southsider2k5

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Apr 30, 2011 -> 04:19 PM) The economy in Indiana should see an enormous surplus within a year or so based on this prudent move. Over a billion dollar this year FWIW. We are getting a tax refund and a pay down of pensions.

I even had to breakout my 12 year old, never washed, lucky hat.

I think the answer is obvious a banner celebrating the Twins, Tigers, Royals, and Indians.

QUOTE (TitoMB @ Apr 30, 2011 -> 02:48 PM) Please. This is the most ludicrous thing I have ever read. You REALLY think this s*** team has a 25-5 stretch in them? STOP DRINKING THE KOOL-AID! So you are telling me that you thought they did have a 25-5 stretch in them last year? Because I don't remember a single person saying anything like that.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Apr 29, 2011 -> 11:30 PM) Love this board and I take no pleasure in being right predicting this as a mediocre team (at best) during this offseason, but what were optimists thinking? You are a damned liar, and not even a good one at that. Crawl back into your hole and quit trying to bait people. At least that is what I am thinking now.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 29, 2011 -> 03:44 PM) I also have no idea how you'd ever effectively measure that impact in an objective manner That you really can't. Which is why I hate the federal and state mandates/standards of education, and the evaluations of it.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 29, 2011 -> 03:41 PM) There's undoubtedly going to be some signal lag. If you are a fantastic teacher who got a whole group of dead-average kids and got them all really motivated to learn by the end of the year, well, you've been a fantastic teacher, but test-based results aren't going to show the full impact. They may be much better students now, but they haven't had the time to fully exploit what you've given them. Next year's teacher is going to get a group of kids who improved over the last year, but are now eager to get to the top. You won't see that reflected in the evaluation of your abilities, but the next teacher will. I'd like for Balta to provide some references here, but I see no reason to dismiss the claim out-of-hand. Then you see an emergence in the very next year, not years down the road. At the sametime, there had to have been some sort of improvement over the kids who flat out didn't care at all. The reality of teaching doesn't happen with convincing kids to learn finally on the last day. There is a drop dead date in the middle, at some unspecific point, where when they aren't getting it, they quit caring about it.

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Apr 29, 2011 -> 03:37 PM) Munoz? I can't tell for sure, but he has Birmingham, Charlotte and Chicago all in his first call up year.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 29, 2011 -> 03:31 PM) ^This is assuming that Balta's claim is correct and that the signal can't be detected in a single school year. I can't imagine that teaching can be done with a completely undetectable knowledge time bomb that doesn't explode for years. I don't buy it.

QUOTE (gatnom @ Apr 29, 2011 -> 03:31 PM) He'd fit right in. So would Jeff Marquez as a starter.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Apr 29, 2011 -> 03:27 PM) I thought players weren't allowed to tweet during a game. Why would the manager be excluded? I'm not saying he didn't break the rules, but the punishment is ridiculous. Think about the guys who throw at people that nothing happens to. Think of players getting DUIs that nothing happens to. But tweets during a game is worth a two game suspension? MLBs priorites are way out of whack.

QUOTE (danman31 @ Apr 29, 2011 -> 03:08 PM) It's strange, but I don't think it's strange enough to raise concerns about Infante. It's not as if he had been with Charlotte and then moved him back down to AA. He's never pitched in AAA. I don't ever remember the Sox sending a guy back to AA after they had called him up to the majors.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 29, 2011 -> 03:12 PM) This is not a first suspension for ozzie guillen. For tweeting? Has anyone ever been suspended for tweeting?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 29, 2011 -> 03:19 PM) What's the sampling frequency for a teacher? You don't need it but once a year. The previous year sets the baseline for each invididual student when they come into the classroom. Being able to set their baseline against every other piece of data that schools have been tracking for decades, such as race, gender, poverty rates, previous test scores, previous grades, etc, you can easily find similar students, and also similar situation teachers and measure them.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 29, 2011 -> 03:17 PM) The very nature of the data is different and the trends are measured for different reasons. For teachers, you've got annual or maybe biannual evaluations at best. That's a very small set of data until you get to long time periods (because each child is a sub-set of data, so you really don't have 40 unique points in one set), and any "trend" could be overwhelmed by a single outlier. QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 29, 2011 -> 03:18 PM) There are millions of kids in this country. As much as I hate the federalization of education, it isn't going away.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 29, 2011 -> 03:15 PM) With an enormous amount of data compared to what you're trying to compile with here. There are millions of kids in this country. As much as I hate the federalization of education, it isn't going away.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 29, 2011 -> 03:09 PM) By very definition trends cannot emerge right away. Sample sizes here are small and spread over years and decades Trends can be measured in miniuta. It is done 24/7 in trading.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 29, 2011 -> 03:10 PM) As I just demonstrated, no they don't. The other thing that your trading firms and climate sensors have is data. A good teacher in a good school system gives you 20 data points a year. Then you move them around the next year and you get some splitting up of students, and so you wind up with 5-10 students from 1 class moving into other classes. Or, you have a program like the one I was in, where the same group of students stayed togehter for 4 years or so. You just don't get enough students to do the calculation you want to do here and have the results be meaningful. It'd be super easy to pull data sets from first year teachers in the same relative data settings, with even being able to factor in "successful" or "not successful" previous teachers. Systems where you had less variation of students' teachers would be way easier to evaluation performance in because there would be less variables.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 29, 2011 -> 03:02 PM) You know, if Jake ever comes back, Phil keeps pitching like this, and Edwin keeps pitching like this...I think you do kinda lean to taking Jackson out of the rotation and trying him in the pen. That's a whole lot of If's, but we're already doing the "Where would he play" with Peavy anyway. Edwin has closers stuff that is for sure. I wouldn't have a problem with him being the closer if we couldn't find anyone else, and if Peavy and Humber pitched well enough to allow it. But Edwin as closer right now? Wow.

That is pretty steep for a first offense.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 29, 2011 -> 02:59 PM) Oh come on man, first of all, no one is waiting 10 years to build up that kind of data set for every teacher. Teachers wouldn't stay in the position if they were going to get fired for not having been good enough 10 years ago. Secondly, that math problem is very ill posed. You've got 20 data points per year, each one jumbled up, with the additional factor of students taking classes from 5-10 different teachers once they get to middle school. Throw in additional factors like geographic trends, that math is very difficult to discern anything from. You don't need 10 years to find out that kind of stuff. Trends emerge right away. You can tell very quickly if the initial returns are worse than peers, when all of the variables are put into consideration. The math isn't that complex at all. These kind of algorithms are located on every single trading firms website with way more variables included. Hell the climate change math is a million times more complex than what I am talking about, yet we have to take that as gospel. Anyways, that brings me back to my preferred option, which is in house administrators making these decisions, and then everyone b****es about how teachers can get fired for "nothing". Its either that or keeping it as impossible as possible to fire teachers, which is what the whole point of fighting progress in evaluations is about anyway.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Apr 29, 2011 -> 02:56 PM) They played about as awful as humanely possible with no one booing them in these last 11 games on the road. I don't think me booing them will have any affect whatsoever but you can convince yourself that if you like. So what is the point then?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 29, 2011 -> 02:48 PM) You clearly missed the point of that argument. Not at all. When you receive a child in class, they have their score history. When they again test you are able to reflect how they did during the time period in your classroom. That rate of change is compared to all other relative rates of change. Then it is easy to compare relative levels of students anywhere across the spectrum to how other teachers of the same classes/levels did. It would also be really easy to pick out trends such as people from a certian teacher doing better down the road over the course of years in an individual school system setting. It is a super-simple data set really. You could break out any first grade teacher, for example, and plot their kids success over the future, and compare that to another first grade teachers history. It wouldn't even be hard to build an algorithim to picks trails of teachers (having teacher A for K, teacher B for 1st, teacher C for 2nd) to see what combinations are the most successful, and if certian combinations conflict with each others styles, or compliment each others styles more or less than any others. The programming would take zero time to write, and would require only a new data dump with every testing cycle.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 29, 2011 -> 02:39 PM) But, if Balta's correct, it means your performance is really being judged on what the teacher two or three years ago did, and the teacher a couple years ahead of you is getting judged on your teaching. That doesn't seem right, because you'd never actually be judging the person based on their own performance. How they improve while they are in your classroom is absolutely fair.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 29, 2011 -> 02:33 PM) Improvement rates is tough also...because studies have shown that the education process really isn't consistent on that either. Fairly often, the results from going through a couple of highly rated teachers won't show up in students for 2-3 years (especially in the middle grades, where most kids have roughly equal success until everyone plummets off a cliff around 8th grade). The measure comes against peers, so those ups and downs wouldn't matter. You'd be compared against people in the same boat.