Friday, April 29, 2011

Prince Amukamara to New York Football Giants: 2011 NFL Draft Scouting Profile | Bleacher Report

The savvy fans at Radio City Music Hall chanted “We want Prince” when it was time for the Giants to pick. Oops, wrong Prince.


This is the right Prince for the Giants. Amukamara falls to them at #19.

A good pick, a top 5 talent at the 19 spot. Even with Ingram and Castonzo available, I can't argue with this one. Good value pick. They should get a solid player with the 2nd rounder and then the scouting staff and GM's really earn their money in the later rounds.



Prince Amukamara to New York Football Giants: 2011 NFL Draft Scouting Profile | Bleacher Report
:

"While Patrick Peterson has gotten much of the spotlight, Prince Amukamara has also quietly still been considered an elite corner prospect in his own right. He is expected to have an immediate impact in the NFL.

6'1' and 206 pounds, Amukamara is as physical a corner as you'll see. He loves to press and jam at the line and re-routes very well. He is a very good athlete who has fantastic coverage instincts. He factors equally in zone coverage as well and when the ball is in flight, Amukamara will go get it like he is the receiver.

He's very quick to read and react to the run and will support his front seven by coming off the island and sticking his nose in the box. He will be able to stay in the league for many years as he has the ability to play corner and become a safety down the road in his career.

Prince fell a tad here, but he lands with G-Men who will surely love him in NYC. Jerry Reese, Marc Ross and Tom Coughlin get a big physical corner, which is coveted by the Giants in their scheme, that will cover and play the run in the NFC East.

Pick Grade: A- "


Local reastion from the New York Post:
http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/giants/nebraska_prince_slips_to_big_blue_8wRAMW6yrVHbg7ilZMR1AP

The Giants could not believe their luck.
They did not go into the first round of the NFL Draft last night thinking cornerback, but they sure changed their minds when their selection came around at No. 19 and sitting there, shockingly, was Prince Amukamara, the highly-regarded cornerback from Nebraska. It was widely believed Amukamara would be gone well before the Giants’ turn came up and, even though the position was not a glaring need, it was simply too much value to pass up.
And so, with the top running back in the draft, Mark Ingram of Alabama, still on the board, and a quality left tackle, Anthony Castonzo of Boston College, also available, the Giants trusted their draft board and happily took Amukamara.

The top brass is happy.

“[We were] really surprised he was there when we picked,” general manager Jerry Reese said. “We thought he’d get picked a lot higher than that. It happens like that sometimes in the draft, a guy can fall right in your lap.”
Coach Tom Coughlin said Amukamara was “clearly the highest-rated player we could take on the board,” meaning it wasn’t an especially difficult decision.
“Where he was ranked, there wasn’t any question that this player should be on the New York Giants,” Coughlin said.

The fans are happy.

The savvy fans at Radio City Music Hall chanted “We want Prince” when it was time for the Giants to pick, even though there was barely any buzz about him coming to the Giants in the weeks leading up to the draft. Most draft experts had Amukamara (pronounced “ah-moo-kuh-mare-uh”) in the top dozen prospects.

2011 NFL draft: Carolina Panthers make Cam Newton top pick - ESPN

Former Auburn quarterback Cam Newton was selected by the Carolina Panthers with the first overall pick of the NFL draft Thursday night. (Jason DeCrow, Associated Press)

Wish him all the best. I just have two simple questions.

Does anyone with a working brain (and people who work for the NCAA or are apologists for the college football machine are excluded obviously) believe that (S)cam Newton's dad did not know that (S)cam was drafted #1 yesterday?

OK. If that's the case, how on earth can you not believe that Daddy had his hand out on (S)cam's behalf and not have knowledge of that important event?

Anyone employed by the NCAA rules enforcement area feel free to comment.


2011 NFL draft: Carolina Panthers make Cam Newton top pick - ESPN
:

"NEW YORK -- Cam Newton provided one of the few predictable moments, so far, in a bizarre NFL offseason.

While the league's labor dispute played out in the courts, the Heisman Trophy winner was selected No. 1, as expected, in Thursday night's NFL draft, taken by the Carolina Panthers."

Thursday, April 28, 2011

Strict Constructionism and the Strike Zone...and the Culture of the Game


And the debate goes on.

STRICT CONSTRUCTIONISM

Strict Constructionism and the Strike Zone:

"Other baseball philosophers scoff at Bork's suggestion.  'Umpires understand the value of consistency,' they say.  'This business about umpires calling eyeball-high pitches strikes is baloney.  Just because an umpire isn't a strict constructionist doesn't mean that he'll call a strike whenever the urge hits him.  Umpires are constrained by peer pressure, by fear of ridicule, and by their own love for the integrity of the game.  When the strike zone was lowered in the sixties, it wasn't lowered because the umpires said, 'Hey, just for kicks, let's lower the strike zone!' It was lowered in response to various demands of the game and, primarily, the demands of the fans.  Baseball was better for the change, which took place more gradually and with less disruption than it ever could have had we depended upon rules committees to revise the strike zone downward an inch or two a year.'"


Some debates never end. Perhaps the debate over strict constructionism and the strike zone is one of those. The wisest observation on the whole subject may have been made by a crusty old manager. When asked who was right-the umpires of the 1960's that took it upon themselves to lower the strike zone, or the umpires of the 1980's that raised it again, the manager said "they both were." He explained, "the strike zone got lowered when it needed to be, then umpires like Bork came along to make the rule match the strike zone--like it should.

What is being discussed here is the "culture of the game". What the players, coaches and indeed fans expect from umpires. Remember, at one time umpires sat amongst the fans and at times solicited the feedback of fans in making calls. Reduces umpires to weather vanes, IMO.

CULTURE OF THE GAME


When a hitter has a 3-0 count, the umpire becomes much less likely to call a fourth ball, expanding the strike zone considerably. Conversely, when a hitter is facing a 0-2 count, his strike zone will shrink


Scorecasting Tackles Sports’ Biggest Myths | Playbook:

"Wired.com: You guys show that refs are biased toward the home team and you show with PitchFX that umpires adjust their strike zone depending on the situation, so do you think we should just get rid of umpires in baseball?


Wertheim: That’s a good question. PitchFX calls it accurately; it’s unambiguous, so from a fairness perspective it’s hard to argue against it. But as fans we like whistle swallowing. I don’t think fans overall are opposed to games being called differently at different times. We found that a player like Albert Pujols gets very few called third strikes, but also very few ball fours because the umpire internalizes that fans want to see him put the ball in play — you want him to strike out swinging, you want him to hit a home run, but you don’t want a judgment call. So, in some ways, whistle swallowing is following what fans want.

From a fairness perspective, if you have the capacity to call balls and strikes pretty flawlessly, it’s hard to argue against that. But I think we want more from our officials from a robotic ball and strike. I think we like to have our officials to have sensitivity to the rhythms of the game."

Marlins Considering Run At Mark DeRosa: MLB Rumors - MLBTradeRumors.com


Of course, no sooner was this trade rumor fading from hot to lukewarm, we receive word that the G-man put DeRosa on the DL. This potential deal would make sense, get a few lower level prospects from a prospect-rich organization. Sandoval resurgence takes away some of the need to have DeRosa around as insurance at 3B. Can't cash the insurance policy from the DL.

Aaron Rowand may be the next up to be shopped around. G-men will likely have to eat most, it not all, of the huge salary.. Same deal with a DeRosa move.

After those two contract moves the next up for trade should be Nate Schierholz, who appears to be odd-man out in the OF and the Travis Ishakawa. I still think these guys have Pirates or Royals written all over them.

Zito's injury and Bumgarner's weak start take the Giants starting staff from LHP-heavy to LHP-light in the span of a couple of weeks. Kind of makes the case for Runzler to get a few starts over Vogelsgong, but what do I know?




Marlins Considering Run At Mark DeRosa: MLB Rumors - MLBTradeRumors.com
:

"12:44pm: The Marlins 'have begun weighing the merits of making a run at' Giants infielder Mark DeRosa, reports Juan C. Rodriguez of the South Florida Sun-Sentinel.  DeRosa could be a solution for the Fish at third base for the remainder of the season, after which his contract is up.

DeRosa, 36, is hitting well in a small 20 plate appearance sample this season.  With a crowded outfield and no openings at second base or the infield corners, the Giants may consider DeRosa expendable.  Not only could they get a useful player back, but they could also clear a portion of DeRosa's $6MM salary.  An extra $2-3MM would be helpful to the Giants, who may have limited payroll flexibility in the 2011-12 offseason unless they move some salary.

The Marlins considered giving the third base job to top prospect Matt Dominguez out of Spring Training, but instead sent him to Triple-A on March 24th.  Eight days later Dominguez fractured his elbow.  As a whole, Greg Dobbs, Donnie Murphy, Emilio Bonifacio, and Wes Helms are hitting .286/.353/.416 on the season while manning third base for the Marlins."

Wednesday, April 27, 2011

Trader Dan's Market Views: FOMC gives Precious Metals Bulls reasons for cheer


Even when things go entirely your way on a day like today (Thanks Uncle Ben), it does have all the makings of a Pyrrhic victory. If being on the right side means that -- as that old scag-bag Charlie Munger says, "Even if it works, you're a jerk" -- then I guess I'm a jerk. So be it.

Given what seems to be going on at the House of Buffett lately maybe it takes one to know one. Sliding Sokol out the door on the day of Bernank's presser is a work of PR genius. You guys are really slick over there.

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/and-so-billionaires-turn-each-other-sokols-lawyer-accuses-buffett-lying

From Trader Dan Norcini's blog in words much more eloquent than I can manage to muster at the moment, but whose sentiment I echo 100%.



Trader Dan's Market Views: FOMC gives Precious Metals Bulls reasons for cheer
:

"Thanks Ben and thanks to all the Fed governors whose foolish, inept, and short-sighted idiocy has set this nation on a path that will make the IMF prediction of its sliding into second place behind China, indeed come to pass. No nation ever kept its place of economic ascendancy by deliberately killing its own currency. An economically strong nation, with a solid manufacturing sector, the rule of law, an ethic of thrift, low taxes, reasonable regulation, etc, will by default have a strong currency.

The plight of the Dollar is now a commentary on the decline of our beloved nation. It speaks with a more pure voice than any analyst could ever aspire to and what it is crying is disheartening to an extreme for those with ears to hear it.

History has the advantage of being relatively objective in its analysis as it is removed from the passions of the era. It is with that in mind that I can confidently say it will render a harsh and severe criticism of those who led our nation and its monetary policy during this period as they presided over its decline."

YOU GO UNCLE BEN, YOU GO.... Your plan has been working so well.

Brilliant video: Liberal college students eager to redistribute income, but not their hard-earned GPA


BRILLIANT INDEED!!! So sad for the parents whose hard-earned dollars are being wasted sending kids to these so-called institutions of higher learning. Can you say REFUND? The kids clearly cannot think logically or independently.

Some of these kids get the old RCA Victor dog look on their faces when confronted with the contradiction in their mind-set. Or they are wondering why this was not covered in the latest version of the liberal talking points bulletin on class warfare or income distribution.

What's mine is mine and what's yours in mine too, I guess. The definition of greed. This is rich on so many levels.

How many in DC think EXACTLY along these lines?


H/T to The Conservative Manifesto blog:
http://theconservativemanifesto.blogspot.com/2011/04/brilliant-video-liberal-college.html

THURSDAY, APRIL 21, 2011

Brilliant video: Liberal college students eager to redistribute income, but not their hard-earned GPA

Liberals, of course, hate the analogy.

But huge props to the College Republicans at the University of California-Merced for putting this rabid inconsistency on display for all to see.


Petition to Redistribute GPA Scores



Many students believe that it is moral to confiscate money from hard-working Americans and entrepreneurs and give it to those who didn't earn it, yet don't support the same philosophy when it is applied to their GPA scores.

Slimmed-down Sandoval finding his stride at plate





Slimmed-down Sandoval finding his stride at plate
:
(04-25) 13:42 PDT San Francisco (AP) --

Pablo Sandoval spent the offseason rebuilding his body and confidence, and the San Francisco slugger is showing results.

No longer the stressed-out, pressing third baseman he was a year ago for the Giants, Sandoval is nearly 40 pounds lighter and has a spring in his step once again.

And more importantly for the struggling World Series champions, he's got some serious pop in his bat. Sandoval's five home runs are his most ever in April and he is hitting .319 nearly a month into his third full big league season."

Basketball officiating from the referee’s point of view

This illustration shows the “over-the-back” situation, illegal in the NBA while legal in the NCAA and high school—unless the person in front is displaced by a push. Illustration by Dickson Tsai.

Excellent article from a basketball perspective describing the divergence between fans and referees in terms of "knowledge of the game". Also, when the author makes the following observation -- "All the referees at the high school level, for instance, pass an examination, but some just cannot execute their knowledge on the court." -- he is describing what I refer to as the "culture of the game". Applying the rules knowledge in such a way that the game works the way it is supposed to work, the way the participants (players, coaches) expect it to work.

Good article.


Basketball officiating from the referee’s point of view
:

What fans overlook

This illustration shows the “over-the-back” situation, illegal in the NBA while legal in the NCAA and high school—unless the person in front is displaced by a push. Illustration by Dickson Tsai. Some fans, understandably, have trouble understanding that the National Federation of High Schools (NFHS), NCAA, and NBA all play by different rules. Apply NBA rules to a high school game (with the NFHS rules that the Central Coast Section, or CCS, uses), and you’ll be left puzzled, dumbfounded even.

Each level has a different style of play, thus a different set of rules is necessary in order to keep everything fair, although it’s granted that at the professional level (NBA), entertainment value is sometimes more important than fairness.

The rule difference that annoys high school and college referees the most is the notion of “over the back.” The assumed rule is that when rebounding, a player cannot reach over someone in front to snag the rebound. This rule only applies in the NBA; “over the back” is only a foul in the NCAA and high school if a person is pushed from behind.

The tough parts of the job

The real difficulty in the job comes not in learning the rules, but being fluent enough with them so that calls become reactions. All the referees at the high school level, for instance, pass an examination, but some just cannot execute their knowledge on the court.Here, the essential belongings of high school officials are shown—the classic pinstripes jersey, the NFHS Officials' Manual, and the NFHS Basketball Rules by Topic. Illustration by Dickson Tsai."

Tuesday, April 26, 2011

The Greatest Play In Baseball - Rick Monday Saves U.S. Flag - 35 Years Ago

Photo by Jim Roark
Rick Monday grabbing the American flag away from two protesters.


Today, I have little doubt that Rick Monday would be portrayed as the criminal. Denying these miscreants their constitutionally protected right to free speech. Those idiots are lucky they weren't stomped into the ground. I'll bet if Lasorda's fat behind got to them first, it might have been a happier ending for the two offenders.

HAPPY 35TH ANNIVERSARY, RICK MONDAY!!

Rick Monday - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

American flag incident

Rick Monday grabbing the American flag away from two protesters.

The two most famous moments of Monday's career were both associated with the Dodgers. In the first, on April 25, 1976, during a game at Dodger Stadium, two protesters, William Thomas and his 11-year-old son, ran into the outfield and tried to set fire to an American flag they had brought with them. Monday, then playing with the Cubs, noticed they had placed the flag on the ground and were fumbling with matches and lighter fluid; he then dashed over and grabbed the flag from the ground to thunderous cheers. He handed the flag to Los Angeles pitcher Doug Rau, after which the ballpark police officers arrested the two intruders. When he came up to bat in the next half-inning, he got a standing ovation from the crowd and the big message board behind the left-field bleachers in the stadium flashed the message, "RICK MONDAY... YOU MADE A GREAT PLAY..." He later said, "If you're going to burn the flag, don't do it around me. I've been to too many veterans' hospitals and seen too many broken bodies of guys who tried to protect it."

[2] On August 25, 2008, Monday was presented with an American flag flown over Valley Forge National Historical Park in honor of his 1976 rescue.[3]

At the end of the season, the Cubs traded Monday to the Dodgers in a five-player deal with two players (one of whom was Bill Buckner) going to the Cubs.

At the September 2nd, 2008 Los Angeles Dodgers game, Rick Monday was presented with a Peace One Earth medallion by Patricia Kennedy, founder of the non-profit organization Step Up 4 Vets, for his actions on April 25, 1976 and his military service with the Marine Corps.[4]

The Greatest Play In Baseball - Rick Monday Saves U.S. Flag



Uploaded by giramino on Jun 10, 2008
On April 25, 1976 at Dodger Stadium, Rick Monday of the Chicago Cubs, grabbed and secured the American flag from two individuals as they were attempting to burn our flag in the middle of the playing field. It was an outstanding display of American Patriotism. Due to the numerous references to 'allah' and insistence that their chairs be faced in a certain direction while being questioned, the two, a father and his son, were described to be muslims by several security personnel including an off duty police officer in attendance at the game who went down to the security room soon after the incident. Others claim that the two, William Errol Thomas and his brother, later corrected to be Thomas and his 11 year old son (not identified due to his age) were war protesters. Others claimed Thomas escaped from a mental institution, others said that his wife was being held illegally and against her will in a mental institution and various other claims. Regardless, it's probably safe to say that what they attempted to do was a disgrace to our American Flag and every American citizen. Aside from public ridicule, Thomas incurred minimal legal actions for his actions. He was fined $60 for trespassing and placed on probation for a year. No formal charges were filed against his 11 year old son who was treated as a juvenile offender. Something that was also confusing was obtaining the flag burner's real name. Security personnel at the stadium said that his name was William Errol Morris. However, the police report and court records all list him as William Errol Thomas, Aka William Errol Morris (Criminal courts building record Case# 31-543367 Thomas, William Errol, Jr. Violation Sec. 602, P.C. one year probation and ordered not to enter Dodger Stadium during probationary period.) His attorney in the public-defender's office said that Thomas was American Indian, a transient living out of the back of his car. DMV yielded no information nor did the registrar of voters or Veterans Administration. The Bureau of Indian Affairs in Phoenix had no information nor were there any military records.

Monday, April 25, 2011

On the Farm: Giants' Under-the-Radar Minor League Breakout Candidate


From MLBDepthCharts.com Report:


On the Farm: Giants' Under-the-Radar Minor League Breakout Candidate


San Francisco Giants
Chris Lofton, OF 2010 stats: .268 BA, 2 HR, 16 RBI, 5 2B, 2 3B, 22 BB, 41 K, 15 SB in 52 games (Short-Season)

Most multi-sport athletes bask in the option of choosing their path to bigger and better things. The San Francisco Giants are glad that Lofton chose them. A 9th round draft choice out of Jones County Community College in the 2010 draft, Lofton opted to sign with the Giants despite signing a letter of intent to play cornerback for the University of Alabama-Birmingham. Lofton is a superior athlete and the Giants envision him utilizing his explosive speed in center field and on the base paths. He was drafted with a questionable bat but surprised at Short-Season Salem-Keizer with a .268 average, 2 HRs and 15 SBs. The Giants rated recent 1st round draft choice Gary Brown and Lofton as the best athletes in their system heading into the 2011 season. Lofton’s lefty bat and defensive skills give him the chance to become a paramount center fielder. A possible assignment to Lo-A Augusta should test the young speedster in 2011.

According to Baseball America's Prospect Watch:

Looking at guys who are flying above the radar, Brandon Belt and Thomas Neal seem to be finding AAA pitching to their liking in the early going.

AAA Belt, Brandon LF 2-4 (2B), .429 BA
AAA Neal, Thomas CF 3-5 (2B), .342 BA

5 Most Likely Giants First Round Targets





5 Most Likely Giants First Round Targets


From the NY Post:

The Giants might have a glaring need at defensive tackle if Barry Cofield goes elsewhere.
They might be in the market for a new starting running back if Ahmad Bradshaw signs with another team.
There would be no proven tight end on the roster if Kevin Boss leaves.
All three could be deemed free agents, or all three valuable players could be contractually bound to the Giants for another season.



WISH LIST
Five players who should interest the Giants in the first round:
MIKE POUNCEY, C/G, FLORIDA (6-5, 303): Twin brother of Steelers standout center Maurkice Pouncey projects more neatly as NFL guard but has experience at center and is a safe choice.
Has nasty streak.
ANTHONY CASTONZO, OT, BOSTON COLLEGE (6-7, 311): Strong, long-armed athlete is natural left tackle and accomplished pass protector who needs work in run game.
COREY LIUGET, DT, ILLINOIS (6-2, 298): Junior entry lost
30 pounds before last season. Quick off ball and can get into backfield. Could be insurance if Barry Cofield leaves.
MARK INGRAM, RB, ALABAMA (5-9, 215): Junior considered top back in the draft, looks part and runs with toughness. Not flashy or speed burner but very productive and can handle full load. Son of former Giants WR Mark Ingram.
KYLE RUDOLPH, TE, NOTRE DAME (6-6, 259): Junior played through severe hamstring injury in 2010 that limited production. Great size, hands and attitude, not great speed.


Here is what some of the other draft pundits see happening with the Giants pick in Round One according to Darren Pike of Bleacher Report. Not a great deal of consensus there, although it is OL heavy.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/676901-2011-nfl-mock-draft-comparing-expert-mocks-from-around-the-web-consensus-picks/page/20

Rob Rang: Mike Pouncey, G, Florida

Chad Reuter: Kyle Rudolph, TE, Notre Dame

Todd McShay: Gabe Carimi, OT, Wisconsin

Mel Kiper: Mike Pouncey, G, Florida

Walter Football: Gabe Carimi, OT, Wisconsin

Scott Wright: Corey Liuget, DT, Illinois

Don Banks: Mike Pouncey, G, Florida

Darin Pike: Anthony Castonzo, OT, Boston College

Russ Lande: Derek Sherrod, OT, Mississippi State

Friday, April 22, 2011

Giants wish Brandon Belt a Happy B-Day with a demotion


Belt will be back. In hindsight, it would have been better if he took the Buster Posey path to the bigs -- don't bring him up until you are sure you will never have to send him back down -- but the timing is never perfect. The Giants have to make sure that Belt is ready to hit the ground running AND the position on the field / roster is not overly crowded.

The Giants can move some serviceable bats down the road while Belt develops. He's just a phone call away.



Brandon Belt reacts to being optioned, Pablo Sandoval scratched with injury | Extra Baggs
:

"It’s Belt’s 23rd birthday today.

“Yeah, a pretty good birthday present,” he said, obviously keeping his sense of humor. “I’m not taking it too bad. It’s a numbers game now, and I didn’t exactly play great. It could be best for everybody to get at-bats and be ready to contribute next time.”




Here’s Belt’s reaction:

“It’s just a bunch of people coming back and not enough spots. Obviously, I have some things to work on. it’s best to get some games and at-bats to figure them out.”

What does Belt need to work on?

“Just looking at the video, it seems so minor what I have to do. I’m dropping the barrel just a bit and I’m fouling off balls. It seems like it’s something that can be so easily fixed. That’s what makes it frustrating. With some more at-bats, I’m confident I can get this fixed really soon.”



Belt hit .192 with two extra-base hits in 52 at-bats. He also drew eight walks and didn’t chase pitches while working deep counts, so it’s tough to say he was overmatched against big league pitching. But he certainly didn’t barrel up hardly anything after his home run against Chad Billingsley at Dodger Stadium April 1.

Thursday, April 21, 2011

MEDIA CONTROL AND INFLUENCE




WE TALK ABOUT BANKS THAT ARE TOO BIG AND INTERCONNECTED TO FAIL, BUT MEDIA CONGLOMERATES IN AMERICA ALSO FALL IN INTO THE SAME CATEGORY.


THERE IS A HUGE DISCONNECT BETWEEN THE MEDIA'S LENS (OR FRAME OF REFERENCE) AND REGULAR PEOPLE'S LENS. - YOU CAN MAKE THAT ARGUMENT IF YOU'RE REFERRING TO THE FINANCIAL PRESS, THE POLITICAL MEDIA, OR THE SPORTS MEDIA.


FROM JESSE'S CAFÉ AMÉRICAIN BLOG:
http://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com/2010/07/why-does-economic-news-seem-to-be-so.html

Why Does the Economic News Seem To Be So Different From Your Reality?

There are numerous vested interests on Wall Street, in Washington, and in the corporate conglomerates who see nothing wrong in distorting information, 'spinning the news,' and sometimes even outright lying, when it comes to reporting on the economic situation. They are promoting a story, and often an agenda.

They hide behind the safe harbor provisions of the law, and the subjective aspects of economics. They use euphemisms such as 'talking your book' to describe calculated deception.

The financial media accepts it, condones it, and does it themselves. As one financial news anchor, said shortly after the tech stock bubble collapsed in 2002, 'Of course market strategists and analysts lie. Everyone knows that. But no one made people buy those stocks.'

Straight news reporting is less seen in the mainstream media these days, since solid investigative journalism is considered too costly to the corporate management. Much cheaper to allow paid shills to take scripted shots at one another, in the manner of professional wrestling. This is how the voters are informed, and how public policy is shaped. And when it comes to economics, the establishment is firmly in control of the message. The selection of guests is carefully scripted to support a point of view.

Even on the internet, the offers come. The planted stories, the spin, the rumours, ad hominem slanders, whispering campaigns, and cliquish peer pressure to uphold the 'party line.' The rewards are connections to the powerful, invitations to important places and venues, access to names and associations, privileged access, visibility, to be part of the in crowd. This plays on a natural human tendency to 'go along to get along' and them to rationalize it all away.

As someone recently said to me, "What is truth?" Pilate asked the same question, and turned and washed his hands of it. Truth is an elusive objective, given the fallibility of our reason. Less a destination now, and more a struggle, a way of life. But we know when we stray from the path.

Most refuse the temptation, but some take the bait. And so you must be aware of this, and filter what you consume through your own common sense. You need to tread carefully, using the palate which you have, and over time you will become more adept at spotting the establishments serving honest fare and those offering artificial substitutions and false skepticism, the wink and a nod to a deception.

Wall Street Shills

"Further complicating the outlook is a more traditional issue: pronouncements by some economists on Wall Street and financial reporters in the popular media, who act as shills for the needs of Wall Street and political Washington. While there are a number of fine and honest economists and financial reporters in their respective fields, there also are those — often very heavily publicized — who spew Pollyannaish nonsense aimed at affecting public sentiment and/or the financial markets during troubled economic times.

Let me recount two personal experiences. Back in late-1989, I contended that the U.S. economy was in or headed into a deep recession. CNBC had me in to discuss my views along with a senior economist for a large New York bank, who was looking for continued economic growth. Before the show, the bank economist and I shared our views in the Green Room. I outlined my case for a major recession, and, to my shock, his response was, 'I think that pretty much is the consensus.'

We got on the air, I gave my recession pitch, and he proclaimed a booming economy for the year ahead. He was a good economist and knew what was happening, but he had to put out the story mandated by his employer, or he would not have had a job.

More recently, following an interview on a major cable news network (not CNBC), I was advised off-air by the producer that they were operating under a corporate mandate to give the economic news a positive spin, irrespective of how bad it was."

John Williams, Shadow Government Statistics

"Do not conform youself to the common pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind." Romans 12:2

FROM THE ECONOMIC COLLAPSE BLOG:
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/who-owns-the-media-the-6-monolithic-corporations-that-control-almost-everything-we-watch-hear-and-read

Back in 1983, approximately 50 corporations controlled the vast majority of all news media in the United States. Today, ownership of the news media has been concentrated in the hands of just six incredibly powerful media corporations. These corporate behemoths control most of what we watch, hear and read every single day. They own television networks, cable channels, movie studios, newspapers, magazines, publishing houses, music labels and even many of our favorite websites. Sadly, most Americans don't even stop to think about who is feeding them the endless hours of news and entertainment that they constantly ingest. Most Americans don't really seem to care about who owns the media. But they should. The truth is that each of us is deeply influenced by the messages that are constantly being pounded into our heads by the mainstream media. The average American watches 153 hours of television a month. In fact, most Americans begin to feel physically uncomfortable if they go too long without watching or listening to something. Sadly, most Americans have become absolutely addicted to news and entertainment and the ownership of all that news and entertainment that we crave is being concentrated in fewer and fewer hands each year.

The six corporations that collectively control U.S. media today are Time Warner, Walt Disney, Viacom, Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., CBS Corporation and NBC Universal. Together, the "big six" absolutely dominate news and entertainment in the United States. But even those areas of the media that the "big six" do not completely control are becoming increasingly concentrated. For example, Clear Channel now owns over 1000 radio stations across the United States. Companies like Google, Yahoo and Microsoft are increasingly dominating the Internet.

But it is the "big six" that are the biggest concerns. When you control what Americans watch, hear and read you gain a great deal of control over what they think. They don't call it "programming" for nothing.

Back in 1983 it was bad enough that about 50 corporations dominated U.S. media. But since that time, power over the media has rapidly become concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer people....

In 1983, fifty corporations dominated most of every mass medium and the biggest media merger in history was a $340 million deal. … [I]n 1987, the fifty companies had shrunk to twenty-nine. … [I]n 1990, the twenty-nine had shrunk to twenty three. … [I]n 1997, the biggest firms numbered ten and involved the $19 billion Disney-ABC deal, at the time the biggest media merger ever. … [In 2000] AOL Time Warner’s $350 billion merged corporation [was] more than 1,000 times larger [than the biggest deal of 1983].
--Ben H. Bagdikian, The Media Monopoly, Sixth Edition, (Beacon Press, 2000), pp. xx—xxi

Today, six colossal media giants tower over all the rest. Much of the information in the chart below comes from mediaowners.com. The chart below reveals only a small fraction of the media outlets that these six behemoths actually own....

Time Warner
Home Box Office (HBO)
Time Inc.
Turner Broadcasting System, Inc.
Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.
CW Network (partial ownership)
TMZ
New Line Cinema
Time Warner Cable
Cinemax
Cartoon Network
TBS
TNT
America Online
MapQuest
Moviefone
Castle Rock
Sports Illustrated
Fortune
Marie Claire
People Magazine
Walt Disney
ABC Television Network
Disney Publishing
ESPN Inc.
Disney Channel
SOAPnet
A&E
Lifetime
Buena Vista Home Entertainment
Buena Vista Theatrical Productions
Buena Vista Records
Disney Records
Hollywood Records
Miramax Films
Touchstone Pictures
Walt Disney Pictures
Pixar Animation Studios
Buena Vista Games
Hyperion Books
Viacom
Paramount Pictures
Paramount Home Entertainment
Black Entertainment Television (BET)
Comedy Central
Country Music Television (CMT)
Logo
MTV
MTV Canada
MTV2
Nick Magazine
Nick at Nite
Nick Jr.
Nickelodeon
Noggin
Spike TV
The Movie Channel
TV Land
VH1
News Corporation
Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
Fox Television Stations
The New York Post
Fox Searchlight Pictures
Beliefnet
Fox Business Network
Fox Kids Europe
Fox News Channel
Fox Sports Net
Fox Television Network
FX
My Network TV
MySpace
News Limited News
Phoenix InfoNews Channel
Phoenix Movies Channel
Sky PerfecTV
Speed Channel
STAR TV India
STAR TV Taiwan
STAR World
Times Higher Education Supplement Magazine
Times Literary Supplement Magazine
Times of London
20th Century Fox Home Entertainment
20th Century Fox International
20th Century Fox Studios
20th Century Fox Television
BSkyB
DIRECTV
The Wall Street Journal
Fox Broadcasting Company
Fox Interactive Media
FOXTEL
HarperCollins Publishers
The National Geographic Channel
National Rugby League
News Interactive
News Outdoor
Radio Veronica
ReganBooks
Sky Italia
Sky Radio Denmark
Sky Radio Germany
Sky Radio Netherlands
STAR
Zondervan
CBS Corporation
CBS News
CBS Sports
CBS Television Network
CNET
Showtime
TV.com
CBS Radio Inc. (130 stations)
CBS Consumer Products
CBS Outdoor
CW Network (50% ownership)
Infinity Broadcasting
Simon & Schuster (Pocket Books, Scribner)
Westwood One Radio Network
NBC Universal
Bravo
CNBC
NBC News
MSNBC
NBC Sports
NBC Television Network
Oxygen
SciFi Magazine
Syfy (Sci Fi Channel)
Telemundo
USA Network
Weather Channel
Focus Features
NBC Universal Television Distribution
NBC Universal Television Studio
Paxson Communications (partial ownership)
Trio
Universal Parks & Resorts
Universal Pictures
Universal Studio Home Video

These gigantic media corporations do not exist to objectively tell the truth to the American people. Rather, the primary purpose of their existence is to make money.

These gigantic media corporations are not going to do anything to threaten their relationships with their biggest advertisers (such as the largest pharmaceutical companies that literally spend billions on advertising), and one way or another these gigantic media corporations are always going to express the ideological viewpoints of their owners.

Fortunately, an increasing number of Americans are starting to wake up and are realizing that the mainstream media should not be trusted. According to a new poll just released by Gallup, the number of Americans that have little to no trust in the mainstream media (57%) is at an all-time high.

That is one reason why we have seen the alternative media experience such rapid growth over the past few years. The mainstream media has been losing credibility at a staggering rate, and Americans are starting to look elsewhere for the truth about what is really going on.

Do you think that anyone in the mainstream news would actually tell you that the Federal Reserve is bad for America or that we are facing a horrific derivatives bubble that could destroy the entire world financial system? Do you think that anyone in the mainstream media would actually tell you the truth about the deindustrialization of America or the truth about the voracious greed of Goldman Sachs?

Sure there are a few courageous reporters in the mainstream media that manage to slip a few stories past their corporate bosses from time to time, but in general there is a very clear understanding that there are simply certain things that you just do not say in the mainstream news.

But Americans are becoming increasingly hungry for the truth, and they are becoming increasingly dissatisfied with the dumbed down pablum that is passing as "hard hitting news" these days.
So what do you think about the state of the mainstream media? Please feel free to leave a comment with your opinion below....


FROM CASEY'S DAILY DISPATCH NEWSLETTER:
http://www.gold-speculator.com/casey-research/39543-daily-dispatch-one-step-forward-five-steps-back.html


October 04, 2010 | www.CaseyResearch.com
One Step Forward, Five Steps Back

(Chris Wood filling in for David Galland)

Dear Reader,

An interesting trend has taken root among the American public. More and more of us, it seems, are losing our faith in big media. According to a new Gallup poll, for the fourth straight year, the majority of Americans say they have little or no trust in mass media to report the news fully, accurately, and fairly. The 57% of Americans who now say this is a record high by one percentage point. Also, the 43% of Americans who express a great deal or fair amount of trust in big media ties the record low.

Here’s the graphic of the Gallup poll conducted a couple weeks ago:



What’s profound about the trend is how much things have changed since just a few decades ago. Gallup conducted this same poll three times during the 1970s (1972, 1974, and 1976). The results of the polls in the 1970s were all very similar and show a stark contrast to today.




Consider that in the 1970s, 19% of Americans reported a great deal of trust in mass media and 51% indicated a fair amount of trust. Compare this to the most recent poll, in which only 12% report a great deal of trust and a mere 31% said they have a fair amount of trust. Of all the differences shown in the table above, I think the most telling is the percentage of Americans who expressed no trust at all in mass media compared to today. In the 1970s only 6% of polled Americans answered that they had no confidence at all in mass media; today that figure has jumped to more than 20%.

I view this trend as a positive and say good riddance to the possible extinction of what currently passes for news. Skepticism is a good thing. And the trend we see in distrust for the mass media could indicate that more people are deciding to think for themselves rather than just soaking up what a talking head tells them. But unfortunately, in this day and age every piece of good news we can find happens to be floating in a sea of bad. It’s like taking one step forward and five steps back over and over and over again.

Firmly rooted in the five-step-back area is a new video from environmental activist group 10-10 and the green agenda in general. This movie, linked here, shows a teacher blowing up young students who don’t want to cut their carbon emissions by 10% this year and then shows a couple other situations in which individuals who disagree with the goal of 10-10 also get blown up. According to 10-10, the film aimed to “bring this critical issue back into the headlines whilst making people laugh.” 10-10 has since withdrawn the film after numerous complaints of its offensive nature.

Now, in general, I really don’t get offended by anything. You can call me whatever you want and do whatever you want in your own life (as long as it doesn’t entail infringing on the natural negative rights of others), and I’m totally cool with that. But I’m not cool with the implication that somebody who disagrees with you deserves to be harmed. Even couched as a joke, that’s the sort of totalitarian stupidity that leads to a lot of problems. And it’s the kind of mentality that dominates the green movement these days.

Many environmentalists are probably warm, caring people who just want to live their lives in a way that they think is more “sustainable,” as the saying goes, and have no ill will towards humanity in general. But the rhetoric that comes from the green movement’s global elite these days is a far cry from warm and fuzzy.

Major themes of the movement include population control (if not outright reduction) and the call for authoritarian-style government to control individuals’ actions.

If you’re interested in reading more about the radical nature of the modern green movement (if it’s not apparent enough from the video), this article from The American Dream contains some stunning examples and links.

As always, however, when it comes to the green movement, climate change, or anything else, I encourage you to do your own due diligence and decide for yourself where you stand on the matter.

William Black: Why aren’t the honest bankers demanding prosecutions of their dishonest rivals?


The cynic in me says its because they all do it, but that would be painting with too broad a brush. It's the Too Big To Fail Banks (TBTF) that were saved by the Fed with the taxpayers wallet.

Black brings up:

The "Immunity Doctrine" to explain why only Madoff is behind bars after all the criminality and why there have been a dearth of handcuff and perp walks.

Black says this will just allow the fraudsters to lay for awhile and then resurface to perptrate more fraud.

"Massive Illegality" that was brought to attention of regulators re: "Liars Loans" and the underwriting, accounting fraud, mortgage fraud. 10,000 Liar Loans per month at the peak of the fraud. Mozilla and Countryside at the epicenter and no prosecution.

Crony Capitalism and Crony Criminal Justice and Regulation writ large. Elite fraudsters are allowed to go free instead of going to jail.

It's enough to make your blood boil.

There’s Another Crisis Coming as Long as Banks Remain Above the Law: Bill Black

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/another-crisis-coming-long-banks-remain-above-law-153109732.html?sec=topStories&pos=9&asset=&ccode

----

From nakedcapitalism.com

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/04/william-black-why-arent-the-honest-bankers-demanding-prosecutions-of-their-dishonest-rivals.html

TUESDAY, APRIL 12, 2011

William Black: Why aren’t the honest bankers demanding prosecutions of their dishonest rivals?

By William Black, a former Federal banking regulator and Associate Professor of Law and Economics at the University of Missouri-Kansas City.


Cross posted from New Economic Perspectives.

This is the second column in a series responding to Stephen Moore’s central assaults on regulation and the prosecution of the elite white-collar criminals who cause our recurrent, intensifying financial crises. Last week’s column addressed his claim in a recent Wall Street Journal column that all government employees, including the regulatory cops on the beat, are “takers” destroying America.

This column addresses Moore’s even more vehement criticism of efforts to prosecute elite white-collar criminals in an earlier column decrying the Sarbanes-Oxley Act’s criminal provisions: “White-Collar Witch Hunt: Why do Republicans so easily accept Neobolshevism as a cost of doing business?” [American Spectator September 2005] This column illustrates one of the reasons why elite criminals are able to loot “their” banks with impunity – they have a lobby of exceptionally influential shills. Moore, for example, is the Wall Street Journal’s senior economics writer. Somehow, prominent conservatives have become “bleeding hearts” for the most wealthy, powerful, arrogant, and destructive white-collar criminals in the world. Criminology research has demonstrated the importance of “neutralization.” Criminals don’t like to think of themselves as criminals and their actions as criminal. They have to override their societal inhibitions on criminality to commit their crimes. When prominent individuals like Moore call their actions lawful and demonize the regulatory cops on the beat and the prosecutors it becomes more likely that CEOs will successfully neutralize their inhibitions and commit fraud. People like Moore have never studied white-collar crime, have no knowledge of white-collar criminology, do not understand control fraud, and do not understand sophisticated financial fraud mechanisms. They show no awareness of the economics literature on accounting control fraud, particularly George Akerlof & Paul Romer’s famous 1993 article – “Looting: the Economic Underworld of Bankruptcy for Profit.” People like Moore not only spur neutralization, they actively campaign to minimize the destructiveness of elite white-collar crime and to deny the regulators and the prosecutors the resources to prosecute the criminals.

My favorite in this genre was authored by Professor John S. Baker, Jr. and published by Heritage on October 4, 2004.

Baker concludes his article with this passage:

“The origin of the “white-collar crime” concept derives from a socialist, anti-business viewpoint that defines the term by the class of those it stigmatizes. In coining the phrase, Sutherland initiated a political movement within the legal system. This meddling in the law perverts the justice system into a mere tool for achieving narrow political ends. As the movement expands today, those who champion it would be wise to recall its origins. For those origins reflect contemporary misuses made of criminal law–the criminalization of productive social and economic conduct, not because of its wrongful nature but, ultimately, because of fidelity to a long-discredited class-based view of society.”

We “stigmatize” criminals precisely to increase the difficulty potential criminals face in neutralizing restraints against engaging in crime. Stigmatization is an important restraint reducing crime. Indeed, it is likely that stigmatization can be most effective in reducing crime in the context of elite white-collar criminals because such individuals have more valuable reputations that can be harmed by stigma. A violent street criminal may find a reputation for violence useful. Sutherland’s research demonstrated that elite white-collar criminals were often able to violate the law with impunity. The corporation they controlled might pay a fine, but the CEO was typically not sanctioned when the corporation violated the law – even when the violations were repeated and egregious. Class proved, empirically, to be a powerful predictor of criminal prosecutions, convictions, and sentencing. Sutherland correctly sought to stigmatize elite white-collar criminals and to get policy-makers, academics, and the criminal justice system to view their crimes as important. Sutherland’s partial success in doing so is what enrages people like Moore and Baker. By the way, in order to publish his famous book on white-collar crime, Professor Sutherland was forced to delete his tables setting forth the violations of law by many of America’s top corporations – even though it was all public record information. The censorship had the ironic effect of demonstrating the accuracy of Sutherland’s observation that class mattered when it came to how we framed and responded to fraud by elite criminals. What aspect of holding fraudulent CEOs criminally responsible for their crimes is “socialist”, “anti-business”, or “neo-Bolshevism”? Baker claims that “class” has long been discredited as an important variable. Baker is not a social scientist and he is flat out wrong about class. There are literally thousands of empirical studies demonstrating the explanatory power of class in a host of settings. Baker is also flat out wrong empirically in claiming that white-collar prosecutions target “productive social and economic conduct.” White-collar prosecutions of elites are overwhelmingly based on fraud. Fraud is one of the most destructive of all social and economic conduct. Consider six forms of economic injury caused by accounting control fraud.

Eroding Trust

The essence of fraud is convincing the victim to trust the perpetrator – and then betraying that trust. The result is that fraud, particularly by elites, is the most destructive acid for eroding trust. Research in economics, political science, psychology, and sociology concurs on the enormous value that trust provides in each of these settings. We have all attended conferences that provided the participants with bottled water. If we knew that one bottle in a hundred were contaminated how many of us would drink our bottle? This dynamic explains why hundreds of markets collapsed during the events leading to the Great Recession – bankers no longer trusted other bankers’ representations as to asset quality. Accounting control fraud can cause systemic risk by eroding trust.

Bubbles

When bubbles hyper-inflate they can cause catastrophic economic damage and systemic risk. Accounting control fraud can hyper-inflate bubbles. The first two ingredients in the recipe for lenders engaged in accounting control fraud (extreme growth though lending to uncreditworthy borrowers) have the effect of right-shifting the demand curve. Because particular assets are superior devices for accounting fraud and because accounting frauds will tend to cluster in industries in which entry is easier and regulation and supervision are weak, accounting frauds tend to cluster in particular industries and regions. Accounting control frauds drove the Southwest bubble in commercial real estate during the S&L debacle and the U.S. residential real estate bubble in the current crisis. Hyper-inflated bubbles cause catastrophic losses to lenders and (late) owners, trigger severe recessions, and misallocate credit and assets (causing real economic losses).

Misallocation of credit and human talent

Even when accounting control fraud does not lead to a hyper-inflated bubble, it misallocates credit and human and non-human capital. Accounting control fraud substantially inflates individual asset values. Individuals with strong science and mathematics skills – critical shortages in our real economy – are wasted in making models designed to inflate asset values by fraudulently ignoring or minimizing risk. Accounting control fraud commonly produces reverse Pareto optimality – the borrower and the lender on a liar’s loan made in 2006 and 2007 typically suffered losses while the unfaithful agents become wealthy by betraying their principals and customers. (It is important to recall that it was the lenders and their agents who normally prompted by false statements in liar’s loans.) Fraud makes markets profoundly inefficient.

Gresham’s dynamics

“Private market discipline” becomes perverse under accounting control fraud. Capital is allocated in abundance, at progressively lower spreads (despite massively increased risk), to fraudulent firms and professionals. In this form of Gresham’s dynamic, bad ethics drives good ethics out of the marketplace. Note that once, for example, a significant number of appraisers are suborned by the fraudulent lenders to inflate appraised value it is more likely that such appraisers will go on to commit other frauds during their career. If cheaters prosper, then honest businesses are placed at a crippling competitive disadvantage. Effective regulation and prosecution is essential to make it possible for honest firms to compete.

“Echo” fraud epidemics

Fraud begets fraud. Or to put it in criminology terminology – accounting control fraud is criminogenic. Fraudulent lenders created perverse incentives that produced endemic fraud (often by generating Gresham’s dynamics) in other fields. Fraudulent lenders making liar’s loans, for example, created overwhelming financial incentives they knew would lead their loan officers and loan brokers to engage in pervasive fraud. Indeed, fraudulent lenders embraced liar’s loans because they facilitated endemic fraud by eviscerating underwriting.

Accounting control fraud also leads to the spontaneous generation of criminal profit opportunities, causing opportunistic fraud. Liar’s loans, for example, generated a host of fraudulent entrepreneurs offering illicit opportunities to use someone else’s credit score to secure a loan. (Austrian school economists should recognize this dynamic.)

Undesired frauds arising from control fraud

Lenders engaged in accounting control fraud must suborn or render ineffective their underwriting and internal and external controls. They also select, praise, enrich, and promote the most unethical officers. The real “tone at the top” of a control fraud is pro-fraud – often overlaid with a cynical propaganda campaign extolling the Dear Leader’ astonishing virtues. The result is that the firm environment is criminogenic. Some officers may loot the firm through private schemes, e.g., embezzlement at Charles Keating’s Lincoln Savings and self-dealing at Enron.

White-collar crime prosecutions are overwhelmingly taken against frauds. There is nothing economically productive about fraud. When Heritage and the Wall Street Journal feature odes to elite frauds they are fertilizing the seeds of the destruction of capitalism and its replacement by crony capitalism.

Moore’s article has the same tone and themes as Baker’s complaints against prosecuting elite white-collar criminals.

“[T]he anti-capitalist left … [is] using the criminal law for the endgame purpose of striking down the productive class in American that they so envy and despise….”

Moore decries the passage of “Sarbanes-Oxley and other such laws criminalizing economic behavior….” He claims that prosecuting CEOs leading control frauds will harm shareholders – which he plainly sees as prohibiting criminal liability for corporate officers. Moore’s complaints about SOX are confusing because Sarbanes-Oxley does not criminalize honest “economic behavior.” “Economic behavior” is not privileged. It can be honest or dishonest. Only honest economic behavior is potentially productive. Even honest economic behavior may prove unproductive or cause severe negative externalities. Dishonest economic behavior can benefit shareholders. A firm that gains a competitive advantage over its market rivals through fraud will be more profitable and should have a higher share price. That increased profit and share price is bad for the world. It creates a Gresham’s dynamic and misallocates capital. It may also maim and kill if the competitive advantage arises from selling harmful products to consumers or firms.

Moore eventually explains that what disturbs him most about white-collar prosecutions is that the CEO of a publicly traded company can be prosecuted for accounting fraud. SEC rules require that registrants comply with GAAP, so material accounting fraud constitutes securities fraud (a felony). Criminologists have long pointed out that accounting is the “weapon of choice” for financial firms. Moore objects to prosecuting the most destructive property crimes committed by elite white-collar criminals. Accounting control fraud drove the second phase of the S&L debacle. The first phase was interest rate risk and ultimately led to roughly $25 billion in losses. The Enron-era frauds prosecuted by the federal government were accounting control frauds. The current crisis was driven by the accounting control frauds – the largest nonprime lenders, Fannie, and Freddie. The officers that were prosecuted during the S&L debacle and the Enron-era frauds were not members of the “productive class.” No one destroyed more wealth, for purposes of personal greed, than these fraudulent elites. Their crimes and the harm they caused, however, pale in comparison to the accounting control frauds that drove the current crisis. That makes it all the more astonishing that not a single fraudulent senior officer at the major nonprime lenders, Fannie, or Freddie has been convicted. The shills for elite white-collar criminals have swept the field. The administration they constantly deride as socialist has continued the Bush administration’s policy of de facto decriminalization of accounting control fraud. Moore and Baker have, once more, proven Sutherland correct – we treat elite white-collar criminals in a way that bears no relationship to street criminals. We now bail them out after they loot and cause “their” banks to fail and change the accounting rules at their demand to hide their losses. We even invite them repeatedly to the White House to advise us on what policies we should follow.

The anti-regulators got their wish – they took the regulatory cops off the beat. The banking regulatory agencies ceased making criminal referrals, the SEC ceased bringing even their wimpy consent actions against the massive accounting control frauds, and the Justice Department ceased prosecuting the accounting control frauds during the run up to the crisis. The results were multiple echo epidemics of fraud, a hyper-inflated bubble, and the Great Recession. If Baker and Moore think these fraudulent CEOs constitute the “productive class” – then capitalism was killed by the producers. The financial frauds, however, were not productive. They were weapons of mass financial destruction. Their fraudulent CEOs were motivated by the most banal of motivations that every major religion warns against – unlimited greed, ego, and a radical lack of empathy for their victims. The most pathetic figures in the crisis, however, are not the CEOs but their shills. Why aren’t the honest bankers leading the charge to prosecute their fraudulent rivals?

Does the Bible Matter In the 21st Century? - FoxNews.com


I hope so. Interesting question posed at the end.


Does the Bible Matter In the 21st Century? - FoxNews.com
:

"Why do most American presidents place a hand on the Bible to take the oath of office? Secular education has made that a meaningless tradition, but the tradition exists because the Bible is the secret of America’s freedom. Forget the Bible and America will go the way of the first Protestant nation – Nazi Germany.

Plato saw Greek democracy first hand and condemned it as the worst of all political systems. That’s why the spread of the Greek culture, called 'Hellenization,' did not stir a struggle for democracy. In AD 798, the English scholar Alcuin summed up the then European wisdom to Emperor Charlemagne: “And those people should not be listened to who keep saying the voice of the people is the voice of God, since the riotousness of the crowd is always very close to madness.” Indeed, the voice of a corrupt people is often the devil’s voice."

The cancer at the heart of America’s political economy is cultural. This great nation was built by an ethic – a spirituality that taught citizens to work, earn, save, invest, and use their wealth to serve their neighbors. This biblical ethic has been replaced by secularism’s entitlement culture that teaches people that they have a right to this, that and the other without corresponding obligations to work, save, and serve. This new culture forces the state to take from productive citizens or borrow from other nations and spend it on man-made rights. This corruption of character is destroying the world’s greatest economy, but can democracy allow leaders to go against the voters’ voice?

Wednesday, April 20, 2011

Did Cubs throw 1918 World Series vs Red Sox? - DailyHerald.com

This undated file photo shows Chicago White Sox pitcher Eddie Cicotte.
ASSOCIATED PRESS


I don't know, man. Isn't it possible they just sucked?




Did Cubs throw 1918 World Series vs Red Sox? - DailyHerald.com
:

"If Chicago has been willing to believe that a cow caused the Great Chicago Fire, maybe it will buy this one: The White Sox got the idea to throw the 1919 World Series after the Cubs did the same thing one year earlier.

That's the suggestion — more of a hint, really — from Eddie Cicotte, one of the infamous Black Sox banned from baseball after their tainted World Series against Cincinnati."



In a 1920 court deposition the Chicago History Museum recently put on its website, Cicotte said "the boys on the club" talked about how a Cub or a number of Cubs were offered $10,000 to throw the 1918 Series they lost 4-2 to the Boston Red Sox.

Cicotte is as vague as vague can be, failing to name any names or provide any details about how the players might have done it or even if he believes the Cubs threw the Series. But if what he suggests is true it means that when it came to fixing ball games in the early 20th century, Chicago was nobody's Second City.

Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1% | Society | Vanity Fair


THE FAT AND THE FURIOUS The top 1 percent may have the best houses, educations, and lifestyles, says the author, but “their fate is bound up with how the other 99 percent live.”

Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1% | Society | Vanity Fair:

"Alexis de Tocqueville once described what he saw as a chief part of the peculiar genius of American society—something he called “self-interest properly understood.” The last two words were the key. Everyone possesses self-interest in a narrow sense: I want what’s good for me right now! Self-interest “properly understood” is different. It means appreciating that paying attention to everyone else’s self-interest—in other words, the common welfare—is in fact a precondition for one’s own ultimate well-being. Tocqueville was not suggesting that there was anything noble or idealistic about this outlook—in fact, he was suggesting the opposite. It was a mark of American pragmatism. Those canny Americans understood a basic fact: looking out for the other guy isn’t just good for the soul—it’s good for business.

The top 1 percent have the best houses, the best educations, the best doctors, and the best lifestyles, but there is one thing that money doesn’t seem to have bought: an understanding that their fate is bound up with how the other 99 percent live. Throughout history, this is something that the top 1 percent eventually do learn. Too late."

QUOTE MACHINE




From Atlas Shrugged:

"Watch money. Money is the barometer of a society's virtue. When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion - when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing - when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favours - when you see that men get richer by graft and pull than by work, and your laws don't protect you against them, but protect them against you - when you see corruption rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice - you know that your society is doomed... Destroyers seize gold and leave to its owners a counterfeit pile of paper. This kills all objective standards and delivers men into the arbitrary power of an arbitrary setter of values. Gold was an objective value, an equivalent of wealth produced. Paper is a mortgage on wealth that does not exist, backed by a gun aimed at those who are expected to produce it. Paper is a check drawn by legal looters upon an account which is not theirs: upon the virtue of the victims. Watch for the day when it bounces, marked: "Account overdrawn".

I have to go see the movie version of Atlas Shrugged this summer. These are my four "must see" movies for they year. Never been a big movie buff before and I may cheat a little and get a DVD version for home viewing on a couple of them, but all four come highly recommended.

Atlas Shrugged
http://www.atlas-shrugged-movie.com/

The Cartel
http://www.thecartelmovie.com/

Waiting for Superman
http://www.waitingforsuperman.com/action/

Inside Job
http://www.insidejob.com/






Talent is like a marksman who hits a target that others cannot reach; genius is like the marksman who hits a target others cannot even see. (Schopenhauer).

Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools because they have to say something. (Plato)

Of all sad words of tongue or pen, the saddest are these: "It might have been". (John Greenleaf Whittier)

You see things; and you say, "Why?" But I dream things that never were; and I say, "Why not?" (George Bernhard Shaw)

Worse than being blind, is to see and have no vision. (Helen Keller)

When the only tool you own is a hammer, every problem begins to resemble a nail. (Abraham Maslow)

We are too busy mopping the floor to turn off the faucet. (Anon)

Zimmerman's Law of Complaints: Nobody notices when things go right.

There are two classes of forecasters: Those who don't know... and those who don't know they don't know. (John Kenneth Galbraith).

  • If you think the world is all wrong, remember that it contains people like you. (Mahatma Gandhi).
  • Everybody wants to save the world, but nobody wants to help Mum with the dishes. (P.J. O'Rourke).
The price of hating other humans is loving oneself less. (Eldridge Cleaver)
  • The hottest places in hell are reserved for those, who in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality. (Dante Alighieri)
  • To know what is right and not to do it is the worst cowardice. (Confucius)
  • The truth always turns out to be simpler than you thought. (Richard Feynman)
  • When you have mastered numbers, you will in fact no longer be reading numbers, any more than you read words when reading books. You will be reading meanings. (W. E. B. Du Bois)
In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms. (Stephen Jay Gould)

Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. (John Kenneth Galbraith)

  • Democracy is a form of government that substitutes election by the incompetent many for appointment by the corrupt few. (George Bernard Shaw)
  • Traditional human government consists of thieves and murderers. By adopting the electoral process, we have weeded out the murderers. This is actually about as good as it gets. (Anon)
  • Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other. (Ronald Reagan).
A developer is someone who wants to build a house in the woods. An environmentalist is someone who already has a house in the woods. (Dennis Miller)

  • Those who can -- do. Those who can't -- teach. (H.L. Mencken).
  • Those who cannot teach -- administrate. (Martin)
  • To generalize is to be an idiot. (William Blake)
  • A witty saying proves nothing. (Voltaire)
  • There is nothing so absurd but some philosopher has said it. (Cicero)
  • Almost every wise saying has an opposite one, no less wise, to balance it. (George Santayana)







TIE GOES TO THE RUNNER...BASEBALL MYTH



"Tie goes to the runner" is a playground phrase used when there is no umpire to decide the call. It was used by kids to decide perceived ties in much the same way as "shooting odds or evens" or just deciding based on force of personality.

The rules seem to conflict on the batter/runner having to be conclusively safe or else he is considered out versus the forced runner having to be put out or he is safe because the forced runner has acquired rights as a base-runner. He's been declared safe previously, a batter/runner has not.

I believe that is the reason for the apparent discrepancy between the definition of what is an "out" as applied to the two types of runners.

When I umpire, there are no ties. And happily no appeals on arguments heard on safe/out decision. :)

The culture of the game generally dictates that when considering a batter-runner who hits a grounder that is going to be what umpires calla "whacker" or close play (tie?) at first base. Most umpires will "bang him out", employing the old umpires joke (I hope) "When in doubt, bang him out". Another favorite bromide from the blue school is "Call them out, you get home faster."

Most of the time, the culture of the game, or what's expected by the participants, is on your side if you bang the batter-runner out at first on the proverbial tie. The whole dugout is imploring the runner "Beat it out, beat it out" as he's hustling down the line. This indicates they understand that a tie is going to be an out. I caused a dugout full of freshman to pause and think once when I posed that question to them after I rung up a batter and they gave me the "Oh come on blue, doesn't the tie go to the runner?" I just aksed them, then why were you telling him he needed to "beat the throw".

They "got it" after that.

By the same token, if a base-runner is on and there is a close play on a pickoff play or play at a subsequent base, I think it's fair that any "doubt" that may be involved in the decision goes to the base-runner. The defense has to remove him from the base beyond a shadow of a doubt.

So initial batter-runner has to acquire the right to a base and then he acquires higher status and the defense has to beat the runner to the base via force-out or tag.

The game works out better that way. It's fair, understandable, reasonable and defensible.

Of course, a good umpire will never admit to doubt or any form of "mental coin-flipping". The good ones will say "I may be wrong, but I'm always certain."

According to at least one of the professional umpire schools, the rules makers distinctly and purposefully did not use the word "tie" in the rulebook as they neither anticipated one, nor wished to encourage one. Rather, the intended implication of "6.05j. Runner or base has to be tagged before the runner touches first base for an out" is not that a tie exists, but that the reverse is also true, that when a runner touches first prior to be tagged, he is safe."

Those who have researched the rulebook and intent say that nothing in the book is meant to convey the existence of a tie. Old myths, especially the one about tie goes to the runner, die hard.

---



Tie goes to the runner and other baseball rules myths:

I recently have been reading journalist Bruce Weber's book, As They See 'Em: A Fan's Travels in the Land of Umpires. It is a fun read, providing great insight into the history, politics, and nuances of umpiring. I was interested in it for the insight it may shed on the much-despised judge-umpire analogy, this time from the umpire perspective. I may write a book review on it, focusing on the analogy and what it teaches us about that.

For now, I wanted to mention one thing that caught my eye. As far back as Little League, we learned (and constantly repeated whenever there was a close play) that "the tie goes to the runner." Apparently, this is false. Rule 7.01 states that "A runner acquires the right to an unoccupied base when he touches it before he is out." Thus, the runner is out unless he beats the throw and/or tag to the base.

This is an interesting example of default rules and burdens of persuasion in action. The default is that the runner is out unless he affirmatively beats the throw. In a sense, the runner has the burden of proof that he is safe and his failure to meet his burden (his failure to beat the throw) means he is out. Weber does not get into the origins or rationale for the rule or the origins of the myth. But it is one more thing that umpires do that we do not understand.

----------

The Relevant Rules:

The rule you state, 6.05(j), states the tag must beat the
BATTER however, since according to rule 6.09(a,b) the batter
becomes a runner when they hit a fair ball or when a third
strike is not caught, 6.05(j) does not apply.

7.08(e) states that a RUNNER is out if he fails to reach
the next base before the tag, thus a tie is an out.

7.08(d) states that a RUNNER is out if he fails to retouch
his base after a ball is legally caught before the tag, thus
a tie is an out.

7.08(c) states that a RUNNER is out if he is tagged by a
live ball while off HIS base. His base refers to a base that
the runner has already earned provided he is not required to
give it up due to a force. So, the only time the tie goes to
the runner is when they are diving back to their base and a
tag is required.


The Enforcement Options - Application of the Rules:



So, what about other situations? Two basic rules are 7.01 and 7.08(c). They say that a runner becomes entitled to a base -- is safe -- when he touches a base before he is out, and that a runner is out if he is tagged when off his base.

---

Bruce reads 7.01 to mean that a runner is entitled to a
base -- and, therefore, only safe -- when he touches the base
before the act of putting the runner out. This would mean
that ties *never* go to runners -- not even at first.

However, you could read 7.01 to merely beg the question of
when a runner is out. After all, it doesn't say that you
are only safe if you touch the base before the *tag* -- it
says that you're safe if you touch the base before you're
*out*.

---

So, when is a runner out? One answer is, when he's tagged
while "off his base." If this is the rule -- 7.08(c) -- by
which a runner is out -- and I think it covers all
situations where a tag of the runner (as opposed to the
base) is required -- then the tie goes
to that runner, because if the runner is touching the base
when he is tagged, he is not "off his base" at the time of
the tag -- he's touching it. Furhter, he has touched it
before being out, satisfying 7.01, because there is no
other > rule by which this runner is out other than the
personal-tag-while-off-a-base rule.

It's not perfect, but I think the rules say that ties
generally go to runners unless it's a force-out at 2nd,
3rd, or Home, in which case, ties go to fielders. This would
mean a world in which the benefit of the doubt goes to
offensive players when running to first, returning to bases,
stealing bases, or trying for extra bases, but to defensive players
when going for force-outs. I like it.

The case of Runner v. Tag involves some statutory interpretation. Yes, it is clear that there are ties -- situations where it is beyond the ability of any observer (or, even, a hypothetical machine) to discern which came first.

It is equally clear that the rules do not contemplate ties or address them directly. But, we do have rules, and they say what they say even if they don't directly address ties. If there were a rule -- totally clear and not undermined by any other rule -- that said that a runner is
safe only when he touches the base before the tag, we would all probably agree that, under the rules, the tie does not in fact go to the runner but to the fielder.

These rules are a bit more murky than that, but they do seem to say that in some situations.

What we know for sure: There is a batter rule (6) and a runner rule (7).

There is overlap.
Batters become runners, or "batter-runners," until they are put out or the play in
which they became a runner otherwise ends. So, for the batter-runner, there are two rules -- 6 and 7, and both apply.

---

Rule 6.05(j) says a batter is out if, after a third strike or a fair ball, he or first base is tagged before he reaches first base. This would suggest that ties go to runners if they are batter-runners and the play is at first, but we have to consider other rules that could also apply.

Rule 7.08(e) says something different for runners who are forced to advance by reason of the batter becoming a runner:

That is, they are out unless they reach the next base before the tag. This suggests that the tie goes to the fielder on a force-out at 2nd, 3rd, or Home. (I don't think this rule applies to batter-runners, but I'm not a hundred percent positive.)


---

From the Hardball Times:

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/blog_article/inside-the-rules-tie-goes-to-the-runner/

Thursday, November 04, 2010

Inside the rules: tie goes to the runner

Posted by David Wade

Many baseball fans, and possibly some players and coaches, believe that a baserunner who reaches first at the same time as the ball is safe. Those under that impression often will declare, magisterially and emphatically, that the 'tie goes to the runner.' However, that exact phrase doesn't actually exist anywhere in baseball's rules. While that may surprise some, it is also true that there is no mention of baserunner ties in major league baseball's rulebook in any manner. The question then is, do we take silence on the issue to mean we must reject the oft-cited assumption completely?

Here are the relevant rules in the MLB rulebook:

Rule 6.05 (j) A batter is out when, after a third strike or after he hits a fair ball, he or first base is tagged before he touches first base.

Rule 7.01 A runner acquires the right to an unoccupied base when he touches it before he is out. He is then entitled to it until he is put out, or forced to vacate it for another runner legally entitled to that base.

Rule 7.08 (e) Any runner is out when he or the next base is tagged before he touches the next base....


Explicit in those rules are two things. First, a runner is out if he is forced or tagged before reaching the base. The rulebook clearly shows that with the first and third examples. Conversely (and just as clearly shown) a runner is safe if reaching a base before being forced or tagged under rule 7.1. These rules are two sides of the same coin, for either the runner must beat the defense to the bag to be safe or the defender must beat the runner to the bag to record an out.

Missing in those rules are instructions for dealing with runner and defender reaching the bag simultaneously. The 'tie' lacks explanation. Some feel that no mention makes the tie benefiting the runner a myth, on par with misguided thinking that the hands are part of the bat, for example. However, closer inspection may show the reason why the 'tie goes to the runner' is such an age-old adage.

With no specific instruction on how to rule a tie, the umpire following only what is explicitly written in the code must assume ties simply do not exist, and many do just that. A common refrain among umpires seems to be that there are no ties on plays at bases. That interpretation means umpires are following the lead of Protestant Reformers and studying their rules sola scriptura. Subsequently, they must judge according only to the passages referenced above.

Unfortunately, such strict acceptance means calling a runner out or safe on an actual tie based on one instance of the rule while ignoring the other. To get around that, they argue that the ball either beats the runner or it doesn't, and the runner is subsequently either out or safe. While the former is questionable, the latter is correct. No matter how debatable a call may be in baseball, safe and out are still the only two choices.

One problem with the only-ball-or-runner-first answer is that a provision should be made for a tie and simply favor either the runner or the defender. All calls would still be mutually exclusive, depending only on which side benefited from some clear and final decision on ties. But, this hypothetical scenario would require those in authority to give weight to one instance in the rulebook over the other and make a slight modification in the wording in all references to outs at bases. That has not happened over the course of 100 years and seems unlikely in the future.

After eliminating that far-fetched solution, another problem still remains with umpires saying that the ball either beats the runner or it doesn't. That, of course, is an umpire's claim that a ball cannot reach a defender precisely when the runner touches the bag. That notion is much more problematic and real. We can look at horse racing for convincing photographic evidence that it is possible for two or more horses to reach the finish line at the same time, even after a race lasting two minutes or more. How, then, could it not be possible for a runner and defender to reach first base after a play lasting all of four seconds? It is possible, and any umpire that claims it is not has chosen to speak only where the scripture speaks.

Another option for umpires, which is to study the rules for intent and allow an implicit interpretation regarding ties, has its own problems as well. For, if an umpire admits it is possible for ball and runner to meet a base at the same time, they face a new dilemma. Is a tie an out or is it safe? Some umpires could put the onus on the defender to beat the runner and declare the runner safe if he reaches the base at the same time. They could reference a rule for such a call. Others, taking the opposite stance, could argue that they follow a rule as well, just a different one. Here are examples of such stances, with predictably conflicting results.

In this Q and A on MLB.com, major league crew chief Tim McClelland took the questions. When a reader asked about the 'tie going to runner,' he said that wording is not found and that "...the rule book does say that the runner must beat the ball to first base, and so if he doesn't beat the ball, then he is out." In this example, McClelland seems to invoke rule 7.1 while ignoring the other two, so he calls the runner out.

Tim McClelland's full comments:
I am an umpire for Little League. The coach told me that ties go to the runner. I said the batter has to beat the throw to first because there are no such thing as ties. Who is right?
-- L.M.F.

McClelland: That is exactly right. There are no ties and there is no rule that says the tie goes to the runner. But the rule book does say that the runner must beat the ball to first base, and so if he doesn't beat the ball, then he is out. So you have to make the decision. That's why umpires are paid the money they are, to make the decision on if he did or if he didn't. The only thing you can do is go by whether or not he beat the ball. If he did, then he is safe.

Here is another quote regarding the same question, in a Q and A with former major league umpire and current umpire academy owner Jim Evans. Evans' answer differs from McClelland's. Evans says the rulebook states, "...that a runner is out IF the defensive team tags him or his base BEFORE he reaches it. The implication is if the tag doesn't occur first (not at the same time or after), the runner would be safe." Here this umpire prefers rules 6.05 (j) and 7.08 (e) over McClelland's selection, so he calls the runner safe.

Proponents of the conflicting methods of interpretation shown above deal with two rules, 7.1 and 7.08 (e) in particular, that cannot both be true and cannot both be false. We are left with a logical contradiction. Unfortunately, we're also left no closer to a concrete solution.

In looking through baseball's rules, nothing says that a 'tie goes to the runner'. Feel free to ridicule any who claim that wording is in the book. However, calling such an idea a myth may be pushing it, since an umpire may call a runner safe on a tie.

Umpires will call a runner both safe and out on ties at different times. Some will do so for different reasons, either by 'missing' the call because they ruled that the ball or runner did get there first, or by choosing one particular rule over another from among the same set of rules. The umpire must make a judgment call on such plays, as he often does in the game of baseball. Even though there surely can be a tie at a base, a call either way must be made by men with differing opinions of what the correct call is.

That sounds a lot like the methodology in interpreting the strike zone.
---

From the Chicago Tribune:

As he saw it -- a conversation about life behind the umpire's mask


http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2009/03/as-he-saw-it-a-conversation-about-life-behind-the-umpires-mask.html

My college friend Bruce Weber, a reporter for the New York Times, is the author of "As They See `Em -- A Fan's Travels in the Land of Umpires" being published this month by Scribner. The following is a lightly edited transcript of our recent e-mail exchange:

EZ: So they're not necessarily the guys who started out at 14 umping T-ball games in the summer and kept it up every summer through high school and college. Hmm. Now, I'm assuming that after umpire school they all know the basics well enough -- tie does NOT go to the runner, I never knew that, though I would argue with great passion that it should -- so what is it that separates good umps from bad umps?

BW: If you're suggesting there is such a thing as an umpire nerd, yes, there is.

As for what distinguishes a good ump from a bad ump, I'd say it's akin to the difference between a good military officer and a not so good one. Some people have the ability to project confidence and authority and some don't; some people are able to give others confidence in their judgment and to reassure them that their livelihood is in good hands and some aren't.

By the way, you can argue all you want that a tie should go to the runner, but it's like arguing that a hitter should get four strikes.

Neither is the rule. Rule 7.01:"A runner acquires the right to an unoccupied base when he touches it before he is out." BEFORE he is out, not at the same time.

EZ: One last thing. The rulebook may say otherwise, but don't you, in your heart, say, as we have all said since childhood, that a tie should go to the runner? How can you possibly defend the sacrilegious idea that a tie goes to the defense?

BW: I'd rather say there's no such thing as a tie. Either the ball beats the runner to the base or the runner beats the ball.

---





Giants Top Minor League Prospects

  • 1. Joey Bart 6-2, 215 C Power arm and a power bat, playing a premium defensive position. Good catch and throw skills.
  • 2. Heliot Ramos 6-2, 185 OF Potential high-ceiling player the Giants have been looking for. Great bat speed, early returns were impressive.
  • 3. Chris Shaw 6-3. 230 1B Lefty power bat, limited defensively to 1B, Matt Adams comp?
  • 4. Tyler Beede 6-4, 215 RHP from Vanderbilt projects as top of the rotation starter when he works out his command/control issues. When he misses, he misses by a bunch.
  • 5. Stephen Duggar 6-1, 170 CF Another toolsy, under-achieving OF in the Gary Brown mold, hoping for better results.
  • 6. Sandro Fabian 6-0, 180 OF Dominican signee from 2014, shows some pop in his bat. Below average arm and lack of speed should push him towards LF.
  • 7. Aramis Garcia 6-2, 220 C from Florida INTL projects as a good bat behind the dish with enough defensive skill to play there long-term
  • 8. Heath Quinn 6-2, 190 OF Strong hitter, makes contact with improving approach at the plate. Returns from hamate bone injury.
  • 9. Garrett Williams 6-1, 205 LHP Former Oklahoma standout, Giants prototype, low-ceiling, high-floor prospect.
  • 10. Shaun Anderson 6-4, 225 RHP Large frame, 3.36 K/BB rate. Can start or relieve
  • 11. Jacob Gonzalez 6-3, 190 3B Good pedigree, impressive bat for HS prospect.
  • 12. Seth Corry 6-2 195 LHP Highly regard HS pick. Was mentioned as possible chip in high profile trades.
  • 13. C.J. Hinojosa 5-10, 175 SS Scrappy IF prospect in the mold of Kelby Tomlinson, just gets it done.
  • 14. Garett Cave 6-4, 200 RHP He misses a lot of bats and at times, the plate. 13 K/9 an 5 B/9. Wild thing.

2019 MLB Draft - Top HS Draft Prospects

  • 1. Bobby Witt, Jr. 6-1,185 SS Colleyville Heritage HS (TX) Oklahoma commit. Outstanding defensive SS who can hit. 6.4 speed in 60 yd. Touched 97 on mound. Son of former major leaguer. Five tool potential.
  • 2. Riley Greene 6-2, 190 OF Haggerty HS (FL) Florida commit.Best HS hitting prospect. LH bat with good eye, plate discipline and developing power.
  • 3. C.J. Abrams 6-2, 180 SS Blessed Trinity HS (GA) High-ceiling athlete. 70 speed with plus arm. Hitting needs to develop as he matures. Alabama commit.
  • 4. Reece Hinds 6-4, 210 SS Niceville HS (FL) Power bat, committed to LSU. Plus arm, solid enough bat to move to 3B down the road. 98MPH arm.
  • 5. Daniel Espino 6-3, 200 RHP Georgia Premier Academy (GA) LSU commit. Touches 98 on FB with wipe out SL.

2019 MLB Draft - Top College Draft Prospects

  • 1. Adley Rutschman C Oregon State Plus defender with great arm. Excellent receiver plus a switch hitter with some pop in the bat.
  • 2. Shea Langliers C Baylor Excelent throw and catch skills with good pop time. Quick bat, uses all fields approach with some pop.
  • 3. Zack Thompson 6-2 LHP Kentucky Missed time with an elbow issue. FB up to 95 with plenty of secondary stuff.
  • 4. Matt Wallner 6-5 OF Southern Miss Run producing bat plus mid to upper 90's FB closer. Power bat from the left side, athletic for size.
  • 5. Nick Lodolo LHP TCU Tall LHP, 95MPH FB and solid breaking stuff.