NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 26, 2016 -> 08:23 PM) She wins with just the bolded ones. Plus that doesn't include the Utah wildcard 3-way race.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Oct 26, 2016 -> 04:10 PM) You strike me as the type of guy that would wait in line at a Barnes & Noble to meet Michael Moore. Oh come on now dude, this was ad hominem and nothing else. Also SS was in agreement about the nutjobs on both extremes.

QUOTE (Ezio Auditore @ Oct 26, 2016 -> 10:36 AM) Congress is ultimately gonna have to be the ones who resolve this, but it's good that the SECDEF stepped in. This would have been considered a breach of contract if it worked in the other direction, and while I get why the CA Guard was trying to get the money back (it's the law), this was pretty f***ed up. http://abcnews.go.com/US/secretary-defense...ory?id=43070700 When I read about this it got my blood boiling. I can't believe, even this nearly useless Congress, couldn't find a way to authorize stopping this.

QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 26, 2016 -> 09:13 AM) There's about equal chance that I'll watch a michael moore documentary or james o'keefe documentary *like*

QUOTE (Brian @ Oct 26, 2016 -> 05:59 AM) No Facebook or Twitter to amplify it. I think that's key. Social media in 2005 was nothing like it is now, which makes it really hard to truly compare. Also, one thing that always bothered me but couldn't be helped - that 2005 team did not clinch anything in Chicago. The clinched the division at Detroit, ALDS in Boston, ALCS in Anaheim and WS in Houston. So we never got that hometown party. That may also have had an effect on media coverage in some way.

There is no reason to release Hawkins. He's still 22/23, and a gamble on his very long shot is still better than a number of other outfielders in the system. That said, if some team wants to do a failed for failed trade, change of scenery, sure. Go for it. As a prospect he's virtually done. But he's not a Rule 5 risk, and he's not a minor league FA for another season or two. Might as well give him one more look in AA.

QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 25, 2016 -> 11:40 AM) One, I don't think it's fair to say "to certain degrees". I don't think it's helpful to act like strictly laissez-faire views on economics put one in the Austrian school of thought. It is a specific strain that refuses mathematical modeling or any real quantified justification for their philosophy or views. And it shows in the intellectual decay that has occurred in that group. No, Hayek and Friedman are not fringe economists, but the group that has pushed the austrian school on politicians like Ron Paul certainly have earned the label of fringe school of thought. And good for them! When you so remove yourselves from actual policy and action you can then just claim to be right when anything goes wrong. See, while I am certainly not an economist, I get the impression the bolded is just not at all true. There certainly are some people who do that, but that isn't the same as saying that's the philosophy.

Wait, people tip for food when they pick it up? I always tip on delivery of course, but virtually never have if I am picking it up. I didn't think that was even a thing.

QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 25, 2016 -> 11:00 AM) Eh, come on. The Austrians are cranks. I can't believe you of all people could listen to their ideas on banking. It's an emotional and political movement that acts like an economics school of thought. I think you are missing a couple things. First, I don't agree with that school of thought - I was simply pointing out that there are plenty of economists who do, to certain degrees, and dismissing it as fringe misses the mark. Also that it's something that has a political bent, just as other thought processes around this, but that doesn't make it any less valid as part of the discussion.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 25, 2016 -> 10:18 AM) Austrian isn't one of the two major schools. It's a fairly fringe group. The "major" schools are Chicago/freshwater (typically more supply-side, founded by UofC scholar Milton Friedman) and Coastal/Saltwater (Harvard/Kenysian etc. types, typified by Krugman, Delong etc, probably much better non-political examples but I think that gets the point across, maybe Piketty?). Austrians are the group that generally reject fiat money and demand a hard gold standard and explicitly reject empirical tests of theoretical predictions. It's the mises.org and Lew Rockwell turbo-libertarian types. I realize now though that my wording in response to bmags was very poor and confusing so chalk that up to another communication failure on my part! I do not agree with your characterization of the schools of thought, at all, but that's fine. I think your dismissal of the Austrian school as fringe is not founded in reality. Regardless of whether or not you agree with it (and for the record, generally, I don't either), you've made it into some odd cartoon thing when in fact it's one of the primary schools of thought. And your statements about it being that hard-line are no more accurate than saying all Republicans are raging bigots.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 25, 2016 -> 10:06 AM) Conservative economics hasn't cared about numbers for a long time, and if you go down the truly nutty path of Austrian economics, they explicitly reject empiricism. Republicans have argued for "dynamic scoring" aka "tax cuts don't cause deficits" accounting for decades. Nutty? You know, I happen to know some economists, two of whom work at the Fed in DC. I've had discussions with them about Austrian vs Chicago school. There are just as many economists in that crowd who believe one as the other, and then some who are in between. These aren't politicians, these are scientists, who know a lot more about the subject than you or I do. So, just as you'd (rightly) point out we should probably listen to the scientists on climate change, I think calling one of the two major schools of economic thought "nutty" when so many experts back it is kind of ridiculous.

Here's the weekly update on the goings-on round the White Sox farm, with some handy links.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Oct 19, 2016 -> 11:05 AM) I can't even name one disagraced official in Trump's Campaign. Clinton's Campaign officials have been dropping every month. The guy who had to resign last night, Bob Creamer, is a felon who has met with the POTUS over 200 times at the WH this year. Seriously? To wit... QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Oct 19, 2016 -> 11:14 AM) Lewandowski? Manafort? Ailes? Hilariously in those cases, guys were added to campaigns AFTER the did awful things. Also, this... QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 19, 2016 -> 11:08 AM) The people who resigned worked for independent PACs, not the Clinton campaign itself. And in the end, there will be scummies all over in both parties. That's the point, really.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Oct 18, 2016 -> 08:14 PM) http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-roo...-with-new-video The Hill reporting on the Clinton Campaign inciting violence and bussing voters into red states using shell companies. Anyone who thought scumbags only existed in Trump's campaign were kidding themselves.

QUOTE (Soxfest @ Oct 18, 2016 -> 02:25 PM) DEM voter fraud alive and well. lol, come on now. Provide some evidence. I am sure there are occasional acts of fraud, done by people leaning both directions. But there hasn't been any sort of evidence of meaningful numbers in decades. There is no proof of any such thing. You do realize how hard it is to actually end up with serious voter fraud, right? That the election captains at voting stations are volunteers from both parties? That there are monitors there from both as well? That the voting machines have extremely high security? That there are all manner of spot checks done?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 18, 2016 -> 03:56 PM) I get the best information out there from PBS. Sorry, I actually meant PBS, not NPR (though NPR does some good things). Yes they are very good, and I wish they did more.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Oct 18, 2016 -> 02:09 PM) When/how was Colton Turner added to the roster? Cooper, Goldberg and Walsh were dropped shortly before the league opened. Turner, Sanburn and Lechich were added in their stead. Not sure the reason for Walsh. But Cooper put in a lot of innings for a reliever, and Goldberg was pitching for Team Israel, so it's probably an innings thing for them. Lechich needed innings, and with Sanburn and Turner I think they just wanted a deeper look.

Wait... there are people who think Fox News is somehow less biased than, say, CNN? Really? I mean, MSNBC is pretty close to as left as Fox is right. CNN is closer to center, leans a little left. The alphabet networks vary but are generally center-left. But the real problem with all of these is the lack of quality journalism in any case, not the political leanings. BBC and NPR PBS are probably the best news networks quality-wise, but they are just so narrow (in terms of US coverage) that you can't get a full picture, sadly.

So far, the hitters are doing poorly, but the pitching as done well... Zack Collins: 0-2, 2 BB, K (and a not so great report on his defense) Trey Michalczewski: 2-9, 4 K Courtney Hawkins: 3-15, 2B, 5 K (Video I saw makes it look like he's caught in-between at the plate right now) Danny Hayes: 3-15, HR, 2 BB, 2 K (had a very positive report on his defense FWIW) Brian Clark: 3.2 IP, 5 H, 1 ER, 2 BB, 4 K (saw a report similar to all his others - looks like a MLB mid-inning reliever) Nolan Sanburn: 3 IP, 1 H, 0 R, 1 BB, 2 K (his was a start) Louie Lechich: 1.1 IP, 0 H, 0 R, 0 BB, 2 K (scouting reports from 2080 and Fangraphs both showed very positive) Colton Turner: 2.1 IP, 4 H, 1 ER, 2 BB, 3 K Obviously all very, very early going. Pitchers combined: 10.1 IP, 10 H, 2 ER, 5 BB, 11 K

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 18, 2016 -> 06:56 AM) Texas, Georgia, Alaska and Arizona are polling closer than any of the swing states that Trump absolutely needs to even have a chance. Oh and Utah has had several polls showing it firmly being a three way race with McMullin, Clinton and Trump all in the high 20's. I'd like to see McMullin win Utah, just to throw one more wrinkle into this bizarro election.

QUOTE (Dunt @ Oct 17, 2016 -> 03:43 PM) Blurb from Eric Longenhagen's Fall League Superlatives article: White Sox LHP Louie Lechich, a converted outfielder, has only been pitching in games since July 28th and is already flashing a plus changeup… That echoes the 2080 report linked from the article. Fastball is 87-92 but with life, and he can already command it. Change-up showing plus. Slider showing potential. Already has good overall command and repeatability. Should get stronger as he adjusts to pitching. He may be a legitimate prospect. It's way early, but it's very impressive he's done what he has so far in such a short period.

QUOTE (Soxfest @ Oct 17, 2016 -> 02:42 PM) I just think a lot of people just do not participate in polls especially this election and will only show up on Nov 8th. I think that every election, but in the end, the polls end up being strikingly right every time. Also, just seems to me that most Trump supporters are very into it and vocal, so I'd think they'd be more likely to answer a call about it. But who knows. In the end, I can't see any variance from the polls being large. For every reason it seems Trump supporters are under-counted, there are reasons to think they are over-counted.

QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 17, 2016 -> 01:46 PM) One thing that I would recommend is putting a list of the players and their slashlines at top of article and then the narrative underneath. For me, it's easier to digest, as I like to pick and choose who I'm following anyway. Small recommendation not a big deal. Good call, thanks!

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 17, 2016 -> 01:13 PM) What was the conclusion? Was he bad at his job? Really I have no idea, I've always focused on Bell. I've listened to him at Soxfest, he seemed OK to me. But considering there is enough blame to go around for everyone, he dodged a lot of it. On a personal level, Nick has always been good with us, FWIW. Open to interviews and just answering questions via email. I don't think we've ever done an article specifically criticizing him. But we wouldn't. What our writers have done, repeatedly, is point out the overall failures of player development. That's a whole bunch of people of course, not just Capra. But Capra was the captain of that ship, so it kind of went without saying that he had the bulk of the responsibility. Even if people below him were failing, that still calls to Capra to address. This isn't a personal thing, with either Capra or Getz.

With all the attention on the s*** show that is the Presidential campaign, what's barely been noted back here is the race for control of the Senate. The GOP has control, and that's huge for SCOTUS nominations and other factors. But now, the Dems seem to have a good chance to take it back. Silver's 538 shows the Dems with a 71.6% chance of taking back the Senate. Dems would need to take +4 seats to win control assuming Clinton wins the Presidency (because it would then be 50-50), or +5 if Trump wins the Presidency. The key races seem to be: --Missouri (Kander vs Blunt, which 538 puts at about 52% chance of winning for Blunt-R) --North Carolina (Ross vs Burr, which 538 puts at virtual tie) --New Hampshire (Hassan vs Ayotte, which 538 puts at about 59% chance for Hassan-D) --Nevada (Masto vs Heck, which 538 puts at about 61% for Masto-D) --Pennsylvania (McGinty vs Toomey, which 538 puts at about 63% for McGinty-D) --Indiana (Bayh vs Young, which 538 puts at about 68% for Bayh-D) The Dems would need to take 3 (or 4 with Trump) of those to take control. Anyone want to place a bet? As far as the House goes, I can't even find any decent models, so who knows. The GOP still has such an enormous districting advantage due to the 2010 gerrymandering that I find it hard to believe they will turn blue.