Jake

Belisario's fastball is so nasty it's like catching a knuckler

Beckham will have to be much better than his normal self to be in consideration for next year's team. He hasn't done anything that makes me think he could outplay Semien in 2015 at this point

Hulu does not play ball with CBS IIRC. I think there are a handful of shows that you have to wait longer than a day if you don't have a cable subscription now, too.

I wouldn't be pissed off about Nola - he's Wacha-esque to me in that nobody sees the upside in him because of how high his floor is.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ May 22, 2014 -> 06:41 PM) Sure, buddy. Why don't you go watch some old Blackhawks games from back in the day. Oh that's right. You weren't a fan back then. #blackhawksSinceBirth Unfortunately, they weren't on TV #scarsofwirtz

I'd also mention that things like degrees and certifications serve the recipient little in and of themselves - they are more oriented towards the rest of the society, so that they can recognize qualifications. The learning and accumen is for the recipient, the degree/diploma/etc is for everyone else

It's not that giving or seeking recognition are wholly bad, but when they are the whole point, it's probably bad. We don't require everyone go to school because it sucks and we want to make sure everyone had the same bad experience we had. We do it in hopes that they can find a lifelong love of learning, which can manifest itself in a variety of ways. School and achievement in school should have intrinsic benefits; if it doesn't, it will often be a waste. This isn't to say that rewarding excellence is a bad thing - it's just a bad thing when it's the only thing. Talking about why we perceive some "carrot-and-stick" incentives to be more like bribery, political scientist Michael Sandel says we suspect the material motive "crowds out other, better motives." This is what I'm talking about: crowding out better motives for achievement. There are all kinds of studies that show how swinging this balance too strongly towards incentives, especially material or financial incentives, will make everything temporary. Think about the myriad programs that pay kids for doing well in school: In a broad-ranging, multi-million dollar experiment on this subject, almost no positive effects were observed. In programs that ranged from: -Paying fourth graders $25 and seventh graders $50 for scoring well on standardized tests in NYC. -Paying middle schoolers for attendance, behavior, and timely work in Washington DC. It was possible to earn $100 every two weeks. Average student took home $532.85. -Paid ninth graders in Chicago $50 per A, $35 per B, $20 per C. One kid won just under $2,000. -Paid second graders $2 for each book they read using quizzes to ensure honesty. At the end, the researchers had almost zero positive effects to report. And trust me, when you've been entrusted to design a study that costs this much money, you feel pressure to spin it positively. There wasn't much positive to say. The first three cities listed above had no near-zero effects and nothing that reached statistical significance. In Dallas, they observed a modest but statistically significant effect on those who could speak English and a just as significant negative impact on non-native speakers. In wondering why things turned out this way, the researchers had this to say: In other words, the promise of future reward is a good motivator (they noted LOTS of enthusiasm for the prospect of making money) but bad at producing results. Here's another, targeted more specifically at teachers. Your students do better than expected, you get bonuses. BIG bonuses. In a highly impoverished, majority-minority district in Nashville, teachers could earn between $5000-$15000 for ranking highly in what's called "value-added" scores; basically, it compares the students' year-to-year changes on standardized tests in the past to the change with the teacher in question (statewide changes are incorporated to rule out potential external factors relating to test design or issues affecting huge swaths of people). Just for participating, each teacher was given $750 each year they ran the program. They also looked at two other programs that used smaller bonuses and different motivation models. They found that these bonuses had no statistically significant effect on: -hours worked -collegiality with co-workers -teaching practices -actual test scores The researchers' suggestion: In this monograph, 3 years and $50 million in school-based incentives in NYC produced the following results: -no effects on student achievement in any grade level -no effects on school progress report scores that focused on the educational environment rather than scores -in the vast majority of districts, educators preferred and voted for equal bonuses to all faculty rather than differentiating by classroom -it did not affect educator practices, morale, or motivation Here's an example where financial incentives work and the reason why they worked is absolutely key. In Texas, they've been running an incentive program for students to score well on AP exams. It has worked in a lot of different ways - scores are up on AP tests and SATs, more people are participating in the AP program, and more people are going to and graduating from college. This is in comparison to similar schools that haven't implemented these programs. This is exemplified by the fact that increasing the financial incentive had no effect on outcomes. Nobody is acting like an economic rational chooser, but rather the incentive became secondary. The reason the program worked is because the schools responded by changing the norms. Going after achievement became cool. One commentator said about this study and the program said "the money had an expressive effect" instead of an instrumental one. They quote a student who says the money "was a great extra." They basically forgot there was money involved because nobody focused on it. Think of that experiment alongside others like this one and this one that demonstrate how putting troubled students in great schools vastly increases their achievement in myriad ways, from scores to future earnings. Nobody was adding a special incentive, they just were in a culture where the normal thing to do was learn. Here's another walk of life where incentives backfire - health. Take smoking. There have been apparently successful programs that pay people to quit smoking. But...the most optimistic study found that 90% of those who took incentives and quit were back to smoking within 6 months of the end of the incentives. In this case, the incentives do better than nothing, but still...not very much. This meta-study found no long-term beneficial effect in incentivizing weight loss. Per usual, even when a benefit is observed, it goes away as soon as the incentives do. Anyway, you get the point I'm trying to make. We send kids to school trying to help them become the best people they can be. Some will head into the real world of employment, where there are lots of incentives. Of course, we also know from research that "incentive" usually turns to "status quo" after not very long. So, unless we can promise people ever-increasing incentives in the world of work, we have to equip them to intrinsically enjoy life. And not just enjoy life, but improve themselves and their communities for that same, intrinsic benefit. You can see in the example of teachers that they had become so conditioned to the intrinsic benefits of their work that not even relatively large financial incentives could change the way they did things. You can imagine all kinds of professions and life paths where you just can't expect a carrot and stick - your choice is to be sad and do everything out of obligation, or you can do it just for the joy of doing it and enjoy whatever else comes along as a side benefit. If you focus academic achievement on incentives, even if it works at all during the formal education, we have likely completely eroded the students' relationship with learning to the extent that they'll never do it voluntarily. Why did I write such a long post? There weren't any incentives - heck, Soxtalk isn't even one of those message boards with karma or reputation points. I just like to learn, help others learn, and talk about things that matter in as substantive a manner as I can. So I'm not too worried about how this school recognizes their achievers. They deserve recognition in some way, certainly. But I'm more worried about whether they've been bestowed the attitude that the recognition was the only reason for doing it.

FWIW, Davidson over past 10 games: 12/38, 1 BB, 11 K, 2 HR, 2 2B, 5 RBI, .860 OPS. That isn't far off what I'd expect from him if he succeeds in MLB. He'll hit for a little lower average but walk a few more times if his past serves as a guide. I think a good version of him will strike out in about 25% of his at bats and walk in 8-10%. His average and his inability to hit more than 25-30 HR over a 160 game season would keep his OPS south of .900. It wouldn't shock me if his power stroke developed a little more as he certainly has the talent for it, but that is really difficult to project.

QUOTE (Dunt @ May 22, 2014 -> 10:08 AM) Question for the masses: I want to subscribe to either Baseball America or Baseball Prospectus and am wondering which you guys prefer for prospect information? I enjoy both the Effectively Wild and Baseball America podcasts quite a bit and can't decide which I'd rather give my money to. I like both but prefer BA. With that said, BP is considerably cheaper

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ May 22, 2014 -> 01:28 PM) I'm not a big fan of Hector the pitcher, but he does seem to be a good guy. I think this move is to stop his arb clock. It's because the Angels know he doesn't do well in the pen and that he's already had his development borderline ruined by being a relief pitcher instead of starting

If the only reason they are working towards something, especially learning, is for the recognition at the end, we've already failed them

QUOTE (Andy the Clown @ May 22, 2014 -> 01:39 PM) Davidson hasn't looked like a future regular for the past year and a half. How do you figure? Was it the 117 wRC+ (a league adjusted stat) in AAA? The 108 wRC+ in MLB? Maybe the .308/.341/.564 line in spring training this year? Was the 17% K rate in that stretch too high? The first time you could make a half decent argument that he looked like a non-regular would have been a couple weeks into his stint at Charlotte

Conor has been great and there's no reason to be moving heaven and earth to get him moved. He's clearly solid at 3B, but not remarkable. Maybe not above average. I don't have much beyond hearsay/Baseball America subscription to base this on, but it seems Davidson is probably a similar defender at 3B. They at least have similar ceilings as defensive players. And we have to start this off by acknowledging two things: -Davidson has put himself in a position where has something to prove in AAA again before we bother thinking about making space for him in the MLB lineup. He wouldn't have had to set the world on fire to be a constant source of speculation all season, but his bad start has demanded that he now really get hot before we think about this Gillaspie/Davidson situation very seriously. -Gillaspie has proven a lot more than Davidson, but still, he hasn't proven s***. I don't think anybody would be surprised if he started to regress towards the average to slightly below average offensive player that we saw most of last season. Gillaspie is very much a "solid" guy at the plate, but his ceiling is relatively low and he doesn't have a prototypical corner IF bat. With all that in mind, let's assume everything works out. Can either of them play a different position? Probably. Before the season, I was lobbying hard to get Gillaspie some reps at 2B. A left-handed bat like him would become lots more valuable if you could play him around the diamond, especially considering that he's never going to be a guy that starts 150+ games due to his struggles vs lefties. You have to think that just about anybody could learn LF, too. Same goes for Davidson in terms of LF. I think he's a decent enough athlete to maybe learn 2B. If Davidson and Gillaspie are on the same team, Davidson is almost certainly going to get starts at 3B against lefties. It's a matter of where he is against righties. Maybe rotate guys into the DH role? Maybe Davidson goes to LF? Does Micah Johnson turn into a guy incapable of playing IF, going to OF? Then you have inevitable injuries and such that could make these decisions simpler. QUOTE (TaylorStSox @ May 22, 2014 -> 11:49 AM) In what world is Johnson a better prospect the Semien? That's crazy talk. I don't yet agree that Johnson's a better prospect, but it's getting really close. It's looking more like Micah can cut it defensively, which was really up in the air before the season. Also, before the season, it looked rather unclear whether Micah was going to hit well in AA. He hadn't really done that well after his call-up to A+ last season. Now we can see that his bat is ready for AAA, if not ready to dominate AAA. The only thing about Micah's stock that has dropped this season is he has lost his touch stealing bases. I'm not sure if that's going to take care of itself or not. I also don't know the cause, though his efficiency went way down last season after moving out of A-. Luckily his bat is starting to look like he can be more than just a fast guy who gets on base adequately. Marcus has been a little disappointing in MLB this season and lacks any of the exciting tools that Johnson has (though we might say Johnson's only plus tool is his speed, which he's not using - either way, Semien doesn't appear to be the same caliber of athlete). On the other hand, we've seen in the MiLB that Marcus has "plus" plate recognition, can swipe a bag, and has more than a little power. Even as he struggles, he appears competent. He looks good at both 2B and 3B and he's the only infielder in the near-MLB-ready organization short of Alexei that is likely to have the chops to play SS on a regular basis defensively. Maybe Carlos Sanchez, but again he's a guy whose bat isn't going to force us into doing anything with him. It's close at this point, between the two. It's a good problem. Alexei has added to the "problem" since Marcus looked like a SS of the future. I still think Marcus should go to MiLB to get regular at-bats, but Mark Parent said in an interview that he thinks he'll learn more by being with the big league club. We'll see.

If you're worried about the long-term health of Abreu, you don't want a DH that can't play first

It was only a matter of time before Davidson got back to normal. As is not too unusual, a guy who didn't deserve to get sent down took it hard when it happened

I would say conventional statistics vastly overrated Michael Bourn and sabermetrics showed exactly how bad of a deal he was as a free agent. Aging veteran who wasn't a league average offensive player and whose value was predicated solely on his legs. Unfortunately, he had a high batting average and was fast, the former of which is especially overrated

I'd hate for an Abreu move to DH to push Viciedo off the team if we decide we can't tolerate his outfield D

In his defense, he is walking a bunch

Pretty sure he's safe here

QUOTE (JohnCangelosi @ May 20, 2014 -> 10:25 PM) Exactly. And the announcers completely missed it. The ball was right down the middle of the plate. Almost couldn't be more center cut. It was obviously not the pitch Flowers thought it was. Knowing Belisario, I'm guessing Ronald is the one who forgot which sign he had

90% chance that passed ball was Belisario's fault

Flowers has to be one of the first full-time players to go 2 for 4 on May 20th and have his BABIP go down

When tenure at the HS level has problems, which it does not always have, it is because too often tenure is given out as if it is automatic so long as you work a given amount of years. If you give a sub-par educator tenure, they probably will get worse after they get it. They certainly won't get any better. The other issue can be feckless administrators who are afraid to go after a tenured teacher who isn't doing their job. Tenure doesn't protect you from not doing your job. To add to the things Tex mentioned, I've lived in a school district that cut corners everywhere it could. Without tenure, every single decent educator would have been fired for entry-level replacements and I have absolutely no doubt about that. The only thing that could have saved them would have been small town politics, and it isn't like that's a good thing. Public education is not a free market for a reason - free markets have more than educational quality in mind and they certainly don't operate with the intent to deliver a great education to as many people as possible without regard to those people's income. Unfortunately in Illinois, the situation I described above happened in a different way. Local school districts trying to save money were able to give educators incentives to retire early, knowing the state foots the bill for their pensions. That's a situation where it made no sense that local districts would be spending someone else's money.

ALEXEIII!!!!!!!1!1!1!!!!ONE!!!!!

Indiana totally folded down the stretch, even if LBJ punched George Hill in the face earlier