NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Sep 24, 2007 -> 08:34 AM) They would have probably been fine if they had issued that as a policy BEFORE he got caught. They need to issue a written statement to that fact now, so that the next one caught should have no excuses. That would be good. But honestly, they could easily have been fired in any case. The department was probably just afraid to for various reasons (dealing with the union, etc.). I mean, the guy with the threatening calls, that could be assault, or at least stalking. And sex in the car while on duty, from a work point of view, could be dereliction of duty, not to mention improper use of the equipment.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Sep 24, 2007 -> 07:51 AM) Linked More. much more than this, at the link. What I find interesting about this is the old slippery slope. By the time someone woke up and said enough is enough, many mistakes had been made. Now that department is seemingly stuck with those mistakes. There has to be room to say, we're not going to take this anymore. Have sex on your own time, in your own car. Any more here will result in firing. Yikes. First, since when is "because other people did it" a legal mitigation? I'd be surprised if that judgement didn't get reviewed by an Appelate board or something. Here is the thing - at pretty much any job anyone has, if they had sex in their office or on their desk while on duty or at work, they'd almost surely be fired. I don't think Troopers should be any different, and in fact, they should probably be held to a higher standard. So why weren't ALL these guys fired? Particularly the one who made 20+ "threatening phone calls" to an ex-wife? And before anyone brings up my stance on the screaming and yelling cop recently, remember two things. One, yelling and threatening to get someone in trouble will often NOT get you fired from other jobs. And two, I would consider sex acts to be a lot more pre-meditated, and far less caused by the job itself, than the yelling episode.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Sep 23, 2007 -> 07:07 PM) The guy that wrote that is a NBC news military analyst, a go-to guy when they want an "expert" to evaluate things. Also writes columns for the LA Times. He is "analyzing" the troops OK, that makes sense then.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 23, 2007 -> 02:19 PM) Ron Paul is a RINO. He is a libertarian if I ever saw one. And honestly, I think the Libertarian platform is in many ways very similar to a big chunk of what was the GOP platform at one time. Just in a more limited scope. Unfortunately, the GOP seems to have abandoned that particular part of their platform in recent years.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Sep 23, 2007 -> 06:42 PM) You got Democrats in news rooms like the LA Times writing this kind of crap "We pay the soldiers a decent wage, take care of their families, provide them with housing and medical care and vast social support systems and ship obscene amenities into the war zone for them, we support them in every possible way, and their attitude is that we should in addition roll over and play dead, defer to the military and the generals and let them fight their war, and give up our rights and responsibilities to speak up because they are above society?" ... "But it is the United States, and the recent NBC report is just an ugly reminder of the price we pay for a mercenary - oops sorry, volunteer - force that thinks it is doing the dirty work." Then these same people will claim "We are just looking out for the troops interest." That quote came from the NEWS of the LA Times, or is that an editorial?

So, in answer to the earlier-posed question... it appears the U.S. did not strike a compromise with the Iraqi government over the Blackwater issue, because Iraq is now filing criminal charges against those involved in the melee. And those contractors are still in Iraq. One wonders, if the Iraqis actually manage to arrest one or more of them... what does the U.S. do at that point?

QUOTE(LukeGofannon @ Sep 22, 2007 -> 08:15 AM) The thought is good but its already been done, far better than anyone here could hope w/o putting months and maybe years into their formulas. Its called EqA and VORP is good too, WARP is even better because it has defense. VORP isn't really much like this stat. Its closest to EqA or Total Average. You are cetainly correct that people who put months or years into this kind of work will come up with much more intricate and detailed stats than I ever could, and I am sure more reliable for their purposes. But you are incorrect to say its been done, for the simple fact that it hasn't (at least not in wide use). Its not the same as some of the other ones, so its got slightly different results. BTW, I did add in adjustors for SF & SH, the value of a hit over a walk and a hit over an SB. I'll break out the new numbers today or tomorrow for people to look at. It will also have a projected extra-base-on-hit adjustment.

QUOTE(Steve9347 @ Sep 21, 2007 -> 08:24 PM) Sorry, just because one asshole leans into too many pitches doesn't mean I want a whole stat other than "hbp" itself telling me about it. Take out the HBP and it's a more accurate telling of a batter's worth. Pick 10 players who have played a few years. Any 10. Check their HBP numbers. You will note that, sure enough, some players get hit more often than others, and that they do it consistently. HBP is not a fully random stat, or even close. Some players get on base that way a certain number of times a year, regularly, and that is worth the same as a walk for any significant purpose.

QUOTE(NUKE @ Sep 23, 2007 -> 09:06 AM) Pros and cons time of cutting rates. Pros: -Lights a fire under a flagging stock market -Injects liquidity into a banking system which is under enormous pressure from the subprime mess. -Helps stave off recession when we were starting to head that way. Cons: -Makes the weak dollar worse -Pushes down bond rates You can make an argument for both sides when it comes to inflation. Last I read was that annual inflation was running at about 2.1% ( down from 2.2% at the last read ) which is more or less about Bernanke's target but the rate cut will probably start to make inflation turn north again. I guess we'll just have to see where we go from here and if the Fed is going to cut again in October or not. An argument can be made that one of your "Pros" - injecting liquidity into the banking system - is actually a con. In the long run, if some of these anomalies are allowed to fester and not play out, we'll be worse off.

QUOTE(NUKE @ Sep 23, 2007 -> 02:09 AM) I don't know what this douche is doing with an "R" next to his name. He believes that the U.S. is to blame for 9/11 for chrissakes. No. He was once quoted at saying in a very indirect way that 9/11 was partially caused by factors in the Middle East that included western interference. And he was right. I find him to be more like a true, old school Republican than many other candidates, because he isn't some hyper-conservative crusader looking to make government just small enough to fit into everyone's personal lives. Paul is more interested in smaller, more efficient government. I have a lot of respect for that.

I can't believe no one has made the joke yet.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Sep 21, 2007 -> 06:41 PM) I guess it takes a big hulking mathematical formula to show that Jerry Owens is good at baseball. Actually, with the adjustments so far, he's not that good. With XBOH that will help him a bit, maybe. But it certainly isn't making him out to be anything great. If I can get XBOH in there, I'll feel better about validity.

So now Blackwater is, project by project, resuming duties in Iraq. An "industry source" says they will be back to full work by Saturday. Since the US government cannot function over there without these guys, this was I suppose inevitable. but its interesting that the article doesn't mention how it is they got past Iraq's request. Did they just ignore it, despite the fact that Iraq supposedly controls the country? Or was some compromise made? The State Dept said they are putting some sort of task force on to investigate the matter generally. Like that's going to go anywhere. I really hope this wakes people up. We are so militarily ovewhelmed over there that they cease to function in any significant way without these private security firms. Who thinks its a good idea to put that much of our fortunes in the hands of people the government does not directly control? If this was done without the consent of the notional Iraqi government, things could still get very ugly over this.

I'm working on making some of those adjustments, but here is an open question: does anyone know if someone keeps track of the extra bases that runners take on hits? For example scoring from 2nd on a base hit, 1st to 3rd on a single, etc.

QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Sep 21, 2007 -> 12:07 PM) You're giving the same value for a BB and a SB, as you would for a 2B, when they're clearly not equal. Why are they not equal? If you are talking about CS, those are negatives in the numerator, so they are accounted for. If you mean because BB + SB doesn't move runners over, that is a good point. That, plus the lack of XBOH I mentioned earlier, would make the measure more complete. But here is the thing - a BB + SB is the same as a 2B if no one is on base. Therefore, probably 3/4 of the time, they are the same. Let me play with the math and see if I can use an adjustor of that sort to it.

QUOTE(Vance Law @ Sep 21, 2007 -> 12:05 PM) How many runs are not scored in each year by guys who couldn't outrun a telephone pole. Yeah, like I said, I'd really like to have added extra-base-on-hit to the numerator (i.e. takes 3rd from 1st on a single, or scores from 2nd), which is an aspect of speed that can be a positive. But I didn't see that stat anywhere. I am sure someone probably has it somewhere.

QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Sep 21, 2007 -> 11:56 AM) How many runs are driven in each year by a SB? How many runner score from 2nd or 3rd because they stole 2nd or 3rd?

QUOTE(Vance Law @ Sep 21, 2007 -> 11:53 AM) Good stuff, NorthSide. I've made some posts about this subject previously. Just curious, what is the difference between this and Total Average? How is TA calculated? Total Average = [(Total Bases + Hit By Pitch + Walks + Stolen Bases) -­ Caught Stealing]/[(At Bats - Hits) + Caught Stealing + Grounded Into Double Play] It includes all the same stuff I did except for GIDP, but because the denominator is built to be something like total outs (instead of total PA), its more of an oppositional ratio measure (good versus bad) than a success ration (good out of total) like I made it. But I'd bet that you'd get, on a relative basis, very similar results between players.

QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Sep 21, 2007 -> 11:51 AM) http://www.baseballprospectus.com/glossary....php?search=EQA Yeah, except that actually halves the value of SB and CS, and double the value of hits, so I would say its less valid in those ways. On a positive note though, it does include SF and SH, which I didn't include, and that is certainly of some value.

Update: Fired. Interesting note in the article is the last sentence in it. I hadn't noticed this before - the cop apparently had a camera in his squad already, but had it turned off during the encounter. That would be enough for me to push my decision over that line. So, good result.

QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 21, 2007 -> 11:06 AM) I mean neutrality in everything, not just war. Being politically correct, the ACLU and it's ridiculous arguments/causes about discrimination and fairness, a big push for everyone to be cookie-cutter americans who all think and act alike, etc. Maybe 'neutral' wasn't the right word. I think in the context of this guys article it's the liberals who want to keep an open mind about other religions and their teachings, even if the teachings could ultimately hurt us. Obviously this guy takes it to the extreme though. OK, now I see what you meant. Then that is sort of true, yeah. Although, if liberals are more about that, and conservatives are more confrontational, I am not sure that one is better than the other. I think they both have their place.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Sep 21, 2007 -> 11:22 AM) OPS works just fine for me. OPS doesn't include stolen bases, thus diminishing or removing the importance of speed. That's why its flawed, just like OBP removes power from the equation and is flawed. This takes those two and SB's into account.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 21, 2007 -> 11:07 AM) Well, there's one little detail you're not thinking about...career best/worst years. For example...Rowand is clearly having one of the best years of his career. I'm still amazed that I'm the only one @ this site who remembers that he was our favorite guy for the "4th OF" label before Jerry Owens came around and started earning a starting job. Hunter is probably having a career year as well...convenient for another FA to be. Furcal on the other hand is having his worst year in the last 5...and is a Free Agent after 08 (And thus, might have that "have a career year next year" motivation). And Eckstein is still grindy. Very true. So here are the values for the prospective players over the last 3 seasons, averaged (with 2005/2006/2007 in parens): Hunter: .523 (.519/.507/.542) Age: 32 Furcal: .483 (.511/.519/.420) Age: 30 Rowand: .479 (.441/.452/.545) Age: 30 Renteria: .469 (.416/.475/.516) Age: 32 DeJesus: .462 (.453/.484/.448) Age: 27 Eckstein: .409 (.435/.384/.407) Age: 32 That definitely changes the order around. Hunter out on top, Furcal looking a lot better, and younger. Rowand pretty good still. Renteria not as spectacular. Eckstein still sucks.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Sep 21, 2007 -> 10:52 AM) Garland flat out is amongst the best in the AL defensively (imo, he's superior to Buehrle whose also one of the very best in the league). Garland has cat like reflexes and is just a tremendous athlete in general. (I probably sound like hawk). Agreed. Unfortunately, the Gold Glove (as has been pointed out) is not given to the best defensive player at each position, even though that was the original intention. Its a poster boy contest.

QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 21, 2007 -> 10:58 AM) How is that not an accurate statement? I'm not saying every last individual who is liberal thinks that way, but in terms of ideology that sort of thinking is definitely on the left and not the right. Actually, that's not the case at all. In fact, throughout many phases in history, even in this century, it was the Republicans that favored a more isolationist view. The Democrats were more likely to want to get involved elsewhere. Perhaps you and I have different ideas of what the word "neutrality" means, though.