ptatc

QUOTE (Middle Buffalo @ May 29, 2017 -> 08:44 PM) Samardzija got knocked down by his own guy right before he was going to tackle Harper. I would have liked to see that collision. Beanballs are dumb. I don't blame a batter for charging the mound, but it's not too bright. Easy way to get injured, and not a good look for Harper throwing the helmet. He's lucky that it seemed to slip out of his hand. It wasn't a beanball, he hit him in the hip. Next time don't stand and admire your homerun. Pitchers don't like that. What ye sow so shall ye reap.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ May 30, 2017 -> 01:17 AM) I should have specified transitioning to H1B (business or investment) visas or work visas after school is completed...the Trump administration wants to further limit those numbers, as there are specific numbers allocated per country. The number for Chinese accepted has hit the limits and they've started turning away applications, for example. The other part of this is the pending legislation coming from "California state residents" to limit the number of international students admitted into the Univ. of California system of state schools...with the idea that these "foreign/international" students are BLOCKING local or native California residents from being accepted into the best of those schools because their (Asian) test scores/SAT are significantly higher than the white, Hispanic and African-American student populations. SEE BELOW. https://www.voanews.com/a/california-to-lim...ts/3863065.html Of course its complicated. It should be. Immigration should not be based on, "I want to be here." It should be similar to many other countries. They need to show that their skills are needed here and they can be a productive member of society.

QUOTE (Reddy @ May 29, 2017 -> 09:29 PM) Hate to disappoint caulfield, but listening to all this is interesting. White privilege doesn't disappear just because you don't personally believe it helped you - that's not really how any of this works - HOWEVER, part of what I'm working on right now is the interplay between what's true and what's an effective tactic. The two rarely intertwine, and I think this is one of those cases. Bringing over white folks who don't believe they have privilege to "my side" requires much more sophisticated tactics than the ones I've been using. It's difficult for people who've experienced personal struggles to recognize they still have certain privileges because of their skin color that others don't. But honestly, that's pretty understandable. So yeah. I'm working on processing it all. We'll see what I end up with. But does it exist just because people who believe they were slighted believe it exists? It exists in general, but does it exists in all of these cases just because one side said it does.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ May 29, 2017 -> 10:28 PM) I am curious to hear if all those claiming "white privilege" doesn't exist also agree with the concept of charter schools? I'm pretty sure the answer will be yes. http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/201...r-school-215201 PAUL RYAN'S FAVORITE CHARTER SCHOOL I think this is an absolutely fascinating argument, about charter schools/vouchers vs. public schools...and wrapped up in this is improving educational outcomes for mostly African-American and Hispanic students in the US. Having taught for four years in one of the worst-performing public school districts in the US (Kansas City, MO), I understand the arguments on both side and have a lot of sympathy for the cause of WELL RUN charter schools. Reading this article, it made me think a lot of the way students here in China are prepared in KG, primary/elementary and middle school...the "study robot" approach which is so provocative to many parents, with its assorted pluses and minuses. Along with my many examples of "white privilege," I also am grateful that I had opportunity to work for 2-3 years (1999-2002) on a weekly basis with former H&R Block CEO Tom Block's President's Community Service Awards program, as well as his charter school, University Leadership Academy (and finally, the Ewing Kauffman Foundation). He co-founded this particular school with the Helzergs (they were also on the board of the non-profit I worked for, if you know Helzberg Diamonds in the Midwest, which Warren Buffett acquired for Berkshire-Hathaway) and I would be happy to support charters like this one and the ones in NYC as described in the article at the top of the post. One of the most amazing life stories (Tom Bloch) of a billionaire you could ever imagine... https://kcmo.ent.sirsi.net/client/en_US/kcl...r+the+Best%2522 https://www.kclibrary.org/event/tom-bloch-a...urban-education This is an interesting discussion. On the pro-side, what would be wrong if all of the parents can choose where to send their kids. On the negative, who decides which students get turned away when the school is full? There are really good reasons for each side.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ May 29, 2017 -> 10:09 PM) Turn them into "bots" for a proposed left-wing media equivalent of Fox NEWS, lol? Deploy them to finally get a significant DEM victory for Ossoff in the GA-6 race? Btw, Reddy...you will enjoy this article (not roaming white privilege gangs related)... http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/29/b...t-losses-238889 That would be the Clinton News Network.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ May 28, 2017 -> 11:54 PM) Well, that all goes back to the 47% of the population are receiving benefits/not working argument...no to mention the fact that Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, defense spending and interest on the debt continues to soak up an increasing portion of all government spending, not to mention the public/private pension benefits that are guaranteed to be paid. It's also one of the most compelling "free market" arguments for admitting exponentially increasing numbers of intl students, because their parents are willing to "invest" hundreds of thousands of dollars in their (mostly only) children's education/s. Roughly 50% of those students stay in the US or Canada and contribute to those economies (in fact, like the Kushner Propertystrategy, so many Chinese moved their money into Vancouver real estate, it blew up the prices for couples in their 20's and 30's to the point they couldn't afford to live there...same with SF and Silicon Valley. But isn't that still an overall benefit to the US economy, rising home/land values?) Finally, who are they going to get to work on the farms in California, Texas and all over the US when mostly white "native citizens" are unable or unwilling to do that type of work for $10-15/hour..landscaping/lawn maintenance...nannies/domestic helpers, Midwest processing plants like ConAgra, Iowa Beef Products (slaughterhouses), low skill/lower wage factory jobs, etc. Nothing you said applies to anything I wrote. Last time I checked, international students on visas are legal. There are plenty of ways to make migrant workers checked and legal. There just needs to be a limit. I worked at one of the IBP plants in high school. It was a great way to make money during the off season and summers.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ May 28, 2017 -> 07:29 PM) The problem is Fulmer looks more like Addison Reed than Benintendi or Happ, lol. You can throw 92-94 without impeccable location anymore as a starter...you have to be 95-98 or have remarkable movement. Hopefully Hansen and Dunning compensate for the inconsistency/struggles at the AA and AAA level, other than Kopech. No Collins today, btw. This statement is wrong on so many levels. Do you know how few starters actually throw 95 and higher? This is by no means the norm.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ May 28, 2017 -> 08:29 PM) 1) The US will not thrive economically without the drive and determination of another generation of immigrants to achieve the American Dream...we're already going in the wrong direction on that one. You can't be pro American and anti immigration simultaneously. There's no law stating that we can't select the very best from those immigrant groups seeking citizenship or work rights in America. Continuing immigration from Asia brings more benefits than it creates "obstacles" for whites. 2) https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexandratalty...food-institute/ Millennials, particularly white millennials, need to stop blaming the great financial/housing crisis, Bush, Obama, liberals, Muslims, feminists, George Soros, the rising costs of college education, health care, 9/11 or minorities/Affirmative Action for denying them opportunities to succeed. They should be investing in the stock market or starting their own businesses...they are saving at a relatively high rate of 20%, but it's (according to almost all surveys) for travel/tourism/vacations, eating out, high tech gadgets and generally enjoying life, certainly moreso than buying into the idea of starting a family or making a down payment on a house. Basically, that sense of entitlement needs to disappear. These last two generations never had to confront the idea of military service...are our lives really that difficult compared to our grandparents' and greatgrandparents' generations? But you can be pro-american and pro-legal immigration. There is a difference in the situation in the US today and back when the US let all immigrants in. They needed the increase in population to fuel the industry and farming for food back then.Today the population is becoming a burden on the US particularly in health care. You can't have it both ways. You can't have massive amounts of immigration into the country and want a healthcare policy for everyone. The reason health care for everyone works in many other countries is the smaller population and smaller costs. The rising cost of college education is in a similar situation. The reason it is rising is that states are no longer funding state schools like they used to, due to rising costs elsewhere. At my institution, the cost to the student in the 1990's was about 20% of the bill with the state paying the rest. Today that same student has to pay for nearly 80% of their bill. This is because the state funding has gone from 75% of our budget down to 20% over the same timeframe.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ May 26, 2017 -> 07:49 PM) Would be a fascinating argument about the order of ERA if one of these four were picked to go 20 starts for the remainder of the season in Chicago...who would perform the best, Lopez, Fulmer, Giolito or Kopech? I'd go with either Kopech or Lopez, just a hunch. I'm sure others think the exact opposite, especially after Giolito's no hitter, that maybe something finally is starting to click with him the last 2-3 times out on the bump. You have got to be kidding. The kids max innings for any season is 65. He'll be lucky to get 15 more starts the rest of the season.

QUOTE (maxjusttyped @ May 26, 2017 -> 07:03 PM) Sure would be nice of Lopez either cut his walk rate or started getting more GB's. A (entering tonight) 11% walk rate and 30.8% GB rate isn't ideal for success in the majors. Hence the reason he wasn't called up.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 25, 2017 -> 06:26 PM) Colleen Kane‏ @ChiTribKane 1h1 hour ago White Sox announce Tyler Danish will make his season debut in the second game of Friday's doubleheader vs. Tigers. Mike Pelfrey in Game 1. Must not want to mess with Fulmer's or Lopez's progress.

QUOTE (yesterday333 @ May 24, 2017 -> 02:42 PM) exactly! he is too valuable to take just a decent offer for. He will either get us a great haul or he will stay with us, there is not in between. agreed.

QUOTE (Sox-35th @ May 24, 2017 -> 02:06 PM) Jose Quintana was 10th in WAR in 2016. One stat that shows about where he belongs. That's true. However, as I've stated before. i would never just look at one data point to make any decision. Just because you have one stat that backs up your view of him doesn't mean it's the only view that matters. With no GM meeting the price that Hahn was asking for, it seems that at least some GM's don't think he was worth the price. Doesn't mean they were right either. It just means there are many ways to look at the value of a player.

QUOTE (chitownsportsfan @ May 24, 2017 -> 01:36 PM) If you believe in wins as a metric then you also have to believe that Jose Quintana is a mediocre pitcher, right? If you only look at one metric to determine the performance of a player then the answer would be yes. Of course if only look at strikeouts he's pretty mediocre as well.

QUOTE (Sox-35th @ May 24, 2017 -> 11:20 AM) So basically you are saying 60% of the pitchers wins are invalid because they are due to outlying factors This is why no one with any level of baseball acumen takes pitching wins seriously You are incorrect on this. There is just a group that doesn't take it seriously. Thank you for the insult by the way. I don't think you can come with any single stat or number that encompasses all factors. You should look at all of the information available to make a sound decision (on anything really) and totally ignoring any information just because it doesn't encompass everything is a poor way to go about the decision making process. All information is valuable. Just because some people who look too narrowly at information have a judgement on that piece doesn't mean it's an absolute standard.

QUOTE (iamshack @ May 23, 2017 -> 10:10 PM) The email that was sent out by him made it pretty clear it was a little more than a joke: Here is the issue. If the consensus of the scouts is that he has serious hit issues why are any of the other baseball people Badler etc. ranking him so high? Do that not have access to the same scouts?

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ May 24, 2017 -> 10:29 AM) The problem isn't the idea that a win is the ultimate goal, it's that the starting pitcher has LESS THAN HALF of the actual control over whether or not the win happens. It's simply not precise enough to be an effective measure of a pitcher's value. Thought exercise: A win is 50% run scoring (offense), 50% run prevention (defense). Given that, a pitcher has a maximum of 50% influence. But of that 50% influence that defense holds, the defenders in the field hold a significant portion. The pitcher undoubtedly holds MORE, so let's estimate that 40% of that 50% goes to the pitcher, and 10% goes to defenders. Given that, a pitcher has a maximum 40% influence. But of that 40% influence that pitching has on the win, a single pitcher only pitches part of the game. So far this year, the average innings thrown per start for SPs is 5.66, or about 63% of the total innings pitched. When we apply that to the pitchers 40% influence, a pitcher has a maximum of 25.2% influence on the win. So, on average, the starting pitcher of 2017 has an affect on ONE QUARTER of the outcome of the game. That's giving the pitcher 80% of the credit of all outs, and 20% to the defense, which I think is conservative. You can set your own values, but even if you give the pitcher credit for 100% of run prevention, that brings the ultimate number to 31.5%, or still less than a third. The pitcher is still the single most important influencer of a win, on average, but his influence is not even remotely close to the point where you could say that he controls the outcome. It's insane to judge a person by a measure of which he does not have control. And so we get more precise, by instead measuring the components of the win over which he DOES have control. I agree with this. I agree that the pitcher has the most control but doesn't have total control of the outcome. The issue with only looking at things he does have control over is that you lose the big picture when looking only at the little pieces. The only things he has control over is k, BB. He was somewhat control over HR but that also includes park factor and flyball rate and other things. what about a pitcher who has a high GB%. He'll have less HR but then is more dependant on the defense. Can the high flyball rate pitcher be effective with a high HR rate. I agree that you can look at all of the minutiae and determine if he was individually good. But how do you determine if he was effective in helping the team win? Just like the hitter and the RBI or runs scored? Those are largely dependent on other players performance but are they important in helping the team win? determining the value of a player is more than just the stats that only he can absolutely control, it's also how much he contributes to helping the team win. WAR attempts to do this but it's flawed. This is why getting as much information as possible is important and completely ignoring things like wins, RBI and runs scored is a mistake.

QUOTE (Sox-35th @ May 24, 2017 -> 09:52 AM) But it's reasonably fair comparing players across eras. Pitching wins, by comparison, is NOT a stat. The flaw of WAR is that it only includes what one group of people consider important. It's not an individualistic look at a player. In the 1920's there were far fewer teams and people playing the "elusive" replacement player would be different than today's player. WAR still uses the same stats for every era but every era is different even if just for the players let alone things like difference in the height of the pitching mound or ball construction.

QUOTE (Sox-35th @ May 24, 2017 -> 09:45 AM) Win count does nothing to support your claim. Wins are meaningless. You're talking about innings pitched, pitch count. Which all leads to wins. Looking at total wins will give you a good idea of all of those in combination without looking at the individual parts. Wins show more of the combination of all of those work to together to show effective the pitcher has been. This is in contrast to how good he was individually. Take a guy like Nolan Ryan. He had a great number of K but also a great number of BB. He couldn't win game for the life of him. His average year was 14-12. Now as a GM a guy who is trying to win games to win a world series. How do you judge a pitcher who can never seem to win? Will all of his K and some dominant games be worth it to help the team win? This is where wins can help judge his overall effectiveness. Again ti's not the only thing to look at and the value has decreased over time due to starters usage but it does have it's place.

QUOTE (fathom @ May 23, 2017 -> 07:53 PM) Lots of concern over his mechanics and injuries he's already had Those guys were pretty good. I agree with their statement s about his lower body. He creates a great deal of passive valgus at his right knee. He has far too much trunk flexion early on. The Sox would take of that with their "standing tall" philosophy. I disagree a little with the elbow position concern. i wouldn't be too worried about this guy. It's all very correctable especially with a professional strengthening program.

QUOTE (GermanSock @ May 24, 2017 -> 09:34 AM) The problem is that the modern bullpen use does not only decrease the wins but also other counting stats like IP, Ks and even WAR because the pitchers simply pitch less. Starters have given up part of their value to the bullpen. The question now is how to handle this. Absolutely. The more "objective" the game stats gets, the more "subjective" the HOF will get.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ May 24, 2017 -> 09:29 AM) http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/active-star...o-shot-at-hall/ It's an issue. The problem isn't which stats you decide are important, it's a complete denial of the fact that the game evolves and is really old and therefore norms for counting stats don't hold up over time. We can argue over whether or not wins are important all day -- but the reality is that pitcher usage has changed drastically to the point that wins can simply no longer be accumulated at nearly the same rate as they used to be. The way the game is played today, no pitcher will ever accumulate 300 wins, no matter how good they are, so 300 wins is a stupid way to judge a pitcher. Even if you like the win as a stat, the number 300 is simply not applicable in today's game. This is why so many arguments based on "traditionalism" are nonsense. It's not to say that your preferred aesthetic can't be to preserve tradition, but the world changes and many old ideas and memes just don't hold up, regardless of how you feel about them. This is very true. You cannot compare the number of wins today compared to earlier eras. Starting pitchers do not pitch anywhere near the amount of pitches, innings and games as their predecessors. So absolute number of wins should not be a yes or no criteria. Due to the usage of relievers, more HOF attention should be placed on this group. However, it's going to become a debate like positional players. How much offense does a great defensive shortstop need for the HOF? How do you rate a reliever who has a advantage in the advanced metrics (K,BB,FIP) as he will rarely pitch tired thus have better numbers than a starter.

QUOTE (Sox-35th @ May 24, 2017 -> 09:23 AM) The good GMs in baseball know pitching wins mean nothing. They are completely meaningless. Your example is a perfect example. A 3 ERA pitcher is (generally) better than a 3 ERA pitcher. A 20 win vs 10 win pitcher tells you almost nothing. i think you are wrong here. The value of them has decreased, rightfully so, but they are not meaningless. A 20 win pitcher vs. a 10 win pitcher, generally stayed in the game longer, was able to be more efficient with pitches, was able to be more competitive deeper into games. As someone said earlier it has decreased significance in a single season as in your example but carries a little more weight over multiple seasons or even a career.

QUOTE (reiks12 @ May 24, 2017 -> 07:53 AM) Agreed on Felix. I think that should be the most appropriate model for modern day HOF standards How would you determine that Hernandez is one of the best pitchers of all time?

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ May 23, 2017 -> 08:16 PM) I just read Keith Law's book actually. He talks about his time with Toronto in there. He was basically their only "data analyst". He wasn't choosing players. He was basically a lesser version of what Dan Fabian is for the White Sox today. He said in there that he wouldn't be qualified for the same position today. Law has said that Luis Robert could become a 3-4 WAR CF and he didn't scoff at an Adam Jones comp if everything goes right. White Sox fans are embarrassing themselves tonight. He also said that he hasn't heard anyone use that name as a comp but Jones has a much better arm but Robert has better speed. He agreed that it was good for the the Sox to go ahead and spend the money because this is the last time it can be done. He said again that it is a big risk as all of the scouts he has talked to agree that he may not have the hit tool to be more than average or slightly above average in the MLB. This is where Garfein and I think others have an issue. If every single scout agrees he may be just average, why were some teams willing to spend that kind of money?