David

In HS, we had fat cheerleaders. When they'd go out, the crowd apparently (I was rarely at events short of mandatory pep rallies and crap like that) would chant OCB. Sort of mean, I guess.

It's the wrong time for that skid with the W.Sox in town. Yeah, if we get too far behind them we'll never make th playoffs! Yea, that's what I meant!!!! :roll: He's right, though. The Sox series is pretty meaningless and actually if there were a less inopportune time (does that make sense?) to go on a skid, it would be during a relatively meaningless, non-division stretch of games. I mean, sure, if you want to stick it to your Sox fans friends, it would be better if said skid came during games against the Royals or something, but the Sox series isn't really a huge priority.

wat?

He has been playing poorly because he has been dealing with a thumb injury most of the season. And in the past, even if he has been in a slump, he whomps on the Cubs. Go look up his numbers in this series on chicagosports.com. Yea, stats like that are pretty meaningless. I'd be happy to face 2008 Paul Konerko.

Damnit.. That was smoked.

It really feels like the Florida series last year at the end of the year. Except the Rays are, you know, really good....especially at home.

you are just on a roll with the nicknames what can you do with fukudome, wood and Chien-Mien Wang if possible put all three togehter how bout woodyouliketofukawang? hows that for you douchebag ....and that didn't last long.

You're un-clutch. That has about as much meaning as calling a player un-clutch. i dont have to be clutch, im not getting paid millions to play a game. o and i dont get half the year off either lol neither does derosa because clutch doesn't mean anything

Ah, ok, clutch nonsense. Makes sense now.

How can anyone possibly dislike DeRo?

Does anyone remember what finger Soriano broke back in ST? That was on his glove hand too, right?

I like that a lot. I was concerned that Johnson would be getting a lot of starts vs. righties after the stuff came out about Lou saying he had found his leadoff man. Hopefully, he keeps it along these lines.

I'm pretty sure it's the same injury that Utley had last year (at least, that's what I've read). If that's the case, then, no, Chase didn't hurt his wrist.

You know, he's actually been a pretty decent hitting catcher the last couple of years. Very little power, but pretty good otherwise.

I don't disagree with what you're saying. But my point has little, if anything, to do with determining what good process is. When good process is known (for instance, when statistics dictate what good process is), it is paramount. If a bad decision is made and it results in a good outcome, the good outcome doesn't justify the bad decision. Similarly, if a good decision is made and it results in a bad outcome, the bad outcome doesn't make it a bad decision. Again, we're assuming that what is a good/bad decision is already known either mathematically or by lots and lots of history.... This is all I'm trying to say. It amazes me that something so logically simple (and totally intuitive) is easily overlooked by people all of the time. If, for instance, Ozzie Guillen were to send Konerko to steal 3rd, and the catcher throws the ball into left field, there's a good amount of people that will say, "Wow, what a great, gutsy call by Ozzie." I don't understand these people.

He's still second among NL C's in OPS. He deserves to make the team, at the very least, as a backup. Him getting in as a starter isn't a very big upset, either. I don't know much (anything, really) about McCann's abilities defensively, but you might be able to argue that Soto's ability behind the plate evens the playing field a little bit more between the two than you might think. FWIW, Soto has a slight edge in CS%...

First, let me start out by saying that I agree with you completely. That said, I find it pretty ironic/puzzling that you're taking this stance considering you argued adamantly with me over the offseason that process didn't matter more than outcome (results). I forget what thread it was but there's a pretty decent chance that, given the fact that it was in the offseason, it was in the Roberts thread. :lol: Not to go on a tangent. Process doesn't matter more than outcome and this is a perfect point to illustrate it, Reed got lucky once and then did two stupid things afterwards, IMO, because his "hustle" (i.e., process) was reinforced by stretching a single into a double (outcome) the first time. Outcome always matters, it is what defines good process. With poor "process" one can get away with it every once in a while but more times that not the outcome won't be what is desirable (i.e., getting thrown out at 3rd and attempting to bunt when a) the pitcher has had a hard time finding the plate, and b) the playing surface is fast). IMO, it also hurt when DeRosa didn't back up 1st base. Good process = RJ not attempting to take second base... not attempting to drive backwards on the highway Bad process = RJ attempting to take second... you attempting to drive backwards on the highway Process trumps outcome. Do you see what I'm getting at here? The fact that you made a bad decision by driving backwards on the highway isn't somehow justified or excused by a good outcome (i.e. you not killing yourself, making it through unscathed). This is precisely the point you were making earlier in this thread and is the same point I will continue to make about how process matters more than outcome.

You're really missing the point of the Marmol usage outcry.

First, let me start out by saying that I agree with you completely. That said, I find it pretty ironic/puzzling that you're taking this stance considering you argued adamantly with me over the offseason that process didn't matter more than outcome (results). I forget what thread it was but there's a pretty decent chance that, given the fact that it was in the offseason, it was in the Roberts thread. :lol: EDIT - Ah, here we go viewtopic.php?f=6&t=45104&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&hilit=process%2C+outcome&start=175 Don't ask me why I remembered that. I don't really know. I guess it just stuck in my mind because I was surprised that you would take that stance, given your usual positions on things here.. *shrug*

These are the pitchers that get to us. Weve beaten or NDd pretty much every ace thrown our way, aside from Volquez who like most everyone, we couldnt touch, but its the Chris Sampsons and such that we havnt been able to get to. Sonnenstine is more of a Chris Sampson than an ace. Im not saying this guys going to beat us, Im just saying I hope they take him seriously. Same gos for this whole Rays team. Just because nobodys heard of half these guys, doesnt mean they cant hurt you. Got that Z? ...or, you know, that guy we faced last night. I'm thinking the claim that we struggle against bad pitchers isn't too accurate either. We've pretty much beat up on most pitchers we've faced this year, good and bad. Obviously there've been some exceptions, but the whole notion that we struggle against bad pitchers really doesn't seem to be the case anymore. I don't worry about our offense going into any game.

ummm what your sarcasm detector is doing it wrong

I won't read too much into Soriano's comments about when he wants to be back.

You realize that people have actually been clamoring for Lou to use Marmol more in high leverage situations and less when we are blowing teams out (which is quite often)....

WOO!!!!

They are working him good.