greg775

QUOTE (Tony @ May 25, 2017 -> 12:44 AM) At this point, do you even know what argument you are trying to make? Is it really that you believe no starting pitchers will ever make the Baseball Hall of Fame again? Is that what you are really trying to argue? Actually no pitchers at all who are early to mid career. I don't know which guys are eligible right now that might get in cause they are close to 300 wins, but yeah, I don't see anybody ever getting in counting guys early to mid career. Nobody cares about wins any more and that's all they used to care about regarding Hall starters. Closers' careers are short now, so the media won't vote them in for 4-5 dominant seasons alone.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ May 24, 2017 -> 05:57 PM) Maybe. He still was really good. What I don't understand is all the Hawk haters who always slam him for his lack of sabermetric use, but love Stone, who seems to base how good any pitcher is by wins. In Stone's era wins were ALL that mattered. The newspapers ran the standings with probable starters and you looked at wins and losses. QUOTE (Sox-35th @ May 24, 2017 -> 07:01 PM) It's more the way the game is played now. The fact is, wins don't really mean anything. The fact that you can blow a save and still get a win is stupid. And starters only pitch 6-7 innings now anyway. It just doesn't make sense as a stat anymore. Well, they might as well announce that no modern starting pitchers will ever get in the hall again. Cause nobody's gonna win 250 games anymore (which still wasn't enough; you needed 300 by gawd to get in) and if guys are only going six innings they won't have the strikeout totals either to impress. Also if guys are losing 1-2 seasons of a career to tommy john surgery, even more reason for no Hall of Fame. Closers? Doubtful because they only dominate 4-5 years and that's not long enough domination to be worthy of Hall. QUOTE (Quinarvy @ May 24, 2017 -> 08:22 PM) Man, Greg thought this was the ultimate "GOTCHA" thread, didn't he? For a guy who is despised, I talk about things that people pay attention to. They respond to me as much as you despise me. QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ May 24, 2017 -> 11:46 PM) And he hasn't given a single opinion of what he thinks the criteria should be. Just repeating "sabes!" Part of my angst is I still like wins and losses as a stat. The criteria? None. None of these guys are going to make the hall cause they aren't going to stack up to the guys who won 300 games. The voters won't have it. There is no criteria available that is gonna help these pitchers out in regards to the Hall.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ May 24, 2017 -> 08:04 PM) Greg's opinion is a nice look into that headline influence vs actual facts. Fear mongering is a very effective way to control the narrative. Just remember I predicted us attacking N Korea when it occurs.

QUOTE (bmags @ May 24, 2017 -> 09:35 PM) It was passed by the house. I know. Can't Senate reject it?

There's so much outrage today about this new health care plan. Look, it hasn't passed yet. If it's not reviewed closely and rejected by the House then that is as bad as Trump proposing it. Just reject it if it's so bad. Why would it pass into law?

QUOTE (RockRaines @ May 24, 2017 -> 07:23 PM) You being sad has nothing to do with it. Are you saying there is more violence in the world right now than there ever has been? I just want to make sure this is clear. I think once the war begins over the Korea situation, yes, at that point more violence than ever. It figures to be a major war, to go with all the incidents, mass killings.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ May 24, 2017 -> 02:24 PM) Compared to when? More now than ever. Are you not concerned and saddened about this? I can't believe I'm being ripped for being sad about this incident. This country is in deep trouble as is the world. The moment N. Korea has capability of tossing a nuke at US soil, you don't think that will happen? And not waiting for that ... you don't think Trump will start something soon vs. Korea?? These are dangerous times.

QUOTE (TheFutureIsNear @ May 24, 2017 -> 12:06 PM) Doesn't take much imagining to know the Sox still wouldn't be a playoff team It could have been a "possible" playoff team except for the continued piss poor defense. You've got an outfield of Melky, Eaton and Avi. Only Melky blows and sometimes he is serviceable. You've got Frazier, Anderson, Saladino and Jose Abreu. True, Frazier and Saladino suck but "on paper" a career year from Frazier and last year's hitting from Saladino would have been potentially good. We always said we'd need to acquire a catcher via free agency or trade in a contending scenario. Also DH would have needed an upgrade. Then you got Sale and Q, best 1-2 punch in the division with arguably a lock down closer. You have Rodon and Holland would have been an OK No. 5 with everybody saying one of our minor league phenoms will probably be called up in early June. But to win this division? Certainly the Sox could have contended with Sale and Eaton and some tinkering IF some things fell into place. The team would have had to make the usual 1-3 offseason moves and hope they were significant enough to help the team, though.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ May 24, 2017 -> 04:32 PM) You are correct that this is an issue, but the source is very clear. I'm glad you say it's an issue as you are a great writer. I just am amazed and shocked when people discuss pitchers for the Hall and bring up wins still.

QUOTE (ptatc @ May 24, 2017 -> 03:08 PM) How would you determine that Hernandez is one of the best pitchers of all time? He has 150 wins, not bad in this era, but wins no longer are considered anything to look at. So what do you look at? Somebody said "how dominant a pitcher was in his era." How do you determine dominance? For those who still look at wins, and we're told we shouldn't, he was 19-5 one year, then 13-12, 14-14, 13-9, 12-10 followed by domination of 15-6 and 18-9. Pretty good, there, but again wins are not a factor. So is it ERA only? He's got a 3.18 career ERA, pretty darn good. Is is strikeouts? He's got a zillion of those. I'd guess he should be in the Hall of Fame as he did dominate. But ... he's 31. Let's say he is human the rest of the way and barely tops 200 win total. Like I said many pitchers in the past weren't even considered ONLY because they had 'just' 200 wins and were not near the coveted 300 mark. I'm thinking very very few if any starters will be named to the Hall in the future. And relievers? Most great ones "dominate" for 4-5 years then they are done. Do they get in just cause of huge save totals in a four-year period?

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ May 24, 2017 -> 01:25 PM) Lackey has 180 wins, no way for him. WINS MEAN NOTHING I've been told over and over. So how can you say this? Wins shouldn't be in the discussion. QUOTE (Sox-35th @ May 24, 2017 -> 03:23 PM) The good GMs in baseball know pitching wins mean nothing. They are completely meaningless. And yet wins have been THE major argument for or against a pitcher's going to the Hall. "He had (fill in the blank) 20-win seasons." "He won 25 games one year." My point is no pitchers will be getting in the Hall ever again except relievers because saves still mean something to the Sabes people.

QUOTE (Dam8610 @ May 24, 2017 -> 04:54 AM) Saying that wins "mean nothing" is an extreme position that I'm not sure anyone would take. That said, I think it's completely reasonable to acknowledge that wins are far more a product of overall team performance and run support received by a pitcher than they are a product of pitcher performance. I don't think anyone would argue that a 20 win pitcher with a 4 ERA is better than a 10 win pitcher with a 3 ERA, given equal or nearly equal innings pitched. So how do guys get in the Hall of Fame from now on? What criteria?

QUOTE (Thad Bosley @ May 24, 2017 -> 05:48 AM) Why were you listening to the Royals' game? Was the Sox game not coming in by you? I was in the car. I live in KC area. I watched Sox fifth til eighth and turned it off after the second bunt attempt. Couldnt take it any more.

This loss is on Renteria for the bunting nonsense. Took the bats out of our hands. If he keeps this up I may become a Rick hater. The modern big leaguer CANNOT bunt as proven again tonight. Stop bunting Rick! Please Mr. Hahn go tell him to cut it out (unless team is trying to tank).

I was listening to Royals game and they were saying how some pitcher, I forget which one, wouldn't be elected to the Hall cause he didn't have near enough wins. WAIT a minute! I thought in the new sabes era wins mean NOTHING. So sabes people. No more starting pitchers get in the Hall again? Unless they have some ridiculous amount of strikeouts? Or the Hall will only be for relievers with the good new-wave Sabes stats? People can't have it both ways. Do wins mean nothing or not? Are voters still going to look at wins for Hall of Fame selection? A lot of starters have been denied the Hall cause of the old stats WINS vs LOSSES. Should all pitchers who got excluded for not being near 300 wins be re-assessed in the era of Sabes? I mean, think about all the pitchers who are in the Hall because of wins and I've been told by the Sabes people wins mean NOTHING. Hmmm.

QUOTE (harkness @ May 24, 2017 -> 05:18 AM) Ricky this isn't fastpitch softball... stop all the f******* bunting. Bunting takes all the aggressiveness out of an inning. You go from being the aggressor to praying some hitter can get a decent bunt in play. It's proven that it kills the odds of scoring. Just stop doing it. A GM like Hahn who is a sabes guy should explain it to him and tell him he wants no more bunts once the team is a contender.

QUOTE (StrykerSox @ May 24, 2017 -> 05:15 AM) Narvaez is garbage. Hawk and Stoney thought he'd put the ball in play. The pitcher had different ideas. Blew him away quickly.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ May 24, 2017 -> 01:08 AM) Greg, if this happened while Obama/Clinton was president, you'd be pushing for A LOT more harshness in the response than this...I'm shocked you are not more upset about this whole situation, with the number of young kids and teenagers who died simply exiting a concert (many of them had parents waiting outside to pick them up)...with nails and screws and shrapnel riddling their bodies. (Not to mention your propensity for bringing up similar theatre/movie/concert attacks like the one in Colorado when Batman came out, James whatever his name was). Words like "demon/ic," "monster," "pure evil," "soulless," etc., would be bandied back and forth. And do you still believe they shouldn't be publicizing details about the killer, his family, his origin...glamorizing violence "mass murders"? Does it matter if they're non-American, vs. homegrown terrorism? Muslim? I'm very very upset but right now I'm just sad for some reason. As far as the perpetrator, for some reason (at this time) I'm not that interested in who he is. this just saddens me right now and makes me think the world is coming to an end soon. Lot of violence.

QUOTE (Jerksticks @ May 24, 2017 -> 03:20 AM) I think the answer is a universal switch to concierge medicine across the board. Everyone carries insurance for serious disease. Insurance companies win, and people win. The only people that lose are all the coders and billing departments at every hospital/doctor's office. The need for that field would plummet. I kind of agree with this.

I don't like the topic of white privilege because I don't agree with the protests on campuses where unsuspecting students get drawn into it when all they are doing is trying to study in a library and they get accosted by groups of loud people demanding you "admit your privilege." Very rude. Very bad. Very scary. I'll tell you one thing: This white privilege thing from what I've been reading (not saying it's true) is hurting a great university. I was reading about Missouri's enrollment being way down and dorms closing and businesses closing, etc., cause the protests killed enrollment. If this isn't true, maybe the MU grads on here can fill us in. Laugh at me all you want but the basketball team may be very important in bringing Missouri back. That team figures to be sensational this season and sports can change the feelings on a campus quickly. This white privilege thing is bothersome to me on many levels.

QUOTE (BigHurt3515 @ May 24, 2017 -> 03:57 AM) Why are we bunting with two strikes No reason to bunt in a ballpark like this. Renteria is losing favor in my book.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ May 22, 2017 -> 10:09 PM) Ok Greg - here's my effort to explain this as simply as possible. Prior to 2008, insurance companies could deny coverage to someone because they had a pre-existing condition. Insurance companies could place a maximum limit on the amount of coverage you could use in your lifetime. They could exclude entirety categories of services - like maternity coverage - from people. The upshot of those policies was that people who had cancer or had been hit by a car or had diabetes were unable to obtain insurance period, or could no longer use insurance because they had passed their lifetime maximums. This led to lots and lots of medical bankruptcies, etc. Now, those people could still obtain treatment when they got sick, because a hospital can't turn someone away without insurance. But people who were using the ER as their doctor were unable to pay the bills. And when those bills ended up discharged in bankruptcy, that led to increased costs for everybody else. The Affordable Care Act comes along in 2008. It says that the insurance companies can't deny coverage because of pre-existing conditions. All their policies have to cover "essential services." There are no more lifetime maximums. And if you fall below a certain income level, you received subsidies on your insurance - subsidies that were paid for by increased taxes on the very wealthy. It also expanded Medicaid coverage to millions of people. Now, the ACA has problems too! Because insurance covers more, the cost of coverage went up for a lot of people. And deductibles went up as well. Also, some Republican states refused the Medicaid expansion (even though the federal government was paying for it). But more people had health insurance, and the number of medical bankruptcies should have gone done. The Republican bill wants to return coverage back closer to what our system was prior to 2008. The bill lets states decide if they want to make insurance companies cover pre-existing conditions. It sunsets the Medicaid expansion in 2020. Rather than subsidies based on income, it gives everybody the same tax credit for purchase of health insurance (so Bill Gates would get the same amount of credit as you would). It also doesn't force insurance companies to cover "essential services" anymore. For healthy people, insurance costs will probably go down. For people who are sick, insurance costs will skyrocket again. According to the last time the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office scored the Republican bill, 24 million people would lose access to health insurance as a result of the Republican bill (the new CBO score comes out Wednesday). Healthcare is complicated! I'm not an expert on it by any means, and the issues go a lot deeper than what I just wrote. But that is a Cliffs Note version of the issues in healthcare. Thank you. That helps much. QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 23, 2017 -> 01:35 AM) During the campaign, he pledged not to cut Medicaid, Medicare, or social security I tell you, I'd rather have Bernie who is at the opposite end of the spectrum than the elitists like Trump. How can a Presidential candidate lie about such things? I mean if this is true and Trump said what you said, this is really appalling. If he flat out lied, he should be called on it daily. If this is true, anybody who voted for him expecting no cuts to these services just got f***ed over, flat out f***ed over. I know politicans are famous for lying about things to get elected. Maybe tons of them have done this as well. it still sucks if he ran on this and flat out was lying. I mean I guess the voter should just assume any Republican is lying when it involves positive solutions regarding social issues and common guy issues (health care, food stamps, social security, medicare). Not trying to stir it up, but at this point in time, Bernie was our only chance at compassionate social policies. (This is assuming correctly that Hillary was unelectable). This is very sad. I guess in 4 years it'll go back to normal. I'm assuming Trump will want no part of re-election. I mean OK, lets say like a friend of mine you have a horrible pre-existing condition. Now she has insurance under Obamacare. Will her company be able to immediately drop her? She'll never get insurance. Each treatment will be 50000 or more so she'll be homeless soon. Multiply her situation by thousands after thousands. We almost have to go to socialism at this point. Our system is barbaric.

Once these bastards started on concerts and sporting events ... that can really change things drastically. They've been encouraged to attack these type venues and quite frankly with the rent a cops on hand they "could be" very very dangerous venues in the future for fans. That said, this is an unspeakable tragedy. I'm still speechless and don't want to say anything but sorry for the victims and their families.

This guy is worse than the bad version of Humber.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ May 23, 2017 -> 01:21 PM) In his statement on the Manchester incident, Trump says he refuses to call the terrorists monsters because that's what they want, instead he will call them losers, because losers in life is what they are. I get what he's going for so I won't fault him completely, but calling somebody a "loser" seems like such a Trump-ism. I could see that as part of a SNL sketch even before this. I understand Trump's sentiment, but I agree 'loser' doesn't work here. Even though they are losers. I'd just go ahead and call them assholes, lowlifes. Lowlife fits more than loser.