StrangeSox

QUOTE (Lemon_44 @ Sep 1, 2011 -> 03:50 PM) I can't stand Rios as much as anyone but I can see Ozzie's reasoning for not Viciedo 4th. Why put all the pressure on him and make him think he has to carry the team? I like him 5th. I'm with you and hate Rios 4th. If it were me, I would hit PK 4th and De Aza 3rd until CQ comes back. I didn't advocate for anyone in particular to bat 4th there, but you've admitted that batting Rios 4th is a bad move. That move keeps you from fielding the best team possible, just like PHing Dunn for one of your hotter hitters means you're not fielding your best team.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 1, 2011 -> 03:47 PM) As my reading has so far revealed, this is at least not entirely true. Here's a direct copy from Huntsman's PDF: Simplify The Personal Income Tax Code And Lower Rates. Rather than nibble around the edges of the existing tax code, Gov. Huntsman will introduce a revenue-neutral tax plan that eliminates all deductions and credits in favor of three drastically lower rates of 8%, 14% and 23%. Eliminating deductions and credits in favor of lower marginal rates will yield a simpler and more efficient tax code, decreasing the burden on taxpayers Now I'll admit that this is only a vague outline, but all deductions and credits presumably includes the EITC, the standard deduction and really any other credit or deduction that could possibly allow you to get below your marginal rate. The idea is a "simplified" tax code, simply look at your rate and multiply by your income. Perhaps he's elaborated more in a speech, but my reading of this simple paragraph means 51% of Americans who currently pay zero or negative rates will see a jump up to 8%. I know, I posted that Forbes article that gives a high-level explanation of the main credits and deductions.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 1, 2011 -> 03:27 PM) Back to picking and choosing taxes I see. You were just talking about income taxes. I don't even know what the point of your post was. I even posted an article explaining exactly how people come to have a zero or negative federal income tax burden a few posts before literally the post right before yours. We were discussing Huntsman's plan and its impact. It would eliminate those credits that allow for zero or negative FIT burdens while cutting upper brackets, capital gains, dividends and corporate taxes heavily. I posted data showing that those last three cuts will go almost entirely to the wealthy and not at all to the bottom 40%, and explained how the whole plan would result in a massive tax increase for low and middle income America and a giant tax break for the very top. What, exactly, did pointing out that the bottom 40% have a negative FIT rate accomplish?

I don't even know what to say to this...

QUOTE (pettie4sox @ Sep 1, 2011 -> 02:58 PM) I rather see Lillibridge strike out than Dunn. With Dunn, you already know what's going to happen, with Lilly, you don't know. Absolutely. Thinking that pinch-hitting out one of your current hottest players who has a homerun off of the reliever in the game for the guy having a historically bad season is one of the dumbest moves you've ever seen isn't something said in hindsight or because of the result. You can get to correct answers through poor reasoning. If Dunn would have hit a HR, it wouldn't vindicate the move any more than PH Buerhle in there and having him get a HR would suddenly be considered a smart move. to back up this point, I'll quote this post from the catch-all: QUOTE (smalls2598 @ Sep 1, 2011 -> 03:17 PM) From Jayson Stark's ESPN article: "How many players in the history of the American League have had 100 more strikeouts than hits in a season? Uh, none, of course. And the only guy to do it in any league was Mark Reynolds (211-99) last year in Arizona. So this is a huge September for Dunn -- no matter how much he does (or doesn't) play." Dunn has 157 K's and only 60 hits.

QUOTE (Lemon_44 @ Sep 1, 2011 -> 02:32 PM) The one thing OG has done pretty consistently is put a wining team out there. He's consistently putting Rios in the 4th spot.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 1, 2011 -> 02:44 PM) The bottom 40% also have a negative net tax rate. Only if you ignore every tax except FIT, and they would see massive income tax hikes under Huntsman's plan.

This Forbes article breaks it down, there is a threshold of zero taxes thanks to standard deductions that it sounds like Huntsman wants to eliminate that accounts for roughly half of "nonpayers," and the rest get zeroed out thanks to mortgage deductions, EITC etc. that would all be gone.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 1, 2011 -> 01:50 PM) Clearly the effective impact of cap gains and dividend taxes is biggest on high earners, no argument there. That's an understatement. Non-home wealth for the bottom 40% is actually negative. The top 20% control 93%. Pensions, corporate stocks and financial securities account for roughly 1/3 of non-home wealth, and business equity (which receives big tax breaks) another 1/3. http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_589.pdf There's no way you can argue that this isn't a far right economic proposal.

That "zero line" exists because of the EITC. The lowest marginal rate is 10%. This would essentially result in a huge tax hike on 90% of Americans while giving huge tax cuts to the top 10%.

Prof. Groseclose, author of the book Left Turn: How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind that purports to show that the media is slanted to the left "without a doubt," has been guest-blogging over at the libertarian lawyer blog Volokh Conspiracy. The basic assumptions underlying his research are being torn apart pretty heavily, both in the comments and by another regular blogger there. A few more articles by each, a "case study" of an LA Times article and another post by the Prof., but his work isn't being treated very kindly there. The strongest criticisms seem to be what think tanks get included (Groseclose relies on some random internet list of the "Top 200" which doesn't include groups like API or the USCC but includes the 'geonomy society'), how those think tanks get rated (ACLU gets a slight right-ward lean because it was cited a bunch of times by conservatives Congressmen during McCain-Feingold and not much else) and whether the methodology even makes sense in the first place (why should journalist citations match the 'average politician' citations?).

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Sep 1, 2011 -> 09:22 AM) That's just terrible. winning attitude

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Aug 31, 2011 -> 08:19 PM) I love how you say that...then s*** gets censored at the end of your sentence. that is pretty good

I didn't know Miami had an agreement with Chicago to accept our garbage.

Timely post

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 31, 2011 -> 04:42 PM) Seriously, that's nearly all this forum has on it recently, no one is censoring s***. This forum's had a strong anti-ozzie contingent pretty much since I joined.

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Aug 31, 2011 -> 04:49 PM) MDGonzales Mark Gonzales Brent Lillibridge led the Sox with six home runs in August. Ahh so that's why we pinch hit for him in the 9th as he was the tying run... That's hilarious.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Aug 31, 2011 -> 04:34 PM) Peavy's had 2-3 of these really bad starts. He hasn't been that bad in the other ones. He's been incredibly unlucky. If you haven't noticed, he's not giving up home runs or extremely hard hit line drives in most of his games, but ends up giving up 3-4 runs regardless. He has a 62% strand rate, which is about 10% below league average. The rule of thumb is that over a large amount of innings (say about 1000), luck gets isolated and the strand rate for all pitchers should be about 72-75%. On top of that, Peavy has an FIP almost 2 runs lower than his ERA. An xFIP 1.5 runs lower, a tERA a whole run lower, and a SIERA 1.5 runs lower. That's 4 separate advanced pitching metrics saying he's been unlucky and by quite a large amount as well. On top of that, from what I've seen, I don't think he really deserves to have an ERA over 5. He's probably been the unluckiest pitcher on the staff this year just by the amount of seeing eye singles he's given up. I know it sounds like I'm making excuses for him, but I truly believe that he isn't as bad as his ERA looks. Peavy sucked today, no way around it. that doesn't excuse batting Rios 4th or PHing Dunn for lilli

lol, yeah this site really censors KW/Ozzie bashing.

QUOTE (docsox24 @ Aug 31, 2011 -> 04:23 PM) rios/dunn is just a flat out terrible hitter, the team is hindered by having to play him and pay him Unlike a pitcher, however, you can minimize the impact of a bad bat by not batting them 4th.

QUOTE (elrockinMT @ Aug 31, 2011 -> 04:19 PM) I understand and to a point agree with lefty-righty pecentages, but Dunn can't hit the broadside of a barn right now. Every at bat I find myself holding my breath and hoping against hope he is going to pull it off. The outcome of todays game though was set in the top of the first inning. Peavy was not ready. Nathan's been hit harder by righties this year anyway. There is absolutely no way to defend this move.

You've done a fine job today, Darryl, but I'm going with percentages. You're a lefty, Simpson's a righty.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 31, 2011 -> 04:02 PM) That doesn't negate the fact that he hits from the left side of the plate. For this manager, that is reason enough to PH. Just watched "Homer at the Bat" episode of the Simpsons the other day, Burns' move to PH Homer for Darryl Strawberry (who hit 9 HR's that day) because Homer was a righty reminded me so much of Ozzie.

lol

QUOTE (elrockinMT @ Aug 31, 2011 -> 02:23 PM) I know it is going to be a tough decision. But, if this guy shows the same results in 2012 what do you think? Keep him occupying a spot and paying $14M a year for nothing? Cost out what we have paid him this year for his production. Or lack of it! Now maybe next year he is back and ready to contribute. It's a gamble for sure You said that should be next year's lineup, though, meaning you'd cut Dunn based on 2011 alone. If his 2012 is similar to his 2011, that's a different scenario.