K-Town

Possibly because it's still a work in process.

Speaks good English??? Are you serious? Most people can't understand a word he says. He does pronounce the vulgarities surprisingly well, however. Dont look at Ozzie for bad English, look at the inner city kids and the surburban kids who use ebonics, and say "dude" and "gay" in every other sentence. These kids are going through our educational system. But politics and sports don't go hand in hand, right? :sunny: I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying that Ozzie's English is good, because the inner-city English is bad? Can't they BOTH be bad? As for the inner-city kids, I doubt if the educational system is teaching them "dude" and "gay". Lack of parents and parenting is probably a bigger issue.

Speaks good English??? Are you serious? Most people can't understand a word he says. He does pronounce the vulgarities surprisingly well, however.

That's not a lack of intelligence. That's laziness. My wife's family are all hispanic immigrants, and some of them literally don't speak English AT ALL (despite living in the country for 30+ years). If you're a housewife who always speaks Spanish at home with the family.... Call it laziness, then. There's no excuse for it, in my opinion.

The guy has been in this country for what............ 30 years? And still can't speak the language? I'd have to question his intelligence.

I didn't know one way or another, but I definately knew that he has had to produce a birth certificate to travel back and forth. WELL THEN WHERE IS IT? EVERYONE ELSE'S BIRTH CERTIFICATE IS EASILY AVAILABLE AND ACCESSABLE, WHY DON'T YOU PRODUCE ALBERT'S? Give us a link to Roger Clemens' birth certificate. And Barry Bonds. And Derrek Lee.

Well, considering there's not an ounce of evidence that Pujols isn't his listed age, and there are mountains of evidence that he's a good guy............. it seems pretty obvious which one is more pathetic.

Well it has been substantiated to at least some extent. If this link doesn't open for you lemme know and I can give a brief summary of it, but Wagner explains it much better than I could and he also uses cool graphs. Note that you're at least half-right: strikeout rates don't matter much for hitters, but for pitchers they go a long way toward separating the wheat from he chaff. And also note that this is a tendency, not an absolute rule. Guys with low K rates can have success (like the Cameraman's Friend) and guys with high K rates can have Abramoffian flameouts, but in general more Ks means better results over the long term. I'm just wondering why K-rates never correlate to ERA. Look at the teams with the best ERA over the last few years. Rarely is it a team with a high K-rate. If you look down the list, there doesn't seem to be a pattern to correlate K-rate to ERA, at all.

I think it may be a myth that Cuban will "win at any cost". He didn't "buy" his NBA success. There's a salary cap in the NBA. The Dallas personnel people have done a nice job of putting a winner on the court. That's the key. The Cubs spend plenty of money to win right now. They just have the wrong personnel building the team, in my opinion.

I agree it is likely to go up but don't put to much thought into it. How many Braves did the Cubs strike out Sunday? And how many runs did they give up? Things like baserunners and opponents average are cool but I don't care about K's as long as they get outs. I'll take a one pitch at bat where a batter pops out all day compared to a six pitch strike out. The theory is that pitchers don't really have much control of the outcome once the bat strikes the ball. A low K rate therefore can be a sign of impending doom. FWIW, Sir Sidney has never been able to miss bats, or judges for that matter. That's an interesting theory, but seems pretty weak when you consider that the two top pitching teams in baseball (Detroit and St. Louis) have horrible K/9 rates. Same for the White Sox. Last year, the top 2 teams (St. Louis and Houston) were pretty mediocre when it came to K/9. Historically, K/9 has very little correlation to the success of a pitching staff. Not only k/9 are figured but also HR and BB rate. I think one of those 2 might have been A LITTLE below average yesterday, no? A little below average yesterday, for whom? For alot of teams, I suspect. Regardless, a one-game example isn't going to tell us much. I'm guessing that K/9 is less important if you play good defense, and more important if you play poor defense. For several years, the Cards have had a mediocre K/9 number, but have been at or near the top of the league in ERA. I'm guessing alot of that has to do with solid defense. You're proving the point. Pitchers don't have a lot of control over balls in play, that's why defense has an impact. All I'm saying is that the theory (strikeouts versus no strikeouts) hasn't really been substantiated, based on the teams that have the best ERA's. I think that some pitchers have a way of getting players to hit the ball weakly, if not miss the ball altogether.

I agree it is likely to go up but don't put to much thought into it. How many Braves did the Cubs strike out Sunday? And how many runs did they give up? Things like baserunners and opponents average are cool but I don't care about K's as long as they get outs. I'll take a one pitch at bat where a batter pops out all day compared to a six pitch strike out. The theory is that pitchers don't really have much control of the outcome once the bat strikes the ball. A low K rate therefore can be a sign of impending doom. FWIW, Sir Sidney has never been able to miss bats, or judges for that matter. That's an interesting theory, but seems pretty weak when you consider that the two top pitching teams in baseball (Detroit and St. Louis) have horrible K/9 rates. Same for the White Sox. Last year, the top 2 teams (St. Louis and Houston) were pretty mediocre when it came to K/9. Historically, K/9 has very little correlation to the success of a pitching staff. Not only k/9 are figured but also HR and BB rate. I think one of those 2 might have been A LITTLE below average yesterday, no? A little below average yesterday, for whom? For alot of teams, I suspect. Regardless, a one-game example isn't going to tell us much. I'm guessing that K/9 is less important if you play good defense, and more important if you play poor defense. For several years, the Cards have had a mediocre K/9 number, but have been at or near the top of the league in ERA. I'm guessing alot of that has to do with solid defense.

I agree it is likely to go up but don't put to much thought into it. How many Braves did the Cubs strike out Sunday? And how many runs did they give up? Things like baserunners and opponents average are cool but I don't care about K's as long as they get outs. I'll take a one pitch at bat where a batter pops out all day compared to a six pitch strike out. The theory is that pitchers don't really have much control of the outcome once the bat strikes the ball. A low K rate therefore can be a sign of impending doom. FWIW, Sir Sidney has never been able to miss bats, or judges for that matter. That's an interesting theory, but seems pretty weak when you consider that the two top pitching teams in baseball (Detroit and St. Louis) have horrible K/9 rates. Same for the White Sox. Last year, the top 2 teams (St. Louis and Houston) were pretty mediocre when it came to K/9. Historically, K/9 has very little correlation to the success of a pitching staff.

To make it simple, he should get the standard suspension for charging the mound, where punches/helmets are always thrown - no more, no less. I suspect that's pretty much where it will end up. When you charge a mound, at least the guy that you're attacking has an opportunity to defend himself. That's alot different than sucker-punching someone when they're comletely unprepared for an attack. I don't agree with what Barrett did but it wasn't a sucker punch. They were face to face and if AJ couldn't see it coming then he's an idiot. Well, he is anyway but that is not the point. If Barrett had snuck up behind AJ and punched him, that would have been a sucker punch. There's NO WAY that AJ could have expected what was coming, considering he hadnt' really done anything wrong. When you walk up to someone and clearly let them know that you're ready to fight, then it's not a sucker-punch. When you simply walk up to someone and punch them when they clearly don't expect it, then I consider it a sucker-punch, because they clearly have no defense against it. There was no way that AJ could have gotten out of the way of that punch, under the circumstances. To me, it's a sucker-punch.

To make it simple, he should get the standard suspension for charging the mound, where punches/helmets are always thrown - no more, no less. I suspect that's pretty much where it will end up. When you charge a mound, at least the guy that you're attacking has an opportunity to defend himself. That's alot different than sucker-punching someone when they're comletely unprepared for an attack.

Actually, AJ was innocent, wasn't he?

Does anybody over in the White Sox ever think about what they say, before the say it? Kenny Williams just proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is an idiot. Sure, Kenny...MLB could have suspended MB the day after the INCIDENT, but MB would have still appeal the decision, which means...Barrett would have still play the game, your friggin, mental midget. Apparently, Williams believes in the "he's guilty because he is a Cub, so he shouldn't get an appeal" theory. Anybody else think....that the White Sox won the WS DESPITE Kenny Williams? I don't see Williams saying that Barrett shouldn't get an appeal. Am I missing something? I think he's just saying that it's unfortunate that Barrett attacked one of his players, and still gets an opportunity to beat them the next time that they play.

Why accuse McGwire, but not Pujols?

Clayton and Ozzie BOTH had better years than they should have............ probably because of the way Larussa used them. TLR should be commended for getting the most out of both of them. Ozzie doesn't get it. He didn't have the stamina to be a full-timer at that point in his career. It would have been ugly (just like it was in '95). Ozzie should thank Larussa for putting him in a position to succeed in '96, so he wouldn't have to go out on the miserable note of 1995. You're probably right that Smith doesn't put up those #s over a full season, but arguing that he doesn't have the stamina to be a full time starter based on his 156 ABs in '95 is bat**** insane. I think it was more based on the fact that he was 41 and coming off an injury. Right. It's more the age thing (41). It's no secret that 41-year-old shortstops are bound to lose something, and will likely need more rest. Like I said, both players were more productive than expected in '96. Larussa should be commended for getting that much production out of a has-been and a never-was.

Wouldn't PO many Cards fans. Most of them are sick of Ozzie whining. :?: Not a single one of the many that I know. Here are a few, to get you started. http://www.sports-boards.net/forums/showthread.php?t=81641

Clayton and Ozzie BOTH had better years than they should have............ probably because of the way Larussa used them. TLR should be commended for getting the most out of both of them. Ozzie doesn't get it. He didn't have the stamina to be a full-timer at that point in his career. It would have been ugly (just like it was in '95). Ozzie should thank Larussa for putting him in a position to succeed in '96, so he wouldn't have to go out on the miserable note of 1995.

Wouldn't PO many Cards fans. Most of them are sick of Ozzie whining.

So it sounds like Barrett wasn't so much angry at Roberts for the way he was playing the game (which seems like the right way, to me)..... but was probably angry because he couldn't stop him.

Havign the players sulking isn't going to help either. I want to see the players get pissed off! I don't want them to hold depressed pity parties. The fan's job is to have the pity parties. I understand, but what's going to help the team more: 1) Barrett throws out Roberts 2) Barrett doesn't throw out Roberts, but gets angry at him? Personally, I'd rather have execution than emotion.

Roberts stole third with 2 outs. Barrett told him that such a play is boneheaded and does nothing to help his team. Roberts took offense. Does nothing to help his team? Barrett not being able to throw him out certainly didn't help HIS team. Emotion is fine, to an extent, and I can understand why some would be happy that Barrett is "fired up". But emotion isn't going to win games if you're still not executing.

Tell that to the Royals, Devil Rays, and the Royals again. That's a fair enough point. "Every team" was definitely an exaggeration.