Jake

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 13, 2014 -> 07:20 PM) I'd be surprised if Dunleavy knows his own name right now after that shot to the head. 2 rebounds, 2 layups, a made three, and took a charge so far. Wouldn't have guessed that after seeing that gash

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 13, 2014 -> 09:09 AM) I had to post this somewhere... So, New Jersey's Governor Christie passed an Administrative Action (no need for the legislature) that effectively bans all direct car dealerships. Cars MUST be sold by third parties. This move effects exactly one company - Tesla, who will have to close it's two dealerships in the state as a result. Leaving aside the amazing hypocrisy here, of Christie's touting of free markets and then doing the opposite and stifling competition... and leaving aside how awful it is for the government of a state to target a specific business this way to make other businesses happy, turning the state into a tool for businesses driving out competition... this, to me, is a great example of how the corporate money invading politics actually results in business-stupid policy. Here's the kicker... there are two other states that have passed similar laws or actions - Texas and Arizona. Funny thing, Tesla is right now looking to build it's new Giga battery factory, with seven thousand jobs at the beginning and more later, as well as a possible new vehicle plant nearby with thousands more jobs. There are four states in the running - Texas, Arizona, Nevada and New Mexico. This is called shooting yourself in the foot. Congratulations, TX and AZ (and NJ). Your "leaders" are lining their warchests with lobbying money, while costing jobs and tax revenue that would actually help people in your states. Republicanomics. While regulation doesn't always work the way it is intended, at least the left usually has a justifiable goal when they do it

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Mar 13, 2014 -> 01:55 PM) I'm not sold on advanced metrics in the NFL right now. Didn't they rate J'Marcus Webb a little higher than Bushrod in 2012? Yes, mainly because he objectively gave up less pressure

QUOTE (scs787 @ Mar 13, 2014 -> 01:36 PM) Fantastic. Phil's not messing around in trying to fix that putrid run defense. Looks like he's striving for some balance, avoiding guys with iffy track records or one dimensional play

QUOTE (scs787 @ Mar 13, 2014 -> 01:34 PM) In the whole league or among FAs? Entire league

Young graded out very well on PFF, especially considering he didn't quite get full-time reps. They didn't like him in 2012 when he was playing less than half time, and they loved him in 2011 where he was one of the best-rated DE in the league despite limited reps. Of more interest... Stop % (how many tackles made for no gain or loss/run plays) among DEs: 1. Houston 2. Young Bear in mind that most of the snaps Young sits out are anticipated run plays, but then again he missed less than 20% of snaps which isn't uncommon for DL

No clue how Crean will continue to have a job next year. We get it, he got recruits and brought the program out of the dumps. But you'll never get any higher than you are now with Crean. He's Ron Zook

There was definitely a "things are going to be different now" tease in that article, Spring Training style

The baffling thing about Bertrand is how good he was last year. It seemed possible he'd get worse if we increased his role, but at this point his role has been reduced and he's still awful

Power hitting is not to be trifled with in today's MLB

Yeah, I like category scoring because it's not readily apparent how good a guy is. There's also a degree to which you have to guess, but as a for instance you'd have to research to realize that Josh McRoberts is a nice mid-to-late round fantasy players because no one counting stat jumps off the page.

A DL that includes: Houston, Allen, Melton, Collins, Ratliff and Paea will be pretty damn good unless there is absolutely no depth past that

QUOTE (Stan Bahnsen @ Mar 12, 2014 -> 06:29 PM) Well, Molina getting too many chances to show he's not the bust we know he is. And we all know why. I look forward to the next fluff piece talking about the great strides he's making as a reliever. He's just been hurt and they intentionally put pitchers they don't care about in late innings in ST because they don't mind if a guy like Molina's pysche gets hurt from blowing a save

Allen was not good last year. Nice sack stat, but overall impact on pass rush was piss poor. Will be interesting to see if better utilization or maybe getting healthy over the offseason could get him going again. I sure wouldn't want to invest much, though.

I'm guessing MD Jennings is far from the presumptive starter, just a cheap value with experience to add some competition

Mundy's +0.2 rating on PFF would have made him our best defensive player last year

All of the top DE available are less than amazing pass rushers. Houston is only 26 and could play multiple positions if needed. Has longer track record than the other guys, too. Remember too that sacks are a small part of the pass rush. You'd trade three or four collapsed pockets / thrown away passes for a sack.

Wootton is a DT. He has never done well at DE and has always been a tweener, size/athleticism-wise. He played pretty damn well at DT last year, short of some discipline-related issues that comes with learning a new position. PFF has always shown him to be a piss-poor DE but he rated as one of our best overall defensive players last year once he started playing DT

A player who has put up two full seasons of high 90s wRC+ is not exactly far from being productive. Dayan only has to get marginally better to be worth keeping around indefinitely.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 11, 2014 -> 09:44 AM) He has been kissing up around baseball for a few months now. In the last month or so he got in the papers for saying something about how good he had it working for Kenny and the White Sox. Also said he really likes lobster as well as Kenny's suits

Don't forget cheese curds

If you want to waste some time reading about airline mysteries, google "D.B. Cooper"

QUOTE (flavum @ Mar 10, 2014 -> 06:05 PM) Wilkins trade bait to anyone? s***, we have an open DH spot next year. Wilkins has always been perceived to be a low-talent player, so I doubt he could ever have much value unless he produced in MLB

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 10, 2014 -> 01:40 PM) Yea, I don't agree with you on Maddow, she's just like the rest of them, maybe not to the extent of Hannity or Limbaugh, but she's the left's version of Bill O'Reilly, but IMO, that's not really a bad thing. You only see everything she reports as fact because you want it to all be true. It's still an opinion show, and opinions aren't about facts, they're about interpreting them. It's not so much that I have some warped idea of what the facts are. I just see one person/side using the facts to make a partisan statement, and one side using partisan statements without regard for facts far too often. For an exaggerate example - "Wealth inequality is at an all-time, look at this graph. Also, this is a really bad thing that we should remedy via government intervention" "People are doing fine/you can make a living as a beggar, look at my investigative reporting" QUOTE (pettie4sox @ Mar 10, 2014 -> 02:55 PM) Jake is studying some form of journalism in school on a graduate level if I'm not mistaken. I wouldn't be so dismissive of him like that but to each his own. I'm a PhD student studying communication, I specialize in political comm. -- specifically politically oriented entertainment, which for some is a categorization that is inclusive of cable news. Academia leans left, but my field is largely empirical (we deal in facts! ). Academia is really very much neoliberal IMO, borderline libertarian. Liberal attitudes, little support for leftist policy QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Mar 10, 2014 -> 03:05 PM) Right, it's not like journalism schools lean liberal or anything. I actually wonder about that. J-Schools are professional schools, so I don't have contact with them really. Journalists are still really drilled with the "just the facts" BS, which I find really damaging. Probably mostly liberals, just because for whatever reason people that like to write tend to be liberals. QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 10, 2014 -> 03:38 PM) I see your point, but it's still a shade of grey. She was just recently on the Daily Show about her Iraq War documentary (because what hasn't been said about that the last ten years?) and she was getting pretty animated about it. She's got an agenda for that. I remember she had a long interview with Jon Stewart on her own show and they debated cable news generally and she was convinced that MSNBC was the "truth" but Fox News was the devil and Stewart kept telling her, no, they're the same. MSNBC copied Fox News. And she wasn't buying it. She found a niche with the hardcore left. Just like O'Reilly or Hannity have found theirs. I think she's trying to say that MSNBC, or at least her show, is highly invested in factual accuracy. Obviously, coming to the conclusion that fact X + fact Y = welfare state is another thing. My "academic research" fun tidbits of the day is that 1. people that watch one cable news channel tend to watch both sides, except CNN viewers, who avoid both FOX/MSNBC. 2. People experience massive cognitive dissonance when confronted with factual information that contradicts their ideological views, but self-identified Republicans have a substantially larger adverse reaction to these things. For instance, in one study people were presented with 1. Sarah Palin saying something which is untrue (it's her talking about the death panels IIRC), but the news article does not comment on the accuracy of the statement or 2. the same thing, except the article mentions that what she's saying is false. When Republicans read the article in which she is contradicted, they are MORE likely to believe what she said. Oh, and the other relevant tidbit here is called the "third person effect." This refers to the difference between how much one things media affects themselves versus affects others. Conservatives tend to perceive a great deal of affect on other people from media while they believe they are immune from such persuasion. Liberals tend to think the media affects other people as well, but they also say it affects themselves. I think this in particular makes our political discussions more comprehensible, knowing that conservatives will be more hostile towards the media because they have the view that it is very influential on other people's opinions. FWIW, media effects research never finds a huge effect on people from watching any kind of political media. Watching the news, sometimes, makes you more knowledgeable. Partisans tend to feel more partisan when they watch partisan media. You don't see a whole lot of opinion change, generally speaking.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Mar 10, 2014 -> 04:23 PM) Precisely. Which is why if you argue that that pick isn't likely to work out anyway, you can pick a lesser guy there to pick a better guy earlier. Or you can say it's worth it to gamble on either 1. trading for a better prospect at the deadline or 2. getting a higher compensatory pick in the following offseason