ORS

It seems as if HOSN is suggesting it's perfectly fair to use the same rate for the determination of relative "cheating" on taxes, but it's not fair that dissimilar income levels are taxed at the same rate. Can't have it both ways.

He didn't get better as the year progressed. He had a rough April, was good May-July, but his Aug/Sep performance was about the same line as his season line. Season Splits

Interesting move by Westbrook with 2:10 left in the game. He breaks through the secondary and is headed toward the endzone in a 10-6 game, which would have put Philly up 17-6. He kneels at the 1. Dallas has no TOs, so Philly can run the clock out. Very heady, selfless thing to do, and the right thing. However, at this time in the fantasy season, I wonder how many Westbrook owners in the playoffs are cursing him right now.

And he needs to do it without throwing to Owens to help you. APete could always go off. Not ovah till it's ovah.

I can see Romo costing the 'Boys their SB hopes this year. He's good, he's exciting, but he'll always have the potential for this type of game. Good, not elite.

Weather update. The CLE/BUF game is a mess. What looked like bad weather for Joes' QB has turned out playable, and Cape's QB is in a whitewash. Be interesting to see how that plays out.

Good idea for the thread. NE D scores for Joes, and the weather looks playable. Not good for Cape.

Good point about debate format, now if you'll counter my first point, we can get to the give and take. Let's look at the timeline. I make the point that the outcome of failure in either stat is about the same (backed up by the lin wts), and contend allowing more marginal hits than errors is worse. The "counter" point is some blather about what you think ZR stats measure and are good for, a hypothetical that makes you unconfortable for zone rating stats, and ends with how F% is just your preference and we should leave it at that. Note, none of this addresses my original point. We go back and forth clarifying our positions. I contend there is a data gap. Somehow, this is a reiteration of my value point. You call me on my debate tactics and call me stubborn. I'll start with your hypotheticals. You are right, an error made OOZ doesn't show up in the RZR/OOZ data. I don't think that is of significant consequence for a couple of reasons. One, if a guy is playing straight (positioning), it's unlikely he gets credited with an error because OOZ means he's attempting at play that the typical fielder turns into an out less than 50% of the time. Two, we still have the error count to look at when comparing players, so while the first rate stat I'd look at would be RZR, I'd supplement that with F% when RZR performance is close. If the discussion were about the flaw of ZR based stats, and I was defending their perfection, you'd be doing swimmingly. Unfortunately, I, nor anyone else here, has lauded their perfection and have acknowledged they are flawed. What you've failed to do is demonstrate, other than saying it's your opinion, why the flaws of ZR based stats outweigh the flaws of fielding percentage. Give me something. If it's going to be another hypothetical, at least give me some rudimentary estimate of frequency. As for being stubborn, that had me laughing. Nobody on this site or in the field of baseball statistical study values that archaic stat over ZR based stats. None. And in light of compelling analytical (ie not "it's just my opinion") data, you refuse to acknowledge you may be wrong. Gee, I wonder what's causing this?

What about replacing the interlocking NY with an asterisk? Kind of already looks like one.

I think we should cut 26 and 2212 some slack. No offense to them, but they are just kids. I realize they are either college age or just about there, but that's close enough. They haven't matured enough to become cynical enough to stop viewing these guys as their "heros", so it's got to be pretty tough for them because this is probably the first step in the process of getting there. Given enough time, they'll get to the point where nothing about their former "heros" will surprise them and they won't waste time trying to defend them. Jacko, he's a lost cause (I kid, I kid).

It's pretty easy, he wouldn't be in the report if he had a prescription. HGH isn't prescribed to aid in the healing process. It's typically only prescribed for people with an HGH deficiency. I don't "know" anything. I just remember some of the press around the time he left suggested his wife wanted him closer to home because Andy had an affinity for NY nightlife and the ladies. Could be true, could be speculation, but it's there.

What is a fielder trying to do? Make outs. The stat you prefer, in the case of a 3B, ignores about 30% of the balls the have an opportunity to turn into outs and only tells you about the fielder's failure on about 5% of them. The other stat, mind you I said RZR and OOZ are a paired stat so continuing to state that RZR is more meaningful only when you look at OOZ makes it look like you have a severe reading comprehension deficiency, RZR/OOZ ignores none of these. I can't state it any clearer than that. You'd rather look at 70% data over 100%. Indefensible.

It's true that the increase in revenues from 3 to 6 billion over the duration of Manny's contract has made his contract more managable. That said, I wonder if this steroid issue is going to shake fan interest. They won't lose the core fans, but it's the casual fans that they picked up over the last 7 years that lead to the gains. Maybe some of them have been converted to die-hards, but I suspect they'll lose some, and more importantly, gain fewer and fewer. That means higher prices for us who stick around to support the spending. Not sure I'm onboard for that.

If Gagne was still taking the junk, then you have to wonder who got ripped off more, the Sox, or him?

An Arod/Jose connection does exist. Jose is Cuban, grew up in Miami's Cuban community, and lives there now. That's where Arod lives offseason. If anyone knows the steroid market in Miami, my guess is Jose is the guy, hell it wouldn't surprise me if he ran it. I'm not going to point any fingers now because I don't trust the guy and it wouldn't surprise me if he's posturing to sell more books, but it's no stretch to connect the two.

Another thing that has gone unmentioned in the selection of Mitchell is that you need to ask the question, why did baseball conduct the investigation in the first place? Any answer of public sentiment or "right thing" to do is wrong, IMO. They don't want Congress snooping around in their business. So, what better way to appease Congress than to enlist one of their own? They were seeking a degree of Congressional confidence in this investigation, so Selig tapped his friend Mitchell on the shoulder for the job.

He had no subpoena power. The MLBPA advised players, current and former, not to talk to him. How do you know he didn't attempt to do these things? It isn't a report of every day, productive or not. There are no line items "Talked to Chicago trainer today, he knows nothing, off to lunch". It's a report of his findings, not a diary.

Bingo! I don't care if he questioned every trainer who ever worked for every team. He had nothing on anyone outside those two, he had no subpoena power, and he would have received no information.

Alright, since you want to continue to question how hard he looked at the Sox, I want you to answer a question. Where was he supposed to look?

First you are OK with Mitchell until the list came out. You don't like the list, so there's a problem. When called on how that doesn't make sense, you switch and quote Howard Bryant stating you didn't like this from the start. First you insinuate there was a deliberate attempt to not name Sox. Then it's a "subconscious" effect preventing him from looking for Boston players. An hour later, he's biased because no current Sox are on the list (that suggests deliberate). Make up your mind, dude. EDIT: Why so sensitive to the snide remarks? You seem to have no problem making them about Mitchell's report. I guess you just don't like them coming back the other way. Typical.

While they don't take as long as QBs to ripen, linemen take a little time to become studs. I think the same patience will help with Jarvis Moss and Gaines Adams.

Great, now I need to define words for you in order to bring you up to speed. My use of the word "consider" for what RZR does with OOZ plays is exactly right. consider - 1. to think carefully about, esp. in order to make a decision; contemplate; reflect on: He considered the cost before buying the new car. 2. to regard as or deem to be: I consider the story improbable. 3. to think, believe, or suppose: We consider his reply unsatisfactory. 4. to bear in mind; make allowance for: The arrest was justified if you consider his disorderly behavior. 5. to pay attention to; regard: He considered the man for some time before speaking to him. 6. to regard with respect, thoughtfulness, honor, etc.; esteem. 7. to think about (something that one might do, accept, buy, etc.): to consider a job in Guatemala. 8. Obsolete. to view attentively; scrutinize. 9. Obsolete. to recompense or remunerate. –verb (used without object) 10. to think deliberately or carefully; reflect. 11. to view carefully or thoughtfully Considers, not includes. RZR "considers" that some plays in the raw data might not be "in zone". ZR does no such "consideration", and anything a player makes a play on is counted "in zone". I never claimed RZR "included" OOZ plays in the result. Ok, now that we are done with that, let's address the last paragraph. First of all, since RZR is an improvement on ZR, and the improvement is that OOZ plays are isolated as a counted stat and eliminated from the ZR calculation, then I think it would naturally follow that RZR/OOZ are paired stats. I apologize for assuming that was common sense. Finally, this discussion isn't about the absolute value of RZR in the defensive metric spectrum. No, this is about the merit of RZR relative to F%, which, in the discussion of Lowell, you identified as a more meaningful stat. If you are willing to come back from that claim in light of statistical data that shows that position to be untenable, then we can end this.