The Sir

How about this? Sox lose: Avi Quintana Micah Padres lose: Justin Upton Tyson Ross Blue Jays lose: Devon Travis Daniel Norris Aaron Sanchez Max Pentecost ______________ Sox gain: Pentecost (C of the future) Sanchez (fills in Quintana's slot and joins our plethora of young pitching talent) Upton (takes over in right) Padres gain: Norris (could slot in to Ross' slot and bring back some of the youth Preller pissed away) Travis (replacing pitiful Jed Gyorko) Avi (fresh start candidate and immediate fill-in for Upton) Jays gain: Quintana and Ross (massively improving their rotation) Micah (adequately replacing Travis in an already powerful offense) Quintana could be switched out for Shark, especially considering Upton is also a rental. And I suppose Norris and Sanchez could be interchangeable, though I prefer Sanchez. Thoughts?

QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 21, 2015 -> 03:10 PM) It will almost certainly be Danks. As I've discussed with others on the board, it is almost unbelievable how many danks games everyone has been to vs. everyone else. Ugh. I suppose it could be an inspiring lesson for our child, at least. "You see, son? All you have to do is develop an 85 mile per hour fastball with crummy secondary stuff and you could make millions of dollars playing a game too!" Anyway, thanks for the feedback. And thanks in advance to any other suggestions, as well.

My wife, my three month old and I will be attending the Yankees game on August 1st. It will be my first game in ten years, and the first time at USCF with my wife (although she has been before, which is interesting because she's not from the area). And my son's first MLB game ever! So, a few questions: 1) I got a red parking pass. Is that general admission? I thought it was, but once I looked at the actual pass, it seems to have an assigned spot. What's the deal with that? I got the red one because it looked closer, and I figured we could get there early enough to be right at potential entrances. I'm really hoping I don't have to push a stroller across Siberia, but I will if I have to. 2) That game starts at 6:10. What time do the gates open? And considering game time traffic, what time should we leave the loop and head that way? 3) Obviously a lot can happen with Rodon getting skipped occasionally and Shark possibly getting traded, but any idea on who's pitching? I'm gonna be sad if it's Danks.

QUOTE (Tmar @ Jul 29, 2014 -> 08:08 AM) I find TIP to be a better measure of pitchers. That's Tmar Independent Pitching, the formula is TIP = ((11.3510*HR)+(2.9263*(BB+(.7503*HBP)))-(2.82537936384*K))/IP + 3.01863892037 So Chris Sale's TIP is 1.13. Screw off if you want me to find Kershaw's, or anyone else's.

YESSSSSSSSSSSSSS. Now, having said that, I really can't believe there are people who seem upset that we won't sign the 14th round pick. Seriously? We just signed the third overall pick, who was a consensus number one at various times. Screw de Oca! The high schooler who already had TJS and wants seven figures, supposedly? What the hell ever. If he does well in college, draft him in 2017. But I guarantee he doesn't go number three overall and if either of these guys is a mainstay in Major League Baseball eight years from now, I sure aint putting my money on Bryce Montes de Oca. Also, I'm really glad that the couple of people who wanted de Oca mentioned in the Rodon talks were not actually involved. Who actually thinks that Carlos Rodon cares what the 14th round pick wants? Or that he even should care? He's third overall! Don't insult by mentioning some dude drafted in a round that probably won't ever produce a MLB player! This is awesome news. Period. Bryce Montes de Oca was a consolation prize if Rodon didn't sign, and a crappy one at that. Don't wreck your mood by lamenting him getting away. He's nobody.

I don't get to watch many games, but I do listen to the majority of them on MLB Radio. Not that that really helps me answer this question for myself. So...who is this guy? Is he a .250 hitter with mediocre homerun power or is he a .330 hitting doubles machine with zilch in terms of homerun power? Is he somewhere in between? Did Steverson help make adjustments to swing that led to these overall improvements? I noticed his BABIP climbed from .303 last year to .394 this year- is it just luck? I'm surprised there aren't any threads on this already. To me, this is one of the most exciting and intriguing things about this year. As crummy as Davidson's been, Conor's success has really helped alleviate that. Could he be a long term solution at third base?

Beckham to Toronto for Romero, straight up.

Haven't seen this noted here: When the transponder was turned off, it removed the aircraft from civilian radar. That was over the Gulf of Thailand an hour or so into the flight. It did NOT remove the plane from military radar. The plane then made an approximate 180 and the Malaysian Air Force tracked the plane as it headed back towards the Malay Peninsula. It crossed the peninsula and, according to the MAF, disappeared near a Malaysian island in the northern end of the Strait of Malacca. I have NO idea how it would remove itself from military radar without crashing. But since it disappeared from radar near the shore in one of the world's busiest shipping lanes, I am bewildered as to how no one saw it crash. I also don't know the range of the MAF's radars, although I don't think it would expire so close to the Malaysian coastline. The latest news is that the Rolls-Royce engines sent automated messages to the company's headquarters as late as four hours after the plane supposedly disappeared. With that flying time, the plane could have gone as far as Pakistan or Australia (the engine messages do not include geographic info, only mechanical). Also, this is what the American investigators on the ground say. The Malaysian authorities deny this, saying RR says the engine messages stopped at the same time as they (the Malaysians) say they lost military contact. I'd like to hear directly from Rolls-Royce itself in regards to these messages. The Iranians using stolen passports made me think terrorism was the cause when I first heard it, but no matter how weird that is, I can't think of any motivation for Iranian agents would want to blow up a Malaysian plane full of Chinese people. I somewhat suspect that the explanation will end up being completely mundane. This info given here will end up having been premature, and it will be revealed that the plane suffered severe pilot errors and flew into the Gulf of Thailand when they initially said it did. And per the aforementioned principle of "aviate, navigate, communicate" and the precedent of Air France 449, they didn't have the time or foresight to communicate their dire situation to the ground. And this whole mystery will just be an ordinary, albeit tragic, air disaster. Then, other times, I think someday it will be divinely revealed that they all flew into an alternate dimension.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Jan 8, 2014 -> 08:03 AM) It's going down with every new update. I am less and less confident. Don't be. The other day, when there were 149 ballots, Frank had 92.6%, or 138 votes. As I recall, that was his high point. Since then, he's been in a "slump" and is now at 174/194. That means he's been on 36 of the last 45 ballots. His "slump" is 80%, AKA better than Biggio's total. And according to the last guy, he needs what, 67.5%? I'm going home to watch this awesomeness live at lunch.

QUOTE (Flash Tizzle @ Jun 30, 2013 -> 01:34 PM) Reflecting back, I recall Old Roman, BMR, Cluer, Beastly (or WSC), JimH constantly instigating trouble and riling up everyone. There was no message board decor or rules, it was literally the equivalent of a youtube comments section. It was daoldroman, thank you very much. I should know. I was the one typing it into the login box every day or so. Edit: Now that I think about it, I guess I did go as The Old Roman here. I think I used daoldroman at MLB due to a character limit.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Apr 15, 2013 -> 03:14 PM) I am in awe of people who run directly towards the blast as their first instinct. That is heroic. And yet, sadly, it's exactly what the bombers want. Make one little boom to hurt some people and then when people come running over to help them, make a bigger boom to hurt a lot more people. I don't know how to reconcile those two things. I applaud and admire people who run into the face of danger and help out and yet I must also acknowledge that this is the very tactic these terrorists use. I haven't read anything about this particular detail and I suspect they did do it, so this is NOT a criticism in the slightest, but one of the first tasks of emergency personnel should be to get people AWAY from the blast site. Cops, firefighters and paramedics should be in there and the good Samaritans, bless them, should be moved to a safe distance away.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Apr 15, 2013 -> 02:55 PM) You're assigning value to human life based on how its lost, which (at least to me) is a little f***ed up. Do you react the same way to a kid who fatally overdoses on heroin as you do to a kid who gets gunned down on his way to school in a rough part of town? I don't value one life over the other. Both are horribly tragic. But the second kid wasn't involved in activities that led to his own death. The first kid did. That, combined with the instant publicity of terrorism and a major public event like this marathon, elicits greater emotions and reactions amongst people, amongst leaders and amongst the media.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Apr 12, 2013 -> 10:49 AM) "Mom! Zack called me a name!" Except TCQ didn't call for his mommy. He ran out there and beat the guy's ass. That matters.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 6, 2013 -> 11:40 AM) Justin Smoak disagrees. Justin Smoak is TERRIBLE.

Here's another one. For Frank's full seasons with the White Sox, the team winning percentage was .525. For Paul's, it was .522. Also, Paul never led the team in WAR. Just sayin'.

Frank, and it's not even close. -Frank scored 100+ runs nine times. He even did it in a season where he only played 113 games. He exceeded 110 runs three times. -Paul never scored 100 runs. -Frank hit 40+ doubles twice. -Paul never had 40+ doubles. -Frank hit 40+ homeruns five times. -Paul did it twice. -Frank drove in 120+ runs four times. He broke 100 eleven times. -Paul never did the first thing. He only did the second thing six times. -Frank walked 100+ ten times. He walked 130+ times twice. Once, he actually walked twice as many times as he struck out. -Paul never even walked ninety times. He walked 80+ times exactly once. -Frank hit .300+ in nine different full seasons. Three times, he broke .347. -Paul hit .300+ four times. He topped off at .313. If you were to list their best batting average seasons, you'd find Frank's name seven times before you'd find Paul's. -Frank had an OBP of .400+ in nine different full seasons. He reached .487 once. -Paul topped .387 only twice. Neither time did he reach .400. -Frank slugged at a .600+ rate six times. Once, he slugged .729. -Paul never came within .015 of slugging .600. -Frank's OPS was 1.000+ seven times. -Paul only reached .900+ four times. He never reached 1.000. -Frank's career OPS+ was 156. -Paul had a season OPS+ of 158 exactly one time. -Frank led the league in runs once, doubles once, walks four times, batting average once, OBP four times, SLG one time and OPS four times. -Paul once led the league in...GIDP. -Frank was a Silver Slugger four times. He came in the top ten for AL MVP nine times. That, of course, included two winning efforts. One effort, where he placed fourth which is higher than Paul ever did, came at the age of 38. -Paul never was a Silver Slugger. In AL MVP voting, he placed fifth one time. He only cracked the top ten one time beyond that. On Paul's behalf, he made it to the AS game six times. Frank only did it five times. I wonder how many people care immensely about that. Maybe Paul's defense is better. I don't really know. I was young when Frank was in his prime and I think I spent most of the time he was in the field in the kitchen digging around for snacks for our half of the inning. Either way, unless Frank was far more of a defensive idiot than I remember, those offensive numbers more than make up for it. But what about leadership, motivation, heart, intaaaangibles??? Ok. If we were picking someone to lead a bunch of Soldiers against a heavily defended objective, I'd pick Paul. But if we're sending someone up to whack the crap out of a fastball, I'd pick Frank. I'm gonna be honest. I've long felt that some of Frank's worst seasons resemble most of Paul's decent ones. Now, how do we compare this? One way, I think, would be OPS. In this case, Frank's worst season is 2002 (excluding 2001, 2004 and 2005 as incomplete). His OPS in that season was .834. That beats Paul's 2003 and 2008 seasons outright. It comes within 5% of every one of Paul's seasons except for five. To put it another way, only five times out of fourteen was Paul able to exceed 105% OPS of Frank's worst season. To expound on that, Frank exceeded 105% of Paul's best OPS season six times. Another way would be OPS+. In 2002, Frank's worst full season, his OPS+ was 119. Paul beats that seven times, ties it once and falls below it six times. Again, Frank's worst season in that category. Furthermore, if you put Paul's best (158 in 2010) against Frank, Frank beats him eight times. Basically, Frank outdoes Paul's best efforts one more time than Paul was able to outdo Frank's worst. Lastly, let's look at something I'll call "runs involved". I'm sure it has a name and is a legitimate stack but I don't care what it is. It's simply R+RBI-HR. Frank's worst year came when he was 39 years old playing in Toronto in 2007. He was involved in 132 runs. The 39 year old man only loses to Paul nine out of fourteen times. Frank beats Paul's best season (175 in 2006) seven times. Nine times when you allow the 1994-1995 seasons to continue to their full lengths (he was at 169 in 1994 and 173 in 1995). Offensively, these are two players with a small portion of overlap and much larger portions where Paul is unquestionably below Frank and Frank is unquestionably better than Paul. Higher ceiling, higher floor for Frank in every way. To be honest, compared to Frank, Paul is mostly mediocre. I think that's more due to Frank's insane dominance throughout his career than it is to any fault of Paul's.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Feb 7, 2013 -> 07:28 AM) I don't believe god exists. Feel free to point to any study showing otherwise. That's your right and I don't have any problem with that at all. However, it's not your right to spread insulting generalizations about Christian people. If you disagree, please explain why you would surely freak out if someone came on here and made a snarky comment such as, "homosexual promiscuity caused the AIDS epidemic!" Or maybe you'll surprise me and tell me you wouldn't oppose that sentiment either. The ball's in your court.

QUOTE (GoodAsGould @ Feb 7, 2013 -> 01:55 AM) You say you are open to discussion but come across as ultimately being the complete opposite in that post. Pretty much what everyone else says doesn't matter to you because they aren't god or Jesus is what I got from all that. Which is fine if true just I find it bad practice to be so deadset on the way things are according to oneself. I told a person who is preaching his bigotry and his overreaching prejudices that I don't care about his tripe because only God can judge me. Maybe that person thinks I'm a hypocrite. I don't know and I don't care. The only one who can validate me as a person and truly determine what I am and am not is God. And yeah, anyone who wants to spread hateful biases against my faith will get the same reception from me. But if there's anyone who wants to discuss Christian thought with me and not simply pass judgments on me as a person, I'm game. If you didn't gather that from my posts, I don't know what to tell you. I guess there isn't any decent discussion to be had with you. Think about it this way. Imagine a person came along and posted, "Gays are gross because they like dudes and they're all going to hell!". Would you give that person any rational discussion? No. It's pointless. That person's an idiot and a bigot. Why would you waste your time with him? But if he posted, "I'm fine with gay marriage as long as it doesn't infringe on an individual's freedom of religion", well, you can disagree with that, but it's not necessarily bigotry and it is more deserving of rational conversation. That's what happened here. If you want to discuss my stated beliefs that it is sort of goofy to legislate religion on people or that people aren't born gay, I'd be interested. But if you want to mockingly say, "Christians only listen to the Bible when it supports their beliefs!", then I'm going to happily remind you that that isn't your call to make.

I don't believe God made anyone gay. Feel free to point to any study showing otherwise. I think it goes back to the old nature vs. nurture argument. And with the exception of what you physically look like, I think "nurture" determines everything. Was I predisposed to like women? I don't think so. I think my upbringing made me that way. Was I predisposed to conservatism and religion? Nope. My experiences in life made me think this way. So this will probably be a controversial statement, but it is what it is. And why should I not be allowed to think it? I'm not legislating this on anyone. These are my personal thoughts. And that's really why I don't want to legislate my religion on people. I already told you that God gave us free will. If He did that, who am I to take that away from people? God gave you the power to be gay, or to be promiscuous, or to be blasphemous. He also gave you the right to be greedy and hoard your money, even though His Son tells the rich man to give up his possessions and follow Him. Christ didn't make the rich man do that, because in Christianity, you have free will. Additionally, God tells us that we are forgiven if we sincerely repent and believe in our hearts that Jesus Christ died on the Cross for our sins. We could legislate these beliefs and make the government turn its guns and its power on the non-believers, as they do in so much of the Muslim world, and maybe some of you, fearing for your lives, would "become" Christians. But would you really be? It was no decision that you made from your heart, as God asks you to. You were doing it because you feared the consequences from other men if you refused. So not only would we be violating God's concept of free will but we wouldn't be truly saving anyone either. Some of you are disagreeing with me in a civil manner. I appreciate that, and I enjoy the discussion. But to the people who want to come in here and make snarky comments about how Christians behave hypocritically, remind yourself that tolerance is a two way street. You know who you are. I don't particularly care if you mock my faith. My approval comes not from you nor from any other human, but from God and God alone. You will stand before St. Peter to answer for your deeds just as I will. That's not a condemnation, mind you, as I don't know what he will say on that day. It's simply the reason why your bigotry means very little to me. I do not answer to you. If you do not want to have actual discussions but merely state your prejudices in a snide manner, that's fine. Just ask yourself how you would respond if I came in here stating that gays are malicious and promiscuous or that Obama voters are uninformed college idiots. You'd be up in arms. Yet, for some reason, you have no qualms about spewing the same overarching crap about Christians. You don't realize it but you are the very reason that conservatives love to joke that liberals are only tolerant of things they agree with. These last two paragraphs are aimed at one guy. Most of you need not even consider it. But to that one person, you are as much a bigot as the people you constantly rail against.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Feb 6, 2013 -> 12:35 PM) This is why religion historically causes so much pain and conflict across the world. Everyone believes their own system of made-up spirits and ghouls and hands coming down from the clouds is the correct one, even though these ideas were all generated in an era where there were no explanations for a vast majority phenomena later realized by science. If a belief system makes people feel good about themselves, fantastic, or if it makes them (as one-time poster greg pointed out) not want to go out and kill a bunch of people, all the better for us. Personally, I have no use for religion, but more power to anyone out there who loves that stuff as long as they don't start wars because of it. You could stand to read my last post.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 6, 2013 -> 12:00 PM) I don't identify as a Democrat but would as a socialist. You've expressed a "live and let live" attitude wrt to your beliefs in the past and I respect that. But I think you're an outlier in that regard, so when most people start expressing strong conservative religious beliefs, it's not a bad assumption to believe that they'd like to see those beliefs put into law. But you see my point, right? If I am going to have a serious conversation with you, I should know things about you, like the fact that you don't identify with the Democratic Party but you do with socialism. Instead of just saying, well, he's obviously liberal so he must be cool with abortion and love Obama. That's not necessarily true. And yes, I do assume things sometimes and I should work on it. But sometimes I make guesses about a person's beliefs to further a conversation (ex. the abortion vs high cap mags things) and learn more about that particular person. The same goes for me. What is the point of lamenting tyrannical Christians to me? I'm not one. So if you do that you're talking about a bunch of people I'm not affiliated with. Learn what I believe, and it should be easy because I state it, and we can have a serious conversation about the matters actually at hand. Anyways, I'm going to bed. Good night.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Feb 6, 2013 -> 11:51 AM) Absolutely not. But the basis upon which you challenge the beliefs of others cannot really be based on belief itself...because that basis cannot be supported by fact. One cannot say "I believe that such and such is the only unforgivable sin, and you should believe this too, because I believe it to be true." If you want to talk about tolerance...it seems to me that one whose beliefs are based upon faith should have more tolerance than those who base their beliefs on science. Why can't I say that? The Bible is fact when it comes to Christian philosophy. I can discuss what I've read in it and what I've read and heard from theology experts about it. And who knows? Maybe I'm getting it wrong. Maybe someone would point to a passage I missed and tell me that homosexuality is indeed much worse than other sins and that Hans Frank is burning in Hell whether he sincerely converted or not. So I'll talk about what I believe. If you don't have any interest or faith in Christianity, then it's probably moot to discuss it with you. But don't tell me what I can and cannot say. I can absolutely state what I believe and explain why I think I'm right. You don't have to agree nor would I force you to agree. And since these are my beliefs, I wouldn't force them on anyone through government either. God gave men free will; why should men take it from other men on His behalf?

QUOTE (iamshack @ Feb 6, 2013 -> 11:27 AM) I always find it ironic when someone who follows a religious belief system fervently questions another person's beliefs within that or another belief system. So all Christians are supposed to agree on everything? The underlying message there, which is that since I believe in "made up" things I can't dissent with other "made up" things, is not a very tolerant one.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 6, 2013 -> 11:00 AM) Well, there's also plenty of examples we can point to of Christians actually trying to implement those beliefs into laws. Abortion restrictions have been through the roof since 2011. Several states are still trying to pass bills that are antagonistic towards LGBT, and there still isn't marriage equality in most states. There's still significant efforts to restrict sexual education and access to contraceptives. There's a lot of examples we can point to of Democrats trying to implement socialist beliefs into laws, too. Are you gonna be OK with me judging you to be a socialist simply because you identify as a Democrat? That'd be a simplistic generalization that you would abhor, wouldn't it? If I say something on the nature of Christianity and sin as I interpret it that is generally different and unique, what is the point of coming along with your biased beliefs on certain Christians? You could discuss my points on a level deeper than "well that's what you believe..." or you could simply talk about what so many other Christians do. But that doesn't really move the discussion along, does it? I have a question for you. If a gay couple went down to the local Catholic parish to be wed, do you think it should be against the law for those Catholics to refuse to marry them? Because, with the exception of protecting religious institutions which do not wish to honor it, I couldn't care less about gay marriage. Justice of the peace? Go for it. Liberal churches? Go for it. But think the Catholic cathedral in town is pretty? Sorry, their religious freedom takes precedence.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Feb 6, 2013 -> 10:53 AM) Whoa. Why are you so incredibly defensive? It's almost as though you tee-up these debates and then the moment someone chimes in, you come in, guns-blazing, looking for a repository for your anger or something. I wasn't speaking personally. I was speaking, in general. You made several assertions in your post as though they were factual, when they clearly are not. You also mentioned how you don't understand how others within your belief system could think certain things. I was merely pointing out that when you're discussing a belief system in which so much is based on faith, you're going to have many different interpretations and nuances of those beliefs, because there really are no clear-cut answers one can point to. These are the hard-line rules I mentioned...you know none of these things to be true. These are merely your beliefs. To me, God is fact. It's why the "War on Christianity" isn't a big concern for me; the "warriors" can't change the truth. You want to disagree with that, fine. But to me, sin is as I described it. I didn't feel the need to quantify that statement with "I believe...". Sorry. Why were you speaking generally? I'm not trying to take credit for it, but is that a viewpoint you've honestly heard before? From all the Christians I've ever talked to, I've never heard that particular point. Shouldn't it then be something that sets me apart? I'm not saying its better, but from what I've experienced, it is different. Why would your first reaction be to clump me in with the theocratic types (which I am not at all) and wonder why I want to force things on people and make them agree with me? I didn't mean to be defensive, but I don't get why you'd respond to what I think is a somewhat unique perspective with a general statement on the actions of Christians. I don't agree with what you said about hard rules. Until we meet St. Peter at the Pearly Gates, there are no consequences to my "rules". I offer no punishments. Yes, I do believe God offers consequences. But those are not to be delivered by me. So all I offer is postulation, based on the Bible, on what I think Christ meant.