Out of the Past

I think Vegas had us at 70 wins (maybe 69.5?) so the consensus among the ones who put their money behind their opinion was 92 losses.

So who gets the credit for the Marlins not losing 100 games as predicted? Who predicted that? I don't have any links on me, but I remember a few predictions like that. I never took them seriously though. One or two morons may have predicted 100 losses but reading this board one would think that most "experts" predicted 100 losses and that's ridiculous.

So who gets the credit for the Marlins not losing 100 games as predicted? Who predicted that?

We've dug ourselves into a hole and we need to go at least 6-3 in the road trip or the hole will likely get bigger.

3.5 games back..39 games to go...not impossible, but not that likely. There are still 39 damn games left, don't hit the panic button and jump off ship. A four game win streak could put us in first place, it's not over, just yet. Yes, these games have been among the most frustrating, but hey we're at our low point, better now than in October or the September stretch- just ask the Phillies or the Mets. Remember over the past two weeks we have been going against the class of the National League and I don't know about everyone else but I expected us to struggle down this stretch. We have gone 4-7 since the Phillies' series and we have only dropped one game back, what does that say about the strength of our division. We are not the only ones struggling, but so are the Mets and Phillies- them doing so almost exclusively against the Nats and Pirates. The Mets have won 7 of their last 9... we have won 3 of our last 10 And according to some we're not losing ground.

I have no problem with the move. Kensing has a better arm and was great the other night. Miller has stunk in August. As for Lo Duca, he fits a role better then McPherson. If Dallas is called up, he deserves to be playing regularly. I personally would call him up today and let him play 3rd and move Cantu to 1st. I think he's perfectly capable of out hitting Jacobs. At the very least, he'll get on base at a higher rate. Jacobs is our only player hitting well the 2nd half so it may be a bad idea to bench him.

What is generally the "Accepted" percentage of saves for a closer? I am just curious where Gregg stands compared to league averages. He has currently saved 79 percent of the games in save opportunities. I looked at the closers 20+ save opportunities. These guys have blown 14% of their saves. Gregg, at 21%, ranks 23rd out of 27.

3.5 games back..39 games to go...not impossible, but not that likely. There are still 39 damn games left, don't hit the panic button and jump off ship. A four game win streak could put us in first place, it's not over, just yet. Yes, these games have been among the most frustrating, but hey we're at our low point, better now than in October or the September stretch- just ask the Phillies or the Mets. Remember over the past two weeks we have been going against the class of the National League and I don't know about everyone else but I expected us to struggle down this stretch. We have gone 4-7 since the Phillies' series and we have only dropped one game back, what does that say about the strength of our division. We are not the only ones struggling, but so are the Mets and Phillies- them doing so almost exclusively against the Nats and Pirates. The Mets have won 7 of their last 9...

Whether you agree wih Cote or not (I happen to agree) give him some credit for actually writing a piece about the Marlins that has to do with their performance on the field and not about attendance or payroll or Manny Ramirez or any other such bulls#!t. This is the kind of baseball writing/reporting that is so lacking in the South Florida media market. Not that anything he said is earth-shattering or particularly well-written, but at least he's showing some passion for this team and sounding like a sportswriter. I agree. I think the local writers pretty much behave like glass half full fans and cheerleaders. They hardly ever question anything.

Some numbers comparing the "good" offense the first two months with the "bad" offense the last two + months: Runs per game: April and May - 4.94 (4th in the NL) June, July and August - 4.46 (8th in the NL) OPS: April and May - .781 (3rd in the NL) June, July and August - .729 (11th in the NL)

I still would've said Conine, he did everything that won us a championship, Cabrera did everything to build up his stats, but not to give us the wins. Are you aware that Conine was benched and lost his job in '97? Is getting benched included in the everything that won us a championship?

so you basically imply from the article that felons vote for democrats because a couple of guys say they MIGHT vote that way? The "couple of guys" are professors who did a study and nothign that I read in the article leads me to believe they are biased one or the other and from the article I think their methodology is a fair one so I think their conclusion has value. I personally thought the democrats would get a higher percentage of the convicted felons vote (in the 80s) but I guess I'll go with their number. What about the study do you disagree with? The methodology? The conclusion? What?

It took about three seconds to find this study. =============================== http://www.asanet.org/cs/felon_vote If Felons Could Have Voted, National Election Outcomes Would Have Been Different Washington, DC ? If current and former felons had been allowed to vote, the outcome of as many as seven U.S. Senate races and one presidential election since 1978 might have been altered. Felon disenfranchisement laws, combined with high rates of criminal punishment in the United States, sometimes play a decisive role in elections. This is the finding of a study by sociologists Christopher Uggen, University Minnesota, and Jeff Manza, Northwestern University, reported in the most recent issue of the American Sociological Review. The right to vote is a cornerstone of democratic governance, yet there are populations in this country disenfranchised from this civic process. The United States is unique among postindustrial democracies in that most states have established restrictions on voting rights for nonincarcerated felons, which make up three-quarters of the disenfranchised felon population. Currently 48 states disenfranchise felons (although ballot restrictions are specific to each state). The incarcerated are primarily the working-class poor and African Americans who traditionally vote Democratic. In their article, "Democratic Contraction? Political Consequences of Felon Disenfranchisement in the United States," Uggen and Manza analyze whether felon disenfranchisement had meaningful political consequences in past elections. They calculated the number of felons and ex-felons affected, then estimated voter turnout and vote choice based on their known characteristics (i.e., gender, race, age, income, labor force status, marital status, and education). They then adjusted for over-reporting of voting to determine the number of votes lost/gained by both Republican and Democratic candidates. The researchers estimate that the disenfranchised felon population is composed of approximately 35 percent ex-felons, 28 percent probationers, 9 percent parolees, and 27 percent prison inmates. The impact of felon disenfranchisement would have been greatly reduced had ex-felons, parolees, and probationers?all citizens not currently in prison?been permitted to vote in all states. Their survey data suggest that Democratic candidates would have received about seven out of every ten votes cast by this disenfranchised population in 14 of the last 15 Senate election years. "By removing those with Democratic preferences from the pool of eligible voters, felon disenfranchisement has provided a small but clear advantage to Republican candidates in every presidential and senatorial election from 1972 to 2000," wrote Uggen and Manza. Since 1978, there have been more than 400 Senate elections, and the outcomes of seven of those might have been different if the vote had been given to felons and ex-felons. While the percentage change is small, the difference might have had a significant long-term effect, given the well-known advantage of incumbency. In 1978 two of the 32 Senate elections might have had different outcomes if not for felon disenfranchisement, and this would have increased the Democrat majority from 58:41 to 60:39. Of the 32 senators elected, the incumbent party retained its seat through at least 1990 in 29 cases (91 percent) and through at least 2002 in 23 cases (72 percent). "Assuming that Democrats who might have been elected in the absence of felon disenfranchisement had held their seats as long as the Republicans who narrowly defeated them," said Uggen and Manza, "we estimate that the Democratic Party would have gained parity in 1984 and held majority control of the U.S. Senate from 1986 to the present." According to Uggen and Manza, the outcome of the most contested presidential race in history, the 2000 Bush vs. Gore election, would almost certainly have been reversed had voting rights been extended to any category of disenfranchised felons. Had only ex-felons been enfranchised in Florida and participated at the estimated rate of Florida turnout (27.2 percent) and with the Democratic preference (68.9 percent), they would have yielded an additional 60,000 net votes for Gore. This would have been more than enough to overwhelm Bush's narrow victory margin. "If disenfranchised felons in Florida had been permitted to vote, Democrat Gore would certainly have carried the state, and the election," said Uggen and Manza. "We can thus conclude that the outcome of the 2000 presidential race hinged on the narrower question of ex-felon disenfranchisement rather than the broader question of voting restrictions on felons currently under supervision." The researchers examined only national presidential and senatorial outcomes and did not explore the potential consequences of felon disenfranchisement on U.S. House, state, local, and district-level elections (e.g., in urban legislative districts, where felons and ex-felons are concentrated geographically and where disenfranchisement therefore likely has an even greater impact). The American Sociological Review publishes original works of interest to sociology in general, new theoretical developments, results of qualitative or quantitative research that advance our understanding of fundamental social processes, and important methodological innovations. To acquire a copy of ASR or for further information, contact the ASA's Public Information Office at (202) 383-9005 x332 or pubinfo@asanet.org. The American Sociological Association, founded in 1905, is a non-profit membership association dedicated to serving sociologists in their work, advancing sociology as a science and profession, and promoting the contributions and use of sociology to society.

The Olympics have saved me from stressing out over this team, we've been so up and down lately. Hopefully back up again tonight, and once again, if anyone in the outfield needs a night off... ah nevermind. In Fredi I trust... for now. Yesterday wasn't really that bad of a loss. It was a regular loss where 2 guys couldn't come through, 1 time each. We had good RISP, 6 of the 8 guys contributed. Our real problem was the pen giving up 4 runs in 3 innings. In his DP ball Hammer hit the ball hard and that's all you can ask for. I'm not one who congratulates guys for bloops and little bouncers that turn into hits I don't bash them for hard hit balls that turn into outs.

I'm serious when i say that we would be worse than the Braves if we chose Castillo over Cantu. We would be probably 4-6 games back if we chose Mcphearson over Cantu. how about if we still had cabrera.......... Our pitching would have been even worse. I don't think it would take much if anything to outpitch Miller. I'm willing to bet that Dontrelle and Barone/Seddon couldn't outpitch a duo of Miller/Badenhop When he went to the DL he was the 2nd worst pitcher (based on ERA+) in the league. As I said it woudln't take much if anything to do better than that. If you think it's hard to replace a guy with an ERA+ of 74 then we'll just have to disagree.

I'm serious when i say that we would be worse than the Braves if we chose Castillo over Cantu. We would be probably 4-6 games back if we chose Mcphearson over Cantu. how about if we still had cabrera.......... Our pitching would have been even worse. I don't think it would take much if anything to outpitch Miller.

I really find this to be disturbing, especially since just a couple of weeks ago another gunman killed several members of a church in TN because he perceived them to be 'liberal'. One caller on a radio show today, who claimed to be a psychologist with 33 years of experience, said that after listening to conservative talk radio for some time, he thought that they were laying the foundations for violence against people who describe themselves as liberal. The overwhelming majority of convicted felons vote or would vote democrat if allowed to vote so it's a fair assumption taht the overwheming majority of murderers vote or would vote democrat.

Does anyone have the video on this? Take a picture? Something? B/c from the replay I saw, it looked to me like the ball hit the teal wall, and went directly to his glove. If that happens, that wouldn't be an out...right? Just askin'...I didn't think he had caught it, cleanly. It was the ball Gonzo hit, btw. Yeah man, it hit the wall. Blame the umps.

Water under the bridge, we did not win. Good point. We lost and we continue to slide...... How are we "continuing to slide" when we're basically in the same spot we were in last week, despite the fact we've faced much tougher teams than the Phillies & Mets, over that span? How do you figure that? Since the start of last week's road trip we've lost about seven games in the standings to the Mets, Cards and Brewers. Yeah..."seven." We've lost games in the standings to the Brewers b/c they've gone on a winning streak...against the "great" Nationals and Padres. The team began last week 2.5 games out of the division lead. They are now 2 games back of the division lead (pending the outcome of the Phillies game tonight). Do you not understand we've lost two games to the Mets? Is that a good thing or something?

Water under the bridge, we did not win. Good point. We lost and we continue to slide...... How are we "continuing to slide" when we're basically in the same spot we were in last week, despite the fact we've faced much tougher teams than the Phillies & Mets, over that span? How do you figure that? Since the start of last week's road trip we've lost about seven games in the standings to the Mets, Cards and Brewers. He meant the division We've lost two games to the Mets (same division) and are now pretty much out of the wild card.

Water under the bridge, we did not win. Good point. We lost and we continue to slide...... How are we "continuing to slide" when we're basically in the same spot we were in last week, despite the fact we've faced much tougher teams than the Phillies & Mets, over that span? How do you figure that? Since the start of last week's road trip we've lost about seven games in the standings to the Mets, Cards and Brewers.

I would rather see in in CF than 3B.

I don't know why some of you are making jokes about this, Mike Lowell was our Team Captain a couple years back. I dont think thats true. Well you can think all you want, its true. Link? Here you go: http://www.marlinbaseball.com/forums/index...t&p=1706238

If the seaosn ended today the winner would be Ryan Dempster.

There's no need to nitpick good numbers.