ptatc

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 9, 2010 -> 08:00 AM) The reality is...unless they really like someone who drops, saying "BPA" in the MLB draft at this position probably puts you with a selection of 10 guys, any of whom could be considered the BPA on a particular day. Not only that, but KW has repeatedly said that when there is indecision they will draft pitching. This is because everyone needs pitching and they tend to be more valuable trading pieces.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Feb 3, 2010 -> 07:50 PM) ? Sorry, showing my age. It's an 80's movie with Michael J. Fox. The entire story line is a guy who can't get a job because he is a college grad with no "real world" experience. "If he would have gone straight from high school into their training program he would have been ready 2 years ago."

QUOTE (The Gooch @ Feb 3, 2010 -> 11:26 PM) In my opinion, the biggest problem is what that you need to have a college degree to do work that barely requires a high school degree. I was working at one of those online colleges (don't even get me started) as an admissions advisor for awhile. It is basically being a glorified telemarketer, with one of the requirements being a college degree. I also don't understand some of these online schools can be accredited by the same body as state schools. The idea that you have to have a college degree to advance in a job, or even attain one is making thirty and forty somethings throw $20-60 thousand dollars on a degree that (in my opinion) they are not getting that much from. What needs to happen is that either some of these entry level jobs need to become more easily obtainable, or a college education need to become more beneficial. They make students take so many general education requirements that are not necessary, but very costly (for those who don't know general education requirement are subjects such as english, history, art, science, etc. They take up 2 years worth of credits, are often light extensions of what they teach you in high school, usually have nothing to do with what you are majoring in, and most of them seem very unnecessary). I have found that the majors where they repeatedly beat information into your head and build on it with each class are the most beneficial. Majors like accounting and construction management seem to prepare students well to work in a specific industry and be successful at it. If you major in something more general like marketing, business administration, psychology, sociology, history, etc. you will probably be working at something that you did not need your degree for. Sales and retail management trainees are two very common fields that many different majors end up in. I was a Psychology major and I am preparing to go to graduate school in the fall for Industrial Organizational Psychology. I can't help but think that if instead of taking so many freakin' general education requirements, I could have taken more specific classes that focus on information that is specific to what I want to get into, then maybe I wouldn't have to shell out some much more cash for a couple years of more school. A bachelor's degree is the new high school degree, and a master's degree is the new bachelor's degree. If colleges did a better job of preparing students to enter into specific careers where they would have a general level of expertise, entry level jobs could open up to individuals without a college degree, and more of those with a degree could enter into the field they specifically studied. Then if you want to enter a specific field that requires some sort of proficiency or expertise a bachelors degree will give it to you. If you don't, then maybe you wouldn't need a degree to work at Enterprise Rent-A-Car, or Sherwin Williams anymore. There is still something to be said for having a well rounded individual. For example, what do people think of athletes who aren't well spoken? They think they are idiots even if they aren't. Many of them also require writing for the same purpose, if you don't elevate your writing skills, especially in this day and age of shortcut texting habits, you will have difficulty with many jobs. While they aren't "necessary" for a specific job, many students don't know what they want to do yet and these can help make that decision. It is never a bad thing to have a more well rounded, educated society.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Feb 3, 2010 -> 06:21 PM) I'm going to get back to this thread later on this evening when I have more time. But one point I would like to make for you to chew on now, is that if you have any experience in the lower level job market (positions for recent college grads or employees in the beginning stages of their career), you know that employers almost would rather you not be highly trained in their field. Many corporations have individualized training programs and would rather train you in their method and manner than have to waste the time "untraining" you and then re-training you. This is in large part why the value of a college degree has decreased and willingness to start at the bottom rung of the latter with a desire and willingness to move up has gained more of a foothold than in previous job markets. Wow, somebody has watched "Secret of my Success" too many times (although Helen Slater may have been worth it)

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 3, 2010 -> 05:51 PM) Trouble is, that's sorta the same everywhere. California, for example, the State Universities are a disaster area because the funding that used to be there from the state has dried up. The faculty members there have been required to take unpaid furloughs for a couple days a month, basically working without pay several days, to help the state cover its budget gaps. I wouldn't take a job at a UC system school right now if they gave me the best offer in the history of mankind. And it's getting like that everywhere. That's right. Most states are heading this way. Illinois and California are just the two worst examples. The educational institutions are good institutions they just aren't going to be as affordable as they previously were. If people want to go to college they are going to have to pay more. U of I is doing the unpaid furloughs as well. Luckily we haven't hit that point yet but it may. It's not just universities. Peotone school system (south of Chicago) is owed so much money from the state that they are shutting everything down. No sports, music, library etc. With the state not paying schools at all levels are in trouble.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Feb 3, 2010 -> 04:50 PM) And at that point you will see less people applying for college which will result in college tuition going down. What is funny is that if you ask college professors, etc they would ikely say that they are underpaid and underfunded. Being a university professor and involved with a state university, I can tell you that your first statement will not happen for state schools. We are slowly going from state schools to state supported schools to state associated schools. All of which will drive up costs with no change in services. We have not received the money for our budget from the state since September. The state owes us millions. Because of this we are having to run the school on generating our own income like private institutions. Most of this money comes from tuition which means we need to raise the tuition to offset the money budgeted to us by the state. However, the state put a cap on how much we can raise tuition in an "attempt" to keep us affordable. This is why an in-state student is having difficulty getting into U of I because the university can charge the out of state student more. This encourages students to leave the state, which is not good for the state.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Feb 2, 2010 -> 01:46 PM) http://books.google.com/books?id=uxdvwQdXb...%3F&f=false I don't have the book with me, but this is part of the article from the book itself. This part of it divulges into whether certain hitters are simply better against certain pitchers or not, and the title of the article is something along the lines of "Does Mike Redmond own Tom Glavine?" These are looking very small sample sizes - I think the minimum they use is 25 plate appearances - but they likely range up into the area of 100+ plate appearances - Mike Redmond was 21 for 48 against Glavine with 3 walks, while Tony Gwynn was 39 for 91 against Greg Maddux with 10 walks and 2 sacrifices. The article basically points to the fact that, while these guys may hit a certain type of pitcher better than others (Redmond is known to hit lefties very well, and Gwynn was a fantastic hitter period), their actual splits against these single pitchers is not necessarily accurate of how good or bad they actually were simply because they didn't have enough plate appearances to prove it. This same thought process works exactly the same with a hitter in a specific ballpark as well - just because a hitter has a good stretch of about 185 plate appearances at a ballpark doesn't necessarily mean they are actually that good in the ballpark but rather they've had a good stretch. Anyways, after rambling about information that is generally common sense, I would guess that you'd want to be looking at 400-500 plate appearances at the minimum, and the more and more you get the more statistically relevant it is. You probably want atleast a year's worth of data, which is around 500-600 plate appearances to determine traits of a hitter against a certain pitcher (whether specific or type) or ballpark. 185 plate appearances suggests basically that a guy got hot for 2 months worth, and he might put up worse numbers over the next 4 months worth of playing time. I understand what you mean and obviously the more the better. However, why not just run a power analysis to determine the actual number of at bats needed to make the statistical formula valid for a season or group of seasons then determine what is needed to be statistically significant. This is basic statistical analysis. This is some of the problem I have with the SABR guys. I'm the first one to look at numbers with all of the research I do. However, if you are going to use any type of numerical analysis you need to back it up to make sure the numbers are meaningful.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Feb 2, 2010 -> 01:09 PM) It's about sample size too. He put up an OPS of less than .600 there last year, but it was in a limited sample size. Less than 200 plate appearances doesn't dictate how well a player is actually going to play there, and thus really makes Boras look dumber rather than smarter, and Dombrowski and company know that. Out of curiousity, if you run the power analysis for an entire season what is the number of at bat needed to consider the methodolgy valid? I've never seen this posted.

QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Feb 1, 2010 -> 03:08 PM) It's also a bit ridiculous to think that a guy really would retire over the difference of a few million $'s. It's petty. The man isn't going to retire unless he loses the ability or desire to play. The baseball season is a long seasonand he will need to spend a lot of time away from his family. He may decide just the opposite, that with all of the money he has made it is not worth it to go to go through a season with a new team and people he doesn't know for comparatively little money. I personally don't think he will retire, but I could see a scenario where it's possible.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jan 29, 2010 -> 01:50 PM) http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=4869274 . I know you havent looked at Arods health chart and everything that had to do with his hip surgery last year, but until I read this article I never read anything that indicated that his surgery was potentially career ending. Is Arod just making this out to be more than it really was, or was this a very serious surgery? He shouldn't have been referring to it being career threatening but season threatening. If he opted for rest and rehab he would have missed a good part of the season. However, he opted for arthroscopic surgery to remove a portion of the acetabular labrum which he tore and was subsequently getting caught in the joint. This is a relatively newer approach to the problem which along with the fact that it is surgery and things can go wrong causes many athletes to go the conservative route and skip the surgery. The surgery is relatively safe, the technique is improving and the physicians are getting better at it. This was the dilemma he faced not so much the career ending aspect. So it may have worried him but he probably was blowing it somewhat out of proportion.

QUOTE (Ranger @ Jan 28, 2010 -> 01:28 PM) No, Grim is more like a go-between for me. He would have more control over what Farmer/DJ/Hawk/Stone would do, but he' still not really a boss. Grim works with Brooks Boyer. Let's put it this way, the team has the final say in who the booth announcers are but they ask the station for input. On the other hand, the station asks the Sox for input on who to hire for my job, but the station has the final say in the hire. It's the opposite. Kenny might be insecure, and that's fine with me. I'd rather him be more active because of it than be too comfortable. I think he usually does a pretty good job of knowing when to be active and knows what his options are, as far as trades go. Where I think you're wrong is that there is no way Ozzie is happy with the one championship. If that's how he truly felt, he wouldn't get physically sick like he sometimes does when they aren't playing well. I know this much to be true: he takes losing worse than anyone here does. And, really, he should. I think some fans' perception that he's "resting on his laurels" is because he hasn't won another one, so it's an easy thing to think. It's the same as people saying that a certain guy doesn't care when he's not performing. The reality is that almost every time the player does care and is likley torn up about it. Just because we can't see it, it doesn't mean he's not. But also, I think people also overrate the manager's affect on the club. They matter, but that 2005 team won because of those players, not so much because of Ozzie managing. He did a good job, but it wasn't all about him. That team won because they pitched beautifully and because all they did was get clutch hits. Anyway, thanks for what you said. I'm sure we'll continue to disagree at times but I enjoy the debate. Huh? Again, you've contributed nothing. I disagree with this a little. How many managers would have allowed the starting pitchers to pitch that deep into games that often? Managers today like to pull them far too early to play the "safe matchup game." While I frequently disagree with Ozzie's managing or over managing to play the national league type games in the AL, I think his trust in the pitchers and letting them go was a great example of having doing what you think is right and not following normal convention.

QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Jan 27, 2010 -> 11:32 AM) The statistical consensus is that our team in the best case scenario is about as good as last years team. We've literally done nothing to improve, and are gambling on a couple x-factors to maintain last years offensive production. We're taking a hell of a risk by making a gamble like this when we have a potent pitching staff and a deep pen. If we sign Damon or Branyan, i'll be content, but if we honestly think we're going to get production out of a tandem of Kotsay, Jones, and Visquel then we're going to be giving up a lot of prospects by the time the trade deadline comes around. We're paying Mark Kotsay, the same amount of money that the Twins are paying Jim Thome. I still can't get over how absurd that it is. Dang, and I thought Peavy and Garcia/Huson were an improvement over Contreras and Colon.

QUOTE (MattZakrowski @ Jan 25, 2010 -> 09:20 PM) But in what way is the White Sox winning due to Ozzie Guillen's managing? Being associated with winning doesn't make you the cause of it. Did Robert Horry carry Houston, LA, and San Antonio to titles? If you don't give him credit to help with the winning don't discredit him for the losing. He was the manager who oversaw the winning. How else can you determine the ultimate value of a manager? In the end winning is the only thing that matters. It doesn't matter how you do it, as long as it is within the rules. Is Phil Jackson a poor basketball caoch because he only won with Jordan or Kobe? Guillen has won while here and no matter how you care to look at it, he is the best manager we've had in a long time.

QUOTE (MattZakrowski @ Jan 25, 2010 -> 08:44 PM) Fire Ozzie Guillen! I get it, he had a tremendous team handed to him in 2005, and good teams handed to him in 2006 and 2008, but he's a terrible manager. In his time with the White Sox, he has started and led off Dwayne Wise, benched Nick Swisher for old Ken Griffey Jr. and placed Scott Linebrink and Mike MacDougal in too many high leverage situations to count. Now he has decided that old Andruw Jones and MARK EFFING KOTSAY would make a better DH than Jim 'led the White Sox in OPS/EQA/wOBA' Thome. I have to partially blame KW for that last one, but KW has been a good, sometimes great GM, who is for whatever reason listening to his stupid ass, giving him the inferior team he claims to want. You want an NL style team? Go to the effing National League! You know what team is a national league style team? The Pirates. Go manage them. We play in US Cellular Field! You have to hit home runs to win at US Cellular Field! I mean seriously, give me something real and quantifiable that Guillen does well, because I'm tired of this bs off-season. Win. He is the best manager in winning games the Sox have had since Al Lopez. His winning percentage is within a few points of the great Tony LaRussa and higher than guys like Tommy Lasorda. Say what you want about Ozzie's crazyness, he does do alot of crazy things during the season and during the off-season but he wins more than anyone we've had in a long time. Unless you would rather go back to Terry Bevington, Jeff Torborg, Don Kessinger, Jim Fregosi Jerry Manuel or even tony LaRussa. I kow I'm missing afew but I'm too lazy to look them up for managers since the late 70's. Ozzie's teams have been to the playoffs more times than all of the others combined or at least close to it.

Last year jones had an OBP of 367 and more walks than K's against LHP and Kotsay had an OBP of 347 and 15/17 ratio of bb/k. They aren't going to hit for power like Thome but if Ozzie goes with a strict platoon, these two should get on base at a good clip. This should be an interesting situation and make this even more fun towatch during the season.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 23, 2010 -> 05:10 PM) I think he wants to play like the 1990 White Sox. I think their leading HR hitter had 14. If they got on base, they would go. I remember one game they had 5 guys in a row caught stealing. It didn't stop them from running. It was a fun year, but I don't know it that style will work today. The point I think tey were maiking with the angels and boston is that with steriods slowly being removed from the game, the style of the game is going to shift back to that style. It won't totally look like that due to the smaller ballparks and other factors but they seem to think that style is what will work and start to become more commonplace. Baseball goes through these cycles. The late 60's and into the 70's was more the "athletic" game. Earl Weaver made the "wait for the 3 run homer " popular, even though his team was built on the pitching of Palmer and Cuellar et al. Then when Ricky Henderson and Vince coleman came around the game shifted back to the "athletic" game. The Bash bros. with the PEDS brought the power game back in the late 80's. I'm not necessarily convinced that the shift is happening again but it could be. I think one thing that may assist the change is the more recent advent of quntifying defense. Bill James and his numbers people helped to create the power guy trend. From reading his material OPS is the key number in hitting. It is easier to increase OPS with power numbers increasing the Slugging than to increase OBP with lighter hitting and walks. So that type of play was coveted. Now that defense can be more accurrately quantifyed, although it's still more difficult than hitting, I think pitching and defense may start to make a comeback.

QUOTE (Vance Law @ Jan 22, 2010 -> 01:52 AM) Kenny knows that Ozzie is a person who doesn't fully understand the game of baseball This is one of the best lines ever. It's amazing how a guy can have a successful career as both a player and a manager yet not understand the game. I want to go gambling with Ozzie because he must be the luckiest guy in the world to have his career and not understand the game.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 19, 2010 -> 06:19 PM) What the hell has Starlin Castro done to deserve how much love he has gotten this offseason? Yes, he's been young for his league, but his walk rate isn't fantastic, his strike out rate is good but it's not the best I've ever seen, he's only displayed doubles power and that was relatively weak. I've heard people mention how special his AFL was, but he didn't do anything that was really all that spectacular - yeah he hit for a really good average, in like 100 at bats, against pitchers working on certain pitches in the heat of Arizona. He still didn't walk, he still didn't hit for power, and his strikeout rate was, once again, good but not fantastic. If people begin comparing him to players like Jose Reyes and Hanley Ramirez, I think they're all full of s***. He had a better contact rate at that age, but didn't hit for the same amount of power, didn't walk as much, and wasn't stealing bases as proficiently either. I don't know how his defense is, but he better be like Omar Vizquel good in the field to be getting the love he's gotten. He looks like a good prospect, but not among the top. In fact, from what I've been reading on him, he sounds a lot like Alexei. the one thing you didn't mention was his his defense. He performed ok with the bat and played very well defensively against older players. He did all of this in front of scouts from many teams. Teams look highly upon this type of performance. Of course, it's not a guarantee he'll do well, nothing is but it makes him a good promising prospect.

QUOTE (JPN366 @ Jan 17, 2010 -> 07:12 PM) Richard Dotson is an a$$hole. I never seen a pitching coach kill the confidence of a struggling pitcher as many times as I saw Dotson do it between 2005-2007. I was glad when he was gone. You're right there. Not in the Gary Sheffield category but he is not a pleasant person.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 16, 2010 -> 12:06 PM) 2006 without even a second thought. How do you predict that the pitching staff would fall off that badly? With the way Ozzie leaned on the pitching staff (rightfully so) in 2005 I thought they would have a down year the next year. Many pitching staff have a down year after something like that. I believe they won 90 games but missed the playoffs and I was surprised they did that well. I am fairly optimistic the team will reach 88-90 wins this year.

QUOTE (BearSox @ Jan 15, 2010 -> 01:14 AM) If we miss the playoffs this year, I want heads to roll. We have such a good pitching staff ready to dominate, but our offense is severely lacking. Considering only 4 teams from the AL will make it to the playoffs your odds are good. You have to love starting spring training with a pessimistic, p***ed off attitude. Enjoiy the season!!!!!

QUOTE (BearSox @ Jan 14, 2010 -> 12:54 PM) We are all inferior, but how is it ridiculous? So, just because im inferior, my experience as a baseball player doesn't matter. So, if I was Bryce Harper, but decided to bulk up for football, and lost my bat speed... it only matter then? Plain and simple, bulking up in muscle makes your ligaments tighten up. Having your ligaments tightening up = a reduction in bat speed. Its really not that complicated and it doesn't matter how good or bad the ball player is. Just to be factually correct because it is driving me nuts. Your ligaments do not tighten up, your muscles and tendons will, if you don't stretch along with it. Ligaments surround and protect the joints whereas muscles and tendons provide the motion. I know this is not part of the discussion but the misuse of the different tissues needed to be corrected.

DJ Carrasco signed a minor league deal with the Pirates. I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere so I thought I would post it. If it has been posted, disregard.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 12, 2010 -> 09:56 PM) Along this line of performance enhancers, MLB players have a curiously higher rate of ADHD/ADD diagnoses. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that the prescribed medications are often powerful stimulants. It's not even the stimulant effect that helps as much as the increased focus. This will be an interesting dilemma. These drugs can have an opposite effect for people without ADHD. It can make them more hyper and more distracted. If a normally calm player all of a sudden turns into Al Hrabosky we'll know something is wrong.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 12, 2010 -> 06:14 PM) In Game of Shadows, the book that tells the story of Bonds and Balco, the Cream and the Clear, and other Balco variations are the substances mostly attributed to improve vision. I read this as well. It doesn't give specifics and since it was a unique substance created in a lab, there is no way to prove it. However, most the evidence empirical and anectodal is that the vision increases due to the increased focus and concentration that occurs. There was some mention in paper that a theory was prposed that the eye musculature could be strengthened like any muscle. While it has some merit that is really stretching the concept.