Tiger337

If hundreds of thousands of ciminals were let into the country, why did the violent crime rate not rise last year? I understand that there are logistical problems with allowing too many immigrants into the country at the same time, but they are lying about the violent crime wave. I realize that you guys know that!

They are pretending to care about anti-semitism now though. I think it's because Trump has been accused of being the next Hitler, so they want to pretend that he likes Jewish people.

He's going to surrender and then announce that he made the best deal ever and his cult will believe him. He is so predictable.

If they are bound for the playoffs, then they can win the World Series especially if they have a couple of great starting pitchers. I don't think a team that is looking like they are headed for the playoffs would ever trade their ace at the deadline. I could maybe see them trading him before the season, but even that seems unlikely to me.

Would keeping him and winning the World Series be enough compensation?

Looks like a one day thing.

Impemba had no style, but I don't watch games to hear an announcer promote himself or try to be funny. Like you said, I didn't know he was there and that was fine. The radio guy needs some style. The TV guy needs to stay out of the way of the action.

This is a good summary. I like his play by play, but his sllly commentary gets annoying at times. He can be funny, but he tries way to hard.

As I've said before, the Catholics may very well be an early target of the authoritarian regime.

Same here. I think they are smarter now, but not as interesting.

A lot of the types of people we need to get voted for Haley over Trump, so I do think it's possible a woman could win. I don't think Clinton and Harris lost because they were women. I do think a woman would be at a disadvantage though, so it needs to be the right one.

I have not read the book, but I think Weaver was a very different kind of manager han Anderson. Weaver was a brilliant stategist/analyst ahead of his time whereas Anderson was more of a people person who knew how to deal with egos and motivate players (supposedly).

It's no less valid than the Clinton death list.

If he did everything the same way as he did when he played, then may he would have batted .200. However, I don't think that argument holds, because if he was playing today he would have learned the game differently and would not have played the game the same way.

Trump probably thinks he's going to select the next pope.

I think gifted talents like Mantle and Hornsby would adjust instinctively. They wouldn't analyze anything and might have trouble if they were instucted to do so, but would probably be fine if left alone. I agree that Williams would thrive in today's game because he would benefit from all the additional information.

It is a disease and it should be treated, but ramming your car into a tree is not more excusable because you are drunk versus being distracted or whatever other reason you slammed your car into the tree.

I totally agree that there should not be separate rules for the "lovable" drunk (not that anyone involved is lovable in this case!) I have never liked the popular idea that people should be excused for bad behavior while drunk. They should face the consequences the same as anyone else.

It's easy to frame things to make your party's candidate look good, but I don't think was anything particularly difficult about Clinton's candidacy. She was up against a relatively unknow clown and was expected to win easily. There was way more access to mail in voting in both 2020 and 2024 than any previous election, so the vote totals mean nothing historically.

Harris was in a tough situation, but Clinton's situation was no more difficult than you average candidate. I get tired of hearing about numbers of votes in the last two elections. You can't compare the last two elections to past elections because there is much easier access to voting now.

I think, at a young age, a lot of improvement can come from reps. At higher levels versus better competition, instruction in the finer points of hitting becomes more necessary.

There's the famous story about Hornsby when he was a manager and a young player asked him to teach him how to hit. Instead of giving instructions, Hornsby grabbed a bat and started hitting line drive after line drive. After he was done, he said: "That's how you hit". The story may not be true, but he had a reputation of being a terrible manager.

I'm hoping for the 1980s again - a bunch of well rounded players who were allstar level some years, but not superstars. It would be nice to have a superstar too, but I wouldn't build a roster around one or two players.

Who said anything abut lumbering sluggers? I think his strategy is to have players like Greene, Torkelson, Carpenter, McGonigle, Clark, etc actually being good hitters and not relying on McKinstry, Kreidler and Ibanez to be working the strike zone and being versatile for 400 at bats. I don't think what they did last year is a big part of the strategy at all. That is unlikely to happen again. Some of the elements they employed during that period might be used as fillers, but it's not a strategy for sustained success. Talent is still whats going to win the most games.

Those things can help a team get the most out a roster which lacks offense, but I doubt it's a replacement. I disagree that it worked great the last two months of last year. They didn't win because of offense, They won because of pitching for which you can credit Hinch's remarkable bullpen management, another thing which I doubt can last for 162 games. But again, if your roster lacks offense, it's good to have ways to get the most out of the roster even if it's not a replacement for good hitting.