ptatc

Probably just my old age but where was the last X post?

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 27, 2015 -> 08:49 AM) Invisible electric fences. Seriously, how is this even a consideration? There have been shifts, not to the extreme they are now, all throughout baseball history. Ted Williams hit into a shift, and did pretty well. Infield in. That's a shift. Corners in close. That's a shift. CF shaded toward LF. That's a shift. Strikeouts are what is killing offenses. For a while it was known as just like any other out, which is BS, and if you do put the ball in play, there are some odds it will become a hit. This is the generation where strikeouts didn't matter. Once this cycle is complete and an emphasis on making contact takes hold, the runs will return. The shift in today's vernacular really refers to moving one player to the other side of the field not movement around inthe "usual" area. So what your saying with the Ted Williams comparison is that since one of the gresatest hitters of all time can do it, all players can do it?

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 27, 2015 -> 08:30 AM) There was a more in depth article about this with dates, etc. JR isn't pursuing tampering charges because he considers Beeston his best friend in baseball. What I don't understand is how can he be up in arms over this, if he really is, and not be over the Ozzie to Miami move which was even more clearly, tampering? I think most of his anger is the workings behind Beeston's back rather than actually tampering. I'm sure every team, including the White Sox, has technically tampered at some point. Because he didn't mind Ozzie leaving. JR has a history in believing that it's more important on how a team is built as opposed to who coaches it. The players are more important than the coach. Krause vs. Jackson.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 27, 2015 -> 08:23 AM) how would you even do it? have "zones" marked on the field where the different position players have to be in? or what? automatic walk? Two infielders on each side of second base. It's fairly simple. That eliminates overloading one side to take away a hitters tendencies. That is really what the shift is.

QUOTE (Chilihead90 @ Jan 26, 2015 -> 05:39 PM) Maybe I understood this incorrectly because I skimmed the article, but tickets are all digital now? That sucks. It's a tradition for my Dad and I to keep out ticket stubs and write down anything memorable that happened during the game on the back of the ticket. I have a few of those computer printed tickets, and they just look cheap and don't fit nicely with all the regular sized tickets. Also, I have my ticket from Buehrle's no-hitter framed and I think that frame would look awfully dumb with a computer printed ticket behind the class. This is true. The season tickets are j ust printed from the account.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 26, 2015 -> 04:52 PM) You joke, but Baseball Prospectus had him at 2, with Anderson at 1. You asked for predictions. Nothing is guaranteed. I just know how the admins on this board think. Rodon is the hype.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 26, 2015 -> 04:57 PM) What about depth? That still doesn't preclude you from playing 2B in short RCF as is common against guys like Dunn. Maybe not pulled so far towards right, if the SS has to stay on the left side of 2B. I really wouldn't define that as a shift then. For Dunn didn't teams move 3 players to the first base of second base just put one of them deeper in the OF?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 26, 2015 -> 02:59 PM) STOP THE PRESSES THEY FOUND THE BALL BOY WHO DID IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Sir, I did it all on my own. I knew what Mr. Brady liked and I changed them myself. To my knowledge no one told me to do this.................. As he shields his eyes and drives away in his brand new porsche.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 26, 2015 -> 03:18 PM) It's rankings week at FutureSox! Tomorrow (Tuesday) we are going to publish prospects 16 through 30 with capsules... then Thursday the full list including capsules for 1-15, the 16-30 list, and a list of players who just missed. There will be a pinned PHT thread for it tomorrow. Meanwhile... any predictions? Rodon #1

QUOTE (PlaySumFnJurny @ Jan 26, 2015 -> 04:01 PM) Rather than make up silly ass new rules, I'd prefer he'd decree that umpires enforce the ones already written and call the rule-book strike zone. The rule book strike zone would decrease the time of the game but would also decrease the offense. Right now every strike is a center cut pitch.

QUOTE (Jake @ Jan 26, 2015 -> 02:31 PM) I've seen several articles mention that this would be a less disruptive change than something like lowering the mound. I totally disagree with that. Especially from a fan's standpoint, you wouldn't have to know anything had changed if the mound was lowered. There would just be a little bit more offense. I would say, though, that for a lot of guys the run to the mound is a meaningful part of the warmup process. It is. And they would be allowed to do it if they ran. It's the 2 minute stroll that they want to eliminate.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Jan 26, 2015 -> 01:47 PM) Chris Sale's side-slinging ways give his four-seamer a unique advantage -- no one has more horizontal movement in the Pitch FX era: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/chris-sale-...er-great-pitch/ This is why pitchers who throw the slider drop down as well. This gives it more of a different look than other breaking pitches. This is also why many people predict he will have significant elbow problems and have said this since he was drafted. Anatomically and mechanically it makes sense. It's just that so far he has defied the odds.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jan 26, 2015 -> 01:30 PM) An interesting idea thrown out there was forcing relievers to face a minimum of two hitters per appearance. First of all, that would speed the game up some, instead of having a pitching change every batter. Secondly, that could help decrease strikeouts. With all these specialists whose only job is to face one batter, they have become very good at striking that batter out. If a LOOGY also had to face a RHB when you brought him in, that would change a lot. That's not bad. Another one that I heard someone bring up is to have a vehicle bring in the reliever. This will speed up the slow walk from the outfield bullpens. I know it's not much but it's in this same line. The is a time saving element with every pitching switch.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 26, 2015 -> 12:51 PM) Dave Cameron weighs in: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-problem...em-with-shifts/ I like his take in basically saying that the biggest issue right now is not guys hitting the ball to other defenders but that they are striking out at an absurd rate. Guys striking out is not a big deal on a micro level, but at a macro level, it's getting out of hand, and that's the biggest reason why we're seeing the numbers fall. That's not to say that there may not be background factors working towards an increasing strikeout percentage - namely steroids - but that the surface reasoning is that shifts have much less to deal with repressed run scoring and a lack of contact has more to do with it. This is all true. However, the league cannot force players to make contact. They can change factors in the game to make contact more effective. I'm not saying I agree with them but the league is going to try to make the game more appealing to the masses. The two variables that seem to generate the most interest in the game are the time of the game and offense. This is just like when they lowered the mound to make increase the hitters ability to make contact. This is just like all of the rule changes in football to make it tougher for the defensive players thus to create more offense.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 26, 2015 -> 07:52 AM) I agree. Shifts also open up a huge portion of the field that guys making millions should be able to exploit. They do that a few times, shifts go away. Banning them would be stupid. Would every fielder have to play straight up? I don't think many realize the "shift" a middle infielder goes through with a runner on 1B. Would that be eliminated, therefore making DPs obsolete? Yes, because it is so easy to hit the ball where the other team isn't. Batting averages should be at least .500.

It would be one way to increase runs scored without changing too much. Without PEDs and home runs down, the ,league will need to do something to increase runs scored. The average fan likes higher scoring games.

QUOTE (Jake @ Jan 24, 2015 -> 07:19 PM) Maybe that varies by discipline or institution type, then. Where I've been there have typically been only a number of full lines open, keeping some people stuck in the associate position - or so they said! That is true. I was referring to how they need to go about it. There needs to be available spots open.

QUOTE (Jake @ Jan 24, 2015 -> 06:35 PM) A primer on professorships and salaries. You have four basic levels of professors: The full professor position has no formal entrance process. A given department will have a number of full professorial spots, given to associates that have achieved even greater excellence in their field, or teaching, or service to the university. These are powerful retention and recruiting tools as they allow more prestige to the individual and more money. A common reason to see a hotshot associate leave his or her position is because another school offered a full professorial spot. Here is where you reach the upper end of salaries, sometimes but not always in excess of $100k at top research schools. Scientists who bring in millions in grant funding will sometimes see their salaries go into $200k range, but of course this is a good tradeoff to the school given the grant funds and prestige from that research. It would be uncommon for a professor to get this position sooner than about 15-20 years after receiving their PhD, and the vast majority of career tenure-track professors never attain a full professorship. There is a formal process to go from associate to full professor. It varies by institution as does most of these description. It usually involves 4 more years of additional employment. It includes at least 3-7 publications, exemplary reviews of instructions by peers, administrators and students, as well as service to the department, college, university and community. It took me 12 years of employment post-doc to become a full professor. I still do not make near 100k, although I am at the states smallest public university. I may get to the 100k level by 30 years, if I hang around that long.

Keep Ernie Banks in your prayers. RIP.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 23, 2015 -> 09:59 PM) Usually with only 1-2 classes and no benefits/health care...and good luck if you teach English, history, poly sci, philosophy, religion, etc. Philosophy is the real low one. UIC had the professors go on strike because they were making 30,000 with 10 years experience.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 23, 2015 -> 09:52 PM) This year, I'm on a 1 year, 0 job security deal, and teaching classes for >700 students. If you add up the money I'm bringing to the university based on the amount these kids are paying for the credit hours I'm teaching I'm easily generating several million dollars in revenue for the university by myself. Probably close to $3 million (although how they budget that is hard to calculate because of the money picked up by different financial aid groups). I agree. However, that pales in comparison to what a football coach will bring in when you factor the tickets, food, merchandise etc. Running admissions for our program I could make the case I bring in all of our students which means it's roughly 2 million per year.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 23, 2015 -> 08:00 PM) Coaches earn 10-20 times the highest paid professor at a lot of state universities. Sometimes 50 times higher. The rationale is that they bring in alot of money. Much more than they cost. I agree with you however that it is a flawed system.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jan 23, 2015 -> 07:07 PM) How about lowering the cost of tuition? 6 figure salaries for professors and even higher for admin and some coaches? More admin staff than teachers? Quit trying to figure out how to afford the high prices, figure out how to get the prices down. Universities can't lower the tuition. The state continually decreases funding and their needs to be revenue from somewhere. Less than 30% of the public school professors make 6 figure salaries. I'm in a high demand profession with nearly 20 years experience and I don't make near that. Administrators do though.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 23, 2015 -> 04:42 PM) I'd rather we get back to fully publicly funded world-class universities than having a bunch of Rube Goldberg 10-20 year tax incentive programs. It seems like a much more reliable and even-handed way of assuring access to higher education for everyone, poor to wealthy. The problem is that most state don't have the funds for this. The state schools in Illinois are down to about 20% funding from the state.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jan 23, 2015 -> 04:23 PM) In the current system, if parents contributed nothing, the kids coming from those who couldn't afford would be better off than the kids coming from those who did afford. I think there is a great place for a 529. I'm a fan of any program that encourages people to save and plan and pay for something in the future. Just as I am a huge fan of us incentivizing retirement (through IRA's) because I think these are all things that we as individuals should control and prepare for. I do realize that you can't always prepare for them and every family has different incomes and needs and clearly a family making 30K can't possibly squirrel away enough money to send their kids to college. But to me the concept of putting me in control vs. the government, which is what these programs do, is great. If you can't tell by now, I like to be in control and responsible. I don't want to be counting on the government to provide the service. I don't mind the tax incentive when it is being used as a way to encourage something critical (in this case minimizing collegiate debt and encouraging savings to provide and educate our future leaders and youth). However, when you put the money into government programs with government schools, my fear is that the overall costs will just increase even more and be even more out of control. The current system of paying for college is based on how much the government and the school determines the parents should contribute. This is done through the FAFSA and cost calculation. The parents are assigned a universal number that they use to determine how much aid/loans is needed for the kid. It's roughly 18% of the net worth. If the kids has assets the formula figures about 22% of those can be used for college costs.