Things Smackie Thinks You Need to Know...

[hutch]

The thing that is being ignored is that getting the triple crown is a special accomplishment that has great intangible value....it is a historic feat...

If we're now saying that we longer think the triple crown means anything.. that it doesn't mean anything more to win the batting title by .001 than it does to lose it.. well then that is a different ballgame... to me certain accomplishments have value over and beyond their statistical value.... the triple crown is one... I never expected to see it done.

When you couple the triple crown with the Tigers making the playoffs I just don't see how you can deny the guy the MVP.

[hutch]

I read the Silver article.. as expected its making the pitch that based on statistical contribution Trout should win..


Here is the problem with that.... you don't give the MVP to someone because he scores higher on a computer model about statistical contribution to a team.... If you did it that way you wouldn't even have to have anyone vote!.. you'd just have a computer model and say whoever scores highest wins... you'd also have to toss out dozens and dozens of previous MVP winners on the grounds that they didn't score highest on the computer model (model would of course have to be adapted for previous years, etc.)

Moreover, who is to determine which computer model is the correct model? Different and honest people might come to different conclusions... the science of baseball statistics etc is an evolving one.. what is considered so one year could be discarded the next...

[vansmack]

racist. 

Actually it was ageist.  Apparently the young white guys didn't read it either.

 

Anyway i read the article. Here is something it leaves out:  Cabrera moved from first to third and didn't complan about it at all.  He wasn't brooks robinson over there but he was pretty decent. 

And it doesn't mention that he changed from Fruit Loops to Wheaties, and we all know affect that has.   

And whatever division Cabrera played in his team made the playoffs and trouts did not. And it is not like the Angels weren't stacked with talent. Also Cabrera has a higher OPS than Trout

I agree with this point.  Making the playoffs should be a factor, but not the deciding factor.  It's hard to argue that if Trout had started on April 1 and not April 29, they could have gone at least .500 in April and win the division by two games.  But that's not Trout's fault.  If anything it counts in his favor when you consider what he managed to compile statistically despite missing a month.

Trout will have his chance in the future.   This is Cabrera's year.

I actually don't want him to win.  I'd love to see the 22 year old Mike Trout come back next season with a chip on his shoulder and play hungry.  I can only imagine what kind of numbers he'd put up.  I simply agree with Nate Silver that statistically, Mike Trout deserves to win.

[vansmack]

no I did not read the article....yet.....

I know you hadn't when you said that.  Because you wouldn't have said "case closed" had you read it.

I'm entitled to my opinion of what constitutes an MVP season thank you very much (same as you are or Silver). I don't have to read articles to have an opinion.

I'm not the one that said "Case Closed" - you did.  You're absolutely entitled to an opinion.  And so are we.  And Nate Silver laid out a pretty good case, so I guess it isn't closed?

[gaaaaaaaaah]

Trout will have his chance in the future.   This is Cabrera's year.

this is basically my thinking. not to punish trout for being a rookie, but i'd imagine he's got a few mvps locked up down the road. the triple crown is an accomplishment (albeit not the same one it used to be), and cabrera should be rewarded. he also guided a team to the playoffs.

sucks that one of them has to lose, since they put up two of the best seasons in recent history.

[vansmack]

It's pretty amazing, except for Google Voice.  For some reason that's broken, which is a shame because I rely heavily on it. 

This was fixed about an hour ago, btw.  Never should have happened but kudos to El Goog for the quick fix.

I'd be willing to bet that everyone on the test version inside of Google was also running a beta version of GV on 4.2 and never noticed the problem (though lots of us outside were reporting it and it was somehow ignored).

[hutch]

It is case closed. Cabrera will win.

Now if you're saying he should not win that is different...  but that he will win- on the back of the first triple crown since I think 1967- that is case closed.

As I wrote above, the argument that we should award the MVP based on statistical models just doesn't do it for me.

[vansmack]

As I wrote above, the argument that we should award the MVP based on statistical models just doesn't do it for me.

We know.  You and all of the other traditionalists.  That's exactly what Nate Silver said in his very first paragraph (plus one sentence) and nobody has disputed that.  You have simply rehashed in 6 posts exactly what Silver said would be the likely outcome for all the same reasons.

Thank you for your contribution.

[hutch]

As I wrote above, the argument that we should award the MVP based on statistical models just doesn't do it for me.

We know.  You and all of the other traditionalists.  That's exactly what Nate Silver said in his very first paragraph (plus one sentence) and nobody has disputed that.  You have simply rehashed in 6 posts exactly what Silver said would be the likely outcome for all the same reasons.

Thank you for your contribution.

Oh I see. .you're having a conversation with yourself...

Carry on then old chap!

[vansmack]

Oh I see. .you're having a conversation with yourself...

Carry on then old chap!

[hutch]

OK so you're saying you never wanted to talk to me in the first place.. I'm hurt.

  .. but it don't matter. I'll live.

[vansmack]

there is part of me that is pondering just getting a phone for social media and browsing.. 

If you're not looking for high power, then mosey on down to the store and look at the HTC One X or the Sony Xperia TL for $99.  Those should be more than sufficient for the next 18 months or so with dual core processors, big screens and solid builds.  I think I would prefer the Xperia over the One X, but put them both in your hand and have a go.  The camera on the Xperia is amazing if you and kosmette are sexting.

If you want to get about 2 years out of the next phone, it's going to cost you about $200.  I would go with the following:

(1) Samsung Galaxy S III ($199)
(2) LG Optimus G ($199 - had they called it the Optimus Prime, it would have been #1)
(3) HTC One X+ ($199)

You really can't go wrong with any of those phones.  I've owned an HTC and 2 Samsung's in my day, and this is my first LG.  I can say that they're pretty solid devices.  Give them a go and see what feels best and looks best to you.

Avoid any of the $49 phones (Nitro, Captivate, Escape, Focus, etc) - those are traps with a 2-year extension.  You'll be hating life by next Thanksgiving.  If you go with a 99 cent phone you'll be hating life by Independence Day. 

[kosmo vinyl]

Cool thanks, looks like the Samsung is a leading contender and it can be had cheaper through Costco....

Is Samsung good about updating the OS on their phones?  The nail in the coffin for my Motorola Atrix was the recent decision not to update the OS even though the HW could support it.  Shortly, after that announcement, I got an email offering a trade in for a Jellybean phone.  Guess marketing trumped Engineering on that one.  I've gotten the impression the whole Atrix line has been problematic for users since day one.

[atomicfront]

there is part of me that is pondering just getting a phone for social media and browsing.. 

If you're not looking for high power, then mosey on down to the store and look at the HTC One X or the Sony Xperia TL for $99.  Those should be more than sufficient for the next 18 months or so with dual core processors, big screens and solid builds.  I think I would prefer the Xperia over the One X, but put them both in your hand and have a go.  The camera on the Xperia is amazing if you and kosmette are sexting.

If you want to get about 2 years out of the next phone, it's going to cost you about $200.  I would go with the following:

(1) Samsung Galaxy S III ($199)
(2) LG Optimus G ($199 - had they called it the Optimus Prime, it would have been #1)
(3) HTC One X+ ($199)

You really can't go wrong with any of those phones.  I've owned an HTC and 2 Samsung's in my day, and this is my first LG.  I can say that they're pretty solid devices.  Give them a go and see what feels best and looks best to you.

Avoid any of the $49 phones (Nitro, Captivate, Escape, Focus, etc) - those are traps with a 2-year extension.  You'll be hating life by next Thanksgiving.  If you go with a 99 cent phone you'll be hating life by Independence Day. 

I don't really see where current phones will need to be upgraded in the future.  They make calls well, surf the net well, and you can read email on them.  What else do you need?  Well better battery life.  If they could make a current phone to last a week or more on a single charge that would be improvement.  If you want a better camera simple solution is to buy a camera.  Bigger screen get a tablet. 

[sweetcell]

I don't really see where current phones will need to be upgraded in the future. 

don't ever, ever seek a job in marketing or consumer R&D.