Dan Gould

Well, I am sure that it is little consolation to Sabathia or tribe fans that he got the Cy Young over Beckett. I'm sure Beckett is happier with the ring, anyway. But what I can't understand is how comfortable his lead was over Beckett. He had 1 fewer wins and the same number of losses, a rather small difference in ERA - .06, and a substantial lead in innings pitched, 40, at least partially explained by Beckett's "avulsion" in June. When you consider the difference in innings, Beckett actually outperformed Sabathia in Ks (8.72 per nine innings to 7.8). Only in strikeout to walk ratio does Sabathia have a substantial lead, 5.65 to 4.85. So how does he get 19 of 28 first place votes and win 119-86?? Surely he is lucky that the post-season doesn't enter into the voting, because when you compare his performance to Beckett's and add in the regular season, its not even close. Honestly, in my opinion, this vote ought to have been as close as the NL RoY and its ridiculous if Sabathia won based on 40 more innings. Josh was robbed!

So Chris, how was 1959-60 for ya? And I've always wondered about this sort of thing - does the priest actually mention every single name, or do they say something like "everyone listed in this here book"? Could really make that mass take forever if they get enough people signed up.

I think that Ron has it right, and that some people see rare OOP titles listed by Caiman and then get ticked off when they don't show up when the reality is that the listing should be taken with a grain of salt. Take the plunge, hope you get a shipping confirmation in a week or so or else cancel. Its not that difficult. Not saying that is the sole cause of the anger expressed at Caiman, but it seems to be a big part of it.

Well, it really looked like Posada was going to hear other team's offers but that threat scared the Yanks into acquiescing to a huge four year, 52+ million dollar contract. He certainly picked the right year to have a career year, but four years at that price to a catcher who will turn 40 before the contract expires is pretty risky. And now the Yanks are looking at probably the same four year deal for Mariano, who will be 42 when that runs out! I don't think they've truly learned yet what it means to have an old roster, and now with Mike Lowell able to listen to offers from other teams, it will be interesting to see how the Yankees approach him. Will they give him four or even five years to snatch him away? Will they regret it as quickly as they regretted Damon's contract? That roster could still be filled with aging, declining stars three years from now, especially if they keep Matsui. I have to say I am less than thrilled that Lowell is reportedly holding out for top dollar/years. Apparently the Red Sox have offered three years but his advisors are sure they can get four on the market. Seems to me that if he really wants to stay, a three year deal ought to be enough, especially since he's never struck me as having the Pedro Martinez Diva gene. And any buyer should beware: Lowell hit .373 at Fenway, which means he hit around .270 on the road. Can anyone expect him to duplicate his .320/120 RBI season if he's not hitting in the cozy confines? Even though it leaves open the possibility of an A-Rod signing, I have confidence that Theo will do the right thing if he has to replace his third baseman, even if that third baseman goes to the Yankees.

That's how I feel about Joe Morgan! I don't understand why some here dislike him so. Check out the link someone posted for aloc - http://www.firejoemorgan.com and read the postings about Joe, particularly how he dissects Joe's 'chat sessions' on espn.com and the various stupid things he says on TV. It all boils down to one thing: Joe is the lead baseball analyst for ESPN but he's incapable of saying anything worthy of the title "analyst".

Well, MLB's week of award announcements has started off with Dustin Pedroia running away with the AL Rookie of the Year while Ryan Braun got the nod in the NL by a scant two votes over Tulowitsky. I think they got it right in the NL, as Braun didn't even get called up til May 25th yet finished with 34 homers and 97 RBI while hitting .324. The fact that he's a butcher in the hot corner (26 errors) doesn't eliminate the fact he had tremendous numbers in only four months of the season. Meanwhile, I am even more impressed with Pedroia's performance in the post-season, as it was revealed last week that he broke his hamate bone in his hand early in September but with a few adjustments to his grip, continued to play. That's the same injury that took Wily Mo Pena out of the lineup in 2006, yet the kid not only continued to play but hit some critical home runs in the post-season with the injury. He's almost as tough as his mouth is. And there was an article in the Globe about the 2008 projections book that Bill James and cohorts produces. He's got Pedroia hitting .300 with 40 doubles next year, and Ellsbury at .320 with 42 stolen bases. To his credit, his projections were almost right on the money for Youkilis and Varitek last year, so take it as you wish. But the 2007 stat that surprised me the most was his Batting Average Plus Slugging on Pitches Out of the Zone: Pedroia actually beat out notorious hacker Vlad Guerrero, .664 to .662!

Worst announcers have to be Joe Morgan Tim McCarver Dwayne Staats for worst voice (total "pukey" announcer) though I have no idea where he works these days Bob Griese is pretty bad for NCAA, and not only because he never gives any proper credit to Florida State. I can't identify any favorites because like others, I tend to play music or even watch in silence instead of listening to the commentary. Sometimes that leads to confusion because you miss something important when a play is being reviewed but that's well worth the much more pleasant sounds of good music or blissful silence.

I dig House, though people keep telling me its not as good as it was at the beginning. For those more interested in the TV show than the "music", here's a great site that tells you if they got the medicine right for each show: http://www.politedissent.com/house_pd.html

Are you referring to embracing CDs or embracing downloads? As to Daniel's comments, I suspect he is right, that the "industry" will have much of a role in the future. The problem, in my opinion, is that the "industry" does play a role (for better or for worse) in its power to promote acts "to the next level". A model wherein a lot of musicians are little atomized individuals selling their own music - it might be a better deal for the musician but how will these musicians get notice and attention? Again, its for better or for worse, but the majors choose acts to promote, and use their power of promotion to make the music lover aware of them, particularly through articles in magazines like DB that are barely disguised promo pieces. I'm not at all sure how, outside of the home bases of these artists, people will come to be aware of these musicians that are acting as completely independent agents. Maybe one answer will be artists "seeding" (in a different sense than its currently used) bit-torrent sites with live recordings as a way to get themselves heard and direct those people who do want to pay for music to their site for more. As an example, if Organissimo had formed and started getting attention ten years earlier, where might they be now? Maybe BN, in more flush times, takes notice and signs them - then Jim, Joe and Randy would be in a completely different place now, instead of looking at stacks of unsold CDs and $2000 debt. (Of course, we'd be in a different place, too, because BN wouldn't appreciate what people were saying about Norah on Organissimo's BB. )

He is on a few radio broadcasts that are in circulation among collectors, I think, but that probably doesn't help you.

Well, IMHO, the Cowboys showed that they are the class of the conference and should be odds-on favorites to win the conference championship and go to the super bowl. And like Paul says, I think it could be a good 'un, against NE or Indy.

The one located in my avatar and sig. He just had a zany run with his sister Gracie and then came inside to con me into giving him a cookie (he comes over to you, puts his front paws on your chair and stairs deeply into your eyes, then when he is sure he has your attention, he walks over to where he knows the treats are kept, looks up at the counter and then back at you - and if you don't give him what he wants, he'll repeat those exact steps until you do).

Emmitt is a proud graduate of the University of Florida, so it can hardly be held against him that he's functionally illiterate.

Well, Mr. Deeley got his wish as the Phils re-signed JC Romero. I gotta say though that I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Phils regret giving him a three year deal (plus an option year) for 12 million before its all over. This is a guy who took the one year deal with the Red Sox in order to re-establish his worth in the market. He's been on a downslide for a couple of years at least, mostly because he lost his feel for the strike zone. Rewarding three good months by paying him four million a year for three years is nuts. I like the Phils and hope they contend next year but I wouldn't be surprised if the fans are screaming for Romero's head sometime in 2008, certainly by 2009.

:party:

Can't be his "soul justification", because despite his apparent affection for Gene Harris, Dan is quite short of soul. I'm outta here, and fuck you very much.

Naive I think in large measure this has already been accomplsihed. Surely you do not suggest that the ruling class are stupid enough to spell it out for you directly! You really will not have to live so very long. A normal lifespan should do it. If its already been accomplished in large measure, please spell out how. Please identify the people who are being prevented from becoming rich. Please explain how the super-rich are preventing the merely well-off from becoming affluent. Then I will point to Google's IPO, the number of extremely wealthy people it created, and say that you are the stupid one.

I have to admit I got a kick out of learning how she got her nickname.

Up for Clem, (especially since the 'Retha discussion died out) who never told me where he thinks Jimmy McCracklin fits in the soul genre. I'm also now curious about Little Junior Parker, as I just started listening to three different LP comps of his Duke recordings ... smooth but powerful vocals the way label-mate (and touring partner) Bobby Bland was - and really really great! Speaking of Bland, I also just found a Japanese CD of two of his Duke LPs - almost no overlap with "Two Steps From The Blues" but I'd never heard his cover (there's that word again) of Fulson's "Reconsider Baby" but it struck me as an all-time great recording.

Wait a minute. Have you ever known a rich person who has refused to get richer because his investment might make someone else rich, too? You agree that in the future, rich people will not use their money to make more money, because they will dilute their power? After all, according to Edward, This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever read on this forum, but I can only say that I hope I live long enough to see the rise of the plutocracy because I can't wait to see how they are going to re-write the Constitution and most of the laws to ensure that no one else can get rich and powerful like them. There. Now I am done, and the rest of the liberals can make as much fun as they want. You think I have a fucked up view of the world, but like I said, we have a philosophic difference, and now I know that it is so immense that I cannot believe that I am communicating with intelligent, educated human beings, Edward's apparent knowledge of tax law notwithstanding. What are you talking about? How, exactly, are you attributing these ideas to me? It is right there directly below the spot in my post that you stopped quoting! I've bolded it above, but here it is again. You said it, pal. Plutocrats won't "share power with any newcomer" and therefore "people with big ideas won't find capital for their ventures". Plutocrats will sit on their money because they'd rather preserve their power than expand their fortunes.

Wait a minute. Have you ever known a rich person who has refused to get richer because his investment might make someone else rich, too? You agree that in the future, rich people will not use their money to make more money, because they will dilute their power? After all, according to Edward, This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever read on this forum, but I can only say that I hope I live long enough to see the rise of the plutocracy because I can't wait to see how they are going to re-write the Constitution and most of the laws to ensure that no one else can get rich and powerful like them. There. Now I am done, and the rest of the liberals can make as much fun as they want. You think I have a fucked up view of the world, but like I said, we have a philosophic difference, and now I know that it is so immense that I cannot believe that I am communicating with intelligent, educated human beings, Edward's apparent knowledge of tax law notwithstanding.

I'm not going to get into it with you, and I should not have replied in the first place as any discussion of tax policy obviously belongs in the Political Forum, which I chose to ignore a long time ago. But I will leave you with this: On the one hand you continue to assert that it is the estate tax that keeps us from a "plutocracy" yet at the same time, you say that "estate planning and charitable contributions can be used to avoid paying any taxes to the government." The implications of your argument is that only stupid rich people pay anything in Estate Taxes, but its an estate tax that keeps us from a plutocracy. To which I can only say Jim, please move this thread, and Guy, please put a little more thought into where you post these articles.

Actually, they predict very well. Its called Trend Analysis, and "stat heads" who looked at Zito's post-2002 numbers used it to predict that he'd have a mediocre season. He's been trending in the wrong direction for years, and it continued. So statistics do predict pretty well. The only possible non-statistical element I can think of that an agent would use is how promotable special players are, such as A-Rod, David Ortiz, and other "face of the franchise" types. That is a value that a player has that is separate (though related) to his statistics. But its a lot more tangible and definable than "heart of a champion" or "determination". Actually, team W-L can be related to individual stats, and this relates to your statement above that "statistics ... don't predict well." You see, Baseball Prospectus used PECOTA, an acronym for Player Empirical Comparison and Optimization Test Algorithm, to predict player as well as team performances. I am unable to find the page that predicted cumulative stats and W-L records for every team, but this page details the fact that PECOTA predicted that the Chicago White Sox would go 72-90 this season. What was their record again? Oh yeah. 72-90. So, individual stats can be related to team W-L records, and in point of fact, here is yet another example where statistics made damn good predictions.

I hardly give a shit what tax policy is in the rest of the developed world, which even now continues to lag behind the U.S. in economic growth. You on the other hand, I am sure would like to see a wholesale adoption of other country's tax policies, starting with gasoline tax (let's see how the economy runs on $8 a gallon gas instead of $3) and confiscatory taxes on the wealthy. And the wealthy paid an enormous amount of their "bounty" from the society and government in the taxes paid while they were making their fortunes. This is about taxing their fortunes AGAIN, after they've been earned and taxed before. We have a fundamental philosophic agreement. I don't believe that confiscatory taxes for the purposes of redistribution of wealth is good policy. Save me from the Krugman/Edwards warmed over pile of crap. Joining the "elite plutocracy" will be as hard as it is to come up with a big idea for something that people really want, or some service that is needed but is not provided. And what the hell does estate tax have to do with the ability of people to get rich, or for wealthy people to become super-wealthy? Or are the wealthy just waiting for the opportunity to have no worries about the estate tax, so that they can pull that drawbridge up behind them and "keep" other people from becoming wealthy? Then why does the estate tax matter? See your first statement - you can't have it both ways, either the estate tax is saving us from an "elite plutocracy" or the wealthy tax plan their way out of it anyway, in which case it has no impact anyway.

As for the weekend, nothing special planned, and no day off Monday either. I would like to start digging into recent blues LP purchases though. Got three different Junior Parker comps and a Guitar Slim (had no idea Brother Ray played and arranged one of his big hits). In between those it will be the FSU-VA Tech game on Saturday and the Dallas-Giants game on Sunday.