Balta1701

QUOTE (knightni @ Dec 31, 2010 -> 07:09 PM) One is for his head, the other...just his drool. One of those was from me :-) Hey Knight...any chance you'd be willing to make the full spreadsheet available, such that when I'm at a conference in a month or two and I have my laptop, I can check easily what I need to have?

Even now, we're asking and telling.

What, all but 3 of those were from the South?

Could you elaborate on the "He goes both ways" part?

The word "Moose" appears at least twice in that list.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Dec 31, 2010 -> 05:38 PM) I can't believe how Saber-centric you've gone. Your flip-flop is greater than mine. I couldn't stand sabermetrics two years ago. Now I'm a full-blown saber guy. Well, not like chw42. But close. I'm happy to adopt new numbers as they come along. I do have a Ph.D. from Caltech. My big problem is that I need to get my instincts calibrated on a number. It takes me watching people for a bit to understand how to interpret a BABIP of .292 and I don't like quoting things until I can come up with comparable players as well. I haven't yet wrapped my head around things like FIP, although I know what they're supposed to do. That's probably on the list for this year. I definitely was waiting for about 5 years for decent ways of evaluating defense, and I think we're at least finally starting to get close on those, which makes me a lot more willing to use them.

Although, Xena might be helping him...and that's troublesome also.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 31, 2010 -> 05:27 PM) Well he came back from the injury and hit well the last few months of last year, didn't he? Yes, but overall, it's worth noting how much his power numbers really went down. His numbers in the 2nd half include a .362 BABIP. Upon going to Atl., his line drive %age didn't change, his HR numbers went down by a fair amount (Turner Field is a pitchers park), but his average and associated #'s went up because more balls were falling.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 31, 2010 -> 05:18 PM) Yikes....definitely Lee. I'd take Konerko...if I had no confidence in having a replacement in a year. If the Orioles are risking $8 million on him, then it's probably true that their medical staff is happy with him.

You're telling me there are mutants trying to kill Tex? NOOOOOOOOOO!

Ok, Derek Lee 1 year/$8 or Paul Konerko 3/$36?

Who said that! Aieee!

Link

QUOTE (dasox24 @ Dec 31, 2010 -> 03:38 PM) Charlie Weis to Florida as Offensive Coordinator??? Are you serious? Why the hell would he leave the NFL to take the same position as the college level? Great, the SEC is all f***ed. Why would that mean the SEC is F***ed? He didn't exactly put out incredible teams at ND, even if they were solid on offense.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 31, 2010 -> 02:52 PM) Otherwise known as 3 to 1... Maybe I should have gone to 77/23 just to make it so you couldn't correct me. Anyway, reason #77 why i don't gamble.

QUOTE (dasox24 @ Dec 31, 2010 -> 01:54 PM) That's been a big deal on talk radio around here (I'm in Houston) the last few days. I'm very surprised Kubiak seems to be staying as HC, as are most people. I'll lay you at least 75/25 that in an alternate universe where there's already been a labor agreement reached, he loses that job.

Yay, I didn't get embarrassed with my selections!

Unless I'm mistaken, you're not paranoid when people really are trying to kill you.

QUOTE (Paint it Black @ Dec 31, 2010 -> 01:09 PM) When I said great I meant gold glove type third baseman, so a bad choice of words on my part. Some like is D, others don't. From what I saw in 2010 he was good, not great. I'd agree with this, he was good but not great last year, but he has all the tools to be great. Good throwing arm, good range, quick response, etc. Remember, he hasn't been in the minors that long either.

Still, Tex's logic makes some sense.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 31, 2010 -> 12:07 PM) I guess this also depends on which jobs are being eliminated due to the recession, jobs that typically require college degrees versus those that do not. This one is easy...which industry has suffered by far the biggest hit because of the nature of this recession? Construction. Residential, commercial, etc., construction has been hammered by the bursting of the housing bubble. Construction employment is generally semi-skilled, pays pretty well, but doesn't require a college education.

News out of Houston seems to suggest that they'll be retaining Gary Kubiak for 1 more season but replacing their DC with Wade Phillips.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 31, 2010 -> 11:40 AM) Well to me, the most obvious thing it says is, any person's career road will be much, much harder without a college degree. Not that this is news, I think we all knew that. But the difference is stark. It also tells me that, even in a deep recession, if you have a college degree, your job prospects are still pretty damn good. But I really can't make any sort of qualitative supposition of the sort you did, about WHAT jobs they have, without seeing salary or other job detail data to go with this. Here is some data showing the underemployment surge, I think that's what you're asking for.

Obviously.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Dec 31, 2010 -> 11:14 AM) Serious question. At what point does the OVER demand for government dollars (spending) stop (yes, there should be a role for SOME things...)? Ever? There's always an appetite for more spending... now why is that? This is not a democrat or republican question, it's a question for those philosophically aligned to think that government spending is our only way out of x, y, and z. See, Kap, this is where one of the philosophical differences come in between us. You look at government spending in the abstract...is there too much (there always is). The only reason why you'd ask this question the way you formatted it is if you think that a person like me looks at high government spending as an end unto itself. We always want higher government spending because we always view higher government spending as a good thing. My counterpoint here is that there's an appetite for more spending, not as an end unto itself, but as a means unto an end. When I see a problem that the private sector is failing to deal with...something like 1/6th of the U.S. being uninsured, or a large terrorist safe-haven in Afghanistan/Pakistan, I can be convinced (but not in every case) that government action is necessary to take care of it. Now if we want to have a disagreement about priorities, that's a fair disagreement. You might prioritize the Afpak part there, I might prioritize the health care part. At some point in every case, additional government spending becomes excessive. We're long past that case in the defense department. We spend way too much on health care esp. without covering everyone. In those cases, spending money more efficiently, like the Affordable Care act does, is a smarter move. What you really ought to note when looking at the federal budget is how small a lot of the numbers we're actually talking about are in some sense. The entire deficit right now is made up of less than 5 percentage points of taxes. That's not a huge, infinite spending is good situation.