Free speech be damned --- Curt Schilling fired

[King of Queens]

Is this the value of our existence
Should we proclaim with such persistence
Our destiny relies on conscience
Red or blue, what's the difference

-- The Fixx, "Stand or Fall"

[Driver Love]

It's amusing to me that the people who think racism doesn't exist or accuse others of using it as a "weapon," didn't experience systemic, unrelenting racism for hundreds of years.

Hey, another Napoli hr. Vroom vroom!

I was relatively confident someone would flat out make up a point I never made as the basis to their argument (because without making stuff up people cannot argue this point). "hundreds of years ago" or even ONE hundred years ago systemic, institutionalized racism did exist. If you read my post, rather than glazing through it and only picking up "no racism" you would have seen that I clearly said that TODAY in 2016, systemic, institutionalized racism has been eliminated (look up the definitions of those terms). Fringe racism will always exist because humanity if flawed there there will always be mean people or idiots in the world. meanness cannot be legislated out of society (even though some people try to do just that every day now). The facts prove America as a nation is not a systemically racist nation now.

[KJ Duke]

KJ, I was just about to stick a Vote Trump sign in my yard but then I remembered another scale of yours:

NFBC Lifetime Rankings...

7 - KJ Duke (141)
8 - Dave Potts (137)
9 - Lindy Hinkelman (137)
10 - David DiDonato (135)
11 - Shawn Childs (134)

I guess you can say you are the Jon Huntsman of the NFBC.

Also, it seems Hillary lines up in the Hinkelman spot when comparing your two scales. Might want to revise one or the other if you are trying to dissuade Hillary supporters.

You should think again, because that's an expected response from someone that listens to popular opinion instead of looking at data. If you think Lindy is better because he won the overall on a HR in the final inning of the season ... you're not an analyst, you're a headline chaser. It was statistically insignificant, luck. I've won two overall titles in different contests, one in baseball and one in playoff football, neither were that close but still lucky. Finishing first overall on one day versus the prior or the next or one minute to the next, luck. It's like a player winning the batting title by .00001 and popular opinion thinking back and saying, well "X" never won a batting title so he's no Tony Gwynn even if "X" had a higher career batting avg. I created the ranking system because I wanted to know who the best players were based on objective data.

And for now Jupinka is still the Jon Huntsman of the NFBC but Stadtmueller and DuPonte are neck and neck as Gary Johnson and have been closing in. There are a couple guys I could call the Hilary of the NFBC (definitely not Lindy), but I think I'll keep that to myself. And I think we all know who is Trump!

Here is some data if you want to look under the rankings hood:

Player A: Overall ME Pts, % Above Avg
2010 -47%
2011 +74%
2012 +59%
2013 +18%
2014 +62%
2015 -2% • -7%
AVG: +22.4%

Player B:
2010 +33% +13%
2011 +74% +34%
2012 +42% +18%
2013 +39% +11%
2014 +48% +27% +17%
2015 +15% -3%
AVG: +29.3%

[knuckleheads]

KJ, I was just about to stick a Vote Trump sign in my yard but then I remembered another scale of yours:

NFBC Lifetime Rankings...

7 - KJ Duke (141)
8 - Dave Potts (137)
9 - Lindy Hinkelman (137)
10 - David DiDonato (135)
11 - Shawn Childs (134)

I guess you can say you are the Jon Huntsman of the NFBC.

Also, it seems Hillary lines up in the Hinkelman spot when comparing your two scales. Might want to revise one or the other if you are trying to dissuade Hillary supporters.

You should think again, because that's an expected response from someone that listens to popular opinion instead of looking at data. If you think Lindy is better because he won the overall on a HR in the final inning of the season ... you're not an analyst, you're a headline chaser. It was statistically insignificant, luck. I've won two overall titles in different contests, one in baseball and one in playoff football, neither were that close but still lucky. Finishing first overall on one day versus the prior or the next or one minute to the next, luck. It's like a player winning the batting title by .00001 and popular opinion thinking back and saying, well "X" never won a batting title so he's no Tony Gwynn even if "X" had a higher career batting avg. I created the ranking system because I wanted to know who the best players were based on objective data.

And for now Jupinka is still the Jon Huntsman of the NFBC but Stadtmueller and DuPonte are neck and neck as Gary Johnson and have been closing in. There are a couple guys I could call the Hilary of the NFBC (definitely not Lindy), but I think I'll keep that to myself. And I think we all know who is Trump!

Here is some data if you want to look under the rankings hood:

Player A: Overall ME Pts, % Above Avg
2010 -47%
2011 +74%
2012 +59%
2013 +18%
2014 +62%
2015 -2% • -7%
AVG: +22.4%

Player B:
2010 +33% +13%
2011 +74% +34%
2012 +42% +18%
2013 +39% +11%
2014 +48% +27% +17%
2015 +15% -3%
AVG: +29.3%

Analyzing your data, I would choose player A. Generally speaking:

40% above average is finishing top 45 teams = ALSO RAN (1st or 2nd in League)
50% above average is top 20 = REALISTIC SHOT AT THE TITLE (A League Winner)
60% above average is top 10 = OVERALL TITLE CONTENDER (An Overall Money Finisher)

Every time I'd back the guy who has contended for the Overall Title in 3 of his last 6 attempts over the guy who specializes in ALSO RUNNING, and has been a contender ONCE in his last 13 tries.

Psycho-analyzing your data, I'd say the statistician who added the 6th historical year to the sample to swing Player A from a 34% rating to a 22% rating is trying to use data games make a false argument.

[knuckleheads]

Player B is not even the early '90s Buffalo Bills, lovable losers that they were.

Player B is the 2000s Philadelphia Eagles, a perennial playoff team that had one good shot at the title and missed it. (Admittedly, the Eagles may have been better than the Patriots that year).

[Yah Mule]

Not brainwashed, thanks for asking, though. I just recognize a dangerous racist lunatic who is already lowering our status in the eyes of the rest of the world by the success he's enjoyed so far. Not that he doesn't truly represent a significant percentage of the conservative movement in this country. He's simply willing to scream out loud all the racist and misogynist crap that most Republicans prefer to dress up in code words.

I'm just gonna assume you've been suckered by the media because you're just repeating the same charged words designed to manipulate, which I can read in the NYT or outraged twitter accounts of people that skim along the surface of information. I don't want to become the defender of Trump because he says a lot of stupid things, but if you listen to entire interviews of him rather than soundbites and consider what he has accomplished vs what someone like Hilary has accomplished (nothing but destructive, over-reaching govt policies and self-enrichment) ... why exactly do you think she is more "qualified"?

Trump has started and grown businesses (some good, some bad but overall has been very successful), employed, promoted and negotiated with people of all races. Hilary is/was a lawyer, dogged her entire life by questionable back-door political financial deals that made her rich, lying to cover her ass when she made mistakes, creating policies that have been very bad for citizens and very good for her large donors. The only thing she qualifies for is "politician", having the ability to manipulate those who are willing to suspend belief in what she does for what she says.

I'm not actually a big Clinton fan. She's even more militaristic than Obama and she's going to give the banks another eight year handjob. The days of the neo-liberal are coming to an end as well. Young people see right through her and they seem to share a mutual disdain.

I'm not going to make any assumptions about you, KJ. You come off as the typically strident Libertarian - which is always entertaining - but you seem willing to support a person who has demonstrated few core beliefs whatsoever. Since Trump seems to primarily espouse racism and misogyny and doesn't bother providing meaningful content in his economic or domestic policies, maybe some or all of that resonates with you.

[headhunters]

yah- and others- can we have some definitions here: just what is a" typical libertarian'? a "conservative" a "liberal" people throw these labels around and i guess they assume everyone has a definition the same as theirs. i do know Obama at least has the balls to define himself as a 'unapologetic progressive" and saunders is a socialist for sure. the rest are just making it up as they go along- and getting plenty of votes as they go.

[Driver Love]

ya mule,

I am absolutely NOT a Trump fan or supporter. Having said that, can you tell me what he has said that is so "racist?" That word is thrown around way too much now and regularly used as a weapon. As I said, I am no Trump supporter and can outline 50 reasons as to why I wasn't. I keep reading/seeing "Trump is racist!" or "Trump says racist things..." Without many (or any) clear examples to support the claim.

I am curious as to what made you say it in this instance.

[Yah Mule]

ya mule,

I am absolutely NOT a Trump fan or supporter. Having said that, can you tell me what he has said that is so "racist?" That word is thrown around way too much now and regularly used as a weapon. As I said, I am no Trump supporter and can outline 50 reasons as to why I wasn't. I keep reading/seeing "Trump is racist!" or "Trump says racist things..." Without many (or any) clear examples to support the claim.

I am curious as to what made you say it in this instance.

Calling Mexicans rapists and murderers isn't racist? Wanting Muslims to register in a national data base isn't racist? The first time Trump ever made the newspapers was in 1973 when he was illegally harassing and evicting black tenants. If these examples don't seem racist to you, then I don't know what to tell you.

At this point, I think it's actually irresponsible not comparing Trump to Hitler. I deeply enjoy seeing conservatives twist themselves into pretzels defending this impetuous thin-skinned crybaby.

[KJ Duke]

Player B is not even the early '90s Buffalo Bills, lovable losers that they were.

Player B is the 2000s Philadelphia Eagles, a perennial playoff team that had one good shot at the title and missed it. (Admittedly, the Eagles may have been better than the Patriots that year).

Not an unreasonable comparison, but for the record I have one overall title and one near miss in the past 5 years so you're off a bit.

Also for the record, had Player A entered more contests with the same results he clearly would be above Player B in the ranking. Secondly, from 2004-09 Player A was much better than Player B (A was very good, B was below avg).

But here's the thing about your opinion in general - it's from the standpoint of someone trying to make an argument that sounds good, like a fan in a pissing contest, rather than one that is setting up an objective rank system from scratch considering all variables, like an analyst.

The fallacy of your argument is this: If a player's results reflect the accumulation of all of their decisions, is it luck or skill if one player has the fortune of having his good decisions stack up on one team while bad decisions accumulate on the other, while a second player has good decisions and bad decisions spread among his teams? Do you think that's something you can control?

That said, there are many ways to create rankings which will yield different results but this was the best I came up with 7-8 years ago when I was horrible on my own rank system and the methodology has never changed. No one has else has ever had 11 consecutive ME teams above the mean, but if that's chicken feed to you so be it.

A few underlying assumptions regarding the rank system:
•1• It is set up to reward players that demonstrate above-average skill, with the underlying thesis that we cannot control whether our good decisions flow to one team or not ... rather, that good decisions will lead to above avg results and the coordination of those decisions is beyond out control.
•2• It cushions the blow for bad teams (below the mean) by not penalizing them on the assumption that occasionally bad luck will destroy a team beyond managerial repair, so all below-avg teams are treated equally.
•3• More data yields greater certainty (sample size), which is why the system also rewards those who play more rather than less.
•4• Recent results weigh more than past results, as the rank attempts to balance historical record with recent ability.

[KJ Duke]

Calling Mexicans rapists and murderers isn't racist? Wanting Muslims to register in a national data base isn't racist? The first time Trump ever made the newspapers was in 1973 when he was illegally harassing and evicting black tenants. If these examples don't seem racist to you, then I don't know what to tell you.

One, was he evicting black tenants because they were black or because they were bad tenants? Newspapers spin stories to their liking, let's not be naive. If we weren't there we don't know. Also, that was almost 50 years ago. Is he still evicting his black tenants?

Two, the Mexican comment is stupid not necessarily racist.

Three, wanting Muslims to register ... I don't know the details on that, if that's a random thing he said once or a policy idea, all I recall him saying is that he wants a hiatus on new Muslin immigrants "for now" because there are people waging war against us in the name of that religion. So not racist from what I've heard of it.

[KJ Duke]

I'm not actually a big Clinton fan. She's even more militaristic than Obama and she's going to give the banks another eight year handjob. The days of the neo-liberal are coming to an end as well. Young people see right through her and they seem to share a mutual disdain.

I'm not going to make any assumptions about you, KJ. You come off as the typically strident Libertarian - which is always entertaining - but you seem willing to support a person who has demonstrated few core beliefs whatsoever. Since Trump seems to primarily espouse racism and misogyny and doesn't bother providing meaningful content in his economic or domestic policies, maybe some or all of that resonates with you.

There are a few things I like about him (and many I don't), but these are the plusses.

One, I think we need more people from business and economics (especially entrepreneurial not IBM/GS/HP/Fiorna-types) running the government, not lawyers. Lawyers are grossly over-represented in govt, a primary underlying cause of our economic downfall as they think in terms of rules not markets which leads to horrible decision-making.

Two, he has promised to bust the lobbying system which allows large corporations to control legislation ... which I doubt he will do, but if he even makes a tiny dent it is far better than the acceleration in growth that would come under Hilary as it did with Obama.

Three, tax reform and eliminating entire departments of govt. Government is inherently wasteful, corrupt and inefficient, so eliminating as much of it as we can beyond necessity is a huge plus.

I am nearest Libertarian philosophically, but also believe in pragmatism (which I believe Trump has in spite of his running off at the mouth) and as such few of the Libertarian Party candidates have ever held great appeal, other than being better than other bad choices.

[Yah Mule]

yah- and others- can we have some definitions here: just what is a" typical libertarian'? a "conservative" a "liberal" people throw these labels around and i guess they assume everyone has a definition the same as theirs. i do know Obama at least has the balls to define himself as a 'unapologetic progressive" and saunders is a socialist for sure. the rest are just making it up as they go along- and getting plenty of votes as they go.

Obama was the best President of my lifetime, but I don't view him as much of progressive. The people who believe he is flawless give him credit for things like nominating a moderate Supreme Court Justice to put pressure on the Republicans. The truth is Obama likes Merrick Garland and his support of democracy killing decisions like Citizens United.

The country has been shoved so crazily to the right over the last 35 years, that all the definitions are skewed now. Billionaires like the Koch's and Adelson lavish millions on people like Gingrich, Bachmann, Cruz, Santorum and other far right blowhards. They make outlandish comments and then the corporate owned media completely fails to call them out on their nonsense. They just treat it like another side to the issue. Then Democrats are forced to address pure bullshit. That's how we wind up having debates about freaking contraception in 2014.

I know perfectly rational and wonderful people who are conservatives. My brother will cheerfully vote for Trump in November. Mainly because he gets his news from talk radio, which is like pouring uncut stupidity directly into your skull. I also have Libertarian friends. My best friend's son, who is going to Syracuse this fall, is a staunch Libertarian. He even interned for Rand Paul during his strange and doomed campaign. I thought that was great. I have no use for Paul, but I encourage young people to experience as many different points of view as they're able.

I think a lot of the Libertarians I meet are college age males. That might account for the condescending self assurance that seems like a core personality trait in so many of them. We're all just so deluded, you see. This is why they're so comfortable using words like "brainwashed" and "suckered" and "naive" when they're discussing politics with non-Libertarians.

[KJ Duke]

Obama was the best President of my lifetime, but I don't view him as much of progressive.

I owe you an apology, you are brilliant and well-spoken for an eight-year old.

[KJ Duke]

Billionaires like the Koch's and Adelson lavish millions on people like Gingrich, Bachmann, Cruz, Santorum and other far right blowhards. They make outlandish comments and then the corporate owned media completely fails to call them out on their nonsense. They just treat it like another side to the issue. Then Democrats are forced to address pure bullshit.

I agree 100% on the conservative blowhards, but you're living in lala land if you think the liberals/Dems aren't exactly the same.

[swampass]

Obama was the best President of my lifetime, but I don't view him as much of progressive. The people who believe he is flawless give him credit for things like nominating a moderate Supreme Court Justice to put pressure on the Republicans. The truth is Obama likes Merrick Garland and his support of democracy killing decisions like Citizens United.

The country has been shoved so crazily to the right over the last 35 years, that all the definitions are skewed now. Billionaires like the Koch's and Adelson lavish millions on people like Gingrich, Bachmann, Cruz, Santorum and other far right blowhards. They make outlandish comments and then the corporate owned media completely fails to call them out on their nonsense. They just treat it like another side to the issue. Then Democrats are forced to address pure bullshit. That's how we wind up having debates about freaking contraception in 2014.

I know perfectly rational and wonderful people who are conservatives. My brother will cheerfully vote for Trump in November. Mainly because he gets his news from talk radio, which is like pouring uncut stupidity directly into your skull. I also have Libertarian friends. My best friend's son, who is going to Syracuse this fall, is a staunch Libertarian. He even interned for Rand Paul during his strange and doomed campaign. I thought that was great. I have no use for Paul, but I encourage young people to experience as many different points of view as they're able.

I think a lot of the Libertarians I meet are college age males. That might account for the condescending self assurance that seems like a core personality trait in so many of them. We're all just so deluded, you see. This is why they're so comfortable using words like "brainwashed" and "suckered" and "naive" when they're discussing politics with non-Libertarians. [/quote]


Hey.. I had no idea i was playing fantasy baseball vs Al Sharpton. Oh wait... maybe wrong sex.. Rachel Maddow perhaps?
Koch Bros? They aren't even in the top 20 for donors. How about: Tom Steyer, Mike Bloomberg, George Soros, almost every labor union (did you know that the Dept of education has donated over $96 million this year with only $3 going to conservative groups?) and of course the two most powerful groups: Hollywood and the Music Industry. There was just an episode of Quantico in which the right wing extremists yelled "Make America Great Again" before their attack. That influence is priceless.

Please continue. I really love this thread and I have a new found respect for quite a few of you.


edit:

Apologies..
It was the National Education Association that gave $93 million to liberal groups and $3 million to conservatives.
The American Federation of Teachers gave $73 million to liberal groups and only $260k to conservatives.
I have yet to fully vet the site but you can find the info here: https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

[BK METS]

Obama was the best President of my lifetime

Bartolo Colon hit a home run, but this one takes the cake.

[cfolson]

It was the National Education Association that gave $93 million to liberal groups and $3 million to conservatives.
The American Federation of Teachers gave $73 million to liberal groups and only $260k to conservatives.
I have yet to fully vet the site but you can find the info here: https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

The Department of Education vs. the National Education Association is an incredibly big difference. So is $3 vs $3 million.

[Outlaw]

We are all numbers people in one sense playing Fantasy. Trump 73M Clinton 65M in GE. Model been right past 8 GE's within 500K total votes for both candidates. Based on Pop. Growth, Primary results, of age Eligible voters and a few other important factors.

[Edwards Kings]

We are all numbers people in one sense playing Fantasy. Trump 73M Clinton 65M in GE. Model been right past 8 GE's within 500K total votes for both candidates. Based on Pop. Growth, Primary results, of age Eligible voters and a few other important factors.

So, with no comment with regards to outcome, your model predicts record turnout over the approximately 129M votes cast in 2008? Do you really think this slate of candidates will elicit that type of overwhelming response?

[DOUGHBOYS]

Obama was the best President of my lifetime

Over my lifetime, I've 'bent over' many times for doctors as they broke out the dreaded glove.
For the life of me, I couldn't decide which visit was 'the best'.

[Gekko]

Obama was the best President of my lifetime

Over my lifetime, I've 'bent over' many times for doctors as they broke out the dreaded glove.
For the life of me, I couldn't decide which visit was 'the best'.

[headhunters]

yah mule- you are really struggling here. you never answered my question- what do you consider a libertarian? a conservative? I get the feeling you will be way off since you don't consider Obama a progressive. he has given numerous speeches SAYING he is an" unapologetic progressive" the liberal wing of the democratic party is disappointed because he pursued that agenda rather than a liberal one. he defines progressive. if you can't see that- then maybe you are off in defining liberal, conservative and libertarian. keep in mind- and maybe you are unaware of this- many people are- presidents can only submit legislation- congress has to pass it. he has submitted many things that were progressive - congress did not pass it or he knew they wouldn't. (thankfully imo in most cases)

[BK METS]

We are all numbers people in one sense playing Fantasy. Trump 73M Clinton 65M in GE. Model been right past 8 GE's within 500K total votes for both candidates. Based on Pop. Growth, Primary results, of age Eligible voters and a few other important factors.

So, with no comment with regards to outcome, your model predicts record turnout over the approximately 129M votes cast in 2008? Do you really think this slate of candidates will elicit that type of overwhelming response?

GOP primary voting thus far is up 60% over 2012 and 28% over 2008. Democrats set records for their primary voting due to the enormous Sanders following . To say that there will be a record turnout for the general election is right on target. Sometimes, the strength of the candidates is outweighed by the severe dislike of the candidates. I am one that will vote against Hillary, not necessarily for Trump. Many will vote against Trump. Many of these people will vote, when otherwise they wouldnt. A huge amount of people will cross party lines to vote against one of the candidates, for whatever reason. So, yes, these two will draw more voters than ever before. The numbers will be astounding. My opinion, fwiw.

[cfolson]

We are all numbers people in one sense playing Fantasy. Trump 73M Clinton 65M in GE. Model been right past 8 GE's within 500K total votes for both candidates. Based on Pop. Growth, Primary results, of age Eligible voters and a few other important factors.

Any model that claims these results is obviously overfitting little data.