I've added sort of a postmortem thing to "Almost EEEEEE!" at
http://eeeeeegp.blogspot.com/, should you be interested. It's really
long, ergo standard, but if you drink heavily between paragraphs, it
might go down pretty well. I'd love to hear where you disagree with me,
but I'd rather be, like, totally validated.

Thanks.

Gregg

On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 14:48:21 -0700, Gregg Pearlman <gregg@EEEEEEgp.com>
wrote:

>I've added sort of a postmortem thing to "Almost EEEEEE!" at
>http://eeeeeegp.blogspot.com/, should you be interested. It's really
>long, ergo standard, but if you drink heavily between paragraphs, it
>might go down pretty well. I'd love to hear where you disagree with me,
>but I'd rather be, like, totally validated.

I like the first two sentences a lot.

>He also was scintillatingly bad on the road, managing a .460 OPS, which
>is a rotten OPS for a potted plant.

The above line is fantastic

Agreed about Rowand, though my expectations were lower than most folks.
--
Greg Lentz

Greg Lentz wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 14:48:21 -0700, Gregg Pearlman <gregg@EEEEEEgp.com>
> wrote:
>
>>I've added sort of a postmortem thing to "Almost EEEEEE!" at
>>http://eeeeeegp.blogspot.com/, should you be interested. It's really
>>long, ergo standard, but if you drink heavily between paragraphs, it
>>might go down pretty well. I'd love to hear where you disagree with me,
>>but I'd rather be, like, totally validated.
>
>
> I like the first two sentences a lot.

That's what worries me.

>>He also was scintillatingly bad on the road, managing a .460 OPS, which
>>is a rotten OPS for a potted plant.
>
>
> The above line is fantastic

Thanks -- most kind. To be honest, I wanted something funnier than a
potted plant, but the Giants lately seem to have a detrimental effect on
my sense of humor. That's weird, 'cause usually they're a frickin'
treasure trove of humor.

> Agreed about Rowand, though my expectations were lower than most folks.

It's kind of a funny situation. Let's say it was 2005 instead of 2008: I
doubt seriously Rowand's signing -- even if it were for as much money as
it turned out to be -- would be treated as such a big deal. Like, he'd
just be someone who would "fit in there" with Bonds, Durham, Vizquel, et
al. Though this might be a lousy comparison, given that the Giants did
so well in '97, it might be a lot like when they signed Darryl Hamilton
and we were supposed to get all drooly about it.

G

On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 15:35:15 -0700, Gregg Pearlman <gregg@EEEEEEgp.com>
wrote:

>Greg Lentz wrote:
>> On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 14:48:21 -0700, Gregg Pearlman <gregg@EEEEEEgp.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>I've added sort of a postmortem thing to "Almost EEEEEE!" at
>>>http://eeeeeegp.blogspot.com/, should you be interested. It's really
>>>long, ergo standard, but if you drink heavily between paragraphs, it
>>>might go down pretty well. I'd love to hear where you disagree with me,
>>>but I'd rather be, like, totally validated.
>>
>>
>> I like the first two sentences a lot.
>
>That's what worries me.

Truth sells.

>>>He also was scintillatingly bad on the road, managing a .460 OPS, which
>>>is a rotten OPS for a potted plant.
>>
>> The above line is fantastic
>
>Thanks -- most kind. To be honest, I wanted something funnier than a
>potted plant, but the Giants lately seem to have a detrimental effect on
>my sense of humor. That's weird, 'cause usually they're a frickin'
>treasure trove of humor.

I was disappointed there was no accompanying new Tweaks song to accompany
the impressive list of guys who played this year.

>> Agreed about Rowand, though my expectations were lower than most folks.
>
>It's kind of a funny situation. Let's say it was 2005 instead of 2008: I
>doubt seriously Rowand's signing -- even if it were for as much money as
>it turned out to be -- would be treated as such a big deal. Like, he'd
>just be someone who would "fit in there" with Bonds, Durham, Vizquel, et
>al.

No doubt. But people who I consider to be pretty darn reasonable judges
of good contract values generally on this group liked that move. I hated
it and said so.

But he's a gamer.

>Though this might be a lousy comparison, given that the Giants did
>so well in '97, it might be a lot like when they signed Darryl Hamilton
>and we were supposed to get all drooly about it.

Yes, although ultimately Hamilton ended up being a good transaction. Did
what was expected of him, despite not being a leadoff guy at all, and got
converted into someone who (while healthy) was a real asset for the team.

Where we really missed was not giving Darrin Jackson more AB's.
--
Greg Lentz

Gregg Pearlman wrote:

> I've added sort of a postmortem thing to "Almost EEEEEE!" at
> http://eeeeeegp.blogspot.com/, should you be interested. It's really
> long, ergo standard, but if you drink heavily between paragraphs, it
> might go down pretty well. I'd love to hear where you disagree with me,
> but I'd rather be, like, totally validated.

Hey Gregg! Good to hear from you. Let me offer my validation on a nice write-up.
The only thing I *really* disagree with is the conclusion that the team exceeded
expectations. Maybe that's true from a pure W-L perspective, but consider the
following:

(1) We were three wins better than our Pythagorean (69-93).

(2) Related to (1), we were an impressive 31-21 in one-run games, so our record
could easily have been a lot worse.

(3) the west was worse than any of us predicted. We were .500 against the west.

Given these, I think the team was just about as good as most of us expected.

Greg Lentz wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 15:35:15 -0700, Gregg Pearlman <gregg@EEEEEEgp.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Greg Lentz wrote:
>>
>>>I like the first two sentences a lot.
>>
>>That's what worries me.
>
> Truth sells.

If only....

> I was disappointed there was no accompanying new Tweaks song to accompany
> the impressive list of guys who played this year.

Careful what you wish for.

Actually, while the thought occurred, the computer I've got at home
doesn't have a microphone....

>>>Agreed about Rowand, though my expectations were lower than most folks.
>>
>>It's kind of a funny situation. Let's say it was 2005 instead of 2008: I
>>doubt seriously Rowand's signing -- even if it were for as much money as
>>it turned out to be -- would be treated as such a big deal. Like, he'd
>>just be someone who would "fit in there" with Bonds, Durham, Vizquel, et
>>al.
>
>
> No doubt. But people who I consider to be pretty darn reasonable judges
> of good contract values generally on this group liked that move. I hated
> it and said so.
>
> But he's a gamer.

Well, I didn't hate the move. I wasn't in love with it either, but I
figured he'd help on some level. Ish.

>>Though this might be a lousy comparison, given that the Giants did
>>so well in '97, it might be a lot like when they signed Darryl Hamilton
>>and we were supposed to get all drooly about it.
>
> Yes, although ultimately Hamilton ended up being a good transaction. Did
> what was expected of him, despite not being a leadoff guy at all, and got
> converted into someone who (while healthy) was a real asset for the team.

All true, plus he got us Ellis Burks. But I still remember Glenn Dickey
spooging over the guy's .348 OBP.

> Where we really missed was not giving Darrin Jackson more AB's.

He certainly thought so, anyway.

Gregg

Jamal Bernhard wrote:

> Gregg Pearlman wrote:
>
>> I've added sort of a postmortem thing to "Almost EEEEEE!" at
>> http://eeeeeegp.blogspot.com/, should you be interested. It's really
>> long, ergo standard, but if you drink heavily between paragraphs, it
>> might go down pretty well. I'd love to hear where you disagree with
>> me, but I'd rather be, like, totally validated.
>
>
> Hey Gregg! Good to hear from you. Let me offer my validation on a nice
> write-up.

Bless your heart....

In fact, I'm going to try to do more writing this year, 'cause it's not
like I'm actually working for a living or anything these days.

> The only thing I *really* disagree with is the conclusion that
> the team exceeded expectations. Maybe that's true from a pure W-L
> perspective, but consider the following:
>
> (1) We were three wins better than our Pythagorean (69-93).
>
> (2) Related to (1), we were an impressive 31-21 in one-run games, so our
> record could easily have been a lot worse.
>
> (3) the west was worse than any of us predicted. We were .500 against
> the west.
>
> Given these, I think the team was just about as good as most of us
> expected.

Well, my assertion wasn't based on numbers, clearly. What I probably
should have said was that the team exceeded *my* expectations, which
involved three digits' worth of losses -- possibly four. They stank,
yes, but they stank way better than I thought they would. I wasn't sure
the loss of Bonds would kill them or anything, but I was definitely
suspicious of a team that I thought might pin its hopes on Velez,
Ortmeier, and Castillo, you know?

Gregg

Gregg Pearlman wrote:

> Well, my assertion wasn't based on numbers, clearly. What I probably
> should have said was that the team exceeded *my* expectations, which
> involved three digits' worth of losses

But isn't your assertion based on numbers then -- namely, the 90 losses? :-)

My point was just that we all expected ~100 losses, and despite the actual W-L
this was a team that could have lost 100 games with a little less luck in
another division.

Then again, the team was definitely better the last 2 months of the season, so
in *that* sense you could say that we exceeded expectations because going into
next year there's a distinct possibility that we could be better than 72-90,

Jamal Bernhard wrote:
> Gregg Pearlman wrote:
>
>> Well, my assertion wasn't based on numbers, clearly. What I probably
>> should have said was that the team exceeded *my* expectations, which
>> involved three digits' worth of losses
>
> But isn't your assertion based on numbers then -- namely, the 90
> losses? :-)

Well, it wasn't based on *all* numbers. For instance, no pi.

> My point was just that we all expected ~100 losses, and despite the
> actual W-L this was a team that could have lost 100 games with a little
> less luck in another division.
>
> Then again, the team was definitely better the last 2 months of the
> season, so in *that* sense you could say that we exceeded expectations
> because going into next year there's a distinct possibility that we
> could be better than 72-90,

Oh, I don't disagree. Of course, I'm afraid to be any more optimistic,
lest I jinx the Giants. Again.

Gregg

Gregg Pearlman wrote:

>> Then again, the team was definitely better the last 2 months of the
>> season, so in *that* sense you could say that we exceeded expectations
>> because going into next year there's a distinct possibility that we
>> could be better than 72-90,
>
> Oh, I don't disagree. Of course, I'm afraid to be any more optimistic,
> lest I jinx the Giants. Again.

Yes, by "better than 72-90" I mean somewhere in the range of 76-86, though I
supposed there is an outside shot at .500 and a remote shot at the division if
no one else improves and we happen to get hot against the West.

"Gregg Pearlman" <gregg@EEEEEEgp.com> wrote in message
news:ud6dnfY4CMW4bX7VnZ2dnUVZ_vninZ2d@comcast.com...
> I've added sort of a postmortem thing to "Almost EEEEEE!" at
> http://eeeeeegp.blogspot.com/, should you be interested. It's really long,
> ergo standard, but if you drink heavily between paragraphs, it might go
> down pretty well. I'd love to hear where you disagree with me, but I'd
> rather be, like, totally validated.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Gregg

I read your entire postseason textbook. Perhaps you should get this book
bound, published and sell it outside the giants games both preseason and
early next year. It will be a thick and heavy book, and GM's from all the
other teams will have much info.

I have a few questions and comments.
Bocock was not called up not only because he stunk but he was injured.
Gillaspie had it in his contract to come up to the majors this year in Sept.
It had something to do with the disbursement options of his bonus.

I would not be upset if Yabu did not come back and they gave his spot to a
young guy, his era exploded during a two week period in the middle of the
season when he failed to report an injury and kept pitching and he had no
split finger or sinker at that time. I just don't know why Rags, Bochy or
Gardner could not figure it out, because even on TV something looked amiss.
Are you sure Aurillia did not play any innings at SS. I thought I saw him
there for a few innings in the first half.

Its hard to believe that Burriss's zone rating is worse than Ochoa's as
Burriss made some plays on well hit balls up the middle when playing ss that
were on the second base side. Burriss will make more throwing errors and
fielding errors than Omar. Omar did hit over 300 the second half, and in
the first half he was playing coming back off an injury.

Also I thought Roberts played a few innings in CF this year.

As far as Rowand goes, its not just his 126 K's or 128 K's it is how many of
them came on 3-2 pitches that were way outside the K zone, and he refused to
take the walk and flailed away and turned a rally into a dud inning.

Horwitz will be 26 in November.

How many stolen bases did Randy Winn have in September?

I do see the potential the giants see in Sanchez.

I also think Sadler has great stuff but like many giants pitchers if they
cannot harness his control he will at best be erratic.

Walker definitely changed his style of pitching from Late 2007 to 2008. His
fastball lost about 4 or 5 MPH. Perhaps by design.

Giants record was better than expected partly because this year they won
most of the games they entered into the 9th inning with a lead. Even though
some of those games they fell behind, they often came back and still won.
Some would say why can't the giants hit when Cain is pitching the way they
hit when Wilson is pitching?

Even more than the giants lack of homerun power was their walk differential
giants walked 652 batters 98 more than league average while they walked
when batting only 452 times 102 times less than leage average for a
difference of 200 walks. To me that can more than make up 8 or 9 wins.
Which would put the giants at around 500 pct, even without the longball.
The giants actually hit over 270 post allstar break. Part of that was Winn,
Sandoval, Aurillia, Vizquel and Schierholtz holding up the team avg in the
post allstar break period. Still the OBP was pathetic. The differential
could only be made up by a team who could hit around 200 homers.

Anyway for now, if you published your column and sold it a Barnes and Noble
where I often browse baseball magazine, I would probably buy it.

On the Sept 27, Article. The giants did what the fish did in May. The fish
let Jeff Conine retire as a Marlin in the same fashion Snow did as a giant.
The fish did this when the giants were in florida. I guess the idea caught
on.

Jamal Bernhard wrote:
> Gregg Pearlman wrote:
>
>>> Then again, the team was definitely better the last 2 months of the
>>> season, so in *that* sense you could say that we exceeded
>>> expectations because going into next year there's a distinct
>>> possibility that we could be better than 72-90,
>>
>>
>> Oh, I don't disagree. Of course, I'm afraid to be any more optimistic,
>> lest I jinx the Giants. Again.
>
>
> Yes, by "better than 72-90" I mean somewhere in the range of 76-86,
> though I supposed there is an outside shot at .500 and a remote shot at
> the division if no one else improves and we happen to get hot against
> the West.

Course, there's also the hope -- or fear -- that 76-86 is good enough to
win the West.

Gregg

Dr. Wayne Simon wrote:

> I read your entire postseason textbook. Perhaps you should get this book
> bound, published and sell it outside the giants games both preseason and
> early next year. It will be a thick and heavy book, and GM's from all the
> other teams will have much info.

I've already had fears of standing on street corners trying to sell
written material.

> I have a few questions and comments.
> Bocock was not called up not only because he stunk but he was injured.
> Gillaspie had it in his contract to come up to the majors this year in Sept.
> It had something to do with the disbursement options of his bonus.

Neither of these surprises me, and I had wondered about both, but thanks
for clarifying.

> I would not be upset if Yabu did not come back and they gave his spot to a
> young guy, his era exploded during a two week period in the middle of the
> season when he failed to report an injury and kept pitching and he had no
> split finger or sinker at that time.

You're right. He stank.

> I just don't know why Rags, Bochy or
> Gardner could not figure it out, because even on TV something looked amiss.

Think back to Felix Rodriguez not reporting an injury and killing the
club in the process. I believe the newspaper said something about the
pain being addressed with "oral pain medication," which sounds a hell of
a lot like Advil. So the dude pitched really badly 'cause he couldn't
cop to pain that would go away with over-the-counter medication.

> Are you sure Aurillia did not play any innings at SS. I thought I saw him
> there for a few innings in the first half.

No, I'm *not* sure. I just went on what was on baseball-reference.com.

> Its hard to believe that Burriss's zone rating is worse than Ochoa's as
> Burriss made some plays on well hit balls up the middle when playing ss that
> were on the second base side. Burriss will make more throwing errors and
> fielding errors than Omar. Omar did hit over 300 the second half, and in
> the first half he was playing coming back off an injury.

I dunno about zone ratings. All I saw were range factors, and those are
somewhat subject to the kind of pitching staff a team has, i.e., lots of
fly balls, low range factors. What I don't know is if the Giants had a
fly-ball-type staff.

> Also I thought Roberts played a few innings in CF this year.

I did say I was surprised. Again, though, baseball-reference.com has him
playing no center field.

> As far as Rowand goes, its not just his 126 K's or 128 K's it is how many of
> them came on 3-2 pitches that were way outside the K zone, and he refused to
> take the walk and flailed away and turned a rally into a dud inning.

By the end of the season, I had no confidence in his ability to sustain
a rally. Maybe he felt pressure to be the big RBI dude, if only because
of his *lack* of RBIs in September.

> Horwitz will be 26 in November.

Well, if age was a factor in dropping him from the 40, why bring him up
before that?

> How many stolen bases did Randy Winn have in September?

Well may you ask!

You knew the answer to this already, of course, but he didn't even
*attempt* a steal in September. Interestingly.

> I do see the potential the giants see in Sanchez.

You're not the only one. Sometimes it looks like he's got some nasty
movement and such, but mostly I just don't get it. Kind of like I don't
get Anna Kournikova -- I mean, obviously she's not a woofer, but I don't
see where she's that big a deal.

> I also think Sadler has great stuff but like many giants pitchers if they
> cannot harness his control he will at best be erratic.

The dude throws hard, no doubt about that, but that control thing
worries me. It always seems like when he enters a game, somebody's going
to hit one out.

> Walker definitely changed his style of pitching from Late 2007 to 2008. His
> fastball lost about 4 or 5 MPH. Perhaps by design.

Weird. I could see him having changed it since 2006, when he got hurt.
It could be that he's simply lost some stuff. It also could be that he's
not that good.

> Giants record was better than expected partly because this year they won
> most of the games they entered into the 9th inning with a lead. Even though
> some of those games they fell behind, they often came back and still won.
> Some would say why can't the giants hit when Cain is pitching the way they
> hit when Wilson is pitching?

Some pitchers have all the luck; others have none. For years, Kirk
Rueter got good-to-great run support. Meanwhile, Joe Morgan would have
called him a pitcher who "knows how to win," but Cain would be a pitcher
who doesn't know how to "pitch to the score."

> Even more than the giants lack of homerun power was their walk differential
> giants walked 652 batters 98 more than league average while they walked
> when batting only 452 times 102 times less than leage average for a
> difference of 200 walks. To me that can more than make up 8 or 9 wins.

I wonder how much of that is down to Lansford. His career high was 60.

> Which would put the giants at around 500 pct, even without the longball.
> The giants actually hit over 270 post allstar break. Part of that was Winn,
> Sandoval, Aurillia, Vizquel and Schierholtz holding up the team avg in the
> post allstar break period. Still the OBP was pathetic. The differential
> could only be made up by a team who could hit around 200 homers.

The more I think about it, the more I figure that Lansford is
responsible for a *lot* of that -- both the low OBP and the lack of home
runs.

> Anyway for now, if you published your column and sold it a Barnes and Noble
> where I often browse baseball magazine, I would probably buy it.

Much appreciated. Now all I gotta do is figure outw to sell it.

> On the Sept 27, Article. The giants did what the fish did in May. The fish
> let Jeff Conine retire as a Marlin in the same fashion Snow did as a giant.
> The fish did this when the giants were in florida. I guess the idea caught
> on.

Somehow I didn't think the Giants did it first, but I hadn't known about
Conine. I don't think it's a bad idea, exactly, but there's something
kind of not right about it, you know? Like Larry Walker putting his
batting helmet on backwards and batting righthanded against Randy
Johnson in the All-Star Game, which was just a mockery of the game. The
Snow/Conine thing is *like* a mockery, but a *nice* mockery. I'm pretty
sure.

Gregg

"Gregg Pearlman" <gregg@EEEEEEgp.com> wrote in message
news:ud6dnfY4CMW4bX7VnZ2dnUVZ_vninZ2d@comcast.com...
> I've added sort of a postmortem thing to "Almost EEEEEE!" at
> http://eeeeeegp.blogspot.com/, should you be interested. It's really
> long, ergo standard, but if you drink heavily between paragraphs, it
> might go down pretty well. I'd love to hear where you disagree with me,
> but I'd rather be, like, totally validated.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Gregg

Who are you again?

This ng doesn't like newbies coming in here acting like regulars.

"Dr. Wayne Simon" <wayne.simon@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> Are you sure Aurillia did not play any innings at SS. I thought I saw him
> there for a few innings in the first half.

See, if you have a Ph. D., you'd be smart enough to figure out how to look
that up. Nope he didn't play SS this year.


> Also I thought Roberts played a few innings in CF this year.

If you have a high IQ, you'd figure out how to look that up too. Nope he
didn't play CF this year.


> How many stolen bases did Randy Winn have in September?

See, if you have a Ph. D. *and* a high IQ..... oh nevermind...

> Walker definitely changed his style of pitching from Late 2007 to 2008.
His
> fastball lost about 4 or 5 MPH. Perhaps by design.

Wow, I never thought someone would try to be a sucky player "by design" by
losing 4 or 5 mph on his fastball.

> Giants record was better than expected partly because this year they won
> most of the games they entered into the 9th inning with a lead.

So the Giants were lucky? Weird how Vegas knew they'd be lucky...


> Anyway for now, if you published your column and sold it a Barnes and
Noble
> where I often browse baseball magazine, I would probably buy it.

Woo hoo! 1 copy sold! Best seller!

"Gregg Pearlman" <gregg@EEEEEEgp.com> wrote in message
news:W--dnWC_EaHxvXnVnZ2dnUVZ_hednZ2d@comcast.com...
> Greg Lentz wrote:
>
> > I was disappointed there was no accompanying new Tweaks song to
accompany
> > the impressive list of guys who played this year.
>
> Careful what you wish for.
>
> Actually, while the thought occurred, the computer I've got at home
> doesn't have a microphone....

If you promise to do one, I'll personally send you a microphone.

"Jamal Bernhard" <noone@nowhere.net> wrote in message news:zaUEk.1442
>
> The only thing I *really* disagree with is the conclusion that the team
exceeded
> expectations. Maybe that's true from a pure W-L perspective, but consider
the
> following:
>
> (1) We were three wins better than our Pythagorean (69-93).

Hmm... I wonder how many wins did Tampa exceed their Pythagorean...

In article <ud6dnfY4CMW4bX7VnZ2dnUVZ_vninZ2d@comcast.com>,
Gregg Pearlman <gregg@EEEEEEgp.com> wrote:

> I've added sort of a postmortem thing to "Almost EEEEEE!" at
> http://eeeeeegp.blogspot.com/, should you be interested.

I'm interested, and I enjoyed it. A fair and insightful analysis of the
state of the team. And an excellent Edwards Guzman namedrop.

Awesome Lincecum wrote:

> Who are you again?
>
> This ng doesn't like newbies coming in here acting like regulars.

This newsgroup sure is touchy.

Gregg

Awesome Lincecum wrote:

> "Gregg Pearlman" <gregg@EEEEEEgp.com> wrote in message
> news:W--dnWC_EaHxvXnVnZ2dnUVZ_hednZ2d@comcast.com...
>
>>Greg Lentz wrote:
>>
>>>I was disappointed there was no accompanying new Tweaks song to
> accompany
>>>the impressive list of guys who played this year.
>>
>>Careful what you wish for.
>>
>>Actually, while the thought occurred, the computer I've got at home
>>doesn't have a microphone....
>
> If you promise to do one, I'll personally send you a microphone.

Needs to be a USB microphone.

Gregg

radiomd wrote:

> In article <ud6dnfY4CMW4bX7VnZ2dnUVZ_vninZ2d@comcast.com>,
> Gregg Pearlman <gregg@EEEEEEgp.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I've added sort of a postmortem thing to "Almost EEEEEE!" at
>>http://eeeeeegp.blogspot.com/, should you be interested.
>
>
> I'm interested, and I enjoyed it. A fair and insightful analysis of the
> state of the team. And an excellent Edwards Guzman namedrop.

Thank you. You'd be amazed, perhaps deeply saddened, at how many Giants
tweaks there are to choose from.

Gregg

Awesome Lincecum wrote:

>> (1) We were three wins better than our Pythagorean (69-93).
>
> Hmm... I wonder how many wins did Tampa exceed their Pythagorean...

4 games. In fact, the Red Sox had a better Pythagorean.

The Angels were a whopping 12 games over their Pythagorean. The funny thing is
that this still would have been good enough to win the West. The only team close
to that was the Astros who were 9 games over. All but 4 teams (two in each
league) were more than 5 away in either direction.

Awesome Lincecum wrote:

> Who are you again?
>
> This ng doesn't like newbies coming in here acting like regulars.

I hope you're joking, though I don't see a smiley.

Jamal Bernhard wrote:

> Awesome Lincecum wrote:
>
>> Who are you again?
>>
>> This ng doesn't like newbies coming in here acting like regulars.
>
> I hope you're joking, though I don't see a smiley.

I guess I'm a dinosaur, 'cause I absolutely refuse to use emoticons, no
matter how facetious I'm being. I'd rather type [INSERT EMOTICON HERE],
even, than actually use one.

You know how it is -- it's like the fact that "alright" has become an
acceptable "variant" of "all right," and that most people don't even bat
an eye at it anymore.

Gregg

Gregg Pearlman wrote:
> Jamal Bernhard wrote:
>
>> Awesome Lincecum wrote:
>>
>>> Who are you again?
>>>
>>> This ng doesn't like newbies coming in here acting like regulars.
>>
>> I hope you're joking, though I don't see a smiley.
>
> I guess I'm a dinosaur, 'cause I absolutely refuse to use emoticons, no
> matter how facetious I'm being. I'd rather type [INSERT EMOTICON HERE],
> even, than actually use one.
>
> You know how it is -- it's like the fact that "alright" has become an
> acceptable "variant" of "all right," and that most people don't even bat
> an eye at it anymore.
>
> Gregg

I think "[INSERT EMOTICON HERE]" is a great idea and you should start using it
*all* the time. But, you have to specify which type of emoticon or people will
still misunderstand you. [INSERT WINKING EMOTICON HERE]

On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 09:54:21 -0700, Jamal Bernhard <noone@nowhere.net>
wrote:

>Awesome Lincecum wrote:
>
>> Who are you again?
>>
>> This ng doesn't like newbies coming in here acting like regulars.
>
>I hope you're joking, though I don't see a smiley.

He's joking.
--
Greg Lentz

Greg Lentz wrote:

> On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 09:54:21 -0700, Jamal Bernhard <noone@nowhere.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Awesome Lincecum wrote:
>>
>>> Who are you again?
>>>
>>> This ng doesn't like newbies coming in here acting like regulars.
>> I hope you're joking, though I don't see a smiley.
>
> He's joking.

Gregg hasn't posted here in quite awhile, and AL's posts go back to middle of
last year, so I figured there was a decent chance he didn't know who Gregg was.

On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 12:15:21 -0700, Jamal Bernhard <noone@nowhere.net>
wrote:

>Greg Lentz wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 09:54:21 -0700, Jamal Bernhard <noone@nowhere.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Awesome Lincecum wrote:
>>>
>>>> Who are you again?
>>>>
>>>> This ng doesn't like newbies coming in here acting like regulars.
>>> I hope you're joking, though I don't see a smiley.
>>
>> He's joking.
>
>Gregg hasn't posted here in quite awhile, and AL's posts go back to middle of
>last year, so I figured there was a decent chance he didn't know who Gregg was.

AL goes back much further than that under different names.
--
Greg Lentz

Jamal Bernhard wrote:
> Gregg Pearlman wrote:
>
>> I guess I'm a dinosaur, 'cause I absolutely refuse to use emoticons,
>> no matter how facetious I'm being. I'd rather type [INSERT EMOTICON
>> HERE], even, than actually use one.
>>
>> You know how it is -- it's like the fact that "alright" has become an
>> acceptable "variant" of "all right," and that most people don't even
>> bat an eye at it anymore.
>
> I think "[INSERT EMOTICON HERE]" is a great idea and you should start
> using it *all* the time. But, you have to specify which type of emoticon
> or people will still misunderstand you. [INSERT WINKING EMOTICON HERE]

True, but if I don't specify, I can go on being tragically misunderstood
and adopting a superior attitude.

Gregg

Greg Lentz wrote:

> On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 12:15:21 -0700, Jamal Bernhard <noone@nowhere.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Greg Lentz wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 09:54:21 -0700, Jamal Bernhard <noone@nowhere.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Awesome Lincecum wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Who are you again?
>>>>>
>>>>>This ng doesn't like newbies coming in here acting like regulars.
>>>>
>>>>I hope you're joking, though I don't see a smiley.
>>>
>>>He's joking.
>>
>>Gregg hasn't posted here in quite awhile, and AL's posts go back to middle of
>>last year, so I figured there was a decent chance he didn't know who Gregg was.
>
>
> AL goes back much further than that under different names.

Kind of like Jose Uribe used to.

Gregg

"Gregg Pearlman" <gregg@EEEEEEgp.com> wrote in message
news:JradnfS6B-4bQ3nVnZ2dnUVZ_oLinZ2d@comcast.com...
> Awesome Lincecum wrote:
>
> > "Gregg Pearlman" <gregg@EEEEEEgp.com> wrote in message
> > news:W--dnWC_EaHxvXnVnZ2dnUVZ_hednZ2d@comcast.com...
> >
> >>Greg Lentz wrote:
> >>
> >>>I was disappointed there was no accompanying new Tweaks song to
> > accompany
> >>>the impressive list of guys who played this year.
> >>
> >>Careful what you wish for.
> >>
> >>Actually, while the thought occurred, the computer I've got at home
> >>doesn't have a microphone....
> >
> > If you promise to do one, I'll personally send you a microphone.
>
> Needs to be a USB microphone.

What? What kind of crappy Mac are you using now that doesn't even have a
regular mic input?

Well, do you have anything else that can record? Voice recorder? Casette
tape? I should be able to turn the recording into digital copies. I can
come by and pick it up.

"Jamal Bernhard" <noone@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:bK6Fk.2311$YU2.1352@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com...
> Awesome Lincecum wrote:
>
> >> (1) We were three wins better than our Pythagorean (69-93).
> >
> > Hmm... I wonder how many wins did Tampa exceed their Pythagorean...
>
> 4 games.

So does that mean Tampa didn't do that much better than people expected
before the season? ;-)

"Jamal Bernhard" <noone@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:117Fk.2313$YU2.2157@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com...
> Awesome Lincecum wrote:
>
> > Who are you again?
> >
> > This ng doesn't like newbies coming in here acting like regulars.
>
> I hope you're joking, though I don't see a smiley.

Sometimes when it is *so* damn obvious that it was meant to be a joke, I
don't bother to use a smiley.

Seriously, was there *any* other regular here who didn't know that was a
joke? I'd be shocked if the answer is yes.

Gregg has only been posting here for what, 12 years? And even though he's
been laying low lately, he's still the #1 all-time poster in this group
(*and* #4 as well). He's made more posts here than the amount of money
George Bush threw into the war in Iraq. He practically *owns* this group.

"Gregg Pearlman" <gregg@EEEEEEgp.com> wrote in message
news:R6Sdnf-ficJasHjVnZ2dnUVZ_t7inZ2d@comcast.com...
> Greg Lentz wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 12:15:21 -0700, Jamal Bernhard <noone@nowhere.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Greg Lentz wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 09:54:21 -0700, Jamal Bernhard <noone@nowhere.net>
> >>>wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Awesome Lincecum wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Who are you again?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>This ng doesn't like newbies coming in here acting like regulars.
> >>>>
> >>>>I hope you're joking, though I don't see a smiley.
> >>>
> >>>He's joking.
> >>
> >>Gregg hasn't posted here in quite awhile, and AL's posts go back to
middle of
> >>last year, so I figured there was a decent chance he didn't know who
Gregg was.
> >
> >
> > AL goes back much further than that under different names.
>
> Kind of like Jose Uribe used to.

I prefer Johnny LeMaster. But I don't think "Boo" works that well for me.

Awesome Lincecum wrote:

>>>> (1) We were three wins better than our Pythagorean (69-93).
>>> Hmm... I wonder how many wins did Tampa exceed their Pythagorean...
>> 4 games.
>
> So does that mean Tampa didn't do that much better than people expected
> before the season? ;-)

I don't know -- did people expect them to win 93 games? I doubt it. I sure didn't.

Awesome Lincecum wrote:

> Sometimes when it is *so* damn obvious that it was meant to be a joke, I
> don't bother to use a smiley.

It's only obvious to someone who knows that you changed your screen name.

> Seriously, was there *any* other regular here who didn't know that was a
> joke? I'd be shocked if the answer is yes.
>
> Gregg has only been posting here for what, 12 years? And even though he's
> been laying low lately, he's still the #1 all-time poster in this group
> (*and* #4 as well). He's made more posts here than the amount of money
> George Bush threw into the war in Iraq. He practically *owns* this group.

It has nothing to do with how many posts Gregg has made. I've written for
EEEEEE! before, so I know a little something Gregg's history. But people change
their screen names and I sometimes can't tell who's who. You've only been
"Awesome Lincecum" for a little over a year, and Gregg's last post to the group
was before that.

On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 15:48:47 -0700, "Awesome Lincecum" <Lincecum@sf.giants>
wrote:

>
>"Jamal Bernhard" <noone@nowhere.net> wrote in message
>news:117Fk.2313$YU2.2157@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com...
>> Awesome Lincecum wrote:
>>
>> > Who are you again?
>> >
>> > This ng doesn't like newbies coming in here acting like regulars.
>>
>> I hope you're joking, though I don't see a smiley.
>
>Sometimes when it is *so* damn obvious that it was meant to be a joke, I
>don't bother to use a smiley.
>
>Seriously, was there *any* other regular here who didn't know that was a
>joke? I'd be shocked if the answer is yes.
>
>Gregg has only been posting here for what, 12 years? And even though he's
>been laying low lately, he's still the #1 all-time poster in this group
>(*and* #4 as well). He's made more posts here than the amount of money
>George Bush threw into the war in Iraq.

Now that is damn funny.
--
Greg Lentz

Awesome Lincecum wrote:
> "Gregg Pearlman" <gregg@EEEEEEgp.com> wrote in message
> news:JradnfS6B-4bQ3nVnZ2dnUVZ_oLinZ2d@comcast.com...
>
>>>If you promise to do one, I'll personally send you a microphone.
>>
>>Needs to be a USB microphone.
>
>
> What? What kind of crappy Mac are you using now that doesn't even have a
> regular mic input?

I thought it was weird also. It's a borrowed "silver" G4 -- the first
Mac I've *ever* used with no microphone.

> Well, do you have anything else that can record? Voice recorder? Casette
> tape? I should be able to turn the recording into digital copies. I can
> come by and pick it up.

I'm pretty sure I appreciate the offer. In fact, I could do that myself
-- 20-year-old stereo cassette recorder, plus I probably have cables
around my home that can connect to the computer. Sounds like effort, though.

Gregg

Awesome Lincecum wrote:

>>
>>I hope you're joking, though I don't see a smiley.
>
> Sometimes when it is *so* damn obvious that it was meant to be a joke, I
> don't bother to use a smiley.
>
> Seriously, was there *any* other regular here who didn't know that was a
> joke? I'd be shocked if the answer is yes.
>
> Gregg has only been posting here for what, 12 years? And even though he's
> been laying low lately, he's still the #1 all-time poster in this group
> (*and* #4 as well). He's made more posts here than the amount of money
> George Bush threw into the war in Iraq. He practically *owns* this group.

For what it's worth, I assumed you were joking. And it's a shame I
*don't* own the group, 'cause I'd be forced to sell it... though I'm not
sure how much I could get.

Gregg

Jamal Bernhard wrote:

> Awesome Lincecum wrote:
>
>> Sometimes when it is *so* damn obvious that it was meant to be a joke, I
>> don't bother to use a smiley.
>
> It's only obvious to someone who knows that you changed your screen name.
>
>> Seriously, was there *any* other regular here who didn't know that was a
>> joke? I'd be shocked if the answer is yes.
>>
>> Gregg has only been posting here for what, 12 years? And even though
>> he's
>> been laying low lately, he's still the #1 all-time poster in this group
>> (*and* #4 as well). He's made more posts here than the amount of money
>> George Bush threw into the war in Iraq. He practically *owns* this
>> group.
>
>
> It has nothing to do with how many posts Gregg has made. I've written
> for EEEEEE! before,

.... and might be forced to again...

> so I know a little something Gregg's history. But
> people change their screen names and I sometimes can't tell who's who.
> You've only been "Awesome Lincecum" for a little over a year, and
> Gregg's last post to the group was before that.

When he changes his handle, it usually takes me a little while to figure
it out, but *only* a little while. If I hadn't known who was posting,
and thus thought he meant it, I would've made some snitty comment in
reply....

Gregg

"Gregg Pearlman" <gregg@EEEEEEgp.com> wrote in message
news:CoOdnZdXLfgp-HfVnZ2dnUVZ_rmdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> Awesome Lincecum wrote:
> > "Gregg Pearlman" <gregg@EEEEEEgp.com> wrote in message
> > news:JradnfS6B-4bQ3nVnZ2dnUVZ_oLinZ2d@comcast.com...
> >
> >>>If you promise to do one, I'll personally send you a microphone.
> >>
> >>Needs to be a USB microphone.
> >
> >
> > What? What kind of crappy Mac are you using now that doesn't even have
a
> > regular mic input?
>
> I thought it was weird also. It's a borrowed "silver" G4 -- the first
> Mac I've *ever* used with no microphone.
>
> > Well, do you have anything else that can record? Voice recorder?
Casette
> > tape? I should be able to turn the recording into digital copies. I
can
> > come by and pick it up.
>
> I'm pretty sure I appreciate the offer. In fact, I could do that myself
> -- 20-year-old stereo cassette recorder, plus I probably have cables
> around my home that can connect to the computer. Sounds like effort,
though.

If your computer doesn't have a mic input, I'm not sure how you can connect
a cassette recorder to it.

There are other alternatives though. A lot of mp3 players these days have
voice recorders too, and of course, they all use usb connections, so if you,
your kids, or your friends have one...

I'm in your neigborhood quite often now, so I can really come pick it up (if
you're not afraid of me). I promise I won't throw bricks at your house like
that certain peeing guy did. ;)

Come on, the economy is down, the country is in trouble, so the least you
can do is provide a new tweak song to jumpstart the economy.

"Jamal Bernhard" <noone@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:dBcGk.3932$be.2252@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
> Awesome Lincecum wrote:
>
> >>>> (1) We were three wins better than our Pythagorean (69-93).
> >>> Hmm... I wonder how many wins did Tampa exceed their Pythagorean...
> >> 4 games.
> >
> > So does that mean Tampa didn't do that much better than people expected
> > before the season? ;-)
>
> I don't know -- did people expect them to win 93 games? I doubt it. I sure
didn't.

Sounds like you don't have a clue what I was getting at. OK, someone said
the Giants did much better than expected this season, and you countered
with: "they're only 3 games better than their Pythagorean." What I'm trying
to tell you is that your statement is not even relevant to what the original
poster said. Tampa is a prime example.

"Jamal Bernhard" <noone@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:WEcGk.3935$be.3113@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
> Awesome Lincecum wrote:
>
> > Sometimes when it is *so* damn obvious that it was meant to be a joke, I
> > don't bother to use a smiley.
>
> It's only obvious to someone who knows that you changed your screen name.

I'm pretty sure you're the only long time regular here who doesn't know.

> > Seriously, was there *any* other regular here who didn't know that was a
> > joke? I'd be shocked if the answer is yes.
> >
> > Gregg has only been posting here for what, 12 years? And even though
he's
> > been laying low lately, he's still the #1 all-time poster in this group
> > (*and* #4 as well). He's made more posts here than the amount of money
> > George Bush threw into the war in Iraq. He practically *owns* this
group.
>
> It has nothing to do with how many posts Gregg has made. I've written for
> EEEEEE! before, so I know a little something Gregg's history. But people
change
> their screen names and I sometimes can't tell who's who. You've only been
> "Awesome Lincecum" for a little over a year, and Gregg's last post to the
group
> was before that.

I'm pretty sure he has made a few posts within the last year.

"Gregg Pearlman" <gregg@EEEEEEgp.com> wrote in message news:CoOdnZFXLfgX-
>
> When he changes his handle, it usually takes me a little while to figure
> it out, but *only* a little while. If I hadn't known who was posting,
> and thus thought he meant it, I would've made some snitty comment in
> reply....

See, even Gregg who's disappeared for so long knows who I am...

But since when has Gregg become so modest? You used to tell me you can
figure it out almost immediately. :-)

"Gregg Pearlman" <gregg@EEEEEEgp.com> wrote in message
news:CoOdnZZXLfhl-HfVnZ2dnUVZ_rmdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> Awesome Lincecum wrote:
>
> >>
> >>I hope you're joking, though I don't see a smiley.
> >
> > Sometimes when it is *so* damn obvious that it was meant to be a joke, I
> > don't bother to use a smiley.
> >
> > Seriously, was there *any* other regular here who didn't know that was a
> > joke? I'd be shocked if the answer is yes.
> >
> > Gregg has only been posting here for what, 12 years? And even though
he's
> > been laying low lately, he's still the #1 all-time poster in this group
> > (*and* #4 as well). He's made more posts here than the amount of money
> > George Bush threw into the war in Iraq. He practically *owns* this
group.
>
> For what it's worth, I assumed you were joking. And it's a shame I
> *don't* own the group, 'cause I'd be forced to sell it... though I'm not
> sure how much I could get.

These days, it's worth almost nothing. You held on to it for too long...

Awesome Lincecum wrote:
> "Gregg Pearlman" <gregg@EEEEEEgp.com> wrote in message
> news:CoOdnZdXLfgp-HfVnZ2dnUVZ_rmdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
>>I'm pretty sure I appreciate the offer. In fact, I could do that myself
>>-- 20-year-old stereo cassette recorder, plus I probably have cables
>>around my home that can connect to the computer. Sounds like effort,
> though.
>
> If your computer doesn't have a mic input, I'm not sure how you can connect
> a cassette recorder to it.

I haven't looked in the back for a while, but I think I've got audio
in/out jacks.

> There are other alternatives though. A lot of mp3 players these days have
> voice recorders too, and of course, they all use usb connections, so if you,
> your kids, or your friends have one...

Not one with a voice recorder.

> I'm in your neigborhood quite often now, so I can really come pick it up (if
> you're not afraid of me). I promise I won't throw bricks at your house like
> that certain peeing guy did. ;)

I'm not *too* afraid of you.

> Come on, the economy is down, the country is in trouble, so the least you
> can do is provide a new tweak song to jumpstart the economy.

Hey, if I thought it could jump-start my *personal* economy....

Gregg

Awesome Lincecum wrote:

> "Gregg Pearlman" <gregg@EEEEEEgp.com> wrote in message news:CoOdnZFXLfgX-
>
>>When he changes his handle, it usually takes me a little while to figure
>>it out, but *only* a little while. If I hadn't known who was posting,
>>and thus thought he meant it, I would've made some snitty comment in
>>reply....
>
>
> See, even Gregg who's disappeared for so long knows who I am...
>
> But since when has Gregg become so modest? You used to tell me you can
> figure it out almost immediately. :-)

Guess we'll see what happens next time you change your handle.

Gregg

Awesome Lincecum wrote:

> "Gregg Pearlman" <gregg@EEEEEEgp.com> wrote in message
> news:CoOdnZZXLfhl-HfVnZ2dnUVZ_rmdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
>>For what it's worth, I assumed you were joking. And it's a shame I
>>*don't* own the group, 'cause I'd be forced to sell it... though I'm not
>>sure how much I could get.
>
>
> These days, it's worth almost nothing. You held on to it for too long...

Good point. Depressing, but still.

Gregg

Awesome Lincecum wrote:

> If your computer doesn't have a mic input, I'm not sure how you can connect
> a cassette recorder to it.

http://www.griffintechnology.com/products/imic

Awesome Lincecum wrote:

>>>>>> (1) We were three wins better than our Pythagorean (69-93).
>>>>> Hmm... I wonder how many wins did Tampa exceed their Pythagorean...
>>>> 4 games.
>>> So does that mean Tampa didn't do that much better than people expected
>>> before the season? ;-)
>> I don't know -- did people expect them to win 93 games? I doubt it. I sure
> didn't.
>
> Sounds like you don't have a clue what I was getting at. OK, someone said
> the Giants did much better than expected this season, and you countered
> with: "they're only 3 games better than their Pythagorean." What I'm trying
> to tell you is that your statement is not even relevant to what the original
> poster said. Tampa is a prime example.

No, you totally missed my point....again. It's not *just* that the Giants did
better than their Pythagorean. That by itself only indicates they weren't quite
as good as their record, but it says nothing about expectations. The point was
that their Pythagorean was 69-93 in a weak division. So folks just looking at
the 72 wins might conclude that the team did better than expected, but when you
look at their Pythagorean, their record in one-run games, and the weak division,
the team looks about as good as most folks here thought they would be (which was
in the mid-60's in wins).

Tampa was also better than their Pythagorean, but again that's not the important
point. The point is that their Pythagorean was 93-69 which is way higher than
most people predicted. Plus, they were in a tough division (though perhaps not
as tough as some people thought given the Yankees performance).

If the Giants had a Pythagorean of 75-87 and had won 78 games, then they surely
would have been better than expected even though they would still have been
"only" three games better than their Pythagorean. The issue is not how they
finished relative to their Pythagorean -- it's how their Pythagorean finished
relative to everyone's expectations.

Awesome Lincecum wrote:

>>> Sometimes when it is *so* damn obvious that it was meant to be a joke, I
>>> don't bother to use a smiley.
>> It's only obvious to someone who knows that you changed your screen name.
>
> I'm pretty sure you're the only long time regular here who doesn't know.

You're probably right. I think someone mentioned it before, but it slipped my mind.

>> their screen names and I sometimes can't tell who's who. You've only been
>> "Awesome Lincecum" for a little over a year, and Gregg's last post to the
>> group was before that.
>
> I'm pretty sure he has made a few posts within the last year.

Not according to Google Groups, unless I made a mistake in my search parameters.

"Jamal Bernhard" <noone@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:qJMGk.2680$ZP4.8@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com...
> Awesome Lincecum wrote:
> >
> > I'm pretty sure he has made a few posts within the last year.
>
> Not according to Google Groups, unless I made a mistake in my search
parameters.

Wow, not sure how you could've messed *that* up, Mr. Professor. It's not
exactly rocket science. Actually he made a lot more posts than I
remembered. A simple google group search shows over 30 posts from March to
mid May by Mr. Pearlman. I thought he only posted maybe 5-6.

Here's one from April:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.baseball.sf-giants/msg/62d2a83effa9a87f?hl=en

"Gregg Pearlman" <gregg@EEEEEEgp.com> wrote in message
news:-Z6dncRP08uSsnbVnZ2dnUVZ_oTinZ2d@comcast.com...
> Awesome Lincecum wrote:
>
> > "Gregg Pearlman" <gregg@EEEEEEgp.com> wrote in message
news:CoOdnZFXLfgX-
> >
> >>When he changes his handle, it usually takes me a little while to figure
> >>it out, but *only* a little while. If I hadn't known who was posting,
> >>and thus thought he meant it, I would've made some snitty comment in
> >>reply....
> >
> >
> > See, even Gregg who's disappeared for so long knows who I am...
> >
> > But since when has Gregg become so modest? You used to tell me you can
> > figure it out almost immediately. :-)
>
> Guess we'll see what happens next time you change your handle.

Actually I like this one a lot; I might be keeping it for a while. Rat
Bastard seems to be the only one who could never figure it out anyway, and
he has disappeared from earth...

"Gregg Pearlman" <gregg@EEEEEEgp.com> wrote in message
news:-Z6dncVP08tYs3bVnZ2dnUVZ_oTinZ2d@comcast.com...
> Awesome Lincecum wrote:
> > "Gregg Pearlman" <gregg@EEEEEEgp.com> wrote in message
> > news:CoOdnZdXLfgp-HfVnZ2dnUVZ_rmdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> >
> >>I'm pretty sure I appreciate the offer. In fact, I could do that myself
> >>-- 20-year-old stereo cassette recorder, plus I probably have cables
> >>around my home that can connect to the computer. Sounds like effort,
> > though.
> >
> > If your computer doesn't have a mic input, I'm not sure how you can
connect
> > a cassette recorder to it.
>
> I haven't looked in the back for a while, but I think I've got audio
> in/out jacks.

Isn't the audio-in jack the mic input?

Awesome Lincecum wrote:
> "Gregg Pearlman" <gregg@EEEEEEgp.com> wrote in message
> news:-Z6dncVP08tYs3bVnZ2dnUVZ_oTinZ2d@comcast.com...
>
>>Awesome Lincecum wrote:
>>
>>>"Gregg Pearlman" <gregg@EEEEEEgp.com> wrote in message
>>>news:CoOdnZdXLfgp-HfVnZ2dnUVZ_rmdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>I'm pretty sure I appreciate the offer. In fact, I could do that myself
>>>>-- 20-year-old stereo cassette recorder, plus I probably have cables
>>>>around my home that can connect to the computer. Sounds like effort,
>>>
>>>though.
>>>
>>>If your computer doesn't have a mic input, I'm not sure how you can
>
> connect
>
>>>a cassette recorder to it.
>>
>>I haven't looked in the back for a while, but I think I've got audio
>>in/out jacks.
>
>
> Isn't the audio-in jack the mic input?

No, it's different. I'd explain it better, but I really don't want to
move the thing around right now. It's about the size of a fire hydrant....

Gregg

Awesome Lincecum wrote:

> Wow, not sure how you could've messed *that* up, Mr. Professor. It's not
> exactly rocket science. Actually he made a lot more posts than I
> remembered. A simple google group search shows over 30 posts from March to
> mid May by Mr. Pearlman. I thought he only posted maybe 5-6.
>
> Here's one from April:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.baseball.sf-giants/msg/62d2a83effa9a87f?hl=en

Huh,

If you follow your link above, then type "gregg pearlman" in the search box,
then sort the results by date, I see a single thread in April with three posts
by Gregg which I must have missed, then then the next one before that is Jan
'07. So what am I doing wrong that you are finding all these other posts in
March and May?

Jamal Bernhard wrote:
> Awesome Lincecum wrote:
>
>> Wow, not sure how you could've messed *that* up, Mr. Professor. It's not
>> exactly rocket science. Actually he made a lot more posts than I
>> remembered. A simple google group search shows over 30 posts from
>> March to
>> mid May by Mr. Pearlman. I thought he only posted maybe 5-6.
>>
>> Here's one from April:
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.baseball.sf-giants/msg/62d2a83effa9a87f?hl=en
>>
>
>
> Huh,
>
> If you follow your link above, then type "gregg pearlman" in the search
> box, then sort the results by date, I see a single thread in April with
> three posts by Gregg which I must have missed, then then the next one
> before that is Jan '07. So what am I doing wrong that you are finding
> all these other posts in March and May?

You guys are starting to scare me.

Gregg

Gregg Pearlman wrote:

>> If you follow your link above, then type "gregg pearlman" in the
>> search box, then sort the results by date, I see a single thread in
>> April with three posts by Gregg which I must have missed, then then
>> the next one before that is Jan '07. So what am I doing wrong that you
>> are finding all these other posts in March and May?
>
> You guys are starting to scare me.

Starting?

Jamal Bernhard wrote:
> Gregg Pearlman wrote:
>
>>> If you follow your link above, then type "gregg pearlman" in the
>>> search box, then sort the results by date, I see a single thread in
>>> April with three posts by Gregg which I must have missed, then then
>>> the next one before that is Jan '07. So what am I doing wrong that
>>> you are finding all these other posts in March and May?
>>
>>
>> You guys are starting to scare me.
>
>
> Starting?

Good point.

Gregg

On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 09:39:33 -0700, Jamal Bernhard <noone@nowhere.net>
wrote:

>Awesome Lincecum wrote:
>
>> Wow, not sure how you could've messed *that* up, Mr. Professor. It's not
>> exactly rocket science. Actually he made a lot more posts than I
>> remembered. A simple google group search shows over 30 posts from March to
>> mid May by Mr. Pearlman. I thought he only posted maybe 5-6.
>>
>> Here's one from April:
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.baseball.sf-giants/msg/62d2a83effa9a87f?hl=en
>
>Huh,
>
>If you follow your link above, then type "gregg pearlman" in the search box,
>then sort the results by date, I see a single thread in April with three posts
>by Gregg which I must have missed, then then the next one before that is Jan
>'07. So what am I doing wrong that you are finding all these other posts in
>March and May?

Google's own search function of their groups archive is not the best. You
have to hit on just the right combination to get it to reveal all the info
you're looking for.
--
Greg Lentz

Greg Lentz wrote:

>> If you follow your link above, then type "gregg pearlman" in the search box,
>> then sort the results by date, I see a single thread in April with three posts
>> by Gregg which I must have missed, then then the next one before that is Jan
>> '07. So what am I doing wrong that you are finding all these other posts in
>> March and May?
>
> Google's own search function of their groups archive is not the best. You
> have to hit on just the right combination to get it to reveal all the info
> you're looking for.

A Google search tool not the best? Where are we, the bizarro world?

"Jamal Bernhard" <noone@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:9tqHk.3813$yr3.737@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...
> Awesome Lincecum wrote:
>
> > Wow, not sure how you could've messed *that* up, Mr. Professor. It's
not
> > exactly rocket science. Actually he made a lot more posts than I
> > remembered. A simple google group search shows over 30 posts from March
to
> > mid May by Mr. Pearlman. I thought he only posted maybe 5-6.
> >
> > Here's one from April:
> >
> >
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.baseball.sf-giants/msg/62d2a83effa9a87f?hl=en
>
> Huh,
>
> If you follow your link above, then type "gregg pearlman" in the search
box,
> then sort the results by date, I see a single thread in April with three
posts
> by Gregg which I must have missed, then then the next one before that is
Jan
> '07. So what am I doing wrong that you are finding all these other posts
in
> March and May?

Hmm..... interesting..... maybe it *is* rocket science afterall. ;-) I'll
give you one more chance to redeem yourself. Come on, summon your professor
brain power and programmar brain power! It's not that hard. :-)

Here's a May 8th post from Gregg in a very memorable thread which includes
Jonathan in the subject line:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.baseball.sf-giants/msg/5ede418e34c22837?hl=en

It's not often that I'm so impressed by a post (by the guy who started the
thread; not Gregg).

Awesome Lincecum wrote:

> Hmm..... interesting..... maybe it *is* rocket science afterall. ;-) I'll
> give you one more chance to redeem yourself. Come on, summon your professor
> brain power and programmar brain power! It's not that hard. :-)

I skipped the class where they taught us about internet searches. If I didn't
study it, I can't do it. :-)

"Jamal Bernhard" <noone@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:oO5Ik.3120$D32.106@flpi146.ffdc.sbc.com...
> Awesome Lincecum wrote:
>
> > Hmm..... interesting..... maybe it *is* rocket science afterall. ;-)
I'll
> > give you one more chance to redeem yourself. Come on, summon your
professor
> > brain power and programmar brain power! It's not that hard. :-)
>
> I skipped the class where they taught us about internet searches. If I
didn't
> study it, I can't do it. :-)

Is there such a class? I've never heard of it. I imagine only some
beginner's computer class would teach about internet searches, which most
likely only covers the very basic stuff. "See that empty white box? Type
something in there, and hit enter."

From a programmar's perspective, it's just a bunch of codes. When you type
in some string like "Gregg Pearlman", what does the codes do? It searches
for the string. Where? In this case, I'm guessing in the body of the
posts. So what if Gregg Pearlman made a post but his full name wasn't in
the body of the post?

Awesome Lincecum wrote:

>> I skipped the class where they taught us about internet searches. If I
>> didn't study it, I can't do it. :-)
>
> Is there such a class? I've never heard of it.

Nah, it was just a joke. :-)

> From a programmar's perspective, it's just a bunch of codes. When you type
> in some string like "Gregg Pearlman", what does the codes do? It searches
> for the string. Where? In this case, I'm guessing in the body of the
> posts. So what if Gregg Pearlman made a post but his full name wasn't in
> the body of the post?

I would have assumed it searched the subject line and headers as well (to:,
from:, cc:, etc.).

"Jamal Bernhard" <noone@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:Cm6Jk.3372$as4.1880@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
> Awesome Lincecum wrote:
>
> > From a programmar's perspective, it's just a bunch of codes. When you
type
> > in some string like "Gregg Pearlman", what does the codes do? It
searches
> > for the string. Where? In this case, I'm guessing in the body of the
> > posts. So what if Gregg Pearlman made a post but his full name wasn't
in
> > the body of the post?
>
> I would have assumed it searched the subject line and headers as well
(to:,
> from:, cc:, etc.).

That's a reasonable assumption at the beginning, since none of us are google
programmers who wrote the search engine. But now that you have more
information, i.e., entering Gregg Pearlman didn't return all his posts, you
should know it was the wrong assumption. So what would be the next logical
search string?

(Hint: does Gregg usually put his name at the bottom of his posts?)