NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 22, 2009 -> 01:54 PM) At that price range I wouldn't even call them a competitor. Tesla's Roadster is $100k. But the sedan they are releasing in 2009 is supposed to be around $50 to $60k, and then in 2010 a smaller, cheaper one for $35k. Plus the Tesla cars are more like full-on cars that people are used to. I'd say Tesla still has the upper hand - first to market, more variety, more acceptable design.

QUOTE (kyyle23 @ Jan 22, 2009 -> 01:42 PM) I dont see why Freddy would want top pitch with the Yankees. It seems like he would be a 6th option, and from everything I have read about him he wants a real chance to be in a rotation this year So, Mets then?

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 22, 2009 -> 01:30 PM) First time I had even heard of this up and coming car company... LINK A competitor for Tesla. Good.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jan 22, 2009 -> 11:44 AM) Nobody knows for sure but scholars seem to assume that it'd be a stable, mature, secular, pro-Western democracy. There's still a pretty substantial amount of pro-Western sentiment in the country, too. We probably never would've done that but the Brits were pretty pissed that Iran nationalized their oil industry which meant they were losing a bunch of money, so they needed to get us on board. The only way for them to do that was to play the "Commie" card to get Eisenhower to agree to the whole deal. That was a case of us not looking more than 5 years into the future. And yet another example of how getting us away from oil would help us avoid trouble, make fewer enemies, and reduce our expenses.

Four more XO's from the Prez today, all "War on Terror" related... --Close Gitmo Detention facility within 13 months --Use only the US Army guide regarding detention and interrogation - ending enhanced inteerogation technique use --Executive taskforce to review detention policies and all cases for those held --Delay the trial of Ali al-Marri, a US resident who had been held at Gitmo for 5 years with no charges filed

QUOTE (False Alarm @ Jan 22, 2009 -> 10:23 AM) i'm not sure history bears out what you're saying here. i'm too lazy to research it, but i'm guessing if you take the annual MiLB top 100 prospect lists and compare them with the thousands of players who missed the lists each year, the majority--and probably the vast majority--of eventual major-league stars will have placed on top 100 lists at some point in their MiLB careers. and of course top 100 lists are, broadly speaking, composed of the top few players from each system. now obviously depth matters, and every team needs to develop chris getzes (solid contributors with limited ceilings). but those guys are by definition more common; most teams have some. so i think star potential with a pretty high floor, a rarer commodity, should weigh heavily into system rankings (inasmuch as system rankings matter at all). and sure, occasionally a getz- or miranda-type prospect might unexpectedly bloom into a star, but that happens so rarely and unpredictably that i'm not sure how you'd incorporate it as a factor into ranking systems. That would actually be a really interesting study. Take a few given years, and look at where the Top 100 prospects ended up, versus all the rest. See which ones succeeded, by some basic measures (games played, years in majors, basic offensive/defensive/pitching stats). I'd bet that if you look at which players, for example, managed to play full time in the majors for at least a few years, that you'd have just as many outside the top 100 as inside of it. But I do not have this data, so its just a guess. Also, I am certainly not saying that the CHANCES of any given player in the top 100 are less or the same as those below. The chances are higher. But its not some on-and-off thing, is what I am trying to say. Player A who is #50 on that list in a given year may have a 70% chance, and some player that would be around #150 may have a 30% chance. And since there are so many players outside the top 100, versus in it, if you add up the partials, the total for the below group might be higher.

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Jan 22, 2009 -> 10:24 AM) In 2001, during the confirmation of John Ashcroft to be attorney general, Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee forced a one-week delay in the committee's vote on Ashcroft, saying there had not been enough time to answer all the questions about the nomination. On January 24, 2001, the Washington Post reported the story under the following headline: Vote On Ashcroft Is Delayed A Week; Democrats Cite Need for More Review Yesterday, Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee did precisely the same thing for the nomination of Eric Holder to be attorney general. Today, the Washington Post is reporting the story under the following headline: Republicans Obstruct Holder's Path to Justice Department WHAT MEDIA BIAS? That's actually a pretty good one. I'll give you that, no question. One thing that frustrates me about newspapers (and frustrates journalists as well, I might add) is that often times, the person who writes the article doesn't get to write the headline. That is done by someone else, or some committee.

I also think these rankings sometimes focus too much on the top 5 or 10 players. History shows that many of even those players will fail to live up to expecations, and further, that many star players are found below that level. That #11 through #50 group of players might be a bigger difference maker in providing young talent than the top 10, and yet we (and they) know a lot less about them. Take the SS position in our system for example. Beckham, rightfully, gets a ton of attention. But I think to get an idea of systemic depth at SS, you also need to get an idea of the potential of guys like Kuhn, Miranda, Escobar, etc.

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Jan 22, 2009 -> 09:09 AM) Any global warming climate change regualations for the enviro freaks will have a negative impact on the economy. The question is: To what extent will they hurt the economy? QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 22, 2009 -> 09:27 AM) Couldn't you say the same about any pollution controls? I think that sort of thing, along with carbon credit systems or the like, is what he was referring to. But I noted in my post that all those things I suggested could be done apart from new controls and regulations, which would indeed cost money. That discussion - cost/benefit for those controls - is sort of a seperate though related thing.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 22, 2009 -> 08:36 AM) Who cares about farm system rankings? They don't give you a trophy for being ranked high. Unless your system is so awful, and you are ranked at the bottom, the rest is a crapshoot. Organizations will get ranked higher for having 4 guys who have potential to be great who turn out to be nothing than an organization that has 1 or 2 guys who actually turn out to be good or great players. As someone who has noticed the crap coming from the Sox minor league system for years, it appears to have turned around and at least there is some hope a few of these guys could be pretty good. It doesn't matter to me if they are ranked first or 25th. One guy's subjective ranking doesn't matter, I agree. But the overall quality of the system, its instruction and coaching, and its talent saturation at high levels all should matter to any Sox fan. And unfortunately, as we don't all see the players ourselves or have all the knowledge we need to evaluate them, we rely on scouting reports and lists like this. If you take a few different ones, you should get a decent idea of where things stand. Certainly not at all an exact science though.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jan 22, 2009 -> 08:47 AM) It was odd that they didn't let cameras in there. The whole point of this was to nip any potential controversy in the bud by showing everybody he's done it again, 100% correctly. So why not have video cameras (they had print journalists and took regular pictures at least) and show everyone? Just doesn't make much sense to me. video from inside the oval office like that is very, very rare. They almost never allow it.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 21, 2009 -> 10:58 AM) IMO this is one of the great fallacies pedaled by the conservative base, and unfortunately its believed by many. Going over to renewable energy sources will do wonders for the economy on all sorts of levels, and you don't even have to do things that will add taxes or fees or credits if you don't want to. Going over to reliance on alternative, renewable energies would: 1. Create tons of new jobs, and good paying jobs (high tech jobs), not just unskilled labor. 2. Dramatically reduce the ongoing cost of energy in this country (which effects everyone), once established.* 3. Reduce healthcare costs by reducing pollution. 4. Reduce some of the defense spending needs by establishing internal security and being able to walk away from certain regions of the world when things get messy. 5. Make US industry a leader in a technology which will then be sold to the rest of the world, generating income and helping correct trade imbalance. Note the * on #2, and keep in mind it is tied to #1. In the short run, there is a lot of cost associated with establishing new infrastructure, but the cost is exactly something that any stimulus money should be going to because of job creation. Basically, the idea that addressing climate change and fossil fuels is a complete no-brainer. As a follow-up to my #3, a report was published yesterday stating that a drop in pollution over the 1980 to 2000 period added, on average, 5 months to our lifespans, reducing numerous medical complications.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 22, 2009 -> 08:04 AM) This is very true and there was just a round of hearings this week over new science standards. This is important because it seems as if the majority of the board are creationists, and if they change the Texas standards, it could impact what the rest of the country learns about evolution. http://www.star-telegram.com/legislature/story/1152609.html A pro-science blog documenting the situation: http://tfnblog.wordpress.com/ And another showing a clear case of dishonesty: http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/2009/01/how_th..._of_ed_misr.php The textbook discussion is another one that, to me, is a good indicator of where things are going wrong at the SecEd level. Take history for example again. High school students take history classes, taught from dry, rote-fact type books. These textbooks are bereft of perspective or anything interesting at all - just names, dates and events. Its no wonder why most high school kids hate history classes. And yet, look at some of the most popular non-fiction works of recent years. I read a few very good history books last year - John Adams, Andrew Jackson, Team of Rivals, Blood and Thunder. They are much more in-depth, but really get into that interesting, nitty gritty stuff of who people really were (good and bad), and the way things actually worked and felt during those times. They use a person or group of people as a lense, but through that lense you get a much better look into the more complete picture of history. And adults were eating these books up. So, why not teach from books like that in high school? Instead of skimming over the top of history, learning just some boring facts, how about you give them a real idea of what it was like then, and why it was important. They wouldn't learn as many dates or as many people, but I for one think they will get much, much better knowledge of history, AND actually get some of them interested in the topic. For math and some science stuff, this may not be practical. But for many other subject areas, it is very doable, and makes good sense. It also allows you to get our from under the finger of the textbook empire, which has some questionable practices.

Happy Birthday, and may you find the Big Rock Candy Mountain.

QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Jan 21, 2009 -> 07:43 PM) Mine ate all my chocolate-covered pretzels (about 9 bags of ‘em) and had the audacity to just put the box back in my shelf like nothing had happened. How much had he smoked before doing that? And how large could his stomach possible be?

QUOTE (Kalapse @ Jan 21, 2009 -> 11:56 PM) So how exactly do we determine who is the rightful owner of the nickname "pudge"? Because Carlton Fisk was hardly the first catcher to be affectionately called that. How many other HOF catchers were commonly known as Pudge? I don't know of any, though I suppose its possible some early-era catcher was. There aren't that many catchers in the Hall anyway, I don't think.

Ivan Rodriguez is... not... Pudge. There was one Pudge, and that guy actually knew how to call a game.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Jan 21, 2009 -> 08:10 PM) That sigline is ignorant because neither Ronald Reagan nor kap know what a liberal is. so then, I suppose you don't know what a conservative is? It goes both ways, you see. But its better that this one goes neither way. Let's drop the talk of other posters' ignorance, even if indirect, k?

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Jan 21, 2009 -> 05:42 PM) Democracies dont attack other democracies... just does not happen. I'm not worried about Iran any time soon. How can you talk about Reagan's quote being ignorant (in another thread), and state that Iran isn't a threat with a straight face?

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Jan 21, 2009 -> 03:31 PM) most students in an engineering program that I knew in college thought these classes were a joke. no offense. Funny thing about that... I work in financial technology, and have managed a fair number of tech professionals. And I can tell you without a doubt, that even for people in a highly technically specialized field, the success rates are much higher for those who can communicate effectively and think dynamically outside the world of bits and bytes. Its just much harder to get a job, keep a job, and advance, if you are a purely technical person who lacks people skills and some level of emotional intelligence. That doesn't mean that taking a few gen ed classes in college will solve that issue, but it does make for a more well-rounded and world-savvy person (unless the school and classes are of very poor quality), and that definitely ties out to those necessary non-technical skills.

QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Jan 21, 2009 -> 02:16 PM) Winning Games is not at all a factor in determining what makes a good pitcher unless that win is a product mostly of the pitchers own making (no-hitter, complete game, shutout, holding a team below four runs, ETC). Edwin Jackson won 14 games last year, and it wasn't because he was a great pitcher, he was a product of a great offense and defense. Mark Buehrle, however, has proven himself a great pitcher, becasue he has moved past having what some would term as "mediocre" stuff, and become a great pitcher through the use of a cutter, and his ability to force ground balls in a hitters ballpark, while pitching at a pace that allows him to take complete control of a game. It's unfortunate that there's no real stat that can incorportate the very tangible qualities that Buehrle has (i'm not talking grindeyness here) that's why Mark is underrated not because of wins. But... those more hidden factors, not easily reflected in peripheral stats, do indeed translate to more wins, all else equal. Wins for a pitcher are not a great stat for evaluation, but they are also not quite completely meaningless. Sometimes, if its consistent, it can indicate something about that pitcher's make-up. You just need to get a better idea of context to judge.

QUOTE (Soxy @ Jan 21, 2009 -> 02:05 PM) It was actually two notes in an envelop. The first one says, when the first major thing goes wrong, blame it one me. If something else awful happens open the second note. The second note says, sit down and write two notes. I was thinking that same thing - the well-told story. But as Obama has already blamed so much on Bush, I'm not sure how long that will work.

QUOTE (daa84 @ Jan 21, 2009 -> 01:57 PM) Keith Law had us 23rd among the franchises in regards to strength of farm systems...Rangers, Rays, A's, Braves and Indians were top 5...cubs were 27th Jim Callis in his chat had this to say I would rate our system as probably somewhere between the two. Which is saying quite alot given that a year and half ago we were in the bottom 2 Yeah, I don't agree with Law at all that the draft was questionable below Beckham (well, except for the Williams pick, which went right past questionable and on to ridiculous). I think there were a lot of nice finds in there, and results in short season 2008 seemed to agree. And the 2007 draft is starting to look like it wasn't that bad either. The system is definitely getting stronger in a hurry.

In a CNN article about Obama's first day as President, I found this: I would LOVE to know the contents of that note.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 21, 2009 -> 12:36 PM) Easy low hanging fruit for Obama that I hope he goes for - designate all current Wilderness Study Areas that met their qualifications as full Wilderness Areas. Big win with environmentalists, and those areas are already semi-restricted anyway so you aren't taking land out of use. Further on this, Obama could reverse Bush's early-time XO's that flattened the many environmental protections that Clinton had put in place. ESA stuff, Grand Staircase-Escalante, etc.