Brock Beauchamp

I actually agree with the first paragraph. But the second paragraph is the kind of thinking that really irks me. Yes, the Cubs are a fantastic organization. They're extremely smart. That doesn't mean the Twins aren't smart as well, it simply means they're not as smart as the Cubs. The Twins do a lot right. A lot. They took a 63 win team with virtually no future and turned it into an 83 win team with some of the best prospects/young players in all of baseball. That doesn't happen on accident; blind squirrels don't find a nut multiple times. If it was that easy, teams like the Pirates wouldn't have two decade runs of complete and utter ineptitude. Every team would be "back in it" within half a decade. There are plenty of ways to disagree with the Twins and their approach without implying they aren't smart. It's one of the traits of the internet that drives me up a wall: something is either the best in the world or it's the worst. Our conversational default is hyperbole. We can all agree the Cubs are one of (if not the) best run organizations in baseball without implying the Twins are blundering knuckleheads who spend most of the day trying to hammer a square peg into a round hole and drooling on themselves.

If the passcode is a four digit pin, yes, it should be relatively easy to crack. But the passcode could be a six digit pin. Or maybe it's a fully alpha-numeric 12 digit code. But yeah, I generally agree the FBI should be forced to jump through hoops for screwing up in the first place.

Cloning tech exists but I'm not sure how useful it is at this point. If the encryption key is separate from the OS and cannot be copied, cloning is pretty useless. Once again, you end up with a worthless pile of encrypted data. The important thing is to keep that encryption key and the data tethered but I don't know enough about the limits of security to give a real opinion on the viability of cloning. One of the most frustrating aspects of conversations such as this is that everyone wants to weigh in but only 0.5% of the population (at most) are qualified to even talk about this topic. I know a lot about tech but even I'm skating on the edge of the ice when talking about encryption and security. I know the general concepts and am familiar with some of the tech but I certainly don't know the nuts and bolts.

But what kind of access? For example, many modern phones store fingerprint records. Tomorrow, they may store retinal scans. There is an expectation of privacy with some of the data stored on phones and I don't trust government to keep up with tech and deny law enforcement access to the various aspects of these devices. Sure, law enforcement should be able to access call data, email, etc. on a phone but under no circumstances should they have access to fingerprint or retinal data (which is part of the reason Apple put that data on its Secret Black Voodoo Hidden Chip).

How so? It's been around for over a decade. There's nothing suspicious about it.

I can tell you how to get around blackouts if you're interested. It's how I watch baseball. Given that I'm actually paying MLB to circumvent their own system, I have no moral qualms about doing so, either.

It's possible they can find a way to cooperate but it's much tougher for the tech industry to comply than it is a bank or phone company. You don't carry your bank or phone company around with you in your pocket. There aren't billions of banks watching porn, downloading malware, being stolen, and generally being treated with the utmost disregard, weakening their security in the process. It's much easier to create a secure environment when you're the only person with access to the hardware. Build a concrete bunker around the device. Instant security.

My argument isn't entirely about the government and access to devices, though that is certainly part of the conversation. Due to the nature of law enforcement, I believe it is our job to construct road blocks, not ease their path. Law enforcement will take every inch you give them and ask for more. It's my belief we should deny them more, they already have more than enough to do their jobs. But that's only half the argument. What the FBI is asking to do may seem not so bad but it does two things and I'm afraid the government is too incompetent about tech to realize the dangers of the requests: 1. The precedent. What the FBI is asking is not super-dangerous but the precedent it sets is extremely dangerous. If the government can compel a company to create software to undermine their own tech, where does that stop? What happens when Apple only builds iOS devices with the Secure Enclave (this happened last Sept, actually) and the FBI wants into that enclave? That's no longer a "well, we just want into this phone and maybe a few other phones" issue. That's a request for complete destruction of Apple's on-device security and the precedent is there for the FBI to do it. 2. The super bad guys, hackers and terrorists. What happens when these people find out that Apple has found a way to compromise their own operating system? They all go nuts and work furiously to replicate the work. Someone probably posts a $100k+ bounty for the first working solution. A large part of tech security is anonymity. It's damned near impossible to write 50 million lines of code that are 100% secure and part of the safety element is that no one knows what is possible or where to look for flaws. Well, we just gave them a big clue where to look and how to do it. Chances are, they figure out a way to replicate Apple's work within a year, probably within six months. And now we've compromised the roughly one billion iOS devices in use around the world. Security doors are only intended for "good guys" but in tech, they rarely stay that way. That's why companies are starting to lock themselves out of their own tech; it's the best way to keep your software/hardware secure.

There's the Ricky we know and love! 300 foot liner, four feet foul. A few more starts and he should be able to get hitters to keep it fair.

Ah, MLB.tv streaming is back. I'm really looking forward to seeing these two commercials for the next seven months.

I fully expect Park to struggle for up to half a season before making an adjustment, provided he's capable of making a successful adjustment.

Hey, the game is streaming on MLB.tv. Cool beans.

One thing I really like about Escobar is that it seems like he's always clowning on something. His Jumbotron video, his general demeanor, he just seems like a bit of a joker. It has nothing to do with his play on the field but I have to believe that has some positive impact in the clubhouse. And it's fun to watch.

I'm also skeptical of Duffey and I'm not putting too much stock into anything he did last season. It was a pleasant surprise but baseball history is littered with pitchers who succeeded over 10-ish starts and then imploded. As you said, he needs to be better later in the game (a common weakness of young pitchers) and he needs to, well, just show me more. I'm not sold yet. But I'd put even less stock into his pre/post September stats. He only made four starts before September. One was very good, one was... eh, okay but probably lucky, two were bad. He was a rookie making his MLB debut, it shouldn't surprise us if he was prone to combustion his first few times on the mound.

I could just as easily compare Park to a Cuban hitter and come up with the same (non) answers. He's had all of three plate appearances. How he looked his first day on the job is kinda irrelevant, especially when steeped in a negative comparison of a wildly different player. Park was a risk, we all know it. He's also a comparatively cheap risk.

Never mind the fact that Nishioka didn't strike out that often, roughly once every six times he went to the plate.

Cruz doesn't play with large segments of the voting population. He does well in select blocs but I don't see him gaining enough momentum to win the nomination. Sure, it's possible, though. Ultimately, I don't know if it matters. Cruz, like Trump, is going to struggle to rally moderates around his cause.

*looks around* Nope, I didn't say anything of the sort but I'm not terribly worried about Dozier. He could regress but I think it's more likely he continues posting the ~.750-ish OPS he has been posting since he adjusted his approach/swing 1900 plate appearances ago. No one should be off the table if the return improves the team. It's unlikely the team will be improved by trading Brian Dozier. Maybe this July, that changes... Maybe it changes next November. Dunno, but I see little reason to force the issue today. Right now, second base is one of the few positions on the team with an above-average player and few question marks.

Yep, they have no good options to get themselves out of this mess.

Actually, that was the exact statement I disputed.

Escobar is in a very different position, though... His increase in performance directly coincided with an increase in playing time in two consecutive years. With that said, I do not expect Escobar to come anywhere near an .800 OPS in a full-time role. I'd be thrilled with .750, very happy with .730. And he shouldn't be in a leadoff role, not with that OBP... But the Twins have some pretty bad leadoff options right now.

More important but not far more important. Polanco's AA/AAA OBP was about .030 higher than Dozier's MLB number. Dozier's MLB SLG was about .060 higher than Polanco's AA/AAA number. One guy did it in the minors. The other guy did it in MLB. The MLB guy is the better hitter. I don't even see how this is an argument.

Does it matter? Given the polarization currently rippling through the GOP, it's not likely Cruz/Rubio/Kasich voters - people who seem to largely despise Trump - are going to jump ship and vote for him just because the GOP wants to see him lose. If anything, they'll applaud and continue on, as it allows "their guy" to stay in the race and possibly steal the nomination in an open convention. The only person who loses is Trump, a guy those voters didn't like enough to vote for in the first place. It's possible the strategy could backfire for the party but it's also possible enough people want to see Trump out of the race (but are unwilling to part from their preferred candidate) to make it work.

Either way, you're removing Dozier and adding Polanco to the lineup. The offensive gain/loss is the same no matter how you rotate the players around the diamond. And why does Dozier need to be at the top of the order? Is this an appeal to the old (I believe it was Batgirl) Gardenhire parody book and its chapter titled "Play Second, Bat Second"? And I don't understand the point of even bringing up what Brian Dozier was doing at age 22. It's irrelevant to 2016. If you want me to admit that Dozier is not great at the top of the lineup, well, I agree. His bat plays much better down the lineup (5-6 would be my preferred destination for him). Regardless of lineup order, as of today Brian Dozier has a better bat than Jorge Polanco. I don't see how this statement can be challenged.

This is an absurd statement. If Polanco has a better bat, why has his MiLB OPS been lower than Dozier's MLB OPS over the past two seasons? It's possible Polanco will have the better bat in the future, maybe even the near future... But right now, he does not have the better bat.