1992casey

My DirecTV rep did better. Just before the game popped on, he said he checked and said about 10 technicians were discussing the issue. No one should ever let them pull out the blackout explanation.

They've been calling it FSWI since Opening Day. No other changes, except that all the RSNs are now so labeled.

I'm talking to someone about the Twins issue, but am on hold waiting for a supervisor. We're apparently not the only ones this is happening to.

Anyone else getting the Twins pregame show on DirecTV's Brewer channel?

I remember Brian posting last summer that if a word's common on TV (PG rated) and the filter doesn't catch it, its occasional and judicious use is OK. I believe 'ass' prompted that comment. I don't have a problem with that. For BCU's benefit, I'll repeat something I suggested in another thread. If you have an inkling that a thread you want to start might be locked, send a private message to a moderator and let him help you frame it, or let him direct you to an appropriate existing thread.

I feel that the in-game threads are somewhat unwieldily, too, but I also remember last year's effort to narrow their scope not working very well. It would seem to me that doing this would require an awful lot of moderator effort and that it's simpler to go with the flow. If I want to go to the in-game thread and look for one thing?like 'was he safe or was he out?'?I can usually get to that point in the game pretty quickly by popping up one of the logs available on the web, then glancing at post times on the various pages of the thread. As far as the locked thread issue, here's what I'd suggest. If you run into a situation like this and you feel that the topic is worth separate discussion, send a private message to a moderator. He could help you frame your topic into a broader scope. It could then be posted to a new thread.

I'm one of those who absolutely hates new windows I don't request. To me, it's unnecessary clutter and should be a user-controlled issue. Also, it's confusing when different web sites have different behaviors. Following a link and having it open in the same tab or window has been the 'expected' browser behavior since browsers were first available. If I want two web pages available simultaneously, I'll opt to open a new tab or window with a right-click. (I almost never use a new window; tabs are so much more handy.)

Flip that channel on. ESPN News tends to repeat a lot.

I should add for deeswan's sake that if you choose to install another browser, IE is still available. As a matter of fact, although people claim to do it, it's fair to say that it can't be uninstalled. One thing you have the option of doing is choosing a 'default' browser. That simply means that if you click links in other applications, you'll see the page in your preferred browser. Multiple browsers are handy for testing purposes. Plus, they're fun to play around in from time to time.

And even worse yet, from what I understand, you can only have one version of IE installed per operating system. There are a kajillion 'flavors' of IE 5 and IE 6 floating around. That has to make thorough testing anywhere from cumbersome to impossible. I get the feeling that the fun is just beginning. Microsoft has acknowledged that web compliance issues have to be addressed. Apparently IE 7 will be forced to 'break' some pages that used to work in IE 6. I also get the impression that Microsoft will be moving away from ActiveX, probably the leading culprit contributing to its security issues. Many websites currently depend on that technology, even though ActiveX capability is generally only available to IE users.

Robin19's comments about Firefox are right on. To an extent, they can actually be applied to just about any browser outside of Internet Explorer. The main issue that Internet Explorer users should be concerned about is security. It's literally a spyware and virus magnet. In its infinite wisdom, Microsoft decided to 'integrate' IE into the Windows operating system. That makes it possible for the user to download, install, and run software?without knowing it?simply by visiting a website. No other browser has this kind of operating system access, so by default a lot of security issues go away. Firefox, for instance, will make a user click on a button and confirm before a download occurs. It won't run an .exe file. That file will just sit on your desktop until you double-click on it. You can still get spyware that way, but at least you have several opportunities to either say 'no' or change your mind. If you find you do have spyware on your system, at least you have half a clue as to what might have caused it to get there. Another really cool thing about Firefox is that its developers are extremely conscientious about dealing with security issues. Microsoft has been known to leave severe or critical security bugs open for a year or more without fixing them. If a bug is significant enough, the Mozilla people will likely take care of business within a few days. Even better, I don't believe a Firefox security bug has ever actually been exploited. Mozilla offers $500 rewards to people who find and identify these bugs. Essentially, these issues are identified and fixed before anyone gets around to putting them into action. The rendering stuff is quite a bit less tangible to the average end user. But it's a big deal to webmasters. Web pages are written with various types of code, including HTML, CSS, and javascript. Web developers should be following World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) standards. The intent of these standards is to provide a degree of assurance that web sites will render about the same way in all browsers. The problem is that IE has a history of mangling HTML, CSS, and javascript. Because its Trident rendering engine is severely outdated, there's a lot of code IE doesn't 'know about'. Worse, there's code that IE simply gets wrong; it sees the code and does the wrong thing with it. Worse yet, Microsoft 'invented' a ton of code that isn't part of any standard and only works in IE. The irony is that Microsoft is a member of the W3C and has a say in the standards, yet hasn't made much effort to implement them. In short, the philosophical issue here revolves around getting a lot of the less competent webmasters to design their pages properly. If they're looking at their server logs and notice an increase in the percentage of 'alternative' browsers visiting their site, they'll be forced to 'expand their horizons' beyond that of IE and Windows.

Are you suggesting that there used to be one or that there ought to be one?

Regional sports network packages will only help people who live in areas with more than one 'home' team, like those in Iowa with its six 'home' teams. Out of market games will be blacked out. The alternatives are Extra Innings (TV) and MLB.TV (internet). They're the packages that show out of market games. EDIT: I don't believe spring training games are subject to blackouts as long as you have the package that includes the game.

I'd say in most cases, we find out whether or not a pitcher has been lucky, although there seem to be some exceptions. Russ has provided strong evidence that Matt Wise might be one of them. Defense should stay consistent from pitcher to pitcher. Assuming the same defenders are playing, the huge majority of pitchers (like close to all of them) will tend to gravitate back toward the overall team BABIP. Glendon Rusch's 2003 would have made him a probable 'bad luck' poster child. At one point, the team was fielding about 60% of the balls put in play while he was on the mound while fielding about 69% of the BIP vs. the staff as a whole. None of this, of course, is meant to suggest that variances in OBP (walks) and SLG (hitting the ball hard) would be meaniingless. ----------------------------------------- Note: BABIP = Batting Average on Balls In Play -----------------------------------------

Do you mean "walks and strikeouts" or do you mean actually counting strikes?

Pitching doesn't have a nice, handy, accurate, all-encompassing stat like hitting has in OPS. It's good to look over several stats and weigh them according, keeping their strengths and weaknesses in mind. What I end up doing is taking pretty much opposite approaches to looking at hitting vs. pitching. With hitting, I start with OPS, then look at how other stats break it down: that's starting with the 'whole' and examining its parts. With pitching, I'll look at all the pieces and try to puzzle them together into a big picture. With a pitcher, I think it's very important to look at anything to do with BBs, Ks, and HRs, getting ratios per innings pitched along with K/BB. There's an excellent chance that those would be the first stats I look at. I'd say that both ERA and WHIP are good stats as long as we give them some breathing room for error. Both can be affected by luck (singles dropping in or not). ERA also fails to account for unearned runs the pitcher could have prevented (those six unearned runs that score after two are out). There's got to be a threshold where we can flex around and and least consider that two ERAs and two WHIPs are relatively equal. I'm not sure what those thresholds should be, though. Maybe about .5 for ERA and .15 for WHIP? There are some alternative stats floating around that are similar to ERA. Some people like straight run average (RA). That's all runs a pitcher has given up, both earned and unearned. DIPS and FIPS attempt to eliminate the effect of defense, calculating the ERA a pitcher 'should' have had based on BBs, Ks, and HRs. Those two stats are really worthy of their own thread.

I fully agree with Brett: I like the "slash stat" (BA/OBP/SLG) idea, too. We can see a picture which includes a batter's walk rate, extra base hit rate (isolated power), and also, of course, his OPS. What OPS offers is accuracy relative to a player's total value. The other numbers tell us about a hitter's qualitative aspects. I also have no problem with stating that OPS overvalues slugging percentage (the idea that a point of OBP is worth more than a point of SLG). The thing is that even with that flaw, OPS stands up as being extremely close accuracy-wise to the stats that attempt to weigh OBP more appropriately and be more inclusive. In short, we're not losing enough to worry much about. If all we're doing is trying to answer the question, "Who's been the better player?" we can often use OPS (or one of the stats to its right on the above graph) and stop there. If two OPSs are close, we're going to want the "slash stats" at our fingertips, too. If we're trying to predict a player's future, we should probably be looking at the "slash stats", then breaking them down into their components even further. In other words, we'd be looking at bits and pieces to answer the ultimate question, "What's going to happen to this player's OPS?" Predictive stats are a different sort of animal and probably deserve a thread of their own. One of the great things about OPS is that it's ready for prime time. Its accuracy has been demonstrated. Unlike stats like RC, its formula is never going to change. It's easy to use (adding is simple). It's hitting the mainstream; even Tom Haudricourt is starting to mention it on occasion. I believe it's time for MLB to make OPS an official stat. None of this would exclude using the stats to the right of OPS on the above graph. They're just more work to compute and somewhat harder to find, while not always offering enough advantage to justify the extra effort. There are times I dig those stats out. RC27 (runs created per 27 outs), for instance, gives us a number that makes sense at a glance as it looks a lot like an ERA. OXS (which is actually a variation of RC) offers the opportunity to do some cool calculations. In short, everything has some kind of limitation, but we can use OPS a lot and manage to stay out of trouble in the process.

Yeah, I said Ryan.

I believe they read mine, too: I heart Brad Radke.

Nice find on the stats bork. (Disclaimer: spring training stat issues fully acknowledged!)

Another e-mail: (Ryan) can talk about baseball and not have to talk about grilled food when he gets in a jam.

Daron just read your e-mail, Brian.

Daron was just referring to a comment Brandan Webb had made. It was something to the effect of: "These are major league hitters; you can't expand the zone. Major league hitters just won't do that." This is one time I wish Bill were in the booth.

I was absolutely certain it was Radke until Daron said 'Dustin'. But I think you're right: it's gotta be Ryan again today. Maybe Dustin is the guy in the booth who looks up stats and stuff.

I agree with Brett when he says that OPS doesn't weigh OBP like it should. But it doesn't affect the OPS to the point where we have to disgard it. Despite the flaw, OPS stacks up quite well. Check out the graph included in Dan Fox's article linked to above: http://www.hardballtimes.com/images/uploads/dlf_ops1.JPG