 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Other Stuff » Sports Talk » Go Home, Poorioles! :P
drunkengoat
Damn... Broncos, anyone?
Oh man... It is ON! Matt Clement vs Rodrigo Lopez today. Here goes...
Go Home, Poorioles! :P
April 21, 2005 at 04:12PM View BBCode
It's time for the Blingston Bling Sox to shine to a repeat! And we can't do it with you guys making us look bad by matching our obviously stellar 9-6 record.Damn... Broncos, anyone?
Oh man... It is ON! Matt Clement vs Rodrigo Lopez today. Here goes...
Duff77
April 21, 2005 at 08:20PM View BBCode
I *want* this win. For one thing, we were humiliated last night. For another, our teams have the same record and I'd like to stay ahead of Boston and--for however long we can manage it--in first place.
drunkengoat
Pulling out may be the smart play, but the thing is...
I *want* that fourth carrier. :P
Clement is solid. Will win.
If my blasted Toons aren't winning, I'd at least like to see their major league counterparts doing something worthwhile.
Go Cars!
April 21, 2005 at 10:20PM View BBCode
To quote Henry Fonda from Midway.Pulling out may be the smart play, but the thing is...
I *want* that fourth carrier. :P
Clement is solid. Will win.
If my blasted Toons aren't winning, I'd at least like to see their major league counterparts doing something worthwhile.
Go Cars!
drunkengoat
We were outhit, you were outpitched. In this scenario, who do you think wins? :)
April 22, 2005 at 03:06AM View BBCode
Epic.We were outhit, you were outpitched. In this scenario, who do you think wins? :)
Duff77
April 22, 2005 at 03:06AM View BBCode
Well, Clement being solid or not, I bet you never would've thought he'd win with Boston scoring just one run. "The Orioles will hit," they all said. "That's the one thing we don't have to worry about" they all said...
drunkengoat
April 22, 2005 at 03:09AM View BBCode
New zen topic, Duff! How hitting and scoring runs are two mutually exclusive anomalies.
drunkengoat
Because you can hit without scoring runs, and you can score runs without hitting. But you can score runs from hitting, and at the same time.. hit to score runs! So in a way, these variables are both independent and dependent depending on the situation.
April 22, 2005 at 03:10AM View BBCode
For the most part, at least.Because you can hit without scoring runs, and you can score runs without hitting. But you can score runs from hitting, and at the same time.. hit to score runs! So in a way, these variables are both independent and dependent depending on the situation.
FuriousGiorge
April 22, 2005 at 03:16AM View BBCode
That sand seriously backs me up, okay! Back off!
Duff77
Runs are not dependant on hits. You can score runs without hitting the ball at all. You can score on walks and errors. In fact, a pitcher can throw a nine-inning no hitter and give up 37 runs. That's why runs--the basic scoring system of the game--better reflect the totality of the game than any other statistic.
They may be the least revealing in statistical analysis, but karmically, they're the shit.
April 26, 2005 at 03:57AM View BBCode
Originally posted by drunkengoat
For the most part, at least.
Because you can hit without scoring runs, and you can score runs without hitting. But you can score runs from hitting, and at the same time.. hit to score runs! So in a way, these variables are both independent and dependent depending on the situation.
Runs are not dependant on hits. You can score runs without hitting the ball at all. You can score on walks and errors. In fact, a pitcher can throw a nine-inning no hitter and give up 37 runs. That's why runs--the basic scoring system of the game--better reflect the totality of the game than any other statistic.
They may be the least revealing in statistical analysis, but karmically, they're the shit.
ME
Wrongo! OPS Ã?ber Alles! Ã?ber Alles!
April 26, 2005 at 03:59AM View BBCode
Originally posted by Duff77
Originally posted by drunkengoat
For the most part, at least.
Because you can hit without scoring runs, and you can score runs without hitting. But you can score runs from hitting, and at the same time.. hit to score runs! So in a way, these variables are both independent and dependent depending on the situation.
Runs are not dependant on hits. You can score runs without hitting the ball at all. You can score on walks and errors. In fact, a pitcher can throw a nine-inning no hitter and give up 37 runs. That's why runs--the basic scoring system of the game--better reflect the totality of the game than any other statistic.
They may be the least revealing in statistical analysis, but karmically, they're the <b>[Censored]</b> .
Wrongo! OPS Ã?ber Alles! Ã?ber Alles!
ME
April 26, 2005 at 04:00AM View BBCode
Although runs do kick ass, and we all love Pythagorean records, although we love second-order Pythagorean records more.
Duff77
April 26, 2005 at 04:11AM View BBCode
OPS is NOT a karmically encompassing baseball statistic. You have the soul of a stat-head, not a poet, so you wouldn't understand this.
ME
April 26, 2005 at 10:52AM View BBCode
I hope you are refererring to team runs scored, not individual runs scored, which are meaningless.
drunkengoat
HAR!
And go home, Poorioles! BOO on yesterday's win. BOO!
April 26, 2005 at 12:36PM View BBCode
Duff, if you noticed, I mentioned your premise in my original idea.Originally posted by drunkengoat
Because you can hit without scoring runs, and you can score runs without hitting.
HAR!
And go home, Poorioles! BOO on yesterday's win. BOO!
ME
Boston 11-9 .550
Toronto 9-11 .450
New York 8-11 .421
Tampa Bay 8-11 .421
April 26, 2005 at 12:52PM View BBCode
Baltimore 13-7 .650Boston 11-9 .550
Toronto 9-11 .450
New York 8-11 .421
Tampa Bay 8-11 .421
FuriousGiorge
April 26, 2005 at 02:43PM View BBCode
Yeah, but the Orioles don't smell like boiled potatoes and incontinent cats.
drunkengoat
April 26, 2005 at 02:44PM View BBCode
Actually, my mom probably smells more like rosemary and Pond's cream.
FuriousGiorge
April 26, 2005 at 02:51PM View formatted
You are viewing the raw post code; this allows you to copy a message with BBCode formatting intact.
Oh. Must've been your sister then. Sorry, I got them confused.