Saturday, December 31, 2011
SABR42: Call For Presentations
(bbtf)
posted on December 31, 2011 at 08:16 PM by Mike Emeigh to announcements, baseball geeks, community, primate meetups, sabermetrics, site news, special topics
|
7 comment(s)
Posted on behalf of Scott Fischthal and Neal Traven.
SABR invites all members to present their research findings to their colleagues attending SABR42 in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Oral presentations are expected to last 20 minutes, followed by a five minute question-and-answer period. Posters will be presented, with the author on-hand to discuss the work, during a poster session of 90 or so minutes, and will probably remain on display throughout the convention. Abstracts covering all aspects of ...
Read More...
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
1. The George Sherrill Selection posted on March 08, 2007 at 06:37 AM # hit 0 | hit 0I'm watching the archived ARI-SD game from last night, and Vasgersian says MLB has instituted new rules for bats which are going to be grandfathered in. He claims that there is a 3.5:1 length to weight ratio, and that the whole thing is geared toward reducing the number of broken bats. I haven't heard about this, and I have no clue what a 3.5:1 length to weight ratio is. So far as I know, nobody is swinging a 36 inch, 10 ounce bat right now.
Anybody know what in the hell he was talking about?
*shakes head sadly*
i anticipate at least 10 posts by joey b or mr high standards about what hooey this is by the 100th post.
I have no idea, but it sounds like MLB bats might be getting heavier, or the handles thicker. If so, that'd be fantastic, since it'd have the knock-on effect of dampening offense.
This article is satire, right?
As the world warms, the handles will expand.
It's not a ratio; it's a difference. For aluminum bats, it's called the "drop". HS/College rule is that the bat can't be more than three ounces lighter than it is inches long. Even with the modern ultra-thin handles on wooden bats, it's pretty hard to get more than a three ounce drop, so I don't think this rule will have much impact in MLB. But anyway, it means that a 34 inch bat will have to weigh at least 30.5 ounces.
whatsa matter, don't you read?
global warming is a hoax cooked up by the liberal media, the ACLU, and Dennis Kucinich
nattering nabobs of negativism, all of 'em
(to coin a phrase)
You're like a left wing Walter Sobchak; bringing Iraq into every conversation instead of 'Nam.
I notice the librulmedia doesn't even bother to ask if there's a link between prayer rugs or turbans and global warming.
?
Or a Florida team winning the Cup? I figure the oceans will rise 32.7 feet upon team USA winning the World Cup.
that'll just be from the French drowning themselves
I should've went with my original comment to Vaux, but I self-censored it. What set me off was this exchange
5. Jared Prince the Popper (TempleUSox) Posted: March 08, 2007 at 01:14 AM (#2308598)
I'm sure there would be some downside if Florida ceased to exist in 10 years. I just can't think of any at this point in time.
...
7. Vaux Posted: March 08, 2007 at 02:16 AM (#2308608)
There are all the people who live in Florida, of course. . . I gather they're not actually all Republicans.
I was going to ask what would happen if you replaced Florida with Cuba and Republicans with Communists, but that didn't seem to make sense.
There are eloquent folks here with all sorts of viewpoints like JC in DC, scotto, MCoA, and others too numerous to mention. I'm not one of them, especially when it comes to politics, so I usually keep my mouth shut. Unfortunately, there are others like a steriod warrior or two, Joey B, and Vaux. Vaux, at least, has some interesting views on broadcasting and stadium architecture and sacred vocal music that I enjoy reading. But his hijack of the paperofrecord thread was lingering in my memory.
I made a New Years resolution to stay out of threads like this. I'm sorry that I backslid.
that'll just be from the French drowning themselves
Hmm. Throw another log on the fire, Marge.
I don't even understand what blog entry is about. He just pulls some quotes from the article and acts as if they're amazing for some reason, as if that is some kind of analysis. Climate change is here and happening. I've seen the data, and I'm convinced, although it wouldn't matter if I was or not. Whether the earth is warming or not is immaterial. There are an increasing number of health crises globally that are due to extreme weather events. It's a growing field of scientific study - one that's effecting my field (public health) to an increasing degree. My university has consulted with financial and international insurance institutions who are becoming concerned about climate change, even if guys like this still seem to think it's funny.
Sorry for the rant, it's just becoming harder for me to accept jokes like this when I see deaths from diseases attributable to climate change increasing. I realize this guy doesn't care, but joking about climate change and debating whether it is happening is increasing seems like laughing at AIDS jokes to me.
Should be "increasingly seems like laughing at AIDS jokes to me.
Ok, that was maybe a little harsher than I meant, because who doesn't love a good AIDS joke until someone they know dies of AIDS? I know a lot of people who've died from a lot of diseases. It kind of kills your sense of humor about some things. No pun intended.
I was just confused by your comment b/c he didn't mention Iraq.
Evidence?
Well, there are literally hundreds of articles documenting this that have been published over the last few years, so you take the time to really look at the scientific literature, then I think you'll reach a similar conclusion. If you actually are interested in doing some reading about the health effects of global climate change, you could start here with the WHO's 2003 report. There has obviously been more research done recently, and much of this evidence generally supports the conclusion that there have been more and more severe weather events that have negatively effected public health. However, this report summary (the full report is book-length) is a good place to start.
This sentence is really ugly and doesn't make a lot of sense. Basically I'm trying to say that there there is a general consensus in the scientific community that this is happening.
Yes (0) -- 0%
No (59) -- 100%
-Poll of right of center bloggers.
Well, there are literally hundreds of articles documenting this that have been published over the last few years, so you take the time to really look at the scientific literature, then I think you'll reach a similar conclusion.
This sentence is really ugly and doesn't make a lot of sense. Basically I'm trying to say that there there is a general consensus in the scientific community that this is happening.
36. Alex Gordon's #1 Fan Posted: March 08, 2007 at 12:26 PM (#2308845)
Do you think mankind is the primary cause of global warming?
Yes (0) -- 0%
No (59) -- 100%
-Poll of right of center bloggers.
I'd just like to chime in here and state that science isn't done by consensus or polls. I really wish both sides would cool the rhetoric just a hair. There is good science being done in the climate community but it is being communicated to the public for ####.
Isn't this kinda like polling grizzly bears on whether they like salmon? Why poll a group whose opinions are already known?
You're actually a scientist, right? you know what it means for there to be scientific concensus. I don't understand what you're trying to say here, other than to muddy the waters with irrelevant definitional claims.
The key word of course is primary. The earth underwent climate changes for billions of years before the industrial revolution.
I agree with this. This is such a political issue. I'm not a scientist, and it is difficult for me to distinguish the real, objective science on this issue from the politics.
Conclusion
The increasing trend in natural
disasters is partly due to better
reporting, partly due to increasing
population vulnerability, and may
include a contribution from
ongoing global climate change.
Hardly conclusive is it?
Well, duh. If you read the question literally, the answer is clearly "the sun." But I would challenge any of them to present another process hypothesis (similar in kind to mankind burning all kinds of stuff) that has a greater effect.
A belated thank you for that clarification. During the broadcast, Mark Grant asked him what he meant as well, and he just reiterated "there is a 3.5:1 length to weight ratio," and Grant just was like "Oookay," and dropped it.
I understand that scientists are human and engage in all manner of ego driven, funding driven and political and ideologically driven crusades and that at many times in the past groups of brilliant men have enjoyed consensus on ideas we now find ridiculous.
OTOH I also agree that the facts are plain. I think no serious person can dispute the facts of observations over the last few decades. Past that, I think serious people can question "scientific consensus" on causes and solutions, if needed. What I think is up for debate is the cause, forecast and possiblity of reversal of the trends of the past few decades. I think that is due for serious debate and discussion and I don't generally see it from either side. I disagree with Sine Nomine above, this is BOTH a scientific and political issue and, as usual, the political side is vastly overwhelming the scientific side. With no small help from many scientists, I might add.
Mars may be in the midst of a period of profound climate change, according to a new study that shows dramatic year-to-year losses of snow at the south pole.
The newly observed melting, if it is part of a trend, could pump enough carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of Mars to increase its mass by 1 percent per decade, the scientists said.
Damn little green men with their SUV's and their coal-fired power plants and whatnot...
so, are the environmentalists on Mars called "reds"?
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html
The average temperature in February 2007 was 32.9 F. This was -1.8 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average, the 34th coolest February in 113 years. The temperature trend for the period of record (1895 to present) is 0.3 degrees Fahrenheit per decade.
1.56 inches of precipitation fell in February. This was -0.46 inches less than the 1901-2000 average, the 16th driest such month on record. The precipitation trend for the period of record (1895 to present) is 0.00 inches per decade.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.