witesoxfan

QUOTE (bmags @ Feb 20, 2013 -> 11:40 AM) Ugh, I was there April 9. That was horrible. It would really be nice if they figured out a way to schedule fewer April games for cold weather teams and fewer late July/early August for hot-weather teams. I've never been, but I'm sure there's nothing more pleasant than being at the Ballpark in Arlington for a Saturday afternoon game.

QUOTE (bmags @ Feb 20, 2013 -> 11:30 AM) I went to 6 games last year, I'm hoping to go to 10 this year. The thing that surprised me with last years lower attendance was the great April weather I thought would boost us. But July games were so miserably hot I could see that hurting them as well. No, April was the biggest factor. They only had 9 home games in July and the worst they drew was 21.2K. http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/CH...le-scores.shtml

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 20, 2013 -> 11:25 AM) I don't think we're really disagreeing there, ultimately. That the top 1% captured all of the income growth and then some is indicative of the weakness and type of 'recovery' we've experienced over the past several years and while the stock market's doing just fine, most people aren't. I think so too, but it's fun to argue just to argue. We need to find ways to stimulate the economy that don't involve US citizens being killed on US soil. I don't mind spending on national defense because having a well stocked/enforced/equipped military is not a bad thing, but they don't need to be fighting overseas at all times. Of course, if I had the answer, I sure as hell wouldn't be on here.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 20, 2013 -> 11:00 AM) The top 1% didn't take 11.2% of 1.7%, they took 121% of the 1.7% growth. The growth of the total income shares of the top 5 or 10% has been pretty linear, but realize that, when we're talking about income shares, it's a zero-sum game. If the top 10% are capturing a larger share of the income, then the bottom 90% are capturing a smaller share. Yes, and the fact of the matter is, 121% of 1.7% is still a very small comparative number to the growth of previous years. The period itself is smaller as well. That the remainder actually lost money, to me, is far more indicative of economic strength than it is a bad sign that the 1% gained that much. If there is money to be had, the 1% will find it. I understand how the graph works and I think my lament's term description fits it fairly well, though I'm sure there are discrepancies. In my mind, Obama's next term is going to be vital to the American economy and if, under his tenure, the US can't stimulate any sort of sustainable growth, the economy itself is going to be in a bad place due to the natural economic swings and cycles.

Forgive me, I hadn't actually looked at the numbers. Real growth rate was 11.2% for the top 1%, and it was -0.4% for the bottom 99%. Considering the real growth rate was 1.7% and the top 1% took 11.2% of that, this doesn't seem like a big deal to me given such small growth and, if anything, is cause for concern given how short the previous recessionary periods were and the extreme growth following them. That is not an issue of the 1% but of the economy in general. Either way, I'm still going to stick with the "recessed economy with room for investment" model because, quite frankly, you did see similar things leading into the Great Depression, but bad policies created the Depression itself. WWII decreasing unemployment in the US down to about 1.5% was the main catalyst in getting the US out of the Great Depression, and taxes were extremely high until Reagan cut taxes in the 80s. Investment soared in the 90s and I'd guess the biggest factor in that was the breakthrough of the Internet. Since that point, growth has been pretty steady year in and year out with the peaks largely being affected by capital gains. Naturally the 1% is going to be more volatile because you are looking at a smaller sample. Look at the growth for the top 5% and the top 10% - it's incredibly steady for the previous 25 years. This is much ado about nothing.

I don't see anything that's groundbreaking or abnormal with those numbers. The recessed but improving economy, low and middle class people aren't capable of finding much room for growth, but there were plenty of investment opportunities throughout the country, which the wealthy, with large, disposable incomes, will invest in to increase their share of the market.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Feb 20, 2013 -> 09:40 AM) If they ever make the playoffs, I'd bet attendance would increase noticeably the next year. Attendance dropped from 2007 to 2008 to 2009. To increase and maintain attendance, they need either an extended run or an extended stay.

I even read anything he writes and I get a headache, but his sources have been pretty good in the past.

QUOTE (flavum @ Feb 19, 2013 -> 09:58 PM) Beckham looks like he's doing a little Cal Ripken-y thing with his bat before he swings. http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/video/play...18&c_id=cws I like it. Eye level stays the same, swings through the ball a bit better. It's a little quieter too which is what I've always felt was the biggest flaw in his swing. Getting him hitting well would be monstrous.

QUOTE (TomSeaverFan @ Feb 19, 2013 -> 05:48 PM) Thanks for the Grantland story and all the comments. I had no idea. Wow. What an education I received. With Loria being smart as a fox, I'm a little surprised guys like Guillen fell for it. All Loria did was ruin Guillen's career. Now, Guillen I'm assuming has to be paid the full amount of the contract, which was a good contract. Guillen is the proverbial "set for life" I guess. But my final question to you is ... why did Loria bother signing a guy like Guillen in the first place? Did he truly care at that point of signing Guillen about the popular perception that the team would be attracting Latino fans? I don't see where signing a "big name" manager would have mattered to Loria if he has this genius master plan of just making money. Where did Guillen fit into this?? Ozzie Guillen ruined Ozzie Guillen's career. Loria merely hired him to try and attract people to the ballpark - look at the wacky guy we have managing the team! - and had it not been successful, he was going to be gone anyways. If anything, Loria vindicated Guillen. If you'll recall, Guillen called out management/ownership either at the end of the season or shortly afterwards, and that was his own doing. But Guillen was proven to be right in the end. So yeah, in the end, if Guillen ever gets another shot at managing, it's going to be because Loria is such a dick. I still have no sympathy for Ozzie Guillen because he's simply not a good manager and I feel for the next team who falls for his charade.

QUOTE (Wedge @ Feb 19, 2013 -> 06:46 PM) Here's a paragraph from Nate Silver's book: Again, they're using the ends to justify the means, but that year PECOTA/BP stated that the Sox offense was going to be good and the pitching was going to be awful. The pitching was bad, but that was mostly due to a bullpen that was disasterous (only one regular reliever had an ERA under 4, and that was Jenks who had probably the best year of his career) and 3 good starting pitchers. Meanwhile, the Sox had the worst offense in the league by pretty much any measure you could find, so that was a clear outlier, and even then, they barely got it. Oh, and because of the catastrophe that was the offense - they probably would have won 74-76 had they kept Iguchi and Mackowiak, but what was the point? - they got 1634 PAs out of players with a .645 OPS or less. That doesn't include the 235 they got out of Podsednik (.668). And realize that that .645 was the best - out of f***ing Erstad - out of the entire group of those players. Andy Gonzalez got 215 of those and he put up an astounding .529 OPS. So yeah, if they want to hang their hat on that, they can, but it literally took everything going wrong for that forecast to be right.

He looks fine.

For the most part. Essentially, not having minor league depth, to some extent, reduces your ability to let guys like Konerko and Dunn sit and get healthy because you will lose too often due to the terrible quality of the replacements. As such, they will play and perform better than replacement level players, and thus better than projected, even though injured, but they will not be performing at their peak physical condition.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 19, 2013 -> 03:01 PM) The solution, obviously, was to shut down Konerko and Youkilis in July and August and finish with an 82 win team? I think you just proved my point for me.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 19, 2013 -> 02:28 PM) If it was the coaching staff playing players who were unproductive because of injury, or the coaching staff not giving players the time they need to heal, the end result wouldn't be more wins. You mean like the White Sox finishing 8 games over .500 last year despite going 11-17 in September with most of the lineup putting up OPS's in the .700s? Or like Konerko admitting to playing through a wrist injury for much of the year because his replacement would almost certainly put up worse numbers? I honestly wonder how many times Konerko played when he was hurt simply because the White Sox did not have a better fallback options. QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Feb 19, 2013 -> 02:41 PM) And how much of it is just pure luck? Some, for sure, but as pointed out, over the course of 7-9 seasons, depending upon how far back data ultimately does go, it stops being luck at some point.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 19, 2013 -> 01:39 PM) Like when he cut that super bowl ad for Focus on the Family? That was pretty tame and it is merely a stance on abortion. Abortion is still a pretty hot buttom issue in America. Gay rights and gay marriage far less so. You still have those that oppose gay rights, but it seems to me that the majority of America - greater than 60% - support gay rights, and those that oppose gay rights are lambasted by the general media pretty well.

But now how much of this is the training and coaching staff and how much is it the team actually targeting durable players? Or how much of this is coaching staffs letting players play through injuries when they should be resting? EDIT: Point being, you can pinpoint the biggest reason why the Sox have beaten projections (staying healthy), but you can't pintpoint the reason as to why (because it could be anything).

I do honestly hate that the Astros are in the AL now, 8 years after they were in the World Series for the NL. Any of the Padres, Rockies, and Brewers would have made more sense.

Blue Jays miss the playoffs. There's a lot of talent on that team but there's a lot of talent in the AL East. Red Sox finish last again despite the numerous additions. Angels finish 3rd again, closer to 4th than 2nd.

QUOTE (flavum @ Feb 19, 2013 -> 11:43 AM) In just interleague games or NL goes to fulltime DH too? I see both sides...fans like what they're used to. I kinda hope they keep it the way it is, because if they ever have the same rule in both leagues, then they would be one step closer to radical realignment where the Sox and Cubs would be in the same division--and I would absolutely hate that. The NFL has a league most similar to MLB's and they generally keep teams in common areas in separate conferences. New York/New York, Jacksonville/Tampa/Miami, Dallas/Houston, Baltimore/Washington, Philadelphia/Pittsburgh, San Fran/Oakland...why would you change that? I understand that some of that is historical, but the NFL plays by the same rules in both conferences and they don't do any of that. If you were to do that you'd oversaturate the local markets and you'd lose money, long-term. There's simply no way in hell that you'd see a major realignment nor the Cubs and Sox ever in the same division.

QUOTE (SI1020 @ Feb 19, 2013 -> 10:31 AM) Horrible article. I have never been a fan of run differential or the whole Pythagorean win thing. Now they can say, well weren't that far off after all. They're lousy at predicting and some of us have actually spent lots of time on this and still refuse to bow at their altar. Simple mathematical principles and historical trends disagree strongly with your belief that run differential means absolutely nothing. Projections can be lousy at predicting (and a lot of times are), but they are not meant to do so. It'd be like using a police car to transport an injured person to a hospital - they could do so, they are usually involved, but they are not very well equipped for the job. Projections ARE meant to give likely outcomes for individual players while outlining potential good and bad seasons for players. Projections are far more valuable than season predictions, which uses nothing more than general "feeling" with no mathematical or scientific reasoning to judge that whatsoever. Beyond that, no one asks that you bow. They merely ask that you acknowledge that they exist and that there is usefulness to it. Suggesting that there is no usefulness to these types of statistics is like suggesting that babies come from a stork.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 18, 2013 -> 08:26 PM) Anyone want to give me a reason to believe the response will be anything other than an outpouring of pride? Because Tebow has long been considered to be a good-hearted Christian who does nothing but work hard to make it as a QB both in college and the NFL. Supporting a hateful fear-mongerer while proving to be a s***ty backup QB for the team with the worst QB corps in the league, suddenly the light is not so bright and cheerful for Tebow.

QUOTE (Tex @ Feb 18, 2013 -> 08:05 AM) If Frank turned up dirty, it would probably be about the worse day I could image as a Sox fan. I've said multiple times that if Frank Thomas is ever indicted for steroid use - I could care less about amphetamines - that I would give up the game of baseball.

QUOTE (3E8 @ Feb 15, 2013 -> 09:10 PM) I'm so the opposite. Are you doing any squats? They are great result-wise but really make me loathe leg day. Oh yeah. Probably my favorite thing to do. The guys I work out with hate doing legs too and they're all "No one will see our legs anyways" which is partly true but legs are so vital to everything you do in the gym. Worked the calves a little too hard, but I feel good otherwise.

QUOTE (kjshoe04 @ Feb 17, 2013 -> 09:52 PM) Does it look ok if I wear a black skirt with pale legs? Yes you do.