Stealing taglines from Lookout Landing since 2012.
Dan Feinstein named #Athletics director of professional scouting/baseball development. Had been working in Rays' front office.— Joe Stiglich (@joestiglich) October 25, 2011
Dan Feinstein named #Athletics director of professional scouting/baseball development. Had been working in Rays' front office.
— Joe Stiglich (@joestiglich) October 25, 2011
Chris Pittaro, formerly #Athletics pro scouting director, shifts to role as special asst to GM Billy Beane.— Joe Stiglich (@joestiglich) October 25, 2011
Chris Pittaro, formerly #Athletics pro scouting director, shifts to role as special asst to GM Billy Beane.
This is good. The A’s scouting has not been good in recent years.
Maybe he’ll bring the Rays’ #1-pick-having with him.
Yeah because the first pick in the 13th round was critical in securing Matt Moore.
I thought the analysis was that the A’s tend to do better-than-expected in their drafts.
To expand on my declaration…
Sticking strictly to the A’s ability to draft, from 2003 – 2008 the A’s have selected 7 starting caliber players with 22 picks before the 3rd round. Andre Ethier, Huston Street, Kurt Suzuki, Cliff Pennington (5.5 WAR combined the last 2 years) Trevor Cahill, Jemile Weeks and Tyson Ross are legit big league players. (OK, there might be some argument over Ross because of his health issues… I’ll acknowledge those points as valid right now.) Plus Dallas Braden (24th) and Andrew Bailey (6th).
Certainly not a great haul but considering their draft position a better than the averages dictate reward.
First the position is pro scouting which I think Tampa has done better than us. Second you have a grand total of 2 consistently above average players in that group
First, you’re the one that opened up respective drafting records.
Second, the data is the data. 16 years of drafting showed that teams picking after #15 have less than a 33% chance (at best) of finding a starting-caliber player with the odds diminishing the later in the 1st round you go. There’s less than a 10% chance of finding a starter when picking after the Sup 1 round.
Jemile Weeks is the only player on the above list that was drafted prior to #15.
No nevermoor brought up the draft.
His was an obvious joke. Tongue in cheek. Not to be in any way taken seriously.
Confusing the 8th and 13th rounds doesn’t count as comic genius.
Well, that and pointing out a disconnect between “Rays have built a great team via the draft” and “Someone from the Rays could do that here”
My point is that there are other ways that they built up their roster beyond first round picks.
I agree completely.
Regardless, since the Haren deal the A’s have done a pretty poor job of scouting other teams’ minor leaguers. Trading for a ton of failed prospects. Hopefully new head of scouting changes that. Further maybe he also shakes up a pretty terrible development program.
The Swisher trade came after the Haren deal. What’s you’re issue with Gio, DLS and Sweeney?
I think a healthy Outman will make the Blanton trade a net winner for Oakland. They acquired 2 of the top 5 prospects in the St. Louis system for Holliday. It strikes me as early to flatline Brandon Allen.
The A’s did make a lot of smaller trades, but exactly how high a quality minor leaguers were you expecting for the remains of Giambi, Cabrera, etc.?
Why would it be to early to flatline Brandon Allen? Hes 25 a 1bman that has been given up on by two teams and has 100 games of 80 wRC+, Replacement level performance?
Quality minor leaguers no. Low level toolsy players who were days off no.
Blanton trade was a bust, though it looked good at the time. Blanton has provided 4 WAR in Philly while under control. It would be even better if his xFIP was used which would take into account the homerfriendly Chase Field which FIP doesn’t. Outman is going to be arby eligible soon so its not like if hes going blow the trade out of the water.
Blanton provided 4 WAR for ~ $19 million in value at a price tag of $21 million. Outman doesn’t have to do much to make the deal a winner.
Ahhh… the curse of the prospects for vet trade!
Brandon Allen has played in 106 big league games over 3 seasons. And has totaled 367 PA in that time frame.
My belief is that the A’s need to put Carter and Allen in the line-up Opening Day 2012 and not bother checking their lines until July at the earliest.
Blanton made 12.475m in that time if you count the bonus for his multi year deal in the first year not spread accross, not 21m
I agree about Allen Taylor Mitchel and Carter
Not sure what you’re saying about his bonus. The bonus paid out (according to Cots) from June through October of 2010. That makes Philly’s financial outlay ~ $21 million.
Mitchell had the meniscus in his knee repaired and he probably won’t be ready until May. And word is he played most if not all of 2011 with the problem.
I think he’s only counting through 2010. Blanton would have been a free agent before this year, so anything after that isn’t what we traded.
But even on those terms, yes, if you measure based on surplus value (production minus salary) the A’s already have gotten more out of Outman than they gave up in Blanton. The only way to argue that all of Beane’s recent trades have been bad is to apply a double standard.
Not really 2.3 WAR (which again if you use xFIP is way way way less since it hides Outman’s park advantage using FIP) over four seasons of ~2m salary. 8m benefit if you go by FIP WAR and factor in no time value of money, yes, it is in our favor. If you go by xFIP WAR and time value of money, then no, we haven’t turned a profit yet.
Not clear on what you’re referring to when you use the phrase “time value of money”. And where are you looking at xFIP WAR?
He’s making it up. There’s no reason to use xFIP for WAR.
There is a reason to look at xFIP for WAR, though I am ballparking it. The problem is that HR rate for a player who plays in the bandbox in Philly is going to be much higher than the HR rate for a player who plays in Oakland. FIP doesn’t take park into account. xFIP normalizes HR/FB rates, which is a proxy for park effects.
Time value of money is an econ term. Basically a dollar today is worth more than a dollar down the road and discounts future earnings by the rate of inflation plus the real interest rate.
1) xFIP was designed for projection, not for valuation. And even for projection purposes it’s at best marginally better than FIP. (And even using FIP for valuation and giving no credit/blame to pitchers for balls in play, as fangraphs does, is highly questionable.)
2) WAR is already park-adjusted even if FIP is not, so replacement level ERA will be higher in Philadelphia than in Oakland. If you insist on using xFIP and taking away some of the home runs that Blanton allowed, you wold also have to undo some of the existing park factor adjustment.
Why is it you guys always do this when I’m not here? I wanna join in. Stupid hipsters. Stupid…um…blue monsters.
Good point about it being park adjusted. I will have to rethink this.
They’ve done very well in turning draft picks into league average players, but they’ve done very poorly in turning draft picks into impact talent or high upside, coveted prospects that could be turned into impact talent.
To add to this this, part of it is the nature of their situation. The A’s can’t afford to spend a lot of money filling out the team with average, given the high price of average on the free agent market, so they need the draft to provide the bulk of the team. But the nature of their situation also dictates that they can’t supplement the average with stars, though they’ve tried.
This. If you factor in WAR concentration that number looks way worse.
True for a while, not so much anymore. The A’s did have enough “coveted prospects” to land DDJ and Pig, two of the better trade-available OF talents in the previous offseason.
Admittedly, neither of those OFer’s rate on the Holliday-potential level of impact that is muy sexy; but they did offer the potential for above-average to well above-average production.
And the A’s recent drafts have leaned more towards tools than polish, even if they haven’t heavily pursued HS draftees.
Those aren’t impact players, and as we saw they weren’t even very good. Neither’s production warrented their salary + the talent cost.
As I said, they both offered the potential (based on historical performance) to provide above-average production in the A’s 2011 outfield. The alternative was… bleak. I’ve already conceded they weren’t going to be superstars, but going from replacement level in-house options to 2 potential 3 Win players is impactful.
Furthermore, both DDJ and Pig provided surplus value relative their 2011 salaries. The 2011 production of Mazzaro, Marks, Brown and H-Rod was marginal at best and detrimental at worst. Factor in draft pick compensation and unless 1 of the 4 prospects the A’s dealt last year breaks out next year, it is possible that the A’s will still come out with more value in 2012.
This doesn’t factor in A) opportunity cost of trading the prospects for 1 year rentals B) the costs of those players beyond 2012 C) The possibility that FA compensation goes away D) the risk of arbitration
A) Vs. the ability to trade these guys for whom in place of DDJ and Pig?
B) At some point, even the very best Fucking-A trades that involve prospects for vets tend to be long term losers for the team trading the prospects. The question must be, do you want the potential 6 Wins now vs. 12 Wins spread over 3 years starting in 2014.
(Or whatever the prospects are projected to provide.)
C) FA compensation doesn’t look like it’s going away before next season, rendering the point moot.
D) Pig is going to get a multi-year offer from someone, and DDJ can’t expect a raise via arbitration based on his 2011 numbers. Which means if he accepts arbitration he’d have to perform worse in 2012 before he reaches the point of not being “worth” the money. Furthermore, improved play on his part (or even a repeat of 2011) minimizes the impact of points A & B.
A) MATT KEMP
Thanks, and go As.
Brown, Marks, Mazzaro and H-Rod weren’t going to come close to landing 2 years of Kemp.
Throw in Rajai Davis or Ryan Sweeney and it’s got merit, especially during the time when Colletti hated Kemp and they both said that a change of scenery might have been a good idea.
Even with Rajai, you’d also have to believe that Colletti liked Brown, Marks and Mazzaro as much as two other GM’s felt about that group individually. (I hope that sentence made sense.) Now, mine own personal biases could be blinding me here; I didn’t think much of Brown or Mazzaro at the time of the trade so I could be underestimating their perceived value. But while I’m willing to believe that the general MLB consensus on H-Rod was that of a 10 widget value, I just can’t see there being a uniform value placed on Mazzaro and Brown. To believe that Colletti was willing to buy high on both in spite of their obvious question marks strikes me as wishful thinking. Possible, but not plausible.
I think you also have to factor in the fact that for as much as Colletti might’ve had issues with Kemp, he went out and got a manager who seemingly excelled at getting through to the guy and bringing about a superb performance.
You are saying that the Mattingly choice was to get more out of Kemp? Thats incredulous.
Kemp was at odds with his previous manager and Mattingly made it a point in his early interviews that he was going to make a point of establishing a better relationship with Kemp. To think that topic DIDN’T come up during his interview process with Colletti would be incredulous. Matt Kemp was the most talented position player on Colletti’s roster. Even if Colletti hated the guy it only makes sense that he’d try to find someone who could coax/badger/encourage better play from Kemp.
Was it solely about Kemp? No. A key factor? It makes the most sense.
1) Kershaw is the most talented player on the LAD roster, not Kemp.
2) Mattingly was the heir apparent its why he left the NYY with Torre was he was promised the job there was no interview process
A) Anyone that was on the market B) Right but the A’s didn’t need the wins this year, which is what I said at the time. C) That we know of, futhermore the risk is still relevant and has a cost D) I bet the A’s don’t offer DDJ arby and if Pig is signed by a top 15 team, the A’s only get a 3m value.
A) At least MikeV can give a name.
B) There were also plenty of voices saying the A’s could contend in 2011 thanks to their pick-ups of DDJ and Pig. NO ONE was projecting the performance of Harrison, Holland and Ogando. For all the griping people have done saying there was no reason to hope that Pig could outperform his 3 WAR career high no one has said jack shit about a 29 year old Napoli producing a 5.6 WAR season that was 2.6 wins better than his previous best year.
C) MLB could just as easily delay any changes to FA compensation until 2013 as many teams made moves anticipating it being in play for 2012. Kinda like the plan to move the Astros to the AL. The risk is a figment of your imagination unless you’re contention is that DDJ is going to perform even worse in 2012.
D) The A’s should offer DDJ arby for the reasons I’ve already stated. Pick a position already. Either DDJ is a bad risk to offer arby to, thus eliminating the opportunity at a draft pick OR he’s a good risk and the A’s are too stupid to realize it. You’re arguing that he’s both. How very versatile of him!
And we’ll see what happens with Pig. However, since Mazzaro, Brown and H-Rod combined for $1.5 million in value in 2011 and two of them provided negative value to their teams, $3 million is still the high card.
isn’t offering arbitration Jimmy’s lock of the week?
A)Maybin, Aramis Ramirez, Marcum, Bourn, etc
B) Im not sure why you think no one projected Holland to be any good he was a top prospect who had never walked as many batters as he did in 10. Napoli wasn’t that much off his 2009 prorated WAR, and its not crazy to believe that getting away from Scocia would have some effect.
C) Any potential change is a risk that needs to be factored in just like the risk that you get a protected team to sign them.
D) I don’t think they will offer DDJ arbitration, I don’t think hes a good bet to have a better compensation status than this year, I do think he will rebound a bit.
Maybin made no sense with Crisp in CF. Ramirez STILL hasn’t been traded, Marcum required a consensus Top 50 prospect in Lawrie, cost $4 million and did not fill a need in a rotation that projected to start Gio, Cahill, Braden and Anderson. Bourn wasn’t getting shopped until mid-season. The Kemp-to-Oakland rumors had more solid footing than any of these names.
So YOU predicted Holland with a 3.6 WAR season, Harrison at 4.2 and Ogando with 3.6. You must have cleaned up in Vegas…
Pro-rated? Are you FKing kidding me?! Napoli had an almost identical amount of playing time this year vs. 2009 and came up with an extra 2.6 WAR!
The potential change as you call it had no heat behind it through the course of the season. If and when FA compensation rolls around in the offseason this ridiculous argument will hopefully disappear.
No one said anything about him having a better compensation status next year. The question was simply: is he going to perform better next year? Because he’s got no shot at any kind of significant raise via arbitration this year and if he does improve his play than he’ll be worth even more to the A’s next year, assuming he stays in Oakland through the cataclysmic process that is arbitration!
How does getting a backup CFer with Coco Crisp not make sense?
Ramirez was on the block.
Anyone that expected less than 2 of those starters to lose most of their years was blindly optimistic.
Did I say anything about Harrison or Ogando? No. I said that being a elite pitching prospect on par with Anderson and Cahill when they were in the minors suggests that it was certainly in the realm of the probable.
2008 typo he had around half the PAs
Whether there was heat or not in the offseason is what matters not during the season after the decision was made and there was some.
If he comes back next year there is an opportunity cost to a team who is trying to rebuild to playing vets that don’t figure into playing. Further hes got a fair chance of not being rated for compensation next offseason.
Matt Moore was an 8th round pick, selected by Tampa in their infinite wisdom after Will Kline (2nd) David Newmann (4th) Dustin Biell (5th) Emeel Salem (6th) and Reid Fronk (7th). Some think the Rays were stupid for waiting until the 8th to take Moore, but I tend to think they were being generous in allowing every other team in baseball multiple shots at acquiring the southpaw sensation who was obviously destined for greatness.
Or perhaps they’d extensively scouted the situation prior to the draft and figured out that they could get him in the 8th, because no team was willing to draft him earlier and pay him what he wanted. Perhaps they figured the 8th round was the round to draft him in due to it being the perfect blend of being low enough to get his asking price down but high enough that other teams still wouldn’t be interested. Perhaps it was due to an excellent development system that allowed Moore to progress as he had. It could be any number of things, but we could safely assume that the Rays know far more about the situation than we do to simply dismiss it as luck.
This argument also leads to a slippery slope. Is every successful pick after the first round due to a team being “too generous” with their earlier draft choices?
When faced with the possibility of getting lucky and knowing enough about all the variables that they were able to wait until the 8th, I know which I’d choose. If the Rays knew that much, why did they fail 5 of the previous rounds?
Of course, their development system could be very good. But given the improvement of a lot of A’s minor league pitchers’ velocities, I’d say the A’s are doing something right developmentally.
And given the stunted growth of our hitters and our horrific injury rates among all our prospects, I’d say there’s plenty the A’s are doing wrong developmentally.
I’m not saying there isn’t an element of luck involved. And I’m not saying the Rays could account for all, or even most, variables for all, or even most, of their draft picks. But it could be the case on a individual basis and it could be the case for this situation. Unless we actually work for them, and specifically scouted Matt Moore, we really can’t assume one or the other.
After rereading my original comment, the takeaway is honestly just this:
It could be any number of things
I think that’s highly unlikely.
It supposes that Kline, Newmann, Biell, Salem and Fronk all rated higher on Tampa’s draft board and this supposed mecca of development completely dropped the ball on those guys OR they rated Moore higher than those 5 but chose to draft the other guys out of some perceived organizational need before going with the higher rated player. Either option suggests a crippling fundamental flaw in an organization that has been doing it better than just about everyone else.
I’m not sure whether nm or I should send our resume to Kline, Newmann, Biell, Salem and Fronk.
Probably a mix of both.
It may be a mistake, but I don’t think it’s a crippling, fundamental one when the 29 other teams made the same mistake. The Rays were the ones who ended up with Moore in the end so they actually made a “lesser” mistake that every other team. They might have been the least dumb in a sea of dumb, but relatively, wouldn’t that be considered smart?
I think we’re focusing too much on when the Rays drafted Moore instead of the fact that they drafted him at all when 29 others did not.
This this this this.
Drafting for need instead of taking the best talent available is a dubious approach at building a team. It’s also unlikely in this scenario, as the Rays drafted 4 pitchers (2 LH, 2 RH) prior to taking Moore. He signed for just over slot.
What I think everyone missed was his ability to get his mechanics under control and develop into a pitcher. So kudos to Tampa for picking him when they did, but that just means they liked him a little bit more than everyone else and does not suggest they saw greatness in him and were able to read the intentions of 29 other organizations with absolute clarity.
However you slice it they were smarter than the other 29 teams.
Or luckier. They’ve liked a LOT of other prospects more than other teams and they’ve flamed out… do those failures suddenly make them dumber than everyone else in those instances?
There will always be a factor of luck in the draft process.
Does it matter that you bough other stock before buying Apple’s IPO on December 12th 1980?
Depends on what those other stocks were. Even a blind squirrel…
Absolutely. Those failed investments prevented you from buying more shares of Apple.
But why keep dallying in metaphor?
If the Rays truly knew what they had in Moore when they drafted him then acquiring him was sheer luck. Because that means they wasted $1.073 million and 5 draft picks in order to save a few bucks on Moore’s 8th round bonus number.
No one’s arguing David Price didn’t deserve to go #1 over all but the only way the logic of your argument holds up is if there’s some kind of tangible evidence that taking Moore #65 overall would have cost the Rays more than the $1.188 million the Rays spent on all the failed picks before him AND his 8th round bonus.
Matt Moore was a high-upside project who blossomed fully. Credit to him, to Tampa’s development people and to the scouts that convinced the team to take him then. But let’s not make his success to be something more than what it actually was. ‘Cause all that leads to is someone coming up with his own way to measure player value or other weirdness.
Not really. There is only 1 Matt Moore. Its like in football. If you have a bunch of people who aren’t going to be there in the 8th and someone who isn’t, then you should take the one who is going to be gone earlier first regardless of their comparative values.
Second, they decided that they valued Matt Moore more than any other team.
No. Picking Moore in the 8th round simply means they ended up valuing him more than any other team. We know Tampa thought there were at least 7 players better than Moore. They did not take him with a draft pick commiserate to his talent level.
You’re trying to argue that the fact they picked him at all is evidence of a superior FO. That’s simply not true.
It absolutely is true, they valued him more than any other front office.
Matt Moore was found in the 8th round. The Rays knew enough to save 7 draft picks. Dallas Braden was found in the 24th. The A’s knew enough to preserve 23 draft picks!
The A’s are just waiting for the 62nd round, because Mike Piazza lives there.
I agree with vignette in giving the A’s ample credit for Braden.
You’re not accounting for the reality that 29 other GMs felt 7 to 8 players were better than him in the draft. Without even looking, it’s a pretty safe bet that you can find 7 to 8 players better than him in the draft picked before him that would have gone had they not been draft where they were. It’s really not saying much other than they picked a good player before 29 teams picked that player. But excluding the first 29 picks or so, that’s nearly always true of every player picked in the draft. By your logic, that’s suggesting they’re all superior front offices.
Braden would actually support the point that a scouting advantage can have a significant effect on whether or not a draft pick is successful. That’s not to say luck didn’t have an effect as well, as it always would when a 24th round pick turns into a big leaguer.
But in any case, this singular focus on Matt Moore ignores Tampa’s overall track record. They sure have been getting “lucky” a lot under Friedman.
No one is saying that Tampa isn’t good at the draft. But they don’t deserve “Genius” cred for picking Moore in the 8th round.
If they truly KNEW that he’d be as good as he’s turned out then they were foolish to wait so long and waste draft picks and cash on 5 other draftees that year.
I’m not arguing that the Tampa FO are geniuses for picking Moore. I’m also not arguing that Tampa knew Moore would turn out as good as he did at the time of the pick.
Rather, the arguments I’m proffering are: a) Dismissing Moore’s success as either solely luck or scouting ability is erroneous and arrogant. It’s most likely a mixture of both. b) Based on Tampa’s excellent track record, I’d say Moore’s success is more a product of their scouting ability than luck, which doesn’t mean that luck also wasn’t a big factor. c) Arguing that Tampa’s draft methodology is flawed because they didn’t take him earlier requires declaring all 29 other teams who also passed on him 7 or 8 times to have the same flawed methodology. In which case, Tampa’s methodology isn’t flawed at all, or just not as flawed as everyone else’s, since they ended up with Moore in the end. As a matter of fact, they would, relatively speaking, be ahead of the curve, which would actually make this an argument for them being a superior front office.
I’d agree totally that the Rays’ success with Moore is almost certainly a mixture of success and luck.
I’d say it’s more luck than skill, but perhaps a Rays 8th round pick has a 5% shot of being a big league starter, whereas most 8th round picks only have a 2.5% shot.
You still have to get damn lucky.
Your average chimpanzee couldn’t fuck up that business plan
1) Accept free money 2) ????Make BAD investments 3) Profit!
I fixed that for you.
Another A+ link.
Yes, that was great. Plus, as a non-Dickens fan it forced me to learn who the Marquis St. EvrÃ©monde was (archtype for the aristocracy in A Tale Of Two Cities).
You became a little closer to my heart, here, FSU.
Ken Rosenthal reports Lohan is heading to Playboy.
Pre or post druggie? And when did Lohan become a sport?
So ATT’s service dropped today and Mrs. N couldn’t fix it after an hour on the phone.
We’ve started the switch-to-Sonic process.
Yeah, Meesus Moonkeyball is basically unable to use the Internet at home during the day. I think we’ll go Sonic this week.
Yeah, if I had realized that it wouldn’t effect my DirecTV at all (other than losing the $5 ATT discount) I would have done it months ago. And then there would be working internet in my house today.
Sonic has some kind of bundling deal with DirectTV as well, though I don’t know the details or if you have to be a new customer.
It looks from the website like they give you $10 off (eat it ATT), but you have to either be a new customer or (at minimum) make a two year commitment.
I am very very close to making the same switch, and the prospect of even a nominal Direct TV price break sweetens the deal allthemore.
So, um, anybody who wants another $10 off DirecTV I can hook you up with my acct # and we both get the discount for 10 months.
I assume that’s new customers only.
So, sonic is satellite internet? TDF/TDM are to be on-the-move soon — likely new place is deep in the local sticks, and I need to be able to work from there.
Sonic just resells ATT DSL. Same speeds as ATT, etc, however the service is significantly better, they are based in Santa Rosa, actual real people who know their shit answer the phone hwen you call them, and they are rolling out their own fiber based service as well.
The minute Fusion is available here I’m signing up.
Fusion is also DSL (ADSL2+), not fiber. Their long term plan is to convert it all over to fiber but that’s probably years off for most places. They resell ATT DSL in places where they don’t have fusion.
Either way, I’m excited I’ll be supporting them instead of ATT. Hell, their customer service webpage shows call volume in numbers (and with a graph).
Coming to Santa Rosa?!
dude they are based there.
no, tdf and mdf.
real-time enterprise response database
Funny thing is, that’s exactly what I want to build (paging oblique).
Finally, thankfully, Alexander Graham Bell came along, invented the telephone, and as you know, the very first words he said on the phone were: â€œGet Arthur Rhodes up.â€
[awakes in a cold sweat]
BLOOM IS TARE! TARE IS BLOOM!
ACK! [throws things at monkey, runs in circles til passes out]
#Athletics release RHP Michael Wuertz; claim RHP Evan Scribner and OF Cedric Hunter off waivers from the San Diego #Padres.— Oakland Athletics (@Athletics) October 25, 2011
#Athletics release RHP Michael Wuertz; claim RHP Evan Scribner and OF Cedric Hunter off waivers from the San Diego #Padres.
— Oakland Athletics (@Athletics) October 25, 2011
Scribner looks mildly interesting, 25-yo reliever with good strikeout rates in the minors. Hunter looks not interesting, even to a team with zero starting outfielders. Maybe I’m missing something, he’s young and has been promoted pretty aggressively for a guy who doesn’t hit.
One thing that stands out among the generally awful offensive stats is good BB/K ratios, so he could maybe at some point lead the team with a .280 batting average…
Hes still young and was a good prospect a couple of years back. We need people that can play CF. Like the pick up.
I’m on record as suggesting we from this point forward refer to him solely as Bartleby, and come up with different scenarios where he would refuse prefer not to come in and pitch. You know, as a meme.
I endorse this 100%.
But only if we start referring to Beane as the Confidence Man.
done and done.
Isn’t that moniker already taken?
Psh… old dead website is old. Dead.
eh, I would prefer not.
Yay for reliever extensions! Billy has never had a good one.
In college, I played kozioÅ‚ for the Scornful Polish Landladies
I tried really hard to get into that album, but I just couldn’t do it.
However, it did lead me to The Magnetic Fields (five years late, but it doesn’t matter) who are one of my favorite groups of all time.
Well, friends, I want to leave fair warning…
it’s a tequila afternoon, so if I come back around these parts spouting a bunch of gibberish about how I love you all so very much, or about how the world would be a better place if Carl Panzram had been allowed to strangle it, I just want you to know that the piano has been drinking…
Now that’s a song I can get on board with (I also love the cover version by Dan Hicks and the Hot Licks).
If we truly lived in a civilized country, Dan Hicks would be a national treasure, while Jimmy Buffett would rot away in obscurity as a street musician.
Huh. I just got invited to a work meeting by a Raiderette.
Are you sure it wasn’t spwc2010 on a tequila binge?
aww… you’re so sweet.
I guess we’ll find out when I go to the meeting!
I guess we'll find out when I go to the meeting!
I learned something valuable today.
I learned that most people are not misanthropes.
At the moment, I am angry at them for not being misanthropes, because, quite frankly, humans are a primitive, fucked up species doomed to failure,
but at least I figured out where the unwarranted optimism comes from.
Waiting for clinical test results is not fun. We’re hoping and praying that Mia doesn’t have diabetes. If she does, we’ll just have to deal with it–but it’ll be a relief if she doesn’t.
I sure hope she doesn’t, too.
For what little it’s worth, a good friend of mine has had it since he was 11 or so, and he’s healthy and happy a quarter century later.
Thanks. We’ll find a way to manage if it comes to it. She’s a tough little girl.
My mom developed it over a decade ago. I’d be happy to help (or put you in touch) if it ends up being necessary, but modern technology has made it a very manageable disease.
Thanks. It’s really hard to concentrate at work today. Goliath National Bank is ditching traditional health plans at the end of the year and replacing them with HSAs. Provided you don’t have a lot of expenses in the first year, an HSA seems like a good option. But for me, with Mia’s myriad issues, all I see are the words “6000-dollar deductible” and “9500-dollar annual out of pocket-maximum.”
That’s really unconscionable of them.
I think we are within shouting distance of the Goliaths coming out in favor of single payer national health care.
They really should. Except that the CC is hard-core conservative.
That’s backwards. If you have catastrophic problems, HSAs (at least the one I used to have) were a good idea, if you have no problems or, under $2000 a year, its probably a wash. between $2000 and $10,000 you are almost better off with nothing.
Good luck to you and Mia. One of suspicious nickel’s good friends was diagnosed with diab etes around now’s age and she and her fam have handled it admirably. I’ve no doubt that the Perot’s would do the same.
When we went in to the ER early Sunday morning, her blood sugar was pretty low, but she was sick and hadn’t eaten lunch or dinner on Saturday. They blasted her with dextrose and then took the samples, which I think could have been tainted from the dextrose.
We provided another sample yesterday and are simply waiting for the results now.
And to think… all this time I thought your picture was of Wayne Rooney!
Okay, “Perot’s” was the autocorrect of “Leroys.”
I once had lunch with the gentleman who invented the FreeStyle Navigator blood glucose monitoring device. His company was acquired by Abbot, who sells the Freestyle now, and he is indeed a wealthy man.
I was briefly on the account promoting that
My hunch was correct: whatever made her sick killed her appetite, which lowered her blood sugar and caused some bad reactions. The dextrose altered her lab results.
My wife tried to explain this to the nurse practitioner yesterday, but she pretty flippantly told my wife that the dextrose likely wouldn’t have affected it. She was pretty pissed at her assumed ignorance. Sure, my wife’s not a nurse, but she did study health care administration and worked in a hospital for a few years–enough to have some idea of what she was talking about.
Enough about your plans for tonight …
…how do they work?
I’d asvd, but it looks like I’ve already said that!
Thanks, guys! It’s a huge relief.
late but wanted to say thats awesome, I know you guys have gotten the short end of the stick health wise so getting some good news must a welcome change.
Thanks! I’ve tried to be pretty patient with all the health issues, but it’s really nice to have one finally break our way.
Glad to hear it!
That reminds me of a conversation I had with a colleague. He has a daughter that is nearing the age where Halloween costumes go from cute to scary to potentially sexy. I asked him what he would do if his daughter tried to leave the house wearing a sexy nurse costume. He said, “I’d say ‘You’re not going out like that, now give that costume to your mother right now!'”
So I need a very serious question answered seriously.
What is the most user friendly program for formulating graphs and charts–like plug in the numbers and out pops beautiful charts and graphs?
I’ve got a good friend who has found herself in a leadership role and is the book lover that I am, and a teacher to boot, but not really an MBA. A little help, my very smart friends?
[whistles, waits for smart friends to chime in]
I’ve never used anything but Excel. You specified “beautiful” so I can’t help you. Sounds like PTBNL/SC bait to me.
Okay, so how does one easily learn to do graphics with Excel?
There are tons of others online. This one looks good.
Depends on what she’s familiar with, what her skilz are. Excel is fairly straightforward, but not especially intuitive for your typical liberal artsy-fartsy type. But the design apps (indesign, et al) are really design-y and more for technically skilled graphic artists.
She’s also going to have to have an idea of what her audience is, what the underlying data is, what story she’s trying to tell by illustrating the data rather than just giving them the numbers — on a case by case basis.
I’d advise finding one of her colleagues or friends who has done some of this before and can walk her through a couple first.
Plus, online tutorials.
I’ll add to the Excel votes.
Will she be using a PC or a Mac?
Either way the answer is probably “Hold your nose and go with excel” but there are things missing on the Mac version that make it less obvious.
Excel would be the best if you don’t have much experience. R is a good alternative if you want something a little more in depth. There are other really cool programs like Spotify.
But I would recommend Excel or R.
Did you mean Spotfire? And is there a non-programming interface over R charting?
One option could be one of the front ends for Google Charts, such as this one, but from my perspective I really can’t tell if that’s more or less difficult to use than Excel..just different.
Spotify is good for radio buttons
Ahem. Yes, Spotfire. R is mostly programming, but once you get the hang of it, it’s not that difficult.
I’m really surprised that anyone would say that plotting in R is “not that difficult.” First, there’s the weird R syntax (and I say this as a semi-regular R programmer), such as the c() to define an array, which are prerequisites to generating a plot. Then, there’s the fact that while some plot parameters are intuitively in the “plot()” command, others have to be preset (or set in a particular order) using par(). Have you tried shading regions under plots? Sure, for a programmer, drawing a series of polygons to approximate the boundaries of the area is as intuitive as calculating an integral. Creating anything more than the simplest, unlabeled plot in R is extremely complex.
If we’re talking about programming solutions, both Java/jFreeChart and ruby/gruff are WAY easier than R (albeit less powerful), and easier still would be to learn how to craft URLs to feed into Google Charts (or, choose an easy programming language and find a Google Charts API). And all of these seem more complicated than sticking numbers in an Excel spreadsheet, selecting them, and hitting the “chart wizard” button (and I _hate_ Excel…I’m just saying).
Also octave/gnuplot (in the programming category).
GP — that’s probably the easiest of the bunch (programming category).
beautiful charts and graphs
I think this rules out gnuplot.
If you want to point and click, Excel’s the best bet. I’ve found that R has always been intuitive to me. Unless I wanted to custom make a new type of plot, there’s always been commands to use.
Maybe it’s because R was the first programming language I used extensively. As with everything, YMMV, I suppose.
Yeah using c(), and par() can be semi-confusing and with any programming, you have to iron out the bugs for it to work exactly as you want.
I now know who to go to next time I’m muddling through R :-)
I tend to side with Vignette. Plotting in R is as straightforward as any Statistical software I have used. I found it to be much more intuitive than SAS or Matlab.
http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/R/ has some relatively simple, but very informative and useful examples.
Believe me, I’ve been through the tutorials, and have used R to generate graphs in large production systems. The problem with the simple tutorials is that the more complex operations do not follow using the same methodology. Want to change your axis font? (I can’t remember if that’s a specific example, so apologies if it’s not..but that’s kind of the point…) then you have to use a completely different path. That’s the epitome of bad design.
It being “as straightforward as any Statistical software” is damning with faint praise, and in this particular case, where the question was how to generate graphs for a non-technical person, having that person not only learn a language but one with wack syntax is not the best suggestion.
Heh, the changing of the axis font does happen to be rather tricky, so I say touche there. The other feature that I always found too cumbersome, at least on a Linux machine, was exporting plots.
Can’t say I agree there. The only language that I know with even an intermediate level of comfort would be VB, and I thought shifting into R (when forced of course :0) to be not too bad. As for the manipulation of whatever dataset I was working with at the time, I found R pretty manageable. We may have been using R for different purposes, but the ease with which one can access R’s many statistical libraries and functions is really impressive.
That last point may very well be true. I have not worked with the alternatives you listed, so I cannot comment. But given the price of R, it seems at least worth exploring.
And I’m going to back off my second paragraph (and third, to some extent) as well — sorry, I was a bit pissed off after having just gotten off the phone with an irritating survey company.
Also, I’ve never used VB :-) And honestly with ANY language it takes (me) a while to get into that language’s mindset, the first few times.
Anyway, I’m glad to be acquainted with people who are more proficient in R than I am, and hope to benefit from your knowledge at some point!
Great point too about the cost, vs. Excel. So I modify my recommendation to OpenOffice.org (or NeoOffice on a Mac). Just tried it, plots don’t look bad..
I exclusively us MATLAB for programmatic plotting. It is teh awesome.
It is also teh expensive, which is why I mentioned its free equivalent octave.
Spoiled as I am, my home institutions have paid for MATLAB licenses.
Spss is pretty easy to deal with and can make some pretty graphs.
I’ll also rec Excel. It is easy to use, and the built in templates for plots aren’t as ass-ugly as older versions of Excel.
Also, what is wOBA?
The best hitting statistic on the market.
(w)eighted (O)n (B)ase (A)verage
Why Our Balls Achetrophy, the common complaint of baseball stat geeks players who never get laid off of steroids.
Its a statement that shows how out of touch someone is analyzing baseball.
Hey, I resemble that remark!
You must be logged in to post a comment.
© 2020 FREE KRAUT! — All Rights Reserved.