sbrylski

And better. And some clubs are still K adverse. Many teams probably view the two as close to a push, but there's no doubt there are also multiple teams that would prefer Fielder to Dunn by a sizable margin.

You keep saying this. I think it is about fine time you back it up with some stats. Re: Observational analysis is fickle, people see different things and have selective memories. Exhibited above... Both people watched a majority of the same games and saw a majority of the same plays. Their conclusions: FTJ - "Weeks is terrible defensively." Ennder - "Weeks is improving."

Well darn. Thanks for the help guys.

Also, I would have to assume that this "stud" pitcher would be available for arby in the very near future. What then? Do we wring our hands again and go "Oh No", we better trade him before he lose him to free agency? Where does the cycle end? Money is not the motivation. The motivation is finding a way to add another SP. Keeping the increase in payroll to a minimum is just a limiting factor. A few years from now, we could possibly give the young pitcher Suppan's money. And who cares if that's the cycle? If we get better each time while keeping the payroll stagnant, its a successful strategy.

The fact your EFC may have changed from your 07-08 FAFSA to your 08-09 FAFSA is the most likely cause, as the higher your EFC the more it will affect your "need" calculations and thus your eligibility to receive subsidized loans. If your need is lower than the amount of subsidized loans you can receive, you are eligible to receive the remainder as unsubsidized loans. This explanation would mean my need in spring of 2008 was higher than the maximum I could receive, hence the awarding of a complete subsidized loan. And then the following semester, my need bottomed out to zero, hence the offering of a complete unsubsidized loan. The only thing that changed between these two semesters was that my sister graduated. I was at the same school with the same amount of tuition, while incomes and taxes for both me and my parents had no significant changes (IIRC.) I guess that makes sense, its just more drastic of a change than I expected.

Huh? He didn't lose velocity on any of his pitches. And the beneficial environment in which he surrendered 7 of his 8 home runs last season? His FB rate actually went down last season - so his HR totals seem fluky. His road ERA has been better in 5 of the last 6 seasons: http://www.fangraphs.com/graphs/1035_P_season__ha_mini_0_20080930.png *Red is home, blue is road EDIT: I'm not saying I disagree that the stadium change will negatively effect him, it will. I think a regression of his HR/FB rate back to his career line will outweigh the park change effects.

Did the guy die by drowning?

This is pretty shocking. Honestly, its not really sinking in for me. It'll hit me when I hear his replacement on the radio though.

Think about who designs the keyboard. Programmers. /smart ass-ness

It's just a weird picture. He looks normal in any other pic of him. I'd guess its an older photo. Brett and his sister: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/dayart/20080715/450canadians_picture.jpg He looks a decade older there.

Getting tired of all the misinformation... From the CBA, page 74: This year there are 29 Type A players this year and 38 Type B players, for a total of 67. (Link to list from US Today) That means we are in the range of "Club quotas should be increased accordingly." It appears that the quota increases by one each time the number of ranked free agents increase by 24, after the initial 1-14 range. That would mean this year the number of free agents fall into the 63 to 86 range, which would correspond to a total of 4 ranked free agents (A or B) allowed to be signed by each team. Even if it doesn't simply increase by 24 player intervals, I think its safe to assume 67 is close enough to the top of the 39-62 range that the quota would only be increased by one. It appears provision B overrides A, so when the number of Type A and B free agents lost by a club exceeds the league wide team quotas, the number of free agents that team lost becomes their quota. The Yankees lost three ranked free agents this offseason (LINK): Bobby Abreu - Type A Andy Pettite - Type A Ivan Rodriguez - Type B Mussina retired, so he is not considered losing a free agent. My conclusion is that the Yankees (and any other team who have not lost more than 4 ranked free agents) is allowed to sign 4 total free agents ranked either Type A or Type B. Teixeira, Sabathia, and Burnett, all Type A's, are the three the Yankees have signed already (LINK). They are able to sign one more, including Ben Sheets. EDIT: Hang on, my count of how many Type A and Type B free agents are on the market this season may be off. I've seen three lists, all have a different number. Can anyone help? Keith Law claims as many as 93, which seems too high, and also says that would put the quota at 8 - LINK EDIT2: I think its pretty safe to say its 4 or higher and the Yankees can definitely go after Sheets if they were inclined.

I say we switch it to his sister. Ain't half bad!

My sister did graduate last spring, but the FAFSA contribution actually increased both in amount and in percentage of tuition this fall. Her graduation did coincide with the switch from 100% subsidized to 100% unsubsidized, so that might explain that.

Do you ever use age in your equation? 4 years from now, when Jeffress is Cody's age, we could pull him from the big league rotation, send him to Brevard County, and see how many no-hitters he throws. You often ignore age and tools, so I would like to ask, what players have you touted in the past have has success that makes you believe in your ranking system? Just want to throw my support behind this opinion. There's just no way that Cody is more likely to play in the majors, play in the majors with the Brewers, or play longer or have more success than Jeffress and probably a few other guys. I think Clancy's just ranking them to be different, to totally ignore age is just bad science.

I'm going through my financial aid records, and something seems odd to me. I was getting some unsubsidized loan money and some unsubsidized loan money for three semesters, which makes sense. Then I transferred to UW-Madison. My first semester I received 100% of my loan money subsidized. My second and third semesters I have received 100% of my loan money unsubsidized. Just curious as to why it switches drastically like that. I mean, why would I have a semester with zero unsubsidized aid and then following all of it is unsubsidized? I figured it would be more balanced, or at least a smoother transition away from subsidized loans.

Yes! I am the first to say Happy New Year when it is indeed the New Year! Happy New Year!

Clancy's an outlier, I say we toss his opinion out. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

Greinke v Sanchez: http://www.fangraphs.com/graphs/7507_1943_P_cseason_full_0_20080930.png http://www.fangraphs.com/graphs/7507_1943_P_cseason_full_3_20080930.png And Greinke is a year younger. He's easily the better pitcher. If you are talking about the net value of a trade, maybe targeting Sanchez is better. And not that I don't like Sanchez, but if anyone was asked if they'd prefer him or Greinke on their team, it should be Greinke hands down.

For just about any team, the reason they aren't competitive is because of lack of talent in the FO, not the amount of money they spend. The Yankees have actually been pretty dumb with their money - yet they are still competitive. Any team with a great FO may be able to be competitive, but the fact that some teams can have awful FOs and still be competitive year in and year out is pretty blatant competitive imbalance.

I guess I wouldn't see that as necessary. The value basically describes how much that player should make on the open market, and that value is the same for each team (plus and minus perhaps some teams who stink having to overpay for a player). I think the value YOU describe is important as well, but should be a separate figure.(I feel the nested quote is warranted) I've actually read a study that adjusts these numbers for each team's financial capabilities. So it can be viewed market dependent. I'll see if I can find the study. EDIT: LINK, its actually from Fangraphs.

One of the most interesting characters ever.

Should I get OOTP 9 for cheap or will there be an OOTP 10 coming out shortly after New Year's that I should just be patient and wait for? New versions typically come out every year in April/May, I believe. Version 10 doesn't seem close to ready yet, looks like they're still taking suggestions on the forum. I'd take the deal.

Can you provide a link to the report?

Very much. Especially if you get really immersed in your league. You can do really interesting things.

I was thinking about trying out a computer GM sim baseball game. Is OOTP widely considered the best baseball management game? Are there any really close alternatives that are free? I'm looking for a game that you can just play by yourself, without having to compete with other people online. Thanks. It probably depends on what you're exactly looking to do. For the most realism and customization, especially for historical or historical fiction simming, OOTP is way better, but can be a bit tedious in order to offer all its features. Mogul, though I haven't played in a few versions, is definitely the simpler of the two, but lacks simple things like player fatigue. Their simulation model is also a bit querky, I hear, much more video game baseball like. OOTP's isn't perfect yet, but its much more realistic. You can play either game solo. If you're just looking for something to take a break with, go Mogul, but if you want immersion and realism, go OOTP. EDIT: And btw, OOTP 9 (most recent version) is selling for just $25 until January 1st - a $15 dollar discount. EDIT 2: In short, yes, OOTP is considered the cream of the crop.