Jake

Shades of Ben Gordon

I like the aggressiveness of Booz taking it inside and then having the wherewithal to pass it out

I f***ing love Jimmy

Surprised to see Thad Young knocking down threes

I wonder how much this neck issue is a confounding factor with Derrick. This Sixers team is the epitome of what you get when you have zero depth. They can really compete when their top guys are on the court, but after player 6 or 7 it's f***ing horrible. Since they don't have LeBron James or Kevin Durant in those 6 or 7 guys, they won't be too good in the long run but they might be a somewhat fun team to watch.

QUOTE (TaylorStSox @ Nov 2, 2013 -> 01:15 PM) Of course I value defense. I will never value defensive stats. Defense is evaluated with eyes, not numbers. Don't even bother trying to change my mind, it will be pointless. QUOTE (TaylorStSox @ Nov 2, 2013 -> 01:24 PM) My eyes tell me if a player is a bad/good/great defender. I want to see his positioning, his instincts, his first step, his arm strength, the way he moves, how he reads the ball, the decisions he makes, his rhythm. Defense is an art, not math. All of these things are evaluated with human eyes in the calculation of UZR. Every single defensive play is watched and measured. The distance the player covered, the speed of the batted ball, whether baserunners advance more bases than they ought to, and a few subjective measures of difficulty (bad hops, for instance). Each play is given a number value based on how these things came together: did the guy not cover the distance that he should have but made a great throw to get the runner out? His range will be downgraded and his arm will be upgraded. Did he cover a ton of ground, then drop the ball? Range is upgraded, error rating downgraded.

There is a great deal of academic research on this subject and the vast majority shows a total lack of partisan bias in traditional news sources, and there is more evidence of conservative bias in the news networks than liberal bias. News media tend to give more airtime to opposing viewpoints that are factually false than what they merit, which is a much more significant source of news inaccuracy. There is more evidence that there are significant biases against female and minority politicians. It would be interesting to see if this still applies to Obama, as in the past many minority legislators generally only made the news when they had broken the law (and they are much more likely to be criticized for breaking the law than white legislators) or when they were at the forefront of a racial issue. The POTUS is obviously relevant all the time. What we're seeing here is a manifestation of another line of research, which is strong partisans on both sides finding the same news source to be biased against them. Those who claim bias in media consistently misreport what they remember seeing in a given segment. The offending pieces of info are more impactful and lead the person to forget the parts that backed their point of view. This applies not just to people that are strong ideological partisans, but also those who have opposing views of a particular issue. We call this selective recall. Selective categorization is similar: two sides hear the same sentence, both claim it is biased against them. This happens in law all the time, where defendant and plaintiff both think that jury instructions and things like that are harming them. Then there are different standards; partisans will each have their idea of which facts, opinions, etc deserve the most scrutiny and airtime. Another factor at hand, visible in this discussion, is another insight uncovered by political psychology research. People report more bias and inaccuracy the larger they believe the audience for that information is. Telling people that an article came from a journalist versus a student newspaper, for instance, can make partisans go from strong allegations of bias to relative agreement on non-bias. I've seen two different things that explain the difference between liberal and conservative differences in how much you hear about media bias. For one, Republican elites were the first to make claims about partisan media bias. The cultural association is very important. Beyond that, conservatives (not libertarians, fwiw) generally score much lower on a personality trait that some call "openness to experience." This means that they have a stronger preference for things that are familiar while those who are high on this trait (liberals) will be more apt to search for new experiences. This helps to explain a behavior that is relevant here: conservatives are much more likely to engage in what is called "safe argument," which basically means restricting political discussions to likeminded people. I'm guessing this is part of the reason for the popularity of conservative talk radio and why Fox News was commercially viable long, long before the change in content at MSNBC at continues to be much more successful in its ratings. People that frequently engage in these safe arguments (these are interpersonal interactions) are much more likely to report partisan bias in the media. A last note is that people that feel that they are strongly informed on their views will react to perceived media bias by counteracting it. That is, they will try to promote the information that they perceive as correct with extra gusto to try to correct the harm done by biased media. Conservatives tend to believe in their own political competency quite a bit more than Democrats and thus are a bit louder in their alternative media promotion.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 2, 2013 -> 08:57 AM) Actually used that Find My Phone app that Apple has...pretty neat. Was able to find my phone in my yard using the signal overlayed onto a satellite image of our yard. Must have fallen out when I was warding off my idiot dogs or something. I used that in my old dorm. It was accurate enough that I could tell that it wasn't in my room, but was in the room next to me. Used the Android equivalent to find my girlfriend's SGSIII the other day and it was just as accurate. Very cool to see these features becoming standard. It has limitations for an expert thief, but for self-induced problems it's great.

I'd like heads to roll in Illinois for not building their own website. What the f***? I'm probably going to vote for Rutherford in the upcoming election. I've met him about 10 times, a really good guy. He's from my hometown. I don't necessarily find him to be a policy match made in heaven, but I think he's a guy interested in governing and improving people's lives. Also, check out how Romneycare enrollment went: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkbl...ill-be-similar/ Even with a f***ed up website, enrollment was going to be concentrated in the final months

QUOTE (greg775 @ Nov 1, 2013 -> 02:34 PM) I'd trade Beckham, Santiago and Keppinger to the Royals for Giovatella and Moustakas who have been busts and see if our new hitting coach can help fix 'em. We give away the best three players in that deal

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Nov 1, 2013 -> 07:34 PM) 3B has been a wasteland ever since Crede's back went out and Uribe left after 2008 as well. Mark Teahen, Morel, Orlando Hudson, Keppinger, etc. As far as CF, well, we know that the Sox haven't found a permanent answer since the Rowand trade...not that trading for Thome was bad, it's just that Brian Anderson never developed, they traded away Chris Young...and we know all about the long list of players like Mackowiak and Darin Erstad that they stuck out there. Later on, you have the Nick Swisher disaster...which forced more players who were spare parts into the position, like Wise. But yeah, along with catcher now being a huge organizational-wide issue, 3B and CF/leadoff are probably the two biggest issues that KW failed to figure out a solution to. Our CF/leadoff hitter has been one of our team's best players for three seasons in a row

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 1, 2013 -> 09:39 AM) Isn't Ron Paul notorious for taking every deduction he could possibly find a way for himself to take while simultaneously arguing for getting rid of the same deductions? Ron Paul also tried to get the UN to intervene in confiscating RonPaul.com and RonPaul.org from his fans. He lost the case, while his own sites smeared him, but they continue to support him. I thought that was an especially fun/weird case.

I have some qualms with FIP, though I still prefer it to ERA if I have to choose one. FG has a very good discussion somewhere about why they dislike ERA and it is certainly compelling. I think FIP will sometimes consistently deviate from a pitcher's ERA over the course of years and I'd like to find a way to remedy that - some pitchers actually pitch differently in a different situation; advanced statistics are essentially predicated on the idea that one event doesn't influence another. The timing of the strikeout or walk is essentially irrelevant to FIP. We can think of lots of pitchers that are more or less likely to walk/strikeout batters depending on the situation. Some (Javy) habitually get worse in bunches, others (Nolan Ryan, Brian Wilson) respond positively to their own poor play

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Nov 1, 2013 -> 12:21 PM) I don't know why people aren't surprised. He hasn't played team basketball in some time (and exhibitions aren't necessarily great indicators). This shouldn't really surprise anyone and with time he'll become a much better facilitator and this offense will start to look a heck of a lot better (and more efficient). If you told me several months ago that he'd struggle out the gate, I wouldn't be surprised. It's surprising that he looked so sharp in the preseason and looks this way now QUOTE (ZoomSlowik @ Nov 1, 2013 -> 12:30 PM) Rose, relatively easily unless you're talking fantasy basketball. Curry is an amazing shooter, but he has several flaws. He's not a big threat on the drive, he's a pretty mediocre ball-handler/passer and he's a bad defender. He's SOOOO good at shooting that he can cover up most of that, but Rose is going to have a bigger impact with a league average cast around him. If salaries count though, I'd be more inclined to take Curry. Rose would cost you $19.5 mil a year for the next 4, Curry is only going to cost you $11 mil a year. That's a pretty sizeable difference if you're trying to put together a contender. So, the alternate question. Is there some roster configuration that would make Steph the better fit?

I should point out, in regards to that list of leaders in fWAR, a just as important group of players are those not listed. The White Sox are remarkably good at not having highly negative value pitchers. We pull them out of the rotation before they really cause them damage, we keep our guys healthy to keep random call-ups out the rotation.

The responsible parties

You are starting a new franchise in Seattle. The NBA, in a strange move, says you can choose one of two players as your franchise cornerstone whose salary won't count against your cap. You can have Derrick Rose or Stephen Curry. You're an expansion team, so you don't have any existing pieces to consider in your choice. Who do you choose?

Very unsavory and we're all bound to lose

QUOTE (Jenksy Cat @ Oct 31, 2013 -> 10:58 PM) What are we thinking we could get trade-wise for him? Think anyone would take that contract though? The White Sox will take on his contract if the Bulls send their top prospects along with him

Derrick can't score, can't get a foul call, and is absolutely not facilitating for his teammates. We looked our best with Hinrich in the game...and he is bad.

Joakim had nothing to do with Chandler falling down

You wonder why I question the league's integrity

Strange stuff with the non-foul calls

Davis would generally fit what we're trying to do, but I wonder how advisable it is to continue adding right handed hitters. We have: Abreu A. Garcia Viciedo Semien as young guys that we think will definitely be long-term pieces, plus Alexei Beckham Keppinger Flowers/Phegley and then our lefties Dunn De Aza Gillaspie Jordan Danks L. Garcia as LHH that have a chance to be on the roster next year. Dunn will be gone in a season at the latest and it seems we're trying to force de Aza out. That leaves us w/ Gillaspie, who might be a serviceable starter but not at the expense of Semien. Danks is fighting for backup time it seems and doesn't look like he is really much of an asset even in a platoon at the plate. Leury...I don't know that which hand he's hitting with really matters. Even if he hits well enough to have around, his value is never going to be his bat. I'm happy for us to pursue the best young guys we can get, but we're looking at having no decent left-handed bats on our roster in the very near future. Micah Johnson is our best lefty in the minors, but he will probably need at least another year of seasoning, if not two. In that case, you're looking at Semien and Johnson potentially competing for a spot. Other than that, the only LHH in the high minors with a remote chance of playing in the bigs are Andy Wilkins (first base/DH), Carlos Sanchez (switch-hitter), Jared Mitchell, Dan Black (first base/DH), Keenyn Walker (switch-hitter). All of these guys either had bad years last year or are playing first base and have low ceiling bats.

Derrick looks like s***