 7 times for a loss. The two highest totals in game winner threads were both in the opening week of the season, including opening day for the second biggest winners thread. The biggest game thread of the year at 847 was the 7-4 loss with Oakland where Matt gave up 3 in the 9th and then three more scored in the 10th, including the really bad Pierre defense.

 

It seems more people post a lot less when we win, and fewer people post a lot more when we lose.

This is awesome.

Wow, thats a fantastic post SS2K.

 

 

So just for the "fun" of it. I tested the ideas out a bit. I went back through the game threads and figured out how many posts per game in wins and losses, and who had the most posts in each type of thread. Instead of trying to average it out, I counted who was in the top 5 posters for each type of game thread, and how often they appeared in winning and losing thread post leaders.

 

Game threads where we won have averaged 301.8 posts this year, versus 364.2 in losses, or about 20% bigger in losing games. The fun part is who posts in threads.

 

Breaking the people who appear in the highest rate of game threads, the first number is number of times a top 5 post total in a game thread where we won, followed by top 5 appearances in a game thread where we lost. For the purposes of not typing out all of the names, I only included people who had at least 5 in one or the other category.

 

Fathom 17-32

Balta 18-21

TheGingerKid 14-13

Soxfest 10-14

JoeCoolMan 12-8

Jordan4Life 7-9

Caufield 4-12

Greg775 6-9

Heads 8-1

BigEdWalsh 3-5

 

For the record 53 different people had at least one time they were in the top 5 in a game thread for wins, and only 40 for the losing games. 13 times when a game thread has been under 200 posts, it was a win, only 7 times for a loss. The two highest totals in game winner threads were both in the opening week of the season, including opening day for the second biggest winners thread. The biggest game thread of the year at 847 was the 7-4 loss with Oakland where Matt gave up 3 in the 9th and then three more scored in the 10th, including the really bad Pierre defense.

 

It seems more people post a lot less when we win, and fewer people post a lot more when we lose.

 

I can hardly speak to game threads, as I usually avoid them like the plague. So I can't hope to refute anything you've said.

 

A couple of things I noticed that seem out of place, though. Balta seems to typically be an optimistic guy, and he's there more for the bad games. Joe is the opposite of that, and J4L comes off as pretty even.

Damn fathom, 17-32?

Damn fathom, 17-32?

 

Fathom goes crazy whenever I bring up summer, 2009.

I can hardly speak to game threads, as I usually avoid them like the plague. So I can't hope to refute anything you've said.

 

A couple of things I noticed that seem out of place, though. Balta seems to typically be an optimistic guy, and he's there more for the bad games. Joe is the opposite of that, and J4L comes off as pretty even.

 

Considering we are 37-39 being 18-21 for Balta doesn't seem to far off of "random" for me. Someone like Heads who is 8 vs 1, stands out, as do a couple of others.

I don't see much that's surprising about that post, though. It's exactly how I said it was. There are going to be more posts when the team is doing badly. I'm sure that goes for every fan board on the internet, regardless of team or even sport.

 

And a 20% higher post total isn't bad. I was expecting 33-50%.

I don't see much that's surprising about that post, though. It's exactly how I said it was. There are going to be more posts when the team is doing badly. I'm sure that goes for every fan board on the internet, regardless of team or even sport.

 

And a 20% higher post total isn't bad. I was expecting 33-50%.

 

Yes and no. The higher rates part is correct. The more people part is way wrong.

I don't see much that's surprising about that post, though. It's exactly how I said it was. There are going to be more posts when the team is doing badly. I'm sure that goes for every fan board on the internet, regardless of team or even sport.

 

And a 20% higher post total isn't bad. I was expecting 33-50%.

Agreed. Nothing unusual here if you ask me.

I finally read the media reporting on this.

Everybody on here is blaming AJ. The Sun Times article makes no mention of any AJ gestures, only this from Peavy:

 

SUN TIMES

As Peavy walked off, he gestured with his glove toward Pierzynski on the mound. After Chris Sale pitched out of the jam, Peavy and Pierzynski, still wearing his mask, stood face-to-face in the dugout near the tunnel to the clubhouse, exchanging words. The White Sox telecast showed the confrontation.

 

Although Peavy denied it, the best guess was that the issue involved pitch calling, something Pierzynski excels at.

 

“That’s a misunderstanding with the sign or whatever, you have to ask them first,” Guillen said. “One thing, when they have a problem, we discuss, we talk about it and then move on. I don’t think it was a big deal.”

 

This thread easily could have been a Peavy bashing thread if Peavy made the gesture.

I can hardly speak to game threads, as I usually avoid them like the plague. So I can't hope to refute anything you've said.

 

A couple of things I noticed that seem out of place, though. Balta seems to typically be an optimistic guy, and he's there more for the bad games. Joe is the opposite of that, and J4L comes off as pretty even.

If I'm there more for the bad games it's because there are more bad games than good. I'm on when I get the chance.

Yes and no. The higher rates part is correct. The more people part is way wrong.

 

So, it's consistently around the same number of posters, regardless of winning or losing?

Edited June 23, 201114 yr by Milkman delivers

If I'm there more for the bad games it's because there are more bad games than good. I'm on when I get the chance.

 

Those were just the ones that took me by surprise in one way or another. No offense meant.

This will disappoint shack, as I apparently only post (or post A LOT more) when we lose.

So, it's consistently around the same number of posters, regardless of winning or losing?

 

No. Definitely fewer people making a lot higher post rate for games where we lose. Usually the same basic people. There seems to be more people making less posts per person when we win.

No. Definitely fewer people making a lot higher post rate for games where we lose. Usually the same basic people. There seems to be more people making less posts per person when we win.

 

Gotcha. I can't say that's too surprising though. We'd get a better gauge if this same study were done to the entire PHT forum, but I don't blame anyone for not offering

 

To me, it really feels like the regular, say 30 or so, posters are here everyday no matter.

Gotcha. I can't say that's too surprising though. We'd get a better gauge if this same study were done to the entire PHT forum, but I don't blame anyone for not offering

 

To me, it really feels like the regular, say 30 or so, posters are here everyday no matter.

 

Yeah, it took long enough just to do what I did. You'd have to write a query to do what you were asking. Game threads were just the easiest and most obvious thing that was consistently there.

For some reason, the last 2-3 wins I haven't opened the win thread until later.

Normally I open them and put in my take on the stars of the game.

I don't know if it's fair to count the number of posts in a winner/loser thread. Sometimes you just make one point and move on, unless somebody challenges it, then you freak out and post a lot more.

For some reason, the last 2-3 wins I haven't opened the win thread until later.

Normally I open them and put in my take on the stars of the game.

I don't know if it's fair to count the number of posts in a winner/loser thread. Sometimes you just make one point and move on, unless somebody challenges it, then you freak out and post a lot more.

 

Is it "fair"? I'm sure not claiming it as an absolute rule for sure.

 

Is in at least an indicator of a basic trend? I believe so.

 

Also I am referring to the actual game threads, not the after threads.

Yeah, it took long enough just to do what I did. You'd have to write a query to do what you were asking. Game threads were just the easiest and most obvious thing that was consistently there.

 

I appreciate the effort, believe me. The main flaw with the game thread idea is that it is avoided by many on both sides of the fence. I'm as pessimistic as it gets, but I avoid them as much as possible. The only time I ever post in a game thread is when I feel like I really need to say something to get it off my chest, and it's basically just one post and done. When I'm upset at a game, game threads usually make it even worse, so I don't even bother. I know other pessimists that do the same, as well as many optimists.

I appreciate the effort, believe me. The main flaw with the game thread idea is that it is avoided by many on both sides of the fence. I'm as pessimistic as it gets, but I avoid them as much as possible. The only time I ever post in a game thread is when I feel like I really need to say something to get it off my chest, and it's basically just one post and done. When I'm upset at a game, game threads usually make it even worse, so I don't even bother. I know other pessimists that do the same, as well as many optimists.

 

I know I only post in game threads when they have day games during the week while I'm at work. Even if I'm home at night and able to watch the game I generally don't bother having my computer on and/or with me so on the rare occasion I make a post at night it's through my phone, which is kind of a cumbersome process, which is why I generally avoid doing it.

 

 

Is it "fair"? I'm sure not claiming it as an absolute rule for sure.

 

Is in at least an indicator of a basic trend? I believe so.

 

Also I am referring to the actual game threads, not the after threads.

 

Oh I thought you meant the after thread.

In a game thread, I'll post a lot if I'm in there win or lose.

Unless it's a hit and run situation where I pop in there for a second.

People usually get mad at me in there so I tend to post a lot while in there.

I finally read the media reporting on this.

Everybody on here is blaming AJ. The Sun Times article makes no mention of any AJ gestures, only this from Peavy:

 

SUN TIMES

As Peavy walked off, he gestured with his glove toward Pierzynski on the mound. After Chris Sale pitched out of the jam, Peavy and Pierzynski, still wearing his mask, stood face-to-face in the dugout near the tunnel to the clubhouse, exchanging words. The White Sox telecast showed the confrontation.

 

Although Peavy denied it, the best guess was that the issue involved pitch calling, something Pierzynski excels at.

 

“That’s a misunderstanding with the sign or whatever, you have to ask them first,” Guillen said. “One thing, when they have a problem, we discuss, we talk about it and then move on. I don’t think it was a big deal.”

 

This thread easily could have been a Peavy bashing thread if Peavy made the gesture.

Just because the article doesn't say anything about AJ gestures doesn't mean it didn't happen, because watching the game, it for sure did. Unless you were looking for it live, or rewound it on TV, it was hard to catch because the play was still going on. When there is a meeting at the mound, that's the only thing you're staring at, so everyone saw what looked like Jake starting it. It started before it.