StrangeSox

fwiw I think Bernstein's own background is reformed Judaism, and at one point he was criticizing orthodox Jews as well for being sexist and homophobic.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Apr 30, 2013 -> 03:37 AM) I mean, if Broussard made the statement in the context of Collins being a devout Christian, then I can somewhat understand that. Maybe it was wrong for him to say that Collins is definitely not a Christian since everybody and their mother has a different interpretation of the Bible and Christianity. Religion, IMO, is up to interpretation. After all, religion is passed down from the interpretation of texts written thousands of years ago. So what's to say that somebody's interpretation of it is right or wrong as long as they can back up their statements through some proof in text? some denominations have gay bishops http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_Robinson

I think I spent $1.5k for the setting since I already had a hand-me-down stone. Don't see the point in dropping tons of money on a ring unless you're a baller like Rock.

lol

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 29, 2013 -> 11:33 AM) "I didn't set out to be the first openly gay athlete..." Oreally? That's why you called two SI writers out of the blue and invited them to your house for an interview? going by the context (he moves from that line to talking about HS and college), I think he meant he didn't set out years ago.

It was about $150 including delivery (we're very close to that place, LaGrange would be more) but I can't remember how much we ordered.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Apr 29, 2013 -> 10:16 AM) Jason Collins comes out as the first openly gay NBA player http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/magazine/...view/?mobile=no lol nice photo choice edit: but more importantly that's huge, first openly gay male American athlete in a major sport

QUOTE (MexSoxFan#1 @ Apr 29, 2013 -> 09:45 AM) Mike Wilbon remember when Mike Wilbon jumped all over Cutler after the NFC Championship game, like a day later, calling him weak and a coward? http://sports.espn.go.com/chicago/nfl/colu...&id=6052280

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 29, 2013 -> 08:52 AM) Does anyone know of a good place to buy soil and mulch that can be delivered in bulk to the western suburbs? I spent all weekend building a roughly 60 foot by 6 foot retaining wall in the front of my house that now needs to be filled with some top soil and covered with mulch. Given the amount I'm going to need it's going to be much cheaper to buy this in bulk instead of buying 60-70 bags at Menards/Home Depot. We've used this place for dirt before and will probably be getting some more next weekend. http://www.homelandscape.net/ Any landscape place should sell dirt, mulch and stone in bulk.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Apr 26, 2013 -> 03:46 PM) And just to extend on this. Over and over again, I hear guys like Hawk talk about how, as a hitter, you can't get too down on yourself. He talks about how Paul Konerko used to get all depressed during his slumps or even after a bad day at the plate. Advanced metrics can help players better understand why they are struggling and that maybe their struggles are just the result of bad luck. This was probably the case for Konerko in 2003 and 2008, when his BABIP was absurdly low and he hit in the .230s. Even if their struggles aren't due to bad luck (Mark Kotsay in 2010 for instance), just knowing that your bad batting average is not completely your fault can be a little bit more self-assuring. Baseball is a very mental game for the players, anybody who has played the game at any level will tell you that, and any sort of confidence can make a difference. They can also help explain why hard-hit balls to fielders aren't necessarily "hang wiff-em's" or unlucky breaks but the result of strategic defensive positioning based on comprehensive analysis.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Apr 26, 2013 -> 01:59 PM) The poster who doesn't know how GDP is calculated but still trusts it, probably wouldn't go around saying he is an amateur economist. clearly you've never been to the 'buster

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Apr 26, 2013 -> 01:55 PM) I don't know. Hawk is right about the A's of that era, it was more about Zito, Mulder, and Hudson than "moneyball"-type position players. Is baseball still played the same way as it was in the 1970's, or have advanced analytic methods changed how players are valued and viewed even by people who never bother getting personally familiar esoteric metrics?

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Apr 26, 2013 -> 01:44 PM) Example? I think someone wrote a book and made a movie about it.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Apr 26, 2013 -> 01:18 PM) That isn't the case...strikeouts do mean something, but if a hitter does other things very well, such as hit a lot of extra base hits and walk, then the fact that he might k a lot does not diminish him all that much as a hitter. However, for a pitcher, obviously if a hitter is striking out, he cannot put the ball in play, and therefore cannot possibly reach base (save for the wild pitch or passed ball on the third strike). Even that being the case, a pitcher who strikes out a lot of guys is usually going to be throwing a lot of pitches, which can be a negative. It is all about the context and perspective. DA is trying to compare two things as the same when in reality, they are not really viewed from the same perspective at all. Right, there's a whole bunch of nuance here that seems to disappear when someone goes all ranty about Moneyball Author Billy Beane. Some of it, too, is when people waive away all these fancy-sounding stats not only in favor of "gut" but also in favor of other stats that we know are inferior like pure BA and ERA. Good answer, btw. Better metrics should be able to identify good pitchers who pitch to contact but get outs anyway. Part of getting those outs on balls in play is maximizing your defensive positioning and your pitching strategy for every pitcher-hitter-scenario combination, which is aided by data analysis.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Apr 26, 2013 -> 01:15 PM) OPS said that Trout and Cabrera were the two dominant hitters in the AL last year. Just watching all the games and never looking at their stats once, you would have eventually reached the same conclusion. Right, and MVP-level players aren't really where advanced stats show the most value. It's the margins and the atypical players that would have otherwise gone unnoticed.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Apr 26, 2013 -> 01:10 PM) The fact is a good performance is a good performance. Hawk is IMO wrong for totally dismissing sabermetrics, but really he and Brian Kenny, who seems to be at the exact opposite end probably would rank players very similarly. In reality, although both sides would probably like to tell you it is, this isn't democrats vs. republicans. The difference comes more at the margins, so there's going to be huge overlaps of agreement. What counts as "good performance" is exactly what's in question, though.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Apr 26, 2013 -> 01:03 PM) The one thing I will never understand saber-ly if that is even a term, is how offensively, strikeouts mean absolutely nothing, but for pitchers, they mean a heck of a lot. It's not that black-and-white edit: but that's a good question that hopefully someone can answer

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Apr 26, 2013 -> 12:53 PM) This is what I think. How many times does it occur the non saber guys think a guy is great and the saber guys say he sucks and vice versa? There's also been a few decades of exposure to advanced metrics now, so it's expected that you'd see traditional scouting evaluations and saber-type evaluations converge--they're both influenced by each other and the results on the field.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Apr 26, 2013 -> 12:59 PM) The situation in which Rios ran should have been ample proof Ventura didn't send him. I pointed that out and the fact the runner on first, who isn't being looked at at all or held on, didn't move. You said it was stupid. If you don't know how WAR is calculated, how can you conclude it is an accurate measure? I don't know how GDP is calculated but I can still trust it as a reliable metric.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Apr 26, 2013 -> 12:57 PM) I don't think that is what it is at all... A lot of it revolves around the way the two sides of the spectrum treated one another when the data guys were first coming to prominence. They were referred to as eggheads or computer nerds by the scouts and lifetime baseball men, and they referred to the scouts and baseball men as fools and ignoramuses... don't forget the always-hilarious "living in your mom's basement!!!" retort

QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Apr 26, 2013 -> 12:55 PM) Too many managers get away with that quote after the game. "Went on a gut feel." WTF does that even mean? Some sort of logic told you to do X instead of Y, explain that. Was it something you saw that week, that game, etc? Did the numbers tell you it was probably 50/50 anyway, so you used other evidence to help? If you were previously aware of the numbers, I don't think there's anyway they wouldn't influence your "gut."

advanced stats are just another tool to understand the game. that's what makes the hatred of them so weird.

QUOTE (southsidepride15 @ Apr 26, 2013 -> 12:30 PM) Stats are great, but like he said (and Harold had his back on this) even with the information being there for the manager there is still an instinct and a gut feeling for THAT moment. I think sabermetrics have thier place in the game without doubt, but I don't think that you can use sabermetrics for every situation of every game. I don't think anyone has said that you can, nor does that do anything to say that Hawk knows more than 99% of people. In Hawk's world, teams wouldn't analyze advanced metrics to determine the best defensive positioning against a given hitter for a given pitcher, they wouldn't back up or dig into things scouts see. They'd keep playing baseball like it was 1970 and they'd get blown out of the water by less-physically talented teams who bothered with the technical side Hawk proudly remains ignorant of. And, of course, there's no reason you can't embrace and use both.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Apr 26, 2013 -> 12:27 PM) There's plenty of evidence. oh, ok. just browse through the archives of FJM (man I wish they were still around) for many, many examples and rebuttals to that argument.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Apr 26, 2013 -> 12:11 PM) It seems people here seem to be embarrassed by Hawk's views. I don't understand why. I guess it's just part of the gig of being a White Sox fan. Funny thing is, Hawk knows more about the game than probably 99% or more of the people he's "embarrassing". The Sox certainly were not embarrassed, or they wouldn't have let him go on TV. It's an embarrassment for the franchise, not for me personally. I don't see any evidence that Hawk knows more about the game than 99% of the people here. About actually playing the game at the professional level? Sure, for however relevant the 60's experiences still are. For GM'ing a team? Sure, for however relevant his disastrous run in the 80's still is. About the modern day ins-and-outs of baseball, especially in-game strategy? He seems to be proudly and willfully ignorant.