mac9001

I know a person who had nerve transportation surgery on his elbow (I'm guessing same thing?), he was an avid volleyball player and was back on the court in under 4 months. From what he told me it was just a small incision and he had to take it easy for a few months.

I was putting together some data for a project I'm working on and and was blown away by the disparity in performance between the Home/Road splits of some of the Knights most notable players. With the exception of Danish all the pitchers have pitched considerably better on the road, while all their hitters are hitting significantly better at home. I'm encouraged the pitching has been far more respectable away from Charlotte, but equally discouraged any of these guys will be able to hit at the major league level given their potentially inflated home production. Anyway, thought I'd share: Hitters: Pitchers:

QUOTE (TheTruth05 @ Jul 11, 2017 -> 07:00 PM) http://mlbfarm.com/index.php?team=CWS Spencer with 7 K's through 4 With no hits and a single walk. The Barons have the absolute worst TV viewing angle out of any team I've watched this year. They might as well not even bother with the TV feed.

QUOTE (bjm676 @ Jul 7, 2017 -> 06:05 PM) Fulmer getting shelled again, also. Mostly soft singles. He's throwing strikes, if he can get his command back (and it looks a lot better today) there's still reason for a little hope. I'm starting to think they might be better off putting him in the pen and just have him concentrate on throwing strikes for a single inning. When you watch him pitch the stuff doesn't look bad, but I've watched a few of his starts this year where he's really struggled to find the plate.

Frazier just put up a 8 HRs and a .932 OPS in the month of June. He might not fetch a lot, but there probably won't be any shortage of low ball offers. If the Sox eat a chunk of his remaining salary his odds of getting traded are probably 99%. A better question might have been what are the odds each of those guys gets traded? I'd put Frazier's odds above Quintana and Robertson.

The Birmingham feed has a terrible behind home plate angle, but I'm watching both Stephens and Dunning and both have been very impressive. There hasn't been a single hard hit ball of Stephens all night and Dunning works about as fast Buehrle. The kid catches and throws.

Fulmer looked really good yesterday. Did a great job changing speeds (88-95 on fastball) and threw some nasty sliders. Looked like he got squeezed at times. First time I've seen him pitch in a while, but left me feeling optimistic on him.

Lopez looking good so far, 96-99 on just about every fastball. Got hit hard on a HR, but stuff looks great.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Jun 18, 2017 -> 08:51 AM) Lopez has been good since a rough start, I think he deserves a call-up as soon a long-term spot opens. Moncada could use a little more development time, but I can't envision any scnenario where we keep him down in AAA until May of next year. And once Frazier & Melky are gone, I'd definitely like to see Delmonico in the major league mix. Guys I could see keeping down in Charlotte until next year Giolito & Fulmer. And Burdi is another guy I'm ok taking it slow with. His control has been pretty bad and I see no reason to rush him at this point. At this point I wouldn't say Lopez has earned a promotion. He might get the call, but that will likely be to fill an open rotation spot more than him earning the spot and forcing the Sox to open a spot for him.

No one has really earned a promotion out of Charlotte. If these guys were lighting the world on fire you'd figure they'd get the call by now. At this point I'm starting to think if keeping these guys down until next May might not be bad idea. I'd be OK throwing a guy like Cooper out there before starting the service clocks on some of the higher profile arms.

Giolito hitting 94-95 on the Charlotte gun. The fastball does seem to have a bit more pop today and with the exception of a couple at bats he's commanding it well.

QUOTE (daggins @ Jun 5, 2017 -> 08:16 PM) Some guys on the board have said the Charlotte gun is always slow, so that's probably closer to 91-92. He was 92-94 earlier in the game, looks like he may have lost a little on the fastball but I don't remember seeing a single decent swing at any of his curve balls. Most hitters looked completely over matched with feeble attempts.

Strikes out the side in the 6th and his fastball was around 88 on the gun. But that curve ball was just untouchable today. He threw a couple decent change ups that inning too.

Giolito's curve ball is absolutely filthy. If he gets his fastball command back there's a lot to be excited about.

Thank you for putting this together (and sharing it). I had to dig my password out of the back on my head somewhere just so I could express some gratitude. It's been a few years since I've religiously checked minor league box scores, but this time around I might have to spring for MiLB.TV just to keep up with all the young promising arms we've assembled. I'm almost as excited about the Baron's starting staff as Charlotte's.

I have read and agree.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Apr 28, 2010 -> 11:43 PM) I am cherry-picking here, but they EARN far less than they CONSUME in benefits and what they SAVE they send out of the country to prop up Mexico which is why that hellhole won't do anything to stop it, or THEY go broke as a country. (Cue tex's response about sending my kids to be migrant veggie pickers or something, and a slight rant about businesses needing illegals, while completely ignoring that most have called for a valid, workable guest worker program to alleviate that issue, including me). On a different note, you also said Sometimes you have to slap a hysterical person in the face to get their attention. Arizona has been asking for help for years to stem the flow of illegals from the feds, and getting nothing. maybe this is just the slap in the face to say 'hey feds, wake the f*ck up, we are SERIOUS here'? I've seen the they cost more than they contribute argument before and it simply doesn't hold up when looking at it form a wider perspective. Illegal immigrants are far less likely to consume public resources then legal residents (which helps off-set their lower earnings). I've seen studies that claim illegal immigrants pay roughly 65-70% (which is a stat that comes up a lot in relation to illegal immigrants) of their expected tax contribution. Health, education, infrastructure spending isn't nearly as significant as revenues gathered on social security, medicare and medicate taxes. The IRS graciously accepts such tax payments from illegal immigrants and holds all that revenue in escrow accounts (worth tens of billions). For the federal government illegal immigrants are fairly profitable commodity, however, that certainly is not the case at the state level. While the federal government is pocketing billions state budgets are being burdened by costs associated with illegal immigrants. But taxes are still only a small slice in a much broader picture. While their consumption may not be particularly impressive on an individual level and their savings ends up mostly as remittances to Mexico, their aggregate consumption and savings still end up being fairly significant. As i illustrated in my previous post it's easy to get caught up thinking of illegal immigrants on a individual level, but once you actually conceptualize how much money they control on an aggregate level you realize how incredibly significant they are to the economy as a whole. They've contributed billions to local economies and have created demand for additional business and housing. But lets examine the situation beyond just taxes; even if on a tax basis illegal immigrants cost more then they bring in, their aggregate contribution to consumption is vital for many business. By removing illegal immigrants you could be condemning millions of Americans who depend on their consumption and savings as revenue for their business. Certainly those loses would not be evenly distrusted and many areas would probably see economic benefits, but once again and i can't stress this enough, on a aggregate level the removal of illegal immigrants would cause much more harm then good. They're simply too integrated economically to assume you can remove hundreds of thousands or even millions on the national level and not suffer severe economic instability. To put things in perspective you if you to suddenly remove just 5 million illegal immigrants at lets say an assumed per capita income level of $20,000, that's a $100 billion dollars you just pulled out of the economy, granted some of that would probably be made up by gains realized from removing 5 million illegal immigrants, but that $100 billion serves as conduit for hundreds of billions generated through connections that most of us just don't visualize. You're talking about playing a dangerous game of dominoes and you can never be certain what unforeseen consequences arise from the removal of that many individuals and money. Mass deportation can potentially lead to another financial crisis, a decade ago few people would have said poor judgment on the hands of a few mortgage lenders and brokers would eventually lead to a trillion dollar global financial crisis. Given a wide variety of options mass deportations present the greatest potential for harmful unforeseen consequences conspiring against our interests. Given the cost to simply hand out blanket amnesty would probably cost pennies on the dollar when compared to a what is basically an impractical solution in mass deportation, such as the Arizona bill contrives. It comes down to a basic risk analysis, it's cheaper and easier to hand out amnesty after amnesty if the only other solution is increased enforcement of ineffective immigration laws.

I haven't posted on this site in a while, but this thread caught my attention. After reading through the first 10 pages or so i noticed no one brought up what the consequences may be if this law actually succeeds in removing illegal immigrants. After taking a few minutes to examine the underlying purpose of this legislation it occurs to me how incredibly shortsighted and reactive people have become on the issue of illegal immigration. Putting the emotional hyperbole aside lets examine a few basic illustrations if the underlying intention of mass deportation succeeds. I've seen estimates of roughly 500,000 illegal immigrants in Arizona. I've read studies which claim illegal immigrants make roughly 65-70% the per capita income of a US born residents. Hypothetically if they somehow managed to to deport all 500,000 illegals, assuming 65-70% of Arizona's per capita income of $32,953 in 2008 you get a economic impact of roughly $10.7 to $11.5 billion dollars. Now those billions are used to support numerous business (restaurants, grocery stores, gas stations), so the economic impact can probably be magnified substantially. Then you have the issue of reducing the aggregate population by several hundred thousand residents. When taking that into context the already devastated local real estate market you drastically reduce demand and increase the supply. Housing markets are incredibly sensitive and surprisingly interconnected, a large decline in potential renters/home owners will severely depress housing prices. Furthermore cities with rapid population decline struggle to attract investment and as a general rule create incentives for others to leave (declines home prices are a guaranteed way to keep potential residents away). Now i can continue for hours illustrating potential consequences of each successive variables (many of which could potentially be positive), but the point i'm trying to make is despite how some people portray illegal immigrants as insignificant they are indeed inclusive residents of this country. They earn income, they consume, they save, in the case of Arizona they constitute a substantial percentage of their population and as a result their production and consumption. While each individual illegal immigrant may seem insignificant, when you suddenly have half a million on your hands you can't simple remove them and not expect severe economic consequences, mostly negative consequences. While it may seem i'm defending illegal immigrants i can assure you that's not my intention. I don't support the principle of illegal immigration, i have nothing against mass deportation on purely moral grounds, these people have broken laws and they don't particularly deserve our pity or mercy. But the sad reality is, particularly in states such as Arizona, illegal immigration is simply too big to fail (sort of becoming a general trend with issues in our country). You can blame two decades of government indifference and incompetence for allowing the problem to get out of hand, but at this point we have just as much to lose as the illegals. The supporters of this current legislation need to put their emotional attachments to this issue aside and look at it this from a practical perspective. We're probably not going to stop illegal immigration anytime soon, so at the very least lets take steps to ensure we're not hurting our own interests through reactive legislation primarily motivated by frustration. There has to be a compromise somewhere between mass deportations and amnesty and until our elected leaders sit down and at least attempt to address the situation we're leaving the decisions in the hands of those whom have shown no real commitment to finding a practical solution to this mess.

QUOTE(BamaDoc @ Apr 4, 2008 -> 01:58 PM) What does the pFX symbol on MLB gameday stand for? "The "Pitch-f/x" value is the measurement of the distance between the location of the actual pitch thrown over the plate, and the calculated location of a ball thrown by the pitcher in the same way, with no spin; this is the value MLB.com provided in Enhanced Gameday last season as "Break." Essentially it's the amount of vertical movement opposed to a ball with no spin. I believe a standard no spin pitch has about 30 inches of vertical fall. Thus when you get a pFX number of 10 it means 10 inches of rise opposed to a standard no spin pitch. Thus, the smaller the number the greater the sink. That's why curveballs have low pFX numbers, because they sink faster than a ball without spin. At least that's my understanding of the whole system.

QUOTE(chisoxfan79 @ Apr 5, 2008 -> 04:05 PM) I think Gavin forgot to read a scouting report on Inge he is a white Uribe just throw him some sliders and change ups Actually Inge was only a .200 hitter against fastballs last year: http://baseball.bornbybits.com/plots/bat/Brandon_Inge.html

Actually the reason the US Dollar has maintained strong value and reliability is because of it's wide acceptance as a international medium of exchange. More foreign trade can only help increase the value of the dollar, in fact the reason the dollar has slid in comparison to the Euro is the wide acceptance of the Euro in international oil and gas sales. Countries in the EU and major oil producers such as Iran, Venezuela and Norway prefer the Euro to the dollar, likewise China and Japan have been diversifying their foreign currency reserve. In short the biggest threat to the dollar is the Euro and in the future the gold dinar.

QUOTE(BearSox @ Apr 20, 2007 -> 10:18 PM) he pitched today... went 4.2 and gave up 2 runs, I think. yep. only got 1 K, walked 4, and gave up 5 hits... is it encouraging that he can pitch pretty bad but still have decent results? I just hope he builds up arm strength and gets back to 100% by mid season or so. After not pitching for 11 days you'd expect his control to be a little shaky.

QUOTE(bulokis @ Apr 20, 2007 -> 02:11 PM) what happened to Honel? He pitched well the first start but since then, he has not pitch again. Is he injured again? I really hope not, his first start was very encouraging.

What'd the rotation look like? Gonzalez Russell Egbert Honel Whisler? Vazquez? ...and i assume Day will close?

QUOTE(SoxFan101 @ Jun 25, 2006 -> 11:53 AM) It seems that Sweeney is hitting for power finally... I know part of it is due to the Charlotte park but we play in a hitters park as well so its all good. I wouldn't exactly call 5 HRs in 200+ ABs hitting for power.