Alexander PCs retweeted
NVIDIA has reportedly cancelled the RTX 5080 24GB, which was expected to launch in January 2027.
According to reports from China, NVIDIA has informed its graphics card partners that the new model is no longer planned. The main reason is a shortage of 3GB GDDR7 memory chips, ensive and would push the card's price higher.
The standard RTX 5080 with 16GB of memory will remain in production for now..
According to reports from China, NVIDIA has informed its graphics card partners that the new model is no longer planned. The main reason is a shortage of 3GB GDDR7 memory chips, ensive and would push the card's price higher.
The standard RTX 5080 with 16GB of memory will remain in production for now..
99
185
2,838
151,947
Surprisingly strong response to our post earlier about the RE24 advanced stat. Weâve enjoyed seeing the comments - and the butt hurt đ
Several people criticized RE24 for being a context-dependent stat. Unlike wRC+ or OPS+, itâs not calculated based on a league average or But hereâs the thing about that⌠We LIKE that itâs context-dependent. Thatâs the entire point of the stat.
RE24 (Run Expectancy 24) measures how much a player changes his teamâs expected runs based on the 24 possible combinations of runners on base and outs.
A leadoff single with nobody on? Valuable.
A two-out double with runners on second and third? Significantly more valuable.
GOOD. IT SHOULD BE.
Baseball isnât played in a vacuum. The objective isnât to accumulate the prettiest context-neutral statistics. Itâs to score runs and win baseball games. This is why we consider RE24 to be more important than itâs given credit for.
We also view RE24 as a âhybrid stat.â Itâs not a âcounting statâ like RBI, but itâs not a decontextualized, league-adjusted or ballpark adjusted stat like OPS+ or ISO+ . It measures whether a player actually delivered value in situations where his team had more to gain or lose.
Unlike RBI, it accounts for outs, baserunner advancement, and the change in expected scoring. It doesnât simply award a hitter a point because somebody happened to be standing on third base when it was their turn to hit.
Is it the perfect stat? Nope. It doesnât adjust for ballpark or opponent quality and it doesnât measure inning or score leverage. But itâs an under appreciated metric that shows an important part of a playerâs overall offensive contribution.
We have wRC+, OPS+, WPA, and other metrics that are adjusted for those variables, and the different stats really do answer different questions about a playerâs overall game.
So when we want to know who actually contributed the most to generating runs in the situations they faced, RE24 is one of our favorite stats to look at.
Context isnât always statistical noise. Sometimes context is precisely what weâre trying to measure.
Curious about the best RE24 seasons of all time?
#1) Babe Ruth - 1921: +134.12
#2) Barry Bonds - 2004: + 128.83
#3) Babe Ruth - 1923: +121.89
#4) Barry Bonds - 2002: +119.42
#5) Barry Bonds - 2001: +118.88
How godlike are those seasons by Barry and the The Bambino? For context, Shoheiâs 50/50 season generated an RE24 of +80.88.
Several people criticized RE24 for being a context-dependent stat. Unlike wRC+ or OPS+, itâs not calculated based on a league average or But hereâs the thing about that⌠We LIKE that itâs context-dependent. Thatâs the entire point of the stat.
RE24 (Run Expectancy 24) measures how much a player changes his teamâs expected runs based on the 24 possible combinations of runners on base and outs.
A leadoff single with nobody on? Valuable.
A two-out double with runners on second and third? Significantly more valuable.
GOOD. IT SHOULD BE.
Baseball isnât played in a vacuum. The objective isnât to accumulate the prettiest context-neutral statistics. Itâs to score runs and win baseball games. This is why we consider RE24 to be more important than itâs given credit for.
We also view RE24 as a âhybrid stat.â Itâs not a âcounting statâ like RBI, but itâs not a decontextualized, league-adjusted or ballpark adjusted stat like OPS+ or ISO+ . It measures whether a player actually delivered value in situations where his team had more to gain or lose.
Unlike RBI, it accounts for outs, baserunner advancement, and the change in expected scoring. It doesnât simply award a hitter a point because somebody happened to be standing on third base when it was their turn to hit.
Is it the perfect stat? Nope. It doesnât adjust for ballpark or opponent quality and it doesnât measure inning or score leverage. But itâs an under appreciated metric that shows an important part of a playerâs overall offensive contribution.
We have wRC+, OPS+, WPA, and other metrics that are adjusted for those variables, and the different stats really do answer different questions about a playerâs overall game.
So when we want to know who actually contributed the most to generating runs in the situations they faced, RE24 is one of our favorite stats to look at.
Context isnât always statistical noise. Sometimes context is precisely what weâre trying to measure.
Curious about the best RE24 seasons of all time?
#1) Babe Ruth - 1921: +134.12
#2) Barry Bonds - 2004: + 128.83
#3) Babe Ruth - 1923: +121.89
#4) Barry Bonds - 2002: +119.42
#5) Barry Bonds - 2001: +118.88
How godlike are those seasons by Barry and the The Bambino? For context, Shoheiâs 50/50 season generated an RE24 of +80.88.
3
0
11
675
Sal Stewartâs 112 RBI werenât just impressive. They were extraordinary. And a stat called RE24 explains exactly why.
One of the most common criticisms of RBI as a statistic is that driving in runs is dependent on teammates. After all, a hitter canât drive in runners who arenât on base to begin with. Makes perfect sense.
But Stewart drove in 112 runs for a Cincinnati Reds team that finished LAST in the National League in runs scored and last in all of baseball in batting average and OBP.
So how do we separate a hitterâs actual offensive contribution from the opportunities his teammates provide?
Enter RE24: Run Expectancy Based on the 24 Base-Out States.
RE24 is one of baseballâs most useful advanced statistics for evaluating situational offensive production.
Hereâs how it works.
There are eight possible baserunner configurations: bases empty, runner on first, runner on second, runner on third, first and second, first and third, second and third, and bases loaded.
Each configuration can occur with zero, one, or two outs.
8 baserunner configurations Ă 3 out states = 24 possible situations.
Using historical play-by-play data, statisticians calculate the average number of runs a team can expect to score from each of those 24 situations through the end of the inning.
Every plate appearance changes that expectation.
The formula is:
RE24 = Runs Scored on the Play + Run Expectancy After â Run Expectancy Before
Hereâs a simplified example using illustrative run-expectancy values:
A hitter comes to the plate with runners on first and second, nobody out.
That situation has an expected run value of approximately 1.5 runs.
He doubles, scoring both runners, and ends up on second with nobody out.
The new situation has an expected value of approximately 1.1 runs.
His RE24 contribution?
2 + 1.1 â 1.5 = +1.6 runs.
He didnât merely collect two RBI. He increased his teamâs expected run production by 1.6 runs.
Conversely, if he grounded into a double play, his RE24 would be substantially negative because he destroyed a valuable scoring opportunity.
This calculation is performed for every plate appearance throughout the season, and the results are added together.
Unlike RBI, RE24 accounts for the scoring opportunities a hitter actually receives and measures what he actually does with them.
Now letâs look at the final 2026 numbers:
SAL STEWART
112 RBI
32 HR
700 PA
+19.85 RE24
CARSON BENGE
65 RBI
20 HR
654 PA
+13.25 RE24
Stewart generated 49.8% more runs above situational expectation than Benge.
And before someone points out that Stewart had more plate appearances, normalize both players to 600 PA:
Stewart: +17.01 RE24/600 PA
Benge: +12.16 RE24/600 PA
Stewart still holds a roughly 40% advantage.
Now, RE24 isnât a perfect statistic. It doesnât adjust for ballpark, and it doesnât capture defensive value. It also rewards productive hitting with the bases empty, not just driving runners home.
But thatâs precisely why itâs useful here.
Weâre not simply comparing RBI totals. Weâre measuring how effectively each hitter improved his teamâs run-scoring outlook, accounting for the situations he inherited.
And Stewart comes out comfortably ahead in that measurement.
112 RBI wasnât merely a product of opportunity. Stewartâs +19.85 RE24 demonstrates that he consistently added value beyond the run expectancy of those opportunities.
On the National Leagueâs lowest-scoring offense.
As a 22-year-old rookie.
Thatâs not just an impressive traditional stat line.
Thatâs an analytically defensible Rookie of the Year performance.
One of the most common criticisms of RBI as a statistic is that driving in runs is dependent on teammates. After all, a hitter canât drive in runners who arenât on base to begin with. Makes perfect sense.
But Stewart drove in 112 runs for a Cincinnati Reds team that finished LAST in the National League in runs scored and last in all of baseball in batting average and OBP.
So how do we separate a hitterâs actual offensive contribution from the opportunities his teammates provide?
Enter RE24: Run Expectancy Based on the 24 Base-Out States.
RE24 is one of baseballâs most useful advanced statistics for evaluating situational offensive production.
Hereâs how it works.
There are eight possible baserunner configurations: bases empty, runner on first, runner on second, runner on third, first and second, first and third, second and third, and bases loaded.
Each configuration can occur with zero, one, or two outs.
8 baserunner configurations Ă 3 out states = 24 possible situations.
Using historical play-by-play data, statisticians calculate the average number of runs a team can expect to score from each of those 24 situations through the end of the inning.
Every plate appearance changes that expectation.
The formula is:
RE24 = Runs Scored on the Play + Run Expectancy After â Run Expectancy Before
Hereâs a simplified example using illustrative run-expectancy values:
A hitter comes to the plate with runners on first and second, nobody out.
That situation has an expected run value of approximately 1.5 runs.
He doubles, scoring both runners, and ends up on second with nobody out.
The new situation has an expected value of approximately 1.1 runs.
His RE24 contribution?
2 + 1.1 â 1.5 = +1.6 runs.
He didnât merely collect two RBI. He increased his teamâs expected run production by 1.6 runs.
Conversely, if he grounded into a double play, his RE24 would be substantially negative because he destroyed a valuable scoring opportunity.
This calculation is performed for every plate appearance throughout the season, and the results are added together.
Unlike RBI, RE24 accounts for the scoring opportunities a hitter actually receives and measures what he actually does with them.
Now letâs look at the final 2026 numbers:
SAL STEWART
112 RBI
32 HR
700 PA
+19.85 RE24
CARSON BENGE
65 RBI
20 HR
654 PA
+13.25 RE24
Stewart generated 49.8% more runs above situational expectation than Benge.
And before someone points out that Stewart had more plate appearances, normalize both players to 600 PA:
Stewart: +17.01 RE24/600 PA
Benge: +12.16 RE24/600 PA
Stewart still holds a roughly 40% advantage.
Now, RE24 isnât a perfect statistic. It doesnât adjust for ballpark, and it doesnât capture defensive value. It also rewards productive hitting with the bases empty, not just driving runners home.
But thatâs precisely why itâs useful here.
Weâre not simply comparing RBI totals. Weâre measuring how effectively each hitter improved his teamâs run-scoring outlook, accounting for the situations he inherited.
And Stewart comes out comfortably ahead in that measurement.
112 RBI wasnât merely a product of opportunity. Stewartâs +19.85 RE24 demonstrates that he consistently added value beyond the run expectancy of those opportunities.
On the National Leagueâs lowest-scoring offense.
As a 22-year-old rookie.
Thatâs not just an impressive traditional stat line.
Thatâs an analytically defensible Rookie of the Year performance.
Sal Stewart rose above the rest in his rookie season đ
Hereâs the voting breakdown for the 2026 National League Rookie of the Year Award!
16
36
271
21,588
Alexander PCs retweeted
BEAM Desktop just got a major upgrade!
⢠Capture card support
⢠Switch video/audio sources while LIVE
⢠Lower latency, better quality & stability
⢠Cross-platform title/category updates
⢠Automatic updates
⢠OBS 33 & Windows ARM support
Download at beamstream.gg/desktop
⢠Capture card support
⢠Switch video/audio sources while LIVE
⢠Lower latency, better quality & stability
⢠Cross-platform title/category updates
⢠Automatic updates
⢠OBS 33 & Windows ARM support
Download at beamstream.gg/desktop
4
19
33
4,929
Weâd noticed a higher incidence of drive failures in PCs with Radeon GPUs. Was only just starting to become apparent beyond statistical anomaly. This seems likely to be the cause.
AMD admits GPU driver bug is writing data continuously, wearing out SSDs â Radeon owner claims External Events Utility used up 1% of SSD health every month for over a year, company promises a fix soon tomshardware.com/pc-components/âŚ
0
0
8
1,083
"The scandal was a detonator set off right on cue. The real goal was to plug the holes chips were leaking through."
đŻđŻđŻ
đŻđŻđŻ
Taiwanese semiconductor analyst Andrew Luâs take on the recent scandal involving Jensen Huang:
Why the US Seized on the Scandal to Draw Its Sword: Three Strategic Objectives
The purpose of this scandal is by no means to expose an affair. It is to force through three critical objectives that had made no headway in the tech war between the US and China because Jensen Huang opposed them.
The first cut: Completely destroy the legitimacy of Jensen Huang's lobbying against sanctions in Washington
Over the past two years, the loudest and most influential business leader in Silicon Valley opposing a total ban on chip exports to China has been Jensen Huang. He has told the White House the same thing all along: "Cede the Chinese market to Huawei, and the only one that ends up dead is the American tech industry."
But the moment US intelligence labels the woman named as Huang's affair partner "a spy working for China's Ministry of State Security who sought to steer the US toward easing its chip controls," every bit of lobbying he has done for looser controls takes on an entirely different political meaning. It becomes a national security matter, raising the possibility that a foreign spy used a secret relationship to exert influence.
Huang can no longer say a single word in defense of the Chinese market before Congress or the White House. If he does, he will be branded as someone who "fell for an intelligence operation and still hasn't come to his senses."
The second cut: Reverse the H200 export approvals for China and sever the link between Chinese shell companies and Southeast Asian smuggling networks
Look at the timing of the two reports.
On November 8, the very day the Jensen Huang scandal broke, The New York Times published an investigation for which its reporters went in person to dozens of Chinese companies that the US Commerce Department had approved to handle Nvidia's H200 chips. New Matrix in Beijing was one of them. According to the report, the registered addresses of companies approved to buy the chips turned out to be empty "ghost offices," and some of the companies had close ties to entities on US sanctions lists and to firms under contract with the Chinese military.
One exposĂŠ says Nvidia's CEO was having an affair with a female spy from Megaspeed, the Singapore company that handled the chip smuggling. The other says the Chinese companies Commerce approved to buy H200s are nothing but shell companies trading on behalf of the Chinese military. The aim of these two reports is clear. They are meant to pressure the Trump administration and the Commerce Department into fully revoking or freezing H200 export approvals for China and, going further, to force a sweeping overhaul of the loophole that let chips be diverted through data centers run by third parties in Singapore and elsewhere in Southeast Asia.
The third cut: Put Nvidia on a national security leash through congressional oversight and an independent investigation
As the world's largest company by market cap and the dominant force in AI, Nvidia has until now enjoyed broad autonomy in how it runs its business. But in the wake of this incident, the three congressional committees responsible for China, foreign affairs, and intelligence have begun examining Nvidia's internal security measures directly. They have even pressured Nvidia's board into forming an independent investigation committee to look into the company's own founder and CEO.
In effect, Washington's national security establishment has planted a watchdog right inside Nvidia's board. From now on, the goal is to make sure that everything, down to where each and every one of Nvidia's high performance chips ends up, conforms strictly to US national security strategy. It also means there is no more room for skirting the edge of the rules or releasing chips with specs specially tailored to regulatory thresholds.
Conclusion
"The scandal was a detonator set off right on cue. The real goal was to plug the holes chips were leaking through."
Jensen Huang made the fatal mistake of letting his guard down in his private life and personal relationships. In the end, he fell into a honey trap, the textbook tactic of intelligence warfare, and was compromised. America's national security and intelligence agencies ruthlessly exploited the weakness his private life had exposed. As a result, they solved three thorny problems in a single stroke: Nvidia's lobbying at the White House to ease restrictions on China, the flow of H200 chips into Chinese shell companies, and smuggling routed through Singapore.
The closed congressional hearing set for November 18 will be the decisive turning point at which the US moves in earnest to tighten its sanctions on China's AI compute even further.
0
1
8
794
Yikes.
Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang has admitted to cheating on his wife after revealing he had an affair with Alice Huang, an executive now at the centre of a suspected Chinese spying case.
US intelligence officials suspect Alice Huang of working for Chinaâs Ministry of State Security to t Nvidia.
The companyâs board has launched an independent investigation. Huang apologised to his wife, children and employees, saying:
âI was unfaithful to my wife. My actions hurt her and our children. There is no excuse for what I did. I am deeply sorry.â
âI take full responsibility for what I did and the hurt I caused.â
1
0
5
571
Alexander PCs retweeted
Joe Burrow is the MVP front runner half way through the season. He is playing better than ever.
66
121
2,381
66,414
Need to say this, so buckle up. Chips will fall where they might, but with all the talk about the issue this past week, the record needs to be completely straight about something:
The belief that human life begins at conception is not actually a âbeliefâ at all. It is a demonstrable, inalienable, unassailable scientific fact that is beyond any dispute or argument. It is not contingent on anyoneâs political leanings or philosophical framing.
1) Not only is the âzygoteâ alive at the point of conception, both the male sperm and the female egg meet the biological definition of âaliveâ before conception even occurs. Both are living human cells made of human tissue, containing human DNA. When those two living cells combine, conception initiates the development of an entirely new human organism from reproductive cells that are already living.
2) Cellular metabolism, biological organization, capacity for growth and development - all the biological criteria of âhuman lifeâ are present.
3) The living genetic material is human. It belongs to the species Homo sapiens, not any other species.
4) It is a biologically distinct human organism with a new, unique combination of DNA that is different from either parent. It is an integrated and developing biological entity as opposed to an isolated cell type.
5) It will develop continuously given suitable environmental conditions. It will progress through embryonic, fetal, infant, adolescent, mature adult, and elderly stages without ever changing species.
So, biology is absolutely not against anyone who argues that, from the point of conception, the human zygote is:
- Alive
- Biologically human
- A developing human organism
No biologist will dispute any of this. The question surrounding abortion is, and has always been a *legal* one not a biological one. And that question isnât whether or not itâs alive, or human. Itâs whether or not it constitutes a legal person with moral and legal rights.
The political opinion, or religious belief, or philosophical position or whatever you wanna call it that all human life is worthy of legal personhood and legal rights and protections at the point of conception is a mainstream viewpoint shared by billions of people of various faiths and politics across the world. Itâs not some fringe position based purely on religious preferences and teachings with no scientific evidence to support the position.
The idea that someone who holds this viewpoint is some sort of religious extremist or misogynist or unscientific simpleton needs to be completely crushed. This is a mainstream, rational opinion grounded in both science and morality. You donât have to agree with it, but mocking it makes you look like an intolerant jerk.
The belief that human life begins at conception is not actually a âbeliefâ at all. It is a demonstrable, inalienable, unassailable scientific fact that is beyond any dispute or argument. It is not contingent on anyoneâs political leanings or philosophical framing.
1) Not only is the âzygoteâ alive at the point of conception, both the male sperm and the female egg meet the biological definition of âaliveâ before conception even occurs. Both are living human cells made of human tissue, containing human DNA. When those two living cells combine, conception initiates the development of an entirely new human organism from reproductive cells that are already living.
2) Cellular metabolism, biological organization, capacity for growth and development - all the biological criteria of âhuman lifeâ are present.
3) The living genetic material is human. It belongs to the species Homo sapiens, not any other species.
4) It is a biologically distinct human organism with a new, unique combination of DNA that is different from either parent. It is an integrated and developing biological entity as opposed to an isolated cell type.
5) It will develop continuously given suitable environmental conditions. It will progress through embryonic, fetal, infant, adolescent, mature adult, and elderly stages without ever changing species.
So, biology is absolutely not against anyone who argues that, from the point of conception, the human zygote is:
- Alive
- Biologically human
- A developing human organism
No biologist will dispute any of this. The question surrounding abortion is, and has always been a *legal* one not a biological one. And that question isnât whether or not itâs alive, or human. Itâs whether or not it constitutes a legal person with moral and legal rights.
The political opinion, or religious belief, or philosophical position or whatever you wanna call it that all human life is worthy of legal personhood and legal rights and protections at the point of conception is a mainstream viewpoint shared by billions of people of various faiths and politics across the world. Itâs not some fringe position based purely on religious preferences and teachings with no scientific evidence to support the position.
The idea that someone who holds this viewpoint is some sort of religious extremist or misogynist or unscientific simpleton needs to be completely crushed. This is a mainstream, rational opinion grounded in both science and morality. You donât have to agree with it, but mocking it makes you look like an intolerant jerk.
31
134
925
20,325
Imagine getting rear-ended and having to explain to your insurance company that your balls took most of the damage. đ
0
0
1
509
Letâs goooooo! @tBushGaming legit
Proud of these guys !!! Beat a pro team today and took the Falcons to MAP 5 who has a 2 million dollar roster. Good fight from the guys !!! Cup 1 next week. Back in the Lab.
0
0
2
1,328
Bobby Witt Jr. was ROBBED of the 2026 AL Gold Glove, and the numbers behind this decision are absolutely astonishing.
Letâs explain why, and also talk about what these defensive metrics actually measure.
1. OAA (Outs Above Average)
Measures how many more (or fewer) outs a to an average player, accounting for the difficulty of each play, including range and positioning.
Bobby Witt Jr.: +24
Taylor Walls: -3
Thatâs a staggering 27-out difference. Statcast considers Witt an elite defender and Walls below average.
2. FRV (Fielding Run Value)
Statcastâs estimate of how many runs a player saves defensively. For shortstops, this is closely related to OAA, expressed in runs rather than outs.
Witt: +17
Walls: -2
Again, Witt is elite. Walls is below average.
3. DRS (Defensive Runs Saved)
A separate defensive measurement system that evaluates range, throwing, double plays, positioning-related factors, and other defensive contributions.
Witt: +8
Walls: +21
So HERE is where things get interesting.
DRS considers Walls one of baseballâs best defenders. Statcast considers him below average.
How is that possible?
Different systems evaluate the same plays using different models. Walls is particularly exceptional at anticipating where baseballs will be hit and positioning himself accordingly.
But that doesnât fully explain why two respected measurement systems disagree so dramatically.
4. SDI (SABR Defensive Index)
SABR combines several defensive measurements into one composite score used in Gold Glove voting.
Witt: 7.9
Walls: 8.6
Walls wins this comparison, but BARELY.
And hereâs the kicker:
SABRâs index accounts for approximately 25% of Gold Glove selection. The remaining 75% comes from managers and coaches.
So weâre left with a fascinating and (imo) troubling result.
One system says Walls is extraordinary. Another says heâs below average. Meanwhile, Witt is outstanding by Statcast AND above average according to DRS.
Yet somehow, Walls gets the hardware.
This isnât an argument that Walls is a bad shortstop. Heâs obviously not.
But it is an argument that baseballâs premier defensive award should reflect the strongest overall evidence of defensive excellence.
Weâve spent decades developing sophisticated analytics to move beyond reputation and subjective evaluation.
Then we gave 75% of the decision back to subjective voting and watched a guy with -3 OAA beat a guy with +24.
And if baseball canât explain how its premier defensive measurements produce such wildly different conclusions, perhaps we should be questioning the measurements AND the voting process.
So - one model favors positioning and other models favor actual range and player ability. How much credit belongs to the player, and how much belongs to the organization that put him in position to succeed?
In my opinion, if we're evaluating an individual player, we should try to isolate what he contributes rather than reward him for his team's scouting and defensive strategy. Which means Bobby Witt Jr. should have won the Gold Glove.
Letâs explain why, and also talk about what these defensive metrics actually measure.
1. OAA (Outs Above Average)
Measures how many more (or fewer) outs a to an average player, accounting for the difficulty of each play, including range and positioning.
Bobby Witt Jr.: +24
Taylor Walls: -3
Thatâs a staggering 27-out difference. Statcast considers Witt an elite defender and Walls below average.
2. FRV (Fielding Run Value)
Statcastâs estimate of how many runs a player saves defensively. For shortstops, this is closely related to OAA, expressed in runs rather than outs.
Witt: +17
Walls: -2
Again, Witt is elite. Walls is below average.
3. DRS (Defensive Runs Saved)
A separate defensive measurement system that evaluates range, throwing, double plays, positioning-related factors, and other defensive contributions.
Witt: +8
Walls: +21
So HERE is where things get interesting.
DRS considers Walls one of baseballâs best defenders. Statcast considers him below average.
How is that possible?
Different systems evaluate the same plays using different models. Walls is particularly exceptional at anticipating where baseballs will be hit and positioning himself accordingly.
But that doesnât fully explain why two respected measurement systems disagree so dramatically.
4. SDI (SABR Defensive Index)
SABR combines several defensive measurements into one composite score used in Gold Glove voting.
Witt: 7.9
Walls: 8.6
Walls wins this comparison, but BARELY.
And hereâs the kicker:
SABRâs index accounts for approximately 25% of Gold Glove selection. The remaining 75% comes from managers and coaches.
So weâre left with a fascinating and (imo) troubling result.
One system says Walls is extraordinary. Another says heâs below average. Meanwhile, Witt is outstanding by Statcast AND above average according to DRS.
Yet somehow, Walls gets the hardware.
This isnât an argument that Walls is a bad shortstop. Heâs obviously not.
But it is an argument that baseballâs premier defensive award should reflect the strongest overall evidence of defensive excellence.
Weâve spent decades developing sophisticated analytics to move beyond reputation and subjective evaluation.
Then we gave 75% of the decision back to subjective voting and watched a guy with -3 OAA beat a guy with +24.
And if baseball canât explain how its premier defensive measurements produce such wildly different conclusions, perhaps we should be questioning the measurements AND the voting process.
So - one model favors positioning and other models favor actual range and player ability. How much credit belongs to the player, and how much belongs to the organization that put him in position to succeed?
In my opinion, if we're evaluating an individual player, we should try to isolate what he contributes rather than reward him for his team's scouting and defensive strategy. Which means Bobby Witt Jr. should have won the Gold Glove.
0
0
0
894
**IF** this is true, this is deeply concerning. NVIDIA sits at the center of Americaâs technological and national security interests. The possibility that the CEO of the premier AI hardware company was honeypotted by foreign intelligence deserves serious scrutiny.
That said, the allegations remain unproven, and everyone deserves the benefit of the facts.
But if the romantic angle is substantiated, thereâs a certain irony here: You can turn a nerd into a billionaire, but apparently you still canât patch his oldest vulnerability⌠a woman who pays attention to him.
Guess some security gaps are in the firmware and are remarkably resistant to technological advancement. đ
That said, the allegations remain unproven, and everyone deserves the benefit of the facts.
But if the romantic angle is substantiated, thereâs a certain irony here: You can turn a nerd into a billionaire, but apparently you still canât patch his oldest vulnerability⌠a woman who pays attention to him.
Guess some security gaps are in the firmware and are remarkably resistant to technological advancement. đ
Nvidia's Jensen Huang officially called to Congress due to reports of a Chinese spy plot â officials mention growing concerns over national security tomshardware.com/tech-industry/âŚ
0
0
9
1,411
G2 Esports @G2esports firing Perkz is absolute bullshit, and the hypocrisy behind the decision is staggering. Truly pissed off about this. Hereâs a breakdown:
Perkz publicly expressed his Catholic faith and his belief that abortion is morally wrong. He went so far as to call it murder. You are entirely free to disagree with him, including his choice of words. But the suggestion that opposition to abortion is some bizarre, fringe extremist position is completely bonkers.
Opposition to abortion is longstanding Catholic doctrine and is a widely held belief throughout various other Christian faiths and also Islam. Christianity and Islam alone account for more than FOUR BILLION people worldwide. Not all of the adherents agree on abortion, but pretending that Perkzâs fundamental position is somehow outside the bounds of acceptable mainstream thought is intellectually dishonest. Billions of people are opposed to abortion.
Now letâs examine G2âs rather selective commitment to morality.
G2 is perfectly comfortable participating in a Saudi-backed esports funding program. Yes, Saudi Arabia. The same Saudi Arabia where women *actually* face institutionalized discrimination, male guardianship laws, and significant restrictions on their personal autonomy.
G2 is also perfectly comfortable accepting sponsorships from gambling companies like Winamax and Betpanda, whose businesses profit from an industry associated with addiction and financial harm.
Apparently those relationships are entirely compatible with G2âs corporate âvalues,â but a Catholic person expressing a religious conviction shared by countless people around the world is simply too offensive to tolerate.
How extraordinarily convenient.
G2 doesnât have to agree with Perkz. Thereâs legitimate debate to be had about morality, and reasonable people can arrive at very different conclusions.
But firing someone for expressing a mainstream religious conviction while simultaneously preaching about diversity and inclusion is a breathtaking display of hypocrisy.
Diversity includes diversity of thought. Religious tolerance includes tolerating religious beliefs you personally reject. And inclusion means absolutely nothing if it only extends to people who agree with you.
If G2 genuinely believes in those principles, it ought to practice them.
Otherwise, spare us the sanctimonious lectures about values.
Apparently G2âs principles are negotiable when thereâs a sponsorship check attached.
Perkz publicly expressed his Catholic faith and his belief that abortion is morally wrong. He went so far as to call it murder. You are entirely free to disagree with him, including his choice of words. But the suggestion that opposition to abortion is some bizarre, fringe extremist position is completely bonkers.
Opposition to abortion is longstanding Catholic doctrine and is a widely held belief throughout various other Christian faiths and also Islam. Christianity and Islam alone account for more than FOUR BILLION people worldwide. Not all of the adherents agree on abortion, but pretending that Perkzâs fundamental position is somehow outside the bounds of acceptable mainstream thought is intellectually dishonest. Billions of people are opposed to abortion.
Now letâs examine G2âs rather selective commitment to morality.
G2 is perfectly comfortable participating in a Saudi-backed esports funding program. Yes, Saudi Arabia. The same Saudi Arabia where women *actually* face institutionalized discrimination, male guardianship laws, and significant restrictions on their personal autonomy.
G2 is also perfectly comfortable accepting sponsorships from gambling companies like Winamax and Betpanda, whose businesses profit from an industry associated with addiction and financial harm.
Apparently those relationships are entirely compatible with G2âs corporate âvalues,â but a Catholic person expressing a religious conviction shared by countless people around the world is simply too offensive to tolerate.
How extraordinarily convenient.
G2 doesnât have to agree with Perkz. Thereâs legitimate debate to be had about morality, and reasonable people can arrive at very different conclusions.
But firing someone for expressing a mainstream religious conviction while simultaneously preaching about diversity and inclusion is a breathtaking display of hypocrisy.
Diversity includes diversity of thought. Religious tolerance includes tolerating religious beliefs you personally reject. And inclusion means absolutely nothing if it only extends to people who agree with you.
If G2 genuinely believes in those principles, it ought to practice them.
Otherwise, spare us the sanctimonious lectures about values.
Apparently G2âs principles are negotiable when thereâs a sponsorship check attached.
19
40
930
12,976
One of the coolest builds we did this week. The RAM mod came out đ¤đźđ¤đźđ¤đź
0
0
25
4,652
Since weâre all apparently fine with cancel cultureâŚ
Hey, look, everyone - @duck585c who is an affiliate of @skinscom and powered by @RazedEsport thinks that âagreeing with Perkzâ is âreally retarded.â
So if youâre a Catholic or Christian or really just anyone who holds a pro-life position, make sure you know what these brands think of you!
So sick of this stupidity.
Hey, look, everyone - @duck585c who is an affiliate of @skinscom and powered by @RazedEsport thinks that âagreeing with Perkzâ is âreally retarded.â
So if youâre a Catholic or Christian or really just anyone who holds a pro-life position, make sure you know what these brands think of you!
So sick of this stupidity.
The perkz situation shows that the league community is worse than the cs2 community, g2 did the absolutely right thing. Even if you agree with perkz (which would already be really retarded) saying super controversial stuff like that is image damaging for g2 as a org it wouldâve been stupid for them not to fire him
28
63
2,194
50,852
Better question: what kinds of brands and sponsors terminate partnerships because someone basically said âIâm Catholic and I believe Catholic things.â
Sounds to us like those brands and sponsors are bigots.
Sounds to us like those brands and sponsors are bigots.
Do you really not understand that his firing wasnât for his beliefs or religion? Or even that he expressed them?
Backlash to the company caused by Perkz triggering a PR nightmare (not for the first time mind you) risks the brand and sponsorships
He was guaranteed to be fired
1
0
67
3,761