CubinNY

Middle class version of Jake 2.0?

The Yankees will have Trout and Harper if they want to spend the money. Same can be said of the Cubs by the time those guys are FAs, probably even now. no.

I agree. This is a case of industrial espionage. A $2M fine is nothing those picks are not going to hurt them. They should have made a case in point of this situation and they got a slap on the wrist.

The Yankees will have Trout and Harper if they want to spend the money.

The 1% Doctrine is Cheney's baby.

It's a tie. They are are evil. Renice, Jeff Sessions, and Pence are so prototypical White Christian Nationalists it's not even funny. Bannon looks like a slob loser you see at the bar bitchin' bout thugs and freeloaders while taking his unemployment insurance because of his seasonal job as a lawn mower. Trump is trust fund baby run amok. Tillerson is snidely whiplash without the hair treatment and mustache.

It's not important, think of it as a debate topic.

No. You entirely missed the point. Each position on the field might have different value in during a game, but HOF consideration is for the position that the player played vs. other in the same position in his era and of all time. No one is going to compare Ozzy Smith vs. Mike Schmidt vs. Steve Carleton and say one should be in the HOF and the others shouldn't. I'm not even going to get into the HOF stuff, because I don't really care about it and arguing over worthiness and what defines that can go a thousand different ways, but what you are saying about their statistical contributions makes no sense. And you started off by just saying it was bad because it weighs players based on position and that defensive metrics are for horsefeathers. Now you're saying it's because the HOF should be about being among the best at your position and your era, right? Is that your argument or isn't it? Do you think the HOF should be about x amount of players at each position generally making it, or do you think players do and should get credit for playing a more difficult position and hitting well while doing so? A player who played only 1B or DH will have to hit a lot better to be viewed in the same stratosphere as ARod, Wagner, Banks...this is true whether you're talking about how it's reflected in their WAR total or how it's reflected in the perception that dictates HOF voting. If a reliever is going to make it, he probably has a really damn exceptionally strong resume. Same goes for a DH. Like really damn exceptional among the already exceptional. And again, herein, I'm just talking about how their statistical contributions are measured and perceived. There's also the case to be made that the HOF isn't just about numbers, and that stuff like personality, leadership, and whatever else makes up their actual "fame" comes in, and I don't think that's entirely wrong. It's been handled subjectively in a lot of ways, right or wrong. I also, again, don't care that much about it. I just don't get how you think positional adjustment doesn't come into play with regard to their on field quantifiable production. You cannot make a baseball team or play a baseball game with only a SS, C, CF and pitcher. Players should not get more credit for playing one position over another when it comes to the HOF. They should be judged by the standards of the position they played.

No. You entirely missed the point. Each position on the field might have different value in during a game, but HOF consideration is for the position that the player played vs. other in the same position in his era and of all time. No one is going to compare Ozzy Smith vs. Mike Schmidt vs. Steve Carleton and say one should be in the HOF and the others shouldn't. So would you have 11 separate ballots (c, 1b, 2b, 3b, ss, lf, cf, rf, dh, sp, rp)? Otherwise you are having the players from different positions competing for the same votes. I would be fine with that.

No. You entirely missed the point. Each position on the field might have different value in during a game, but HOF consideration is for the position that the player played vs. other in the same position in his era and of all time. No one is going to compare Ozzy Smith vs. Mike Schmidt vs. Steve Carleton and say one should be in the HOF and the others shouldn't. They are going to compare Mike Schmidt to Ron Cey and Ozzy Smith to Hubie Brooks and Steve Carleton to Andy Messersmith.

WAR is a stupid stat by which to measure if someone is deserving for the HOF. It weights positions as having more intrinsic value that other positions for one thing and everyone knows defensive metrics are for horsefeathers. Here are the full FanGraphs positional adjustments used in WAR: Catcher: +12.5 runs (all are per 162 defensive games) First Base: -12.5 runs Second Base: +2.5 runs Third Base: +2.5 runs Shortstop: +7.5 runs Left Field: -7.5 runs Center Field: +2.5 runs Right Field: -7.5 runs Designated Hitter: -17.5 runs BR position adjustments Current values (per 1350 (150*9) innings played) are: C: +9 runs SS: +7 runs 2B: +3 runs CF: +2.5 runs 3B: +2 runs RF: -7 runs LF: -7 runs 1B: -9.5 runs DH: -15 runs So what does that leave us with? Conventional stats, eye tests, big game heroics, leadership, and personality. Those aren't great but they beat the hell out of WAR, IN THIS CASE. My belief is that each player should be measured by the players in their era at their position first, second, by other players in their era, and third, by players at their position in the HOF. If you were the best or among a small group of the best position player, starting pitcher, or made some other contribution on the field like DH or relief pitcher who was among the best during the time you played, you should be considered for the HOF. But, I'm not going to get upset about anyone being left out or added who shouldn't be in the HOF. If I were making the museum I would break the museum into halls of Eras because their is no single good way to measure.

No, No, No Vizquel is probably the closest. He was the best defensive SS for most of his career, but he played in an era of offense. Jones peaked early and faded fast and Rolen missed too much time on the DL. All three would be locks if it were defense only.

Jimmy Buffett has put on some pounds since the last time I saw him. Wow.

The White Sox

They should receive the harshest penalty MLB can handout. I want a forfeiture of their first 3 draft picks for 2017, the first 2 for 2018, and their 1st in 2019 with corresponding financial penalties. Their 1st round draft pick should go to the Astros in 2017 with the rest distributed to the teams in the NL Central. I horsefeathering hate the Cardinals with a white hot passion. I hate everything about the from their stupid red uniforms to their smug, stupid, hillbilly fans all wearing red to the game. They're all a bunch of horsefeathers- nuts. However as much as it pains me to write, they've made some pretty good moves this offseason and I expect them to be right there with the Cubs.

? you watched part of every episode and sasha grey was in all of them? I messed up. I thought it was worst TV show you've ever seen.

Walking Dead up to season 4

Cam Robinson is a top 10ish type guy, but has some character concerns. If McGlinchey comes out(to my knowledge he's still uncommitted), he's another guy that's top 10-15. But those are likely the only 2 1st Rounders. If I were the Bears I'd still take him at the 3.

I do not want the to trade Eloy. I think that would be a huge mistake. I can't believe the put him out there for Chapman.

What are they planning to do for CF?

Those slippers are kick ass.

it's sooooo much better. He's balanced. His swing is more compact. He has his ass under his upper body. His weight transfer looks much better. He's not wrapping his upper arm. It looks good.

Basically how I feel He had every right to try to leverage his position as a STH into profit and the Cubs had every right to decide it was too much and rightfully take their tickets back. A season ticket holder does not have the right to leverage their position. I seriously do not understand this mentality. You have no right resell tickets.

I would like to personally thank all the benevolent scalp...er, I mean "brokers" for buying up all those tickets to Cubs games for us regular fans and then selling them for above face value. What a wonderful service they are providing.

There are about 41,300 seats at Wrigley Field. People were willing to pay $3,500 for crappy upper level seats to Game 1. The scarcity of tickets relative to the demand for them is what dictated those prices. I don't know what the actual number of fans who wanted to attend one of the games was. I'm guessing it was easily over a million, though. Regardless, it turns out that the evil scalpers may have provided a way for some of these fans to attend the first WS in 71 years who would otherwise be locked out. The suggestion that brokers don't make otherwise-unavailable tickets available to fans doesn't pass the laugh test. That's precisely what they do, and why people are willing to pay the high prices. Unless you think there's some sort of scalper monopoly cartel out there. Hmm.... You mother horsefeathering moron.