chasfh

So you're going to raise prices to include taxes, meaning the number on the menu is going to be higher. Bold move. I honestly hope it works well for you because I'm a big fan of that idea.

I don't know where you're getting this one, but I have told nobody anything of the sort.

Would you please share with us the data you have at your disposal proving the US electoral system is besieged with widespread voter fraud necessitating voter ID laws? None of us can find any. Anything you can share on this, we'd appreciate. Thanks. Also, reminder: anecdotes are not data.

No, it doesn't make sense any more than your supposition that agents never have backchannel conversations with teams because they are afraid of getting caught.

I think you're right on this although I would bet that average minor league fielders are a lot closer to average major league fielders than average minor league hitters are to average major league hitters.

I did not realize that. OK. If they could spool that out to tenth of a point, I could see it being paired with something like oRAR to arrive at something close to what I'm looking for. There may be some fatal flaw in this but I'm probably done thinking about this topic for a while.

WAR is replacement based and DRS is average based so that’s a mismatch. It would be closer to say WAA = oWAA + DRS. I dont know whether that would be the answer either.

So much for Dan Campbell, sooper genius.

We're not actually losing the penny—it will still be legal tender—but rounding cash transactions anyway is probably as good an approach as any at this point. Two questions for you: Why are you choosing to round all transactions down instead of to the nearest? Why round $45.59 down to $45.55 instead of up to $45.60? If you start including the sales tax in the menu prices, will you be raising prices six-plus percent to cover it, or will you be mostly absorbing the difference?

In the absence of any evidence that there is widespread voter fraud stemming from lack of ID requirements, I can only conclude that the real reason people insist we must have vote ID is that they want fewer eligible voters to be able to exercise their constitutional and statutory right, because that helps the party they prefer win.

And there's no punishment for him doing it. And that's that. Neither you nor I can envision how he would get disciplined for it, so I'm having trouble seeing what the problem is. Besides, didn’t you say on the page before this that tampering isn't something that's done by GMs and agents? Isn’t that how this whole sidebar started?

I guess you had to be there. 😏😉

In your example, a GM gets fired, he's bitter, Boras makes millions per year, and ... then what? That's where your hypothetical ends.

What I am talking about is not simply the ability to play the position. It's about the value the player is producing on the field with their actual defense. I get the concept of positional adjustment for a CF over a 1B, that the value of a CF's defense is higher than 1B, because the average CF provides more value than an average 1B, and that a typical CF does more with his defense to win games over a season than a typical 1B does with his defense. That reflects value accrued on the field during games. Understood. I also get that when a team is constructing a roster, a CF who provides better defense provides more value to winning to the team with his hitting that's the same as the 1B's and his position-average defense, than a 1B does to the team with his hitting that's the same as the CF's and his position-average defense. IOW, hitting being equal, the difference reflects that estimated value between the two based solely on each player's defense at their respective positions for the purpose of roster construction. Also understood. What I don't get is the idea of looking back at a DH's defensive contribution, as reported on his card by defensive WAR, as being a negative number, because DHs do not contribute to defense at all during games. Since DHs provide zero defense, the numbers for defense on a DH's card should be zero, or blank, or n/a—take your pick. My understanding of the difference is one of measuring actual defensive performance for the purpose of providing an accounting looking back at the games played, which is what I am talking about, versus the estimation of potential defensive performance for the purpose of constructing a roster looking forward before the games are played, which is what you are talking about. Therefore, I am advocating separating the measurement of defensive runs accrued on the field as a result of actual defense performed, as a backward-looking metric, from defensive runs estimated when constructing a roster, as a forward-looking metric. Does that work for you?

If a stat says a DH is -1.7 wins in his defense, I think there's something wrong with the stat. Maybe I'm just too stupid to see the logic of how it accurately measures defensive performance after all, but I'm not the only one.

"Who are you, and what have you done with Marjorie Taylor Greene?"

"My problem" is the DH with the -1.7 defensive WAR, suggesting he's losing 1.7 games for his team with his defense without even picking up a glove. I've explained why over and over, so if you don't understand what I mean by now, you never will, so please let's drop that part of the discussion. I agree that WAA is no more the perfect stat than WAR is. Neither stat is the end all be all for all circumstances at all times. WAR is good for economics and roster construction. WAA is good for comparing player performances on the field, especially among those with a lot of trigger time under their belts. But even if it's a better measure with more playing time, I don't think the idea that a guy with 50 PA could have a better WAA than a guy with 600 is anything like a problem. That kind of thing already happens with WAR right now. There are lots of guys during just the wild card era with 600+ PAs who've had negative WAR, and lots of guys with right around 50 PAs during the same period who've had better than that. All that said, I will not stop using WAR. I just think there might be something out there that better reflects value in areas where WAR is deficient, such as in characterizing a guy who never picks up a glove all season as being -1.7 wins below replacement, as if a freely-available replacement DH would be +1.7 wins better with the glove.

Trump is a living, breathing Get Rich Quick scheme. There’s a certain type of person attracted to working for him, and it’s not a person willing to put in the work to establish a long and respected career in Washington. At least not anymore. I have long been convinced the main reason people glom onto him—including people like Lindsey and Mario who, despite whatever jokes you care to come up, inarguably had respected careers already established in Washington—is that they are making a bet on him winning in the end, propped up by his army of red-hatted flying monkeys, after which their loyalty will result in them getting showered with riches. Trump has made it clear that the only choice for anybody who wants any success in any field, even beyond governing, is either abject loyalty to him, or certain career death (at minimum). What people are going to find out that the only shower they are going to end up with is a Trump golden shower.

Right, and beyond that, you can’t just disengage from him and live your normal quiet life. That would be like disengaging from the Mob/the Outfit and trying to live your normal life.

I don’t recognize this—what’s it from?

How would backchannel discussions of the type we’re speculating on lose Boras every player under contract or future free agent contracts? Meaning, how would that work in practice? Can you help me understand by providing a hypothetical to explain your hypothesis? Boras uses back channel to talk to team about signing player already under contract elsewhere, someone finds out … then what?

Wins Above Retina.

Applying positional adjustment for defense is totally valid, to the degree they can demonstrate, for example, that the average shortstop gains x runs per season and the average first baseman loses y runs per season, just by the nature of how the positions relate to one another during the course of play. But I believe that should apply only to evaluation of play on the field, and not to the economic question of player replacement. After all, if I am studying the performance of Hall of Famers, their level above freely available major leaguers is far less relevant.

Yes, they need to decouple advanced defensive statistical evaluation from the economic-oriented metric that is Wins Above Replacement and create a separate metric that has a baseline of average. I think Wins Above Average (WAA) was supposed to accomplish that, but I don’t know how its calculations comport to WAR, of which I have a basic understanding, and I also don;t know whether or how it includes defense.

This guy was from another planet.