It feels like the easiest answer is that Lindsey Graham is basically a leech who attaches himself to a source of power/authority and holds on for dear life. For years, that was John McCain. And now it's Donald Trump.

For my money, once Trump is gone and God forbid someone like Hawley or Cotton becomes the next face of the GOP, Graham will simply attach himself to one of them and rebrand himself as the wise old butler, like an evil Alfred.

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

bearister said:

---

"But what the hell is going on with Graham? I am not interested in any rumors but would love to read a well researched biography when this is over."

I have no facts, but just enough life and work experience to trust my instincts on this:

He is being blackmailed, pure and simple. It is the same way J. Edgar Hoover extended his reign of terror so long. He had a dossier on everyone chock full of 8 x 10 glossies.

---

If it is just a matter of him being gay, I wish he would just come out. I would feel bad for him that he for whatever reason feels ashamed for who he is other than the fact that, if true, he is approaching this in the weakest way possible. The public will forgive that he betrayed his beliefs because he was blackmailed, the public won't care about his sexual orientation, he can see those who blackmailed him be criminally charged, and he never has to worry again. Now, if he exploited someone underaged, he better run.

---

The problem with bending the first time under blackmail pressure is once you do it one time, then they suddenly have ANOTHER thing over on you - something ELSE they can use against you - that you bent instead of stood up with NO.

A second problem follows: they know they have push you, and so they begin to push again and again, and every time you do what they want you to do for them rather than say NO is yet ANOTHER thing (each time!) that they have on you.

So, probably at this point, it's FAR beyond them simply having photos and videos of him with his dalliances. It's that they blackmailed him and he gave in time and time and time again.

At this point, I imagine the dossier on him is VERY thick. The gayness of it is a pea. The fact that he's become a tool for whomever would push him over is a mountain.

His career and dignity, he knows, would be over.
The only thing that can be done is to vote him out. Unfortunately, he just won again for 6 more years.
I'm with Dajo where he criticizes "America". Because - how do you fix this?

---

What are they going to say? Hey, if you don't listen to us, then we will show the world that we have been criminally blackmailing a government official? That will show you? And I will laugh at you from a federal prison?

That is why I am really curious to understand what is going on behind the scenes and not too interested in unsubstantiated rumors. Hawley, Cruz, McCarthy - clearly political ambition. Gaetz, Greene - losers who lovingly lick boots because that is better than anything else their talent justifies. McConnell - power hungry and long term strategy. But Graham and the level of bending the knee that he has done when he used to be considered one of the more bi-partisan senators is mind boggling.

---

Maybe Graham is just a loser who wants to try following the cool kids. He tried to act like a bipartisan guy when John McCain was alive, since McCain liked the bipartisan thing. Now McCain is dead and he needs to find another cool kid to fall in with, so he goes with the Trumpies.

---

Maybe you are right.

This article does a decent job of trying to solve the mystery but it doesn't quite do it. I would love to read a full biography some time in the future on how he went from a bipartisan senator and a member of the gang of 8 to this.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/paulmcleod/lindsey-graham-bipartisan-what-happened

---

So, that raises questions:
1) Will the truth ever come out while he's alive?
2) Will the truth ever come out after he dies?
3) How much longer after he dies will the truth come out?
4) How much longer will he live?

I don't think you'll ever have your wish granted.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

bearister said:

---

"But what the hell is going on with Graham? I am not interested in any rumors but would love to read a well researched biography when this is over."

I have no facts, but just enough life and work experience to trust my instincts on this:

He is being blackmailed, pure and simple. It is the same way J. Edgar Hoover extended his reign of terror so long. He had a dossier on everyone chock full of 8 x 10 glossies.

---

If it is just a matter of him being gay, I wish he would just come out. I would feel bad for him that he for whatever reason feels ashamed for who he is other than the fact that, if true, he is approaching this in the weakest way possible. The public will forgive that he betrayed his beliefs because he was blackmailed, the public won't care about his sexual orientation, he can see those who blackmailed him be criminally charged, and he never has to worry again. Now, if he exploited someone underaged, he better run.

---

The problem with bending the first time under blackmail pressure is once you do it one time, then they suddenly have ANOTHER thing over on you - something ELSE they can use against you - that you bent instead of stood up with NO.

A second problem follows: they know they have push you, and so they begin to push again and again, and every time you do what they want you to do for them rather than say NO is yet ANOTHER thing (each time!) that they have on you.

So, probably at this point, it's FAR beyond them simply having photos and videos of him with his dalliances. It's that they blackmailed him and he gave in time and time and time again.

At this point, I imagine the dossier on him is VERY thick. The gayness of it is a pea. The fact that he's become a tool for whomever would push him over is a mountain.

His career and dignity, he knows, would be over.
The only thing that can be done is to vote him out. Unfortunately, he just won again for 6 more years.
I'm with Dajo where he criticizes "America". Because - how do you fix this?

---

What are they going to say? Hey, if you don't listen to us, then we will show the world that we have been criminally blackmailing a government official? That will show you? And I will laugh at you from a federal prison?

That is why I am really curious to understand what is going on behind the scenes and not too interested in unsubstantiated rumors. Hawley, Cruz, McCarthy - clearly political ambition. Gaetz, Greene - losers who lovingly lick boots because that is better than anything else their talent justifies. McConnell - power hungry and long term strategy. But Graham and the level of bending the knee that he has done when he used to be considered one of the more bi-partisan senators is mind boggling.

---

Maybe Graham is just a loser who wants to try following the cool kids. He tried to act like a bipartisan guy when John McCain was alive, since McCain liked the bipartisan thing. Now McCain is dead and he needs to find another cool kid to fall in with, so he goes with the Trumpies.

---

When was Lyndsey Graham ever bipartisan?

---

When he led the totally-not-a-witchhunt impeachment of Bill Clinton? How quaint that something like that was impeachable just a few decades ago. If the bar were that low now, Trump would have been impeached ... checks notes ... 185 times in the last 4 years.

---

right!
no, wait, you're very wrong.
he never would have been elected. Access Hollywood tape would have finished him.

OaktownBear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

JeffBear07 said:

---

Quote:

---

The number one thing the A's could have done to win was spend like the Yankees. The number 2 thing they could have done was to THEN marry analytics with spending like the Yankees.

---

Every time Billy Beane sees the name Theo Epstein, he dies a little bit inside.

---

Wasn't the Red Sox job offered to Beane first? He could have been the one to break the curse.

---

The movie, Moneyball begins by disparaging Johnny Damon's value. Damon was a key component of breaking the curse - he was a championship type ballplayer, not a sabremetrics type ballplayer. Theo Epstein doesn't break the curse without a player like Johnny Damon.

---

1. The movie is more of a feel good personal story and doesn't nearly portray what was going on.

2. You are still missing the point. Overvalued doesn't mean bad player. No one was saying that Damon was a bad player. But a team with limited funds was not going to pay Johnny Damon because they could get more value out of players who make less money. Teams with virtually unlimited funds don't care about value. Johnny Damon made sense for the Red Sox. He made no sense for the A's because of what they would have needed to give up

Mike Trout is a phenomenal baseball player. He makes $37.7M. The A's entire payroll is $69M and $13.5 of that is getting paid by the Texas Rangers this year. If the A's signed Mike Trout, they'd have nothing left to spend at any other position.

Quite frankly, there was probably "a player like Johnny Damon" making similar money that would have been more successful for the Sox than Johnny Damon, but they weren't available for the Red Sox to sign. But what you are missing in this is that if you are choosing between paying $20M for a $15M player and spending $5M for a $10M player, the A's need to pick the latter because that extra $15M is $15M they can't spend on the rest of their roster. The Red Sox don't give a damn about the extra money because it doesn't prevent them from signing whoever they want at other positions, so they need to do the former. The Red Sox still have the better player. And do that 26 times and you have the comparative roster between the two. The only way the A's ever have a better player at any roster spot is by developing the player themselves before the player is no longer under team control.

If you take away Elvis Andrus, who the A's just traded for and as part of the trade they got cash offsetting almost his entire salary, the A's highest paid player makes less than the average salary on the highest payroll teams. The Dodgers have 12 players that make more than the A's highest paid player.

The point of Moneyball was not that Scott Hatteberg was better than Johnny Damon. Is a $5 hamburger better than a $50 steak? Clearly the steak is better but the hamburger is a better value. If you have $50 to spend, you buy the steak. How about if you have $50 and 10 people to feed? Again, the lesson isn't that Moneyball doesn't work. It is that being cheap doesn't work.

And sorry, sabermetrics works. Mookie Betts is one of the best players in the game based on sabermetrics. The Dodgers were the best sabermetrics team. Blindly following sabermetrics is a bad strategy as is blindly following anything. But overall, sabermetrics works.

---

No, you are missing the point. You are obsessed with making this about the A's. Nobody is disagreeing with you about the particulars of the A's.

When I say a movie called somebody overvalued I mean they were called overvalued - not bad. You didn't have anything to say about my arguments regarding the way sabremetrics are calculated and why it doesn't apply to the postseason. Ignored my argument completely to talk about your beloved A's.

Yes, the Dodgers were near the top in sabremetrics in 2020. You know who ranked higher in sabremetrics according to Fangraphs? The inferior 2017 and 2018 Dodgers. The Dodgers learned to make contact. The strikeout rate stats I showed back it up. Here it is in action with Will Smith beating the shift in the playoffs - you didn't see this in the prior years.

I'm really finding the debate about Moneyball to be, well, humorous.

concordtom said:

---

I'm really finding the debate about Moneyball to be, well, humorous.

---

It's a debate about sabremetrics, damnit

Haha

JeffBear07 said:

---

It feels like the easiest answer is that Lindsey Graham is basically a leech who attaches himself to a source of power/authority and holds on for dear life. For years, that was John McCain. And now it's Donald Trump.

For my money, once Trump is gone and God forbid someone like Hawley or Cotton becomes the next face of the GOP, Graham will simply attach himself to one of them and rebrand himself as the wise old butler, like an evil Alfred.

---

Graham has always been an extreme partisan. Maybe that is the answer. Trump won and became the Republican leader and that is all Graham needed. It was just such a sharp turn it makes you wonder.

JeffBear07 said:

---

It feels like the easiest answer is that Lindsey Graham is basically a leech who attaches himself to a source of power/authority and holds on for dear life. For years, that was John McCain. And now it's Donald Trump.

For my money, once Trump is gone and God forbid someone like Hawley or Cotton becomes the next face of the GOP, Graham will simply attach himself to one of them and rebrand himself as the wise old butler, like an evil Alfred.

---

That may be true but he did go against the grain many times before. He was one of the senators who voted for all of the liberal justices, wanted to push the party more left on amnesty, defended Obama against attacks from the right, and called Trump correctly for who he is. He was one of the senators Democrats used to go to if they wanted to initiate a compromise.

Now this. So, not convinced that he was always like this. And maybe Trump just broke him like he broke Rubio, but Graham has been in the senate for a long time with a lot of friends and lot of power. Sad to see this.

concordtom said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

bearister said:

---

"But what the hell is going on with Graham? I am not interested in any rumors but would love to read a well researched biography when this is over."

I have no facts, but just enough life and work experience to trust my instincts on this:

He is being blackmailed, pure and simple. It is the same way J. Edgar Hoover extended his reign of terror so long. He had a dossier on everyone chock full of 8 x 10 glossies.

---

If it is just a matter of him being gay, I wish he would just come out. I would feel bad for him that he for whatever reason feels ashamed for who he is other than the fact that, if true, he is approaching this in the weakest way possible. The public will forgive that he betrayed his beliefs because he was blackmailed, the public won't care about his sexual orientation, he can see those who blackmailed him be criminally charged, and he never has to worry again. Now, if he exploited someone underaged, he better run.

---

The problem with bending the first time under blackmail pressure is once you do it one time, then they suddenly have ANOTHER thing over on you - something ELSE they can use against you - that you bent instead of stood up with NO.

A second problem follows: they know they have push you, and so they begin to push again and again, and every time you do what they want you to do for them rather than say NO is yet ANOTHER thing (each time!) that they have on you.

So, probably at this point, it's FAR beyond them simply having photos and videos of him with his dalliances. It's that they blackmailed him and he gave in time and time and time again.

At this point, I imagine the dossier on him is VERY thick. The gayness of it is a pea. The fact that he's become a tool for whomever would push him over is a mountain.

His career and dignity, he knows, would be over.
The only thing that can be done is to vote him out. Unfortunately, he just won again for 6 more years.
I'm with Dajo where he criticizes "America". Because - how do you fix this?

---

What are they going to say? Hey, if you don't listen to us, then we will show the world that we have been criminally blackmailing a government official? That will show you? And I will laugh at you from a federal prison?

That is why I am really curious to understand what is going on behind the scenes and not too interested in unsubstantiated rumors. Hawley, Cruz, McCarthy - clearly political ambition. Gaetz, Greene - losers who lovingly lick boots because that is better than anything else their talent justifies. McConnell - power hungry and long term strategy. But Graham and the level of bending the knee that he has done when he used to be considered one of the more bi-partisan senators is mind boggling.

---

Maybe Graham is just a loser who wants to try following the cool kids. He tried to act like a bipartisan guy when John McCain was alive, since McCain liked the bipartisan thing. Now McCain is dead and he needs to find another cool kid to fall in with, so he goes with the Trumpies.

---

Maybe you are right.

This article does a decent job of trying to solve the mystery but it doesn't quite do it. I would love to read a full biography some time in the future on how he went from a bipartisan senator and a member of the gang of 8 to this.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/paulmcleod/lindsey-graham-bipartisan-what-happened

---

So, that raises questions:
1) Will the truth ever come out while he's alive?
2) Will the truth ever come out after he dies?
3) How much longer after he dies will the truth come out?
4) How much longer will he live?

I don't think you'll ever have your wish granted.

---

The good thing is I am much younger than he is.

calbear93 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

bearister said:

---

"But what the hell is going on with Graham? I am not interested in any rumors but would love to read a well researched biography when this is over."

I have no facts, but just enough life and work experience to trust my instincts on this:

He is being blackmailed, pure and simple. It is the same way J. Edgar Hoover extended his reign of terror so long. He had a dossier on everyone chock full of 8 x 10 glossies.

---

If it is just a matter of him being gay, I wish he would just come out. I would feel bad for him that he for whatever reason feels ashamed for who he is other than the fact that, if true, he is approaching this in the weakest way possible. The public will forgive that he betrayed his beliefs because he was blackmailed, the public won't care about his sexual orientation, he can see those who blackmailed him be criminally charged, and he never has to worry again. Now, if he exploited someone underaged, he better run.

---

The problem with bending the first time under blackmail pressure is once you do it one time, then they suddenly have ANOTHER thing over on you - something ELSE they can use against you - that you bent instead of stood up with NO.

A second problem follows: they know they have push you, and so they begin to push again and again, and every time you do what they want you to do for them rather than say NO is yet ANOTHER thing (each time!) that they have on you.

So, probably at this point, it's FAR beyond them simply having photos and videos of him with his dalliances. It's that they blackmailed him and he gave in time and time and time again.

At this point, I imagine the dossier on him is VERY thick. The gayness of it is a pea. The fact that he's become a tool for whomever would push him over is a mountain.

His career and dignity, he knows, would be over.
The only thing that can be done is to vote him out. Unfortunately, he just won again for 6 more years.
I'm with Dajo where he criticizes "America". Because - how do you fix this?

---

What are they going to say? Hey, if you don't listen to us, then we will show the world that we have been criminally blackmailing a government official? That will show you? And I will laugh at you from a federal prison?

That is why I am really curious to understand what is going on behind the scenes and not too interested in unsubstantiated rumors. Hawley, Cruz, McCarthy - clearly political ambition. Gaetz, Greene - losers who lovingly lick boots because that is better than anything else their talent justifies. McConnell - power hungry and long term strategy. But Graham and the level of bending the knee that he has done when he used to be considered one of the more bi-partisan senators is mind boggling.

---

Maybe Graham is just a loser who wants to try following the cool kids. He tried to act like a bipartisan guy when John McCain was alive, since McCain liked the bipartisan thing. Now McCain is dead and he needs to find another cool kid to fall in with, so he goes with the Trumpies.

---

Maybe you are right.

This article does a decent job of trying to solve the mystery but it doesn't quite do it. I would love to read a full biography some time in the future on how he went from a bipartisan senator and a member of the gang of 8 to this.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/paulmcleod/lindsey-graham-bipartisan-what-happened

---

So, that raises questions:
1) Will the truth ever come out while he's alive?
2) Will the truth ever come out after he dies?
3) How much longer after he dies will the truth come out?
4) How much longer will he live?

I don't think you'll ever have your wish granted.

---

The good thing is I am much younger than he is.

---

You guys are overthinking this. He isn't being blackmailed. Graham is the biggest political ***** in the history of the senate. He does whatever he thinks is good for Lindsay. The explanation of the shift from 2016 is that he completely miscalculated in 2016. Even he didn't realize how depraved his party had become. He thought that Trump would ultimately lose and positioning himself as the one that was oh so ethical would allow him to say I told you so and rise out of the ashes of the party. Once he figured out Trump was the political future of the party his ethical stance was a political loser.

OaktownBear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

bearister said:

---

"But what the hell is going on with Graham? I am not interested in any rumors but would love to read a well researched biography when this is over."

I have no facts, but just enough life and work experience to trust my instincts on this:

He is being blackmailed, pure and simple. It is the same way J. Edgar Hoover extended his reign of terror so long. He had a dossier on everyone chock full of 8 x 10 glossies.

---

If it is just a matter of him being gay, I wish he would just come out. I would feel bad for him that he for whatever reason feels ashamed for who he is other than the fact that, if true, he is approaching this in the weakest way possible. The public will forgive that he betrayed his beliefs because he was blackmailed, the public won't care about his sexual orientation, he can see those who blackmailed him be criminally charged, and he never has to worry again. Now, if he exploited someone underaged, he better run.

---

The problem with bending the first time under blackmail pressure is once you do it one time, then they suddenly have ANOTHER thing over on you - something ELSE they can use against you - that you bent instead of stood up with NO.

A second problem follows: they know they have push you, and so they begin to push again and again, and every time you do what they want you to do for them rather than say NO is yet ANOTHER thing (each time!) that they have on you.

So, probably at this point, it's FAR beyond them simply having photos and videos of him with his dalliances. It's that they blackmailed him and he gave in time and time and time again.

At this point, I imagine the dossier on him is VERY thick. The gayness of it is a pea. The fact that he's become a tool for whomever would push him over is a mountain.

His career and dignity, he knows, would be over.
The only thing that can be done is to vote him out. Unfortunately, he just won again for 6 more years.
I'm with Dajo where he criticizes "America". Because - how do you fix this?

---

What are they going to say? Hey, if you don't listen to us, then we will show the world that we have been criminally blackmailing a government official? That will show you? And I will laugh at you from a federal prison?

That is why I am really curious to understand what is going on behind the scenes and not too interested in unsubstantiated rumors. Hawley, Cruz, McCarthy - clearly political ambition. Gaetz, Greene - losers who lovingly lick boots because that is better than anything else their talent justifies. McConnell - power hungry and long term strategy. But Graham and the level of bending the knee that he has done when he used to be considered one of the more bi-partisan senators is mind boggling.

---

Maybe Graham is just a loser who wants to try following the cool kids. He tried to act like a bipartisan guy when John McCain was alive, since McCain liked the bipartisan thing. Now McCain is dead and he needs to find another cool kid to fall in with, so he goes with the Trumpies.

---

Maybe you are right.

This article does a decent job of trying to solve the mystery but it doesn't quite do it. I would love to read a full biography some time in the future on how he went from a bipartisan senator and a member of the gang of 8 to this.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/paulmcleod/lindsey-graham-bipartisan-what-happened

---

So, that raises questions:
1) Will the truth ever come out while he's alive?
2) Will the truth ever come out after he dies?
3) How much longer after he dies will the truth come out?
4) How much longer will he live?

I don't think you'll ever have your wish granted.

---

The good thing is I am much younger than he is.

---

You guys are overthinking this. He isn't being blackmailed. Graham is the biggest political ***** in the history of the senate. He does whatever he thinks is good for Lindsay. The explanation of the shift from 2016 is that he completely miscalculated in 2016. Even he didn't realize how depraved his party had become. He thought that Trump would ultimately lose and positioning himself as the one that was oh so ethical would allow him to say I told you so and rise out of the ashes of the party. Once he figured out Trump was the political future of the party his ethical stance was a political loser.

---

That is also a strong possibility. The fact that he changed many of his position 180 degrees in the last four years does not reflect strong character for someone his age.

dajo9 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

JeffBear07 said:

---

Quote:

---

The number one thing the A's could have done to win was spend like the Yankees. The number 2 thing they could have done was to THEN marry analytics with spending like the Yankees.

---

Every time Billy Beane sees the name Theo Epstein, he dies a little bit inside.

---

Wasn't the Red Sox job offered to Beane first? He could have been the one to break the curse.

---

The movie, Moneyball begins by disparaging Johnny Damon's value. Damon was a key component of breaking the curse - he was a championship type ballplayer, not a sabremetrics type ballplayer. Theo Epstein doesn't break the curse without a player like Johnny Damon.

---

1. The movie is more of a feel good personal story and doesn't nearly portray what was going on.

2. You are still missing the point. Overvalued doesn't mean bad player. No one was saying that Damon was a bad player. But a team with limited funds was not going to pay Johnny Damon because they could get more value out of players who make less money. Teams with virtually unlimited funds don't care about value. Johnny Damon made sense for the Red Sox. He made no sense for the A's because of what they would have needed to give up

Mike Trout is a phenomenal baseball player. He makes $37.7M. The A's entire payroll is $69M and $13.5 of that is getting paid by the Texas Rangers this year. If the A's signed Mike Trout, they'd have nothing left to spend at any other position.

Quite frankly, there was probably "a player like Johnny Damon" making similar money that would have been more successful for the Sox than Johnny Damon, but they weren't available for the Red Sox to sign. But what you are missing in this is that if you are choosing between paying $20M for a $15M player and spending $5M for a $10M player, the A's need to pick the latter because that extra $15M is $15M they can't spend on the rest of their roster. The Red Sox don't give a damn about the extra money because it doesn't prevent them from signing whoever they want at other positions, so they need to do the former. The Red Sox still have the better player. And do that 26 times and you have the comparative roster between the two. The only way the A's ever have a better player at any roster spot is by developing the player themselves before the player is no longer under team control.

If you take away Elvis Andrus, who the A's just traded for and as part of the trade they got cash offsetting almost his entire salary, the A's highest paid player makes less than the average salary on the highest payroll teams. The Dodgers have 12 players that make more than the A's highest paid player.

The point of Moneyball was not that Scott Hatteberg was better than Johnny Damon. Is a $5 hamburger better than a $50 steak? Clearly the steak is better but the hamburger is a better value. If you have $50 to spend, you buy the steak. How about if you have $50 and 10 people to feed? Again, the lesson isn't that Moneyball doesn't work. It is that being cheap doesn't work.

And sorry, sabermetrics works. Mookie Betts is one of the best players in the game based on sabermetrics. The Dodgers were the best sabermetrics team. Blindly following sabermetrics is a bad strategy as is blindly following anything. But overall, sabermetrics works.

---

No, you are missing the point. You are obsessed with making this about the A's. Nobody is disagreeing with you about the particulars of the A's.

When I say a movie called somebody overvalued I mean they were called overvalued - not bad. You didn't have anything to say about my arguments regarding the way sabremetrics are calculated and why it doesn't apply to the postseason. Ignored my argument completely to talk about your beloved A's.

Yes, the Dodgers were near the top in sabremetrics in 2020. You know who ranked higher in sabremetrics according to Fangraphs? The inferior 2017 and 2018 Dodgers. The Dodgers learned to make contact. The strikeout rate stats I showed back it up. Here it is in action with Will Smith beating the shift in the playoffs - you didn't see this in the prior years.

---

I would actually simplify the shortcoming of pure sabermetrics as a World Series-winning formula to the fact that it inherently undervalues top-flight starting pitching in the postseason. Just the way baseball is set up, you can put your ace pitcher(s) on the mound as many times as you want over the course of a series, something that you can't do with hitters. Over the course of 162 games, this is of course a terrible idea, but over the course of around 20 games? Eminently doable. Sabermetrics still works great in the regular season because various metrics build in the presumption that a starting pitcher will only go once every 5 days or so, but if that pitcher is suddenly going every 3 or 4 days (Bumgarner will always be a Giants legend for that), then standard sabermetrics are much less applicable. That is where cash-strapped teams like the A's fall short, because they typically can't afford the top-flight starting pitchers who are uniquely positioned amongst the rest of the team to impact games in the postseason.

And I think that ties directly back to the point you're making here that contact is a valuable skill in the postseason, because hitters are now facing top-flight starters much more frequently and can't rely as much on the pitcher's control issues or "cement mixers" to succeed. Only once can you really argue that the A's in the postseason have ever had that sort of ace level pitching (Hudson-Mulder-Zito), and their failures back then I still think you can simply chalk up to randomness or flukes in the moment. And obligatory Giants-bashing, their 2012 World Series win was one of the biggest fluke championships ever in modern MLB history, Lincecum's individual dominance aside.

As this all relates back to data analytics, I think such technology all works really well until it doesn't (i.e., the governing circumstances change or an unexpected variable is introduced). No one really had any rational reason to significantly question political polling and 538 was seen as the crown jewel of poll analysis until the inexplicable phenomenon of Donald Trump came along. I don't know what unexpected change in circumstances might eventually arise when it comes to predicting people's social media consumption, but that's why it's unexpected right? Although, I guess I'll pull a double-hedge and say that artificial intelligence also feels like something completely different so who knows.

calbear93 said:

---

JeffBear07 said:

---

It feels like the easiest answer is that Lindsey Graham is basically a leech who attaches himself to a source of power/authority and holds on for dear life. For years, that was John McCain. And now it's Donald Trump.

For my money, once Trump is gone and God forbid someone like Hawley or Cotton becomes the next face of the GOP, Graham will simply attach himself to one of them and rebrand himself as the wise old butler, like an evil Alfred.

---

That may be true but he did go against the grain many times before. He was one of the senators who voted for all of the liberal justices, wanted to push the party more left on amnesty, defended Obama against attacks from the right, and called Trump correctly for who he is. He was one of the senators Democrats used to go to if they wanted to initiate a compromise.

Now this. So, not convinced that he was always like this. And maybe Trump just broke him like he broke Rubio, but Graham has been in the senate for a long time with a lot of friends and lot of power. Sad to see this.

---

My argument is that Graham goes against the grain only when he can follow the lead of a more powerful personality or political force. John McCain was such a personality and force. Donald Trump is also, sadly, a personality and a force. Lindsey himself is a craven coward who would never put himself out there unless he has someone else to hide behind. If McConnell had ever figured out how to trade out his turtle-ness for even an ounce of Trump's charisma, I have no doubt Lindsey would have become Mitch's most prominent lapdog years ago. Marco Rubio, to your point, is a much more fascinating case study for what you're saying in my opinion.

JeffBear07 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

JeffBear07 said:

---

Quote:

---

The number one thing the A's could have done to win was spend like the Yankees. The number 2 thing they could have done was to THEN marry analytics with spending like the Yankees.

---

Every time Billy Beane sees the name Theo Epstein, he dies a little bit inside.

---

Wasn't the Red Sox job offered to Beane first? He could have been the one to break the curse.

---

The movie, Moneyball begins by disparaging Johnny Damon's value. Damon was a key component of breaking the curse - he was a championship type ballplayer, not a sabremetrics type ballplayer. Theo Epstein doesn't break the curse without a player like Johnny Damon.

---

1. The movie is more of a feel good personal story and doesn't nearly portray what was going on.

2. You are still missing the point. Overvalued doesn't mean bad player. No one was saying that Damon was a bad player. But a team with limited funds was not going to pay Johnny Damon because they could get more value out of players who make less money. Teams with virtually unlimited funds don't care about value. Johnny Damon made sense for the Red Sox. He made no sense for the A's because of what they would have needed to give up

Mike Trout is a phenomenal baseball player. He makes $37.7M. The A's entire payroll is $69M and $13.5 of that is getting paid by the Texas Rangers this year. If the A's signed Mike Trout, they'd have nothing left to spend at any other position.

Quite frankly, there was probably "a player like Johnny Damon" making similar money that would have been more successful for the Sox than Johnny Damon, but they weren't available for the Red Sox to sign. But what you are missing in this is that if you are choosing between paying $20M for a $15M player and spending $5M for a $10M player, the A's need to pick the latter because that extra $15M is $15M they can't spend on the rest of their roster. The Red Sox don't give a damn about the extra money because it doesn't prevent them from signing whoever they want at other positions, so they need to do the former. The Red Sox still have the better player. And do that 26 times and you have the comparative roster between the two. The only way the A's ever have a better player at any roster spot is by developing the player themselves before the player is no longer under team control.

If you take away Elvis Andrus, who the A's just traded for and as part of the trade they got cash offsetting almost his entire salary, the A's highest paid player makes less than the average salary on the highest payroll teams. The Dodgers have 12 players that make more than the A's highest paid player.

The point of Moneyball was not that Scott Hatteberg was better than Johnny Damon. Is a $5 hamburger better than a $50 steak? Clearly the steak is better but the hamburger is a better value. If you have $50 to spend, you buy the steak. How about if you have $50 and 10 people to feed? Again, the lesson isn't that Moneyball doesn't work. It is that being cheap doesn't work.

And sorry, sabermetrics works. Mookie Betts is one of the best players in the game based on sabermetrics. The Dodgers were the best sabermetrics team. Blindly following sabermetrics is a bad strategy as is blindly following anything. But overall, sabermetrics works.

---

No, you are missing the point. You are obsessed with making this about the A's. Nobody is disagreeing with you about the particulars of the A's.

When I say a movie called somebody overvalued I mean they were called overvalued - not bad. You didn't have anything to say about my arguments regarding the way sabremetrics are calculated and why it doesn't apply to the postseason. Ignored my argument completely to talk about your beloved A's.

Yes, the Dodgers were near the top in sabremetrics in 2020. You know who ranked higher in sabremetrics according to Fangraphs? The inferior 2017 and 2018 Dodgers. The Dodgers learned to make contact. The strikeout rate stats I showed back it up. Here it is in action with Will Smith beating the shift in the playoffs - you didn't see this in the prior years.

---

As this all relates back to data analytics, I think such technology all works really well until it doesn't (i.e., the governing circumstances change or an unexpected variable is introduced). No one really had any rational reason to significantly question political polling and 538 was seen as the crown jewel of poll analysis until the inexplicable phenomenon of Donald Trump came along. I don't know what unexpected change in circumstances might eventually arise when it comes to predicting people's social media consumption, but that's why it's unexpected right? Although, I guess I'll pull a double-hedge and say that artificial intelligence also feels like something completely different so who knows.

---

The difference is that data analytics and data collection is not static but instead is continuous collected and analyzed to predict future trends. As long as we are continuously collecting network data, whether from sensors in industrial, clicking and viewing trends from users, including length of views, purchasing trends, aggregation of reviews, etc., conclusions are not static but always evolving. And as you gather more data from more applications and from more sources, the analysis becomes even better. For example, the more times you use Uber, think about all of the preferences they can gather, from your food choices, grocery choices, etc. Furthermore, they can gather data from your city, your state, etc. Maybe even from your age group, gender, type of credit cards. It is not just a very cheap and convenient mechanism to go from point A to point B. Imagine how many adjacent markets are possible, with even better data on what to recommend and then also sell that capability to ensure a greater sale to merchants. And if the network of preferences changes, they can also start noticing trends early to change businesses or recommendations.

And UBER is probably low data collector relative to Facebook, Amazon, Google.

calbear93 said:

---

JeffBear07 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

JeffBear07 said:

---

Quote:

---

The number one thing the A's could have done to win was spend like the Yankees. The number 2 thing they could have done was to THEN marry analytics with spending like the Yankees.

---

Every time Billy Beane sees the name Theo Epstein, he dies a little bit inside.

---

Wasn't the Red Sox job offered to Beane first? He could have been the one to break the curse.

---

The movie, Moneyball begins by disparaging Johnny Damon's value. Damon was a key component of breaking the curse - he was a championship type ballplayer, not a sabremetrics type ballplayer. Theo Epstein doesn't break the curse without a player like Johnny Damon.

---

1. The movie is more of a feel good personal story and doesn't nearly portray what was going on.

2. You are still missing the point. Overvalued doesn't mean bad player. No one was saying that Damon was a bad player. But a team with limited funds was not going to pay Johnny Damon because they could get more value out of players who make less money. Teams with virtually unlimited funds don't care about value. Johnny Damon made sense for the Red Sox. He made no sense for the A's because of what they would have needed to give up

Mike Trout is a phenomenal baseball player. He makes $37.7M. The A's entire payroll is $69M and $13.5 of that is getting paid by the Texas Rangers this year. If the A's signed Mike Trout, they'd have nothing left to spend at any other position.

Quite frankly, there was probably "a player like Johnny Damon" making similar money that would have been more successful for the Sox than Johnny Damon, but they weren't available for the Red Sox to sign. But what you are missing in this is that if you are choosing between paying $20M for a $15M player and spending $5M for a $10M player, the A's need to pick the latter because that extra $15M is $15M they can't spend on the rest of their roster. The Red Sox don't give a damn about the extra money because it doesn't prevent them from signing whoever they want at other positions, so they need to do the former. The Red Sox still have the better player. And do that 26 times and you have the comparative roster between the two. The only way the A's ever have a better player at any roster spot is by developing the player themselves before the player is no longer under team control.

If you take away Elvis Andrus, who the A's just traded for and as part of the trade they got cash offsetting almost his entire salary, the A's highest paid player makes less than the average salary on the highest payroll teams. The Dodgers have 12 players that make more than the A's highest paid player.

The point of Moneyball was not that Scott Hatteberg was better than Johnny Damon. Is a $5 hamburger better than a $50 steak? Clearly the steak is better but the hamburger is a better value. If you have $50 to spend, you buy the steak. How about if you have $50 and 10 people to feed? Again, the lesson isn't that Moneyball doesn't work. It is that being cheap doesn't work.

And sorry, sabermetrics works. Mookie Betts is one of the best players in the game based on sabermetrics. The Dodgers were the best sabermetrics team. Blindly following sabermetrics is a bad strategy as is blindly following anything. But overall, sabermetrics works.

---

No, you are missing the point. You are obsessed with making this about the A's. Nobody is disagreeing with you about the particulars of the A's.

When I say a movie called somebody overvalued I mean they were called overvalued - not bad. You didn't have anything to say about my arguments regarding the way sabremetrics are calculated and why it doesn't apply to the postseason. Ignored my argument completely to talk about your beloved A's.

Yes, the Dodgers were near the top in sabremetrics in 2020. You know who ranked higher in sabremetrics according to Fangraphs? The inferior 2017 and 2018 Dodgers. The Dodgers learned to make contact. The strikeout rate stats I showed back it up. Here it is in action with Will Smith beating the shift in the playoffs - you didn't see this in the prior years.

---

As this all relates back to data analytics, I think such technology all works really well until it doesn't (i.e., the governing circumstances change or an unexpected variable is introduced). No one really had any rational reason to significantly question political polling and 538 was seen as the crown jewel of poll analysis until the inexplicable phenomenon of Donald Trump came along. I don't know what unexpected change in circumstances might eventually arise when it comes to predicting people's social media consumption, but that's why it's unexpected right? Although, I guess I'll pull a double-hedge and say that artificial intelligence also feels like something completely different so who knows.

---

The difference is that data analytics and data collection is not static but instead is continuous collected and analyzed to predict future trends. As long as we are continuously collective network data, whether from sensors in industrial, clicking and viewing trends from users, including length of views, purchasing trends, aggregation of reviews, etc., conclusions are not static but always evolving. And as you gather more data from more applications and from more sources, the analysis becomes even better.

---

That's a good point. I suppose in theory the same general notion can be applied to baseball statistics and polling data, but what you're talking about is much more open-ended. I'll just close by throwing my own vote behind the need for much more stringent regulation on how big tech companies can collect and apply data.

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

Exchange after Trump said the rioters were Antifa. McCarthy said they were Trump's people and to call them off. Then...

---

"I'm trying really hard not to say the F word"

Funny.

They should call R Rep Jaime Gangel of WA as a witness.
Don't just let them vote to acquit. Scorched earth.

concordtom said:

---

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

Exchange after Trump said the rioters were Antifa. McCarthy said they were Trump's people and to call them off. Then...

---

"I'm trying really hard not to say the F word"

Funny.

They should call R Rep Jaime Gangel of WA as a witness.
Don't just let them vote to acquit. Scorched earth.

---

Wait, didn't McCarthy then vote -- that very evening -- to not certify the election? (Or am I getting my votes mixed up?)

Because after that, if McCarthy still voted like Trump wanted him to, clearly the answer to the question, "Who the f*** do you think you're talking to?" is "I'm talking to Kevin, my little b****."

How do we know Trump didn't think Pence was captured by the mob. Who does Trump think "they" is?

After that exchange Trump tweets about Pence. Is this a sentence? A eulogy?

OaktownBear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

bearister said:

---

"But what the hell is going on with Graham? I am not interested in any rumors but would love to read a well researched biography when this is over."

I have no facts, but just enough life and work experience to trust my instincts on this:

He is being blackmailed, pure and simple. It is the same way J. Edgar Hoover extended his reign of terror so long. He had a dossier on everyone chock full of 8 x 10 glossies.

---

If it is just a matter of him being gay, I wish he would just come out. I would feel bad for him that he for whatever reason feels ashamed for who he is other than the fact that, if true, he is approaching this in the weakest way possible. The public will forgive that he betrayed his beliefs because he was blackmailed, the public won't care about his sexual orientation, he can see those who blackmailed him be criminally charged, and he never has to worry again. Now, if he exploited someone underaged, he better run.

---

The problem with bending the first time under blackmail pressure is once you do it one time, then they suddenly have ANOTHER thing over on you - something ELSE they can use against you - that you bent instead of stood up with NO.

A second problem follows: they know they have push you, and so they begin to push again and again, and every time you do what they want you to do for them rather than say NO is yet ANOTHER thing (each time!) that they have on you.

So, probably at this point, it's FAR beyond them simply having photos and videos of him with his dalliances. It's that they blackmailed him and he gave in time and time and time again.

At this point, I imagine the dossier on him is VERY thick. The gayness of it is a pea. The fact that he's become a tool for whomever would push him over is a mountain.

His career and dignity, he knows, would be over.
The only thing that can be done is to vote him out. Unfortunately, he just won again for 6 more years.
I'm with Dajo where he criticizes "America". Because - how do you fix this?

---

What are they going to say? Hey, if you don't listen to us, then we will show the world that we have been criminally blackmailing a government official? That will show you? And I will laugh at you from a federal prison?

That is why I am really curious to understand what is going on behind the scenes and not too interested in unsubstantiated rumors. Hawley, Cruz, McCarthy - clearly political ambition. Gaetz, Greene - losers who lovingly lick boots because that is better than anything else their talent justifies. McConnell - power hungry and long term strategy. But Graham and the level of bending the knee that he has done when he used to be considered one of the more bi-partisan senators is mind boggling.

---

Maybe Graham is just a loser who wants to try following the cool kids. He tried to act like a bipartisan guy when John McCain was alive, since McCain liked the bipartisan thing. Now McCain is dead and he needs to find another cool kid to fall in with, so he goes with the Trumpies.

---

Maybe you are right.

This article does a decent job of trying to solve the mystery but it doesn't quite do it. I would love to read a full biography some time in the future on how he went from a bipartisan senator and a member of the gang of 8 to this.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/paulmcleod/lindsey-graham-bipartisan-what-happened

---

So, that raises questions:
1) Will the truth ever come out while he's alive?
2) Will the truth ever come out after he dies?
3) How much longer after he dies will the truth come out?
4) How much longer will he live?

I don't think you'll ever have your wish granted.

---

The good thing is I am much younger than he is.

---

You guys are overthinking this. He isn't being blackmailed. Graham is the biggest political ***** in the history of the senate. He does whatever he thinks is good for Lindsay. The explanation of the shift from 2016 is that he completely miscalculated in 2016. Even he didn't realize how depraved his party had become. He thought that Trump would ultimately lose and positioning himself as the one that was oh so ethical would allow him to say I told you so and rise out of the ashes of the party. Once he figured out Trump was the political future of the party his ethical stance was a political loser.

---

Hillary and every intelligent pundit on tv also got 2016 wrong. Nobody thought he was electable, but the Deplorables are a force to be reckoned with.

The GOP should fracture:
1) intelligent conservatives (mainly wealthy whites) &,
2) Deplorables (which includes Q wackos, closet racists and full on white supremists, the poor and uneducated).

Trump appeals to both, is a Deplorable at his core, and the McCarthys and Grahams on Capitol Hill are letting the Deplorables factions rule the party.

Calling for the G OLD P to return: MIA.

concordtom said:

---

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

Exchange after Trump said the rioters were Antifa. McCarthy said they were Trump's people and to call them off. Then...

---

"I'm trying really hard not to say the F word"

Funny.

They should call R Rep Jaime Gangel of WA as a witness.
Don't just let them vote to acquit. Scorched earth.

---

Just voted FOR witnesses.
YES !! BRING IT !!!

And Lindsay Graham, changed his vote to YES after seeing that there was going to be witnesses. But that doesn't mean he's turning against Trump (along with Murkowski, Collins, Romney, Sasse) - rather, it means he is going Scorched Earth as well.

This can of worms just EXPLODED at a moment when we thought they might have the final vote on the entire impeachment, Raskin raised the request to call Gangel as a witness. BOOM!

The defense attorney van der Beek went off on the Senate, and then said he wants to depose hundreds of witnesses IN HIS OFFICE IN PHILLY - and the entire Senate LAUGHED AT HIM!!!! Leahy had to gavel for decorum in the chamber.

Very surprising turn of events! This could go on for a long long time.

Lindsey Graham is under criminal investigation by the Fulton County DA

Senator Graham's call with Georgia official part of election probe: Washington Post

A Georgia prosecutor plans to examine a phone call between U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham and Georgia's secretary of state as part of a criminal investigation into whether former President Donald Trump or his allies broke state law in trying to influence the results of the election, the Washington Post reported on Friday.
Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis will look into the call Graham made to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger 10 days after the Nov. 3 election, the Post reported, citing an unnamed person familiar with the probe.
Graham, a Republican and a close Trump ally, asked Raffensperger whether he had the power to toss out all mail ballots in certain counties, Raffensperger has told the Post.

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

---

So slip'in Jimmy it is.

Van der Veen's reaction to Raskin calling for witnesses:






And, immediately, on the phone with Trump:



(no truth to the rumor that Van der Veen contacted Raskin at 6am offering to pay a 20% kickback of all additional fees extracted from Trump for extending the trial)

BearChemist said:

---

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

---

So slip'in Jimmy it is.

---

So, is this Saul actually Van der Veen?

never mind:

Better Call Saul is an American crime drama television series created by Vince Gilligan and Peter Gould. It is both a spin-off and a prequel of Gilligan's previous series, Breaking Bad. Set in the early to mid- 2000s in Albuquerque, New Mexico, the series develops Jimmy McGill (Bob Odenkirk), an earnest lawyer and former con-man, into a greedy criminal defense attorney known as Saul Goodman.

Aw, man.
No witnesses after all.
What a downer. I was hoping the Dems would call this guy in:

Standing ovation from me for 36-year-old Joe Neguse.

Edit: and Raskin.

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

Standing ovation from me for 36-year-old Joe Neguse.

Edit: and Raskin.

---

Absolutely.
I gave Dean "no grade" earlier.
I also thought she was excellent, (minus dorkhead Mike Lee's ridiculous interruptions).

I wanted to go back and upgrade Neguse and Dean in my prior Ratings post.
He actually made me cry.