Balta1701

QUOTE(Adam G @ Jan 4, 2006 -> 12:08 PM) Since he pitches in the NL Mark Prior gets a free inning a game and still allowed more hits in '03 than Contreras did in '05 (entire season). That's some interesting cherry-picking of statistics. Contreras allowed more walks in 05 than Prior did in 03. Should I care? Beats the hell out of me.

Can't he just shut up? How exactly is saying you'll play for one, then saying you won't play, then saying you'll play for the other not dishonoring both heritages?

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 4, 2006 -> 11:50 AM) So you're saying we shouldn't believe anyone's intelligence anymore because it was wrong with Iraq? I thought that there was tons of evidence out there to back up what you have been saying about that intelligence being wrong anyways, does that exsist in this case? Or is there just conjecture at this point? All I have seen is reports saying they are running a covert program, and Iran denying it. I haven't seen anything actually disputing any of the reports yet. If there is actual evidence, the IAEA has not seen it. The best evidence seemed to come a few years ago when the IAEA found 1 trace of highly enriched uranium on a centrifuge, but upon detailed examination they determined that the trace came from Pakistan, where the centrifuges were made. The IAEA has expressed concern about Iran's activities, but at least as of basically last year, all of the facilities the IAEA knew about and inspected showed no signs of uranium enriched to weaponized levels. North Korea, for example, is a different story...when you reprocess fuel rods to extract plutonium, there are distinct signals - radiogenic gases which are released (I believe the key one was Xenon, but I could be mistaken). Those signals were clearly detected in samples taken along the DMZ right after th ey removed the IAEA cameras a few years ago. They clearly reprocessed the stuff, and are in possession of enriched plutonium. The reality with Iran is this...they've taken some of the actions they would have taken had they been trying to develop a bomb - i.e. building nuclear facilities, getting agreements to produce others. But they've also done some things you wouldn't do - i.e. allowing IAEA inspections of uranium enriching sites, and placing multi-monthlong holds on uranium enrichment to allow for time for negotiations. The U.S. continues to insist that Iran's fossil fuel resources mean that Iran has no need of a nuclear power program, since nuclear power would cost them more than their fossil fuels. But aside from that, the U.S. has never presented any concrete evidence of a uranium bomb program, nor has the IAEA ever found any. Without that, I think the only logical choice is to maintain a rational amount of skepticism of the claims of both sides until one of them comes forward with some firm evidence.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 4, 2006 -> 11:39 AM) I don't know who will win, but I get the feeling it will be a blow out too. I thought last year's title game was going to be a great game to watch. I didn't need to watch more than a quarter. I thought last year's title game was one of the best talent matchups in history. ESPN kept telling me so. Now they're telling me the exact same thing about this game. Right now, I'm just hopiong it is a decent game.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 4, 2006 -> 10:28 AM) Are you seriously trying to tell me that you don't believe that Iran is pursuing a nuclear bomb? There is no doubt in my mind at all that they are just continuing something they have been doing since the 1960's in trying to find a way into the atomic club. What evidence does anyone have that they have all of the sudden changed their behavior and are now only looking for something for energy purposes? Heck having the "Great Satan" next door in Iraq only serves to convince me more that Iran is full of s*** when it saids it is only looking for more energy sources with its nuclear program. Personally, I do believe Iran is looking to build an atomic bomb, because it only makes sense that they should be trying like gangbusters to do so while the U.S. forces are completely tied down and worn out from fighting Iraq, and a bomb totally prevents them from being the next target (they could fund Hezbollah to their hearts content if they were protected by a few of those.) But on the other hand...my intuition is not proof. No document ever presented thus far has given any proof. This document does not give proof - it specifies no sources or methods, there was clearly no danger in its release, and its release serves a clearly political purpose for those out there who advocate strikes against Iran. While Iran having a bomb program makes logical sense to me, I don't feel you can jump to the conclusion that they have one based solely on the evidence we have been presented. All I'm saying with that post is that just because some leak says so doesn't mean that there isn't some motivation behind why we got that particular leak. We should have learned that lesson well with Iraq.

QUOTE(Mplssoxfan @ Jan 4, 2006 -> 11:05 AM) I can't wait to see how Matthews, Hume and Snow spin this, though. I don't mind them as much being involved, if they genuinely thought they were working for a charity, then they're really not at fault. However, none of them as far as I know disclosed this fact on their own despite the fact that the name of the charity involved should have come across their eyes several times. Nor did they disclose the fact that they should have known Abramoff did the inviting, and that is an important fact. And furthermore...they've actually commented on the Abramoff case several times without telling that they had this connection. Matthews, for example, just a few days ago, said of the abramoff case, Now seriously, why should we believe his opinion is non-biased, when if Abramoff did become a large part of the story this year, it would add some tarnish to his reputation through his connection to this case? He has reason to not want it to become part of this year's story, and he didn't disclose that.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Jan 4, 2006 -> 11:08 AM) Balta, I'm guessing you know more than I do, but what part of the San Andreas is due. I remember in one of my geology classes my professor was talking to us about how they can semi predict where the quakes are going to occur since they kind of happen in a certain pattern (after a quake the stress is relieved from one area and I guess it starts pushing more on another area which needs to be relieved). That sound about right? That can happen, but it doesn't always happen. Sometimes a quake on one fault could put stress on another local fault, but that same motion could relieve stress on another fault which was closer to breaking. When a fault ruptures, there are always areas relative to that fault which are put under compression, and others that are put under extension. There is a ton of geometry and rock mechanics involved in determining what exactly will be the results of a quake of a particular strength and direction on a particular fault. We're just now starting to get the computing power where we can take intelligent looks at such questions. There are plenty of examples of 1 earthquake setting off another - the Dec. 26th Sumatran quake clearly was a triggering event for the 2nd quake a few months later, for example. But if a quake happened and relieved stress on a fault, thus delaying a quake, we'd never really know about it for sure, because you can't really quantify a non-event, so I can't give you an example of that. Let's just say that both are possible, and the actual result will depend on the exact circumstances. Edit, oh and to answer your "What part of the san andreas is due" question which I didn't read the first time through...the 1857 rupture along that fault was an absolute monster for that fault. It started off up near Parkfield and ruptured the fault to some degree all the way through the Mojave. However, the displacements were not constant along the entire rupture - roughly 3 m. in the Mojave and as much as 9 m up north of the Transverse ranges. In general, I think the recurrence interval of that whole section south of the Parkfield section is something in the neighborhood of 150-200 years, which is why some people are starting to worry about it - because technically it is due, and there's probably a 50/50 chance it'll undergo a major rupture sometime in our lifetimes, and probably a 98% chance that one will happen before your grand children pass away, barring things like nuclear war. The section north of that, the Parkfield section, is a really interesting one, in that it actually seems to have one of the most accurate recurrence intervals of any fault in the world. A few decades ago, geologist predicted that by the year 2010, there would be a magnitude 6+ quake along that fault. They actually heavily instrumented that section of the fault in order to observe it. The rupture happened about a year ago. That section of the SA has kept to a much tighter recurrence interval than any other section of the SA. The sections north of there ruptured in 1906 in a moderately famous event, but the SA north of Parkfield is not the only fault line to be worried about up there. They Heyward fault, which interestingly enough runs right across the Bay Bridge and right through the football stadium @ UC Berkeley (you can actually see it in the walls I'm told) is probably roughly due. This is the one which has caused them to rapidly try to retrofit the golden gate bridge, and why they are spending a ton of money on a seismically survivable Bay Bridge. So...the Sections of the SA south of Parkfield are starting to approach the time when you'd call them "Due". Most estimates give numbers like 20-30% probability of a quake in the next 20-30 years somewhere along that section. The problem of course is that we don't know which part of that section will rupture, or how big the rupture will be. 1857 was a monster in that it ruptured sections all along the fault which normally don't move together. There is the possibility for a number of quakes along different parts of that fault, most of which will probably experience 1 event during the next 100-200 years.

No matter how old he is...I can't say I'll complain about seeing that Twins bullpen lose a long reliever.

Stealing another writer's words out of laziness...

Link

MSNBC's Chris Matthews and Fox News's Brit Hume and Tony Snow were all tapped to serve at a fundraiser for one of Abramoff's shady charities. Link 1 Link 2.

“Mr. Abramoff says he has information that could implicate 60 lawmakers” - WSJ.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Jan 4, 2006 -> 09:19 AM) Its a crap site, bascially they just make up rumors. Pretty unreliable and a pretty far-fetched rumor IMO. Still, Boston is in desperate need of a CF, and the odds are Dusty still doesn't want to play Murton or Pie in the OF, so it's at least plausible. If I were the Cubs I'd make sure to get some money along with that though.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Jan 4, 2006 -> 09:23 AM) Shutup...your going to jinx it. We are way overdue. Actually, I think I'd disagree with the statement that "we're way overdue." Roughly speaking, the L.A. Basin should probably expect 1 magnitude 6+ event every 10-20 years. That's for the entire L.A. Basin area...each and every one of those blind thrust faults combined. The last one right here was in 94, Northridge, but there were also 2 major events out in the Mojave in the 90's, so statistically speaking the 90's were pretty active. Doesn't mean that there won't be a magnitude 6 event in the near future, but also doesn't mean there will be one. In terms of the San Andreas...well, there could be one now, or the next one could happen 150 years from now. The remarkable thing about recurrence intervals is that in almost every fault section in the country, they do exist, but they have margins of error on the order of 100% of the recurrence interval. So on the San Andreas, if there was a big quake in 1857, and its recurrence interval is 100-200 years, then you could very well go 50, 100, 150, 200, 250, 300, 350, or 400 years between major movements, entirely based on the mood of the fault. The San Andreas will rupture again, and the odds are it will be within my lifetime, but we're also not "Overdue" for one on it. We would be overdue in about 2100 if there hadn't been one yet, because we would be greater than the estimated recurrence interval.

The piece you linked to is wrong on several accounts, most notably the rant about people needing life-saving surgeries having to either wait months or flee to the U.S. That is simply a myth. In fact, the reverse happens even more often, with Americans heading to Canada for things like Eye surgery, which is cheaper up there. Canada can have fairly long waits for elective surgeries, but for things which are actually medically necessary, the waits in Canada may even be less. Secondly, the writer concludes with this Which leaves me to wonder whether the author has ever had to experience spending time without insurance in this country while actually needing medical treatment, and discovering that virtually no one anywhere will admit you, and the only places which will admit you will both cost an absolute fortune and probably screw things up badly, which is something my family has experienced recently, and is as close to Hell on Earth as you can get. A right to health care? You compare that to seeing a person hunched over on your couch unable to move because of extreme pain and there not being any doctor willing or able to treat that person, and you'll wish to God that America considered it a right. Third, the author rightfully takes Mr. Krugman to task for selectively choosing which health data he cites, but then he does exactly the same thing. He attacks Krugman's choice of life expectancy and infant mortality as methods by which the health care systems can be judged, but then decides to cite different metrics (rates of die-off with certain diseases) without either judging any other diseases or examining whether there's an additional factor, such as an environmental or lifestyle issue, which could also impact those numbers. I can do the same thing. Watch. Of course, this statistic also is probably incomplete, because it also fails to take into account lifestyle factors which could impact those numbers. The simple answer is that there is no simple answer. If you want to find one statistic that sums everything up, you're not going to do so.

Tom Donahoe is reportedly out as President and GM of the Bills, and Marv Levy will reportedly be taking at least part of his job. Mularkey has also been told he has his job for 1 more year, but the owner Ralph Wilson says he plans to take a more active role in looking at assistant coaches. All things considered, the Bills still are in a decent spot...they have a lot of talent at key positions, some decent draft picks, and supposedly are doing fairly well with the cap. They need to build an offensive line more than anything else, and they need their defense to stay healthy and figure out what went wrong last year..

Well, he'd sure cost a lot less than Matsui, and even though his production would probably be worse, it wouldn't be THAT much worse.

Great, another state which will draw resources from the war on terror by putting marijuana plants in the hands of those dastardly cancer patients! I would have put that in green, but well...we do keep diverting resources to arrest medical marijuana users.

QUOTE(RME JICO @ Jan 3, 2006 -> 05:33 PM) All the "experts" are saying that Leinart would pull an Elway/Manning and refuse to play for New Orleans if they selected him, so it is possible he could go to TEN, NYJ, OAK, or BUF. I wonder what will be left for the Bears to pick at #32? Buffalo would make Matt Leinart rapidly look like David Carr. They have a QB right now that they're developing in Losman, who they should at least give another season or 2 to develop. They have VASTLY more important needs. Their Defense, which was one of the best in the league the last 2 years, fell apart when Spikes got hurt. Their Offensive line is still absolutely offensive. And they may well lose a very good veteran receiver in Eric Moulds because the coach doesn't get along with him. Buffalo should try to focus on O-Line, but should take the best talent available unless it's a running back. If that's Leinart, try to trade down for extra picks.

Personally, the more I think about it, the more I would rather use Contreras to try to rebuild a fairly depleted farm system, especially in the pitching staff, since we traded so much of that away this year. Right now, our next 2 FA pitchers will be Buehrle and Garcia, both who are FA's after 2007. We absolutely must keep Mark Buehrle. God Help KW if he loses Buehrle. But will we have the money to keep both of them? That I doubt. I would really like to find a very high level pitcher or 2 from the A ball leagues if possible, someone who we could hope would be ready in 2 years to fill in for Garcia, so that we can make absolutely certain we have money available for Buehrle (Buehrle's contract + Garcia's contract = Buehrle's new contract?) Right now, the only candidate I see in our minor leagues who could fill in for Garcia if he does depart as a FA would be Broadway, and that still may be early for him, depending on how he performs next year. I still don't think that trading for another outfielder, even a young one, is a good idea at all. We have a ton of outfield depth. If Anderson fails, then its not going to hurt us that badly - think about Oakland and Nick Swisher, who didn't have a stellar rookie year last year, but was still well above adequate. Anderson's bat is not going to be the most important thing on this team...anything he gives us beyond what people here have said his low side would be is just going to be a bonus. Anderson's job next year is to catch the ball and throw out a few more runners than Rowand did. He has a better arm than Rowand and he's faster than Rowand, from all accounts. He should be able to steal a few more bases than ARow, and he's got a pair of great teachers (Podsednik and Raines) on that account. He's got more power than ARow. He'll strike out a lot and not walk much, but Rowand didn't either. And once again, we now have Thome's bat instead of Everett's, which will make our offense vastly more potent (and probably help Konerko too, because PK will get more rest or more times to DH). If Brian Anderson ends up costing this team a chance at the world series, that basically means that either Thome or Konerko got hurt, because that's the only way we'll be dying for offense from Anderson. Give the kid a shot. He's cheap, he's fast, and he can catch the ball. We can build a better system without focusing on the outfield right now.

QUOTE(Steve Bartman's my idol @ Jan 3, 2006 -> 07:25 PM) It wouldn't! You hope. Don't forget, we'd probably be looking to replace Garcia @ the same time. And Iguchi is a FA that year as well. I'm not sure about Uribe & Podsednik.

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Jan 3, 2006 -> 07:10 PM) No, Taveras is gone. You are also forgetting Mike Lamb, Jeff Bagwell, and most importantly Chris Burke who is going to play somewhere. Burke did play some 2b last year also? Still, I think the Stros do have to move someone for pitching, especially with the Rocket likely gone.

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Jan 3, 2006 -> 04:02 PM) 12-0 Florida is beating up on 0-10 Morgan State. That doesn't seem like a fair game. 92-49 final score. Sounds like the game Duke always seems to put up in round 1 of the Tourney.

We've been out-rebounded 33-22. With 2 big guys that just shouldn't happen. On the bright side, IU does have 4 people in double figures this game. Oh, and a 6 point lead with :42 left. Edit: Thanks to free throw shooting by Strickland, IU has 5 people in double figures for this game.

After a pair of Roderick Wilmont 3 pointers, Indiana is up 54-45 with 7:50 to play.