|
Post by joshv02 on Sept 9, 2015 21:50:05 GMT -5
What is new that is substantiated? Besides the litany of new details about Spygate, there's this: There are virtually no new spygate allegations. What do you think is new? The the Walsh stuff is not new. It's admitted as not new; what investigators did he talk to recently? The rest of the allegations (completely unsubstantiated) are not new. They've been repeated over the past 15 years. In fact all were detailed exactly the same by SI in January: www.si.com/nfl/2015/01/19/new-england-patriots-deflategate-bill-belichick-tom-bradyThe unnamed former employees are bs. This is not Watergate. Give a source or get off the can. I can write more from a non phone device if you really need me to but this is nonsense. It's pretty obviously nonsense tool if you look at them individually.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Sept 9, 2015 19:15:59 GMT -5
Ugh. Stork to IR-DTR. Arguably our best OL and it's tough to lose that designation before the first game. I've always thought there should be at least two of those spots, NFL roster rules are like a straitjacket. It's a new designatioN only a few years old. I suspect it will move to that.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Sept 9, 2015 19:14:04 GMT -5
It's not just unsubstantiated rumors, though. The really damning thing about the article is that it cites multiple former Patriot players, coaches and employees who describe, in detail, the various ways the Patriots cheated or otherwise pushed the boundaries on ethical behavior. I agree that the degree of outrage is overblown (e.g., other teams pull this kind of stuff regularly as well), and I am generally skeptical that the Patriots gained a significant competitive advantage from their actions. But let's not pretend that there is nothing new or meaningful here. What is new that is substantiated?
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Sept 3, 2015 12:29:10 GMT -5
Right. Frankly, if the investigation had been carried out in a way that wasn't a complete joke, I could've seen suspending Brady for a game or something. Kraft must be kicking himself for accepting the draft pick penalty, although that was a different question. As a layer, you cannot read the exponent report without wondering when you'll have the opportunity to do the easiest expert deposition in your life. No independent, truth-seeking process finds any wrong doing whatsoever. Period.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Aug 31, 2015 8:03:31 GMT -5
#whyisthat ? For starters, it's basically varient of fip x ip, no? Why would that be"garbage"? I suppose garbage is a little strong, because I do think FIP and xFIP are useful stats for understanding a pitchers likely true talent level. I just feel by definition WAR is designed to be an all encompassing stat for a players value and it does a much worse job of that for pitchers than it does for hitters. When I see a position players fWAR I feel it does a very good job of representing his actual value. When a pitchers WAR is sited I generally feel the need to look closer at the overall line and often come to the determination it doesn't line up with what I believe is their true value. This is where I used to sit, but since I've basically come to this view: (1) In any given small sample, pitchers have varying degrees of control over allowing more/less hits than what an average MLB pitcher allows. Similarly, in any given small sample, pitchers have varying degrees on control over the ordering of hits allowed - i.e., clustering hits. Eric likes to call something similar to this "karma." (2) As a general rule, pitchers over larger sample sizes all trend towards (for multiple reasons - survivorship bias, etc.) MLB averages for BABIP and LOB%/cluster. At the end of a career, we may be able to find outliers, but it is difficult to determine that inside a career. (3) In any given small sample, luck (i.e., forces outside of the pitcher's control) greatly effects allowing more/less hits than what an average MLB pitcher allows. Similarly, in any given small sample, pitcck (i.e., forces outside of the pitcher's control) greatly effects the ordering of hits allowed - i.e., clustering hits. Eric likes to call something similar to this "luck." (4) In any given small sample, we don't know if we are witnessing karma or luck. So, what fWAR does for me is tells me the baseline. I then can adjust it as I think is accurate given other factors. It does not, however, make my life easy and give me a simple answer. And I'm OK with that. :2cents:
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Aug 31, 2015 7:34:36 GMT -5
Cubans lack baseball instincts.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Aug 26, 2015 12:35:30 GMT -5
But you aren't really saying that. You are saying "do Espinoza's stats differ from the league average b/c he faced worse competition than the league average."
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Aug 26, 2015 11:54:35 GMT -5
Didn't Eric point out the actual EqA (or TVA, I forget which he used) of opponents for each of the starters? This is an empirical question and pretty easily testable.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Aug 26, 2015 8:18:59 GMT -5
I think, actually, this is exactly why I like Cherington and why he is so often derided. He moves slowly - he appears to look at data, make a decision, and not get swayed by short term swings (at least excluded RPs). He extends that thought process to drafting, too - he'll still look at players previously well regarded having bad years. I love that way of looking at the world, but I understand people hate it. In general, a player good enough to be a ML IFer should be able to be a ML outfielder. I'd certainly believe a story that said he didn't like a 100 game sample over a 100 year history.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Aug 25, 2015 18:44:58 GMT -5
I was wondering what took the board so long to post this. . Soxhop grandsalami had a class?
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Aug 25, 2015 10:35:18 GMT -5
There probably are other instinctive things that he learned in Cuba that have to be straightened out. In Cuba, there are only two outs before you can toss the ball into the stands?
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Aug 25, 2015 7:04:52 GMT -5
#fWARforpitchersisgarbage #whyisthat ? For starters, it's basically varient of fip x ip, no? Why would that be"garbage"?
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Aug 13, 2015 7:20:55 GMT -5
FiveThirtyEight, ESPN's Nate Silver Blog has a worthwhile read entitled "Is 2015 the Year Baseball's Projections Failed? ("http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-2015-the-year-baseballs-projections-failed/) The paragraph above is testable, and they didn't test it - the kind of thing that Nate would have never missed. OK - well look at PECOTA projected wins/$ and see what the outliers are.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Aug 12, 2015 19:15:30 GMT -5
That's right. He was a necessary witness then. His testimony us quoted back to him in each nflpa brief as he essentially conceded much of their points. But that wasn't in court.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Aug 12, 2015 16:32:36 GMT -5
The under oath for Goodell next week came from a lawyer talking on cnn. Sorry I didn't catch his name. I'm about 90% sure whoever that was is wrong. No testimony.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Aug 12, 2015 14:20:26 GMT -5
What makes you think Goodell will testify under oath? He is just required to go to the court and attend a second settlement conference/status hearing.
(Don't read very much into the judge's questions. His job is to make people feel uncomfortable in order to push settlement. Who knows what he really thinks is important.)
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Aug 11, 2015 9:56:18 GMT -5
The NFLPA is by far the weakest and most dysfunctional union in professional sports. Their complete inability to collect and maintain any semblance of leverage in negotiations with the NFL is the root cause of this issue. When you say things like "the root cause of this issue," it completely misses the mark. Sure, had the union been better situated to able to defend these types of issues, then the NFL making up science/facts, making up rules, and railroading someone would not have happened. But, isn't the better entity to blame the NFL who is, indeed, making up science/facts, making up rules, and railroading someone?
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Aug 11, 2015 7:51:53 GMT -5
Its too bad, actually. For example, Greg Hardy was also railroaded - even after his appeal dropped the suspension to 4 games, that is still twice what the NFL should have been able to give him. (The policy in place at the time of his offense was 2 games. The Peterson case makes it 100% clear that the NFL cannot apply the new policy to conduct that took place during the time period the old policy was in effect.) Greg Hardy, though, is a sociopath who no one wants to champion, and its just so much easier to write an article that explains that the NFL lost b/c Henderson reduced the suspension from 10 to 4 games (even though he had no authority to even give 4), and Hardy has so little incentive to actually fight for the remaining two games, so its reported without the fact that the NFL is still making things up as they go.
Its just awful all around.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Aug 11, 2015 7:48:06 GMT -5
The board certified thing is in Florida state courts. No one is board certified in federal court. Or in nearly any other state. Just Florida being Florida. Gotcha. His Twitter profile says: At the intersection of sports law, gaming law, and appellate practice. I am a federal court litigator & Board-Certified appellate attorney w/ Becker & Poliakoff Curious Joshv, how do you see this playing out? Micheal McCann is really the best on this topic. The only reason why the NFLPA would not win is the level of deference courts give to arbitration proceedings. But, Brady was clearly not given notice of (a) the infraction, (b) the penalty, or (c) the standard of proof he'd be held to. (Whether there was actual deflation or not -- its pretty clear there was not -- is mostly irrelevant at this point). The Adrian Peterson opinion (which is not strictly binding, but unless Judge Doty got it completely wrong there, the next judge is likely follow it) makes it pretty clear that is a no-no; even more so by changing the standard midstream. But, courts are supposed to affirm arbitrators awards unless its clear they can't. So, the judge could do whatever he wants and likely can write an opinion that would fit within the contours of what is allowed (or even, what is reasonable from a policy standpoint) pretty easily.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Aug 9, 2015 7:09:53 GMT -5
Who is this Wallach and what does he know of Federal legal proceedings that he can foretell mysterious outcomes by percentage points? He's a board certified appellate attorney who specializes in sports law. The board certified thing is in Florida state courts. No one is board certified in federal court. Or in nearly any other state. Just Florida being Florida.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Aug 6, 2015 12:54:28 GMT -5
No, they don't. But, I'm not a moderator and I likely shouldn't have said anything about this (50 page) behemoth. I can, and should, continue to ignore it. Its contained. My mistake for taking the bait.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Aug 6, 2015 12:35:57 GMT -5
This thread is awful. The conversation in here is awful. Just a bunch of posters arguing about being armchair GMs (with the worst posts about posters telling us what they previously wrote) with a few salvageable posts in between. And repetitive. And awful. At least, I suppose, it is confined.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Aug 6, 2015 11:55:28 GMT -5
Bob Nightengale @bnightengale 2m2 minutes ago Dave Dombrowski likely would join any club as high-tiered executive, and oversee, not necessarily replace, the GM I, too, would like to join any company as a high-tiered executive, and oversee not necessarily replace, the GC.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Aug 1, 2015 12:18:06 GMT -5
I hate the argument that goes "well, he had every right to not turn it over, and while I don't think it matters if he turned it over or destroyed it, others may, so he shouldn't have done so."
Bull****.
This is a legal proceeding only. We aren't, or shouldn't be, debating if Brady is winning a pr battle. The or battle is easily won by an honest opinion by the nfl that said"while I would have preferred to see the phone, he had no obligation to give it to me so I won't hold it against him.". The dishonest ones are the ones I blame. Not the honest ones.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Aug 1, 2015 6:56:00 GMT -5
Destroying the phone made it easier for the NFL to justify not reducing his suspension. He could have locked it in a safe and suffered no meaningful detriment. Bull****. It's pretext since they have no legal right to the cell phone. Hiding it is just as damning. It's all framing bs.
|
|