StrangeSox

Here's a much more detailed policy paper on expanding Social Security http://growth.newamerica.net/publications/...social_security

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Apr 26, 2013 -> 12:01 PM) I don't understand this entire embarrassment angle. Who, other than Sox fans on a message board is even paying much attention to this? I don't think Yankee, Red Sox, Reds, Angels or any of the other teams fans give a crap about what Hawk thinks about sabermetrics. It's an embarrassment for the franchise in the eyes of fans and potential fans, not that other teams' fans will laugh at them.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Apr 26, 2013 -> 11:29 AM) And if they lose, it will just go away....if we win, it will become a season-long rallying cry... If they continue to lose it will be an embarrassment.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Apr 26, 2013 -> 10:58 AM) I agree...I think it is brilliant...obviously this is all a little bit tongue and cheek, but I think it's flat out brilliant. It looks kinda silly when you're losing a lot, though.

QUOTE (maggsmaggs @ Apr 26, 2013 -> 11:24 AM) While I am little angry that Bears couldn't figure out a trade down to take Long at the end of Round 1 (Falcons traded up to 22) or early Round 2, I think that is my anger over the pick more than anything. Hub Arkush is a normal joe-schmo critiquing picks. Phil Emery does this for a living. Who should I trust more? FWIW Angelo did this for a living, too.

QUOTE (Jake @ Apr 15, 2013 -> 06:42 PM) Certainly, there is a convenience factor. Being cost effective can be a plus, of course, if you're using the tests wisely. I'm happy to have more money going into education, whether that involves higher taxes or maybe just taking some money from the Defense Department. The Industrial Classroom looks at the links between the "data-driven" school reform movement and Scientific Management of the previous century and the dehumanizing nature of it

Let's make up TWTW shirts with a spot to write in the current win-loss record.

QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Apr 25, 2013 -> 04:38 PM) You can't use any numbers to measure TWTW, go back to the drawing board. yet

QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Apr 25, 2013 -> 04:11 PM) Of course Hawk can't make an intelligent response to sabremetrics because he doesn't study them . Much like myself especially defensively, I don't understand how defense can be measured taking all things into consideration. Anticipation can't be measured or positioning or response to the ball off the bat , poor routes that a fielder can make up for with pure speed, how an outfielder plays a long deep fly ball as opposed to how he plays a line drive and those same things off a RH bat or LH bat. A defender can be good at some of those things but not all and until you measure the kind of fly balls he's tracking how can you accurately measure his defense ? If a teams pitching is poor could be someone rated as a poor outfielder is seeing an inordinate amount of hard hit balls as opposed to a good pitching staff and routine plays or has a good coaching staff who positions you better . Or maybe I have no idea like Hawk Not blindly trusting some metric is good. Not being interested enough in them to dig into the details and see if and how is addresses those questions is fine. But using your position as the broadcast announcer for a Major League Baseball team to profess and embrace ignorance and to denounce those who choose to look at new measurement and analytic techniques isn't.

WtW is like a quantum state-you can't know it until the games have been played and you know who won. Then it becomes clear who had more Will.

QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Apr 25, 2013 -> 04:15 PM) All he kept saying was TWTW, defense wins, and you gotta have the W, it's all about the W. Any point Brian tried to make, Hawk answered with something ridiculous like I just mentioned. Pure gibberish from an old man. It's true, the White Sox's problem isn't collective suckitude on offense, it's that they just don't Want It enough.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Apr 25, 2013 -> 02:34 PM) Yeah, pre-draft reporting makes CNN and the NY Post look incredibly accurate.

the attempted Bush hagiography this week is pretty nauseating. Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln...

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Apr 25, 2013 -> 01:29 PM) All the draft news today is hilarious. Every team loves every player. Every team hates every player. "They're all #1 on my draft board!"

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 25, 2013 -> 01:02 PM) That means nothing to me? it's charles pierce's phrase but essentially just think of politico as a dumb gossip adolescent rag equivalent to Tiger Beat

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 25, 2013 -> 01:10 PM) Yeah we'll see what happens. Congress also didn't just exempt staffers from insider trading reporting either. They did, and f*** them for that. But that's manifestly different than what (allegedly, for three years now) going on here. There's a specific provision in the bill that moves a handful of federal employees from the large insurance program they are currently a part of and which would be 100% compliant with the rest of ACA's provisions to the Exchanges. There appears to be legitimate concern that current law would not allow the federal government to continue covering the health care premiums that are shifted to the exchanges, thus leaving Congress and their staffers with 100% of the bill. It's not so much about "exempting themselves from Obamacare" as it is about eliminating one specific provision of the law that changed their already-complying insurance plan.

yeah it's the same thing that's been circling around forever. hence, "lol politico" or as it's also known, "tiger beat on the potomac"

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 25, 2013 -> 11:44 AM) LOL, lawmakers want to be exempted from Obamacare: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/obam...ides-90610.html Hasn't this story been running since 2010? edit: also obligatory "lol politico"

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Apr 25, 2013 -> 11:42 AM) Good control, throws groundballs, plays good defense, keeps teams from stealing bases against him, 4 above average pitches (none of which are his 86 MPH fastball). You want me to keep going? No I'm going to stick with simple-minded fool, like the Rainman of pitching. Measure THAT with your computers in your mom's basements, NERDS!

There's an interesting discussion (kicked off by the horrible factory collapse in Bangladesh that has killed over a hundred people) over whether the US should impose requirements/restrictions/tariffs on imported goods made by manufacturers that don't meet US levels of workplace safety and environmental protection. We've outsourced much of our industrial pollution and our Triangle Shirtwaist-like working conditions to other countries, and both companies and consumers reap the benefits for the dangers, low wages and environmental destruction done overseas. It started with labor historian Erik Loomis and Yglesias has responded that no, we shouldn't. http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/0...ory_safety.html some responses to Yglesias here http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2013/0...-then-wrong-now and here

The reason Mark Buehrle has had a successful career is that he's got the mind of a child? Hmm, I bet there's some advanced metrics out there that could better explain why Buehrle is effective with an 86 MPH fastball.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Apr 25, 2013 -> 09:58 AM) My problem with the most ardent adherents to sabermetrics its that they take their numbers as absolute proof of one player being better than another. I will freely admit that WAR is a far better evaluation tool than AVG and RBI, but please do not try to tell me that Player A with a WAR of 5.0 is 100% undeniably better than Player B with a WAR of 4.8. Sabermetrics is not THAT exact of a science. There is plenty of margin for error in park factors, strength of opponents faced, etc., to be that exact. I'm not accusing any particular person on this board because I haven't seen that extreme kind of behavior here, but I have seen it plenty of places. Who actually makes that argument, though? They'd have to be statistically illiterate. Fangraphs, baseball reference, etc. don't list error bars for these numbers but anyone who's taken stats 101 should know not to take these numbers as absolute, 100% true measurements.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Apr 24, 2013 -> 09:20 PM) Oh lawd. Expect a Deadspin article. I miss FJM

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 25, 2013 -> 11:11 AM) It's not just about the years, but the sheer number of people living longer is far greater. Well, yeah, and that's why we created the trust fund for the boomers in 1983. Once that giant wave is past us, we'll go back to where SS was in the decades prior with retirees and active workers more or less balancing out. There will be numerically more retirees, but there will be numerically more workers as well. This has all been known for decades and specifically accounted for. Where this runs into trouble (and it already has since 1983) is the growing income inequalities and the payroll cap. Since more and more of the share of the income is going to people already (well) above the cap, there's less that's taxable to fund SS (and Medicare).

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 25, 2013 -> 10:58 AM) I think those are pretty significant gains. 2.5 years for men, 5 years for women overall. Which, again, were anticipated when the program was created. They weren't stupid and knew about the trends in increasing adult life expectancy. The Greenspan Commission in the 1980's knew this as well when they overhauled SS and set up the trust fund. The bottom half, though, with their flat-lined life expectancy, likely hasn't seen any growth at all since the 40's or 50's. Either way, it's pointless to look at life expectancy from birth in the 30's. The comparison needs to be done based on "years collecting retirement benefits."