sbrylski

Drop ceiling or are you drywalling it?

Either the guy is making up a bunch of contrived BS or he is just a tool that doesn't know what the hell he is talking about. Why would you respond to a moderators' post about you using a disallowed phrase and use that same phrase again? C'mon, keep it together.

I'm still making no conclusions either way, but because I had the data handy, I'll again graphically demonstrate Crewin06's point. This time I put the year on the x-axis, for the comparison is between players from the same era and its emphasizing the effects of the lowered mound in 1969, which is marked. http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d175/sbrylski06/aaron3.jpg The player's ages as of 1969: Aaron - 35 Killebrew - 33 Robinson - 33 McCovey - 31 None of them changed parks from 1966 to 1971. Frank Robinson had a little late peak there, but nothing compares to the incredible increase by Hank Aaron - the oldest of the four.

I will take out the trash, and the fence I will mend it, just as soon as the Cubs win the pennant!

I understand the graph, but I think that the HR/PA ratio compared to league average has some issues. Like park factors, you can't assume that everyone will benefit equally from a significant change in the baseball environment. It's not surprising that corner outfielders with power benefitted more from a lower mound than slap hitting middle infielders that didn't have the power to hit HRs no matter how flat the mound was. It should help each player's rate rather equally. Yes, a 30 HR hitter might increase to 40 HR, but a 3 HR hitter should still increase to 4 HR. It appears the slugger got more help, but the slap hitter got the same help in terms of rate. So in comparing the rates, I think we are fairly okay there. It might be a minor concern. And, of course, I think it's a mistake to apply one cause, PEDs, to the increase in HRs in the 1990s. Smaller parks, better scouting, better physical training (apart from steroids), teams willing to play bigger players in the middle infield at the expense of defense, expansion (including a ballpark in Denver), etc. all contributed to the HR explosion. There is no single factor that effected Aaron that did not effect the rest of the league just as much, unless he led the way in an increased level of physical training when he was in his later 30's.

What the heck? This seemed like an appropriate and generally well reasoned debate. This response is kind of childish - I read it as you are quitting before you lose, even though your side probably has a stronger argument. Crewin06 is just trying to present what evidence there might be on Hank Aaron to make a point about how foolish it would be to try and rid the record books of all steroid users. He goes a step further to claim that he believes Aaron did use steroids, but that's not the main point. Here's the essence of Crewin06's argument graphed out. I compared Aaron with Bonds, a "steroid" HR legend, and Mays, a "clean" HR legend. I graphed the ratio of their HR/PA to their league's - in other words how much better they were than the rest of the league. And I marked all the major events in their career that could have altered their numbers. http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d175/sbrylski06/aaron2.jpg This, to me, is far from conclusive either way. But it is interesting to see how much more closely Aaron's line follows Bonds' than it does Mays', though I was a little surprised at how late May's peaked as well. In fact, Aaron's peaks are higher and later than Barry's, and my methodology should remove the effects of the mound being lowered.

Wow, that's terrible. I'd be livid if I was SVP.

I don't have much to comment other than this is a very interesting article. It kind of makes me want to watch some NBA, which is very odd.

Bud Selig knew this was going on while it was going on. His outcry is just talk and completely spineless. It is impossible to erase history. I'd love to see them try; It would be hilarious, meaningless, and a shameful way for Bud to earn his $18 million salary. Speaking of money, if it never happened, Bud, give me mine back. An asterisk is just a small pencil mark that the next generation will have to erase, because they won't really care about why its there. Might as well just leave it off, or put it on if it makes you feel good, who really cares? You're going to look at the record book however you think one should look at the record book regardless of any "official decision" made. Lastly, can someone explain to me why the player's union would fight against steroid testing? The hitters do it to keep up with the pitchers, the pitchers do it to keep up with the hitters, and the next generation of players do it so they can be the next generation of players. Seems like nobody is being helped and everyone is being hurt. If I was a player, on steroids or not, I would be 100% for the elimination of steroids from the game. I wouldn't have to take them anymore, and/or my peers wouldn't have an upper hand on me anymore. The only way players can gain advantage from steroids is if a select few were taking them, and if that's the case why is the union only fighting for those select few?

I was wrong on both counts earlier - I ran the numbers for the NL over the past three seasons. Claim #1 - The leadoff hitter is the most important position in the lineup. I charted the correlation of each teams' lineup spot to their total runs scored per game: http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d175/sbrylski06/CORRSLUP.jpg Looks like, in general, you can take a look at a team's #5 hitter and get a pretty solid handle on how good their offense is. My best guess on why this is: having a good #5 hitter doesn't only mean you have a good #5 hitter, but also great #3 and #4 hitters. Otherwise he'd be hitting higher in the order. Claim #2 - In a given year, leadoff hitters are the most varied in ability. Just focus on the last colum... Standard deviation of OPS by lineup position: 2006 2007 2008 AVG ---- ---- ---- ---- 1st .061 .079 .071 .070 2nd .054 .068 .064 .062 3rd .105 .084 .086 .092 4th .066 .066 .068 .067 5th .068 .062 .043 .058 6th .066 .049 .066 .060 7th .075 .051 .076 .067 8th .051 .049 .073 .058 9th .044 .052 .069 .055 Standard deviation of OBP by lineup position: 2006 2007 2008 AVG ---- ---- ---- ---- 1st .018 .021 .023 .021 2nd .019 .026 .023 .022 3rd .034 .029 .034 .032 4th .024 .029 .024 .026 5th .021 .026 .020 .023 6th .024 .020 .025 .023 7th .024 .022 .025 .024 8th .020 .018 .029 .022 9th .014 .021 .029 .022 #3 hitters are clearly the most varied in ability. Leadoff hitters were the second most varied in OPS over the last three years, but surprised me by being the least varied in OBP. I'd still like to see a good leadoff hitter, and OBP is still clearly the most important skill for a successful #1 hitter to have. But I'll step down from my aggressive statements and go with the opinion that the influence of lineup structure on runs scored is generally overrated.

I somewhat disagree. I feel an increase in ability from the leadoff hitter is more valuable than the same increase in any other batter. The results of the leadoff hitter's AB carry over more than any other position, given that the leadoff hitter bats the most often with zero outs, and bats immediately ahead of the best power hitters in a lineup. Also, ideal leadoff hitters are rather rare. On observation only, it always seems nearly all teams have pretty good 3-4-5 hitters, decent guys hitting 2 and 6, maybe 7, and then a stooge. But leadoff hitters seem to vary more widely in ability. Just speculation here though.

I didn't mean to assume that. I meant to show how we have a similar player who followed an undesirable path very recently, and that has Brewer fans approaching J.J. a bit more cautiously, irrationally or not. In other words, I wasn't answering if I felt J.J. was over- or under- rated, but rather why he might be underrated by some, again, irrationally or not.

He's not a super athletic looking guy (Braun) or a super strong guy (Prince), he wasn't quite expected to be as good of hitter as he has become, and he hasn't done if for all that long. I can see still thinking he was playing a little above his head last year. I think this might be part of your answer too: http://www.fangraphs.com/graphs/3797_1605_SS_aseason_full_8_20080930.png If you slide Hardy's line one age to the right, it nearly perfectly matches Bill Hall's progression the four years before he sucked again. I think people are picking up on that. EDIT: And I did that below to make for easy viewing. http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d175/sbrylski06/JJHALL.jpg

Is that a hotter version of Trenni?? If so, that's saying something. Nice catch, Chris.

His GB% varies quite a bit for a pitcher, quite odd. That'll be the key to his success as long as his K a BB rates stay consisent like they have the past three seasons. Keep that ball down and he should stay in the lowish 4's and it will be a good season and a good signing.

I think Jerod or Jamaal Mixon should play Prince: http://www.exposay.com/celebrity-photos/jerod-mixon-gridiron-gang-los-angeles-premiere-P9cJFf.jpg

I'm going to be applying for some internships. Many employers offer multiple internships, and sometimes more than one is of interest to me. I'll be emailing my resume with a cover letter to apply for the positions, but my question is if its alright to apply for two positions at the same time? And if so, would I write/revise one cover letter/resume for each position or include both positions in one cover letter? Usually they are quite similar jobs.

2 at least, maybe 4 if they run cheap.

Odalis Perez signed a non-guaranteed, minor league contract with the Nationals - LINK. Must have liked it there, you would think someone would give him a major league deal (Hint: maybe the Brewers.) And I'm sure many other teams would have given him a minor league contract.

We still play N64 extensively, but our controllers are now pretty much total crap. I'm looking for slightly used or some recommendations on third party controllers. Anyone around here have any laying around for sale, or know where I could get some good ones? (I mean, besides ebay or craigslist.)

So far my NC10 is an ace. I almost had a heart attack from disappointment when I couldn't get the card reader to work and was about ready to send it back for a replacement, but then I realized I had the Micro SD card adapter switched to lock. Whoops. But yeah, its awesome. While we're talking about technology, DHonks, you're old digital camera is still working for me too! Turned out to be a great purchase for me.

Victory!! And BF.net got a shout out on the bottom of the page! Woot!

I voted for a second time. And with all the work FTJ is putting in collecting beers, I think he deserves a beer. So he can have mine for this one.

Odd, because everywhere I've looked listed more than 62 Type A or B free agents this offseason. EDIT: And the article confirms that, but implies that the wording of the CBA suggests when there are more than 62 it doesn't just go to a quota of 4, but rather the league and the union have the ability to adjust the quota, which did not happen this offseason.

Your working for them? That is cool how did you get that gig and what are you doing for them? Its just a part time role at their main office writing player updates and doing customer service. Also, did the magazine hit stands yet? Its not on store shelves yet, but it is printed and you can purchase it either by calling in or going to this link to order online.