iamshack

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jan 14, 2018 -> 01:34 PM) Every NFL team needs to hire an in game strategist to handle last minute decisions, because NFL head coaches obviously can't handle them. The Steelers needed to kick a field goal to have time after an onside kick, it was so obvious, especially after the intentional grounding. I agree with you, and they obviously needed to kickoff instead of attempting the onside kick with 2:13 left. These coaches say stuff like “we hadn’t shown we could stop them,” dismissing the fact that 9 out of 10 teams just run the ball into the stacked 9-10 man box there anyway. At the point of the intentional grounding, I think the offense was so exhausted they knew the offense was so exhausted that it might not be wise to get down that close and not kick, even if it meant pretty much losing anyway. They all looked defeated at that point.

QUOTE (ChiliIrishHammock24 @ Jan 11, 2018 -> 10:57 AM) I'll take the under. Hmm, I seem to think you already did...

QUOTE (Dam8610 @ Jan 11, 2018 -> 05:39 PM) A fine example of confirmation bias at work. Why would I use any other source of information?

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jan 11, 2018 -> 05:05 PM) That's cool the thread is reopened. It proves there can be dissent on soxtalk. Dick Allen and I are not fans of Soria it is apparent. I totally get where you are coming from. I sort of feel similarly about Abreu. Dude sucks. Yet everyone seems to think he provides some kind of value. Guy strikes out in all the big time plate appearances that I can remember.

QUOTE (Harry Chappas @ Jan 10, 2018 -> 08:09 PM) I'm looking into the bike, I take it you like it? If it's sturdy I'm not concerned with the price. Does it break down at all? Yeah, it’s a really solid product. I’ve had it a year and I think I’ve ridden about 2500 miles on it or so, and it’s held up perfectly. I know that a few folks have had some minor issues like pedals squeaking, but that is a pretty simple fix. There is a facebook community of over 50k members and many resources there for basically anything that can possibly go wrong. That said, I have had no problems with mine whatsoever. While the bike is outstanding, the content is really what keeps people riding it. A ton of great classes offered both live as well as something like 8,000 on demand classes. There is truly something for everyone.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 10, 2018 -> 01:33 PM) Yikes at that price. Definitely targeting those who likely already own 2 Teslas. I’ll be honest, Marko...while the up front investment is not insignificant, they do offer financing which is competitive with high-end gym subscriptions. I’ve had my bike, which was $2k, for just over a year. During that time, I have paid something like $480 in subscription fees. I’ve taken about 160 rides. Thus far, that pencils out to about $16 a ride. I know that isn’t cheap, but as I continue to ride, that price goes down. On my current pace, after 4 more years, that number will hit about $5.60/ride. If you compare that to similar products, such as a boutique spinning class, that is well-below the prices most of them are getting. I view the Tread the same way. The initial investment is no doubt steep, but if you are a current subscriber, the content comes at no additional cost. So I’ll be getting the spinning content and the circuit training content for $39/mo. I do agree it is not inexpensive, but when you pencil it, it’s not as bad as one might initially think. I put in my reservation already.

Peloton Tread

Holy balls. I’m not sure who I think is the most full of s*** in here.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Jan 6, 2018 -> 05:41 PM) Why? I think because you had to cover the hook at that price, he thought just taking the Titans with the points was a better proposition.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Jan 6, 2018 -> 11:33 AM) Kagaku, you betting on either of the NFL games today? If so, mind sharing your picks? Charge him! Hah. I like Tennessee and LA

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Jan 6, 2018 -> 11:37 AM) The peripherals ARE the peripherals because they're mathematical shown to be better predictors of future ERA than ERA is itself. They were "mined" specifically for dealing with the problem you're bringing up. This is theoretically because they are closer proxies to measuring skill than the run-results are. Now, they aren't perfect, and come with many of the same risks and flaws as the run numbers, but they are BETTER at least. The idea is, essentially, that if you see a bad team result (which ERA is), try to isolate the player results and see if they line up. So, yeah, Soria might suck but there are reasons to believe he might not. That's really the whole gist. Yeah, that’s what I was trying to argue. Ptatc said the opposite. He said the average is indicative of the performance, because by definition it is the average performance.

QUOTE (KagakuOtoko @ Jan 6, 2018 -> 08:54 AM) Nope I am on sabbatical from school and working full time with a part time job. Are you saying you work 2 jobs?

QUOTE (KagakuOtoko @ Jan 6, 2018 -> 01:23 AM) Aussie baseball winner! 12-14-1 YTD +$518.40 You weren’t kidding...you ARE a degenerate Is this your full-time job?

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 6, 2018 -> 08:37 AM) If belicheck leaves the pats for the giants and we don’t even call I’m going to lose it. If that report was true, 2/3 of the teams in the League would be calling him.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 5, 2018 -> 05:34 PM) Soria is living in the minds of some Sox fans as the original, prime of his career version. Same reason Yost kept going to him in high leverage despite all evidence to the contrary. Jack (Soria’s nickname) is simply a calculated risk. He’s been bedeviled by injuries the last five years. A velocity gain isn’t that meaningful because he’s losing movement and his FBs are flattening out more. There’s a decent chance he goes down to injury, about the same as the odds of flipping him for a Top 100-200 player if he reasserts himself as a dominant closer again. To me, the need for Avilan was the bigger element of the deal. KC is officially crazy. Last year proved they can’t win without a solid pen. No surprise. Herrera sucked and Strahm got hurt. Different situation when they could go Herrera, Wade Davis, then Holland. Overspending on Hosmer won’t do a thing besides get KC a #8 pick instead of #4 overall. Alex Gordon is toast. Sal Perez gets beat up more and more each year. Their bullpen is in shambles. Ventura died. Ian Kennedy hasn’t worked out. Sure, Mondesi, Bonifacio, Cuthbert, Soler, Merrifield, etc., could shock the world. Anything’s possible, why not? But the odds are higher of Kopech, Jimenez and Hansen leading the Sox to 85 wins this year...when almost everyone has them in the mid to high 60’s for victories. I think most folks would admit he’s a calculated risk. What people are objecting to is an emotionally-charged aversion to him which belies the objective evidence at hand.

Greg, is this you?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 5, 2018 -> 07:43 AM) 1. Yes. 2. No - it isn't cheap to sign guys who aren't that good. You pay a lower overall price, but you wind up like the 2015 and 2016 white sox - expensive and crappy. 3. Yes, would much rather see Sanchez at 3b. My concern on #1 would be that we get used to move the market up to a point he deems acceptable, only to then sign with his preferred team.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Jan 5, 2018 -> 01:14 PM) This is a great point and it's especially true for relievers, who pitch fewer innings than I think people consciously realize. James Shields probably pitched 50 great innings last year, but it was the other 100 bad ones that made him a disaster. Well, many relievers pitch ONLY 50 innings in a year. What does it say about them going forward? Compounding the issue is that by the times you get that 150-200 IP of sample on a guy, three or four years have passed, and you're no longer evaluating the same guy. This is why relievers are so hard to predict, and it's not unreasonable for a guy to buck a trend suddenly if you see some underlying signs that don't match the previous season. You have me entirely confused. A smaller sample size increases the possibility of an average being skewed by a number of anomalous outings. If I am relying on an average that is more easily skewed, than it makes that average less informative. While every outing is important, if I am team, I want to know what kind of pitcher a guy is the vast majority of the time and work on eliminating those few instances where he isn’t pitching like he does the remainder of the time.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Jan 5, 2018 -> 01:06 PM) Sure it does. That's why it's an average. In this situation you have a player who pitches pretty well most of the time but has a tendency to lose it on occasion. This can very helpful in how they use him. Maybe the blow up was after three straight days of pitching or after 3 days of not pitching. the definition of average is combining all of the performances together. it can tell you an awful lot. It's better than the "small sample size" look. Although to be honest anything less than a 110 games or so is a small sample size when looking at a full season performance That’s the issue though — it’s a small sample size. The conclusions you are mentioning aren’t ones that are reached through looking at the average. That is entirely the point. You are reaching those conclusions by digging deeper into his performance and pulling out specific instances. This is essentially the very point the poster was making — you need to look deeper into the numbers to really get a sense of who the player is the vast majority of the time. The ERA skews that.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 5, 2018 -> 12:49 PM) See, I don't see the evidence. His advanced stats were the worst of his career in 2016, just beating out his 2015. Last year they rebounded a bit as he kept the ball in the park, and suspiciously threw the ball harder during his age 33 season. His age 34 season projections seem to take him more toward the replacement level pitcher he was in 2016. Replacement level 34 year olds aren't too flippable. No, Dick, you are only seeing what you want to see because you’ve always enjoyed playing devil’s advocate. There is certainly a chance he regresses; I think most concede that. But it’s not a foregone conclusion by any means, given his performance last year. If you want to believe his improvement is “suspicious,” that is your prerogative, but I don’t suspect it will be a popular opinion amongst a crowd that is relying on his overall career history as well as 2017 data.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 5, 2018 -> 12:40 PM) Right, I have no problem with the trade, but a lot of people got their panties in a bunch when Greg called a spade a spade and said Soria isn't so good. So talk about arguing a small point just because. I doubt anyone will give him credit when he turns out to be correct. It will just be of course he wasn't any good, that wasn't the point of the deal... People tend to disagree when someone says something that is clearly contrary to the most recent available evidence.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 5, 2018 -> 12:10 PM) No. Teams trade good players all the time. They don't include good players and money for basically junk prospects if these players are as valued as some want to believe. I have no problem with the trade. I think it's a no brainer. I just think all the Soria optimism is misguided. The guy sucks. It's the reason why this trade was available to the White Sox. One of the prospects they got back was not junk, to be fair. I was surprised they had to move a talented relief arm for the privilege of moving Soria. They really didn’t eat much money, but having to include a good young asset was indeed a bit surprising. Soria has certainly had some ups and downs over the last several years. For you to say he “sucks” is just not accurate. He’s throwing harder than he has in years, he had the k-rate to show for it, as well as the peripherals. Even if you just take his ERA for what it was, for instance, and ignore the FIP number, he’s still not a terrible gamble to take for the Sox given his history. Does he have the potential to suck? Yes. We all know relief arms are volatile, and his best days are behind him, but to say that he must suck simply because this trade occurred is ridiculous.

Gruden getting 10 years somewhere around 100m

I think being in the same division would make this cost-prohibitive.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 5, 2018 -> 09:28 AM) Problem is we may have 3 years where his talent is wasted but if I were to put a true deal together for Yelich it would start with Robert. Which is why it won’t happen.