Things Smackie Thinks You Need to Know...

vansmack wrote:
And Harper won like I like legal….barely.  Congrats!

Huge comeback surge for him at the end.

deserved it. trout deserves mvp too.

kosmo wrote:
My android is on it's last legs and was wondering what I should be considering for it's replacement.  Will probably be staying away from Motorola given how quickly my Atrix gave up the ghost, that and the decision not further upgrade the OS on it. 

Which carrier?  And under contract or not?

Smackie has gone contract free GSM unlocked and will never go back to a big carrier.

AT&T and under contract due to Kosmette's iPhone, would jump at chance to ditch AT&T but Kosmette doesn't want to lose unlimited data plan…

edit: apparently my phone is available for "upgrade" which I guess is code for no new contract on my line. however, due to the family plan kosmette's line is still tied up in some agreement.

there is part of me that is pondering just getting a phone for social media and browsing..  don't use most of the apps on my current phone and it appears it's next to impossible to transfer any game's progress from one phone to another.  curses you tinytower, etc for wasting all my time…

stevewizzle wrote:
deserved it. trout deserves mvp too.

You, me and Nate Silver Agree:

The Statistical Case Against Cabrera for MVP

kosmo wrote:
edit: apparently my phone is available for "upgrade" which I guess is code for no new contract on my line. however, due to the family plan kosmette's line is still tied up in some agreement.

No, that's just code for you've had your phone for close to two years and we're going to subsidize the price of your next phone if you agree to extend your agreement for two more years….

I'll look at at&t phones in a little while, but I know the HTC One X+ and the Galaxy SIII are beasts, and the HTC One X at $99 is a steal (though battery life is said to be problematic).  I don't know much about the LG Optimus G, but it's supposedly very similar to my Nexus 4 (which can be had off contract for $349, but does not do LTE so doesn't make much sense for at&t).

Case for Cabrera: triple crown.


Case closed.

vansmack wrote:

kosmo wrote:
edit: apparently my phone is available for "upgrade" which I guess is code for no new contract on my line. however, due to the family plan kosmette's line is still tied up in some agreement.

No, that's just code for you've had your phone for close to two years and we're going to subsidize the price of your next phone if you agree to extend your agreement for two more years….

I'll look at at&t phones in a little while, but I know the HTC One X+ and the Galaxy SIII are beasts, and the HTC One X at $99 is a steal (though battery life is said to be problematic).  I don't know much about the LG Optimus G, but it's supposedly very similar to my Nexus 4 (which can be had off contract for $349, but does not do LTE so doesn't make much sense for at&t).

I bought my wife the HTC EVO 4g from virgin.  the plan only costs 40 bucks a month for unlimited text and browsing and more minutes than you need and you can cancel anytiime you want.

hutch wrote:
Case for Cabrera: triple crown.


Case closed.

I'm just guessing you didn't read the article, much like the old white guys of the GOP didn't read 538.

"It?s the traditionalists who are using statistics in a way that misses the forest for the trees."

vansmack wrote:

kosmo wrote:
edit: apparently my phone is available for "upgrade" which I guess is code for no new contract on my line. however, due to the family plan kosmette's line is still tied up in some agreement.

No, that's just code for you've had your phone for close to two years and we're going to subsidize the price of your next phone if you agree to extend your agreement for two more years….

I'll look at at&t phones in a little while, but I know the HTC One X+ and the Galaxy SIII are beasts, and the HTC One X at $99 is a steal (though battery life is said to be problematic).  I don't know much about the LG Optimus G, but it's supposedly very similar to my Nexus 4 (which can be had off contract for $349, but does not do LTE so doesn't make much sense for at&t).

Getting the Nexus 4 in the next few days.  How do you like it so far?

hutch wrote:
Case for Cabrera: triple crown.


Case closed.

don't ever, ever become a lawyer.

atomicfront wrote:
I bought my wife the HTC EVO 4g from virgin.  the plan only costs 40 bucks a month for unlimited text and browsing and more minutes than you need and you can cancel anytiime you want.

This.

I'm on the t-mobile $30 plan for 100 minutes of talk, unlimited everything else, including HSPA+42, no contract.  It's ridiculously awesome with the unlocked Nexus line from Google.

chaz wrote:
Getting the Nexus 4 in the next few days.  How do you like it so far?

It's pretty amazing, except for Google Voice.  For some reason that's broken, which is a shame because I rely heavily on it.  Very glad I skipped the Galaxy Nexus on Sprint and gave up CDMA for GSM.  I have DC-HSPA+ here in SF so the speeds are just as good as LTE, and I didn't have to sign a contract with any carrier.

vansmack wrote:

hutch wrote:
Case for Cabrera: triple crown.


Case closed.

I'm just guessing you didn't read the article, much like the old white guys of the GOP didn't read 538.

"It?s the traditionalists who are using statistics in a way that misses the forest for the trees."

racist.  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 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

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

vansmack wrote:

hutch wrote:
Case for Cabrera: triple crown.


Case closed.

I'm just guessing you didn't read the article, much like the old white guys of the GOP didn't read 538.

"It?s the traditionalists who are using statistics in a way that misses the forest for the trees."

Are you saying Cabrera is not going to get the MVP award because he had a triple crown year?

I guess you're saying he SHOULDN'T..


As far as the article… I read Nate Silver pretty much every day during the cycle but no I did not read the article….yet….. I've been following baseball all my life.. 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 watch baseball and follow the game.

I wonder if there is something else going on here… Cabrera's triple crown got hardly any press this year…. Is it the arrests? the fact he's not a clean cut kid? Let's say Cabrera and Trout reversed roles… I have a hard time believing we'd be hearing all this mumbo jumbo. You grow up all your life hearing about Yaz and how great and unattainable the triple crown is. then somebody does it and all of a sudden he's not the MVP even though he played for a playoff team? Come on.

sweetcell wrote:

hutch wrote:
Case for Cabrera: triple crown.


Case closed.

don't ever, ever become a lawyer.

He didn't win? I checked but I don't think they've announced it.

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.

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…

atomicfront wrote:
racist. 

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

 

atomicfront wrote:
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. 

atomicfront wrote: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.

atomicfront wrote:
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.

hutch wrote:
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.

hutch wrote:
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?

atomicfront wrote:
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.