cabiness42

Yeah, Dunn does't pick the throws in the dirt quite as well as Paulie, but he also has a bit more range so it more or less evens out.

1 Youk 2 Youk 3 Youk 4 Keppinger 5 Give up on 2013

By that does he mean that doing relatively well at Arkansas gets him in better position to succeed Nick Saban or Les Miles?

How could people possibly hate the Yankees even more? By signing AJ.

It's too bad the Sox didn't have a club option on a decent 3B. Oh wait, they did . . .

He would be the best coach they've had since that guy they let go to Tampa.

Amazing how his 2 years in SF were so much better than all the other preceding and succeeding years . . .

Don't know if you could get him out of Louisville but I've been impressed with Charlie Strong.

FYI: There has been substantial discussion about Reynolds in the 3B thread.

Again, it's more about the concept than the specific numbers, but maybe it's graduated. Sales tax on cars is 3% at 20K, 6% at 50K, and 10% at 100K, or something like that. You can buy a new Camry/Fusion for around 22K, so in a sense it is somewhat of a luxury to be able to afford anything substantially more than that.

But if you only do it once or twice in your life, then you're only paying once or twice, and it's only on the amount over 1K. So if you buy one 5K engagement ring you pay tax one time on 4K of that, and if you have to buy a ring that costs a couple hundred bucks less to be able to afford the tax, you're still getting a very similar ring.

Let me point out that my proposal only taxes you on dollars over that amount. So if you buy a 22K car, you only pay sales tax on 2K of it. Same with jewelry--you only pay tax on the amount over 1K. Let me also point out that the numbers are just ones I threw out there and I'm more interested in debating the concept rather than the specific numbers. However, the point isn't to only tax the super-rich. The middle class is going to pay some too, but not a ton.

Because he can't speak clearly enough for people to understand what he's saying.

OK, I am not anything close to an economist, but I've always wondered this and the post 2 posts above made me decide to bring it up: I know that a blanket Federal Sales Tax would be too regressive, but what about a Federal Luxury Sales Tax? Tax only certain items, and only above a certain amount. Something like: Tax all auto/boat purchases above $20,000 Tax all jewelry purchases over $1000 Tax all real estate purchases over $200,000 Tax all personal aircraft purchases. Rich people aren't going to stop buying that stuff just because it starts costing 10% more, and loopholes might be harder to find than in the income tax code. And the items above and the benchmark prices aren't set in stone, just suggestions to get the ball rolling. Oh, and on a completely unrelated note, stop printing $1 bills. That saves the government a ton of expense right there.

And while I don't have anywhere near the time to prove it statistically, I would think that a high OBP would do more to create more consistency than a high AVG or low strikeout totals. I really think a lot of the Sox' offensive shortcomings that you are attributing to high strikeout totals and low batting average are really due to low OBP.

Based on very early lines, but my top 5 dogs and favorites for the bowls: 1) Washington +7½ 2) NIU +13½ 3) Notre Dame +9½ 4) Kansas State +8 5) Ball State +7 1) Arizona -7½ 2) Vanderbilt -5 3) San Jose State -7½ 4) Florida -14½ 5) Mississippi -2

The fact that several people have listened to it several times and can't agree on what Sharpe said is enough reason for him to be fired, regardless of what he actually said.

I've said I don't think having 3 Adam Dunn's would be a good thing, that you need balance. But having one of him is fine and maybe even two if you can space them out in the order. And a heck of a lot of LOB isn't any worse than all the GIDP we had to sit through in 2012. Also, the Sox aren't in a position to be picky about how they get their OBP. If it's a .300 hitter, that's great, but if it's a .240 hitter who walks and strikes out a ton, that's still far better than not improving the OBP at all. You can't continue to run out a bottom half of the order with OBPs of .326, .300, .287, and .296 and expect to win anything.

2012 team was shut out five more times, but essentially the same number of 0-2 run games. The problem with the 2012 offense was not having enough consistent OBP. Whether you do it with average or with a lot of walks, the Sox need more consistent OBP. Even Dunn's OBP, which was good compared to the rest of the Sox, was terrible by his standards.

The 2005 team was shutout 6 times and scored 1-2 runs 40 other times. The 2012 team was shutout 11 times and scored 1-2 runs 34 other times. The 2005 team was 6th in the AL in strikeouts and 12th in average. The 2012 team was 6th in the AL in strikeouts and 8th in average. The relative successes of the 2005 and 2012 Sox had absolutely zero to do with strikeout totals or batting average.

Are we talking about the 2005 White Sox that were 6th in the AL in strikeouts, 12th in average, and 9th in runs scored, or is this a different 2005 White Sox?

The more I think about it, I think that feature would be more likely due to having a low OBP with high SLG, and not necessarily because of a high strikeout total.

I'm in favor of a good platoon, but if all you get for Floyd is one platoon player, then that's selling way too low.

OK, you just agreed with somebody else's comments about ND's schedule, and added a piece about not having to play a championship game.

Big 12 and Big East don't have conference title games either, and even with the conference title game, Alabama still avoided playing Florida and South Carolina. What Notre Dame faced is essentially a major conference schedule: A team that went 8-1 in the Pac-12 and won the conference championship game A team that went 8-1 in the Big 12 and tied for the conference championship A team that went 6-2 in the Big 10 A team that went 5-3 in the ACC A team that went 5-4 in the Pac-12 A team that went 3-4 in the Big East A team that went 3-5 in the Big 10 A team that went 3-5 in the ACC And then what is more or less a typical non-conference schedule for a major team: An independent that went 7-4 An independent that went 7-5 A 6-6 Big Ten team A 2-10 ACC team Alabama had to make 6 trips for their 13 games, none of which was farther than 600 miles. Notre Dame had to make 6 trips for their 12 games, four of which were over 800 miles. If you think that Alabama is better, then you think Alabama is better, but the argument that their schedule was tougher to navigate doesn't hold water.