iamshack

QUOTE (OsweGo-Go Sox @ Apr 3, 2013 -> 05:49 PM) This is a good question--I'll do my best to explain it. Since first base, for example, requires a little less quickness and athleticism, you often get a lot of power hitters emerge at the position. So, the average first baseman might have a rather high slugging percentage, compared to, say, a shortstop or second baseman. The question is about value--if you have someone at shortstop, or second base, or catcher with great power, that's a huge upgrade--it's power from an unexpected position. A .280, 25 homer season from a first baseman might be seen as somewhat pedestrian because it's close to the average for a first baseman, whereas if you got that from a middle infielder, it's a huge bonus. You see this debate unfold when talking about a great-hitting catcher like Buster Posey. His numbers are tremendous for a catcher! But, if/when he moves to first base, his value could drop because that kind of production from first base would be expected. He could be blocking a good-hitting first baseman. Posey at catcher + average-hitting first baseman would be better production than average-hitting catcher + Posey at first base. Ultimately, you can only put 9 players in your lineup at any given time. These players have to serve two purposes: offense and defense. The goal is to find the optimal mix of players to produce the best result both offensively and defensively for your club. This may be influenced by your pitching staff and your home field, as well. As others have said, there are certain defensive positions, such as catcher, second base, shortstop, and center field, which are considered to be more important than others because of their relative positions on a baseball diamond and number of balls put in play towards them. Therefore, the players chosen to play those positions are typically going to have the skills requisite to succeed there...speed, agility,good hands. If you can have players that serve both purposes, offense and defense, in positions that are traditionally very defense-centric, you are really putting yourself in a position of strength. Constructing the optimal baseball lineup is NOT a zero-sum game. Having a player that plays a defense-centric position that also excels at offense does not take away anything from any other position defensively or offensively. Therefore, by having players at defense-centric positions that also excel offensively, you are allowing yourself to constuct a more optimal lineup than most others because most players that play up the middle are going to produce less from an offensive standpoint. This might be similar to having a soccer player who is strong defensively but is also very talented offensively. Ultimately, players with both skills are very valuable and highly-coveted, so the more of them you have on the field at one time, the better.

Haha...so the listing agent for the home we offered on a few months ago sent an email to our agent yesterday afternoon... "Its at 525 BUT just had a phone call from Sellers secretary and she was told to tell me to tell anyone to 'present all offers' Sellers advisor was one that wanted it raised not the Seller. so If you can come back in where u were but they still will not pay any closing costs or appaisal can not be a contingency - Buyer to pay own closing costs" These jerks want us to come back in with basically the same offer but without it being contingent on the appraisal....idiots...should have just accepted our original offer for list in the first place...

QUOTE (Jose Paniagua @ Apr 3, 2013 -> 02:24 PM) Suddenly you're forgiven And now you go and COMPLETELY redeem yourself!

He's only 23!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

QUOTE (ScottyDo @ Apr 3, 2013 -> 11:08 AM) I dü belive WGN WGN = White Sox at work...

Comcast, WCIU, or WGN?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 3, 2013 -> 10:59 AM) But other folks like Dick Allen are trying to justify actions taken to silence a rape victim because 'trust' Yeah, I understand. I was just explaining all the stuff I was making up.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Apr 3, 2013 -> 11:40 AM) You're right. Bernstein has a problem with coaches. But he doesn't go around making up stories to hurt their reputations. He's simply reporting something that Steve Alford did that is reprehensible. Considering how Bernstein himself treats other people in his professional work, he just isn't the best person to be carrying forth this particular message. He isn't simply reporting this. He is using his forum to obsessively pound on Alford in the face of plenty of other things to report. Fine, that is great, I recognize his right to do so. But he's doing so partially for his own agenda, and folks are simply pointing that out.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Apr 3, 2013 -> 11:17 AM) link? thef*ck? You're just making things up. I am? Everything that comes out of your big mouth is made-up. Do we have to provide links for everything we post if you happen to disagree with us?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 3, 2013 -> 11:00 AM) f***, you're right, I bet Bernstein has covered up a bunch of sexual assaults! Laugh of the day....

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Apr 3, 2013 -> 09:43 AM) You should find a betting parlor that will allow you to parlay that bet. Put $5 on it. If you lose, whatever, you had a good feeling those 3 were gonna go deep. If you win, you'll end up with like $500. A betting parlor?

Bernstein has always just been so much of an egotistical prick that he veers off what the point should be, in favor of his own personal agendas, which usually is getting the last word in in any debate. It takes away from the show and makes him unbearable at times.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 3, 2013 -> 10:28 AM) Bernstein is always overdramatic, that's his thing. But it seems like this is a consistent issue for him, the abuse of power in the sports world to cover up incidents like this. That's fine...but maybe he could discuss the overarching issue a bit more...instead of just zeroing in on Alford, who he clearly has a personal issue with outside of this particular transgression.

QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Apr 3, 2013 -> 09:19 AM) LMAO. Yes, let's try to make that ridiculous connection, he's trying to make money off sexual assault. He's actually trying to fight it if you listen to him, which you claim you don't, but probably do. Doubt he makes any money off of talking about Alford directly. He's been at the Score what, 15 years? He's a salaried employee, probably pretty consistent with that as well. I highly doubt the ratings spike due to talking about Alford for a few days, and enough to have someone walk into the office with a giant bag of money. It's not about money. I'm certainly not trying to minimize what Alford did, but don't you think Bernstein is being a bit overdramatic? This kind of s*** goes on constantly with big time college and pro sports and male athletes. All one needs to do is see how glorified high-profile male athletes are in our culture and how they are allowed to literally get away with murder to understand that this incident is a mere blip on the radar of transgressions committed probably almost daily. To act as though what Alford did is somehow unique or unheard of, given the energy Bernstein has devoted to this, certainly makes it seem as though he has another agenda in mind here.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Apr 2, 2013 -> 02:04 PM) I didnt think the first episode after the break was that bad... didnt see that end coming. That being said, it's is trending too close to the ratings red line. It's only about a point higher than V, Jericho before they were cancelled and is at the same level as Terra Nova. much like those others, I'd guess this isnt a cheap show to produce. It needs a Solid 8+ to stay alive. It's freaking terrible...it's terribly written, it's terribly acted, and do you really give a s*** about any of the characters? The plotlines are stupid and pointless...and why the hell do cars need electricity to drive? The only reason I am still watching is because I am stubborn and want to see it through to the end of the first season...

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Apr 2, 2013 -> 10:58 AM) Robinson Cano fires Scott Boras, becomes the first client of Roc Nation, owned by Jay-Z. I am determined to become the second client of Roc Nation...

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 2, 2013 -> 01:13 PM) I'd be doing exactly this if my wife wouldn't destroy me for it. I don't watch much TV, I'm more of a browser. I'll look around the movie channels to see if there is something I want to watch, which is usually already half over by the time I turn it on. She records a ton of shows and watches them, though. I'd really love to not be spending 70-100$ a month on TV. I find that if I am not watching tv, I am usually wanting to go out...and if I am going out a lot, I am spending s***loads more than $4-5 that the tv programming is costing me a day. I get that it seems like money that could be better spent, but if you consider it part of your overall entertainment budget, in-home tv is one of the smaller culprits in my monthly budget.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Apr 2, 2013 -> 12:25 PM) If by a few years ago you mean 15, then ok. Yeah, I signed up for Netflix back when it first came out...which, I think was like 1997 or something...

QUOTE (Jake @ Apr 1, 2013 -> 09:53 PM) Any Mad Men fans? Adore it...

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Apr 2, 2013 -> 10:42 AM) Catfish Hunter Don Drysdale Hineybird Matt Abbatacola Joe West Doc Edwards

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 2, 2013 -> 09:10 AM) ...unless you have bad lines running to your house/condo/apartment that they refuse to fix My parents have this problem too...they've had techs out to their house like 100 times in the last 10 years...for whatever reason, Comcast believes that is cheaper than actually replacing the lines...Next time I make an extended visit home, maybe I will get them set up with a new tv and DirecTV installed....

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 1, 2013 -> 07:06 PM) For tv, I generally don't see a quality difference in Comcast, Dish/Dtv or AT&Ts offering. For a while there Comcasts dvrs were terrible, slow, etc, but their newer ones are a loooot better. Dtv still has slightly better dvrs, but not by much anymore. There are pluses and minuses to all of them, but when it comes to cost, on contract you are looking at similar prices. Where Comcast has its advantage is that their Internet kicks ass, regardless of what people claim. Generally, DirecTV provides the best overall experience IMO. This includes the NFL package, the extra channels for the major golf tournaments, a better guide, etc. BTW, I'm not going up against Comcast here...we have Cox, which seems similar to Comcast, but maybe a tick below.

For the amount of time I spend watching tv, I just want the best experience possible. I know DirecTV is usually a bit higher than most other providers, but not significantly, especially when I consider I spend about 30-40 hours a week in front of a tv, especially during baseball season.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Apr 1, 2013 -> 01:42 PM) I was wondering this as well, two of the places I've put an offer on in the last couple of weeks have the flexibility for that and I would love to have less wires and boxes around the house. I just upgraded...they are giving it to me for free, but I had to agree to a 2-year agreement...which was fine...even if I want to go all internet or something, i can always reduce my package to the minimum level. The wireless thing only works with Samsung smart tvs as of now. Otherwise, you've got to get a mini box that they call a "client" for your other tvs. The new equipment will be leased, unlike previous DirecTV equipment, which I was forced to purchase. They are coming to install it Friday morning...I will let you guys know what I think. She did say that it can access all the stuff on your current DVR and pull it on to the Genie, which is nice.

Anyone have the DirecTV Genie yet?