Jake

Interesting lineup out there for defense here.

Am I wrong or did Derrick travel and/or double-dribble before dishing to Kirk there?

BEAM ME UP!!

Derrick has been shooting the three a lot better lately, but it has all the appearances of a fluke. His feet are never under him, he drifts way forward, and shoots it flat - in large part because he tends to release on his way down.

When Pau's passing game is on, man is it on

What a rotten foul call against Nikola

Derrick is starting to run Curry out of the gym. Felt like Kerr had to call that TO just to get him some wind.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jan 26, 2015 -> 04:22 PM) Lowering the mound might impact player safety (specifically the pitcher). I don't think the league would want to do that in this legal environment. All of a sudden, more pitchers get hit, sustain serious injuries, and lawsuits follow. Is that a player safety issue that has anything to do with lowering the mound, independent of more offense? I mean, I see how you could have some legal grievance there, but I have to think the likelihood of pitcher injury goes from miniscule to miniscule.

Yeah I was thinking that if it comes down to this ball boy, you better show him more money than Brady does

I've seen several articles mention that this would be a less disruptive change than something like lowering the mound. I totally disagree with that. Especially from a fan's standpoint, you wouldn't have to know anything had changed if the mound was lowered. There would just be a little bit more offense. QUOTE (ptatc @ Jan 26, 2015 -> 03:16 PM) That's not bad. Another one that I heard someone bring up is to have a vehicle bring in the reliever. This will speed up the slow walk from the outfield bullpens. I know it's not much but it's in this same line. The is a time saving element with every pitching switch. I would say, though, that for a lot of guys the run to the mound is a meaningful part of the warmup process.

From what I can tell, the lowest home attendance we had last year was 10,625 in the second game of the year. Can we say that that is a decent approximation of the season ticket base in 2014? If so, what's a realistic expectation for this year?

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 26, 2015 -> 10:54 AM) As part of his treatment, he was told not to drink. He drank. Thus, it is illegal. If people are arrested for DUI, they can be asked to take twice-daily sobriety tests. I know a guy that had to do it for like 2-3 months, and then he was asked to stay sober beyond that too (and if found intoxicated, it could land him in hot water, though they wouldn't necessarily track him daily). When a close relative of mine had a DUI (and I volunteered to drive him to work every day so he could keep his job), he had all kinds of different sobriety-related things. For one, he had to take a course that met 3 days a week and he had to breathalyze at all of those. He also had to go check in two other times per week, on average, within 12 hours of an automated call telling him he has to do so. He was also advised that police could come to his residence and administer a random check with no suspicion. Any trace of alcohol on any of those tests and he may have had to do hard time. First-time offender, DUI did not cause a car accident. Oh, and for two years after that he had to have a breathalyzer-enabled ignition. It would also require him to blow every 10-15 minutes while driving or else it would shut off the car. If anyone blew above 0.00, it would automatically page the police. He had to pay something like $50/mo. for that in addition to $150 startup fee.

QUOTE (nitetrain8601 @ Jan 25, 2015 -> 05:08 PM) The bigger problem is, Brooks is the only guy bringing energy. No one else is. Hell, even cheering on the bench is non existent. It certainly would be nice if somebody let Thibs know that benching Pau now and then is allowed

Thibs has to realize that playing a lineup with Rose, Brooks, and Pau means you're going to have a ton of trouble getting any stops

QUOTE (ptatc @ Jan 24, 2015 -> 08:15 PM) There is a formal process to go from associate to full professor. It varies by institution as does most of these description. It usually involves 4 more years of additional employment. It includes at least 3-7 publications, exemplary reviews of instructions by peers, administrators and students, as well as service to the department, college, university and community. It took me 12 years of employment post-doc to become a full professor. I still do not make near 100k, although I am at the states smallest public university. I may get to the 100k level by 30 years, if I hang around that long. Maybe that varies by discipline or institution type, then. Where I've been there have typically been only a number of full lines open, keeping some people stuck in the associate position - or so they said!

A primer on professorships and salaries. You have four basic levels of professors: -Adjunct/Lecturer/lots of names for this -Assistant Prof -Associate Prof -Full/no-adjective Prof Adjuncts and the like are taken on one-year or one-semester contracts and at research universities teach the lion's share of undergraduate courses. Most of the rest are taught by graduate students, who are actually much more expensive than adjuncts (because the home department pays their tuition). Your average adjunct that is working full-time (not always or usually case) will make $30-50k per year while having a course load that demands they work at least 60 hours per week. That is without doing research/publishing, which is the only way an adjunct can advance their career. If they do want to do research, assume they are working 80-100 hours/week. Usually, adjuncts do not get health insurance and the like, but I would imagine that full-time ones might. Either way, since most of their work is done outside the classroom and is therefore unstructured, the unis can play games with their supposed working hours. An assistant professor is paid far better and has a modicum of job security. At a top public, research university, expect an associate prof to make $60-$75k depending on their field. This person will not teach many undergraduate courses and is expected to do a lot of research. At private liberal arts colleges, they will do a lot of teaching and will have slightly lower research expectations. At a non-research university, they will do a lot of teaching and have fairly low research expectations. They also will have lots of administrative responsibilities, like advising and departmental affairs, in comparison to an adjunct. However, these will be less than their more senior colleagues. After six years (this is the norm, but may vary), this person will go up for tenure review. If granted tenure, they will be promoted to associate and becomes far more difficult to fire. If not, they will be fired - usually. The review determines whether the professor has published impactful research, has achieved visibility in the field, has taught well, and has served the university in other capacities. Different universities will vary in which of those criteria matter most. This is where the term "publish or perish" comes from. This is not like high school tenure - at most schools, there are a huge portion of people denied tenure. In my department last year, four people were up for review and all were denied. An associate professor can only be fired with cause, which is meant to grant academic freedom. With no right to fire arbitrarily, a tenured professor can teach about subjects that are unpopular or pursue lines of research that might be controversial. This is very important in all fields, which for varying reasons could otherwise be subject to the biases of the political or administrative powers at the time. Associate professors have lower undegraduate teaching loads, are expected to mentor graduate students, and have more service responsibilities. They will earn around $75-$90k at a top research university. The full professor position has no formal entrance process. A given department will have a number of full professorial spots, given to associates that have achieved even greater excellence in their field, or teaching, or service to the university. These are powerful retention and recruiting tools as they allow more prestige to the individual and more money. A common reason to see a hotshot associate leave his or her position is because another school offered a full professorial spot. Here is where you reach the upper end of salaries, sometimes but not always in excess of $100k at top research schools. Scientists who bring in millions in grant funding will sometimes see their salaries go into $200k range, but of course this is a good tradeoff to the school given the grant funds and prestige from that research. It would be uncommon for a professor to get this position sooner than about 15-20 years after receiving their PhD, and the vast majority of career tenure-track professors never attain a full professorship. Relevant statistics about university instructors in the US In 1975, 57% of employed instructors at US colleges were either on the tenure-track (assistant profs) or tenured. 30% were part-time, most of whom were practicioners in the fields in which they were teaching. For instance, a journalist teaching a class on reporting or an injury lawyer teaching law students on personal injury law. As of 2011, 30% of all professors are tenure-track or tenured. 51% are part-time, though many are cobbling together full-time work by working at multiple universities in the same area. As of 2011, graduate student instructors were virtually equal in number to tenure/tenure-track faculty. Of course, part-time instructors outnumbered them all. At research universities (think U of I), 40% of instructors are graduate students and 20% are part-time. 25% have tenure or are on tenure-track. At community colleges, nearly 75% are part-time, even higher for for-profit schools. At "master's" institutions (think Ill. St., SIU, etc.), 50% are part-time faculty. Since the late 1970s, the compensation for professors of all kinds have grown more slowly than all other positions, such as uni president and various administrative positions that existed both then and now. Since 2006, the median head coaching salaries in college football and basketball have doubled - professor salaries have not changed or gone down. Info about U of Illinois, for reference: Of the operating budget, 15% is given by the state of Illinois. The rest comes from things like tuition, donations, earned interest on the endowment, federal grants to research projects, etc. UIUC won't say what portion of their budget goes to faculty specifically, but less than 20% of their budget goes to "instruction," which includes both faculty salaries and the infrastructure and supplies needed for teaching. If you want U of I to spend less money, going after the instructors is a bad bet. Of course, considering how little of its funding comes from the state, it's hardly a state institution anyway. Whereas in 1970 U of I got 12 state dollars for each tuition dollar, they now 0.5 state dollars for each tuition dollar. They get half the state help that they did 15 years ago. It just hasn't been a priority. We spend twice as much on the department of corrections than we do higher ed.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/01/23/physics-...-science-video/ Physicists say that if the balls were inflated at league minimum indoors, they would absolutely lose 1 PSI or more just by being out in the cooler weather. Also, look out for some wacky political references

Per capita taxation in Illinois, even when adding in local taxes, is very low relative to other states

I still love the fact that Republican budgets (not the ones that pass) have proposed taxing graduate students like me on the tuition that is waived on our behalf. It would effectively triple my income in the eyes of the federal government and make graduate school even more difficult to afford

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 21, 2015 -> 04:26 PM) I have had the thought lately that maybe Thibs has lost the team. For that type of coach, there is usually an expiration date where players keep listening. I don't know if that is what has happened, or not, but it crossed my mind. Never forget Popovich QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 23, 2015 -> 10:15 AM) He's like our kendrick perkins now. Except infinitely more expendable. And he doesn't play. Perkins became Perkins because they kept trotting him out there

To me, it's like corking a bat. It doesn't give you as much as an advantage as you hope for, there will be concrete evidence of your mistake, and it's overall not the biggest deal in the world. Slap him on the wrist and move on

QUOTE (raBBit @ Jan 20, 2015 -> 02:10 PM) Compelling. Adam Eaton vs. Dexter Fowler - Adam Eaton definitely the better player all things considered (defense, contract) but Fowler might be slightly better offensively. Melky Cabrera vs. Chris Coghlan - Coghlan had a great year but I'll give Cabrera the nod here. Jose Abreu vs. Anthony Rizzo - They're very similar. I think Abreu definitely has a chance to better. Call it a slight win for Abreu. Adam LaRoche vs. Starlin Castro - LaRoche is better. Avi Garica vs. Jorge Soler - I'll take Soler quite easily. Conor Gillaspie vs. Miguel Monterp - Montero has more power, more OBP and BABIPs normalizing favor Montero heavily. So you're saying we're better 1-4.

Even if he starts to look like the guy that had us so excited, he's now in a position where it will be hard for him to get a shot. At least, he has: Sale Samardzija Quintana Danks Noesi Rodon in front of him. You might say guys like Surkamp and Penny too, in terms of guys who would get the call.

I think I might have to root for the Patriots. I like Brady, but hate Bostoners, but really hate Seattle's "12s." They're the new Cardinals fans.

Happy to see Pack lose. Hopefully Seattle follows suit next week.