Reddy

To put it in perspective, the difference from 2005 (and our overachieving bullpen) and 2006 (bullpen regression to the mean) was 9 wins. That's the kind of output we'd need this year to hit 90 wins based on our players' track records IMO.

QUOTE (gatnom @ Feb 21, 2015 -> 12:11 PM) I think it's more accurate to say that it would take an unusually healthy year because I think the Sox are fairly solid outside of a few positions but have practically nothing in terms of depth anywhere. The Sox have been the healthiest team in baseball over the last decade. Health is obviously important, but looking at the cold hard stats, we would need a lot of overachievement out of our bullpen especially to put us at the upper 80s to 90 wins.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Feb 21, 2015 -> 01:32 AM) I'm not sure about that, but Verlander/Sanchez having more health problems and another bullpen implosion there wouldn't hurt. As it is, Victor Martinez won't be 100% on opening day in terms of his timing and rhythm, it's quite possible he ends up having his own version of a Kendrys Morales 2014 or Adam Dunn 2011 season. So you're looking at the Central being winnable with fewer than 90 wins?

QUOTE (LDF @ Feb 20, 2015 -> 09:54 PM) all of what is written is true and i will continue to spout about this team, regardless of the advance stats break down, is a playoff team. how many wins i will never guess, i guess i am not too good to predict. lol yes it's possible we make the playoffs, and I'm hoping we do, but it's still moooooore likely that we don't. It's not even advanced stats. Good ole regular stats show that our bullpen is pretty mediocre, our lineup is average, and our 4/5 pitchers are suspect at best. using normal stats. like era and whip. That said, clearly we're much, MUCH improved from last year, and I'm excited about the team. I know Robin's saying what he has to, in order to get butts in the seats this year, but I worry that now he's set up his own departure should we fail to reach the postseason.

Kinda silly of RV to set himself up for failure like this. Be optimistic and all... but man... it would literally take career years out of a number of our guys for us to reach the playoffs. It would take a 2005-style feat.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 19, 2015 -> 10:55 AM) Most people working in this country don't, but even when they do, bonuses and commissions are coming from your employer, not directly from your customers. Most of the rest of the world's service industry doesn't rely on tips or at least not to the extent that we do in the US, though. Look what rabbit and several other people who have worked as waiters have said above. Tips can be completely random and you can get a crappy tip on a big bill and you have no idea why (other than "those customers are a bunch of assholes"). It's not that the idea of better pay for better performance is wrong, it's that tipping is so random and if you have a problem with your service, letting management know or telling the wait staff directly is much clearer. All of this. Even in sales or real estate, the commission is set. The customer can't change the amount you make for entirely trivial and subjective reasons.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Feb 19, 2015 -> 10:17 AM)

QUOTE (brett05 @ Feb 19, 2015 -> 07:18 AM) Like I said we shall see. That phrase seems hard to understand on this board but I have some hope. Can I at least get a sigh, please? I think I've earned it.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 18, 2015 -> 05:48 PM) Is it really frowned upon to confront cheap tippers? Is that a fireable offense? I would think most managers would back their staff if they're getting a 2% tip. 10-12%? Ok you're just an asshole. 15-20% average and acceptable. But 2? If I were the manager I would jump in (I say this not knowing a thing about the restaurant biz and ignoring that margins are incredibly thin). Really depends on the manager, but in my experience, you're pretty much just expected to suck it up. I got reamed out hard for calling out a group of... raspberry lemonades... who thought the dollar and change they left on a huge bill was acceptable.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Feb 18, 2015 -> 05:21 PM) YOu have sex with your ex? how does that work? Haha yeah. we're only not together because of life circumstances like me living in NYC and her in LA. We're really into each other, but it doesn't make sense. It's pretty much become a friends with benefits situation until one of us has a new significant other. Someone will probably get hurt, but until that point, it's fun. And we're both being really honest and straight up with each other. Plus it's not like I'm in LA very often.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 18, 2015 -> 07:59 PM) I could have sworn studies show that how nice and attentive you are means very little In the tip that people give. I think This American Life did a podcast on it. yep. I always got the best tips from people i treated like s***. and the reverse was also true.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 18, 2015 -> 09:12 PM) That isn't it for sure. That would be reflected in your account balance. Yeah, especially since all my other positions don't have this difference. DAL is the only position I've bought into at multiple price points, so it makes sense that the reason for the difference is what SS2k5 said above.

QUOTE (Jose Abreu @ Feb 18, 2015 -> 04:55 PM) To say that Abreu is a top ten pure hitter in baseball is not at all optimistic. Sure it is. He's played one season. I'm optimistic, but regression is totally possible.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 18, 2015 -> 04:38 PM) It could be a couple of different things. I think the most likely is that most quotes are 20 minute delayed, while your position profit and loss are not. If it isn't that, it could be the way that they are pricing the position in regards to all of your purchases. For example: Buy 100 shares of XYZ for $100. Next day buy 100 shares at $101. The day after that, the position is trading at $102. If they combined your position in your account summary, you would show 200 shares at $102. Your gain on the first 100 shares is 2% ($100->102) while the second 100 shares is about 1% ($101->102) and if they average it out, it would show up on your statement as a 1.5% profit, or the average profit on the entire position. Awesome. I'm sure it's the latter. That makes complete sense. Thanks man, appreciate it!

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 18, 2015 -> 04:17 PM) Trying to understand your question here, so excuse me if I have something wrong. If you are actually buying a stock, and not an ETF, your gain/loss should exactly mirror what the stock price does. If you buy 100 shares of IBM, and it goes up $2, you make $200, on paper. Your position only changes if you are buying or selling more of the stock. ETFs are a bit different because they are setup to mirror something else, and are not exact copies of what they follow. If you want to give me more details for a better explanation, feel free to PM me. Yeah it's difficult to explain without specifics, so it's easier this way. I don't really care if y'all know which stock I'm talking about : DAL went up 1.34% but when I look at my position on my schwab acct it's only up 1.14% on the day. I've bought in on three separate occasions at different price points and for different share amounts. Color me confused.

question guys. I'm pretty new to investing, and I was wondering if y'all could answer a question for me. If a stock goes up a certain amount, but my position in that stock doesn't go up the same amount as the overall stock, is that because of the different price points at which I bought in on the stock? I assume that's somehow related, but I'd love to actually understand it. Thanks

I'll be optimistic and say Top 10. This year will be very indicative of the type of player he really is. He showed he can make some great adjustments last year - let's see if he can keep making them as the league has more and more video to go on.

QUOTE (brett05 @ Feb 18, 2015 -> 11:59 AM) Or one says it prior to the disaster. if you throw enough s*** at the wall, eventually some will stick.

QUOTE (brett05 @ Feb 18, 2015 -> 11:46 AM) We shall see. Perhaps I'll be the village idiot for the board. Perhaps not. Bu tI haven't seen any stats that show me that I am wrong, can you repost if you have them? The graph that was shown didn't do that and I pointed out the flaw in it though I admit it was nice to see. I can't repost the entire article from BP because this board doesn't condone sharing of subscriber-only materials. But the graph is a visual representation OF THOSE STATISTICS. I showed you statistics. You just ignore them.

QUOTE (brett05 @ Feb 18, 2015 -> 11:19 AM) I addressed this already but I will repeat. I don't have the specifics and I'm ok with folks thinking otherwise. It was pretty darn obvious watching the games last year. But this is a new year and we will see and if you all don't "spaz out too much" I'll be here to comment with more specifics ok? I have no proof, and statistics show I'm wrong, but dagnabbit I'm gonna stick to my guns anyway! You're gonna have fun being the board's new whipping boy.

QUOTE (brett05 @ Feb 18, 2015 -> 07:06 AM) He was very good compared to others using the graph, but not necessarily did a good performance historically, right? There's no data on it one way or another. But after last year's data, it's silly not to give him the benefit of the doubt.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Feb 17, 2015 -> 10:06 PM) On the other hand, there's not a comprehensive statistical measure that's universally accepted, either. That system for looking at relievers' leverage is interesting, and it's better than something like pythagorean wins and losses, but it's just one facet of managing. For example, how much would that one facet alone be weighted at, 15%? 20%? What would the other tenets of managing be with measurables? Line-up construction? Dealing with the media? Effective use of double shifts? PH/platooning decisions? Would would you measure relationships with the coaching staff and front office, etc.? Showing patience and poise, versus being more fiery, like a drill instructor? These are very subjective and changeable aspects as well...they won't hold constant as a manager evolves. Wins per payroll/salary dollar? Well, that will always overrate managers of teams like the Marlins or Padres, and weigh down the Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers, Angels, etc. Even with your bullpen leverage stat, it doesn't necessarily predict who would do the best with the most talented bullpen...who would be able to manage best in the playoffs, etc. Totally true. It doesn't even prove RV is good with bullpen management in general - simply that he was very good LAST YEAR. There is no system yet to project this stuff going forward, and of course there are other aspects of managing, but one of the biggest complaints about Robin has been bullpen usage.

QUOTE (Jose Abreu @ Feb 17, 2015 -> 09:12 PM) I'm not going to look through every box score to find multiple instances of Robin pulling a starter too early or leaving him in too long, I don't have time for that. I don't think Robin is a bad manager, this is my only issue with him. But this is a microcosm of my general point, in that folks that dislike Robin (not you) aren't able to say why with any statistical support. It's all because he's not flashy.

QUOTE (Jose Abreu @ Feb 17, 2015 -> 09:07 PM) Trout probably would not have hit that inning had we pulled Sale before it started. Based on how good our bullpen was last year? Like a 5 era or something (completely guessing on that number, but it was bad) Regardless, you've pointed out one instance. I bet Pete Carroll wishes he could have a call back too somewhere along the line. Doesn't make him a bad coach.

QUOTE (Jose Abreu @ Feb 17, 2015 -> 09:01 PM) That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that Sale never should have started the inning. You really think our bullpen was LESS likely to give up a home run to Trout than our 2.17 ERA starter?