PERCENTILE RANK Weighted OBA9934 HARPERTROUT 25Justin TurnerDodgers184.108.40.206.8 On-Base Pct.10097 2Bryce HarperNationals220.127.116.11.0 4Buster PoseyGiants18.104.22.168.7 PROJECTED WAR/600 PA 2016Batting Avg.9024 2015Batting Avg.9986 8Kris BryantCubs22.214.171.124.0 15Yasiel PuigDodgers126.96.36.199.3 WAR/600 PA9973 20Starling MartePirates4.03.93.93.9 10Carlos CorreaAstros188.8.131.52.6 19Adrian BeltreRangers3.94.14.04.0 18Miguel CabreraTigers184.108.40.206.1 PLAYERTEAMZIPSSTEAMERFG DEPTHAVERAGE 1Mike TroutAngels220.127.116.11.8 24Chris DavisOrioles18.104.22.168.8 13Anthony RizzoCubs4.04.84.44.4 6Giancarlo StantonMarlins22.214.171.124.3 Who’s better, Harper or Trout? A year after posting one of the greatest single seasons in baseball history, Washington Nationals right fielder Bryce Harper is off to an even more stupendous start this season. Through Washington’s first 14 games, Harper is hitting .327 with a .417 on-base percentage and an MLB-best .837 slugging percentage; he’s also finished more at-bats with a home run (seven) than a strikeout (six) while producing nightly feats of optimal exit velocity and launch angle, like this blast from Tuesday:Harper’s longtime rival for the mantle of “best young player in baseball” is, of course, Mike Trout of the Los Angeles Angels, who has consistently run circles around him. But last season, Harper finally outplayed Trout, and the Millville Meteor has flown in a lower orbit than usual to start the 2016 campaign as well. Here’s each player’s percentile ranking in the major leagues in the most important batting rate statistics, plus wins above replacement per 600 plate appearances: 5Josh DonaldsonBlue Jays5.65.05.85.5 Slugging Pct.10026 9Paul GoldschmidtDiamondbacks126.96.36.199.8 Trout’s still No. 1 … for now 14Kevin KiermaierRays188.8.131.52.3 12Jose BautistaBlue Jays184.108.40.206.4 11Nolan ArenadoRockies220.127.116.11.5 21Jason HeywardCubs3.34.64.03.9 You can probably guess what’s happening now: a variety of articles either wondering whether Harper has surpassed Trout as the game’s best player or flat-out declaring the race over. Never mind that Trout has been the best player in baseball history, for his age, through every one of his full major-league seasons — his spot atop the game is officially in jeopardy.That conclusion is still a bit premature, though. FanGraphs keeps a running set of projected statistics for the season, historically calibrated to find the most accurate balance of short- and long-term samples for making predictions. That means they can give us a pretty good proxy answer to the “who’s the best right now?” question, and all three of the rest-of-season projections at FanGraphs1ZiPS, Steamer and the aggregated projections FanGraphs uses on its depth chart pages. say Trout is still the game’s best bet among position players:2Projections are as of Wednesday afternoon. 7Andrew McCutchenPirates5.05.25.15.1 22Yadier MolinaCardinals18.104.22.168.9 Slugging Pct.10099 16Joey VottoReds22.214.171.124.3 Source: Fangraphs Weighted OBA10098 17Yasmani GrandalDodgers126.96.36.199.2 23Francisco CervelliPirates188.8.131.52.9 WAR/600 PA10099 3Manny MachadoOrioles184.108.40.206.2 All projections of April 20Source: FanGraphs On-Base Pct.9455 That probably won’t come as a surprise to most saber-friendly fans, who may as well drive around with “Small sample size!” stickers on their bumpers this early in the season. Even so, it doesn’t exactly take magical thinking to believe Harper is an exception to the rules of historical projections. At FanGraphs, Dave Cameron wrote a nice, nuanced piece Monday about how the particulars of Harper’s game evolved to get him where he was last year and how their continued development could give his newfound productivity more staying power. The upshot is that over the past year-plus, Harper has turned into a powerful pull hitter with the strength of Chris Davis and the plate discipline of Joey Votto — a terrifying combination that lends credence to the theory that his game has found another gear.I also devoted the Significant Digit segment of Wednesday’s Hot Takedown podcast to looking at how Harper’s numbers have improved this season despite a drastically reduced batting average on balls in play (BABIP), which makes you wonder how zany his numbers could be if he starts experiencing better BABIP luck. (And both of those analyses took place before Harper launched his grand slam Tuesday night.3For those curious, we tape Hot Takedown on Tuesday afternoons.)But in general, it takes a compelling reason to think any player is an exception to the trends of history, which are proven out far more often than they’re upended. Although reasonable people can find reasonable reasons to believe Harper is one of those exceptions, it’s important to remember just how high that threshold is. Otherwise, there’s a preponderance of evidence that Harper still hasn’t chased down Trout — at least not yet.
Three hard fought sets brought the defending national champions to a record of 2-2 on the season as the eighth-ranked Ohio State men’s volleyball team fell to seventh-ranked Penn State. The Buckeyes never allowed PSU to run away with the match. Although the Nittany Lions swept OSU, each set was won with a small edge — 22-25, 23-25, and 17-25. A service ace from PSU’s redshirt senior setter Edgardo Goas gave the team a 5-3 lead. From then on, the Nittany Lions maintained a two-point lead throughout most of the first set. Miscommunication by PSU caused the ball to drop midcourt, and an attack error tied the game at nine. The Nittany Lions pulled ahead, 15-17, and OSU was forced to call its first timeout. A service error by junior middle blocker Grayson Overman put the set at 18-20. Freshman outside hitter, Michael Henchy, and redshirt freshman middle blocker, Shawn Herron, had consecutive kills to tie the set at 21. As PSU reached set point, OSU called its second time out before the Buckeyes watched a close serve from Aaron Russell land in bounds to take the first set. The second set was much like the first. PSU kept a comfortable two to three point lead during most of the set. It wasn’t until late in the set that the Buckeyes began to close the gap with a three-point run. An Overman kill and two PSU errors made the score 19-20. A PSU serve sailed into the net giving momentum to the Buckeyes. Senior opposite Shawn Sangrey and Herron assisted on a block, while Mik Berzins, a senior outside hitter, got a kill to tie the game at 23 a piece. The Buckeyes thought they had arrived at set point, when confusion among the referees stopped the game. PSU was awarded a point before it was quickly revoked and the serve was replayed. The Nittany Lions officially reached 24-23 prior to a Herron ball handling error which sealed the set. OSU was 12-for-29 in kills in the second set, while PSU attacked 6-of-26. In the third set, a ball handling error by PSU junior middle blocker Nick Turko tied the set at six. Tom Comfort, a junior opposite from PSU, had a kill to tie the teams again at eight. Sangrey’s serve sailed out of bounds giving PSU a four point lead, 12-16. Late kills from Berzins and Sangrey gave OSU a chance to turn the game around. At 17-23, the Nittany Lions succeeded in taking the match with two more well-placed kills. OSU’s head coach Pete Hanson said he wasn’t happy with the way his team received serves. “(Penn State) is a physical team and we couldn’t get the ball to the setters like we wanted to,” said Coach Hanson. OSU will host the Sacred Heart University Pioneers on Tuesday at 7 p.m.
Editor’s note: Today, we’re sharing part two of what’s proven to be one of Casey Research founder Doug Casey’s most popular essays in recent years. (Make sure to read part one right here if you missed it.) Below, to wrap up our holiday series, Doug continues his discussion on the misuse of words…and why it’s adding to the corruption of civilization itself… Fair. That’s a great word. But everybody’s got a different idea of fair. Put a bunch of money on the table, and let’s divide it up. Well, what’s fair? I don’t know. But I guarantee everybody will have a different idea of what’s “fair.” So, let’s forget about the idea of fair, because nobody knows what that is. It’s a floating abstraction. I have a better idea. Whatever happened to justice? What is “just”? It means everybody gets what they deserve. Now, perhaps you can solve the problem. It’s a bit more specific, more focused, to find out what you deserve as opposed to what’s fair. Because, frankly, some people don’t deserve anything. Simply existing doesn’t necessarily give you a right to a piece of the pie—or even a right to vote on it. But nobody talks about justice today; they talk about fairness. And, of course, this corrupts the moral character of society. What about freedom of speech? You can forget about freedom of speech. One reason is because nobody knows what words mean anymore. You need words in order to speak. But if you don’t define and use words accurately, they mean nothing. Forget about all the non-PC words you’re not even allowed to think, much less use. Freedom of speech is a phrase now divorced from reality. It’s actually no longer very important, except, oddly enough, among the political classes, where it’s become very important in exactly the wrong way. Because freedom of speech, today, often means hate speech. I’m not an antagonistic person, and I like most other people, if they’re of good character. Here’s a shocker for you: I don’t see anything wrong with hate speech. Why? Because there are a lot of things in the world worth hating, because they’re evil and destructive. But, if you want to live in a civilized environment, you shouldn’t conflate so-called hate speech with bad taste. Most so-called hate speech is simply bad taste or stupidity. Outlawing hate speech is far worse than anything that can possibly be said. One good thing about hate speech is that it lets you discover something about the person speaking. If he can’t speak, you may not really know who you’re actually dealing with. Which can be dangerous. Well, of course, now that we have “hate speech,” that draws attention to “aggressive speech.” That’s another newly coined phrase. Be aware of neologisms, newly minted words that the average chimpanzee uses as if they’d been around since the day of Aristotle. One of them is microaggression. This one is really popular with so-called minorities at universities today. It can occur when somebody says something that—by really parsing it in the manner of a Talmudic scholar—might make a person feel uncomfortable. As a result, these weenies are demanding segregated “safe spaces.” It’s not just completely ridiculous. It’s actually psychotic. You should laugh off the concepts of microaggressions and safe spaces, revel in free speech, and recognize the difference between hate speech and bad taste speech. “And that’s a genuine fact.” Does anybody say that anymore? Another change in the language over the last generation is that nobody says fact anymore. Facts are now factoids. “Here’s a factoid.” Do you know what a factoid is? It’s an artificial fact, or something that looks like a fact but isn’t. What, for instance, is an asteroid? An asteroid is something that looks like a star but isn’t. What’s an android? An android is something that looks like a human but isn’t. That’s what the ending -oid means—something that resembles the object in question. So, a factoid is really a phony, made-up fact, a created fact. I never say “factoid” unless I mean something that somebody’s made up. It’s a BS fact. What they really mean to say, to be cute, is factette. A little fact. A trivial fact. But people now use factoid. They don’t even think about what the word means. But that’s true of so many words today… Like United States. Everybody likes the United States. Well, I’m not sure I do, because they so often conflate the United States with the U.S. government. Talking heads will say, “The U.S. did this. The U.S. should do that.” Wait a minute. Do they mean the nation-state that lies in between Canada and Mexico, or do they mean the U.S. government? They’re almost always talking about the U.S. government. So, they’re conflating the U.S. itself, a conglomeration of 300 million people, with the U.S. government. They’re two different things. The U.S. government has a life of its own. And it only really cares about the U.S. the way a flea cares about a dog. A flea needs the dog; it wants the dog to survive. But not because it cares about the dog itself. The prime directive of every living being, whether it’s an amoeba or a corporation or a government, is SURVIVE. That’s the prime directive; it comes before anything else. The U.S. government is an entity that has a life of its own. Its prime directive is looking out for number one. So, don’t conflate the U.S. and the U.S. government. If you mean the government, say it. If you mean the country, say, “…the U.S., and I don’t mean the U.S. government.” Unfortunately, it’s now necessary to be extremely clear. Otherwise, people will assume what they will… But it’s worse than that, because people now conflate the U.S. with America. They’re totally different things. America is a unique concept, and it was an excellent concept. Its values—what it stood for, at least in theory—were actually unique in the world’s history. But people conflate that with the U.S., which is now really just another one of the 200 nation-states that cover the face of the Earth like a skin disease. I’m all for the idea of America. It’s unique, it’s good, it’s wonderful. But the U.S. is just another nation-state, like Burundi, Burma, or Ecuador—there’s less and less practical difference. Be especially careful when you conflate the U.S. and America. Another good thing that people always confuse, conflate, and define improperly today is health care. “We need the state to pay for health care.” “I want to buy some health insurance.” No, you don’t. And, no, you can’t. What they mean to say is medical care. Health care is something you do for yourself. It’s diet, it’s exercise, it’s prudent habits. Those things increase your odds of having health. They’re how you maintain your health. Your insurance policy, whether it’s Obamacare or something else, can’t maintain your health. It only insures some costs of your medical care. — Recall the beginning of the movie Dances with Wolves, when they show the surgeon cutting off people’s limbs on a battlefield. That’s medical care, in effect, emergency damage control. It’s important and necessary, but medical care can’t maintain your health. That’s something you do. But people love to use the words health care; it sounds so wholesome. The political classes never say “medical care”; they always say “health care,” because everybody wants to be healthy, but people are scared by medical care. It means anesthesia, doctors cutting into you, and dread diseases. That’s why health insurance is so easy to sell to the average chimpanzee. It’s because he thinks to himself, “Yeah, health insurance. Sure, I want to insure that my health stays good.” He doesn’t want to think about medical care; that’s a scary scientific thing. So, please don’t say “health insurance” when you really mean “medical insurance.” I just mentioned the movie Dances with Wolves. That was partly about the so-called American Civil War. Well, no, it wasn’t a civil war, and you shouldn’t call it “the Civil War.” A civil war occurs when two or more groups use military violence in trying to take over the same government to control a designated area. That’s not what the so-called U.S. Civil War was about. It was actually a war of secession, where the Southern states were simply trying to secede. A war of secession is totally different from a civil war. The Spanish Civil War was a real civil war. There, the fascists and the communists were both trying to take control of the same real estate. What we had in the U.S. was not a civil war; it was a war of secession. So, call it the War Between the States. Some call it the War of Northern Aggression. Here’s another one: concentration camps. Who can tell me when concentration camps started, and who started them? No one? Most people would say, “Oh, it was those damn Nazis in World War II.” No, it wasn’t. It was the Brits, the wonderful Brits, our perpetual allies, in the Boer War in South Africa. The Afrikaners call it the British War for Gold. The British created the first concentration camps in modern history, incarcerating and intentionally starving scores of thousands of mostly women and children. But that’s kind of forgotten, since the victors always write the history. Or “herstory,” which, believe it or not, some “gender equality” types prefer to say. They believe everything should be politicized whenever possible. When I was in college, people used to joke, “We’ll never have concentration camps in the U.S.; we’ll call them something else.” And, by God, it was a joke in those days—but today, it’s actually true. We now call them detention facilities. Talking about war and concentration camps, do you all remember that until 1946, the U.S. government used to have something called the War Department? That’s what it was called. The U.S., technically speaking, didn’t go to war unless Congress declared war. But since World War II, it’s had nothing but undeclared wars. From Korea and Vietnam, which were pretty big wars, to all these little, but very expensive, sport wars we get into now. We don’t have a War Department anymore. That would be too honest. It’s called the Defense Department, but it doesn’t defend the U.S. Actually, it draws in trouble and danger to the U.S. They should call it the Opposite of Defense Department, because it’s actually the biggest single existential danger to the U.S. Entirely apart from the fact that, fiscally, it’s going to bankrupt the U.S. A generation from now—assuming they don’t start World War III, I wouldn’t be surprised to see the Seventh Fleet rotting at the dock like an Argentine destroyer, or like the Soviet Navy 20 years ago. But in the meantime, don’t call it the Defense Department. It doesn’t defend anything. You may be thinking, “This guy doesn’t sound like a patriot.” Patriot. That’s a loaded word. “I’m a patriot, you’re a nationalist, he’s a jingoist.” I’m not sure I know the difference. Why is everybody supposed to be a patriot of the country that they’re born in? I don’t care if you come from Rwanda; you’re supposed to be a patriot. It’s a ridiculous concept. My country is the best one in the world, because I was born there. It’s an accident of birth. If you were born just five feet north of the Canadian border, now you’ve got to be a Canadian patriot. At what point does a patriot turn into a nationalist? And at what point does a nationalist turn into a jingoist? Patriot is a word to use very carefully. Be very, very careful of people that use it promiscuously, because they usually don’t know what it means, nor what its implications are. And they’re often warmongers. It’s similar to the axiom “I’m a freedom fighter, you’re a rebel, he’s a terrorist.” It’s mostly a point-of-view thing. But don’t dare broach the subject to a patriot. God forbid a nationalist or a jingoist should hear it. It’s funny how they call these ISIS people in the Middle East—horrible people, quite frankly—they call them terrorists. Well, I don’t know. They’ve established their own nation-state in exactly the way most nation-states are established. You know, by killing the people that were there before, taking over the government, and killing people that fight against them. They’re nasty. I don’t like them; I’d be one of the first people they’d put up against the wall. But that’s how most states get started. They’re just as legitimate as any other nation-state out there today. People say, “Well, they shouldn’t dismember Syria.” Well, Syria is not a real country. It’s a dozen different tribes that mostly hate each other. Iraq is not a real country, either. It’s at least three separate, distinct countries. Afghanistan, Pakistan, India—none of these is a real country, either. None of those countries in the stans is a real country. What do I mean by that? They have no real ethnic, tribal, religious, cultural, or linguistic homogeneity. None of the countries in Africa is a real country, either. It’s crazy to consider them countries. A real country is homogeneous. There are very few—places like Denmark and Finland—unless they’re overwhelmed with migrants. Most “countries” are actually domestic empires. Non-interventionism. There’s nothing wrong with non-interventionism. It’s a highly benign concept, but nobody says that. If you don’t want to stick your nose into somebody else’s business and kill the natives, then you’re called an isolationist. “These are the good natives; those are the bad natives.” I can’t tell the difference, and I promise you, the morons in Washington can’t, either. Conflating the pejorative word isolationist with the benign non-interventionist typifies the intellectual dishonesty that’s accepted—and rarely challenged—today. Actually, what have I been talking about this whole speech? I’ve been talking about stupidity. So, why don’t we define the word stupidity? It’s usually taken to mean a low IQ. But that’s not a very helpful definition. It’s rather circular. More accurately, stupidity is the ability to see the immediate and direct consequences of an action, but an inability to see the indirect and delayed consequences. That’s a much more useful definition of stupidity. But I’ll give you an even better one. It’s an unwitting tendency toward self-destruction. And so, when I use the word stupidity in reference to the misuse of words and the conflation of concepts, it’s appropriate. These things are not trivial factors in the degradation of Western Civilization. And we’ve only scratched the surface of the problem in the last few minutes. Editor’s note: As you know, Doug is among the most respected investors in the world. Since 1979, he’s called some of the biggest financial events of our time. And now, until tonight only, you can get all of Doug’s future moneymaking research—as well as everything we publish here at Casey Research—as part of our exclusive Casey Platinum Membership. If you’ve wanted to see the many different products we offer, this is a way to save tens of thousands of dollars over the years. To learn more about this incredible opportunity, click here. Just remember, this offer ends tonight at midnight. THIS ENDS TONIGHT! At midnight tonight we’re closing our lifetime membership offer, Casey Platinum, to the public. The doors won’t open again for perhaps an entire year. If you would like to get all of our stock research, for a tiny fraction of what others might pay, CLICK HERE NOW. Lock Her Up Trump won’t go after Hillary Clinton on his first day in office. Instead, he’ll issue a shocking executive order that could send a tiny $1 stock through the roof. – Recommended Links
T-Mobile has agreed to pay a $40 million settlement to end a Federal Communications Commission investigation that found some of its customers weren’t able to complete calls to certain rural areas.The investigation started in 2016 when the FCC heard from a few customers and rural telephone companies in Wisconsin that some calls originating on T-Mobile phones weren’t reaching phones in three rural areas. As the FCC investigated, it found seven more areas with the same issues and found the company hadn’t fixed the issues after learning about them.Exacerbating the rural woes, it seems some customers thought their calls were going through and the other person just wasn’t answering. Since 2007, T-Mobile had been inserting ringing sounds on the caller’s end when service was slow and a connection hadn’t actually been made to the recipient’s phone, according to the settlement documents.In 2014, the FCC enacted a rule prohibiting telecom providers from using false rings, which disguise poor connections. T-Mobile, the settlement said, continued the practice on some out-of-network calls, totaling hundreds of millions of calls every year.T-Mobile said Monday that the false-ringtone issue was an unintentional oversight that was fixed in January 2017.”T-Mobile is committed to all of our customers across the country,” the company said in a statement.T-Mobile’s coverage has historically been stronger in urban areas. As it starts implementing its new low-band spectrum, which it won during the federal spectrum auction last year, it is expected to improve coverage in rural areas.As part of the settlement, T-Mobile will make plans for dealing with rural call issues, including working with immediate providers in those areas to improve connections. It will report issues and solutions to the FCC.T-Mobile, which had revenue of $40.6 billion last year, has paid previous fines as part of settlements with the FCC. It was fined $17.5 million in 2015 after two 911 outages, and it paid $48 million in 2016 to settle an investigation over claims that marketing campaigns for its unlimited-data plan were misleading. This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only. ©2018 The Seattle Times Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Bellevue, Wash., telecom T-Mobile has been cited by the federal government for using fake ring tones on some customers’ calls—sounds that made the caller think the phone was ringing on the recipient’s side, when it really wasn’t. T-Mobile fined $48M over slowing ‘unlimited’ data plans Citation: T-Mobile to pay $40 million after using fake ring tones on some customer calls (2018, April 17) retrieved 18 July 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2018-04-t-mobile-million-fake-tones-customer.html Explore further