iamshack

QUOTE (SoxAce @ Dec 16, 2009 -> 11:42 PM) Whoops... Come on Ace, don't you know KHP is pissed?

QUOTE (SoxAce @ Dec 16, 2009 -> 11:37 PM) If (and when) Adrian becomes a Red Sox, I hope SD rapes their farm and Clay Buchholz pitches like an absolute beast for them for years to come. It's definitely a dicey situation for Hoyer, but guys like him don't get to where they are without thinking of this s*** themselves. I'm sure if he does deal Adrian, it'll be because it's an offer he cannot refuse. He doesn't have to be in any hurry...

Sometimes it frustrates me when people don't even bother to look at all the great discussion that's been going on in the thread, and instead, merely start the same elementary and beaten-down arguments over again. Ooops! Did I just post that?

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Dec 16, 2009 -> 10:40 PM) He did some thuggish stupid things, but that doesnt mean he deserved to be in critical condition and possibly dead. I would never say he deserves to be critically injured or dead. But I am VERY interested to hear what actually happened with him and his fiance that led to this happening.

QUOTE (Princess Dye @ Dec 16, 2009 -> 09:10 PM) Since we're looking at roughly 6M for either side of that..... would you have preferred going a route with Matsui (and I guess Beckham leading off....DJ staying...?) I was thinking about this yesterday, and I realized one thing. No way Matsui signs here for $6.5 million when the Angels are making the same offer. My guess is he would have required something closer to $8 million in order to pass the Angels and sign with us. So it's not really $6.5 million we're talking here. It's more.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Dec 16, 2009 -> 08:21 PM) Andruw Jones; CQ and PK on occasion. I dunno about you guys, but I am actually excited to watch Jones play....I think he's going to give us more than any of us are expecting...

QUOTE (knightni @ Dec 16, 2009 -> 07:52 PM) How in the hell did Phillies get Halladay and 6 mil, and 3 prospects? That's something. Well, they gave up both Drabek and Turner, the two best prospects in the deal, but pretty incredible that they managed to get cash in the deal. I would say this was a bad deal for Philly, except for the fact that they have been virtually guaranteed to sign Halladay at a below-market price. One of the more interesting deals in recent memory.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Dec 16, 2009 -> 06:25 PM) 50in Plasma Samsungs should be well under $1000 on a good deal, most likely in the $900 range and sometimes down to $800. 720p, which really alot of people cant tell the difference (especially older people or ones with poor eyesight, can be found as low as $600 at the 50" range which is crazy. If you want 42in LCDs I ahve seen a plethora of deals in the last month or so at the $500 range for 1080ps, and decent brands too. Yeah, I was referring to 1080p models, and not the older models either. If you're going to buy a new tv, and as he said he is willing to spend a little extra cash to get something high quality, I would go with the Panasonic because of the black levels. Especially if you're considering getting into blu ray, I think it's best to get the 1080p.

Wow, that is fascinating. So the difference between being an elite baserunning team and a very poor one could actually mean 3-4 more wins. I guess my other concern is productive outs versus wasted outs (meaning outs that advance base runners as opposed to those that do not). I wonder what the difference is between the elite and poor teams in such situations...

QUOTE (qwerty @ Dec 16, 2009 -> 07:37 PM) I don't have time to go into detail at the moment as i'm heading out any minute, but i promise i will get back to you sometime tomorrow, unless someone clears it up for you beforehand. Perhaps I should try to find it myself instead of asking you to do all the work for me! Thanks Q.

Good stuff as always, Qwerty. I had read the stuff about the base stealing and the "havoc on the bases" theory. My next question would be what about the net effect of the team simply having better base runners? Not necessarily from a stealing perspective, but more runners who could advance from 1st to 3rd and more runners who could score from 1st base or 2nd base? What about the ability to make more productive outs as opposed to unproductive outs?

QUOTE (chunk23 @ Dec 16, 2009 -> 06:14 PM) The reason I brought up OPS and the other measures is because they other ones weight OBP as more important than slugging, whereas OPS obviously does not. This does result in an increase in predictability, but it isn't much. As such, it appears that OBP is the most important, but slg is important too. (iirc, some believe 1 point of OBP is as important as 5 points of slg). I think it's really just an issue of perspective. When people start to think of high OBP players as "Base-cloggers", it's a problem. OBP can come from walking, having speed, a high contact rate, etc. It doesn't have to be some slow hulk out there. You're absolutely right in that assessment. However, when looking at acquiring players with a limited budget, those exact "slow hulks" are the ones mentioned, because those are the ones available at comparable dollar amounts on the marketplace. The others tend to be high dollar superstars that should not be part of the discussion anyways.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 16, 2009 -> 05:59 PM) 79 AD wasn't actually a monster eruption in terms of size. 1815 tambora was, at least on a scale of what humans have seen (largest in the last 10000 years. A reasonable estimate for Tambora's CO2 emissions in 1815 would be about 3000 MT of CO2. Human emissions annually are still 10 times that. Even if I'm off by a factor of 5, human CO2 emissions still are much, much larger. Wow. Good to know. I'm clueless. Thanks Balta.

QUOTE (chunk23 @ Dec 16, 2009 -> 06:52 PM) I'm glad we cleared up the Moneyball thing. OPS is one of the best correlational predictors of runs scored. The better ones, like wOBA, weight OBP as more important than slugging. However, the difference between OPS and the other measures is small enough that OPS can be effectively used. I don't see OBP having a diminished return on runs scored seeing as the higher the OBP, the more likely it is a runner is on base, and therefore more likely to score. The only scenario I can think of that it wouldn't work well is if it was like the midget Veeck had bat. Yeah he got on base but there was no way he was scoring. That's such an extreme though. To put it simply, all those skill sets, like bunting and basestealing, don't matter if you don't get on base. Of course, defensive ability is a different story. Dunn has a great OBP but he's awful in the field. He's more valuable in the AL as a DH than he is in the NL as a OF. I suppose you can only sacrifice so much defense for OBP, but I don't know why you'd have to. The Red Sox have 2 WS rings and a few more playoff appearances in the time span you designated. The Blue Jays have had exceptional pythags and would probably have made the playoffs a few times if they were in any other division. The Red Sox are a difficult team to analyze because they have put such monster teams on the field during that period. I probably would have not mentioned them at all, but I anticipated someone else would, so I figured I may as well bypass that step. I understand wOBA and how it is different than OPS. I am not trying to bring OPS into this discussion. I'm talking just OBP. As for pythagorean expectation, I still have a bit of trouble accepting this as a valid prediction tool. I think the idea of predicting wins is a little more complex than simply run differential. There is something to the idea of winning games by manufacturing runs on a consistent basis rather than simply scoring runs in bunches in some instances but not in others. Nowhere does this become more evident to a person than by simply being a White Sox fan over the past decade. I guess I should just take a look at runs scored by teams with varying team OBPs and attempt to find any distinctions when viewing their individual rosters or other team stats. My guess is their truly is some realistic optimal combination of OBP, team speed, ability to move runners, etc. Of course your mention of defense makes this all the more difficult to value as well.

QUOTE (WCSox @ Dec 16, 2009 -> 05:45 PM) Pierre has skills (hitting for average, bunting, running the bases well) that have been sorely lacking in our lineup for years. There's value to having a player in the lineup that can do something other than hit home runs, walk, and play RF/1B/DH poorly. This is another point I am trying to make. I don't care if Pierre bats 1st or 9th. I don't view him as someone to fill the "leadoff spot." Does the fact that he adds a skillset that the team did not previously have make his addition more important to OUR team than the addition of a player who might have been a more valuable player overall?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 16, 2009 -> 06:39 PM) You've actually got the right number you just have the sources backwards. Right now, human-related CO2 emissions are about 130 times the annual volcanic CO2 production rate. Sinngle eruptions usually don't change this flux all that much. Right, but what if there was some monster eruption such as the one in AD 79?

QUOTE (chunk23 @ Dec 16, 2009 -> 05:26 PM) The Red Sox have clearly been successful, and the Blue Jays would have been champions in any other division. THe A's were pretty successful early in the decade. Besides, Moneyball isn't about valuing OBP. It's about identifying undervalued aspects of a player's ability in order to maintain a low payroll. At the time it was OBP, now it's probably defensive ability. It seems to be a rare player profile who has high OBP but can't do anything else. I would a guess venture that a high OBP would have a strong association with at least a high SLG. Contact as well. The Dunns of the world are an exception with an extremely high ISO. Most players won't have a high OBP without a high contact rate. Obviously, there are several different profiles for a high OBP player. Ichiro doesn't walk much, but makes such a high amount of contact that it doesn't matter. A single is more valuable than a walk, so this is a great profile. But it typically is the worst long term, since it's so reliant on speed and athleticism. A player like Youkilis, who walks quite a bit, has a skill set that will last with age. You want to build around that kind of player. Both are valuable, but in the long term you want someone who has a high walk rate. OPS is actually a great indicator of success, but one criticism is that it doesn't value OBP high enough. In fact, the predictive value of OPS is remarkably close to more advanced statistics like wOBA. So much so that an eyeball estimate using OPS is probably good enough. OBP is easily the most important stat for a hitter. Certainly the team needs a "leadoff" hitter, but finding a good left fielder is the higher priority. I think some here overvalue leadoff hitters. It's not really a big deal. Having at least average offensive production from your corner OFs is. And we won't be getting that. Well, this isn't about Moneyball, as much as the association seems to come from my mention of teams such as the A's, Blue Jays, and Red Sox. Unfortunately, anytime anyone mentions a team run by a GM mentioned in Moneyball, the topic seems to arise. That was not my intention at all. What I am asking about is the correlation between OBP and runs scored. It's pretty obvious that teams such as the A's, Blue Jays, and Red Sox compiled teams filled with players who sustained high OBP's, even at the expense of any other skillset. I distinctly remember the Blue Jays, A's and Red Sox being station-to-station teams between 2003-2008 or so, and I was curious as to whether the shortcomings of having a roster full of those types of players ever overshadowed the advantages of having a roster rich in high OBP players. Or to put it another way, did their inability to manufacture runs in other ways (besides just reaching base) cause them to score less runs than perhaps another team with a lower OBP but with players with other skillsets as well, such as running the bases better, moving runners over, etc., ? Perhaps there is a critical mix that exists between OBP ability and other skillsets? Sort of a point of diminishing returns or something? That is more of what I am interested in here.

Ok, well this is why I stay out of this thread for the most part. I thought I saw something on the History Channel about Mt. Vesuvius releasing something like 30,000 times the CO2 into the atmosphere in one second that we have produced in the last 130 years. Apparently this would not have the same results as what we are currently causing, however. My mistake.

QUOTE (Leonard Zelig @ Dec 16, 2009 -> 06:12 PM) Wouldn't work if he is the backup catcher. It sure could. Ozzie just has to realize the risk of getting caught with the pitcher DH'ing is incredibly minimal. How many games in his White Sox career has AJ left in the middle of the game because of injury or being ejected?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 16, 2009 -> 05:04 PM) Yes. One of the things we've been saying is that it's really expensive to do what Jim Hansen says we need to do; actually somehow go back down to 350 ppm CO2, but it is really, really, really cheap to bring CO2 close to stability with time, because you get so much of the money back easily by doing things like increasing energy efficiency and building windmills instead of coal plants. The real issue winds up being how you measure some of the benefits. How do you measure the benefit of cleaner air in general, including everything like lower health care costs that might result? How do you measure the benefit of not having to rely on the middle east for such a large fraction of our energy. How do you measure the potential costs of the worst case scenario, when the worst case scenario is a flooded seaboard. Well that's good to know. From my extremely uneducated perspective, it seems as though the best approach is some combination of cheap fixes that actually accomplish some kind of inroads, coupled with creating renewable energy systems focused on eliminating only the resources we are depleting most quickly (or with the shortest supply), and combine that with preparations for the consequences of rising sea levels, adverse weather patterns caused by changing ocean currents, etc., etc. Correct me if I'm wrong, Balta, but say we throw all our resources at global warming over the next 50 years and somehow, through the grace of all that is good in this world, we get the situation under control to where the effects of global warming are not such that our modern way of living is too adversely changed....isn't there going to be some sort of natural phenomenon that wipes all this progress out eventually anyways? And when I say that, I mean with absolute certainty such an event will occur, and soon (within the next few hundred years most likely). Would you agree with that assessment?

QUOTE (Kalapse @ Dec 16, 2009 -> 05:46 PM) Jesus, you read way too much into my posts. I'm just tired of arguing at this point, you've worn me down. Was Juan Pierre the best corner outfielder that Kenny could acquire or was he the best "leadoff hitter" that he could acquire that could also play that position? That's all I'm saying. I wasn't trying to wear you down, Kal. It was an honest question. I figured you would know the latest theory on just how strong the correlation actually is. As for Pierre, I'm not sure. But don't you agree you get into a numbers crunch situation wherein he may not be the best player available from a certain perspective, but he may be for your club specifically? At some point you've got to address certain needs relative to your team, regardless of whether there may be a better player available. That's all I'm curious about.

Are there solid studies available which measure the cost-benefits of only taking the least-expensive precautions available to prevent global warming, and funneling all the rest of the money into taking all precautionary measures available for what scientists are predicting the consequences of global warming will be?

QUOTE (Kalapse @ Dec 16, 2009 -> 05:33 PM) I agree 100% which is why I dislike acquiring a guy like Pierre, he's not all that good at baseball but he's a prototypical "leadoff hitter" so Kenny went out of his way to get him. I agree with you about the leadoff part, but we definitely could use the team speed. Say we ignored every every statistic other than OBP and simply signed the players with the highest OBP out of the entire player pool. While good in theory, a team of plodders with not many skills other getting on base seems a bit limited to me. Haven't the A's, Blue Jays, Red Sox, etc., tried this for the past 5-6 years, with limited success? Is the correlation between OBP and runs scored that strong that you can completely ignore other skills such as bunting, speed, and contact altogether?

Panasonic makes the best plasma tvs, unless you want to spend $4k, in which case you get a Pioneer. Samsung is quality. The LCD market is pretty much dominated by Sony and Samsung. My advice would be a 50 inch panasonic or samsung plasma. You should be able to pick up a 1080p for about $1200-1300 I would imagine...

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 16, 2009 -> 04:03 PM) Far be it from me, a lawyer, to talk science, but isn't it a little ridiculous to look at global temperature trends in a 120 year window? And even if you are, how sure are we about the guys from 1880 taking down an accurate temp? I'm not a lawyer, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express (graduated from law school), and it seems odd to me as well. The other thing that I keep coming back to is that all that has to happen is Mt. Vesuvius to erupt and all this is moot anyways. I understand that we shouldn't just ignore global warming, but it is a incredibly humbling notion when you think that one natural disaster can produce far more damage to the earth in one second than we could ever dream of producing ourselves.