Tiger337

One jobs report doesn't matter either way even you totally trust them.

Correct, I don't trust the DOGE **** commission at all. I am just saying that hypothetically if they were legitimately trying to cut waste and fraud, going after the federal reserve for their lavish reconstruction would be the type of thing they should target.

This is probably just another revenge move for Trump, but going after the Fed for wasting money would be the first good thing DOGE has done. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/elon-musk-says-doge-should-examine-federal-reserve-costs-bloomberg-news-reports-2025-05-01/

Possibly. I feel like Baez is athletic enough to play either position if he keeps his head in the game, but I don't really have a preference.

Either way is fine with me. Hinch is going to move them around anyway. But don't bench Sweeney and don't let Jung get in the way of anyone until he shows he can hit.

Tork has been scuffling, but if he keeps hitting home runs and drawing walks, he'll be valuable. Midway between 2023 and the first month of this year would be good.

Vierling, Greene and McKinstry in the outfield, Carpenter DH, Baez 3B, Sweeney SS.

I am seeing a lot of speculation about a flat 1660 or 2000 monthly SS benefit fo all. This would be a big loss for me, but I would honestly accept it to help less fortunate people except for one big condition. It is being done to fund trillions of dollars of tax cuts to wealthy people and corporations. So, **** that! https://www.marketwatch.com/story/a-flat-1-660-monthly-social-security-benefit-for-everyone-its-one-proposed-cbo-remedy-fae3378c?mod=home_lead

Having an expensive military parade for a draft dodger who just fired a bunch of veterans from government positions under the guise of a budget crisis is beyond disgusting. What is this? North Korea?

It could mean that your hitters scoring more runs than the other teams do! I do believe though that the way the playoffs are set up with extra days off, having a couple of elite starters is a bigger advantage than it is in the regular season.

They are the most watched, so doesn't that make them mainstream?

No doubt, I am turned off when I see Fox TV in any establishment. It depends on your target audience. Others are offended by MSNBC. I think if I had a business, I would not put ANY news channel on display, but I am definitely not a businessman, so what do I know?

That was my guess too. The original video to which I think people were referring was weird and I believe it was sped up a bit. He clearly grabbed the railing before he fell and seemed to reach back desperately with his hand failing to grab the railing again as he was falling.

Fox News is pretty much the American standard news network now, so it's not surprising that a business establishment would select them.

Don't you dare tell them that though. They become indignant and say that the only being they worship is God. Then they eventually come around and say that God is saving America through Trump. God Bless America!

That is what I have noticed as a consumer. Good small businesses tend to be easy with which to work assuming they have the service or product you want. With big businesses, if anything goes wrong after the point of sale, you are usually screwed. If you you are lucky enough to be able to contact them, you will probably speak to somebody in Pakistan or the Phillipines who will generally give you the solution that you already saw online (which didn't work)

Be patient.

I know they are not true probabilities, but I need to translate them that way in order for them to make sense to me. If they have Tork with a 1 out of 5 chance of getting a home run, I know what that means. Then I can at least make a determination as to whether those are good odds. As I watch the games and do the calculations i my head, I find that they make a lt of sense more often than not. Perhaps, because big money betters are smart and the AI captures that?

I am sure there is a good reason for it. I personally have no interest in gambling when I know the odds are not in my favor. What interests me somewhat is the probability that Torkelson is going to hit a homerun in a game. It means something to me that he has a 20% chance of getting a home run in a random game or that the odds are 4 to 1 against him hitting a home run.

Not in any words. I said I think they are more likely to fix games or at bats due to the acceptance of gambling by MLB and I think that is a bad thing.

I hate those odds, because they are not the ones I am used to seeing as a statistician. So, when them on my screen, I turn them into "real probabilities" in my head: 100/(100+240)=29.4%. Then I notice that the winning and losing bets always come out to a little more than 100%. This guarantees that the bookmaker makes a profit.

I didn't say that at all.

Yes, I am speaking more in terms of perception than my own feelings. I understand the distinction between players gambling and fans gambling and the former is what's wrong. I don't think the reinstatement of Rose would have a big impact on a lot of fans. The first thing they are going to stay is "He only gambled on his own team. What's wrong that?" I also think that constant promotion of gambling is going to blur the distinction more and more, but that is a somewhat different iussue.

I believe that the partnership and constant promotion will erode the distinction between fans gambling and players gambling over time. Any association with gambling was once viewed as the cardinal sin in baseball. The more they make gambling part of the game, the more likely it becomes that games will be fixed.

I think the endless promotion of gambling has already done more to encourage that possibility than re-instating Rose would do.